Move over, Lauren Duca. This pair of WaPo opinion pieces on Gen. John Kelly’s sexism puts your take to shame.

First up, this offering from WaPo columnist Ruth Marcus:

Oh:

But, speaking for this woman at least, that is not what women want or need. To be put on a pedestal also risks being kept in a box. In the good old days that Kelly mourns, women were not so much elevated by gender as constrained by it. Imagine how Kelly’s remarks sound to the female service member struggling to prove herself in the male-dominated military culture.

If the upside of chivalry is the opened door, the cape spread upon the muddy ground, the downside is the presumption, perhaps subconscious, that feminine is the equivalent of weak; the impulse to treat women in the workplace differently from their male counterparts; and the consequent distortion — sometimes overt, more often subtle — of career choices and opportunities.

Forget sacred. I’ll take equal.

And then there’s this from Kate Germano, “advocate for gender equality in the military”:

Oh:

No one can argue that with the death of his son, Kelly and his family suffered a great loss. Such deaths are tragic and should cause the nation to carefully consider when and how the military is employed as an element of national power.  But Kelly’s expressed views about women are troublesome and should not be excused or ignored because of his military rank, service, and the loss of his son in combat.

His expressed views about women being sacred are troublesome. That’s a big-ass plate of fresh hell, right there.

So, this is really where we’re at now.

Men literally can’t win with these feminists. If a conservative man respects women, he’s a sexist.

Meanwhile: