REAL Women and the status of women

Dear editor:

A controversy has arisen about whether the federal department of Status of Women should be disbanded. Some conservative right-wing groups, including R. E. A. L. Women have asked that this group be discontinued claiming that it funds 'feminist only ' groups, that women do not want or need Status to speak on their behalf.

As a long-time advocate for women, possibly longer than REAL Women, I would like to make clear that I do not agree with their stand on this topic though many may assume that I might. For over 30 years I have asked government to value traditional roles of women, with a formal complaint at the Human Rights Commission and one at the UN. I want work in the home to be called work. I want funding for kids to go not just to daycare but to care anywhere. I want pensions to go for the caregiving years not just for paid work years. I want maternity benefits to be for all kids not just a favoured few whose mothers had the 'acceptable' paid work history. But the movement I am part of is not against daycare and not against Status of Women. And most women are not.

Let it be very clear that many of us feel that to value women's paid work, to respect the equality struggle, to address violence against women, are vital parts of the struggle and we applaud work Status of Women has done. They have helped us come a long way baby.

But, and there is a but - we have found over the years that Status of Women has shown a funding preference for women in paid work. In fact to get funding you need to be advancing women's paid work. I find that problematic and Status should also value women who do caregiving roles in the home. This in fact is the real obstacle to pay equitythat women take time from paid work more often than men do.. This does not mean Status should be dropped. It may mean it should be expanded.

Many polls show that the public wants women to be valued for their paid work and their unpaid work both, and for women to not have to pay debilitating social and financial penalties for being home for a few years to take care of a child, or an ill or elderly family member. That is however not to say we want all women in the home.

We just want women valued for times when they are doing their work there.

It is a great shame that the media tends to polarize groups and assume 'mummy wars'. Most women are not at war and it is a real shame that REAL Women is taking an action which perpetuates divisiveness.

In the last federal election the Liberal party promoted women's paid

work outside the home, and very easy access to 3rd party daycare. However good that may be, there was no parallel recognition of parents whose paid work is at home, who telecommute, who tag-team parent, who use grandma care or dayhomes, who do part-time paid work only and during school hours or evenings so daycare is not actually required but financial help may well be needed. The Conservative party came in promising to recognize all children equally - but sadly it did so in a way to equally poorly fund them all. What is needed is an equality of funding that is significant - say $5,000 per child per year. (daycare users currently get $10,000 per space) So many of us did not want the Liberal plan but found a few flaws with the Conservative plan.

I personally and many of my contacts want Status of Women to continue but we don't therefore mean it is perfect as is. It should enlarge its scope to value unpaid work as it promised to do in 1995 at Beijing, but never really did. The new frontier is to recognize unpaid labour.

Not to get men to share in its 'burden', not to get it tolerated or ignored in pension plans, but to get it actually valued. Status is not remotely there yet. This means it must continue till we get there.

Beverley Smith

Calgary