Sunday, April 15, 2012


Barbara at the Mahablog does a great job fisking The Wall Street Journal's recent editorial on the gender wars, which argues, in all seriousness, that the true threats to women are union pension rules, overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and other such items that you and I might have thought were actually good for working people, of both genders. But Barbara wants you to notice, most of all, the Journal's headine:

BooMan sees that and writes,

I know it's supposed to be ironic or something, but its real irony is unintentional.

I'm not sure it's meant to be ironic. I just think these people don't quite understand that they're not supposed to describe women as the enemy.

And, well, there's a lot of this going around on the right, apparently, because here's the header for an opinion piece on the same subject by Matthew Continetti in the Washington Free Beacon:

No, you are not mistaken: that's General Patton.

These wingers really don't understand that this point is that they're not supposed to be at war with women. Here's a sample paragraph from the Continetti article:

What the war on women really amounts to is a battle for political power between a group of pro-life, pro-religious liberty men and women and a group of men and women who want to maintain abortion on demand and the government provision of abortion, contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures as mandated under Obamacare. On one side are people such as Sarah Palin, Mitt and Ann Romney, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers; on the other side are Wasserman Schultz, Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilary Rosen, and others. If this is the war on women, we should accept nothing less than unconditional surrender.

"Unconditional surrender"? What's the plan to achieve that? Drop Fat Man and Little Boy on the headquarters of Planned Parenthood and NOW?

And, of course, this is rather bellicose imagery from a guy who is rather averse to actual wars, which we know because he was a 20-year-old right-winger when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and a 22-year-old right-winger when we invaded Iraq but he -- somehow -- never got around to enlisting in the military. In this, of course, Continetti is following in the footsteps of his father-in-law and mentor, Bill Kristol, who is a notorious chickenhawk.


AmPowerBlog said...

There's no such thing as a "chicken hawk." It's a put down that demonstrates the stupidity of those who use it. And the left is waging the war on women. The marriage tax is real and union rules inhibit a flexible workplace. All workers would benefit from reform, especially women. The left is losing this debate, so evident in how hard you're trying to win, including everything such as attacking Ann Romney as a "cunt" and "whore." Stay classy, progs.

Steve M. said...

Thank you for the right-wing talking points, Donald. Did you copy and paste them from a Heritage Foundation cheat sheet, or did you at least take the time to rewrite them using your own words?

Steve M. said...

Oh, and who used those words in reference to Ann Romney? I sure didn't -- and if you say "Somebody in some comments section somewhere," you really, really don't want to go down that road, because two sides can play that game, and your side is very vulnerable these days -- to put it mildly.

BH said...

If there's no such thing as a "chicken hawk", then I propose a substitute: how does "hypocritical coward" suit?

AmPowerBlog said...

Steve, dude, you need to get out more often: 'New Tone alert: Libs attack Ann Romney as ‘cunt,’ ‘bitch,’ ‘whore’'.

And no Heritage "talking points." Progs can't rebut on the facts so they use stale statist attacks on workplace reform. And Barbara O'Brien? Sheesh. You can do better than that, you think?

ed waldo (Hart Williams) said...

DD: Now you've used the c-word et al TWICE; Sort of reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's endless gratuitous use of the term "Magic Negro" claiming all the while that since the LA Times had used it (in a different context) it was totally OK for him to use it (in lieu of the n-word, apparently).

I would commend you to William Seward's rejoinder to Stephen Douglas on the floor of the Senate during the debate on the Kansas Nebraska Act: "No man will ever be President of the United States who spells Negro with two Gs."

As no modern male can be taken seriously who spells "woman" with a "c" and a "unt," no matter how tricksy his justifications.

ed waldo (Hart Williams) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ed waldo (Hart Williams) said...

Just checked your "source." And it's all comments that have been cherry picked from who-knows-where.

The old DailyKos smear, equating comments with the entire website.

Stay classy yourself, Donald. Don't duck out on never arguing fairly or honestly.

This from someone who takes GREAT UMBRAGE at the term "chicken hawk."

Steve M. said...

Twitchy, Douglas? Really -- Twitchy? I tell you I don't want to hear about a bunch of random blog comments and you send me to an aggregation of tweets? An aggregation painstakingly curated by Michelle Malkin minions? There are a billion tweets every millisecond, and of MM and her drones find three nasty ones I'm supposed to apologize?

You're pathetic. Your side is pathetic.

BillyWitchDoctor said...

If there's no such thing as a "chicken hawk," then what, if anything, defines Jonah Goldberg or Mitten's Mini-Me-Me-Me-Mes?

Like Continetti, they all just loves themselves a good war somethin' fierce--as long as Pater or Mater sees to it that they get to sit on their asses at home and talk tough while other men and women do all the actual fighting and dying.

Ha ha! Twitchy?!? For real? You're no "cunt," Donald're a prolapsed anus.

Erik A. Prince said...

I only had to read a couple sentences of your Continetti excerpt to discount his comments completely. There are certain phrases and writing styles that just scream out, "I'm a raving partisan!" When you hit those, you might as well move along as the writer has no intention of debating or even being honest. It's all about talking points.

Much like Donald Douglas' comments above, actually. Once you start down that road there can be no discussion . . . only shouting matches.

Ten Bears said...

Damn, I missed the whole thing!

Donald, did you serve? I did. In-country, 1972-3. Though against War, I am no Peace Freak. If you didn't serve, you are a chicken hawk, and if you've got a problem with that please, let's step outside.

Good one, skippy, tough being an indigenous sort, a hunter and forager as well as a widely traveled man Washington Free Bacon reminds me I read somewhere once that if done right, these creatures taste just like pig. I wonder why...

AmPowerBlog said...

Bring it on, "Ten Bears," you freakin' keyboard commando.

"In country," my ass, freakin' #p2 lying ass bitch. I'd whup you silly, punk.

Steve, you really oughtta get a handle on your commentariat, LOL!

Kevin Robbins said...

Donald, did your crack team of lawyers advise you that it was alright to comment here? Are you sure that you're not harassing or stalking by doing so?

repsac3 said...

Been there, done that...
"It is entirely possible for a non-soldier to advocate war without being a chickenhawk. A chickenhawk is someone who ascribes the bravery of soldiers in wartime to themselves because they take a pro-war position, not someone who simply argues for war without fighting in it. Pretending that supporting the war is as courageous as fighting it is the hallmark of the chickenhawk." - Midwest Product - July 27, 2007 @ 4:32 pm

For evidence of just this kinda thinking, please see the following exchange:

Repsac3: "I don't know who I feel more sorry for; snooper (who served his country at least, but returned with such hatred for his fellow citizens), or Donald, who appears to come by it all naturally, and without any similar sacrifice."

Associate Professor Donald Douglas: "I serve my country ever day teaching students, many of whom are the first in their families to go to college.

The most disadvantaged ones, and those who have served, thank me for my instruction and moral integrity, and they share with me their shame at anti-Americans like yourself."


I appreciate teachers as much as the next guy (and more than many), but how many teachers are making the same kinda sacrifices as those who serve in the military? While I'm glad the man has such a lofty opinion of himself and; his chosen profession, I think it arrogant of Professor Douglas to put himself and his "service" in the same class as anyone who fought (and was wounded, no less) in battle while serving our country.

Donald Douglas: Chickenhawk, or stalwart associate professor of political science, serving on the battlefield of American community college education, just as bravely as our military men and women, protecting and defending America throughout the world?

You decide.

...and the Romney band of brothers bravely served their country by trying to get their dad that presidential nomination...