Choo on this
Two items of note today, neither of which I am loathe to reward with attention. But a girl's got to do what a girl's got to do.
First up, this unbelievably sexist piece of crap. Columnist Ian Robertson Robinson muses on the differences between women on the left and those on the right.
And why has he chosen this topic? Because clearly he is writing with his pen and not with his keyboard -- if you get my drift -- so besotted is he with Danielle Smith, the new leader of the provincial Wildrose Party.
I cut'n'paste. You decide.
Right-wing women rock.
Not for us the sturdy, honest calves of the New Democrat/Green Party female, honed on eco-tourist rainforest hikes. Those legs are often on unfortunate display, extending from a knee-length tweed skirt as hairy as the legs themselves, and end in a pair of Birkenstocks.
Because, you know, left-women have never heard of wax.
I have yet to see a pair of Birkenstock women's shoes that didn't look like part of the required uniform for police SWAT teams.
The primary reason our womenfolk are at war with the looming spectre of the nanny state is because you can't buy Jimmy Choos in a socialist paradise.
Oh really? Have you been off the ranch and in downtown Toronto recently?
The only sensible footwear you'll find in a right-wing woman's closet are the Nike cross-trainers that go with her gym membership.
And Robertson Robinson knows this because ... he is in closets a lot?
Left-wing drabs recycle. Right-wing women shop -- and the government measures how much they shop every month to find out whether we're still in a recession. Basically, the world economy depends on right-wing women buying shoes.
A right-wing woman wants to get elected, she runs for office.
If she wins, great. If she loses ... well, there's always more shoe shopping.
Left-wing women burn enormous quantities of fossil fuels to drive across the city to a farmer's market to purchase virtually the same carrot you can get at the neighbourhood Sobey's a couple of blocks from your house for half the price, all in the name of making the environment happy.
A right-wing woman hits the gym, swings past Sobey's and has dinner on the table by the time you get home ... while her left-wing counterpart is still stuck in traffic listening to Sarah McLachlan on her iPod and feeling morally superior about her carrot choices.
I could go on but this is making me want to toss my tofu cookies.
It occurs to me that Robertson's Robinson's ideal woman must be Sarah Palin.
So how are those book sales shaping up anyway, Mrs. P?
Meanwhile, over here on the almost left middle-of-Canada, we have the National Post's Barbara Kay who, once again, gives Men's Rights Activists and misogynists a thrill with her attack on the Liberal Pink Book, Volume III. (I plan to blog about this but keep getting distracted.)
Now, are there problems with the Pink Book? As a certain right-wing hottie might say, ''You betcha!''
But Kay uses the book to advance her fallacious agenda which is all about discounting the very real problem of woman abuse, discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere, and the lie about why boys are doing poorly in school.
New ideas include: micro-credit loans of small amounts of money to female entrepreneurs ...
Why do women wishing to start enterprises deserve government-backed credit more than
men? Women are as well educated as men in this country, and since they make something like 70% of household purchases, are far better placed to tap into networks and targeted markets than men. Let them get their loans the usual way; if their idea is good, they'll get the loan. If it's bad, why fund hobbies?
Now I know that Kay is old enough to remember a time when a woman could not get a car loan -- never mind a business loan -- without her husband's or father's signature. It wasn't that long ago, believe me.
Sure, we've moved forward since then.
But here's the problem: Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of women have neither work experience, nor property (collateral) in their name, nor credit ratings. Many of these might be farm wives or stay-at-home mothers or immigrants who were isolated who may have escaped abusive marriages or whose husbands left them or died deeply in debt, maybe from gambling.
You think banks would give these women a loan?
It has obviously escaped Kay's notice that women form the bulk of the poor in Canada -- and, even when they're not poor, they make less than men because they are largely responsible for childcare, eldercare and other domestic concerns. As a result, many work part-time jobs which give them fewer or no benefits, and make it harder for them to collect UI when laid off.
But what would Kay know of any of this?
After all, while she's out shopping for her Jimmy Choos in Westmount, it's unlikely she'll step over any poor lefty women.
UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Some vintage kicks from Pale.