Author
|
Topic: I thought Macleans was liberal
|
|
|
|
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854
|
posted 05 January 2006 06:06 PM
Personally, I think that commentary on that article definitely belongs in Feminism, because it's a totally anti-feminist diatribe. As well as racist. For example, check out the not-so-subtle argument that feminists are destroying western culture by not having babies, so said culture is being overrun by oppressive Muslims. I couldn't believe it: quote: "Have fewer children, later in life," advises Joan Peters. That's the strategy that demographically's delivering western Europe into the hands of a culture far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad.
The fact that it appeared in "Canada's National Magazine" makes it particularly nauseating. Maybe though the thread title could be changed to something more descriptive?
From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238
|
posted 05 January 2006 06:32 PM
audra @ rabble.ca michelle @ rabble.ca Ruredboy seems to be here only to spam the board by saying the same one or two things in a bunch of threads. One of these things is his attempt to troll for reactions by making the above comments about Svend Robinson. I also think he's been here recently under another name -- his modus operandi is a lot like fossilnut / tallyho's (although I'm certainly not suggesting that they have a monopoly on it). [ 05 January 2006: Message edited by: obscurantist ]
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 06 January 2006 12:27 AM
Like netizens, some journalists are trolls. Mark Steyn's a troll.And Macleans was never left wing, and a few months back took a hard lurch to the right in pursuit of circulation. In other words, the magazine itself is trolling. I'd ignore it.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 06 January 2006 11:28 AM
Steyn also has a long long feature, reprising much of the same language, published in both New Criterion and Wall Street Journal, in which he makes so many confident 50-year demographic projections (USA with "500 million people", Europe stagnant, declining and "40 per cent Muslim"), you would think the guy actually understood the basics; he does notlike the CIA analysts who foresaw a long future for the Soviet Union circa 1987, Steyn projects flimsy stats into some geopolitical juggernaut with surging Muslims as everyone's enemy; weirdly, the enemy there is not feminists not good thinking on several levels; but Steyn now has a court jester role on the US right similar to what PJ O'Rourke, Chris Buckley or Emmett Tyrrell have previously had
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
beaver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10226
|
posted 06 January 2006 06:00 PM
Can you imagine? Women aren't having enough kids! Abortions outnumber births! We damn women are putting the future of humanity in jeapardy!Or wait, maybe when having children stops making women poorer and less employable this will turn around... Perhaps women want to share the burden of the future of humanity instead of paying the lions share of the price.
quote: It's not just that 60 per cent of graduates are female but that the 40 per cent who aren't exist in a thoroughly feminized culture.
I wonder what he means by " thoroughly feminized culture?" Women being allowed to speak? This statement, and much of the article, is so ridiculous that it isn't even worth arguing about. How do these people get writing jobs? Shouldn't he be at home raising his kids and tending to his wife?
From: here and there | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 06 January 2006 06:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cougyr:
Sales to whom? Now, I'm guessing here, but I think that the point is to please rich and powerful advertisers and backers. The point is to push corporatist agenda at readers. One wonders who those backers are.
1. What they were doing wasn't working. 2. The general interest news magazine is dying out. The demographic sector likely to be slowest to abandon old habits is conservative--literally so. 3. In Canada, for instance, other venerable magazines like Reader's Digest have long ago made the journey to the right, for identical reasons--that's where the largest remaining audience for their product lies. So that's the strategy - chase a dwindling resource off to the margins, stage right.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|