i haven't felt quite up to par this week- bit under the weather. and since the weather in new york has sucked this week- well, that's about how i feel. i should know better than to read the 'newspaper' when i don't feel well- at least i should skip the editorial section. between the local rightwing rhetoric spewers and the syndicated mouth breathers- it's all i can do not to take scissors to the damned thing.
take for example- kathleen parker's recent column- 'mother of all blunders' in the washington post and in my local rag- the press and sun bulletin- 'why should women face battle alongside men?' well, my question is- 'why not?' parker wastes no time slamming what she views as the 'wrong'- read left- school of thought:
"there's not enough space here to to go into all the ways that this is true, but children(and good parents) know the difference even if some adults are too dim, brainwashed or ideologically driven to see what's obvious."
what parker is referring to is- women in the military. she is against it because women should be home minding the hearth and the children while the brave and protecting male goes out and earns the money and fights the wars. when she isn't visiting mayberry, parker defends the white male hierachy to the fullest with her constant call for cherishing fatherhood. now, please, don't someone come along and think i am a male basher or i am against families or whatever. that couldn't be further from the truth. the most well adjusted kids come from 2 parent households- notice i said 2 parent not mom and dad necessarily but that's a different post.
as i ramble, i will get back to the point- parker does not understand why the west feels the need to send women off to war. she implies that these women- who have been trained by the military alongside their male counterparts- need to be protected from being raped and pillaged by the enemy. not only does she insult all of our brave folks in the military- she never once brings up our middle eastern ally- israel. all of their citizens serve a stint in the military regardless of gender- or they did. maybe it has changed.
my thought is this- right wing mouth breathing rhetoric spewers like parker should just stay at home and do what she exhorts other women to do- raise her family and coddle her man. how she can be hypocritical when she works outside the home is beyond me- but hey- i guess i am too "ideologically driven" to see things her way.
4 comments:
I agree with you completely, b. first kahtleen parker is a total wench. second, as you point out, it's the wenches who should stay home. let everyone else go out and choose the life they want to live.
I try not to read parker because I always wonder how on earth she got a job as an editorial columnist and then it depreses me because I don't have one. if she can be a colunist, surely you or I can also.
take care, b.
i haven't got a clue as to how people like parker, o'reilly, coulter, etc. got jobs. guess it's proof positive that it isn't what you know but who you know. guess you had better start cozying up to some rethugs :)
I haven't read Kathleen Parker in ages. I've always been of the opinion that she obtained and held her editorial position through nepotism or a sugar-daddy. Her writing is always filled with inaccuracies and contradictions. Add to that, her sophomoric writing skills, and it is the only explanation.
you guys said it better than I could. If I am going to be a columnist, I am going to have to start watching out for the typo's. Ack!
Will be up in your great state of NY for NYC gay pride in June. really looking forward to it, b.
Post a Comment