There is absolutely no spin that Campbell can come up with to change my mind. He is mean spirited and is incapable of understanding anything beyond monetary issues.

For many years I've been an admirer of Ms. Taylor's and I'm pleased to see her formally re-engaging in public life in BC.

That said I'm also disappointed that she has chosen to endorse the Campbell BC Liberals in the process.

I find myself wondering if she really knows as much as she might about the rest of her colleagues and the various agendas that seem to have overtaken the party.

Perhaps she will be an ameliorating force.

Am I the only person in BC who thinks it's a bit odd that Carole Taylor is being called new blood and a fresh face at age 59? And what does Taylor's immediate switch from CBC President to Liberal Party Candidate say about the CBC's claims to political neutrality? Could it be that Tory and NDP complaints of pro-Liberal bias at the CBC are not entirely unfounded? Over to you on this one, please, Norman Spector.

I think it's obvious that lower support for the NDP among men is the larger phenomon here. And that is a significant reversal of older patterns. In the 1960s and 1970s the NDP, with its historic base in unions and labour, typically did much better among men that among women. The current shortage of male NDP supporters may indeed have to do with differential attitudes towards recent developments, from the unfortunate trip to Maui, or to income tax and service cuts, as Barb McLintock says.

But it also has to do with the NDP being tagged as the feminist party and with the party's longstanding opposition to major highway and bridge construction.

To appeal to male voters, Carole James needs to forcibly remind voters that despite the yahoo ads from sycophantic Liberal front groups, poorly disguised as business organizations, the truth is that business investment in BC has not increased since the Liberals came to power. There isn't a single new smelter or factory under constrution or planned, no new major manufacturing plants of any sort, except for some wood mill consolidations and upgrades. The oil and gas boom does contribute to the provincial treasury, but it employs well under 5,000 people, and many of them are sending the paychecks home to Alberta.

Gender-specific candidacy seems to have limited appeal. Were the Liberals thought to be extremely woman-friendly because Christy Clark was the deputy Premier?

I can't see this helping or hurting the Libs. Carole Taylor might have brought a little bit of star quality, but it's not as though they went and signed up Nelly Furtado!

She’s articulate. She’s charismatic , just some of the words used to describe her. I would use the terms , she's underhanded sleazy and a coward . I never vote for anyone who does not have the courage to run for their own nomination, I don't care what party, I have no love for Jennifer Clarke but I know she was working hard on getting the nomination and had the rug pulled out from under her. If she's such a star why couldn't she win her own nomination, it makes Me sick the media speaks of these hand picked stars like their trading baseball cards. And the worst thing is the public will buy it, hence Ujjal and David Emerson etc. I don't like folks who feel they can begin their political run by braking the rules , If anyone gets a chance to attend one of her debates ask her why she feels the cutting of women's services like rape relief and shelters were necessary, ask her if her tax cut was worth it.

I don't see star female candidates as an effective way to address the gender gap, given that dissatisfaction is more issue- and style-based.

Women are no more homogenous a voting group than any other. Those who view their stock portfolios as being more important than the homeless issue or their neighbour's daycare woes will vote Liberal, no matter who the candidate it. Anyone who ever watched a staged Cabinet meeting or QP knows you could fill the benches with Replicons and it wouldn't matter a fig. We haven't heard a single story of a female Liberal MP standing up within the party to challenge policies that were unpopular with women.

And the average woman who's not a media or political insider has likely never heard of Ms. Taylor, so the "star" aspect is also questionable.

The most effective aspect is probably that her first name is "Carole" and that her surname is a common English name that could easily be confused with James. Thus expect to hear her being quoted in the media saying things that voters can mistakenly attribute to the NDP's Carole.

well as far I am concerned, anyone who has had
chair on the The Vancouver Board of Trade
is tainted. Carole Taylor did sit chair on that board.

I read a long time ago how the Vancouver board of trade wanted to lobby government to roll back min wage to 1987 levels, this was in 1999!
I would like to see any of them live on that myself in 2005. Since I read that article I have NO respect to for the Vancouver board of trade
or any other organisation that represents business in anyway. business will only gain my trust when they show that fair treatment of their workers and livible wages are as important as profits. non-unionized workers all across this province are getting screwed and have no representation at all, the labour code is as fictional as the tooth fariy.
Am I the only one that sees this?

What's going on? This story is now a couple of weeks old, isn't it?

I remembering hearing Carole Taylor endorse Gordon Campbell on his first run at becoming premier. So there is a long relationship between them.

Her endorsement of the present BC Liberal government, the only provincial government in all of Canada served notice, (and highly critical notice at that) by the United Nations for it's harsh social and economic policies and their devastating consequences especially on the lives of women and children in BC not only reveals questionable judgement on her part but that her life far above the milling crowd has created the luxury of not needing to know or not having to feel the consequences of the present government's heartless social policies. All the right stuff for a cabinet position in a Gordon Campbell government.

I guess it won't matter in the end but it should be interesting to see ms taylor deal with some of the more controversial issues that will be on the pre-election table.
Most recently is the report showing what a great job the liberals have done providing their 'new era' promise of an additional 5000 longterm care beds in BC!! Oops not only did they come up way short they actually lost 1000+ beds AND somehow still cost us MORE because of the off-loaded strain onto expensive acute car beds!!!!!!!! Wow good job gordo et al, george deficit bush would be proud of your fiscal ingenuity. STROONTZ !!
Then again congradulations as you've actually accomplished, atleast in part, your real goal of covertly prvatizing health care in BC. Ah yes, welcome to the golden decade - long waiting lists and no resources to take care of you in your time of need joe and jane sixpack- but for a mere 40000$ plus a year you can slide on into a private-for-provite nursing home and hobnob with the creme de la creme of our geriatric population. like gordo's mom for instance- i'm sure he brings her flowers atleast once every 3 months.
So with that and a million other liberal fubar's they're still ahead in the polls!! I guess canwest and the BC business council, oh and dont forget corporate america, have done a great job of selling the biggesst lemon in BC history to the public.
You lot should be proud as Joseph Goebel's must be turning green with envy.

But it also has to do with the NDP being tagged as the feminist party and with the party's longstanding opposition to major highway and bridge construction.

The first time Budd raised this issue here it jolted my attention, because I think he is correct, to a large extent at least, even though I wasn't then really secure in responding to him. But I think the issues he raises have to be looked at squarely, by ourselves here and those organized political elements who wish to have a hope in hell of drawing, certainly a large segment of the male working class, away from the Liberals.

The late '70 to early '80s, on the heels of what Budd describes, were a traumatic time for this class segment, out of which period's downsizing, deunioinizing and offshore movement of such manufacturing and heavy industry as existed at the time, with it traumas and wars, left these workers with a sense of betrayal by the labour movement and the NDP frankly. Both these arms, to which they had previously been loyal and looked to for leadership, let them down, in their perceptions, by failing to aggressively organize them and lead an effective fightback, and in developing an alternative economic strategy to deal with the New Lean and Mean Capitalism, then just emerging. The result frankly, whether labour leadership and the NDP think it is a fair assessment or result, or not, is what Budd is attempting to address here. (It is prickly and not easy to get at, ruined families, changed these workers perceptions of themselves, and their status within society.) In its wake, that period left a lot of seethingly angry male workers out there, who frankly, have voted with their feet, however harmful to their own interests over the long haul.

I think the NDP being seen as the Party of Militant Feminism is a factor, but more a symptom of something much bigger and larger. What I have described above has lead to a kind of blind striking out, in my view. I think this is far from the fundamental, underlying cause of the phenomena.

It is more an outgrowth of their reality, as perceived by them regardless what anyone else might think, that when times are tough and families are in crisis, historically it has been alright for the woman half to be unemployed and/or not making "a man's wage", but a man had better make a "man's wage", capable of independantly supporting the family through thick and thin. Otherwise, he is quickly not perceived as a man by either himself or the other half.(There is a great deal of misunderstanding of this, by men and women.)

But in any case, regardless of what one thinks of this attitude and reaction, it exists, and the labour movement and the NDP have both thus far failed to demonstrate that they are capable of resolving this issue of their lives, and as a result, have come to be seen as part of the problem, not the solution. (It is no different a phenomena than the poor striking out at each other, or blacks in ghettoes, and doing each other more harm than to their real enemies; a well know phenomena in sociology.)

Which brings me to this other matter raised by Bud of the importance of large scale economic projects to what has previously provided for those "good" family supporting jobs, so prized by the male of the species. For Budd is also right on this score, at least in large part.

First, mostly what we have is a failure of capitalism itself, a failure of the system, as compared to what was in the immediate post war. Secondly what we have as a compounding element is, a failure or demonstrated inability thus far, of the labour movement and social democrats within the NDP to provide the leadership, the organizing expertise, the ideas (ideological) vision or the economic and political programme leadership that will resolves this "new reality" of people's lives within current capitalism.

Until that is done, certainly men, but also a growing number of women are going to continue and come to see them as part of the problem, not the solution. And that solution, I think, as we have often discussed here before, is not really as elusive or as difficult to get at, as folks and movements that have lost their nerve seem to have concluded.

The big construction and road building jobs of the past are just that, the past, and not likely to be repeated, for many practical and desirable reasons. (We don't need more cars on the road.) Which doesn't mean that capitalism has resolved all the problems of our economic development. Indeed, the really big one, because of the nature of its ruling class's subservient relationship with the US Empire, it is unable to resolve; that of the completion of our industrial and manufacturing base development, and the strengthening of our own economic self sufficiency, so that we are not so dependant on the vaguaries and downward pulling effects of an "export based and dependant economy".

Like I keep saying here, that is where the economic future of our development lies, there and in cleaning up the environment mess left behind by our irresponsible capitalist development to here. If current capitalism is not capable or willing to engage this need or needs, in a fair, equitable and timely way, then simply put, we have find a way to maneuvre around capitalism.

And it is from this reality that the labour movement, all of us, and those political elements who have to here thrown their loyalty to the NDP, need to stop from shrinking and being so goddamn timid. For it is in this direction lies the resolution to the economic and democratic problems of current society, and the gulf that has yawned open between men and women, allowing the system to play this game, of playing us all off against each other.

The system has demonstated a vision and practical economic policy that disunites people, especially ordinary men and women, playing them off against each other. The left and progressives need to develop and articulate a vision and practical economic programme that secures the opposite..

Hate to post just to say I agree but that was a long post and I do indeed agree.

The NDP hasn't been part of the solution. When in power its been too timid to rock the boat. We get neo-con economics mixed with a few extra social programs and with a kinder gentler face.

Its why I support STV because I don't see the point of waiting for the day when the NDP is in full control again for 4 years. They haven't demonstrated that 4 years of their government makes up for 4 years of Gordon Campbell. So I'd rather have permanent minorities.

Perhaps Taylor's candidacy is a sign that reform liberals (who can at least speak to social democrats and red tories)are moving back to take over the Provincial Liberal party.

NOTHING will ever make me vote liberal. Women in this province have been overburdened and marginalized by this government. His message to women is that caring work doesn't matter, female labour doesn't matter, equality and fair treatment for women doesn't matter and neither does protection from violence. Bring on the election. We'll elect the Carole that counts!

Cam, if your statement is true, you will have to find evidence where those so-called reform liberals have spoken out and spoken out loudly against BC Liberal policies. They haven't done so, including Carole Taylor. She is in fact enthusiastically endorsing Gordon Campbell's government.

If you are prepared to run under the leadership of Gordon Campbell after witnessing the selling out of this province and the regressive social policies of the last four years, then that choice alone has told the electorate where you really stand, and it is a far country from small "l" liberal values. Those who refuse to serve seem more deserving of your comment.

I hope so Cam, but have my doubts so long as woman-hostile ideologues form the core of the BC Liberal party.

I heard that Premier Campbell proposed targeting female candidates for ridings, but was opposed by old-guard socreds like Rich Coleman and Kevin Falcon. Are there any reports that can confirm or deny this story?

Where IS Carole James, anyway? I don't hear much out of the NDP. Do they know there's an election in just over a month?

It won't be enough for them to just bank on Campbell being a slimeball. A quick look south proves that much.

I do think Coyote's comment needs more thought. The left can take no comfort in the NDP's lead with women when they have lost the other half of the population, and lost bigger at that.

I think the Liberals have put together a government and a platform that appeals particularly to men. We've got mega projects, a construction boom, and even the accidental good fortune of the pine beetle logging orgy. Lots of toys for boys. You wouldn't be surprised by that if you looked at Gordon Campbell's cabinet. But the mystery is why don't men see the harm Campbell has done? Why do women, in far greater numbers?

Right now, the left needs to find a way to make men see what the women have seen. And we need a plan fast, because frankly I think the NDP are spinning their wheels in this election. I fear that Campbell will walk away with it.

I think Coyote is onto something when (s)he suggests a new, more radical platform is needed to make it clear that real change is not only necessary but also possible.

The capitalist paradigm supports the Campbell road, and vice versa. I think women see the evil of it, especially when it's taken to extremes.

To get men on board, I think you need not only to point to the suffering of all the groups the Liberals have trampled, but also a vision, a concrete alternative.

The slack-assed approach the NDP is showing toward the election is more effective for Campbell than all his slime-ball lying TV ads. The NDP is throwing this election. The NDP isn't even trying to enter, let alone win, this election. It's like watching a replay of Whatzisname vs Bush... the election down south was staged, and the election we're attempting to pretend to have up here is similarly staged. Lame ducks . Nothing but lame ducks.

And if Carole Taylor is a feminist then, by god, I AM the tooth fairy!!!!

It's an interesting article.
But the reference to Campbell "bagging" Carole Taylor as a star candidate in the first graf made me wince.
Maybe I'm over-sensitive but I think this was a poor word choice.
Especially in an article about gender issues.

Seeing that the Socreds became the Provincial Liberals and liberal no longer means what it used to mean I have a suggestion. I think the NDP should re-appropriate the word left. The NDP should name itself the NLP or the New Left Party. For those who wince at that, it could be modified to the Neo Left Party. Then it would be the Necons against the Neolefties. At one time leftist was equated with Communist. With that particular evil empire dead why can we not take back the left?

Furtheremore through the years Malcolm Parry would always disagree
with me when I would suggest that Carole Taylor would run for mayor. I don't know what pipeline of information he had but it was correct. Carole Taylor could have been mayor or Lieutenant-Governor. The second position is a political dead end. It is my opinion that it is not a case of Gordon Campbell "bagging" Carole Taylor. It is a case of a shrewd (don't understimate that beautiful face) Carole Taylor deciding that this time she can go all the way.

"He has to face James himself. He can’t hide behind her (Taylor’s) skirt.”

-Campbell hasn't gone anywhere without her lately.Pathetic really.As to the question of where is Carol James,I have a very strong feeling that our local media are purposely ignoring her.I doubt Carol could get a story in the Province if she set herself on fire and tackled Campbell to the ground...

I am troubled by elements of many of the polical stories of the Tyee. They are based on opinions subracted by reading quotes from the other media. For example: Barbara McLintock writes ....

Taylor herself has made clear she doesn’t want to be held up as some sort of figurehead for the female gender. She wants to run on her own record, views, and policies.

In any publication, perhaps even in that much maligned Vancouver Sun this statement would be a quote and the source would be noted or at the very least we should know when where she said this. If the media is ignoring Carole James, on purpose, (as sonnic931 suggests) then some reporter from this publication should step in with the direct quotes of an exclusive interview.

Is it really a gender issue - or are women more likely to suffer because of the fact they shoulder more than their fair share of the responsibility in ensuring that society remains functional at some level (ie - ensuring the kids get educated and the elderly parents their health care) - while at the same time being at the lower end of the pay scale despite equal qualifications? Whether or not the cuts weilded by the mad hacking, axe-weilding Liberals were meant to spite women specifically is debatable - but the fact they wound women more is as much a fault as the way our society functions as it is the fault of the blind-sight chopping at our foundation the Liberals witlessly conducted their last (hopefully, in every conotation of the word) term in power. For some reason, I am missing the entertaining Tyabji-Wilson pair in BC politics - at least she made it on to Opera - can't say "go-girl" any more than that accomplishment...

I don’t think Carole Taylor will change the election that much. However, with the Gliberals record, the NDP should be ready for a landslide. That they might not even win a minority govt. points out what a poor opposition they have been. But then again, the NDP and the hard right share a common fear of the average working person. Both parties wish to be in power to rule OVER us and not to allow us to control our lives in our communities. Thus, it is no wonder that most people are not enthused about such an “opposition.” Social democracy was originally about empowerment of workers, farmers and their communities. Somewhere along the line this got lost. Democracy got reduced to the quadrennial farce whereby we elect an elite who do what they want and to hell with our wishes. Loss of the true democratic vision has meant the stifling of social democracy and a further lack of imagination. It is no wonder that in many countries they have become Neocon-lite. Rather than give our time to the NDP perhaps we should think of forming committees of correspondence to discuss and agitate for empowerment of the community, cooperative development and self-management?

The problem with being in Gordo's Fiberal party as a woman is that you have to act like a man. We will never see a woman in his cabinet stand up for womens issues as the leader just won't tolerate it. Neo-cons don't believe in any sort of social responsibilty.

Did anyone see CBC's Passionate Eye on Argentina this week? As I saw this program I could draw strong parallels to our situation here in BC under Gordon Campbell. Menem destroyed Argentina and they are going to take several decades to recover. You may be able to catch repeats this week on CBC news channel. I feel we should be appropriately called British Argentina and not British Columbia, as we are headed their way under Gordon Campbell.

Does anyone with a sense of history recall the history between Carole Taylor and Gordon Campbell. Harken back with me to the days of yesteryear, to when Gordo was mayor of Vancouver, and that infamous NPA nomination meeting, the one in which one of the candidates for nomination, brought in a couple of busloads of people to vote, instructing them to vote for only the first 7 names on the list.

Poor Carole, with the last name Taylor, was on the outside looking in, thanks to this manuoever. Upon this being found out and revealed, Gordo could have used his position as the mayoralty candidate to pressure the NPA to re do the nomination process fairly, given the way that it had occurred. He could have stood up and said something along the lines of "this isn't right, and by golly I'm not going to stand here, as the NPA mayoralty candidate, representing a party that endorses shenanigans from within it. I'll be more than happy to run as an independant with Carole Taylor."

Now did that happen? Did Gordo have a moral epiphany? No. Instead, he kept out of it, and left Carole to run as an independant, which she did and in fact did win. Now, a decade plus later, with Gordo (still not having any type of moral ephiphanies or morals for that fact) finding that his party has been fairly well hijacked by the harper-ite Liberal faction, reaches out to an old friend. An old friend with a strong case of amnesia, or convenient amnesia. And one who wouldn't run, unless she was guaranteed the nomination without a fight, and in a soft padded riding for the Liberals.

Hmm.. smells like a prime opportunity for someone who's been somewhat opportunistic over the past decade. But perhaps someone can answer me this, how come some other female candidates for the BC Liberals are going out of their way to eliminate any references to being any part of or anything closely associated with the "Gordon Campbell Team"??? One would think that if they've done such a great job in government, they would proudly stand up and beside their fearless leader.

If I recall the political affair between Mayor Gordon Campbell and Carole Taylor and her running as an independent had many racial overtones as the Hong Kong Chinese were moving into Vancouver. The busloads of voters who were not going to vote for Taylor were Chinese and that incident of Vancouver history is now mostly forgotten.

Whose generally thoughtful comments of John Nalleweg, I much concur with. Though I might frame it just a tad differently, by saying, to get working class men and women on board and moving in the same direction, there is need for the articulation of a common vision of where it is we want to arrive at, in terms of a democratic, economic and political future.

The playing and re-playing of the, who is a greater or lesser victim card, while it may have some self-validating usefullness for individuals, does not, in and of itself, lead anywhere but to a kind of dead-end shared victimhood. And it is this state of wallowing victimhood which allows the ongoing environment in which the Fiberals can feast on all our bones with impunity. It is the point we need to get beyond-, in my admittedly [/I]male working class biased view of the world. (Which doesn't disagree all [I]that much with Avicenna's female biased view of the world actually, for example.)

Which is where that development of a common democratic, economic and political vision thing becomes so damned important, backed up by coming together, organizing and especially acting together to effect our mutual situation, and finally achieve our collective goal. By the by, in my view, the fundamental absence of which has allowed for this kind of drift of the NDP into a kind of Neocon-lite political and economic territory, behind a kinder and gentler mask, as somebody else put it here, and has also allowed for this particular state of paralysis and decline so many of us observe in the current trade union movement.

We have become locked in a kind of ongoing, bleating state of victimhood.

And for some analysis of the roots of that, and the way out, I think, we could do worse than to read with special attention, the short piece by Anarcho here.

There is a need for a Renaissance of bold and new thinking [/I]and action by the left in this province and this country. Otherwise we really are hopelessly stuck in this State of Shared Victimhood, the hallmarks of which are timidity, an inability to see and develop a collective way out of our circumstances, and the maintenance of stifling ideological thinking, (not unlike a kind of religious "belief" in a second coming that never arrives) and outmoded organizational relationships, rooted in the past and unable to lead into the future.

(If it is, for example, and I am not yet entirely convinced, or am reluctant to be convinced, for fear of throwing the baby out with the wash, that the existing trade union movement has become so a part of capitalism's labour management structure, and outmoded to the needs of the future as a result, or are in such a state of decline, then we had best be sure to heed Anarcho's advice, "...we should think of forming committees of correspondence to discuss and agitate for empowerment of the community, cooperative development and self-management?"

Otherwise there is a grave risk of stepping from the frying pan into the fire. Certainly we better be sure there are those "community, cooperative and self-management" alternatives in place, before we all too quickly walk away from what has already been built by the organized working class, and may just be being poorly led by the wrong people. ([I]Most of whom, by the by, in my experience, owe their political allegiances to the NDP and are much integrated into it-, which may be either part or the source of the problem.

Again, there is that classic need in times of change that are called for, of throwing the baby out with the wash-, at least prematurely. :-) I'm not saying nay, but I am saying, BE CAREFUL.

In any case, a useful discussion here-, the kind that needs to be ongoing.

"classic need" above, should read, "classic danger".

Coyote, and earlier 'budd', are definitely on to something here. right now throughout the Okanagan (obviously not fertile NDP territory at the best of times), there is, as reported in the local chamber of commerce press releases (aka - the local media) a huge economic boom on right now. much of that is due to the building trades, and indeed any walk through Home Depot during the middle of the week will show no shortage of guys with tape measures and cell phones hitched to their belt, stocking up on supplies.
HOWEVER, ask any one of these guys (unless they own the company) what they think of their economic prospects and you'll find some common threads a) most of 'em are not unionized b) their hourly wage hasn't gone up in twenty years c) but at least they don't have to work in Fort McMurray or the Peace Country anymore, and d) they still pay too much tax.
what globalization has very effectively done is make unionized workers (and the neo-socialist politicians paid to represent them) feel that they are 'not productive' enough; at least, not as 'productive' as wage-slaves overseas. that, and the overwhelming paranoia that 'anyone can do YOUR job' has led to basically an entire working class gender-based mentality that, as coyote says, 'lashes out' at, well, just about everything - certainly at a party that has morphed philosophically away from a union-based party to, (what, exactly?).
most men - (and i saw this thru over a dozen years of employment in three different unions) - feel that they are 'individuals' first and see union membership as a 'necessary evil' (where do they get these ideas? the educational system??) and that, if times got tough and they were laid off, that they would 'make it through.' well, we know THAT doesn't happen. let's see - unemployed millworker in Interior - turned 'grow op' manager?? now there's an economic transition into the free market economy.
to many men (capitalists, entrepreneurs), being 'productive' (in the money making sense) defines their existence - damn the environment, their family life, and the rest of it. add to this (in the USA) an evangelical, right wing Christian morality that promises some form of 'eternal salvation' (and one that 'keeps women in their place') and you have a very powerful philosophy that attracts a lot of men across a wide economic spectrum.
coyote's recipe of community based activism/commerce is certainly an excellent, uh, Utopian model, but one that we will not see trotted out (aside from perhaps in Nelson, where i see Corky Evans is running again - though many see him in the Nelson area as a 'traitor to the cause') after this election. which, the tyee's excellent analysis notwithstanding, will be another Liberal steamroller...

I must come from a different planet. I will remember Ms Taylor policital career. I can find no evidence of all that is refered to. As a city alderman she was lacking. As a fed she was hardly memorable. She was more like someone who barely kept her head above water.
As a media person she learned the art of 30 sec clips and I often felt that was about the extent of her intelect.
I doubt we will be seeing famous quotations from Ms. Taylor anytime soon

A poll showed women least liked their man to be a drunk.

Right on, Coyote, Anne Cameron and Anarcho! You've said some important things.

Regarding this gender gap issue: it really makes me crazy that "women's issues" are still not regarded as people's issues. Do these men who support Campbell not have children or elderly parents? Or do they just not care what Campbell does to their loved ones?

As to the N.D.P. being the "feminist party", I guess that's only comparatively speaking. I know they like to bill themselves as being concerned about the aforementioned "women's issues" yet, when they were in power they took the earnings exemptions away from thousands of single mothers in B.C. who had only been able to get part-time work (I know, I was one of them). "Neo-con light" is a damn good term for them! (And by the way, single mothers need a "family supporting wage" too and mothers in general need their unpaid work in the home recognized and re-imbursed!) Coyote says that the N.D.P. also let down the labour movement, yet the B.C. Fed kept supporting them right or wrong and then expecting us Welfare poor who had been screwed to have a supportive attitude to big labour!

I am intrigued, Anne Cameron, with your comment that the N.D.P. is throwing this election. That was what I thought happened in Ontario when Harris got in for his second term. How do we know they aren't all in cahoots behind the scenes? (Remember who hired Glen Clark as soon as he was out of office!)

Astute observations from sthrendyle about these Home Depot men, whose comments deserve more than a casual read-, and Anne's too, no less.

"And by the way, single mothers need a "family supporting wage" too and mothers in general need their unpaid work in the home recognized and re-imbursed!" No bloody question, Anne.

I must say that I find everyone's comments here extremely interesting, and illuminating. There is a lot of cynicism, most of it unquestionably justified, which I think, is a useful starting point for a re-examination of all left wing politics and presumptions-, no matter what the outcome of this next exercise in minimal democracy. The time for it is long overdue.

"And by the way, single mothers need a "family supporting wage" too and mothers in general need their unpaid work in the home recognized and re-imbursed!" No bloody question, Anne.

At one time we worked from Monday to Friday, 9 to 5. We lived and worked in the city or we lived in the suburbs and came to the city to work. As traffic became heavy the tunnel lane changes and the alternating lanes on Lions Gate Bridge were implemented. Now we work at night, every day and Sunday shopping is a reality. So many people live in the downtown core that now they drive to the suburbs to find work. There is congestion in that tunnel most of the time because those patterns have changed. As a freelancer I stay a home lots and I do most of the cooking and cleaning and the heavy duty gardening. My wife works three days a week. Should I demand payment for all that unpaid work? Unquestionably. Perhaps we should all dump BC and move to Sweden.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Sweden is light years ahead of us (same sex marriage since 1995?!) Canada's a bit of a joke in comparison, let's face it.
As for Campbell, to this day I am floored that he wasn't forced to resign. I was teaching adult international students at the time of his arrest for D and D and we had many discussions on the topic- time and again they asked me "And he still has his job??!!" I couldn't answer that one and still can't. Imagine a female leader in this country (ok, maybe not- that's a tough one, haha) got all hammered up and went on a joyride and made a complete idiot-ass fool of herself. She'd be crucified! That Campbell even has the audacity to run again is mind-blowing.

No woman who could support a man who has been totally mean spirited, punitive, and downright TACKY toward single moms and their children , old people of both genders, the mentally ill, the mentally challenged, the disabled, the poor and the unempowered can, by any stretch of imagination be termed a feminist.

Feminism is, to put none too fine a point on it, humanism. Feminism demands we treat each other with dignity, with compassion and even if we , for personal reasons, hate your fuckin' guts we have to ensure you have enough to eat and a play to lay your head. We might think your head is empty and you're a stone drag prick with head lice, but we are not going to leave you digging in a dumpster for food and we would never punish your children because you happen to have the misfortune to be unemployable.

When Campbell calls on a calendar girl to help him, when he grins that goofy grin of his and talks of her as a champion of women's issues he shows how absolutely bereft of understanding he is. Carole Taylor might be a very nice person. She is also one of the undeniably elite. I have absolutely no memory of her ever speaking forcefully on behalf of the unwashed, unfed, unfortunate or unemployed. She is invariably well dressed, well coiffed and bland. The thought that she might suceed the lurching drunk as premier is to make a person shudder!

The NDP gives every evidence of being dead but too damned dumb to lie down and compost!

"Left Turn" is needed. We need to get the CCF Manifesto out of storage, dust it off, hold it up as our basic premise, and stop trying to be all things to all people. The neo-cons have a purpose and it does not include improving the social safety net. The neo-cons are all in favour of globilization, and anyone with two working brain cells could do some research and see what THAT tub of shit holds for our futures.

How can anyone believe for one minute that a woman who supports a man who has lowered the age at which a child can work a job to twelve be deemed "feminist". Twelve year old children belong in school part of their waking hours and then have access to good food, a decent place to rest and some quality recreational choices. To stand smiling beside a man who would see a twelve year old picking crops or working in a factory is to spit in the face of the years of work and sacrifice which tried to make children safe from such exploitation. A feminist? Yeah, sure, and I am going to dance with the Winnipeg Ballet. I think I'll be the sugar plum fairy.

Coyote, I don't care if you call your wife your old lady. Just cherish her while you do it. You can call me a teapot if you want, just allow me my tattered dignity.

Gordon Campbell and his cronies would gladly shine George Walker Bush's shoes with their tongues!

I just wish they would wipe their mouths more effectively because you can still see the little dabs of bullshit stuck to their lips.

The message still needs to get out that the top 5% of BC earners are far better off now and the rest of British Columbians have paid for this with a variety of increased taxes and user fees.

Carole Taylor has little to offer to help Gordon Campbell. She says that "business is everyone". You and me, we are all business. We can ignore the actual data that, under the BC Liberals, the surgery wait times have more than doubled because Carole Taylor says that the BC Liberals have answers. Yeah, right. Her university degree in philosophy is going to really come in handy, now.

Absolutely nothing tattered or wrong with your dignity at all, fine woman. It is entirely intact, and has my respect.

Much, much good discussion here. Hopefully, in the fullness of time, we will all, working class women and men, find a way forward here yet. It's that, or surrender to the callousness of the ruling class's manipulated

.

I'm away for the day-, but a pleasant one to you all.

Oops. I hit the quote instead of the italics button above.

Yes, Alexwh, whoever is doing the unpaid work in the home should be acknowledged and re-imbursed regardless of sex. Didn't mean to be so sex-specific about it--it's just that most men refuse to do it, or refuse to do their share of it if their partner is working full time--thus the double work day that too many women have to put up with.

Another thing: why is childcare a "woman's issue"? Doesn't it take both sexes to make a kid? Why is it that the daycare money, or the money for the cleaning woman (if they can afford one) is generally expected to come out of the woman's pay cheque? Why is it the woman's problem to arrange this? Because she has the "privelege" of working the double work day??

In fairness to Coyote, Anne C., I don't recall him calling his wife the "old lady" (and I'm not about to scroll back and find out where he said that). He usually calls her the "good woman" doesn't he?

Hi, Anne: Coyote has said, possibly elsewhere, that he calls his wife "old lady" and she calls him "old man"... hey, if it's fine by them it's fine by me. I call my partner my "Sweetie"... someone had jumped Coyote because he used the term "old lady", I was just trying to give him some good old VanIsle support...we're half drowned in Tahsis today, and my house resounds with the sounds of a 4 year old and a 3 year old who are amusing themselves by racing from one end to the other, slamming doors and terrorizing the cats. I find myself almost praying for the sunshine!! But they'll soon be off to the swimming pool with their dad, the cats can knit their ravelled nerves and who knows, I might even venture out of the hell room here and see if I can pick up the shreds of what I thought was my life.

As a photographer I am allowed to use a deep green filter with b+w film to make a man look like he has more character. These photographs are seen as portraits with character. Should I use such a filter on a woman I would be acused of character assassination. This was a trick that Karsh used. Women expect equality with man(as they should) but take exception in relation to their looks and their youthful appearance. It is for this reason that it comes as a shock (and I don't see why) that actor Michael Douglas was seen (as read in the excellent Tabby ( I have just coined that word) 24 Hours with scars near his ears that suggest he has gone through some face-lifting action. Not until women accept to look as they look regardless of what men think of them, true equality will not have arrived. German U-boat captains of WWII who survived several voyages were called "old men" even though they were in their late 20s. It was a epithet of respect. It is my suspicion that calling one's wife the old lady is simply a mark of respect, too.

Not sure if "old lady" is an epithet or not. I don't think so re: Coyote, but I guess it's up to his partner.

As to paying women (or men) for that matter, for household duties, it seems to me untenable. Those wages would come from the public purse I suppose, which means you and me. Does that mean I get to have a say in the quality and quantity of work being done? Or will we have gov't inspectors popping by to with white gloves to ensure the dusting was done? Will doing the dishes count, since it's "woman's work" but not the traditionally male task of mowing the lawn?

Will the parents who read to their children get more money than those who plop the tykes in front of the tv to watch dvd's? The list of questions could go on and on.

Let's face it, generally speaking, having children is a voluntary commitment. The reward is in the "job" of raising them. Personally, I wouldn't want the gov't to pay me for the privilege because I think that would give them the right to demand I do it in a certain way and I sure as hell don't want the current crop of elected officials telling me which philosophies I should pass along to my child.

As for housework, it's taken me a long time to learn that a tidy house and a sink free of dishes cultivates a positive attitude towards oneself and a certain zen-like calm to a home, but again, the reward is the finished product.

Which is not to say the burden should fall primarily on women, especially when both individuals in a couple are working, but really, do we need the gov't in the bedrooms, or kitchens of the nation?

You make some valid points, Stump, and, frankly, I know that it is a hopeless cause in this political environment to get unpaid work paid. It was something that I and a few others (mostly women) fought for in the 80's, not so much because we thought we'd ever win, as because we wanted to bring it to the attention of the public that women's unpaid work props up the economy in many ways. There was, for instance, Ellen Woodsworth's group, Wages for Housework, which made a lot of valid arguments. There was a group of women who fought (I think they were even successful) to have unpaid work in the home and volunteer work counted in the census so that it would be seen that this contributes to the economy.

Having children may be "voluntary" but those children's incomes will later help pay the pensions for those who choose not to have children (and I'm not making the argument that people who choose to be childless are doing something wrong, I'm saying that children are not just a "burden" on society, they're an investment in the future).

When I was a single mother on welfare no one was checking on my house-keeping, but I still got money to live on, no questiions asked (unfortunately, at least in the U.S. these days, there are now housework police checking on single mothers). The trouble was, there was a stigma attached. My friends and I figured that if we could just get a universal mother's income going there'd be less stigma. Yeah, I know, it was unrealistic, but the discussions provoked did bring awareness of the fact that society is kept going by a lot of unpaid labour. This is more true than ever, as services are cut, and people (mostly women) have to do the care-giving either in their
"spare" time or as their unpaid full-time job.

Men have all sorts of excuses for not doing their share of the maintenance work. Those who have physical jobs claim they are too tired. This may be valid, but women who have physically demanding paid jobs don't get away with this excuse. Then there is the unreasonable argument that "She should do the housework because she brings in less money than I do." Excuse me? Since he gets so much more money for the same hours of paid work then maybe he should pay HER what he'd have to pay a
nannie and a cleaning woman if he had them? And, yeah, I know, a jerk like that would then begin to demand such exacting standards that her life would be hell (unless she was Ms. House Beautiful to begin with), but it's just a thought. For me, being home with my kids was way more fun than any of the boring jobs I'd had, (and, no, enjoying your job shouldn't mean you don't deserve to be paid for it) but being dependent on a husband who didn't even like me anymore was not so much fun (and he was oppressive after I went back to paid work, as well--paid work for women usually doesn't pay enough for true independence). So, I like the IDEA of women being paid for our nurturing and home-maintenance work--doesn't mean I think it's a realistic idea.

Working women are also told "lower your housework standards", but, who gets judged for the messy house? Not the man, even if both are working outside the home.

I didn't even read that article a while back entitled "Back to the Kitchen Girls" because I figured I'd get into an argument. Yeah, yeah, I'm not a "real" feminist because I always liked the cooking and childcare part (not the cleaning so much, though I work as a cleaning woman now). I've been a feminist since I was 12 (which was 1960, when it was not a popular idea), thank you very much! Feminism means choice. Men can have that choice too, if they really want, as long as they leave the breast-feeding era to their wives if that's what the wives want to do for a while, because it really is healthier for the kid.

In all fairness, I agree with many of Stump's points. I personally have several male (single/ straight/ gay) friends who live alone in SPOTLESS homes and cook up a meal as good, if not better, than I do. One in particular is also so nurturing I sometimes think my dog loves him more than he loves me :( (well, not really).
"It's taken me a long time to learn that a tidy house and a sink free of dishes cultivates a positive attitude to oneself and a certain Zen-like calm", says Stump. Bang on! I think today's "youngish" men (I'm guessing Stump is around 35) are pretty good as far as household dutites go, and the men of my dad's generation are a thing of the past.
These days my dad (nearing 70) ventures into the kitchen when I'm home visiting and within MOMENTS my mum is in the doorway watching him like a hawk or hovering nearby while my dad tries valiantly to tread in her territory. I wonder now if he was always just terrified of going into the kitchen. I also tend to agree with Stump that having children is voluntary, and I'm not counting on any of today's young tykes supporting me in my old age. There isn't going to be a pension for me. I LOVE spending my mornings preparing home-cooked meals and tidying up, walking my pup and drinking tea in the yard while I read all those nifty free papers we have now. It's all about balance. Sometimes I like a really busy work day too, knowing the bills are getting paid. When men were the only ones working 12 hour days they DID come home exhausted; women WERE restless and angry and frustrated for being "trapped" at home; for not having choices. And what kind of universal mother's income are we talking about? I would consider giving birth for 40 grand, not less than that. Ok listen to me now, I need to get off this thing ...

Around 35. I wish. thanx

Appending to my previous comments I DO totally support the whole national daycare concept. I think children benefit in their social development by being in well-run daycares early in their lives.

$40k sounds about right. I'm sure I will spend more than that on daycare before my kid can go latchkey.

/kidding

For sure, Stump, daycare for those who want it! I'd like to see it in the workplace as it was during W.W.2 (I remember how long my working day seemed, how short the "quality time" with my pre-schooler when I had to bus in an opposite direction from work to get to her daycare.) But, I personally (and I can already hear the cries of those who totally misunderstand what I'm trying to say here) would rather be the one who witnesses my child's first step and hears her first word, not some daycare employee! Also, I had a lot of trouble with the brain-washing of my kids by the school system. Government funded daycare might start that process even earlier. But face it, we are far away from either having an at-home parent income OR decent daycare. These are people-friendly issues. They do not need to be in conflict. One of the sadness things I experienced in early parenthood was the resentment between working mothers and at-home mothers--I could see both sides and was attacked by both sides.

As it stands now, it is wealthy women who have all the choices. They can stay at home being supported by their rich husbands or they can afford the best quality childcare and pursue exciting careers. It is poor women who would rather be home with their kids instead of at boring jobs, forced to place their kids in whatever inadequate childcare they can find, who are being screwed. And, if these lower-income women would rather be working outside the home (lots of valid reasons for that) they are stuck with inadequate, expensive daycare--which just adds to the reasons that working outside the home does not necessarily mean independence for women. If you aren't making enough money to be able to leave an unhappy marriage and still support yourself and your kids then paid work is not creating independence. That is why we need financial supports for all people in this society.

You are right, Fii, maybe you gen-xers just won't be getting any old age pension--maybe we
boomers won't be either by the time we reach that age in a few years (I know the present gov't would like to cut us off). What I am arguing for is choice and income security for vulnerable people whether they are old or very young. My taxes as a young person went to help support those on Old Age Pension now. I don't begrudge that, and if you and I are to get the same benefits when we are old we have to support economic security for ALL generations.

As to those gay guys with "spotless" homes, Fii--do any of them have small children?

I have no argument for the necessity of quality daycare in working families lives. I'm not sure how much children really benefit from it, though, especially early in their lives. To me, we should begin to look seriously at the reasons we all work , what our short life on this earth is really about if we can no longer bring up our own children because we are so busy working for "things". We should be honest enough to admit to that if that is the case.

And again, I realize the real necessity for quality daycare for those who must work to support families. Just too bad we can't structure the whole thing a different way. Daycare to me is just indoctrination at an early age of "group think", hardly a chance to be wild and young and free - to climb trees, build forts, imagine worlds of your own, and mudpuddle along in your own gumboots for just a little while longer... until "the grown-up world" takes hold and subdues it all.

Didn't see your comment, Anne, but I agree the right to stay home with your children should be supported and made available for all people in this society. Really, it is almost blasphemous these days to suggest we change our way of thinking about our present "job" oriented structure, our out-moded structure of work.... what a political weapon it has become, the enthroning of constant work for the benefit of business... even when it doesn't make sense, even when we no longer have time to live our lives.

wow at 59 she,s hot and your not.
whens that calender coming out.

Thanks Lynn. I recommend that everyone read the book "If Women Counted" by former New Zealand M.P. Marilyn Waring (I think I've got her name right, it's been a few years since I read her book). She points out that a pimp in Italy is considered to be contributing to the economy, while both a housewife in the U.S., and a young girl spending hours each day carrying water back to her family home in Africa are not! In short, she makes the point that the economy is supported by more than just paid work and that some paid work is destructive to humanity and to the planet. Also, that not only unpaid work, but the air and water, etc. are not factored in to what we call "the economy" and that they should be!

Anne- no. None of them have kids. Haha.. not even pets. I'm with you on wanting to be home to witness the child's first steps, though. It's inconceivable to me to bring a child into this world if I can't be with it every single moment of every day during its first few yrs (I'd need a LOT of financial security, wouldn't I?). I can't comprehend why people put their kids in daycare at age 3 (because they need to work, I know), so I'd just rather not have kids. Throw in overpopulation and the kind of world they'd be facing thirty years from now and- yikes- I even had this conversation with my dad on Saturday. Ya know he agreed...

My kid has been in daycare since she was one. She's better adjusted socially than most kids her age who spend all day home with their mom and don't get an opportunity to learn first-hand how to share and cooperate. Having first-rate ECE instructors has made all the difference for my child as I doubt I could have shown her any more love and affection than they did and I certainly could not have offered the specialized training they possess.

If you think being home with Mom (or Dad) all day actually improves a child's development I'd have to say my experience bears out the exact opposite.

Fii, That's how I felt when I was childless (I wasn't even "into" babies as a teen-ager or young woman) and I didn't want to add to overpopulation. But over-population isn't the only thing threatening the planet. When rich people and their families (however small) use up so much more of the earth's resources than poor people and their families (however large) do. I used birth control but I guess I was pretty fertile. I've had several accidental pregnancies (one with an I.U.D. in place) and, finally, I couldn't face another abortion and had the baby. I fell in love. For the first time in my life. With my baby daughter. No one was more surprised than I was at how much I wanted to be with her more than to be back at work. It was such a good experience that I had a second child. When I got pregnant again, (once more when a supposedly reliable method of birth control failed) at over 40, I had an abortion and then had my tubes tied. I just hadn't been ready to take that final step at under 30, and I'm glad I didn't! Don't be so sure you will never want children.

I'm glad, Stump, that your daycare providers have been so good. Not everyone can afford good daycare. And, training does not replace love. Did they love your child the way you do? I doubt it. Also, there is this thing about training and education. A person can get trained to the max, and still not be good at what they do. There are bad teachers, bad daycare workers, bad doctors, as well as good ones. And some lady with no training and a home daycare, but plenty of natural ability to deal with kids can be really good. So can some mothers. If that's what they want to do, I think we should let them.

Thanks for sharing that Anne. I have thought about adopting when I'm in my 40's- I guess I haven't been able to "take that final step under uh... 40" haha...