Misogyny Running Rampant in Canada!

Vincent J. Curtis

3 Jan 2015


My hometown newspaper has been runing columns the last month from its stable of female guest writers.  These fillies have been bemoaning their lot in life and blaming misogyny as the root cause of their problems.  The harping on this theme of self-pity reached a climax in a colum by Latham Hunter (previously reviewed earlier) that was published on Saturday, January 3rd, 2015.  My as-yet unpublished reply is as follows: 

This column by Latham Hunter proves nothing except that if you cherry pick enough data you can seem to prove anything, no matter how pathetic.

Since Hunter’s thesis, that misogyny runs rampant through Canada, seems to defy common sense, let’s put it to a couple of tests.

Last year, as reported in the Spectator, there were a total of seven murders in Hamilton.  Of these, two were of women and five were of men.  Women are statistically under-represented in these figures.  Therefore, misogyny is not prevalent in Hamilton for if it were then women would be statistically over-represented, and they are not.  Latham Hunter should be cheering the men of Hamilton, and she does not.

Now, let’s consider the word ‘misogyny’ itself.  The English language has no name-word for the normal relationship that obtains between men and women.  The word misogyny refers to a feeling or attitude which manifests hatred or dislike of women or girls.  The fact that such a word exists at all is because the outlook or attitude which exhibits misogyny is different from the nameless, normal attitude of men towards women or girls.  Normal people do not notice a taste to water, but add some sugar or salt to the water and you get the taste of sweetness or saltiness, which are perceptible because of their departure from the norm, that of tasteless water.

Recently uncovered artifacts show that mankind has not changed in nature for at least 40,000 years.  What Latham Hunter perceives as misogyny is in fact the human norm of at least 40,000 years standing.  A moment’s reflection on that point will bring one to a couple of conclusions.

The first is that no amount of complaining about the facts of human nature are going to change it.  The second is perhaps it is Latham Hunter’s perception that is off and she is seeing things that aren’t there.  To Latham Hunter, the taste of water is bitter.

If Latham Hunter truly believed that men were as misogynistic as she says they are, she would be keeping her own council.
-30-