Comments on: “Shrill” is just another word for “frightening woman”

By: Ward 16 constituent

Ward 16 constituent — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:42:11 +0000

Stintz says the coaching has made her a more effective public speaker and helped her feel more confident. She is positioning herself as someone who would exert tighter control over city hall spending, and has criticized Miller for increasing taxes every year since taking office. But Stintz insists the vocal training is not related to plans she may or may not have for a mayoral bid.

How can a so-called respectable, well educated, advocate for accountable spending, defend such spending without appearing insolent, selfish, and self serving. Go tell someone who has to wait in line for OHIP to pay for speech therapy, psychotherapy, or numerous other desperately needed services how deserving Councillor Stintz is. Ask someone suffering with a speech and or language impediment, or parents of a non-verbal autistic child waiting all of 3 years for services if they feel the confidence and annoying shrieking voice of a city employee seeking a political career should be served first, at public expense.

Shame on Karen Stintz for disposing of public money in such an egotistical manner and shame on her for then defending her selfish actions. Toastmasters helps many and is an affordable option teaching people how to speak publicly, or spend the $4,500 in personal funds if this area of self improvement is so important!

Any council members endorsing such types of extravagances do not deserve a position representing the public.

By: Sabine

Sabine — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:14:52 +0000

Point taken: something like public speaking lessons should be paid out of pocket (though apparently her constituents think their constituency is better served by Stintz being a better public speaker, so there is a rationale for the public purse to cover the cost). What I was trying to say in my post, though, is that calling a woman’s speaking voice “shrill” is another way of saying, “I’m not listening to you.” Of course Stintz wants to respond to that criticism if she thinks she’s not being heard. But I’m calling BS on the “shrill” accusation in the first place.

By: John Laforet

John Laforet — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:36:20 +0000

Do you honestly believe she did this because someone said she sounded ’shrill’? She did it because she has been running for Mayor for two years and regularly loses confrontations in Council.

Regardless of motivation – a Councillor earns $100k a year, and is given $53k to use as an office budget to serve their wards. If the Councillor truly felt the need to seek out public speaking lessons, she should have paid out of pocket for this expense.

Considering her electoral record, I cannot believe her constituents decided she needed public speaking lessons, she was one of two candidates to beat a sitting Councillor in 2003, and won again with solid numbers in 2006.

This was absolutely a personal expense and for someone who run around screaming about the need to respect taxpayers and do this, is totally hypocritical and worthy of front page embarrassment.

Councillor Stintz should be ashamed of herself.