Jonathan Kay may not have the ability to understand that women's chromosomes in no way prevent them from spewing man-aganda, but then again, that fourth and last stage of Jean Piaget's is a tricky one to reach.
The National Post thinks it has some sort of legitimate way of spewing misogyny without being called on the carpet for it.
No, only someone with bigoted filters would think there are intellectual, moral, or philosophical differences based on external features.
Memo to the National Post: if men can be feminists, then women can be self-loathers, too, especially those without talent who just do whatever the Big Boys tell them because courage and original thought take real guts, talent, and ovaries to pull off.
The suggestion that it is otherwise is a very bigoted assumption that convicts them of the charge, but no one could ever accuse anyone at the Post of being a deep thinker.
Maybe if you actually spoke to everyone and informed them with actual information and not dumb sophistry, you would not be reduced to whining in public about how you cannot make ends meet because people are not buying your product.
The Post is a man-agandist publication. Nothing else. They hold the trembling little gonads of those scared little boys who need to know they are not to blame for anything just to reassure them.
Fox News Channel perfected it, and it is something I took apart in my book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism.
Some men are men: they do not fall apart if their employers are women. They do not harm anyone, male or female because they have courage, compassion, intelligence, ability, morals, and bravery. They get ahead on the job because they are competent and innovative. They actually know how to behave and are fantastic people because their testosterone is not afraid of the presence of estrogen.
Others are little boys. They thump their chests, but run to mommy and daddy whenever someone sees their bullying is just to prevent those of quality from besting them. The Post enablers those men who hold society back and force the rest of us to waste time and resources cleaning up their messes.
And considering how badly the Post's fortunes have fallen, they are trying to hold on to as many little boys as they can. They give free front page advertising to Steven Galloway as if his self-pity was Very Important News. They are forever running around like irrational chickens, screaming #MeToo is a witch hunt ecause they are too thick to get it. The irrationality has gone overboard, and their propaganda blinds them to the obvious.
But they think they can fool people into thinking they are some sort of legitimate news outlet.
No, you're not. You spew man-aganda, even if you have a few chicks and broads willing to do the dirty work for you.
The sex of the one who spews propaganda is immaterial and does not legitimize your slop.
It is the content of your argument, the structure of your arguments, the scope of your vision, the facts you choose to ignore, and the inherent rigs of your work that actually determines whether or not you are a legitimate news source, or an apologist for incompetent men in power.
The race and gender of those puking out your sophistry is not some sort of protective force field. It is a misdirection, nothing more.
Christie Blatchford happens to be the Post's loudest man-aganda and gets a pay check regardless of how many lives get mucked up because of primitive thinking.
Like this piece of silliosity. I love the preface of that video:
Trudeau’s #MeToo moment has once again proved that if women are going to come forward with allegations, it should be in the courts not in newspapers, according to Postmedia columnist Christie Blatchford. The courts are the one place where both men and women can get due process.
Due process? You may cover the courts, but doubtful you have been sucked into that mindless machine and been eaten alive.
Child molesters get a couple of years when they are convicted of assaulting scores of children for years. The End to the argument of Due Process. No due process. Just a game of make pretend as we torture people and waste their lives and raise their hopes to get spat at with their own tax dollars. If there is any definitive proof that we allow society to become heartless psychopathic barbarians, it is how we run our courts when it comes to sexual assault trials.
Let's just take today's legal news and see how great the Post's theory applies. In this case, a judge dismissed a sexual assault case against four teenage boys who were accused of assaulting an intoxicated teenage a girl, and they were cleared because she was drunk at the time.
And according to Blatchford, this is reasonable because an Authority figure decreed it so.
Let's see: if you are intoxicated, your judgement is acknowledged by the law and scientific research to be so bad, that:
1. You cannot give consent to drive and if you do, you are arrested because you do not have the mental capacity to operate a vehicle.
2. You cannot operate a plane or boat, either.
3. Children's Aid will take your children away from you until you go into rehab.
4. A drunk police officer, judge, teacher, lawyer, doctor, and babysitter caught on camera while intoxicated on the job would cause a scandal.
Because your ability to make decisions is garbage when you are bladdered.
But the judge seems to set a double standard when it comes to teenage girls:
"The issues here focus on consent," O'Donnell said. "Was the complainant capable of consent? For example, did she understand the nature of the acts in the car to the degree that she could reject them or agree with them?
"This is an area in which judges have come under criticism in the past, but we must remember a drunk person can have the required capacity to consent to sex. The person can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity."
Okay, that is Authority decree, but let us replace some of his words with something just as important:
This is an area in which judges have come under criticism in the past, but we must remember a drunk person can have the required capacity to operate a bus full of schoolchildren and drive them home. The person can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity.
In fact, if that is the thinking, we should ban any law against drinking and driving entirely. I think police officers should be allowed to be intoxicated while handling firearms, too. They can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity to fire a loaded weapon.
The judge's Authority logic decreed it so; so, obviously, it must be true.
Let us make it all legal so that at least we can be consistent with our primative sanctioned lunacy.
So, we have, to put it mildly, a legal system that is run by whim that has no basis in evidence or fact -- but mostly on whatever lobby groups do a superior job to convince lawmakers to back off with certain laws or at least water them down.
And the National Post thinks this is a good and glorious thing, and too bad the populace is meddling by making some demand for rights or something.
No wonder the National Post's colour is Minion Yellow.