Seriously, this guy must have been big back in neanderthal times:
Women shouldn’t be trained to kill, to engage in hand-to-hand combat or to risk death facing hate-crazed enemies.
Now if that’s not bad enough, keep in mind that this is in the middle of an article talking about presidential nominees. Which makes me wonder what Pat actually thinks the President does.
What man wants to let that happen, no matter how it might appeal to some women themselves? Sure, they can … but they shouldn’t. If it must be done, it’s a man’s job, a man’s duty….
And that’s how I feel about the idea of a woman president. Face it, Americans will elect a woman their leader only if there seem to be no qualified men – only if they feel she’s the best we can come up with. Have we come to that? Can neither party present a man who so clearly has the leadership qualities we need that we’ll decide to accept a woman – to sit across from Vladimir Putin or the Chinese, Korean or Pakistani leaders who all despise the idea of having to treat a woman as their equal, politically or otherwise?
Say what? We should have a woman president so that we won’t be despised by our political opponents on the world stage?
Listen, Pat. If you want to be misogynistic, that’s fine. But at least have the balls to say it, and not put it upon your imagined misogyny of "the Chinese, Korean or Pakistani", mmm-kay? (P.S. As for Pakistani women leaders, does the name Bhutto ring a bell, Pat?)
P.S. Pat would also like you to know that he would be all for a black (male) president — really, he would! — just not, you know, Obama for
Chrissakes snicker doodle sakes.