Because they function as the flappy lips of patriarchy, newspapers print almost nothing but updates on the crazy men who run the world, sappy sentimental bullshit, and asinine misogynist lies all the time. Yesterday’s Washington Post Op-Ed on the unfitness of women for military service combines all three in one nose-blowingly irritating essay.
In her nonsensical piece “Mother of all Blunders,” author Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy — I mean Kathleen Parker — advances the theory that the Western practice of enlisting women in the military has, in light of the recent pissing contest between Iran and the UK over those 15 captured government-trained-killers, made “the West” (i.e. the United States) into a global laughingstock. Apparently Iran was able get a lot of tsk-tsking mileage at the expense of Britain (i.e. the United States) for putting the dear mother of a toddler in harm’s way. Because women are universally weak vessels of disability, their presence, whether on a battlefield or in a group of prisoners, is undignified. Furthermore, allowing women in combat, it seems, “diminish[es] motherhood so that women can pretend to be men.”
In Parker’s universe, the position of global laughingstock (the word she uses is ‘wimp’) apparently confers upon the citizenry a shame so insufferable that “we of the West” (she means “we of the White Judeo-Christian West”), with our delicacy of spirit, belief in invisible magic concierges, high moral rectitude, and status as the world’s premier Klingons, will suffer intolerable psychic wounds until we come to our senses and stop sending frail, virtuous mothers of “children in their tender years” into Glorious Battle. O the humiliation of all that diminished motherhood fighting our battles for us. How will We Of The West, with our wimpiness and callous disregard for baby mommas, ever save face?
Hey, I know. We could invade Iran.
But not with any chicks in the army. Women are too womanish for combat. ‘Our enemies,’ whose views on femininity do not appear to differ substantially from Parker’s (Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be a “dangerous, lying, Holocaust-denying, Jew-hating cutthroat thug” but according to Parker he’s “dead-on” when it comes to stripping women of their personal sovereignty for the good of the male godbag agenda), are likely to exploit women’s genetic infirmity to their own advantage, such as when the Iranians put Acting Leading Seaman Faye Turney “in Muslim garb and parad[ed] her before television cameras.”
Women, continues Parker, are not only incapable of battle, but are more susceptible to rape than male soldiers. She seems to think it is perfectly reasonable that men are voracious rapists, and subscribes to the view that rape prevention should take the form of limiting women’s agency.
She also thinks it is perfectly reasonable to send fathers of tender-yeared children off to battle, a fact made clear by her unquestioning acceptance that killing is “necessary.” She does not say why she believes this. Maybe she is a sociopath, or (not that one would exclude the other) maybe she has internalized the message that killing confers upon its practitioners the highest honor attainable by glory-hungry patriarchy-enthusiasts, and so must remain the exclusive purview of men.
And not ‘wimpy’ men, either, for chrissake. The slightest drop of estrogen diminishes warriorhood. The light of some Stone Age morning has dawned on Parker’s dim consciousness; Iran should fax We Of The West that page from their book where it says that women’s only moral purpose is to femininely incubate the next generation of killers.