An anti-feminist prime minister is suddenly concerned with maternal health. What's happening?

When I heard that Stephen Harper was suddenly taken with a desire to promote maternal health as the key issue for the G8, I have to admit to being perplexed. I don't think I've ever heard Harper talk about women's issues. Behind the scenes his government, which of course means him, has not only cut funding to most women's groups and the most progressive NGOs like Alternatives and Kairos but have eliminated the word "equality" from their women's bureau. Harper is no doubt that most anti-feminist PM we have ever had.

The media reported that a coalition of NGO's [3] had recommended the issue to Harper but still, when was the last time Harper listened to anyone? Interesting how the media has so far ignored the just published report [4] in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that fetal and infant mortaity rates are 2.7 times higher in Inuit inhabited areas of Canada than elsewhere. Women's and Indigenous groups should be insisting that Harper put his new commitment to work in his own country too.

At first I thought, more damage control from his proroguing catastrophe. Then, Mr. Ignatieff appeared promising that the Liberals will restore funding to women's groups and generally priorities women's issues. Hopefully that means restoring the idea of a national child care policy. What up? It's been eons since women's issues were at the top of the political agenda.

Frank Greaves from Eko Research [5] says his next poll will show that the traditional gender gap between the Liberals and Tories is re-emerging. Obviously Harper is trying to win back the women's votes he seemed to have had for a while.

There was another election where women's issues came to centre stage in 1984. Polling was getting more sophisticated and the gender gap between the Republicans and Democrats in the US election had become clear. Women were against Reagan. In those days, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women was a powerful organization and the media savvy NAC President at the time, Chaviva Hosek, called for a Leader's Debate on Women's Issues. [6]It actually happened. Watch it if you don't believe me. Not only did Brian Mulroney, John Turner and Ed Broadbent debate women's issues on national television but they did so under questioning from members of the NAC executive rather than journalists. It had an amazing impact by demonstrating the increasing power of the women's movement.

So the moment has come again and it is critical that women's groups and others supporting women's equality move into the discussion to ensure that issues like equal pay, child care and ending violence against women are part of the discussion. There is an opportunity on February 14, the day that vigils and memorials [7]are held across Canada to honour the missing and murdered Aboriginal women, now estimated to be around 500. Another one will come with International Women's Day in and around March 8.

It seems to me the time has come to make sure that women's equality get back on the front burner and stay there. Despite the tremendous advances of the last 40 years, women still earn only 70 percent of male wages. I am convinced most of that is because of the lack of child care and the resistance of corporations and government to end patriarchal forms of functioning that were created for men with wives and that hold on tentatiously excluding many women and the increasing number of men who want to take their parenting responsibilities seriously.

Moreover all levels of government are ominously talking about tightening their belts, which will mean massive cuts to the public service, where the best paid jobs for women are located. They can find money for the banks and the mostly boys on Bay Street but not to protect good jobs for women, let alone expand them. At the municipal level, in Toronto for example, the City is talking about major cuts to childcare.

Despite the rhetoric of the mainstream parties, it will take a revival of a powerful women's movement to make sure that our stalled progress to equality doesn't get driven back.

Comments

Submitted by BeverleySmith on January 29, 2010 - 7:52pm.

I am in agreement that Mr. Harper's track record on women's rights is not stellar.
It is great he is now opening his eyes and this gives us a window but he seems to have jammed it shut with the proroguing and all.

The Liberals just held a one day meeting with several feminist academics to discuss women's rights and on this the 40th anniversay of the Royal Commission we have another window to push our case.

That case is not just for daycare though ladies. It is for valuing care wherever it happens. It is not just about getting women into paid work. It is about enlarging the definition of work to value the unpaid roles the traditional economy for too long has ignored.
Years ago Ms Rebick wrote in Chatelaine a very lovely column about valuing unpaid roles and this sadly was a lot of years ago. We need to refocus this discussion.
if we ask only for 'universal daycare' that is asking for the male economy definitions to still win, as if women taking care of the young or sick or elderly are not useful and need to escape those roles to get a real job and really 'work' and contribute to the GDP.
I make the case as does Marilyn Waring, as do many feminist economists that women who do care roles are already working. We need a tax policy to respect our hearts' desires and to let us make our contribution to society by earning outside the home, from a home-office, telecommuting, tag-team parenting, by using grandma or sitter care, dad care, or even mom care as we wish, full-time part time or as we see the child needs.
That's democracy.

The problem with asking for universal daycare only is it is not asking for enough . it only benefits basically one lifestyle. We're so beyond that.

And no this is not about a return to the kitchen. It is about valuing the kitchen or the office desk equally. It is not the pull of the religious right either. I happen to be pro - gay marriage, pro abortion, pro-choice in nearly all legal aspects of life and that does include pro choice in how we take care of our kids.

Power to the people! Power to women's rights! and this is actually what the Royal Commission of 1970 said too. It said if you'll recall that a substantial cash allowance would be paid to all paents of dependent children, in monthly installments, to age 16 and universal It said not tax receipts should be reuqired since the child care allowance would be paid to all mothers> The contribution made by mothers who stay home to care for children would be recognized and no woman would be 'forced' to work outside the home for financial reasons. It cited Bejamin Bloom's study that found that the first three years are pivotal to bonding and to intellectual development.

Australia has a birth bonus over $5,000 and a yearly bonus per child. Italy has pensions for homemaking years. The US and France have income splitting to value the unpaid or lower paid role sitll as a full partner in the home. Norway and even Sweden have benefits not just to children in 3rd party care but to all children. Yes Canada has a lot to learn here and Mr. Harper should look in his own back yard if he says he cares about maternal and child health.

http://vuthruotherseyes.tripod.com

Submitted by Sara Landriault on January 30, 2010 - 8:37am.

I fully agree with Beverley.

Just one more thing though,

My issues in equality for the most part are being pushed harder by the 2nd wave feminists, because they cannot see past there own reflections.

There is a whole world out there, try opening your eyes and caring.

Submitted by thanks on January 30, 2010 - 3:22pm.

Thank you Judy Rebick for the question, 'What's up?' with Harper's statement that "he will make maternal and child health care in developing countries a top priority" (yesterday's Toronto Star).

Harper's statement reminds me of the excuse used for bombing Afghan villages and wedding parties- it's all done in the name of helping women. In reality, the effort is to pave the way for oil, gas, infrastructure, and other bankers to profit from running the country in their interests.

Harper's vicious paternalism is a way to avoid criticism for cutting funding for groups like Kairos which actually support women and children around the world.

His focus on motherhood and apple pie charity is good public relations amongst conservatives and Canadians generally, who aren't clear about empowerment, justice, or taking logs out of their own eyes (ie. removing the occupation of our parasitic and destructive corporations and bankers from other countries).

In the name of 'help' for mothers and children in developing countries, as with the H1N1 fiasco here, or Connaught's tetanus vaccination program in the Philippines that caused miscarriages in thousands of targetted pregnant mothers, we'll see increased subsidies for Biotech and Big Pharma.

As in his free trade deal with Ukraine, we'll see Harper use military/infrastructure corporations like SNC Lavalin to set up rural medical clinics for the bankers' and insurance company profits, rather than support Ukraine and others to set up public clinics and public insurance which would retain and recycle scarce funds publicly.

In the name of fighting chicken flu, pig flu, BSE, or whatever factory-farmed virus is circulated next, Harper will direct the slaughter and destruction of small flocks and herds and indigenous agriculture, as NATO did in Afghanistan, replaced with Big Ag biotech, along with oil-transported imports of factory-farmed chemical-soaked 'food', all chanelled by the same corporate board members and bankers.

In the name of providing sanitation and clean water to mothers and children, multi-armed corporations like SNC that build dams, water and sewage systems, hydro and energy infrastructure, will be pushed in to suck profits from those sectors as well, in 'partnership' with complicit states. Financial products derived from these markets will be further hedged, ballooned, and crashed, in their private casinos. They'll move into developing countries after to pick up the pieces and expand further.

Except that there won't be any displaced, impoverished residents left here or in developing countries to keep paying for it all.

You also note that Iggy is mouthing a related line, which no doubt will be extended through his neoliberal 'internationalism'. Liberals brought us NAFTA and have been equally exuberant in exploiting Afghanistan. They are heavily influenced by corporate finance, have pushed privatization of public services, and when in power extended the rule of Big Ag/ Pharma/ Biotech/ Oil under the private global casino. Liberals continue to be silent on reining in the bankers.

Clearly proportional representation is a way to change the balance of power. We need to make election contingent upon proportional representation, and hold all leaders to their promises. How to do this at the local level is unclear though.

Submitted by barbpearce on February 1, 2010 - 10:28am.

If ever an opportunity is presented to bring women's issues to the forefront we should jump on it.

That said.....I can't help but get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach everytime the word "women" is emitted from Mr. Harper's mouth.

I suspect that if his skin suit was ever to be unzipped, it would reveal an obsidian/sulpher hybrid.