Saturday, 7 December 2013

CONtempt™: it's the Harper CONservative party brand.




Another day, another cpc Senator in the news.

This particularly repulsive Con — Jean-Guy Dagenais — has also been a useful idiot for the Harper regime. As a former cop and past president of the police officers' association of Québec, Dagenais was a keen supporter of the federal long-gun registry.  Once tactically appointed to the Senate by PMSHithead, he CONveniently started spewing the anti-registry propaganda and speaking points supplied by the PMO.

Il a changé son fusil d'épaule.  And now, this:


In a letter sent to all parliamentarians, Dagenais referred to Charmaine Borg’s flyer as “a rag” and suggested she’s a whiny, ignorant, powerless Quebec MP who was elected by fluke and stands little chance of being re-elected.

NDP House leader Nathan Cullen said sending such a “offensive” missive to a 23-year-old female rookie MP is “paternalistic, childish, condescending and frankly misogynistic.” He served notice that he will ask the Speaker of the House of Commons next week to condemn Dagenais.

“The letter in question attacks the very legitimacy of a sitting member of Parliament,” Cullen told the Commons.

Stephen Taylor, the weathervane director of some astroturf Reformatory organization, and a self-selected arbiter on misogyny, equivocated and perorated about Cullen's observations.




What's Dagenais' next volley against the NDP elected member of Parliament?  To demand that Borg's home address and phone number be publicized, the better to incite his fellow bullies who share his views to hunt her down and sexually assault her, and finish the job that his impotent, CONvoluted p0rn-infused fantasies would want to see executed?

The collective recoil expressed by the female MPs in the NDP caucus should be noted, and respected.  Each of them knows how violence against women manifests itself in numerous and insidious ways; it is present in the truculent bellowing and lip-smacking self-indulgence of reactionary old white men who suffer from delusional entitlement syndrome.

Jean-Guy Dagenais is a prime specimen of the Reformatory plutocrats who are degrading Parliament.

Afterword: A point I raised, with regard to Dagenais' accusation that riding residents allegedly complained to him that Borg could do nothing for them: how can an individual MP redress or fix all the services and programs destroyed by the Harper governement: Employment Insurance, Veterans Affairs, Health, Environment, etc. etc.?

Update: More media pundits, all male so far, pooh-pooh the characterization of Dagenais' attack upon Borg as misogynistic.  It means women-hating, not the same as sexist.  I wonder who will be the first to label the reaction of female MPs as "hysterical".  Might be one of the anti-feminists: Wente, Lakritz or Kay-mère, perhaps Blatchford?

More update: I went looking for a useful and helpful perspective perspective on systemic misogyny that included the vile tactics that the Harper dirty tricks handbook promote, when directed at women and launched by an Attack Parrot™ like Dagenais.

Misogyny is also – because of the very nature of its deep-seated, psychological hatred – a linking factor among the various [...] hate groups and militias. That means that people who hate women may also exhibit authoritarian, violent and bigoted behavior towards minorities.

From here.

9 comments:

ron wilton said...

Wasn't this creten dagenais a failed cpc candidate that was then 'appointed' to the senate by sharpie?

Purple library guy said...

So someone from the legendarily controlled Con ranks wants to call an MP from another party one of "a bunch of puppets"? That's a pretty black pot complaining. Normally it takes one to know one, but I guess puppets don't know much.

That tweeter guy--"and diminishes actual sexism in the process"--Yeah, the rest of us actually want to diminish the amount of sexism around. Cons, not so much apparently.

deBeauxOs said...

In response to Ron: yes, Dagenais was a cpc candidate in a different riding in 2011 federal election.

PLG: Dagenais ad hominem attacks on Borg are NOT misogyny, like Boisvenu intimate relationship with assistant not nepotism, like Duffy machinations not fraud, like Gerstein tactics not corruption, like ...

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Pigs are growing increasingly proud of their piggery.

It's an oinky badger of courage.
~

Scotian said...

Stephen Taylor, hmmmm, that wouldn't be Stephen Taylor of creation of Blogging Tories fame now would it...where we all know that sexism is of such concern and where fighting it was always such an important issue *dust dry tone of voice*.

As to the good Senator, while he may have been accurate in describing the reality of this woman's election circumstances that does not excuse the manner in which he chose to do it (lets not forget that many of the Quebec NDP MPs were unexpected wins that were originally expecting to be placeholder candidates only). Now, I am not sure which he is more offended by, her sex, or her youth to be honest, but either way the way he decided to go about it was clearly offensive and rude. Was it blatantly/overtly sexist though? That I am not comfortable with saying based on what I see, but it sure does have that flavour to it though.

I'm good with paternalistic, childish, and condescending, it is only the sexist/misogynistic label that I think requires a bit of a stretch, not much of one granted, but I have to say I am not entirely comfortable going there with this one despite it having that flavour in it, the word choice was just before the line for that with me. Now, granted I am male, but I've always been very attuned to sexism against women, I was raised by very strong women and have always had a real harsh view of the boys club, and to this day there is no expression able to make me angrier and my teeth grind more than "bros before hos". With that said, as I said, I just can't get there on this one myself, although it does have that flavour to it.

Basically I am not willing to agree while certainly seeing why you all do think it is, nothing says I have to be in agreement all the time, or that either of us will be 100% correct all the time. I do think his word choice made it clear he was being arrogant, condescending, paternalistic to her youth, and a general a**hole, but I can't in fairness get to sexist and misogynistic, nor can my wife, who came in the middle of me writing this, asked me what I was writing about, and after filling her in said she agreed, and please trust me when I say that she tends to be much less forgiving of that sort of male crap than I ever have been (and I haven't been much at all).

The problem for us is that the only thing that comes close to truly sounding sexist in the whining part, and we both have known too many males that are also whiny, and in the context it was used here could easily be used to characterize a male MP in the same position as she. Please understand that we aren't condemning you for calling/seeing as such, we just can't quite agree even though we both agree with has that feel to it underlying it, but for us feel alone is not enough else it becomes too easy to create witchhunts. That btw goes for all forms of intolerance, feel alone is not enough we need something we can point to.

Finally let me close with this...I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the Senator is a sexist git, or worse even, I just can't get there on this specific example/case. Please understand this does not diminish one iota my respect and admiration for the work done at this blog on the very important issues facing women done by women, and I hope my disagreement with you on this one doesn't cost you much regard for me, but I've got to call them as I see it just as you do, else how can we have honest exchanges of views, eh? *wry grin*

deBeauxOs said...

Reported in the article, last link: "the letter upset several female NDP MPs" - perhaps there's more history to Dagenais' attack on Borg that's not been disclosed yet.

It would be interesting to read the full text of his letter. I've not seen it published.

Scotian said...

deBeauxOs:

Neither have I, and you are correct, it would be interesting to see the full letter. There could also be prior history that we have not as yet been made aware, my comment was based solely on what was currently there to be examined, as new information becomes available of course that impacts on my view, as it rightly should. You do make a very good point regarding the reaction from the many female NDP MPs suggesting there is more than we know going on here, yet at the same time it could just be solidarity with one of their own at work here too, which is why that one its own is not enough for me. Suggestive, yes, sufficient though, sadly no.

I always hate having to defend those that quite honestly I think are guilty of the thing I am defending them on but lack the sufficient basis to call them out for it. One of the most frustrating things about trying to practice what one preaches is when it forces you into such positions, but as much as that may bother me, it bothers me far less than not doing so and seeing my face in the mirror afterwards would.

I've always been as far as I can remember someone that places being human first, before race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, all of it. My family raised me that way, the authors I grew up reading and admiring the most reinforced that message, and I found that message even within the RC faith I grew up in, even if I eventually left the Church it was not in anger or disappointment, but rather it offered too limited a view of God for me to accept. Why so many people with faith, of faith, and without faith find it so hard to accept that we are all human beings before anything else and therefore we either all deserve respect or none do (how can one ask of another that which they refuse to give, I've never understood how people cannot grasp that basic concept) I'll never truly understand.

Of the two forms of intolerance I see left in modern society that appear to still enjoy deep rooted support, I find the misogynistic worse than the homophobic, and this coming from a bisexual male should say something. It really disturbs me to see and hear, and because on the surface I am a old school white male from old time Canadian (aka white European) stock somehow these idiots think I must have at least some sympathy for their views. What I have been forced to listen to and watch over my lifetime to this day regarding women and their essential inferiority in so many ways to we dudes trumps even the gay bashing they so love when they think they are among their own kind.

Which is of course why I find sites like yours here so enjoyable to read, and why it pained me so to write the last comment I did. Still though, to thine own self be true, and I was fairly sure that it would be taken as it was meant by you all here, I've not known any of you to be mindless partisan fighters too lost to combat fatigue to think for themselves, which is yet another reason why I love this blog so much.

Well have a good rest of the weekend folks, take care.

janfromthebruce said...

The senator evoked language "whiny" to denigrate this young woman. It was an act of misogyny.

deBeauxOs said...

Jan, it's more than just that particular term, I believe.

This crew of Harper ReformatCons has a *rich* history of misogyny, from Toews casually bedding and impregnating a cpc colleague's parliamentary aide to the savage cuts inflicted upon all federally-funded programs that benefit women, from targeting female Cab Min for party opprobrium to allowing backbenchers to pitch private members' bills and motions that erode women's right to choose.

The repugnance and recoil that female NDP MPs expressed is surely based on more than partisan politics, I trust.

Post a Comment