Barbara Kay: A bump in radical feminism’s control of the gender agenda

Jian Ghomeshi: rape culture is not open to debate


The CBC’s Jian Ghomeshi is the most amiable, open-minded guy in the world, with a good sense of humour to boot. The perfect radio host. His weekly show, Q, frequently provides proof of his willingness to explore both sides of a gamut of issues in the classic liberal tradition.

Unfortunately, amongst doctrinaire feminists, amiability, intellectual curiosity and even (especially?) a sense of humour don’t cut it when their pet theories fall into Q’s crosshairs. Ghomeshi had the temerity on Monday to host a debate about the veracity of “rape culture,” between Lise Gotell, chair of Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Alberta, and conservative researcher Heather Macdonald of the Manhattan Institute.

A storm of indignation erupted, describing Macdonald as a “rape apologist” for expressing the perfectly sensible view that if girls did not “drink [themselves] blotto” at parties, the entire phenomenon called rape culture would virtually disappear. She is not wrong, but it is politically incorrect to “blame the victim.” No, the only correct view is that “Drinking doesn’t cause rape, it’s the decision of rapists that cause rape,” in Ms Gotell’s words.

The rape culture meme always harks back to bad methodology, linguistic legerdemain and moral-high-ground entitlement.

If that were the case, then not only is one in four (or five, depending on your source) campus women the victim of a rape or rape attempt, there must be thousands of would-be or actual rapists roaming our campuses, who mysteriously stop being rapists once off the campus, since nobody is suggesting that our society as a whole is a rape culture. They can’t, because if, as Ms Macdonald pointed out, the risk were really that high on campus, nobody would send their daughters to coed campuses. And if the risk were that high in society, no woman would leave her home without an escort.

The rape culture myth had its origins in a September 1992 questionnaire in Seventeen magazine, called “What’s Happening to you?” Among the questions posed after an introductory “Did anyone do any of the following to you when you didn’t want them to in the last school year”: “touch, pinch or grab you” “lean over or corner you,” “give you sexual notes or pictures,” “ “make suggestive or sexual gestures, looks, comments or jokes,” and “pressure you to do something sexual”? Only one – “force you to do something sexual”-  related to actual rape.

Seventeen had 1.9 million subscribers at the time. They received 4,200  responses– or  0.2% of their market. Of the 4,200, 10% reported they had been forced to do something sexual.

Not only were the respondents not representative of the U.S. population, they were those who felt most strongly about the issue. But, with manipulation from women’s groups, this entirely unscientific SLOP (self-selected listener opinion polls) transmogrified into headlines like “A U.S. survey shows wide harassment of girls in school.”

By contrast, a credible survey conducted by Louis Harris polling took a random sample of 1,500 boys and girls in grades eight through 11, and asked them about harassment. Four out of five students, male and female, reported being harassed. What? Boys being harassed as well as girls? Gee, that doesn’t fit feminist theory. Some intrepid media people nevertheless dug a little deeper than was their feminism-indulgent wont and published skeptical stories about the original survey. An expert on sexual harassment, Billi Dziech, noted the imprecision of terminology, stating “There is a difference between something I would call ‘sexual hassle’ and ‘sexual harassment’.”

The rape culture meme always harks back to bad methodology, linguistic legerdemain and moral-high-ground entitlement. In the spring of 1993, nine women, art students at the University of Maryland distributed posters and fliers around campus, naming dozens of male students with the heading: “Notice: These men are potential rapists.” The women had chosen the names at random from the university directory as part of an art project. How did they get away with such irresponsibility? If you have to ask, you dont know your feminist history.

We’ve made progress of a sort. (By “we” I mean objective, reasonable observers of the culture wars.) Those innocent men would not take such egregious defamation lying down today. And if the CBC isn’t afraid to touch this third rail of feminist dogma, there is reason to believe we have turned the corner on radical feminism’s control of the gender agenda. We’ve come a long way, baby.

National Post


The "Rape Culture" is promoted by the myriad of organizations that continuously demand and receive ever increasing truck loads of cash based entirely on their fabrication  of feminist myths that 30% of women are victims of domestic violence and therefore some extraordinary percentage of the population are violent abusers and or rapists because they were born with testicles.

The Extreme Feminist Cult how sends judges on "brain washing courses" and they have an extraordinary ability to decide who gets to be a judge.
The Extreme Feminists get hold of lists of proposed judges and the phones start ringing looking for information on if they support or do not support Extreme Feminist Myths.

The fact is it is now increasingly difficult to become a judge unless you donate to the right political sources and appear to be a died in the wool extreme Feminist who will go along with the practice that Children and Fathers have no Legal Rights despite legislation to the contrary.

Today, Tuesday,  March 25th, 2014, Bill C-560 goes to second reading before the House of Commons. The private member's bill, moved by Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, proposes amendments  to amend the Divorce Act and related statutes to make equal shared parenting (ESP) the law in Canada.

While Bill C-560 is a great conservative initiative, it does not change the underlying corrupt nature of our Courts, the corrupted judicial selection process that has been effectively hijacked by extreme feminists.

In Ontario, there is NO accountability for the Corrupt Children's Aid Societies of Ontario. The only accountability is from our judiciary who are increasingly composed of Judges who were FORMER LAWYERS for the Corrupt Children's Aid Societies of Ontario.

It has reached such epidemic proportions that it now an expectation that once a lawyer spends ten years working for the CAS that they will be "promoted" or "anointed" to the Judiciary where they repay the favour by making predictable decisions for their former employer regardless of the evidence.

The result is a Corrupt "Child and Family Services secret court system that is hidden from public view with publication bans and threats of legal and or criminal charges against Journalists for even mentioning a case.

The "extreme feminists" who oppose Bill 560 effectively control our legal system and in particular the "child protection" racket  that costs tax payers billions of dollars.

In Ottawa each child apprehended and or kept in care for One year is worth
$266,000 dollars which means each former CAS lawyer anointed as a judge is under pressure to effectively write another check to fund what laywers openly refer to as "The Gestapo" aka the Children's Aid Societies of Ontario.

The "Gestapo" of Ontario, are perhaps the primary organization in Ontario that promote feminist myths that are used to promote domestic violence by women towards men.

It's now routine for CAS to come to the rescue of the most violent women in society.

 The CAS take children from full time devoted fathers, who are habitually abused as a result of a fear of calling the police or CAS because both these corrupt institutions are riddled with those who promote violence towards fathers who abuse their incredible absolute powers to  remove children from fathers and placing them with violent mothers.

An example of this promotion of hatred is that of Ottawa Police Detective Peter Van Der Zander who fabricated evidence to NOT charge an extremely violent woman who attempted to kill her husband.

Then there is Ottawa Children's Aid Society lawyer Marguerite Isobel Lewis who fabricated evidence in a court room to keep a child unnecessarily in care.

Then there is the lowest form of life in Ontario, "the Child Protection Worker" who fabricates evidence to protect violent women because they don't want to see a male victim of domestic violence.

Bill 560 is just a start but we have a cess pool of hatred towards men and you can literally smell the hatred towards fathers oozing out of every court room and police station in  Canada.