Plucky Letters to US soldiers in Iraq

April 24, 2003

Dear Rob,

Ann, who works at school with me, is a baby boomer. She’s always getting herself involved in these manic projects, such as a church mission trip to supposedly help needy people in New York this summer. (They are there for four days, and it’s really just a fun way to show well-off Methodist kids what it means to be poor. But, whatever.) Anyway, now she is thinking of joining a team of women to build a house for Habitat for Humanity. The whole thing is sort of a cockamamie ploy to get this house built entirely by women for publicity. You know, sort of a “Wow, look what we girlie-girls can do!” exploitation piece.

You have to think about this for a moment to get the full gist of how stupid it is.
Imagine driving by a day care center and seeing a giant sign out front that said:

THE CHILDREN WITHIN ARE CARED FOR ENTIRELY BY MEN

Would that impress you, or would you maybe wonder if the job might better be done by the other gender? In any case, it’s just one more small way that women continue to allow themselves to be twisted into competition with men, rather than living in concert with men. It bothers me for that reason alone.
What is so wrong with the sexes being complimentary, rather than everybody wanting to be “as good as” men? I really don’t see what is so much better about men anyway. Seems to me this sort of competitiveness just messes up the natural order of things.

THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS:
1) Smart person(woman) says “Gee, I sure would like a new house.”
2) Stupid person(man) busts ass to build new house for smart person.
3) Smart person takes complete control of new house.
4) Stupid person pays for everything.

That is, in my mind, the natural order of things, and I for one do not need any feminists running around screwing it up for the rest of us.

Besides, what is the point of building “habitats” for the homeless nincompoops of the world, anyway? If they wanted to live in homes, they never would have run away to become bums in the first place. And if they are mentally ill, what is the point of giving them a house? They can’t even take care of themselves; how in the world can they be expected to mow the lawn?

Maybe a better idea would be to put all the homeless people of a given city into a big zoo. They could be allowed to wander about in a safe, clean ghetto of sorts, with well-constructed park benches and regularly sanitized gutters. Keepers would be hired to attend to their bodily needs on a daily basis. Each inmate would receive medical care and a clean layer of mis-matched clothing every few days. Park visitors would pay an entry fee to cover all costs. Visitors would be allowed to purchase small bottles of Thunderbird to hand out to the inmates at feeding time. Children could experience the thrill of doling out small change in a safe, friendly environment.

I'll give Jimmy Carter a call and talk it over. Maybe Ann and I could get well-paying jobs in the zoo cafeteria.

Much Love,
--Mom