Saturday, March 31, 2012

Kyle Sandilands slapped with creepy, patronising ACMA ban

I thought that the social engineers determined to control Australians' thoughts and feelings had decided to focus pretty much entirely on race lately. But they haven't forgotten gender, as their censorious ruling on perennial bad boy Kyle Sandilands attests:

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has ordered Sandilands not to say anything that could be regarded as offensive or demeaning to women or girls.

That is an expansive decree that is very much open to interpretation. Different women get indignant about different things, after all. Say Kyle starts ranting about abortion. If Sandilands says that it should be outlawed he will outrage heaps of lefty feminist, pro-choice women. And if he says that those who oppose it are ultra-religious throwbacks he will offend conservative right-to-life women.

And that's just one issue that relates to chickdom. There are squillions of 'em!

Even if he tries his damnedest not to be offensive, it's likely that Kyle will rile a certain proportion of his female audience. So whose miffed feelings will be deemed more deserving of some sort of official response? I suspect that those who are more left-wing and PC will get a more sympathetic ear. Hell, they'll be more likely to arc up about him in the first place since bleating about stuff that most sane, independent-minded women find trivial is pretty much all they do anyway...

But back to the ruling itself. I love this aspect of it:

Neither the authority nor Austereo is revealing what Sandilands and his colleagues cannot say.

So, they've issued this ruling in the interests of Australia's females. But the so-called beneficiaries of it aren't actually allowed to know what it consists of. The media thought police are saying: "We know what's good for you, women and girls. But you don't need to know. Don't let it worry your pretty little heads, okay!"

I know that according to today's laws of offense taking, I'm immediately disqualified from having an opinion on such matters on account of my gender. Still, I've gotta say that I find the secretive subtext of ACMA's ruling deeply offensive to women -- even more offensive than the noxious rant of Kyle's that provoked the ban in the first place.


  1. "I've gotta say that I find the secretive subtext of ACMA's ruling deeply offensive to women"

    Modern feminism's attitude towards women is every bit as patronising, condescending and insulting as the worst of Victorian attitudes. Apparently women are fragile delicate creatures who will faint if someone says something nasty.

    But that's the whole Nanny State attitude, isn't it? We're all helpless children but luckily Nanny knows what is best for us.

    1. Yes, this is a huge irony. I always find it funny, but also kind of sad, that so many women think that to be a feminist means to be independent-minded, defiant, courageous.

      Yet you look at the rhetoric of mainstream feminism and it's all about how women need to be protected and given special consideration, not criticized, etc. If you point this out to them, citing the many examples on offer, they absolutely hate you for it. That's why so many blokes go along with the nonsense. Makes for an easier life.

  2. Surely 4th wave feminism that we are seeing today is gender neutral - everyone free to have a say. The issues are the early sexualisation of children (male and female) the sexual objectification of women in the media and so on. No reason why men can't speak out about this. We are all being exploited, commodified, yes?

    As to the ruling on Kyle, curious to see how they plan to remove a life time of sexist and demeaning attitudes in 45 days. So far he's not doing too well! This week still numerous references to women as sex objects.

    Time's up Mr Sandilands!