Neocons want women 'barefoot and pregnant', says Liberal advocacy group

[Grimmlok]

OTTAWA — The federal Liberal women's caucus is accusing the Conservative government of trying to keep females "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen," saying the government is pursuing an ideological agenda that ignores women's needs and cuts funding to those who need help the most.

The Liberal women released a set of party policies today aimed at what they say are the most pressing social and economic issues facing Canadian women, particularly working women and their families, caregivers and seniors.

Improving the social and economic equality of women is the driving force behind the first volume of what the Liberals are calling their "Pink Book."

The document is the product of cross-country working sessions with women and women's groups held last July, and is slated to be part of the party's election platform.

The recommendations are also aimed at countering what Belinda Stronach, chair of the Liberal women's caucus, described as the Conservative government's "attack" on women's progress.

The recommendations include commitments to reinstate the Liberal child-care and early-learning plan the Tories scrapped after the last election; to reverse budget cuts to social programs and Status of Women; to develop a national caregiver agenda; to provide more benefits to the self-employed, and to secure equal pay for work of equal value.

Judy Sgro said it's not so much the dollars as the message the Tory cuts send.

"I think Harper and his Conservative government, based on their policies, would clearly prefer women would stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and move us backwards 40 years," she said.

New Democrat MP Olivia Chow said the Liberals are ill-qualified to be making policy promises about women.

"It doesn't matter what colour it is," Chow said of the bright pink, 28-page document. "The Liberals have a history of breaking their promises.

"Remember the Red Book?" she asked, in reference to Liberal campaign platforms she said were never fully honoured.

She said women may be barefoot and pregnant under the Conservatives, but they remained too poor to pay the rent and feed their children during 13 years of Liberal governments that cut employment insurance, refused to standardize the minimum wage and did little to address child poverty.

"Those things didn't just happen since (the federal election in) January," she said, contending the NDP, whose caucus is 41 per cent female, have consistently advocated women's economic security.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...path=News/News

Ouch, you go girls. Stick it to the man.

[moomies]

Hmm you know what though, our BC liberal leader/premier (not conservative!) cut funding for childcare and things, too...so I don't know if it's so much about political party affliation.

[ohmygoodness]

Well, our liberals are really not comparable at all to federal liberals. there's different kinds of liberalism, and bc liberals are more neo-liberal which takes a more conservative fiscal stance, which accounts for those discrepancies.

[OCD]

Well I don't think everyone (taxpayers) should have to fund daycare for those that choose to have kids.

That's just me though.

[ohmygoodness]

Well that's the same with any social program if you ask me. I think the theory is that then the parents will have more money to invest into the economy, so we'll get it back in the end anyway.

[OCD]

Hmm. It sounds really good, but in my personal view giving "handouts" or social help always ends up teaching people to feel entitled instead of empowered.

If state sponsored daycare would help women stop crapping out babies they can't afford anyway I'd definitely chip in.

[ohmygoodness]

Oh my. Do we have another resident conservative on our hands now?! I hope so. It was getting boring here.

Anyway, I don't think entitlement or empowerment is the overall goal of social programs. It's to help people in areas where there's opportunity for private companies to take advantage of the populace, so that it's still available to everybody.

[xoxo]

Originally Posted by moomies

Hmm you know what though, our BC liberal leader/premier (not conservative!) cut funding for childcare and things, too...so I don't know if it's so much about political party affliation.

it's fun to bash the other side when it comes to party affiliation (i do this w/ glee, i am a total liberal) but it's always more complicated.
case-by-case and taking each issue into account, you can often find you agree more with someone from the other side than your own party lol..

[ohmygoodness]

Except the BC Liberals aren't your typical "liberals". I mean, A*O should be able to attest to how the "Liberals" in Australia are actually really conservative. Party titles mean nothing in the long run.