It can be an extremely delicate proposition to make a comparison of a woman to a dog, even in juxtaposition as the Toronto Sun has done here. Although it’s a common enough term for an employee who has lost favour with the boss, the historical implications will inevitably lead one to the “b-word”.
It’s one of the main complaints from feminists about women getting into politics, that they are always viewed through their gender, no matter what their politics might be. We remember how difficult that road was for Belinda Stronach, who arrived in politics with a silver spoon in her mouth and a leadership bid for the new Conservative Party.
Norman Spector, who leads this mornings news with a sarcastic remark about the Sun dog coverr as being a “great moment in journalism”, is the one who last touched off a firestorm involving Belinda Stronach and a female dog. Specifically, he called her a “bitch” in 2006, shortly after she crossed the floor to join the Liberal party.
The former chief of staff for Brian Mulroney refused to apologize at the time for the dog comment:
“I think she’s a bitch. It’s as simple as that. And I think that 90 percent of men would probably say she’s a bitch for the way she’s broken up (retired hockey player) Tie Domi’s home and the way she dumped Peter MacKay. She is a bitch.”
The controversy touched off a long debate about the role of women in politics, as many suggested that attitudes like this explained why they were not attracted to this kind of “dog-eat-dog” environment. Ironically, many Liberal supporters who had formerly castigated Ms.Stronach and made less than favourable remarks pertaining to her credentials, jumped to her defence once it was a Liberal parliamentarian under attack. Norman Spector explained it is a double standard.
“Why is it unacceptable? That’s what I think about her. I think it was much worse – a few years ago – when one of the Liberal members referred to (former Edmonton North MP) Deb Grey as a slab of meat quite frankly. I think that was totally unacceptable. But bitch is a word that I would use to describe someone like Belinda Stronach. It is a word that I use regularly.”
Although it’s true that there seems to be multipartisan disgust with the Toronto Sun dog cover, it raises the question of whether there are two standards for female parliamentarians: one for Liberals and one for Conservatives. With the heat that many of the female Ministers in the Conservative Cabinet like Bev Oda, Leona Aglukkaq, Lisa Raitt, Rona Ambrose, Diane Finley, and others have taken, it’s often wondered aloud if a certain level of sexist hostility is accepted because they’re conservatives.
It isn’t always very overt, but there is a subtle tendency to demand women in the Conservative Party, perhaps because they’re viewed as women who are fair game by virtue of their ideology. Because many conservatives reject socialist and feminist ideals about an inherent socioeconomic gender inequity, conservative women are viewed inherently as being against women’s rights, and as such are fair game to attack for that sense of betrayal.
You see this again and again, particularly in the United States, where populist politician Sarah Palin was openly mocked and sexualized by opponents, using her gender against her qualification for office. When pressed, most people would back down and say it had nothing to do with her gender, but the sexist vitriol spewed on the internet says otherwise.
To argue that a double standard doesn’t exist would be ignoring the obvious. One can only imagine the outrage if the black dog in the picture were juxtaposed to an outgoing Marlene Jennings. There would be riots in the streets. And yet somehow, this passed the editorial board of the Toronto Sun. It certainly makes you wonder about the integrity of the media.
Who are these people that believe the integrity of the media exists today?
I have a few bridges I could offload real cheap.
The opposition is trying to hold these women to the same standards they hold all politicians. You seem to be suggesting they should be handled differently because they are women.
The issue is with the gender specific term of “bitch”. I use it all the time too, and I call men “assholes” for the same reason I call women “bitches”. When is the last time anyone used a gender specific term to denigrate a male politician?
The Sun, which is openly conservative, is totally wrong here.
Who cares. If it was the Globe and Mail or the National Post it would be an issue, but it’s the Toronto Sun. Calling it a newspaper is rather a stretch. I think of it like a Canadianized version of a British tabloid.
The Toronto Sun didn’t call her a “bitch”, which in today’s slang means an irritable, disagreeable or argumentative female.
They did much worse by calling her a “dog”, the slang meaning being an ugly female. This from a so-called ‘reputable’ mainstream newspaper publication! Perhaps they thought this was funny, or at least that is would sell lots of newspapers for ‘souvenir’s’ sake.
Does anyone remember when blogger Mike Klander compared Olivia Chow to a chow-chow dog during the 2006 election? The media and public backlash was so great that he apologized and resigned from his position in the Liberal Party.
I wonder who will come to Ms. Guergis’ rescue for an equally despicable attack?
The Toronto Sun should apologize to Ms. Guergis and to females in general for their disrespectful, if not misogynistic cover page.
What parliamentarians can do is refuse to take any questions from Sun Media reporters until their employer’s transgression is corrected.
What idiot approves this crap. I wouldn’t care if it was Marlene Jennings (who annoys me to no end), this is so &(&(^ wrong. I am emailing my outrage to the Sun right now.
RE: You see this again and again, particularly in the United States, where populist politician Sarah Palin was openly mocked and sexualized by opponents, using her gender against her qualification for office. When pressed, most people would back down and say it had nothing to do with her gender, but the sexist vitriol spewed on the internet says otherwise.
This is one of the stupidest comments I’ve seen in a while, and that’s saying something. Sarah Palin was not openly mocked because she was a woman. She was openly mocked because she was intellectually unqualified for the high position she was seeking. As in “I can see Russia from my house” — Tina Fey’s excellent mocking of Palin’s moronic statement that because Alaska was sandwiched between Russia and Canada, that gave her foreign affairs experience. She also didn’t help herself much when she a) couldn’t identify a newspaper she read regularly; and b) winked incessantly at the camera during her VP debate with Joe Biden.
But hey, if you want to believe the criticisms were due to her being a woman, i suppose nothing will dissuade you of that stupid notion.
One of the stupidest? You must not get out much.
Certainly, there was a lot of criticizing her inexperience and lack of general knowledge. But so, too, was there plenty of references to her in sexual terms.
Not one front page in any Canadian newspaper was disrespectful to Chretien or Martin during the sponsorship scandal. But with only allegations the Toronto Sun shows no mercy to helena guergis….. Disgusting!!! All Canadians are asking for is fair play. Not foul play.
Gayle says ‘The opposition is trying to hold these women to the same standards they hold all politicians.You seem to be suggesting they should be handled differently because they are women.’
I can’t remember Gayle,
what is your stand on the Liberal policy on quota’s for women candidates/MPs?
Our Conservative women candidates get no parachutes into the easy win ridings……
vildechaye:
As opposed to Obama, who had extensive political experience and promised to speak to the “President” of Canada. Or who, because he lived for a time in Indonesia when he was a child, was attributed great foreign affairs experience. ‘Course that didn’t prevent him from royally botching a bow to the Japanese Emperor among many other missteps in that region.
Adrian:
I think there is a double standard for conservatives as opposed to liberals in general, however the Sun is not a liberal rag at all. This is conservative on conservative flack…
Eric,
You’re right, the Sun is generally conservative. And I don’t mean to say that they’re acting liberal. I’m more remarking on the fact that conservative women are seen as more fair game to attack, and I’ve hypothesized the reasons behind it.
Why the Toronto Sun did it is probably obvious. They’re kind of a tabloid and they thought it would generate some controversy.
The Libs are going after which ever rookie they think is the weakest link.
Any party that has a quota system for women candidates doesn’t have much confidence in their abilities….but to be fair, what Minister have the Libs not attacked?
Bev Oda, Leona Aglukkaq, Diane Finley have done amazingly well under attack.
PMSH scooped up Rona Ambrose before the opps could do real damage, she will return another day.
Lisa Raitt will work her way back.
This is the most offensive front page that I can ever recall seeing in a Canadian newspaper. The Editor should be fired for exhibiting excruciating bad taste and judgment. Generating controversy through good investigative journalism is fine, but this sort of imaging is simply disgusting. No public figure deserves this sort of treatment. And yes, women will be discouraged by this treatment from seeking public office: bet on it. Canadians have a serious sense of fair treatment and this is beyond the pall.
“what is your stand on the Liberal policy on quota’s for women candidates/MPs?”
What does that have to do with the topic here?
oh yeah – absolutely nothing.
Do try again dear wilson.
“The Libs are going after which ever rookie they think is the weakest link.”
Which has nothing to do with the gender of the person they are questioning.
maybe you have a hard time understanding that – what with you conservative types being professional victims and all…
Gayle, is this your troll corner now that Steve Janke is down?
Why not go to the Cornwall Free News, they would love the smell of your farts!
Garfield,
We all know the “Gayle” type in real life.
Her agenda, personal views must be correct as she dismisses others.
As a non-supporter of the Liberals she spends a large amount of time cleaning up for him/party.
She has stated she believes the PC in Alberta are the most corrupt in Canada. (Might be CPC now in Ottawa)
She is a true believer is socialism regardless of the millions who have died and continue to flee those models. She believes in a central authority, a big state government to manage our affairs.
Individuals are not responsible, and should be directed accordingly.
Many of them believe in eugencis (population control), gov’t ownership, control of airwaves to indoctrinate the masses.
Many of us grow up and out of the false Utopia from Marx, Hegel, Lenin.
Some do not. The by product is now a Global Warming Tax on Co2, Recycling programs, return of malaria in the poorest countries.
Why else do you think a priority was taxfunded abortions for the Congo?
A dangerous bunch when given the reigns of power.
Gayle,
You know it’s possible Wilso was just trying to ask an interesting question. Your response seemed to imply that you think he’s trying trap you in some way.
Personally I’d rather talk about the idea of gender quota’s for MP’s than the contents of a tabloid.
It’s certainly not a requirement of “liberalism” or the left that everyone has to support gender quotas for MP’s. Personally, I’d be interested in your take as you post here often enough.
And it’s not like it’s completely unrelated to the topic of Guergis.
I’d argue that part of the reason we’re having this conversation is that Mr. Harper appointed her to cabinet at least in part because she’s a woman and Canadians want some kind of gender balance on cabinet.
The Conservatives might not mandate that x% of candidates are women, but they certainly do make sure that they have enough women in cabinet. In this case it might have meant appointing Guergis to a position above where she should have been.
So any thoughts anyone? Are Canadians wrong to judge a cabinet based on it’s gender (or racial) balance? (I think so.) If so, should a Prime Minister ignore the fact that Canadians want this. (I think maybe only a little bit.)
Gayle, is the Liberal party wrong to overrule local nomination proceedings to ensure that they get enough women running for office?
“You know it’s possible Wilso was just trying to ask an interesting question. Your response seemed to imply that you think he’s trying trap you in some way.”
I have “known” wilson for a long time. She was simply interested in changing the subject to one where she can bash liberals, rather than one where we discuss conservatives.
“The Conservatives might not mandate that x% of candidates are women, but they certainly do make sure that they have enough women in cabinet.”
They have a few women in lesser cabinet posts. In this case, Harper appointed a former beauty queen to the Status of Women post, and she was clearly not up to snuff.
Meanwhile, he does not promote women who do have what it takes. Diane Ablonczy, for example, sits in a minor post when she is capable of much more.
Not that it really matters who is in cabinet, since Harper basically runs everything himself anyway. Aside from Day, Flaherty and Baird, I doubt anyone else has much to say about their portfolio.
Interesting. Thanks.
You didn’t answer the other question though. I assume you’re in agreement with that policy. Unfortunate.
I do not see the need to discuss a policy that no longer exists.
With reference to original subject of Adrian’s post – the Toronto Sun’s cover page – I don’t think that de-humanizing Ms. Guergis in such a hurtful and malicious fashion is a politically partisan issue.
In addition to the personal attack on Ms. Guergis, I believe the Sun was propagating a misogynistic stereo-type of women in general, and that they should apologize or accept the consequences of their actions.
I hope that members of all political parties, and female MPs in particular, will express their disgust for the Sun’s cover page on Monday and demand a public apology from the Sun.
I expressed my disapproval to the Toronto Sun’s Interim Editor-in-Chief, James Wallace, via email:
james.wallace@sunmedia.ca
http://www.torontosun.com/contactus/
I also copied certain members of parliament in my email to Mr. Wallace.
I find the vicious personal attacks on Sarah Palin coming from her liberal sisters inexplicable. I once saw a post on a feminist blog pointing out the obvious points, that Palin was a self-reliant, successful, strong, independent woman, the very sort of attributes feminists have been striving for. Instead of attacking her political views, they concentrate on her appearance, sexuality, clothes, family, etc. There should be lots of policies to criticize, without the over-the-top personal attacks.
Some of the attacks on Canadian consevatives seem to follow a similar pattern, particularly if they are reasonably attractive. Think of the comments on Rona Ambrose’s hair. Ms. Guergis was mocked for her voice in the House last year, by Carolyn Bennet.
The goal of attracting more women MPs is a goal most can support, but seeing the treatment one can expect, it will continue to be a hard sell.
Eric: The discussion is about Palin, not Obama. And if you want to compare Obama’s performance during the three presidential debates to Palin’s during the VP debate, i’m all for that. As for him being “attributed” foreign policy experience, that’s not exactly the same thing as “claiming” it, is it? And not bowing to the Emperor of Japan correctly isn’t quite the same as not being able to identify a newspaper you read. You know, ideological blinkers do just that… they make you lose your ability to see anything but what you’re supposed to see. Take em off once in a while, it’ll do your brain some good.
Adrian: I repeat, one of the stupidest. And I do get out quite a bit.
You’re new around here, buddy, so you’d hardly understand that you just called the most balanced guy around here “ideological”.
How about this. Read. Lurk. Relax. And then repost, once you have some idea of what you’re talking about.
I love this statement:
“She is a true believer is socialism regardless of the millions who have died and continue to flee those models.”
This rivals the Sarah Palin statement for stupidity. Equating supporters of the Liberal party like Gayle (assuming she does support them, i don’t really know) and Communist regimes that murdered and oppressed their citizens. My oh my, I suppose the citizens of, hmmm, let’s see, Netherlands, U.K., Sweden, Denmark, France, Israel, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario (all of which have had “social democratic governments [i.e. even further to the "left" than the Liberals"] also were murdered and those who weren’t also fled to escape the oppression of the welfare state. Sure they did…
This is what dittoheadism does to people…. very sad.
It is not a suprise people who don’t understand history how the socialist big government model has been used against it’s own citizens.
If we examine the Eastern socialist European governments, economic models (1945-1980) prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall 1989.
It pushed for large central control of food, industry production, millions died and lost their property rights.
For some people they pretend the reorganization of those political/economic models were not responsible. They want to blame the leadership only.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/
Perhaps he can list those successful socialist countries and their rankings in the OECD.
vildechaye:
Really? Cuz here I thought we were talking about the double standards applied to conservative women as opposed to other politicians.
I mean, Obama didn’t claim to be the saviour of the world right? Nothing about oceans receding and beginning to care for the sick, right? And he never claimed that running a campaign to become president qualified him for the position of president neither, right? He’s never made any gaffes or stupid comments, right? And Obama didn’t claim (wrongly) to be America’s first ‘Asian’ President (unlike Reagan who came from California or another president who was governor of the Philippines).
Obama (and others) have got off pretty much scott free for a lot of really dumb stuff, whereas Sarah Palin’s comments/gaffes were practically plastered on ever billboard from the Pacific to the Atlantic. She was hit by despicable smears concerning her daughter’s pregnancy and more from ‘respectable’ columnists just as much as Obama was hit by ridiculous claims surrounding his birth certificate.
The person wearing ideological blinders here is you. But in a way you’re kind of a case in point, you refuse to accept that Obama’s (a liberal man) gaffes in any way equate to Sarah Palin’s (a conservative woman) gaffes.
Its touching your concern for my brain, but fear not, it is quite well as I am willing to acknowledge stupidity no matter where it comes from and not try to make excuses for either side.
vildechaye – you should not assume anything said by one poster about another is true.
For example, I am not, in fact, a socialist. Someone decided to call me one and then proceeded to post a lengthy diatribe about how awful socialism is, in an attempt to discredit me.
Personally, I cannot take someone seriously when they rely on personal attacks instead of addressing the argument. You may agree, or not, as is your prerogative.
Gayle,
the post on the socialism of Eastern Europe is not about you. It is about classifying a group of posters that have a similar posting pattern.
Are you going to deny the pattern next?
Your posts favour an advocacy of a economic socialist model of a larger central planning government.
More taxes for wealth redistribution.
Feel free to provide proof of posts against more taxes, larger role for more central planning.
Gayle: I didn’t assume you were a socialist, i assumed you were a Liberal supporter, as i am; if that is incorrect, sorry about that.
Erik: you’re a lost cause. I have no interest in “debating” dim dittoheads.” If, as Adrian maintains, you’re one of the “balanced” ones here, God help this blog and those who waste their time here. I won’t be one of them. Gayle, i suggest you upand run as well. You’re the only one who makes any sense here.
By all, Enjoy yourselves in dittohead heaven.
The dog in the picture is my dog Genny. At least you could all go to the blog and giver her a read and show your support for what this was originally meant to be
http://durhamregion.typepad.com/simplyput/
Marven Whidden