Kathleen Parker, you are SUCH an idiot, I don't KNOW why I even BOTHER...

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Yes, I know there’s already a Kathleen Pit thread over on Page 15 or someplace, but it’s old glurge, and nobody’s posted to it since 11/5, and this is NEW glurge.

Welp, she’s done it again. I’m sitting here clutching my head with both hands to keep from banging it helplessly against the keyboard and possibly injuring myself. Why does she DO this to me? She KNOWS how much I hate it when she shoots off her mouth with these idiotic remarks. She should be more considerate of other people’s hairlines, 'cause every time she writes one of these moronic columns, I end up pulling out a couple handfuls of hair in sheer frustration. Must be nice to have a pulpit, is all I can say.

Oh, the latest idiocy? Here. Fair warning–back away from the keyboard so you don’t break something while you’re reading it. And you know, if you’re in the mood for a little masochism, townhall.com has all her old columns archived.

The point she’s attempting to make in this column is that the purpose of the draft is to create a “combat ready” force. Since in her opinion women are not capable of combat, either women should not be drafted, or the rules about the draft’s goals should simply be rephrased.

The reason women aren’t required to register with the Selective Service is because the purpose of a draft, as currently conceived, is to create a combat-ready force. Since women aren’t permitted to fight in direct combat, a female draft is irrelevant.

<snip>

On the other hand…there are lots of important non-combat roles women can play in service to their country. So maybe the question needs to be rephrased and the purpose of the draft redefined.

If the draft were reconceived to create a smarter, not necessarily combat force, then women should be included. That’s fair because in non-combat roles, most men and most women are more or less equal. In demanding physical contests, with rare exceptions they’re not. Thus, pitting women against men in battle is * not * “fair.”

Gah. Yeah, because women are weak, and they’d always lose. They can’t shoot those big ol’ guns worth a damn.
And who’s behind the current push to draft women? Obviously, it’s all the pussified men and the “feminist phalange”. Kathleen, honey, just WTF is a “feminist phalange”?

Angry men weary of being feminized want women, specifically members of NOW (National Organization for Women), to be on the front lines.

And I pause in my head-clutching to go, “–What?”

Suggesting that a woman’s menstrual cycle might interfere with good soldiering will get you strafed by the feminist phalange, but honest women and men who live with women know better. Biology matters.

Oh gawd. :rolleyes: Especially that pious “biology matters”. I bet Kathleen’s just the Evil Bitch On Wheels when she’s got HER “monthly”. I bet Mr. Parker spends a lot of time at the office that week.

If we want a combat-ready military force capable of meting out justice to bin Laden and the Taliban, let’s leave Britney, Kimberly and Muggins at home.

. But there’s a difference between dropping bombs from an airplane, where quick reflexes and mental dexterity are the soldier’s tools, and navigating rugged terrain carrying heavy packs, guns and ammo.

Okay, okay, Kathleen, we got it–girls are weak. Girls can’t hike long distances. Girls can’t carry heavy loads. Girls can’t hike long distances carrying heavy loads. And as for NAVIGATING TERRAIN, fuggedabout it. Girls aren’t any good at all that “map” stuff, why, you sometimes get lost on the way home from the grocery store! If we sent female soldiers to Afghanistan, they’d probably endanger their platoons by demanding that the guys hold the doors open for them all the time, and any military man will tell you that you can’t waste time holding doors for the ladies when Mohammed Raghead has your squad in his gunsights and it’s make-or-break time for GI Joe.

The truth is that men and women, though equal under the law, are not the same. Can you believe I have to explain this? My brother and I were from the same litter and were reared under the same household laws, but we weren’t, I promise, the same. He was a big, mean, fighting-machine Marine who found Vietnam rather relaxing compared with home; I was a twig-sized girl with a propensity for rescuing insects, and I wouldn’t have lasted a day in combat.

Okay, Kathleen, so, you were a pussy, and your brother wasn’t. Wanna guess how many other families there are in which Junior is the twig-sized kid with a propensity for rescuing insects, and it’s Sissy who’s the big, mean fighting machine? Families in which Junior grew up to be a brainless, unquestioning columnist, and Sissy grew up to be a New York City cop? Actually, I doubt if Kathleen would even acknowledge the existence of female cops, firefighters, or paramedics. “All that heavy lifting–women just aren’t strong enough to do that kind of work…”

And this is what really made the head-clutching go into high gear:

Not that we really have to concern ourselves. Were Congress to enact a female draft, the post-World War I [sic] baby boom would look like a puddle next to the ensuing obstetrical tsunami. America suddenly would be awash in single, 18-year-old mothers.

Geez, geez, geez, geez, GEEEEEZZZZZE… [hopping up and down in fury like Rumpelstiltskin] How does the woman DO it? Is she really so, geez, what’s the word I want, “twerpy”, no that’s not it, “clueless”, no, someone throw me a frickin’ bone here, does she really THINK that the minute a female draft was enacted, that all the 18-year-old females would immediately go out and get themselves knocked up, just so’s to get out of having to serve? [bangs head helplessly against keyboard] GAAAAAHHH!! Like, “nyah nyah, you BOYS don’t have an out, so you’re stuck, and YOU have to go fight, and WE get to stay home and crochet baby clothes and have committee meetings”.

Obviously, that’s the way HER mind would work. I guess we should be grateful that she’s too old to be drafted, plus married, thus sparing us the possibility of her ever giving the world a Kathleen Parker love child. Who would she choose for the father? Obviously a nice Southern gal can’t just go out to some BAR and pick up some SPERM donor or something, like all the OTHER girls do when their Selective Service number comes up. Right now I’m toying with the theory that she’d probably go after John Ashcroft–invite him over for her famous Tuna Casserole and then seduce him in the family room after she’d loaded the dishwasher.

Thank you for listening. Whew. Going to go take an ibuprofen now…Keyboard looks okay, though.

[Dangerosa]

Angry men weary of being feminized want women, specifically members of NOW (National Organization for Women), to be on the front lines.

We can’t draft NOW, doesn’t she know that we are all acknowledged lesbians and therefore can’t serve?

(Well, I’m not a lesbian, but I hear everyone else is.)

Not to mention the NOWs age demographic doesn’t exactly hit those of draftable age

[Whack-a-Mole]

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but except for heavy lifting (i.e. upper body strength) I think women beat or at least equal men in most physical categories (stamina, dexterity, etc.).

Whatever the case the military has minimum physical requirements for various jobs. Requirements that were dreamed-up with men being the majority of recruits. If a woman can pass whatever tests are before them then I’d say they are good to go. Toting around an M-60 and its attendent ammo may be too much but I’d bet money they can fire an M-16 with the best of them.

To my mind the only thing really standing in the way of women in combat roles is more of the PR aspect. It’s bad enough to see men tortured and what not when captured by the enemy. I don’t know how the American public would react to seeing women raped or otherwise brutalized. It’s hard enough for the US to sell the public on Americans getting killed when it’s the men (mostly) getting wasted. Add women to the mix and it’d just get worse.

[IzzyR]

If your MO is to twist people’s words and attack caricatures of what they’ve said, you can successfully ridicule any argument, regardless of merit. But I guess it’s easier than dealing with them rationally. Have fun.

(On preview: Whack-a-Mole, your first paragraph is false. Your second does not deal with reality - the armed forces give women a lower standard for minimum physical requirements.)

[andros]

Another drive-by, Izzy? Cool–very helpful. I know that there are some who might call it cowardly to toss out insults without elaboration, but I’m not among them.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by andros *
I know that there are some who might call it cowardly to toss out insults without elaboration, but I’m not among them.

And we all love you for it.

[zut]

Couple nitpicks:

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
Okay, okay, Kathleen, we got it–girls are weak. Girls can’t hike long distances. Girls can’t carry heavy loads. Girls can’t hike long distances carrying heavy loads. And as for NAVIGATING TERRAIN, fuggedabout it. Girls aren’t any good at all that “map” stuff, why, you sometimes get lost on the way home from the grocery store!

I read the original article to use “navigating” in the sense of “traversing” as opposed to “steering a course through,” so the comment is still referencing women’s physical, as opposed to mental, skills.

…does she really THINK that the minute a female draft was enacted, that all the 18-year-old females would immediately go out and get themselves knocked up, just so’s to get out of having to serve?

Actually, the way I read it, she doesn’t think that at all. She’s worried about that little bit of extra love in the foxholes. Y’know, brothers and sisters in arms and all that. 'Cause men and women can’t work shoulder-to-shoulder for long without procreating.

And also:

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
If your MO is to twist people’s words and attack caricatures of what they’ve said, you can successfully ridicule any argument, regardless of merit. But I guess it’s easier than dealing with them rationally. Have fun.

Ummm… care to explain?

[andros]

Yup, I’ve got your back, Izzy.

(Typo in your sig, Zut)

[Simetra]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
**Okay, okay, Kathleen, we got it–girls are weak. Girls can’t hike long distances. Girls can’t carry heavy loads. Girls can’t hike long distances carrying heavy loads. And as for NAVIGATING TERRAIN, fuggedabout it. **

This is the only thing I would actually agree with… kind of.

See, in Basic Training, we got to do this fun little thing called “The Forced March”. It was 6.2 miles over what I would call “tough” terrain with about 50 pounds of stuff on our backs, “dead” M16s, and only one canteen of water.

We did the march in the heat of the day, in May, in Texas… which isn’t exactly jacket weather if you know what I mean.

We wore heavy boots, flak jackets, flak helmets, and full winter-weight BDUs.

Okay… you get it… it wasn’t easy.

Anyway, of the ~150 people on the forced march… ~30 of them were female. Of those 30 or so… guess how many made it without passing out… falling down and giving up… or crying and giving up. The answer: One. And it wasn’t like these weren’t hardened women either. They’d been through 5 weeks of basic at this point… just like me. They’d done the PC, and the marching, and the standing at attention in the noon-day sun… same as I had. And only one made it.

And it wasn’t just the 30 that were in my flight… Asking just the soldiers in my office right now who were in different flights… all of them say the same thing. That out of all the females that did the forced march in their groups… only 1 or 2 made it the whole way.

You wonder how they remember this so well? Guess who had to carry the females who passed out or fell down.

How many guys made it you ask in my experience and within my poll? All “but” one in my friend Jeremiah’s group.

Just seems that, and this is based solely on my experience and on the little poll I’ve made, most women aren’t nessecarily capable of this kind of activity. Maybe you are, and more power to you… It was a bitch for me… but all I’m saying is that maybe this Kathleen Parker… and I don’t know who she is… isn’t so far off base with this statement.

[Necros]

zut said:

Actually, the way I read it, she doesn’t think that at all. She’s worried about that little bit of extra love in the foxholes. Y’know, brothers and sisters in arms and all that. 'Cause men and women can’t work shoulder-to-shoulder for long without procreating.

Huh. I read it the way that Duck Duck Goose read it. And, though I risk being flamed, I don’t think it’s entirely out of the question that it might happen. I don’t for one second think that all combat-age females would go out and become ineleigible for service. But my cynical side believes that there would be a sizeable minority that would do so.

That said, I’m totally in favor of allowing women into all combat positions immediately.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by zut *

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
If your MO is to twist people’s words and attack caricatures of what they’ve said, you can successfully ridicule any argument, regardless of merit. But I guess it’s easier than dealing with them rationally. Have fun.

Ummm… care to explain?

All the points raised by KP are legitimate ones. Not indisputable, perhaps, but legitimate. There is nothing idiotic about anything in the column. The MO of DDG in portraying KP as an idiot was to caricature her words. Making “In demanding physical contests, with rare exceptions they’re not [equal to men]” - a reasonable statement, into “Yeah, because women are weak, and they’d always lose. They can’t shoot those big ol’ guns worth a damn.” and “But there’s a difference between dropping bombs from an airplane, where quick reflexes and mental dexterity are the soldier’s tools, and navigating rugged terrain carrying heavy packs, guns and ammo” - a reasonable statement, into “girls are weak. Girls can’t hike long distances. Girls can’t carry heavy loads. Girls can’t hike long distances carrying heavy loads. And as for NAVIGATING TERRAIN, fuggedabout it. Girls aren’t any good at all that “map” stuff, why, you sometimes get lost on the way home from the grocery store! If we sent female soldiers to Afghanistan, they’d probably endanger their platoons by demanding that the guys hold the doors open for them all the time, and any military man will tell you that you can’t waste time holding doors for the ladies when Mohammed Raghead has your squad in his gunsights and it’s make-or-break time for GI Joe.” In both cases, the latter version is not just idiotic, but not said (or, in all likelihood, held) by KP.

If you want to say someone is an idiot because they believe that men are generally stronger physically than women, or that this might affect military ability, say so upfront and see how it goes over. Evidently, DDG has chosen another route.

BTW, I agree with DDG about the meaning of the pregnancy remarks. This may be the least compelling issue raised in the article. But I think in an actual wartime situation it might not be as farfetched as it seems today. (I recall a columnist writing about the issue - IIRC Mike Royko - who claimed to have spoken to some women who said they would do just that.) But whether deliberately or not, it is indeed likely that pregnancy would be a problem for an army with a high percentage of women.

[Neurotik]

I think Whack-a-Mole’s last paragraph would be the part that I’m most concerned with as far as women in the military. The phrase "such and such were killed, including women and children is still used with frequency to describe some sort of atrocity. Whether it’s right or wrong, the reality is that our society is more protective of women. In reality, something like the soldier being dragged through Mogadishu would likely have caused a greater reaction had that soldier been a woman. A woman soldier being held in an enemy POW camp would probably cause more of a reaction than a POW of the opposite gender. Also, there is a chance that women prisoners could be treated a lot worse in many of the areas of the world where our troops are being deployed these days (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). In those cases, very bad things could happen to women soldiers captured, similar to how black soldiers captured in battle were treated differently by the Confederates in the American Civil War than whites.

Just my $.02

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Gee, Izzy, I got a news flash for ya: This was a rant, not an OP for a debate about women in combat.

But, sweetcakes, you just go right ahead and debate away, all you want, over there in your corner by your sweet little self, y’hear?

And Andros has your back, so don’t worry ‘bout nothin’, 'kay? The Duck don’t mess with the A-Man, no fuckin way…

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Simetra:

I would have to wonder whether it wasn’t just that the guys felt more peer pressure to finish the course–“Nobody likes a quitter!”–whereas the gals weren’t locked into that whole “boys don’t cry” machismo thing, and felt more comfortable throwing in the towel at an earlier point?

[Gomez]

DuckDuckGoose: Whilst that may have had some effect I think it would be naive to say that would have accounted for the vast failure rate experienced by simetra and his friends.

In fact, the exact opposite could be true. You have to have that competitive nature anyway if you’re going to make it in the army you need that competitive spirit and one might just as easily say that there was more onus on the women to prove themselves.

However, getting back to the OP, I agree that Kathleen Parker is a complete tool no matter what she says so any enemy of hers is a friend of mine.

I might open up a GD thread on this particular subject if we’re all amenable so as to focus on some good ol’ fashioned Parker Bashin’

[Icerigger]

I wonder why we lost in Vietnam, our soldiers could probably lift more dead weight than the typical Asian man. How could Nelson win at Trafalgar? he was missing and arm and an eye. Did we defeat the Axis because we could do more pushups than the German army?

If a woman’s brain cannot fathom military matters Mrs. Parker should not be commenting on it.

The women in the military business really gets me steamed. Conservatives want us to believe it was the evil feminists who pushed for greater roles for women in the military, this is false. When Nixon ended the draft the military retention rate plummeted to dangerous levels, in the 70’s the MILITARY itself started to recruit women for nontraditional roles to bolster sagging enlistment’s. The Ford administration admitted women to the service academies not feminists who are, by and by pacifists.

Right now over the skies of Afghanistan women pilots ARE performing combat missions in service to their country. Thank you Mrs. Parker for your support.
It is sad that they are risking their lives voluntarily to defeat an enemy (Taliban) who has a lot in common with Mrs. Parker and others.

[Tuckerfan]

I was chatting a few days ago with one of my son’s teachers, a young woman in her late 20s. She recently had watched “Saving Private Ryan” and, in the context of our current war, she said, “I don’t think I could do that. I mean, what about all those days when you’ve got, you know, PMS?”

Uh, lets see, if we’re going to stereotype women and say that they’re all held hostage by their “monthly,” then let’s not forget about how cranky and irritable women are supposed to be during that time. So I ask you: Who would you want pointing a weapon in *your *direction: a man or a woman with PMS? I thought so.

I was a twig-sized girl with a propensity for rescuing insects, and I wouldn’t have lasted a day in combat.

IMHO, all the more reason why women should be drafted. Weed out the Kathleen Parker’s early.

Israel has women in their armed forces with no ill effects and I believe that the Swiss do as well. So its certainly possible for it to work (and let’s add that no one in their right mind would call the Israelis a bunch of pussies and that the Swiss haven’t been invaded in something like 600 years).

[MEBuckner]

Hmmm…

…women served in the Persian Gulf and that even now female pilots are dropping bombs on Afghanistan. In other words, girls should be required to sign up. But there’s a difference between dropping bombs from an airplane, where quick reflexes and mental dexterity are the soldier’s tools, and navigating rugged terrain carrying heavy packs, guns and ammo.

On the other hand - and this may be what Quindlen meant but didn’t say - there are lots of important non-combat roles women can play in service to their country.

I don’t think flying fighters and bombers is a “non-combat” role is it? I mean, pilots get shot at, too. In fact, in this war, the American combatants have pretty much all been a.) super-tough Special Forces types, for which duty probably very few women (and very few men, for that matter) would qualify and b.) airplane pilots.

So if we ever need to re-institute the draft, draft women and then send them all to pilot’s school. (Or put them on warships, or maybe tanks–is there any reason women can’t be tankers?) Not all “combat roles” are infantry, after all.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
Gee, Izzy, I got a news flash for ya: This was a rant, not an OP for a debate about women in combat.

But, sweetcakes, you just go right ahead and debate away, all you want, over there in your corner by your sweet little self, y’hear?

I can’t fathom what might have made you think I intended to debate the issue of women in combat with you. Was it something I said?

My initial post was a comment about your MO in your OP/rant, which lacked integrity, IMHO. Some posters felt this was a bit unclear, so I clarified. That is all.

And Andros has your back, so don’t worry ‘bout nothin’, 'kay? The Duck don’t mess with the A-Man, no fuckin way…

That’s quite a relief there, Duck. Thanks.

[delphica]

The thing that gets me about Kathleen Parker is that she is so annoying that the sheer amount of smarminess in her columns prevents me from focusing on any of the actual points she makes (or attempts to make). Being unable to concentrate on the substance of her remarks is no doubt a personal failing of mine. However, she is also a frequent user of a very sneaky writing style – that she makes a thesis statement, and then sets out evidence that does not actually relate to the position she is claiming to take. Her statements are often simplistic and obvious, and she attempts to make them stand as proof of the correctness of her original statement.

The truth is that men and women, though equal under the law, are not the same. Can you believe I have to explain this? My brother and I were from the same litter and were reared under the same household laws, but we weren’t, I promise, the same. He was a big, mean, fighting-machine Marine who found Vietnam rather relaxing compared with home; I was a twig-sized girl with a propensity for rescuing insects, and I wouldn’t have lasted a day in combat.

Her use of “Can you believe I have to explain this?” is a great example of what toasts my buns. Because, Kathleen, you don’t in fact have to explain this. Very few people reading your column were unaware previously that men and women are not exactly the same. The people who disagree with your position are not harboring the illusion that men and women are the same. The snide “Can you BELIEVE” tone is completely unnecessary.

Several people have made points (points that I generally agree with, IMHO) in this thread regarding the statistical likelihood that a greater percentage of men are fit for combat than that of an equal sampling of women. There may be a combination of reasons for this, and several have been touched upon, including average physical attributes as well as differences in socialization. She then goes on to use an anecdotal example of her and her brother to show how unfit “women” are for combat. I suppose she is also making the point that she herself is unfit for combat, but in the context of her argument, it is clear that she is using it as evidence that all women are unfit for combat. If this is a valid argument, then the example of the one successful woman in Simetra’s Forced March story is also valid evidence of the capabilities of women in the military.

Some more of her nasty comments, veiled in her trademark sugary sweet wide-eyed “oh my goodness me!” style in this particular column include admitting that some women are less distracting to men then others (only ugly women should serve in the military?)and that the Taliban would enjoy shooting women (should we prohibit Jewish persons from serving in the armed forces?).

I can’t even touch her stupid comments on PMS, they’re making me cramp up. I feel like Kathleen Parker’s uterus has wrapped itself around my brain like a big nasty sting ray and is preventing any oxygen from reaching the cells. :rolleyes: I will say, though, that if my son’s teacher’s big revelation after watching Saving Private Ryan was about her own, you know, PMS, I would home school that kid so fast his head would spin. And I don’t even have a kid.