Tag Archives: Elizabeth May

May Wins! : ) Greens Lose! : ,

WTF?  The unthinkable happened.  After over 1600 straight loses, the Greens have won a seat!  Green Party Leader Elizabeth May took Saanich Gulf Islands from Gary Lunn.  It’s a breakthrough!

…or is it?

Elizabeth May’s plan to focus the entire Green Party on serving–electing her has led to the loss of many members.  The campaigning machine of the Greens has been decimated outside of Saanich Gulf Islands.  Greens only converted half of their 6% average support in polls at the end of the election for a 3% total.  Half their supporters nationwide simply stayed home.  The youth vote abandoned the Greens for the NDP.  That’s as close to a “base” as the Greens have.

Now Elizabeth May will have to run the party with half of the federal funding she had from the last election…  Lowering the budget by approximately 40% is going to hurt… AND that’s if public funding isn’t completely gone in months…  Leaving the Greens with next to zero income.  With no money, it will be difficult for her to even re-win her seat, and there will be no money to put 2000 volunteers into each riding in an attempt to win.

And just when the Greens have gained some legitimacy and earned a place in the House of Commons as the fifth federal party, the talk of the country is about uniting the left to oppose the Conservatives, not adding an additional party on the left to split the vote even more…  The weakening of the Green vote in the 2011 election shows this.

If the Greens had only won a seat in the last election… and gotten into the debate in this election where “change” was in the air…  Call me an idiot, but I think if Elizabeth had put better people in place for national organizing years ago, we may have seen a Green Growth instead of an Orange Crush.

The victory of Elizabeth May is bitter-sweet in a Harper Majority, and she has an uphill battle to save the Green Party.

In a majority Harper Government, Greens may have their first irrelevant politician from a near-dead party.  Elizabeth isn’t going to like not being in the spotlight, and I suspect she will cross the floor to the NDP to not be the Green dot in the corner that will get only a handful of opportunities to speak in the house of commons in the next four years.

My question to Greens is: Now what?

Last Election For Green Party, May

Latest polling numbers indicate that the Green Party is a failed experiment in Canadian politics.   Support for the Green Party has been rapidly collapsing in recent months.

A Simon Fraser University sourced five poll average over the last two years showed a steady increase in support for Greens in 2009 and first half of 2010 with a summer peaks above 12% average support across the Country.  (http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html)

Since then–in just 8 months–the Greens have lost half of their support, down from 12% to 6%, a loss of two years worth of gains according to the SFU data.  Take a look at the graph in the link above, the trends are unmistakable, with August 2010 as the turning point…  What happened in August?…

Nik Nanos of polling firm Nanos Research, a past consultant for the Greens, has support for Greens at just 3.2% and dropping fast.  Now that the Green Party won’t be in the televised debates, it is hard to imagine anything but a crushing final defeat for Elizabeth May and the Greens.  It is doubtful that the Greens could gain back the confidence of voters after another failure.  The Party is over.

What Happened to the Greens in August 2010?

Anyone who knows metrics, looks at this study and wonders: How does a decade long steady upward trend in Green support, with no major corrections, suddenly collapse?  Without warning?… or was there warning?…  Here’s a blog written at the peak of support for the Green Party last year, titled, “The End of the Green Party?

In July 2010, Elizabeth May thought she had everything in her favor, but insiders like myself, who actually understand what it takes to build a political party and win elections, could see that the Green Party was in serious trouble: membership levels were dropping, candidates were quiting, Federal Councilors were resigning, organizers were being laid off, and the Party had a new Executive Director disagreeing with the Leadership every few months.  While the polls showed support increasing, the polls didn’t measure the level of morale of volunteers or the willingness of Greens to give more of their hard earned money for a losing cause.  Elizabeth’s insult to democracy around the 2010 BGM leadership scandal was the last straw for many.

At the peak of the Green Party’s support last year, Elizabeth May sent a personal message to Greens asking them to effectively make Elizabeth May the “Leader for Life” as some called it, instead of renew the party through a leadership race.  Undemocratically, the sponsor of the motion, rival Leadership contender, Sylvie Lemieux was denied a chance to address the membership with her own message or response–E May shut Sylvie out of the debate.  In fact May has a history of silencing those that disagree with her.

Elizabeth’s message contained several self serving lies. After the first round of voting failed to settle the leadership contest issue, May told Greens, and the media, that the issue was decided, to trick rival supporters into not showing up to vote Elizabeth May out.  Members were so disgusted, only 12% of the Party voted in favor of Elizabeth May’s Leadership, even though she implied 85% of the entire Party supported her in her press release.  Many members had silently–and not so silently–quit over the issue.

The number of environmentalist that see the Green Party as doing more good than harm, is a limited number to begin with–just ask David Suzuki.  Most of the Greens new supporters were people looking for a different style of politics.  What they got was a different type of rhetoric that quickly sounded just like the old parties, with back-room dealings, power-plays, crushing of dissent, out of control egos, nepotism, incompetence, and lies to the public.

Greens are known for voting for their choice even when the outcome is negative–helping to elect Conservatives in many ridings–because, as Greens say, “Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.”  Now many see Elizabeth May and the Green Party as just another evil. In light of E May’s conduct, greens find it harder to justify supporting the Green Party.

Now, even those that remained Green supporters have lost much of their enthusiasm.  In BC, where Green support is highest, only two dozen members showed up to the recent 2010 AGM of the Green Party of BC.  The writing was on the wall.

After all the blood, sweat and tears I shed for the Greens, I am sad to see the end to what looked like such a promising opportunity for us all.   So many of us put so much into this cause, only to see it stolen by the very conduct we joined the party to oppose.

I am also bitter, because the failure of the Greens was not inevitable.  The success of the party was virtually certain until Elizabeth May came to power.

Greens Sunk By Pirate Party

Check out the video lol

With the results of November 29th, 2010 by-elections, a few observations can be made:

One: No one gives a shit! Voter Turnout was in the twenty to thirty percent range.

Two: The Green Party is still afloat, but sinking fast, after almost being beaten by the Pirate Party. That’s right…  A political joke party called the Pirate Party was twenty votes away from beating Elizabeth May’s Green Party in Monday’s By-election.  In Winnipeg North, the drop was from a poor 4.75 percent  to an embarrassing zero point seven percent.  In the Ontario riding of Vaughan, the Greens’ popular vote dropped from 6.9 percent in 2008, to only 1.2 percent.. Greens received only 1404 total votes in all by-election races combined.  Even Elizabeth’s organic farming star candidate and Green Party Federal Counsellor Kate Story could only inspire 809 votes in Monday’s By-election. The results for the Greens’ was just 5.6 percent of the vote, which is worse than the same candidates 2008 finish.

People are sick of being misled by politicians.  Elizabeth May called the 1.2% finish for the Green Party in Vaughan a “strong campaign” in her press release.  How is losing 80% of your popular vote a “strong campaign”… or honest?

Wasting Years With Elizabeth May

I sent the following e-mail (in italics) to Elizabeth May on, or around, November 27, 2008–two years ago.  I had been heavily involved in the Greens for two years and knew what needed to be done.  While her manipulative supporters said I should shut up and “Stop hurting the party”, this private letter proves that my goal was to help.  The lack of action or response shows that Elizabeth May and her unelected clique hurts the party with their incompetence.

Elizabeth,

My name is Dan Mick.  I have sent you several e-mails in the past, and since this will go to your assistant, I have no way of knowing if you ever receive them or have the time to read them.  Please call me.  I can be a valuable asset.

I have always preferred actions to words, so instead of just a message of support, I will provide what support I can to end the division within the GPC.

While there has been much criticism directed at you recently, you can take some comfort in the fact that the disagreement is not with you personally.  If everything went as it did, but three greens were elected, the party would be unified behind you, as it was when I criticized GPC Organizing in the spring.

In the past, some of the GPC leadership including Jim Harris and Sharon Labchuk, have been quick to silence all who disagree with them.  This has not solved any of the very real problems with the functioning of the party.  The frustration of members that feel they do not have a voice, are calling for a Leadership review to guarantee review of internal GPC policies and operations.  Your replacement is not the goal of the majority of your critics. Greens are unified around the GPC platform.  The only disagreement is on how we can make each point into a law of the land.

The current situation represents a great opportunity for change and growth, but also a threat that could permanently fracture the GPC. Your decisions alone on whether to regard the situation as a threat–or opportunity–will determine the success of Greens in the next general election.

Suggestions

Further attempts to limit or silence criticism will backfire and increase opposition.  Instead, appoint one of your detractors to actively seek criticism and solutions.  This immediately allies you with your perceived opponents.  To expect those that were in a position of authority to investigate their own failures will not produce any positive results.  Someone from outside the current structure will do a better job.

By “seeking criticism” I mean that someone should find all those that have any grievance whatsoever and guide their frustration into suggestion and action.  Part of this process is to allow frustrations to vent.  This will refocus us and increase activity to rebuild our motivation and grow our volunteer base.

Questions for Members:

How do you feel about the past election?

What went poorly?

How do you feel about GPC Organizing?

What can the GP do better?

How do we implement that?

Who else should I talk to?

etc.

We can use the situation to create excitement among Greens.  It may also be beneficial if you would contact some of the more outspoken Greens and listen to their criticisms.  You don’t need to defend or even reply–only listen and inquire deeper with open ended questions so that they know you care about their views and are as concerned as they are.

There has been anger over strategic voting comments, with blame put solely on you.  This is evidence of the GPC’s over-concentration on messaging.  Every riding that received 9-10% (while polling much higher) indicates more a failure of the GOTV effort, than any of your misquoted comments.

Nik Nanos has said that the success of the GPC will be determined by our organizing success.  For polling support to double while membership levels drop during the two-year pre-election period indicates that GPC Organizing is in serious disarray.  Changes must be made in this area to unify the party.

While the group that opposes you is small, they are very determined and they include many of the best organizers in the GP that have been excluded because of their opposition to the methods of Sharon Labchuk.  This group is what the party needs to succeed on election day.  Let’s harness their energy and give them something productive to do.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dan Mick

It is now two years later and the problems are in fact worse.  None of this advice has been taken.  Elizabeth still refuses to speak to anyone who disagrees.  She is weak and incompetent.  Elizabeth May isn’t cut out to be a Member of Parliament or the Leader of political party.  Resign now Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May On Quantum Buddha’s Blog Animated Show

Elizabeth May’s cartoon double (that looks like Sarah Palin) was on my blog show tonight answering questions about the Green Party of Canada and her leadership. This is my first video effort and I’m only using the free online version of the software. It has limitations. Enjoy the video. Booya!

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7569443

For entertainment purposes only… lmao

E May: Greens “Meaningless”

Elizabeth May, the Leader of the Green Party of Canada has said at the BGM Convention that the 25% decline in the membership numbers are a “meaningless indicator”. Since the members are the party–she just said that the members don’t count.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that you have two political parties:  Party A has 100,000 members, Party B has 1,000 members.  According to Elizabeth May, Party B is just as likely to win an election, raise money, recruit volunteers, etc.   Wow.

Oh but it gets better….

Elizabeth May wants the “meaningless indicator”–membership–to be six times higher at 50,000… “But it’s not my role as leader to work on that.”  You’re right–it’s Sharon Labchuk’s and she is awful at it and has been awful at it for four years. Please change this.

Elizabeth also says that she would do “a lot” of things differently in the next election.  Like what?  Lie more? Greens and ex-Greens want a Leadership contest specifically because Elizabeth won’t do anything differently.  She keeps making he same rookie mistakes over and over, and anytime someone suggests a new idea they are pushed out because E May and her “friends” are too insecure to take any criticism.

May said getting elected was “top priority” for her… now.  “Up until after the 2008 election was over it had not even been on a list of priorities that the leader getting elected had any particular importance.”  : O Wh–wha–WHAT!?  Oh I see–Elizabeth forgot to try to win last time–just a small error–no big deal–but she’ll win this time…  What was the London North Center by-election about then?  I could have sworn that the goal was to get Elizabeth elected… Was Central Nova a practice run?…

How can anyone still support Elizabeth May?

Liar, Liar, The Green Party Is On Fire

This past week, several articles have appeared in the media regarding the potential race for the Leadership of the Green Party of Canada being defeated by the membership in recent voting.  The information is false.

The motion calling for a leadership race to commence before October 31 has not been defeated, despite Elizabeth’s claims that it has been defeated.  This is not a matter of opinion or perspective.  The fact is, if 51% vote at the BGM in favor of having a leadership race–the race will be on.  (There are no conflicting motions)

Elizabeth knows the information she gave the media is false.  Most people call that a lie… and real Greens dislike politicians that lie to Canadians.  Maybe this is why Elizabeth May only has the “overwhelming” support of only 12% of the Party, despite suggesting that 85% of the entire Party supports her (another lie).

Elizabeth May is trying to discourage those that disagree with her incompetence and dishonesty from showing up at the BGM to vote for a leadership race, by telling the members that there will be no leadership race–which is exactly why we need one.

Why is Elizabeth lying so much in communications regarding a leadership race?  E May is attempting to stop Sylvie Lemieux or other potential Leadership Candidates from organizing any rival campaigns.  Dishonesty is the worst type of hyper-partisan tactic.

This began when Elizabeth violated the Privacy Act and messaged the entire membership with a personal e-mail filled with misinformation, without giving those with similar or opposing resolutions to send their own message.  This underhanded self-serving manipulation is unacceptable to members, supporters and voters.

Look at this recent example from E May’s blog, “We debate openly and that is why we are growing — and growing.”  Huh?  Debate “openly”?  Why was I (and others) banned from the GPC blogs two years ago for debating the problems the party was having–and still has–in organizing?  Open debate would allow Sylvie Lemieux to message the membership with her own views on the motion the way Elizabeth did…

And since when have we been growing?  lmao!  Fact: The GPC is losing members.  Fact: The GPC is losing EDAs.  Many Candidates and Councillors have quit because of E May.  Support has been stagnant for two years while the Green movement has boomed.  We haven’t grown because of problems I was banned for trying to change with open debate–the same open debate that Elizabeth and her supporters attempt to discourage.

Elizabeth was elected for a two year term.  She has been Leader without a review or leadership race since 2006.  It is clear from the e-mails I have received and the blogs I have read that the vast majority are no longer supportive of Elizabeth May or her tactics.  If the supporters of Elizabeth believe she has the support of the membership–prove it–ask Elizabeth May to start the leadership race now.  Leadership races are always good for any party.  The fact that E May disagrees is all the evidence anyone needs–she believes she will lose.

Elizabeth doesn’t have to resign to run for Leader as she has dishonestly claims–but she should. Elizabeth, please, put the interests of the Green Party before your own ambition, and resign as Leader immediately, before Canadians begin to think that all Greens are so unscrupulous.

For the small minority who still say I am hurting the party, please remember that I did not publicly criticize any Greens that ran for office until now, but lies are unacceptable.  My original criticisms were of the organizing of the Party.  If only Elizabeth had listened…

And to anyone that still supports Elizabeth as Leader, leave a comment and tell us why you think she should be allowed to lie to the membership, the media and the country…

Update: As of April 7, 2011 most of these links are taken down or hidden.  It appears that the Green Party is ashamed of its conduct.  I’m not.  I’m still speaking truth.

Always Truth

I have been accused on more than one occassion of “hurting the Green Party” by criticizing some of the members or employees. To make that claim, one must ignore the facts I present and defend incompetence and dishonesty. Incompetence and dishonesty is what hurts the Party–not trying to correct it. I feel vindicated by the fact that so many are messaging me in agreement.

Speaking the truth is never a bad thing. Only those that stand to lose personnally–like losing a paycheck–need to resort to lies and manipulation to silence those that disagree.

If the Green Party wants to be different, then it needs to act different. Elizabeth May only talks different–which is the same.

The End of the Green Party?

To the past and present members of Green Party of Canada,

I write to you out of great concern.  Without your urgent response, by Monday, the Green Party of Canada may be forever defeated.  Please continue reading to find out how you can help.

Two motions have been brought forth concerning the next General Meeting, specifically about the Constitutionally mandated GPC Leadership contest that must occur in 2010.

A leadership contest is a great way to build the party by recruiting new members and talented volunteers. It puts the spotlight on Green policies and politicians.  It is a good thing for the Party and the green movement.

Elizabeth May is scared of losing her job, and she is trying to stop any Leadership contest scheduled for 2010.  Some are calling one motion a “Leader for life” motion, which would be more accurately called a “leader for death” motion, since it would be the end of many Green’s dreams for democracy–the end of the Green Party in Canada.

FACT: Elizabeth May lied to the membership when she broke the GPC Constitution and the Privacy Act by using the GPC membership lists to send a dishonest personal e-mail regarding two convention resolutions, for her own personal gain.  She had no right to send this e-mail to all members without giving equal opportunity to those that opposed her views on those motions.

The entire e-mail is in reference to motions that personally effect Elizabeth’s job–her power.  She opposes “erod(ing) the Leadership”–so does Stephen Harper.  The e-mail states that she would have to resign if we had a leadership contest–which is absolutely false.  Nothing requires the Leader to step down during a Leadership race.  The issue is whether members have the right to vote on who is best to lead the party from now on.

E May’s e-mail also claims her campaign is going well.  Elizabeth has laid off most of the Organizers across the country and re-tasked the remaining Organizers to her campaign.  As a result, the Green Party of Canada’s membership levels are at historic lows–7900–a loss of over 25%.  Elizabeth May has spent well over $275,000 in Saanich – Gulf Islands and has only signed up 26 new members.  Elizabeth May cannot win if she cannot inspire more than two dozen to become members and volunteers.

The real problem is more that so many quit.  Most of the Greens I have gotten to know in the last four yeas are ex-members–specifically because of the actions of Elizabeth May–actions just like her e-mail, which are partisan and self-serving.

Elizabeth also dishonestly claims that polls show we may elect four Green MP’s.  Which riding-by-riding polls show that, Elizabeth? None.  Its a lie.  If E May thinks we will elect four MP’s in the next election, she needs to tell us what has changed.  We have heard this promise many times before.  If the same people keep doing the same things, the results are likely to be the same.  All evidence points to another failure in SGI.

Elizabeth’s organizational problems are not new.   The Vancouver Center campaign was called the “best chance to elect a Green in Canada” by Elizabeth May and her core team.  Deputy Leader Adriane Carr finished in last place after also spending huge resources.

I saw Adrian Carr’s campaign in Vancouver Center.  It was a handful of people spending buckets of money hiring their expert friends that never performed.  New ideas weren’t tolerated.  There was lots of talk about bad politicians, bad parties, bad corporations, but no one had a clue how to achieve real results, and a year after Elizabeth and her clique took over the party, the countrywide progress and growth seen under Jim Harris ended.  This is a direct result of the Leadership of Elizabeth May.

If you are a current GPC member and want to see our best have a chance to contribute, if you want your voice to count, if you still want to save the world… please vote this Saturday or Sunday against the motion to cancel the Leadership Contest, and vote for the motion upholding the Constitution.

To any that still support Elizabeth, despite the overwhelming evidence of her total failure and dishonesty, please vote for her during the scheduled Leadership contest and allow those that disagree to vote for someone who can make a real difference–not just talk about doing it.

When you cast your vote for the next Leader, I hope it is for someone who would make it a criminal offense for politicians to lie like Elizabeth May did.

Daniel Mick

thequantumbuddha@hotmail.com

Lefty Man-haters

Here is a wall post from Facebook that is weird, crazy, hilarious and…  What’s that, Darcy Higgins? (Green Party of Ontario Director of Policy and Communications)

Darcy Higgins Am saddened by the actions of violent men in this decade

Yesterday at 4:06pm · Comment · Like

2 people like this

Dan Mick Why just the men?

Yesterday at 4:07pm ·

Darcy Higgins the ones who thought out and initiated wars were men, perhaps Rice aside

Yesterday at 4:10pm

Dan Mick So you are okay with, or glad, about the actions of violent women? Is tomorrow’s status going to be that you are “saddened by the actions of violent black people in this decade” ? No? What about “violent Jews”? No? “Gays?” No? Then why do you think it is okay to put “men”?

I am offended–singling out “men” is sexism. Try: “…saddened by the actions of violent people…”

Yesterday at 4:31pm ·

Mark Fernandez these violent actions will cause sadness in our communities and must be overcome. mobilization through unbiased education is key for a start towards a true peace in our world on a macro level and it starts on a micro level in the communities we live in.

Yesterday at 4:40pm

Harry Pedersen Mr Mick is quite right in his post.

Yesterday at 5:17pm

Angela Read Unfortunately, the stats .overwhelmingly. show the actions of men as violent. Just saying…now don’t throw anything at me. <runs>

Yesterday at 5:29pm

Susan Gapka An ‘ism’ operates when a specific identifiable group, experience disadvantage based upon a personal characteristic (women). For example, men are privileged through ‘patriarchy’ (the rule of men) and exploit women through ‘sexism’. Therefore, a claim of sexism against men cannot be supported and its claim may itself be sexist.

Happy Holidays!

Yesterday at 6:04pm

Kris M. Agard AWWW that hurt…Rice?…What she did?

Yesterday at 6:30pm

Kris M. Agard that was very deep Susan, well said

Yesterday at 6:34pm

Gordon Chamberlain Actually some men will opress any man, woman or child that they can. They are not selective in the application of ruthless, murderous greed. The petroleum and coal corporations are not selective in who planet they are destabilising the climate off.

Yesterday at 7:15pm

Brendan Pinto Not all isms follow that rule. What about jism?

Yesterday at 7:26pm

Asif Rahman The attacks on the innocent lives – more specifically those of hot alien warrior babes – of Pandora was totally uncalled for. I mean where on Earth would those idiots find such gorgeous women?

Yesterday at 8:23pm

Dan Mick Sorry Susan, did you just say sexism can’t happen against men? Ever? And that I am a sexist because Darcy innacurately and unfairly singled out men in an attempt to impress some girl? You paid for your education, Susan?

“Isms” exist where one single person is persecuted. A racist comment is racist no matter what race says what to whoever.. same with sexism. Sociology has nothing to do with it–that’s just your left wing victim mentality looking for a big powerful enemy conspiracy (of men). Don’t forget the victims in your rush to blame men for whatever unhappiness you have.

And patriarchy doesn’t give me any privileges… If I am going to be labeled as an evil sexist man–simply because I am a man, shouldn’t I get some of the privileges? I want a refund.

Yesterday at 9:17pm ·

Dan Mick Actually, Gordon, some women will opress any man, woman or child that they can–I’ve known some.

You wouldn’t say “some black’s attack children…” without expecting to be called a racist. So stop slagging men, when INDIVIDUALS from both sexes, all races, nationalities, languages and sexual orientations and lifestyles, are equally capable of disgusting brutality.

Yesterday at 9:22pm ·

Asha Philar Thanks for posting this Darcy! You’re one of the good ones for trying to keep other men accountable for their actions 🙂

Hope you had a great Christmas and are doing well, wherever you are

Yesterday at 10:17pm

Rudi Budiarto So what is the source or cause of violence?

Yesterday at 11:16pm

Dave Blair Some spirited dialogue – violence, oppression and control of others for personal gain/power are common and problematic in our societies. Beyond that they are never of any redeeming value. That is a central belief a lot of people share, but in efforts to change society, prevent violence and create true equality we aggressively adopt the ‘blame game’, who is the worst, and other expressions of things incongruent with a world we can all appreciate, aspire to and/or respect AND are not helpful and reflect continuation of the abuse of power, control and privilege.

There are some good intentions out there and people who care about people, so dividing ourselves in argument about this is counter-productive.

I Know Dan, and share a profession of sorts, and know he does not take this lightly. Change starts with each of us modelling that kind of great respect for all, not condoning abuse and caring for each other. Perhaps ET said it best, “be good”.

If you really want to understand the issue from a empirically validated and best practise perspective – here is a good starting point, internationally accepted and supported

http://www.actiononviolence.com/aov/files/WAVE_Report_2005.pdf

If you want additional info contact me at daveblair at shaw.ca

Yesterday at 11:19pm

Dave Blair Abuse of power, often motivated by control of others for personal gain, indifference to the suffering and needs of others, learned, perpetuated and supported by sociological/cultural factors including parenting, media, politics and the economic system. Exacerbated by the acceptance of violence at many, MANY levels and the lack of a cultural value behind respect and caring for others. Ugly ain’t it?

Yesterday at 11:28pm

Rudi Budiarto So would you say that tiger is more violence or aggresive then say a rabbit? I am wondering if nature play a big role in this behavior. I notice that these days I haven’t seen many people who got badly bitten by dogs because they selectively breed only dogs that is not violence.

Yesterday at 11:40pm

Dan Mick Asha, shouldn’t women be accountable for their violent actions as well? Why just the men?

10 hours ago

(Leave your own comments at the bottom)

I am sure that most of you can label a few of the men and women above as “feminists”.  This real facebook wall post (seriously) demonstrates why I do not, and will never, call myself a “feminist”.

I see in the above exchange, two viewpoints, and then what Dave Blair wrote.  I want a system without prejudice or privilege–equal opportunity for all, and these so-called  “feminists” above, want to permanently label women as helpless victims of men, and label all men as victimizers that owe women some sort of penance and retribution.  That’s controlling behavior… abusive behavior… dominant behavior… feminist behavior???

I always thought feminism was a movement that has gained in some parts of the world a degree of political, social, economic and legal equality to men, and that continues to fight for full equality around the world.  Right?  These are the good feminists.  Every true libertarian is one of these type of real feminists.  I wish real feminists would change their name or sue the man-hating bitches that falsely call themselves feminists.  I hope they feel better about their own selfish controlling behavior as they blame men for the same crimes.

The so-called “feminists” above, like Darcy, don’t want equality at all.  They want to create injustices as payback for other injustices.  They want to sit on a throne pointing at all the evil-doers, as their ego feels a sense of purpose and superiority.  No thanks.  You don’t create utopia that way, you create nightmares, resentment, hatred, corruption, violence and sexism.  That is the road to power–not healing.

Many men have done many terrible things–I know personally.  The statistics from last year say that murders involving no men whatsoever (woman on woman) only comprise a few percent of the total murders.  But that was last year (And the year before, and the year before…).  But, next year everyone has the ability to make better choices and should not be prejudged.

My perspective is one of individuality.  Theirs? Collectivism (lefty weirdness).  The lefties can’t separate the individual from the group.  For instance, everything bad a man does to a woman is done to all women.  The good is always an isolate incident by “one of the (few) good ones”.  If that’s not prejudice…

I am sorry that men have hurt you Darcy, Susan, and Asha, but don’t blame me and even those yet to be born, for what happened to you.  No amount of anger or blame will get you anywhere you want to be.  I know about the effects of violence, domination, hierarchy and anger.  Let it all go.

Moving on now…

Why is the Green Party of Ontario Director of Policy and Communications, Darcy Higgins, and the Member at Large for the Ontario NDP Women’s Committee, Susan Gapka making sexist statements? and getting away with it?!  Please admit your error, Darcy and Susan.