If this is what the proverbial “we” consider feminism, then I say down with feminism.
Today, in the Toronto Star, Heather Mallick wrote an article about the specie that is Russell Williams. A thing that brutally tortured and killed two courageous women, and committed many other horrific acts.
More specifically Mallick wrote about men in general, in comparison to Williams.
“Men should weep,” she wrote.
Which “men” is she referring to here?
There are some men who bruise women’s bodies.
There are some men who humiliate women in the House of Commons.
There are arguments to be made for society’s efforts to create family units in the name of consumerism.
And there is indeed the whole glass ceiling debate.
All points that Mallick takes too far with broad, invalidated generalizations.
These were thoughts running through my mind, until I read Mallick’s next point.
“We know this to be true. I am a feminist but all women know what I mean because they live it every day.”
Why do “we” know this to be true, Ms. Mallick? Because you say so?
Because we live it every day?
You know what I live every day?
I live in a world where women – and men – get abused every day.
I live in a world where the gap between the rich and the poor grows wider every day. On either side of this gap you will find penises and vaginas.
I live in a world where men are raped, men are bullied, and men have eating disorders, but these men may never get help for these serious problems, because they have to be men.
I live in a world where women harass and say terrible things about men in articles that lack credibility entirely. And this I know to be true, because you did so.
At a point, when all that Canada saw was this monster, Russell Williams, who clearly represents all men, Mallick discovered a “wonderful man named Jim Smyth,” who interrogated the monster.
Wow. A man who is capable of siding with the poor women who Williams so sickeningly killed - and he even rooted out a confession from the murderer. To think Smyth, a penis-inflicted individual, actually had it in him.
Mallick writes, “It was strange watching the two men together, one decent and one evil. When Williams would stand up, his face away from the ceiling camera, you’d see the top of the two men’s heads. Both were balding, which I found touching in Smyth’s case and pathetic in Williams’.”
One decent and one evil. Such a "wonderful" man is just decent? What happened to comparing good with evil?
Even when complimenting men, it is backhanded for you, isn’t it, Ms. Mallick?
And then there is the bald comment. It is touching to see a decent man go bald, and it is pathetic when an evil man loses his hair?
Thank goodness the man in question was just decent, and not good, otherwise Mallick may have cried over his hair loss.
“There was a wonderful unanimity in the place that gave me hope that men and women will one day team up and see the best in each other.”
Well, let's hope the best is "decent" enough for Mallick.
At a time, when the victory of our justice system deserves the attention of the country, as an example and warning for others…
At a time when the beautiful lives lost deserve the attention and honour of the world for the courage they displayed…
Why even waste your platform, in Canada’s largest newspaper, to divert the attention to men – in general – and the awful things you insinuate they all do?
All men are created equal. Not equally horrible.
As a woman who believes in equality of condition for all, I value feminism - it is part of who I am, but consider myself an equalist. There are injustices faced by many, and this needs to be addressed.
But, at a time when feminism has reached such a level of sophistication, I would expect it to be far beyond the point of misandry.
If misogyny is wrong, it stands to reason misandry is too.
And by Mallick calling herself a feminist, women really should weep, because she just generalized us too.