So says Kathryn Jean Lopez anyway:
"...I am deeply offended by what is being said about men. A few good men have stuck their necks out lately in defense of religious freedom in America, and they deserve to be thanked and defended as they counter a dedicated campaign of dishonesty, hysteria, and raw bigotry.
Reasonable women cannot remain silent as the secretary of state of the United States pretends that America under a President Santorum or Romney would be an oppressive society for women. Or as a New York Times columnist echoes her, insisting that good men protecting conscience rights are 'cavemen,' and that 'Republican men' are trying to 'wrestle American women back into chastity belts' in an 'insane bout of mass misogyny.' Or as Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, calls the U.S. Catholic bishops 'violently anti-woman.'
This is miserable, insulting, desperate stuff. It’s just not right, and women of reason cannot let it stand."
Lopez doesn't actually try to, let alone actually succeed in, rebutting the notion that an America under... *dry heave*....President Santorum or ....*shiver* ...President Romney would be an oppressive society for women. She just states that it's a "war on men" to say that.
And welcome to socially-conservative political correctness.
Despite their dominance in social conservatism, men who work to roll back reproductive rights are apparently fragile, porcelain dolls, capable of being shattered with the hammer of bigotry and oppression when people are insufficiently polite about critiquing the regressive policies such men support.
While these powerful, prominent social conservatives call women sluts, support forced birth policies, make birth control a "debatable" issue in 2012, and oppose abortion even in cases of rape, we are to believe that it is the duty of socially conservative women to stand by their men and insist that we not use words to describe how oppressive these policies are to women because doing so is Big-Time Rude.
Because, apparently, it's evidence of a deep and pervasive man-hating agenda to criticize male public figures. I mean, can't a guy even support a law requiring a private citizen to undergo an invasive, unnecessary medical procedure just because he doesn't approve of another medical procedure ze's having, jeez?
In other news, I think I'm going to start headlining all of my articles from now "The War On Men." (Oh hell, I might as well go all-out and call them "The War On White Men"). I guaran-gawdamn-tee I'd be getting paid to pen op-eds for The New York Times in no time.