BuzzFeed pitch? First, check your privilege

I've moved! Please visit my new blog:
commentaryking.wordpress.com

The disdain for white males is often brazen. In the current wave of feminism, feminists chug male tears and between gulps they ask for more respect and empathy.  

Or they just call men garbage. That happens too.  

A few days ago on Twitter, BuzzFeed editor Scaachi Koul asked for stories, preferably from people who aren’t white males. Many people challenged her and called her sexist. In a frenzied caps-lock outburst she responded:

“IF YOU’RE A WHITE MAN UPSET THAT WE ARE LOOKING MOSTLY FOR NON-WHITE MEN I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU GO WRITE FOR MACLEANS.”

When that didn’t pacify her detractors, she decided on this:  

 “HA HA ANYWAY BAN MEN LITERALLY THROW THEM IN THE GARBAGE.”

Some male saps agreed with her preference. They’ve been conditioned to hate masculine traits and they don’t want to challenge the feminist contradiction: that being a white male is both disordered (in its very masculinity) and a privilege. These men are fine with their inferiority complex and so when they’re deliberately put last or mocked, sadly, it rings true for them.  

Unfortunately, this behaviour from feminists doesn’t surprise anyone. They’ve no problem making provocative statements that are objectively unfair, and yet, they seem startled when men object to being put at the bottom of a job application list.  

When challenged, feminists manoeuver the argument into what kind of feedback they received. Instead of acknowledging what they said was wrong, or at the very least provocative, they gasp at all the hatred in the world, and leave Twitter, either permanently or temporarily as Koul has done. This helps maintain their victim status, confirm their hatred of men, and avoid critical discussion.

In this case, the Huffington Post headline yesterday wasn’t about what Koul said, it was that she was harassed afterwards. Oddly, they didn’t provide any examples. Oh, and one more thing—she used to work for them.

I rarely read BuzzFeed but I remember Koul from an appearance on CBC with Wendy Mesley. During it, she harped on how men deserved no pity. To her list of grievances she said, “When I go outside I get men stop me and ask me why I’m not smiling.” she said.

I have contradictions, too, because I was outraged and amused. Outraged for men (including my two beautiful boys) who are held to standards so absurd that they can’t say, “Smile.” And amused that feminism is unravelling into a laughing-stock, thanks to these micro-gripes.  

You’d think gender and skin colour wouldn’t matter to BuzzFeed editors. I always thought the nice thing about writing was that your words determined your next gig. You either said it best or you got a quick rejection e-mail. However, in a culture collapsing under politically correct identities, maybe I’ve been naïve. Maybe it’s been about appearances for years. How shallow.

This is feminism

 

If you do what a journalist does, you might be a journalist

Best Lois Lane, hands down

The Alberta NDP proved this week that they’re sloppy-drunk with power to think they can dictate who is and isn’t a journalist. I’m guessing they reserve the title for any left-leaning person who nods and claps approvingly whenever they speak.

To review, Rebel journalists were banned from three events. 

When they asked why, they received a letter from the Alberta Ministry of Justice saying, “Our client’s position remains that your client (The Rebel) and those who identify as being connected to your client (The Rebel) are not journalists and are not entitled to access media lock-ups or other such events.”

Sneering that they're not journalists makes me wonder if they’ve been sheltered too long from criticism or if they have a warped and romantic view of the job.  

First let’s dispel the romanticism. Journalists report on fender-benders and give you tips on how to avoid the intersection. When a journalist writes persuasive, intelligent commentary, someone will read only the headline and call him a jackass. Also, real-life journalists report on heavy stuff like the merits of gluten-free diets, Kanye West’s Twitter feed, and with surprising regularity, they cover adorable puppy-befriends-pig stories.  

Don’t get me wrong, we need to know everything Kanye says, and in all seriousness, I respect many journalists and I’m grateful for their reporting. I’m a freelancer myself, so of course I find writing worthwhile.

But while there’s prestige in the position, for the government to imply that there’s a purity and exclusivity in the role is silly.

Being a journalist isn't the highest calling. You don’t need to go to J-school, and given the job market, it shouldn’t be your major. It’s great to have a post secondary education, but again, it’s not necessary.

Journalism is a craft—and I mean this in a practical way, not affectedly. If you write well, you’ll do well. Just as a painter can be magnificent without four years of life drawing or art history.

The government doesn’t get to decide who will report on them. But here’s a good test of journalism credentials:  If you work for a news source, report on news, and get turned away from an event because they’re intimidated by your political persuasion and critical eye then - Baam! - you’re a journalist! 

The government shouldn't be in the business of body weight

France's lower house of parliament has passed a bill banning fashion models from working if their Body Mass Index (BMI) is under 18. On April 14, it will go through the upper house of parliament.  The motivation behind the law is benevolent; they’re trying to represent more normal body types and prevent eating disorders in models and the young girls who look up to them.  

And don’t we all want to see more normal body types? Why not. Don’t we want those with anorexia to be healed?  Don’t we want girls to stop starving themselves? We do.  But the trouble is, a law requiring a woman to step on a scale before she can work is disastrous.  If it's not right for fatter people, it's not right for the thinner ones.

And France means business too.  If the fashion industry violates the conditions, they’ll face fines of up to €75,000 (101, 000 CAD).  If, for example, a model with a BMI of 17 should strut the catwalk, designers could face a six-month prison sentence. (Imagine hardend prisoners asking what you did?)

I'm sorry for people with eating disorders, and I’m always on board with programs that help those who are struggling.  But this isn't beneficial. It will only discard thin models, not help them.  They’ll flunk their body weight test and then what? Will they be told to eat a little more?  If only anorexia could be solved so easily. Just eat more fries, will ya?

This law is most unfair to those who are naturally thin.  The accuracy of the BMI has been contested repeatedly and proven inaccurate.  For the naturally skinny models without an eating disorder, these measures are patent discrimination. 

Wouldn’t we be fuming if advertisers were banning heavy women from a runway or magazine cover?  Wouldn’t it be outrageous to ban sites that celebrate the fuller figure, no matter how “full”? People should have the freedom to eat what they want and weigh whatever they weigh.  

The complications of anorexia include a slow heart rate, reduced bone density, fatigue, and hair loss.  There’s no question it’s a serious disorder.  But let’s look at the health consequences of obesity too: Type 2 Diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension. Isn’t it likely, then, that someone might suggest banning models on the other end of the BMI spectrum?  The body positive movement would lose it. 

 

Lane Bryant models

The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty is a hit—and mostly savvy business strategy—that has been successful because their models are diverse and consumers are buying what they're selling.   

Cover Girl has often chosen celebrities of varied ethnicities, ages, and sizes.  

Consumers are powerful and we can make a difference without the government getting involved.  If models on TV ads appear too thin, stop buying the product.  If a magazine has models that appear unhealthy, or if they have celebrities photoshopped beyond recognition, don’t buy it.

Or buy it. 

Freedom is so simple.

Not quite zero tolerance: The shove

You can’t walk into a Hamilton facility without seeing those big “Zero Tolerance for Violence” signs. But talk, words and signs are cheap. We now know that a certain amount of violence is tolerated by the City of Hamilton. Whether you favour Ward 12 councillor Lloyd Ferguson and are in the “cut the guy a break” corner, or whether you think independent journalist, Joey Coleman, deserves justice for being shoved, we can unite knowing there’s some tolerating going on.

Around this time last year, Coun. Ferguson shoved Coleman about a metre’s length because he felt Coleman was infringing on his private conversation. It took a year for the city’s integrity commissioner, Earl Basse to submit a report on the incident. He decided that Ferguson violated the code of conduct but he didn’t recommend any punitive steps. "Zero” punitive measures, you might say. The public then pressured council to seek justice and good on them.

The shove apologists have claimed the two forgave each other and that settled the matter. And it’s true that Ferguson apologized to Coleman and he accepted it; however, forgiveness shouldn’t be equated with justice. Our society runs smoother when people have consequences to their actions and receive punishments, whether big or small, those that fit the crime. It’s a deterrent and satisfies our innate sense of fairness. It’s much easier to make peace when we feel treated fairly. The fact is, shoving is deliberate and those who are violent in any way weigh it against the power and rank of their victims.

Later, after public pressure, Ferguson self-sanctioned himself, promising to donate $1,000 to an Ancaster charity and stepping down from the hiring committee for the new integrity commissioner. But who can feel gratified with the offender choosing his punishment?

The shove is now being investigated by the OPP. It’s an unfortunate step and some might see this as another example of our leanings towards a more litigious, hypersensitive culture, but the problem is the alternative: going through the workplace with its inept and bias decisions. There’s no taking the politics out of the workplace and especially out of council chambers. The bottom line is that we can’t count on our employers to do the right thing.

Workplaces craft policies that sound great but flop in practise. Canadian sites that discourage workplace violence and bullying have loads of preventative measures but little information for what to do when it occurs. Integrity commissioners are given a job title so lofty they’re doomed to fail, as ours did. Without interviewing Coleman and witnesses the process nosedived.

Those who think it’s not a big deal should consider this: entry level employees would have been dismissed immediately. The city has condoned unwanted touching, whether it is violent or lecherous. Those who are experiencing harassment right now will hesitate to come forward. Those who practice self-restraint and respect policies and flashy signs, as Coleman did, are treated as trouble makers.

I’m not sure what an equitable punishment should be, but Ferguson shouldn’t decide it. I trust the OPP will work it out. My support is with Coleman, as it would be if Ferguson were shoved. But it’s time for a math lesson at city council. Zero tolerance means nil, nada, zip, zilch. It means no tolerance whatsoever for shoving. This is a code of conduct failure. So much for all that fancy signage.