September 28, 2006

Sept. 28, 2006: Dear SOW & Assorted Activists

Warning: Not "nice"

You may not like what is below ... but saying it makes me feel better and frankly, I have enjoyed writing it; I think it needs to be said.


Misleading title re: Tory spending cuts , Sep. 26 2006 11:23 PM ET, CTV.ca News Staff

www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/
story/CTVNews/20060926/
spending_cuts_060926/20060926?hub=Canada

"This is not an accurate picture of how these programs were used nor why some were axed."

[....] CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife.

... slush funds for left leaning groups ...

... funded equality and language-rights groups to challenge federal laws ...

Speaking in Toronto on Tuesday, Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion said the court program helped francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec defend their Charter language rights. [Liberal politicking and trying to arouse francophones to support him -- Liberals have made use of divisive comments to do this for years. How utterly despicable, Mr. Dion. You know francophones are in no danger of losing rights but it would serve your purpose to try to start this ... again.]

[....] A department significantly hit was Canadian Heritage. The department's Status of Women Canada, an agency which promotes gender equality, stands to lose $5 million from its annual $23 million budget. [.... I have a few things to say about the SOW's groups below]

Some of the programs and initiatives being eliminated or reduced to help Harper's government save $1 billion over the next two years -- and the amount of savings for each: [.... a list]

The marketplace for buying and selling services won't render what the SOW's various groups or associates want. Equality? An honest assessment of the skills or services by the marketplace is apparently not enough "equality" for groups of unelected women claiming to represent other women. Their goal is preference, not equality. They have been negative for the relationship between teen males and females, between men and women, IMHO, and that is negative for youngsters growing up, as it is for the society.

* Why don't these busy-bodies, individually, go to groups of young girls and teach them, as volunteers and using their own money, how important it is to to get an education, along with developing the self-reliance, strong character, dignity, and self-respect that come from educational success? With that will come its concomitant, self-esteem. Instead, they make the assumption that girls are victims and sexual beings without free will, so feminists and their hangers on are willing to supply information about birth control and abortion, but not about why abstinence is a positive for teens ... because they are too young to make wise choices in this area and do not understand the intense emotions that will be unleashed in those relationships, emotion which may stunt the rest of their lives because of the choices made.

* Why don't these "claiming to do good" women volunteer to talk to young girls and teens about how and why we develop self-esteem, that it is not granted by others, that we develop reasons to feel worthy and then we realize we possess self-esteem ... that it is unwise to rely on other people's assessments of our self-worth.

* Why are these women not helping by teaching these young teens how to protect themselves from the almost inevitable result of a society swimming in images of sexuality and that blatantly sexualizes children? Why not work to eliminate the sexualization of TV, particularly channels and programs for teens, along with the ads that rely on an unhealthy amount of sex to sell products? Why don't these women fight this denigration of young women, teens and young girls by demanding that men and women be treated as equally deserving of respect in advertisements -- that one does not build up one's feminine self-esteem at the expense of men's?

* Why are feminists and pro-gay groups supportive of our schools even considering teaching about homosexuality ... or heterosexuality ... at primary? Let Canada's children be children.
* As for the argument about needing to reassure the child who has two mommies or two daddies, that is what happens when homosexuals try to change what has existed for millennia, the fact that it takes a male and a female to create a human being, whether that creation then moves through the usual channels or is implanted via a laboratory.

* Let the gay world handle that question about two same-sex people living as a couple and realize what they are doing to the psyches of the children they choose to rear. Take personal responsibility for the psychic health of the child resulting from your desperation to be considered mainstream and normal. Don't impose your desperation on a child's right to be an innocent child.

* As for the schools, stop trying to be so au courant that you're doing a disservice to childhood! I would be outraged at this social indoctrination if I had a child entering school. Allow children the period which used to be termed the innocence of childhood. They do NOT have to be taught everything at primary to satisfy some vocal group such as the lesbian, gay, bisexual ... etc. communities. Leave children alone and let them have a few mysteries to explore as they grow up.

* Why don't these feminists speak up about women's rights everywhere, not just where their political leanings lead them? Enough, already!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home