Sexuality, motherhood, and aging: Marilyn Monroe

Revised June, 2012

Marilyn Monroe, had she lived, would now be in her eighties. Marilyn, aka Norma Jeane Mortenson (Baker) was born on June 1, 1926 in Los Angeles, California, less than a year after Margaret Thatcher was born! I don’t think Thatcher is relevant to Marilyn’s story, but it’s quite a contrast! Marilyn died 50 years ago this year, 2012, (Aug 5, 1962) at her Brentwood, California home. She was 36 years old.

Marilyn didn’t have children of her own, although she did get pregnant, says Lisa Manterfield in ‘Life without baby,’ 2011). She had wanted children, and adopted children too, but her career was also important to her. This was at a time when reliable birth control in the form of ‘the pill’ wasn’t available.

Fast-track ahead, and psychoanalyst Corinne Maier, in her best-seller, ‘No Kids: 40 Good Reasons’ (2009), takes a humorous look at her own life with children, and at the choices people are making today, seeing them as reasonable alternatives (see Doug Saunder’s article, 'I really regret it. I really regret’, 2007, 2009). As Melanie Notkin writes, more women today are choosing to remain childless, as well as seeking alternatives to a situation not of their choosing (see Truth about childless women, 2011).

Hilary Mantel presents her views on powerful, ordinary older women, recalled from her childhood, in the article ‘Women over 50 – the invisible generation,’ 2009). A brief mention of Margaret Thatcher is included. One wonders, though, would Marilyn have aged well?

Ayn Rand wrote ‘Through your most grievous fault’ – a tribute to Marilyn - within two weeks of Marilyn’s death. In it, she says,

“Envy is the only name she could find for the monstrous thing she faced, but it was much worse than envy: it was the profound hatred of life, of success and of all human values, felt by a certain kind of mediocrity--the kind who feels pleasure on hearing about a stranger's misfortune. It was hatred of the good for being the good--hatred of ability, of beauty, of honesty, of earnestness, of achievement and, above all, of human joy” (Marilyn Monroe: Through Your Most Grievous Fault, 1962).

That was very kind of Rand to say all that, but it doesn’t seem very objective. I’m quite sure that Marilyn’s way of life, projecting herself as a sexual, sensual woman, could well have been the reason some people didn’t approve of her. Calling it ‘envy’ just doesn’t seem to catch the significance of any disapproval she experienced. Perhaps Rand was thinking of her own accomplishments, and criticism of them when she spoke. The idea of envy certainly takes away from the more complex reasons people have for being critical of someone’s views or lifestyle.

The song "Candle in the Wind," originally written in 1972 by Elton John and Bernie Taupin, in honour of Marilyn Monroe, is performed by Elton John here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvux60fqNU8 (courtesy of 'libysin', You Tube). Also see tribute to Marilyn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IotIPev5NBY&feature=related (courtesy of Danielle625, You Tube).


Life Without Baby: Marilyn Monroe
By Lisa Manterfield
Lifewithoutbaby.com
Mar 29, 2011
http://lifewithoutbaby.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/marilyn-monroe/

No Kids: 40 Good Reasons Not To Have Children (also published as ‘No Kid 40 Raisons De Ne Pas Avoir Enfant’, 2007)
By Corinne Maier
McClelland & Stewart
2009

On This Day: 5th August 1962: Marilyn Monroe found dead
On this Day, 1950 - 2005
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/5/newsid_2657000/2657289.stm

The Truth About Childless Women
By Melanie Notkin
Huffington Post
July 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanie-notkin/childless-women_b_894535.html

Women over 50 – the invisible generation
By Hilary Mantel
The Guardian
Aug 4, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/04/hilary-mantel-older-women

Marilyn Monroe: Through Your Most Grievous Fault
By Ayn Rand
Capitalism Magazine
July 22, 2003
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3247

'I really regret it. I really regret having children'
By Doug Saunders
Globe and Mail
originally published Sept 2007, last updated Jul 29, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/i-really-regret-it-i-really-regret-having-children/article784948/
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2007_Sept_IReallyRegretHavingChildren.doc


links updated June 2012

Rideau Canal, Kingston: Four members of the Shafia family found dead

In the Globe and Mail recently, an article by Christie Blatchford appeared about Mohammad Shafia, his wife Tooba Mohammed Yahya, and their 18-year-old son, Hamed, who have been arrested for the murder of three of the couple's children as well as Shafia's first wife, Rona Amir Mohammed. The four women were discovered on June 30, 2009, in the family car at the bottom of the Rideau Canal at Kingston, Ontario. The title of Blatchford's column was 'It's no accident that victims were all female,' a reminder to me of the knee-jerk reactions by feminists to the killings committed by Marc Lepine back in 1989 - feminists who could never let anyone forget that it was women he killed, and only women. The public was never given a chance to get rid of these first impressions, which tended to gather more support as time went on, particularly as opposing voices never had much of a chance to get heard. It's always a rousing opportunity, when something can be explained simply, such as in terms of an 'honour killing,' to gain support for a social cause. But even if the death of the eldest teenage victim could be included under this label, 'honour killing,' it is more likely that the circumstances were far more complex than that, and attempting to explain it away by the claim that they were all female is a bit farfetched.

As ordinary members of the public we don't have access to all the details, but fragments that have emerged in the media indicate that this is a genuine piece of multiculturalism at work - two cultures, at least. If the first wife of Mohammad Shafia had wanted a divorce, as reported by Paul Schliesmann (July 24), that could create a dilemma, and not only because the marriage between them had not been acknowledged legally in this country. When she died last month, at midlife, Rona Amir Mohammed might have been looking forward to a new life apart from her family. Rona had served her purpose, for more than 20 years raising the 7 children that Shafia's second wife, Tooba Mohammed Yahya, had given birth to, and might have thought it was time for a change. But how does one accomplish that, when honour, a clash of cultures, and legal problems lead to further difficulties - seemingly impossible difficulties to reconcile in this new country?

Referring to this as an 'honour killing' surely misses out on the complexity of the circumstances, including the part each of the accused had in the planning and carrying out of the deed. I wonder, aside from that, about the role that Sharia's second wife played in the marriage, especially as it turned out the children she and her husband had together were being cared for by his first wife, who lived with them but who in public was known as their cousin. How shocked would we be if it came out that the girls' biological mother knew beforehand that they were to have their lives ended while on their family holiday? Should we be looking at this as a gender issue, as male against female, to the extent that, if any woman got caught up in the middle of it that there was necessarily a good reason, such as her husband sneaking off to have sex with wife number one, as Blatchford suggests might be a plausible reason for discontent? The family was Muslim, as was Marc Lepine, as it happens, although how much traditional Muslim norms influenced this set of circumstances is questionable. Blatchford writes, "what seems to underlie these murders, what appears to be the real bottom-line context, is the belief that men are superior to women," but I don't believe men see themselves as superior in general, any more than women do when they are trying to maintain control of the little worlds they create. Men may see themselves as having the right to take appropriate steps to resolve difficulties within the family, and their rights are often upheld by female members of the family. This tragedy is an indication of the compexity of gendered relations, of the never-to-be-equal aspects of marriage and parenthood, and the generations of family that follow. Besides that, the differences in cultures may unwittingly have contributed towards the family's having arrived at a point of non-resolution, requiring a solution not able to be accounted for in Canadian multicultural values, norms, or through our laws, leaving us no choice but to acknowledge that our world is not as rational as we like to think it is. Once a mistake has been made, or a straying from accepted norms, perhaps it can simply be too difficult to bring things back to normal.

At the close of Christie Blatchford's column, a note was added: "Comments have been disabled. Editor's Note: We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons. We appreciate your understanding." Another piece in the G&M, by Jill Colvin, was open for comments, but why Christie Blatchford was allowed to write from her own narrow-minded perspective and not be open for comments from readers is unexplainable. She added this, about men's superiority: "Canadians don't believe that, do not accept the core belief of many ethnic groups that women aren't equal to men and are less valuable a creature." But Christie, don't you see that people in Canada often show no respect for women unless they're 'like' men - working alongside them, doing things men do, doing it their way, making money, and being as ruthless. They are not above treating with disrespect women who don't fit in with these feminist norms.


It's no accident that victims were all female
Christie Blatchford
Opinions, Globe and Mail
Friday, Jul. 24, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/columnists/christie-blatchford/its-no-accident-that-victims-were-all-female/article1229548/   or http://SAMcPherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_Christie_Blatchford_Its_no_accident.doc

Family held in canal deaths
Andrew Chung Toronto Star
Thursday, Jul 23, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/670598

Parents charged with murder
By Jill Colvin
Globe and MailFriday, Jul. 24, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parents-charged-with-murder/article1229624/
Direct link to article no longer available

Were deaths of 4 women a matter of 'honour'?
Andrew Chung In Kingston, Ont.
Daniel Dale In Toronto
Toronto Star
Jul 24, 2009 04:30 AM
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/671148

Parents, son charged in canal deaths
By Paul Schliesmann, Sun Media
Canoe News
July 24, 2009
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/07/22/10225341-cp.html
or http://habsrus.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=print&thread=14328


Links updated Apr 12, 2012

Resentment towards the privileged: inability to take responsibility

In the New York times article, 'Dangerous Resentment,' Judith Warner takes up the battle of fellow elitist Bridget Kevane, a mother who perceived herself as being unjustly victimized by her local shopping mall, the police, the prosecutor, and women not so privileged as herself. In her own explanation of the events, in Guilty as Charged (Brain, Child 2009), Bridget Kevane closes with these words:

"For feeling constantly torn between so many daily demands, trying to make it all work, but knowing that I sometimes fall short, I am guilty. But of knowingly putting my children in harm’s way by letting them go to the mall alone? Not guilty."

Perhaps this is the crux of the matter, for she didn't simply allow her kids and friends to go to the mall. She drove them there - in her words, to "a safe place". In this magazine for 'thinking mothers', she emphasizes the closeness of her community, how the children "wander to each other’s homes," going "from one house to the other, to the park, or walking around the nearby university." She also mentions her own childhood, telling how she developed her independence in a family of eight siblings altogether. She says, "In many ways, I raised my youngest sister, walking her around the neighborhood, taking her to the local neighborhood store, and more."

Her mother, she says, "believed in the power of allowing her children to gain independence by depending on themselves." But Bridget driving her children to the mall for the afternoon had nothing to do with the manner in which Bridget gained independence as a child, getting familiar with her neighbourhood, making decisions about where to go and when to leave for home.

The mall Bridget drove her children to was not within her local community, and it was not mentioned how far away it was if the children had decided to walk home. It might have been better, if she had wanted to lie down for an hour or two, to let the children go for a walk to the park, or to the corner store for an ice cream, than to drive them outside their local area to a mall so she could take a nap. That way, at least, if the children had had a disagreement, or one felt tired or unwell, they wouldn't have had to disturb her at home to come back to the mall to pick them up.

It's also not rational to assume that because an 11-year-old is capable of babysitting within the confines of their home that they can safely assume responsibility in a public area such as a mall, with a Macys and other stores, a movie theatre, and dining areas. The children were placed in a situation of not being able to make certain decisions, but were entirely dependent on the shopping mall being a 'safe place' for kids.

I know that educated women can sometimes be treated unfairly. But I think that women's upbringing can be what counts against some of them, if they fail to comprehend the lives of other women and the subject matter they have been given the privilege of researching and writing about. Unfortunately, too many women who do so don't know what they're talking about.

Judith Warner, the author of Dangerous Resentment, the NY Times article about mother and professor Bridget Kevane, argues that the incident in no way could be called 'child endangerment,' the charge brought against the mother. I wonder if Judith has a better suggestion, perhaps 'abandonment,' or should the wayward mother simply have been let off if there was no appropriate name for this error in judgement. What is clear, however, is that Judith Warner is out of her depth.

Some of the 259 comments on this article, Dangerous Resentment, have dealt with these issues, and are well worth the read, including how a poor mother in shabby clothes would have been dealt with by the police, and some of the mindless assumptions made by Bridget Kevane, privileged due to her elitist position as a professor to believe that it is her right to let children in her care spend the day alone at the mall. The resentment some of us feel, about women like Kevane, and about Judith Warner, is that they use their position to take advantage of others while avoiding responsibility. In other words, they don't have a clue what this world is all about.

Guilty as Charged
By Bridget Kevane
Brain, Child magazine
July 1, 2009
http://www.brainchildmag.com/essays/summer2009_kevane.asp

Dangerous Resentment
By Judith Warner
NY Times
July 9, 2009
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/dont-hate-her-because-shes-educated/?em

links updated May, 2012

Refusing to Multiply: motherhood or career

The comment below was my response to the article by Leonard Stern, editorial pages editor, Ottawa Citizen, July 3, 20, 2009. He was questioning how to get Canada's citizens to choose parenthood. He says, "The brutal truth is this: The only sure-fire way to ensure women have lots of children is to deny them sexual equality. (Needless to say, this is an approach I’d oppose.)"

My online comment, July 6, 2009:
You mean other than surrogate motherhood? If it's not for money - for profit - what would be the motivation for today's generation of women? I hope that doesn't sound too cynical. But why would women want to give up the respect, the financial gain, the independence, and legitimate additions to their resume rather than provide the service of childbearing within marriage? Bearing and raising children as part of marriage is not enough in today's world to enable women to have their caring, problem-solving, planning, analytical, social, and community involvement skills recognized. Take a look at my website: http://samcpherson.homestead.com/StoryofMyLife.html . So, either start paying what it's worth [for women to give birth], or give mothers the respect they deserve.


Added May 2, 2012

Lately there has been controversy about birth control, and who is responsible for paying for it – the women using it, or their employers and colleges, through their medical insurance plans. Some see the obstinance of some colleges and insurance companies a strategy to get women back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

But is it simply that working women are expected to be responsible for paying for their own oral contraceptive, seeing as they have the money to do so; and college girls, well, it isn’t a necessity for them, is it? Yes, of course, the girls and women can come up with all sorts of reasons why it shouldn’t be their responsibility, for instance, they argue that sometimes, the pill is used for non-reproductive purposes, which they then expand into a general reason why all girls having sex and not wanting to get pregnant should have it paid for too.

But is the difficult of having contraception covered a ploy to have more women pregnant, doing their duty, so to speak, to reproduce another generation. That’s what the article “Refusing to multiply’ is suggesting, that women are reluctant to give up their power and their freedom at work to have children. Yet no one is stopping women from obtaining the pill for purposes of contraception. It isn’t a 50s style argument. It’s just that the women are expected to pay for it themselves out of their pay.

This seems as much to do with sex itself as the issue of contraception. Sandra Fluke received an apology (see Rush Limbaugh apologizes, Mar 3, 2012) after being called a slut, but the fact that this idea was expressed at all is an indication of how the use of contraception can be viewed - not in terms of preventing pregnancy but in terms of having sex not for the purpose of procreation.

A rather odd article in Macleans, ‘You can’t mandate marriage,’ discusses the idea of promoting marriage, but concludes that ‘love’ cannot be mandated, a rather old-fashioned idea by today’s standards, whereby women still appear to want the best mate possible to ensure their own success, if not a good provider for their family.

In ‘Why was I shamed over contraception?’ not all the issues come through, though I suspect that young women, who today often have a great deal of belief in their rights, might feel they don’t need to hear the negative side of taking the morning-after pill, not even the first time they use it.

Finally, to end where I started, I would say that the problem of women not wanting to become mothers, or not even wanting to be married, can’t be resolved if these ways of life aren’t attractive to them, and aren’t rewarding, either financially or for their own self-fulfillment. The state – and society - can try to make it so that women need marriage, and need to have children, but haven’t we already tried that?

If the decision-makers of the families or the workplace – or of feminism or men’s rights groups - lean towards becoming dictators in order to get their own way, not recognizing that not all women are the same, then discord will continue. Until these groups recognize that getting one’s rights usually means that someone else’s are being trampled on, women will continue to demand theirs and make all other women submit to their decision-making, at the expense of society and the future of society.


Birth-Control Pill Helped Boost Women's Wages, New Study Shows
By Stephanie Pappas
Huffington Post
Mar 29, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/birth-control-pill-womens-wages-pay_n_1388064.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=033012&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Refusing to multiply
By Leonard Stern
Ottawa Citizen
July 3, 2009
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Refusing+multiply/1757284/story.html link not available
http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=8c508397-f187-4d02-b053-b12bcbfa9cb0

Rush Limbaugh apologizes to law student over contraception
Philip Elliott Associated Press
Star online
Mar 3, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1140614--rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-law-student-over-contraception-comments

You can’t mandate marriage, even if it’s good for society
By the editors
Macleans magazine
Oct 11, 2011
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/11/you-can%e2%80%99t-mandate-marriage-even-if-it%e2%80%99s-good-for-society/#more-218787

Why was I shamed over contraception?
By Lisa Priest
Globe and Mail
Mar 18, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/ask-a-health-expert/the-patient-navigator/why-was-i-shamed-over-contraception/article2371794/

Links updated May 3, 2012

Cancer victims outrage or ‘sexy’ nepotism in eHealth

What it is exactly that is upsetting members of the public about Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, besides the comments she has made about the issue of the shortage of medical isotopes being "sexy", and is this really the news item we should be focusing on? Is this story upstaging the very real issue of the eHealth system and lucrative contracts being handed out willy nilly?

In the first story, it appears that Lisa Raitt would like to use the shortage of nuclear medicine isotopes, and her ability to do something about it, as a means of advancing her career. There are some incidents of overspending, and what might be perceived as a ‘coldness’ towards the issue of cancer victims’ treatment, and towards their experience as cancer victims and the effect this has on their families. She also made a critical comment about one colleague, Leona Aglukkaq, to another during a private conversation, which was then made public. But does this warrant the loss of her position? Surely this is not the first time a politician has expressed him or herself in an unappealing, cold manner, appearing ambitious beyond belief.

Isn’t this the kind of personal experience a politician (or anyone in a professional position) might go through as they discover more about themselves and the world we live in. The quest for power is not an unusual one. The tendency to use power unwisely is also not that unusual. Many are protected while they make their errors in judgement during their career journey, but it’s also true that some are not. Several accusations, all of a different nature, have been made against Lisa Raitt. I wonder what it is, exactly, they are angry about, or whether this is a real issue at all.

This commotion has come about right on the heels of the eHealth controversy involving Sarah Kramer and her termination package, and Health Minister David Cramer. That story may not be as ‘sexy’ as the one about Lisa Raitt and her attitude towards cancer victims, but there is the matter of the $317,000 severance package, and the lucrative contracts apparently given to Liberal-
friendly firms without taking competitive bids. Sounds pretty sexy to me!


Premier defends Caplan, eHealth board
Toronto Star
June 9, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/647835 (retrieved June 9, 2009)

Ontario fires eHealth boss over spending scandal 'Important step
       to restore public confidence'
Canwest News Service
June 07, 2009
http://www.nationalpost.com:80/news/story.html?id=1672117 (retrieved June 9, 2009)

Cancer victims outraged over Raitt 'sexy' comment
By Murray Brewster
Toronto Star
June 9, 2009 
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/647933 (retrieved June 9, 2009)


Links updated Apr 2012

Comments in general, and Letter to the Editor, Globe and Mail

On May 23 I submitted the following 'Letter to the Editor" (letters@globeandmail.ca) to the Globe and Mail. I will expand on the issue here, however, by adding links to compilations of some of the comments made by readers about the two articles.

In two articles this month, Sarah Boesveld addressed the subject of work, in ‘No shame in self-promotion’ (May 4) and ‘The quiet shame of job success’ (May 11). Ms Boesveld must have a knack for saying the things that get people thinking, as both articles received many worthwhile comments. I am perturbed, however, that in the end, what we are left with is only the article. The original links to the articles do not work, although I did manage to access the articles (minus comments) through checking the columnist’s name and accompanying list of articles. It concerns me that the articles got considerable attention from the public, but none of this is on record at the Globe and Mail online, not for future readers or for researchers. In this sense, I would describe the Comments service offered by G&M as a tension reliever, but not as anything significant for the purpose of knowing what ordinary people actually think. Some of us put in considerable time and effort into making comments that are insightful and informative, based on our life experience and our education. To have only the ‘authoritative’ view available two weeks later is both demeaning and disappointing.

Today, Wed May 27, I decided to submit the letter directly to the Editor, Angus Frame, at aframe@globeandmail.ca . The letter has been submitted and, as you can see, rather than wait any longer for a response from somebody, it is also on my blog.

Sarah Boesveld and readers. ‘No shame in self-promotion’ and comments. Globe and Mail, May 4, 2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_May_NoShameinSelfPromotion.doc

Sarah Boesveld and readers. ‘The quiet shame of job success’ and comments. Globe and Mail, May 11, 2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_May_QuietShameofJobSuccess.doc

Sexuality and ‘The Purity Myth’ by Jessica Valenti

An short excerpt from the book The Purity Myth appeared yesterday on Parentcentral.com on the Toronto Star pages online. The subheading was ‘The author of a new book argues against purity cults’, and that is what Jessica Valenti does, in this promotion of her book. How does such tripe get included in the parents’ section of the Toronto Star? Do parents realize that this author is promoting promiscuity in this piece, and possibly within the entire book if this is any indication of what it’s about?

Approaching this subject in a black-and-white manner, only seeing two perspectives, she leaves readers with the suggestion that purity and virginity are old-fashioned and destructive towards young women’s sense of themselves, sexually. Attempting to turn readers (parents?) against the idea of purity and virginity is not a rational approach to the serious topic of young women’s sexuality. It’s part of it, but it isn’t the main problem. Making virginity the problem suggests to readers that the only alternative is so-called sexual ‘freedom,’ a stance I find damaging for girls/women and to society, maybe more so than the idea that women should remain pure. My response to the piece submitted online follows:

The double standard of gender differences in sexuality

Jessica Valenti has set up two polar opposites in this excerpt, creating a false sense of what the problems are. It's popular now to 'be sexual', as she says, although I wonder how much of the 'being sexual' is really that, for many young women out of touch with their own bodies. Valenti claims that "The sexual double standard is alive and well, and it's irrevocably damaging young women," but the problem actually is that feminists, in their attempt to do away with the double standard, have put women in the position of having to pretend there is no double 'standard', if standard is the right word.

Men's sexuality IS different than women's. Men have a different physical body, different biology, different hormones, while the standard men (and women) are led to believe in is that women are the same as men, sexually, and are, or should be, willing and able to have sex, without a relationship, for the sake of fun and sexual release only. Women are rewarded for perpetuating that tradition.


How 'virginity' is a dangerous idea
Jessica Valenti
Parentcentral.ca (Toronto Star)
Apr 25, 2009
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/article/623495

Discrimination against mentally disabled and developmentally challenged: Orillia

Recently, in March, 2009, while searching the internet for information on the Ontraio Hospital at Orillia, Ontario, I came across a website offering the postcard 'Ontario Hospital or the Orillia Asylum for Idiots'. The site was apparently set up by the Orillia Public Library. I submitted a comment (on March 16, 2009) to the site, http://images.ourontario.ca/orillia/details.asp?ID=20399&p=c, giving my thoughts on this, as follows:

I'm really surprised that a library would resort to using this kind of description - even if it's true that the Ontario Hospital at Orillia once was called the Asylum for Idiots. To have it set up so that people can actually send this card by email is beyond belief. If you had the opportunity, library staff, would you make such postcards available to email if they showed and mentioned 'n----rs'? [Posted by Sue McPherson, 16 Mar 2009 at 16:17].

When I checked the other day, a response had been posted from the editors of the site, but which neglected to address my concerns:

Thank you for your comments Sue. I appreciate your concern regarding derogatory terms in these listings but the fact of the matter is...the name of the hospital was at that time called the Orillia Asylum for Idiots. Bear in mind that this was a the term used back in the 1860.s & 1870s. Of course we don't use such terms today. However, when inputting historical information it is important that we keep the names, titles and terminology given at that period in time. This makes it easier for those doing research and will be looking for something using the official title. Here is some history on the building you might find it interesting. This is a direct passage from the Frost Scrapbook. Couchiching Beach Park was originally called ‘Asylum Point”. The building was originally erected for a hotel by Henry Fraser of Price’s Corners. It was purchased by the Government in 1859 and enlarged and occupied by a “Convalescent Lunatic Asylum” to use the objectionable description of those days. The hospital was under the charge of Dr. John Ardagh. The name was later changed to “Orillia Lunatic Asylum for Chronic Patients”. This was later converted to “Asylum for Idiots” under Dr. Beaton. The Beaton family were very well known in Orillia. The building was then torn down after which the property was purchased by the Town for Couchiching Beach Park. The Price was $10,000.00. The present great institution for defective children was then erected on its present on Lake Simcoe. On an aside. In later years the new building became known as the Huronia Regional Centre or H.R.C. That is what it is called today.

I decided to submit another comment, which I did today, April 24, 2009, to the same site, as follow:

I didn't realize you were 'inputting historical information on the internet' in this manner. I thought it was a joke - a bad one, making fun of people, once again, whose mental condition has so often been something of ridicule in society. The fact of the matter is, that while it may be true the institution was called that (an asylum for idots) it is not so true that it was them who were the idiots. It might just be that the people who put them there, who treated them, and punished them, were the idiots.

I could understand it, to some extent, if you felt threatened by the people you are telling this kind of distortion about, if they were rich, powerful women and men. But they weren't. The patients were often lied about, or punished for not conforming to society, perhaps placed in the mental hospital by their families in order to get rid of them, or sometimes they may have been victims of misunderstandings, of their own emotions, or the emotions of others. I agree, to a large extent, that understanding the circumstances of the historical topic requires an analysis sensitive to its history, but more than that I believe it requires an analysis sensitive to the topic itself, and not just to the historical period. Unfortunately, that was lacking in the original set-up of the postcard online, as you (who by the way still remains anonymous) must realize. I do realize that the Orillia institution was more recently known as the Huronia Regional Centre, from doing an internet search on the subject, and many years ago I worked summers at the Ontario Hospital in Woodstock (later called the Oxford Regional Centre), and knew of the hospital in Orillia. [submitted April 24, 2009, by Sue McPherson].


Added Apr 25, 2012

Since then, several other comments have been made, some concerned about having the truth about the hospital told, some more about the criticism itself.

As it happens, through the comments now on this site, telling the story of the building, one of the main problems has been resolved. If a reputable organization decides to promote its city’s history or offer information for anyone with connections, then using a defamatory title on such a postcard would need to be accompanied by an explanation of how it came to be used and what the building later came to be known as – in other words – the history of the postcard.

Simply posting an image of the postcard, for internet viewers to access and pay a fee to email interested others, without explaining the history, would simply perpetuate the ignorance of viewers as well as, perhaps, receivers of the email postcard which had the title ‘Orillia Asylum of Idiots.’

Strangely, I didn’t receive any acknowledgment of the part I played in raising awareness of this issue, but I do hope it has sunk in. Without an explanation to go with the postcard, displaying it in such a manner suggests other motives than educating readers.

Postcard ‘Orillia Asylum for Idiots’
Orillia Library online images
http://images.ourontario.ca/orillia/details.asp?ID=20399&p=c


Link updated Apr 2012

Montreal massacre article by Timson

Following the April 7, 2009 article on the Montreal Massacre in the Globe and Mail are comments made by readers on many aspects of this event in Canada's history and the impact it and feminism have had on Canada. Particularly relevant in today's society, due to the failing economy, is the fact that there are more middle class double-career families, while other men and women get left out. The more one has, the more one gets.

So some men and women are struggling to meet deadlines for ever-increasing mountains of work, heaped upon their ever-heightening reputations, while other men and women who never got the chance to move ahead may be struggling to pay the bills. Note: the subject of the article is not the main issue of my blog today. Discussion through the comments made on the article is.


Added Apr 25, 2012

The comments made on the Timson article are available to read in the document listed below.

Note: Those who would prefer that their comment not be included in this document please let me know the username and date/time and I will remove it.

I have also included in the list of references two articles by Mark Steyn, the first of which is on the same topic as Timson’s article, and was mentioned by a commenter. The second was a response by Steyn to the comments he received.


Excusing the men who ran away
By Mark Steyn
Mar 5, 2009
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/05/excusing-the-men-who-ran-away/

Montreal massacre: Let's stop this talk of cowards
By Judith Timson
Globe and Mail
Apr 7, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090407.wltimson07art1832/BNStory/lifeMain/home
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article978220.ece/
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2009_Apr_Comments_LetsStopthisTalkCowards.doc

Montreal Massacre website
By Sue McPherson
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/

The silence of the Canadian lambs
By Mark Steyn
Macleans magazine
Mar 26, 2009
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/26/the-silence-of-the-canadian-lambs/


Links updated June 2012

Attitudes towards poverty

This article, the Poverty-Health Link, needs more of a response than simply saying the solution is to "reduce poverty." I have found that living without enough money is extremely stressful, besides not always having the money to pay for healthy-living foods. Stress itself might lead one to seek comfort foods, at least on more occasions than those better off. Giving up - feeling despondent about life - could lead to a poor person to have difficulty finding the effort to exercise, not to mention not having the money to take a taxi to the local swimming pool (a situation I found myself in Colchester, UK. Buses only got as close as several blocks away.) Then, when this despondency is seen by others, it may be mistaken for laziness. Trying to deal with the attitudes of ignorant others is half the battle. It's difficult to get to some medical appointments, when the cost of taxis and parking is sometimes beyond one's means.

Would poor people be best advised to spend their last $10 on healthy food, or keeping that appointment to take care of that health problem? For people not on welfare or not officially disabled, struggling to get by, assistance in transportation costs would be a great idea. Local governments, and any interested group:(1) Try and make health and recreation facilities available to everyone, not just those who have their own transportation, money, and health to access them. (2) Educate public employees, especially those in health services, what it feels like to not have one's needs listened to, especially if one's health is poor. (3) Provide low-cost foods in supermarkets, some labelled 'basic' if you like, and fruits and vegetables with flaws, for those who have no hangups about such things. (4) Recognize that there probably are a lot of people struggling with health and money issues who also have to deal with the general public attitude that being poor means one is stupid and lazy.


The poverty-health link

Editorial
Toronto Star
Feb 10, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/584859

Beyond Workaday Worlds
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2005
http://samcpherson.homestead.comfilesEssaysandWritingBeyondWorkadayWorldsSMcPherson.doc


Links updated Apr 2012

Censorship: The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

This situation seem so contrived! Based on one complaint, by one person, the appropriateness of the book A Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, is to be investigated by the school board. Surely it's not the first time someone has 'complained' about it, or laid a complaint. Most formal complaints to school boards wouldn't receive the attention this book has, nor would the man who laid the complaint usually receive so much attention. Are the complaints procedures that public, rather than internal to the organization? Secretaries in such organizations are usually very good at protecting their bosses. And others in the organization are usually very good at covering up what they want covered up. So I suggest that this complaint, formal or otherwise, was permitted to surface because it was the right time and the right place, and the right person doing the complaining.

In this case, the complainant is a man, and he has three sons for whose lives he obviously takes much responsibiity. There's nothing like an all-male family, one with an absent female presence, to reinforce the main claim of the Handmaid's Tale, published over 20 years ago, that an oppressive gender division was in the works for the future, and that it would be men doing the oppressing. At the same time, attention would be deflected from the idea that it's not really gender that is the problem in the world today, it is class. For the most part, women in the book, The Handmaid's Tale, were sorted according to their social class, and one could probably say that marital status was just as important, just as it is today. Men's lives, in the book, were also inhibited and controlled, although just how much they would have felt their sexual situation intolerable, perhaps dependent on class status, is debatable. Having to have sex with another women lying between his wife's legs just might have appealed to some of these fictional characters, even if they were forced to deny it to conform to society's norms.

Is it denial that leads the main speaker to speak of unecessary brutality and sexism, or do his views, and the fact that he is the speaker, serve a political purpose? Robert Edwards is not a popular person at the current time, not among censorship objectors, lovers of Atwood or, apparently, feminists. But someone has allowed this case to surface. Is it really against feminists' interests to have him speak out so openly against the book? He has managed to distract readers from thinking about class differences and alliances in the book itself, and also to distract them from thinking about social class in society today. Making a book such as this appear unworthy for his sons to read, he surely will endear himself to feminists everywhere, who stand to benefit from the false notion that, because of this book our citizens are more aware of the negative aspects of such patriarchal, controlling attitudes in society.

It's been a long time since I read the book, while a student at university, and at the time I was both impressed and appalled at the suggestions that came through the reading of it. I see that Atwood's fictional storyline displayed some truth, that the control of sexuality would be a large part of domination in society in the future, as it always has, in some way or other, although how much married women would really regret missing out on motherhood in real life is questionable. In our world today, careers for women are considered practically essential, for fulfillment in life and independence. So, while Robert Edwards seems to be taking a stand against feminism and the liberated female writings of Margaret Atwood, I wonder if he is actually doing feminism a favour, and if he will be rewarded for doing his bit.


Kristin Rushowy
TO Star
Atwood novel too brutal, sexist for school: parent
16 Jan 2009
http://www.thestar.com:80/article/571999


Added May, 2012

School panel backs Atwood novel
Debra Black Staff Reporter
TO Star
Feb 12 2009
http://www.thestar.com/article/586331

Remembering tragedies of today and yesteryear: Oshawa and the Montreal Massacre

On this day in 1989, a tragedy occurred in Canada. It has remained controversial, though the voices that question the significance of the Montreal Massacre, as declared by feminists, are often silenced. Feminists have gained the support of many men, and our government leaders, in promoting this event as an act of violence against women. I am writing once again, on this anniversary of the killings at the Polytechnique in Montreal, to draw attention to the fact that there are other perspectives on this tragedy and its significance to both men and women in Canada.

Feminists are still distorting the significance of the killings committed by Marc Lépine in 1989 at the Polytechnique in Montreal. Susan Martinuk is just one, claiming that rather than due to misogyny, the killings were because of lack of love in Marc Lepine's family life (Lack of Love . . 5 Dec. 2008 ). Feminists since Dec 6, 1989, have persisted in the belief that Lepine was a psychopath, a misogynist, a misfit in society, but Martinuk's explanation is no better. Marc Lepine stated what the problem was, in his suicide letter, only nobody was listening. The problem was that he felt he had a right to a career such as engineering, that had traditionally been held for men (Perspectives . . 2005, p.18).

In Oshawa this evening, a candlelight vigil has been planned to remember the women who died in the Montreal Massacre, and now, also, to honor Leslie Kelly, who died as a result of an knife attack on her family in Oshawa last week, on Nov 29th. She was killed by Gino Petralia, the father of one of the young family members who lived with her family and who she was caring for. It would seem appropriate to remember her death in this way, as the annual commemoration on this date, Dec 6, is to remember the lives of women who have died violently at the hands of men, as well as to remember in general that women often are the victims of male violence. However, in the time that has elapsed since the announcement of Leslie Kelly's place in the commemoration (Lost 2 Angels . . Dec 5), Leslie's husband, Rick, has also died. One of their children also died following the attack.

Leslie and Rick Kelly, and three-year old Nathan, have lost their lives in this tragedy. Remembering them will surely become a part of Oshawa's tradition in years to come, more so, perhaps, because this tragedy has moved beyond anticipated proportions. It is no longer about a woman and her child who have died in such violent circumstances. Her husband, the boy's father, has also died, leaving youngsters not only without a mother but without a father, too.

We speak of rights - of the individual and for groups in society. But the quest for rights, and the clash of rights, can leave some with their lives in devastation, and no easy solution in sight.


Lack of love, not misogyny, led to Montreal massacre
By Susan Martinuk
Calgary Herald
December 05, 2008
http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=d3f11d92-a19c-447d-9345-0806f87cfd2b&p=1     retrieved Apr 10, 2012

'Lost 2 angels this week'
By Brett Clarkson and Chris Doucette (Sun Media)
Toronto Sun
Dec 5, 2008
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2008/12/05/7640561-sun.html     Retrieved Dec 6, 2008     

Perspectives on the Montreal Massacre: Canada's Outrage Revisited
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2005
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/articlesandessays/PrspctvsMntrlMsscrSMcPherson.doc   Retrieved Dec 6, 2008

Book Review: Rights: Sociological Perspectives, Lydia Morris (Ed.) Routledge. 2006. 
Reviewed by Sue McPherson http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/BookReviews/BkRvwLMorrisRights.doc     Retrieved Dec 6, 2008

Links updated Apr 2012

Supply and Demand: Is GM really indispensable?

"There's no magical difference between the banks and the auto industry; they're both indispensable" (Premier McGuinty, in Banks get help, but will GM? 13 Nov 2008).

What an odd comment! Let GM concentrate on the maintenance of older cars during these harsh economic times. Maybe they could try and ensure that parts are available, and consumer advice on DIY vehicle improvement. That would be far more valuable a contribution, in my view, than the endless production of new vehicles for consumers who cannot, at this time, afford them, at least some of whom probably feel the necessity of keepng up with the Joneses.

Let's stop this kind of one upmanship, and give GM workers the space to find other ways of contributing to society from their wealth of knowledge, not the least of which will be the probably new discovery to many of them that such loss of identity, income, and security can happen to anyone.

Read the comments following the Toronto Star article if you want to see just how many ordinary citizens oppose the bailing out of GM. And feel free to read my essay, Beyond Workaday Worlds.


Banks get help, but will GM?
By Richard Brennan in Ottawa, Ann Perry in Toronto
Toronto Star
Nov 13, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/article/536036

Beyond Workaday Worlds: Aging, Identity, and the Life Cycle
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2005
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/BeyondWorkadayWorldsSMcPherson.doc



Links updated Apr 24, 2012

Women's rights: breastfeeding on demand?

If this mother is allowing her almost-2-yr-old daughter to be fed on demand, apparently for no other reason than she was "cranky", what kind of message does this give to the toddler, and what will this do to her future development as a human being living in a social world with others, as she grows older.

The article doesn't say whether the two-year-old had inadvertently gone too long without sustenance of any kind, and whether the realization that she had had led the mother to taking such immediate action, or whether the offering of the breast was her usual method of calming a cranky child, as she indicated in this article. When people/children demand their rights, it is often at the risk of the rights of others being taken away from them. Thinking in the short term and the longterm, I question the value to society of this kind of on-demand practice.


Mother fights for right to nurse in pool
By Susan Pigg
Toronto Star online
Nov 12, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/article/535310


Link updated Apr 24, 2012

 

Margaret Atwood and Harper's culture cuts

In response to the question directed towards Margaret Atwood "You talk in your book about the link between debt and sin. Why do we feel shame about financial hardship?" (Globe and Mail, Sept 26. 2008), Atwood says she thinks "the stigma comes from wanting people to think better of you than your actions might actually warrant." It seems to me this is a rather elitist attitude. 

Our society is founded on money, and those without are shamed, whether or not they have done anything to deserve it. If one is a global corporation, of course, or The Arts, then the apparent reasons for 'financial hardship' may not always be seen as being mainly due to their failings. I have nothing against Art and Culture, nor against keeping major corporations in business for the sake of maintaining some stability of economy, but I question Atwood's attitude and (lack of) knowledge of what it's like to be poor and where stigma comes from (other people and society itself, as it happens).

Arts and culture are not self-supporting, as we know. But there is no shame on their part, nor placed upon them, for not being able to earn their own way. Poor people often work like hell, for other people or in their own homes, with little recompense. Yet because they are not home-owners, or do not have the trappings of wealth, they are seen as less worthy. Shame on you, Margaret Atwood, for your attitude!

Atwood talks about the need to put more into technology, yet in another article (CBC, Sept 24, 2008), the controversial subject of funding of the Arts is taken up. But if all those talented workers in Arts and Culture were to experience financial hardship, perhaps some of the really bad attitudes towards the poor would change.

It seem to many people that there are plenty of jobs to go around if one has talent and the ability to do the work (even in Arts and culture, I wouldn't doubt) but the truth is there aren't enough decent jobs for people who deserve them and who could do them well. The threat of Culture cuts demonstrates this. I hope people can expand this line of reasoning to the general population, many of whom also are competent and able, but who may never get to do the work they wanted to do, and in fact may never again find employment.


Actors condemn Harper's culture cuts (see also 1015 comments by readers)
CBC News
September 24, 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2008/09/24/artist-protests.html

Let's hope arts bashing just a pose (see also 38 comments)
By Martin Knelman
Toronto Star
Sep 29, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/507392 link no longer available
http://www.thestar.com/federalelection/article/507392--let-s-hope-arts-bashing-just-a-pose

Margaret Atwood's old-fashioned approach to debt
Sinclair Stewart, TORONTO
Globe and Mail
Sept 26, 2008, Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 31, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article712062.ece


Links updated Apr 24, 2012

Life at the top: Toronto and Hong Kong

The mention in this article of the "$25 million penthouse at One Bloor – which was sold to an unidentified Hong Kong buyer" (Sky's the limit for Four Seasons condo, Sept 21, 2008) reminds me of my grandfather, John L McPherson, who lived in Hong Kong for 30 years and for some time lived in the most privileged area - on 'The Peak', at that time reserved for Europeans, mainly, I believe, not the Chinese. I realize there must have been some hostility about these circumstances, but I have often thought that at least my grandfather was trying to do something beneficial for Hong Kong, spending 30 years there building up the YMCA. I would ask, at this point, in what ways are the buyers of these expensive properties in Toronto planning to make a difference in the lives of the people of Toronto and, more widely, of Ontario.


J. L. McPherson, Hong Kong YMCA: General Secretary 1905-1935

By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/JLMcPhersonHKYMCA.html

Sky's the limit for Four Seasons condo
By Tony Wong, Business reporter
TO Star
Sept 21, 2008
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/503119


Links updated Apr 24, 2012

Times Higher Education's Critique of Wikipedia

University Philosophy lecturer Martin Cohen (also editor of The Philosopher) is critical of Wikipedia, says the UK's Times Higher Education (supplement). I have submitted my own comment to THE, as follows.

I'm sure Wikipedia is no more a dubious source than academia itself. It just happens to be a different source, with overlap here and there. Each of these, if anyone wants to concentrate on them, are political in their agendas and approaches. Having academics write or rewrite Wikipedia articles would do little good, and for the most part would consist of academics using their power to keep other people down. Wikipedia is meant to give ordinary people opportunities to write, as I understand it - though no original research is allowed! This does create a problem, of course, for researchers external to universities, who are fully capable of producing new research but who are not integrated into the academic community and able to have their research given recognition through publication in academic journals. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is no place for such people either. It's good that academia has some competition, even though Wikipedia doesn't provide the entire solution.


Added Apr 24, 2012

My comment didn’t get published by Times Higher. I still stand by what I said, four years later, though my views are not typical of those in the university environment.

As earlier piece I wrote for my blog is on this same topic. See ‘Now that’s power,’ May 11, 2008, also with my recent thoughts on it.


Encyclopaedia Idiotica
By Martin Cohen
THE
28 August 2008
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=403327

Now That’s Power! Wikipedia and Representation of Marc Lepine and the Montreal Massacre
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
May 11, 2008
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2008/05/now-thats-power-wikipedia-and.html


Links updated Apr 24, 2012

Now That’s Power! Wikipedia’s Representation of Marc Lépine and the Montreal Massacre

The following is my request on the Wikipedia Discussion page to have the wording changed in its article on Ecole Polytechnique Massacre. The response I got, see below, suggests that "might is right", I think. Just as women eons ago were considered not worthy of working alongside men, so, apparently, if those whose pens now hold the (al)mighty truth are permitted to have their way, Marc Lepine’s actions may justly be considered 'representative’ of wider societal violence against women simply because they (Wikipedia) say so.

Marc Lepine's actions not representative of all violence against women - may 11, 2008 – comment Sue McPherson suemcp001

The third paragraph of the article mentions some of the interpretations placed on this tragedy, the main one being that it was an ‘antifeminist attack’ and that it was ‘representative of wider societal violence against women.’ The problem is that these killings, done by one man against women he did not know, were not representative of most violence against women, and certainly should never have been made to ‘represent’ them. Most violence against women is committed within a personal relationship, one partner against the other. Other reasons – interpretations – are given in the article, but the real reason, that Marc Lépine killed because he was not permitted to do the engineering program he felt entitled to, because places were being taken up by women, neglected to be mentioned in this paragraph, or anywhere in the article. I have written more about this Wikipedia article and placed it on my website. See list of references.
Filed in Wikipedia discussion on article, Ecole Polytechnique Massacre Suemcp001 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:École_Polytechnique_massacre


The response to my comment, from ‘Bearcat,’ a moderator on Wikipedia, is as follows:Whether you like the general media interpretation or not, discussing and debating it is not Wikipedia's role or responsibility. You can "respond" to our article on your website all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not Wikipedia's job to provide what you want. If you don't like it, write a letter to the editor of The Globe and Mail or the Montreal Gazette and get them to revise their understanding of what happened, because Wikipedia's role is to summarize what established media sources have already published about it. Putting together original research in a new way to question the existing interpretation of history is not only not our job, it's actually against the rules of the site. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Retrieved May 11, 2008, from the Discussion section of the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre.

Added Apr 23, 2012

It is now 4 years later, since this happened, when I tried to have the Wikipedia articles about Marc Lépine and the Montreal Massacre written in a more objective manner, including varied points of view and not simply the main feminist one and the more traditionally accepted viewpoints blaming Lépine’s parents and his own psyche for his determination to kill feminists.

Despite my efforts, I was not able to reach someone who would stand up to the other contributors, or to the biases of the moderators on Wikipedia, who had the authority to make sure the article was constructed properly, according to Wikipedia’s own ideals based on public collaboration.

Over the last 4 years more has been added to the Wikipedia articles, going against the emphatic claim made by ‘Bearcat’ (see comment above) that Wikipedia uses “established” sources - not *interpreting events of that day - simply reporting the facts. Yet as we can see, in the main article about the Montreal Massacre (now called the Ecole Polytechnique massacre), has even referred to Marc Lepine’s mother as having “wondered if the attack was not directed at her, as some would have considered her a feminist since she was a single, working mother.” Lépine’s father has often been given as a reason for the killings, and here, even the mother’s own self-doubt has been used to draw her into the foray. Both of these reasons, and some of the others, seems incomprehensible, especially as Lépine himself gave the reason for the attacks – he had expected he would go to engineering School and take up this male-reserved career, only to discover that the daughters of middle class citizens were now taking places traditionally reserved for men.

Even though I state this clearly in my essays on the Montreal Massacre, and it is what Lépine himself said in his suicide note, the fact that women were taking jobs and university places traditionally held for men was not given as a reason for the killings in the Wikipedia articles, nor any reference has been given to my work or to the website in general on the Montreal Massacre that I began in 2005, while living in England.

The suicide letter is another matter, its very authenticity in question. Despite the event happening over 20 years ago, no image of the original suicide note has ever been published. The only copy available to the public, according to what has been said about it, is the illicit copy leaked to feminist journalist Francine Pelletier one year after the attacks. At some point a translation was made of the original letter, written in French by Lépine, but the name of the translator remains elusive. So does his or her skill. Only 4 years ago, the English translation of the suicide note was still taken as truth, as noted in the Wikipedia articles on that time. But his year, 2012, supposed errors in translation have been reported (see suicide letter, 2012).

The first corrected ‘error’ in the 2012 version (date retrieved), changes the meaning of the sentence written by Lépine. The new version of this sentence makes it take on a negative meaning, as follows: “They are so opportunistic they [do not] neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages.” But the question at this time concerns the authenticity of the letter itself, since its origin is in doubt. How do we know that the suicide letter we have taken as truth is actually the truth and not an interpretation put on it by someone copying out the words to pass onto Ms Pelletier? At what point do we, the public, get to see a real image of the letter, not a transcript, as composed by Marc Lépine (in French) on the morning of the day he died?


École Polytechnique massacre on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89Ecole_Polytechnique_massacre
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012

Marc Lepine on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Lepine
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012

Marc Lépine’s suicide note
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2012_Dec_WikiMarcLepineSuicideNote.doc
Retrieved Apr 22, 2012

Montreal Massacre website
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/index.html


Links updated Apr 23, 2012

British comedian Johnny Vegas accused of crossing the line sexually

Johnny Vegas caused a furor the other day when he apparently went over the line in his stage show, leading to discomfort among the audience and to the woman he invited onto the stage. Bruce Dessau has commented on the behaviour, Evening Standard Apr 29, and part of my response is directed towards this: http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html .

I have some questions of my own, and some thoughts on all this. Were these the actions of a man experiencing the power of his position of authority, and did it go to his head? Did he ‘almost’ go over the edge intentionally - making it a question of poor judgement, or was this unintentional, his omnipotent self taking matters too far? I don’t see that much has come of this. Perhaps the stalwart admonition by Mary O'Hara (Guardian, May 1: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html ), naming it sexual assault, has led to this incident being covered up.

Sexual assault is a serious accusation to make, and the response to such a claim would have to be to either cover it up or deal with it. And who wants to do that? It’s too bad women have to jump in and make claims which on one level seem to be accusations, but on another are actually a way of getting the authorities to back off from investigating further. No one wants to be responsible for Johnny Vegas losing his career, and if feminist interference makes it an either/or situation, then better drop it altogether. Don’t risk people actually giving this situation some real thought. They might actually learn something about masculinity, power, and the grey area of sexuality, for men and for women. It’s not always easy for a woman to say No. Her upbringing, traditional norms, and simply being in a situation where she believes no harm will come to her because so many are watching, will all influence her way of responding to the situation. When she came off stage, finally, and was said to be looking as though she enjoyed the experience, could that have been euphoria at having escaped unharmed, relief that it was over, as well as feelings of excitement that she had been involved in this act on stage with the famous (infamous?) Johnny Vegas?

I wonder if reality television could have had an influence on Johnny’s behaviour, if this incident really did happen, having seen some of the actions other celebrities have engaged in, ‘on stage’ in Big Brother’s house – George Galloway, for one, and some sexual antics of other participants. Where does acting stop and the real person take over? Is access to power an excuse for behaving badly on stage? If Vegas's career is based on taking things to the edge, should some leeway be given to this error in judgement or intentional overstepping of power, if that's what happened? Is making an accusation in a national newspaper also a misuse of power? Should an article doing so be seen as an error in judgement on the part of the journalist or an intentional use of power?


Added Apr 20, 2012


Mary O’Hara did revise her article, changing the title and adding an additional paragraph, as follows:

* Johnny Vegas complained about this article. His solicitors have been in contact with the young woman from the audience who has told them that she went along with the joke willingly and did not feel intimidated, scared or abused during this performance.

My thoughts on this, four years later: When it comes to sexual matters, men’s mistakes in crossing boundaries or using their power to excess is often overlooked or covered up. It’s fairly normal behaviour for men, as they deal with their own sense of masculinity in a world that often denies them. As long as they have power – resources, male support or female support, they can get a second chance, and maybe more than that. It’s problematic that the women who support them the most, seeing their behaviour as nothing more than a storm in a teacup or even simply hilarious, can’t see any farther than that, or refuse to look any deeper. I know I wouldn’t have liked his behaviour, especially if it were done to me.

But this was just a comedy show, not as if it were a colleague or employer putting on a display of macho comedy and expecting admiration from all sides for it. This probably didn’t result in anyone being harassed for speaking out, or losing out on a career, and having to move away.

On the other hand, could the incident be compared to the actions of a medical doctor or a teacher, overstepping the bounds of his profession and sexualizing the doctor/patient (or teacher/student) relationship? As with the Johnny Vegas incident, there was a situation of unequal power, whereby the authority figure had the power to manipulate the other, asking her to put her trust in him while he performed certain actions, for reasons connected to the purpose of the interaction. At what point does the audience member on stage refuse to interact any more, while the eyes of the audience are upon her. Not wanting to make a scene, not wanting to appear naïve or lacking in humour, the girl may simply have waited it out, smiling, pretending it was all just fine. Aren’t there many occasions in life when women do just that – pretend it’s okay, watching to see what the others say or do, not really knowing, not wanting to make a fuss, but just conforming?


Did Johnny Vegas over-step the comedy mark?
By Colin Bostock-Smith
First Post
May 1, 2008
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/32522,features,did-johnny-vegas-overstep-the-comedy-mark not working
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/BostockSmithDidJohnnyVegas.doc

Johnny Vegas: A Gig Too Far?
By Bruce Dessau, Comedy Blog
Evening Standard Blogs
Apr 29, 2008
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2008_Apr_BruceDessauAGigTooFar.doc
See article comments at http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html

Johnny Vegas at the Bloomsbury theatre* (with note added)
originally titled ‘When is Sexual Assault Funny’
By Mary O'Hara
The Guardian
May 1, 2008
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html link not working
with new title, introduction and note added: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/01/gender.comedy


Links updated Apr 20, 2012

Public displays of private matters - Irene Mathyssen and James Moore

I agree that the issue now is whether or not it is appropriate for politicians to be checking out pictures of their girlfriends, half-naked, while at work, or pictures of any women. It is so easy to claim the offensive pics are 'legitimate.' Does the label 'soft porn' not apply if the man is in a relationship with the female posing scantily-clad? Why would the writer of this article consider it sanctimonius to prefer that members of parliament keep their minds focused on official matters being dealt with rather than on pictures of scantily-clad women whoever she was. Does this have something to do with current norms by which sex is seen as right and normal and cool, while anything objecting to time and place might be considered old-fashioned, and unsexy? I'm not sure that the motive of the offending MP, James Moore, is relevant (see question asked by writer of the article). When sex is introduced into the public arena in the workplace, and so easily dismissed as possibly being problematic, the question we must ask is why the writer of an article such as this thinks its okay for an MP to be viewing pictures of scantily-clad women on the job. Is it because it's his right? And if it is his right, what else does he have the right to, while on the job.

Irene Mathyssen, NDP MP, raised this matter after inadvertently seeing the images of a scantily clad woman, full-screen, on Moore's laptop computer during a parliamentary session. She thought afterwards that it would have been better if she had approached him first about this behaviour, which she saw as inappropriate, instead of passing the information along and having it end up in public. I don't know how many women have tried to resolve difficulties personally, only to have the individual back off and refuse to communicate, but it has hapened to me, and in a way that has come to ruin my life. Mathyssen is lucky she has the backing of her organization. It is likely that a woman on her own wouldn't stand a chance of having a man attempt to resolve such a problem otherwise.

Added Apr 2012

The phrase “No sex please, [fill in the blank]” (see Sudbury Star, 2003) is a joke, and using it as the title of a news article makes a joke of the issue being discussed. No sex please … we’re Canadian …we’re British …we’re sweaty …we’re babyboomers … we’re married, are just some of the ways it is used in the news.

It’s so easy for people to say this incident was a non-issue, that it should never have been raised, that to have done so was “obnoxiously sanctimonius” – ie. coming from a sense of superiority or high-mindedness in sexual matters, and in a high-handed manner. However, the MP sitting in a session of parliament with his computer screen set at an angle so it was visible to members seated behind him was an unnecessary distraction, to say the least. More was said about it at the time, leading to the incident being dismissed with a ‘full’ apology from the MP who had brought it to the attention of the House.

And who should the Sudbury Star have apologized to? Certainly not to MP James Moore, whose reputation they protected by making a joke out of the incident. There were no repercussions that we know of - no jobs lost and no new regulations about parliament members’ permitted viewing during parliamentary sessions. Members should have some sense about what behaviours are acceptable and what may not be, in certain places at particular times, such as in the House of Commons during a parliamentary session. There’s a time and place for everything, and it is usually left to the judgement of the parliamentary politicians to determine that, as individuals.

Why Ms Mathyssen responded the way she did, by raising the matter without addressing it in private first, or to someone in authority, I don’t know, but the incident occurred close to the Dec 6 commemoration of the Montreal Massacre, and the hype associated with that can lead to increased sensitivity to women’s issues. Even though Marc Lepine’s acts of violence had nothing to do with intimate relationships, the other side of it - the White Ribbon campaign - suggests that men work together “to stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment” (White Ribbon Campaign, 2012). Sexism is part of that, though often considered to be of milder consequence, if any.

A month or so ago, I was carrying out my routine task of rolling the garbage bin out to be picked up the next day, whereupon I noticed a fairly large picture on the inside of the window of a car, directly in front of me as I reached the sidewalk. It was of a scantily-clad woman, posing in a sexually suggestive manner. There was no information on what it was advertising, and no name or phone number. I don’t know how common this is, but there it was! It only happened once, and I have not seen it since, in fact, I haven’t seen anything remotely similar on a car window before, or since then.

In ‘Tempest in a laptop,’ Moore is said to have made accusations against Mathyssen on his website, claiming,, “This was a baseless personal attack, and I am disappointed she resorted to such an outrageous tactic to score a headline." That’s as bad as the original accusation made by Mathyssen, in its tone and substance. He is accusing her of making the accusation about soft porn on his laptop to get at him personally, for no reason that he can see, except to be able to make headlines in the news. Obviously, he was “rattled,” but was he as rattled as Mathyssen when she decided to make public his apparent display of sexual images?

According to Allan Woods of the Toronto Star, “MPs are protected from legal action for anything that they say in the House based on the principle of parliamentary privilege.” But in this case, Mathyssen repeated her allegations against Moore to reporters afterwards, while Moore also overstepped legal boundaries by placing his defamatory comments onto his website. It seems as though they were both at fault. It wasn’t the law Mathyssen was afraid of, was it, that led her to apologize. Could it have been the threat of loss of career, for speaking out against behaviour that for men might well be seen as normal?

The phrase ‘tempest in a laptop’ is a play on words of the phrase tempest in a teapot, referring to a big fuss over a minor matter, similar in effect to the joking, demeaning title of the article ‘No sex please, we’re Canadian.’

Allan Woods continues to distort the event in his ‘Tempest’ article, writing that while telling reporters about it, “the image of the scantily clad woman she had described to her fellow MPs turned into "soft porn, Playboy-type stuff." Sometimes it takes a while to come up with the right words to best explain the situation. “Scantily-clad” could mean images from the underwear section in the Sears catalogue. But we all know the difference between that and the kind of sexually suggestive images that are implied by the terms "soft porn, Playboy-type stuff." And, by the way, the image stuck on the inside of the window of the vehicle I mentioned outside where I live was of a woman scantily clad, but of the Playboy type, not Sears catalogue. It was small, too – the article of clothing work by the woman in the image - not the picture itself.

Both of these people - Irene Mathyssen and James Moore - made mistakes in judgement, but only one of them had to apologize, coming across as the guilty party. So was this an error on her part in “jumping to conclusions,” as Woods says in his opening sentence, or was her lack of judgement more to do with expecting this kind of behaviour among MPs, or any men in the workplace, to ever end. If it did end, if men stopped looking, what could we surmise from that?

The problem returns again to one of time and place. Where should such behaviours be tolerated, or accepted as humorous, or seen as normal, and when? It then depends on the person him or herself to decide and act accordingly.


No sex please, we're Canadian
Sudbury Star
7 Dec 2007
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=808127&action=svdMsg&&archive=true#threads
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=808127&archive=true

Mathyssen stands by her complaint
By Chip Martin
London Free Press (Sun Media File)
Dec 7, 2007
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/Mathyssenstandsby.doc

NDP MP sorry for 'scantily clad woman' attack
The Canadian Press
CTV
Dec 7, 2007
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20071206/NDP_apology_071207/

Tempest in a laptop 'Porn' furor grips MPs
By Allan Woods
Toronto Star
Dec 6, 2007
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/283086--porn-furor-grips-mps

White Ribbon Campaign
Online site
2012
http://www.whiteribbon.ca/about_us/#1


Links updated Apr 19, 2012