Oh Is That So?


by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:

Screams the headline….

Misogynistic abuse against Cathy Newman is a symbol of the backlash against the MeToo movement

Abuse?  What abuse?

Let me see if I get this right: You have the absolute right to run a load of crap on television but any pushback and commentary centered on your nonsense and its idiocy is “abuse”?

Oh please.

For those angry at the recent resurgence of feminism, they have had to wait for their moment. It’s not easy to defend a serial rapist, or even a one-off rapist, although some people do – let’s not forget that 63 million people recently voted for an alleged offender as President. It’s not easy to defend a sexual harasser, either, although even more people do that. But it is very easy to attack Cathy Newman, the female journalist whose male editor thought it would be a good idea to interview Jordan Peterson.

So there’s the not-so-subtle denunciation of a woman’s ability to think and handle her own affairs right here, on display.  See, it was a “male editor” that thought it would be a good idea to interview Jordan Peterson.  It wasn’t Cathy Newman’s decision; why, she’s just a slave to a patriarch that put her in front of a camera and demanded that she run the interview his way, not her own, or be….. what, exactly?

Since when do we call someone a victim after the fact — unless, of course it wasn’t after the fact….. Unless, of course, you consider Cathy Newman lesser; unable to deal with her own affairs, unable to comport herself in front of a camera, unable to discharge her job responsibility to run an interview in front of a camera with a potentially-hostile interviewee and not get steamrollered.  Why that responsibility belongs to her “male editor“, not her, because she’s just not capable of doing it herself.

See the bias yet?  No?  Then you’re not looking.

Read More @ Market-Ticker.org