Stop apologizing ‘on behalf of all men’

> Don’t sympathize, just be better

Cazzy Lewchuk
Opinions Editor

 

very time we hear of yet another

horrible misogynistic action
perpetuated by a guy or group of guys,
so many of us well-meaning dudes
say the same thing: “On behalf of all
men. I’m so sorry about everything
we do.” We say these things because
we genuinely do stand in solidarity
with those frustrated by all of the crap
perpetuated byour gender. We respect
women, see them as equals, and try
our hardest to combat the patriarchal
system that dominates our society.

But listen, guys: Literally no woman

wants to hear your oh-so-righteous
apology about how you don’t agree
with obviously terrible actions. They
know that these things are bad, and if
they trust you, they know you feel the
same. They don’t want apologies, they
want action and progressive discussion.

Don’t talk about how you think it’s bad
when men rape women. Talk about
ways to challenge rape culture, such as
believing victims, and holding rapists
accountable. You should absolutely be
open about things you consider not to
be okay, but you should also be showing
it in your actions and not just be talking
about it when everyone else is.

I know how it feels. Whenever
the media highlights an on-going,
all-encompassing issue—that just
happens to be discussed more because
of a news story this week—I’'m pretty
frustrated by people of my gender,
too. Every day I wish I lived in a world
where men treated women better, and
that 50 per cent of the population were
not considered second-class citizens.

When someone refuses to believe
these issues are a problem, criticizes the
feminism movement, or treats a female
ina lesser way, it absolutely should make
you angry and wonder where it all went
wrong. I have definitely felt struggles

on how to process so many men being
such horrible people, and the internal
agony of guiltily benefitting from the
patriarchy. I will never know what it
is like to live as a woman, or face the
many issues that I am fortunate not to
deal with. I can speak out against them
and listen to others, but I can never
really know the struggle first-hand.
Above all, condemning sexism means
condemning yourself. While I believe
most men who advocate for feminism
really do value the cause, it can be easy
to become a fake ally, or at least to be
seen as one. Ifyou believe in something,
it means your actions and morals reflect
that; your words aren't enough. Indeed,
words mean nothing if your actions or
statements in the past contrast them.
If you've behaved wrongly in the past
or said things that you regret, it’s up to
you to take accountability for yourself.
Let’s be honest: Every man knows he
has done things to women in the past
that he shouldn’t have, whether it be a

Why Hillary isn't the shoo-1n
as the lesser of two evils

> Happy not to be an American

Eric Wilkins
Contributor

 

B’ the time this article hits the stands,
the next president will have been
selected. Even then, when we know who's
won, | still won't be able to identify whom
I would have cast a vote for, were I an
American.

The fact of the matter is, I don’t
find Hillary Clinton to be the obvious
“less awful” choice. While this thought
is tantamount to blasphemy in Canada,
there are likely very few who would
support either candidate if there were
any other viable options. And to preface
my words, I am distinctly not a Trump
supporter; the man is a deplorable human
being with precious little going on in the
morality department, a ridiculously poor
public speaker, and such a prolific liar
that most gossip magazines have a better
success rate when it comes to telling the
truth.

But before we get into why Clinton is
no better suited for the presidency than
Trump, it seems prudent to investigate
exactly why she is the clear frontrunner
to the rest of the world, while Americans
look to have adopted an almost contrarian
attitude by keeping Trump in the race.
Our opinions are directly influenced by
the world around us: what we see, hear,
and read. Canadians, as is the case for
the rest of the world’s population, have
no immediate contact with American
citizens. We can’t walk down a street and
get a general feel for the election from
your average Joe. Asa result, all we can do
is take whatever the media publishes.

The Economist released a chart last
week of the political endorsements from
some of the top American newspapers.
Not all papers from the list have endorsed
a candidate, but the main statistic to
pull from the graphic was that 53 papers

 

support Clinton while only one supports
Trump. In other telling news, papers and
sites such as the New York Times show
Clinton to have an 85 per cent chance to
win (as of November 5). The picture of a
one-horse race is painted rather garishly
for the world.

However, the poll results (from the
New York Times again) show Clinton
only to be leading 45.5 per cent to 42.9
per cent. It’s remarkable how easy it is
to mislead with statistics. Many outlets
simply report the 85 per cent chance of
winning statistic instead of the actual
polling numbers, presenting a very
skewed outlook that is anything but
indicative of true electoral feeling.

If only one newspaper from any list
backs Trump while he simultaneously
commands 42.9 per cent of the public’s
favour, what conclusion can we reach?
The media is no longer representative
of the country’s thinking, or is, in more
aggressive terms, biased. To return to the
original point, if the only news we read is
from biased sources, then our view of a
situation will, of course, be biased.

Back to Clinton.

A major push for Clinton fans is
that she will be the first woman to be
president. She'll be the first real feminist
president. As she was once quoted, “I
want to send a message to every survivor

Image via www.commentarymagazine.com

of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence
your voice. You have the right to be heard.
You have the right to be believed, and
were with you.” But is she a feminist?
Even the above quote was later edited to
the much more political “Well, I would
say that everybody should be believed at
first until they are disbelieved based on
evidence,” when asked about her words
in the context of Juanita Broaddrick, an
alleged rape victim of Bill Clinton whom
Hillary has been said to have personally
threatened.

Hillary has been well-documented as
being a central figure in hiring a private
investigator to smear the reputations of
all the women who came forward. In what
has become somewhat of an infamous
quote in George Stephanopoulos’ book
All Too Human, Hillary said, “We have to
destroy her story,” when speaking about
a woman, Connie Hamzy, who claimed to
have had a consensual sexual encounter
with Bill—and that was for a consensual
story. Hillary has called Gennifer Flowers
“trailer trash” and Monica Lewinsky a
“narcissistic loony toon;” both women
were later confirmed to have had affairs
with Bill. In Flowers’, Lewinsky’s, and
Hamzy’s case, these were not even
incidents of rape—just infidelity—but
if Hillary went so hard after consensual
relations, it certainly lends some

rude comment or misguided gesture.

Criticizing oppressive patriarchal
actions is literally the bare minimum
you can do to help women. It’s almost as
bad as doing nothing. All you're doing
is opposing something that, ideally,
everyone would oppose. This is like if
a man murdered your best friend and
I said “Gosh, I’m sure sorry that some
people murder others. I’m pretty ashamed
of my gender.” It’s a well-intentioned
gesture, but also does nothing to ease
the burden of murder. It’s the same with
sexist actions that target women. Women
are harassed, abused, assaulted, and
even murdered every day all around the
world, just because they are women.

All we can do as men is try to
behave better, encourage others to do
the same, and be a trusted person for
women to confide in. By commenting,
youre just observing the problem.

By being proactive in fixing the
problem, youre part of the solution.

credibility to reports of her threatening
nature in more severe circumstances.

Bill was no saint, after all, as evidenced
by situations that include the sexual
harassment of Paula Jones, who settled for
$850,000. Not many settle when they're
innocent.

And all those who say Hillary
shouldn't be judged by her husband’s
actions should have a quick moment of
thought. Bill is her husband. A person she
supposedly knows, loves, and trusts. Our
significant others are people we respect
and share many of the same values with.
To stay married to an alleged rapist and
known sexual harasser with little respect
for the opposite sex is essentially to
condone his actions. But if that sounds
harsh, perhaps the more valid solution
is to put yourself in her shoes. Would
you stay with such a spouse? Hillary has.
While worthy of a round of applause in an
archaic review of marriage, Hillary fails
to deserve any other kudos. To have the
president of the United States married to
aman guilty of one of the worst crimes?
Very bad optics.

None of this is to say Trump has
done any better—just that Clinton is not
the shining example we want her to be.
Each presidential hopeful has skeletons
in their closets; it’s just how we choose
to illustrate them. An example would be
Trump and his tax issues: Who doesn’t
try and pay as little in tax as possible?
But because it’s Donald Trump it’s a
major story? It is completely acceptable
to do what the law allows to pay the least
amount of tax. I digress.

In the end, whoever wins will be a
terrible choice. Neither is suited to lead
the country. Neither is the role model
parents want to champion to their kids.
Don't hold your breath on who wins...
you'll need that breath to try to survive
the next four years.