Pretty much every essay on this here patriarchy-blaming blog showcases the flaming asininity of one tool of the patriarchy or another. Rapists, pornographers, politicians, and rapist-pornographer-politicians, mostly. But today Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker has managed exceedingly to put a prickle in the Twisty bike shorts. Kathleen Parker is Tool o’ th’ Week.
Parker has written a dear-god-what-about-the-men! response to Obama’s having created a White House Council on Women and Girls.* Not only that, she has written it in the style of a mainstream media columnist.
You know the style I mean. It’s the one that tries to be hep and shrewd but is actually a frumpy clot of mediocrity dressed in an old hat. Disciples of this style spend the winter in the Cliché Islands, returning home with extra suitcases packed with souvenirs. They stick one of these poor, emaciated clichés in their opening paragraph and reprise it at the end as a parting zinger, taking care not to express any new ideas in between.
That mainstream media columnist style has got to go.
I had only to read the first two sentences of Kathleen Parker’s column before my obstreperal lobe started pulsating. The sentences to which I allude contain some of the most obnoxious ideas and trite phrases in the English language.
“With a flick of his pen, President Obama finally laid to rest Freud’s most famous question and iterated one of man’s hardest-learned lessons: Women want what women want.
And the wise man sayeth: “Yes, dear.”
What women want! Is she fucking kidding with that exhausted old clump of sexist toxic waste? What women want is never to have to read “What do women want?” in a mainstream media column again. And that “yes, dear” crap! How bogus is the patriarchal narrative that women use their feminine wiles to manipulate their henpecked men into submission, thus proving that women rule the world?
Here at Spinster HQ it’s unanimous: we’d rather get waterboarded than ever read another word, on any topic, written by this knob Kathleen Parker.
Kathleen Parker is a patriarchy-denier. She loves heterosexual marriage, male privilege, and the happy nuclear families these supposedly create. Mang, she ought to get with those quiverful chicks. O the happy hours they might while away together, sewing 19th-century calico outfits and shooting the breeze about how discrimination against women is really a figment of the fugly feminists’ imagination.
I say this because, in addition to all the other asinine remarks she makes during the course of her outstandingly misogynist essay, Parker makes this one, crabbing that Obama hasn’t created a Pro-Dude Council:
“[B]oys won’t be equal to girls if we don’t focus some of our resources on their needs and stop advancing the false notion that girls are a special class of people deserving special treatment.”
Silly Parker, confusing “equality” with “liberation.”
Women, she maintains, aren’t really the victims of wage discrimination. Obama’s making it up. He’s using stats that are skewed by the inclusion of the zillions of women who “choose” to “stay home” to tend the cozy family hearth. Apparently, women who volunteer to be paid bupkis for a lifetime of drudgery shouldn’t be a part of the pay equation. They’re hidden beneath piles of laundry and dirty dishes, and that’s their choice. Out of sight, out of mind.
Parker “suppress[es] a chortle,” having wryly perceived that any attention paid by the president to the country’s most oppressed class amounts to an anti-dude “rescue of damsels in distress” and “an act of paternalistic magnanimity.” She portrays Obama as an overprotective patriarch who is still, somehow, pussywhipped.
I suppress a chortle at this seeming impossibility until I remember that Obama is superhuman, and therefore is fully capable of being a domineering asshole and a compliant “yes, dear” dishrag at the same time.
Parker, like all gender-traitor patriarchyists, sees the world in absolute terms of dominance and submission. Pursuant to this binary view of woman-dude relations, there must be a nuclear family, and pants must be worn in it, but only, it seems, by one person of one gender at a time; the unlucky submissives are culturally and morally bound to surrender the Legwear of Distinction. According to Parker, women’s smashing success in creating a feminist society based on man-bashing, and our subsequent brilliance in school and in the workplace, has de-pantsed our men and boys. Unaccustomed to the cold wind of female superiority on their bare legs, their only option is to become dropouts and junkies and to commit suicide in epidemic proportions.
It’s no surprise that Parker is conversant in the deleterious effects of women’s success on poor, disenfranchised men; her brilliant contribution to the degradation of the entire human species is the notion that men and boys are the real victims of modern American culture. In fact, she has written a whole book on “trends that portend man’s cultural demise.” Among these dangerously emasculating trends threatening the very fabric of our civilization are “men in dresses” and “vagina worship.”
Boys,” [Parker warns,] “really do need our attention, not only for themselves but also for the girls who will be their wives (we hope) someday. We do still hope that boys and girls grow up to marry, don’t we? Preferably before procreating? “
What boys need — while women like Parker dream of saddling future generations of women with their care and feeding — is feminist revolt. Dismantling patriarchy will obviate their addiction to a system of dominance and submission, which in turn will relieve them of the obligation to commit suicide whenever they encounter a woman wearing pants.
This council dealio will coordinate government efforts in alleviating the effects of oppression on women: poverty, anti-mother bias in the workplace, violence, and health care. This is OK, but not as nearly good as eliminating the oppression in the first place.
[Thanks for the link, Antoinette Niebieszczanski]