Sunday, October 21, 2012

Reclaim the Night March in Brunswick was bizarre, pointless

What is it with these lefties? They have such a pathological aversion to common sense. This Reclaim the Night March along Sydney Road in Brunswick is a case in point.

Organiser Natalie Pestana told The Age she wanted to counter the notion that women bear some responsibility for preventing harassment and sexual assault.

"Women grow up with a different set of rules," she said.

"We're taught to keep a key between our fingers in case we're attacked and check the back seat of our car. These are things that guys just aren't made to do.

"We're pissed off and annoyed that women are being blamed when they're the victim of an assault."

So the march was about railing at the "victim blamers". Yet where was the outrage against the victim killers?

Hell, you'd think that any halfway sensible person would feel greatest anger towards the individuals who commit the rapes and murders, not those who offer advice about how to reduce the risk of such crimes happening.

If you're a feminist who wants to blame an institution, then why not the piss-weak legal system that lets known sexual predators out on the streets? The law is still dominated by blokes, too. You could even call it a mini-patriarchy -- you know, like a subset of the biggie the sisterhood keeps shrieking about.

And I do agree with rally attendee Phil Cleary's point about the law going easier on men who use the "she provoked me" defence. That still seems to occur from time to time. Whether that's a pervasive phenomenon, I don't know. 

But what the ideologues behind such demos call "victim blaming" doesn't even fit that description much of the time. Often it's just good advice.

Yes, there's a sexist double standard here. That's because life is sexist. Men are generally stronger and bigger than women. So a cowardly, vicious and truly misogynistic man driven by sick sexual fantasies poses a real threat to most women. Saying you should be wary of scumbags like this is not "blaming the victim". It's just bloody common sense!

Of course, in a perfect world women should be able to do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. But this isn't a perfect world. So they shouldn't behave like it is. (Nor should men, for that matter. But that's a side issue.)

That's where the real danger of silly protests like these lies. They may well encourage some women to be less sensible; to walk home alone utterly plastered down dark streets instead of catching a cab.

And yes, even catching a cab isn't safe. Some women get attacked by cabbies, too. But it's a helluva lot safer than walking home alone.

As I said, the world is a dangerous place. It's not right. It's not fair. But it's just the way it is, unfortunately. Bitching en masse about the comments of shock jocks will not make the world any safer for women. Grow up and get used to it.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Gillard's misogyny speech prompts Macquarie Dictionary redefinition

In her relentless campaign to smear Abbott at all costs, Julia Gillard used a very strong word to describe him. She said he was a misogynist, a hater of women. But when it became clear even to her fellow bottom feeders in Labor that this was a tad OTT they had to do some serious spinning.

Take Bill Shorten on Q and A. It was hilarious to see him bend over backwards so as not to lose his treasured insult:

BILL SHORTEN: No. Let's go through and what I understand to be the meanings of misogyny and sexism. There's been a lot of really valuable contributions from a range of people. I take the definition of misogyny - the old definition is do you hate women. I don't think Tony Abbott hates women. But do I think in the vernacular that misogyny has moved to the following definition, yes I do and the following definition is - there are some people who say things to women which are frankly inadvertent. That doesn't make them right but they're capable of being corrected. You say to this bloke or this person, “That's just not right,” and they change. Misogyny, to me, is a - in the language which I understand it to have been used most recently is a view that there are some people who have a prejudice about women in certain occupations and they have an unexamined view in their own head about the status of women and the equality of women to do a whole range of things.

The thing he now describes as misogyny is much closer to sexism. But misogyny is a more powerful word and not just because of its well known definition. There's also something about the very sound of it that has more emotional impact. It's an ugly word, used to describe an ugly attitude. And it's this ugliness that Shorten and Gillard and their partners in slime are so attracted to. By repeatedly associating it with Abbott it makes him repellant in the minds of many voters. That's why they so desperately want to keep using it.

In what is a truly bizarre and alarming development, the editors of Macquarie Dictionary have abetted this sleazy campaign by making Shorten's absurd redefinition official. You just can't make this stuff up.

In a helpful post, Andrew Bolt suggests some other words that the tome needs to include.

Still, we shouldn't be surprised. The Left are forever doing this. Because they're such nasty bullies, they just can't stop themselves from taking powerfully emotive words that describe repellant acts and attitudes and expanding their definitons so they can then inflict them on anyone they choose.

Take "rape", for example. Everyone knew what that meant. But then in the nineties it spawned a sub-category, "date rape", which was something much closer to seduction after an initial refusal.

"Racism" is another one. In days of yore it meant treating people as inferiors on account of their race. Now it is used just as often to describe treating them as equals.

Even the concept of race itself has becoming murkier, meaning that those who wish to silence others with the accusation "racist" can do so much more easily. (Case in point: the Andrew Bolt trial.)

Race has also become conflated with religion -- well, one religion at least. Now, if you criticize Islam, the Left can slime you as a "racist".

Then there's the word "homophobe". In the past, it meant someone who feared and hated gay people. Now it's anyone who disagrees with the idea of gay marriage, among other things.

I could go on. But I think you get the drift.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Julia Gillard's speech and the feminist Mike Tyson

I find it pretty funny -- but also very revealing -- that Gillard's fiery speech against misogyny and sexism was widely seen as being something deep, true and hugely empowering for women. Rather than it being a kind of "Once more unto the breach dear friends" for chickdom, it was actually just a bloody great victim-whinge.

As Brendan O'Neill noted, she spent most of it quacking on about how offended she was:

In what was essentially a gratuitously ostentatious display of Gillard’s own emotional sensitivity to certain words and ideas, the Aussie PM continually played the offence card. “I was very offended” by something Abbott said about abortion, she said. “I was very personally offended by those comments”, she said about something else. “I was also very offended on behalf of the women of Australia”, she said, in relation to a comment Abbott made about housewives. It goes on and on. “I was offended too by the sexism… I was offended by those things… I am offended by their content… I am always offended by sexism… I am always offended by statements that are anti-women… I am offended by those things… I am offended by things.”

Her speech and the many glowing references to it from the sisterhood say a lot about where feminism is at these days. It's just the opposite of what it's meant to be.

Gillard is so pathetically hypersensitive she actually believes that being called "she" is sexist and sees eeevil patriarchal motivation behind Abbott looking at his watch! That's so passive and piss-weak it makes the most demure and submissive of girly-girls seem Boadicea-like by comparison. It's the epitome of inertia, isn't it? Her job is to run the country, not endlessly bleat about how her delicate sensibilities have been egregiously offended by the most minor and irrelevant words and actions.

The fact that none other than Mike Tyson has heaped praise on the Prime Minister's childish rant says a lot too. Now, some people may be surprised at this reaction. But it seems remarkably consistent to me. Obviously, after being convicted and jailed for rape he has amended his perception of women somewhat. But his underlying assumptions about the female sex have remained the same, I believe. He's gone from thinking that women are weak and delicate beings who can be brutalized, to thinking that they are weak and delicate beings who must be protected from anything that they find remotely offensive. Obviously, that's an improvement. But it's hardly a game changer now is it? 

And isn't changing the gender "game" -- that is, the underlying attitudes of men towards women (and vice versa) -- what feminism is supposed to be all about? How can you possibly be genuinely empowered and independent if you think you're being oppressed by some bloke looking at his watch? On the contrary, you must see men as being practically bloody omnipotent.

"Badass mother----er!" my arse.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Kate Ellis on Q and A and the feminist double standard

It's so ironic that Labor are now trying so relentlessly to demonize Tony Abbott as an eeevil misogynist, when the Government's very existence depends on the support of Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper.

Then there's the obvious misandry and pettiness of the "handbag hit squad". They even try to portray that very appellation as evidence of pervasive sexism. But it was coined by a woman (Julie Bishop) anyway. And what about all the speedo and budgie smuggler jibes hurled at Tony Abbott? They're very gender-specific and demeaning yet the Labor women don't condemn them, and have even been known to repeat them on occasion.

Theirs is the classic politically correct double standard. And one of the most shameless, brazen and petty practitioners of it is surely Nicola "Don't Call Me Nicky!" Roxon. She freely admits to disliking Abbott, has been sliming him for years, yet is miffed that he ignores her in social settings.

Hey, Nicky, I thought you were against all that patriarchal chivalry crap? 

Listen, baby cakes. The reason Abbott doesn't like you is not because you're "capable". It's 'cause you're spectacularly incompetent, and a nasty, sanctimonious hypocrite to boot!

Speaking of hypocrisy: Kate Ellis was on Q and A last night. Now some claim she's part of the handbag hit squad, but I don't agree. She's not down on their level. She's been dutifully pushing the ALP's slimy line on Abbott, sure. But you can see she lacks conviction when doing so. Deep down she knows it's a crock.

Unlike the three scowling sisters Roxon, Plibersek and Wong -- who are all as hard as nails but hide behind their gender when it suits -- she's a more classically (and consistently) feminine woman.

And she actually lacks confidence when speaking publicly. That's why I had some sympathy for her when a few of the blokes on the panel talked over her. This was certainly impolite, but hardly unusual conduct for that show. And it was completely insignificant when you consider how the panel and audience are routinely chockas with lefties, many of whom are obnoxious themselves.

Yet the Twitter squitterati went absolutely spacko over it. This was like their own personal Pearl Harbor, an event that would live in infamy!

Again, that leftie-feminist double standard: They never arc up about a conservative (man or woman) being treated badly or even abused outright, but savour the spectacle instead. Hell, they'll even join in the kicking if they can.

And it wasn't just the online audience who were hypocrites. The studio audience were rude and raucous too. There was a classic moment when a young bespectacled bloke gave Ellis a lecture on what feminism meant. The look on her face was just priceless. She actually let out an audible gasp of incredulity!

Then the audience booed him. To his credit, Tony Jones admonished them for this.

But the cause of their displeasure (and Ellis's shock) was clear. They were dogmatic types who believed that only women (and preferably lefties) had a right to discuss what feminism meant. In their insular, divisive ideology males are expected to either toe the PC line or keep their bloody mouths shut! What a pathetically juvenile and sexist attitude that is.

The majority of Australians, male and female, have had an utter gutfull of this nasty gender war. Labor think they're onto a winner by prosecuting it so relentlesly. But it will backfire on them big time come election day, that's for sure.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Chaser boys sledge Alan Jones on The Hamster Wheel

I wasn't surprised that The Hamster Wheel really went to town on Alan Jones last night. Lots of gags about his off-colour comments regarding Julia Gillard's father's death, of course. But also some nasty stuff about his sexuality; stuff that would provoke howls of outrage and rampant accusations of homophobia if it were aimed at a darling of the Left (Bob Brown for example).

Of course PC lefties would counter that accusation of a double standard by saying that Bob Brown is out and proud. So he cannot be criticized. But isn't a person's sexuality his business? If he prefers to keep it private shouldn't "compassionate", "tolerant", "progressive" people respect that, regardless of his political affiliations. If they don't they're just subordinating gay rights issues to partisan politics, surely a backward step. What do they wanna do, take us back to the fifties? 

Still on double standards, and sexuality: If you're going to bring up the decades-old story of Jones being arrested in a public toilet, then why not make jokes about a much more contemporary scandal; one involving a very well known and successful broadcaster being sprung downloading thousands of images of kiddy porn, for example?

The story of former ABC celebrity Andy Muirhead's trial and incarceration has been hogging the headlines of late. If anyone's just askin' for a cruel piss-take it's that guy, surely. And the Chaser boys could really have run amok with their "collector" gags!

Gee, I wonder why they didn't go there? Aren't they fearless satirists committed to waging a "war on everything?" Was it because they're too gutless to show their employer in a negative light, therefore risking their jobs? Oh no, that couldn't possibly be ...

And the show is supposed to be political satire with a media focus, right? So why no mockery of the hilariously desperate and silly attempts by every Labor pollie and his dog (as well as some commentators) to link Jones's comments to Tony Abbott? Nope. Instead they just joined the pile-on on the conservative broadcaster. 

The Jones material took up a lot of the show. It was followed by a reality TV parody mocking Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology. Good on them for taking the piss out of that organization, but if they want to find more locally relevant and extreme examples of group-think to subvert with their courageously irreverent humour then why don't they try looking a little closer to home? The retarded, inward-looking culture of the ABC contains an abundance of juicy targets for sharp-eyed satirists.

If they were to do this The Hamster Wheel might even draw a bigger audience. And it would be one containing fewer parasitic sneering hipsters, and more of the productive, thoughtful people the organization is purported to serve. What a heartening subversion of the dominant paradigm that'd be! They are the ones who are paying for it, after all.