So there’s some kind of hoopla in the world of tennis. Apparently some male commentator said something tasteless and dumb about Venus Williams’ bottom. Well, pfft. While I agree his comment was stupid and inappropriate, I also have to have a good laugh at the girls. Players nowadays display A LOT more than a mean backhand. Not that it excuses idiotic comments. But you know, when you dress like a tart, don’t be surprised if people treat you like one.
So apparently the students at Lakehead University could have had a pro-life club, they just can’t
- and they have to apply for express permission to use their own university’s logo
Next thing you know they might want to hold an event. Clearly, this club is demanding.
I’m not even going to get into the delicious irony of a university that forbids education from student clubs. A new motto perhaps? “Lakehead University–no learning, now or ever”
I’ll keep brainstorming…
It’s not just feminists who bother me when they mistake particular women’s difficulties for systematic discrimination. For the most part, Hillary Clinton’s electoral troubles are hers and hers only – and she would have them were she a middle-aged white guy. I used to think the exact same thing back in the day Pauline Marois could not get herself elected at the head of the PQ (she has since become the party’s leader). It’s not your gender, I once wrote in a column. It’s you.
But then, I’m also not wild about those who say society is now hurting boys. See, assuming society does something bad to one gender takes responsibility away from individuals because it encourages them to blame their shortcomings on discrimination instead of blaming themselves. Sitting around feeling sorry for yourself has never been a good idea. Why promote it?
I know I enjoy a good walk down memory lane so whilst you are enjoying this clip from the 1973 cult classic The Rocky Horror Picture Show, let me discuss today’s news. Today Judith Timson in The Globe and Mail writes an article called The unthinkable shmashmortion: When did abortion become a dirty word again? It’s another article despairing that Hollywood has not put enough effort into glamorizing “women’s choices” (read abortion) and has made movies like Juno and Knocked Up, showing other options. To quote:
When I was a teenager in the mid-sixties, an unwanted pregnancy was a nightmare. One girl I knew who did not want to tell her parents travelled secretly to a small town to visit a semi-competent abortionist. Another 17-year-old friend had an abortion performed on her family’s kitchen table by two women who injected a saline solution into her as her wealthy mother stood by. She delivered a fetus into the frilly wastebasket in her bedroom.
She also touches on the gritty 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, a film about an abortion in communist Romania, which had Timson “protectively pressing my legs together, thinking back to those comparatively benign but still bad old days in Canada.”
Someone send this woman a history book: Comparing communist Romania with Canada in any fashion is hopelessly naive and historically untenable. Did I say “hopelessly naive”? Back to the topic at hand.
Abortion has not become a dirty word “again.” It was always a dirty word. She’s cheering the normalization of death that never happened, the women’s right that never materialized, because whether into a wastebasket or a sterilized hospital dish, women, girls, none of us, are comfortable with delivering our unborn children–dead.
Timson says she feels like she’s living in a time warp. How to put this delicately-that’s because she is. Her own 1970s time warp. Since then, time has shown the supposed liberation of abortion to be nothing more than science fiction–a cast of eccentric characters dancing over graves. The modern and hip know how abysmal the whole affair is.
If I were in an endorsing kind of mood, I wouldn’t pick Mike Huckabee. Nonetheless, his sudden uptick in Iowa is fascinating. In a contest that has so far dealt largely with the economy, immigration and national security, rather than social and cultural issues, David Broder makes the argument that there is something going on under the surface (free registration req’d.):
Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. […] [R]eal middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has.
Social and human capital are what enable individuals and groups to thrive. When communities can’t generate this capital for whatever reason, governments step in, and their solutions are usually ham-handed, expensive, and inefficient. Fiscal conservatism, small governments and shrinking budgets are only viable when most people are functional, stable, and autonomous, and there has yet to be a more effective way to develop such people than in a family. I’m a bit puzzled that this theme has been lacking so far in the primary season, but perhaps it’s there, in the subtext. It will be interesting to see if it emerges more clearly in the debates ahead.
On January 10, the Lakehead University student union denied the pro-life club official status.
Generally speaking, when the anti-democratic, myopic nitwits at Canadian university student unions go about banning pro-life clubs, as they have done at Carleton University and at the Okanagan campus of the University of British Columbia already, they do so on the grounds that the pro-life view is hateful toward women. You are either pro-life OR pro-woman, and ne’er the two views shall meet. I wrote about this flawed thinking for the Ottawa Citizen at the time of the Carleton “debate.”
If I were a student at Lakehead I’d get every student to start their own club. A chess club, a new age mysticism club, a Muslim club, a doily crocheting club and yes, of course, a womyn’s club-all with the express mandate to do nothing but discuss the theology of the body and watch abortion videos, whilst doing other club activities. Which club would the student union ban first? Would they have the tenacity to ban the Muslim pro-lifers? Or would they target the chess players first, which would allow the chess players to rightly assert they have been unfairly discriminated against. It could take months to sort out the banning order. But it would be good preparation for their first jobs at human rights tribunals.
[Side note: Indoctrinate U is playing in Ottawa on February 18.]
To think: I could have had ProWomanProLife up and running years ago and retired at 25 to Hawaii.
More women than men are pro-life. 34 per cent of Canadian women believe a baby should be protected from conception, as compared with 26 per cent of men. Read it here.
Now why bring out this news from October? Because information and good, old-fashioned logic are the main defence against those in favour of extreme choices, like abortion. And they’ll be out, guns a blazin’, to celebrate Morgentaler this month. [Editor’s note: “Guns a blazin'” is an idiom. No human rights tribunals, please, on how I have hurt some downcast feminist’s feelings over her passionately non-violent stance on everything but abortion. Thank you.]
That’s interesting. I wonder what the reason is for the discrepancy. I think one function of readily available abortion, though, has been to weaken the link between sex and reproduction in a way that particularly lessens men’s responsibilities toward an unplanned child.
I think we all need to thank my former employer Ezra Levant for this. That Alberta Human Rights Tribunal employee worked for her (taxpayer-funded) pay that day.
My favourite exchange comes around the three minute mark:
Ezra Levant: I published those cartoons to use the maximum freedom allowed. I published it without reservation. I published it in the most unreasonable manner.
Bureaucrat: What do you mean by unreasonable?
Ezra Levant: Whatever offends you most.