Dr. Keith Ablow has decided to draw a line in the sand in the societal blurring of genders. Sadly….sadly, it is at once at least good to see some acknowledgement of the insanity, but he fails and dons his suit of white armor fully, proudly, in the end.
You cans sense his discomfort as he tries to explain why he thinks women should not be fully and completely placed on the front in battle. He does the obligatory go-girl cyber high five celebrating of the gains women have made by listing the side effects and then weighing those against….well…..thats the question isnt it, he doesnt weight them against anything, he simply panders and declares them good, worth it so to speak.(emphasis mine)
Predictably, girls increasingly feel as empowered as boys to express themselves sexually–and, with neither gender the demure one–young people have sexual contact earlier with more partners.
Predictably, girls are increasingly in touch with their aggressive instincts, leading to more girl-on-girl physical violence.
[Emp: Fails to mention female on male violence, hmmm]
Predictably, marriage rates are declining as both genders see themselves as equally able to sustain themselves separately in the workplace and equally ambivalent about giving up sexual freedom.
Again, I am not saying that these side effects are not well worth the gains in equality between genders we seek and achieve
Feel the fear as he alludes, blandly to the negatives
I am, instead, noting that the gains do, indeed, shift other characteristics of our culture.
Adding the most ridiculous but main stream necessary disclaimer we’ve come to expect.
I do not believe women should serve as combat soldiers. I know they are fully able to do so. I know they would acquit themselves spectacularly well.
He goes on to explain the innate feelings men have about women, the feelings that are the basis for the evil patriarchy, the feelings that are responsible for the centuries of horrid oppression meted out by men on women
I would worry for my son were he to volunteer or be drafted to fight on the front lines, but that I would worry even more for my daughter.
was told as a boy to never hit a girl, it seemed entirely obvious to me. A given. What sort of boy would strike a female, anyhow? A liberated boy?
I want to protect women from violent death–even in war.
Ive lifted the last one out of order, for additional comment
I believe our nation could be doubly demoralized by women coming back from war in body bags in equal numbers to men.
Yes, imagine the feminists as the body count equalized. Feminists have a bizarre concept of equality, one commenting recently that the current 60/40 female/male college enrollment was encouraging as it shows that we are nearing equality.
Our culture is rapidly dissolving all those quaint “stereotypes” about girls being sweet and boys being tough. But I think that we ought to be careful not to destroy something valuable about the true differences between genders, in the process. Something just plain true. And I think that one place to draw the line is in combat–where men must sometimes fight to the death on the front lines and women should never have to.
Keith, review your own list above, we HAVE destroyed all thats valuable, and the side effects that you claim are worth it or the scourge that is chewing up and spitting out familial relations, at men’s expense, in western English speaking countries.
I assume, though you’d never admit, you have a profound fear of suffering career consequences if you were to actually analyze what you mentioned here in passing as side effects. Better to cry warning that women may end up dying in war, than to acknowledge that men are dying at home, in family courts, debtors prison, and suicide.