it has a longer historythen people realize Clara Zetkin in Germany was
supportive of the feminist view she was a communist in Germany then she went to Russia
Alexandra : I was a very well-known feminist in the
USSR she abandoned her four children to promote feminism politically and in
North America Betty Friedan wrote a very important book it was called the
feminine mystique but a more important book is her friend Daniel Horowitz's
book entitled Betty Friedan and the making of the feminine mystique while
everyone was thinking that poor Betty Friedan was a dissatisfied unhappy
housewife who had to leave the home and find a job and had so much trouble
finding equality she was in fact a longtime activist so she had a long
history of communism which views the world in terms of class struggle and
when they look at the family they interpret the class struggle to be male
oppressor and female victim so we can understand that
Betty Friedan would always have to be a victim even though she lived a very
comfortable life her husband was very well employed she had three children she
lived in a beautiful suburbs she had everything she needed but she still
pictured herself portrayed herself as a victim
another area of feminism which is very interesting and it touches Canada the
famous five which has statues on Parliament Hill were of the first wave
of feminism and Nellie McClung she actually stated that the family should
come first and that if women have children even there if they're adult
children they should come first so the early feminists were trying to
get women out of the factories with their children so that they could be at
home raising their families and the father could have a family wage to free
the mother which is what women want and which is what women wanted then so when
we succeeded as a Western culture after the Industrial Revolution to attain this
for women and fathers and children then along comes Betty Friedan and her ideas
and all her cohorts saying that women were unhappy at home and she
actually referred to the very pleasant environment of the home in the 1960s as
a comfortable concentration camp now that should have been a clue to
people how can you possibly compare the home to a concentration camp does she
really know what a concentration camp is so this is the mind that influenced that
tried to influence North America along feminist lines and that's the history of
feminism in Canada there was the Royal Commission on the status of women which
obviously assumed that women weren't equal in the 60s so they decided women
had to be equal and their view of equality was the mother working and
there are many recommendations and one of the recommendations was to fund
status of women so when a government often unfortunately the Liberal
government which I don't think was representative of all the members of the
Liberal Party at the time the Liberal government establishes an institution
and funds it well basically that's the government deciding how Canadians should
think and how women should think so the status of women thought that they could
represent all women which they don't but they have continued over the years with
increasing government funding to project their view of the male oppressor and the
female oppressed on Society so they're basically telling us
women are victims men are exploiting the victims and the government is going to
do something about it by making sure women all work they're not dependent and
their children are raised in some substitute care in universal daycare so
that's basically the history as we see it and any opposing view is shut down we
were able to function through the democratic system make presentations
before parliamentary committees so our views and the views of the majority of
women who think like us are on record
well if young boys have teachers who see themselves as feminists they portray
history as men being oppressive and women being victims whereas the reality
is that men have died to support our freer system of government men submit to
motherhood when they support their family when they are able to earn enough
money so that the mother can stay at home and care for her own children so
they're submitting to motherhood and that's never brought out we are
supportive of the education of women Western civilization has always been
supportive of education of women for centuries if you really study the
history of our civilization but to give women preference because of supposed
previous discrimination we believe is unfair so there needs to be an
adjustment if we rather than the 50/50 we should adjust it in terms of what
women really want for example had the British Cabinet Office women's unit
studied what women wanted in terms of employment
and work at home and they found that 20% of women want to focus on employment
20% want to focus on motherhood their home exclusively and the 60% in between will
adjust depending on whether they have children or not
now the 20% of women who want employment specifically usually don't intend to
have children so to bring that 20% and force a 50% is a distortion of democracy
what people want and this is what feminists have accomplished supposedly
so we propose advancement and acceptance in university strictly on merit rather
than gender or any other identity that our social manipulators decide to impose
well it's, it is definitely trying to deconstruct the family and along with
other philosophies have been very successful if we look at the numbers of
marriages which are decreasing and basically that's the fundamental
stability of a nation of a society of a civilization that's always been
recognized that way and even the newer sciences psychology and psychiatry
recognize how important the family unit is and economists recognize how
important the family unit is so when you deconstruct the basic family unit of
society you're really harming society now when a
feminist view the family as inherently destructive whereas where the male is
oppressing the female they view the family and not as functioning in
complementarity for the betterment of men women and
children but they see it as conflicting as they see all of society where they
divide people in oppressor and oppressed so if you have a really simplistic model
that you're going to impose on society and you're going to oppose it on the
family it's natural for them to view it that way and why would you want that
unit to continue functioning and this has been viewed quite clearly in the
opening up of divorce which splits the family and also which has been
recognized time and time again as being very unfair especially to men and we
have supported in cases of divorce equal shared parenting most of the lawyers and
lawyers associations are opposed to this as well as the feminist organization
or feminists leaning organizations the breakup of the family is very difficult
on children and it's been, there has been evidence that the involvement of
the father is very important for the children but very often in divorce cases
the father is cut off from the family whereas with equal shared parenting both
parents would be fused as equally important for the child now this has
been opposed for 20 years it was recommended 20 years ago in Canada by
the joint House of Commons Senate Committee on custody and access they
could see then even shortly after divorce was legislated by the Trudeau
government from the very beginning it created problems and efforts to improve
the situation have been rejected by feminists and legal associations not all
lawyers many lawyers have seen the damage and are in favor of equal shared
parenting so that's another area where that would
definitely be deconstruction of the complementarity of men and women the
complementarity and the importance of fathers and mothers for the raising of
the child so we're really in a sense deconstructing the health of the
child and we're deconstructing what's best for men and women the family has
been shown statistically to be the best environment for men and women the
feminists for ever are complaining about violence against women and they complain
about the the gender wage gap but there's a huge gap between marriage and
common-law couples married couples have a much lower incidence of violence the
incidence of violence in common-law couples without marriage is three to
four times what it is for marriage so there's a huge gap between marriage and
common law which is consistently ignored by our government and even Statistics
Canada puts out the the numbers but they really don't emphasize this fact and in
fact try to downplay it