Feminist Susan Estrich Has a Point About Katie Couric/Middle East Controversy
I’ve noted on various occasions that conservatives and anti-feminists–particularly anti-feminists in the men’s movement–often place women in double-binds. Over the past three decades, women and feminists have locked men into endless double-binds, where whatever men do, they’re wrong. Now our side is sometimes doing the same thing to women.
For example, when groups such as the National Organization for Women oppose the war in Iraq, Men’s Rights Activists accuse them of betraying the men who are abroad putting their lives on the line for our country. Yet when women support military action (like the war hawk columnist/talk show host Tammy Bruce), MRAs say, “Yes, you want to send the men off to die, and women don’t even have to register for the draft!”
When women want a larger role in the military, MRAs point to biological gender differences and say women will harm the military’s effectiveness. When they don’t, MRAs talk about how unfair it is that only men get drafted.
When a mother pursues her career, some MRAs blame her for putting her self-fulfillment above her kids. Yet if she doesn’t work, she’s condemned for burdening her husband and not pulling her weight.
Many, such as radio talk show host Tom Leykis, condemn women for having children they and their husbands struggle to afford. Yet they are the first ones to call a woman who looks for a high-earning man a “gold-digger.” And the guy who blames feminists for the loose sexual morality and mores of modern society is the first guy to condemn the “bitch” who won’t put out.
The recent controversy over Katie Couric’s Middle East trip is another example, and I (more or less) agree with feminist Susan Estrich’s position on the issue in her new column “Katie’s Choice.” Couric (pictured), a single mother, is being criticized for going to the Middle East and placing herself in harm’s way, because her children would be orphans if she is killed. (Couric’s husband, Jay Monahan, died of cancer in 1998).
I can certainly understand these critics’ concerns, but look at the flip side. What would our movement say if Couric’s superiors asked her to go to the Middle East and she replied, “No, I can’t put myself in danger–my kids need me.” Bang–the first thing everybody would be saying is, “Couric draws a big salary while it’s male reporters and anchors who have to risk their lives on tough assignments in Iraq or other hot spots. Women want the benefits of equality–the high salary, the nice position–but they don’t want to make the sacrifices that men have to make to get those things.”
Estrich’s column is below.
Katie’s Choice
By Susan Estrich
Creators Syndicate
THE knives are out for Katie Couric. Again. This time, the focus is her just-commenced trip to Iraq and Syria, where she will anchor the evening news and file special reports.
How dare she?
A network news anchor heading to the scene of the biggest story in the world? Imagine: someone in her business trying to get big interviews and score high ratings!
Since when is that journalism?
And besides, doesn’t she realize that single mothers have no place in a war zone?
I kid you not. I wish I were.
The Concerned Women for America were out of the box before Katie was on the plane. One Janice Crouse, Ph.D., senior fellow of the Concerned Women’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, was on Fox News this week excoriating the anchor for leaving her children behind and actually risking her life to do her job. They could be orphans! All in the name of her ambition.
Terming the trip “a clear act of desperation,” former Bush administration speechwriter and Asbury College professor and debate coach Crouse opined, “Here she is, going off to Iraq, paying absolutely no attention whatsoever to the fact that her children have already lost one parent, and here she is, putting herself in harm’s way.”
Couric, according to Crouse, must have “a warped perspective,” and Crouse found it “very sad” seeing “Katie having her priorities so determined by her ambition rather than for her children’s welfare.”
The fact is that for a few days (and with more bodyguards by a mile), Katie Couric is putting herself in the same position that hundreds of other journalists find themselves in for years on end – many of them parents, too, not to mention the single mothers who serve our country in the military.
Who does Katie think she is? A journalist? An actual reporter? Someone who can ask questions and get answers, and focus attention on something important?
Read the full column here.
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
September 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
The idea that Couric will be “in harm’s way” in Iraq is absurd. Don’t worry everyone, she’ll come back in one piece.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Usual beatup, when it’s a women it’s heroic beyond comprehension as SHE has soooo much to loose…
It really does get pathetic.
Misandric Couric’s rating are dropping. She has to do something otherwise she gets kicked to the curb and rightly so.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Women say that when a woman in power in business does what an aggressive bold man does, she is called bitchy. The day they admit that some of them are bitchy is the day I will worry about a “double standard” for women.
I keep reading the paper seeing the names of the war dead. Couric has as much chance being on that list as female soldiers to, which is almost next to none. The military females are needed there, I believe, and I don’t mind men protecting women, but I would like to see men get credit for that sometimes – and when that happens; when men get credit for giving their lives, again, I will worry about the double standard for women.
If couric gets “offed” in a war zone it will be a huge accident ub the planning where men didn’t stand in deep enough rows to absorb the impact of the explosion before it touched one of America’s princesses.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I think so much of Susan Estrich that every time I see her on TV I change the channel.
That way I don’t swear at the TV anymore.
I love her that much.
September 10th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
now and then glenn has to leave the reservation so as not to be banished to the garage. thats ok glenn, we all need some attention periodically.
but why give estrich creds? that shrew would cut your balls off and shove them up your arse, just for the exercise. you could have made your points regarding “the cute one” without the help from a confirmed liberal femists. it would have been more believable too. nighty night.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Glenn clearly does not understand simple English, either willfully or otherwise with respect to his points about Tom Leykis.
And since Tom Leykis communicates simply and directly, I chalk Glenn’s misunderstanding of Tom’s words up to either carelessness or duplicity.
Doing my usual dissection:
Glenn Sacks: “Many, such as radio talk show host Tom Leykis, condemn women for having children they and their husbands struggle to afford. Yet they are the first ones to call a woman who looks for a high-earning man a “gold-digger.”"
Indeed, Tom frequently condemns couples who are STUPID ENOUGH TO HAVE CHILDREN THAT THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO RAISE.
In particular, Tom speaks out against those couples who cannot be bothered to save money so that one parent is at home whenever their children are home…. instead of both parents being out working.
With respect to “gold-diggers”, Tom understands very well that generally speaking, men are attracted to the most aesthetically-pleasing women that they can afford, and women settle for the most financially-accomplished men that they can attract.
When Tom rails at “gold-diggers”, he’s generally doing so OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF PARENTHOOD, i.e. pointing out those women who attempt to extract every bit of financial asset that they can from those men that they have sex with!
Get it together please, Glenn. I appreciate your news stories carrying the day’s daily outrages against men, but please listen to Tom’s words a bit more carefully, since his perspectives and advice on women, marriage, and relationships are generally second-to-none, in my opinion.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Changing the point slightly. It is true to say that there are a number of conflicting opinions among MRAs; but I think that most MRAs would agree about what they ***oppose***; viz – the demonisation and disadvantaging of men, and the terrible and grossly unfair mistreatment that they often experience from offical channels (e.g. judges – when it comes to ‘relationship’ matters) and via the media.
As such, MRAs, in my view, should currently focus their attention more on uniting against their common **enemies** (the people and the policies) rather than on trying to agree on ’solutions’ – something which is, clearly, difficult to do.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Judging by Estrich’s words, it is mostly women who are opposed to Couric going to Iraq. As far as I am concerned she is welcome to. If she wants to emulate Geraldo and go there and grandstand for a while, why not? Maybe she will be kidnapped and forced to wear a Burqa. Maybe we can forget to ransom her.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Harry, an important point, and one that bears repeating. While we do have our differences of opinion and priority, and we certainly have different “wish lists”, it is smart for us to never forget what brought us “together” in the first place.
September 10th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I’d like to see Glenn Sacks and Susan Estrich joining Katie Couric in Iraq. Acting as human shields. Firepower, Sunnis! Plenty of firepower!
September 11th, 2007 at 4:19 am
grizzlie, that’s just mean.
Plus, you forget to tell us where to send money.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Wow this is new, a feminist playing the VICTIM card once again. Poor Katie Couric, she makes millions but, oh she suffers so. She gets criticized from people who want her to go, and people who don’t. What a heavy burden.
This should not even be news, if she is asked to go, then she goes, if she doesn’t go after being asked, she should be fired, period. The fact that she is a single parent has no real relevance.
Remember;
In the 1935-1960 era, feminists quietly studied VICTIM psychology as espoused by Sigmund Freud, and studied the methods of various Frankfurt School intellectuals who migrated here from Nazi Germany after WWI. Hillary Clinton is a student of Saul Alinsky (a leading modern Frankfurt School advocate) when she was in college. Feminists then picked up sexual liberation from Kinsey’s doctrines. The combination of free sex, VICTIM psychology, and sexist techniques is the exact basis for feminism as it emerged in the 1960’s, and for the most part is today.
Never forget this!
Hoist the jib!
September 11th, 2007 at 10:16 am
The difference between double standards for men and women is:
Double standards against women is one guy blogging one place, another guy blogging another place, and massive media exposure for any hint of a double standard against women, in this case from Ms Estrich and Glenn Sacks.
For men, the double standards are institutionalized, in law, in courtrooms, in big-money media, and, other than a few MRA’s here and there, there is no exposure and nobody really cares.
We live in a society where everything, including the law and the media, revolve around women’s choice, including but not limited to whether children get to live or die, yet we refer to it as “a man’s world”. When the situation is reversed, such that the law and media revolve around ensuring men’s choices, yet we refer to it as “a woman’s world”, then this article may have a point.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Straw man. This is pretty typical of top level debaters. You feed somebody their “argument” to defend–which you pick on that can’t be defended. Rush does this all the time.
It’s actually a very good debating style. I was making the point to a bunch of friends (while we were playing a WWII boardgame called Axis & Allies) that Rush is a big-fat hypocrite for endorsing a conservative tough-on-drugs standpoint while addicted to prescription drugs. My friend Ben said: What about these liberals that say drugs are ok, now they find out Rush is taking them and “oh god drugs are bad now!”
I was actually stumped by this argument, until later I realized I got suckered by being handed a losing argument. The premise is wrong.
The liberals argument isn’t “drugs are okay” but that why are addictions handled through a law enforcement paradigm instead of a healthcare one? On this issue the liberals are dead on.
The solution is refuse being “fed” your argument that’s bound to lose. IF there is some greater moral repurcussion involving Couric in Irag it’s not because her children would lose mommy, but because she’s the sole surviving parent. Whether you think she’s noble or reckless has nothing to do with gender–unless of course you changed your tune for a widower father who did the same thing.
September 11th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
***** The liberals argument isn’t “drugs are okay”*****
The liberal argument IS that drugs are okay.
The liberal argument also is that deviant sex is okay — which is why the liberal position on Larry Craig is hypocritical.
***** The solution is refuse being “fed” your argument that’s bound to lose. *****
If it’s “your” argument, why shouldn’t you be required to eat it?
***** IF there is some greater moral repurcussion involving Couric in Irag it’s not because her children would lose mommy, but because she’s the sole surviving parent. Whether you think she’s noble or reckless has nothing to do with gender–unless of course you changed your tune for a widower father who did the same thing.*****
Katie Couric’s gender is the reason why her right to choose should be strictly circumscribed.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:24 am
“With respect to “gold-diggers”, Tom understands very well that generally speaking, men are attracted to the most aesthetically-pleasing women that they can afford, and women settle for the most financially-accomplished men that they can attract.
When Tom rails at “gold-diggers”, he’s generally doing so OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF PARENTHOOD, i.e. pointing out those women who attempt to extract every bit of financial asset that they can from those men that they have sex with!”
Feminists continually call up and try to rail against Tom with no sucess at all and are they pissed.
Here we have one male in the media telling the truth the way he sees it and the privileged princess cannot handle it…
Truth hurts doesn’t it..
Like Marc Rudov repeatedly states…”there is an eleventh commandment in America and it’s DO NOT CRITICISE WOMEN”.
Guess what, they all get borken…
September 12th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Hey Grizzlie: just contradiction isn’t an argument.
Btw: as my friends (and possibly some on these boards know) I don’t count myself as a liberal or conservative. I’ve mentioned many times how both parties suck, and I only vote for a candidate I believe in, sometimes independent sometimes nobody.
So, when I say that I refuse to be fed this argument about liberals and drugs–it’s really not my argument.
But while we’re discussing liberals, you’re wrong liberals have been the biggest proponents of after school activities and other programs to get kids off drugs.
The conservative solution? Lock up casual drug users for smoking pot–causing prison overpopulation so rapists and murders can get out of prison in months!
Good plan!
Liberals (and conservatives to a lesser degree) are as.s-backwards. But, on this one libs are right. I don’t have blind faith in pundits or “liberal” or “conservative” thought. I’m not liberal or conservative. What I am is a free-minded and free-thinking man. I know that scares a lot of people. It really scares feminists and politicians.
I especially don’t have faith in blow-hards like Rush Limbaugh. You do know that he is on a 30second delay right? If somebody calls on topics he doesn’t like (that make him look stupid) he hangs up on you. If you start cutting him down too successfully he hangs up on you.
So much for his “brilliance”. I remember when Nafta got passed. You know what Rush said? “Nafta will be good for the country because it will stop illegal immigration.” You think he takes my calls? F*ck no. And if you’re a Rush fan and feel the need to defend the hypocrite, then I’m not real impressed by you either.
As far as Katie Couric is concerned I was referencing not being fed Glenn’s pro-feminist straw-man argument that MRA’S are wrong no matter how you feel about Couric going to Iraq.
My point is that you’re not wrong to feel she’s doing the right thing or the wrong thing (by going to Iraq) unless you turn around and say something completely different about a sole-surviving parent who is male: i.e. being a hypocrite.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Glenn makes a couple of statements that just don’t stck up.
First the easy one: MRAs don’t say this or that. SOME MRAs might. There are several positions which some MRAs take that I cannot for the life of me uphold.
Such as the examples of ‘double-binds’, which aren’t. The military issues.
For instance the ‘opposing’ issues of support for war on the one hand and wanting men to go do it/only men drafted. These are not opposites. Where a woman holds the second views, she is in the wrong on both of them. Just being for or against the war isn’t a mark of an MRA. War in and of itself isn’t a MR ‘policy’ issue. Who fights one is.
“When women want a larger role in the military, MRAs point to biological gender differences and say women will harm the military’s effectiveness. When they don’t, MRAs talk about how unfair it is that only men get drafted.”
SOME MRAs point to gender differences but that is usually the women’s arguement. The military effectivness of men and women to many MRAs is not an issue. It certainly isn’t to women who claim they can do anything a man can. There are atrociously slack male soldiers. Every unit has plenty of examples. There are women in the Special Forces who can out-soldier most ordinary male soldiers.
I am an MRA, and I want to see women soldiers do their part. I want to see women do the fighting and having their share of the wounds and body count. There is little honour for the dead and maimed. Just ask them. Any MRA who thinks that men have a better right and claim than women to get his guts blown out or his arms and legs blown off is friggin’ nuts. Women have just as much right in my book. That’s called Equality. If effectiveness means seperating male and female combat units, then have them separate. There is no double-bind against women here. The draft issue IS a valid point of criticism. So is women’s expectation that they don’t get the shit job of fighting.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:08 am
You walk like a liberal, talk like a liberal, sound just exactly like a liberal. You must be a duck.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I’m sure your little mind must see it that way Squiggy. What’s smarter to gather the facts and make your own determination of your opinion (what I do).
Or to have your opinion spoon-fed to you by Rush? How does that make you any different than the liberal dumb-asses who get their opinions spoon fed to them?
September 13th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I’m sure that must be the way things appear to your tiny mind Squiggy.
What’s better to collect the facts and make your own determination (what I do). Or to have your opinion spoon-fed to you by Rush (like you do)?
How does that make you any different than the dum.b a.ss empty headed liberals who have their thoughts spoon fed to them?
Why don’t you go watch another Larry the Cable Guy movie and leave the mental lifting to the big thinkers?
September 13th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I’m sure it must seem so to somebody like you Squiggy. What’s smarter to collect the facts and make your own determination, or to have your opinion spoon-fed to you by Rush?
How does this make you any different than the liberals who have their opinions spoon-fed to them?
Why don’t you go watch another Larry the cable guy movie, and leave the mental lifting to the big thinkers junior.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
I’m sure it must seem so to you squiggy. Tell me what’s smarter? To collect all the facts and make your own opinion?
Or to have your opinion spoonfed to you by Rush? How does that make you any different from libs having their opinions spoonfed to them?
Why don’t you go watch another Larry Cable Guy movie and leave the heavy thinking to the big thinkers?
September 14th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Hmmmmm! Using labels instead of debating my ideas. You MUST be a feminist! (Round and round the labeling goes, where it stops nobody knows).