Posted on 01/01/2002 3:03:51 AM PST by Dr. Good Will Hunting
In the hours after American Airlines Flight 63 landed safely thanks to the courage and strength of the flight attendants and passengers, there was a refreshing clarity about the sexes evident in the land.
Let's review: When Richard C. Reid leaned down and began touching lighted matches to his sneakers, it was a flight attendant who first attempted to stop him. She grabbed at his hands and he shoved her so hard that she landed, according to The New York Times account, four rows back. She yelled for help, and another flight attendant attempted to thwart Reid's shoe-lighting. Reid bit her on the hand hard enough to draw blood.
When she screamed, a number of male passengers, including the 6 foot, 8 inch NBA player Kwame James responded. Using anything at hand -- including plastic handcuffs, a dozen belts offered by other passengers and, eventually, sedatives from the plane's on-board kit -- four or five large men were able to subdue the "almost possessed" Reid.
The female flight attendants deserve high marks for their courage. But the episode does reveal that physical size and strength still matter in this world. It took the advent of real danger to reawaken our politically correct society to this truth.
Three years ago, my then-5-year-old son came home from kindergarten and looked at me sympathetically. "Mom, when you were a little girl, people didn't think women could be firefighters, did they?"
I knew immediately that his teacher, a lovely lady of decidedly liberal outlook, was instructing her charges on the wonderful progress of civilization.
"Well," I said, "I'm still not sure I think women firefighters are a good idea." I explained that women had been discouraged in the past from pursuing careers at all -- and this did not make sense. There is no reason that a woman cannot try a case, run a business or heal the sick.
But when it comes to tasks requiring physical strength, well, women are still smaller than men. And while many women have just as much courage, ingenuity and self-possession in emergencies as men, only the most unusual women have the strength to carry the average overweight American out of a burning building.
We've pretended for decades now that physical differences between men and women are insignificant, and where they exist, stand as a rebuke to men. Big dumb jerks. We don't need you to hold open doors for us! I can carry my own bag, bub! Except, it turns out, that when a 6 foot, 4 inch terrorist is swatting women away like mosquitoes, you do need men -- the bigger the better -- to overpower him.
What feminists have never understood, and have actually gone out of their way to distort, is that male strength has always been viewed, in Western culture, as a responsibility, not as a weapon with which to subjugate females. Women and men have traditionally taught their sons (in all but the worst families) that with physical strength must come mental and moral strength. Boys were taught the honorable use of their power -- not to intimidate but to prevent intimidation; not to bully but to protect. Despite reams of disinformation circulated by some feminists, husbands are the last people to beat or abuse women.
Perhaps the new climate of danger -- danger from evil men -- will quiet the anti-male agitation we've endured for so long. For the threat from evil men can only adequately be met by good men. Why not cheer when the manly virtues are called for and demonstrated?
Our admiration for Rudy Giuliani is not based upon his empathy -- though he showed plenty of it -- but rather for older virtues like command, authority, competence and leadership. The businessmen on Flight 93 who whispered their farewells to their wives and families, and then set down their cell phones to take on the terrorists were real men -- the best of masculinity. Were we proud of the female flight attendant who quietly boiled water to throw at the terrorists? You bet. But if it came to a fight, mano a mano, the men would have to take the lead.
As Peggy Noonan observed in Opinion Journal, Sept. 11 has brought old-fashioned virility back into style. God bless our men, who've taken so much undeserved abuse for decades, yet never stopped being men and gentlemen.
No. Men are in the minority. Far better to focus on making *all* Americans function more logically.
There are plenty of male voters who are problems too. Many of them showed up on Florida buses and "messed up" their ballots by voting for "one on each page," just as they were told as they got off of the bus. Thanks goodness for their stupidity.
And, whatever you do, always support the Electoral College -- our only defense against a studid electorate.
See what comes from "getting in touch with feminine side"?
Oh no... is this a spelling error... or a Freudian slip??? LOL
I meant, of course, STUPID. *g*
Actually, I believe "live in" boyfriends would rank right up there. They're certainly the most common abusers of children.
Exactly. This is much too low. Many, many Americans are wll over this weight limit -- as, I'm sure, were the old standards.
Ah... which black writer was it that said that ALL art is propaganda? I should be able to remember, but I'm having a "senior moment."
You are correct, sir!
The one who insulted me (PCL) stalks female FReepers such as, but not limited to, Judith Anne, Aunt Polgara, and JMJ333. He refers to them in infantilizing terms; any woman who doesn't share his fanatically pro-abort views is labeled obsessed, and immature, and childlike.
He is also sociopathically fixated on bashing Catholicism in specific, Christianity in general.
All these comments are, as you know, easily traceable by clicking on his screen name, going to his FR homepage, and clicking on "find in forum" for a list of his most recent several dozen posts.
Clearly, the one who insults me labels all pro-lifers misogynistic: be they male or female.
He has even gone so far as to question the "sex life" (his words) of one of the female posters above.
In contrast, my posts, as exemplified by those I've made to this thread, illustrate that I hold purely equal-oportunity views.
The one who insulted me is both misogynistic, as clearly evidenced by his maltreatment of the wonderful female posters listed above, and he is also a male-bashing feminist, which is evidenced by his attacks on me over the threads I post.
The threads I have posted have said nothing to impugn men as a group, or to impugn women as a group. As again clearly indicated by every single one of my posts to this thread, I am ideologically biased, towards family-and-fatherhood-friendly conservatism and away from male-bashing-feminism. As to the practicioners of the latter, it is their ideology which impugns their character, not their gender.
Due to their embrace of male-bashing feminist ideology, I am more than happy to impugn Tom Daschle as much as Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy as much as Hillary Clinton.
I invite all who read this message to send me FReepMail regarding it's contents.
I have been accused of being pro-abort murder because I find pictures of aborted fetuses on this board offensive. Hah! Click on my homepage and tell me I'm pro-murder.
Happy New Year to all men who love women and to all women who love men and appreciate femininity. :)
As have I! BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I were in a burning building, or on a plane about to be hi-jacked, you can bet your life I'd be praying for a REAL MAN, not some woosie to save our lives. Good grief, a farm and a life threatening situation are two seperate cases.
Where I work, I ask another woman to help me move something, since they are stronger than most of the men. (they are real pocket protecter nerds).
Gender shouldn't be an issue ever, (except in the military.) We shouldn't dumb down the requirements nor should we assume all women are unfit.
Isn't it wonderful to have a husband who can allow his wife and daughter to compete with him in a "manly" art? It takes a real man to do that.
I agree, but the problem is that many have decided you have to "dumb down the requirements" in order to make sure gender isn't an issue.
What we had before made gender no issue. That wasn't good enough because very few women could pass the original tests. So, the system was changed due to pressure from women's groups who wanted to see more women on the department.
I have a good friend who is a fire fighter. She is one of the exceptions. Unfortunately, most of the women who also serve on the department are not. That fact diminishes my friend's accomplishment. It's unfair to her -- and to other women like her. It's unfair to the public that depends upon to that department. Ultimately, it's unfair to men who could pass the original standards but whose slot will be given to a less physically qualified woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.