Posted on January 2, 2003 in Crosstalk Social Justice
Poor Madame Fabulous met a putz on No War Blog who is running an anti-feminist line. Personally, I get bemused fairly quickly with such fools. Like the neo-confederates, they are predictable and usually have no idea of what they are saying.
Here’s a supportive response to her woe:
Read me carefully! I don’t like the sound of this clown! (Oooooo….onomatopeia! — sound of clown!)
The only valid point that I feel men make regarding the feminist agenda (and it doesn’t defeat the agenda, only calls for modification) is that we’re the ones who have to go off to war. This is not necessarily with the consent of all women — Congresswoman Pat Schroeder championed the cause of women soldiers who engaged the enemy and yet were denied combat pay — but it remains a valid point against some feminists who seem to want to deny the risks men take in going to war. Personally, I will fight any attempt to take rights away from women because they do not serve in the armed forces, but if we’re going to have wars, they should have to go to the front lines with the men and face all the same dangers. Equality means that you take on the full burden of citizenship.
The war card, played by the average fool, is nothing more than an attempt to instill a single sex Starship Troopers society. (Except I bet the guy is a chicken hawk.)
In summary, the argument has limited validity. But only on the one point: if there must be wars, women should have to serve as well as the men. (But then, if we have no wars, then no one will have to serve….I doubt your antagonist would like seeing his opportunities for macho valor taken away from him.)
If he’s not arguing this exact case, Tanya, the guy’s a putz looking for excuses to be stylishly reactionary and politically correct. He’s the kind of guy who would hang around bars, telling war stories to get laid unless he’s four-F or a chicken hawk. (Well, he still might tell stories if they really do get guys laid.) Bet if you press him by saying “OK, women should serve” he’d mumble something about the dangers to your “pretty little heads”. Then he’s back in the chauvinist category where he belongs. You’ve got him where it hurts, then. Squeeze.
Ask him which rights women should lose as a result of male refusal to allow them to engage in combat, even when they are willing to do so. Then have a field day picking him to pieces while you point out others — including many in power — who by his definition shouldn’t be allowed those rights. They kick and squeal. If you’re a sadist, you’ll just love the show.
And if you want to throw a slogan at him, say War is menstruation envy. I’ve seen more than a few choke on that one.
For the record, I’m a pacifist and I’ll be darned if I am going to allow society to be run without my mind’s contributions.