http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/p/prelutsky/2005/prelutsky030905.htm

March 9, 2005
by Burt Prelutsky

I'm not one of those guys who took umbrage at the Women's Movement. If the
ladies wanted to have careers, it was okay with me. If they wanted to be
paid the same as men for doing the same job, that seemed fair to me. I admit
I did get my back up when they started talking about comparable jobs, as if
being a waitress were the same as, say, being a fireman. Jobs are not
comparable. They are either the same or they're different. But that's a
minor matter.
However, there were a couple of items in the feminist's manifesto that
annoyed me more than slightly. The first was the presumption on the part of
women that they weren't merely the equal of men, but clearly superior. This
delusion was usually based on the cockeyed notion that women are simply
nicer, kinder and less violently inclined, than men. Well, far from being
the pacifists they like to think themselves, reality suggests just the
opposite. It was Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Martin
Luther King, who lived and sometimes died while promoting non-violence. On
the distaff side, we have the likes of Catherine the Great, Benazir Bhutto,
Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher, as examples of women who spoke loudly and
carried a big stick. In our own country, it's Bill Clinton who spent eight
years showing his sensitivity by biting his lower lip, a lot like a leading
lady in a silent movie, whereas it's Hillary who seems to wear the pants in
the family and to relish tough talk and hardball politics.

The other thing that annoys me about what I think we can safely call the NOW
woman is her hypocrisy. These women will justify any act of rudeness, even
cruelty, on their part by announcing that men not only do the same thing all
the time, but never suffer any repercussions.

Frankly, damsels, we've all grown weary of these self-serving mantras. "When
a man does such-and-such," they whine, "he's described as strong,
purposeful, and single- minded. But when a woman does it, she's described as
a shrew." Or: "When a man does such-and-such, he's called focused, and he's
admired by one and all. But when a woman behaves the same way, she's called
a bitch."

Well, first I'd like to say that not every successful man happens to be a
horse's patootie, so why is it that so many women are eager to use only the
ones who are rude and obnoxious as their role models?

On top of that, the women who parrot those silly clichés obviously don't
know what they're talking about. The only people who defer to bullies and
oafs are toadies and kiss-ups. If you're unfortunate enough to depend on one
of these ogres for your livelihood, you're not likely to call him names in
public or to his face. But only the daffiest woman could possibly imagine
that he's not roundly cussed out behind his back. The fact that so many
women seem to be unaware of this obvious fact of life strongly suggests that
most men, to their credit, tend to watch their language in the presence of
women.

Finally, while it's true that men will tend to call a nasty female a bitch,
I'll wager they don't use the word nearly as frequently as women do.
Moreover, compared to the names that come so readily to our lips when
discussing some overbearing male, "bitch" nearly qualifies as an
endearment.

Burt Prelutsky



--
Men are everywhere that matters!





--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/9/05 4:08:38 AM ---