In flagrant defiance of the newly proposed blog civility rules, I bring you more easy jokes at the expense of Kathleen Parker. Rising like the ashes of some dumb as hell phoenix, Kathleen shrugged off my previous broadside and got herself a spot at the Washington Post.
Mother of All Blunders
Now, for those of you not in the know, this title is a little military humor. Kathleen is spoofing on the MOAB or Mother of All Bombs. So with a witty title like that, you know it can only get better.
On any given day, one isn't likely to find common cause with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
It's true. The only days to find common cause with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are Arbor Day and Michael Lewis' birthday.
He's a dangerous, lying, Holocaust- denying, Jew-hating cutthroat thug -- not to put too fine a point on it.
No that's more of a broad point, but I'll let it go. But this Ahmadinejad fellow sounds like quite the rascal. Not a guy you want to get close to...
But he was dead-on when he wondered why a once-great power such as Britain sends mothers of toddlers to fight its battles.
...unless of course he agrees with your position that women don't belong on the front lines.
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.
Yes, but not because England allowed 15 of its troops to get taken hostage and couldn't do a thing about it.
While the West puts mothers in boats with rough men, Muslim men "rescue" women and drape them in floral hijabs.
Not women, not people. Mothers. Way to completely strip Faye Turney of all of her humanity save for her role as a breeder. I'm sure she appreciates it.
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.
It's OK if we raise the odds of making this a single parent family by sending the father out to fight in a pointless war in the middle of the desert, but god help you if you take the mother instead. Everyone knows if you let the dad raise a family the daughter ends up a sass talking tomboy (but is really pretty inside). Plus, hilariously, none of the household chores get done.
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.
And instead of you and your editor taking advantage of the wonderful platform we call the internet and providing links to this space eating information, instead you just ask us to trust you. Makes sense to me.
Why the West has seen it necessary to diminish motherhood so that women can pretend to be men remains a mystery to sane adults.
Not is it only a complete fallacy that only in the West do women fight (female suicide bombers anyone?), but the notion that women soldiers are "pretending to be men" is some kind of grade school estimation of gender relations. Kathleen Parker, Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader? Damn I'm funny.
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.
Ironically, considering the fact that America is involved in trying to end both a civil war and a guerrilla war, the more stereotypical skills of the womankind (talking it out, making peace) would probably be very useful.
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.
You manage to say something really dumb every column, don't you Kathleen? Who gives a shit if she's lovely? If she has less problems killing someone than I do, she gets to be in the military.
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?
Yes! In war and in all walks of life. Perhaps, for their own protection, women should be required to wear some type of restrictive garment that covers their whole body.
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.
She loves the rape thing. I wonder though, what makes women more vulnerable to injury. Especially a mother. You figure that once you've given birth to some mutant who's ripped your sex organs in twain, you can stand just about any injury. Except maybe a papercut. No one likes a papercut.
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.
Plus, her goody bag contained two items that the male soldiers did not get: tampons and a copy of "The Vagina Monologues". The horror!
Rape, though not a likely risk in this case, is a consistent argument against putting women in or near combat.
Or for that matter, against letting them leave the house.
While advocates for women in combat argue that men are also raped, there is an important difference.
Boys have a penis and girls have a bugina?
Women are raped by men, which, given the inherent power differential between the sexes, raises women's rape to another level of terror.
Hoo boy, not in Japan. In Japan all sorts of things rape women. Tentacles, sex monsters, fire hydrants. It's like some kind of rape obstacle course. (Look, I'm not trying to treat rape lightly here, but my God. What would you do with this material? "Women are raped by men?" Thank you Dr. Einstein, would you please tell me what happens when I put my hand in water now? )
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?
Well, "allow" is kind of a bad term. I mean, if they "allow" their fellow women to be raped, they aren't good soldiers either. They should probably be court-martialed.
None that I know, but our military is gradually weaning men of their intuitive inclination to protect women --
Who says I want to protect all women? There are plenty I don't like.
which, by extrapolation, means ignoring the screams of women being assaulted.
Since men are robots, ignoring the screaming of women being assaulted causes them to malfunction and explode. BOOM!
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.
On 9/11, they hijacked our planes and raped 3000 of our women. That's why we fight.
Positioning women to become pawns of propaganda, meanwhile, is called aiding and abetting the enemy.
Asking half of the population to sit out a so called "clash of civilizations" is not only sexist, but poor military planning.
You know where to reach her.