May 06, 2004

"Feminist"
Posted by Jon Henke

In a guest-post over at Washington Monthly, Debra Dickerson manages to write with a straight face....

So much for the feminization of the military, eh?

As surprised as I was to learn that GIs were abusing prisoners, nothing floored me as much as seeing the grinning faces of women gleefully celebrating torture of the helpless (however complicit in terrorism they might be). I take pride in being an unapologetic feminist (why not? The world is unapologetically sexist.) but maybe I shouldn’t. Without those photos, not only would I have been difficult to convince that the abuse happened, I would never have believed that women participated. So perhaps the problem isn’t the military’s feminization but its lack of it.

Got that? She calls herself "an unapologetic feminist" - i.e., she believes in "the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes" - and then proceeds to dip into stereotypes about female superiority. ("would never have believed that women participated")

So, she believes in the equality of the sexes, but......well, women are a little more equal, you see.

And this is my problem with a great deal of "feminism". Too often, I get the strong impression that feminists merely use "feminism" as a bludgeon for self-interest advocacy, whether the situation calls for it or not. Thus, feminists claim women are paid less than men because of "sexism", rather than situational differences like time of employment, non-wage incentives, etc. Or, women have an equal right to serve in the front lines of a combat zone, because they are "equal" - but women must meet different physical standards than men, because....you know, it's only fair.

She concludes with this...

I repeat: the military isn’t feminized enough and that includes the females.
If she wasn't such an "unapologetic feminist", I'd have to question why she thinks "masculinity" involves this sort of abuse. And why "feminization" would preclude it.

TrackBack

Comments

Jon, you'll notice that she doesn't think that the sexes are morally equal. And thus it's perfectly alright to think that women are morally superior to men.

For instance, they don't believe in resolving their differences with physical violence you know. But we won't mention that they have no problem with verbal violence.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at May 6, 2004 12:32 PM

Frankly, I'd assumed that "social" and "moral" were fairly similar. I'd be really shocked if she thought that femals were biologically morally superior.

Or, at least, I'd be shocked if she admitted it.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 6, 2004 03:40 PM

Can somebody tell me why the military should be feminized at all? I have been racking my brain and can't come up with one single reason.

Posted by: Rick at May 7, 2004 04:47 AM

Victims are always morally superior to their oppressors; women have always been oppressed by men; ergo women are morally superior than men. QED

(not in my view, but it's a common view on the left)

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at May 7, 2004 10:12 AM