Opinionists in Canada are less flashy than their US counterparts, and as hard as it is to believe, less informed. Reading the babble about the Ontario election is particularly painful, because it seems as if everything is on auto-pilot.
The Toronto Star, oblivious to reality as usual, has a silly piece about sexism in election campaigns. It is very whiny with a whiny headline:
Mediocre men walk their way through political campaigns. It is time to end the double standard facing women on the campaign trail
Except of all the sexism to point out, the opinionist picks one that isn't true.
That headline is essentially her hypothesis, but it's wrong, and NYU had a very surprising experiment right after November 2016.
They had two actors -- a man and a woman -- who switched roles -- the man mimicked Hillary Clinton in words and demeanour, while the woman took on Trump's role.
The point of the exercise was to prove that if women behaved like men, that everyone would jump down her throat.
Except that didn't happen.
Subjects preferred the female Trump -- and much more than the real-life male counterpart.
And they disliked the male Clinton, seeing him as smug and arrogant.
I had said in 2016 Hillary Clinton was the absolute worst pseudo-feminist candidate the Democrats could have possibly chosen. They didn't a firebrand maverick who was over-the-top. This is America, and Americans love someone who is large and in charge. If women were waiting for the moment to be crown a queen instead of a king all those decades, then, for pity's sake, show it like you mean it.
I have always said that the problem isn't that there aren't wild female eccentrics -- I am not the only one on the planet, thank you very much -- but they are deliberately silenced -- not because people wouldn't like them -- but they would love them just a little too much, and that would bruise those tyrannical male narcissists who hoard power and keep everyone else -- including other men -- back.
As I write stories with nothing but idiosyncratic women -- I have a hard time getting attention, but when people read it, I do get wonderful feedback -- so the problem isn't the the world isn't ready for a wild woman -- women just make assumptions and restrain themselves unnecessarily.
So the Toronto Star is just spewing folksy logic that isn't true. Kathleen Wynne won a majority in the last election -- and considering she is openly gay and has radical ideas that frighten Jordan Peterson -- she was given public goodwill the first time around. The Liberals had a minority and a lot of illiill with the public, and they went solidly behind Wynne's regime.
But her penchant to throw money the province doesn't have to nanny the people is wearing thin with the public. It has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman.
And the election isn't over. As I have said before, if she won another majority, I wouldn't be surprised. She is a survivor and is that way because she has a working brain and knows how to use it instead of following other people's scripts.
If Wynne loses, it will be because she earned her loss, just the way Clinton spectacularly earned her defeat. Sometimes you lose -- not because you are a woman -- but because you think you are owed because you are a woman. Get that chip off your shoulder. People do not vote in women -- they vote for the person who seems like they are willing to listen to their constituents, will fight for them, and will make things happen. Politics is not an arena for social engineering -- it is a gladiatorial fight and people want to see candidates fight tooth and nail for the right to make their lives easier -- and if you think that sounds silly, you really didn't get the memo on democracy.
Don't take it up with me because if it were up to me, we'd be governing ourselves by referendum and by electoral conscription.
Oh, and by the way, Toronto Star, Clinton had more votes than the victor. Remember that? There may be sexism, but we have come a long way, baby.
But the Globe and Mail has a different -- but equally silly take on the election:
Why is Doug Ford giving Kathleen Wynne a chance to invoke Donald Trump?
That's right! Shame on Doug Ford who obviously forgot to tape Wynne's mouth shut so she couldn't invoke Donald Trump. He should have hired a chaperone for the little lady to supervise her. Jordan Peterson warned the world how dangerous she is and everything.
Do you honestly think he could stop her or her operatives from saying it -- regardless of what he said and did?
It is a campaign, people: it is all about using dirty tricks, and then using the meta-dirty trick of accusing the other guy of negative stuff as you paint him in a negative light, like Justin Trudeau recently did.
There is so much to discuss when there is an election: platforms, current situation, problems to be solved, qualifications, track records, needs, wants -- and yet we have babble from opinionists who have no idea what to say.
We are as ill-informed as we were before. We need facts to make sensible decisions, but what we get is the same old script that is always devoid of any real data...