The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

4 -- PORT PERRY STAR -- Tues. August 21, 1984 editorial comments The onl thing (GULP) worse than NO majority... -.. would be (GULP) two leaders with no SEAT ! chatterbox by John B. McClelland ISIT OVER YET? There was a time not too many years ago when politics was like a tonic for me. I was fascinated by the political process, a junkie who would devour every morsel of a national election campaign and still hunger for more. Same was true for a provincial or municipal election. How and why men select those who would lead and govern them was a topic of immense satisfaction for me on several planes: from the rough and tumble of two candidates slugging it out for enough votes to get elected to a ward seat on local council to the philosophical ques- tion of why men allow themselves to be governed by others, I was hooked on politics. Being a newspaper reporter and editor made it all the better for me. I could observe the process and write about it, too. But somewhere along the way, politics has soured on me. The fascination has waned, almost disappeared. The sense of excitement has dulled to the point where I am just about oblivious to the national campaign go- ing on in this country right now. John, Brian and Ed? They could be three guys in a commercial for Miller beer for all I care. So one of them will be the next Prime Minister of Canada. Big deal. There was a time when I had little tolerance for anyone who didn't have a healthy interest in politics. It used to make my blood boil to hear people say "I don't care who gets elected, I don't bother to vote, anyway." How could anyone NOT be interested in politics, I used to think to myself. Now I know. But what is really bothering me is that I can't put my finger on the reasons why my own interest has slid so far downhill. Possibly it's because after ten years of writing about and covering politics, the process is taking on an air of repitition. Yet many writers spend their entire careers covering politics and are still as excited about it in their sixties as they were in their twenties. True, I'm not 21 anymore, but I'm a long way from 60. Maybe my lack of interest now stems from the three party leaders themselves, who are criss-crossing the country in search of votes. But John, Brian and Ed seem like decent enough politicians from what I've read in the papers and seen on television. Heck, John even threw a new wrinkle into this cam- paign, the bum pat, normally seen on the playing fields when defensive half-backs congratulate each other for a game saving interception deep in the end zone. The poor guy had to apologize, however, and promise that from now on, he will only use the high-five to say way to go, guys, great play. Brian has been dubbed the chin that talks. A bit un- fair, in my opinion. I've heard him talk a lot, but has he said anything? Nobody really cares. They are too busy watching Mila smile. As for Ed, well, like always, he plods along, mak- ing marvellous sense about some things: a better break for the poor, more taxes on the rich, jobs for all, etc. etc. Why the NDP never gets elected has always been a mystery to me, but that's another story. No, John, Brian and Ed themselves are the reason this election campaign has failed totally to strike a cord in me. The issues? Could be. Again, for what seems like the nth time, this election is being fought on the economy, unemployment, the deficit and interest rates. So what else is new in this country. The Big Four have dogged our heels for the past 20 years, and this time we've thrown a few new issues in like women's rights, abortion, the cruise and nuclear freeze. Special interest groups are playing a dominant role in the campaign. Catholics, for example, have been told not to vote unless the candidate is expressly pro-life. And last Wednesday evening, the three leaders and the networks got together for a debate exclusively on "women's issues." How silly. Sure, there are issues per- taining to women, but are they THAT important? (I must be careful not to comment on that debate since I didn't watch it) But I did take the time last Thursday afternoon to see Turner at the Polish Veterans Hall in Oshawa. I went strictly to obeerve. Turner gave a good speech, not great, maybe, but good enough to have the partisan au- dience on its feet several times. And I must say that Turner comes across better in real life than he does on TV. Still, I felt strangely detached, removed from all the hoopla. While I came away feeling pleased that I seen the Prime Minister, there was nothing in the event that shook the apathy from my senses. Apathy. That's how I feel about this campaign, and a lot of people I talk to share my indifference. Maybe summer is a bad time for politics. Maybe the fact the election was called hard on the heels of the Liberal leadership race has resulted in political overkill. Too much, too fast. Not enough breathing space or time to enjoy the summer. I guess what it all boils down to for me this elec- tion, is I don't care WHO gets elected on September 4. Despite all the talk about change, new directions, trust, hope for the future and so on, I don't think too much is going to change in this country on September 5, or a year from now for that matter. To be frank, I'll be glad when this election is over, but I hear rumblings that Bill Davis is thinking about a fall election for Ontario. I can hardly wait. Pinch me when it's all over, 0.K.? Why That Debate? Have feminists gone too far? Some people many of them women, think so. Especially in the aftermath of last Wednesday's leader- ship debate, a two-hour question and answer period dealing strictly with "women's issues.' Nary a chauvinistic hair was turned by either of the three party leaders and even Prime Minister John Turner managed to keep his hands to himself as a panel of feminists tossed out a series of questions on touchy sub- jects like abortion, the nuclear arms race, the economy, social service programs and job creation. All the questions were asked by women (and sup- posedly) for women, but they were still questions deal- - ing with issues affecting everyone in this country; men, women and children alike. So really, what difference was there between "the women's debate" and the other debates held a few weeks ago? Why did the National Action Committee on the Status of Women decide a special debate for ladies was needed in the first place? These are questions many women in Scugog Township have been asking in the days following the debate. In an informal survey conducted by the Star, an overwhelming number of women in various occupations said they thought the debate was "an embarrassment"' to the female gender. In nearly every case, women of all ages and political persuasions reacted negatively towards the debate, not because it dealt with important issues (which they agreed it did) but because it separated women from the rest of Canada, classifying women as feminists -- not Cana- dian voters. One woman said she didn't like being singled out as a woman, explaining that she considers herself a per- son first. Another woman pointed out that the country wouldn't "sit still' for a man's debate. Although a few women interviewed by the Star thought the debate was terrific, a real stepping-stone for women in the world of politics and business, the majori- ty weren't impressed. A Scugog housewife was adamant when she said the audience at the debate and the questions being ask- ed by the panel did not reflect her views, or the views of what she called "the ordinary Canadian woman." She has a point. While feminist groups across the country rally for social changes, other women cringe. Many admit they're embarrassed by the actions of feminist groups and say women's liberation has gone too far. They don't want abortion on demand and can't fathom the difference between "equal pay for equal work' and "equal pay for work of equal value." They say they don't want to shell out their hard-earned tax money to pay for universal day care. They keep saying they've got all they want and accuse feminists of being too pushy. Who knows. For the professional woman who is bat- tling her way up the corporate ladder and finding doors closed to her all the way: for the single mother who can't get a job without re-training but can't get re-training because she can't afford day care; or for the thousands of young working women living below the poverty line, more changes are needed. Undoubtedly, there are situations across the coun- try where women don't stand a fighting chance and need the help of feminist lobbying and government legislation. However, not all women in Canada are feminists. Not all women are unhappy with their lot in life, and the ones who are content with thei: present situation are sick of being lumped together with groups like the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Back in October 1983, a Thornhill-based organiza- tion called Real Women of Canada was federally incor- porated to "serve and protect the Canadian family." In short, the group got together because its members believed that feminist groups have held a monopoly on speaking on behalf of women for too long. Real Women was vehemently opposed to the debate because it feels there is no such thing as a women's vote, anymore than there is a men's vote. It points out that women vote and think according to their social and economic backgrouds, not according to their sex. The latest Gallup Polls in Canada confirm there is no perceptible gender gap. : So why the separate debate? If women are men's equals, shouldn't one debate, dealing with all issues equally do? There's a lot of women out there who think so.