The Global War on Sexism

The articles (currently only one) collected below illustrate that
the wars in which the United States is currently involved,
with their ruinous cost in dollars, property, and people’s lives and well-being,
are in fact deliberately desired by
at least some women seeking to advance women’s interests,
at whatever cost to the larger body politic.
Evidently, to some of our “elite”,
truly cost is no object when it comes to advancing women’s “rights.”

2011

2011-04-03-Parker

Women aren’t pet rocks
By Kathleen Parker
Washington Post Op-Ed, 2011-04-03

[This particular article is also excerpted in the post
“The feminist propaganda machine.”]


Whether the topic is Libya’s rebels
or Afghanistan’s “reconciliation” with the Taliban,
the pivotal question is, or should be: What about the women?

...

What if saving women from cultures that treat them as chattel
was in our strategic and not just moral interest?
What if helping women become equal members of a society
was the most reliable route to our own security?

One needn’t be a visionary to accept this simple tenet
as not only probable but inescapably true.
Without exception, every nation that oppresses women
is a failed and, therefore, dangerous nation.

[Quick consistency check:
Did America, prior to, say, 1960 oppress its women?
If the answer is yes, can Parker really seriously claim
pre-1960 America was “a failed and, therefore, dangerous nation”?
If the answer is no, then why did we make all those changes,
with their great, if hardly acknowledged by the feminists, cost?]

...

The insanity that sends jihadists to rain hell on civilized nations
is the same that stones women to death
for failing to comply with primitive norms of behavior.

[This is the war propaganda machine at work,
making false accusations of insanity.
For an accurate account of the motivations of
one Muslim convicted of attempted terrorism,
see the articles about Faisal Shahzad referenced here.

I can personally attest that many of the people I have encountered
are perfectly happy to declare "insane" or "crazy"
anyone whose ideas they wish to suppress or ignore,
or who might point out facts which would contradict or counter
their preferred narratives.
Challenge the PC view? How dare you!

In any case, Parker's italicized statement above
is either contemptible ignorance or contemptible deceit.
For a look at the real cases of Islamic anger,
see the following documents:

Root causes of Islamic terrorism
Why they hate us
What “Islamic extremists” say
Imperial Hubris and its critics (based on Michael Scheuer’s book)
Lebanon 1982: the spark for 9/11

]

As [Hillary Rodham] Clinton wrote in Time magazine in 2001,
“The mistreatment of women in Afghanistan was like an early warning signal
of the kind of terrorism that culminated in the attacks of September 11.”

[So Hillary Clinton is now an expert on the causes of Islamic anger at the United States?
Hillary's opinion is clearly warped by her well-documented worship of feminism.
For a look at how Hillary herself made the attack on 9/11 more likely,
see the document "Wars of feminist aggression",
in particular, this, a collation of endnotes from
Michael Scheuer's Marching Toward Hell and the 9/11 Commission Report.]

Women are not collateral damage in the fight for security.
They are not pet rocks in a rucksack,
nor are they sidebars to the main story.
They are the story [Parker's emphasis] —
and should be the core of our foreign policy strategy
in Afghanistan as elsewhere.