Saturday, March 21, 2015

More Feminist Arguments Against Trusting Women

A psychiatrist, You think your drunk college-age daughters are bad with their iPhones? Imagine them with guns." She then describes her irresponsible drunk 17 year old daughter:
My daughter dropped her first iPhone outside an off-campus party, the kind of sports-related, senior-sponsored event that is infamously associated with sexual assault. When the cops showed up, she stood frozen until someone grabbed her hand and pulled her into the woods. As she ran from the police with her friends, her phone fell into a snow bank and was never seen again.

We bought her a replacement, a highly desirable 5s that she promised to guard with her life. Weeks later, after another party, my “slightly drunk” daughter tumbled down some stairs. She wasn’t injured, but the iPhone screen was cracked.
 Yes, her daughter is clearly too irresponsible to carry a gun, drive a car, or perhaps go to college.  But at 17 she can't get a carry permit, anyway.  This is back to the fainting couches view of women that feminists should be opposing, not promoting.


  1. It's not a matter of trust. It's freedom from consequences for their actions.

  2. Let me see if I can get this right. At 17, she is getting drunk.

    Across the USA the drinking age is 21, correct?

    And thus the illegal consumption of alcohol is being compared to the lawful ownership of firearms which can not be purchased until the age of 18 for long guns or 21 for pistols.

    What am I missing here? Why does my brain hurt when I see such obvious loopholes in logic?

  3. Your missing the writer's utter failure as a parent, and her failure to even NOTICE her utter failure as a parent.