Margery Eagan as many here know is the Boston Herald's token liberal feminist. But she makes sense most of the time and many of her columns have been posted here (she hates Hillary Clinton with a passion which makes her okay in my book). I think she raises an interesting point here that women in our culture have a "moderating and civilizing" influence on us men. It does appear that in cultures where women are oppressed, that the society is more barbaric as a result.

Margery Eagan aside, the silence from the rest of the feminists on this is deafening. Amazingly, many liberal feminists are actually against the war. They don't want to do anything to help make President Bush more popular. Of course, if their hero Bill Clinton was still president, they would be hailing Bill Clinton as a liberator of women with his war against terrorism.

Fact is however, even after we win this war, it appears that the women in Afghanistan, and other Islamic countries, will not be liberated. The Muslim culture simply sees women as inferior and will alway seek to keep them enslaved and out of public life. It's time that the liberal feminists woke up to this fact. But they probably don't care if it interferes with their political agenda.

Left to their own devices, single young men (as a group) will always be more violent and barbaric. Men need women and they need marriage - a civilizing institution.

This fact makes China a very disturbing situation. It is a nation that is reducing its birthrate - especially female children. Over time they will be a nation of young, unmarried men - a very volatile situation indeed.

Left to their own devices, single young men (as a group) will always be more violent and barbaric. Men need women and they need marriage - a civilizing institution.

Any men's prison in the country, or in the world, for that matter, proves your point.

Good point. I never understood the limitation of one child per family. Not only does this result in many otherwise wanted children being aborted but creates a disparity in the man:woman ratio. Where are all these Chinese men going to find women partners?

I also agree that men need the civilizing influence of women. When I go out with the guys after work every now and then or on a camping/hunting trip, it's amazing the difference in the way we act when there aren't women around! It is rare to find a violent criminal who doesn't have a serious problem "women" problem. I do not know of a happily married man who has turned to a life of violent crime.

moderating and civilizing

The balancing act is to become civilized, but not to the point where the Barabarians eat your lunch because you forgot how to fight.

America's military must be ruthless, controlled but ruthless - our stopping in the Gulf War needs to be an anomaly - unconditional surrender must be the norm.

Where are all these Chinese men going to find women partners?

They are not going to. The Chinese Communists have been planning to become a regional superpower for 20 years or more - and that takes young men who can be used as cannon fodder. Remember that people belong to the State.

Maybe I'm misreading your comments but are you actually agreeing with what this woman is saying? I mean compare these statements and tell me you really think she has a valid point:

The Taliban denies girls and women school, medicine, work. No painted nails or high-heeled shoes. They may lose a fingertip, or toe.

They can't go outside without a man; they may be beaten. Windows must be painted over lest a man pass by and be overwhelmed by a glimpse of the un-burqaed female form. It's unimaginable, really.

Yet the author equates that to this:

" Yet much closer to home, too, you find the same connections between religious radicalism and the urge to oppress women.

Christian fundamentalists, for example, preach about women as subservient to men. Southern Baptists talk about men as heads of households. The Promisekeepers, hardly radical nuts, do, too. Orthodox Jews restrict women to one side of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. "

The christian west is what has recognized women as deserving respect instead of this.

"Left to their own devices, single young men (as a group) will always be more violent and barbaric."<> This explains the high crime rates and mass carnage among pre-ordination Catholic priests, Boy Scouts, and chess teams. Thanks for your feminist bigoted enlightenment.

"Left to their own devices, single young men (as a group) will always be more violent and barbaric."

This explains the high crime rates and mass carnage among pre-ordination Catholic priests, Boy Scouts, and chess teams. Thanks for your feminist bigoted enlightenment.

Pre-ordination Catholic priests, Boy Scouts, and chess teams are not left to their own devices. When was the last time you saw a Boy Scout who was not receiving guidance and nurture?

I am the anti-feminist and know enough to realize that woman was made for man, and not the other way around. Buzz off....

Of course I don't agree with the authoress on such matters. I was just stating a fact about single, unattached young men and those implications in China which has a policy of killing off their children - esp. females.

Ah, the return of matriarchal society. Kumbaya.

Hi Annie
My comment was directed towards Sam Adams and his post #1 not you. I hadn't read your comments when I posted mine.

"The Muslim culture simply sees women as inferior and will alway seek to keep them enslaved and out of public life."

Here in UK where I live, obstetricians on the National health Service will not provide details of gender to any mother as a the result of a scan. This is because Muslims will often go for an abortion if it is a girl. So they go private.

It is evident also that Muslim women are more heavily veiled than say 20 years ago. Usually they are forbiddden to learn English. A Ugandan Asian friend retired from teaching ,offers classes in teaching English as a Foreign Language free. Women are less than 1% of pupils and then very westernised young girls.

Margery Eagan aside, the silence from the rest of the feminists on this is deafening. Amazingly, many liberal feminists are actually against the war. They don't want to do anything to help make President Bush more popular. Of course, if their hero Bill Clinton was still president, they would be hailing Bill Clinton as a liberator of women with his war against terrorism.

I found it interesting that this "issue" came up in the mainstream media so soon after our contry was attacked by terrorists. It's as if we've never heard of it before (Hillary & the Bejing Conference?) or we needed to be reminded by all the reporterettes that the suspected enemy were brutal to their woman (American propaganda can be subtle, at times.)

Now, did it ever dawn on the fems that they were being "used" on this one? Feminists are traditionally of a mind that war is a man's game - that if woman ran things there'd be more negotiation, cajoling and comprimise. namely, less war.

So, how does one stultify these pacifist folks in their tracks? Just make the enemy (guys) out to be a bunch of wife beaters! In fact, maybe they should all be killed because they haven't accepted our western concept of "equal rights."

Another question I'd pose to the modern feminist woman is: "Why do you want to impose you moral suasion on another society? And would you coerce that society to adopt your political mores as part of a military victory."

This is a great case where the extreme liberal feminist logic is turned inward upon itself. Hard for the little ladies to protest at the campus student union when the enemy we fight are a bunch wife beaters.

Nobody here is comparing America's milquetoast sexism with the tortured lives of women under the Taliban.

On the contrary, that is precisely what she is doing, or there wouldn't be an article. But she is also equating the Western "warrior tradition" (for want of a better term) with that of the Taliban, and that is as inaccurate as equating their misogyny with the "milquetoast sexism" of the West.

Think "chivalry" here, with its concomitant idealization, even worship, of feminine attributes. Think "women and children first." Think of scarves affixed to lances, maidens in towers, all that corny stuff - it isn't just imagination, any student of history will tell you that that is, or was, the Western warrior culture. Feminists have done their very best to kill it, and instead of recognizing what they've lost, misrepresent it as equivalent to boys raised in the absence of women or guidance. That is precisely what it was not.

Christian fundamentalists, for example, preach about women as subservient to men

Actually it's the Bible that says that wives should submit themselves to their husbands.(And the husbands are to love the wives with a perfect love just to keep it in context.) Not husbands oppress their wives. Not men Oppress women. The voluntary submission by a wife to her husband cannot be compared to the brutalization that takes place in muslim societies.

Southern Baptists talk about men as heads of households.

Yes and as the heads of households men are to take responsibility for their wives, to love(and care for) as they would love(and care for) themselves

The Promisekeepers, hardly radical nuts, do, too.

The whole purpose of the Promisekeepers is to encourage passive husbands and fathers to take responsibility for the emotion and spiritual welfare of their families.

I've already identified Margery Eagan as a liberal feminist so you answer is no, I do not agree with everything she is saying here. I only commented on the one part of the column that I do agree with, that is that women are a moderating and civilizing influence upon men. Now that's not advocating the "feminization" of men or anything like that. I detest the feminist approach of emasculation and their ideal of a "sensitive man." That is not what I am talking about here. I think there can be a good argument made that the treatment of women in the Taliban is a contributing factor to the men being angry and frustrated to the point where they would turn to terrorism as an outlet.

As a Christian wife who tries to submit to her husband, I can tell you it's so much better than having to make all the decisions myself. We pray about things together and we make decisions together. Christ came to set us free, not put us in bondage and I'm free to love my husband, to allow him to be the head of our home and it doesn't hurt one darn bit.