![[small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGczmWu7Wwc/SdCJyy2LN1I/AAAAAAAABWE/ABYCkbJaKaQ/s1600/small-web-version_harperfree_poster.jpg)
Yep, our whiny woe is me, because I’m white stay at home, Sarah Palin look-a-like, Blogging SupposiTory demonstrates this, or rather, a commenter does. I’ll get to that later. This time our Junior Sarah Palin is in a snit because of Olivia Chow’s private members’ bill, C-373, which basically would:
establish criteria and conditions in respect of funding for early learning and child care programs in order to ensure the quality, accessibility, universality and accountability of those programs, and to appoint a council to advise the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on matters relating to early learning and child care
Now, to my sane readers, this seems like a pretty good proposal and we would like to see something like this pass, right? Well, of course, not to dear Sarah, who of course, has to be the fly in the ointment when it comes to keeping all of us in the 21st century:
Ms Olivia Chow has yet again created a Private Members Bill to enshrine childcare, aka non profit daycare into Canadian legislation just like our Health Care System.
For years Ms. Olivia Chow has been attempting to put this type of bill through the house of commons. Bill C303 was another we fought a few years ago to stop Ms. Olivia Chow and her reign of terror into our tax dollars.
Ok, just to get your little health care distaste out of the way, Sarah, just remove you and your entire family off of OHIP and use the private for profit facilities available to you in Ottawa and around. Otherwise, stop bitching about it!
Back to the topic at hand, Olivia Chow–reign of terror?? Into your tax dollars?? I’m sure you prefer your tax dollars go into more tame things like stealth fighter jets? Big-assed prisons? Corporate tax cuts? Pork barreling? Funding of Christian colleges and bible translators? And maybe even that hockey arena in Quebec City? That’s right, chickie-doo! Stevie Spiteful still hasn’t ruled it out, yet! Oh yeah! Real useful for struggling working families.
It gets even more amusing:
Olivia Chow and the NDP are only wanting non-profit daycare to be on the receiving end of funding from the Federal government
Well, hello? That’s how it should be! Governments shouldn’t be subsidizing the private for profit health care and private schools or anything in the private sector, although, sadly, governments do–hence, why so many public services tend to suffer. Since you appear to hate public services so much, dear Sarah, not only do I hope your entire family has dropped outta OHIP, but I hope you never cash your family allowance checques and that you do send your kids to a private school with no government subsidies. Anything short of that would just make you one of Canada’s top right wing hypocrites. So, Sarah, you would rather see public services, which are more universal. However, I guess a middle-class princess who can afford teh life of leisure of staying home such as yourself really wouldn’t get that, would she?
Oh, and as promised, a bonus track from her anonymous commenter.
just what we need. more dimwitted government employees brain washing tiny children before they even get brain washed by public school. how about no to any daycare. have a child, support it. stay home and raise it. if you don’t want to do that don’t have a child.
Yeah, brainwashed into learning how to read, then write (oh the horror!) and then, get ready for it…math! EEEEEKKKKK !!!!! Off to the fainting couch with you!! I guess in Anon’s world, children should only be plugged into video games all day and the only intellectual thing they should learn is the bible. Yeah, Anon, I wouldn’t wanna divulge my identity neither.
If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say the anonymous commenter was “homeskooled”. Poor thing doesn’t even know how to work a Shift key. Your tax dollars (not) at work, Canada!
“However, I guess a middle-class princess who can afford teh life of leisure of staying home…” Fuck off. That just shows how little you know about what it’s like to stay home with kids. Life of leisure. *snort* It took me 2 hours to read this and comment to it. Because I could only get 30 or 40 seconds at a time – 3 minutes while the kids ate. Thanks so much for being such a great feminist that you can totally denigrate the lifestyle of thousands of women.
What really pisses me off is that I agree with virtually EVERYTHING you’ve said here. Sara Landriault is an ignorant, privileged, asshole. I’d LOVE to see a universal daycare program. And no, no government money should be subsidizing private industries. I completely agree. I just REALLY hate how you completely minimized the work of stay-at-home mothers to do it.
ck Reply:
February 15th, 2011 at 2:03 PM
You misunderstood. I get there are many who have no choice but to stay home, due to lack of unaffordable, quality child care, particularly if the kids are not of school age yet or disability or chronic illness or lack of jobs these days; that may well be your situation, I don’t know.
I’m talking about those, like dear little Sara, who have chosen to stay at home and preach about staying at home and then when she decides to go to work, refuses to start at the bottom of the ladder, like say, cleaning toilets at MacDonalds or going back to school; those who categorically refuse to join the 21st century, spit at our mothers’ efforts in the past so we could have rights, so we can earn a living to be able to provide for our families without being dependent on men, among other things. These ‘women’ (I call ‘em little girls, because they never grew up) seriously have to give up their barbies. They are not feminists and I have zero respect for them. And there are quite a few of ‘em in our midst. Just read the she-Blogging SupposiTories sometime.
I’m still having issues with this. I’ll try not to jump to any more conclusions than I already have.
It still seems to me like you’re saying that any woman who decides to stay home, rather than being forced to by circumstance, is a spoiled princess.
But what I really have an issue with is the “life of leisure of staying home” comment. Really? You think this is a leisurely life? Would you say the same of a nanny who is required to cook, clean, chauffeur, and teach?
Regardless of the reason a woman (or man) stays home with the kids, it’s a shit-pile of work. I mean, maybe Sara has herself a cook, a maid, a driver, a tutor for the kids, a nanny, and … shit, I don’t even know the term for someone who arranges everything in a household, pays the bills, makes the appointments, arranges the playdates, the lessons, etc., but I doubt it.
I really feel like you minimized the value of the work of a stay-at-home parent.
Ugh. Now I feel dirty for defending Sara. Bleh. I’m not though. I’m defending the choice that many women make. To stay home and raise their kids. And damn, I know that sounds like I’m saying that women who have paying jobs aren’t raising their kids, but that’s just not what I mean at all. I just think that women should be able to choose what they want to do without having their choices devalued by feminists.
Oh, and as for the she-Blogging SupposiTories (OMG! LOVE that term!) NO THANK YOU. My life is stressful enough without reading shit that is guaranteed to infuriate me (I’m Christian, but I’m a pinko socialist, feminist, tree-hugging nutbar), and give me no satisfaction in discussing it. At least here, I was rather sure I’d get a decent conversation.
ck Reply:
February 15th, 2011 at 8:22 PM
I’ll answer you later, Luna. I’ve had a pretty crappy day. I found out a co-worker and a friend had died and I only hope it was peaceful. My point is, when I’ve had a dreadful day and I’m let loose with a keyboard, well, it’s really not pretty. So, I save that for taking out my frustrations on the world of right wingnuttery.
Luna Reply:
February 16th, 2011 at 1:25 PM
Oh, I’m sorry for your loss. How awful for everyone involved. My sincere condolences.
ck Reply:
February 16th, 2011 at 2:00 PM
Thanks