The SHOE-BOMBER vs. REAL MEN: What Feminists Have Never Understood, And Try To Distort

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.

I see so many attempts to put images of women as being able to kick men's asses lately. There was the blind Judo black belt commercial, the New Charlies Angels and various other media attempts in movies and commercials showing physically superior women beating the crap out of men.

This stuff is all over. It's called "misandry"...

As a 5'8" man, (60" for those of you impressed with large numbers), I have to take a minor exception with Mona Charen on this. It's best said by the old quote:
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight... It's the size of the fight in the dog."

I anyone knows who irst said that...jump in.

Unortunately, liberal education and feel good techniques are teaching a lot of kids how to "posture;" but faced with reaity back down. Thank God that wasn't the case on this flight.

Happy New Year to you all.

Do you support equal opportunity in the domestic sphere?

I may come from a different perspective than you. My first husband died when my daughter was young and for quite some time--almost 15 years--not only did I have to "make a home," but I also had to support my daughter. I didn't remarry until she was almost out of college. My husband had his own home for a number of years prior to our marriage, so he was quite conversant with housework, but he's a dreadful cook (opening up a can of soup & making a sandwich is his limit, where I love to cook). We both work and share the chores. He's better at car repair, but I can change the oil, gap spark plugs,change a tire and do basic maintenance. I can also read blueprints and scematics better than he can. We're building a sailboat & both of us work on it.

Because he grew up on a farm-with four sisters--he also has a different perspective. On a farm, everyone does the chores--in the barn, in the field, and in the home. Because I was alone for so long, I learned how to do things that would be designated as "guy" chores. Because he was alone for so long, he learned how to do things that'd be designated as "gal" chores. Each of us are better at some things than the other one.

It may be over simplified, but my take is that one of the prime functions of a man is to create a situation where the woman in his life can go about making the home while unencumbered by the daily struggle to pay the bills. Unfortunately, in our most societies this ideal situation does not exist.

I appreciate the way you expressed that thought, and agree wholeheartedly.

My personal take on it is that only when a flower is properly cultivated, watered, fertilized and sheltered from the harshest elements, can it truly attain its ultimate potential. If left to grow untended, it may live, but never fully thrive.

We don't need affirmative action firefighters or rescue personnel who got to where they were cause they were given a bonus on their exam or they slept with the boss to get the job.

She wouldn't tolerate any dumbing down or weakening of standards and would be insulted if anyone dared to ask her that question. She wouldn't say anything, but would give you a look that'd melt your shoes.

I'm for everybody doing what they're good at.

And I'm very in favour of the farm model, where both parents are raising the kids and working every day.

Speaking of the farm model, ever see the show "Road to Avonlea"? The King family exemplifies the model perfectly.

With all the PC dumbing down in our society your daughter's probably the exception to the rule but it illustrates that it also puts qualified minorities under a permanent cloud of suspicion. Namely that the lowered standards that let the less qualified get in leads people to assume those who are qualified also cheated. Yes that's unfair but when you have affirmative action rules created by the feminazis and the racial con artists the records and accomplishments of women and minority hires get less respect than they otherwise should. If every one played by the same rules all that would change.

After all, most firearms crimes are committed by men.

Hey Goober brain, most firearm crimes are committed by men who drank milk when they were children. Most firearm crimes are committed by men who had mothers. Most firearm crimes are committed by men who probably bumped into an insipid, feminist a$$hole like you before they committed a firearm crime.

Oh year, HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!! LOL.

I don't believe you really understand the principals at work here. Please try to step away from your conditioning for a moment so that my words won't make your mind close down.

The real question is, why? Why subject women to the brutal physical realities of dealing with emergency situations when it is not necessary? Why place the only portal for other human beings to come to the Earth in positions of mortal danger when there are endless men to do that job? For what purpose? Political purposes? Purposes of ego and power wielding?

You have to remember one of the cold and heartless, but nevertheless true, aspects of physical reality. When you kill a man, you kill that man. When you kill a woman, you kill all the children she will have. The latter doesn't apply to men (that is, kill the man - kill all the children he will sire) because another one of those cold truths: a group of 100 women and one man will survive whereas a group of 100 men and one woman will not.

And I'm very in favour of the farm model, where both parents are raising the kids and working every day.

That's EVERY DAY. 365 days a year, 366 in leap-year. I won't even begin to describe the hours. And when Mom & Dad got older, they'd all show up when it was time to do the haying, with me pitching in the last few years (as well as planting season). I don't think any of the kids would trade their upbringing for any other lifestyle, although it was hard on them in high school, when outside activities had to wait until the chores were done.

Speaking of the farm model, ever see the show "Road to Avonlea"? The King family exemplifies the model perfectly.

No! Another movie to be put on the list of "we can watch this once we have time."

I know it well. And wouldn't have it any othe way.

Videoflicks.com has the whole Avonlea series, a great family-farm-friendly set. Each video usually comes with two episodes, circa $10, available HERE

If you buy one and don't love it, I'll personally refund your money.

Because she doesn't see things in your terms. Just as she doesn't see things in terms giving a group of people a dumbed-down test or bonus points or preferences because they belong to a specific group of people, she also doesn't see why she should be prevented from doing something she's capable of doing because someone else thinks she can't or shouldn't.

That's a very positive sentiment. Seriously. And applies to raising daughters.

Also of interest: The Farmer's Wife

This one looks good, and it doesn't look sugarcoated. Our nieces and nephews started spending time in the barn when they were in strollers. Most of the kids had part-time jobs working on farms when they were in high school, and my father-in-law still works part-time on a farm.

They miss farming (well, my mother-in-law doesn't miss it at all)--but not as a full-time occupation. It's grueling.

To destroy the mystique, my mother-in-law is not a great cook (a good baker, though) and to this day, my hubby and two of his sisters hate beef, because they had so much of it (they swear from tail to snout) when they were younger.

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.