I am not a feminist. I am a dog lover. I think that's pretty clear. The last 24 hours in the political arena in Canada have been very tough for Nova Scotia politician Peter McKay because he supposedly compared his former girlfriend and much maligned fellow politician Belinda Stronach to a dog - and she is milking it for all it's worth by saying that it's degrading for all women and even for all Canadians and has demanded an apology from Mr. McKay.
Everybody is going on about how awful it is about how anyone could be so aggressive towards a woman and denigrating her in such a way by comparing her to such a low-life creature as a "dog".
What kind of connotation are they drawing? What kind of dog are they talking about? Are they talking about some kind of species of dog that I have no knowledge of? Is there some reference that I'm missing out on here? I'm actually quite ANGRY that they are drawing such negative references to a species that I am actually quite fond of - and have no negative feelings about whatsoever - so how DARE they denigrate it by saying that someone should apologize for comparing someone to that species?
While I certainly would NOT want one of my canine life companions to be compared to any liberal politicians, Belinda Stronach - or any politicians in general - I am very pissed off that these news stories are allowing dogs to be viewed with such a negative feeling and it just continues to build up the dog hysteria that is building in our country at the moment.
Shame on the Canadian media. Shame.
The reason people are upset are because of how a dog is percieved. A dog is believed by many as an animal who obeys your every commands. If this is how it was ment then the public has a right to be upset.
ReplyDeleteBut dogs are also animals who do everything for their owner and expect little in return. They are also very gentle and kind animals. None of this discribes Belinda at all.
It is kind of like being called a pig because you are dirty when in fact pigs are rather clean animals.