Me Too Hysteria: The Ultimate Loss of Femininity

Could and should a young black female play James Bond? As Daniel Craig is planning to officially retire from impersonating the British spy James Bond, Lashana Lynch is potentially slated to take over and inherit the role of the famous secret agent 007. This suggestion has excited and enthused many, and it has been heralded as a watershed moment of diversity. In my point of view, this excitement is misguided and misdirected, and these kinds of choices are not a sign nor signal of liberation but rather one of desperation.

Before I get prematurely attacked or branded as being misogynistic or racist, or both, please hear me out and let me explain a few points and thoughts about the Me Too movement. I applaud and highly encourage gender equality and am against racial discrimination as well as discrimination based on sexual orientation or lifestyle. And as long as this movement is dealing with and focusing on these issues, I am in full agreement and in support of this movement.

In the initial stages of what is known as the Me Too movement, female actresses came out against rich and powerful men in the movie industry. One of the most notorious men in this case was Harvey Weinstein who had previously seemed untouchable; he wielded his position and influence and forced women to do his bidding; he humiliated them, took advantage of them and emotionally and sexually abused the women within his grasp and range.

Such injustices and criminal actions were often not reported or were disregarded and discarded by the authorities as well as the media. Men who preyed upon women and violated their rights often got away with their abuses because they had protection from higher-ups and because they benefited from a culture that kept turning a blind eye to such violations.

These actions went under-reported by women who felt threatened by the status quo, and these incidents were rarely reported in the news and media. This created an atmosphere that debilitated women. 

One of the most cringe-worthy and appalling arguments in sexual assault cases was that women provoked the abuses heaped upon them by either placing themselves in a dangerous location or by dressing provocatively. Rape is the ultimate form of violence against women in which the male dominates over and violates all that is feminine. (The rape of children of both sexes is even more revolting and disgusting, but that is not within the scope of my post here.)

Another fact was also the cultural white-only hegemony. Movie characters and superheroes were predominately white, whereas ethnic actors would be generally delegated to portraying villains or at best they were given minor roles as nonessential characters. There simply was not enough diversity on television or in cinema no matter where you looked.

The immensely popular show Friends may have equally sported both genders, but it was populated by well-to-do young and good-looking white characters only. This has been worrying throughout the history of the beloved small screen, while one of the notable exceptions to the rule The Cosby Show has in recent times lost its prestige and standing because its colored protagonist committed inexcusable acts against women.

As a growing positive trend in the film industry, we now have various movies that focus on a more diverse cast, whether they be Asians or people of color often in their own shows and programs. This ranges from the critically acclaimed Black Panther (2018) of the Marvel series to the more recent and highly successful Crazy Rich Asians (2018) to other shows that highlight ethnic groups from Dear White People to Atlanta and Black-ish. The argument that these programs would not be lucrative or popular have been proven wrong and illusory; in fact, the opposite has been shown to be true.

This trend of empowerment has spilled over into more movies that portray and show us strong female characters. Although again I applaud such movies, it has started to lead down a dangerous slope of decline, which I shall elaborate upon a little later. For now, having gender presented and represented in equal measure has been again a very positive and beneficial trend. I think that the world is better not worse off when it comes to positive and powerful female characters like Wonder Woman (2017) and Captain Marvel (2019).

Then came the wave towards remaking traditionally male films with female reboots, and that was and has been a decisive step in the wrong direction. Although the all female cast of Ocean’s Eight (2018) and to an extent Netflix’s Wine Country (2019) were generally well done and not unpleasant, the Ghostbusters (2016) reboot clearly signaled what is most wrong with this new trend.

My problem is not due to having female instead of male characters, but that the Ghostbusters reboot was very sloppily written and at times deliberately insulting both to men and women. It was filled with propaganda that seemed to espouse highly stereotypical views of men. It was never all right for men to have stereotypical views of women, so why should women do so and get away with it even if it was supposedly made for laughs.

This trend has now extended to having - or proposing to have - a female Bond. Now James Bond is a fictional male character that is based on Ian Fleming’s novels. The previous movie adaptations may have supported and promoted stereotypical views on gender, but none of this changes the fact that the character is male. While in Ghostbusters, there could easily be female protagonists, and they could have gotten away with it with a better script, not to say better acting and filmmaking, in Bond’s case, this is simply not possible.

And if this trend is followed through, why not also have a female Sherlock Holmes as well as a female Rambo, Rocky, Shaft, and Terminator. And why not make an all female version of Lawrence of Arabia? The idea of having women play traditionally male roles is certainly not liberating but rather limiting if not downright ludicrous. It may be trying to undermine what is a male-dominated and oriented domain, but this unimaginative approach is one that is fueled by and filled with resentment against what are, for better or worse, considered traditionally male qualities.

What all of this shows us is that women do not want to be free, but they want to be exactly like men. They consciously or unconsciously copy male chauvinism in the forms of attitude, violence, and disregard for others. The tables have turned and now the women shall topple the patriarchy and start oppressing the male. Personally, I would not mind having women in power but do not warm to the idea of having women play men in power; it is merely the same thing only presented in a different wrapping and outfit.

Essentially, my idea of feminism is that men and women ought to have equality, yet they should not be the same. Put differently, they should have access to the same rights and opportunities but not be duplicates of one another. If and when both are identical, we all end up losing, and all the diversity in gender will be irrevocably lost.

Of course, gender is not binary. Regardless of what sex you are born in, you will have both female and male characteristics. Ideally, each of them, just like the yin and yang of the Tao, are and should be in equilibrium. That is either sex will contain and embrace elements of the other.

The problem is that traditional society does not see it that way. Boys are supposed to act tough, be independent and not cry, while girls are encouraged to freely express their emotions, but they need to be interdependent, passive, if not downright submissive. In that sense, each and both will feel hurt and stagnated as their other tendencies are not fully explored nor developed.

The problem with feminism is that it often has little to do with feminine values or femininity; it is often the exact opposite of what is considered feminine. This movement is for the most part women trying to be more like men, that is to become more aggressive and tough in their demeanor and actions.

I do not in any way support or subscribe to toxic masculinity, as it is blindly aggressive, bellicose and mean-spirited. But it is rather convenient for women to overlook their own flaws and assume that they are pure and innocent, i.e. a virgin, the symbol and embodiment that ironically enough the patriarchal groups created to attack and confine women.

Many say toxic femininity is not a thing and does not exist, but the reality is women attack in different both subtle and not so subtle ways: They will often resort to passive-aggressive violence. I have been a recipient of such abuse at work, and in fact in a previous job interview led by three women I felt under attack for simply being from the male species (the job position went to a female evidently).

Once in my early college years, I witnessed two women fighting, and it was a rather horrendous scene that left me in shock. When guys fight, there are certain unspoken rules, but when these girls were scrapping, it was complete chaos as there was scratching, screaming and hair-pulling accentuated by constant shrieking.

In fact, radical feminists (whom my wife ingeniously calls femi-Nazis) would negate and fight against the softer and gentler qualities of the feminine and instead incorporate traditionally male characteristics; not only are such feminists denying and rejecting their own femininity, but they also turn their indiscriminate attacks on men as well as all the women who do not espouse their rigid and one-sided conception of womanhood.

When women fought for equality, their right to vote, for instance, feminism used to be a veritable movement in the formidable and noble sense of equality, but when women started feeling ashamed of wearing skirts or of putting on make-up, then something started going awry. It seems that everything that was previously deemed natural shall be turned on its head and that being married and having a family means one has fallen prey to the patriarchal system or establishment.

Some of the changes may have been tied to economic necessity. In the 50s, traditions reigned supreme: the woman demonstrated her innate maternal instincts but was also delegated to the house and kitchen, while the husband went to work. Evolutionary speaking, this was the typical script in which men went to hunt for livelihood (to earn money for the purchase of food and goods), while women stayed home to look after the offspring by also taking care of the rest of the family and preparing or cooking meals for all.

This type of behavior has been ingrained and practiced since the beginning of humankind, and it has been passed on from one generation to the other. Yet right after the 60s, the sexual revolution turned things around. Ideologically, this is for the best, but with it came also a time of economic instability. Thereafter, women could not stay home even if they wanted to; especially after the 80s, it was much more common to see both husband and wife work full-time to make ends meet.

Children were not taken care of by either party; they were sent to daycare facilities. This was an essential loss for the children since they would lack essential contact and bonding with their caregivers and would be instead raised by complete strangers. This was said to foster independence but instead caused lack of connection and a general air and climate of confusion within the child’s psyche.

After this time, women enjoyed their new-found independence and decided to further explore the workforce. Since they gained more economic opportunities, they also gained power both within the household as well as within society. But in some ways, the same women were still unconsciously wanting to hold onto the maternal aspects of caring for the household; as a result, they would often run themselves down by putting too much on their own plates. This is the woman who looks after her child while also working full-time. By trying to control both worlds, she completely exhausts herself and becomes confused regarding her own identity.

Hence, men are often called in to do a task they are not naturally suited or equipped for as it is evolutionary speaking not their domain. They can try hard and learn, but it is not and does not form part of their instincts. Mothers have a symbiotic relationship with their infants as they have been carrying and feeding them in their womb for almost a year, a vital experience that men do not and cannot have and that the males are essentially deprived of.

Similarly, men as ex-hunters tend to relish or thrive under competitive and aggressive situations or at least those scenarios may come to them more naturally, whereas women will necessarily struggle in such situations; they would lack the aggressive touch and impulse. Both respective genders end up being out of place and feeling void and unsatisfied in their new chosen roles.

Again, this is not based on individual differences, but it rather points to general trends. It is a fantasy if not a downright lie that you are born with a blank slate and that you can be who you want to be. In terms of bodies, including the brain and hormones, there is a distinct gender divide, and we are not equal. 

Our bodies are not the same, so how and why should our minds be? This is not a bad thing but something that has ensured that we complement and complete each other in terms of character, ability and even personality, not unlike the androgynous myth of Aristophanes as accounted in Plato’s Symposium.

This does not mean that men cannot excel in traditionally feminine careers like nursing and teaching, nor that women cannot become engineers or scientists, but that there is a still a visible gender gap between these professions, which is due to the innate abilities for each specific gender. Men may have a greater capacity to focus and follow through with tasks, while women tend to be better with social connections as well as being able to multi-task or handle and deal with different tasks and assignments at the same time.

Oddly enough, one of the most accurate but equally disconcerting representations of gender equality is Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers (1997). In this futuristic sci-fi flick, both men and women were the same; there were women that had higher military positions and both men and women showered together as they had lost their differences. 

Both were in the same locker room naked in front of the other while acting and interacting naturally and without shame, modesty or embarrassment; their bodies elicited neither lust nor curiosity, the same way, it was not surprising nor odd to have male or female superiors among their ranks.

In that scenario, gender was easily replaced and interchangeable since they had lost what it meant to be men descended from the sun or Mars and women descended from the earth or Venus. They were merely genderless almost shapeless humans that were living and breathing amongst each other, or rather they were like Adam and Eve before they were tempted and prompted to notice their differences and forge their own separate gender identity.

Mozart's Don Giovanni as the Tragicomic Symbol of Unbridled Capitalism

“Hurray for women,

hurray for wine!
The substance and glory of humanity!”

My first taste and experience of Mozart’s famous (and equally infamous) opera Don Giovanni was Joseph Losey’s adaptation on the small screen. I was certainly impressed by the music but somewhat shocked, baffled and initially appalled by the behaviour of its famed eponymous protagonist also known as Don Juan. The plot was confusing due to his many conquests of the past, present and future, while all the while, my wife and I were hoping he would eventually come to his senses and see the light. Yet the light he sees at the end ended up being of a very different kind.

For the most part, I was hoping for any shreds of regret or redemption, yet that did not occur. But what bothered me most upon my first viewing was the general lack of feeling and empathy by this sex-crazed and obsessed womanizer. I myself tend to have a certain affinity with such characters (in fact, I have written a novel in which the protagonist is a skirt-chasing poet) and I had re-imagined this Casanova-type character as more sensual and life-affirming and imbued with poetic sensibilities, but none of that was on display here.

Instead Don Giovanni was portrayed as a vain, narcissistic sociopath who collected and bragged about his innumerable female conquests as if they were medals and trophies. As Leporello, his servant, at one point attests, his master had slept with over a thousand damsels, a number that may seem physically dubious (if not impossible), but that may be achieved if Don Giovanni indeed had several sexual exploits on each given day of the year over the span of various years.

It was on my second viewing of the same opera, this time performed live on stage with the UBC Opera ensemble that I got to re-evaluate my feelings about the character and the opera as a whole. Where in my first viewing every character seemed devoid of love and care, on this second and more intimate encounter, I noted various moments of true feeling and passion, but again none of it emanated from its protagonist. In a way, I saw him less as despicable, but more as a suffering and wanting individual who simply could not come to grips with his own directionless desires and that is when the metaphor of unbridled capitalism crossed my mind.

In fact, Don Giovanni and the unscrupulous capitalist share the trait of having a voracious appetite, the former for women and the latter for money. In Giovanni’s case, women are fully objectified; they are stripped of feeling and sensibility; he merely notes the superficial skin-deep differences, such as height, hair color, nationality and standing. Oddly enough, not only are his interests exceptionally wide and all-inclusive, he fancies all types of women, the short, the tall, the young, the old, the beautiful and the ugly alike, but he also has an overall disregard for social standing.

He pursues noble women with the same vigor than a country wench and this makes him surprisingly democratic in his choice. But that is also disconcerting. By having no specific types and by setting himself no preferences, he is after Woman in all shapes and disguises. It is a lust that knows no bounds and has no aim whatsoever as he desires every woman and every possible aspect of her. In Kierkegaard’s mind, this quest serves to enhance every woman’s beauty, but in my view, in Don Giovanni’s obsessive, reckless and egomaniacal search, he ends up both denigrating and humiliating femininity.

In fact, he is the glutton that relishes in all types of dishes that he can get his hands on, and yet, he is never satisfied; he never relinquishes his desire nor does he alleviate his itch and since he does not fulfill his need, he is on a constant quest. The combination of his unscrupulous and relentless desire to conquer and by extension shame and dishonor women everywhere is akin to an amok serial killer on the loose who targets and endangers all and every woman everywhere; as a result, anything remotely feminine becomes his immediate prey.

In his appetite for money and possessions, the money-hungry and greedy capitalist is essentially not that different from this cruel womanizer. Those types of capitalists also can never find satisfaction since there is no set point at which their needs are fully met. In this vicious cycle, the more money he has, the more he wants, and it is certainly not a case of the more, the merrier; in Don Giovanni’s situation, his lust for women entangles his soul, and like quicksand this plunges him deeper and deeper into the dark abyss below.

The avid consumer is a pale reflection of either one of them, but she also is consumed by her desire of buying and consuming stuff, only to replace a given item with another object along the way. As none of these people know what they exactly want and have no limits in their voracious but never fulfilling or satisfying appetites, they are not unlike the hungry ghosts who are destined and cursed to forever roam the earth.

Yet Don Giovanni’s appetite is not limited to women. The final scene of the opera combines three of his carnal passions: food, wine, and women. On their own and in adequate scoops and measures, each and every one of those passions are perfectly palpable and acceptable, but it is in their unlimited consumption that they become damaging to one’s physical, emotional and psychological health and well-being.

What Don Giovanni furthermore lacks is conscience. He recklessly engages in endeavors that endanger people’s relationships, social regard as well as their lives. For instance, he abuses everyone, including his servant Leporello whom he beats and then pays off with money and who is nearly killed; for Don Giovanni’s single-minded amusement, they switch clothes, and the servant is mistakenly taken for the master and barely escapes with life.  

Don Giovanni is continuously and consistently heartless and unrelenting; he kills the Commendatore without remorse, he seduces the country woman on her wedding day literally in front of the jealous eyes of the groom and later promises to marry her, which is a blatant lie. Although he previously jilted Dona Elvira, he continues to play around with her feelings, giving her hope where he has no intention whatsoever to follow it up with deeds. Every person is like a puppet that he twitches, turns and humiliates to his liking and desire, and he has no perception of consequences or the damage and hurt that he inflicts on them. Life is a series of games made to entertain him and destined for his personal pleasure only.

It is with adamant conviction that this narcissist sticks to his ideas of absolute entitlement and he never repents for his misdeeds. There may be something heroic about the fixed stance of never betraying his so-called ideals, by not wavering nor succumbing to others, not even when he is about to be dragged to hell by the Commendatore, but since his ideals are so devoid of feeling and happiness and cause nothing but pain and suffering to others, this posture becomes tragicomic in itself. Like an avid gambler, he puts all his money on one single number and that one always comes up empty, but he does not seem to realize or care about that.

And yet, there is so much potential and so many opportunities that cross his path. He could put his wealth, standing and charm to good use and find a person to love, but all his sexual experiences are so mechanical and devoid of any genuine feeling that he can never find pleasure. He simply uses his exploits for bragging rights; he shows off his many conquests to gain esteem both within himself as well as from others. This is not unlike the super-wealthy who fight for the Forbes’ list of the wealthiest person on the planet by sporting inordinate sums of money in their bank accounts. They use their possessions to impress others, and this is of little benefit for anyone involved, including themselves.

As such, they have no fidelity, but they are all steadfast in their steadfastlessness; tirelessly and listlessly they try to conquer the world for their own pleasure and benefit. Along the way, they take advantage of others and they prize what has little intrinsic value; it could be money, which is merely a symbol of wealth but not wealth itself, possessions which are merely lifeless objects, or even sexual exploits, which are experiences that do not and cannot on their own provide lasting happiness but only temporarily fulfill a void. Such sexual experiences do not consider nor take into account the other person’s feeling or pleasure, and as a result, they leave both parties empty and without joy.

But women do not come off lightly here and in Mozart’s opera they are not merely victims. The husbands are protective, often jealous and even ready to avenge the wrongdoing to their loved ones, but the women appear to relish the attention and praises heaped on them by the charming and sweet-talking Don Giovanni. 

For instance, the country wench has a choice of rejecting him and keep in mind this is on her wedding day with her husband-to-be right next to her, but then she eventually falls for Don Giovanni because of his looks, of his mastery of the art of seduction but perhaps more so because of his promises of wealth and social status his loose tongue heaps upon her. She is naïve in believing and hanging onto his words since she takes them as genuine and respectable emanations out of a mouth of a true and noble gentleman; in this way, Mozart also slyly makes fun of the dishonest upper classes of his times.

All things considered, although Don Giovanni has everything any man would want, money, standing, good looks and women, he is not brimming with life and joy; his face is pale and troubled, and yet, he is always wearing a mask. Deep inside, he is as dead as the Commendatore that comes to fetch him. And in his stubborn blindness and refusal to look truth and himself in the face, Don Giovanni does not recant, his time is up, and he is forever doomed.

Margaret Trudeau: Perpetual Teenager and Advocate for Mental Health Awareness

Last week I had the pleasure to attend a talk given by Margaret Trudeau at the Fairmont Hotel in Vancouver. Margaret Trudeau is in a unique position when it comes to Canadian politics (the closest to her would be Barbara Bush south of the border): she was not only wife to the ex-Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, but she is also the mother of the current one, namely Justin Trudeau (she gloated that the latter won by a much wider vote margin than her ex-husband).

But Margaret had not come to talk about her relationships and position within Canadian politics, she was here to talk about her personal struggles and experiences with bipolar disorder as well as to shed some light upon the dark and negative stigma surrounding mental health. Her talk was entitled “Changing My Mind” – also the title of her third published book. The event was sold out, and we all eagerly awaited Margaret to take the stage.

However, there were a few presenters before the main talk. The most impressive introduction was given by the President of UBC Santa Ono wearing his trademark colored bow tie. I was impressed that he was not only advocating for mental health but also making it a priority at the university. He confided to us that he himself had suffered from clinical depression as a young adult and that he was about to take his life at one point. This was not only very brave and courageous on his part, but at the same time it felt uplifting since he demonstrated to us that despite it all (or perhaps because of it all), he had achieved an impressive position and status in life as the president of a renowned university.

Margaret was then formally introduced, and we got our first glimpse of this woman who occupied such an enviable as well as difficult position in life. She told us that because of her disorder, she was like a “perpetual teenager” - a term I very much appreciated and that sat well with her as she was bubbly, energetic, engaging and funny throughout the evening.

However, she was talking very rapidly, and there were times the abundance and overflow of words and information made my head spin. Ten minutes in, I was not sure I would be able to sit through it all, but her sense of humor helped tremendously, and right before us all, without any notes and apparent plan or structure, this perpetual teenager spoke to us without a pause, breath or blink, but she had an important story to tell.

First off, she said that we do not scold, look down or frown upon people whose body does not function as it should; people whose organs, limbs, ears and eyes are not working properly tend to have our sympathy and understanding, but when we say that our brains are not working as they should, it becomes a different situation all together. We recoil, stigmatize, trivialize or even blame them for their shortcoming. Well, she said, in her case, it was that her brain was dysfunctional, and she had to suffer a lot before she was given the treatment and understanding she so desperately needed.

Her first symptoms emerged during adolescence, but they were immediately dismissed and shrugged off as the upheavals and ups and downs of being a teenager. Like many young adults, she would experiment with alcohol and drugs, but the problem is that people with mental illness may fall into the vicious grasp and cycles of substance abuse. In her case, during her manic phase, she would already be high, and then it would be confounded and intensified to a much higher degree when combined with alcohol and drugs.

There are various changes in body chemistry that affect people who have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. On one side, during the depressive phase, her serotonin levels would be too low. Serotonin, a chemical and neurotransmitter that regulates mood, is responsible for feelings of calm, peace, love, and joy, and in larger amounts for excitement and euphoria. Serotonin is a connector, so certain stimuli would elicit corresponding feelings; for instance, watching a beautiful sunset, walking in a forest or listening to beautiful music would trigger a feeling of calm or bliss.

In people who have lower levels, there would be a disconnect. Like us, they would see the amazing sunset, but it would not invoke any strong feelings or in some cases, no feelings whatsoever. This is the reason why depressive people rarely respond to beauty or happiness that we tend to perceive; it leaves them untouched and cold due to a lack of this neurotransmitter. Add to that a lack of sleep, and the situation worsens because a good night sleep replenishes the levels of serotonin in one’s body. So does food like seeds and nuts as well as raw oysters; the latter is often labeled as an aphrodisiac, but it is essentially a feel-good food, she grinned.

Dopamine, on the other hand, is what creates all kinds of energy and emotions ranging from insights, spiritual experiences, artistic endeavors to fear and anxiety. Most artists tend to have higher levels of dopamine as it makes them feel situations and experiences more profoundly, and it comes as no surprise then that many great artists are and have been bipolar. This condition may help them to dig deep; in their restless manner, they would be able to achieve great insights and results. Give me an empty canvas in my manic phase, and I will fill it up within a short amount of time, Margaret told us with a smile.

However, there were also various scary and uncanny moments. She told us of an incident where she was supposed to go shopping in Montreal and ended up in Crete. At the time, as she was the wife of the Prime Minister, she did not need a passport and was able to travel as a diplomat. On a whim, she then decided to go to Paris instead of Montreal because she had never been there before; still not impressed, she ventured onto Crete. 

All this time, she had not communicated nor told her husband where she was or where she was heading, and he was only able to find out when she had consulted the Canadian embassy to help her get to Greece. Back then, they did not have cellphones evidently, but it had not crossed her mind to call and tell her husband about her whereabouts.

Being the Prime Minister’s wife also hindered her from getting the help and treatment she needed. After having her second child, she suffered from postpartum depression, a condition that was not as known or studied as extensively as it is today. When she saw a psychologist, he told her that it was the “baby blues” and that she would grow out of it. She said that the psychologist did not really see her as a patient but was more interested in the fact that she was the wife of the prime minister, and he told her husband to take care of her and spend more time with her.

It was after her divorce when things got much worse for Margaret, and she was admitted to the psychiatric ward. That is when she knew that there was something seriously amiss with her brain and that she would have to suffer for and because of it. Yet the advent of antidepressants combined with psychotherapy, mainly cognitive-behavioral and positive psychology helped her overcome these difficult conditions. The medication helped her balance her chemistry, while the positive self talk helped her choose the road to happiness versus the downtrodden path of misery.

As she continued talking about the importance of psychotherapy, about turning over one’s power to therapists and about choosing happiness, I could not help noticing that all things considered, the woman speaking in front of us was not quite well. She exhibited a manic state as she made it through the talk with various tangents and asides, and she even ended it all with a joke. I think that despite the many good intentions of positive psychology, it does not get to the root of the psychological issues and problems at hand; it tends to replace negative with positive self-talk, but unlike psychoanalysis, the problems and conflicts are not fully addressed nor resolved.

After listening to her for a good and rather entertaining hour, it was apparent that Margaret had gone through a lot of personal and emotional suffering, including the untimely loss of one of her sons due to a skiing accident. Yet at the same time, there was no denying her resiliency, courage and determination, and her ability to make it through life’s pain and suffering by coming out with her head held up high and by firmly standing up for others.

When Pierre Elliott Trudeau first met her, she was 18; he was much older than her and had more in common with her parents than herself, she joked, but he was immediately smitten with her. She said she did not know or understand why, but for us it was not hard to see how her wit, charm and determination would have melted the heart of the Prime Minister to be and how she would give him a son who would be the current Prime Minister of Canada.