The Patriarchal backlash: Everyone is offended, but they don't actually know why -- and journalism got tangled in their own rigged structure.

The Drudge Report is fascinating to me. It represents America's thinking so perfectly, and reminds me of Nora Dunn's skit on Saturday Night Live when she was in her character of the shallow Pat Stevens:

Well, you caught me doing my favorite thing -- reading a good book! You know, I like to think of my mind as a big, empty bucket, just waiting to be filled with pictures and words and...whatever. Surprise me! That's why Vogue is my favorite book...and you know, I have my own library -- volumes and volumes of Vogue. You know, I can just refer to them. What was I thinking last October? Well, I can look, and it's right her, between September and November!

Drudge tells you exactly what America is thinking today. Left, Right, it doesn't matter, you want to know the precise thoughts, go on Drudge.

Journalism lost that sense completely. They are running scared, but Matt Drudge, on the other hand, is sitting cool and collected. Journalists are insanely jealous of him, and they they do not understand how he does it.

It's simple: he has a pulse on society. When you have a pulse, you follow the flow, no matter how offended people are with your findings.

If I post a fact, and someone is offended, I don't care. They can throw a temper tantrum, and try to impose a silly narrative to demonize me, I still have the truth, they have a lie, and it becomes easy for me to have no respect for their opinion of me.

Because I respect the truth. I respect reality.

Their offended demeanour has absolutely no impact on the veracity of the fact.

16449492076_155e86bb32_o

They use their temper tantrum to try to sweep their problems under the rug, hoping it will all go away and work out in the end, and they will never have to face or own those problems.

But journalists are no longer brave in that regard. They have alienated too many people for them to be able to stand up and show their facts are right, and tell detractors that if they don't like reality, they should constructively focus on embracing truths, and then work to change the reality so that fact no longer applies.

But they can't do that for another reason: because when you express a hurtful opinion or narrative, and someone calls you out, then you are stuck. You know what you did was not kind or honest.

And while I keep a pulse on things in my own way, I find it interesting that the Drudge Report has all sorts of links to stories of this ilk. One radio station is forcing mandatory sensitivity training, for example. The Oscars have a backlash because more and more people are becoming offended by fictional characters. The New York Times fired a writer the same day because she used trigger slurs and interacted with alties.

On the face of it, these complaints are silly. If you don't like a movie, don't go watch it. I detest violence, for instance. I would never go see a horror movie again (I have seen a grand total of less than ten in my entire life), even if it was Japanese. I think they are sick.

But I wouldn't throw a hissy fit over them. I just don't give my money. I don't talk about them. I give them no publicity.

Movies are supposed to be about all sorts of people -- good and bad. To be offended that a villain does villainous things is ridiculous. Villains can be white men, black women, just as heroes can be Asian women or Latino men or First Nations trans.

And vice versa.

If you are going to stew over that, don't watch movies. At all. You don't get the concept that you are watching disposable entertainment.

If you do get it, you are just choosy. Use your dollars to support the kinds of things you like, but be aware that everyone else on the planet has the same right.

For the record, I don't watch movies at all, anymore. Why? Because they do not speak to me. I used to watch old movies and obscure indie art house weird stuff from all over the world, but now, I see it as a life sink.

The same goes for television. It's not as if I don't have shows I could watch (Elementary), and there are shows I loved until the direction went bad for me (Major Crimes I adored until the final season, which I won't watch, and Chicago PD until Erin Lindsey left), but there is one show I am waiting for it complete its season so I can binge watch, and that is The Good Fight.

People are shocked at how little I consume popular culture. Once upon a time, I taught Ideas in TV and Film to college students.

So what happened?

Simple: I had my fill of Patriarchal structures.

I was a pop culture junkie. I read comics books long before it was cool for girls to do so. I was four when I picked up my first comic book (an Archie Digest), and then quickly jumped to DC Comics where I followed the adventures of Wonder Woman, Batgirl, and Supergirl, as well as the men.

Now, I don't read them at all. I divested almost all of them save for my Blue Beetle Comics from Charlton because Ted Kord is just about the only hero that held up to scrutiny.

But I understood why I suddenly rebelled: I got sick and tired of the Patriarchal structure in storytelling.

It is not as if we should never have it. In fact, there are things going for it. It is about the One, for instance. If we have structural diversity, we wouldn't have so may violent reactions to stories, these days. We'd have tolerance, and people wanting stories where they could travel into even troubled psyches to understand why some people do the things that they do.

But with too much media these days -- it has become an overdose of a single (yes, single), kind of story that is, even if the story is written for a woman about women -- is masculine in mindset.

The thought patterns are rigged for a single kind of person: the predatory male.

The one who absolutely has to win at everything. The One.

It becomes an overload, and now the world is violently reacting to a single and overused structure.

There is almost no Matriarchal out there -- and when there is, it is too subtle, and mostly a hybrid where the Patriarchal still dominates.

The Matriarchal allows for different protagonists and doesn't go for the Chosen One structure. There is diversity on all levels, including ideological and political diversity. We learn to understand, and not always have knee-jerk reactions because these are the stories that bring spoilers depending on what you read and in what order you read it.

This has been my mode of fictional storytelling for many years, starting in 2008 with my book Consumer-isms in 12 Easy Steps, and then fully defined by 2013 with A Dangerous Woman Story Studio.

I will give you an example: in two short stories, we come in contact with someone who can be easily defined as a villain. Two different protagonists have dealings with the same villain, and have no end of grief because of him.

If that's all you read, you are not going to be rooting for this guy.

He is a supporting player in a prequel novella -- and we see the origins of his villainy -- but now we see that he is insecure and being manipulated to be a villain without his knowledge. He has no idea he is a puppet. If you don't read the short stories, you have sympathy for a man whose life has been rigged to fail on cue, and yet, he is a little too eager to be a bad guy.

And then he is a character in a novel that turns all of those rules on its head, and your impressions are shattered.

Same character, but if you think you know someone, think again.

A reader will have no idea what to make of certain characters. You can be offended, or even outraged, but the story doesn't end with a single story. Supporting characters in one book can be title characters in another series.

And we learn the importance of humility as we gather facts and truths about people.

You don't know until you make the effort to understand.

16543368302_571f6a7663_o

That's Matriarchal.

And it explains the growing backlash coming from both the Left and the Right.

They are angry, but don't know why.

It's the Patriarchal Backlash.

People are terrified of being villainized yet again. They are sick of certain groups getting preferential treatment with the hidden structural rigs in stories.

Movies do it. Even when a film is supposed to be about people other than attractive white men, they are, in fact, not.

And news stories continue to do it. It's why journalism has become offensive to people.

People always complained, but now, we can hear those complaints loud and clear.

And the world is starting to hate the Patriarchal because it is too restrictive.

We need Matriarchal stories, just for the change of pace.

We have to even explore other kinds of structures.

But the Matriarchal is a great start. We have too much aggression and anger out there.

We need to transmute that anger into something constructive.

Journalism should have always been Matriarchal: it should have shown us connections and not always go running after Great Men like trained lapdogs.

We do not always have to be angry and offended. We can simply support Matriarchal stories where no one falls beneath the cracks or feels ignored, but in a way that informs us and guides us to less selfish places.

It can be done, but only if we move away from the things that trigger our rage as we make the conscious effort to try new paths to get to better places.

Watching the Patriarchal Meltdown: Patrick Brown, Michael Haneke show the shift in a changing world away from the Patriarchal.

The Internet has been a game-changer, for good and for bad. Great White Men made it, and it seemed like a sure-fire way to entrench a Patriarchal structure. It is not as if they had some devious plan, but there is an assumption that rigs are natural, and when they are natural to you, you want to spread that skewed prosperity around. Patriarchal storytelling is very skewed and is rigged to be all about the One and the One is the winner who takes all.

To not be the One means you are either (a) the victim, (b) the inferior supporting cast, or (c) the villain.

So you have the Great Men who stomp all over other people to be the One.

The One is a hypothetical construct. It does not actually exist, but it is a convenient delusion that give people the incentive to give it their best -- so they can "win."

#MeToo has now become the greatest challenge to this dysfunctional mindset: all the Great Men who thought they "won" and did it at any cost have been dethroned to their absolute shock and devastation.

A childlike fantasy has been shattered. This should give other predators food for thought that maybe, their narrative is not actually reality. You make too many victims of your manipulation and tyranny, they become a collective, a One of their own.

Or, more accurately, an Infinite.

The chorus of voices may be faceless (what traditional propaganda uses to demonize an enemy), become stronger than the "face" of the sea-appointed hero (the One).

The One becomes a target to evaluate.

It reminds me of an underrated game show called 1 vs 100.

250px-1_vs_100_gameshow

Do you take the money or the mob? One contestant up against 100 and the point is for the One to answer more correct answers than 100 others.

But once the One wins, game over.

In television.

Reality is very different.

#MeToo seems like a mob to many men who backstabbed, stole, puffed, and bullied their way to become the One.

Patrick Brown of the Ontario PC party has shown himself to be a true Jekyll and Hyde.

When he was the One of the provincial party, he was bland and had no fire to him. He acted as if he was owed premiership of the province and had no fight in him. He played it safe.

But boy, did he change when he was ousted for naughty -- but stealth -- behaviour toward intoxicated prey.

The man turned into an angry monster, all but vowing to destroy the two women who dared say he was less than perfect.

That he was not the man he was presenting to the public.

He was unrepentant when he misspoke about Premier Kathleen Wynne who demanded, not unreasonably, for him to apologize and take back his incorrect statement. He didn't, and now she is suing him for defamation.

Brown is not a man who owns up to his mistakes. He is out with his hired goons in business suits to hit back at those who dare speak against him.

The shift in his behaviour is very telling: he wasn't this passionate when he was campaigning, because he thought he had it in the bag. The rigs that got him to his position of power were firmly in place, and there was nothing to worry about.

Until his plans proved to be child's play to dismantle.

This is an epic temper tantrum.

But as the PCs start looking over other aspects of his brief tenure as leader, they are not liking what they are seeing. For what it's worth, I do not believe his fire actually has much to do with the #MeToo claims, but more with the other little problems the party is now exposing to the public.

With his minions ousted, the protection is gone.

What will get him in deeper trouble will be all those ridings where a candidate was strong-armed into position, and that's the reason he is going full-force after what he would deem the "weaker" targets, and is keeping his mouth shut on the bigger target.

His predatory strategy and campaign to get back at his detractors here is very intriguing to watch. It is the omissions that are worth noting, but he is outclassed by bigger players who are letting him burnout in public.

The Patriarchal imploded on Brown.

And it is scaring the other disciples of that structure.

Director Michael Haneke is whining about how it is all a "witch hunt" that will cause brainless women to "hate" men.

Women are not going to suddenly hate their fathers and sons. Women do not hate decent men who do not abuse people. Because predatory men in power have been historically sheltered from the wrath and frustrations of those they harmed on their climb to being Great Men, they do not understand the explosion of rage that took centuries to swell up and explode.

They have been exposed to the reality of their tyranny thanks to social media -- those sentiments were always there, but there was no outlet to register them. This movement did not come from thin air -- it came because women who were making their way in the world were sick and tired of the unnatural rigs that kept them back and all the garbage they had to endure -- the ignorant comments, the vile assumptions, and the cheats that favoured men, but did not favour the functionality of the whole.

Imagine if social media was around when white Americans owned black slaves: #MeToo would look mild compared the rage and anger of those who were seen as property to be abused at will.

Would Haneke be whining about a witch hunt then?

When your goal is to be the One, you lose sight of the Infinite. You become Machiavellian because being the only One is unnatural.

This resistance was inevitable, and now that the Great Men have to face the voices of people burned by their campaigns, they see that being the One doesn't make you the hero by default.

It can turn you into a villain.

And what was supposed to guarantee entrenching a Patriarchal narrative on the world is beginning to backfire.

And the Great White Men Thinkers are now having a meltdown at the notion that they may have outsmarted themselves.

Renegade Inc. has a piece how technology is killing democracy.

Silly, silly sophistry and scare-mongering.

No, it's not. Machiavelli had done all sorts of underhanded things way back before social media was a thing -- so it is not the technology, it is the bad behaviour of those in power that made them ripe for a backlash.

A One who can control the Infinite? That's what is truly meant by the term "democracy" -- you can do anything you want, so long at the One deems it okay to do it.

What we are witnessing is a genie out of a bottle.

The Patriarchal was always flawed, and hinged on people buying into its narrative structure.

But it made being the One the only thing to aim for -- and do you really think people are going to cheer a One that isn't them?

If they cannot be the One, then they are going to take down the One who has harmed them in that battle.

It is now a shift in perspective.

Patrick Brown said something very telling: he accused his second "accuser" of being "the aggressor".

This is absolutely telling of a Patriarchal narrative. There is no way he could have been interested in a young female, come on now. He was irresistible, because he is The One.

Had he not thrown that one out, he would have a better chance to be believed, but that comment says it all.

That he is going by the old insinuations of shaming the women by throwing any dirt he can find in their faces is also telling.

But it's the first remark that is the more telling of the two: it's the oldest trick in the book.

No, no, she threw herself at me!

Uh-huh.

Of course, you had to be The One. It's always all about you. It's the standard excuse for every philandering husband caught in the act.

When all else fails, you are falling back to the Little Boy Excuse, not the Great Man Solution.

And that is the reason we are, for the first time in history, seeing the Patriarchal structure crumble.

Too many little boys posing as Great Men, and when they prove they are neither, they fall back to the little boy defence.

And that is the reason social media is suddenly hated: because in all the muck, the truth and reality is still making their way through it all.

And it terrifies a lot of people whose house of cards is about to fall.

How bad is Torstar doing?

In one of those shooting the hippo moments, they are talking about job cuts and shooing away those interns. The timing is very interesting, when their leader is making rounds demanding the federal government give them some money. Is it a coordinated optics campaign? I do believe they are in trouble, but their proposed solution makes much of this hard to believe on the face of it.

Their forays into the digital have been bad. They do not know how to do journalism, but they do know how to present narratives with super evil bad guys they taunt on a daily basis.

I remember interviewing one of the managing editors for an article for Presstime about the debut of a new rival, the National Post. He said that the Star had seen other papers come and go, and they'd see the Post come and go, too. (He later denied he said that to my editors, and I had the taped interview that confirmed that he did. He promised my editors to apologize to me, but that never happened and he is no longer alive to make good on it).

Is the Toronto Star going to disappear before the Post? Neither is in a good position, and while the National Post never did get the traction they needed to be entrenched to an audience, the Star did have it many years ago, and then got cocky and squandered much of that goodwill. When the city you cover is a mosaic, and your structure stubbornly stays patriarchal, you are playing a game that you will lose.

But if its fortunes are as bad as they say they are, the city, province, and nation should not bail them out. Not one. The rot is too far into the core of the profession, and what this country needs is a replacement for journalism that starts fresh from scratch.

Not this mess.

 

Social media and the rise of pontifical sophistry.

In 2018 in an age where information is more accessible than before, the working theory was that facts would be set free. They have been, but so were lies.

And no one to really show the system of discerning one from the other.

Because while people scour for content of thought, they take their own structure of thought as a given, never questioning it.

And the clearest case for a movement that doesn't realize that their structure of thought nullifies their message is Antifa.

Anti-fascist movement.

They are on university campuses, and it is not hard to spot their recruitment posters.

20171003_143246293654654.jpg

When I was a young reporter writing stories for the Burlington Post, I was asked to cover a meeting of people who were against public school's sex education curriculum. They used a hook to recruit people (keeping the kids safe from corrupting influences), but what it was, in fact, had been something very different: they were pushing to get rid of evolution in science classes in favour of creationism.

They played some PSA-like movie with Kirk Cameron and his wife. It was a way to funnel people to support something else, but in a way that made them seem moral.

Antifa reminds me of that group. We have to fight to stop our youth from being corrupted, all while corrupting them in the bargain.

The true structure of Antifa can be summed up in one of their Internet propaganda posters:

Sorry, Antifa, but authority figures in uniforms in a group threatening violence with smiles on their psychopathic faces if you do not believe what they believe are the fascists.

Dr. Josef Mengele, anyone?

So that makes you pro-fa.

Their structure is deceptive, making them pure fascist: you present a moral front, and present an identifiable threat or devil to defeat. This devil will threaten democracy and freedom unless you ramp up your fear and hatred and then begin to harm people who do not believe what you believe.

It is all a ruse.

I should know as my grandmother's family -- including her young sister who was still a child -- were killed by fascists in two different concentration camps during the Second World War. They were rounded up, tortured, confined, and then murdered by fascists who weren't killing millions of people because they thought they were evil and their victims were good.

They killed because they bought into the narrative that the predators were heroes and their prey were villains.

The fascist movement didn't have a manual that was an overt guide on how to be evil. They had a manifesto that sounded very progressive:

 Here is the program [that] is revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against prejudice. 
Anti-dogmatic, innovative, and against prejudice, right on the label. Remember, this is the manifesto that was the seed for the eventual birth of Nazism.
What were some of the demands they fascists were asking for? Not concentration camps or a dictatorship. Some of the highlights:
  • Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.
  • A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years.
  • The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers.
  • A minimum wage.
  • To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants.
  • A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world. 
  • A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.

What young person wouldn't want those things into play? What elderly person wouldn't want them. That was the bait. The sucker's lure.

Where in this document was the idea of oppressing women and turning them into breeding machines? Where is the advocation of chauvinism where minorities would lose their rights, property, freedom, and lives? Where is the mention of slave labour of those targeted groups or conducting sick "experiments" on their bodies?

Nowhere, of course, but once you lure in your pigeons, they get caught in deeper. They know they have been suckered, but once you go out in public, demonstrating, preaching, and these days going online and ranting on your social media feed, there is no turning back. It is an anchor and a bind, or else you'll lose face, and then your worthless fake friends will rub your nose in it for eternity because they are just as clueless to reality as you are.

The structure of thought serves as a prison, and you think the content of it will vindicate you. People rarely have the moral or intellectual courage to say, "I was wrong. I am being exploited. I am getting out of here."

But that takes having a focus on the past, present, and future all at once. When the structure of thought is static, whatever you did in the past defines everything from then on out. If it is a dynamic weave that pulls out threads that are faulty and weaves in threads that are strong, but flexible, you can walk away, wiser and go on without the baggage of the past haunting you.

Antifa is fascism coming full circle. It began as a liberal ideology in Europe, and it is now reanimated as a liberal ideology in North America. But it is fascism in structure, an its structure is no different than the alt-right brand of fascism. They both intimidate and use violence. They both create target that have to be "defeated." They are both patriarchal in structure. They both hinge on alpha male aggression to prevent any ideological challenge.

It also tries to shut down skeptics by various personal attacks and straw man fallacies: (a) you do not "understand" the seriousness of the threat, (b) you are naive, (c) you are evil, (d) you are intellectually inferior to our godly leader, (e) you are jealous, (f) you are trying to trick us, and so on.

But in a social media age, those excuses believer use are on shaky ground. We have gone through these exact same games before. You have access to information. We know how the fascists formed. We know their methods, and the horrific outcomes.

So why has it still gone on?

Because social media has allowed pontifical sophistry to fester unchallenged.

It allows antagonism to remained unchecked. Suppose an actor says something offensively sexist. We say that the "Twitterverse shut them down." We cast them as villains as Twitterverse as heroes, with people vowing never to see that actor's movies again.

So why would the actor ponder and reflect when that happens? What had happened to discussion?

If he makes a sexist remark, someone should merely ask for empirical evidence to back up the claim, as others provide proof of the weaknesses of his theory. Put a face on the discussion instead of trying to tear if off. Offer alternative explanations to his theory. Can people then just let it go if he opens his eyes to more sensible and realistic possibilities?

Do we know how to engage anymore?

Do we know how to talk to people rather than over them, down to them, or at them?

Those are skills.

We have lost those skills, and we see it on social media...and in journalism. Narratives confine what facts we consider, and when a narrative has a built-in confirmation bias, all hope of finding the truth is lost. It is the reason we have anti-fascist fascist ignoring every blessing they have as they try to take away those blessings from anyone they decree is an enemy.

When two opposing sides have the same fascist structure in thought, it is a precursor to war. When centrists begin to challenge both by pointing out that they are no different than the other, can those winds of war be stopped before they tear down everything our ancestors had to struggle and sacrifice to build for future generations.

Finding, analyzing, disseminating, and processing facts take skills that must be both taught and learned. We have a generation who has the access to facts thanks to an revolution in technology...that is too far ahead of its time.

We dropped the Internet bomb on the world, but never prepared people on how to use it to plant seeds of facts, and then mine and refine them.

That's the reason we have people itching to insult and then harm those who do not applaud their every sentiment.

And why we have adults with graduate degrees who think it's clever to advocate violence on people while wearing a uniform of authority.

That's the world in 2018. Now deal with it.

How bad is Canadian journalism's logic? Just read their narrative weaselling in the Age of #MeToo.

Journalism has been marred by sophistry for a very long time, but in Canada, it has always been an embarrassingly out of control mess. They never question whatever an authority figure decrees, often because their moms and dads are employed in that sector. But they can get away with it because so much of the news is fluff.

And then every once in a while, comes an event that reveals just how damaged the thinking happens to be.

If Canadian journalists understood their jobs, they wouldn't be frazzled: they would go and dig for facts. No spin, no hype, no narrative, no hedging your bets on whose side needs your rigging.

So there is a shift in narratives coming from the US. #MeToo has long since evolved from just a hashtag.

But it was born in the USA, and Canada is not America. Our journalists are not of the same rugged and combative ilk as their colleagues from the South. The American narrative is entrenched in the Hero's Odyssey/Journey, and, by the very nature of it, there is a goal, a transformation, and the embracing for an outcome where there is a positive change.

The environment must be different at the end than it was at the beginning. The hero wrests control from the Establishment, and makes the protagonistic voice heard.

It is the Patriarchal structure, and though I fight for Matriarchal structures (it doesn't it is a polar opposite in every way, and there are no goals, rebellions, or positive changes), that structure is at the heart of #MeToo. It is a movement with its sights firmly set at toppling the oppressive assumptions and strategies of those in power.

(Side note: This is fascinating and though Hillary Clinton's presidential loss was one of the precursors to this movement, it should be noted that Clinton's undergraduate thesis on Saul Alinsky argued that Alinsky was wrong in his belief that the dispossessed should make change by opposing a ruling regime. She argued that change could be done by working within the regime. She did that and lost spectacularly. The movement is now challenging those structures from the outside through mainly social media. As I have always believed, you have to go right into the eye of the storm to see the nucleus, but if you don't want to be swallowed up, you have to seemingly retreat and them pull yourself to make changes. There is no playing it safe from inside -- or outside).

But when you have journalists who (a) see nothing wrong with an Establishment, (b) always defer to an Establishment and look up to them for a job and/or guidance, and (c) constantly beg the Establishment to give them free money, they are not heroes, and they have no use for an odyssey or journey.

So #MeToo is not in tune with the broken mindset of the Canadian news media. It is a threat.

So when #MeToo hit one of their own, it was panic time here.

Now, when Steve Paikin got #MeToo'ed by someone the Canadian media previously exploited as a punchline and a freak, it was absolutely horrifying. They decreed he was beyond reproach, and Sarah Thomson was just silly.

Never mind that the woman has been a successful businesswoman in a number of different ventures.

But you wouldn't know that from the press coverage. You wouldn't know she is a self-made entrepreneur with an enviable track record in various industries. We are talking millions of dollars here.

So we have to question why an eccentric woman who made it in business is being so disrespectfully treated by the press. If she was a man, she'd be a legend and an icon. If she were American, Cameron Diaz would have already portrayed her in a big screen biopic.

But she is a Canadian woman, and that means she is to be distrusted and looked down on by the press, who have no problem with men like Don Cherry who unrepentantly have freak flags flying sky high and shill any company who'll have him.

Steve Paikin works for TVO -- which is a television station run by the Ontario government.

Now the Canadian press has one of their own in the #MeToo crosshairs.

This is a tricky spot.

So what do you do?

Try to knock down and discredit the woman, but since research is, like, so hard, you have to resort to making silly arguments to defend him.

So you have the Globe and Mail's Margaret Went trying to compare what happened to Patrick Brown to Steve Paikin, and wondering why the cases are different.

They are different because the press did not like Brown. He didn't have the Obama touch of schmoozing and joking around with reporters. If he hired a few former journalists to his team, he wouldn't have to step down.

Steve Paikin, on the other hand, is one of their own. He gets the benefit of the doubt.

If there are facts, find them. Report what you found -- and didn't find.

Then we have one CBC commentary trying to play detective, talking the the Paikin accusations "don't fit a pattern"?

What does that even mean? There is no pattern to fit. Life is not about set scripts. You dig. You research. You find people and talk to them. Bruce McArthur fit a pattern of an average man, and it meant nothing. Patterns emerge by investigating, not eyeballing whatever snippets the press decide to cover.

Because it is the media that looks for anecdotes that fit their narrative. It is not reality itself.

And it is the kind of back-pedalling arguments that expose the flaws of the Canadian news media.

They do not make cogent arguments based on facts. They make excuses. If you think your colleague has been wronged, give us the facts, please.

But you're not doing that. You could easily do that without having to wait on an authority figure to do it for you.

You are sitting around and not presenting facts as you use various forms of personal attacks to discredit an accuser.

Why?

Why is doing your job so difficult for you?

Dear National Post: Please do not write another word about #MeToo. You have no clue about truth or reality. Just tell the people of Toronto what movies, shows, causes, and restaurants to support that won't make them too nerdy. With cartoony diagrams. And drop the "Investigation" schtick. That's nerdy.

National Post should get out of the news business entirely. 20180207_203005-1858645323.jpg

Yes, I covered them as a journalist from the day they were born.

They could be a publication focussed on telling people in Toronto how not to look like total nerds in four main categories: where to dine, what movies to watch, what causes to say you support, and what to watch on Netflix.

That they could handle.

They could be, like, the Canadian Details magazine for the bored househusbands. They cater to sheltered men, anyway.

They totally get shallow men who panic and hyperventilate when they discover they don't know a nugget band like The Hives, and a woman at the cocktail party raves about them. (Sadly, this is a true story).

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysGtBZX32I0?rel=0]

Hard news stories, on the other hand, the National Post can never do, let alone give actual sensible commentary.

They do not get #MeToo. This phenomenon is hard for them to understand because it comes with the built-in perspective that some in men power are bad.

And to the Post, there is no such thing as a bad man in power, unless he is Donald Trump, and as Trump's hair is just not cool, that is the reason he is the lone exception to their rule.

But even sometimes, their founder Conrad Black will defend Trump in a column...so even then, a man in power can never be seen as universally bad.

But women with or without power are always bad in the eyes of the Post. If a woman says she was raped by a man in power, by golly, she must be lying! How dare she say a man in power did something bad?

This is the childish ideology that drives the Post. In all the years they've been a wobbly, money-losing thing, there has been one column that actually had a positive view of women (and yes, I mentioned it here when it came out way back in February 2017).

This latest column is shoddy logic at its worst: it is all talk and lecture, but one that comes from an ivory tower of sorts.

The discussion os over Steve Paikin's recent troubles, and the manipulations of this article are quite breath-taking. Paikin cannot be wrong because he is the columnist's friend...and, psst!, didn't you hear that the woman making accusations is a little bit crazy?

It is this patronizing drivel that created the atmosphere for #MeToo.

Well, people won't change their minds, so don't bother with those Great Unwashed is this article's central thesis. People who support #MeToo are hypocrites.

This is not someone used to digging and doing genuine research, and it shows. It is a vexed accusation that the angry people are being an annoying inconvenience, and there is no talking to them.

Canada has always been a place behind the times.

For all the claims that #MeToo is a "witch hunt", I find it very telling that those who are critics do not actually do the research to show these accusations to be false.

When your argument is "he is such a nice guy" and "she is a nutty slut", your credibility flies right out the window.

I have said from the beginning that real journalism is about facts. It is about research.

That means rooting through garbage. That means going into dark alleys in the middle of the night to talk to a skittish source. That means talking to nannies and maids to find out just how nice someone is...and driving hours to a small town library to go through microfilm to find a single newspaper article that proves a source is lying -- or digging through archives to find a single court transcript that somehow never made it to a database. It means scouring yearbooks to establish a timeline to confirm how honest someone has been with you -- and then discovering they haven't. It means muddling in a foreign language conducting an interview with someone who can confirm a small, but critical fact of a story. It means sitting and listening to disturbing stories that cannot possibly be true, and then you go digging and digging until you find out that the story is absolutely true.

I have been there. I have done all of those things. Every single one.

That's what you are supposed to do when you claim to be a journalist. You respect truth. You respect reality.

You understand that the person sitting in a jail cell may be innocent. You understand that the person with a mental disorder may be telling the truth. You understand the guilty people have been cleared, and innocent people have been convicted.

You do not guesstimate based on looks. You do not appeal to authority. You go back and back and back, and you dig, dig, dig.

This is not the way of the National Post.

They sit there with their noses in the air and think they know everything by mere look alone.

The National Post is an absolute disgrace and shame on the dead industry of journalism. I saw it from day one, and it has only gotten worse over time.

They ought to stick to writing for the shallow and competitive househusbands of Toronto; the ones whose mommy and daddy come from prominent positions and spoiled their progeny senseless, and created fake positions and jobs for them as they are too inept to do it themselves -- and even then, their wives have to financially support them.

Tell them what they should serve at their cocktail parties. Tell them how to respond if someone asked them if they liked a new movie. Tell them how not to come off as too nerdy.

But leave the real news to people who get the rough and tumble ways of liberating truth form lies. You offensive posers are just getting in the way.

Memo to The Cut: Pop Culture's Great "Awokening"? Nice try. What we are now having is a Cultural Implosion. How Patriarchal Structures keep fooling the suckers.

Identity politics is a form of tribalism. As someone whose background is of mixed heritage, with a huge chunk from the former Yugoslavia, this little label is nothing new to me. I have seen this game all before. When the warring factions were thrown together and labelled Yugoslavia, factions were frowned upon. It was supposed to be some sort of melting pot, and there were over a million mixed marriages, but as decades wore on, things began to fray, especially after the death of Tito.

And then all those factions started pulling in different directions, all before they killed each other in the name of nationalism.

Or identity politics.

Identity politics is nothing to be proud of for one reason: it is a fragmentation that is a precursor to the delusion that you are more powerful and significant than you really are. Chauvinism sets in along with the hubris.

And eventually, people think their identity is superior to everyone else's and there is bloodshed.

Because people always have to one-up each other: you have to prove your cultural or political identity is better than everyone else's.

I remember being twelve years-old and my family went to both Dubrovnik (Croatia) and Beograd (Serbia) for vacation. Even then, I could see what was coming. Tito had been dead for six years, but even within my own family, you could see factions forming.

Three years later, I was a high school student in my history class, and my assignment was to give a presentation on the political landscape of a nation of my choosing.

I chose Yugoslavia, and just on my own youthful observations, my thesis was this country was going to implode and break up.

My history teacher did not believe me. "Where will they go?" he asked me.

I refrained from saying, "Right down the garden path and straight to hell."

He was wrong. I was right.

By the time I was an undergraduate, the country broke up and all those fractures destroyed millions of people who tore down everything that took thousands of years to build up.

There is a difference between an awakening (awokening because a writer thinks that is clever. It's not.) and an implosion.

And New York magazine's The Cut has no clue what is happening.

cut-feed

They think pop culture is having an awokening.

It's actually an implosion.

For it to be an awakening, there would not be (a) that much anger, (b) there would not be the level of possessiveness toward sanctioned insanity that is being labelled culture, (c) there would not be such chronic nitpicking of other people's culture with everyone being offended, (d) there would be respect for those who created in the past without the current set pretending they were the first to notice voids in representation, and most importantly, (e) there would be a variation in the structure of stories.

Structural variation?

Oh yes.

Because for all the talk of diversity, there is only half diversity.

With a high dose of structural appropriation from the mainstream culture, which nullifies almost everything produced in the last ten years.

For all of the awakening, the patriarchal structure is still there.

It is still Us versus Them.

So bad is it, that the discussion of culture is also nothing but Us Versus Them.

We are the only heroes. Anyone who opposes us is a villain.

That's not culture; that's propaganda.

And when narratives are nothing but Us Versus Them where anyone who is not in the in-group becomes inspired is labelled a villain, you know this isn't culture being produced.

But fortresses because people are beginning to gird themselves for war.

It has happened before in the last century: Art Nouveau was the brash new movement until Modernism vilified it and accused those who liked the style as being lesser intellects who were lower on the evolutionary scale.

And then World War One broke out in the very continent where all of these artistic and cultural debates were taking place.

Art Nouveau was a reaction to the mainstream culture, complete with manifestoes.

They had a short lifespan before Modernism reacted to the initial reaction.

It all eventually imploded.

So in 2018, we have primal reactions to an oppressive mainstream patriarchal influence, but with people only noticing the contents of pop culture.

But not the structure.

The framework of the vessel has the bigger flaw, but everyone is still walking lockstep to it, thinking it's the way of gaining traction, when the fit is unnatural.

You cannot just produce content. People become more bored with the structure. It is the silent partner of stories, but if you don't change the structure, you are falling for the same rigs that kept you back before.

That's why pop culture is in a deep slumber.

Because culture has stagnated.

It was the same in the former Yugoslavia: the structure of the nation stagnated, all while trying to alter the content.

And it all went up in smoke.

It's happening again.

Because pop culture is a disposable culture. It was never meant to create real legacies.

It was meant to feed young fantasies by changing content to fit with the times with young and fresh faces -- when the next generation hit, alter the cast and the content.

But that structure never deviated.

It still hasn't deviated.

And that we have writers who do not see that obvious, tells you just how bad our cultural awareness is in these shallow times where people become enraged, but don't realize it is the structure they are violently reacting to as much as the content.

It's an ugly road ahead because the same rigs are in place, and when the storm comes, very few will see what hit them and why.

When journalism collapses, governments see opportunity to meddle. Journalists should stop looking for a white knight to save them. They are supposed to be soldiers themselves.

When the British Prime Minister begins to circle around journalism in the name of trying to rescue the closure of newspapers, people should become alarmed. Journalism is not a damsel-in-distress. The Patriarchal narrative has completely distorted reality.

And reality is that you have to be your own saviour. Governments must be held accountable for their actions. Once they begin to get involved in that industry, there will be strings attached. They will impose rules that do not work with the mandate of the profession.

Governments are used to making decrees and telling people what they can and cannot do.

And journalism was supposed to be about not playing favourites and turning over every rock.

You cannot pull your punches. It is a fight for truth. It is about presenting reality. When an embattled leader starts to focus on the state of the press, that's the time to become concerned.

Journalism doesn't need a public inquiry. They need their own revolution. 

In Canada, journalists are begging the government to save them. There is no hope for the profession because of it.

You have to be a pioneer. You have to rough it. You have to willing to walk away from the comforts of the past to embrace a future where you know your competency and you don't need meddlers trying to co-opt what you built to suit their own ends.

When you are weak and vulnerable, it is all too easy to become desperate, but it is also the time to just walk away from the lures of a saviour.

A new form of journalism cannot be formed by those who do not have the understanding of what it is journalism is supposed to do. They will rig it to work in their favour. It's human nature.

But journalists have lost all their senses and are looking for anyone to bail them out -- and that's not just defeat, that's professional death.

Journalism is not about heroes and villains. It is about reflecting reality as it is so we can find the truths we need to progress.

But meddling sabotages those solutions, and it's the reason meddling has never worked in the past -- and it won't magically work in the future.

I have been saying it all along -- the Great Men of Hollywood were rubbish. And I have offered an alternative for years. Why does traditional journalism hijack and pretend their writers are the first to notice feminist issues?

The New Statesman has an interesting article about how one writer can "finally" say she finds the gynophobic works of Woody Allen et al to be "rubbish." newstatesman_logo@2x

Maybe you held back your tongue, but Alexandra Kitty never did.

I did like Kill Bill, but on the long list of Hollywood movies, I am not a fan. Too patriarchal and sexist for my liking.

But I didn't just outline a problem: I offered alternative fiction stories -- feminist adventures told in a matriarchal style.

Content enlightened.

Structure enlightened.

I did this in 2013.

You can look through Kindle and Kobo for over 80 publications.

The World's Most Dangerous Woman, The Doyenne Assassin, A Goddess Among Us, The Hughes Girls, Alena Love and the Mothers of the Mosaic, Chaser, The Holly Lake Mysteries, Dr. Verity Lake's Journey of a Thousand Revelations, The Sparrow: Dream Detective, The Goditor, I Am Jane Doe, Chaser, Danni's Wall, and so on.

Short stories, novellas, and books that have different meanings and effects depending on what stories you choose to read and in what order you choose to read them.

There are levels of stories: Silliosity have no villains. Fables and Bedtime Stories are of heroes with villains -- but many antagonists aren't bad, and it is not always Us versus Them. Case Files and Other Mysteries are stories told in a traditional good versus evil style, while Dread Tales are anti-heroes and even villains versus villains.

These stories are all interconnected, but can be standalone as well.

Dr. Verity Lake's Journey of a Thousand Revelations clocks at almost 1600 pages -- I call it the feminist War and Peace and it is unlike any novel you've ever read, but as hard as I pushed (and it was an extremely trying time in my life, make no mistake), I could get people to read the entire book with fantastic feedback, but no press coverage whatsoever.

In other words, I didn't just gripe about misogyny in stories and cinema -- I spent nearly a decade working on a solution before launching A Dangerous Woman Story Studio in 2013.

You think I got any press or publicity? From traditional media? Alternative media? Feminist media?

Nope.

Nada.

It was as if I did not exist.

I am not some flake who was writing creepy and bad stories: I have worked as a journalist, and had three books published by traditional media.

My first fiction book Consumer-isms in 12 easy Steps,  is on the shelves libraries and even Ivy League universities...but when it came to media attention, there was nothing.

Why?

Because the pseudo-feminist narrative in the press is simple: OMG! Look! Movies/books/music/television can be sexist! I noticed it first!

And it has been that loop for as long as I can remember.

It is always Square One. Anyone who says, "Hey! Hi! I have a solution..." is promptly ignored.

Not just me.

The media narrative for men has always been Look at the maverick visionary! The indie genius will become the Next Great Man...yada yada.

The New Statesman article is no breakthrough -- it is part of the same rotten loop many hopeful feminists see as a sign of change.

Don't kid yourself.

People like me, who do not fit the established narrative are ignored -- and so, it is very easy to keep pretending we are on the cusp of change.

Change has been happening.

But journalists keep shutting it out, distorting the view of reality while keeping the status quo in place.

And it's time it is stopped so we can move forward beyond Square One.

 

The fight for ideological dominance: why Matriarchal storytelling takes the stealth war out of narrative structures.

The presumption that a narrator is beyond questioning is the hallmark of patriarchal stories. It is all about the One. We do not question the narrator's assumptions. The hero is the Good.

Those who the hero disagrees with are the Bad.

Whoever controls the story decides on what is right and wrong.

And it is not enough to reward there hero; the villains must be humiliated and punished for having ideologies that are different from the heroes.

It is binary. You cannot negotiate or come to some mutually beneficial solution.

This is the thinking of the Patriarchal.

There is no attempt at understanding people whose life requirements differ from yours.

The hero always wins. All the spoils go to the hero and his team.

This is the justification for hoarding even dictatorship.

As the Queen song goes...

I want it all, and I want it now.

In other words, Patriarchal stories are covert calls to war.

It is always combat. It is always a fight, a battle, a war, and the winner takes all.

Not just the spoils, but the hero's halo.

It is not as if it never is that binary: if a serial killer is trying to make you the next victim, then, of course, he is wrong and he is evil.

But the employee asking for a raise so he can pay his bills isn't being a greedy pig.

The woman filing a sexual harassment complaint isn't a troublemaker. She just wants to do her job and be left alone.

The teacher who gave you a failing grade for handing in a lousy exam isn't being a jerk.

The woman who turned you down for a date isn't your enemy. She just doesn't want to go out with you.

Other times, the situation is more complex.

If your negligence caused harm to someone else, and you refuse to accept the blame for what you have done, do not consider yourself a hero or a victim. You are a coward and a villain.

If you bullied a classmate because you knew they would endure your taunts, and you brought them stress, you had no excuse for it. It's insensitive and irresponsible, and you have much to answer for. You may have matured and stopped playing those games, but you still made damage. You still have a villainous past that you must own.

But the Patriarchal is incapable of addressing these nuances.

The Matriarchal does not play games of war. It makes a map to peace -- and not the kind of peace that requires people to settle, submit, or retreat.

It is the peace that comes from truth, respect, and understanding the reality of a situation.

It is not about false competitions and bogus pecking orders. The hero has worth in the content of his or her character.

And it may so happen the hero is not the protagonist.

Or not just the protagonist.

The Matriarchal can deal with conflict between two noble people as it shows why both are not villains -- because they can get together and come up with a mutually beneficial solution without resorting to feints, temper tantrums, or psychological manipulations.

The Matriarchal takes apart war manuals. It shows their flaws and limitations.

Because the Matriarchal is about the Infinite. There is room for more than just the One. It can took at various perspectives and understands that life is a serious of puzzles to solve, and solutions of combat rarely work -- people seek revenge, validation, and vindication, and will always plot to get them.

If they are hung up on Patriarchal hypothetical constructs.

If our success means that everyone else has to sacrifice and endure hardship, then you are not a success.

You are a tyrant.

If your success elevates your environment and others are free to benefit from their own endeavours as well, then you are a success.

You are a hero.

The Patriarchal confuses submission with success. There is always a destructive element.

The villain is the obstacle: so how do I get rid of the obstacle while still maintaining my halo that serves as my cover?

That's not the Matriarchal.

Because there is room for the Infinite, while the Patriarchal has room for only the One.

Memo to the National Post: For women whose careers were derailed by the men on the #MeToo hit list, there was no recovery. Why the Post is propaganda for predators.

This is a newspaper that has a genuine hatred for women. Their latest temper tantrum makes the assumption that the men on #MeToo are lost little boys who have been falsely accused.

There's no recovery, their resident propagandists whine.

For all those women who were terrorized at work and had their careers derailed and stymied, there was no recovery.

Funny whose side you choose to protect.

But Canada is a nation that is averse to both punishment and consequences. It has no sympathy for victims who disprove the narrative of a perfect place.

To the Post, all women are deluded liars. They make things up and are out to "get" these powerful men, who are all choir boys.

Which is ridiculous. The board is skewed, and men have every advantage -- and you still have those who that isn't enough: they put down women every chance they get because they feel threatened.

Journalism in Canada is in shambles precisely because of its inherent misogyny, and now it is trying to protect the last grain of a shell it has.

It is the reason the Canadian government should mind its own business and the that industry collapse.

We need another form of "journalism" -- one that is built from the very first step with true diversity -- from the inside and out, from the bottom to the top.

Because this article is not news. It's the reason we no longer have news.

Broken News: The failure of journalism.

How broken is journalism? It's so bad that the British government and its defence department have now decided to get involved.

Oh, good luck with that.

Fake news outlets are hardly the problem the Establishment is making it out to be.

It's that once upon a time, journalism could be counted on to report information the way governments had approved of and people would believe it.

And then the Internet broke journalism.

This quote is quite the attention-getter:

“We are living in an era of fake news and competing narratives. The government will respond with more and better use of national security communications to tackle these interconnected, complex challenges.

“To do this we will build on existing capabilities by creating a dedicated national security communications unit. This will be tasked with combating disinformation by state actors and others.”

Competing narratives? You mean something aside from the patriarchal? Is this a dig at Russia -- or #MeToo?

And it will be up to the government to vet information?

Because journalism is dead, right?

Because they are incapable?

They cannot be trusted to put out information?

Once upon a time, news like this would have caused outrage.

And now, nobody cares.

Journalism failed. It failed the public. It failed democracy. It failed its workers. It failed itself. It failed the world.

And now we have a Western government that has openly decided it is going to vet the news.

22841855._SY540_

It isn't investing in improving journalism, no.

It isn't considering expanding narratives since the default assumption that any other narrative is a "competing" one, and hence, is evil.

This is a very interesting development, and if the world had a strong press, this wouldn't be happening.

But journalism is broken. The UK has decided to vet the news, while the Canadian government has decided to buy it.

And that should make you very nervous.

Memo to Canadian newspaper journalists: the people have spoken with their wallets. Yet another tantrum for a bailout.

John Honderich has a knee-slapper of an article all about why people should be concerned about quality journalism and how sad it is that they have no gotten Daddy Government to bail them out thus far. He promises it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything.

If you get a bailout, then yes, it costs the taxpayers everything.

This sound like a little kid who wants a very expensive item for his birthday, and is thinking up every excuse in the book to get his own way.

Once upon a time, newspapers were the only game in town. They got two younger siblings over time: radio and then television.

Newspapers still had the most information than the other two, but none of the flash.

Then came the Internet that could just roll all three into one.

But something else happened: the gate-keepers lost their monopoly.

And it changed everything.

We want to know what the US President is thinking? Go to his Twitter account.

Exclusive interviews have disappeared because we can go to a newsmakers Facebook account.

That was a blow to journalism, but not the death blow.

It was their utter refusal to improve their own product that killed newspapers.

It never became empirical or refined. It never changed its ways, and in a Internet Age, that was a very stupid thing to do.

If newspapers had something useful, people would have continued to support it -- in print and online.

But they didn't.

They cannot give away their product for free.

When I was writing articles about the Canadian newspaper scene for Presstime, I wrote a story about how free newspapers were included in circulation numbers.

So the newspapers they were giving away at restaurants and universities were counted, even if no one was reading them.

It was a cheat.

And this is going back to the early 2000s.

I was also a college professor at the time, and because I was also a journalist, I used to take a stack of National Posts, and bring them to class so students would take a paper to read.

No one ever touched them, and some of those students were media students. I asked why didn't they pick one up, and they had very good reasons why: newspapers never talked to them.

And they were absolutely right.

I know because when I graduated from j-school, I used to apply to newspapers, pitching to write hard news stories for people under 30.

And those pitches were shunned because, I was told, people at that age don't read.

So let's ignore the brats, even though they are flocking to the Internet that is still a primarily text-driven medium, making this generation the most read generation in the history of mankind.

This is the lunacy that killed the newspaper industry. Back then, I was distressed at the lazy and arrogant attitude people in the Canadian newspaper business had about the changes they needed to make to keep up.

I thought my mother misnamed me and should have called me Cassandra. I could see the future very clearly, but being a female in this country, I was automatically dismissed.

Newspapers are still patriarchal in structure. That fact hasn't changed.

They way they gather news, interview people, and disseminate information hasn't changed.

Honderich is yesterday's man. His point of reference is a bygone era where newspapers were the only source of basic information aimed at a middle class audience.

Those days are done.

The government has no business funding newspapers for the simple reason it makes those papers beholden to their patron.

The model is broken. The mindset is broken. The methods are broken.

Public trust is broken.

Canadian newspapers are paupers, begging on the street, asking the government to spare a dime.

If the government has any sense or morals, they will turn down the request, and tell them it's their own fault they are a dead profession.

Honderich's obliviousness is pathetic.

Yes, we need information, but not newspapers. Not through journalism.

Those days are over.

We need a fresh start and a new era.

And it needs to start now.

And not with yesterday's men giving us another self-serving lecture about how the world needs them.

We don't.

Cognitive dissonance, compartmentalization, and a lack of critical thinking: how Canadian journalism's narrative always harmed women.

#MeToo was fine when it was "just" Americans getting the tag of shame, but now, when it is politicians getting outed, many in the Canadian media are behaving as if someone stuffed horse dung deep into their nostrils. They are fuming that it has all gone "too far", and making all sorts of excuses, but there are none, with the standard that somehow women were all but asking to be abused and have to some "responsibility" for it.

The same old narrative used to harm women in this country for decades will just not fly.

Once upon a time, the Men in Power had all the rigs work in their favour. In Canada, to be a "feminist" prime minister, you have to be a wealthy and well-connected white male with a powerful daddy.

It doesn't matter that women around Brown have said they weren't comfortable around him and that there were rumours circulating about him long before the initial report was published. It also didn't matter that we have had now -- for several years, female politicians who have said that sexual harassment from their male colleagues was a thing.

But most of all, journalists covering politics have seen all sorts of stuff up close because journalism is usually requires standing in halls and close to doors waiting for power players to come out.

You know underlings and they gossip. They tell you things.

So much of journalism is edited -- most of it is edited. As I journalist, I can tell you that you see a whole lot more than what the middle class would be comfortable watching or knowing.

But laying the blame on women is the standard to those who shelter and protect predators -- they are the manure shovelers who clean up messes.

If journalism in this country was actually functional and honest (and it is neither), the story would be covered in a completely different way.

First, let's talk about blaming women for getting abused. We shouldn't ignore that predatory behaviour is not the same as normal behaviour. Predators lure, size up, prime, and groom people and create a perception for the prey to believe they are the ones who are the predators. People would rather be in control than admit to being victims. Cognitive dissonance takes care of the rest.

Children who have been sexually abused often believe they did something or had some say in the matter, when they didn't.

It's a rig, not unlike a magician's force choice: you think you have control choosing a card from a deck of 52, but the truth is there is only one card you can take -- the other 51 are feints and red herrings.

Predators are very careful who they choose to manipulate, and what they are doing is called gaslighting. 

This is far different than normal dynamics in a given relationship. A predator, for instance, may always pick someone who is alone, or intoxicated, or in an abusive relationship and pretends to be the knight in shining armour -- they "recuse" a now loyal damsel for the express purpose of having her do something illegal or destructive, and she honestly believes it is her choice to do it.

No, it's not. He is exploiting gratitude to make her do what she would not do under normal circumstances.

And this isn't a man-woman dynamic per se, but those in power often get those positions not because they are competent or capable of the job, but because they know how to manipulate others to rise above those who are capable of the job.

We often wonder why some goober got a lofty position, and yet we don't consider they used stratagems to get there.

So a predator uses cognitive dissonance to prime a target to follow a secret script.

Journalists should know these games by now, but never do. It is always a perpetual surprise when someone is outed as being untrustworthy.

Journalists themselves then have their own moment of cognitive dissonance: they spent years writing positive or even fawning pieces over someone -- never questioning how dark is their dark side -- and so, instead of admitting failure, they up the praise because heave forbid they did something irresponsible.

But it gets worse.

Journalists compartmentalize stories: so they will cover a scandal in a vacuum, and completely ignore all the other factors in play.

In this case, how common sexual harassment is among politicians. All that previous stuff doesn't exist to them.

But to treat an issue as if it were divorced from the others means there isn't any critical thinking going on.

Journalists don't look for any evidence that refutes their grandiose theories, just the facts that seem to support it.

A confirmation bias.

It's why so many blunderers in this country get the Great Man label: we can ignore all the problems and scandals, and cheer them on as we accuse those these men harmed as being troublemakers who lie, or sketchy, and probably a little nutty and slutty.

Grifters get away with a lot, and when they get press coverage, they gain legitimacy.

What journalism here is all about is one thing: opinionated narrative with unfounded assumptions. We have news producers having meltdowns because not everyone has glowing things to say about a particular man in power. Calling what happened a "bad date" is a straw man fallacy: repackaging something to make it seem as if were innocuous.

Al Franken's supporters tried that gambit and failed. They refused to acknowledge what he was practicing wasn't jokey behaviour -- but a way to unnerve the competition through humiliation and ambush.

When someone always keeps sober and yet keeps rounding up others lower on a pecking order whose capacity is less than sober, there is a pattern for concern.

And a legitimate reason to dig deeper into those allegations, not throw a childish temper tantrum as you willfully close your eyes shut as you keep pretending everything is happy and wonderful around you.

That's not journalism. That's the essence of propaganda.

That kind of skewed coverage has harmed women -- and men -- for decades, and it needs to be confronted and stopped -- the sooner, the better.

Welcome to the Victorian Age, 2018: Greer, Ghomeshi, Brown, and a board still rigged against women.

Ontario PC leader Patrick Brown is kicked to the curb. In the court of public opinion, he has been convicted. Had he been in an official, court, he would easily walk like Jian Ghomeshi, and could rebuild his fortunes.

Actress Germaine Greer said something that those averse to reality did not want to hear,

Because suddenly, in 2018, women have taken a giant step backwards.

gibson-gibson-girl-1900-granger

And women have turned downright Victorian.

They have been reduced to being seen as delicate little flowers.

Greer has said something that I heard often in my early twenties from other women whenever discussion of the casting couch took place: I shunned it and refused to swap sexual favours for work. I was told, by other women my age, that there was "nothing wrong" with it, that I was being naive, and that's a good plan.

I wasn't being naive. I refused to play the game, and it cost me work in journalism, but the work I got was substantial. Others who played the game got burned and were sent to positions that were demeaning, and pretty much let the world know how they got their jobs.

That's where Greer is coming from when she talks about women "spreading their legs", but even so, she doesn't get it.

Who put the idea in young women's heads?

Movies, television, and fiction -- where men dominated, telling women that's how cunning women claw to the top. It was rigged for the get-go.

I saw through it. I knew the score: the man in charge would have nothing happen to him if he didn't use the casting couch. If the woman said no, she'd be out of a job.

The narrative was rigged to put the burden of blame on the woman.

But that kind of thinking did Ghomeshi's accusers in -- by his female attorney. Women get abused -- and then go back to the abuser.

To the uninitiated, this implies nothing bad happened.

But it is a Beauty and the Beast rig: the abuse is a challenge, and up to the woman to "tame." She's "done something wrong", and now she must use her feminine wiles and nurturing prowess to tame a beast.

So she goes back. 

So many women go back and marry the abuser who ultimately kills them. She doesn't cut her losses. She takes abuse at work. She takes abuse at home. She is trained since the day she is born, to take abuse and "make it better" as if that were a badge worth wearing.

It is so ingrained in our world, that there is not a single culture or nation that has a truly liberated and matriarchal structure. It is drilled into women from the first bedtime story to the last novel she has read.

Patrick Brown, I am certain, has no idea what pink truck hit him. The trick for #MeToo has been to hold court on Twitter where the burden of proof is low.

If it gets to court, everything falls apart, but both courts miss the point.

Abuse of women in every single culture is normalized. Holding men accountable in the court of public opinion has worked because every institution on the face of this earth is rigged to fail women -- and then blame them for being abused. It merely codifies abuse.

The court of public opinion seems to be more sympathetic, but it comes at a price: women are forced to fit into some Victorian narrative that does not do them justice, or is realistic, meaning sooner or later, the court will no longer work its magic, especially if someone comes out and says some accusers were willing participants and offers proof.

It would more constructive if we didn't expect women to be flawless, and a single negative quality not only nullifies her credibility, but of every woman after her.

The bottom line is if you have power, you cannot abuse it -- not just not abuse conformist people, but the mavericks, too.

It is that default Victorian assumption that made so much trouble for women to make their abusers be held accountable in the first place.

It is not about being sympathetic and having power in people pitying you and feeling superior to you: it's about the simple fact that for too long, men in authority wielded their power very irresponsibly, and rigging social exceptions that always favoured them to be believed as they continued to harm others, priming and grooming their prey into honestly believing they wanted these traumatic things to happen to them and were the architects of it.

No one should be abused: whether she is a virgin volunteering to help the dispossessed in a war-torn country, a hooker walking the streets for her next hit, or all the ones in-between -- and beyond.

If you cannot be professional and civil, you have a problem. 

And it's high time we look at workplace dynamics to see how dysfunctional they are -- not just when it comes to abuse, but how it is structured -- from lousy pay to dangerous working conditions -- to how employees with children are penalized for not being young bachelors.

We never take women into our equations.

And it is time that we did.

What the ambidextrous author sees that journalism doesn't.

I am ambidextrous. I can work, write, and draw with both my left and right hand. I also cannot be fooled by the Stroop Effect. On the surface, that is an interesting, but seemingly shallow quirk. Lots of people are ambidextrous, but I also study journalism, and my ability to adopt my handedness has given me a peculiar insight that I have noticed for a long time.

And the is the concept of rigs. We can be high and mighty all we want just because we can do something better than other people, but remove the right or alter it slightly, and the advantage is gone.

Let's take a pair of scissors, for instance.

Most scissors were made for right-handed people, and when a left-handed person tried to use it, the paper didn't cut.

Bring in a pair of left-handed scissors, and the roles reverse.

In one case, the right-handed person can think the left-handed person is not as dexterous because the cannot even properly use a pair of scissors. Tsk, tsk.

Take away the rig with left-handed scissors, and now the right-handed person's self-esteem can take a tumble.

Change a simple rig, and you change everything.

The truth is that scissors are a tool to cut. The reality of who can cut it depends on how those scissors are made.

When you are ambidextrous, the rig doesn't much matter. You can adjust. You either get it right the first time, or merely switch hands.

But if you get it right the first time, you can be unaware of the rig. You can also be fooled into thinking the left-handed people are less capable because of the rig. Only when you get the handedness of the scissors wrong the first time, and then try again with the other hand, do you see there is a rig.

And you can test it yourself because you have the skill to be able to do it, making you a scale of rigs.

Which brings us to journalism and literature.

Both have rigs that favour men, for instance. The structure of stories in both are patriarchal. They are in tune with men's thinking, not women's.

It allows men to get ahead and maintain power because in any direct combat, the woman is far more likely to lose. Her gains will always be short-term, and those who succeed are the ones who can bend to the patriarchal.

When women made strides, the focussed strictly on content, but even content is altered by the latent structure. Unless you challenge both, a half-victory is actually a loss. You are still doing something that is less nature.

Like a left-handed person using right-handed scissors.

Journalism failed precisely because it stuck to rigs that people never questioned or challenged. When ratings and circulation fail to ignite despite the breakthroughs, there will be more than just dejection: the rig gives favour to those it was made for, and they can easily come back with a twist, and keep in the game once more.

It goes deeper than that: every medium ever invented was invented by men: print, radio, and television.

And when those started to lose steam?

Men came roaring with the Internet...and the game-changer of social media.

Four pairs of scissors. All made for the same hands.

Women should not always demand their rights.

They should also create them.

If you want to cut through something, you need to find the right tool to it.

One that is in tune with your natural instincts.

And one that you can use with ease, and not waste time and energy trying to master something that is rigged to impede you.

Arriving, delivering, and why Jordan Peterson's decimation of Cathy Newman shows why nothing has actually changed for women.

I

Idea-shaming seems to be the only trick in #MeToo's bag.

It didn't work for Hillary Clinton. She lost an election because of her perpetual mental laziness and inability to come up with a strategy other than trying to shame enough people not to vote for her rival.

Because shaming doesn't actually work. 

Once upon a time people who were gay were shamed, but we can see that once a little light went off in an entire shamed group's head, they rejected the shaming, demanded their rights, and made strides, that in truth, they should have never had to fight for in the first place.

Human beings have an uncanny ability to waste everybody else's time for absolutely no good reason.

#MeToo, as I have repeatedly said, has way too many problems going for it, and it will backfire. It is not as if the problems outlined aren't real. They are.

The problem is that people have mistaken an ambush as the one strategy that will continue to work.

And it won't work in the long-term.

We have gone through this game before. Women's rights got them so much and then there was the requisite media cheering...and then comes along #MeToo that revealed that these so-called "strong" women were being treated as slaves and victims in their places of work, even if they were bringing home millions of dollars.

So, what that basically shows is that, everything until now was some sort of sham.

It is that reality that can easily undermine #MeToo.

The marches yesterday also greatly undermine #MeToo. People who march are not the wealthy powerbrokers. It is the weak and dispossessed who missed every chance to make changes where they count, and now have been driven out into the streets to throw a temper tantrum because they have no power. It is a de facto admission that you have no influence.

You do not see management striking against workers. You see workers striking against management.

For a reason.

People in power do not resort to marches. It is beneath them. People who have no power do it as a last resort.

So to have a second march actually is an admission that nothing has changed. It is a waste of time and resources.

And the President gleefully tweaks the noses of those who are seeing themselves as victims.

And they earned that tweaking for staying static.

You cannot do the same thing and expect a different outcome.

II

Women have not begun, and proof is the Cathy Newman's humbling by Jordan Peterson on her own program. The Independent has no clue what actually happened, and babbled some nonsense about how now poor victim Newman is being attacked because things are changing against the Old Boys Club.

ztJn926g

That is deluded wishful thinking.

Those men in power are in power for a reason. They know war strategy and women still think idea-shaming will magically force men to relinquish control and admit they were wrong and the queen bees and fairy princesses will live happily ever after, the end.

The Spectator actually understood what went down.

But there is far more to it than that.

Peterson is the superior intellect and Newman adheres to rules and scripts. People who follow rules blindly huff and puff and rely on feints and ruses, including idea-shaming.

Peterson is an experimental psychologist and an academic. He does his research and presents facts.

As someone whose undergraduate degree was in experimental psychology -- and whose graduate degree was in journalism, I can tell you there is no comparison: it is the psychologists who have the upper-hand intellectually. I had once written a piece for my alma mater's alumni magazine stating that the journalism absolutely needed the psychology to stay relevant.

It's why psychology thrives and journalism collapsed.

And what proof do we have that #MeToo is effective?

The media reports. That's it.

And that should worry any woman who thinks they have made true progress.

Peterson understood he was a soldier. Newman thought she was a queen bee. Soldier took apart the queen. The end.

This debate is far more devastating to #MeToo than most people realize: that program was Newman's. She had editorial control and could do research on Peterson as she set the terms of engagement.

Had she done her homework, she would have never used idea-shaming because Peterson has had his ideas under attack by other academics and journalists for a long time, and he is primed to defend those ideas with ease. He has managed to carve a niche for himself, and there are almost no other psych professors in Canada who can make the same claim.

She grossly underestimated her target, the way Bill O'Reilly grossly underestimated Jeremy Glick. I discussed that exchange in my book OutFoxed, but O'Reilly's misstep was a rare one for him. He usually was the master of sizing up his prey and then tailor-making his campaign depending on the guest's intellectual strengths and weaknesses. His schoolyard taunts were used to unnerve guests as they were a cover to hide O'Reilly's true cunning.

Newman is nowhere near the intellectual mettle of O'Reilly. She is a poor debater, instead, relying on a predictable and confined number of tricks and techniques that preach to the converted.

Her arena is safely rigged to protect her, but the psychologist took one look, saw all the rigs, and then covertly rejigged them to work in his advantage.

The attack was not just a one-off: it screams that it is time for those who wish to truly make changes for women to sit up and take notice that idea-shaming is not effective because unless you can think like a soldier, you are going to get mowed down by a single mediocre soldier who knows it's all just puffing.

A man like Peterson can undo every gain of #MeToo without even trying.

Because women have no war strategies that work to their own natural ways of thinking and reacting.

III

Most of the changes that came with #MeToo have been shallow, and of the men who have lost power, a good number of them can easily make comebacks. Americans love a comeback kid. They live for tales of redemption and the phoenix who rises from the ashes. OJ Simpson is out of jail, golfing away. Bill Cosby can still pack a theatre as he is a free man. Bill Clinton is still a man about town.

And of the ones on the #MeToo Hitlist, they can stay low, get a crisis management team and a good lawyer, and turn the tables on the accusers.

Woody Allen still makes movies, for instance. He is in his eighties and had his full career and will have a longer and more successful legacy than any female director can ever hope to achieve. Roman Polanski still gets a free pass, too.

That is the truth. That is reality. And no amount of shrill squawking and sophistry can alter either.

There is something else that is equally troubling: even with cosmetic changes of adding a few more women on the news programs, for instance, the structure of the shows remain the same. The stories remain the same. The content remains the same.

They are still patriarchal shows. The ratings are still eroding. The profession is still dead.

In other words, when the profession has hit the skids, jump ship, give it to women, and let them be happy to go down on a sinking ship thinking they are going somewhere.

And nothing gets accomplished and nothing changes.

Why?

Because women have become so obsessed with arriving, that they have not given one second of thought to delivering.

If you arrive, but cannot deliver, you have wasted everyone's time, including your own.

That's the blind spot. That's the weakness of #MeToo. That is what happens when your strategy is based on the slacktivist notion of idea-shaming.

You need facts, logic, strategy, feedback, and ideas. You need vision. Recently, Open Democracy had a very stupid article asking why there wasn't a feminist Intercept...

Except I had one seven years before the arrival of the actual Intercept. The fact that two authors did not do their homework or ever considered the idea that perhaps there was a feminist Intercept, but was struggling because it is being ignored, showed the absolute ignorance and arrogance that threatens everything riding on this movement.

Their narrative was more important to them them than facts. When narrative is undermined by reality, you lose credibility, not just from enemies, but you alienate allies in the bargain.

You cannot expect victory if you do not do your research. Cathy Newman did not do her research. To be unprepared while your target is prepared and experienced is a recipe for disaster.

The problem is that you have women who can deliver. You have women who are innovators and visionaries.

But they get no support because of that tunnel vision that will derail #MeToo.

At the Golden Globes, you had grown women acting like teenagers: all wearing black dresses, having little pins, ignoring the women who were the impetus for #MeToo, such as Rose McGowan, and then having an opportunist mug for the camera hoping to run for president instead of, I don't know, using a platform to do bring something tangible that would benefit other women.

It was all #MeMeMe. Fairy princesses and queen bees dance to the patriarchal structure, not their own natural rhythms, meaning their own thought patterns are rigged to fail when they get too close to threatening actual power.

The show was a farce that revealed every weakness of #MeToo, and there are several fatal weaknesses, make no mistake.

You had women who only hopped on the #MeToo express when they saw they could benefit, such as Meryl Streep, at the expense of Rose McGowan.

You had lip service and grandstanding, which underlined just how naive the movement has become.

#MeToo has never been about everyday women. This has been mostly a confessional for women in the arts and communications industries.

There is a great divide, and divides bring resentments, allowing anyone who wishes to throw such a movement into disarray, to easily find those vulnerabilities and exploit them.

Because there has been no plans to deliver, the arrival comes, but at a great disappointment.

Feminism needs to break away from victim-based strategies. Stop relying on passive symbols and victim-marching because you are always in a subservient position. You have visionaries and innovators who can deliver.

But they are being prevented from arriving because #MeToo has always been about following, and following a defeatist patriarchal narrative.

Do not stick to something because it seems to work. Peterson's victory over Newman happened precisely because he actively read her, got prepared, and then used her own unoriginal and passive strategies against her. She stuck to a script and he adlibbed his way to international triumph.

And on her own program. Her rigs failed her.

Because she arrived, but failed to deliver.

The confines of the victim's narrative did her in. Peterson is out to win. If you want to have the life of a independent free agent, you have to think like one.

And it is high time women who want a better life start breaking away from the shackles of their own mind to do it.

Memo to Open Democracy: Kindly do your research before you vent. You want to know where are the feminist investigative journalists who challenged the Patriarchy? What about me?

This is the article in question. 50.50_logo

This headline was particularly galling:

Where are the investigative journalists challenging patriarchy?

Yoo hoo! Ladies! I am right here!

I have been challenging patriarchy for over twenty years.

Where were you when I was doing that? Supporting Bill Clinton, perhaps?

You had another question:

So where is the feminist Intercept?

I had a news site of my own in 2007 called Chaser News. It had a budget of zero. No investors, and I was on my own. I did stories out in the open; so that readers could see how news was created. I tackled things from women being imprisoned for no good reason to a missing woman who was out there and caught on camera during a rally, but police weren't all that keen on finding her, despite her family's pleas. I showed how abused women were ignored and exploited back then.

So yeah, you had a feminist Intercept, seven years before The Intercept, but as no one actually appreciated it, I changed tactics.

Fast forward to 2013 and on to the present.

I began A Dangerous Woman Story Studio that not only challenged patriarchy in content of fiction and nonfiction -- but also in structure. Again, all on my own.

Where were you?

Where were the others labelling themselves feminist investigative reporters coming to see what another feminist is doing?

I have fiction, such as the World's Most Dangerous Woman -- a global consultant who takes on multiple cabals to bring matriarchal power into play.

I also have nonfiction, such as Musings from the Tower of Babel, Dangerous Science, and The View from the Sparrow's Nest that dealt with hard news issues in a feminist way.

The findings from several of those articles became the backbone for When Journalism was a Thingcoming to a bookstore near you later on this year.

So where are the feminist investigative journalists?

Right here. A little respect to other feminists around you would be nice. Let us not always pretend we are the first to notice something that other people have been fighting tooth and nail for their entire lives.

Let's have respect for our foremothers, too. Remember Nellie Bly? Or Dickey Chapelle? Or Joan Didion? Or Jessica Mitford? You may have heard of them.

You may not have heard of Alexandra Kitty, but let me tell you something about her:

She wrote hard news stories, from undercover female police officers to women who broke the law for their boyfriends who screwed them over -- and the courts were numb to the woman, who was actually less guilty. She got 20 years in jail, while the man -- the mastermind -- never spent a day in jail.

I also wrote investigative books about the serious flaws in journalism.

Did I get support for my feminist investigative journalism?

Don't Believe It!: How lies became news was ground-breaking in may ways. It told news consumers not to blindly follow patriarchal dogma presented in journalism and showed them how to think for themselves.

Ladies, have you ever read it? Have you ever heard of it?

I suspect not.

I wrote a long piece in Skeptic about the problems of objectivity in journalism and how it artificially created dichotomies, a clearly patriarchal concept imposed on our perceptions of reality. I wrote an academic article for Critical Review about the troubles with appeal to authority in journalism -- you know, another artificially contrived feint used by the patriarchy to make themselves the sole trusted source -- and how it discredits journalism.

Where were the feminists then?

Too busy assuming they are the only people on the planet who sees the misogyny and trying to do something about it.

Well, you're not. That in, and of itself, is a misogynistic assumption.

As long as women like me (and there are other women like me) are ignored by women like you, women will never truly progress. There will always be some weakness in the foundation that will collapse and then women have to needlessly fight to start again.

The better question to ask is Why are feminist investigative journalists never supported and chronically ignored, especially by other women identifying themselves as feminist?

That's the question to ask.

Because of women like me who have fought a thousand wars every day -- and continue to fight, no thanks to anyone.

Including Open Democracy.

The Great Canadian Communications Meltdown: Atwood exposed. Media credulous. What can save this nation's communications fortunes? How about an intervention.

I have said it many times over the years that Canada's publishing and journalism industries were in far rougher shape than in other nations. This is no time for soliciting awards. The product is not good.

This is no time to beg for government funding. Nothing will change if the government keeps the sinking ship afloat a year or two longer.

How bad is it?

When an serially outed, but never fired serial plagiarist wants to weigh in on the Canadian communications industry, you know it is as bad as it gets.

But let's recap:

Margaret Atwood, defender of privileged white male abuser and enabler of Left-wing victim mentality wallowing, isn't getting applause these days. The Canadian literary community was always sheltered by the government and crown corporation CBC, and they were big fish in a small aquarium.

So no new wonderful schools of writing ever came from here. We have universities, such as UBC and Concordia who have faced their own scandals with how female students are treated, hardly what one would call bastions of progressive values. The University of Toronto, the ones who got handed to them the country's largest independent publisher couldn't hack it and had to wave the white flag to Random House who bought it.

It's a hot mess, but journalism is in rough shape, too.

Publications are folding, and when the ones who are still around make global fools of themselves with a hoax perpetrated by a child, and then unfounded and equally unconfirmed conspiracy theories make the humiliation into a total farce, we have to admit there is more than just a problem or a crisis.

It's a total nuclear meltdown.

It is not as if there is no talent for creating content. There is a gigantic void in both finding new structures and methods of doing it. The universities have proven useless and dense. You can show them the facts and present alternatives, but forget it.

They do not care if none of their graduates are employable or will have a job in the profession after graduation or will be able to make a living from that degree.

The publishing and media industries are also tone deaf to reality.

They all need an intervention.

Or this country is due for a revolution.

The hijab hoax endangered a child as it decimated the last shred of journalistic credibility. Atwood drove a big nail in the publishing coffin with her perpetual obliviousness. She cannot rant against the Establishment as it was that very Establishment that sheltered her entire career.

For the next generation of writers of fiction and nonfiction, they need a new frontier.

They need a structure that can stand changes in media. They need a structure that builds a solid foundation, but not a static one.

I have spent my entire life studying and building new methods so that these professions can actually thrive in good times and bad.

But hey, I am writing while female -- and being taken seriously in this country as a woman is an ordeal.

You can be a feminist Prime Minister -- so long as you are a rich white male with connections and nepotism working for you.

But there is a war to fight, and I am a one woman army paving the way the best I know how.

One word at a time...