- The Washington Times - Sunday, September 4, 2005

Feminist fits

“Supreme Court nominee John Roberts … seems to have a unique talent for driving the feminist establishment to distraction.

“First, there was the appalling ad by NARAL Pro-Choice America, charging that Roberts had filed court briefs supporting abortion-clinic bombers. …

“Then … there were new discoveries of Roberts’s crimes against womanhood. Horror of horrors, he opposed measures to promote equal pay. It turns out, though, that what Roberts actually opposed was ‘comparable worth’ — a briefly popular doctrine which proposed equalizing pay in female-dominated jobs (e.g. laundry worker) and supposedly comparable male-dominated ones (e.g. truck driver). …

“Roberts quite correctly characterized it as a ‘radical redistributive concept’ that ‘mandates nothing less than central planning of the economy.’ The idea that bureaucrats, judges, and ‘experts’ can determine fair pay is absurd — particularly … in an ever-shifting job market and in an era of constant technological revolutions.”

Cathy Young, writing on “Feminists have fixed the ‘woman-hater’ label to Roberts,” Aug. 29 in the Boston Globe

Til death do us part

“Why, in an era when men and women can barely achieve detente, in a First World where everyone suffers from attachment disorder, are we still ponying up for marriage? …

“I’m no historian, but it doesn’t take a Paul Johnson — to tell us why it’s so hard to stay married. We live too long. Marriage is a naturally polarizing process that causes one person to detest, over time, what the other person loves. Only after a couple divorces do they move back toward the center, where their interest in one another began. …

“There’s no incentive to stay married and wait for our children to grow up and come work in the family business, because they won’t. If we’re really, really lucky, they’ll place a few calls and drive us to the nursing home. There’s no hardship significant enough to keep us dependent on each other. … If the hardest thing in your life is that your husband won’t pick up the dry cleaning, are you likely to hang in until death do you part?”

Annabel Lee, writing on “Why I’m Divorced,” Aug. 25 in the Hartford Advocate

Russian invasion

“For the greater part of the 20th century, Russia’s population suffered from the nightmare of wars, repression and perpetual hunger. … It almost seems as if the relative prosperity of recent years has engendered a peculiar reaction of the flesh, something almost akin to gratitude. All across the country, a plethora of beautiful girls has sprung up. …

“Our Russian parents … brought their little girls to wherever the ace coaches lived, to those who could see the value of their ‘human material’: little girls, hungry for success, ready to fight Russian-style — that is, to the death. Anna Kournikova was just a testing of the waters. She was the necessary sacrifice to intoxication. Maria Sharapova … is the next, and more impressive, stage. …

“The role of the Tennis Lolita, of the Beauteous Champion, is but Russian womanhood’s most public face. … The Russian Invasion of the tennis Klondike is in full swing. But there is a world beyond tennis, and they will have it, too. The Russian girls are coming. They don’t want to change the world. They want to conquer it.”

Edvard Radzinsky, writing on “The Other Russian Revolution,” Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide