Worst Op-Ed Page Ever
The Washington Post is really giving the Wall Street Journal a run for the country’s worst editorial section. Today, Fred Hiatt gives Kathleen Parker (yes, that Kathleen Parker) 750 or so words to stupidify our national discourse even further.
Look upon her wanks, ye mighty, and despair:
Mother Of All Blunders
By Kathleen Parker
On any given day, one isn’t likely to find common cause with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He’s a dangerous, lying, Holocaust- denying, Jew-hating cutthroat thug — not to put too fine a point on it.
But he was dead-on when he wondered why a once-great power such as Britain sends mothers of toddlers to fight its battles.
“Yeah, so Ahmadinejad may be a reactionary fundamentalist creep, but he’s right about bitches in the army. Oooooo, I wonder if he hates fags too!”
Ahmadinejad characterized as a gift to Britain the release of 15 British sailors and marines, including one woman, seized at sea last month. In reality, the hostages were the West’s gift to Ahmadinejad.
When a pretender to sanity such as Ahmadinejad gets to lecture the West about how it treats its women, we’ve effectively handed him a free pass to the end zone and made the world his cheerleaders.
Among his cheerleaders, of course, is Kathleen Parker, who says that Ahmadinejad was “dead-on” when he ridiculed the west for allowing vagina-enhanced persons to serve in the military.
Not only does the Iranian president get to look magnanimous in releasing the hostages, but he gets to look wise. And we in the West get to look humiliated, foolish and weak.
If “the West” means Kathleen Parker and the Washington Post editorial page, then yes, I’ll agree with that.
Just because we may not “feel” humiliated doesn’t mean we’re not.
Ooo, I like this! Kathleen is telling us decadent, submissive Westerners how we should be feeeeeeeeeeling.
Have I mentioned that Fred Hiatt is a complete fucking moron for publishing this shit? Have I? If not, then Fred Hiatt is a complete fucking moron for publishing this shit.
In the eyes of Iran and other Muslim nations, we’re wimps. While the West puts mothers in boats with rough men, Muslim men “rescue” women and drape them in floral hijabs.
You know, I honestly don’t give a shit what the Iranian government thinks of my manhood. I’d like to think I’m secure enough in my cockitude that I don’t have to look toward leaders of a foreign country to tell me what a big sexxxxy man I is.
We can debate whether they’re right until all our boys wear aprons, but it won’t change the way we’re perceived.
Holy shit. Kathleen. My gods. Kathleen.
You did not just write an entire column whose sole purpose was to warn Americans that Muslims think we’re fags. You did not just do this.
The propaganda value Iran gained from its lone female hostage, the mother of a 3-year-old, was incalculable.
It is not fashionable these days to suggest that women don’t belong in or near combat — or that children need their mothers. Yes, they need their fathers, too, but children in their tender years are dependent on their mothers in unique ways.
“Men don’t have ta-tas that secrete milk.”
There’s not enough space here to go into all the ways that this is true, but children (and good parents) know the difference even if some adults are too dim, brainwashed or ideologically driven to see what’s obvious.
I, for one, was brainwashed into thinking I had a vagina years ago. Radical feminism, this is all your fault!
Why the West has seen it necessary to diminish motherhood so that women can pretend to be men remains a mystery to sane adults.
Say, doesn’t writing op-ed columns for the Washington Post seem like kind of a manly thing to do? I mean, think about all teh super-tuff men with their super-tuff opinions dukin’ it out about the most important issues of the day. David Ignatius. David Broder. Richard Cohen. Charles Krauthammer. All men. With manly pundit dongs.
So why is Kathleen pretending to be one of these mega-manly pundits? In the words of “Fat Chicks in Party Hats” and Kathleen herself: “It is a mystery.”
Also, Fred Hiatt sucks big-time for publishing this column.
It should be unnecessary to say that the military is not a proper vehicle for social experimentation but is a machine dedicated to fighting and, if necessary, killing.
“If necessary killing?” Kathleen, what do you think all those fucking guns are for? Do you think that automatic weapons are only designed to wound someone’s self-esteem? What the fuck?
Oh, and to Fred Hiatt: fuck you.
Women may be able to push buttons as well as men can, but the door-to-door combat in Fallujah proved the irrelevance of that argument. Meanwhile, no one can look at photos of the 15 British marines and sailors and argue convincingly that the British navy is stronger for the presence of Acting Leading Seaman Faye Turney — no matter how lovely and brave she may be.
No, seriously. Fred? Fuck you.
OK, this column goes on for much too long, so I’m just gonna excerpt the rest right now and save my comments for the end:
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that women, despite all evidence to the contrary, are as capable as men in any battle. If our goal is to prevail, shouldn’t we also consider other ramifications of putting women in combat and other positions of risk?
Those ramifications include women’s unequal vulnerability to rape and injury, as well as cultural attitudes toward women that may enhance their exposure to punishment or, alternatively, make them useful to our enemies.
Iran wasted no time dressing up Turney in Muslim garb and parading her before television cameras. More than her fellow male captives, Turney was required to confess repeatedly, to apologize for trespassing in Iranian waters and to write letters of contrition.
This was not, needless to say, Churchill’s navy.
Rape, though not a likely risk in this case, is a consistent argument against putting women in or near combat. While advocates for women in combat argue that men are also raped, there is an important difference. Women are raped by men, which, given the inherent power differential between the sexes, raises women’s rape to another level of terror.
What kind of man, one shudders to wonder, is willing to allow his country’s women to be raped and tortured by men of enemy nations? None that I know, but our military is gradually weaning men of their intuitive inclination to protect women — which, by extrapolation, means ignoring the screams of women being assaulted.
At the point when our men can stand by unfazed while American servicewomen are raped and tortured, then we will have no cause to fight any war. We will have already lost.
Positioning women to become pawns of propaganda, meanwhile, is called aiding and abetting the enemy.
Yes, Kathleen Parker just called it treasonous to let women into the military. That’s right, treasonous.
Thanks, Fred Hiatt. Thank you so much for making our national discourse even more of a joke than it already is.
Women should not write op-ed columns. They might be subject to harsh criticism that their poor weak little minds can’t handle. They should stay home and watch the kiddies.
They might be subject to harsh criticism that their poor weak little minds can’t handle. They should stay home and watch the kiddies.
I concur completely. They are far too fragile to endure the rigors of intellectual combat and/or the ridicule of smarmy assholes like me.
I love the fact that Kathleen Parker’s argument about how rape is worse for men than it is for women is a classic radfem argument – “the inherent power differential between the sexes”?
Okay, granted that the radfem position, as I understand it, probably wouldn’t say inherent power differential between the sexes, but patriarchally structured power differential between the sexes, but I think her wording here might charitably be construed a couple of different ways.
Kathleen Parker and Mary Daly, sisters under the skin – who would’ve guessed?
The GOP’s entire platform, foreign and domestic (see “economic girlie men”), can be boiled down to: “What’re you– some kind of fag or something?”.
What the holy shit is she talking about??? Does she have any idea how many of our people in Iraq, our troops whom she feels the rest of us are commie terrorist-symp faggoty traitors for wanting to support by bringing home to their families, are women??? If they all got immediately sent home to their families, toddlers and all–and by the way that’s an excellent reason to send one gender home because, you know, fuck the fathers, and never mind that male-soldier-on-female-soldier rape is apparently reaching epidemic proportions over there–how the fuck does that do any good to the Iraqis or the rest of our troops? I suppose there’d be fewer of the poor bastards to blow up, but I bet they’d make easier targets. Is she insane? I know she’s stupid, but, no, seriously, is she fucking out of her head???
I think I’ve gone full Annti. That was just way too much goddamned bullshit to stomach. The rational part of me wants to assume she’s for a males-only draft, but the rest of me wants to kick the rational part of me in the ass for assuming that rational anything has dick to do with anything Parker has to say.
I was saying something along just these lines the other day. Seaman Turney (was Clinton deciding the rank appelations – hah! I make funny!) would have been able to fight off the marauding Persian horde if she’d had her proud, perky, impertinent bosom prudently pressed behind kevlar. But the anti-feminist impulse is strong, even across the pond, and so she had to suffer the indiginity of being videotaped and broadcast in the hajib thus embiggening the patriarchal dominance of the Arab zeitgeist.
That reminds me, who else likes honey in their mint tea? It’s yummy.
I think I’ve gone full Annti. That was just way too much goddamned bullshit to stomach.
To emphasize my point again: this was not a Townhall column. This was actually published by the Washington Post. Can featured columnist Kaye Grogan be far behind?
Yeah, that was part of the outrage. Well, to my credit, I at least didn’t fuck up any of the tags.
Hey, maybe she’s planning to peer pressure all the Townhall boys into joining up so the babes can come home and, you know, breastfeed or whatever. Except that, of course, your genuinely stupid wingnuts don’t accept that there actually *is* a troop shortage.
You know, there are times I hope the women-hating hordes of America really do win out. In fifteen years or so, when all the non-elite men in this country haven’t seen a woman dressed in anything other than this or this since they hit puberty, we women will be able to begin plotting a total takeover of this country by doing nothing more than hemming our skirts to show our calves.
Fred Hiatt is an embarassment, a hack of hideous proportions, a man without integrity or wisdom. Putting this kind of sexist claptrap on the Op-Ed page should be completely out of bounds — however, if you read the rag every day, which I’m afraid I do, you would know that they have also published D’nesh D’Sousa, Douglas Feith, and Victoria Toensing in recent weeks, in addition to their usual cavalcade of dicks, i.e., Krauthammer, Will, Novak, Cohen, Howie, et al.
I hate the Post — I really do.
It would be good if Fred had reading comprehension tests for his editorial writers. While Kathleen may have read this article it appears she missed the part where it said:
Reading this dreck makes me want to assume the fetal position and watch All the President’s Men on endless loop. Much in the way that seeing or hearing anything about Bushco makes me want to drink irresponsibly and watch an entire season of The West Wing without getting off the couch.
That humming you hear, rising rapidly in pitch, is the sound of Eugene Meyer and Katharine Graham spinning up to turbine speed in their graves.
Jillian, speaking as one who would be crushed by the enforcement of those outfits on both myself and all the women around me (Especially the two center on that first link–the one seems to be made of Goodwill linen napkins and the other of, I dunno, twigs or something), you could probably overthrow me with just a flash of ankle. I, for one, will welcome our trim-ankled overlords.
Just as an aside, is anyone else completely creeped out by the idea of mother-daughter lookalike dresses? That just seems so very, very wrong in so many ways.
Sidhe, my dear, I will only flash my ankles for you!
Could someone tell me what it is with all these bitches who tell women they need to stay home and keep house when they don’t stay home and keep house themselves, the hypocritical little whores.
I saw this headline in the >next thing, and I knew. It had to be about Fred Hiatt.
But Kathleen Parker???7777???
I think Fred is losing his mind.
Just remember, this is the same person who suggested nuking Fallujah as retaliation for the deaths, dragging, and hanging of 4 mercenaries. Yes, this lady’s got real maternal instincts and a sense of proportion.
Um…Kathleen?
Sorry to interrupt, but I did manage to think of a country where women serve in the army and no one has to–or, as you might have it, gets to–stand by impassively and listen unmoved to their screams as they are (inevitably) raped and so forth.
It’s a small but plucky nation, with a proud military history. No, not Switzerland, you big silly.
It’s Israel, you inexpressibly stupid cretin.
Waitaminute. I thought the photos from Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were mostly of “men being raped?” Y’know, the lightsticks, the panties, the pyramids, etc.?
Yeah, with some idiocy, you can form a response. White-hot idiocy like this, you just have to wait for the burn to heal and see what kind of scar it leaves.
t
Here in sunny Chicago, at least one of the papers already has Parker in the opinion section frequently. And- get this- it’s the ‘More Liberal’ paper.
What she’s really angry about is the possibility, completely undiscussed, that Iran’s government might have looked on a crew of British military personnel including a woman captured as being more PR-friendly released than held or dead.
Thus, Iran’s release of the captured personnel made a US attack slightly harder to justify. (Just slightly though, it won’t really hold them back.)
So, from the lunatic right’s point of view, if We 300 Spartans are prevented from attacking Our Persian Enemies because of the Persians’ possible kindness to our Women-Folk, then it’s the fault of the Women-Folk for denying Us 300 Spartans our chance for Glory & War.
+1 what El Cid said.
Women may be able to write op-ed columns as well as men can, but today’s piece in the Washington Post proved the irrelevance of that argument. Meanwhile, no one can read the work of any editorial writer and argue convincingly that the Washington Post is stronger for the presence of Acting Leading Wanker of the Day Kathleen Parker — no matter how lovely and brave she may be.
I used to have a cockitude. It squawked too much. Then my pussytude ate it.
ROTFLMAO.
Which intuitive inclination is why in previous wars fought by nothing but real men, women were never ever raped.
I admit it, I’m blindsided. I didn’t realize this was one of those “X = treason” pieces.
Can’t these people come up with some new template for their crazy articles? This shit isn’t funny anymore.
A totally offtopic Easter present.
“Yes, they need their fathers, too, but children in their tender years are dependent on their mothers in unique ways.”
Uh, no.
Otherwise my son would be dead, does she misunderstand the word dependant?
Children in their tender years are the tastiest.
After that point, they’re just stewers.
What?
Rape, though not a likely risk in this case, is a consistent argument against putting women in or near combat.
Gee, an genuinely likely risk of combat is death and dismemberment, which is kind of a strong argument against putting anyone in combat. But I haven’t seen Kathleen making that one, ever.
Plus, I notice she didn’t excoriate the Israelis—AKA the only truly civilized people of the Middle East—whose inclusion of women in combat has indisputably turned all their menfolk into pussies who stand by and ignore the screams of Israeli women being assaulted.
That is one insane extrapolata.
Positioning women to become pawns of propaganda
Say, while we’re on the topic, does anybody have any links to sites where I can get pictures of women in, uh, propaganda pawn positions without using a credit card?
Only fools would allow our military to permit women to be used as pawns of propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch
From the Globe and Mail (3/31/07, emphasis mine).
Jillian said,
Children in their tender years are the tastiest.
After that point, they’re just stewers.
What?
Please, think of the chil … actually, please don’t think about the children.
When a pretender to sanity such as Ahmadinejad gets to lecture the West about how it treats its women, we’ve effectively handed him a free pass to the end zone and made the world his cheerleaders.
Yes – that’s exactly what happened. The world cheered him.
If only women just stayed home to raise their children they would never get raped.
Oh wait
It’s fascinating. These war cheerleaders keep coming right up to the edge of “getting it” and then, just as 2+2=17, coming to the wrong conclusion.
Ms. Parker. War is horrible for everybody. It always includes rape. It always includes disease. It always includes the most base exploitation. This thing you seem to want so very much? it is not clean, happy and glorious. It is ugly, bloody and horrific. And keeping women out of it, or only using air, or paying proxy fighters, none of it changes the basic reality of your so deeply longed for outcome.
On another foot, I was thinking about soldiers raping soldiers in a combat zone. I remember lots of times, sitting around in a bunker at a fire base or a barracks at Battalion, lots of guys from lots of places hangin out, drinking beer and doing whatever drugs we could get our hands on, playing cards or reading or writing letters. An argument would start, get heated and all of a sudden you’d hear a couple of people chambering a round in their M16, their .45, everybody had access to at least a couple guns all the time, and had probably already gotten numb to killing.
Now I’m not here to belittle any rape, but I’ve gotta tell you. Any guy that rapes a fellow soldier in a combat zone better watch his ass forever and a day. ‘Cause she, or one of her friends is gonna have a chance to drop about fiftenn rounds on that fucker in real time. And don’t think that isn’t an effective deterrent…
mikey
Ok, wait a minute.
So, in the interests of preventing American women from being raped and tortured and otherwise victimized by the enemies that want to invade, attack and destroy us, we should not enlist women in the armed forces, but rather let women stay and home by the hearth so they can be raped, tortured and otherwise victimized by our enemies in a more seemly manner when the climactic world conflict comes to our shores?
Got it.
Jillian, when miniskirts are outlawed, only outlaws will wear miniskirts.
And Manolo Blahniks.
So it’s worse for a woman to be killed or raped than for a man because she’s more terrorized by the reminder that she’s “inherently” less powerful than a man would be to discover his weakness and vulnerability is greater than he ever imagined? I don’t think that’s very likely; it’s certainly not the thinking behind terrorism, nor is it the effect terrorism has had so far-September 11th shook people like Parker to their bed-wetting cores precisely because they thought we were untouchable. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover men are every bit as terrorized by being raped as women, or maybe even more terrorized if they are the type who think of themselves as inherently powerful. Of course, I don’t know what the truth is and am just talking out of my ass, but so is Parker, and damn it all her ass gets paid for its emanations.
And “[j]ust because we may not “feelâ€? humiliated doesn’t mean we’re not?” Yeah, it kind of does. Maybe she meant discredited, or some other word that doesn’t include damage to one’s feelings about one’s self in almost every freaking definition.
I have to agree with Kathleen Parker that women and men are unequal.
While women can practically do anything a man can do, they can also carry life, which a man cannot. Therefore women are superior to men. =]
Jillian at 18:41
A totally offtopic Easter present.
Right back atchoo!
You think WaPo is bad? The Chicago Tribune has been printing this fool since Molly died and also has Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg. Uggh!
BTW I wish I had an apron. I just finished washing a bunch of big pots and pans
getting ready for Easter dinner tomorrow and now my shirt and pants are all wet. Cheap goddam Delta faucet sprayer. Oh the horrors! I can hear Ahmadinejad laughing at me from here.
We must start another war with Iran. Kethleen Parker’s manhood has been besmirched.
Small point, but, um, this makes no sense (not that any of the rest of it does):
“Rape, though not a likely risk in this case, is a consistent argument against putting women in or near combat. While advocates for women in combat argue that men are also raped, there is an important difference. Women are raped by men, which, given the inherent power differential between the sexes, raises women’s rape to another level of terror.”
Call me crazy, but aren’t most male rape victims raped by other men? Or did Oz lie to me?
This and Ann Althouse in the NYTimes are perfect examples of why I gave up on the Op-Ed pages round about the time them blogs got invented. Received wisdom versus actual wisdom.
When Digby n Greenwald have Times columns, I’ll think about coming back.
You think WaPo is bad? The Chicago Tribune has been printing this fool since Molly died and also has Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg. Uggh!
Actually, the Trib had her long before Molly died, but maybe you didn’t notice because Molly made it possible to ignore the floaties like Parker. Now, with Molly gone, we get not only Parker and Krauthammer and Dennis Byrne, who all showed up before, but also Victor “V.D.” Hanson and Jonah “D.P.” Goldberg. The only upside is I need less coffee to get my blood flowing in the morning if I read the Trib’s Op-Ed page.
diffbrad is right. I used to feel guilty that I was only reading opinions of people who agreed with me. But the people who write opions that I don’t agree with are so unreasonable, incapable of logic, batshit insane and just plain makin shit up that I do find them to be uneadable.
So then I think “well shit. If there was only a right wing pundit that wasn’t making invalid nonsensical arguments, I’d be delighted to read that person”. But then I think: When you are writing opinions in support of the 30% or so of the population that just wants to kill, deport or abuse anyone who is not like them, there IS no logical, consistent argument you can make. They are stuck in a perfect negative feedback loop. The more they want to appeal to the last of the hardcore deadenders, the less their argument is likely to hold any water at all. So fuck ’em…
mikey
Why does Kathleen Parker hate the troops? Isn’t it amazing that you can write an op-ed piece directly blasting our troops (at least teh wimmens) and not be accused of hating the troops, but campaigning to bring the troops back home *will* get you accused of hating them?
As far as I can tell the point of this piece is that when Iran lectures us Iran is always right? Wazzat?
“Rape, though not a likely risk in this case, is a consistent argument against putting women in or near combat.”
Rape, meet death.
Rape is bad but so is getting killed by an IED and that doesn’t stop us from sending boys and girls into war now does it?
War is unsafe. Details at 11.
No secrets between sailors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e-7h-1ALuo
This should solve all of KP’s problems.
A lecture on how the West “treats its women”? “treats its women?What, “the West”= Big Daddy, “its women”= Big Daddy’s toys, or possessions, or perhaps pets, or hired help?
And by “treating,” does she mean “permitting” the members of more than half the U.S. population to choose what they want to do with their lives? See, I thought that was the kind of freedoms and stuff the turrists hated us for. Haha! The joke’s on them, I guess.
You make a great point, MzNicky. And I’d add that it’s another real good example of how there is actually quite a lot of difference in the attitudes toward and beliefs about woment between Liberals (dudes) and those of the so-called Conservatives (dudes)….
mikey
Kathleen, you don’t think strutting around, attaching electrodes to testicles and squalling about our BIG, WHITE HATS didn’t contribute?
If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don’t have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they’re relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn’t matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.
She had another recent column
saying rape isn’t really rape in some circumstances. I can’t remember if you guys dissected that gem or not.
That column isn’t too bad until the last few paragraphs. Pointing out factual errors is fair game in my book. The final though is a doozy though:
“Finally, our commanders and fighting men could focus on the business of war rather than tending to gender skirmishes that distract commanders and steal time, resources and energy from the military’s purpose.”
You talking about being raped is distracting us from our mission!! Stop your silly gender skirmishing!
Kathleen Parker’s argument about how rape is worse for men than it is for women
Au contraire, as they say in Germany. She mentions the possibility of men being raped, only to dismiss it again. I guess it is no worse than fraternity hazing.
————————————————–
When a pretender to sanity such as Ahmadinejad gets to lecture the West about how it treats its women, we’ve effectively handed him a free pass to the end zone and made the world his cheerleaders
This is a Bad Thing, since lecturing the West about how it treats its women is a right reserved for K. Parker.
We will now return you to our usual program of lecturing Islamic countries on how women should be treated.
I bet she doesn’t even realize she made a great argument for the feminization of men.
The fact is that anything we do to to Muslims, they deserve it.
Mass murder, bombings, rape of Sunni women by the Shiite govermental forces in Iraq — it’s just the price we must pay for democracy in the Middle East.
Suck it, liberals.
We must start another war with Iran. Kethleen Parker’s manhood has been besmirched.
Simply beautiful. (wipes away tear) I’m not crying!
Children in their tender years are the tastiest.
After that point, they’re just stewers.
What?
Please, think of the chil … actually, please don’t think about the children.
You were about to say “think of the chili,” weren’t you?
So she starts off with that wingnut gem of “the islamofacist evil hordes are doing things the way we think they oughtta be done”. Whether its the role of women, treatment of gays, or adherance to religious dogma (details vary, of course), it seems like your diehard wingnut would be much happier living under the Taliban, if they where, you know…whiter.
And it is after that when she starts getting really bonkers.
Lets take a crazy at untwisting one of her ideas here:
None that I know, but our military is gradually weaning men of their intuitive inclination to protect women — which, by extrapolation, means ignoring the screams of women being assaulted….At the point when our men can stand by unfazed while American servicewomen are raped and tortured, then we will have no cause to fight any war.
You gotta love the ‘argument by bullshit extrapolation’, especially when it is built on top of ‘premise I just pulled out of my ass’. And then she tops it off with crazy-bannanas.
Lets see…
i) Women in/near combat
Part of a plan by the military to distract itself with ‘gender skirmishes’
ii) Therefore, the military has decided to gradually wean (wean? Like from breast milk?) of their intuitive inclination to protect women.
Surely this inclination must exist, I know the first thing I do when I wake up is look for women to protect.
iii) Therefore men will ignore the screams of women being assaulted.
Well, I guess that would be the goal of the military’s ‘weaning plan’, so it seems a little redundant….
iv) Therefore men can stand by unfazed while women are tortured.
Wouldn’t being ‘fazed’ be giving into torture? I thought men were supposed to be uber-manly and stoic.
v) Thefore we can’t start more wars.
So, our justification for wars is male moral disinclination to rape? I thought it was 911WMDsRevengePreemptionLibertyDemoracyDominoAlQuadaStability.
Another great moment in wingnut logic and argumentation.
Door-to-door fighting in Fallujah. Therefore women can’t fight.
By the way, completely off-topic, but here is the best (non-slash) Anne Coulter story on the web.
And I’ve read them all. Which would explain a lot about my current mental state…
I am reminded of a man I dated when I lived up in Alaska- he was an ex-Navy Seals and he responded to my questions about women in combat like this- “They fought well. Better than we thought. In fact, we were afraid of what they might do. But they bleed. That’s not good when you have to slog through a swamp.” I wondered then if the navy knew about tampons.
Ann Coulter slash? Dare I ask what exactly she’d be slashed with? Like the Thundercats maybe? Or Harry Potter?
Er, I haven’t actually read any of that. It was sort of an idle boast. And the question is who, not what, she would be slashed with. Malkin, Atlas, Althouse…use your imagination. And bring a barf bag and don’t forget to recite the Litany Against Fear.
Although I must say, Ann/Hermione has possibilities…
Ewwwwwww, Moxie, I’m gonna have to cough up a hairball to get the taste out of my mouth. Just the thought of Coulter slash makes me throw up, just a little.
Sorry. It was the wine talking. Although now that I think about it…given the manhands and the Adam’s apple, Coulter slash pairings would probably be more likely to involve the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, and O’rally. Although who would be the top in those pairings is anyones guess…
children in their tender years are dependent on their mothers in unique ways. There’s not enough space here to go into all the ways that this is true
Translation: It probably then isn’t really true.
Ewwwww, even more ewwwwww! That’ll take more than just a hairball…
Hey….Who let Kathleen out of the kitchen??
And where did she get those shoes????
“I am reminded of a man I dated when I lived up in Alaska- he was an ex-Navy Seals and he responded to my questions about women in combat like this- “They fought well. Better than we thought. In fact, we were afraid of what they might do. But they bleed. That’s not good when you have to slog through a swamp.â€? wondered then if the navy knew about tampons.”
Their monthlies attract bears! That’s the last thing you need in combat – bears.
Also sharks.
Wow. The Post sure knows how to support the troops.
If nothing else, you’d think Fred Hiatt would have seen this line as particulalry problematic-
“What kind of man, one shudders to wonder, is willing to allow his country’s women to be raped and tortured by men of enemy nations? ”
Could this mean that REAL MEN only allow the men of other countries to be raped and tortured? Maybe the whole artice is just a message in support of Abu Ghraib-style detention. No, that can’t be quite right… that would make the Iranians sissy-boys for letting the British off so lightly.
Does Kathleen Parker even believe her own ignorant line of reasoning- or is this just more attention grabing. Maybe she and Hiatt should buddy up in their own reality TV show and leave the Post to journalism with op-eds by informed and/or experienced folks. Let’s lend them a hand- any thoughts on names for their show?
I have two friends who are married and both in the Army. Three months after she gave birth to their first son, it was decided that she should be sent off to Iraq because her skill-set was more useful to their purposes than her husband’s. The Army had no problem taking a mother away from a newborn because (for medical reasons) she wasn’t able to breastfeed. That’s the reason she was given. And sure enough, eight weeks later, she’s off in Iraq.
When I hear things like “…weaning men of their intuitive inclination to protect women…”, I always have to ask: Protect women from what? oh, right — other men. (Unless there are bears or sharks around, I guess.)
Not just tampons but also menstrual cups, and I hear there are these little pills called, if I remember correctly, “birth control pills,” that can keep one from menstruating entirely for very long, um, spans of time, several months even, and allow one to choose a relatively swamp-free time in which to menstruate. I know it’s buh-leading edge technology and all, so folks might not have heard of them, though. Sheesh.
And sadly I hear that men often bleed in combat situations too.
Many folks have found it very frustrating to try to find the kind of clothing that would honor the Lord.
Not to mention a good, reliable strap-on.
And sadly I hear that men often bleed in combat situations too.
But only in a very manly way, and never in a swamp. That’s for girlies.
Not to mention a good, reliable strap-on.
Do you have a license for that thing?
males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes
Is that why I keep doing that, then? Damn.
Why the West has seen it necessary to diminish motherhood so that women can pretend to be men
This is simply the completion of the process begun at the Globe Theatre, whereat The Bard’s casting regularly diminished fatherhood. See also “Flying Circus” and “Hasty Pudding.”
Jillian said,
April 7, 2007 at 18:57
Children in their tender years are the tastiest.
After that point, they’re just stewers…
I love kids! I just can’t finish a whole one.
[…] Washington Post agrees with Iran on the proper role of women, and is worried that the Muslim world thinks we’re all […]
I don’t understand why so many women go crazy for Manolos.
[…] commentary. After all, this is the same guy who regularly publishes Kathleen Parker’s rants demanding that women be banned from serving in the armed […]