Mailvox: angry women

Beth muses on the question:

Wow! You are going to get bombarded with hate mail from angry women, but I suspect you already know that. This column provokes alot of discussion & cannot be commented on in a brief manner. Women get really angry for different reasons. Are you talking about a new phenomenon or one that’s been around forever? While I can, of course, speak only for myself, I have experienced that wrath in myself, and it’s not pretty. I am 50 & my husband & I have been married for 24 years. I always heard growing up that marriage is difficult & couples have to work at it. That simplistic description in no way prepared me for the realities of marriage. I can honestly say that it is not necessarily the things my husband does that piss me off so badly, rather it is the things that he doesn’t do. Men disappoint women ALOT. Men today fall short of being real men & perhaps this is part of the problem. And how did men get that way? Angry radical feminists? Perhaps. I agree with you that the anger is not a result of male oppression, although I believe many women imagine that they are oppressed by men. I have not experienced male oppression myself, however, I have experienced female oppression. I find it interesting that people actually believe that males are the only ones capable or willing to oppress others. I have never been a supporter of the radical (angry?) feminists, & I believe they have done untold damage to our society. I am a stay at home mom who never favored “day care kennels” & felt that my job at home was as important as any career woman’s job. Why have children if you’re just going to turn them over to someone else to raise? But back to the anger. On one hand I think that some women imagine they are victims of atrocities, but on the other, men do contribute to the anger by having relinquished their manhood. I think the big question may be what kind of men do we women want? There is a demand for too many varieties of men. We have a very confused society. Yes, men can make us angry, but would I be a traitor to also suggest that hormones contribute to the anger? I know I’m all over the place on this one, but obviously this is a very complicated issue. Interesting!!!!

It is a complicated issue. But the basic focus must always be placed on one’s responsibility for one’s own actions. Perhaps some of this simmering female anger has a reasonable basis, or perhaps it does not, but in any case, its basis doesn’t excuse the typical behavior inspired by it nor does its legitimacy make the persistent state of anger any healthier for the individual or those around them.

But we’re the good guys

Which is why we don’t “kidnap” people and “hold them hostage”, we prevent dangerous terrorists from harming freedom:

A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil – and the angry Iranian response to it – should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials….

US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, who have not been seen since, were “suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces”. This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there were no Sunni-Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.

This may go a long way towards explaining the Coalition of the Willing’s strangely muted response to the Iranian capture of their sailors. Downing Street likely realizes that the rest of the world isn’t likely to be overly sympathetic to the plight of the “hostages” once it’s realized that this is simply a tit-for-tat situation.