Unless you are referring to the whining crybaby women listen around corners perchance to be offended by some off-color joke and cash in on a huge discrimination settlement... you lie like a rug. The supercharged PC atmosphere, especially in large companies, is fueled by committees and legal offices and posters on every bulletin board warning men to tow the line and watch their step around women. A man's career, hell... his life, can be shredded if he looks at a woman in a way that makes her "uncomfortable?" - the definition of uncomfortable being any damned thing she doesn't like. And wage discrimination has been illegal since WWII... the only women suing for that anymore are the secrfetaries who think they should be making the same salaries as their bosses. And YOU blame the government? Who do you think it is suing it from outside and corrupting it from the inside? It's the feminists of both "gender types" otherwise known as "sexes."
"Of course, burrowing one's head in the sand works in certain circumstances, but not here."
OK, you've enlightened us with your liberal feminist drivel... now tell us all, so we can benefit from your wisdom: Under what circumstances is it a good thing to bury one's head in the sand??? Forget it... the question was rhetorical! You're liberal enough where you actually think you're making sense.
I don't want to speak for the original poster, but it seems to me that identifying legitimate inequality is a fundamental conservative principle. Too often we try to ignore legitimate gripes because there are those who take advantage. That's a bad idea, and it's one of the reasons we do so poorly with women voters.
Harrison, maybe that might explain the comment!
Re the phoney bs stirred up about by the NOW hags and their ACLU lawyer buddies. My wife, sister, several nieces, sister in laws and friends are pro rights for all. They have handled the bad guys in the work place very well without NOW, the FEDS and the ACLU. A few male clymers had to get a phone call from the husbands before they modified their behavior at the work place or the bad guys decided to leave that work place!
In all of these liberal claims of abuse/harassment just follow the money trail!
I'm amazed that all the "reformed liberal" pundits, from this guy to Horowitz and Radosh, more than any other conservatives, bring up the "Spectre of Communism" in every article. Makow has the same lame tactic as Horowitz - he attempts to link these two disparate events with a greater conspiracy-theory strength anti-American movement. He fails to do so in any way. Also, in order to demonize an idea, in this case feminism, he attempts to link it to Communism AND he takes the most extreme elements of that movement for the whole. The article appears both hastily written and poorly thought out.
Here, feminism has undermined heterosexual identity and the nuclear family and torpedoed the birth rate, posing a dire threat to western civilization.
All these things are on their way out not because of feminism. Do you think both parents working is a feminist problem? Could it have anything to do with economic necessity? Because some women have cried wolf all claims to gender bias are false? Because some small group of feminists are man-hating lesbians then the whole of the group feels that way? I certainly couldn't lump all conservatives together - ascribing libertarian tenets to the religious right.
Even more ridiculous is his attempt to connect feminism with the failure to take out Mullah Omar and the killing of Tom Wales. Is it just me, or is there really no connection made at all? It's shotty, and also despicable. Are we privy to the reasons why we failed to take out Omar? Do we yet know who it was that killed Tom Wales and why? Makow clearly looks at every event and sees only how he might connect it to his agenda, whether there is a connection there or not.