Why so angry?
Right-wingers are happy as pigs-in-shit today over the news that funding for Status of Women Canada is being cut by $5million. I can understand their jubilation -- if a government agency I disliked had its funding cut, I'd be happy too. Different strokes. But surfing through some of the right-leaning blogs tonight, I was surprised by the sheer, visceral hatred being vented -- these people don't just think SWC is useless, or redundant, or unnecessary; they really hate it, in a personal way. Some even allege that they've been somehow damaged by SWC.
Many conservative-type women have the idea that SWC, and by extension feminists in general, look down on their choice to stay home with their kids. I don't know where they'd get this from, given that one of SWC's mandates is to perpetuate an environment of choice for women. Nobody denigrates different choices, and anyone who thinks so is either confused or disingenuous. However, it's a cold hard fact of life that women who go out to work need more assistance. Women who choose to stay home don't need upgrading, job skills training, or daycare, to name a few things. So I'm baffled and a little pissed off when they complain that SWC does nothing for them because they choose to stay home. They don't need anything. But if there's a women's issue that they feel merits attention, they should lobby for it, just like we've had to do for daycare, education and reproductive rights. What's so hard about that?
Sadly, there's a stunning amount of misinformation and outright horseshit about SWC among the right. They all seem to think Status of Women Canada is the same thing as The National Action Comittee for the Status of Women, when in fact, they're two totally separate entities. I had to shake my head at the number of people who made sneering references to Judy Rebick and Sunera Thobani -- neither of whom have ever been part of SWC. An understandable error, but for christ's sake, you'd think they'd do a little research before running off at the keyboard. If you must vent, then at least address your vitriol to the right people! But then, misinformation is more conducive to a climate of devisiveness, and it appears Mr. Harper is following George W down that path. This is, I'm afraid, just the beginning.
|