There is an old saying that the fruit never falls far from its tree. Now if one were a sexist shit like half of the Canadian media, half of parliament and all of Norman Spector one would think that this old saying applies to Belinda and her mother. Indeed, that is how sexism works and of course why it fails as a serious attempt to explain behaviour.


The first move in sexist explanations of behaviour comes when the actions to be explained are gendered. Belinda betrayed first her man and then her party. But wait are not women suppose to be loyal care givers? The second move comes when the virgin-whore dichotomy is put into play. Failing to act like a good virgin Belinda is then read through the lens of a treacherous whore. In either case women are shuttled into a gender made straight jacket: you may, as a women, either be a victim or a treasonous slut. This processes of constructing women through the virgin-whore binary is one of the most stable truths generated by feminist research for good reason: it is the typical form of patriarchal control.


However if we really care to explain Belinda’s behaviour we are perhaps better-off to look to the Patriarch: Frank Stronach. Back in the early 1990s when Magna international was shuttling jobs out of the country down Mexico way Frank was asked how he could justify taking jobs away from Canadians when but for the help of the federal government Magna would not be the company it was. Frank’s response was

To be in business your first mandate is to make money, and money has no heart, soul, conscience [or] homeland.

So it seems that fruit really does not fall so far from the tree after all.


Yet, it is much more convenient to read Belinda’s actions through a sexist lens for it forestalls the need to ask what her values are really emblematic of? And an answer to that question would lead right to the hollow heart of the Canadian capitalist class; not something Norman, the media, nor the parliamentarians want to talk much about. Hence she is a bitch. QED.