Canadian ‘Education Expert’ Is What You’d Expect Canadian ‘Education Expert’ to Be

Posted on | April 14, 2015 | 19 Comments

That is to say, he’s a dangerous pervert:

Benjamin Levin was consistent and “realistic” in his descriptions of sexual assault of children during online chats and never once stressed that it was all for fantasy, the Crown argued during day two of his sentencing hearing on child porn charges.
Crown counsel Allison Dellandrea read aloud several extremely graphic chat exchanges the former Ontario deputy minister of education had with undercover officers he believed were submissive mothers interested in having sex with their own children.
The 63-year-old married father of three repeatedly and consistently claimed to have had sex with his own daughters, starting at age 12 (though, as he told one of the officers, “I wish we’d started younger.”).
Levin — who was a member of Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne’s transition team — has pleaded guilty to the making of written child pornography, possession of child pornography and counseling to commit sexual assault on a child. . . .
Dellandrea took the court on a tour of the “depraved” online world the formerly well-respected education expert inhabited, suggesting he “wasn’t just dabbling in the child sexual abuse online world, he was a leader” there. . . .
As the sentencing got underway Tuesday, so too did a protest against Ontario’s revised sex-ed curriculum at Queen’s Park downtown. Critics of the Liberal government’s update to what students will learn in school about sex believe Levin’s pedophilic interest influenced the update — a charge the government denies.

You can read the whole thing. (Hat-tip: @SeverEnergia on Twitter.)

So, the “education expert” is a pervert and — this is relevant, in all honesty — his former boss is a lesbian.

The career of Kathleen Wynne is an object lesson in what I mean by “Feminism Is a Journey to Lesbianism.” In 1973, Wynne met the lesbian love of her life, Jane Rounthwaite. But in 1977, Wynne married Phil Cowperthwaite, with whom she had three children before leaving him for Jane Rounthwaite in 1991. That is to say, her husband was just a bill-paying sperm donor whose role in her life was, ultimately, to provide her and her lesbian partner with children and money. The Toronto Star did a big feature profile about Wynne that is a predictable exercise in progressive non-judgmentalism. The reader is presented with this remarkably weird saga and, well, how dare you point out the weirdness of it?

Feminists don’t believe that heterosexuality is natural for women, nor do feminists accept the validity of any moral concept other than Equality with a capital “E.” And what feminists mean by this sense of Equality is, of course, female supremacy.

“There are no Christian feminists, because feminism is a sort of narcissistic idolatry, wherein women deny God and instead worship themselves as their own divinity.”

Any man who becomes involved with a feminist must understand that she views him as irrelevant, superfluous, a disposable accessory, a bit player in the grand drama of her own life. The basic uselessness of males is one of the philosophical tenets of feminism. This makes it impossible for any feminist to genuinely admire, trust, respect or love any man. Whether or not she is actively homosexual, the feminist is always a lesbian in the philosophical sense, as various feminist scholars (including Adrienne Rich and Marilyn Frye) have explained. That is to say, a male may be a feminist’s roommate, her social companion and her occasional sexual partner, but he can never be the love of her life, because the feminist’s life is devoted to herself and to her love for women.

Feminists often claim that anyone who speaks of feminism in terms of “man-haters” and “lesbians” is merely expressing ignorant bigotry, but certainly no one could ever accuse me of ignorance, because I’ve read more feminist books than the average Women’s Studies major. Glancing around my desk at this very moment, I see Sarah Evans (Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left, 1979), Jill Johnston (Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution, 1973), Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice Raymond (The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, 1990) and Jone Salamonsen (Enchanted Feminism: The Reclaiming Witches of San Francisco, 2002). My point is not only that it is possible for an opponent of feminism to be knowledgeable about feminism, but furthermore to assert that the more you actually know about feminism, the more likely you are to oppose feminism — at least, that is, if you are an intelligent, honest, responsible, sane and normal person. Feminism is a movement that appeals to the stupid, the dishonest, the irresponsible, the insane and the abnormal.

“If Americans can be divorced for ‘incompatibility of temper,’ I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.”
— G.K. Chesterton, 1910

We need not pretend that a normal, sane and responsible life is an easy thing to accomplish. Chesterton quite accurately summarized the basic problem of traditional married life. In order to find happiness — or even a tolerable level of peace — in a marriage, we must continually overcome the problems produced by the natural differences between men and women. Yet the traditional basis of marriage is also the moral principle of Christianity, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, in accordance with the commandment of the Creator: “Male and female created he them” and “be fruitful and multiply.”

Because feminists reject Christianity, per se, they can never love men in the way a man naturally wants to be loved, a reality that the men in their lives cannot help but recognize. This is why you so often see “feminist men” — Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Hugo Schwyzer — acting in such perverse, exploitative and abusive ways toward women. The “feminist man” accepts feminism’s negative verdict against himself, which consequently destroys whatever self-respect or morality he might otherwise have had. As I have sometimes pointed out, feminists actually despise the “male feminist,” viewing him (quite accurately) as a selfish manipulator who expects women to give him a cookie for advocating feminist causes.

Because he has no self-respect and recognizes no real standard of morality, the “feminist man” is quite often a very dangerous kind of pervert. Benjamin Levin, who served as the “education expert” in Kathleen Wynne’s campaign, is a perfect example of his type. And it’s not a good type.

Also, the phrase “Canadian pervert” is more or less redundant.

Category: Canada, Crime, Feminism, Gays, Sex, Sex Trouble

Comments

19 Responses to “Canadian ‘Education Expert’ Is What You’d Expect Canadian ‘Education Expert’ to Be”

RS
April 14th, 2015 @ 7:57 pm

There is a movement among some (nominally) evangelical Christian women to eliminate/minimize/marginalize Paul and Peter’s admonitions about husbands and wives. Alas, they do not realize they are dupes of the enemy and fighting directly against the God-ordained institution they claim to support.
RS
April 14th, 2015 @ 8:01 pm

Also, re: Ms. Wynne.

She obviously had a thing for those north England ex-Vikings who settled that area, as the surname suffix “-thwaite” is indicative of residents within the old Danelaw.

You’re welcome.
ChubbyBubba
April 14th, 2015 @ 8:05 pm

I believe we can summarize by saying that if a feminist is in a relationship with a man, it is for the purpose of parasitising him.
robertstacymccain
April 14th, 2015 @ 8:24 pm

The more I study feminist theory, the more I appreciate the biblical understanding of human nature. You see that when people lose their sense of themselves as part of a created order — and thus owing reverence to the Creator and His Word — then much of what we take for granted as “natural” ceases to function. A godless people’s attitudes and behaviors become decidedly unnatural and, because they have lost respect for the Word, they are unable to properly analyze the causes of their afflictions and woe.
RS
April 14th, 2015 @ 8:46 pm

Feminism is one of the many “wolves in sheep’s” clothing which the Church has allowed into the fold. A tour through the “Christian” feminist sites is quite instructive. I think the proprietors of those sites are women who’ve become enamored with the exoteric philosophy of feminism, to use your phrase, but fail to acknowledge feminism’s origins or endgame. Some pastors have been taken in, because, “hey it’s all about equality.”

In the Garden, Satan’s temptation was “you shall be like (equal to) gods!” Now, it’s “you shall be like (equal to) your husband!”
Zohydro
April 14th, 2015 @ 8:49 pm

Thwaite, from the Old Norse for “clearing”, “meadow”… Etymologically related to the toponym “Twatt” (One each in the Shetlands and the Orkneys), though not to Titty Ho (just south of Hog Dyke) at Raunds, Northamptonshire… Also appears as “Tuit” in several places in Normandy…
RS
April 14th, 2015 @ 9:03 pm

Our host posts about nastiness in Ontario and continued Feminist lunacies, and what happens? A course in Medieval English History breaks out.
robertstacymccain
April 14th, 2015 @ 9:48 pm

Yes, all modern egalitarian ideologies are a variation on The Original Lie, as Ronald Reagan once pointed out.
ECM
April 14th, 2015 @ 10:04 pm

As the sentencing got underway Tuesday, so too did a protest against Ontario’s revised sex-ed curriculum at Queen’s Park downtown.

If you’re not up here, you’ll be surprised (ha, right) to learn that *NO ONE* in the media is giving this any attention at all, instead choosing to push the revised sex-ed curriculum, hard, while pretending no one is against it–basically not any different than how the US media ignores the March for Life while painting Rs as intransigent on abortion ‘rights’.
K-Bob
April 14th, 2015 @ 10:35 pm

Zounds!
DeadMessenger
April 15th, 2015 @ 1:13 am

The Hebrew word transliterated “echad” means a sort of multiple oneness. A somewhat poor example of echad would be a bunch of grapes, in the sense that there is one bunch, but multiple individuals make up that oneness.

I say this is a poor example, because the perfect example of echad is the triune Godhead, as in Deuteronomy 6:4, “Shema Yisrael, Yehowah, Elohim, Yehowah echad”, meaning “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Elohim, of course, being plural, but yet, God is nevertheless echad, or one, or one unity.

So that, in Genesis 2:24 we see, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh”, where “one” is also echad. So that God’s intention was for a man and wife to be one unity, the same as the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And so we have seen satan continue to undermine this relationship; nowhere more than in the concept of feminism. Which is why a godly woman, by definition, cannot be a feminist.
M. Thompson
April 15th, 2015 @ 1:17 am

It’s par for the course around here.

As thread drift goes, it’s not bad.
Daniel Freeman
April 15th, 2015 @ 1:52 am

Come for the stories, stay for the thread drift!
RichFader
April 15th, 2015 @ 2:16 am

“Oh, Ahhhhh’m an educrat and Ah’m okay,
“Ah sleep all night and Ah work all day!”

“Oh, heeeee’s an educrat and he’s okay,
“He sleeps all night and he works all day!”
Law Professor Lisa T. McElroy had a really bad day Rule 5 | Batshit Crazy News
April 15th, 2015 @ 8:58 am

[…] TOM: Fempocalypse and What do you expect from a Canadian education expert? […]
RS
April 15th, 2015 @ 10:24 am

If McCain dares post anything about German literature, I’m going to own that thread. It will be the apocalypse of thread drift.
Squid Hunt
April 15th, 2015 @ 1:15 pm

It’s absolutely amazing to me that sodomites circle this natural thing over and over again. They all claim it’s natural to do. Now, they’ve gone on the attack and say male/female is unnatural. Tell me God doesn’t understand his creation:

Romans 1:26-27
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Hanzo
April 15th, 2015 @ 7:48 pm

” That is to say, her husband was just a bill-paying sperm donor whose role in her life was, ultimately, to provide her and her lesbian partner with children and money”.
Good point. Here I was thinking this lezzie had a thing for people whose name ended in “thwaite”.
Benjamin Levin | Living in Anglo-America
April 18th, 2015 @ 9:18 am

[…] http://theothermccain.com/2015/04/14/canadian-education-expert-is-what-youd-expect-canadian-educatio… […]