February 2002
Posted February 24, 2002
Kathleen Parker - : February 18, 2002 -
One of the stranger subtexts of the recent Enron saga -- as well as 9-11 -- has been the search for meaning in the gender universe.
I'm not sure, but I think this means we're getting back to normal. When terrorist mass murder and precedent-setting corporate crime invite debates of gender superiority (hint: the Enron whistleblowers were women; 9-11 heroes were men), we're back to being fat 'n happy, otherwise known as schtupid.
And, not impossibly, deserving of some of that bad ol' Middle Eastern contempt.
What used to be mildly annoying "gender wars," fought over such nonsense as whether men should open doors for women, has devolved into an apocalyptic conniption fit. The first hint that we were perhaps too well-fed came shortly after the terrorist attacks on 9-11.
Men's groups, whom I love and adore (I figured long ago that if only one group of people was going to like me, it may as well be men), began clearing their throats and beating their chests as they pointed out that, heyheyhey, those were fireMEN and policeMEN rushing into burning buildings.
This isn't entirely true, of course, but it's mostly true. More men than women died. Noted.
It was also pointed out that those who rushed the hijackers of Flight 93, which crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside, were men, not women. Appropriately insulted by the implication, women hastened to point out that some of the stewardesses on that same flight boiled water. But, but, Miss Scahlet, ain't we always sposed to boil water?
Suddenly I'm obsessed with that nap I've been meaning to take.
Then comes Enron, and who blows the whistle? Not those dastardly brutish men who willingly tackle armed hijackers, but the fairer (nobler?) sex, women. Nobler, at least, is what we are to infer.
Maureen Dowd of The New York Times noted in a recent column that Hollywood's version of Enron is likely to follow the cinematic story line of the women against the men, while a recent discussion on Politically Incorrect (full disclosure: on a night when I was a guest on P.I.) turned to whether women are more ethical than men. Of course the facts got in our way on this one. Among those under investigation at Enron are a few of the female persuasion.
Are those women as culpable as the men, or were they hapless victims, duped by those tricky workplace gender dynamics and forced by the corporate creed to "act" like men against their weaker, more nurturing, wills?
Corporate America, after all, is a man's world. Women hold only 12 percent of executive positions in the United States despite their comprising half the workforce, according to a recent government report. If women want to play with the Big Boys, one easily infers from current wisdom, they have to prove themselves on the testosterone fields. Spit, grab and write dubious checks.
The consensus on P.I., by the way, was that women are just as susceptible to avarice and deceit as men are, whereupon the entire state of Arkansas gasped, "Who didn't know?"
Yet, Dowd wrote charmingly of women's superior evolution: "Only 10 years after Mattel put out Teen Talk Barbie whining 'Math class is tough,' we have women unearthing the Rosetta stone of this indecipherable scandal."
Translation: Women smart now. Men still dumb and bad. Except in case of fire or hijackings, then men useful. If expendable.
Certainly the woman, Sherron Watkins, who blew the whistle on Enron execs is more ethical than Kenneth Lay seems to be. But is she more ethical than millions of other men who would have done the same thing under the circumstances? And does Fortune reporter Bethany McLean walk a higher moral plane than, say, journalists Andrew Sullivan or Jonah Goldberg (two of my personal faves) simply because she got wind of the story first?
Such silliness explains nothing except why John Gray is rich and I'm not. For those who think a self-help book refers to the Yellow Pages, Gray is the author of the inexplicably successful Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, in which Gray explores the different ways men and women think and communicate. Even as we bicker over who suffers more, who loves more, who nurtures more and, in my case, who cares less, Gray is on tour with his latest, Mars and Venus in the Workplace.
All of which explains why I work alone and, just possibly, why hungry people everywhere hate our guts.
Kathleen Parker can be reached at kparker@orlandosentinel.com.
- Orlando Sentinel.
Posted February 24, 2002
Dale Grenier - Of men and dogs: February 18, 2002 -
Feminism promised men partners. No more the marriage between a male "head of household" and his dependent wife, but a partnership of equals facing the world together. This appealed to millions of men. Unfortunately, it seems few women got that memo and still go into marriage expecting men to take care of them:
"He is not there to take care of you. You take care of each other. Your husband is a partner, lover and friend. He's not perfect. He's not Superman. He's not your savior. A successful marriage is one where you bond with another whom you can consider an equal partner and a friend."
The consequences for ignoring this are as well known as the latest welfare statistics. Many women who go into marriage expecting to be taken care of find that if the marriage ends, they are without marketable skills and can easily end up on welfare or worse:
"It's prudent for any woman to have marketable skills. That doesn't mean she has to be a biochemist. Perhaps she is a secretary, a dental hygienist or retail clerk -- it doesn't matter as long as she enjoys it, is good at it, and can make a living."
And then there's the old Irish saying: "Before marriage, she thought he would change, he thought she would never change; after marriage, she changed, he didn't." People can change. They can grow and mature. But the essence of who they are remains constant, and to expect change is an invitation to disappointment:
"Select a mate with qualities that you enjoy. Don't expect to change him into something he's not. If he's not a rock star when you meet him, he won't be a rock star 10 or 100 years from now. You better love him for the man that he is, because no matter how you dress it up or throw money at it, what you see is what you get!"
Ironically, feminist propaganda led women to expect just the opposite, that men and dogs can be molded to suit the feminist ideal. That women can have a rock star on a leash. When the real world didn't turn out that way, they blamed men. But while fathers may share the responsibility, it's not their burden alone:
"Now, that's what your mother should have told you!"
- Olympian.
Posted February 18, 2002
Cathy Young - An empowering idea! February 18, 2002 -
V-Day perpetuates violence against women by ignoring half the problem:
"According to the V-Day Web site, 'V' stands for Victory over Violence, Valentine's Day, and Vagina."
Decades ago, leaders of groups such as NOW assured us they were pro-equality for everybody, only to change their tune during the 1990s when they dismissively declared they were interested only in women. Back in the 1970s, the charade was necessary to sell themselves as the only icons of equality. Today, no such pretense is even hinted at by the organizers of V-Day:
"V-Day is a global movement to stop violence against women and girls." - About V-Day
They are not interested in the violence committed by women against men and boys, only in promoting their skewed vision of the sexes:
"The real problem, though, is that the play dwells relentlessly on male mistreatment of women. Almost without exception, men are depicted as creeps, jerks, or abusers. ... The goal, obviously, is to reinforce the point that violence against women is ubiquitous. The effect is to emphasize victimization at the expense of good, loving, fulfilling relationships."
As equity feminists such as Christina Hoff Sommers, and equalitarians such as Cathy Young have noted, domestic violence includes both male and female violence. Addressing only violence committed by men against women ignores half the problem and provides no solution, thereby perpetuating violence against women.
"If feminists truly want to reinvent Valentine's Day, here's a suggestion. Let's have a show called 'The People Dialogues' in which men and women, gay or straight, talk about working through conflicts, misunderstandings, and stereotypes, finding love that lasts, and building truly equal relationships. We're all in this together: Now there's an empowering idea."
- Boston Globe.
Posted February 8, 2002
Caroline Estes - The naked dare! February 8, 2002 -
For some reason, thousands of American women feel the urge to bare their breasts in public during one of the coldest months of the year.
Yes, it's that Fat Tuesday time of year again, and, from the streets of Seattle to Austin, Texas, city officials are taking a stand against erecting nipples in public:
"Bare breasts can incite a riot, the police said, so they weren't going to allow them at this year's Mardi Gras celebration."
In response, Austin businesswoman Caroline Estes is organizing a protest:
"It's not a sexual issue. It's just insulting that they say men can't control themselves in the presence of a bare breast."
Well said. But in February? Brrrrr!
- Fox News.
Posted February 8, 2002
Speaking of breasts... December 30, 2001 -
In Australia, a woman with breast cancer won a settlement against a doctor for failing to warn her about the link between breast cancer and abortions:
"In what is likely the first such settlement in history, a woman in Australia has settled with an abortion doctor she had sued because he failed to inform her of the research linking abortion with breast cancer."
While I strongly support a woman's right to evict an unwanted tenant from her body (the "abortion rights as property rights" argument), it seems only reasonable that any woman contemplating an abortion - or any person considering any medical procedure - would want to be fully informed before making a decision about it. For some reason, however, not everybody agrees:
"As reported in WorldNetDaily, even though 27 out of 35 studies published since 1957 have linked abortion with breast cancer, pro-abortion groups continue to deny such a link exists and refuse to inform prospective abortion recipients of the studies. Similarly, abortion providers, as a rule, do not inform patients about the research."
Neither women's nor men's reproductive freedoms should be transgressed. But knowledge empowers, and every woman should have the right to be fully informed.
- WorldNetDaily
|
