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.

This entry was posted on Monday, September 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm and is filed under Feminism/NOW, Sexism, Single Mothers, "Single Mothers by Choice", Gender Issues (Misc.), Men, Women and Work. You can trackback from your own site.