Kathleen Parker: Rape of women is worse than of men, etc.

Even someone as generally lucid as K.P. can occasionally fall into the "equality when it works for us" category. And, she just couldn't resist playing "the rape card", could she? Oh, Kathleen...

FWIW, not only are most of the comments at WaPo against the article, for a variety of reasons, but the gals over at feministing.com are all upset over this article, too, apparently because K.P. didn't use the words 'patriarchy' and 'oppression' (or 'domination') enough, and failed to repeat the 1 in 4 hate stat, or something.

* MB

MB - I think we're up to 1 in 3, not 1 in 4. It's sorta like the "wage gap" nonsense. The amount changes every day. Interesting thing - most HR textbooks now point out that younger women now make $1.15 for every dollar earned by young men, thanks to the differentials in education, access to employment, etc. All of this mangling of imaginary figures reminds of that bit in "The Manchurian Candidate" where the hypocrite politician has to invent the number of communists he's sure are in the Pentagon or wherever. It was 57, I believe.

That is an idea proposed by feminist ideologues, who take advantage of a horrible crime to further their agenda.

-ax

KP -- "Why the West has seen it necessary to diminish motherhood so that women can pretend to be men remains a mystery to sane adults."

Hey girrrrllll! It's called forty years of feminism!

You might have learned about it in journalism skool, cupcake!

It's the reason we have to kill trees to make paper to read fluff-heads like you who couldn't properly diagram a sentence if your ekwual opportunity career depended upon it!

It's sad to realize KP makes six figures a year for this kind of rhetorical flatulence, while men have to go to actual work tomorrow.

I'm on your side. My book, "Save the Males," will be out this fall.

Thanks for the note.
Kathleen

On Apr 7, 2007, at 9:03 PM:

Regarding your recent article -
Kathleen - women are "equal".
Therefore, this is not a problem.
We allow women to infiltrate our service institutions and academies, and arm them with law suits for "harrassement" and "creating hostile environments" and virtually anything that hurts their feelings - when prior this WAS an all male venue and environment, and subject to exclusively male behaviour which DOES toughen men - and now we let the prissys in...
Stripping men of their dignity by allowing women into this environment, and punishing men for being men in this environment (after the lawsuits by tattle-tale women) is disgusting and a primary reason why many men leave the armed forces.
Men are sick of all of this.
Women get exactly what they deserve in these situations after forcing their way in...and for what? To prove that they can do WHAT EXACTLY?

We are completely sick of all of the politically correct crap!!

Regards,

oregon dad

I pretty much agree with Farrell: If women are allowed to volunteer, they should also have to register for the draft. If anyone did not understand that, let me say it in reverse (converse?): If women are not subject to the draft, they should not be able to volunteer. That would be correct from an "equal responsiblity for equal rights" standpoint, which I don't think is all that's being discussed here.

But if that comes to be the way things get implemented, then the only leeway needs to be, in what positions women are allowed to occupy within the service (i.e. should they be allowed in combat?). Front line is ok, as long as they are only medical personnel or journalists (for example). But women Commandos or SEALS, or even infantry? No. There is too much of a temptation (and expectation) for men to give women extra protection, and that raises all manner of possibly problematic scenarios during battle. Mainly, it puts the male soldiers in a double bind..if they do not protect the women, they are insensitive brutes who are not doing their duty as males (this seems to be Parker's outlook); but if they do have to specifically protect the women, then they weaken their overall effectiveness as a unit, which can result in more deaths. An inconvenient fact for feminist ideologues such as Parker, but one which she seems to have no problem ignoring, since males are disposable anyway (even if a few women get killed in the process).

In principle, if a woman is capable of doing the same job as a man, she should be allowed to do that job (gender equality from a woman's standpoint). But in the case of combat, I'm not sure it's that simple.

-ax

"Women are raped by men, which, given the inherent power differential between the sexes, raises women's rape to another level of terror."

Women often display "terror" over extremely mundane things such as a spider on the wall or a mouse running across the kitchen.

So you have to take women's "terror" with a grain of salt and investigate whether she was getting hysterical over something equivalent to a mouse on the kitchen floor or if there is more to it.

Can't automatically react when a woman is terrified because women often get terrified over things that absolutely under no circumstances should cause terror.