Over the past several generations, Canada has greatly changed, in no small part, due to the increasing influence of feminism in many institutions and organizations. REAL Women is always grateful for competent and honest leaders regardless of their gender. This is in extremely short supply, especially at the federal level. There are some outstanding examples of competent women in positions of influence who have done commendable work that has benefitted this country. But this does not always happen. Rather, we are faced with many appointments of women to influential roles that are based, not on the individual’s ability or merit, but on the fact that they are female and share the progressive outlook of those making the appointments.
The appointment of women without merit has occurred in many of our institutions such as universities (including research chairs), the judiciary, medicine, the Canadian Armed Forces, policing (including the RCMP), the education system, cabinet positions and the public service. For example, there have been a series of women appointed to the role of Governor General who were self-indulgent and self-serving. These women include Adrienne Clarkson (1999–2005), Michaëlle Jean (2005–2010), Julie Payette (2017–2021) who insisted that the role of Governor General be adapted to meet her personal indulgences, and Mary Simon (2021–Present) who seemingly has little interest in the Canadian people, except Inuits like herself. In the role of Governor General, Simon has committed herself to the comforts of Rideau Hall, seldom stepping out to meet individual Canadians where they live.
The effect of the appointment of inadequate and incompetent women in institutions, appointed on the basis of their sex and progressive outlook, rather than on merit, has had the effect of demoralizing the public and undermining the credibility of these institutions.
The Feminist Demand for the Appointment of Women
The appointment of unqualified women to leadership roles has not been accidental. Rather, their appointments have been carefully advanced over the years by radical feminists in accordance with their concept that men and women are equal and interchangeable. This is absurd. Although men and women are equal, they are different, not just biologically, but also sexually, socially, intellectually, psychologically, in personal relationships, and frequently in their work and personal aspirations. There are some roles that require testosterone and tough unsentimental judgement, that women, no matter how earnest, cannot supply. The feminization of our military as evidenced by the Gay pride flag raised on army bases across the country and transgender flags flown on naval vessels, are a travesty to our proud Canadian military history. Our military should be filled with those dedicated to service and sacrifice, not filled with individuals whose selection was based on sexual identity. What has been lost is the understanding that the primary purpose of the military is to defend Canada and Canadians, protect Canada’s sovereignty, and contribute to international peace and security. It is not a social agency to promote a social ideology or engage in social engineering experiments. Women in some leadership roles in the military and other institutions are pretending to be men and are play-acting in their roles for which they are not suited.
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau
This feminization of Canada started in 1973 when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau established a separate agency, the Status of Women, to promote and recognize women in society. At the same time, he also instituted a new policy that the federal government would fund women’s organizations but only those that were feminist. Trudeau slyly referred to this new funding policy as an advancement in “participatory democracy”. However, it is not democratic when women of only one perspective, that of feminists, is funded by the taxpayers while all others are ignored. It was convenient for Trudeau to fund only feminist groups as they supported his left-wing socialist Marxist perspective. Trudeau and all successive Liberal governments have also taken the position that only feminists were the official and valid voice of Canadian women in public debate. This was a remarkable insult to women, who are individuals and do not think as a group but rather have their own independent opinions, the same as men. No rational person would assume that all men think alike and speak with a single voice. So why, other than for political purposes, did Trudeau claim that only feminists’ voices mattered? His decision was based on political expediency to ensure continued support for his left-wing policies.
The UN Conference on Women, Beijing, China, 1995
Feminism in Canada received a boost with the 1995 UN Conference on Women in Beijing, China. This conference, however, was an utter fraud. REAL Women participated in the conference and quickly realized that the entire conference was controlled by feminists working in close cooperation with the UN bureaucracy and the U.S. Secretary of State. We also learned that the Beijing Platform for Action was drafted by a handful of U.S. feminists based in New York. These women feminists were well educated, well fed, and ambitious to spread their ideology worldwide. We further learned that the participants from the developing world at this conference were sponsored by the pro-abortion left-wing USAID, and abortion organizations such as International Planned Parenthood and the U.K. Marie Stopes International abortion organization. The Platform for Action referred many times to the need for abortion (reproductive rights in UN language) and the “empowerment” of women. It made no reference to the genuine needs of women in the developing world who required maternity care (a pair of medical gloves during delivery in a grass hut can make the difference between life and death), medicines and vitamins for their children, nutrition, clean water and equal access to education. These were non-issues to the feminists who drafted the Platform for Action. For example, the basic need for nutrition was referred to only twice in an off-hand manner, whereas abortion and feminist defined “empowerment” dominated the conference and the outcome document.
Consequently, the Beijing Platform for Action called for re-examining the entire structure of society and its institutions to implement so called “women’s equality rights.”
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, doubtless persuaded by the feminist bureaucracy at the Status of Women keen on spreading their feminist agenda, (and ensuring the continuance of their employment), endorsed the Beijing Platform for Action. This resulted in an increased budget for the Status of Women, and to the introduction of legislation to shore up the feminist policies that had been previously put in place by the government. These policies included legislation on affirmative action, pay equity and an amendment to the Business Corporations Act to disclose information on diversity in regard to directors and management, as well as their salaries.
Lavish Government Spending on Feminist Causes
Over the past 50 years, the federal government, through the Status of Women has spent billions of dollars to promote feminism in Canada. In addition to obtaining annual grants to maintain and sustain the organization for rent, staffing etc., it also received special grants. For example:
a) The Canadian Women’s Foundation (CWF)
In 2017, this organization formed a “pan-Canadian network for women’s equality”. It received a total of $150 million from the federal department Women and Gender Equality Status to facilitate it.
b) Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW)
This organization received a grant of $998,695 for a 2023-2026 “feminist participation action research project”. The purpose of the project is to develop strategies to counter “regressive movements” and “anti-feminist ideologies”. CRIAW tied regressive anti-feminist ideologies to historical and ongoing systems of power and oppression. It also claims that “racism and misogyny have deep roots in Canada’s colonial foundations as a patriarchal white settler state”.
c) The National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL)
The founding purpose of this organization was to use “feminist law reform” to ameliorate women’s economic disadvantages, and to protect women’s reproductive choice (abortion). It received $3.5 million from WAGE since 2019. In 2022, NAWL Charitable Trust received $1 million from “other charities”, raising only $15,000 in donations itself.
d) Equal Voice (EV)
The purpose of Equal Voice is to increase the number of women elected or appointed to public office at all levels of government, and the appointment of women to senior positions. In 2025, Equal Voice had a revenue of $1.5 million, 30% of which came from the federal government and other registered charities.
All the above organizations have been granted charitable status by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
In 2018, under Justin Trudeau, as part of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2 the Department of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) was established which transformed Status of Women Canada into a government department. Its Minister was appointed to be a member of cabinet. WAGE has received $1.7 billion since it began operations in 2019, not only to fund feminism but also to promote and fund homosexual and transgender rights and organizations. It has developed the Gender Analysis System which all federal departments and agencies are required to implement in all memorandums to cabinet, Treasury Board Submissions, federal budget proposals and regulations all across the government. It is also responsible for gender-based analysis to ensure budget decisions are made with full consideration of their gender and diversity impact. The Act bestowed on the Minister, powers, duties and functions to advance and monitor equality, including social, economic and political equality for women, homosexuals and transgenders. In addition, WAGE has funded over 400 progressive groups which have proliferated like rabbits, since taxpayers’ money is readily available to them just for the asking. Prime Minister Mark Carney is supposed to have a financial head. If so, he has lost it. In his November 2025 budget he has continued the lavish funding of feminist and homosexual groups and in some cases has even increased this extravagance.
Women in Canada are Privileged
Ironically all of this effort and huge sums of money are based on the false information adhered to by the feminist “victim” industry. Women in Canada are privileged not oppressed. The government’s own publications indicate this fact:
- Women comprise 56.8% of the federal government workforce (47.3% of the total workforce in Canada).
- In 2022, 41% Canadian-born women held bachelor’s degrees, whereas 27 % of Canadian-born men held bachelor’s degrees.
- Canada’s Business Development Bank states that consumer spending, the driving force behind economic growth, is provided by women in Canada since they are responsible for 75% to 80% of consumer spending.
- Women are the primary beneficiaries of their spouses’ estates. According to Investment Planning Counsel, in the decade ending 2026, women in Canada are estimated to inherit approximately $710 billion, and hard assets worth another $190 billion from their husbands’ estates.
Clearly the feminist narrative is a fraud. It is nothing less than a useful tool to give progressive women priority and enormous influence in Canadian life.
Policy on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)
In 2021, Justin Trudeau imposed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”, although it could easily stand for “Didn’t Earn It”) requirements on all government departments, universities, corporations and all regulated bodies. DEI is based on the classical Marxist theory that there is a conflict between different classes of people. Marxism initially dealt with conflict between the classes of capital and labour. Marxist theory has been extended in DEI to classify people as either oppressed or oppressors. The DEI classifications are based on a number of identities such as sex, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. White men are arbitrarily placed in the oppressor class, and females are placed in the oppressed class. The goal of this classification is to flip Canadian society so that the oppressed class (in this case women), become the more privileged or dominant class, while males are subordinated in regard to appointment and employment. This undervalues the contribution of males.
Discrimination Against Men
It is obvious from the above that men in Canada are experiencing incredible discrimination in government policies and recognition. To reject men and set them aside as secondary in Canadian society is to deprive our country of the expertise, abilities and judgement necessary to create and sustain a thriving nation.
At the present time, in order to obtain recognition and appointments, men are required to leave their masculinity at the door and accept the feminist precepts as binding truths. That is, they must abandon their masculinity and take on the behaviour of women; in doing so they are less of a threat. This may be why men who do acquire leadership roles in Canada today cannot be who they are, and therefore are less dynamic, less forceful and as a result, less effective. How much longer will we allow this insanity to continue?