Debating Feminists On International Women’s Day

By Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch): Yesterday, I received an invitation from CTV Your Morning to appear on a debate panel with some feminists, on International Women’s Day, which is next Wednesday, March 8^th. CTV is Canada’s largest private broadcasting network, and most Canadians will be very familiar with this network. I’m not sure if any American networks pick this up, but it doesn’t matter, since episodes can be viewed online.
I’ll be appearing in the studio in Toronto, and I think the always wonderful Karen Straughan will be joining us from Washington via satellite, so it should be quite a good show. I’m looking forward to it! I hope we get some real wingnut protestors. I am especially looking forward to assisting those with cups of piss. They’ll be enjoying a nice beverage if they try a Lauren Southern on me.

My purpose today is twofold: I want to articulate my main point of debate, to give haters a headstart on talking to me, and I am soliciting advice and pointers from readers. I actually am genuinely interested in debate, and discussing whatever fruitful avenues may arise from our central topic of discussion: Is Feminism Needed Today? I know that Karen will argue forcefully and armed with a depth of historical knowledge I cannot hope to match that feminism was never needed, and piggybacked on economic and agricultural changes that were well underway before the blue-haired harpies started to take credit. No one can argue the historical facts better than Straughan, so I will play good cop to her bad cop on that score.

I will argue that feminism was needed to redress certain rights that women did not possess, and that any civil rights based conversation is logically predicated on the subject not having rights. This simply is not the case for women in 2017. Women, indeed, have more legal rights than men, and are protected from many significant forms of discrimination and prejudice. If any civil rights movement is needed in 2017, it’s legal rights and protections for men.
We can start with Bill C-560, the latest attempt in Canada at legally enshrining men’s equal right to parent their own children after marital breakdown. This was defeated by Prime Minister Feminist Hypocrite Justin Trudeau. Yes, our feminist Prime Minister agrees that men do not deserve equal rights under the law, which is not surprising. Feminists have opposed equal parenting from its inception. Feminists are interested in privileges for women, not rights, and certainly not equal rights.
This topic should make for some lively conversation, I should think!
I hope I get an opportunity to discuss women’s rights in a more nuanced way, although that is not typically the nature of the beast when it comes to morning TV shows. Historically, women did not have rights, because they did not have responsibilities. For example, in Canada, women could not legally sign contracts. No, this is not because Canadian men hated women and wanted to oppress them. Nonsense. It’s because of the law of coverture which stated that men were legally responsible for all debts incurred by women. Denying women the right to sign contracts was perfectly rational under those conditions.
Am I grateful that early pioneers in the feminist movement challenged and changed these laws, and others like them (which were almost all rational in basis)? Yes. I will state that unequivocally. What I am not grateful for is feminism’s fight to give women all the rights of citizenship and none of the responsibilities. That is infantilizing to an extreme degree, and it encourages women to engage in all the worst behaviors of humanity, to the ruin of civilizations. Without limitations, women destroy civilizations. I once discussed this subject at length on Red Ice Radio, and someone illustrated my comments. I find this delightful (but of course I do!), and instructive.

I doubt we will get into the question of whether women should vote (they shouldn’t), because we are not likely going to have the time. What I hope I can convey is that any discussion of women’s rights globally must begin, not with the presumption of misogyny, but responsibility. If women lack certain rights, why is that? What is the corollary responsibility that goes with the right under question, and are women as eager to embrace responsibility as they are to embrace a demand for rights? If not, why not?
What other questions do you think I should try and work my way into, or around? Any advice for me? What traps do you see? What pitfalls should I avoid? Your comments, as always, are most sincerely appreciated. Except for yours, haters. If you have something to say to me, bring it to the studio.
I’ll be there with a Trump shirt on.
Lots of love,
JB

Source