Looking at His Girlfriend

No sooner had I suggested in my Wednesday column this week (December 5, 2007) that the annual Montreal Massacre tributes were a divisive social force, demonizing men and justifying women’s contempt for them as a gender, than a perfect example of the syndrome was enacted in the House of Commons.

New Democrat Member of Parliament Irene Mathyssen looked over the shoulder of Conservative MP, James Moore where he sat in the front row of the government benches Tuesday night, and saw what seemed to her to be a seductively dressed woman on the screen of his laptop computer. This is his personal computer, you understand, so her inspection of his screen was tantamount to viewing his private papers or mail, and she had not asked permission or been invited to look at it. Just so we’re clear on the principle.

OK, so let’s start again. Ms Mathyssen was eavesdropping on Mr. Moore. She didn’t know who the “scantily clad” woman on the screen was, but having brooded on the possibilities overnight, then rose the next day on a point of privilege to allege he was viewing inappropriate material. The implication in such an allegation, let’s be clear, is that the man is a pervert. As a result a mortified Moore was forced to issue a public denial that he was looking at pornography. Turns out it was his girlfriend. Oops, my bad, Ms Mathyssen realizes, so she calls Mr. Moore and apologizes. Case closed for her.

But perhaps not for Mr. Moore. He just got put through a bit of a wringer for nothing.

Let’s unpack this incident a bit. What Member of Parliament would be so idiotic as to take the risk of visiting a porn site in the House of Commons on a computer whose screen is open to any busybody? What was Ms Mathyssen’s motive in “outing” him when she had no evidence to support her supposition? Scantily clad women are all over the Internet and also all over real life. Scantily clad is in fact the norm in fashion.

What would Ms Mathyssen have done if she happened to look over the shoulder of a female MP and actually did see soft porn? Would she rise on a point of personal privilege to humiliate a woman colleague? I think not. I think she would have protected her. And let's not pretend that women never look at porn. Ms Mathyssen clearly relished the opportunity to embarrass a man caught in the act of being a typical man according to the feminist playbook.

Mr. Moore is a victim of a false allegation, whose effects will linger. Because of the hoopla around the Montreal massacre (a completely random act with no sequel), everyone believes women are always the victim in gender relations. If people knew how many men’s lives have been ruined by false allegations of abuse by women, leveled with exactly the kind of insouciance exhibited by Ms Mathyssen, that goes completely unpunished even when it is proved to be false, they might rethink their basic assumptions about who is getting the short end of the stick gender-wise.

Ms Mathyssen should not be let off the hook easily. She supposedly represents both men and women in her riding. If she had so gratuitously insulted a woman, the matter would not go away quickly. The men in her riding would do well to ask themselves if she truly has their interests at heart to the same degree as she has women’s. They should call her to account on her biases, and her vindictiveness and insensitivity toward Mr. Moore should definitely be a factor in their minds at the next election.

Nationalpost.com, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, "False allegations claim another male victim, this time MP James Moore" by Barbara Kay, December 07, 2007.

Guilty- Until Proven Innocent: Teachers and Accusations of Abuse