Friday, September 11, 2009


There is an interesting article from (Lady??) Purtek titled What Happened in Montreal at

It says that what happened in Montreal in 1989 was an act of hate, resentment and fear. An act of entitlement, ...''the act of a man who felt that he deserved something, that he was entitled by birthright to a privileged education, with all of the socioeconomic benefits that this would entail''. It was the act of a man who believed that others were taking this entitlement from him, that women and feminists were blocking his access to what was rightfully, morally, unequivocally his.

Damn right it was! Should we let women and feminists take away everything from us? We have done that for two generations and the women still want more. What Lepine did was to draw a line in the sand and say ''No more''. Who can blame him? Feminists were appalled when next day scores of men approved of the killings on talk-radio shows. Men had been silent for so long, letting organized feminism do as it wished. Now was the time to say ''enough''. Marc Lepine was right: he deserved an education, feminists were standing in the way, they were trying to take this entitlement from him, and he had the right to a measured response. ''Problem is, he was carried away by the elation of the deed''.

They say ''what happened in Montreal was male privilege at its worst, and its most blatant''. We say, what happened in Montreal to those 14 women did happen because Marc Lepine felt he deserved something that they had, and that they had gotten unjustly. It was something he was entitled to, and that they had taken away from him. Certainly what happened in Montreal did happen because of what we call male privilege. But it is the stealing of that privilege that made Marc mad that day. It is true that Marc Lepine was not “society’s fault”, that he was expected to control and take responsibility for his actions. It is also true that, as a human being, he had the right of dissidence, of rebellion, and the ultimate painful option to reject some of the dictates of society, even society as a whole, if he chose to. Marc exercized his option and paid the price.

When we hear men expressing sentiments ranging from entitlement, to resentment, to anger, to rage at what they have lost and what has been taken from them by feminists and women, we should bear in mind that they have the right to do so. No one should be expected to be glad to lose something, especially something not given but taken away from you. Everyone has the right to be angry at what was lost, and wish revenge. Revenge is natural. What is not natural however and never has been, is the Christian ideal of forgiving and loving your enemies. It is so unnatural that Christianity was never able to apply it correctly. So, if the whole of Christianity was never able to live up to it in more than 2000 years, how should you expect me, my friend Marc and all the other men to forgive feminists? Are we supposed to love them? As soon as they touched our money and our privileges, they were in breach. And don't say we were not patient, we waited 50 years to react and tell you these things. The more I think about it: Marc did good to pick up his gun; it is the only way they will ever understand, then otherwise they never listen.

No comments:

Post a Comment