Talk:REAL Women of Canada

Untitled
A POV issue... Using the intials that the group REAL women uses in a way makes you define them as real women in an ordinary sense and not a political group with political views. If you say NDP or EGALE people know you are talking political groups....it seems to me that using R.E.A.L. women is the best way of dealing with this....anyone?--Marcie 19:13, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I usually go by how the group calls itself, except if it's very misleading. I think the capitalization shows that it's an acronym... but if you want to change it go ahead.  I don't have a strong opinion.  moink 01:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Social conservative
The organization's website addresses only social issues, and not economic ones, therefore it is appropriate to describe it as "social conservative". If User:Michaelm or anyone else wants to change that description to "conservative", evidence must be provided. Please stop the unsubstantiated edits that create unnecessary work for those of us trying to build Wikipedia. Do your research before making changes. Thank you. Kevintoronto 17:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

REAL Women of Canada is a Canadian conservative lobby group with social and economic issues. that whay its not just social conservative.

Under the heading 'Career Choices for Women', economic policies of the organization include:

1. A homemaker's tax credit and child tax credits extended to cover low to middle income families so as to permit some flexibility of choice for women;

2. Taxes should be reduced for single-income families which currently pay much higher rates than two-income families because the latter are allowed to file separate returns. Alternately, single income families should be allowed to split the family income so as to enable the husband and wife to file separate returns.

These are both economic policies that work towards supporting the organization's goals for women and what their perception of family is. But clearly economic conservatism is not the reason for the organization's existence. What is required for this article is to label the organization for what it advocates the most, which is social conservatism. Please see my additions about their economic policies that support social conservatism. Kurieeto 18:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

A couple of instances of the word "economic" on their web page does not make them fiscal or economic conservatives. "We believe that social and economic problems and solutions for women today should be resolved by taking into account their impact on the family and society as a whole." They are talking about the economic problems (i.e., financial) of women, not about the economy. What are their stands on the size of government? Privatization of public services? Taxation of corporations? Free trade? Deregulation? Environmental issues? Their website doesn't get into these issues at all - at least, not that I can find. Even if from time to time they delve into these issues, it is clear that their focus is the social and economic position of women, so, as Kurieeto says, "social conservative" is a more useful description. They spend their time fighting same-sex marriage, abortion and publicly-funded day care, not trying to get tax cuts for the rich, or fighting environmental regulations. Kevintoronto 14:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did REAL Women back the Conservatives at the last Canadian federal election? If so, could that be categorised as implicit support for fiscal conservatism? User Calibanu 11:22, 11 April 2006 ---

I believe I read somewhere that the majority of REAL Women's membership is male. Anyone have a figure? - Montrealais 03:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This tends to have been an occupational hazard of alleged antifeminist 'womens' organisations. In Australia, "Women Who Want to be Women" had to change its name to "Endeavour Forum" for exactly that reason, and in New Zealand, "Women for Life" became the "Family Education Network" until it finally shut down in December 2004. Has REAL 'Women' discussed the issue of changing its name anywhere? If so, you might want to look for it. Incidentally, does it have a Quebecois branch? User Calibanu 11.20, 11 April 2006

Pro-family
Pro-family is a neutral term which appropriately describes this organization. Social conservative is an umbrella term which encompasses more than the source intended to impart. Lionel (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not neutral and it doesn't appropriately describe an organization that campaigns for laws denying legal recognition to families it doesn't like. If you think "social conservative" is too broad, would you like to suggest a neutral term that conveys a more specific meaning? It can be in more words (ie. "anti-feminist and anti-gay" encompasses both headings). Alternately, at its first occurrence, it doesn't actually need to be present at all since the following clause conveys the same message (so it would read "REAL formed as an anti-feminist counterweight...") The second occurrence, now that I take another look, is from a survey prior to the founding of REAL, so my substitution of "this" won't do. However, for the same reason, the sentence isn't particularly relevant and can be removed in its entirety, with the paragraph then beginning "There has been a great discrepancy..." I'll implement those, for now. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The description "pro-family" is hardly a "neutral term". It's a neologism designed to capture the semantics of discourse for its creators/users and make it harder for anyone to oppose their views. Implicit in the term is the notion that no decent person could oppose "pro-family" ideology: Doing so would be "anti-family"!


 * There's a single phrase that public discourse has rather grudgingly allowed to be captured in this way and that rightly describes this group's agenda. It's family values, and if you insist on having any sort of description that includes the word "family", that would be it. If you do include this likewise POV phrase, "family values" then it has to be wikilinked and either:


 * (1) coupled with the group's reprehension of all but the traditional nuclear family, or
 * (2) coupled with a wikilinked description of to its POV counterpart, familialism.


 * Whatever you all decide, you can't use Wikipedia to promulgate a neologistic synonym for "family values". –  OhioStandard  (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: Per my just-completed edit the lead now describes the group as a "socially conservative family values lobby group". I'd be opposed to the removal of "socially conservative" without the addtion of points (1) or (2) that I identified above. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

POV issues
Problems with POV against the group in the history section. I'm doubtful about the accuracy of some of these inaccessible sources, such as the source for the Schime quote, but in a more general sense, we need to organize information about the group's official positions and activities in a reasonable fashion that doesn't mix in comments from individuals in a synthy way. We also need to avoid POV synthesis in elaborating on the impact of these positions; I'm not arguing that we need to include a list of positions as though we simply copied it from their website, but saying they are opposed to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is somewhat suspect. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)