Tuesday, January 27, 2009
There is a strike by a Marxist faction of CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) at York University that has kept 50,000 students out of classes for months. The McQuinty fiberal government finally woke up to the injustice being perpetrated on these voters and their families and is proposing back to work legislation. In this day and age having a post secondary education or apprenticeship in the skilled trades should be considered essential. Logically the interruption of this education by greedy unions ought to be considered an essential service in need of restoration. If after 1 week of strike action keeping students out of classes this situation should have been referred to mandatory arbitration with guidelines respecting the economic times we live in. One of the strikers made a comment on the Toronto Star site here http://www.thestar.com/article/577751#Comments decrying her victim hood as follows:
Note the number of above disagreements to her postulations. The comments of this socialist loving victimized single mother are telling. She makes $28K per year for 3 hours work per day and $24K per year from a so called deadbeat ex. That $24K per year is tax free thus making it the equivalent of closer to $30K per year. $30K + $28K = $58K per year for 3 hours work per day. Who is the deadbeat here folks. Who has the entitlements and still doesn't give a rats A$$ about 50,000 students? This is the mentality of CUPE and its Marxist dogma.
The Star closed comments on this before mine above were published. I find it interesting how, in some cases like this, they close them so early. I'd be interested in knowing their "play book" respecting comments.
I wrote the following comments in the blog of a feminist trying to pretend she was actually trying to think outside her feminist box. Her scribbles failed although she didn't use the emotional rhetoric most of her kind do. The end result is always the same in the deterministic manner the logic flows from its source. She still shows she believes she is part of a great unwashed victim class and men rule in this patriarchal society. http://alterwords.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/parental-alienation-fathers-rights-womens-inequality/ You are trying so hard to be a level headed equalist but it has failed. Your victimhood shows through as does your bias toward the female of the species. You fall into the group of females that want it both ways despite your alleged academic qualifications. You infer that a man who has a difference of opinion with his female partner is abusive and your logic then goes on to also infer if he is that way with the mother of his children then he has a good chance to be that way with his children. Same old, same old feminist propaganda just repackaged in a more civilized tone. Tell men why is it that this perceived feminist underclass of victims gets physical custody in a 9-1 ratio and its concomitant entitlements such as child support and indeed alimony in some cases. Greed is good, just check the current Montreal case of the uber rich poor transplanted SA mom a victim of Quebec s common law rules. (but that's a whole other story). Why is it that the feminist myth of female victimhood tries to hide the fact that women institute violence against men in almost equal proportions and that the worst possible place to put children is in the custody of a single parent female who has the highest rate of abuse and killing of children. These are based on government produced statistics in Canada and the U.S.A. I see all these feminist blogs and the great consistency amongst them is the sense of victimhood of the scribes producing them. After almost two generations of affirmative action, bra burning and family courts run amok in favour of the female when will you all grow up and understand you will not be equal until you can stand on your owen two feet without all the entitlements and clearly see you are equal. There is a group of women in Canada who understands this. They call themselves Real Women not feminists. They have an annual non-tax supported convention every year. Not once in your scribbles have you made note of the great emotional pain this father suffered at the hands of a dysfunctional mother who could not see the value of the two biological parents in the lives of the children. Not once could you grasp all of the moments he has missed as his children were growing and what they have missed developmentally as a result. Your view appears to support the end justifies the means. I too developed an academic paper on how to win custody and one of the ways is to control and alienate the children against the target parent. The longer you can do this the better are your chances. After a period no court in the land dare change that. Well, guess what, the courts are started to "get it". Abuse is abuse and you seem to support the notion that it is better to have the children stay with the abuser than with the target. I find it to be an appalling point of view. If you do practice law no wonder the system is so dysfunctional. You are unable to think outside the box.