Death threats received over my support for Rob Ford

On two separate occasions in the last week, women have threatened to kill me because of my support for Toronto's persecuted mayor, Rob Ford.

They aren't the usual types you'd expect to menace someone over political expression. One of them is a middle-aged suburban housewife, the mother of two daughters, who hasn't done a day of real (i.e. paid) work in fifteen years. The other, younger, is an extremely, almost exaggeratedly, feminine single High School Art teacher. Making it even more surprising was that, in both cases, the discussion about Rob Ford was initiated by them. I learned long ago not to raise the subject of Ford with people whose outlook may differ from mine, since his name evokes seething hysteria from some people.

But still, I thought threatening to kill me was a bit much.

In all fairness, the threats, made by the two women with whom I have been friends for many years, but to my knowledge have never met each other, were not meant literally. At least, so I hope.

How could anyone not like this guy?

The irrational, hyper-emotionalism that Rob Ford sometimes inspires is a remarkable phenomenon.  But there are, as far as I've observed, consistent patterns to it. The people subject to it tend to be moderately intelligent but not exceptionally so, and tend to be highly susceptible to the opinions of others. Such people also only read certain, select media and accept it uncritically.

Intriguingly, not only the death threats, but responses to questions I posed to these very different women were almost identical.

When I asked the women how they could be so certain of what they considered Ford's malfeasance, and how 'terrible' a mayor he was, the response from both was that it was because of things they read in The Toronto Star. As it was, their opinion about Ford was shaped by Star editorials as much as by that newspaper's slanted reporting.

My response that The Star wasn't really a credible source about Ford and that it had printed demonstrable lies about him just agitated them further.

A big part of their anger was that Ford was a so-called "embarrassment" and "Toronto has become a laughing stock." Unfortunately, I've encountered that reaction from a number of people before and it's borne of a particular type of bizarre insecurity. Sure, Ford's alleged "crack" scandal has made the news in North America and beyond. But does anyone who isn't prey to this weird pathology really think people in New York, Los Angeles, Paris and Tokyo are dwelling on anything going on in Toronto, let alone what's its  mayor may or may not be doing?

Pointing out to them that their lives haven't been genuinely altered by that perception not only didn't seem to alleviate their anger, but made it worse.

But let's look at another example. Yesterday, news broke that Montreal's mayor was arrested on charges related to fraud and civic corruption. Contrast that with the unproven allegations about Rob Ford made by unnamed sources related entirely to his personal behavior outside of his work as mayor.

Are Montrealers, other than a few sad, chronic whiners, going about saying how "ashamed" they are to be from that city? Of course not. If anything, it's the opposite.

Whether there's something about Quebec culture that's superior to Ontario's and gives them enough security to not continually obsess over what others think of them, I couldn't say. But it does highlight a pathetic trait of far too many Torontonians who do.

When railing against what a terrible mayor Ford was, I asked a simple question to the two women, both of whom are financially comfortable. The question infuriated them.

"Name one thing that Ford has done or is responsible for, something that you've seen with your own eyes or has involved you personally, that has in any tangible way affected you negatively?"

That really got them flustered. They both have "heard of things" that they couldn't actually verify and "knew" how Ford was "destroying Toronto" without being able to factually identify how.

So stymied, both of them, these two lovely, normally kind women, one on Saturday and the other on Sunday, said I can't say anything more about Rob Ford or they would kill me.

Maybe it's a woman thing. After the second instance on Monday, I spoke about it to my most recent ex-girlfriend, who lives just outside Toronto and with whom I am still on very friendly terms.

"Hey, L*** just threatened to kill me!"  I complained on the phone.

In a blatant display of victim-blaming, my ex responded, "What did you do to her?"

"I didn't do anything! I was just saying nice things about Rob Ford and she threatened to kill me!"

"It was probably your fault."

"What do you mean it was my fault!?  I don't go around being violent or threatening anyone. I just explained how Rob Ford is a good mayor who is being unfairly maligned and she threatened to kill me! So did another woman I know on Saturday for the same reason!"

"It was still probably your fault."

That's what things are like these days. You can be innocently walking around the city and some nut case will pelt an orange slushie at you, or sitting on a restaurant patio discussing urban affairs and the next thing you know, your companion is threatening to murder you. And only because you support a municipal politician committed to a small government that is responsible to taxpayers

It's a good thing I don't believe in stereotypes or conspiracies. Because if I did, I'd think this is all down to a bunch of women who like spending money and are out to eliminate people who believe in fiscal accountability.

6 obnoxious assumptions Hollywood makes about women

#6. Worrying About Being Fat When You're Not

" ...sure, most ladies would find it a relatable experience to see a lady onscreen trying to squeeze into her jeans after she gained some weight. But not when that lady is Julia Roberts.."


#5. Getting Angry For No Reason

"..they were obviously trying to prove she's a "strong woman" who can take care of herself, and apparently a "strong woman" is someone who is inexplicably hostile and has poor impulse control."


Read the rest at cracked.com

Stephen Fry gets in trouble for telling the truth about women's attitude towards sex and relationships

English writer, actor, director, thinker Renaissance Man, Stephen Fry is in hot water with English women and the Looney Left these days for saying that women use sex in order to get relationships.

Duh.

As far as I'm concerned, that's about the equivalent of getting in trouble with Jack Daniels for saying drinking a bottle of their whiskey makes you drunk.

Fry, who is Gay, was being a bit tongue-in-cheek in his interview with Attitude magazine when he suggested he felt sorry for straight men because women only want sex in order to have a relationship.

He said: “I think most straight men feel they disgust women. They find it difficult to believe that women are as interested in sex as they are. For good reason. If women liked sex as much as men there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. 

“I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. They want a boyfriend and then they want commitment.

“Of course a lot of women will deny this and say, ‘Oh, no, but I love sex, I love it!’ But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?

Now for anyone who's dated more than three women, you'd figure most of what he's saying is somewhat obvious, but even so, it's riled up the leftist British sisterhood.

The Guardian has published a flurry of letters from women who have chosen to ignore both the humor of his comments or their context or the substance of womens' preference for relationships over meaningless sex, and fixate on the "cruising" aspect such as:

"Can you honestly say that it is frigidity rather than the very real threat of violence, coercion and assault that prevents women from stalking parks looking for a sexual liaison? I find the idea of walking across a park after dark extremely risky (not risqué), let alone trusting that I could engage in a sexual encounter there that I knew would be pleasurable rather than abusive.

Surely the idea of sex without consequences is contingent upon the likelihood of not actually having to face any consequences. There are very few women who have grown up without experiencing some form of verbal assault, unwanted sexual attention, or much worse, that has sharpened their awareness of the need to acknowledge their own vulnerability.

These experiences mean that there is a difficult line to walk between consensual sex and coercion which makes it difficult to relate to Fry's glib comments"

It also inspired a Guardian column from someone named Hephzibah Anderson. She is the author of  something called, "Chastened: My Modern Adventure in Old-Fashioned Romance."  In her outrage, Ms Anderson graces us with the information that  "A while ago, I did actually elect to go a year without sex. It wasn't easy, Mr Fry, but it was rewarding."  She also provides:

"There have always been women who've used sex to barter with (and that doesn't mean they didn't also enjoy it), but if it's mistakenly used today to secure emotional engagement, that's because it's become downright eccentric to insist on commitment before hopping into bed with someone. Men have long sought to control female sexuality and, despite endless talk of G-spots and foreplay, the sex that surrounds us today is of a decidedly masculine sensibility. According to Fry, a woman may only prove that she's not a frigid man-hater – that she's enlightened enough to be fully in touch with her female sexuality – by catering to male peccadilloes. Gay male peccadilloes at that."

The Telegraph described this tempest in a teapot as "Stephen Fry angers feminists by claiming women do not enjoy sex" and characterized his humorous comments as a "bizarre outburst in which he claimed that women are incapable of enjoying sex."

What I find bizarre is the twisting of his words and the overblown reaction to all of this.

The Telegraph reported,  "Fry’s remarks have been branded “rubbish” and "madness" by feminists who have questioned his qualifications for making pronouncements on female sexuality."

Fry has close to 2 million twitter followers and on the subject he tweeted: "So some f------- paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the Antichrist. I give up."

Don't give up, Stephen. If you do, the bad people win.

You can use this link to read what Fry has to say, in his own words, about the silly "controversy" and the distortions that have claimed that he said women don't enjoy sex.