Honestly. Is he actually writing these things down and believing that he’s speaking the truth? But when a national magazine spreads such anti-feminist and, frankly, anti-women propaganda you’ve got to wonder about the state of our union.
Of the sentences that make me the most angry: “Thus, every December 6, our own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the Montreal massacre…”
Huh. In every single, thoughtful tribute to the Montreal massacre, one of which I encountered at a downtown Toronto hospital, people spoke out against the violence, which is increasingly dangerous and/or over-exposed in our culture. I doubt that most feminists would blame anyone other than Marc Lepine for the actual massacre, but perhaps the date has come to stand for a more general protest to support the fight to stop violence against women; sort of like how we remember the contribution by our Canadian soldiers by wearing a poppy, we don a ribbon on December 6 so we don’t forget.
And then: “If abortion is, as Kate O’Beirne calls it, feminism “holy grail,” there are more than a few countries that must wish they’d never stumbled upon it. In the seventies, the average Russian woman apparently exercised her “right to choose” no less than seven times. Today, abortions outnumber live births. As a result, Russia is at the start of a demographic death spiral unprecedented in a relatively advanced society not at war.”
Right, so the problems with Russia have nothing to do with a severely oppressed country battling economic and sociological problems. Nothing to do with the lack of food or medicine or access to basic life needs—oh no, it’s because Russian women are having too many abortions. Anyone ask the question as to why other methods of birth control aren’t available, or even assume they just might not be considering the termination rate is so high. No, no, Mr. Steyn, you’re so right, it’s the fault of feminists, that’s what it is. Ridiculous.
And what’s probably the most offense line in the entire, abysmal article: “That’s a Gloria Steinem line, of course. These days Gloria is — what? 83? 112? — and still looks fabulously hot, but, like The Feminism of Doria Gray, it’s her ideology that’s gotten all wrinkled and saggy.”
Wonderful. So he’s actually stooped to the level of criticizing a woman based on both her age and appearance, while at the same time claiming that feminism has conquered all of the problems women need to overcome in the Western world. So glad he’s obviously gotten the point, ahem, and I’m even happier that he decided to write this pap down, my goodness what if men were denied their right to free speech by us abortion-supporting, well educated, happily feminist women? No, that’s right, there are no more battles to fight on that front, none at all, especially considering men like this have obviously challenged themselves to think, act and, well, be feminists. Not.
Oh, you are so right Mark Steyn, “C’mon, gals! Anyone can beat up post-feminist neutered Western males. Why not pick on a target worth the effort?” Why not indeed, sir, why not indeed. Oh, and just because I can: “Shut up Mark Steyn. Shut the hell up while you’re still on a pulpit worth sprouting from.” And that’s 100% Ragdoll.
Oh and just for the record, I heart the Macleans web site; it’s one of my favourites, and my heart broke just a bit when I found this article there. What was Ken Whyte thinking? Can anyone tell me?
Edited to add: I know Steyn in his own misogynist way, was trying to call attention to the struggles of women outside the Western world, and in no way does my criticism of him downplay and/or disagree that women all around the world are in terrible positions because of various different socio, economical and political or even religious reasons, my point here is to simply state that he went about making that argument all wrong.