Following is the message I left online for Prime Minister Trudeau on his official government page at https://pm.gc.ca/eng/connect :
I read the PM's statement today about the event at Montreal on Dec 6, 1989. I beg to differ, but the women were not killed simply because they were women. that is now an outdated way of looking at it. It was complicated, and it was about some men having to give up opportunities of the career they dreamed of. Marc Lépine must have been treated badly by women - staff - and feminists to have done what he did.
I know what it's like to not be able to have the career you wanted, because you didn't have enough money, or were too old when you went to university - I was 43 when the killings happened - an undergrad at university. Since then I got my MA and started a PhD, which I did not have enough support for, moneywise. When women go for it, they have to use every resource they can drum up. I was too old to start having to compete with younger women, and could not buy my way into a better position.
I never had a career either, but I did learn to write, and so I write, on Sue's Views on the News. Or at least, I used to write. Now I struggle just to get the healthcare I need, a good part of the time, unsuccessfully. What with women secretaries using their power to make things worse, and doctors probably thinking these women are to be trusted, and seeing no reason to provide care to a 70 year old with no husband, no family nearby to be at appointments with me, that no one is gaining anything worthwhile from, I have been left out. Like Marc Lépine, I have not been treated fairly nor compassionately.
This was not a typical situation of violence against women. Most violence against women happens between a couple who at least know one another and are often married. The killings committed by Marc Lépine were about a man being left behind while feminists prospered.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women
by Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario: https://pm.gc.ca
December 6, 2016
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/12/06/statement-prime-minister-canada-national-day-remembrance-and-action-violence-against
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women:
“Twenty-seven years ago today, 14 young women were murdered at l'École Polytechnique de Montréal simply because they were women.
“On this somber anniversary, let us reflect on what Canadians – women, men, and youth – can do to rid the country and the planet of the scourges of misogyny and gender-based violence.
“The statistics on violence against girls and women are unacceptable. Far too many girls and women, here in Canada and around the world, suffer physical and psychological harm at the hands of others – often people they love and trust.
“On this day – and every day – we recommit ourselves to finding solutions that help prevent future acts of violence. Men and boys are a vital part of the solution to change attitudes and behaviours that allow for this violence to exist. There must be zero tolerance for violence against women, and only with everyone’s support can we build a Canada that is safe for all.
“That is why the Government of Canada is investing in several programs, both in Canada and around the world, to help promote gender equality by supporting education and prevention efforts, as well as helping those who have been targeted by gender-based violence. For example, we will continue to grow and maintain Canada’s network of shelters and transition houses, so no one fleeing domestic violence is left without a place to turn.
“As we mourn today with the families and friends of those bright and talented young women who were victims of that senseless act of hatred, I encourage everyone to think about how their own personal actions matter. Start by joining the conversation online using the hashtag #ActionsMatter. Together we can change minds and stop gender-based violence before it starts.”
Showing posts with label Marc Lepine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marc Lepine. Show all posts
6 December 2016
21 May 2012
Meaning in life following adversity: Melanie Phillips on star-gazing
Introduction
Searching for meaning in life is what humans do. How we are able to have that happen depends on the experiences life sends our way, how we process those experiences, what we attempt to do with them, and the resources and support we bring to the effort or that come our way. Journalist Melanie Phillips has written an article about the lessons that life gives us and how we can make meaning out of adversity if we are only determined enough to overcome it and rebuild our lives. She includes the stories of two Brits, Claire Lomas and Tina Nash, but I suggest that she has done so in a manner that is demeaning towards many other survivors of adversity, and perhaps towards the two couples she is writing about, as their circumstances are so very different.
Claire Lomas was paralyzed from the chest down after being thrown from her horse in 2007. Tina Nash was beaten and blinded in an attack by her boyfriend in 2011.
Ex-boyfriends and motherhood
In ‘The lesson we can all learn,’ about Claire Lomas and Tina Nash, Melanie Phillips seems to be drawing a comparison between their boyfriends. Her telling of the stories of the two women, both of whom were let down by the man in their life, implies that the men’s intentions were similar, and that the consequences of their actions were the same for both – devastation followed by a much-deserved new life without them. About Claire’s former boyfriend she writes:
“After enduring the devastating impact of a boyfriend who had failed to support her when she needed him most after her accident, she married a man who did care for her — as a result of which she managed to gave birth to a baby daughter " (The lesson we can all learn, 2012).
Phillips writes more on the subject of Claire and motherhood:
“Ms Lomas says her life is better in so many ways than before her accident because she now has her husband and child. This ability to find something positive even in such personal catastrophe is nothing less than a profound affirmation of life itself” (The lesson we can all learn, 2012).
Yet clearly Claire and her previous boyfriend had a certain kind of life in mind when they moved into the farmhouse three years before the accident, one that didn’t involve motherhood. From another article in the Mail (The REAL reason, 2012) , it sounds as though Claire wasn’t ready to settle down and become a mother at the time the accident occurred. On the contrary, she was deeply involved in living her independent life, working as a chiropractor and following her horse pursuits. Sadie Nicholas writes:
“She began riding as a toddler, eventually qualifying as a four-star equestrian eventer; the highest status possible and the same level as Zara Phillips. Only the most accomplished riders achieve this. So devoted was Claire to her horses that she spent the majority of her chiropractor’s salary on them, sacrificing holidays to do so” (Real reason, 2012).
Thus, Melanie Phillips’s article goes beyond the pale in criticizing the live-in boyfriend Claire had before the accident, for leaving her at this most vulnerable time in her life when she was thrown from her horse and paralyzed. Going back to the farmhouse afterwards wouldn't have been an option for Claire, as she needed care and support he couldn't provide. Instead, she went to her parents’ home. Five years later, Claire demonstrated the ‘bionic’ robot suit in the London Marathon, 2012, over a period of 16 days.
What Phillips doesn’t seem to recognize is that it wasn't only Claire’s life that was thrown into turmoil – her ex’s was too. I assume he had a job he had to go to, and not as a research scientist with access to resources, and knowledge about what to expect and how to cope. Claire was no longer able to fulfil the expectations (unspoken or otherwise) of the relationship, and neither could he. When something like that happens it is devastating to all concerned, as life has to begin anew, with different goals, often with different friends and relationships.
Tina’s story is horrific, though nothing about her life before that day has been told, except that she had two children, one a teenager, the other a toddler. The attack was committed by her boyfriend, leaving her with injuries and worse yet, blind.
Sometimes women experience such immense tragedies that they are held up as examples to the world of the suffering women endure at the hands of men. Likewise, men capable of such deeds are held up as examples also. Tina Nash is one such woman, while her now ex-boyfriend, Shane Jenkin, is one such man (see Blinded woman, 2012). Their story is entirely different than Claire Lomas’s and her ex-boyfriend, Claire’s paralysis being the result of an accident, not a physical attack.
Tina’s experience of having to endure the emotional scars of a physical attack by someone she was in a relationship with, as well as the resulting blindness, places her experience well within the categories of domestic violence and ‘violence against women.’ This makes her an ideal advocate for these causes (Blinded woman, 2012), and the ex-boyfriend, Shane Jenkins, a perfect example of the kind of violence that concerns feminists most – the kind that is directed by the man towards someone with whom he was in an intimate relationship. Moreover, the violence was not vaguely directed towards women in general, and Jenkins was not distanced from it by using a rifle.
In Canada, the man feminists most love to hate for his violence is Marc Lépine, remembered for having shot and killed 14 women at the Polytechnique in Montreal on Dec 6, 1989, though his passion had been over feminists taking over careers and places in education traditionally held for men, not a relationship gone sour (see ‘Montreal Massacre 1989 – 2009’, 2009.) Lépine died at the scene of the killings, but Shane Jenkins, at his trial, admitted to the crime of ‘grievous bodily harm with intent,’ was given a life sentence, and sent to a secure psychiatric unit for treatment (see Blinded woman, 2012).
Star-gazing
Phillips writes, "For those of us immersed in the raucous arena of politics and public affairs, these two stories [Claire and Tina] surely provided a most salutary counterpoint. It was like looking at the world through the other end of a telescope. Suddenly, that shallow and venal public world shrank into relative insignificance, and the people in it and all their activities seemed puny and irrelevant.”
On the other hand, Claire and Tina had themselves suddenly been cast into the world of politics and public affairs - not necessarily a bad thing, as public support was what they needed if their favourite charities and their lives were to move forward. Being in the public eye and rewarded by it was no less a concern for them at this time than it would have been for Phillips, in her job as journalist.
It’s an error of perspective to view Tina and Claire as somehow being in the ‘real world’ of ordinary life and its practical problems (although at the same time, unique in their ability to deal with adversity), whereas Ms Phillips’s life was only about politics, policies, and theory. It’s hardly an accurate depiction of the way these stories have affected England and the world. Claire and Tina being struck by adversity had an effect on the public, but not due to their being more real, or down-to-earth than most others, or their facing practical problems in an exceptional manner due to personal attributes. For the most part, that has been an image of their lives constructed by their supporters and the media.
Although the women are unique in some ways they aren’t the only people in the world who have had to seek ways of dealing with adversity and find new meaning in their lives. It’s an everyday phenomenon, despite the way Phillips talks about it. There’s no real reason to raise the two to such an elevated status.
Inspirational role models or celebrity-gazing?
“This, instead, is surely what really matters — how we all live our lives, how we cope with the bad times as well as the good, whether we can all similarly find within ourselves such strength of character to overcome the most shattering adversity” (Phillips, The lesson we can all learn, 2012).
I question whether holding up such examples of adversity is the way to give such advice to the general public. In fact, I question whether most people need it (see comments on ‘A life with purpose lasts longer,' 2009).
Phillips writes that “Claire Lomas and Tina Nash . . . are determined instead to be not life’s losers but its winners. Their example is inspiring because they tell us what human nature is capable of achieving — and, therefore, what we, too, might achieve.”
I’m not certain that the stories of these two women can inform us of the heights to which “human nature” can be elevated. Surely, the right circumstances are necessary if this is to happen – the right social, economic, and political environment, as well as the strength of character and commitment of the women. Phillips is making these scenarios appear individualistic – as though the women achieved what they have through their own effort alone.
The conclusion Phillips makes, “therefore, what we, too, might achieve” doesn’t apply unless the person is able to access resources the same way these women could. Sometimes, circumstances fall into place – the right time, the right place, the support one needs. At other times, it’s not there, making it more a matter of luck than individual effort.
One can see how Tina Nash could herself become a valuable resource in the fight against domestic violence, and why she would want this as a goal in her life. Furthermore, one can see why Claire Lomas was just the right person to promote the robot suit and the charity for spinal cord research, and why she would want to work towards raising money for spinal cord research. They are assets for the cause, and their involvement provides them with purpose in their lives, and gives meaning to the adversity they endured. While that is to be applauded, suggesting that the women represent the highest form of human nature, as Phillips does, is an exaggeration or even a misapplication of the term.
But is their example inspiring to most other people, as Ms Phillips suggests? Speaking for myself, I’m not inspired by them in the way that Phillips suggests – “because they tell us what human nature is capable of achieving — and, therefore, what we, too, might achieve.” Of course, just as Phillips herself has been inspired to write about the two women, so have I been inspired to write this in response. Inspiration works in strange ways.
For some readers and onlookers, hearing about either of these two women may have emphasized their own struggles and provided inspiration because of that feeling of shared connection. In fact, Claire herself has said that the person who has impressed her most of all the celebrities who have given their support has been Matt Hampson, paralyzed on the rugby field (Claire Lomas: Matt Hampson, 2012). The mutual interest in sports and helping other young people injured at sports, and the injury itself, would be things they have in common.
For other readers, celebrity-gazing may have been the main aim. If admirers of Claire and Tina are looking only at how each has dealt with adversity, yet have no personal understanding of it, or empathy, then it comes across more as hero worship or celebrity-gazing than any real source of inspiration for themselves, in dealing with adversity in their own lives.
Being close to or feeling a connection to a star where there is none may still provide them with a sense of meaning, being able to show support in some way. We don’t all get the opportunity to engage in activities that shower us with rewards, but providing support to those who already have a great deal can make us feel a part of the total effort – a social connection, and more than that – a connection to someone who has power and whose capabilities knows no bounds.
Sentimentality
There is more that I feel inspired to respond to in this piece by Melanie Phillips, who makes a point of announcing the two women’s achievements by admonishing the experience of ordinary people, saying, “In our sentimentalised culture where so many rush to label themselves victims in order to gain some advantage . . .” .
Phillips isn’t clear about who or what groups in society she is complaining about in this sentence, but it appears to be about other people who have suffered adversity, or perhaps those who have not suffered adversity but simply claim they have, “in order to gain some advantage.”
It’s out of necessity that some people in society have to declare themselves as unable to work, or unable to walk, or name some other disease so that they may claim state benefits so they can survive, though placing a label on their condition is not the same as being a victim. But if they don’t manage to acquire enough to enable them to move forward in their lives, then are they victims? (see Tanni Grey-Thompson warns, 2012)
Some may even claim benefits for what appears to be no good reason, but surely, that’s not who I’m writing about here. And of those who do have purpose, not all of them will have the right capabilities or get the opportunity to learn to use a robot suit or buy one for their own use. Nor will all women’s bad experiences in their marriages be severe enough to lead them to be welcomed as spokespersons for the cause.
Phillips appears to be taking the viewpoint that possibly, some people don’t need the state’s help, but are simply lazy (or as others have labeled them, ‘couch potatoes’), and if they only tried harder, or looked for appropriate work, or ran a marathon, they too would receive favourable publicity enabling them and their charity to celebrate their changed fortune.
In almost every article written about Claire Lomas, someone has commented on her determination and bravery, whereby the social support she has received has been seen as a result of her determination – as ‘deserved’ – not as a cause of it. More likely, the determination and social support are an evolving process, each leading to the other, resulting in the cause growing larger and stronger, and her determination also growing. Social support is known to have that effect. Claire used the bionic suit in to participate in the London marathon, setting her apart from others in the marathon and those who had previously tried it out (see Britain’s bionic man, 2012; Robot Suit Helps Paraplegic, 2011).
Others may be left to struggle with their illness or following tragedy of some sort, with no social support. So who is it really, that are the “sentimentalised” in our culture – people who are left struggling to survive adversity, or the ordinary people and the media, such as Melanie Phillips, who make a point of idealizing people in the public eye? Claire has found purpose in her life, in part at least, wearing the robotic suit, with more support than most people can only imagine in their own lives.
Epiphany or gradual realization: living life with a different purpose
Perhaps Claire experienced an epiphany, discovering through the accident that it was family that mattered most – a loving husband and especially, having a child of her own – affirmation of life itself. Or could it have been the chance to have a robotic suit that was the epiphany?
Rather than always look towards others for inspiration, it makes as much sense or even more for people to look inwardly, towards their own bodies and lives for the inspiration that comes from that. For both Claire Lomas and Tina Nash, their own lives are the source of their inspiration, though granted, each had experienced a crisis situation.
When I read about Claire and Tina, I don’t feel inspired by what they have gone through or how they are reinventing themselves. The reality for me is that, those times I have been inspired by someone’s actions, by how they found purpose in their own life, I have ended up feeling only disappointment. No matter how hard I try, or how much of myself I put into it, the fact is that it’s virtually impossible to achieve as much as the original achievement, or the person behind it that I had admired.
Conclusion
Ms Phillips tells us how we can make meaning out of adversity if we are only determined enough to overcome it and rebuild our lives. This kind of psychologizing can leave people with a sense of defeat if their efforts show few or no good results. An epiphany is an epiphany only in retrospect. Otherwise, it’s just a dream. Not taking no for an answer only works if someone else is there to say yes. No one lives completely alone and independently in society.
It is generous of Melanie Phillips to devote her skills and time to honour these women, but is this the best response to their circumstances, raising them up to the level of celebrities, examples of humanity extraordinaire? Can women who are abused to a lesser extent see themselves in Tina’s place, or was her experience so horrendous that others can only marvel at her fortitude and be thankful it didn’t happen to them? Is Claire just an ordinary mom, or was she an expert horsewoman destined for an esteemed future, and now selected especially to demonstrate the robot suit.
Claire Lomas’s accidental, unintentional fall from a horse and the physical attack on Tina Nash by her boyfriend are part of what make their circumstances clearly distinct from one another. To say they are both examples of adversity to be overcome takes away from the different path each one will take, and from the effort of so many others with what some might see as lesser forms of adversity.
Blinded woman Tina Nash makes domestic violence appeal
By Rob Williams
May 11, 2012
Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/blinded-woman-tina-nash-makes-domestic-violence-appeal-7737380.html
Britain's bionic man: Robot suit allows Olympic torch bearer, 22, to walk again five years after seafront car smash: David Follett
By Daily Mail Reporter
Daily Mail
Apr 19, 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2132059/Britains-bionic-man-Robot-suit-allows-Olympic-torch-bearer-22-walk-again.html
Claire Lomas: Matt Hampson impressed me more than any star
Leicester Mercury
May 19, 2012
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Claire-Lomas-Matt-Hampson-impressed-star/story-16127816-detail/story.html
The lesson we can all learn from the quiet heroism of these two women
By Melanie Phillips
Daily Mail
May 13, 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2143945/Claire-Lomas-Tina-Nash-The-lesson-learn-quiet-heroism-women.html
A life with purpose lasts longer, researchers find
By Carla Wintersgill
Globe and Mail
Jun 18, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/a-life-with-purpose-lasts-longer-researchers-find/article1184477/
Montreal Massacre 1989 - 2009
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Dec 6, 2009
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2009/12/montreal-massacre-1989-2009-selection.html
The REAL reason marathon woman deserves a medal: Let down by her ex when she needed him most... and how she found happiness with her husband
By Sadie Nicholas
Daily Mail
May 13, 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143641/The-REAL-reason-marathon-woman-deserves-medal-Let-ex-needed--happiness-husband.html#ixzz1uklPGlIf
Robot Suit Helps Paraplegic Walk Again: Amanda Boxtel
Thomas Moore, science correspondent
Sky News
Oct 21, 2011
http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/16093536
Tanni Grey-Thompson warns that Paralympic legacy is threatened by cuts
By Patrick Butler, social policy editor
guardian.co.uk
May 20, 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/20/tanni-grey-thompson-paralympics-legacy?CMP=EMCNEWEML1355
Searching for meaning in life is what humans do. How we are able to have that happen depends on the experiences life sends our way, how we process those experiences, what we attempt to do with them, and the resources and support we bring to the effort or that come our way. Journalist Melanie Phillips has written an article about the lessons that life gives us and how we can make meaning out of adversity if we are only determined enough to overcome it and rebuild our lives. She includes the stories of two Brits, Claire Lomas and Tina Nash, but I suggest that she has done so in a manner that is demeaning towards many other survivors of adversity, and perhaps towards the two couples she is writing about, as their circumstances are so very different.
Claire Lomas was paralyzed from the chest down after being thrown from her horse in 2007. Tina Nash was beaten and blinded in an attack by her boyfriend in 2011.
Ex-boyfriends and motherhood
In ‘The lesson we can all learn,’ about Claire Lomas and Tina Nash, Melanie Phillips seems to be drawing a comparison between their boyfriends. Her telling of the stories of the two women, both of whom were let down by the man in their life, implies that the men’s intentions were similar, and that the consequences of their actions were the same for both – devastation followed by a much-deserved new life without them. About Claire’s former boyfriend she writes:
“After enduring the devastating impact of a boyfriend who had failed to support her when she needed him most after her accident, she married a man who did care for her — as a result of which she managed to gave birth to a baby daughter " (The lesson we can all learn, 2012).
Phillips writes more on the subject of Claire and motherhood:
“Ms Lomas says her life is better in so many ways than before her accident because she now has her husband and child. This ability to find something positive even in such personal catastrophe is nothing less than a profound affirmation of life itself” (The lesson we can all learn, 2012).
Yet clearly Claire and her previous boyfriend had a certain kind of life in mind when they moved into the farmhouse three years before the accident, one that didn’t involve motherhood. From another article in the Mail (The REAL reason, 2012) , it sounds as though Claire wasn’t ready to settle down and become a mother at the time the accident occurred. On the contrary, she was deeply involved in living her independent life, working as a chiropractor and following her horse pursuits. Sadie Nicholas writes:
“She began riding as a toddler, eventually qualifying as a four-star equestrian eventer; the highest status possible and the same level as Zara Phillips. Only the most accomplished riders achieve this. So devoted was Claire to her horses that she spent the majority of her chiropractor’s salary on them, sacrificing holidays to do so” (Real reason, 2012).
Thus, Melanie Phillips’s article goes beyond the pale in criticizing the live-in boyfriend Claire had before the accident, for leaving her at this most vulnerable time in her life when she was thrown from her horse and paralyzed. Going back to the farmhouse afterwards wouldn't have been an option for Claire, as she needed care and support he couldn't provide. Instead, she went to her parents’ home. Five years later, Claire demonstrated the ‘bionic’ robot suit in the London Marathon, 2012, over a period of 16 days.
What Phillips doesn’t seem to recognize is that it wasn't only Claire’s life that was thrown into turmoil – her ex’s was too. I assume he had a job he had to go to, and not as a research scientist with access to resources, and knowledge about what to expect and how to cope. Claire was no longer able to fulfil the expectations (unspoken or otherwise) of the relationship, and neither could he. When something like that happens it is devastating to all concerned, as life has to begin anew, with different goals, often with different friends and relationships.
Tina’s story is horrific, though nothing about her life before that day has been told, except that she had two children, one a teenager, the other a toddler. The attack was committed by her boyfriend, leaving her with injuries and worse yet, blind.
Sometimes women experience such immense tragedies that they are held up as examples to the world of the suffering women endure at the hands of men. Likewise, men capable of such deeds are held up as examples also. Tina Nash is one such woman, while her now ex-boyfriend, Shane Jenkin, is one such man (see Blinded woman, 2012). Their story is entirely different than Claire Lomas’s and her ex-boyfriend, Claire’s paralysis being the result of an accident, not a physical attack.
Tina’s experience of having to endure the emotional scars of a physical attack by someone she was in a relationship with, as well as the resulting blindness, places her experience well within the categories of domestic violence and ‘violence against women.’ This makes her an ideal advocate for these causes (Blinded woman, 2012), and the ex-boyfriend, Shane Jenkins, a perfect example of the kind of violence that concerns feminists most – the kind that is directed by the man towards someone with whom he was in an intimate relationship. Moreover, the violence was not vaguely directed towards women in general, and Jenkins was not distanced from it by using a rifle.
In Canada, the man feminists most love to hate for his violence is Marc Lépine, remembered for having shot and killed 14 women at the Polytechnique in Montreal on Dec 6, 1989, though his passion had been over feminists taking over careers and places in education traditionally held for men, not a relationship gone sour (see ‘Montreal Massacre 1989 – 2009’, 2009.) Lépine died at the scene of the killings, but Shane Jenkins, at his trial, admitted to the crime of ‘grievous bodily harm with intent,’ was given a life sentence, and sent to a secure psychiatric unit for treatment (see Blinded woman, 2012).
Star-gazing
Phillips writes, "For those of us immersed in the raucous arena of politics and public affairs, these two stories [Claire and Tina] surely provided a most salutary counterpoint. It was like looking at the world through the other end of a telescope. Suddenly, that shallow and venal public world shrank into relative insignificance, and the people in it and all their activities seemed puny and irrelevant.”
On the other hand, Claire and Tina had themselves suddenly been cast into the world of politics and public affairs - not necessarily a bad thing, as public support was what they needed if their favourite charities and their lives were to move forward. Being in the public eye and rewarded by it was no less a concern for them at this time than it would have been for Phillips, in her job as journalist.
It’s an error of perspective to view Tina and Claire as somehow being in the ‘real world’ of ordinary life and its practical problems (although at the same time, unique in their ability to deal with adversity), whereas Ms Phillips’s life was only about politics, policies, and theory. It’s hardly an accurate depiction of the way these stories have affected England and the world. Claire and Tina being struck by adversity had an effect on the public, but not due to their being more real, or down-to-earth than most others, or their facing practical problems in an exceptional manner due to personal attributes. For the most part, that has been an image of their lives constructed by their supporters and the media.
Although the women are unique in some ways they aren’t the only people in the world who have had to seek ways of dealing with adversity and find new meaning in their lives. It’s an everyday phenomenon, despite the way Phillips talks about it. There’s no real reason to raise the two to such an elevated status.
Inspirational role models or celebrity-gazing?
“This, instead, is surely what really matters — how we all live our lives, how we cope with the bad times as well as the good, whether we can all similarly find within ourselves such strength of character to overcome the most shattering adversity” (Phillips, The lesson we can all learn, 2012).
I question whether holding up such examples of adversity is the way to give such advice to the general public. In fact, I question whether most people need it (see comments on ‘A life with purpose lasts longer,' 2009).
Phillips writes that “Claire Lomas and Tina Nash . . . are determined instead to be not life’s losers but its winners. Their example is inspiring because they tell us what human nature is capable of achieving — and, therefore, what we, too, might achieve.”
I’m not certain that the stories of these two women can inform us of the heights to which “human nature” can be elevated. Surely, the right circumstances are necessary if this is to happen – the right social, economic, and political environment, as well as the strength of character and commitment of the women. Phillips is making these scenarios appear individualistic – as though the women achieved what they have through their own effort alone.
The conclusion Phillips makes, “therefore, what we, too, might achieve” doesn’t apply unless the person is able to access resources the same way these women could. Sometimes, circumstances fall into place – the right time, the right place, the support one needs. At other times, it’s not there, making it more a matter of luck than individual effort.
One can see how Tina Nash could herself become a valuable resource in the fight against domestic violence, and why she would want this as a goal in her life. Furthermore, one can see why Claire Lomas was just the right person to promote the robot suit and the charity for spinal cord research, and why she would want to work towards raising money for spinal cord research. They are assets for the cause, and their involvement provides them with purpose in their lives, and gives meaning to the adversity they endured. While that is to be applauded, suggesting that the women represent the highest form of human nature, as Phillips does, is an exaggeration or even a misapplication of the term.
But is their example inspiring to most other people, as Ms Phillips suggests? Speaking for myself, I’m not inspired by them in the way that Phillips suggests – “because they tell us what human nature is capable of achieving — and, therefore, what we, too, might achieve.” Of course, just as Phillips herself has been inspired to write about the two women, so have I been inspired to write this in response. Inspiration works in strange ways.
For some readers and onlookers, hearing about either of these two women may have emphasized their own struggles and provided inspiration because of that feeling of shared connection. In fact, Claire herself has said that the person who has impressed her most of all the celebrities who have given their support has been Matt Hampson, paralyzed on the rugby field (Claire Lomas: Matt Hampson, 2012). The mutual interest in sports and helping other young people injured at sports, and the injury itself, would be things they have in common.
For other readers, celebrity-gazing may have been the main aim. If admirers of Claire and Tina are looking only at how each has dealt with adversity, yet have no personal understanding of it, or empathy, then it comes across more as hero worship or celebrity-gazing than any real source of inspiration for themselves, in dealing with adversity in their own lives.
Being close to or feeling a connection to a star where there is none may still provide them with a sense of meaning, being able to show support in some way. We don’t all get the opportunity to engage in activities that shower us with rewards, but providing support to those who already have a great deal can make us feel a part of the total effort – a social connection, and more than that – a connection to someone who has power and whose capabilities knows no bounds.
Sentimentality
There is more that I feel inspired to respond to in this piece by Melanie Phillips, who makes a point of announcing the two women’s achievements by admonishing the experience of ordinary people, saying, “In our sentimentalised culture where so many rush to label themselves victims in order to gain some advantage . . .” .
Phillips isn’t clear about who or what groups in society she is complaining about in this sentence, but it appears to be about other people who have suffered adversity, or perhaps those who have not suffered adversity but simply claim they have, “in order to gain some advantage.”
It’s out of necessity that some people in society have to declare themselves as unable to work, or unable to walk, or name some other disease so that they may claim state benefits so they can survive, though placing a label on their condition is not the same as being a victim. But if they don’t manage to acquire enough to enable them to move forward in their lives, then are they victims? (see Tanni Grey-Thompson warns, 2012)
Some may even claim benefits for what appears to be no good reason, but surely, that’s not who I’m writing about here. And of those who do have purpose, not all of them will have the right capabilities or get the opportunity to learn to use a robot suit or buy one for their own use. Nor will all women’s bad experiences in their marriages be severe enough to lead them to be welcomed as spokespersons for the cause.
Phillips appears to be taking the viewpoint that possibly, some people don’t need the state’s help, but are simply lazy (or as others have labeled them, ‘couch potatoes’), and if they only tried harder, or looked for appropriate work, or ran a marathon, they too would receive favourable publicity enabling them and their charity to celebrate their changed fortune.
In almost every article written about Claire Lomas, someone has commented on her determination and bravery, whereby the social support she has received has been seen as a result of her determination – as ‘deserved’ – not as a cause of it. More likely, the determination and social support are an evolving process, each leading to the other, resulting in the cause growing larger and stronger, and her determination also growing. Social support is known to have that effect. Claire used the bionic suit in to participate in the London marathon, setting her apart from others in the marathon and those who had previously tried it out (see Britain’s bionic man, 2012; Robot Suit Helps Paraplegic, 2011).
Others may be left to struggle with their illness or following tragedy of some sort, with no social support. So who is it really, that are the “sentimentalised” in our culture – people who are left struggling to survive adversity, or the ordinary people and the media, such as Melanie Phillips, who make a point of idealizing people in the public eye? Claire has found purpose in her life, in part at least, wearing the robotic suit, with more support than most people can only imagine in their own lives.
Epiphany or gradual realization: living life with a different purpose
Perhaps Claire experienced an epiphany, discovering through the accident that it was family that mattered most – a loving husband and especially, having a child of her own – affirmation of life itself. Or could it have been the chance to have a robotic suit that was the epiphany?
Rather than always look towards others for inspiration, it makes as much sense or even more for people to look inwardly, towards their own bodies and lives for the inspiration that comes from that. For both Claire Lomas and Tina Nash, their own lives are the source of their inspiration, though granted, each had experienced a crisis situation.
When I read about Claire and Tina, I don’t feel inspired by what they have gone through or how they are reinventing themselves. The reality for me is that, those times I have been inspired by someone’s actions, by how they found purpose in their own life, I have ended up feeling only disappointment. No matter how hard I try, or how much of myself I put into it, the fact is that it’s virtually impossible to achieve as much as the original achievement, or the person behind it that I had admired.
Conclusion
Ms Phillips tells us how we can make meaning out of adversity if we are only determined enough to overcome it and rebuild our lives. This kind of psychologizing can leave people with a sense of defeat if their efforts show few or no good results. An epiphany is an epiphany only in retrospect. Otherwise, it’s just a dream. Not taking no for an answer only works if someone else is there to say yes. No one lives completely alone and independently in society.
It is generous of Melanie Phillips to devote her skills and time to honour these women, but is this the best response to their circumstances, raising them up to the level of celebrities, examples of humanity extraordinaire? Can women who are abused to a lesser extent see themselves in Tina’s place, or was her experience so horrendous that others can only marvel at her fortitude and be thankful it didn’t happen to them? Is Claire just an ordinary mom, or was she an expert horsewoman destined for an esteemed future, and now selected especially to demonstrate the robot suit.
Claire Lomas’s accidental, unintentional fall from a horse and the physical attack on Tina Nash by her boyfriend are part of what make their circumstances clearly distinct from one another. To say they are both examples of adversity to be overcome takes away from the different path each one will take, and from the effort of so many others with what some might see as lesser forms of adversity.
Blinded woman Tina Nash makes domestic violence appeal
By Rob Williams
May 11, 2012
Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/blinded-woman-tina-nash-makes-domestic-violence-appeal-7737380.html
Britain's bionic man: Robot suit allows Olympic torch bearer, 22, to walk again five years after seafront car smash: David Follett
By Daily Mail Reporter
Daily Mail
Apr 19, 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2132059/Britains-bionic-man-Robot-suit-allows-Olympic-torch-bearer-22-walk-again.html
Claire Lomas: Matt Hampson impressed me more than any star
Leicester Mercury
May 19, 2012
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Claire-Lomas-Matt-Hampson-impressed-star/story-16127816-detail/story.html
The lesson we can all learn from the quiet heroism of these two women
By Melanie Phillips
Daily Mail
May 13, 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2143945/Claire-Lomas-Tina-Nash-The-lesson-learn-quiet-heroism-women.html
A life with purpose lasts longer, researchers find
By Carla Wintersgill
Globe and Mail
Jun 18, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/a-life-with-purpose-lasts-longer-researchers-find/article1184477/
Montreal Massacre 1989 - 2009
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Dec 6, 2009
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2009/12/montreal-massacre-1989-2009-selection.html
The REAL reason marathon woman deserves a medal: Let down by her ex when she needed him most... and how she found happiness with her husband
By Sadie Nicholas
Daily Mail
May 13, 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143641/The-REAL-reason-marathon-woman-deserves-medal-Let-ex-needed--happiness-husband.html#ixzz1uklPGlIf
Robot Suit Helps Paraplegic Walk Again: Amanda Boxtel
Thomas Moore, science correspondent
Sky News
Oct 21, 2011
http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/16093536
Tanni Grey-Thompson warns that Paralympic legacy is threatened by cuts
By Patrick Butler, social policy editor
guardian.co.uk
May 20, 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/20/tanni-grey-thompson-paralympics-legacy?CMP=EMCNEWEML1355
6 December 2009
Montreal Massacre 1989 - 2009
Revised and edited June, 2012
In the comments section following the article Montreal Massacre Death Cult by Margaret Wente (Globe & Mail, Dec 7, 2009), a commenter asked why it is that violence against women receives special status over violence against everyone else, when women experience less violence than men?" This is a reasonable question, unless you look at it in terms of power – who has it, who doesn’t. When women had little power in their lives, due to marriage and lack of career to give them financial independence, they were often at the mercy of men. Women have become more liberated, however, as the years have gone by, and that no longer holds true. Women in marriages - or out of them - are likely to have as much power - real power, of decision-making, access to resources, etc, as men. The whole social issue of 'violence against women' is a remnant from earlier times.
It’s strange but Marc Lépine, the man who killed 14 women at the Montreal Ecole in 1989 actually represented one of the men who was far less powerful than women. Yet because of the myth of 'violence against women', he got blamed for being the originator of the Montreal Massacre (just as many years ago housewives got blamed when things didn't go right at home).
The Montreal Massacre had nothing to do with domestic violence. The feminists and pseudofeminists involved were the ones who held the power. Marc Lépine didn't have any. Male violence and aggression is often about masculinity, as was Lépine's act of violence. Is it possible that women are more likely to use psychological tactics aggressively so as not to appear aggressive, or masculine. Things are not always as they seem.
Margaret Wente has claimed that the argument that Marc Lépine killed women for daring to pursue their dream implies that all “ordinary” men would also be enraged by seeing women get ahead. Yet, she says, that isn’t so. Here, in her words:
“In the narrative of the Montreal massacre, the students were killed for being feminists – for daring to pursue their dream. That's true, so far as it goes. But this narrative also implies that the rage of Marc Lépine reflected the rage of ordinary men embittered by seeing women get ahead (Montreal Massacre death, 2009).
Wente argues that is simply isn’t the case that all “ordinary” men feel the kind of rage that Lépine did, and the reason is that Lépine was abused by his father, she says, thus had pent-up anger inside against women, the reasoning goes (though not against men). The argument she uses doesn’t explain the circumstances which led Marc Lépine to the Polytechnique that day.
In response, I would suggest that men in general don’t show anger towards the group that is oppressing them, any more than housewives of the fifties did towards their husbands, at being held back. For one thing, it just isn’t permitted in society to express oneself that way. The tendency is for anyone who is being controlled to that extent to accept their situation rather than continually fight it – to push it down, bury it in the subconscious. People don’t use such extreme violence unless there are other things going on at the same time.
Most men today, whether “ordinary” men or the more privileged kind, know that if they want to get ahead they have to be nice to the powerful women in their lives. And maybe that’s something good that has come out of feminism (as long as women today don’t abuse their power as men used to), because I’m sure many men in earlier times never felt they had to be fair or even kind to their spouses. Sometimes people just don’t realize the negative effect of their power and the ways they use it. Sometimes people with that kind of power over material resources sincerely believe they deserve what they have because they are superior.
Wente further argues that “His [Lépine’s] father had a deep contempt for women, and severely abused both the boy and his mother before abandoning them. Mr. Lépine obviously contracted his father's rage. But he no more resembled ordinary men than Robert Pickton does.”
But Marc Lépine is no more like Robert Pickton than Pickton is like most other men. Each is different in their own way. Lépine’s multiple act of violence was not committed against prostitutes, or aboriginal women, or poor women. He killed women in the institution that he saw as doing harm to him and his life, the women who, for him, represented the middle class feminists who took his career goals away from him, and who were destroying society.
So, no, Marc Lépine doesn’t represent all men – or as Wente says, his rage isn’t representative of all men’s. Yet it was Marc Lépine that feminists made the object of all their rage, despite the reason for his justifiable anger being nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with feminism.
This act of violence he committed had nothing to do with the way his father treated him or his mother. It makes more sense to realize that he had been hurt very badly by someone, and not through a personal relationship, but connected to the Polytechnique and its staff and students that had treated him so badly, leaving him with nothing, with no way out, no other options. I have experienced some not-so-pleasant interactions myself, and when one sees students getting admitted to the college who don’t seem to have any special knowledge or credentials, or professors showing favouritism, the unfairness of it can be overwhelming. Without a strong supportive network of friends and community, one doesn’t stand a chance.
Also, Marc Lépine was aware of the impact of feminism on society, whereas many men and women were not. He knew it, but it was one of those things that people don’t like to talk about. People – young men and women – just tried to find a way around it so they could go to university too, and succeed. Yes, Marc Lépine knew it, but he lacked the skills to write about what he knew. No doubt his effort to try to inform others resulted in further frustration. No one knows exactly why circumstances come together they way they do resulting in the kind of behaviour that Marc Lépine exhibited. Margaret Wente would like to blame it on childhood abuse, a typical Freudian viewpoint, and one from pop psychology, but not a perspective that holds up under close examination.
One of students at the Polytechnique at the time was Heidi Rathjen, who later said, “The atmosphere at school was totally egalitarian. It was a wonderful place for women.” (Lessons of the Montreal Massacre, 2009). But the egalitarianism she speaks of was between men and women students of the middle class, not between the daughters of important people in Montreal and young men who had little family influence. I know that she sees people’s helpfulness as “egalitarian” and not that such people tend to be nicer towards those who already have resources of their own. I know she sees getting a job at the funeral home and the bursary that came with it as something she deserved, and thus fair, but it’s not all deserving young women and men who get treated like that.
It can be easy for those in power to distort facts and blame the one with none for not being smart enough, or being too emotional (a tactic often used against women in the past). By discrediting the Marc Lépines of this world, they can get unknowing people on their side – especially young women - willing to see them as lesser human beings, entirely responsible for misfortune endured by women in their relations with men, rather than recognize the damage feminism has caused to society.
Original post, Dec 6, 2009, updated
A selection of articles (see below) on the Montreal Massacre (20 years ago today, Dec 6, 1989) represent just a fraction of the many perspectives on this tragedy. ‘A Slap in the Face’ for Victims, by Ingrid Peritz, emphasizes the importance of the firearms registry, which some feminists see as the one tangible legacy of the Montreal Massacre.
Once again the comments on this article provide much to reflect on, from people interested in this subject of gun control and concerned about the rationale behind it. In Lessons of the Montreal Massacre, by Catherine Porter, the story is told of one of the survivors of the Montreal Massacre, Nathalie Provost, who speaks to us about choice, and taken-for-granted opportunities for fulfilment in life. She and her children are living in a different world than most of us.
The fact that Marc Lépine attempted to get the world to see how feminism has created a wider division in society between those who have and those who do not, seems to be lost on her. If her children, and all children, had to rely on one person’s views only – hers – about the lessons of the Montreal Massacre, the world would be in trouble indeed.
Western News, from the University of Western Ontario, now known as Western, announced its 2009 remembrance ceremonies, one in Engineering, the other at Brescia College to honour the loss of the 14 women killed on Dec 6, 1989 at Montreal, and "the lives of all women that have been lost to gender-based violence" (Montreal Remembrance Ceremony, 2009). I believe they are actually referring to women killed by men they know, mostly, and not the kind of killing Marc Lépine committed that day – meant to be a political act to draw attention to the harm feminism has caused in society.
Marc Lépine lost his life that day also, as did others, though that is never acknowledged by heartless, narrow-minded, politically-oriented feminists. On Dec 6, 1917, the explosion of the SS Mont-Blanc in Halifax Harbour left 2000 dead, injuring thousands of others. This is a sad day of remembrance.
The Montreal Massacre Death Cult, by Margaret Wente, is a request for feminists and Canadians to move on, but in so doing, Wente manages to perpetuate stereotypical myths about Marc Lépine that ensure moving on is not possible.
See also my website about the Montreal Massacre: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/
Lessons of the Montreal Massacre
By Catherine Porter
Toronto Star
Dec 5, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/734817--lessons-of-the-montreal-massacre
Montreal Massacre Death Cult
By Margaret Wente
Globe and Mail
Dec 07, Dec 11, 2009
http://www.tribemagazine.com/board/tribe-main-forum/157931-montreal-massacre-death-cult.html
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/montreal-massacre-death-cult/article1205685/?service=mobile
Montreal Remembrance Ceremony
Western News, p. 13
Dec 3, 2009
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/PDF/WNews_Dec03_09.pdf
‘A Slap in the Face’ for Victims
By Ingrid Peritz
Globe and Mail
Dec 05, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-slap-in-the-face-for-victims/article1390008
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_DecSlapInFaceForVictims.doc
Links updated June, 2012
In the comments section following the article Montreal Massacre Death Cult by Margaret Wente (Globe & Mail, Dec 7, 2009), a commenter asked why it is that violence against women receives special status over violence against everyone else, when women experience less violence than men?" This is a reasonable question, unless you look at it in terms of power – who has it, who doesn’t. When women had little power in their lives, due to marriage and lack of career to give them financial independence, they were often at the mercy of men. Women have become more liberated, however, as the years have gone by, and that no longer holds true. Women in marriages - or out of them - are likely to have as much power - real power, of decision-making, access to resources, etc, as men. The whole social issue of 'violence against women' is a remnant from earlier times.
It’s strange but Marc Lépine, the man who killed 14 women at the Montreal Ecole in 1989 actually represented one of the men who was far less powerful than women. Yet because of the myth of 'violence against women', he got blamed for being the originator of the Montreal Massacre (just as many years ago housewives got blamed when things didn't go right at home).
The Montreal Massacre had nothing to do with domestic violence. The feminists and pseudofeminists involved were the ones who held the power. Marc Lépine didn't have any. Male violence and aggression is often about masculinity, as was Lépine's act of violence. Is it possible that women are more likely to use psychological tactics aggressively so as not to appear aggressive, or masculine. Things are not always as they seem.
Margaret Wente has claimed that the argument that Marc Lépine killed women for daring to pursue their dream implies that all “ordinary” men would also be enraged by seeing women get ahead. Yet, she says, that isn’t so. Here, in her words:
“In the narrative of the Montreal massacre, the students were killed for being feminists – for daring to pursue their dream. That's true, so far as it goes. But this narrative also implies that the rage of Marc Lépine reflected the rage of ordinary men embittered by seeing women get ahead (Montreal Massacre death, 2009).
Wente argues that is simply isn’t the case that all “ordinary” men feel the kind of rage that Lépine did, and the reason is that Lépine was abused by his father, she says, thus had pent-up anger inside against women, the reasoning goes (though not against men). The argument she uses doesn’t explain the circumstances which led Marc Lépine to the Polytechnique that day.
In response, I would suggest that men in general don’t show anger towards the group that is oppressing them, any more than housewives of the fifties did towards their husbands, at being held back. For one thing, it just isn’t permitted in society to express oneself that way. The tendency is for anyone who is being controlled to that extent to accept their situation rather than continually fight it – to push it down, bury it in the subconscious. People don’t use such extreme violence unless there are other things going on at the same time.
Most men today, whether “ordinary” men or the more privileged kind, know that if they want to get ahead they have to be nice to the powerful women in their lives. And maybe that’s something good that has come out of feminism (as long as women today don’t abuse their power as men used to), because I’m sure many men in earlier times never felt they had to be fair or even kind to their spouses. Sometimes people just don’t realize the negative effect of their power and the ways they use it. Sometimes people with that kind of power over material resources sincerely believe they deserve what they have because they are superior.
Wente further argues that “His [Lépine’s] father had a deep contempt for women, and severely abused both the boy and his mother before abandoning them. Mr. Lépine obviously contracted his father's rage. But he no more resembled ordinary men than Robert Pickton does.”
But Marc Lépine is no more like Robert Pickton than Pickton is like most other men. Each is different in their own way. Lépine’s multiple act of violence was not committed against prostitutes, or aboriginal women, or poor women. He killed women in the institution that he saw as doing harm to him and his life, the women who, for him, represented the middle class feminists who took his career goals away from him, and who were destroying society.
So, no, Marc Lépine doesn’t represent all men – or as Wente says, his rage isn’t representative of all men’s. Yet it was Marc Lépine that feminists made the object of all their rage, despite the reason for his justifiable anger being nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with feminism.
This act of violence he committed had nothing to do with the way his father treated him or his mother. It makes more sense to realize that he had been hurt very badly by someone, and not through a personal relationship, but connected to the Polytechnique and its staff and students that had treated him so badly, leaving him with nothing, with no way out, no other options. I have experienced some not-so-pleasant interactions myself, and when one sees students getting admitted to the college who don’t seem to have any special knowledge or credentials, or professors showing favouritism, the unfairness of it can be overwhelming. Without a strong supportive network of friends and community, one doesn’t stand a chance.
Also, Marc Lépine was aware of the impact of feminism on society, whereas many men and women were not. He knew it, but it was one of those things that people don’t like to talk about. People – young men and women – just tried to find a way around it so they could go to university too, and succeed. Yes, Marc Lépine knew it, but he lacked the skills to write about what he knew. No doubt his effort to try to inform others resulted in further frustration. No one knows exactly why circumstances come together they way they do resulting in the kind of behaviour that Marc Lépine exhibited. Margaret Wente would like to blame it on childhood abuse, a typical Freudian viewpoint, and one from pop psychology, but not a perspective that holds up under close examination.
One of students at the Polytechnique at the time was Heidi Rathjen, who later said, “The atmosphere at school was totally egalitarian. It was a wonderful place for women.” (Lessons of the Montreal Massacre, 2009). But the egalitarianism she speaks of was between men and women students of the middle class, not between the daughters of important people in Montreal and young men who had little family influence. I know that she sees people’s helpfulness as “egalitarian” and not that such people tend to be nicer towards those who already have resources of their own. I know she sees getting a job at the funeral home and the bursary that came with it as something she deserved, and thus fair, but it’s not all deserving young women and men who get treated like that.
It can be easy for those in power to distort facts and blame the one with none for not being smart enough, or being too emotional (a tactic often used against women in the past). By discrediting the Marc Lépines of this world, they can get unknowing people on their side – especially young women - willing to see them as lesser human beings, entirely responsible for misfortune endured by women in their relations with men, rather than recognize the damage feminism has caused to society.
Original post, Dec 6, 2009, updated
A selection of articles (see below) on the Montreal Massacre (20 years ago today, Dec 6, 1989) represent just a fraction of the many perspectives on this tragedy. ‘A Slap in the Face’ for Victims, by Ingrid Peritz, emphasizes the importance of the firearms registry, which some feminists see as the one tangible legacy of the Montreal Massacre.
Once again the comments on this article provide much to reflect on, from people interested in this subject of gun control and concerned about the rationale behind it. In Lessons of the Montreal Massacre, by Catherine Porter, the story is told of one of the survivors of the Montreal Massacre, Nathalie Provost, who speaks to us about choice, and taken-for-granted opportunities for fulfilment in life. She and her children are living in a different world than most of us.
The fact that Marc Lépine attempted to get the world to see how feminism has created a wider division in society between those who have and those who do not, seems to be lost on her. If her children, and all children, had to rely on one person’s views only – hers – about the lessons of the Montreal Massacre, the world would be in trouble indeed.
Western News, from the University of Western Ontario, now known as Western, announced its 2009 remembrance ceremonies, one in Engineering, the other at Brescia College to honour the loss of the 14 women killed on Dec 6, 1989 at Montreal, and "the lives of all women that have been lost to gender-based violence" (Montreal Remembrance Ceremony, 2009). I believe they are actually referring to women killed by men they know, mostly, and not the kind of killing Marc Lépine committed that day – meant to be a political act to draw attention to the harm feminism has caused in society.
Marc Lépine lost his life that day also, as did others, though that is never acknowledged by heartless, narrow-minded, politically-oriented feminists. On Dec 6, 1917, the explosion of the SS Mont-Blanc in Halifax Harbour left 2000 dead, injuring thousands of others. This is a sad day of remembrance.
The Montreal Massacre Death Cult, by Margaret Wente, is a request for feminists and Canadians to move on, but in so doing, Wente manages to perpetuate stereotypical myths about Marc Lépine that ensure moving on is not possible.
See also my website about the Montreal Massacre: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/
Lessons of the Montreal Massacre
By Catherine Porter
Toronto Star
Dec 5, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/734817--lessons-of-the-montreal-massacre
Montreal Massacre Death Cult
By Margaret Wente
Globe and Mail
Dec 07, Dec 11, 2009
http://www.tribemagazine.com/board/tribe-main-forum/157931-montreal-massacre-death-cult.html
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/montreal-massacre-death-cult/article1205685/?service=mobile
Montreal Remembrance Ceremony
Western News, p. 13
Dec 3, 2009
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/PDF/WNews_Dec03_09.pdf
‘A Slap in the Face’ for Victims
By Ingrid Peritz
Globe and Mail
Dec 05, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-slap-in-the-face-for-victims/article1390008
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_DecSlapInFaceForVictims.doc
Links updated June, 2012
19 December 2005
Terrorism and Murder in Canada and Britain: why no public investigations?
Not all suicide bombers are the same, but we did have such people in England, their roots being in Islam. That they were British citizens made matters more difficult to understand, than if they were from outside Britain. I can’t say if they all felt the same about it, but one possibility was that some of them didn’t feel a part of Britain, their values being different - their attitudes towards women, sexual freedom, etc., and on the other side, the attitudes of the British towards them - excluding them from participating fully. Briefly there had been mention of referring to them as Asian-Brits (as they would in the US use the term African-American to combine two nationalites or racial identities) but I haven’t heard more about it. I gather they found meaning in their religion.
Recently a young black man, Anthony Walker, was murdered - an axe landed in his head, in England. It was stated repeatedly by his family and the police that he was killed because of the colour of his skin, in which case I would suggest that anyone wearing black had better be extremely careful in that neighbourhood, since there are possibly quite a few people around who don’t like the colour black, or dark brown, and as we can see, reactions can be fierce.
There seems to be little effort to get to root causes, and while there may be little connection between suicide bombers and that individual killing, in each case, as far as I can see, no investigations were made into the real reasons these situations came about. In the first, re the suicide bombers, the police have announced that no investigation will be carried out into how it all happened. In the second, the fact that this young black man ‘had it all,’ from the appearance of things, including a white girlfriend, weren’t seen as relevant. It was just the colour of his skin that counted. So as long as things continue in this manner, with no investigations into the root causes, nothing will change.
Someone has asked, Why aren’t they being listened to before such things happen? Well, the same thing happened with Marc Lepine, who has been called by at least one person as Canada’s first Muslim terrorist. But it was a class issue too, and Lepine had his ambitions thwarted probably because he didn’t have the right support (proper family background, for one thing). There was nowhere for him to turn. If he had been middle class he probably would have had more support. Also, he was trained in the sciences and wouldn’t have had an understanding of the social forces that acted against him. He held Muslim ideals, but women of the day (1989) were just seeking out their own power (to decide over abortion for instance), so it was probably difficult for him to meet the traditional girl of his dreams. Lepine didn’t matter because there are likely quite a few like him, seeking to go farther in life, career-wise. That he was so frustrated that he decided to shoot women in the engineering school in Montreal is exceptional, but if he really were that capable, and he knew it, and he wanted to get his point across, how could he have done it. The police there prematurely ended their investigation too.
People and governments wonder how to stop terrorism and seemingly senseless murders. Preventing investigations from taking place is hardly the way to go about it. That should be a first step. Making that knowledge available to ordinary people is a second step. Encouraging them to use more up-to-date ways of interpreting such knowledge, so they are better able to comprehend the world around them, would be a third. Instead of relying on the government to stop terrorism and horrendous acts of violence, the people could do more on their part, not by using force but by beginning with the fundamental issues, which seem not to be understood.
Recently a young black man, Anthony Walker, was murdered - an axe landed in his head, in England. It was stated repeatedly by his family and the police that he was killed because of the colour of his skin, in which case I would suggest that anyone wearing black had better be extremely careful in that neighbourhood, since there are possibly quite a few people around who don’t like the colour black, or dark brown, and as we can see, reactions can be fierce.
There seems to be little effort to get to root causes, and while there may be little connection between suicide bombers and that individual killing, in each case, as far as I can see, no investigations were made into the real reasons these situations came about. In the first, re the suicide bombers, the police have announced that no investigation will be carried out into how it all happened. In the second, the fact that this young black man ‘had it all,’ from the appearance of things, including a white girlfriend, weren’t seen as relevant. It was just the colour of his skin that counted. So as long as things continue in this manner, with no investigations into the root causes, nothing will change.
Someone has asked, Why aren’t they being listened to before such things happen? Well, the same thing happened with Marc Lepine, who has been called by at least one person as Canada’s first Muslim terrorist. But it was a class issue too, and Lepine had his ambitions thwarted probably because he didn’t have the right support (proper family background, for one thing). There was nowhere for him to turn. If he had been middle class he probably would have had more support. Also, he was trained in the sciences and wouldn’t have had an understanding of the social forces that acted against him. He held Muslim ideals, but women of the day (1989) were just seeking out their own power (to decide over abortion for instance), so it was probably difficult for him to meet the traditional girl of his dreams. Lepine didn’t matter because there are likely quite a few like him, seeking to go farther in life, career-wise. That he was so frustrated that he decided to shoot women in the engineering school in Montreal is exceptional, but if he really were that capable, and he knew it, and he wanted to get his point across, how could he have done it. The police there prematurely ended their investigation too.
People and governments wonder how to stop terrorism and seemingly senseless murders. Preventing investigations from taking place is hardly the way to go about it. That should be a first step. Making that knowledge available to ordinary people is a second step. Encouraging them to use more up-to-date ways of interpreting such knowledge, so they are better able to comprehend the world around them, would be a third. Instead of relying on the government to stop terrorism and horrendous acts of violence, the people could do more on their part, not by using force but by beginning with the fundamental issues, which seem not to be understood.
5 December 2005
Montreal Massacre -- more than violence against women
On December 6, 1989, a 25 year-old man walked into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and shot to death 14 women, wounding 13 others. The Montreal Massacre was an appalling tragedy which has now taken its place in Canadian history, remembered mainly as an ultimate example of male violence against women. The lives of the women who died are remembered with sadness and pride. The realization of this injustice, that ruined the lives and promise these women had to offer that can never be recovered, will not go away.The gunman, Marc Lepine, a Quebecker born Gamil Gharbi in 1964, is not thought of by people so much any more, old memories portraying him as inhuman, a representation that is met by many with revulsion.
The reasons behind this atrocious event - including Marc Lepine’s life - have never been adequately explored. Lepine saw himself as a political activist, but unable to resolve his own personal dilemma or what he saw as political wrongs in society. Instead of accepting his fate or leaving quietly he chose to use a violent means of making a political statement-by killing feminists-before ending his own life.
Responses to his actions for the most part focused on apparent weaknesses in his personality and academic worth, together with the abuse he endured in childhood, to back up the idea that within himself, Marc Lepine was less than a human being. Against this image of monstrosity, the memory of the 14 women he killed have been idealized, as representing innocence and feminist breaking of tradition, for instance, or as women killed simply because they were women. The 14 women killed included 12 engineering students, a student in nursing, and a data processing worker at the Ecole Polytechnique.
Soon after the shootings, Lepine was labelled a mass murderer, although in one crucial respect his actions did not fit the stereotype. Rather than selecting a target group on the basis of religion, race, social class or ethnic group, he selected his victims on the basis of gender. Consequently,the fact that women were the victims became the focus of attention, leading to violence against women being seen as the main social issue ensuing from the tragedy.
However, exploring the significance of this tragedy must go beyond looking at it as being mainly about violence against women. The wider social significance of the Montreal Massacre relates to ideas about work, relationships, and the possibility of fulfilment of human potential. Alongside these, consider the influence of race and ethnicity, and of class differences, on opportunities for participation and fulfilment in today's world.
Lepine's victims were Genevieve Bergeron, aged 21; Helene Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31; Maryse Leclair, 23; Annie St.-Arneault, 23; Michele Richard, 21; Maryse Leclair, 25; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 28; and Annie Turcotte, aged 21. Yet remaining fixed on the fact that it was women who were killed takes away from the social significance of the shootings at l'Ecole that day.
Memorials that commemorate the lives of the women who died are just one part of the multiple strands of memories of all those wounded within themselves by this tragedy. If something positive is to come out of the violence that Marc Lepine committed, it would involve a rethinking of how Lepine’s life is remembered, how the women are remembered, and recognition of changes brought about by feminism and its impact on the lives of the women and men of today. Now that time has passed, perhaps there will be a willingness to reconsider the lives of others involved, and how commemorations can be enhanced to reflect the lives of all those whose lives changed that day.
This article was originally published Dec 1st, 2005 in Western News: Comments. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
http://communications.uwo.ca/com/western_news/opinions/montreal_massacre_--_more_than_violence_against_women_20051201436450/
To read more:
Honouring victims of violence
Dowling, Karmen
Western News, UWO
Dec 5, 2005
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/story.html?listing_id=20358 broken link
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/stories/2005/December/honouring_victims_of_violence_flag_at_halfmast.html
Perspectives on the MontrealMassacre: Canada's Outrage Revisited
By Sue McPherson
Montreal Massacre website
2005
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/articlesandessays/PrspctvsMntrlMsscrSMcPherson.doc
Links updated April 16, 2012
The reasons behind this atrocious event - including Marc Lepine’s life - have never been adequately explored. Lepine saw himself as a political activist, but unable to resolve his own personal dilemma or what he saw as political wrongs in society. Instead of accepting his fate or leaving quietly he chose to use a violent means of making a political statement-by killing feminists-before ending his own life.
Responses to his actions for the most part focused on apparent weaknesses in his personality and academic worth, together with the abuse he endured in childhood, to back up the idea that within himself, Marc Lepine was less than a human being. Against this image of monstrosity, the memory of the 14 women he killed have been idealized, as representing innocence and feminist breaking of tradition, for instance, or as women killed simply because they were women. The 14 women killed included 12 engineering students, a student in nursing, and a data processing worker at the Ecole Polytechnique.
Soon after the shootings, Lepine was labelled a mass murderer, although in one crucial respect his actions did not fit the stereotype. Rather than selecting a target group on the basis of religion, race, social class or ethnic group, he selected his victims on the basis of gender. Consequently,the fact that women were the victims became the focus of attention, leading to violence against women being seen as the main social issue ensuing from the tragedy.
However, exploring the significance of this tragedy must go beyond looking at it as being mainly about violence against women. The wider social significance of the Montreal Massacre relates to ideas about work, relationships, and the possibility of fulfilment of human potential. Alongside these, consider the influence of race and ethnicity, and of class differences, on opportunities for participation and fulfilment in today's world.
Lepine's victims were Genevieve Bergeron, aged 21; Helene Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31; Maryse Leclair, 23; Annie St.-Arneault, 23; Michele Richard, 21; Maryse Leclair, 25; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 28; and Annie Turcotte, aged 21. Yet remaining fixed on the fact that it was women who were killed takes away from the social significance of the shootings at l'Ecole that day.
Memorials that commemorate the lives of the women who died are just one part of the multiple strands of memories of all those wounded within themselves by this tragedy. If something positive is to come out of the violence that Marc Lepine committed, it would involve a rethinking of how Lepine’s life is remembered, how the women are remembered, and recognition of changes brought about by feminism and its impact on the lives of the women and men of today. Now that time has passed, perhaps there will be a willingness to reconsider the lives of others involved, and how commemorations can be enhanced to reflect the lives of all those whose lives changed that day.
This article was originally published Dec 1st, 2005 in Western News: Comments. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
http://communications.uwo.ca/com/western_news/opinions/montreal_massacre_--_more_than_violence_against_women_20051201436450/
To read more:
Honouring victims of violence
Dowling, Karmen
Western News, UWO
Dec 5, 2005
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/story.html?listing_id=20358 broken link
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/stories/2005/December/honouring_victims_of_violence_flag_at_halfmast.html
Perspectives on the MontrealMassacre: Canada's Outrage Revisited
By Sue McPherson
Montreal Massacre website
2005
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/articlesandessays/PrspctvsMntrlMsscrSMcPherson.doc
Links updated April 16, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)