CBC'S RADICAL FEMINISM

Many Canadians are feminists. But few Canadians, or Americans, for that matter, are radical feminists. In fact, I can’t say that I know even one. I know of some, however, even of many. And they work at CBC Radio, our public broadcaster. Should taxpayers who don’t even know what radical feminism is be made to pay for radically feminist propaganda? Taxpayers are obliged to pay 1.1 billion dollars per year to fund the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Public broadcasting, if it should exist at all, ought never to be used for promoting hatred.

CBC personalities regularly denounce misogyny: the hatred of women. This is good, except that it is done while the other side of each mouth spews misandry: the hatred of men. That is what radical feminism always contains somewhere in its message: the hatred of men. What could be more contrary to the mandate of a public broadcaster than to promote hatred toward half the public? Isn’t public broadcasting supposed to represent everyone and bring everyone together? Should taxpayers be paying big money to listen to feminists putting men down?

Here is an example of the kind of content that taxpayers are obliged, by law, to pay for. To discuss CBC’s favorite topic: the ascent of women at the expense of men, a debate was moderated by Jian Ghomeshi on his quaint program called Q (November 15^th, 2013.) The debate was about whether or not men have become obsolete. Imagine if a church moderated a debate on whether or not women were obsolete? or maybe on whether they should get back in the kitchen in order to solve the unemployment problem? Probably the church in which the debate happened would be burned down and the pastors involved would go to jail. But the CBC gets a free pass to preach radical, man-hating feminism. It won’t get a free pass in this article!

Soon after the sinister debate began, one side actually told the truth by calling it an ‘agreement-fest.’ As if discussing such a topic were not wicked enough, CBC was careful to stack the deck to ensure a one-sided conversation, or attack. And so the moderator and the two debaters had lots of fun engaging in their man-hatred. A diatribe against men by a trio of feminists must have been CBC’s proudest moment on that day. The ‘end of men,’ the ‘end of patriarchy’—these are the golden calves that CBC cows are so often nursing. I use the word ‘cows’ intentionally and without apology. “Their cow calveth, and casteth not her calf” (Job 21.10.) This verse seems suitable enough. Feminists are continually calving feminism in different forms, and then nursing these unnatural offspring with all the care that is necessary for their growth. And like cows do, these feminists are always regurgitating their old cud to chew on and be self-satisfied by. To be fair, they did say that it should not be taken literally that men might be obsolete. But you see, they could not resist the title they had chosen because they are in love with the idea that the title signifies. Radical feminists cannot conceal the provocative canker that grows out from their hating hearts.

The man who moderated the debate (I use the word ‘man’ loosely) was Jian Ghomeshi, whose chief characteristic might be uxoriousness: excessive submission to a wife (the CBC girls being his spiritual wives.) What kind of man is willing to moderate a feminist-slanted debate on whether or not men are obsolete? He must be, not only uxorious, but, if we take Jezebel’s husband for our model, excessively immoral also. He will pretend to blush at an obscene remark made by a conservative mayor, and yet not blush at all to discuss the propriety of gay sexual intercourse on the stage of a theatre!

[Since the Ghomeshi scandal broke, it seems that Ghomeshi might be a reincarnation of Jekyll and Hyde. His Jekyll side hits balls out of the park for feminism; his Hyde side just hits and chokes.] 

There are other examples of radical hatred of the male sex at the CBC. Feminists claim to be striving for equality: equal rights, equal opportunity, equal pay, etc. But, in truth, they strive for inequality. For example, in a lecture on blood, the lecturer complained about targets in the form of women over at the National Rifle Association somewhere (CBC Radio, Ideas, November 14^th, 2013.) Supposing that such targets exist, should feminists not be glad about it? Since radical feminists are the ones mostly responsible for getting women into combat roles, and since they claim to believe that women and men should be equally treated, why the madness against these targets in the form of women? Must all the targets look like men? Not if equality is the aim.

Yet one more example of misandry at, and from, CBC Radio. Examples must not be lacking considering that I gathered the three used in this article over the course of a few hours in the space of one week. Piya Chattopadhyay filled in for Ghomeshi on Q, November 7^th, 2013. What’s been on Piya’s mind? Well, Piya would like to see Canadian women on Canadian currency: ‘on every last bit of it.’ Where is the sense of equality in that? This was no playful remark. The comment was unleashed in a tone not unlike what one would expect to arise from an embittered heart. What appalling, radical, man-hating misandry over at CBC Radio! Anyone who would laugh her comment off and be okay with it is so cowed by that monster regiment called feminism that there is little hope for him or her to stand upright, ever. What percentage of Piya’s personal currency is paid by manly taxpayers? Since men are supposed to be obsolete, maybe we should minus that amount from her salary. Would Piya be relieved, or stressed, I wonder, at the prospect of no longer being supported by men? Is it not worth a big salary cut, Piya, to have your feminist dream come true? Come to think of it, maybe Ghomeshi’s salary should be reduced to whatever sum gay persons will give. 

Why are radical feminists so entirely shrew-like? It is because they suspect that the superiority of women will never be realized to their satisfaction. No matter how much they try to rewrite history through historical fiction and try to fashion a fantastic future by the novel, the ghost of patriarchy past is always appearing to them like a foreboding specter, and they are haunted by it. They know that women have never dominated the world and that their dream, therefore, has no precedent from which to launch itself into reality. Their hearts, because estrogen rules there instead of testosterone, persistently remind them that they are not made to rule. To some degree, or just enough to unsettle, the prophecy from Genesis 3.16 must be written on every feminist heart, no matter how radical: “He shall rule over thee.” In the end (and this must the most galling thing of all to feminists who are not comatose to Scripture), no woman can be admitted into heaven without submission to the ‘Son of God,’ the ‘Son of man,’ the ‘Man Christ Jesus.’ Heaven will be comforting and blissful for an infinite number of reasons, not the least of which is: no feminist will be suffered to rear a stubborn head there. “The head of the woman is the man” (1 Corinthians 11.3) will one day, beginning at judgment day, be the rule everywhere. Can I hear an Amen to that? Amen, and Amen.