Margaret: Offensive but not (entirely) inane

Today's column involved bringing some of her beloved "common sense" to bear on the 20th anniversary of the Montreal massacre:
As always, the day was marked by memorials and candlelight vigils across the country, affecting interviews with families and survivors – and a large helping of overheated nonsense. The target of Margaret's scorn is twofold: that the motivations that prompted Lepine's actions were part of a widespread and tolerated pattern of derogatory attitudes towards women among Canadian men at the time; and that this pattern of attitudes remains to this day. Now Margaret is right to wonder what role familial upbringing and what role broader cultural influences played in generating Lepine's hatred of women, but to simply stipulate that is was entirely the former,
[Lepine] no more resembled ordinary men than Robert Pickton does, simply because that hypothesis better suits her political views, is entirely unwarranted. Moreover, Margaret is probably right that the derogatory attitudes towards women among Canadian men of 20 years ago are both less widespread and less tolerated -- at least among certain segments of the population -- today. But stipulations,Women still suffer far too often from spousal abuse. But social tolerance of it has all but disappeared and cherry-picked evidence,women now make up three-fifths of all university students and most of the PhD candidates do not establish that such attitudes have been eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels. And her suggestion that Canadian women shouldn't complain because they have it better than women elsewhere in the world
In Afghanistan, women are routinely killed for defying men. In South Asia, vast numbers of female fetuses are aborted, and girls are routinely neglected in favour of their brothers.is just patronizing.