a racist name like Mohammed Raghead is fine. Thought we were here to fight ignorance. I find this comment very offensive! I know it’s a rant about Kathleen Parker but why offend, when you have a valid point otherwise?
“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.”
Anti-Arab sentiment is the last acceptable form of racism.
It’s ok to Arab-bash but you are a good person and you’d never use a very Black, very Jewish or very Christian name, would you?
If your newspapers carry them, check the times on local high school track events. You’ll find several young guys who beat the female world records in their events. It’s hard to deny that women on average are physically weaker than men, and at the top of the bell curve men are superior physically as well.
But I don’t think that should matter when it comes to the draft - draft them all, and let the tests weed them out. So what if only 1 in 10 women can meet the requirements that 7 out of 10 male conscripts can meet (figures pulled from my ass)? At least they all had a fair chance, and you know everyone who qualifies, male or female, can do the job. I had to register for selective service, even though in a draft situation they would be inducting 40 year old men before me due to medical conditions I have (cartilage damage in a knee, asthma).
Er, Anahita, you need to turn up your “Sarcasm Detector” just a tad, okay? It’s that slider thingie up at the top of the page. Grab onto it with the mouse and just puuullll it over…all the way over…to “11”.
Good, thaaaat’s it…okay, you got it…
Sweetie, you’re not gonna last long here at the SDMB without you got that Sarcasm Detector set on 11, okay? Otherwise all your “Righteous Indignation” circuits will just burn right out, poof! like a strawberry Pop-Tart stuck in a toaster.
You’ll end up like Metcalf…and you don’t wanna end up like Metcalf… :eek:
Anahita, I think you and DDG are both right: that is, the name “Mohammed Raghead” was meant to sound offensive but it was part of the post’s sarcastic parody or caricature of a sexist, xenophobic, macho man attitude. It’s not DDG who’s calling Muslim soldiers “Mohammed Raghead”, it’s the stereotypical patronizing egotistical he-man that DDG is making fun of. See the diff?
I saw it the way Kimstu did. Though, to be more precise, I interpreted it as being the type of sentiment that DDG was attributing to KP’s article and arguments. The fact that there’s nothing to indicate that this is indeed KP’s attitude may be what confused you - see my earlier comments.
Hmmm…I think you’re right. I have heard the “women and men don’t belong in the same foxholes” argument before, but this is the first time I’ve heard the “women will get pregnant to avoid the draft” argument (which is why I automatically read it as being the former). It’s still not perfectly clear, but the phrasing of the original article implies that your and DDG’s interpretation is correct.
Although I doubt I agree with much of what Kathleen Parker says, I certainly agree with you that there are legitimate points to debate on the subject. However, let me defend Duck Duck Goose here. Although the original article brings up points that are worthy of debate, Kathleen Parker also lets loose with:[ul]Angry men weary of being feminized want women, specifically members of NOW (National Organization for Women), to be on the front lines.[/ul]and (what I already alluded to above):[ul]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.[/ul]Read these statements. Are these really believable? There might be a grain of truth in there, but they’re so exaggerated as to be plain silly. Remember that Parker is writing as a columnist who (I assume) appears in some respectable publications. Duck Duck Goose, on the other hand, writes her response in a message board forum where hyperbole is the order of the day. Personally, I wouldn’t have done quite the head-holding caricature that Duck Duck Goose did, but if you’re going to be critical of the Duck, I think you ought to be much more critical of Parker.
Finally: Thanks for the heads-up, andros. All fixed:
zut, there is a distinction to be made between between use of hyperbole to dramatize what is otherwise a valid point, and use of hyperbole where the entire point is only created by the hyperbolic element. The former may possibly have a downside to it, but it is a widely used rhetorical device, even by “columnist[s] who appear in some respectable publications”. The latter has no place in honest discourse at all.
The first statement you quote refers to those who say things to the effect that “if these women want to be equal in everything, let’s see them go out and fight in the wars”. I’ve seen this argument used (and, more commonly, seen the existence of the thought used by feminists, as a argument for putting women on the front lines). As for the second one, I guess we disagree about the likelihood - I suspect, as mentioned, that in an actual wartime, with people coming back in body bags or with missing limbs, people’s attitudes about the costs and benefits of pregnancy might change.
By contrast, the point being made by DDG, which was “Kathleen Parker, you are SUCH an idiot, I don’t KNOW why I even BOTHER…” was made completely by the caricature. The idiotic elements were all “interpreted” into KP’s words by DDG herself. This is a dishonest approach. And pointless. As I said earlier, “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.”
