Categories: Mark Steyn

Excusing the men who ran away

The new film ‘Polytechnique’ sidesteps the old norm of ‘women and children first’

by Mark Steyn on Thursday, March 5, 2009 2:20pm - 225 Comments

On the annual commemoration of the “Montreal Massacre,” the Quebec broadcaster Marie-France Bazzo remarked how strange it was that, after all these years, nobody had made a work of art about what happened that day at the École Polytechnique.

I wonder, in the two decades since Dec. 6, 1989, how many novelists, playwrights, film directors have tried, and found themselves stumped at the first question: what is this story about?

To those who succeeded in imposing the official narrative, Marc Lépine embodies the murderous misogynist rage that is inherent in all men, and which all must acknowledge.

For a smaller number of us, the story has quite the opposite meaning: M Lépine was born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater. And, as I always say, no, I’m not suggesting he’s typical of Muslim men or North African men: my point is that he’s not typical of anything, least of all, his pure laine moniker notwithstanding, what we might call (if you’ll forgive the expression) Canadian manhood. As I wrote in this space three years ago:

“The defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lépine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate—an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The ‘men’ stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.”

That’s what my film would be about. But don’t worry, the grant from Cinedole Canada seems to have got lost in the mail.

I would imagine that, when the director Denis Villeneuve and the talented vedette Karine Vanasse set out to make Polytechnique, they were intending to film the official narrative. But, in this case, art cannot imitate life. There is no hero in the official version—other than, as is invariably the case in Trudeaupia, the Canadian state riding in like a belated cavalry to hold annual memorials with flags lowered to half-staff and to demand that every octogenarian farmer register his rusting shotgun. Alas, on celluloid, that doesn’t come over quite as heroic.

So M Villeneuve and his collaborators were obliged to make artistic choices. For starters, Polytechnique is not a film “about” Marc Lépine. Aside from the early voice-over narration of his ugly, banal manifesto, we hear or see very little from his perspective. He is not (if you’ll again forgive the expression) the leading man, and, indeed, barely functions as a supporting role in his own movie: there is no attempt to explore his pathologies or their roots.

M Villeneuve then opts to shoot the movie in black and white, and to be very sparing in his dialogue. I saw the film with a capacity crowd at the Maison du Cinéma in Sherbrooke (lousy sound, by the way), and the dialogue-free stretches are so frequent that, by the time someone eventually delivered a line, I’d all but forgotten the movie was in French. In reality, it’s speaking in a kind of interior language. It’s a black-and-white film of a world of grey—the literal grey of dirty urban snow falling on drab apartment houses and the godawful bunkers of Quebec government architecture, but also a kind of moral grey. The physical landscape of the École Polytechnique is unsparingly rendered: claustrophobic windowless rooms of painted brick blocks that capture the particular grimness of a city full of modern buildings that all look out of date. We hear a couple of period pop hits, but the rest of the score is mournfully anemic violin generalities. It’s an airless world, and M Villeneuve seems determined to keep it that way, as if to let in too many superficial indicators of life—colour, music, banter—would draw attention to how un-animated his characters are. Consciously or not, the director has selected a visual style that’s most sympathetic to what some of us regard as the defining feature of this atrocity: the on-the-scene passivity.

Pages: 1 2

Tags: Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal Massacre

More by Mark Steyn

http://kralizec.wordpress.com/ Kralizec

To judge from the comments I have read, few if any of the commenters have understood Mark Steyn. They have read him with no more than ordinary care, because they do not suspect, and have never been confronted with the evidence, that some writers write with more than ordinary care. Some readers will benefit from my commending the second sentence of the next-to-last paragraph to their closer attention.
starviego

I am starting to view this whole film as just another wedge issue to drive a phony ‘war’ between the sexes. The outrage isn’t what those survivors did in 1989, but what the filmmaker is doing now. No doubt the film will soon become required viewing on college campuses nationwide. What is the message here? “Hey men, you are not even men. Hey women, those men have let you down again.”

ps

I know of two instances where a gunman held a classroom filled with kids hostage, which ended peacefully or where the only casualty was the shooter.

I know of three mass shootings where the shooter was overwhelmed by bystanders(all men). Crucially, those all occured when the shooter was reloading.

I know of three that were stopped when the gunman was confronted by an armed bystander.

I know of NONE where a gunman with a loaded gun was stopped by people who simultaneously decided to rush him.

It is totally presumptuous and grossly unfair to judge the 50 males who decided to leave. When you throw yourself in the line to save the life of someone you don’t even know, then you can stand in judgement. Until then, speak for yourselves!!!

Half Canadian

50 males? 50 males walked out and left 15 women to die?

I’d be ashamed to draw breath again. 50-1 odds? It shouldn’t have been close.

Tinfoil Hatt

Yes, but when the men walked out of the classroom, did they know that the gunman’s intention was to kill all the women? The women, on the other hand, were there when his intentions became obvious. They had 15-1 odds–still pretty good–but they didn’t manage to do anything either. In short, all of them, male and female alike, reacted the way most human beings would in such a situation. But somehow only the men get blamed, because men are somehow supposed to naturally know how to handle a violent situation, despite growing up in a peaceful society largely devoid of violence.

This ‘psychology of compliance’ is a well-known phenomenon in violent hostage-taking situations. Once the victims (in this case, let’s be fair, the men were victims, too) enter this passive state, it becomes relatively easy for the perpetrator to control them. I remember reading of a home invasion incident in the US in which the intruder, brandishing only a knife, made the husband sit in a chair and told the wife to go get some rope and a hammer. She left the room, searched the house for the requested items, and returned with them. Whereupon the intruder proceeded to tie the husband to the chair with the rope and smash his skull in with the hammer, right before the wife’s eyes. The whole time she was searching for the requested items, it never occurred to her to pick up a phone in one of the other rooms and call for help, let alone search for a weapon that would allow her to overpower the man who was about to murder her husband. As the intruder bashed her husband’s head in, she merely watched frozen in horror, never even attempting to lift a finger to save him. Would we call her a coward? No, she was a victim. Yet somehow if the roles had been reversed, her husband would surely have been labeled a coward.

Warwick

I agree with you that “once the victims enter the passive state” the man with the gun can control them easily.
I wonder how much of our society is based on the assumption that most of us are “in the passive state” most of the time.

There are two different conditions which might be confused.
1. Free people voluntarily choose to co-operate.
2. Intimidated people are either forced or bamboozeled into a greater or lesser “passive state.”

I do not see, in the realms of literature, film, or political discussion, any real exploration of the difference between the two.

Would it be worthwhile to instruct all youngsters in the techniques of self-defence?

Would it be worthwhile to instruct youngsters, and adults, how to recognise the abuse of authority, so that they would find it easier to defy those with power and authority when the need arises? In the Lepine situation, he had the power and assumed authority by means of his gun. But those he commanded had greater power, by virtue of their numbers, if only they had also possessed some solidarity and an understanding that there are times when it is the good, right and proper thing to do to sacrifice your own life for the greater good.

If soldiers, in warfare, can be induced to adopt this attitude, then free people can be inspired to see things in this way if the culture honours this way seeing and acting.

Kenny

Warwick wrote,

“I do not see, in the realms of literature, film, or political discussion, any real exploration of the difference between the two.”

If you ever get the opportunity, check out the BBC1 drama “Passer By”(2004). IMDB link immediately below.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382465/#comment

Cheers!

Sophie

Men and women are very different.

Society has very different expectations of each.

derek

grossly unfair?

Mr Lepine made a bet that the men would leave if he asked them to. He was right.

If that makes you proud of those men, welcome to it.

Derek

Susannah

I noticed a comment referring to an Australian example. I’ll be hounded down for saying so, but as an Australian who has lived in Canada for several years, I know (beyond a doubt) where I’d rather be if I was hoping for a male to come to my defense. Perhaps it’s a macho thing- not sure, but there you have it.

Another example (women also rate): http://www.theage.com.au/national/bravery-awards-over-melbourne-cbd-shooting-20080814-3v7v.html
Susannah

….The obvious quote being:

“Our awards are based on the degree of risk people place themselves in, in such situations,” Mr Bannister told AAP.
t.m.

men are the new women.
we wanted equality, we got it.
we have to ask ourselves if we want a consistent standard for men and women, establish it in society, and only then can we criticize actions based on those standards.
let us not judge.

glak from planet zork

t.m. “men are the new women.”

I’m not sure what that means. Is it meant to insult.

Many men and women in history have looked death in the eyes in order to save thoses weaker than themselves. It was once a moral imperative of western society – women and children first.

I will judge. I honour the hero and have shame for the coward.

http://macleans.ca kc

Honour the hero, pity the coward – keep the shame for yourself!

glak from planet zork

because? For once in your life kc fight the booze and finish the thought!
glak from planet zork

because? kc put down the bottle and finish the thought!

glak from planet zork

oops! must be an echo!
http://macleans.ca kc

Echo.
Only the echo of that pea rattling around inside that wasted sphere on top of yr head [ maybe heads on Zork ] Aparently everyone on this blog who disagrees with you is either queer, neuterd or now drunk. Cheap shotting the efforts of others all you got!

Kerry

Equality of the sexes is about equal opportunity. It has nothing to do with social manners. The numbers are what’s important here; those men, by virtue of their numbers, not their gender, could have taken the shooter out before he committed those murders.

Kenny

“Since you have preferred sheep to men……”
Horst Fritz KRUEGER

This is nothing; compared to a Polish Visitor to Canada, who got tasered to death at Vancouver International Airport, because four (4) well trained (???) Mounties felt that he, an unarmed man, was a threat to them. The important question has to be: “just how many mounties does it take to handle an “armed” person”? Perhaps they think, that the criminals will laugh themselves to death, when they see this kind of utter incompetence.
To add insult to injury, this atrocity is dragged through the courts, where it will receive “Canadian Justice”.
Use pepperspray, if you run out of tears.
Regards…H.F.K.
http://drudgereport ALFREDE

Silent weeping and gravely concerned furrowing of brows are the only rational responses to such a demonstration of resistance to the oppression of Western phallocratic imperialism as the gunman’s. I am sure we all are shocked, shocked by the overly-masculinized response of Mr. Steyn. His mother obviously never taught him to share hie toys or play with the girls. He probably is enamored of the imperialist lackeys in the Canadian army serving in Afghanistan – another group NOT brought up playing social workers and victims of whote, male homophobic oppression!

glak from planet zork

For a good time call ALFREDE or Horst.

http://macleans.ca kc

Jealous Zorky?

glak from planet zork

kc, you probably see yourself as some kind of blogging bon-vivant, but I see you as a bully waiting to harangue others. So I say if you can dish it out you can take it. Am I wrong?

http://macleans.ca kc

A bit Ironic,don’t yo think when you look at the quality of yr remarks, at least the ones i happen to notice?
Sure i can take it, can you? It’s yr hypocracy i have trouble with. I ‘d say you cheap shot more often than engage others. While i have no problem paying the price for my cheap shots[ too many i admit ] it’s evident if you care to look that i do my bit in attempting to rebutt Steyn, who i obviously can’t abide. You i fear don’t contribute anything. I honestly see nothing substantial from you at all.

Sophie

Mark Steyn is an upstanding male.

SCISSORPAWS

There’s undoubtedly an interesting psychology experiment here (and – gee – another stellar piece of Canadian celluloid: do we actually aspire to lose money?!) Who was the leader of this group? Where was the “Let’s Roll” guy? (who had a long time to consider the situation and discuss it). Maybe only engineering students would behave this way? No jocks? No drug addicts? Maybe all the guys felt a little disturbed by the women who figured they were as good as any guy – which raises the even more interesting question, how come the women who were going to be gunned down just waited around for someone to save them?
But I think it’s all kind of moot. This happens so rarely none of us have any reason to develop these sorts of life skills. Quite the opposite: survival skills in our society are more about getting along, being accommodating, egalitarian. Pace Steyn, but it’s asinine to expect people to be prepared for this kind of a situation, much less blame them when they get it wrong. Lapine was a rare rare bird, as nutty as the woman with 14 kids (and can’t get a date) or the fifteen year old girl who coerced her boyfriend into murdering someone for her. Horrific, but rare. And blaming yourself for not being instant Batman is as bs as the women who won’t allow men to march against violence because we’re all closet rapists and misogynists.
Or gutless cowards.
Take your pick.
We’re a nation of people who see child molesters behind every tree, won’t let the kids walk to school or go outside to play on the street because we’re scared to death that everything we see on TV is happening all around us all the time. Most violence in this country is perpetrated against men. You want to save a life? Sell the SUV and walk to work to prevent global warming. That’s about as heroic as most of us, fortunately, will ever get to be.

glak from planet zork

Your subjugators will be pleased to hear of your acquiescence. Maybe you could change your handle to sugarpaws or fluffy bunny or something even more neutered.

starviego

Totally relevant article. Note the timing of this event with the release of the film:

http://www.henrymakow.com/why_we_celebrate_communist_fes.html

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

International Women’s Day (March 8) is a longtime Communist propaganda gimmick. …….

IWD pretends to celebrate women but this poster near my Winnipeg home shows an ugly, surly shrew brandishing a hammer. The caption reads, “if I only had a hammer..”

She’d what? Hit men over the head? Tear down society? Smash women who want husbands and children? Indeed this isn’t far fetched. Under the dance notice, it actually says: “Come smash patriarchy at midnight!” (I assume this will be a lesbian dance.) ….

Through its feminist surrogate, Communists have stripped women of a secure and honored social identity as wives and mothers, and made them workers and sexual commodities, to be discarded in depression or middle age. …..

This is about cultivating a false sense of grievance and entitlement that can be used to manipulate them. …..

Communist “popular front” movements catch naive idealistic people using some vague feel-good cause like “equality,” “peace” and “human rights.” …

The purpose of Women’s Day is to make women feel unequal and oppressed. Thus Western women, the most favored generation in history, get a vicarious chip on their shoulder. …. Women are brainwashed to think their interests are separate from their own fathers, husbands, brothers and sons.

There are literally thousands of events planned around the world. For example, at the Unitarian Church in London Ont. an organization for Afghanistan women and girls “will honour and celebrate our local women with music, singing, dancing, and refreshments. All women and girls are welcome. Free event!”
dr hoobad

Because M Steyn is most eloquent and witty among Maclean’s writers, I am compelled to follow his words and wisdom carefully, but occasionally I stumble. What does anemic mean? It’s not in my Oxfords, large and small.

Karen

Look under “anaemic” in your Oxford (anemic is N. American). Medical term to describe lack of red blood cells (anaemia), or used in general terms to mean “lacking power, vigor, vitality, or colorfulness; listless.”

Cameron

“Anemic” is american, not N. American. The correct Canadian spelling is “anaemic”.

agnostic

Not according to Gage Canadian Dictionary.

http://steynonline.com drew chatterton

I’ve heard this story and Steyns commentary before, but somehow I never quite got that there were fifty men in there, all of whom filed out without protest,- that must have taken a while for them all to leave, and there must have been time for the reality of the situation to dawn on some of them, that when an armed man asks all the men to leave, that they are so obviously abandoning the women to their fate. Perhaps its the university atmosphere, which seems to demand that students subordinate their individuality to the demands of the standardized bureaucratized educational system. Perhaps in guilting men for being men, in the all the accusations of being rapist wannabe ‘s, they become so meek and pliable that they are no longer capable of acting as the men on the Titanic acted, or the men in Australia might still act. And I think that because in all the countless retelling of this horrible tale, no one except Steyn seems to even expect the men to have acted differently, cowardice indeed becomes the default position. And of course, these things tend to happen on school and university campuses, because the shooter can be assured that his victims cannot defend themselves, that no one but him will have a gun. In those few instances where some of the bystanders are carrying guns, the outcomes tends to be different.
Cameron

I agree with Scissorpaws on one point; why didn’t the women act? There were fifteen women. After Lepine shot the first one, why didn’t the other fourteen rush him? If they had, probably two or three of them would have been shot before the remainder overwhelmed the shooter. The answer is clear, and is the same as the reason the men did nothing; concerted action, especially in life-threatening circumstances, takes prior planning, and there was no time for planning.

glak from planet zork

I must be careful not to upset certain types on this ‘Womans day’ but, Cameron have you not noticed that females are the weaker of our species. Not lesser – just weaker. Throughout our history men have protected thier mates and offspring with their lives. That’s part of the reason we’ve come this far in time.

cwe

glak, have you not noticed that you misread the comment? There has been some discussion about how the men, instead of obediently filing out, might have found the wherewithal and the strength in numbers to neutralize the gunman, thus protecting the women.
Cameron may or may not have noticed that, “females are the weaker of our species,” but the question was, in the absence of men to protect them, why couldn’t the women act to protect themselves? They had him outnumbered and their lives were in jeopardy, so…
Concentrate, little space-buddy, and read it again carefully. Half-assed history lessons are not what’s being sought here.

glak from planet zork

I prefer the word generalized to half-assed, but try and extrapolate. My point is that most women are not equiped emotionally or biologically to respond to aggressive situations as are men – generally. True,some can, but women for the most part have different strenghths. It takes about five minutes for me to consider flinging myself from a tall building (kc – don’t get your hopes up)when confronted with a howling child, but most women have an ability to block out the tantrums.
We live in a confused society. Our movies glorify hero and anti-hero bravado while general society is somewhat ambivilant towards selfless bravery. I say bring back John Wayne and dispatch the metero-sexuals.
As for “what’s being sought here”, I must not be on the ‘our gang tree fort club mailing list. I assumed Maclean’s set this site up for a variety of opinions.

http://macleans.ca kc

Despite what you may think, i wish you no harm. Oops have i gone and made a wimp of myself again? Do you have kids? Things change when their yr own. Men can adapt too! Although yr generally right. I enjoy Wayne myself, so long as folks keep in mind it’s fiction. You can’t take a bullet in the leg and get up and run three miles after the bad guys, and sometimes the bad guys do win.
cwe

Poor glak. You shouldn’t let your feelings get so easily bruised. By “what’s being sought here,” I wasn’t trying to exclude you from anything, I was referring to the specific question you didn’t address (and still haven’t, really) with your, uh, “generalized” answer.
Unknot yer panties, Pilgrim; of course Macleans set the site up for a variety of opinions and yours are as welcome as anybody else’s.
cwe

Except kody’s, that is.
Pete

Are men really biologically inclined to do such things? I guess not, because if that were true then at least one of the 50 men would have done something, but none of them did.

Maybe this proves the feminists right, and that agressive masculine behaviour really is socialized and the instinctual component of it isn’t significant. For the most part, the women’s movement in Canada has succeeded in removing the masculinization of Canadian men.

The question is, is this what the women’s movement wants? Can a society defend itself without masculinity, even if that masculinity is a social construct?

Cameron

Women can, and do, fight. It is true that men are, on average, bigger and stronger than women, but not enough so that one man could win a fight with fourteen women fighting for their lives. In the Lepine case, neither the men or the women fought. If Mr. Steyn is going to ask why the men didn’t fight, then it seems only fair to ask why the women, who had a much greater incentive, didn’t fight either.
Sophie

=) I’m not offended–I’m aware of my weakness. Women and men are just built for different things, that is all.

You are so right.

Pingback: École Polytechnique « Mark Steyn Is Right
cgnnightmare

I blame “social engineering” and those who brought it upon us in their pursuit of power and control.
http://www.mgcltd.ca Michael Geoghegan

Bravo to Mark Steyn for having the courage to point out the fact that our public education system has since the 1970s been churning out ever more passive students, especially amongst males.

No one thought to act alone or in concert against the crazed gunman. In our schools today children are taught not to stand up to bullies but to simply be passive and report the matter to the teacher or principal.

I have taught both my son and daughter to stand up to bullies and that the best defence is a good offense. The result is that they now have no problems with being bullied and other children in their school have learned form their example much to the horror and disgust of the teaching establishment who peddle the mantra of be passive, be a victim, then report the incident to those in authority.

That mantra greatly helped Mark Lepine to slaughter those 14 women, it kept both the men and women docile instead of attacking him en masse. If instead those students had been taught by our public school system to defend themselves many of those 14 women would still be alive today.

Horst Fritz KRUEGER

Bravo Michael, but not quite enough!
We now live in a world, in which a.-f.-ing is officially celebrated. But this is not the worst of it. A lot worse and mindboggling is the fact, that this whole nation keeps on tolerating this “*!*!*!*”, which has infiltrated all levels of governing importance. This country is free and full of “rights”; for the criminals and the ruling class (which is more or less the same anyways).
Question; “Which country are you in”, where a Canadian gets charged with drunk driving, and still gets elected as a PM?- That’s how low we have fallen.

cwe

Come over here and say that.

SCISSORPAWS

Someone mention John Wayne? He never went to war. George H.W. (“Mission Accomplished!) managed to dodge the draft and desert in the same war. Steyn celebrated this prick for standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a flight suit as though he were just back from the front. (And where was he during ‘nam? Hiding in Canada? Good enough for him then.) Dick Cheney never went to war. Bull Rush Limbaugh never put himself in harm’s way. Heroics is easy in the movies and from the lips of self serving politicians and blowhards who’ve been meticulous about keeping their own asses out of harm’s way. THAT is cowardice, because it’s intentional, preplanned. I didn’t notice Mr Macho Bush rushing the – real hero – who threw his size tens at him. I haven’t read Steyn whining about that. Any one of us, in the right circumstances, could behave boldly and bravely, and would, but I wouldn’t hang myself with guilt because I’d failed to act up to the standards of a “real” man in a life or death situation, nor would I hound anyone else to death for the “crime.” It doesn’t make you a bad person. Personally, I think there’s plenty enough violence and guilt to go around in this world without inciting more. If I occasionally err on the side of discretion, or turning of the other cheek, or loving my neighbour as myself instead of beating the crap out of them because they cut me off or drives too slow, I can live with that. But you’ll never know until you face the gun yourself. Meantime, it’s hard enough to get people to recycle.

cwe

B-b-but what about the blaming? Things aren’t like they used to be! Men aren’t as manly, women aren’t as womanly! The school system, it’s all wrong, and it doesn’t prepare us for when bad things happen! Trudeau was no AUSTRALIAN! Liberals! Too much of this! Not enough of that! Coward! Coward!

http://www.mascmag.com tuval

Mr Steyn writes about viewing men and women equally but he can not hide his contempt for women, it leaks through the cracks.
Using the idea of wearing panties as a metaphor for cowardice and weakness is a simple way of demonstrating your true feelings about women.
http://www.henrymakow.com/ Black Krishna

Great article that doesn’t just assign blame, it gives Canadians the ideals we need to work for and a reminder that losing them has consequences. Young men have always defended their country, but our emasculation is allowing corruption to run wild, poison our culture and steal our futures. Here’s a great article by Dr. Henry Makow referencing this piece in Maclean’s with a shared perspective.

http://www.henrymakow.com/the_men_who_ran_away.html

.
Pingback: VI BEHÖVER INGEN YTTERLIGARE PACIFICERING AV DEN VÄSTERLÄNDSKE MANNEN
Ad Lucem

The passivity of the the class room males was certainly noted even at the time it happened. Interestingly, the police also were, if not passive, overly cautious, and they had guns and were sworn to save lives. For better or worse we have been innoculated and inculcated with caveats such as “don’t aggrevate the situation give him what he wants”, “let the authorities deal with it” etc. etc. Worse yet there is a gnawing belief with those not in law enforcement, that resisting or attacking might mean that you could be charged yourself for reckless endangerment or worse yet, even assault or murder should the gunman be injured or killed. The police and the courts do not take kindly to defending yourself or someone else. And, even if found innocent the lawyer/court fees and pressure deters. The police on the other hand can basically kill with impunity, when they believe, on the flimsiest grounds (a stapler) that their life is endangered. In short we have been trained by a socialist/liberal democracy to hand over responsibility to our betters.
Pingback: Weekend reading recommendations « Fabius Maximus
Gelfish

I hope that if I was to ever get in a situation like that, everyone here agreeing with Steyn would jump to my rescue.

I do agree with him.
Erwin Schnesser

Why would the men have taken the risk for the females? Aren’t we all equal in the new, bright, world of feminist gender equality? Why didn’t the females charge the shooter? Patriarchy is dead, and so are the protective obligations of men.
James Halifax

Actually, if one were to think about it….perhaps the issue is not a “male” thing. Perhaps it should most likely be considered a “Quebec male” thing.

Does anyone really think a classroom full of Males from Newfoundland would have shuffled out when the “womenfolk” were at such obvious risk? What about a University classroom filled with male students from Alberta? ( a culture thing)

To be blunt, many of the dudes I have met from Quebec (including my sisters ex-husband) were pretty much NDP material….waiting for someone else to look after them, active pacifists, or relying on assistance from Government when they aren’t complaining about it. It’s not too much of a stretch to assume these chickZhits who left the women to die just assumed they couldn’t do anything about it. They have never learned to try…..only complain and wait for someone else to take care of things.

While I”m sure not all of the men who abandoned those women to their fate were French, I’d say the chances of the same incident happening at Memorial University, or the University of Calgary are much less likely.

ce la vie.