Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Disorderly Conduct | Main | Jeff Willerton enters Wildrose Alliance leadership race »

Friday, July 24, 2009

Should we trust the state to combat the hypersexualization of teenaged girls?

Nerds What’s the best strategy for combating promiscuity among teenagers? The conservative answer to this question would likely focus on strengthening the family, which typically calls for policies that reduce the interference of government in institutions like the family, church and community, and, perhaps most importantly, in education, where moral instruction has been either eliminated or replaced with an agenda for moral relativism.

I’ve argued many times on this site that a libertarian society would be a culturally conservative one. Big government crowds-out and weakens civil society and de-risks destructive behaviour while directly subsidizing counter-culture movements that would otherwise be marginal.

Not everyone in the libertarian movement agrees with me, of course, but what sensible libertarians agree on is that we must have a free market in culture, built upon property rights, in which values that enhance society are supported while values deemed unhealthy to society are marginalized. In a free society this process of discriminating among values would be done without coercion, which means without the interference of government.

This brings me to an announcement yesterday that the Government of Canada is supporting a program to address the "hypersexualization" of girls.

Helena Guergis, Minister of State for the Status of Women announced $144,361 in funding over 36 months for the “So, Are You Clicking as a Couple?” project. Funding for this project comes from the Women's Community Fund of the Women's Program of Status of Women Canada.

"Research shows that hypersexualization puts pressure on girls to engage prematurely in sexual activity and also promotes violence in intimate relationships," said Ms. Marie-Laure Leymonie, Coordinator of the program. "Thanks to funding from the Government of Canada, the girls will learn to identify abusive behaviour, set limits and have healthier, more equitable relationships."

I don’t question the motives of Leymonie. I’m sure she is deeply committed to teaching young girls about sexual boundaries. I do, however, question the motives of this government and others that continue to weaken the civil institutions that best regulate social behaviour.  Helena Guergis and the Conservative government are marginalizing these failing institutions with well-meaning but ineffective government programs staffed by army of social workers.

In “What It Means to Be a Libertarian,” author Charles Murray made a simple observation that has stuck with me. In order to have vibrant civil institutions, these institutions must be required to perform vital functions. This, of course, requires reducing the scope of government in areas like welfare, education and the raising of children.

In short, teenage girls don’t need the state; they need their parents.

(Picture: Nerds help combat hypersexualization of teens)

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by westernstandard on July 24, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

Sounds like another feminist plot to neuter males. Notice how it targets girls specifically? Like girls never pressure boys, or hit them for that matter. The very existence of that ministry is a tribute to sexism.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-24 12:08:40 PM


Should we trust the state? If you want to make the problem grow and get worse, then by all means involve the state. Government intervention never fails to make social problems increase and get worse.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-24 12:31:52 PM


Government should never be in the business to subsidize anything.

Subsidizing these types of organizations is akin to someone putting a gun to your head and saying, "give us some money so we can pay for a program that will show you how to live a better life"

Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-24 12:35:36 PM


The government should stay out of it, it's not their business.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-24 12:43:13 PM


On another note Matthew, I agree with you that a libertarian society would most likely be more conservative in that there would be actual consequences to people's actions. No more free rides both socially and economically.

And contrary to what some may think, we won't all spontaneously transform ourselves into ugly space creatures who only want to lie and deceive to generate a profit.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-07-24 1:31:06 PM


"we won't all spontaneously transform ourselves into ugly space creatures who only want to lie and deceive to generate a profit."

You mean people would still have morals and want to treat one another with kindness even if the government weren't around to legislate morality?!

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-24 2:38:00 PM


I agree that girls need their parents. The genesis of the Ministry of Equality.

Posted by: PGIB | 2009-07-24 4:26:29 PM


Canadian children are sexually active. Gee, what a surprise! Our kids are handed condoms in school. They are told that if there is a pregnancy that the government will pay for their abortion. Christianity is dying out in Canada and so are the values it expressed. We have a culture that devalues the family. Fathers are portrayed as either wimps or incompetent fools(Corner Gas anyone) whose IQ's are 100 points lower than the womens. Our birthrate is in the toilet. Yet, Macleans does an article about couples enjoying going child free. Who the hell is going to continue the society then? The truth is that Canadian society has been going to hell since Diefenbaker. Prior to that, we had a society that both valued the family and held criminals responsible. The former defense lawyer Diefenbaker weakened our criminal justice system. Then,from Pearson on, every Liberal prime minister has pushed policies that screwed with Canadian society. In addition, we had PC prime ministers like Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney that just accepted the Liberal social policies. What did Mulroney do about abortion during his first term 1984-1988 when he had 75% of the seats in parliment? What did Clark or Mulroney do to strengthen our hands against criminals? What did either man do to strengthen the Canadian family? The problem is that we have had no real conservative government in Canada since 1921. Harper comes to the closest to breaking this 88 years of crap. However, even he ducks most of the values debate. The question is not whether libertarianism will make Canadians more conservative. The reason being that I can't see how they can get anymore leftist! The question is whether the society is a lost cause. Can things even be turned around? Have we passed a point of no return? The only hope is a strong turn to the right and I don't see the Reform Party anywhere!If you want a relatively conservative society, then you probably have to leave this sinking ship!

Posted by: Joe | 2009-07-24 6:02:36 PM


"Christianity is dying out in Canada and so are the values it expressed."

You mean the values of oppressing women? Assimilating Aboriginals? Demonizing homosexuals and criminalizing their consensual acts?

The majority of Canadians are still Christian (53% Catholic) so don’t panic.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-24 8:15:44 PM


Don't worry, Scott! When it comes to bigotry, wife beating, and screwing up cultures atheists are no slouches. Sure, you wouldn't feel more comfortable with the NDP? They just love the anti-christian politically correct bull. The truth is that the society is going to crap and you guys are just fiddling away like Nero. The government has not promoted public morality for over 50 years and what is the result? The result is that this society is rotting away. We have the morals of a whorehouse and no grasp of right and wrong. Maybe you have no problem raising your children in a cesspool but some of us do. We try to teach our kids right while our culture fights us at every turn. Its not just about you! The future of this country is at stake. However, it seems obvious that if it slightly inconveniences you then the hell with it. Anyway, you probably have a church to burn down so I'll leave you to it.

Posted by: Joe | 2009-07-24 8:49:09 PM


Uh, Scott: Those issues you've mentioned above were perpetrated by the state.

Privatized (religious) oppression can never compare to the force and scope that the power of state can bring to bear.

Posted by: Dennis Young | 2009-07-24 8:49:45 PM


"You mean the values of oppressing women? Assimilating Aboriginals? Demonizing homosexuals and criminalizing their consensual acts?"

We mean the values that put family first, along with moral sincerity, modesty, charity, and duty, as opposed to the shameless self-indulgence often pursued by those most hostile to Christianity or religion in general. Christian societies developed a code of chivalry toward women at a time when other, more tribal societies were practicing "honour killings," a tradition they lamentably still practice. Assimilating minorities and providing them with an education works a lot better than sticking them in reserves and making them totally dependent. And Christianity does not "demonize" homosexuals; its way has always been to love the sinner while hating the sin.

Bitter much, Scott? All that advanced education hasn't brought you happiness, or any of the answers to life's questions? What a shame. A pity you charged the state so much to learn nothing.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-24 9:16:41 PM


"Those issues you've mentioned above were perpetrated by the state."

That's true Dennis, and it was done in partnership with the Christian instutions at the time, or based on so-called Christian values.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-24 9:26:04 PM


I have no problems with Christianity itself; I am still an ordained priest from my many years of Christian service and life.

The problem I have is when certain religious factions partner or influence the state to legislate their particular brand of morality.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-24 9:35:56 PM


I think we've found the true culprit here, gentleman. Industry, religion and all would be tyrants are benign without the power of the state. So, who should we really despise?

Hitler would've been an unknown blow hard had he not harnessed the power of the German democracy.

Posted by: Dennis Young | 2009-07-24 10:13:56 PM


"Industry, religion and all would be tyrants are benign without the power of the state."

This is true Dennis, the comment demoninator is the state, it is what empowers the tyranny.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-24 10:48:09 PM


I do not believe it is the task of "the state" to educate children about sex. In doing so they are taking on one of the most blatant roles possible in furthering the idea the "the state" is mommy and daddy. And there's your real motive...

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-25 6:48:59 AM


Hitler would've been an unknown blow hard had he not harnessed the power of the German democracy.
Posted by: Dennis Young | 2009-07-24 10:13:56 PM

At the point of a gun, with the help of a bunch of thugs...
Seems familiar somehow.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-25 6:59:03 AM


"That's true Dennis, and it was done in partnership with the Christian instutions at the time, or based on so-called Christian values."

Actually, in many cases, residential schooling was included in the treaties at the band's insistence. They wanted better lives for their children and believed a modern education could give them that. Christian values had nothing to do with it.

"I have no problems with Christianity itself; I am still an ordained priest from my many years of Christian service and life."

I don't believe it. Not one word. You don't talk at all like a priest. A renegade priest, perhaps. I'm beginning to wonder if half the qualifications you list are true. Because they are certainly not reflected in your writings.

"This is true Dennis, the comment demoninator is the state, it is what empowers the tyranny."

The "comment demoninator"? That's it. You're not a double major cum laude. You were the one sitting in the corner wearing the pointy hat.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-25 9:03:36 AM


The "comment demoninator"? That's it. You're not a double major cum laude. You were the one sitting in the corner wearing the pointy hat.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-07-25 9:03:36 AM

Ya know Shane, if I happen to be sitting at the computer without my reading glasses I tend to make some spelling errors and not notice them.
I guess that would be direct reflection of my intelligence right?

Or maybe its just a reflection of your judgemental lack of tolerance. You really are an ass sometimes.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-25 10:15:30 AM


For clarification, I was ordained a priest in 1995 though I am no longer active in my church and consider myself agnostic.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-25 10:18:04 AM


Show me a libertarian who doesn't understand that, Scott.

Posted by: Dennis Young | 2009-07-25 10:32:34 AM


"Show me a libertarian who doesn't understand that, Scott."

Sorry Dennis, I'm not sure what you're reffering to.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-25 10:36:24 AM


Scott, most people don't know what a "gnostic" is.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-25 10:40:27 AM


That's why Google exists :)

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-25 10:42:31 AM


said Ms. Marie-Laure Leymonie, Coordinator of the program. "Thanks to funding from the Government of Canada, the girls will learn to identify abusive behaviour, set limits and have healthier, more equitable relationships."

Any women who calls herself MS isn't interested inequality.
Feminist hegemony yes, equality, no.

Someone said this above, I think, but where is the program for the young males?

And no, I am not for more government programs.
Fire her rent seeking fat ass.

What ever happened to privately funded groups like the CGIT(Canadian Girls In Training) and why does this dyke, Marie-Laure Leymonie, think she is entitled to my taxes?

Scrap SOW now!

Oh, and French girls are experiencing violence in their relationships with boys?
Wow!
I suppose it has nothing to do with a lack of respect for women which has been sown through all the abortions they have in Quebec, thanks to SOW, or the fact that they have been trying to boost their Francophone population through immigration from Muslim nations.

Posted by: Speller | 2009-07-27 1:06:58 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.