No men allowed…

by Natasha on Friday, November 16, 2012, 1:35 pm · 8 comments

in Canadiana, Culture-Ideology-Religion, Politics

Now imagine a male premier having “men only” events…

Just sayin…

Tagged as: #bcpoli, Christy Clark, no men allowed, women only

{ 8 comments }

1 Xanthippa November 16, 2012 at 4:21 pm

Sexism is sexism is sexism…

2 Tripper523 November 16, 2012 at 8:00 pm

If a male premier had a “men only event” it would have to be either a “breakfast prayer meeting”, a “reunion of Three Stooges fans” (who are almost exclusively men), or the convening of a “woman-haters club”, which again is “Stooge-related” and not at all relevant to our times nor reality in general. As for Christy Clark’s “gals only” affair, it could very well be that she is a bit apprehensive about opening the doors to the likes of Sir Richard Branson, whose flamboyant and brain-numbing invitation certainly arrived without warning. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1202092–richard-branson-invites-b-c-premier-christy-clark-kitesurfing-naked Some of these guys don’t take “no” for an answer, so maybe “NO” to men across the board is the safest stance.

3 Bill Elder November 17, 2012 at 7:53 am

Why is it that every leader we have chosen in the past 2 decades is a disappointment (i.e. – not as advertised) Once elected it becomes obvious they have their own or someone else’s agenda, one that seems diametrically opposite to traditional ideals of civil responsibility and proper governing. The Bushes, Obama, Chretien, Martin, McGuinty, Calvert, Redford, Clark, most of the Mayors of large metros – all have engaged in policies never mentioned in their campaign and have been a disappointing destructive force in our nation’s history. The pathology of this phenomena transcends all party lines. The only polis who broke that mold in North America is Harper (to a narrow extent) and Rob Ford – who did precisely what they campaigned on – like it or not.

The total vacuum of integrity, competence and civil responsibility in north American political leadership seems to validate a theory I have seen kicked around for some decades now – that being that the political process and governing system are so deeply corrupt that only sociopaths, psychopaths and megalomanic narcissists strive for higher public office. If this is even partially true, it means we live in a “Kakistocracy” (which is government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst in society hold power.) The same can be said for senior civil servants who are appointed by these pathological liars and cheats. The sad part of this is that once rule by the worst is an established convention, you then slip into a pathocracy – (a government and, by percolation, a society with is pathologically psychotic). If you read the papers at all you can see this theory has some validity.

4 DaninVan November 17, 2012 at 9:51 am

You know, I just don’t care. If she feels it might get more women out to a political meeting, than fine. Hopefully there will be female reporters there to record events.

5 Bill Elder November 18, 2012 at 9:09 am

If you read the article it says this was “one of a series” of women only meetings. I can understand a girl’s night out event but a number of these tells me this politician is inherently sexist and is only interested in carrying an agenda of 50% of the population. At the very least she’s engaging in gender politics which again shatters the ideal of equity under law.
Natasha is right in stating that if a male Premier had run a series of “guys only” political meetings the gender politics obsessed media would be all over him for it, but when a female leader does it this seems to get a free pass from the media – basically showing the inverse bias of the so called progressive media and demonstrating that the Kakistocratic political class’s neurosis has percolated down into the 4th estate spreading the influence of a pathocracy.

6 Natasha November 18, 2012 at 7:01 pm

Yep, it’s a pattern of exclusion. This is the same issue I had with a charity where I used to volunteer. The person in charge decided she wanted the focus to be on female volunteers, so she started pushing “women only” events & volunteer activities. That’s when I said “bye-bye”. And I wasn’t the only one.

7 Xanthippa November 18, 2012 at 8:12 pm: Good for you!!!

Personally, I refused 2 nominations to the Canadian Olympicteams, for 2 different Olympics, in two different disciplines, precisely because of the sexism (sexual seggregation) inherrent in the Olymic games!!!
8 Bill Elder November 19, 2012 at 7:47 am: Interestingly enough, charities are now fertile ground for political activism and personal axe grinding. I also can speak from experience – a wilderness/wildlife charity I had long term membership in, and did fundraising for was infiltrated and taken over by PETA creeps and Gaia worshippers and used to further an anti-hunting, anti–fishing prohibitionist agenda, needless to say this nrewly politicized wildlife charity refused all the large donations from sporting clubs and hunting associations- and they never made up the funding short fall from the urban centric green demographic. They now spend most of the donations on political lobbying instead of wilderness/wildlife preservation. Another worthy charity hijacked by zombie politics.