Archives for 2009

Phyllis Schlafly, 85, is in hospital after falling and breaking her hip:

Mrs. Schlafly is a dynamo who has carried the grass-roots conservative torch for decades while leading the Eagle Forum and publishing her popular “Phyllis Schlafly Report.” She carried her message to the University of California at Berkeley on Tuesday, where she gave a talk on “Feminism vs. Conservatism.” The California Eagle Forums’ Orlean Koehle reports that while coming off the podium after giving her speech, she missed a step and fell and broke her hip.

I do hope she recovers fully.

But I like this oped, in today’s Ottawa Citizen:

When the Canadian political right finally united in 2003, the unspoken concern was how to merge sophisticated fiscal conservatives with their knuckle-dragging social conservative cousins.

The elegant solution was that smaller government and a strong economy should supercede social issues. Yet post Budget 2009, it’s no longer quite clear that fiscal responsibility is a top priority either, leaving a vision void for many in Canada’s Conservative government. Perhaps they might consider looking to England, where Conservatives are pioneering an approach that is fiscally responsible — precisely because it is socially responsible.

I’ll say. It’s time we got the idea that being in favour of basic social conservative ideas (like, say, preferring marriage to cohabitation and two-parent families to the various alternatives, whenever possible) is a prerequisite to any kind of small-government plan. You just cannot think that a government can be fiscally conservative yet socially liberal – “liberal” in the late-20th-century sense of the word – and be successful. What you invariably end up with is more big government (think Mulroney deficits, then Harper deficits) and no progress on the social-justice front, but a whole pile of new middle-class entitlements. That’s not progressive, that’s not conservative; if you ran on such a platform you’d never get elected. So why are we stuck with it anyway? Because we (and by “we” I mostly mean conservatives and Conservatives) look at the problem the wrong way. We look at numbers and theories, and completely forget to see people.

Much food for thought in Andrea’s piece. If I were you, I’d go read it.

Just reading this Barbara Kay column when I realized something: where we (pro-lifers) see life and all the positive things that brings, endless opportunity, hope, freedom to be a woman including absolutely everything that implies… some on the other side see forced reproduction and a government mandated breeding program. Lebensborn with fewer options. That kind of thing.

Just posting that random thought at the end of the day.

________________________

Brigitte worries: My goodness me. How tough it must be for Ms. Atwood now that W. is no longer in the White House!

________________________

Patricia adds: I have always loathed The Handmaid’s Tale. Such a hateful distortion of religion would be the object of a human rights complaint (a successful one) if directed at any group other than Christians. Imagine what the reception would have been had Margaret Atwood told a cautionary dystopic tale of an American Caliphate in which women are enslaved as breeders (and only able to buy their underwear from male salespeople – otherwise known as salesmen, but it is so weird to describe any occupation in gender specific language, I’d almost forgotten such a word existed). Actually, such a scenario is unimaginable, because that would mean Margaret Atwood would be a different person, not the darling of the CBC, the companion of the Order of Canada, our “national treasure”, blah, blah, blah.

Feminists and pro-women women of the world, unite! Let us join forces and demand an end to this unspeakably ridiculous situation:

It would be bizarre in any country to find that its lingerie shops are staffed entirely by men.

But in Saudi Arabia – an ultra-conservative nation where unmarried men and women cannot even be alone in a room together if they are not related – it is strange in the extreme.

Women, forced to negotiate their most intimate of purchases with male strangers, call the situation appalling and are demanding the system be changed.

“The way that underwear is being sold in Saudi Arabia is simply not acceptable to any population living anywhere in the modern world,” says Reem Asaad, a finance lecturer at Dar al-Hikma Women’s College in Jeddah, who is leading a campaign to get women working in lingerie shops rather than men.

“This is a sensitive part of women’s bodies,” adds Ms Asaad. “You need to have some discussions regarding size, colour and attractive choices and you definitely don’t want to get into such a discussion with a stranger, let alone a male stranger. I mean this is something I wouldn’t even talk to my friends about.”

Indeed. I mean, how would guys know the difference between this and this? (OK, so I don’t shop at Victoria’s…)

[h/t Mark Steyn]

__________________________

Tanya adds: On my top ten list of weirdest things I’ve ever seen (I keep a regular journal) was a 6’2″ man standing at the entrance of a La Senza.  Clipped to his shirt was his brass nametag:  ABDUL  LaSenza Sales Associate.

I was on Robson Street in Vancouver.  Needless to say, I did not shop for intimates that day.  To console myself, I went to Steamrollers’ instead.

_____________________

Andrea adds: I’m never thrilled when men are around in shops like that. The thing is, quite frankly, the men never look thrilled either. It’s awkward all around. (Say, can you pass me a size–No wait… that’s not information our readers need…)