Monday, December 29, 2008

Eileen Argyris' Depersonalization

The double standard continues to prevail at the Cobourg Daily Star. Editorialista, Eileen Argyris, attaches her name to her editorial, (article ID# 1351388) and includes her mother as a significant part of the subject matter of the editorial;

"It reminded me of my late mother's feelings about former prime minister Brian Mulroney. 'Somebody should shoot him in the backside,' Mother always maintained. 'Not kill him, just teach him a lesson.'
Mr Argyris concludes her column with the following:

"Let's face it, even if the shoes had connected, they would not have harmed the president physically. Dubya should just be glad he ran into Mr. al-Zaidi, instead of my mother."
With all that personalization in her editorial, (to make it homey, no doubt), one would think that reader's could address the central issue of concern -- that two women of the same family give the nod of approval to low level violence against men. Like father, like son, but in this case, it is like mother, like daughter. Although the editorialista can invoke her familial solidarity into the public domain, it cannot be addressed. The newspaper's editorialista depersonalized my letter to the editor.

Below is the letter that I had sent to the Cobourg Daily Star. I have placed into BOLD the text that was deleted. Enjoy.

I always find it interesting how easily a woman advocates and accepts violence against men. It seems to run in the Argyris family – the daughter admiring the mother’s advocacy of gun violence, not for protection, but just to teach a man a lesson.

Let’s face it, a hard heeled leather shoe can break skin, can break a nose, or the edge of the heel or toe can puncture an eye. Perhaps Ms Argyris will let me test her theory that a thrown shoe to her head will not harm her physically. I’m willing to meet her anywhere, any time. The shoe was not a sandal or sneaker or slipper and it was thrown with strength.

Low level violence against people we don’t like is so common in culture that editorialistas have no problem giving the nod of approval. News reports of the Middle East street reaction indicates they also approve of low level violence, but only against non-Muslim leaders.

The misogynist dictators of Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, West Bank, Gaza, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, are exempt from being on the receiving end of such a show-throwing assault.

I got a wide smile-on when I saw news images over the weekend of Canadians throwing shoes at the image of the President of the United States of America. I’m 61 years old and I cannot recall ever seeing news images of Canadians throwing shoes or any other object against the image of a dictator. What does that tell us about ourselves as a democratic people living next door to another nation of democratic people.

I am so grateful to live in a culture where only leaders of democratic societies are assaulted in more ways than one. And dictators around the world get a free-pass from the dime-a-dozen Argyris’ of the world.

The dictators do not have press conferences where they open themselves up to journalist’s questions. They regard George Bush as a fool to expose himself to such unprofessional, unbecoming questioning. And Argyris smiles with them.


John Draper said...

Seems like she did not want to publish your original because you were criticizing her opinion - as distinct from commenting about the incident. She had used the trick of quoting her mother to say what she meant as her own view - and you exposed that trick. So the opinion was clearly hers and she left herself open to your criticism. Looks like she can give but not take.
Another option is that she thinks her words won't offend the sensitivities of Star readers - but yours would. Quite a biased view.

Ben Burd said...

You will never get anything published unless it is sanitised of all personal opinion or alleged attacks on others' personal opinions. It is ironic that the letters to the editor are supposed to be opinion and the arbiters then get to sanitise the opinion they don't like. After all who said "Don't argue with the guy that owns the ink!"