moer man-hating (Shannon's Silly Girls Club)

I swear Shannon Rupp could take nearly any news item and run with it to prove men are a bunch of sexist assholes. And in the course proving that feminist writing is just as stupid and sexist as anything that Mark Steyn can put out.

Funny thing about the issue that Ms. Rupp is whining about - reducing it to a squabble between a single man and a group of men over how to oppress women properly - is that the core material of the dispute concerns a widely-known fact, i.e. declining birth rates in developed countries. I just went through my inbox archives but so far can't find a recent article in the New York Times about all this, which really didn't sound all that much different than what Steyn seems to have been saying, albeit maybe not in such a caveman style. Reading that article it's clear that men aren/t the problem. I'll find tha article later unless someone else knows the link....

The comparative birth rates - cited only by Yammer above, and nowhere by Rupp - are highly revealing, as as poll results and more as to why women in those countries have decided their own personal advancement is more important than the survival of the species, and how this plays out when in the same countries there are groups whose women either do not or cannot share the same ethic. Yammer was quite right in citing Norway, which estimates say will be over 50% Muslim by 2020 (Norway has a similar population to British Columbia's by the way). Am I blaming women, as Rupp will no doubt respond?

No, it's far more complex than that, just as what the real issues in the Steyn/CIC debacle were about are a lot more complex than the feminist reductionism and over-simplification that is clearly Rupp's only context for perceiving this world.

Can Shannon Rupp write an article in which she doesn't complain about what's wrong with men? Can Shannon Rupp write an article that doesn't insult men - or our intelligence?

As for insults and human rights complaints, a day doesn't go by when the liberated ladies of The View make cutting comments about men; just the other day a high-rated Oprah rerun had a highly-charged session about how women had to make decisions for me, because men are so indecisive and "need women to make their decisions for them". Loud applause, knowing tongue-clucks from Oprah. "How men have to be fixed" (in all that phrase's potential meanings) is a constant theme of "women's television". No doubt if Rupp were to write an article on this, it would all be men's faults that such sexist programmning is on the air.

But if women are making all the decisions because men aren't equipped to make them and the women and writers of shows like The View and Oprah! are the ones perpetrating the ongoing slag against men that is the core and heart of daytime TV.

Silly Girls Club Part II

Rupp mocks "post-Christian" and other terms used by Steyn as somehow comical; but these are current concepts/terms used by non-NeoCon writers. Yet she herself trots out jargonish terms as if they were somehow superior (for coming from feminist ideology/analysis).

Rupp's message is clear: anything men say is suspect and the only reality is the one provided by feminist critique. And did I read that right - sharia in Ontario will afford Muslim women the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You sure you got that right? I guess women in Iran and Afghanistan share the same protections, then....

Back to the falling birth rate, which apparently Rupp's got no problem with, here's a classic "pooh-pooh" comment from Rupp:

Well, actually, that NYT article wnet on and on about all the various European Union studies and also those conducted by individual countries that take it seriously. And polls of women as to why they weren't having children, plus those countries who are offering cash incentives to try and change the pattern, which is a serious demographic problem that has as much importance for the collapse of pension/social service systems as it does for the major shifts in the composition - religious, social, cultural - of Europe's populations (and Japan's and other countries, not all of them First World). Rupp should read up more on issues before spouting off about how they're all men's fault, and mocking what are actually widespread date about women's attitudes towards birth-giving as being "from some part of Alberta" (rather than from p.c.-approved parts of the Drive).

This is about something much bigger than the Bible Belt. it's bigger than Europe, in fact. But according to Rupp, it's only a perception of a bunch of neanderthal men.

Rupp's views are clearly sexist and based in knee-jerk stereotypes of men, and in a complete lack of understanding/knowledge of demographic realities on this planet.

Yes, cull the herd. But don't start by shooting only the bulls.

Skookum1

Although I generally agree with your critique of Rupp's rant, you've misapprehended, I think, her point about Sh'aria Law in Ontario.

This is what she wrote:

The CIC supported using sharia law in Ontario, a situation that would have, in effect, denied Canadian women who happen to be Muslim the protection of the Charter Rights and Freedoms. Talk about needing a shield from mean men.

She certainly 'does' see Steyn and the CIC as birds of a feather - and, I think she forgets the fact that virtually all of the changes in women's status in the West have, truth to tell, come from the actions and hard work of enlightened MEN.

On the point about Sh'aria in Western legal proceedings, you might be interested in this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html

self-correction

Gotta get new glasses....that should have read "not only used by Neo-Con writers". In fact, some po-mo writers use it too (probably more commonly than NeoCons, who normally wouldn't admit that there is a "post-Christian" era).

[EDITED. -MODERATOR.]Just publishing stuff intended to rile the readership, so as it increase hits? Are you, indeed, just as cynical as the tabloids and broadsheets?

Or do you actually believe this tripe?

So funny!

I don't usually read or comment on nightbloom's rhetoric, but this chance reading was too much to pass up:

"I know the old grannies of the Catholic knitting club are "just as bad as the Taliban" 'n all, but easy on the hyperbole, lest you be tagged as a polemicist yourself."

So much irony.

Orwell is a pretty high bar

And I doubt any of the so-called "progressive" writers you're likely fond of come close either. And basically i said Steyn is an extraordinary writer because of his humor.. I like Hitchens, and consider him a better columnist, but not nearly as funny. That is Steyn's strength.

That being said, i agree, there's no point to this debate, as you seem to wear your politics on your sleeve and see everything through that prism. "god forbid hitchens" indeed!

Umm!

We're talking about Mark Steyn and you accuse me of 'wearing my politics on my sleeve'.

Hitchens is, or at least was, until 9/11, a Trot remember?

We're talking about Steyn and the others, as writers - and I think, to describe him as extraordinary (in a positive sense) is funnier than anything the man's ever written. You may find Steyn amusing - I think he's crude, manipulative and offensive.

Any further assumptions about writers that I may or may not enjoy are entirely beyond the scope of this conversation.

As for Steyn, I've already wasted too much effort on the man for a lifetime - and I've posted virtually nothing about him on this thread.

In fact, I enjoyed Skookum 1's disquisition on the author of this piece far more than anything Steyn's ever written - as a critic, or as a crank.

Cheers.

Speaking of 'free speech'

I've heard a rumour that Skookum 1 has been blocked from posting at Tyee for some unknown reason.

Something I think all readers of his many and learned contributions here should be concerned about.

If it's true, editors, how come?

You know what GWest

I completely agree with you(!) I enjoy reading Skookum's posts as his knowledge of early BC history is impressive, to say the least.

If this is true then I would surmise it's just because he calls a spade a spade. And if thats true then the Tyee really ain't so fiesty anymore

Skookum?

Oh I hope he hasn't been blocked- he's usually the one who riles me up enough to bother commenting :)

Looks like Maclean's

Looks like Maclean's Magazine is under fire (again) for doing it's job by being intelligently provocative. It's actually a little disturbing how intolerant the public sphere in Canada is becoming towards viewpoints that even obliquely question prevailing secular liberal humanists orthodoxies. As I've said before, it's the "New Fundamentalism".

http://canadianmags.blogspot.com/2008/07/you-guys-are-afraid-to-talk-about.html

via Paul Wells here: http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/07/11/industry-expert-to-macleans-please-hurry-back-to-blandness/

Hardly!

At least you're not trying to make the case that Steyn is a good writer any longer.

Much appreciated.

As for the abortion situation - I suppose there are few Canadians of a certain age who want to go back to coat hangers and back alleys.

The idea of having a 'debate' about what women do to their bodies is something I think you can be sure a majority of women are more than prepared to forego. Thankfully, I think most men think pretty much the same too.

That there a few journalists and members of the common house who still think it's appropriate that the only people who can get an abortion in this country are the mobile wealthy is sad but it is not surprising.

Without some changes, in my view, Maclean’s will have gone the way of Alberta Report and the Western Standard ere long. Journo schools will no doubt be holding seminars on the record of Ken Whyte as an editor, publisher and destroyer of Canadian publications, comparing and contrasting his record with that of Ezra Levant.

BTW, you’re not seriously suggesting that bit of fluff from Wells is part of an actual, serious, response are you? Wells is, as always, pretty much incapable of expressing a thought that requires the expenditure of more than a dozen words… as a blogger he is no more coherent than as a columnist.

Well, I said he's a good

Well, I said he's a good writer and an effective polemicist, and that his writing is self-conscious spin (i.e. half-truth, calculated hyperbole, and ideologically-motivated opportunism, leavened by witticism). Most journalists today are polemicists, not genuine intellectuals. They've studied nothing of anything in great depth. Even movie reviewers and book critics are pitching for ideological interests, however obliquely. Their job security depends on it. Whether it's becoming more transparent, or I'm just getting wiser to it, is a mystery to me. But it hits me in the face every time. As long as you know them for what they are, then there's no harm done. Journalists and journalism are part of the flickering shadows on the cave wall that Plato warned us about. Don't be lulled by them.

On abortion, I don't think the absence of a law is particularly indicative of the courage, wisdom and foresight of our political leaders...or of the ability of our political system to address fundamental issues of the day...or of our society's ability to tolerate fractious debate. The lack of a law, and the current default situation allowing abortion to occur up to the very moment of birth, constitutes a rupture in the ethics and moral integrity of the legal system. You can argue all sorts of caveats about how rare late-term and partial-birth abortions are, but the fact remains that the law is silent on the termination of human life at the whim of another long after it can survive outside the womb. This rupture has inserted a form of schizophrenia into the heart of our legal and political systems, and has contributed to the broader sociopathy that now characterizes public discourse, whereby public words and action may no longer be consonant with private thought. Everyone knows it's wrong - but no one is allowed to say it.

Sorry

It's simply a matter of a democratic reality - that's all. That's what collective 'justice' and law is all about - like it or lump it: it is an expression of the will of the majority. And as long as women have the vote, that is not likely to change.

You're talking about private morals, not public policy. There is a difference.

When the system is prepared to address homelessness, poverty, child abuse and all the other ills of this culture in a fundamental way then I'll put abortion regulation on the list too. Until then, no way, and no way is that hypocritical.

What may constitute convenience to you will mean something very different to someone else. I also strongly suspect that the list of women using abortion as a serial method of birth control is very, very short.

We don't want, or need, the government in the bedrooms or the wombs, of the nation.

This isn't schizophrenic and it's the way things HAVE to be in a collective and pluralistic society...especially one where the 'market' is more important than either ethics or morals.

I don't see how it can be

I don't see how it can be credibly argued that abortion isn't being used as a form of birth control. The shere numbers demonstrate that it has indeed become a government-funded default method of birth control. There's a total lack of accountability when it comes to the willful termination of human lives, lives that are already able to exist outside of the womb, and for whom many potential foster parents await. Abortion is not only being used as birth control, but it's being used for other uses which are just as ethically and morally invalid. For example, when was the last time you saw a child with Down Syndrome? The youngest I've seen in recent memory were all in their twenties at least. That's just one example. We know what's happening - we just can't say it or admit it. That's what I mean by mass schizophrenia in the public discourse. We can't even admit the truth among ourselves.

I disagree

And so do the women I know - nobody thinks lightly about a physician diddling with their insides - as for the Down Syndrome thing - if you're going to test for genetic problems there is no doubt that parents won't act when given the opportunity. The state isn't really interested, as I wrote before, in child poverty, homelessness and mental illness and it sure isn’t interested in helping parents care for disabled children- it would really rather just leave the whole matter on the street corner and pay all its attention to growing the economy.

What came first? The disengagement of the state or the growing selfishness of the polity.

I think they spring from the same source and you can't have one without the other - in my view.

No one else has to justify their health care decisions - especially with respect to what goes on in their own bodies - why should women have to. At least with abortion readily available and part of the health care continuum abortions aren’t just available to the wealthy.

The idea that society or an elite group should make such decisions for others is over.

As far as truth is concerned, it's mostly, in my view, a matter of personal ethics and morals. There are lots of things out there 'I' couldn't do or live with...but I'm not the person who has the right or duty to suggest my standards are the right ones for everybody. That’s not situation ethics; it’s just the reality of the modern pluralistic state.

In a pluralistic society those of us of a moralistic bent can't - much of the time - even be assured that own wives and children buy into the same standards we set for ourselves. That, as they say, is just the way it is.

And that, Mark Steyn and the rest of the 19th century moralists to the contrary is, in my opinion, the only 'truth' of the matter.