Jackson Doughart has “no opinion” on prostitution laws, but he does have an opinion on Heather Mallick. In an article for the Prince Arthur Herald entitled “Heather Mallick’s Misandry,” Doughart claims he’s
not here to discuss the bill, but rather to point out Mallick’s heartless characterization of men, which undergirds her belief in punishing johns but not prostitutes: “[It] promotes gender equality,” she writes, “and shifts a legal burden from exploited women directly onto the pathetic men who buy sex.”
According to Doughart, “Heather Mallick is a sexist,” and Mallick’s habitual “derogations would almost certainly land her in a human rights court if they were directed at women instead of men.” However, that’s not going to happen because of Mallick’s “unchecked privilege.” A privilege that Doughart says makes Mallick
incapable of empathizing with anxious and depressed men who’ve had misfortunes with the fair sex. So she dismisses the real angst of thousands, perhaps millions of men in this country, almost all of whom don’t go to prostitutes. None of them should, of course, though perhaps we might forgive them the temptation.
Yes, its true many women have little or no sympathy or even empathy with men “who’ve had misfortunes with the fair sex.” Women have had their share of bad experiences with less-than-fair males and for
millenniums, millennia, have received little or no sympathy.
Doughart is correct when he says not all men are “moral monsters who [derive] pleasure from ‘owning women, ‘” but his statement prompts the question: how did the word morals enter the discussion? It comes up because Doughart thinks going to prostitutes is a condemnation/forgiveness issue, which evidenced by his opinion that “of course” men should not go to prostitutes. Doughart needs to tell us why men should not go to prostitutes.
Jackson Doughart’s article “Heather Mallick’s Misandry” can be summarized in one short sentence: a misogynist accuses Heather Mallick of misandry.