Desperate Housewives
In their battle to get Status of Women Canada shut down, REALwingnuts is going to the barricades. The latest salvo in RW's war on women's equality is their online petition. To date the petition boasts about 600 signatures, probably their entire membership, plus hubbies, plus fetuses (with moms-to-be signing per persona).
As silly as it is, there's something a bit askew about this whole RW/SWC situation. RW's beef is that SWC is (they say) "a radical feminist" organization that doesn't represent them. But at the same time, they claim that SWC is irrelevant because women no longer need advocacy. Fair enough, if they feel they don't need SWC's help, then why not just let it do its work with women who do need it? Why shut down an agency that someone else might need, just because you don't use it? I don't like Walmart, but I don't advocate shutting it down -- I just don't shop there. And ultimately, instead of ditching SWC, wouldn't it make more sense to expand its portfolio so it addresses RW's issues, (whatever those may be)?
But that's where the rubber meets the road. RW's agenda goes a lot deeper than just the disparity between feminists and non-feminists. You need only scan a few of its' members' blogs to see what their real beef is: SWC is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Those issues are repeatedly discussed on RW member blogs with much fretting and hand-wringing and sometimes, hatred. And that's RW's real agenda: they're an extreme fringe group that wants to impose its "values" on the rest of us. They won't be highjacking any planes to prove their point, but the intent is the same.
As silly as it is, there's something a bit askew about this whole RW/SWC situation. RW's beef is that SWC is (they say) "a radical feminist" organization that doesn't represent them. But at the same time, they claim that SWC is irrelevant because women no longer need advocacy. Fair enough, if they feel they don't need SWC's help, then why not just let it do its work with women who do need it? Why shut down an agency that someone else might need, just because you don't use it? I don't like Walmart, but I don't advocate shutting it down -- I just don't shop there. And ultimately, instead of ditching SWC, wouldn't it make more sense to expand its portfolio so it addresses RW's issues, (whatever those may be)?
But that's where the rubber meets the road. RW's agenda goes a lot deeper than just the disparity between feminists and non-feminists. You need only scan a few of its' members' blogs to see what their real beef is: SWC is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Those issues are repeatedly discussed on RW member blogs with much fretting and hand-wringing and sometimes, hatred. And that's RW's real agenda: they're an extreme fringe group that wants to impose its "values" on the rest of us. They won't be highjacking any planes to prove their point, but the intent is the same.
|