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.”).
Trending: Is the Church Becoming Too Political?
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.
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.
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.
First published at TheOtherMcCain.com
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.