Its a bit late, as many have already made the same points, but since I took the time to craft the response earlier today I figured I might as well post it...
mariomike said:
'You're a dinosaur'
Last week's Afghanistan column touched a nerve, but I am right
"But I am right" - right off the bat, this is not a retraction or an apology, it is a follow-up to the first article. He also seems to be proudly wearing the title of 'dinosaur'. As already pointed out, a good news writer/editor knows how to milk a hot topic regardless of their viewpoint...
mariomike said:
A journalist always knows when a column has been a success. Partly it's the hundreds of e-mails of support, but equally it's the almost as numerous letters that try, in appalling English, to insult you.
So you're either a supporter, or insulting AND inarticulate (non-supporter). Apparently no messages were received from articulate yet polite non-supporters...
mariomike said:
Last week I said that an intensely inexperienced 21-year-woman should not have had to give her life in the pointless war in Afghanistan. The responses were fascinating.
No you did not. You called her a girl, and accused her of being a dress-up soldier, ignoring the fact that she had qualifications and credentials the same as every other young soldier sent over to that country.
This statement makes it apparent that its okay for women to risk their life or get killed while working for humanitarian orgs, or get raped and killed while working for a church/missionary team in some African country, or travel to dangerous areas and get kidnapped as a news reporter, even get mugged and injured while as a tourist in some foreign country, but its a shame for her to have gone to Afghanistan to fight for something she believed in. According to Coren's standards, once you are in the military you are not allowed to act in support of your beliefs, especially if youre a girl dressed up as a soldier.
mariomike said:
Most of the critical ones seemed obsessed with the fact that the poor girl indeed should have been able to die. A rather perverse way to support her and her family.
He also seems to take delight in using words with negative impact that completely misinterpret the point of his many insulting and inarticulate respondants. I sincerely doubt they are all 'obsessed', and although he (again!) refers to her as a 'poor girl', Im sure most of those respondantrs refered to her a grown woman able to make her own choices.
He completely misses the point. Isnt being a police officer dangerous as well? Well, lets stop women from doing that job. What about firefighting? Isnt this dangerous? Are female firefighters also to be regarded as 'dress-up firefighters' with no experience? How about paramedics? I've met plenty who have encountered dangerous situations, and many have had their lifes at risk just dealing with everyday cranks, addicts, psychos and emotionally disturbed patients.
Does he describe these dangers as well? Does he suggest that women should be barred from these dangerous jobs? No, the point is that he is against the war, and if he can score points by using a woman's death as his tool, apparently he's pretty happy about it.
mariomike said:
The vast majority of these were the usual nonsense. "Everyone is equal," "you're a dinosaur," "I hate you." Then all sorts of delightful and failed attempts to spell the word "misogynist."
The vast majority of these were the usual nonsense. "Everyone is equal,"... - the statement speaks for itself. Did I mention he was proud of being a dinosaur already?
mariomike said:
OK, let's go a step further. Anyone who claims the war in Afghanistan is about gender equality is either supremely naive or extraordinarily dishonest. We said hardly a word about women's rights in that country until the United States was attacked on 9/11. So, apparently, women were treated well before the Twin Towers outrage but badly afterwards.
Apparently some female rights activitists were very upset. Its a bit disapointing that he deliberately takes their points out of context (see above - women have the right to choose an occupation where their lives might be at risk). Not only that, but he refers to some alternate universe where Canada was allies with Islamic militants, that Canada armed them when they were fighting the Russians, and at some point in the past we called them 'the Good Guys'.
He continues rambling on about the damage in the country. I wont argue with the points there, war is a nasty business and many innocent lives are lost... but what's that got to do with him refering to a female soldier as a girl playing dressup? Focus, Coren, focus!!
Oh, and then the rant about Iraq - c'mon Mikey, remember what the complaints were about. Im pretty sure nobody complained to you about Iraq. Quit scoring the cheap points and come back to the game for the big home run...
Which is to complain about innocent death (a good point) and a hypocritical foreign policy (also a good point), but neither of these has to do with calling a girl a dress up soldier for doing something she believed in.
mariomike said:
It's all like some gigantic television reality show where foolish people live vicariously through the lives of others and fail to realize that behind the curtain of banality is a genuinely real world that demands more than facile and smug responses.
I just read one...
mariomike said:
So sad yet so predictable.
Unfortunately, it was...