Monday, 12 December 2011

An Open Reply To Christie Blanchford

Dear Christie,

You wrote a nice little opinion piece on Saturday. It seems quite popular because still today you're trending on the top of the National Post site, and haven't written anything since.

It would be my hope that you're not paid to write ever again.

It's clear while reading this that you've gone out of your way to ensure I'm not able to call you a homophobic bigot. You mention on several occasions that you don't have anything against gay men as a group. I'm impressed by your efforts to ensure that no one misinterpret your "Ick!" feeling as homophobia by proclaiming your adoration for gays "as a group".  I hope I'm not mischaracterizing your reaction to the young males hugging. I just figured "Ick!" is close enough to "Mortified and appalled".

I'm not entirely sure what it was that you were intending to connect between the dots of boys hugging each other, and the TDSB declining to hand out UFC propaganda, or I may just find the entirety of the logic in this article incomprehensible. This might be my age, or left leaning moral compass, or you might not make any sense.

[Sidenote: How did you get that 5th paragraph past your editor? That was about as big a cluster fuck as I've ever seen. I'm assuming you meant UFC in the 6th paragraph as well, because otherwise I have no way of knowing what the hell you're talking about here. ]

As best I can tell, you have some form of personal bias for men who are more traditional, at least in the sense of their lack of what's traditionally called the "feminine" side. I'd argue that perhaps these masculine and feminine sides are not so much a form of basic nature but of a millenia's worth of socializing. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse you of having the completely archaic view that men are the strong, tough, controlling and capable counterparts to their weak, subservient female partners of marginal value. To do so would be an over simplification of your already simplified ideals.

What it appears you'd like most is for your traditional expectations of a man to be met. Essentially trying to ensure that we fit into some kind of man box.

I'm also curious - how far should we take this expectation of a man? For example, if a 12 year old has a particularly "girlish" voice should he be ridiculed in school? I'm assuming you wouldn't have him beaten (we save that for the bullies, as they are so rarely victims of violence elsewhere) but we'd still mock him right? No? Is the expectation that the child make an effort to speak in a lower voice? Would this child just end up in the "loser pile" of the far right thinking "winners and losers" society? Clearly, some men or boys will not be born into the box you desire them to fit into. What should we do with them, exactly? May I suggest reeducation camps? I know we wouldn't want tax-payer dollars going to gay positive education, but surely we could use some for classes to get these sissies to man-up.

This article encourages violence and further perpetuates the traditional gender roles that have restricted both sexes. I'd like to see your article next week on the Toronto woman's inability to fit the traditional model. In fact, I'm personally displeased with you - specifically the haircut shown in your picture. This is not the appropriate length of a woman's hair. I personally feel like far too many women are employed and would be better served to be at home cooking, especially during the holiday season.

All jokes aside Mrs. Blatchford, the world has changed. The generation in schools now were born in the 90s where most of their parents had already figured out that both sexes were equal. In fact, being a child of the late 80s early 90s in Toronto I like to think I was part of one of the first generations to go through the school system recognizing that sex, race, or orientation should have no influence on the person you turn out to be. I'd like to think that the world of under 40s is increasingly disinterested in fitting into whatever box is set out in front of them and is instead developing a more well rounded and emotionally mature group mentality.

This article is the equivalent of an over aged white decrying the blacks being allowed in the same store as them. The rest of the city has moved on, even if you, The National Post, or other such dinosaurs have not.


Charles Hollyer, OPEM
Openly Proud Effeminate Male

No comments:

Post a Comment