- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
It is clear for everyone to see that much of this article is factual. It is not clear however why this is so.
I have seen many occasions where women are looked up to in business.
The school board here in the township is almost all women. Would everyone agree that this is one hell of a harmonious group? Phap...., send your complaints to LFP !
Belinda was not exactly a shining example of how women should perform in politics. Her sudden rise to the top was not deserved in my opinion, but nobody wished for the medical problem she has had. Everyone that I know has expressed sympathy for her in fact.
LFP, your article does pose an interesting question, and I wonder if there is any one clear answer. I would like to see some serious answers before I comment. My wife reads this blog also, and I may already be in trouble.
Sexism in politics is well known and well institutionalized. Although it's quiet, it's not benign. It's now become systemic discrimination. Can it be stopped? Probably only if we consciously start replacing babyboomer mayors, editors, journalists, MLA's, MP's, etc. when they retire with more women. Let's hope that our so-called democratic institutions have the foresight to do this and that the voting public backs them up. Perhaps the first test case should be the next municipal election. Wouldn't a female Mayor and 7 female councillors be a nice change in Langley Township? Maybe Muriel will run again.
Methinks, re your comments re women in the business world, shockingly look at these statistics below. Also was Stephen Harper's meteoric rise as Leader and PM any more deserving? 
This Editor thinks not.
Mary your right, this is a broad systemic issue. Systemic issues are issues that are existing but not seen or even understood or comprehended. Worse still not readily or easily remedied! Also Mary in your forecast scenario for Langley Township with 8 females on council my math shows one male left. Which male would you keep? 
•'Twenty-nine percent(of executive business women) said restrictive glass-ceiling issues drove them out the door. Of those women, 44 percent felt their contributions were not recognized or valued.'
• 'A third of the women surveyed said they weren’t taken seriously by their employer or supervisor.'
• 'Fifty-eight percent of them said that nothing would attract them back to the corporate world.'
•'Expanding opportunities for women in leadership will require corporate change, as well as accommodations on the part of women themselves. Corporate cultures must support initiatives such as giving women high-visibility assignments, making gender diversity a part of succession planning and holding managers accountable for women's advancements.'
•'Between 1992 and 2000, the number of sexual-harassment claims increased by 50 percent.'
Things are not so rosy in the business world either!
Sources; http://
www.theleadershipresource...epreneurs01.php
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/
s...editorial3.html
http://
www.transworldsnowboardin...1575199,00.html
and many, many more....
LFP, I do not make light of the situation. I think it's clear to almost everyone that the problem exists, and it has not improved. So much for the problem, but other than using force, what would solve it/
I have worked for years with every type of manager. I can certainly say that some were plain difficult and even bitchy. The moaning and groaning was always ther, but a revolution of sorts was never in question. Not so in some cases where female supervisers were if a similar nast nature (can I say bitchy?). Heres the kicker: The biggest complainers were women! Even my daughter has told me that she much rather prefers to work for men.
Mary's point is correct, but is there a cause to this situation that needs to be looked at before we reach for solutions
Kim as the only woman is a historical anomaly. Usually it's much closer.
Township Council
2005-08, 1 woman but women finished 9th and 10th just out of the running
2002-05: 6 men, 3 women
1999-2002: 4 men, 3 women
1996-99: 3 men, 4 women
1993-96: 4 men, 3 women
City Council
At least 2, and usually 3 women since 1993
School Board
At least 4, and usually 5 women for many years
MLAs
1 male, 1 female since 1991
MPs
1 male now, but before one Langley riding: 1 male, 1 female for many years
You want unfair? Try being an ethnic minority. They aren't represented and don't even run for office here.
We're going to have to work very hard to change that in the next election. Muriel was always a force to be reckoned with, she, as with Kim, always seemed to go back to the 'old politics' that they were elected by the tax payers for their voices to be heard.
Whatever happened to those ideas?
The problem in Langley is the obviously the local press especially the long term old timer male editors who serve up continual complimentary crap reporting and editorials. They prbably screen the letters too favoring their male buddies who dominate Langleys' councils. Ex male reporters on council are favored by their ex papers as well. Obviously as you call it, the old boys club. They don't even probably realize that they are male centered.
Good points, but still no reasons offered as to why women are low on the lst as managers or elected reps.
Maybe we should look at the ones that succeed, and note how they differ from the ones that don't make the grade. when qualifying and making the grade, we must remember that they have to appeal to men as well as other women. The reason(s) have to be there, because there are many women who have excelled in almost everything that men do. Worth thinking about.............
We should remember that at least half of the eligible voters out there are women.
O,...and not all of them are shallow enough to vote on the basis of gender only. I often think of Prime Minister Thatcher, and the fact that men followed her faithfully when in her prime. I also think of Carol taylor who never raises her voice when interviewed by muck rakers, yet she does her job and is admired for more than her looks.
Maybe both of the above examples did not start off by being angry ?
A lot if not most of the women elected are token, not too sharp and are wannabees who arw face it, not too smart. Sad but very true. The smart ones are not helped, not allowed in or sent to the back of the bus if they are allowed in. They are lucky to be elected most of the time. Worse they are given unwinnable ridings. Look at the conservatives for proof of all this.
July, This is not a subject that I get involved in except out of curiosity and the local aspect of it. If you have a couple of examples for why you have this view, it might generate some input from others. I am still curious though, as to why good female polititians are acknowledged as such.
July, what you say fits most males in politics, too.
Indeed, from your astute ability to size up this issue, I suspect there are not very many people who are smarter than you.
If Richter were a male or as the LFP Ed. says an aboriginal, there is no doubt in my mind she would be treated with more respect by her peers and the press and indeed would most likely be a respected go to peer thought leader. Being the only female on council and strongly opinionated and intelligent makes it even more difficult in comparison to them and their abilities. The token quiet and accepting female is always more palatable which she is obviously not. Either way she will always be reelected by the women who relate to her and enough males who do respect her. Yes, unfortunately there still is a double standard in 2007.
Are we talking about the same Kim Richter?
Politicians must also be diplomats when interacting with peers of all stripes. When they fail at that, a gap can soon develop that can end up isolating them. If it is true that politics have developed in the nature of "a man's world" (Which it has I believe), then the diplomatic ability and tactfulness of female politicians is that much more difficult. It's important to observe that many women have succeeded big time. A close look at why they have done so, is better than griping and citing examples of the many injustices that we have been aware of for years.
If this doesn't turn into a mud slinging match, maybe someone will come up with something to look at seriously.
0, just admit it you don't vote Richter but you obviously dearly adore the "Junior Rookie". I'm surprised then that your not that batantly vain enough to also call yourself 'fair, balanced, honest, ethical and kind' and also 'seek out the voices of those who are traditionally ignored by those in power--the poor, the homeless, the marginalized, the weak'...sic. Then also go and pat yourself on your own back 0! Oh ..by the way did I ever define what a vanity fan is? The answer is clearly '0'.
Methinks, I think you have been sucked in by the rhetoric that exists online and in the newspaper. Diplomacy should not be conforming.
Having said that, can you explain and really honestly justify why the rest of council from the get go, closed ranks on Richter before they were even sworn in and they decided to have an informal unauthorised private good ole boys meeting to dole out committees and appointments that should have been done out in the open? When Richter protested this lack of open democracy they proceeded anyway.
Richter was then called a number of things by the local media especially the editorials for not conforming to essentially a secret doling out of benefits meeting. Remember, this was before the council even had any jurisdiction to do so and was even sworn in! This special non-official behind the doors meeting is obviously where the rookie councillors took sides, learnt what teat had the milk and they havn't looked back since.
Diplomacy does not begin at the taxpayer cow. So both peers and media crucified her right up front for defending taxpayers rights and open door democracy. So is diplomacy and tactfulness sucking the taxpayer teat or is diplomacy sticking up for all the taxpayers and their rights?
Havn't we all had enough of the diplomatic tactfulness of our 'old boys' political friends and insiders? Richter's extensive professional and volunteer listings in her resume (see her website) obviously exudes diplomacy & tactfulness. So maybe your seeking the issue in the wrong spot Methinks. Look to the old boys club instead and use different words like professional, open, inclusive, systemic and democratic instead when seeking out the core root of the problem. Don't be sucked in!
Actually, Mr. (or Ms., whichever the case may be) Editor, I voted for Kim and did not vote for JB in the last election.
And unless things change dramatically, I probably won't vote for either in the next election.
Your take on the "ole boys meeting", incidentally, is interesting. It's quite normal for an organization's new executive to get together before taking over the reins, and sorting out policy and personality matters as well as providing orientation for newcomers. It is also normal for a leader to use the opportunity to size up his or her executive to help in building the organization.
Kim's objection was frivolous, and counter to what is normally considered efficient management protocol.
I suspect it had more to do with a (backfired) attempt at snatching headlines than with any honest attempt to rescue democracy from the evil clutches of her colleagues.
Spin, spin, spin, LFP. Spin, spin, spin.
LFP, I supported Kim ever since she entered municipal politics and I will do so again. My comments were not Kim specific.
It seems like Kim's situation developed after the remnants of Scholtens group were defeated. There seemed to be a fear that Richter could become a strong candidate for mayor some time in the future, and foxy politicing is what has brought us to where we are now. Good networking by her political foes can easily be considered the "Good old boys club", or any other name you'd like to give it. It's one of the dirty sides of politics, much like those horrible black signs that some putz dreamed up years ago claiming that the now defunct LCC = NDP!
o, the difference between a business corporation and this council is the public voted the councillors in to do their business in full open view to public scrutiny.
Hence the strict government legislated open meetings requirement for all their discussions leading to decisions except for only truly valid legal & property in camera issues. Important discussions & decisions on committee appointments (especially the paid $200+ per meeting ones) such as GVRD, etc. should have been conducted and discussed in the public's eye not in the backroom. Why not always have these private in-club pre-meetings all the time then so that the public meetings could then be only 10 minutes long to have quick undiscussed votes only (perhaps it happens all the time now, pre-meeting meetings)!
Obviously transparancy be dammed you say for 'team building' sake! Should councils be group think teams or independent thinkers with public debate ? But wait , I forgot the majority of Township council did run on a slate that the Mayor promoted in his ads during the last election didn't they, where Richter was prominently not on the list!? So in essence the segregation/exclusion of Richter, the only female sitting councillor, from the ole boys club clearly was even started well before the Election!
I am especially familiar with the business & corporate world. Obviously your not. So let me educate you. The corporate business org all works at the wishes & whim of the CEO and anyone can be canned at any time by the CEO especially if he or she is not liked or dares to disagree with him unlike the publicly elected council. Do you want this situation on our township council? So o, stuff your ridiculous analogy to business where the sun don't shine.
The councillors should all individually be answerable only to the public and the public are the only ones that dictate their job duration. Hence the "sorting out of policy and personality matters" as you call it should especially be performed in public. This was no team building exercise but rather an Alpha dog setting execise. It was really only a teat sucking secret old boys club sorting out of who gets doled out what and who is on who's team as a result of the perks. And guess what the good ole boys including the rookies all fell into line didn't they? And their sole cop out now is the oft used phrase, 'compromise to get things done'. Compromise, my ass. Cheap sell out to the group think good ole boys club is not compromise.
And really when have the old boys club township council ever acted as a business? Certainly not with their un-businesslike pathetic spend, tax and borrow deeds like the $3-4-5-6 million grandstand fiasco. See details at;
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...-2006-
over.html
Just to get my two bits worth in, I voted for Kim last election and would do so again. She has always run on the platform of ACCOUNTABILITY and OPENESS, and even through these difficult times(the ol' boys club) she has never waivered.
I hate to think what we'd never know if she were not there to either oppose a dumb motion or open it up for discussion, which then, at least gets it to the media, which then gets to us.
Keep up the good work Kim and thankyou for never compromising your standards.
As the Editor you hide behind this page and have not declared who you are. Some think you are the husband of the councillor in question.
Why do you hide behind your Me2 name as well as 80% of the LFP contributors do, especially all the 100% secret ole boys club supporters?
My identity may simply provide fuel to the ole boys club supporters and clearly detract from the much needed alternative to the presently one-sided manipulated blog and press slant. Do you really know or care who the Editor is at the Globe & Mail, The Province or The Vancouver Sun? Our analysis, debate and content provides the only unique alternative out there in Langley. That's why this Editor started this LFP venue in the first place. So, keep on guessing because it really dosn't matter anyway!
Still nobody has come up with a suggestion or two, as to why some women are accepted by the majority of men in politics while others are not.
I'll throw in another name to add to the two previous ones: Golda Meier, who led Israel, which has to have the hotest political climate on the face of the Earth. There is a reason why I think she excelled, but maybe it's only my view.
European countries have been and are much more open to a matriarchial
leadership than North america which is still absolutely patriarchial
especially in its focused opposition to women as our leaders. Hence it is
diffilcult to imagine that Hilary Clinton could ever win the Presidency in the USA especially given the very strong Christian evangelical fanatic dominance of politics there.
The dominating USA essentially christian 'taliban' (as many call them) is strongly male focused and still very much focused on international imperialistic affairs of 'my country right or wrong'. Even the opposing democrats realize that the religeous right really still dominate USA elections by how they vote and if they even vote. The further split of the black vote to Obama bodes even worse for Hilary and provides a glimmer of hope for the presently very exhausted tired USA religeous right movement.
Unfortunately the USA squandered any political capital with its gross mis-handeling of the Iraq and Afghanistan issues. Especially with the more modern matriachial Europeans and the equally fanatic male focused Islamic
countries themselves. It's ironic that the USA and the Islamic movements have so much in common. But the USA historically has been in-effectual in diplomacy and always reverts to imperialistic aggressiveness when backed to any even small degree to the wall. I submit that Langley is a microcosm of the USA that is obviously still "red neck christian (rnc)" dominated (note two concurrent rnc victories of Conservative M. warawa in Langley who was an import to Langley).
Richter will be hard placed to win a race for mayor or leader of this rnc stronghold community. This also partially explains the treatment of her peers on council of which many are obviously proudly declared systemic male focused rnc members and the others pander to them. However this will change at some point, perhaps in 5 or 10 years or so, as more progressives from the centre and centre left leaning urbanites are finacially forced to move to the suburban Willoughby like areas of Langley as well as when more visible minorties expand into Langley. As I said before Richter has the support of the female vote and and perhaps many of the grudging rnc support as a straight shooting financial conservative doo-doo
disturber/advocate.
She will continue to place in the top three in voter support but as said would be hard pressed to run as mayor at this time unless a major issue rears it's head. My suggestion is that she create an alternative slate to the existing rnc one on council now with a token male mayor or even without one. Or indeed simply widely publicize her approved list of council candidates as the current mayor has done in the last election. In my opinion this may be surprisingly effective to change the existing council make up.
Edited By Siteowner
If Richter runs for mayor on a similar profile as her last campaign, I would vote for her.
Hey, same initials as you Keith Richmond aka KR.
Kim Richter aka KR. Good omen maybe?
Oh my what a fishing expedition this is LFP Editor! Unfortunately you caught a minnow in the big blue sea, this is a non-issue, votes are based on performance, Kim got in and others didn't. This issue has been around for many, many years and guess what, it won't go away. Go back to an issue you are passionate about - the war in Afganistan and forget these silly fishing expeditions that really have little or no value to anyone but your own personal ego!
Great idea Rennie, I will...the new mantra, are you ready for it? It's "Go Back Home Canuck(GBHC-09) in 2009!" Speaking about egos....here's a pertinent recent posted thought that still brings tons of tears to my eyes "reminder of the responsibility to make the world a better place" sic... some may think its tears of laughter but I'm not telling!
Hi IQ there 'whatever', must have taken all the brains ya' got to muster that paragraph!
Women in more British Columbia communities wanting to start their own business will benefit from an additional $95,000 grant to the Women's Enterprise Centre for its Taking the Leap to Entrepreneurship program.
Hey Editor....I open the Sunday TIMES and on the sports page there the pictures of the five femalesfrom Langley going to the Pan Am Games....where did all the men go!!! This is a cycle sometimes the women dominate and other times it is the men in today's world! Get over it and move on.
"I am especially familiar with the business & corporate world. Obviously your not. So let me educate you." – LFP Editor
Let me educate you.
I was not talking about the business and corporate world. I was talking about SOP for executive renewal within charitable organizations – which YOU are apparently not familiar with.
So you relate elected and paid politicians to charitable orgs. !!?? Pathetic attempt to make a comeback.
Not a comeback – just a clarification. You accused me of relating politicians to business. I never meant any such thing.
And this time I didn't equate politicians with charity.
You don't read very well, do you?
A gradyouate of thee evlin woodhed spidridin corse?
Rennie it's great that 5 women are going to the games does that mean you will support 5 women for township council next year too? Let's try and get respect and equity in politics is my point that to many of you are trying to spin away from.
Unfortunately since you do speak of sports what equity is there in professional sports? I don't see women golfers get as much in purses, how about the other sports? The only real break through recently has been in tennis. But I believe that is the orphan.
LFP, you have to realise that to have big purses or salaries in any sport, and you must also have good attendance, TV coverage, and the interest of wannabes. Your cause is a good one, but you are starting to whine, and reach for bias where it does not exist. Anger and frustration will not solve the situation. The only solution is to examine and rectify the cause(s). As yet, noone has speculated on what they might be.
This Editor's focus is not on sports, business, etc but rather why arn't intelligent and qualified women getting into politics or even staying in it? My argument remains that they are victims of the double standard systemic old boys club that treats their peer women in politics as an "inconvenient truth"! Unless you correct this first improvements will never come in other areas area within an ice age.
LFP,
I just have to comment here...I’ve tried not to but now I must.
The reason that female politicians are not getting elected is not due to any “old boys club” but a systematic bias...but not the one you are thinking of. Demographics makes it clear that there are more female voters than male voters. The only reason women aren’t getting elected is that female voters aren’t voting for them. When polled, female voters claim they will vote for female candidates but when female candidates run, the exit polling demonstrates that these same women simply aren’t voting for the female candidates.
As noted in recent research on the subject: ”Women are both more likely to vote for a woman and more likely to dismiss a candidate based on gender...gender matters more to female voters than to male voters. Gender also can work against women since women generally place higher standards on female candidates.”
Until female politicians can convince female voters to vote for them we will continue to have male politicians running the ship of state. So stop blaming the “old boys club” and blame the female voters who insist on holding female candidates to a higher standard of conduct and performance than they do male candidates.
Blair, sorry I DON"T buy, a) that women tend NOT to vote for women and b) that women set a higher standard for female candidates.
Show me the money on this hypothesis. Not believable, nor would I most likely ever believe any author of this theory. This is probably authored by a religious sect based in Utah or Afghanistan!
It's simply another convenient outrageous cop out to blame women for their own issues of unequal treatment at the hands of their male peers. I'm surprised Blair you would even consider this possibility possibly valid as well.
Why not use this argument in the case of women's oppression in the middle east like Afghanistan? The men there probably already use a variant of this rationale to justify their own more rabid systemic discrimination. But alas, they do because they even stone them to death there, not to mention even in our own lower mainland as well!
And yes I do and will blame the ole boys club. Just attend any council meeting and observe the systemic discrimination in action. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Or look to the examples I posted in my original posting and elsewhere herein. Or would you also have this Editor believe that it is women's fault as well and most specifically Councillor K.Richter's own fault!? Hint, don't even try to go there!
Your a professional, remember, your female peers would laugh you out of your class if you suggested this to them. Suggest this to your own wife why don't you? My wife and daughters just now told me that this is bullshit and say these type of comments propagate this crap. But they did agree that not enough quality women enter politics!
LFP,
I can assure you my opinion is well-grounded in recent research and would not come as a surprise to those who are well-versed in the current research. The points I made above form the basis of the thesis of a well-researched book Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates By Kathleen A. Dolan.
Put simply, voters (the majority of which are women) traditionally hold female politicians to higher standards than male politicians. While women, when given a choice, are more likely to vote for a qualified female candidate over a qualified male candidate the problem lies in the determination of who is a “qualified candidate”. Current research shows that voters (regardless of gender) appear to expect the women to have accomplished more to be considered equal to their male counterparts.
On the local level might I suggest you head down to the SFU library and look up a few journal articles on the topic? Start with: “Judgments about the capabilities of city councillors and support for female representation on city council” by Brown in The Social Science Journal Volume 31, Issue 4, 1994, Pages 355-373
or maybe: Brown, Cl., Heighberger, N. R., & Shocket, P. A. (1993). Gender-based differences in perceptions of male and female city council candidates. Women and Politics. 13, 1-17.
The core issue is competent & qualified women. On that we agree perhaps hence my original premise remains the same that those quality women don't get into or stay in politics. The reason is the grueling double standard systemic treatment and issue as I initially stated and as demonstrated locally by male press and political peers. This is consistently and blatantly unfair, aka Merkel & Stronach & Richter & al.
On the references you quote I'm sure the same would apply to men. I must then be unique as I hold BOTH men & women equally to a higher standard when I choose to vote for them! I certainly as a male won't vote for a moronic political male even though the council has at least three of them( I attribute their election to the peer male press terrible coverage of their performance & ability and not enough competent female coverage)! Why on earth would men more than women vote in incompetents politically or the reverse?
These opinions, you once again can always be counted on to quote, again propogate sexism (even if the reason is not just because of quality candidates) because it speaks very poorly to female voters. I give women voters much more credit than these &%#@$*^ professional (perhaps?) academic papers you quote. So insofar as your references I submit one summary word, as my daughters described it, bullshit!
Fortunately professional's opinions (and they are just that!) and paper/thesis grads as well as ambitious professional book writers & sellers don't dictate my opinions and hopefully the opinions of the majority or else, God forbid, we would all be wearing plastic pen/pencil chest pocket protectors as well as white masking tape circled around the bridge part of our black horn rimmed 1/2 inch thick eyeglasses! (See, how does this systemic descrimination feel?)
I find it mildly amusing that your major complaint in all these discussions is that some individuals have gone through the time and effort to develop an expertise in a subject. These folk spend years working in a field and before they can publish their work they are forced to prove that every word they write can be supported by data through the process of peer review. Sadly after years of research, study and intense scrutiny they publish something that you, after a casual five minutes of distracted thought, write off as sexist. This, even though much of the work is performed in a double-blind environment where the individuals conducting the research are deliberately shielded from knowledge of the gender of the subjects of the research.
It is almost as if the more time someone spends becoming an expert the less you like them. As you write “So insofar as your references I submit one summary word, as my daughters described it, bullshit!” I believe as Eric Arthur Blair put it best: ignorance is strength!
You talk as a PHD Blair, I talk as a practical pragmatist based on my own observation, interviews, research, related life experience and knowledge and gut feel. Yes Blair, even gut feel! My opinion is that I choose to doubt, no let me re-phrase, REJECT your submitted sexist supporting professional opinions on this topic.
Is it mandatory for all layman to believe and do all that a professional says? I think not! Then why do we have politicians at all, let the 'Professionals' rule all and make all the decisions. Why do Professionals essentially all have equivalent malpractice or errors and omissions insurance? Why do professionals almost always qualify their results with cover your ass opt out weasel words and phrases in their reports or in their executive summary?
Please try to respect that as diffilcult as you will obviously find that. I have seen countless professional opinions that were flawed, misleading, inaccurate or missing critical information. Heck many even say that one is able to purchase a contradictory professional report when needed.
As a professional businessman myself I have learnt by experience to not believe professionals ALL the time. Because opinions always have a habit of changing. I take their opinions into account. At one point professional opinions said smoking was good for you or that some dangerous foods were good for you and on and on it goes. Heck G. W. Bush still says his earlier obtained 'professional opinions' justified the ill fated Iraq invasion! Remember the WMD?
For instance I think a lot of the professional Township led endeavors have been disasters. Did I ever tell you about the $3-4-5-6 Million Grandstand fiasco managed by Professionals? So please Blair get off your high horse and lay off your defensiveness every time anyone disagrees with your or other's 'professional' opinions. You may be personally insulted but believe me for your sake that your oft times myopic professional phobia can be certainly insulting to others as well as predictable and tired.
Otherwise I respect your thoughts and opinions.
P.S. On another related note FYI, I plan to post shortly a Township council audio segment on a development where Richter questioned the local project's professional environmental planners actual outcomes to their initially approved professional plan! You won't wanna miss that one Blair!
I believe as the LFP Editor put it best: 'Blind faith in the learned prophet's written word is folly'
LFP, boys become men usually favouring the activities and interasts of their fathers. As much as they appreciate their mother, she is not the image of what they wish to grow up being. Father usually has the last word. Father has physical strength. Father has friends and associates that look up to him. Yup, he grows up in a man's world, and that's where he wants to be seen.
Picture:
A group of men have formed a little gathering with cocktails in hand. The talk naturally takes the form of "man talk", with a few guffaws and a bit of ribbing etc. Along comes a very able female co-worker and joins the group. The whole atmosphere changes, with each man taking a different view of the scene. Been there, and seen that. The female co-worker is appreciated, but usually (with some exceprions) not exactly
an inner member of the club. NATURE.
Picture:
A man has only one child, and it's a girl. He dotes on her and takes her everywhere to meet people he knows and associates with. She develops a close relationship with her father and develops his habits, and does not have (or show) any inferiority feelings among men, and will go toe to toe with them without losing their respect. Feel free to attach as many names as you can to this girl.
There are countless reasons why some women succeed amoung what LFP refers to as the old boys club. Others have the talent but don't seem to fit in. For the lack of a better description of the cause....I would simply say it's a development thing, and it doesn't occur overnight.
LFP,
I don’t talk as a PH.D on this subject as this is not a subject for which I have a PH.D. Instead I talk as someone who has actually read and taken time to digest the research. It doesn’t take a PH.D. to become informed about a subject, just a willingness to approach a subject with an open mind.
You throw around the word “sexist” about the research without ever having read the original documentation. It is almost humorous how when confronted with facts your reflexive response is either to yell “sexist” or “don’t trust the professionals”. The whole point of double-blind sample design is to ensure that the observer does not affect the subject. As a part of the double-blinding each subject has all his/her sexual characteristics removed from consideration until after the data has been analyzed.
You call yourself a practical pragmatist, well a practical person would ask, what have others found out so I don’t have to reinvent the wheel? A pragmatist would ask: What has been happening in the real world? The research that I quote is grounded in years of solid work conducted by not only pointy-headed academics, but also by marketers, politicians and the polling companies that get them elected. If you don’t believe me, believe the marketers and others who have proved time and time again that what I am writing is true.
If a business had failed five times on the same corner offering the same service would you as a “professional; businessman” try and offer that same service on that same corner? No you wouldn’t. Instead you’d say let’s try something new here because what has been tried in the past doesn’t seem to be working. The research is now out there to explain why things haven’t been going your way. Unfortunately, the research reveals an unhappy truth about how people make their decisions come voting day. This leaves you with a number of alternatives and approaches to the status quo: the first is to take advantage of the situation (which is what the politicians have been doing for quite some time), a much harder alternative is to try and change the status quo through education and hard work and the last (which for the purpose of this discussion I will call the “LFP way”) is to rail against the injustice of it all while doing nothing to improve the situation.
Sorta' off the subject but I saw in the newspaper announcements the birth of Blair and his wifes baby. Congratulations to the King family. Getting much sleep lately Blair? (I remember days gone by).
Gee does that mean that you might mellow now Blair? LOL. Seriously, All the best to you, especially your wife and to all of your family now from LFP and the LFP WAY (couldn't resist Blair, sorry)! I wonder is it a girl, apropos perhaps?
Apparently, my post was removed Queenie. Thanks for noticing it. The words were simple to keep the message clear. But, I suppose dissenters can not be tolerated at this site. Too much common sense can spoil the spin.
Actually, I've been shocked to see that the bias on this website isn't challenged more often! Now, I suppose there's no shortage of malcontents and whiny socialists, even in Langley.
The spin seems to be working for you LFP Ed. It's like there's no shortage of suckers who are willing to buy into your propaganda.
So, you are free to continue dping nothing positive for the community. Just plug your candidate and find something to complain about.
Can you tolerate dissenters or are you the only one who can bite the hand that feeds?
'Whatever', if anyone posts spam this Editor will delete the posted comment and YES at this Editor's disgression will delete comments & sometimes ban commenters. To date 5 in total have been banned from LFP. For your info to avoid same, no pure spam is tolerated. Your last posting was 100% incoherent spam. Also I highly suggest you read LFP Comments Rules & Violations link posted on the side bar to the right. Yes even LFP has some small rules! I suggest more content that is appropriate and relevant as opposed to only off topic venomous diatribe or spam which you only seem solely comfortable with.
Also 'Whatever' FYI, this Editor has a personal bias against knuckle draggers as well! So yes if you don't like it you can take your juvenile toys home and leave. Nobody forces you to read LFP! What is it with some of you who gush unbelievable ass kissing platitudes on another noted local blog site and then spew incoherent pure anger & venom here on LFP. Actually your double standard of blog submissions actually helps make my point a lot about the ole boys club council and their blind sycophants! One wonders if these split personality like blog writings could perhaps be eased by a shrink or is it just pure partisan politics at play? I think I clearly know which one it is! You speak of propaganda, what do think your boring banter really is?
LFP,
Thanks for the good sentiments. The new arrival is a boy...one who hasn't quite worked out the whole concept of day/night yet unfortunately.
Regards,
LFP you make me laugh.
Yadda, yadda = spam.
Blah, blah = propaganda.
Rave on Ed.
"The application of the name "Spam" to unwanted communication originates in Chat-room spam. Specifically, it was developed in the chat-rooms of People-Link in the early 1980s as a technique for getting rid of unwelcome newcomers. When someone would enter a chat-room full of friends who were in mid-conversation, and when the newcomer tried to turn the conversation in an unwelcome direction, two veteran members of the room would begin typing in the Monty Python “Spam” routine at high speed. They would fill the screen with “Spam Spam Spam eggs Spam Spam and Spam” etc, and make all other communication impossible. The other members of the room would just wait quietly until the newcomer got disgusted and moved on to a different room."
Wickpedia - Chat Spam
You whine about your taxincrease yet make a notice of motion to support the Langley Com. Services to the tune of a .84% tax increase - get real here Kim!
Dear Rennie:
I find it curious that in your comment above you choose to ignore the fact that on Monday past, Council approved a $3.69 MILLION amendment to this year's Budget Bylaw and financial plan. Included in that $3.69 Million was an additional $517,000 for a new dog shelter which had already been given $1.7 Million earlier. I did not support this $3.69 Million budget amendment as I think it's pretty sad this Tax, Borrow and Spend Mayor and Council can't live within the very generous means and 5% Tax increase they approved just 3 months ago.
To my way of thinking, if this Council can afford to spend an additional $517,000 to help the dogs and cats in the community, then they can afford to spend $500,000 to help the people in this community (through Langley Family Services). As noted in the presentation to Council, 60% of the people that Family Services helps each day live in the Township.
So, Rennie, who really needs to "get real" here? Perhaps it's time that the blinders came off about the financial fiascos of this Tax, Borrow, and Spend Mayor and Council.
P.S. Rennie: since you're keeping track, the quarterly Financial Statements presented to Council on Monday show the Willoughby Sportsplex and Community Park at $43 Million - up from the last figure of $37 Million and the original price tag of $15 Million.
Face it the ole boys club on Council blew it. They did nothing, absolutely squat for years on the police subsidy to the City. Guess what boys your way too late, you probably already lost this case as usual, and this Editor will shortly be giving you a column about our second annual reminder about your abysmal failure!
Now these bozos are angry at the City because they look stupid as usual and then take it out on those that need community support the most by posturing in not providing the $500k to Langley Family Services! Just because it is located in the City & not the Township. Yet 60% of the real people LFS serves are in the Township! Go figure.
Yet they simply don't even blink to add $500k to the homeless animals in the township as opposed to the impoverished and distressed on the very same day! Let's henceforth call it the Township council Ole boys club "Dog Day Afernoon' fiasco!
Meanwhile the ole boys club heroes on Township council who proudly proclaimed they were able to reduce the tax increase from 8 or 7 % down to 5% essentially on the same day added almost $4,000,000.00 ($4 million)more to the budget only a few short months after they bedded the budget! Does this mean trhat they really got back to 7-8-9 or more % equivalent? Tragic! We hope to report more on this pdq!
So the bureaucrats led Township, essentially got their budget cuts of 2 to 3 % back on the backs of the ole boys club terrible ever escalating financial decisions!
Spin,spin, spin - wow we are now comparing people with animals. Can't you focus on the one issue raised.....the motion put before council by Richter to pay Langley Family Services $500,000 out of Township coffers. Forget all the other trivial points you raise to deflect from the reality of this incredibly poorly thought out motion. The other blog has an excellent piece on the issue and certainly makes points that shoot holes through this motion. Why should I a Township taxpayer think about paying for the mortgagae on a City owned building. So what if 60% of the clients are from the Township, I bet Aldergrove Neighbourhood Services can claim numbers of city residents they serve. Why would a motion with such unfairness attached to it (equal monies to ANS and the homeless shelter) be even given a second look. Forget all the spin stuff and the retoric stick to this one motion and it is a non starter for many a good reason.
Historic 5% year after year of compounded tax increases, with no end in site with this council, going from 0 - ZERO debt to double digit millions in debt, spending rabidly out of control like the restaurants/bars, not to mention the $3-4-5-6-7 + million grandstand that is not even finished yet and it's soon to be protege $15 million up to now $45 million dollar Willougby arena site. I never see you talk to these and you just keep deflecting them! Why? Remember Rennie on all of these the votes were all the boys yes and 1 woman NO!
And lets see Richter, votes no to adding $4 or $5 million to the budget which includes $500k to protect our stray dogs ( wonder if 60% of the dogs come from township!) and then you have the gall to infer this is more important than our welfare to our citizens because lets face it the far more competent Langley City council manages their money tons better than the Township council! So let's punish them on the backs of those that can't protect themselves!
Rennie whos spinning who? I will bet you $3-4-5-6-7 dollars this council ole boys club is toast in 16 months. The word on the street is even the fact that the newest council members who spoke against tax increases and spending prior to getting elected are also at great risk to be re-elected because they voted consistently yes to TAX, SPEND & BORROW since being elected!
Heres a ridlle for you. What do you get when you mix up a concoction of 2 journalists, 1 principal, a schoool counselor a bureaucrat and his buds? Answer "good ole boy tax, spend and borrow stew".
PS: The langley music school land is owned by the City and Rennie who do you think will own the homeless shelter land? Stop being parochial and bombastic., one could think you have more of a vested interest in this than you are letting on! The bottom line Rennie, Council should do the right things to protect our citizens and forego petty bickering and vindictiveness like the LFS spokesperson and the Times Editor correctly said. Gawd we're damm lucky your not on Township council Rennie!
Closing comment: At least Richter's track record has been consistently NO to out of control tax increases, NO to out of control borrowing and No to out of control spending. Yup but she did say yes to helping those in the community that need the help most. So the strongest and obviously most knowlegeble fiscal conservative with a proven fiscal conservative track record also has a bigger heart for some of citizen's critical health & social needs far above our dog's social needs! So if you think, gotcha, get a life Rennie and smell the roses. Remember, 16 months to clarity!
Yes you arelucky I am not on Council, and yes in 16 months I will vote and yes I love Langley and I will vote for a positive move ahead kind of candidate.....not a NO, No, No hypocrite. The comments are over, talking to a brick wall is not fun after a while. You move on, I'll move on and read the other blog which is far more informative and interactive in a positive way. Keep saying and supporting NO after all that is how the world was made wasn't it Adam - over and out.
Another little man takes his toys and goes home and can't take the truth nor the heat of the kitchen. Way to close to home Rennie?
So "positive move ahead kind of candidate" according to you is a uniform group think ole boys club member who loves to tax spend and borrow? Oh, and in keeping with this original post heading definitely another little MAN too obviously! Rennie, how do you manage to wash out the red dirt ring on your shirt collars?
LFP Ed,
Thanks for another good laugh.
So, who's "calling the kettle black"?
You can't fool me. I know you're pretty "pink".
The only pink thing about this Editor is my steaks! And having to put up with you radical right wing nut red necks! What is with you bozos, the red scare is long gone. Get with this new millenium. Why don't you finally grow up and get with the new program. Your tired type of pathetic political pandering and fear mongering died with the 50's & 60's! 
I bet you still wear razor narrow stiletto neck ties with floral prints too and still yearn for a McCarthyism revival!
"Social Democracy" = diminished freedom & financial disaster - past, present & future.
Amen! And what church spire do you champion as well OK?
Hey OK, I thought that "Capitalism" equalled diminished freedom and financial disaster. Proof: When was the last time the TSX took a "correction" like it did today? Certainly not under social democracy! Now I have less money, and therefore less freedom to do what I want. Man, I want socialism so bad...
Commenting by HaloScan
