NationStates Jolt Archive

I was watching the Canadian house debate yesterday regarding the stimulus, where I saw many Lib/NDP MPs talking about pay equity and the Conservatives disregarding women's rights in general.

I have never seen women being discriminated for anything; I have many women superiors with a higher salary than the male me. AFAIK abortion in Canada is legal in all ways -- which is as I understand it a fundamental left-wing women's right of babies being the property of individuals.

Wiki and Google revealed nothing about current violations of women's rights in Canada, would somebody help clarify the Lib/NDP's issues for me?

I think the debate over pay difference would not deal with your superiors but your peers. I'm not familiar with Canada, but in the US women generally get paid 75% of the salary of their male counterparts. Its not an active difference, but rather a passive one from the bygone (supposedly) days of gender inequality.

I think its to do with women traditionally doing shitty jobs like teaching that pay crap and men doing much better paying jobs like traffic wardens

I think its to do with women traditionally doing shitty jobs like teaching that pay crap and men doing much better paying jobs like traffic wardens

Is this that thing called irony?

Yeah there isn't much of a prooblem with pay descrepancy in Canada because Canadian women don't have a lot of babies compared to American women.

I have never seen women being discriminated for anything

I've never seen anyone shoot anyone else. That doesn't mean people don't shoot each other.

I have many women superiors with a higher salary than the male me.

Which they should, having a higher position than you do. Which is not the same as equal pay for equal work.

AFAIK abortion in Canada is legal in all ways -- which is as I understand it a fundamental left-wing women's right of babies being the property of individuals.

When you say ridiculously ignorant things like this, it's hard to even want to converse with you. Abortion rights have nothing to do with "babies" or their status as "property". The "left-wing" pro-choice camp stands behind the radical notion that a woman's body belongs to her.

I have never seen women being discriminated for anything; I have many women superiors with a higher salary than the male me. AFAIK abortion in Canada is legal in all ways -- which is as I understand it a fundamental left-wing women's right of babies being the property of individuals.

That's what I've seen in America, too, but that doesn't mean discrimination doesn't happen. It's worth discussion.

I was watching the Canadian house debate yesterday regarding the stimulus, where I saw many Lib/NDP MPs talking about pay equity and the Conservatives disregarding women's rights in general.

I have never seen women being discriminated for anything; I have many women superiors with a higher salary than the male me. AFAIK abortion in Canada is legal in all ways -- which is as I understand it a fundamental left-wing women's right of babies being the property of individuals.

Wiki and Google revealed nothing about current violations of women's rights in Canada, would somebody help clarify the Lib/NDP's issues for me?

I know nothing about the Lib/NDP's issues. The magic of Google, however, provides copious information about women's rights issues in Canada.

re pay inequity
http://canadianlabour.ca/en/pay-equity-0
http://www.fafia-afai.org/en/pay_equity_and_women_in_canada

re domestic violence and sexual assault
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/0100085-224-XIE.pdf
http://www.elitecanada.com/pdfs/cnd_rape_stats.pdf

re sexual harassment
http://www.medhunters.com/articles/theUnexpectedWorldOfSexualHarassment.html
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/faq/sexual_harassment.html

P.S. Your view that control over one's own body is some kind of extreme leftist creed of property rights to children is bizarre and ridiculous.

The Conservatives closed down 75% of status of women offices and generally cut funding to groups that stopped/monitored discrimination against women. Also in Harper's first cabinet there were very few woman and the most high profile one was only there for him to use as a scapegoat.

When I worked at Cinemark down here...I was hired on at the same time for the same position as a female, I got $6.50, she got $6.25...

So its a problem in the US, and if its similar in Canada, then there is a problem there too...

Problem? There's no problems here, Canada is the promised land where nothing can ever go wrong. Move Along.

In the day of law suits and police investigations, most of the pay differences are from choices that in general men and women make about their lives which affects their careers.

In the day of law suits and police investigations, most of the pay differences are from choices that in general men and women make about their lives which affects their careers.

Not even remotely close to true.

But if such lies get you and your penis through the night ....

I have never seen women being discriminated for anything; I have many women superiors with a higher salary than the male me.

Well that means nothing. I haven't seen war first-hand, I haven't seen rape, that doesn't mean they don't happen.

Not even remotely close to true.

But if such lies get you and your penis through the night ....

Crying and holding onto one another, no doubt.

P.S. Your view that control over one's own body is some kind of extreme leftist creed of property rights to children is bizarre and ridiculous.

I assure you I am not trolling, in fact I am politically pro-choice myself. I apologize for any offense caused by my use of the term baby instead of fetus.

I made the abortion comment because, I believe it is a general-left perspective that abortion rights is one of the fundamental issues concerning women's rights, in contrast to more conservative and religious perspectives on abortion.


Religious position: fetii are entitled to the liberty of life

Leftist position: the fetus is part of the woman, and is therefore solely the choice of the woman to abort it or not -- in essence making it her property

Let's not discuss abortion anymore, I sure as hell won't.


Thank you, Cat, Ristle and Skallvia for an otherwise helpful response.

Threadshitter(s): please fuck off. Ryadn I don't give half a shit about your opinion on abortion rights and your leftist persecution complex.

Well that means nothing. I haven't seen war first-hand, I haven't seen rape, that doesn't mean they don't happen.

I've never seen rape too, but I read about occurences of rapes quite frequently. Suicide, which I've also never seen, is also a media subject.

Women being discriminated in Canada is something I haven't read on the newspaper, which is why I was surprised to see the issue being talked about in the house debate.

I think the debate over pay difference would not deal with your superiors but your peers. I'm not familiar with Canada, but in the US women generally get paid 75% of the salary of their male counterparts. Its not an active difference, but rather a passive one from the bygone (supposedly) days of gender inequality.

I've had several stats profs who've insisted that the problem is the time scale over which pay is measured. In this case, they've claimed that while on a per-week basis, the 75% rate remains true, when you look at it on a per-hour basis it reflects a 90-95% rate because statistically women work fewer hours than men.

Whether it's true or not, I've not had the time to look too far into it, but I've heard that in class.

From what I can tell, Women are tread more equally in Canada than in the states but there are still some serious issues especially when you get into sexual assault and/or violence against women. Robert Pickton would be a prime example of the discrepancies in the Police forces view of women in British Colombia at the very least.

From what I can tell, Women are tread more equally in Canada than in the states but there are still some serious issues especially when you get into sexual assault and/or violence against women.
What about violence against men or children?

After all, a lot of the domestic violence is committed by women (a quickly googled source (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a)) and against young children majority of the cases involve the mother rather than the father (a source (http://fathersforlife.org/fv/deadlier_than_the_male.htm): Of 1,262 American children murdered in families in 1996, women murdered 984 and men murdered 278). I'm sure you've all come across the "violence against women and children" lingo...The problem is that it just isn't true (http://fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/debunkingDV.htm).

Another issue I have with so-called equality is represented by this (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/10/breast.cancer.awareness/index.html) under the misleading title of HEALTH EDUCATION - War on cancer on CNN....I'm sure you all know that more men die of cancer than women?


Just sayin' that equality means two (or more) relatively equal parties, rather than more rights for the one party.


On topic of women - or men - getting less pay for the *same* job: It is illegal here, most likely across EU and should be illegal in your (as in y'all) country as well.

What about violence against men or children?

After all, a lot of the domestic violence is committed by women (a quickly googled source (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a)) and against young children majority of the cases involve the mother rather than the father (a source (http://fathersforlife.org/fv/deadlier_than_the_male.htm): Of 1,262 American children murdered in families in 1996, women murdered 984 and men murdered 278). I'm sure you've all come across the "violence against women and children" lingo...The problem is that it just isn't true (http://fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/debunkingDV.htm).

Another issue I have with so-called equality is represented by this (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/10/breast.cancer.awareness/index.html) under the misleading title of HEALTH EDUCATION - War on cancer on CNN....I'm sure you all know that more men die of cancer than women?


Just sayin' that equality means two (or more) relatively equal parties, rather than more rights for the one party.


On topic of women - or men - getting less pay for the *same* job: It is illegal here, most likely across EU and should be illegal in your (as in y'all) country as well.
Well this should be interesting.

1) Violence against Children is, admittedly, a big issue but violence against men is much more limited. Source (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/2006001/4054095-eng.htm).

2) ok You need to check exactly what those sources are saying before you post them cause frankly, their bogus. Source one, for example covers a pathetically small age range and looks only at the instigator (who's meaning they did not define) of Non-reciprocal violence. That could mean that a woman, shouting at a man could be seen as the instigator of a non-reciprocal violence after she was assaulted. Your other two "sources" are both from an entirely biased site. My suggestion? Check out the statistics for yourself from the Statistics Canada source above.

3) You've got an issue because . . . ?I honestly can't see your issue with this Article and the title of the article is "Breast cancer message goes global ". You can tell . . .cause its the bold font typeface at the top of the article. . .

4) lol check out those statistics again in and get back to me. Men (in both the US of A and Canada) are "more equal" than women.

5)Dunno where your from but I'd like to see you cite that.

Well this should be interesting.
No, it's not interesting - It's sad.

Women can be perpetrators and men victims as well - However, this is often overlooked by society as a whole.

1) Violence against Children is, admittedly, a big issue but violence against men is much more limited
Limited in what way?

A source (http://www.dvmen.org/dv-31.htm#pgfId-1000404):
Results: Of 866 male patients interviewed, 109 (12.6%) had been the victims of domestic violence committed by a female intimate partner within the preceding year. Victims were more likely to be younger, single, African American, and uninsured. The most common forms of assault were slapping, grabbing, and shoving (60.6% of victims). These were followed by choking, kicking, biting, and punching (48.6%), or throwing an object at the victim (46.8%). Thirty-seven percent of cases involved a weapon. Seven percent of victims described being forced to have sex. Nineteen percent of victims contacted the police; 14% required medical attention; 11% pressed charges or sought a restraining order; and 6% pursued follow-up counseling.
Source one, for example covers a pathetically small age range and looks only at the instigator (who's meaning they did not define) of Non-reciprocal violence. That could mean that a woman, shouting at a man could be seen as the instigator of a non-reciprocal violence after she was assaulted
The pie chart slice in question specifically says: Perpetrated by women.

What is perpetrated? Non-reciprocal inter-personal violence.
Your other two "sources" are both from an entirely biased site.
The problem is that there are very few neutral sites. Most sites however equate domestic violence = male abusing women & children

Also, saying a source is biased without giving an example of the bias or good counter to its claims isn't productive.
My suggestion? Check out the statistics for yourself from the Statistics Canada source above.
Analysis in this document focuses on acts of violence against women that have been quantified using statistical survey techniques.

You call that an unbiased source?

3) You've got an issue because . . . ?
More men die of cancer, but are often forgotten completely in Cancer Awarness Campaigns.

In case you missed it in my post, the title of that article on the CNN (International) home page was HEALTH EDUCATION - War on cancer.

4) lol check out those statistics again in and get back to me. Men (in both the US of A and Canada) are "more equal" than women.
That depends on what you mean by "more equal"...Consider for example custody cases.

Also, there are sources (http://www.4famlaw.com/genbfamc.htm) which outright disagree with your generalizing assessment.

5)Dunno where your from but I'd like to see you cite that.
Lessee (http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:o16ldR-G9KAJ:www.iwraw-ap.org/resources/documents/GE_Finland.doc+8.8.1986/609&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6):
Section 7

Prohibition of discrimination

Direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited.

For the purposes of this Act, discrimination on the basis of sex means:

(1) treating men and women differently on the basis of sex;

(2) treating women differently for reasons of pregnancy or childbirth; or

(3) treating men and women differently on the basis of parenthood, family responsibilities or for some other reason related to sex.

Discrimination is also involved in any procedure whereby people are de facto assigned a different status in relation to each other for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 2.


Section 8

Discrimination in working life

The action of an employer shall be deemed to constitute discrimination prohibited under section 7, if the employer, upon engaging a person or selecting a person for a particular job or training, bypasses a more qualified person of the opposite sex, unless the employer can prove that the action was based on weighty and acceptable grounds related to the quality of the work or job or that the action was due to a reason other than sex and considered an acceptable reason.

The actions of an employer shall likewise be deemed to constitute discrimination prohibited under section 7, if the employer

(1) upon engaging a person or selecting a person for a particular job or training bypasses a person on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or for some other reason related to sex, or on such grounds restricts the duration of the employee's employment relationship or its extension;

(2) applies to an employee or employees, on the basis of sex, terms of payment or employment less favourable than those he or she applies to an employee or several other employees in the same work or work of equal value;

(3) manages the work, distributes tasks, or otherwise arranges the working conditions so that an employee or several employees is/are assigned a clearly less favourable status than others on the basis of sex;

(4) neglects his or her obligations under section 6, paragraph 2, subparagraph 4 to eliminate sexual harassment;

(5) weakens the working conditions or the terms of employment of an employee after the employee has appealed to the rights and obligations stipulated in this Act; or

(6) on the basis of sex, gives an employee or employees notice, or terminates an employment relationship, or otherwise causes it to terminate, or transfers or lays off an employee or employees.

An employer shall not be deemed to have violated the prohibition on discrimination stipulated in subparagraphs 1-3 or 5-6 of paragraph 2 if he or she can prove that his or her procedure was based on grounds other than the employee's sex and considered acceptable grounds.


edit:
Here's (http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/index_en.html) the European Commission's page on Gender Equality and some of the directives (http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/legislation/legalacts_en.html) involved.

What about violence against men or children?

After all, a lot of the domestic violence is committed by women (a quickly googled source (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a)) and against young children majority of the cases involve the mother rather than the father (a source (http://fathersforlife.org/fv/deadlier_than_the_male.htm): Of 1,262 American children murdered in families in 1996, women murdered 984 and men murdered 278). I'm sure you've all come across the "violence against women and children" lingo...The problem is that it just isn't true (http://fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/debunkingDV.htm).


Great sources you've got there. Fathers for life?

Let's look at some real statistics from objective sources:

*Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older. This violence results in nearly 2 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths (Centers for Disease Control, 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/index.htm))

*The US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm) (February 2003) reports that women were 85% of the victims of intimate violence (other than murder) in 2001. Previously (October 2001), the Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipva99.htm) had also reported that "Women accounted for 85% of the victims from among the more than 790,000 victims of intimate violence in 1999".

*In the United States, researchers estimate that 40% to 70% of female murder victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, frequently in the context of an ongoing abusive relationship. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm)) On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

*The National Institute of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm) found in 2000 that "approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States." Almost 25% of women, and 7.5% of men, had been raped and/or assaulted by a date or partner at some time in their lives. Women who were assaulted by an intimate sustained a higher number of assaults, and were more likely to have been injured in the most recent attack, than men who were assaulted. In addition, the study found that "503,485 women and 185,496 men are stalked by an intimate partner annually in the United States."

*According the US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vbi.htm) in 1994, "Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced over 572,000 violent victimizations committed by an intimate, compared to approximately 49,000 incidents committed against men."

*The Study of Injured Victims of Violence (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vrithed.htm) (US Department of Justice, 1997) surveyed injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. 4.5% of male victims had been injured by an intimate, compared to 36.8% of the female victims. Of the 243,000 people who had been injured by an intimate, 39,000 (16%) were men and 204,000 (84%) were women. (In 30% of cases, the relationship between the injured person and their attacker was not identified.)

Among more statistics (http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html):
*as many as 95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male.
(A Report of the Violence against Women Research Strategic Planning Workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995. )

*much of female violence is committed in self-defense, and inflicts less injury than male violence. (Chalk & King, eds., Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention & Treatment Programs, National Resource Council and Institute of Medicine, p. 42 (1998)).

No, it's not interesting - It's sad.

. . . .well that was . . .interesting?


Women can be perpetrators and men victims as well - However, this is often overlooked by society as a whole.

true. Happens less but true. I'm not disputing that. Trying to claim that violence against women is somehow mitigated by this fact is what I'm disputing.


Limited in what way?

A source (http://www.dvmen.org/dv-31.htm#pgfId-1000404):
Results: Of 866 male patients interviewed, 109 (12.6%) had been the victims of domestic violence committed by a female intimate partner within the preceding year. Victims were more likely to be younger, single, African American, and uninsured. The most common forms of assault were slapping, grabbing, and shoving (60.6% of victims). These were followed by choking, kicking, biting, and punching (48.6%), or throwing an object at the victim (46.8%). Thirty-seven percent of cases involved a weapon. Seven percent of victims described being forced to have sex. Nineteen percent of victims contacted the police; 14% required medical attention; 11% pressed charges or sought a restraining order; and 6% pursued follow-up counseling.

This study Asked only men who were visiting an urban hospital in an Urban bias. Selection bias alone makes it non-valid. More importantly, it asked only the male what had happened, there was no other input and no way to back up those claims. (more importantly there is no way to access this data The only verification that a study occurred is the assertion that one did by the users of the site. ) Even more pointed, did you add up those percentages? thered have to be more than 30% crossover between more than 2 sub-categories (run the math if you want) (meaning someone would have had to have something thrown at them, been attacked with a weapon, strangled and slapped . . .all at once. . .)



The pie chart slice in question specifically says: Perpetrated by women.
What is perpetrated? Non-reciprocal inter-personal violence.

lol ok so a women shouts at a man and he hits her. she is the "perpetrator" of non-reciprocal violence (she didn't hit him back). See the problem here?



The problem is that there are very few neutral sites. Most sites however equate domestic violence = male abusing women & children

Also, saying a source is biased without giving an example of the bias or good counter to its claims isn't productive.


lol really . . .have you READ that site? ok this is the site that states in its mission statement that it is highly conservative. It also claims that "The life span of gays is 20 years shorter than the life span of heterosexuals." (http://fathersforlife.org/Table_contents_gj.htm#Gay_Issues). You seriously wanna claim that this site is clearly unbiased and has strong factual backing?



Analysis in this document focuses on acts of violence against women that have been quantified using statistical survey techniques.

You call that an unbiased source?

yes. every study has a focal point or what would you be studying? This is statistics Cananda, which has no stake whatsoever in the issue and is generally regarded as a fair and unbiased source for material. A lot more so than the . . . *cough* . . .stuff you sourced. More importantly in case you've never taken statistics either you have to " quantify using statistical survey techniques" or you have to poll an entire population (ie. the population of the world).


More men die of cancer, but are often forgotten completely in Cancer Awarness Campaigns.

In case you missed it in my post, the title of that article on the CNN (International) home page was HEALTH EDUCATION - War on cancer.

Was it? could you link me there? Cause the link you gave has the title I posted.

Also "often forgotten completely " that is frankly bullshit
http://www.mrtesticles.com/
http://www.livestrong.org/site/c.khLXK1PxHmF/b.4511365/
http://www.skincancer.gov.au/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c4VjRbUTMU
http://www.lungcancer.org/
http://www.tbrhsc.net/patient_information/media_releases/prostate_cancer_awareness_campaign_2006.asp
(these are first page sites from a Google search under "Cancer Awarness Campaigns." and "Cancer Awareness Campaigns.")


That depends on what you mean by "more equal"...Consider for example custody cases.

Also, there are sources (http://www.4famlaw.com/genbfamc.htm) which outright disagree with your generalizing assessment.

Please please just go and get STATISTICS to back yourself up. I really don't care how but find an original source for a survey rather than posting these Blatantly pro-male (I'm a guy btw) sites. Even if all you do is go to the source that they are citing and cite it instead. This Page is a classic case. The specific study they cited for this is apparently in a peer reviewed journal which it is not possible to access. That makes me a little Leary of exactly how they got (read fabricated) this data.



Lessee (http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:o16ldR-G9KAJ:www.iwraw-ap.org/resources/documents/GE_Finland.doc+8.8.1986/609&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6):
Section 7

Prohibition of discrimination

Direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited.

For the purposes of this Act, discrimination on the basis of sex means:

(1) treating men and women differently on the basis of sex;

(2) treating women differently for reasons of pregnancy or childbirth; or

(3) treating men and women differently on the basis of parenthood, family responsibilities or for some other reason related to sex.

Discrimination is also involved in any procedure whereby people are de facto assigned a different status in relation to each other for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 2.


Section 8

Discrimination in working life

The action of an employer shall be deemed to constitute discrimination prohibited under section 7, if the employer, upon engaging a person or selecting a person for a particular job or training, bypasses a more qualified person of the opposite sex, unless the employer can prove that the action was based on weighty and acceptable grounds related to the quality of the work or job or that the action was due to a reason other than sex and considered an acceptable reason.

The actions of an employer shall likewise be deemed to constitute discrimination prohibited under section 7, if the employer

(1) upon engaging a person or selecting a person for a particular job or training bypasses a person on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or for some other reason related to sex, or on such grounds restricts the duration of the employee's employment relationship or its extension;

(2) applies to an employee or employees, on the basis of sex, terms of payment or employment less favourable than those he or she applies to an employee or several other employees in the same work or work of equal value;

(3) manages the work, distributes tasks, or otherwise arranges the working conditions so that an employee or several employees is/are assigned a clearly less favourable status than others on the basis of sex;

(4) neglects his or her obligations under section 6, paragraph 2, subparagraph 4 to eliminate sexual harassment;

(5) weakens the working conditions or the terms of employment of an employee after the employee has appealed to the rights and obligations stipulated in this Act; or

(6) on the basis of sex, gives an employee or employees notice, or terminates an employment relationship, or otherwise causes it to terminate, or transfers or lays off an employee or employees.

An employer shall not be deemed to have violated the prohibition on discrimination stipulated in subparagraphs 1-3 or 5-6 of paragraph 2 if he or she can prove that his or her procedure was based on grounds other than the employee's sex and considered acceptable grounds.


edit:
Here's (http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/index_en.html) the European Commission's page on Gender Equality and some of the directives (http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/legislation/legalacts_en.html) involved.

I'd be interested in knowing how that works in practice but it looks good on paper.

*snip*
Thank you :D

Women are demanding rights now? I knew we should never have let them vote. It just started them down a slippery slope. Soon they'll be demanding higher pay than men and a matrilineal organisation of society! Back to the kitchen, I say.

Women are demanding rights now? I knew we should never have let them vote. It just started them down a slippery slope. Soon they'll be demanding higher pay than men and a matrilineal organisation of society! Back to the kitchen, I say.
:) niiice

Great sources you've got there. Fathers for life?
Unbiased sources and studies are hard to come by.

The site however is not the source, but more akin to a portal.

Let's look at some real statistics from objective sources:

*Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older. This violence results in nearly 2 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths (Centers for Disease Control, 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/index.htm))
Two things:
The study is labelled Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States

...and secondly...
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors191.pdf

Figure 7.1
Proportion of victims percieving incident to be a crime

Just Something That Happens - Male victims: 63%/80%, Female victims: 19%/37%

*In the United States, researchers estimate that 40% to 70% of female murder victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, frequently in the context of an ongoing abusive relationship. (Centers for Disease Control) On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.
Now that's an odd one...This (http://www.helpstartshere.org/Default.aspx?PageID=1248#facts) site has numbers from -05:
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, 1,055 women and 287 men were murdered by their intimate partners in 2005. These figures are striking, because in the past, in the 1970s and earlier, the numbers of men and women so victimized were about even. In other words, there has been a significant decline in the numbers of men killed by their partners but not for women.

The number of men who were murdered by intimates dropped by 75% between 1976 and 2005 (BJS). The number of black females murdered in this time has declined but the number of white females murdered has dropped only by 6%. Statistics Canada (1998, 2005), similarly, reveals a sharp decline in the numbers of male domestic homicide victims but not of female victims of homicide.


*The National Institute of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm) found in 2000 that "approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States." Almost 25% of women, and 7.5% of men, had been raped and/or assaulted by a date or partner at some time in their lives. Women who were assaulted by an intimate sustained a higher number of assaults, and were more likely to have been injured in the most recent attack, than men who were assaulted. In addition, the study found that "503,485 women and 185,496 men are stalked by an intimate partner annually in the United States."

Show me a man who reports an incident of sexual abuse....and is taken seriously.

Though, I do admit that's a grim statistic dominated by men.
*According the US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vbi.htm) in 1994, "Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced over 572,000 violent victimizations committed by an intimate, compared to approximately 49,000 incidents committed against men."
From the actual source that bit links:
* The number of female victims of intimate violence has been
declining. In 1996 women experienced an estimated 840,000 rape,
sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault
victimizations at the hands of an intimate, down from 1.1
million in 1993.

* Intimate violence against men did not vary significantly from
1992 to 1996. In 1996 men were victims of about 150,000 violent
crimes committed by an intimate.


*The Study of Injured Victims of Violence (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vrithed.htm) (US Department of Justice, 1997) surveyed injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. 4.5% of male victims had been injured by an intimate, compared to 36.8% of the female victims. Of the 243,000 people who had been injured by an intimate, 39,000 (16%) were men and 204,000 (84%) were women. (In 30% of cases, the relationship between the injured person and their attacker was not identified.)
But that link leads into: Presents findings from a study of violence-related injuries treated in hospital emergency departments in 1994 :confused:

Furthermore the ASCII text file has this table:
Number Percent Number Percent
Total 862,000 100.0% 554,700 100.0%
Spouse/exspouse 15,400 1.8 88,400 15.9
Other relative 56,900 6.6 52,600 9.5
Boy/girlfriend 23,600 2.7 116,000 20.9
Other friend 142,100 16.5 86,100 15.5
Other acquaintance 75,200 8.7 27,200 4.9
Stranger 248,800 28.9 77,500 14.0
Not reported *300,100* 34.8 106,900 19.3



Among more statistics (http://ww
w.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html):
*as many as 95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male.
A site (http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm):
An estimated 400,000 women per year are abused or treated violently in the United States by their spouse or intimate partner. This means that roughly 300,000 to 400,000 men are treated violently by their wife or girl friend.

*much of female violence is committed in self-defense, and inflicts less injury than male violence. (Chalk & King, eds., Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention & Treatment Programs, National Resource Council and Institute of Medicine, p. 42 (1998)).

That's an interesting version of the quote...The actual quote goes like this (bolded parts differ):
However, the researchers qualified their findings noting that much of female violence appeared to be in self-defence, and that women, because of their size and strength, appeared to inflict less injury than male attackers

Source: Chalk & King, Violence in Families, page 42

Indeed, why do these women even HAVE rights to be an issue?!

Sad, sad world http://www.chuacuuthe.org/images/jesus-pic/images/Jesus%20Sad_jpg-crop.jpg

true. Happens less but true. I'm not disputing that. Trying to claim that violence against women is somehow mitigated by this fact is what I'm disputing.
It's not, all violence is condemnable.

My point: ALL violence.

This study Asked only men who were visiting an urban hospital in an Urban bias. Selection bias alone makes it non-valid.
Depends on what you're out to prove.

My goal was to show that violence women commit against men isn't quantitively different from male violence against women.

More importantly, it asked only the male what had happened, there was no other input and no way to back up those claims. (more importantly there is no way to access this data The only verification that a study occurred is the assertion that one did by the users of the site. )
The source they (reportedly) used was: Mechem, C.C., Shofer, F.S., Reinhard, S.S., Hornig, S., Datner, E., History of domestic violence among male patients presenting to an urban emergency department, Acad. Emerg. Med., 6, 8, p. 786-791. August, 1999

Even more pointed, did you add up those percentages? thered have to be more than 30% crossover between more than 2 sub-categories (run the math if you want) (meaning someone would have had to have something thrown at them, been attacked with a weapon, strangled and slapped . . .all at once. . .)
Well, if someone is thrown with an object that object can sometimes be described as a weapon as well.

lol ok so a women shouts at a man and he hits her. she is the "perpetrator" of non-reciprocal violence (she didn't hit him back). See the problem here?
Let's see I said:
The pie chart slice in question specifically says: Perpetrated by women.
What is perpetrated? Non-reciprocal inter-personal violence.

Or simpler: Non-reciprocal inter-personal violence committed by women.

See, the incident you're describing DOES NOT FIT that slice of the pie, but belongs to the Non-reciprocal inter-personal violence perpetrated by men or reciprocal inter-personal violence slice.


lol really . . .have you READ that site?
No, I haven't read the site...

Only some of the articles in the site.

ok this is the site that states in its mission statement that it is highly conservative. It also claims that "The life span of gays is 20 years shorter than the life span of heterosexuals." (http://fathersforlife.org/Table_contents_gj.htm#Gay_Issues). You seriously wanna claim that this site is clearly unbiased and has strong factual backing?
How should I know?

I referenced a section of that site...For example:
ALBERTA EDITION — REPORT NEWSMAGAZINE

February 28, 2000, p. 36 More deadly than the male
...and...
Source: Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3)
National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Administration on Children,
Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201, May 1997

For the child murder statistics - The first use of that site as a source


The second use was..
The following is a copy of a letter written by Eeva Sodhi in response to a Globe and Mail article, 2002 02 23:
...with sources like:
The South Fraser (B.C.) Regional Injury Report is the first pilot project of its kind available in Canada. South Fraser Regional Report Period 1

Kwong, Bartholomew, & Dutton. (1999). "Gender Differences in Patterns of Relationship Violence in Alberta". Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Vol. 31, No. 3, July 1999. pp. 150-160)

Programs, National Institute of Justice, with support from the National Institute of Justice (U.S.) http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/fs000167.txt

Interspousal violence in a representative sample of 562 couples in Calgary, Canada. The overall violence rate by husbands was 10.3% (severe violence 4.8%) while the overall violence rate by wives was 13.2% (severe violence 10.7%). (Only the incidence of husband-on-wife violence was published.)

Carrado, M. et al. (1996) Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: a descriptive analysis. [In: Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401-415] In a representative sample of 894 British men and 971 women 18% of the men and 13% of the women reported being victims of physical violence at some point in their heterosexual relationships. With regard to current relationships, 11% of men and 5% of women reported being victims of partner aggression.

etc...

A lot more so than the . . . *cough* . . .stuff you sourced
The study you linked purposefully had domestic violence against women as their research goal.

You can't expect to get unbiased result of entire pattern of domestic violence when you set out to study only 50% of possible victims: The Violence Against Women Survey (VAWS) involved telephone interviews with a [B]random sample of 12,300 women

Was it? could you link me there? Cause the link you gave has the title I posted.
www.cnn.com - The international edition homepage

Also "often forgotten completely " that is frankly bullshit
Hell it isn't.

Google Fighting:
Breast Cancer - 40 million results
Testicular, Prostate and Lung cancer combined - 35 million results, with 20 mil results for lung cancer.

(these are first page sites from a Google search under "Cancer Awarness Campaigns." and "Cancer Awareness Campaigns.")
And exactly how many of those campaigns have you come across outside the internet - In the popular culture?

How many Hollywood stars have advocated fondling one's testicles to screen out testicular cancer or someone encouraging regular checkups for prostate cancer? :tongue:

edit:
Though it might be a cultural thing as well, back here mammography screening is state financed...with the occassional campaign ad with a woman holding her breast with a slogan and pink ribbon attached.

Please please just go and get STATISTICS to back yourself up.
Statistics are misleading when done improperly - And it's useless for me to link statistics when you outright disbelieve them.


I'll end with a quote from the link I lastly posted, from the site of a Canadian family lawyer:
Myth:

Women suffer a legislative and practical disadvantage in Canada’s family courts.

Reality:

While divorce represents a loss which deprives fathers of an attachment figure and a role or identity, it also constitutes a situation where fathers are judicially and legislatively disadvantaged on the basis of gender. [source (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119338119/abstract)]

I'd be interested in knowing how that works in practice but it looks good on paper.
It works.

http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Gender%20Gap/index.htm

Scandinavian countries ftw.

*snip*
So I'm not getting answered? *sad puppy face*

Also two things

An estimated 400,000 women per year are abused or treated violently in the United States by their spouse or intimate partner. This means that roughly 300,000 to 400,000 men are treated violently by their wife or girl friend.

This doesn't follow . . .the math here just does not add up. Again your citing an unreliable source


Unbiased sources and studies are hard to come by.

The site however is not the source, but more akin to a portal.

So go to the source instead . . . please cause you may not realize it but your "portal" is . . .unimpressive (see above).

And unbiased sources are not hard to find here. Just find yourself a Study or statistical paper and quote THAT not these sites of your which have been, so far, less than reliable.

So I'm not getting answered?
See the megapost above ;)
This doesn't follow . . .the math here just does not add up.
Oh, I agree this time.

However the source in that site was probably this: http://www.dvmen.org/dv-35.htm#pgfId-1353321

And more accurately:
Straus, M., and Kantor, G. K., paper presented at the 13th World Congress for Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany, July 19, 1994.

Straus, M. A. and Gelles, R., Societal changes and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, p. 465-479, 1986.

So go to the source instead
That is difficult when the source can be a peer-reviewed closed article or an obscure book published in the 80s, 90s which isn't on Google Books.

And unbiased sources are not hard to find here. Just find yourself a Study or statistical paper and quote THAT not these sites of your which have been, so far, less than reliable.
Like I posted, while that site may have been turd the sourcing in the articles I used seemed OK.

However...Would for example that do?
http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/fact-sheets/child-abuse-neglect.html

Approximately 40 percent of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.3 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 17.3 percent were abused by both parents (USDHHS, 2007).

It's not, all violence is condemnable.

My point: ALL violence.

no you we're trying to argue what your arguing below. That " violence women commit against men isn't quantitatively different from male violence against women.
". i think we both agree that qualitatively its a bad thing but I would suggest that Quantitatively women are more at risk than men.


Depends on what you're out to prove.

My goal was to show that violence women commit against men isn't quantitively different from male violence against women.

and you did it by quoting a source that asked only men for their opinion in a hospital and got its math wrong?


The source they (reportedly) used was: Mechem, C.C., Shofer, F.S., Reinhard, S.S., Hornig, S., Datner, E., History of domestic violence among male patients presenting to an urban emergency department, Acad. Emerg. Med., 6, 8, p. 786-791. August, 1999

I tried to get access with that and could get the journal but the article doesn't exist from what I could find


Well, if someone is thrown with an object that object can sometimes be described as a weapon as well.

True . . .still it seems. . .unlikely (not impossible just unlikely)


Let's see I said:
The pie chart slice in question specifically says: Perpetrated by women.
What is perpetrated? Non-reciprocal inter-personal violence.

Or simpler: Non-reciprocal inter-personal violence committed by women.

See, the incident you're describing DOES NOT FIT that slice of the pie, but belongs to the Non-reciprocal inter-personal violence perpetrated by men or reciprocal inter-personal violence slice.

You need to read more than just the graph. The question that was asked of the participant was who the "instigator in the violence was". In other words they called and asked "so you've been in a situation where one member of your family was abused? Yes? Ok now who started it (instigated it)? Oh so you hit her but she started it when she came home late and you were drunk? ok then so she's the instigator." See the issue? The way they've put together the graph makes it seem as if they asked one thing when, in fact, they asked something else.


No, I haven't read the site...

Only some of the articles in the site.

I'd suggest you look into it a little more. They are proponents of schooling at home "because teachers can't read or do math.". Really read up on your sources some more . . .frankly reading most of the stuff their made me feel a little queezy . . .it was like a FOX discussion forum only worse.


How should I know?

oh gods. . .


*snip*

so read pertinent sources and post those rather than this catchall site. Its possible that some of them are actually valid and unbiased.


The study you linked purposefully had domestic violence against women as their research goal.

You can't expect to get unbiased result of entire pattern of domestic violence when you set out to study only 50% of possible victims: The Violence Against Women Survey (VAWS) involved telephone interviews with a random sample of 12,300 women

I was using it as a counterpoint to your study that looked only at Men. Trying to make a point. More importantly it IS unbiased used in that context. I didn't try to make it say anything it doesn't say nor did I claim it covered all of domestic violence (though searching statscan for that . . .on it).


www.cnn.com - The international edition homepage

lol its . . .not there actually ironically enough there was an add for leukemia lmao.


Hell it isn't.

Google Fighting:
Breast Cancer - 40 million results
Testicular, Prostate and Lung cancer combined - 35 million results, with 20 mil results for lung cancer.

. . . . well honestly somehow that doesn't seem like proof that men are forgotten about in the fight against cancer . . .but I could be wrong.


And exactly how many of those campaigns have you come across outside the internet - In the popular culture?

The live strong campaign is the largest I know of, Has serious popular culture influences, started its own fashion trend and was, originally founded by Lance Armstrong in the fight against testicular cancer.


How many Hollywood stars have advocated fondling one's testicles to screen out testicular cancer or someone encouraging regular checkups for prostate cancer? :tongue:

See above . . .though not quite that graphic


edit:
Though it might be a cultural thing as well, back here mammographies are mandatory and state financed with the occassional campaing ad with a woman holding their breast with a slogan and pink ribbon attached.

May well be . . .I haven't seen anything like that lol :) on the other hand I may have just missed it somehow?


Statistics are misleading when done improperly - And it's useless for me to link statistics when you outright disbelieve them.

But i would believe them! just do send me stats. and not incredibly biased right wing blog spots . . .:(


I'll end with a quote from the link I lastly posted, from the site of a Canadian family lawyer:
Myth:

Women suffer a legislative and practical disadvantage in Canada’s family courts.

Reality:

While divorce represents a loss which deprives fathers of an attachment figure and a role or identity, it also constitutes a situation where fathers are judicially and legislatively disadvantaged on the basis of gender. [source (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119338119/abstract)]

Um? so . . .the guy thinks it is that way . .. therefore it is fact? . . . .some serious scientific method needed here.



It works.

http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Gender%20Gap/index.htm

Scandinavian countries ftw.
sweeet :) i'm glad its working for ya :D

See the megapost above ;)

Lmfao such aweful timing :P (great for you terrible for me)

Oh, I agree this time.

However the source in that site was probably this: http://www.dvmen.org/dv-35.htm#pgfId-1353321

And more accurately:
Straus, M., and Kantor, G. K., paper presented at the 13th World Congress for Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany, July 19, 1994.

Straus, M. A. and Gelles, R., Societal changes and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, p. 465-479, 1986.

Yah you may be right on that . . .it was just funny when they went from 40% too somewhere between 66 and 100% lol


That is difficult when the source can be a peer-reviewed closed article or an obscure book published in the 80s, 90s which isn't on Google Books.


Yah more serious digging would be required and just isn't worth the time

Like I posted, while that site may have been turd the sourcing in the articles I used seemed OK.

However...Would for example that do?
http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/fact-sheets/child-abuse-neglect.html

Approximately 40 percent of child victims were maltreated by their mothers acting alone; another 18.3 percent were maltreated by their fathers acting alone; 17.3 percent were abused by both parents (USDHHS, 2007).
Better :D (joking). See I can go with that for sure. (now it is a different issue but the source is solid)

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/fv-85-224-XIE2004000_e.pdf <----- here we go. A balanced survey done by statscan . . .i haven't actually read it yet so I guess we'll see in about half an hour how it went lol :D

Women are demanding rights now? I knew we should never have let them vote. It just started them down a slippery slope. Soon they'll be demanding higher pay than men and a matrilineal organisation of society! Back to the kitchen, I say.

Seriously. I was outraged when the Continental Congress passed a law in 1778 specifically stating that women could NOT be counted among chickens, wigs, hogs, and slaves in a man's net assets!

no you we're trying to argue what your arguing below. That " violence women commit against men isn't quantitatively different from male violence against women.
". i think we both agree that qualitatively its a bad thing but I would suggest that Quantitatively women are more at risk than men.
Erm, yes, I mean qualitatively - I blame the 38C fever :)

I'm not arguing against women being victims more often...

However, I'm arguing that male abuse should be an issue as well and that the gap between sexes in western cultures isn't as large as represented.

Infact, there's only one certainty: The whole domestic area is horribly understudied from the viewpoint of men.

and you did it by quoting a source that asked only men for their opinion in a hospital and got its math wrong?

I tried to get access with that and could get the journal but the article doesn't exist from what I could find
I did a bit of digging...

http://www.amen.ie/Downloads/26015.pdf

Of the 109 victims, 66 (60.6%) victims had either
been slapped, grabbed, or shoved; 53 (48.6%) had been choked, kicked, bitten, or punched; 51 (46.8%) had had an object thrown at them; 40 (36.7%) had been threatened with or harmed by a knife or gun; seven (6.5%) had been forced to have sex; and 53 (48.6%) admitted fearing that a current or former female intimate partner would hurt them physically. When questioned about the nature of any follow-up help sought, 20 (19.0%) victims stated that they had called the police, 15 (14.3%) received medical treatment, 12 (11.4%) pressed charges or sought a restraining order, and six
(5.7%) sought follow-up professional counselling.

So someone might have been slapped, kicked and threatened with a knife.

And more importantly at the end:
To our knowledge, this is one of only a few studies looking specifically at the topic of domestic violence committed by women against their male partners.


See the issue? The way they've put together the graph makes it seem as if they asked one thing when, in fact, they asked something else.
I still don't quite follow you...An instigator for one-sided violence is the person who is solely responsible for the act: If I insult someone and get punched to the face I'm not the instigator of violence, even though I provoked the attack.

Furthermore, we don't know what other questions they asked or how exactly they compiled the graph.

so read pertinent sources and post those rather than this catchall site. Its possible that some of them are actually valid and unbiased.
'ey, it was among the first google results that seemed to be properly sourced.

I had no previous experience with that particular site, nor did I browse the other content.
More importantly it IS unbiased used in that context.
We really can't make that assumption.

lol its . . .not there actually ironically enough there was an add for leukemia lmao.
You sure you have the international edition? :p

Has serious popular culture influences, started its own fashion trend and was, originally founded by Lance Armstrong in the fight against testicular cancer.
Oh yes, forgot about Lance - But even you have to admit he's bit of a pioneer. :)

Um? so . . .the guy thinks it is that way . .. therefore it is fact? . . . .some serious scientific method needed here.
Did you click the source?

Here's the quote from the Abstract:
While divorce represents a loss which deprives fathers of an attachment figure and a role or identity, it also constitutes a situation where fathers are judicially and legislatively disadvantaged on the basis of gender.

edit:
Gotta head to bed now, the fever and hard thinking has left me exhausted....And it's 11AM here :D

I'm not familiar with Canada, but in the US women generally get paid 75% of the salary of their male counterparts. Its not an active difference, but rather a passive one from the bygone (supposedly) days of gender inequality.

Unfortunately it's not restricted on the North America continent either. :(

If those uppity wimmin would stay at home to care for their children, pay differences wouldn't be an issue.

Erm, yes, I mean qualitatively - I blame the 38C fever :)

I'm not arguing against women being victims more often...

However, I'm arguing that male abuse should be an issue as well and that the gap between sexes in western cultures isn't as large as represented.

Infact, there's only one certainty: The whole domestic area is horribly understudied from the viewpoint of men.

Agreed! I can go with all of that.


I did a bit of digging...

http://www.amen.ie/Downloads/26015.pdf

Of the 109 victims, 66 (60.6%) victims had either
been slapped, grabbed, or shoved; 53 (48.6%) had been choked, kicked, bitten, or punched; 51 (46.8%) had had an object thrown at them; 40 (36.7%) had been threatened with or harmed by a knife or gun; seven (6.5%) had been forced to have sex; and 53 (48.6%) admitted fearing that a current or former female intimate partner would hurt them physically. When questioned about the nature of any follow-up help sought, 20 (19.0%) victims stated that they had called the police, 15 (14.3%) received medical treatment, 12 (11.4%) pressed charges or sought a restraining order, and six
(5.7%) sought follow-up professional counselling.

So someone might have been slapped, kicked and threatened with a knife.

And more importantly at the end:
To our knowledge, this is one of only a few studies looking specifically at the topic of domestic violence committed by women against their male partners.
Yah I guess thats doable. None the less . .. the numbers look fishy lol. i think Stas can or someone a little more reputable needs to do that study.



I still don't quite follow you...An instigator for one-sided violence is the person who is solely responsible for the act: If I insult someone and get punched to the face I'm not the instigator of violence, even though I provoked the attack.

Furthermore, we don't know what other questions they asked or how exactly they compiled the graph.

They had the questionnaire (followed the source) and the use of the word instigator was . . .foggy at best.

'ey, it was among the first google results that seemed to be properly sourced.

I had no previous experience with that particular site, nor did I browse the other content.

OOO bad luck lol

We really can't make that assumption.

Well . . .I mean as long as your looking it as Information for use solely in the context in which is was taken (ie. looking at violence against women specifically) Then its unbiased. . .take it outta context (or try to use it in a broader context) and u've got issues.


You sure you have the international edition? :p

lol nope :P


Oh yes, forgot about Lance - But even you have to admit he's bit of a pioneer. :)

Oh so true but you left yourself wide open and i couldn't help myself :p lol

Did you click the source?

Here's the quote from the Abstract:
While divorce represents a loss which deprives fathers of an attachment figure and a role or identity, it also constitutes a situation where fathers are judicially and legislatively disadvantaged on the basis of gender.


no as a matter of fact I did not lmfao. yah its 4:30 AM here .. . Sleep would be a good idea. :D

edit:
Gotta head to bed now, the fever and hard thinking has left me exhausted....And it's 11AM here :D
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What we need to think about is why is it an issue anywhere?

I was watching the Canadian house debate yesterday regarding the stimulus, where I saw many Lib/NDP MPs talking about pay equity and the Conservatives disregarding women's rights in general.

I have never seen women being discriminated for anything; I have many women superiors with a higher salary than the male me. AFAIK abortion in Canada is legal in all ways -- which is as I understand it a fundamental left-wing women's right of babies being the property of individuals.

Wiki and Google revealed nothing about current violations of women's rights in Canada, would somebody help clarify the Lib/NDP's issues for me?

I'm just going to ignore the second paragraph for now. It says more about you than it does about the state of women's rights in Canada.

The issue is that the Conservative Party of canada (CPC) has cut out a federal program as part of the latest federal budget.

Now, this program did one thing: it let people who work for the government complain and deal with pay inequity. So, if you were getting paid less than your coworker only because of the shape of your genitals, you could complain and do something about it.

Now, federal workers cannot, except through their union or some other collective agreement.

http://www.canada.com/news/blasts+Tories+over+equity/1274794/story.html

Now, there are ideological reasons to oppose or support this, but I wonder why it's in the budget. It would seem like a csot-savings measure. Less programs equals less spending, right? But it's more complicated than that:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090212.wpayequity12/BNStory/politics/home

OTTAWA — Ottawa prepared no estimates to demonstrate that a controversial and divisive shift in establishing pay equity for 400,000 federal public servants would ultimately save taxpayers money, senior officials acknowledged yesterday.