Misplaced Sympathy

Addressing the problem of unjustified stereotypes

Jacinthe Blab

I am writing in response to a hateful, prejudiced, one-sided, and poorly written article that the Manitoban printed in its Oct. 31 issue. The article in question is “Sympathy for the Devil,” penned by Stephen McCreary, a third-year political studies student.

Recap of “SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL”

McCreary begins by stating that a new trend in Canada is for mothers to abandon their children and leave them for dead. He blames the Canadian Criminal Code and the mothers of the children in question for this so-called trend. Yet the group that McCreary places the most blame on are the “‘socially progressive’ modern-day feminists,” which he also refers to as “murderer apologists,” “dimwits,” “idiots,” and ”usual suspects,” (without defining these generalization). McCreary provides three examples to prove that this is a Canada-wide trend. He then goes on to provide alternatives to ending a life.

Placing all the onus on women

The responsibility of preventing pregnancy (abstinence, condoms, birth control pills and the morning after-pill) is placed squarely on women’s shoulders. McCreary also speaks solely to women regarding abortion, adoption, and abandonment when he says: “It is legal to prevent pregnancy, to put your child up for adoption, and even to abandon your baby after giving birth” (italics mine). McCreary demonizes sex as well, but targets only “women who don’t want to have children.” He suggests that women who do not want to have children should remain abstinent and that those who don’t “can’t keep their wild hormones at bay” and should consider the previously mentioned options.

These claims are callous for many reasons. The one I will point out, however, is the obvious loophole for men: they are biologically incapable of having children and therefore are exempt from dealing with much of what McCreary offers as arguments.

Women (“radical feminists”) and their sympathizers are also to blame for what happened to these babies, according to McCreary. He concludes his article by claiming that “these crusaders of women’s rights” should come out and announce “what they really want: legalized infanticide.” This article is ripe with anti-women, anti-sex, and anti-feminist sentiment.

The role of feminism

I am proud to say that I am a feminist. I do not believe that women are treated with equal regard in North America, and the situation is even worse in other parts of the world. I believe that the equal treatment of women should be championed. I would never claim to speak for all feminists or for any group with which I identify. It is not my place. However, I have never in my life met a feminist who believed in disregarding any life, as has been painted in McCreary’s article.

I am ashamed that this has to be addressed. Most feminists have a deep respect for women who wish to raise children (despite what many media sources portray as mainstream feminism.) However, most feminists and feminist theories do advocate women’s rights over their own bodies (not that of harming others’ bodies).

In order to further defame feminists, McCreary quotes a woman by the name of Nikki Hovedebo. He himself acknowledges that she lacks credentials, yet still uses her statements. Without having intimate backgrounds and access to the people who have defended the women in question, I cannot know their motives. One possibility is that they are trying to remind people of the institutionalized complexities behind these and other tragic circumstances.

False information and lack of perspective

I will not justify harming anyone. It is not congruent with my beliefs. However, I do acknowledge that there are serious power imbalances that complicate everything that’s presented as black-and-white in McCreary’s article.

Information regarding methods of contraception are not available to all women equally. Studies have shown that disenfranchised women have much lower efficacy rates with condoms and birth control due to many factors, including a lack of access to information. People who lack formal education (and even many who are formally educated) do not know their options and certainly cannot quote the criminal code as McCreary did for his readers.

Though McCreary blames women for this “trend,” he fails to acknowledge the realities of potentially isolated tragic circumstances, abuse, religious pressures, family pressures, and racism, among many other facts.

Jacinthe Blab is an environmental studies student as well as a member of the Womyn's Centre collective. Edited by Andrea Tait-Eros, a fourth year Women's Studies Major as well as acoordinator for the Womyn's Centre.

To the Manitoban

I absolutely believe in free speech. However, Stephen McCreary’s article is thoroughly driven by hate and prejudice. Had this been an article about protecting the lives of children and educating readers about the options for unwanted pregnancy, it would have been a completely different article. However, though he masks his article with indignation for cruelty to children — the “moral” and conclusion states what the most consistent message is throughout McCreary’s article: “crusaders of women’s rights” are criminals, murder sympathizers, and without regard for human life. This type of hate propaganda does not belong in a newspaper.

Jacinthe Blab is an environmental studies student.