Dear Editor:
Re: Tone down the misandry and act like a grown-up, Inbox, the Record, Aug. 10.
Thank you for posting the letter from Mr. Thompson where he takes exception to your article (on the loss of Christy Clark) that had as its core statement: “The more our leadership looks like the actual population of British Columbia, the closer we get to true representation of the people – you know, that whole thing democracy is supposed to be about.”
I have seen a large upswing in the use of words like “misandry” and “feminazi,” and I am truly curious how promoting equal representation for women and minorities and suggesting that not all leaders should be white middle-aged males is remotely “misandristic”? There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the definition of the word misandry and real confusion regarding promoting equality versus putting down white men.
MISANDRY: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex).
In no way did your article show a dislike or contempt for men, of any age. It simply suggested that having leaders that are all from one demographic doesn’t portray our ideal of democratic values, that it’s good for young women to have a variety of role models and that inclusive representation matters.
Promoting inclusion of women and minorities is not hateful or contemptuous of anyone. Thinking that maybe one group shouldn’t be getting to run the show all by themselves doesn’t equate to having a hate-on for those older, Caucasian men.
It is sad that there are, as your article did suggest, folks who have a problem recognizing that having 100 per cent of your leaders all coming from one demographic is a problem, who honestly think that our world leadership is dominated by white men over 40 because they’re always the best qualified, that in our whole nation no woman, young person, visible minority or differently abled person could possibly do as good a job as these fellows.
J.M. Curran, New Westminster
