Hillary Clinton has been handed the impossible task of representing All Women. It's always the way. So few females are permitted to earn a place in the spotlight that when they do, they are rated as categories, not individuals. Britney Spears represents young women, although Rufus Wainwright extends her kingdom.

Miley Cyrus is the exemplar of young teen girls, and so on. Any prominent non-male becomes shorthand for a certain grouping.

So ingrained is this that I find myself doing it. If Clinton loses, it will look like a loss for all women, I think. I have no doubt that a President Barack Obama would do more good for women, simply because he isn't comfortable with the status quo.

Nevertheless, if Clinton loses, it will grind in the truth of what I always say to skeptical audiences: Never underestimate how hated women are, including by women. The day Clinton loses is going to be one hell of a bad day for women, and for men who love them.

Male stereotypes?

Fair's fair. Let's see how men like it.

Brian Mulroney is the exemplar of all Canadian men.

Offstage: Howls of derisive laughter from All Canadian Men. Mulroney is cheesy! Mulroney is a wimp! Won't show up for hearings like he promised, called for public inquiry, now says never mind. Had no dealings with Schreiber, now gets fainty that his fragrant fingertips even shared hotel room door handle with nasty Teuton. Wife is caricature of fur-coat graspingness, and his son pestering celebrities at the Oscars looked like a chum salesman ingratiating himself at a shark convention … we are NOT Brian Mulroney!

I do apologize.

All right then, Conrad Black represents all Canadian men.

Offstage: Screams of outrage from All Canadian Men. He's not even Canadian! We're not fat like he is, we have swimmer's build! Plus he's a coward, won't do his time like Martha Stewart, keeps appealing, reminding us of him being strip-searched today. Ugh. Wife has head like used match, is caricature of old artery-slicing-fingernail male annihilators, had a girlfriend like that once …

No reminiscing, men. Conrad Black has nothing in common with any of you.

Pause for breath.

Um, a defeat for John McCain is a defeat for all manly men?

Offstage: Cracking noises as All Men break own heads on cement flooring. McCain not sane! Says torture's fine now that Vietcong aren't torturing him any more, weirdest incarnation of Stockholm syndrome ever. Is lying about Stage Two malignant melanoma. Blond Republican wife has flesh sucked out by vacuum, fine, but have you seen that lobbyist consort? Separated at birth, those two, twin fetish not okay.

Got it, men. No individual man represents all men.

Gender embarrassments

There are women so embarrassing that they disgrace all women, but only because they are embarrassing in a particularly all-encompassing female way.

There are men so embarrassing that they shame all men, but only in one aspect of maleness. Like:

• Gen. Rick Hillier saying that if our MPs don't stop debating the Afghanistan war, the Taliban will regard us as a "weak link." As if we give the tiniest toss, Ricky, that men who skulk at night and hide behind farmers and children in a country where dog fighting is a national pastime will think we're the lesser. Afghans could take up bear-baiting and our House of Commons could spend 18 days debating whether George Clooney has the kind of good looks that really last, and Canada would still be a stronger, finer country. Got that?
• Ezra Levant printing clearly racist cartoons of hook-nosed, bearded Arabs — depictions of Allah have nothing to do with it — and getting PEN Canada on his side. But Levant is neither a knight errant nor a guiding light of free speech: He is simply someone who takes unfair advantage of it. That quarrel is not a Canadian quarrel, it is merely a cruel and silly thing, and any adult who joins in will look foolish.

These extremes aren't accurate representatives of the gender; in fact, men and women are actually quite delicate in their faults.

Flaw show

What I see is that a woman will be pilloried for her flaws, whether they're massive or minute, painted in watercolours or sprayed in acrylic. That's because women have no power, and therefore every individual woman is diminished.

Clinton is ridiculed for her hair, clothes, voice, appearance in a bathing suit, rigid courtesy toward Republican men she despises, mothering, talents as a lawyer, wifeliness, artifice, grit, hint of cleavage, useless fat brother, aging skin, debts to lobbyists, bowing to money, and endlessly on.

But no one mentions that McCain's face is badly distorted from cancer removal. He's a man. Masculinity is the gold standard. Women are interesting only in their deviation from the norm.

And even this is a morally dubious statement, because I know that the autoworkers who are being laid off this year in Canada are mostly male and they are doomed. The advantages of masculinity will not be obvious to them as they search for new jobs in industries that no longer exist. Even if you have the male card, money always trumps gender.

'Nothing's changed'

I have enormous sympathy towards men. Erica Jong said sadly that women expect men to be "giant cocks spouting money." She wrote that 35 years ago, and it's still true.

I remember being in my 20s and feeling a chunky little man's hand running up and down my back as he told me how he would go about hiring me if I slept with him, change the evaluation letter he was holding up in front of my face, for instance. I got up and left the building.

This year, I watch an old man — a powerful old man — tell me how me having an affair with him would really perk me up. His eyes widen, his tongue hangs out. His body slumps in his seat in disappointment when I react with incredulity and then briskness. He then goes into a grim monologue about the pointlessness of his work. I'm horrified but frozen in place by feminine politeness.

A chirpy and well-fed human rights worker tells me how much he believes in honesty and journalistic freedom. And sleeping with "beautiful young African boys." I complain to his boss, saying sexual exploitation in Africa's poorest nations isn't ethical. His boss tells me lots of creative men "can't keep their pants on!" I am aghast. I react with politeness.

These three guys do not represent all men.

I don't know why but I am always polite to them. I have observed that this is what women do. In this, I do represent all women.

Nah, nothing's changed. It will change, but not yet.

This Week

I read the Feb. 25 issue of The Nation, a magazine I subscribe to because of great writers like Naomi Klein, Patricia J. Williams and Katha Pollitt. I read a lengthy article about teaching "social justice" to teenagers who live in the slums of Chicago's West Side.

Teachers claim to teach academic basics via civil rights. It's based on educational theory that says traditional teaching suffers from "narration sickness" because a hierarchical relationship means teachers deposit facts into the student without cultivating an understanding of what those facts mean.

So the kids learn about plant biology, food distribution and the health of the community by … planting an urban garden. An English teacher explores misogyny and materialism in American culture with … hip-hop lyrics.

My heart sinks. Can these kids do the basics like spell? Have they ever read a hardcover book? The Nation is pestering me to renew my subscription but my cheque-writing fingers have gone numb. Is this what the historian Susan Jacoby means when she says education isn't valued in America?

Letters

As someone who writes on political affairs, Ms Mallick, you appear to have a great misunderstanding of Gen. Rick Hillier’s motivation to get a quick decision from parliament on matters concerning Afghanistan. The Canadian people and soldiers on the ground care little how the Taliban may feel superior. According to history any country facing an election or political indecision will experience a rise in attacks against their forces to sway the people of the enforcing country.

More sons and daughters of Canada will not walk of the plane that brings them home. Gen. Hillier understands this, thus he wants to send a message to the Taliban that their attempts to deter us will not work, and a united parliament and country is the only thing that can convince the Taliban of our tenacity.

He was trying to save lives, Ms Mallick. Try and show some respect for the men and women who give their lives for Canada. One more thing, as a Canadian Forces Officer, Gen. Hillier would have had the decency of referring to you as “Ms Mallick”, not “Heathy”.

– Riley | Victoria

So, Heather Mallick thinks that I should be embarrassed by Rick Hillier and Ezra Levant. Imagine. These are men who are fighting a great and important fight. One is defending our freedom against radical Islamist oppression on the battlefield while the other does so in our Human Rights Kangaroo courts.

These men are heros and I am proud to share the same nationality with them. This just shows how utterly out of touch Ms Mallick is. In my mind, it is Ms. Mallick who is the embarrassment.

– Ron Laffin | Toronto

Donnie in PEI (below) notes that Heather Mallick is contradicting herself in recent columns. First by lambasting Hilary Clinton and then by having issue with people stereotyping her, now that she seems to be losing the Democratic race.

This is not contradictory in the least. The media does stereotype Clinton, as they often do to women. That doesn't mean that Heather has to agree with Clinton, her ideas, or her campaign. It's just pointing out that, as a woman, Clinton is sterotyped.

I agree that Clinton is stereotyped. Who cares what she wears, what her hair looks like, or whether her belt matches her shoes? And like Heather, I think that Obama is the best candidate. Nothing contradictory there.

– Deborah | Newfoundland

I often think that Heather Mallick is a complete wing-nut when I read her viewpoints; then I re-read them and realize that she is far more often right on the point

.

Does she insult me occasionally? Sure. Does she titilate me occasionally? Sure. Do I agree with her? Usually. Do I still think she's a wing-nut? Sure :) but we need wing-nuts who don't always spout the party line. Good on you, Heather!!

– John | Victoria

Ms Mallick, I find your columns endlessly intelligent and entertaining. I am so glad that a journalist with a fabulous perspective like yours has the freedom to voice her opinion at the good old CBC.

I'm hoping that one day, Canada will lose its ego and cease to be an "us against them" society; maybe we could be flexible enough to to stop squabbling amongst ourselves - it's so tiring and unnecessary.

Keep up the good work - your columns obviously stir us. Through this, change of mind is on the horizon if we are able to adapt to it.

– Leah | Toronto

I am absolutely appaled by Mrs Mallicks comments. It is extremely insulting to the men and women of the Canadian Forces who are over in Afghanistan sacrificing their lives to keep strict sharia law from being practised.

To imply that the men and women over there are hiding behind the innocent civilians they're trying to protect is the worst form of journalism, and for someone who purportedly speaks up for women everywhere, it's insensitive for Mrs Mallick to not look at the fact that the Forces are keeping the flagrant abuse of womens rights over there from being pounded down by a bunch of flying stones.

Last, stop using your categorical crutch to get along in your life. Things have come a long way, and so long as the extreme feminists keep flaunting the fact they're hard done by, then they will continue to be.

– Rich | Victoria

Rich, if you read the article again, you'll find that Ms. Mallick was referring to the Taliban as hiding behind civilians, not our troops. As to the article itself, I agree that women and minorities are held to a higher standard in certain situations than older, rich white men might be.

But I still think that to get where you want to go means you have to do your best regardless of your race or gender and that whining about them as a reason for not getting what you want is a lame excuse.

– Nancy G | Waterloo, Ont

Heather Mallick's writings are pretty contradictory.I have read her column over time and she seems to passionately support certain topics that she attacks in later articles.

She is a very confusing.In one article she lamblasts Clinton and now that she may be losing she goes on a diatribe about anti-woman junk by putting men down.

– Donnie | P.E.I.

Actually, I think Ms Malick was talking about Afghan terrorists, not our armed forces. Typical male chauvinist, always jumping to the wrong conclusions!

– Caitlin Stewart | Winnipeg

Ms. Mallick, you've hit the nail on the head. We still haven't got very far but there is some hope. There are. however, many people who still don't want women to have any power, etc. Perhaps we will get there someday.

– Daisy O'Byrne | Surrey, B.C.

I believe Heather Mallick has her own personal issues. Many people do not judge Clinton on her gender. Most men I know who disagree with her, do so not based on her gender.

Moreover, I think perhaps you have had problems in the past, does not represent the future and trust me, being a man is held against you more than you would think. Because you had problems, you should not turn it around on all men.

– Justin | Toronto

Heather Mallick never lets the facts get in the way of her fiercely slanted stories. Like a third-rate Maureen Dowd, she creates rigid caricatures surrounding those individuals (always polically conservative) and nations (usually the United States) that she quite obviously despises. It's ironic that this article surrounds stereotypes, because Ms. Mallick employs this device in every column.

While she's certainly entitled to her left-wing viewpoints (I question why our taxpayer dollars must endow her soap-box), she's not entitled to her own facts. Take her smear of John McCain. Sen. McCain (who spent 6 years in the "Hanoi Hilton") is a strident opponent of torture, and has consistently argued against it since the War on Terror began.

Even a modicum of research would have highlighted this fact. To write otherwise is straightforward intellectual dishonesty. I suggest that Ms. Mallick, if she wishes to continue her campaign against the evils of conservatives, to at the very least be factually correct in her accusations.

– R. T. Raborn | Sherwood Park, Alberta

I feel pity for you Mrs. Mallick. You grew up in an era when the struggle for gender equality was synonymous with political activism and now you seem unaware how to adapt. In one paragraph you recognize the flawed logic that women should all support Hillary Clinton for president, and in the very next paragraph you slavishly adhere to it.

As you meander through the rest of the wide range of topics in your editorial, you seem more and more desperate in your attempts to include the issue of gender. If gender disparity is all you look for, then it should be no surprise that it's all you find.

If you take a break from gender-crusading and take a look around, you'll find that there are plenty of other issues worth debating. I for one believe that there is some merit to an efficient debate to provide our military with a clear mandate in short order so they can get on with the task at hand (whenever we decide what that is).

I also believe that while Ezra Lavant is opportunistic, the fact that there was such an uproar over deciding to show some cartoons (that were the basis of a worldwide news story, by the way) says volumes about Canadian society. Instead of actually analyzing these stories, you were more interested in directing petty insults at the men at the centre of them.

By muddying the waters of relevant issues by superimposing your own gender stereotypes over them, you reduce every debate down to a 'boys versus girls' argument more fitting on a schoolyard than the CBC opinion pages.

I genuinely hope that some day you can stop fighting the battles of the past and get on with providing interesting commentary of the issues of today.

– Alex Ondrus | Edmonton