Saturday, April 12, 2008

Mollycoddles



There's something about 'liberalism' that is becoming more and more clear.
There then follow several spooky paragraphs warning the media not to use freedom of expression as a “guise” to “target vulnerable groups and to further increase their marginalization or stigmatization.”

As a journalist, I found this part particularly chilling:

“It is the Commission’s view that the media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism. Bias includes both an unfair and one-sided portrayal of an issue as well as prejudicial attitudes towards individuals and groups.”

Actually, the National Post — like Maclean’s and every other media outlet — has no such responsibility — except inasmuch as we want to be respected, and our product bought, by as many people as possible. If we choose to be “unfair,” or simply to have an opinion that some people, or even everyone, disagrees with, that’s our right. We’ll pay the price in lost readers and advertisers.


There's a reason we refer to the leftist goal as the "Nanny state". Look at the difference in attitude here. On the one hand the CHRC, perhaps the ultimate expression in our 'liberal democracies' of the triumph of the socialist ideal, is telling journalists what they ought to be doing. It is an injunction based on a desire to bring about a particular kind of society, one that is closely reminiscent of the kind of senitmentalist Victorian art depicting beautiful glowing-cheeked, glossy-locked children dressed in immaculate pinnafores and Little Lord Fauntleroy suits playing noiselessly and tidily with wooden tops and kittens. Good children must play nicely, be tidy, look pretty and not disturb the neighbours. It is, essentially, the relationship between a nanny or a mother and children.

Contrast this with Mr. Kay's assertion that journalists and writers, including bloggers, have every right to charge about, chuck conkers at each other, shove each other into puddles, roll about the playing field getting covered in mud playing footie.

The difference is between the values of manliness and the feminine values. The stoic, vs. the female virtues. Kay says they must both give and take lumps and, in the end, square their shoulders and take the consequences...like men.

It is not a coincidence that bodies such as the CHRC are overwhelmingly governened and staffed by women and homosexual men. The one characteristic that defines modern woman, with her collaborators among the light-loafered, is her refusal to accept the proper ordering of things. Female virtues are necessary and good in their proper venue; indispensable. That venue is in the personal, the domestic, the homely and subjective. But taken out of their proper context and order and placed in supremacy over the objectivist and external manly virtues they turn into an infantilising tyranny. Women and woman's virtues, must know their place or we end up in the Star Chamber trying to explain why freedom and personal responsibility are needed in a free society. Indeed, we seem to be having trouble now even explaining to them what a free society is and why it is a good thing.

10 comments:

The Phantom said...

"It is not a coincidence that bodies such as the CHRC are overwhelmingly governed and staffed by women and homosexual men."

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!! He shoots, he SCORES!!!!!

arctic_front said...

That post, Sir, is decidedly very 'politically incorrect'! Do you realize how much trouble you may receive for disseminating thoughts and ideas such as those? Do you not fear the lesbians and gays? Think of the troubles they could cause? Have you no SHAME??

Ha, Ha, Love it! Go get 'em, Tiger!

Zizek said...

"It is not a coincidence that bodies such as the CHRC are overwhelmingly governened and staffed by women and homosexual men."

It couldn't possibly be that mullet wearing, homophobic, wife beating, war mongering, bible thumping, beer swilling inbreds, also known as Conservatives, don't have the requisite skills. You know, things like a university edumacation, being able to find buildings in the big city and discern that some elevators only ascend from floors 1-12 and you can use those to get to the higher floors, not only being able to read a job application but being able to print legibly and within the circumscribed space, and wiping the drool from their faces when the speak.

If conservatives insist on conducting their attacks based on mischaracterization and caricature, why not join them?

Sue Sims said...

'Zizek' (have you read our hostess's notes on the evil of pseudonymity?), I assume from your rather illiterate screed that your 'edumacation' is defective, and you are thus a conservative.

Anonymous said...

As a former employee of a human rights commission, I can state with some degree of authority that women and homosexuals (both gays and lesbians) are vastly over-represented in the ranks of human rights commissions in general. I don't find this statement incendiary as it matches my 15 years employment experience with one of same.

BTW, the problem with human rights commissions happened when the traditional (Canadian) "race relations model", which is based upn conciliation, understanding and education, was replaced by the "anti-racist model" which is ideologically driven. The anti-racism model embraces "remedial strategies" to "correct" imbalances in the society. Hence, "affirmative action" for women became "employment equity" etc.

Ideologies ALWAYS run into trouble when they encounter "reality on the ground". This is something the ideologically driven Left of today does not know, or chooses not to know. The Left tossed out "pragmatics" decades ago and the new generations don't even know what the word means.

The lesson ideologues usually fail to grasp is this: REALITY TRUMPS EVERYTHING.

HJMW said...

Thank you Sue, but in this case, I think I will keep Mr. Zizek's little rant, despite that he has violate both of my very generous commbox rules. It just illustrates my point about the left so effectively as to be worth keeping, as a kind of museum piece.

Mr. Zizek, congratulations, you get my "make my point for me" prize of the week.

Anonymous said...

Women and *ugly* homosexual men. In the States, they work in healthcare bureaucracies and nonprofits.

Anonymous said...

oops, that was me - Karen

Zizek said...

Strange that the interdiction against pseudonymity didn't apply to the two previous commenters who lapped up that babble about the problem with the CHRC is that women and homosexuals don't know their rightful natural place in the order of things and have begun to venture out into the public realm. But hey it's your blog. I respect that.

Now if I helped you in making the point that gross and unfounded mischaracterizations and feeble caricatures don't help us very much, then I'm all too happy to have obliged, for as is patently obvious that was my main intent.

Now as far as the comments about the CHRC, I'm not decidedly for or against it at this point (because mainly I don't have enough information and think highly enough about the issue not to decide until I know more). Still I'm pretty sure, notwithstanding the anonymous former employee's rather unsubstantiated comments (e.g. are women "vastly over-represented" in relation to their proportion in the labour force, in society at large?) that the problem with the CHRC is not with the gender and sexual orientation of those working there. Moreover, a quick gloss at the list of seven commissioners of the CHRC shows the 4 of 7 are men. Are women over-represented? Clearly not if you look at the the general population. Are homosexuals over-represented? I have no idea.

One glaring difference, however, between my comment and the ones that preceded it. My incendiary caricature was not reinforced and legitimated by subsequent commenters relishing and taking pleasure in my inflammatory remarks. Your post was met with such pleasure, which was predominantly what I reacted to.

HJMW said...

That's because my rules are my rules and one of the rules is that they are administered entirely arbitrarily and according to my personal whims.

You will note in the commbox rules that the other rule, about "trolls" (which you are rapidly proving yourself to be) is one that is based totally on my personal subjective determination.

And just for the record: I don't actually care what motivated your post. That's chick-thinking. No one cares about "motives" except women and the left.

Now, you may go away.