Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Mark Steyn's Best Line Ever: The body count at Kingston is "29 per cent of the Montreal Massacre"

The body count at Kingston is "29 per cent of the Montreal Massacre", but the feminists who happily used Gamil Gharbi/Marc Lepine to indict the massed ranks of Canadian menfolk are disinclined to dip their toes into the waters of the Rideau - even though this mass murder is far more telling about a culture of misogyny. -- Mark Steyn, here.
Where have all the feminists gone?
Gone to boardrooms, everyone
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

14 comments:

maryT said...

What if it had come out at the beginning that the Montreal killings was really a muslim following his religion to kill all non believers. Would using his real name have made a difference to those feminists, would they have marched every year agains muslim men.

RkBall said...

maryT -- right. Wouldn't have fit the feminist script.

Alain said...

MaryT, all this was known from the beginning but it was covered up as it did not suit the agenda of disarming the population and demonising all Canadian men. The MSM were all guilty of this along with all the feminist groups.

The feminists have now confirmed what a bunch of white previledged racists they are, murdered darker skinned women and girls do not count.

Susann said...

Alain was correct in that all media were complicit in ignoring the religious intent and the real Islamic name used daily by Lepine. The later did not fit the feminist messaging.

Here on the west coast, to this day, every single local news station continues to report the massacre every single anniversary with no added nuance as to the shooter's intent.

Our local Vancouver community colleges (now they are all called "Universities") get routinely prominent coverage on TV of the Montreal shootings. It has become a near right of passage to demonize the abuse by ALL men. It is frankly very unfair.

RkBall said...

Great comments.

Joe said...

Somewhere a wise man once wrote, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

Our response to this nonsense must be an reinvigoration of our Evangelical fervor.

For "in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us."

RkBall said...

Joe - right on.

Anon1152 said...

I think it's a mistake to treat "feminists" as a single, monolithic group with a single, overarching, agenda. All feminists may all believe in "woman's rights" and want women's equality vis-a-vis men to be respected. But that means very different things to different people.

The late Susan Okin, for example, wrote a famous essay (which later became part of a book that included several essays debating the issue) entitled "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?"

This is what started it all: http://bostonreview.net/BR22.5/okin.html

It certainly generated a lot of debate and criticism... but Okin is (was) most certainly a feminist.

RkBall said...

1152: Good point, except feminists invariably start off by saying "women want this, women say this..." indicating that they feel their view is universal.

Personally, I like Real Women.

Anon1152 said...

I'm sure I responded to your last point made in the comments. Did you receive it? If I horribly offended you, you'd let me know, right?

RkBall said...

Anon1152: You know, I remember reading it. Don't know what happened to it. If I find it, I'll publish it.

RkBall said...

Anon1152: "1152: Good point, except feminists invariably start off by saying "women want this, women say this..." indicating that they feel their view is universal."

Well. Yes. But that's an (almost?) unavoidable aspect of political life--which invariably involves speaking for oneself AND for others... and there is always the possibility of being rebuked.

The leaders of all political parties speak for "Canadians" or "Ontarians" or "Americans" or whatever. And they always seem to know what "the people" as a whole want. Even though they know that less than 50% (or less than 40%, or less than 30%) actually agree with them.

*

Take REAL Women as an example (since you brought them up). The acronym wasn't a happy coincidence. It's more like a backronym. And it was chosen, I assume, to suggest or imply that the women of REAL Women are the only ones who should count as women. They know what real women (as opposed to ersatz women?) want. And REAL women (or was it real women?) don't like unions, are against "harm reduction" drug policies, are "pro-life"(or "anti-choice"), are against same-sex marriage... and so on.

RkBall said...

Anon1152: Found it! You posted it inside the Occupiers post.

Anon1152 said...

Oops. I must have cut-and-paste it into the wrong window. Thanks for finding it. And I apologize for my carelessness.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"