Mulcair agrees with Harper, debate on women's issues not worth his time

64 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2015-08-25 22:56

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

pookie i don't know what you're talking about. i was indicating all the men in feminist forum telling us women they were outraged and pondering is using it for partisan politics. not a positive use of feminist space. how about we have a debate about people using it this way?

i don't agree with men debating women's issues to see if they are valid or not in a stand alone event and i see the last time it happened was 30 years ago in 1984. i was 5 then.

Given that the three main contenders are men and will be determining how women's issues are handled I very much want to know if they consider them valid or not and if so what they intend to do to address the issues.

This forum is for topics of specific interest to feminists. This particular aspect of Canadian politics is pertinent to feminists. There is no reason why feminists shouldn't discuss it from our perspective.

Tue, 2015-08-25 23:30

#53

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I was wrong to think it would be politically better for Trudeau not to participate if only May and Mulcair were present.

Do you believe that it showed that Justin didn't care about women's issues?

If not, why do you think it shows that Mulcair doesn't?

Whether the strategy of declining to debate is good, bad or indifferent, you still want to believe that Trudeau was doing it strategically, but Mulcair is doing it because he doesn't care about women. I think you're wrong about that too.

At the time Trudeau was making a stand against Harper and for the Consortium debates and May's participation. For that reason he accepted the Consortium debates right away. Apparently there was some agreement between May, Trudeau and Mulcair to force Harper to either show up or look bad for not doing so. The Globe, TVA and Monk debates excluded May. That is why May was so pissed off at Mulcair for folding and saying he would accept all the debates. It took the pressure off of Harper to accept the Consortium debates.

Trudeau delayed accepting strategically. His "point" was not to give in to Harper and to push the consortium debates, so he reserved his decision. In the end when a date was set, Sept. 21st, he accepted.

Mulcair did the reverse, when the date was set he withdrew. He too was being strategic. He wanted to send the message that only Harper is his competition so if Harper doesn't show up there is no point in Mulcair being there.

What it shows to me is something I have seen since Mulcair failed to condemn the decision to bar girls from wearing hijabs on the soccer field. Mulcair is tone-deaf and out-of-date. He isn't that much older than Trudeau but he is of a different generation and so are his advisors.

Tue, 2015-08-25 23:31

#54

Pondering

sherpa-finn wrote:
Justin refused to commit for the Liberal Party for several month, ostensibly (a couple of his MPs told us) until such time as Harper would also agree to participate.

So name names. Which one of Justin's MPs told you that? (Just for the record)

sherpa-finn wrote:
Without Harper and Trudeau, the initiative limped forward, only to be abruptly overtaken by the flurry of other debate proposals with media and corporate sponsors.

As I recall the debate proposals came out almost all at once. They were all listed on the Wiki page for a long time. First Harper confirmed that he would attend five, 2 French and 3 English, and that neither would be the Consortium debates. May and Trudeau objected holding out for the Consortium debates. Mulcair said he would do all the debates. Harper confirmed early on that he would do the Macleans, Globe and Mail, Monk and TVA debates leaving room for just one more French debate. May and Trudeau both accepted the Consortium debates and Duceppe accepted the French consortium debate. May accepted the women's issues debate. Lastly Trudeau accepted the women's issues debate.

Then Mulcair added his conditions, that there had to be an equal number of French and English debates and Harper had to be present. That is when Mulcair withdrew from the women's debate.

sherpa-finn wrote:
Mulcair (as the new PM-in-waiting) similarly saw that the political context had changed, and adopted the old Liberal line of "only if Harper attends".

Except that was never the Liberal line as they agreed to the Consortium debates right away and Harper turned them down from the start. So, Harper being at a debate was never a deciding factor for the Liberals.

Tue, 2015-08-25 23:38

#55

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Here's an NDP statement on Up For Debate's Plan B: http://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-debate-proposal-to-discuss-womens-i...

But they lied:

A debate would be our number one choice, but unfortunately Stephen Harper scuttled the debate by refusing to participate. We have been in ongoing discussions with the Up for Debate organizers to ensure that women’s issues are at the forefront of this campaign and one-on-one interviews were one of the options we suggested. We have also made sure that these one-on-one interviews will be bilingual.

Harper didn't scuttle the debate, Mulcair did. May, Duceppe and Trudeau were all fine with the debate.

I think an interview will be even more difficult for Mulcair than a debate would have been.

Wed, 2015-08-26 00:24

#56

quizzical

i don't care how the debate would've been for any of them.

i don't not want issues pertaining to me, my mom and daughter to be used as political scoring points over each other, as if some are more valid than others or somefuckingthing. as far as i'm concerned nothing good for women would come out of the debate format.

i like the new format. they're not all yammering at each other and overtop of one another. i've watched one debte in my life. the last one. i didn't find it pleasurable and i'm not planning on watching anymore. there's nothing serious going on in one. it's all bs. women's issues aren't bs.

Wed, 2015-08-26 00:25

#57

Catchfire

Ok Pondering. You've made your point and received the always-coveted backing from a mod. How bouts you lay off the thread sitting and see if any other feminists want to weigh in--assuming there are still such persons on babble since I last took stock.

Wed, 2015-08-26 00:52

#58

jjuares

Catchfire wrote:

Is it too much to ask that the men in this thread who are truly invested in the belief that the real reason Mulcair flip flopped on participating in Up For Debate has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with him treating women's issues lightly (or, say, "with contempt"), at least, if they are unwilling to let up on making that point, repeatedly, and with scorn, could they refrain from ganging up on the few women in this thread who aren't quite as convinced (irrespective of their political affiliation, which, as we know, renders them unable to be Serious about Serious topics and Serious strategy points)?

Love, the Feminist Forum.

Great, it's settled. Mulcair treats women's issues with contempt. And in that spirit we should open a thread entitled, " Mulcair really really really hates women".

Wed, 2015-08-26 07:46

#59

pookie

Catchfire wrote:

Ok Pondering. You've made your point and received the always-coveted backing from a mod. How bouts you lay off the thread sitting and see if any other feminists want to weigh in--assuming there are still such persons on babble since I last took stock.

hehe

Wed, 2015-08-26 08:09

#60

Slumberjack

Quote:
..... and received the always-coveted backing from a mod.

I find you can mostly get by without it.

Wed, 2015-08-26 11:00

#61

Catchfire

What? How?

Wed, 2015-08-26 16:44

#62

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
....This particular aspect of Canadian politics is pertinent to feminists. There is no reason why feminists shouldn't discuss it from our perspective.

offs, you're using the feminist forum for partisanship reasons not to discuss and if it was any other topic you would be carrying on about all the men tellling the women what to think. get off your high horse it makes your ass look big.

you're right you identify as a feminist and i don't. i do respect them a great deal though and i think it's pretty disrespectful to shit in their forum. but maybe i do too and don't know it. ((shrugs))

Wed, 2015-08-26 18:33

#63

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
....This particular aspect of Canadian politics is pertinent to feminists. There is no reason why feminists shouldn't discuss it from our perspective.

offs, you're using the feminist forum for partisanship reasons not to discuss and if it was any other topic you would be carrying on about all the men tellling the women what to think. get off your high horse it makes your ass look big.

you're right you identify as a feminist and i don't. i do respect them a great deal though and i think it's pretty disrespectful to shit in their forum. but maybe i do too and don't know it. ((shrugs))

It never occurred to me to see the debate as a bunch of men telling women what to think. I see it as a bunch of men answering to women seeing as it was women's organizations that called for the debate in the first place. There is no circumstance in any forum where I would criticize women's groups for calling attention to women's issues on the national stage by challenging the men, and one woman, who are seeking to become our next Prime Minister. You might want to get off your own high horse and get thee to an outhouse.

I wasn't inferring that you or anyone else here, male or female, has any less right to express an opinion on this topic because it is in this forum. Men have always felt very free to swing their dicks in this forum. You show no signs of being silenced by it.

Whenever I start a thread pertaining specifically to women's issues I start it in the feminist forum on principle as it underlines the fact that contrary to some people's opinions feminism is still an important current movement in Canada.

Do I hope that in the feminist forum men will resist being complete jackasses? No, I don't. I used to but I gave up.

I have made no secret of the fact that I am partisan and actively biased against Mulcair. That doesn't mean I am wrong on this issue. It doesn't mean that I lose the right to be critical of him in any forum I choose to.

You accuse me of partisanship, but what about yourself?

P.S.

I didn't call in Catchfire, he interjected of his own accord. Same goes for Meg in the other thread. Either someone else reported or they acted on their own initiative.

Wed, 2015-08-26 18:48

#64

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

i don't care how the debate would've been for any of them.

i don't not want issues pertaining to me, my mom and daughter to be used as political scoring points over each other, as if some are more valid than others or somefuckingthing. as far as i'm concerned nothing good for women would come out of the debate format.

i like the new format. they're not all yammering at each other and overtop of one another. i've watched one debte in my life. the last one. i didn't find it pleasurable and i'm not planning on watching anymore. there's nothing serious going on in one. it's all bs. women's issues aren't bs.

This was the first debate I can remember watching too. I wouldn't call it pleasurable but I did find it informative. I like seeing how the leaders react under pressure.

The interview format may work but the leaders will come prepared because they know the topics: violence against women, inequality and leadership. I hope the interviewers are tough but I expect just as much bs.

Mulcair agrees with Harper, debate on women's issues not worth his time

Pages