Michel's Commentary

12/4/2001  888WebToday     Maureen Dowd, columnist for The New York Times, wrote an interesting little piece lately, proclaiming the revival of the American he-man.
 

 Do you remember that sensitive man of the Seventies, decked out in his bell bottoms, hugging his box of fruit juice, which he sips delicately through a flexi-straw? The kind of guy who goes to chick flicks with his date; and weeps during the love scenes? Or, if he is married, maybe attends seminars on the La Maze natural childbirth method with his wife? Well, according to Maureen, he is O-U-T out!

 The terrorists attacks on September 11th have revived the prestige of the bare-chested  macho-type among American females. They don't want "sensitive"  men who will cry with them - they want heroes who will protect them-rescue them, if need be. They want firemen, cops, paramedics; they want soldiers, sailors and marines (even talk show hosts from Alaska!).  In fact, they want anyone who wears a uniform and who projects an image of habitually dealing with dangerous and difficult situations.

 We cannot help but feel a little sorry for all those American males who spent a decade cultivating their sensitivities only to be upstaged by a sweaty construction workers in hard hats.

 But there is a deeper irony here.  We are at war with the ultimate "macho" civilization, where a variety of Fundamentalist Islam teaches the heroism of suicide for a holy cause - and exalts woman by protecting them from the world in ways that American women would find outrageous.  American women may want strong, protective males.  But they don't want to be wrapped up in a Buurqa, and forced to view the world through a submissive little slit. Yet it is our war with this most macho of all cultures that has itself revived respect for the macho American male.

 Which raises a very important question about this war - one that has yet to be answered on the highest levels. Should we interpret this war as a mandate to bring a cultural revolution to Afghanistan and liberate the oppressed women of that country?
 Barbara Bush, in a recent interview with exiled Afghan women, seemed to be of that opinion.  America, she seemed to say, should exert its influence with whatever new coalition will rule Afghanistan in the future to see to it that the Afghan women are liberated with their veils and given equal rights with men.

 However, let us not forget that any coalition likely to rule Afghanistan in the future is going to be dominated by Muslins whose views on Women's lib are not likely to be much more favorable than those of the Taliban Party. So, unless we are willing to transform Afghanistan into a more or less permanent American protectorate, don't count on Kabul becoming the new Mecca for Women's Liberation in the Middle East.  It just isn't in the cards.

 Maybe the best outcome for this war, from the First Lady's point of view, will be to open access to the United States for the ladies in Afghanistan who would wish forever to shuffle off their veils.  Here in America, the mother of exiles, they can find a new generation of heroes to pursue.

 And those are my thoughts .........
 

Send your comments to:  info@micheltalk.com
Web site: www.micheltalk.com

Permission granted to publish or broadcast this column in whole or part with attribution to  WebToday.
http://www.888webtoday