This is what you get when mainstream media is overtaken by the values of soccer moms.
So I recently had a comment rejected by the overseers of all things proper and decent at the online version of the Australian daily newspaper The Age. And sure, it’s their publication and web site… and if they want to exclude my perspective from the public conversation, it is certainly their prerogative. It’s not the first time and I think it unlikely it will be the last. Nevertheless, it is interesting … and I think very revealing… to look at the kind of commentary from their own readers they would prefer be denied a platform.
My unwanted remarks were in response to a column by the reliably vexatious feminist activist Clementine Ford in which she went after the critics of media personality and activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied (‘The hypocrisy that lies behind the reaction to seven words from Yassmin Abdel-Magied’) . Yassmin had caused quite a kerfuffle recently when she used Australia’s national day of remembrance – a day dedicated to those who fought in the world wars – to indulge in a little self-aggrandizing virtue signalling about refugees via Twitter.
I didn’t address the predictably overblown backlash to Yassmin’s deliberate provocation. Instead, my comments focused on what I consider to be Clementine’s unjustified assumption that she occupies the moral high-ground in her sanctimonious judgement of Yasmin’s critics.
Here is my comment that the gatekeepers of The Age’s forum deemed undeserving of inclusion in the public discussion and debate. In my post I referenced another column by Clementine which had been published just a few weeks prior:
This moral indignation and accusations of hypocrisy are a bit rich coming from someone who used her platform in this publication a few weeks ago to target specific high school boys in Sydney for public ridicule after they made a pro-feminist video.
Not only did this adult woman express her open contempt for these kids from Sydney Boys High School and a shameless resentment for the fact they received kudos for their efforts… she suggested that threatening women with rape is much more in their character than making well-intentioned videos with positive messages about women:
“It’s better than the rape threats and abuse that schoolboys often seem to throw about the internet … but is it really an amazing project deserving of heartfelt praise and gratitude?” (Clementine Ford, March 16 2017, The Age)
As you can see in the screenshot above, there is no reason given for the decision by the overseers of the discussion board at the Age to designate a comment unworthy of inclusion. A post deemed unacceptable just ends up in the ‘rejected’ section of your ‘Masthead’ page a day or two after being submitted (the snippet in the screenshot of the other rejected comment is one I submitted in response to the previous Clementine Ford column I referenced and which inspired the video below).
Absent any declared justification for rejection, I am left to conjecture about their reasons for the rebuff.
It can’t be my use of language, since my comment is nothing other than an accurate description of Clementine’s argument using her own words which I quoted verbatim. Which leaves only one plausible explanation as far as I can tell: The Age feels obliged to protect the poor darling from having the weaknesses and inconsistencies of her perspective exposed.
Such valour! What chivalry! This instinct to shield the little lady from genuine critique of her ideas is… dare I say it… practically traditional! Even suggestive of old timey patriarchal values!
The Age is happy to let Clementine dish it out… but apparently they know she can’t take it in return. Either that, or they are well aware that Clementine is a hypocrite, a phony, an intellectual lightweight… that she is the embodiment of every cruel, bigoted, self-serving and intolerant character flaw that she and the rest of the principle-‘fluid’, allegedly ‘progressive’- Left loudly proclaim to oppose.
Ultimately, it just comes down to a good business decision on behalf of the editorial staff at The Age. They recognise that it is in their interest to protect their property from effective scrutiny and critique.
Despite what they claim, today’s feminists seem committed to re-entrenching the ‘traditional’ dynamic that sees women as intrinsically dependant on men to make their lives bearable for them and to solve all of their problems. Check out my video:
I would be very interested to hear from women in particular who would like to share their perspective.
In this video I look at how it was inevitable that an ideology based on the unquestionable credibility of infinitely finer and finer gradations of individual subjective absolute truths was going to implode under the weight of its own absurdity.
Another International Women’s Day has come and gone… along with any number of marches, speeches full of platitudes and bromides, a call for a general strike by women that almost no one took seriously and at least one world leader blithely donating millions of dollars of his citizen’s money to other countries to buy himself kudos from feminists.
Here is an honest question for everyone out there: Am I the only one who finds all of this “Women’s Day” stuff to be unbelievably condescending to women?
Personally, I’m uncomfortable with the premise that women as a group need to be stroked and pandered to like this. Am I really to accept that females are so insecure, so unsure of their personal autonomy and agency… and so needy of validation that a day has to be set aside every year to congratulate them for actually being able to do things?
Who for instance (other than feminist women it seems), finds the idea that women can be pilots so extraordinary that it requires special attention and self-conscious recognition?
And how needy of ego-affirmation must you be to see this cloyingly ludicrous concept of a little girl representing some fantasized challenge to the momentum of American capitalism as anything other than deeply patronizing?
The hyper-irony here is that for the premise of a Women’s Day to have any meaning… it presupposes women’s self-worth to be dependant on the approval of men. For there must be an audience to whom this attention seeking behavior is directed and from whom all of this validation and recognition is so desperately sought. And who is it that we crave validation from? Those we know to be our equals? Hardly.
In fact, the analogy that keeps coming to mind is how our parents would affectionately pat us on the head after being handed our crayon scribbled, stick-figure drawings…. and the satisfaction we felt as children, basking in the effusiveness of their praise as they validated our efforts and placed our work high on the refrigerator door for all the world to see.
Like everyone, I saw the images in the media and online of the huge crowds of women in pink hats who turned out in cities around the globe for last weekend’s ‘Women’s March’. But unlike everyone who has adopted what appears to be the officially sanctioned interpretation of the phenomenon, I don’t feel like I was witnessing some inspiring, enlightened defiance of an existential threat to human rights or a spontaneous expression of solidarity with some meaningful and just cause.
No. What others are giddily celebrating looks to me more like mass hysteria, collective paranoid delusion and pathological group-think… perhaps for the first time on a global scale.
It occurs to me that there doesn’t appear to be as much as a hair’s breadth of sunlight between the messaging recently constructed and amplified by the political and media establishment – disseminated globally by social media and the Internet – and the personal conceptualisations of these ‘protestors’ and their supporters.
Alleged celebrity and irrational hysteric Ashley Judd rants incoherently about mustaches at Woman's March in Washington
So what is really happening here?
To my mind, over the past 10 to 12 months I’ve watched a narrative being cunningly constructed and promoted by political and media elites invested in particular social and political agendas. Now it seems to me I’m witnessing the efforts of those powerful vested interests bearing fruit – with thousands of people (primarily women it has to be said) appearing to have reflexively and uncritically internalised the messaging and subjectively relating to it as a personal insight that mirrors objective truth.
In other words, they are responding to a program of propaganda exactly the way the authors of that program intended.
Ashley Judd demonstrates the intellectual standard required to represent the Women's March
And as seems to be the case with so many of these collective displays of ‘progressive’-Left dissatisfaction and outrage, no one seems able to articulate anything specific that the protests are supposedly about… let alone what they are meant to accomplish.
The motivations are all very vague and ephemeral… especially considering the degree of frenzy and apparent depth of satisfaction being generated among the participants.
“It’s about women’s rights!”
Okay. Could you be more specific? What is it about ‘women’s rights’ that has changed so dramatically in the last four days that warrants such histrionics and extraordinary expressions of outrage?
“It’s about solidarity!”
Okay. Solidarity with whom over what?
Where normally you would expect to find specifics and facts… all you get are vague allusions to some looming, present or past social-justice catastrophe and a rather self-indulgent and frankly adolescent emotionalism.
The thing is, it is precisely this indistinct and incoherent grasp of their own motivations that you would expect from people who had allowed themselves to be swept up in a program of group-think manufactured by external sources and designed to activate their egos and emotional reactivity – not engage their intellect and reason.
Ultimately, I don’t believe anyone directly or indirectly partaking in this event is acting out of a genuine concern for the greater good or a commitment to admirable principles. The payoff for these individuals is not the elevation of truth… but more likely it is the ego expansion people experience when they divest themselves of their individuality in favour of the collective identity of a mob. The ‘greater purpose’ of the collective is far more gratifying than the seemingly mundane, ineffectual and resentful experience of the individual.
And I suspect that resentment and a reflex for shifting responsibility for their personal grievances and dissatisfaction from themselves to others is a significant, if unacknowledged, motivating factor behind much of this mania.
The fact that this character flaw can be manipulated by the media and the political establishment – and on such a grand scale – is about as far away from ‘inspiring’, ’empowering’ and admirable as you can get.
Madonna Louise Ciccone - a woman horribly oppressed by the patriarchy her entire life - finally gets an opportunity to express herself thanks to the Women's March on Washington. She tells us of her anger. Her outrage. And her obsession with committing violent acts of treason.
What is it about exploiting the naïveté of children that people on the ‘progressive’-Left find so appealing?
The version of this video that appeared on my Facebook feed several times this week had been shared 84,000 times with 6.2 million views . It shows a 15 year old boy putting on an admittedly convincing performance at a Martin Luther King Day event on Monday at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where King was a pastor.
The boy is Royce Mann. In the video he is seen addressing a large audience of exceptionally enthusiastic adults – including Bernie Sanders seated in a row of honour behind the uncommonly self-possessed 15 year old. With a reasonably credible (and seemingly inevitable these days) impersonation of the speaking style of a Baptist minister, young Royce regales the appreciative congregation with a series of generic platitudes while checking-off one social justice/ ‘progressive’ talking point after another.
White bigotry against black people…check! White bigotry against Muslims…check! White bigotry against Mexicans…check! White bigotry against native Americans…check! The bigotry of parents who don’t validate the confused thinking of their children experiencing gender dysphoria…check! Don’t forget white privilege. Check and check!
Now of course, every reasonable adult knows intuitively that this boy has no idea what he’s talking about. The kid is 15 years old for God’s sake! He likely only stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy within the last couple of years. Every idea, judgement and slogan coming out of his mouth has been put there by the adults in his orbit. Despite what his ‘progressive’ fanbase prefer to imagine, we are not watching some preternaturally insightful savant bestowing uncanny wisdom that transcends his years. We’re witnessing a child simply responding to positive reinforcement he has received for accurately mimicking the political beliefs of the adults around him.
We are also witnessing a room full of grown men and women expressing uninhibited satisfaction at seeing a young boy trained like a performing seal to spout their opinions back to them. Opinions about very complex adult issues which are clearly beyond the child’s capacity to fully conceive…let alone evaluate.
That’s kind of ugly to say the least.
But astonishingly, it would appear that a lot of people out there find using a child in this manner to be absolutely adorable. People who shared the video included comments like,“OMG with kids like him there is so much hope for the future. I still have goosebumps” and “Damn tears…..amazing and on point.”
For some mystifying reason, when people on the Left hear children parrot their ideology back to them, it provokes a maudlin sentimentality that is so totally absorbing it pushes out any sense of responsibility they may possess for critically and objectively assessing what they are actually looking at.
As hard as it is to believe, these people simply do not reflect on the fact that nothing this child is saying could possibly have arisen out his own observation and insight. It clearly doesn’t even occur to them. Or matter.
Their calculus is much simpler than that:
ideology they support + cute, articulate child = gushing sentimentality and approval.
The kid doesn’t even have to be all that articulate (or even properly socially adjusted for that matter) as long as he’s reasonably cute and mirroring their liberal biases…. as the other viral video from the past week featuring a politically ‘progressive’ adolescent suggests: