March 26th, 2009
This column by Kathleen Parker is indicative of the impoverished intellectual landscape that President Obama is facing as he gears up to alter the course of our disastrous history. I believe the platform was built on the concept of ‘change’. This must be staunchly resisted by conservatives for fear of having to share their rung of the American ladder of
survival success with their ‘fellow’ Americans. ‘Fellow’ is, of course, in itself a gender-weighted term. We haven’t all been addressed as ‘my fellow Americans’ by accident all these years.
A new White House Council on Women and Girls has been criticized because it somehow leaves out our troubled boys. Mind you, it appears to do nothing more than review policies for potential adverse effects upon females. That’s right, any special consideration to ensure that a policy is not specifically deleterious to half the population, which happens to have different needs on many levels, is somehow an affront to males. The letter sent:
To the Editor,
Kathleen Parker revised a century of history and data in sociology, biology, psychology, economics, politics, and religion in her effort to decry the need for special programs addressing women’s issues. She
cited studies that actually proved the opposite of her points about wage equality, but let’s put that aside for a moment.
In bemoaning the fate of male children who will supposedly suffer by exclusion from an agency created to attend to women’s needs, Ms. Parker makes her most egregious error.
Women raise boys.
Women suffering molestation and abuse raise boys. Impoverished women with limited and unequal employment opportunities raise boys. Working women without affordable quality childcare raise boys. Woman without health care or decent housing raise boys.
Advancing the cause of women towards equality and liberation (not equivalent issues) is the only way to significantly improve the condition of boys today–and the men they are to become tomorrow.
What else is Ms. Parker getting ‘wrong’?