Pointless question of the day: can female terrorists achieve career fulfillment?

This is only true for Islamic terrorist organizations, women had the majority of leadership positions in the German Red Army Faction, with the Bader-Meinhoff group being half named after a woman. It's a question of motivation, not gender discrimination. It's a bit like claiming racism due to lack of whites in the Black Panthers and blacks in the KKK.

D. Did that comment just engage the Slate article's argument SERIOUSLY? I give up.

What's with the whole gender hing anyway? Men and women are different. I did no say they were not equal, I say different. We were created for different roles. Women are nurturers, men are workers. This is a Biblical principle based back 6500 years in the book of Genesis. That's why gayism is a sin. God created a woman for Adam, not another man.

It is not a sin for a woman to work. Most Christian women work outside of the home. However, we see the feminizing of boys so much in our culture today that no wonder the world is going crazy.

Roles have reversed in recent years and that is a bad thing. It is unholy and unBiblical and unhealthy for the children involved. They are confused.

As for these terrorist women, they do these acts in the name of their slain husbands. Islam has a role to play, yet public officials refuse to realize it.

I take back what I said about the first comment; compared to the last comment, debating the Slate article's thesis seems the epitome of reasonable. Sigh.

As a young woman, I am deeply concerned about this issue because I am in desperate need of some positive role models-- maybe if there was a Terrorist Barbie, I'd finally gain some self-esteem and forge a path for myself in life.

Also, I was reminded of this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/oh-girls-are-no-good-at-genocide,10765/

Homeland Security responds to complaints of 'gender profiling' in 3... 2... 1....

More proof that Slate trolls theonion.com for inspiration.

Uh, the Explainer column asks humorous questions in order to segue into serious discussion. I think you're missing the point.

Yet another reason the left kicks ass compared to the right in this country: we have neologisms like "muppethugging," they have "gayism." Which in retrospect, wouldn't the meaning of gayism mean "discriminating against someone who's gay?" Sigh, suffixes were never the loonies' strong point. Nothing is, really, except perhaps muppethugging.

Oh, and does anyone else get a bit tickled by the idea of a middle-manager of a terrorist group? If we did a show on it, would it be more like The Office, or just a darker-skinned version of American Beauty?

"serious discussion"? You saw some, Doazic? I didn't. Also, whether the question is "humorous" is also up for debate. Personally, I find it less humorous than bafflingly insensitive. But maybe that's just me.

Given that the US military still prohibits women from serving in frontline combat roles, one could argue that the Jihadi have pushed the boundaries of women's rights.

More seriously, the Chechens are less about religion and more about religions and self-determination. They embraced Islam after their prior secular leadership was destroyed along with most of their nation. They probably ditch Islamism and the jihadi types if they, the Chechens, would receive substantial Western support and aid. Of course after the pummelling that Georgia received at the hands of the Russians, they realize the West will probably never help them. So, they turn to those who are willing to support them and aren't afraid of and even previously beat the Russians - Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists.