Fake Feminism

I’m fed up with fake feminism. The British Broadcasting Corporation now finds itself in a censorship scandal. In a program about the Commonwealth Games, the film’s presenter was grappling with a judo champion, and after he was sent crashing to the floor… And I must warn you, it’s graphic content here…. After being pummeled, he said:

 

“I am not sure I can live that down – being beaten by a 19-year-old girl.”

 

Oh, the horror. Thank goodness the sage and sanctimonious editors censored the too-vulgar-for daytime diction by the program’s second air-time. What? You’re not sure which word was edited out. Why “GIRL” of course. Because, well, the BBC didn’t want to injure the collective feelings of the female species.

 

“They had more time to edit it the second time,” a BBC spokeswoman said. “Mark didn’t mean to cause offence. But the word ‘girl’ was taken out just in case it did.”

 

Although it isn’t the first instance of BBC censorship, this case is particularly puzzling to me. Sure, I get news organizations aim to guard the emotions and reputations of TERRORISTS when they bar that term, replacing it instead with the word ‘militants,’ but… Girls? Really? Wake up Britain, blessed home of the Spice Girls. Girl Power, baby yeah.

 

Seriously though. Here, I should remind viewers that the BBC was, in all truth, the inspiration for George Orwell’s great novel 1984. And now, this business of cherry picking words from the English lexicon bears eerie resemblance to Orwell’s notion of Newspeak: a twisted take on the English language– the role of which was to demonstrate how repeated alteration of language by media can be used to politically deceive and manipulate, leading to a society in which folks mindlessly accept propaganda as reality.

 

And, sure, there might be argument to be made in the case of the ‘terrorist’ to ‘militant’ switch, but I can’t see what motivation there can possibly be remove ‘girl’ from BBC broadcasts. Except if, perhaps, this is just the sort of thing we should expect from a Western society, which has fallen into the wiles of fake feminism.

 

In this era that follows sexual revolution, fake feminists recite the litany of appropriate language, while their sacrament is abortion.

 

Slut shaming: bad, prostitution: good. Rape culture: evil, having a guy hold the door: nearly as bad.

 

Speaking of feeble feminism… Wonder if the BBC consulted the slactivists behind the ‘Bring Back Our Girls’ Campaign on their use of the r-rated g-word.

 

Campaigns such as those and the #YesAllWomen movement, following the Santa Barbara massacre falsely read feminist talking points into a situation, which ultimately undermines lessons we could have otherwise learned.

 

‘Bring Back Our Girls’ was, simply put, a sham—not support. In what world did the First Lady and her wannabe Canadian counterpart think the Boko Haram terrorists would respond to hashtag diplomacy? That, more than any use of the term ‘girls’, is the offensive bit: demeaning the agony of those kidnapped while elevating the egos of those holding signs.

 

And the Santa Babara shooting, much like twin case of Montreal’s L’Ecole Polytechnique missed a teaching moment all together. It was not about male chauvinism and violence against women. Rather, the opposite.

 

Inside the so-called ‘manosphere’ of Elliot Rodger, was a boy inundated with images of sex and power, but… he didn’t even know how to ask a girl out on a date. In his 141-page memoir, Rodger barely mentions his sister until the near end. He describes hearing her have sex with a man one night. But, troubled Rodger can’t understand why a guy without a car can get laid but he, with his shiny BMW, can’t even get a date. Youth today can tell you about every sexual position, the ins and outs of the opposite gender, but when pressed: wouldn’t know how to ask the object of their desire out to the mall for a soda.

 

When Marc Lepine asked men to leave that Montreal lecture hall so he could proceed with his rampage, they did. And, after Lepine had reached a satisfactory temperature in his bloodbath, he walked down the hall, past those same men he dismissed. They did nothing. Somehow, this tragedy translated to too much testosterone in Canada and it’s victimization of women. Ask me? We could have done with more testosterone that tragic day.

 

In this era of an Offend-luenza epidemic, we have become entirely misdirected. Women’s rights are conflated with abortion rights and the role of feminists is to police our diction. Don’t believe me? Mark my words. At the end of this week’s Maternal Health Summit, the chattering classes will have one observation: Canada isn’t funding abortions abroad, a mandate they don’t even have at home.

 

Look, BBC and MSM: Instead of concerning yourself with targets from your fake feminist foxhole, perhaps you could cover stories that are objectively offensive to women… Like the Sudanese woman who just delivered her child and now faces 100 lashes and hanging for daring to marry a Christian. Or the pregnant Pakistani woman who was stoned outside the courthouse last month, before her trial, because her marriage was not arranged. There are women and girls across the globe who face problems bigger than hurt feelings. So, please, leave our language alone.

Posted on by Faith Goldy in Uncategorized
  • Adrian Stonell

    You mentioned that there should have been more testosterone when Mark Lepine was wanting to kill the women. If the men had stayed in the room, they likely would have been shot (thus more than 14 dead). You could acknowledge that bravery may minimize a tragic situation, but lives will still be lost. Thus, men must be willing to die to protect women?
    If the situation had been reversed (i.e.: Lepine wanted to kill men (for some reason) and ordered all the women to leave), should the women leave with a clear conscience?

    • Avesther

      Adrian, I think you are missing the point Faith is trying to make, possibly because I don’t see her context in your reply.

      I believe her context is that feminists make these shootings by men against women to be acts of aggression by testosterone laden chauvinistic men with some chip on their shoulder to keep women oppressed and by extension all men are equal in the regards which is why women must be ever vigilant, basically against men. Yet if that were true, that all men are some how testosterone laden pigs with some chip on their shoulder, then why didn’t any of the men act on it when Lepine walked down the hall passed the men he dismissed? They didn’t cheer him on in support, nor did they do anything to stop him.

      This would suggest that men, contrary to the feminist claims, are not driven by hormones but, like women in similar situations, driven by preservation of life.
      Of course, I could be wrong.

  • His wife

    What about fucking someone else’s husband Faith? What’s your “position” on that?

  • His wife

    Shaming the slut. You’re not a Christian. Bosha Pokaraye.

  • His wife

    Sorry, I’ve been posting on the wrong blog and can’t delete my comments on yours. Feel free to ignore them! I don’t have a clue who you are! Wrong Faith. My bad.