Look, I’m a sensitive New Age guy — I cook, I do laundry, I choke up at movies (well, Gladiator, anyway). But does anyone think our enemies abroad are as enlightened as we are about feminism? Steyn is right that the specific lesson they’re learning is that nukes are the best insurance against invasion — but a broader one is that our commander-in-chief is an effete vacillator who is pushed around by his female subordinates. Prof. Althouse notes, “A feminist milestone: Our male President has been pulled into war by 3 women,” and Senator Graham scored points with “I Thank God for Strong Women in the Obama Administration,” but we’re going to pay for this.
One of the reasons Khrushchev gambled on missiles in Cuba is that he perceived JFK as a weak man when they met in Vienna. Conversely, one of the reasons Khomeini released the hostages just as Reagan was taking the oath of office was his “Ronnie Ray-guns” reputation (something the air traffic controllers ignored — which itself became another lesson for our enemies). Do you think Putin and A-jad and Chavez and the ChiComs are more afraid of Obama now? It was obvious to most of us that Hillary has more, uh, stones than Obama, but to have it confirmed so publicly for less-attentive foreign goons means they’re that much more likely to try to push us and see how The One responds.
Before you send me any burning bras, the problem is not with women leaders — the enemies of the Virgin Queen and the Iron Lady can attest to that. The problem is not even with the president having strong female subordinates. Rather, Obama’s pusillanimity has been hugely magnified by the contrast with the women directing his foreign policy and the fact that they nagged him to attack Libya until he gave in. Maybe it’s unfair and there shouldn’t be any difference from having a male secretary of state do the same thing, but there is.
So we have the worst situation of all. Instead of a strong leader resisting calls for an unjustified military action — or even a strong leader resolutely supporting the military action — we have a timorous and irresolute leader reluctantly caving in to the demands of his staff. We are in for a heap of trouble.
Very well said. I could not agree more. Bush had Condoleeza, but no one thought him weak in the face of women. Unfortunately, I think many people, rightly or wrongly, think Obama is weak in a world where sometimes perception is everything and might be correct enough to push it. This whole episode does not surprise because I think it is an example of weak men having to get us into shooting wars to prove they are not weak and then conducting war badly, precisely because they are weak. No one who ever saw Thatcher in action thinks Obama and his entire female team is a match for her. Hey, NRO, throw us another Thatcher video! The last one was a delight!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot to make light of Krikorian's more serious point, but I'm thrilled to know that I'm not the only one who gets wimpy at the end of Gladiator. The only other two moments in cimema that make me verklempt are "Dad, wanna have a catch?" and "I am a Jedi Knight, like me father before me."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting that HRC is allied(in this instance, anyway) with Samantha Power...who was forced out of Obama's campaign after calling Hillary "a monster."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's even more ridiculous is that the One's getting pushed into military action by his SecState and UN Ambassador...two infamous bastions of militaristic imperialism!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a military axiom to the effect that wars begin because one party thinks they can win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis time line is off, but Joe Biden warned us Obama would be tested by a "generated crisis" to test Obama's "mettle". Mark Joe's words, oh, and are your loins girded?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre our enemies as enlightened about freedom of speech? Are our enemies as enlightened about freedom of the press? Freedom of religion? Freedom of assembly? Due process? Why the heck would we think about what our enemies think regarding the values of our society?
Are our enemies as enlightened about feminism?
Feminism has nothing to do with it. Placing women in powerful positions isn't a feminist action in and of itself. And implying so demonstrates your worldview on the issue.
MAYBE it's "unfair" and "there shouldn't be any difference"?! It's inherently unfair, and there should be absolutely no difference between the a president accepting the counsel of a female adviser or a male adviser.
Please think before you write.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI haven't seen it mentioned here or elsewhere, but beyond this, Obama does himself a disservice via his own demeanor in these press conferences. For someone who supposedly shows such great oratorical abilities and projects a calm nobility, he often lapses into a state of annoyance--of someone doing a job he'd rather not be doing. His live presser announcing the military action against Libya had him repeatedly sighing and dropping his hands with an audible 'thunk' on the podium. He looked more like a business leader reluctantly announcing job cuts than a president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a dumb article. Is it possible that Obama's simply taking into consideration the council of his Secretary of State?? Not sure exactly how that makes him he-pecked and spineless. Again, what a dumb article.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReally? Really?! And conservatives wonder why they still lag behind in attracting female voters when they publish this sort of brain dead tripe?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have cried at movies before too. A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and the Good, Bad and the Ugly get to me every time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are aware there have been THREE female Secretaries of State?
One of them was immensely popular with the right and worked in a Republican administration. The right even refrained from making racist comments about her physique (like they do with the first lady), so I'm guessing they liked her a lot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Brain dead tripe", "dumb article", "think before you write". Hah!
The USA and Europe have, what, 10% of the population of the world between them? Because feminism is ascendant here, it MUST by definition be ascendant everywhere right? Wrong. Mark K is pointing out how the non-European societies of the world see Obama.
Get a grip, stop putting your hands over your collective ears and loudly humming "I'm not listening!" A minority of the human race (er, mankind) lives under the feminist regime. That regime will, perhaps, collapse into the affirmative self-aggrandizement from which it arose if democracy and the even-handed rule of law are further eroded, ironically, in its service.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOregon Engineer,
I'm NOT talking about taking feminism to other countries. Other countries can do whatever the heck they want to.
It's that we value equal rights here in this country along with a lot of other rights. And it doesn't matter how other countries view us for allowing women into positions of influence. Or how they view Obama for listening to them.
So many conservatives said that 9/11 was all about our heritage as a Christian nation. But we don't care about that because that's who we are as a nation. It's part of our national identity. Equal rights is as well.
I don't understand what this feminist regime is? Can you please explain? Obama chose those women to serve in positions in the White House. They made decisions about Libya. He made the ultimate decision. How does that make this a feminist regime?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOregon Engineer, you and Mr. Krikorian seem to care deeply about how American feminism is perceived by the Islamic world. Would you like to comment about other examples of how America must scale back on openly touting its freedom, tolerance, and liberalism to the rest of the world in order to look tough?
How about repression of freedom of speech? Or, you know what, if we really wanted to look tough, why don't we start performing grisly public executions here at home? I mean, that's what they do over there-- that will sure show them that we can play the same game!
I mean, following your logic, we want to look cool and strong in front of these countries. It only makes sense that we should apply this brilliant reasoning to fields beyond feminism.
That, or you grow up and realize that there are tough, smart women in power in many different arena nows, and that we shouldn't base our policy decisions or political debates off of the misogyny found in socially, religiously, and politically repressive regions of the world. If you disagree about the decision to go into Libya, which can be a reasonable argument, there are better ways to do so than resorting to an eighth grade "girls made the decision, so now we look bad" mentality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. Cooking + Laundry does not necessarily = Sensitive New Age guy
2. I knew a real manly man who cried at Steel Magnolias.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't help but wonder: If the "staffers" who "nagged [President Obama] to attack Libya until he gave in" had been Jewish instead of female, would Mark Krikorian be writing about how badly this would look in the Arab world? Would he be penning sentences such as "[D]oes anyone think our enemies abroad are as enlightened as we are about Judaism? Steyn is right that the specific lesson they’re learning is that nukes are the best insurance against invasion — but a broader one is that our commander-in-chief is an effete vacillator who is pushed around by his Jewish subordinates"? Somehow I doubt it.
Cheap shot, Mark.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can't have it both ways: you claim that our country is more enlightened about feminism than other countries, and then in the very next sentence invoke stone-age stereotypes about gender toles as a way of scoring points. It is odd that you have so little self-awareness that you don't see that the one point completely contradicts the other.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChina thought Japan was aggressive in resuming trade after Tiananmen, as it was trying to demonstrate that it was so powerful it could buck prevailing political trends. This is because they already made up their minds that the Japanese are agressive and insidious.
Who cares what the ignorant and fearful think if they regard the normal course of policy and administration as insidious or weak? They will act illogically and against their own interests and we won't have to lift a finger.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen has sentiment such as this ever been admired or respected. Who the heck ARE you? Embarassing...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse