Kathleed Parker: Vote for Hillary!! Save the world!
Kathleen Parker writes in her WaPo column that we should support Hillary Clinton because it will save the world.
I kid you not:
Here’s a thought: She [Hillary Clinton] can save the world…
Let’s begin with a working (and provable) premise: Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet. This is not so far-fetched a notion. One, men have been at it for thousands of years, resulting in millions and millions of corpses. Two, countries where women are most oppressed and abused are also the least stable.
Three, as women become more empowered, especially financially, countries become more stable…
What does this have to do with Hillary? Quite a bit.
Rewinding the tape to 1995 at the U.N.’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, then-first lady Hillary Clinton empowered women as never before with just a few words: “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”
So, why even wait for Hillary’s election, as the Nobel Committee did with Obama and his Peace Prize? Let’s give Hillary the Peace Prize now—not for her glorious work as Secretary of State, but for the work she will undoubtedly do as president.
Parker has fallen prey to the same fallacy that so many who support Obama keep stating, which is that a politician from some heretofore under-represented demographic group can, by sheer force of rhetoric, change the world. But the world is a great deal more resistant to change than that, as Parker ought to have observed by now.
If Parker actually thinks that the example of the election of Hillary Clinton will help liberate women in third world countries (for example, in the Arab world) well then, I have a bridge to sell Parker. You might say that of course she doesn’t really believe that. But if she’s anything like many of the liberal women I know she really, really does believe it. And she probably also believes that women are somehow morally better and more peaceful than men, a point on which I strongly disagree from personal observation.
Her economic argument is the most interesting one. It is indeed true that “as women become more empowered, especially financially, countries become more stable.” But that’s hardly something that magically comes from the election of a President Hillary Clinton. And which comes first, the stability or the economic empowerment? And do both result from other societal and cultural forces that represent deeper and more profound change within the countries themselves, if such changes are to last? At any rate, Clinton would have no power in those countries—no more than Obama did when he spoke to the Arab world in Cairo—and how’s that going these days?
But Parker isn’t interested in all that; she’s interested in promoting Clinton. And why Parker is considered a conservative, or a sort-of conservative, I’ll never know, except that she’s the type of birdbrained “conservative” that the MSM likes to trot out as an example of the genre.
Parker, by the way, won a Pulitzer Prize in 2010 for her columns. And in 2008 she became famous for calling on Sarah Palin to resign from the Republican ticket because Palin was “clearly out of her league.” I guess Palin as veep would not have led to World Peace in quite the same inexorable way that President Hillary Clinton would, despite Palin’s similar credentials as a female.
[NOTE: On the topic of women in third-world countries and how to change their status, let’s look at Egypt. Back in the 50s, Nasser tried to effect just the sort of economic reform that I believe Parker is talking about as part of his imposition of a socialist welfare-state type economy. Same thing was true in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there. Since then, both countries have reverted to their cultural traditions to a large degree, Afghanistan even more than Egypt.]
Or maybe Parker has fallen to the same deal with the devil others have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Parker
Wiki pedia is not as good as intel profiles, but it’s free.
Chris Tingling Matthews, huh. Maybe it’s infectious. Viral air dispersal?
“Human rights are the rights of the unborn and the rights of the unborn are human rights.”
Thanks HRC, now I have a response liberal advocates of late term abortion will understand.
See what happens when you let women vote — they start having opinions. See what happens when you let women have opinions — bedlam. Even if you so much as just like women bring back the Patriarchy — do it for them.
Parker is a birdbrain. I used to read her column, as occasionally she had something intelligible to say, and she was one of the only “conservative” voices in our paper.
Then a few years ago, she started to sound more like a high school newspaper editor than somebody capable of a serious thought.
I recall one piece about Obama’s mother — a Mother’s Day tribute that was particularly nauseating. The deceased Stanley was elevated to the status of feminist folk hero – a former living legend of accomplishments and self sufficiency, incredible fortitude, and one we all owe a debt to. The real Stanley was not what I would call any of those things — it was an odd choice for the praise she chose to heap on. I always got the feeling she wrote a lot of crap to impress the liberal journalists and editors with her ability to be independent, while passing herself off as a critical thinker – But little of what she wrote was critical thinking or supported with any argument of fact that make any sense at all.
Kathleen Parker fell into a vat of stupid and is now emitting it from her pores.
Most high school and college girls will tell you that boys are nicer than girls.
Shorter Kathleen Parker: Let’s make Hillary president simply because she’s a feminist.
Funny, nowhere in this column did Parker mention any of Hillary’s accomplishments, as SoS or in earlier jobs.
This sounds an awful lot like Obama supporters in 2007-2008. He’s an African-American! He can heal our nation’s racial wounds and inspire others around the world!
Uh huh, look how well that turned out.
The promotional material for Parker’s 2008 book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care, said this:
And a review there from Booklist said this:
Just how does all that jibe with this nutty Hillary-love column touting female superiority? I think Parker’s an opportunist pure and simple, and this column made a very big splash, as intended.
What’s really scary, though, is that she’s widely syndicated and reaches deep into the heartland:
The article at that last link also has this about her “conservative” credentials:
Parker is a birdbrain.
Gee thanks southpaw. 😉
As any old-time butcher would tell you, if your customers crave tripe, you sell them tripe. I have long looked upon Parker as a tripe merchant.
The phrase “war on boys” is a relatively new one, but the fight to subdue the male has been going on in our schools for a long time. I was on the other side of it 60 or 65 years ago. Then it was waged with paddles and face slaps. It was a quiet war. Boys didn’t complain because that would be unmanly; and in those days it was thought to be good to be manly. And they had no power with which to respond. Now, with the punitive power of the state actively engaged, and ridiculous “zero tolerance” laws as justification, the war on boys has escalated tremendously.
More recently the power of the state, allied with the media, has been employed widely in the interest of gender fairness. But, as we are learning, fairness is not the goal. Power is the goal. I hate to cite the oft cited Alinsky, but I am beginning to think that he is required reading in “Women’s Studies” curricula. When you achieve a gain, it is not cause to celebrate; it is merely the threshold for the next assault. So, Parker, and others of her mind set, are openly articulating the notion that men are inferior, and dangerous creatures, who must be kept in their place. That attitude used to be labeled “Jim Crow” when applied to a particular race; what would it be called when applied to an entire gender?
“… what would it be called when applied to an entire gender?”
Hillary will grant exemptions for the protected ones: homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, and well, any male who is a heterosexual and vaguely caucasian.
Correction: any male who is not a heterosexual and is not vaguely caucasian which includes white hispanics.
Bush daughter: Hillary Clinton should run
Unbelievably accomplished.
I give up.
I’m with Ann: All her accomplishments are Un-Believable!
Hillary is going to change the mind of 3,000,000,000,000 muslims that believe women are chattel. Yeah, right!
Economic liberty results in a socity that is better for women. Directly, since a society that is commerce and money oriented is more female friendly then a warrior society; and indirectly because such a society drives technology, which also tends to help women more then men.
The improvement in women’s condition really seems to begin with the cultures developed in the Netherlands and England back in the 16th and 17th centuries, and moving to the United States later. It follows capitalism. At some point it seems to undermine the capitalism that enabled it; socialism is not female friendly.
With respect to Hillary, she was a horrid SoS. Consider how they had to put Rice up there to lie on 5 Sunday talk shows, so that Hillary wouldn’t have to. Or her lack of concern about Fast and Furious, which, if she was a real SoS and not complicit, should have made her furious.
“Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet. This is not so far-fetched a notion….”
This is sexist drivel. But of course, being a sexist is ok if you’re a liberal woman, just as being a racist is ok if you’re a liberal black person.
This is more tribal thinking. Vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Just put aside all her policy disasters and execution failures.
Libya should sink her when the missing 400 missiles show up.
I wonder what Kathleen Parker thinks Hillary’s accomplishments were as Sec of State. Or is it just that she was Sec of State and that her actual performance on the job does not count. What part of the Obama admin foreign policy can she point to as being a success? Hillary has shown herself to be a congenital liar and cheat starting with her roles in Whitewater and futures trading.
Sorry, I couldn’t hear what Kathleen Parker was saying over the raging dumpster fire she left behind in Libya.
If women are in charge, wars will be ongoing. (Women never forget) and they’re inherently more brutal…. This from my 67 years of observing the female gender.
Skullbuster, I agree with your point, but I’m pretty sure there aren’t 3 trillion Muslims.
People are under a slight miscomprehension. If Leftist women are put into power, women won’t get a say. Any more than if black Obama and black Sharptons were put in power, blacks would get a say.
Slaves aren’t allowed such rights.
Guess Parker can be considered a “conservative” for the same reason there’s little comment about the Constitution…an absence of understanding of reality.
I suppose, if “the world” doesn’t mind being abandoned as it is being slaughtered, and if it wants some who will support and cover for its philanderings, and is in no way interested in the truth (after all “what difference does it make”)…then I could see how someone might include thunder-thighs in their considerations.
Otherwise, her total lack of competence, her chronic deceit and corruption might be seen as a drawback.
Leaving aside Parker’s inanity, women assuming a position of power and decision making is a valid subject. When they are not inclined to scratch each other’s eyes out, backstab and manipulate, women are more inclined to consensus.
Consensus has its place but in time of crisis, one person has to assume responsibility and lead.
My criteria for evaluating a woman’s suitability for President is simple; is she a constitutionalist and can she make the hard decisions? Hard decisions being defined by an ability to recognize when sending men and women into harms way is certain to result in their deaths but is required by larger concerns… IMO both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton meet the criteria of tough mindedness. But Clinton is no constitutionalist. She seeks to amend the Constitution extra-legally, not support it.
IMO, two excellent perspectives regarding men and women’s suitability for being in charge of society are provided by Selwyn Duke; “Rise in Female Breadwinners Means America is a Loser” and “Death by Woman”
My own view is that women are meant to walk beside men as equals. Perhaps Eve being created out of Adam’s rib, which was on his side, is a clue?
cool arrow,
A truly sublime example of how to offer constructive correction. I too noticed the error but lack your skillfulness and so remained silent.
Maybe it’s time we stopped putting people into little boxes labelled “conservative,” “women,” etc. Can’t we all just get along? 🙂
Once one labels everything “statist” v. “less government,” things become much clearer. Ditto “power hungry” v. “just leave me alone.”
I’m kind of a minimalist so I like to reduce things to their simplest forms. Dogs v. cats, loud v. quiet, etc.
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/08/14/how-western-intellectual-values-have-gone-haywire/?singlepage=true
Barry Rubin is always a good read.
<>
Margaret Thatcher, Falkland Islands, thank you and good night.
SGT. York, precisely. Also Indira Gandhi & Golda Meir also come to mind. Parker is an idiot.
I hate this “if women were in charge…” crap. If people believe a woman president would be kinder and gentler just take a look at Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius (or even Lois Lerner). These women have taken great pleasure in wielding their power, and they’ve been merciless in their treatment of certain subsets of Americans. I have no doubt that if either of these women were president we’d be just as likely to wage war as a male president – probably more so than wimps like Obama and Carter.
Under Hillary as Sec Of State the entire Muslim world in flames. Radical jihad Islam almost owns all of North Africa because of Hillary. The civil war in Egypt couldn’t have happened without her direct support of Radical Islam in the Muslim Brotherhood. Hillary started supplying al Qaida affiliated groups in Syria with weapons that continues under Hagel.
“And she probably also believes that women are somehow morally better and more peaceful than men, a point on which I strongly disagree from personal observation.” (from the post)
Neo, I guess you saw my comment on a post a day or two ago (the Wesley Clark one, I think) making that same point. Women were also, in ’70s feminist mythology, much less acquisitive than men, which would also result in a more peaceful planet when they assumed power: no more trying to amass wealth, compete for resources, etc. etc. Which now, after 40 years of personal observation, strikes me as hilarious. It’s like reading a phrenology manifesto or something.
Kathleen Parker reminds me of a columnist in our local paper. She’s personally “conservative” in that she believes in common sense, responsibility, etc. But she has no firm principles, and so is readily blown about by ideological winds which she doesn’t recognize as being such. Touting Hillary as a planetary peace-bringer, though, puts Parker out there in Andrew Sullivan la-la land.
Peaceful? Women? Really? Cleopatra? Victoria? Elizabeth I? Meir? Indira Ghandi? Thatcher? Catherine the Great? Boudica (sp)? Ranavalona? Lakshmibai? The Dowager Empres? Joan of Arc? Peaceful, indeed.
Parker can’t allow women to gain any power. It would be troublesome for her masters.
The thing to behold here is not that Kathleen Parker is a certifiable idiot but the way she instantly commands attention by merely acting like a certifiable idiot. When Hilary Clinton who comes across an ignorant and arrogant ogress, opined during her presidential run in 2008 that “Putin has no soul” (being a former KGB operative), her target pointed to the fundemantal problem with the Senator from New York: “At minimum”, Putin retorted, “one would expect a state figure to have a head”.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1950829/pg1
Pingback:Power and Identity Politics