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.
Plus, half of feminists are men, and half are women. Half of decent, moral, God-fearing conservatives are women, and half are men.
Therefor, I object to ideologies. Feminism for one, but regardless of whether it is practiced by Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer or by Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle.
My daughter's also a scuba diver, qualified for underwater rescues. If you were trapped in a car going under in a lake, pond or canal, would you refuse her help because she was female, or would you say (or gurgle), "No thanks, I'll wait for a man."
Thanks!!!
Organized feminism is against the right to keep and bear arms. Rosie O'Donnel railed against Tom Selleck because he supports the NRA. I support the NRA too, so I guess I'm in good company with Magnum.
This is true; and it is why the feminist put on the very lesbian play, "The Vagina Monologues" on Valentine's Day!!!
WE'RE HERE. WE'RE INTOLERANT. GET USED TO IT!
OR We'll Kick your A$$
But you will be the smallest minority of voting women. The vast majority live within an overriding desire for security such that it is a unarguable condition of reality for them. Such women elected Bill Clinton, and support his and others' promises of social security, because it comes with the female package.
The question is, would you give up access to civil life and influence to stop the socialization of your country by those less responsible and more emotionally reactive to images based on security than yourself?
If you are not so willing, that destroys your credibility to argue in favor of the 19th amendment, places you in the vast number of the irresponsible females, and is further evidence that it should be repealed.
A man places his life between the enemies of his nation and his nation so that it and its people will continue. This is the ultimate in responsibility. Is it not right to ask women to do the same thing in their area of responsibility?
In the 70's when NOW became quite strong, it wasn't really the same agenda. They had focused their efforts to address equal pay for equal jobs. They have continued losing the support of women as they have become more radical and militant. I mean, what cause have they taken on in the last decade that they made a difference? They were forced to go more radical in order to have a reason to exist. Now days, NOW means abortions and lesbians. Those are the only issues they are concerned with. How many married women are really interested in these issues?
When Patricia Ireland is on Fox trying to convince the American public that women in the Military need her help so they won't be forced into compulsary pregnancies- that shouldn't even be an issue. What is to stop woman from getting pregnant to get out of the front lines when the going gets tough? I heard many woman in desert storm did just that.
Your daughter is obviously very cool.
Feminists, on the other hand, would take a dumbed-down test. Therein lies the difference, and one of many objections to the feminist ideology.
The fact is, if I were left to my own, I would probably live in an old hanger and buck rivets for the fun of it. Probably the clutter would become the norm and I wouldnt see it much as any other bum but with this lady in my life I come home to a well coordinated and "neat" area with many niceties not to be enjoyed in a world made by the likes of me. However, I do contribute, because it does take a good part of the money I earn to support this warm place, and I do occassional repairs -- but no more than she -- but, it is worth it!
My above comments don't do justice to my wife's contribution to the home, but I did my best in this limited space.
Now, do you think the term "making a home" has any meaning -- and if so, what does it mean to you? I am sure as a lady, you can define the term much better than I.
PS -- no argument intended.
True. And male-bashing....
She's had the training, you probably haven't. You probably think it's all brute strength (this is the reason the buffed men who failed the physical agility test failed and she didn't). It's strength, PLUS training--how to get the person out, what do once the person is out, how to control the person if he or she is flailing about if conscious or semi-conscious and how to get them to safety, without panicking.
This is extremely prevalent. And getting worse. And enough is enough. What do you suggest to reverse the ever-growing feminist male-bashing?
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.