Mmmm, Stacy–That Was Great! {UPDATED: PODCAST AVAILABLE!}

by Little Miss Attila on April 2, 2011

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

Readers, if you listened to the debate and want to weigh in on who “won,” the poll is here. If you want to say “hi” to Stacy and congratulate him on acting gracefully in defeat, you can go here, where he’s mostly being a good sport, though he is fiddle-faddling around by attempting to conflate “feminism” with “thinking the Pentagon should be forced to allow women into formal combat roles.” Never mind that I’m on-record as being against social engineering–in the Pentagon, and elsewhere.

So it’s a straw man argument.

[Mid-post update: The podcast is here.]

For some reason, Stacy appears to be not just against women in combat, but against women in the military. Which . . . um. Good luck with that. Somehow he’s hanging his case on the fact that women get UTIs more readily than men, which creates challenges in the field–as if carrying antibiotics and pyridium doesn’t solve that problem. (And as if men don’t have to be treated for VD when they go overseas. Come on.)

Sorry, Buddy: we’re involved in a long-term conflict with radicalized (“perverted,” for the purists) Islam. We therefore absolutely need women in the armed forces to work checkpoints and conduct searches. Some of this work is pretty close to combat, in real life: dangerous, risky, and yet necessary.

[The display is messed up on my links; html appears fine, and they should work; let me know.]


So, no social engineering is supported here at Little Miss Attila, but we have a great fondness for women in uniform–especially now, when even support personnel can get involved in firefights, and everyone must be willing to shoot . . . and prepared to die.

Now, you have a nice day, Stacy. And, here’s a smoke for you, too:

* * *

Darleen also blogged it this morning, over at Protein Wisdom.

Da Techguy’s home page will have the archived show-file up soon, in case you missed it while it was live, and I’ll put the link up when that happens.

UPDATE: Funny, my husband told me that female Marines were called “Broad-Assed Marines,” or BAMs. I suspect, however, that one has to be in the Corps to get by with that usage; I would damned well never hazard it.

From the comments section, Jake writes:

I don’t know if Stacy served in the military. But I did (Marine officer) and I can tell you this. I can’t remember anyone during my service who didn’t appreciate and value the service of our fellow WMs (Women Marines). There is nothing more ignorant and stupid than a civilian man, who has no idea about the breadth of our military’s mission, making asinine remarks about who should serve when and where.

During my time (1980’s) there were issues about women in the Marines. One of my young female troops was severely sexually harassed by older, higher ranking lesbians in her squad bay. And my male speriors refused to address the harassment for fear of their careers. But that was hardly a reason not to have women in the Corps. It was more a reason to keep politicians like Pat Schroeder from intimidating generals into not doing the right thing and court martialing those horrible women.

Only a very small number of military jobs require superior physical prowess. Women should hold any jobs for which they are qualified. And know nothings should keep their mouths shut.

And, Tree-Hugging Sister remarks,

As for women in combat ~ no one ever asks the Lance Corporal, who would have to slog through that Afghan mud and heat with 90 lbs of gear on her back, plus girl stuff. It’s always the Congresswoman or the feminist blogger or the female officer who needs the combat fitness report who are all squawking to get women in combat. Oh. And “polls” of people who would never consider being in combat themselves being awfully quick to volunteer the little girl down the street who went in the service last year. But for the poor chicks who would be the “grunts”, nobody’s asking them.

As for the MP who gets the Silver Star fighting off the Taliban or, God Bless them, the Marine Corp Lionesses ~ they react to a situation at hand magnificently! Their training comes to the fore, unlike poor Jessica Lynch and the cooks in THAT convoy, but that’s NOT the day in, day out grind, like the guys do every miserable day, humping up and down those Godforsaken mountains and shithole little fields, under the constant pressure of death from any corner, or any palm tree, or any five year old. Ask Skyler. Sure women can do that ~ SOME women. VERY FEW. Not enough to make every WM an 0311/infantryman.

And to be able to pull their weight and to save the guys in their squad like those guys would save them, those physical standards need to be sacrosanct. Really. Armchair GiJanes need to STFU. They’re not doing the girls any favors.

The level of frustration out there is clearly huge; politicians have been effing around with the Armed Forces for decades in all kinds of ways. And there is no place in a war zone for political correctness.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Remember: Saturday Morning, Attila on the Radio with Robert Stacy McCain
April 4, 2011 at 10:43 am
The Aged P » Blog Archive » Stacynomics 101 – or How To Defenestrate A Krugman Water Carrier…
April 13, 2011 at 8:06 am

{ 75 comments… read them below or add one }

Mike April 2, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Oh, yeah. Women with guns! That second picture is hot!

Reply

Leah April 2, 2011 at 1:11 pm

missed it live, looking forward to hearing it soon

Reply

kate April 2, 2011 at 1:19 pm

can’t wait to hear it! should be a lot of fun. 🙂

Reply

Reston April 2, 2011 at 1:22 pm

Love the war porn. Are these the gals our guys are supposed to ignore or treat merely as buddies? I smell military spirit! Have a marvelous day.

Reply

mockmook April 2, 2011 at 1:59 pm

I have a sudden desire to join the marines…

Reply

AndyJ April 2, 2011 at 2:15 pm

Biggest problem with women-in-combat is American-Men-Get-Stupid-Around-Women. If we train em not-to-be-stupid thn we change a lot in the American Male. Olde military expression applies here; “You don’t have to like it. You just have to do it.”… So salute smartly, say “yessir, yessir Tree Bags Full” and get on with it.

OTOH H.L. Mencken wrote in 1920 that the reason women should not be allowed in combat is that they don’t believe in chivalry, fair-play, or second guessing. They would see the job as killing the bad guys and going home. As far as he is right (written after WWI and covering Treaty of Versailles) is that women would have to follow the Rules-of-Engagement…

OTOH; Old Cowboy saying “Difference between a good wife and a great wife is a good wife will reload for you. A great wife will skin down, slather up with bear grease and go out with you to slit some throats in the dark”….

Me-? I think it depends on the woman and the man. The military isn’t for everyone. Most should/will stay home. Those who sign up know what’s coming and what’s expected…

Reply

Kathy Kinsley April 2, 2011 at 2:22 pm

As far as what Mencken said, I agree – when the enemy doesn’t follow rules of engagement (which they don’t in most cases) it is putting our troops at risk to require us to do so.

So, we should kill ALL the bad guys we can find, and go home. And if more bad guys pop up, we go back and do it again. Eventually, we run out of bad guys. (Oh, I do agree on being as nice as possible to those caught in the middle, but for me it’s not Rules, it’s common sense.)

Reply

datechguy April 2, 2011 at 2:32 pm

Thanks again for being on

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 2, 2011 at 2:55 pm

Thank you, DTG! Had a blast.

Reply

Koblog April 2, 2011 at 2:40 pm

Of course women should be in combat. It’s why the M-16 assault rifle was adopted. It’s a woman’s weapon designed around a lightweight cartridge which itself was for shooting small varmints.

It’s only a coincidence that America hasn’t won a war since male warriors carried the .30-06 M1 Garand, “the greatest battle implement ever devised,” into battle.

That, and democrats.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 2, 2011 at 4:13 pm

No one likes the M16; you can’t pin that on the women, since its adoption predated women signing up for the Army & Marines in large numbers.

Supposedly it was adopted because it was better at longer ranges–and could more easily be adapted to full-auto. But I personally think drugs were involved . . .

Reply

frank martin April 2, 2011 at 2:41 pm

There were a lot of women on Flight 93. When the moment came, they did their share of fighting. When the battlefield is every home, every store, every street, every school, every place where people gather, then everyone is a combatant.

The first battle of this war was fought in the streets of Manhattan. The other side wanted to make its point about many things we hold dear, but first and foremost, it was waged primarily against women and their role in life. From what I understand, the men who crashed aircraft into the twin towers, first and foremost, hated us because we think that women are the equal of men.

If this war is about anything, its about the question of whether or not women are property or people with equal status and value of men. The other side that thinks that women are property, quiet frankly, its what defines them.

I would ask Dear Stacy, what it is precisely he believes, and why.

When this war is over (and it will end one day) let me assure you that my daughter will be not be anyones property. And if you care to ask her opinion on this matter, my advice to you Dear Stacy, would be to wear a cup when you do.

Reply

Tennwriter April 4, 2011 at 12:23 pm

If you want to reduce things down to a purely physical level as you do with your last comment, then the ordinary guy will see the kick coming from a mile away, and flip the aggressor on her back with a simple heel grab and toss.

High Culture aka Chivalry lets you make that comment with hope of it being taken seriously. A Barbarian culture would simply snicker. So what you’re hoping for is the people you disagree with are gentlemen even if you don’t want to admit you need that. And under Chivalry, we recognize that women can fight, but we prefer they do not except under some very limited conditions (the ‘slap to the face of a cad’, or the Defense of My Babies from some Home Invading Monster).

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 4, 2011 at 2:18 pm

Your chivalry allows another man to talk about his daughter? Well–good luck with that.

Because you’ve just asserted that you can take every man on this thread who’s sticking up for the women. And some of them have had a lot more training than you have. A lot.

Reply

Tennwriter April 4, 2011 at 8:46 pm

What are you talking about?

And yes, I’m well aware I’m not the toughest guy around. I’m big, but slow reflexes, and inexperienced would just make me a big target to the truly skilled. But this looks more like you throwing junk to distract from the real point.

The real point is that Frank said his daughter could take on Stacy, and I chuckled at this notion, and informed him that his ideas of his daughters combat skills depended on the very notions of chivalry he disdained.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 4, 2011 at 8:50 pm

Ah, is that what you meant.

Well, then–you haven’t met Stacy.

Jake April 2, 2011 at 2:42 pm

I don’t know if Stacy served in the military. But I did (Marine officer) and I can tell you this. I can’t remember anyone during my service who didn’t appreciate and value the service of our fellow WMs (Women Marines). There is nothing more ignorant and stupid than a civilian man, who has no idea about the breadth of our military’s mission, making asinine remarks about who should serve when and where.

During my time (1980’s) there were issues about women in the Marines. One of my young female troops was severely sexually harassed by older, higher ranking lesbians in her squad bay. And my male speriors refused to address the harassment for fear of their careers. But that was hardly a reason not to have women in the Corps. It was more a reason to keep politicians like Pat Schroeder from intimidating generals into not doing the right thing and court martialing those horrible women.

Only a very small number of military jobs require superior physical prowess. Women should hold any jobs for which they are qualified. And know nothings should keep their mouths shut.

Reply

Robin April 2, 2011 at 2:44 pm

My first time here, but whoever says women shouldn’t be in the Army, or in combat, is dumb. Granted, most probably don’t have the upper body strength normally required for humping a full ruck, but women are vicious if you piss them off by hurting one of their soldiers. I’m a retired Major (male) and some of the best soldiers were women. A woman MP won the Silver Star for leading a counter-attack and she kicked butt. She did it “by the book”, flankled the enemy, and routed them. Personal hygiene issues are difficult in the field, but a lot of women would spit you on a bayonet if you gave them the chance.

Reply

serr8d April 2, 2011 at 2:48 pm

So, where’s the podcast? I missed the thing, and being a ‘show me’ decision-maker (rather than relying on polls) I need to hear the thing.

Or a transcript, that’d work too.

(But I’m sure you nailed him proper! )

Reply

Polybius April 2, 2011 at 2:51 pm

I don’t know about women in combat but I would follow the woman in that first picture to hell and back. She would be smokin’ even without the cigarette.

Reply

jgreene April 2, 2011 at 3:39 pm

Women probably shouldn’t be in front line combat, but women CAN and will fight. They’ve come a long way, baby! I’m an older gentleman, and appreciate the job our female marines, soldiers and members of the other services do… in and out of combat areas.

Reply

CRS April 2, 2011 at 3:46 pm

As a combat veteran who worked spec ops, all I can say is if women want to go into combat roles they should pass the same PT tests and training that men go through.

I’m all for allowing women into BUDS, as soon as they can pass it without lesser standards for them. Likewise for other demanding combat roles.

Women excel at certain things in the military. Pilot is a prime example and they should be preferred for those billets.

I do get a kick out of the marine officer above me and his politically correct statement. He is someone who was never wet or on a boat team, most likely. I’m sure your WMs were great at washing trucks in Hawaii Pal, and I appreciate your O-speak bureaucratic garbage friend. Forgive me if as someone who was in the field I find your statements just bureaucratic hogwash.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 2, 2011 at 4:08 pm

Well, you might specify which one you’re replying to . . . we’re getting a lot of support for women in the military, here.

Reply

Rob April 2, 2011 at 3:48 pm

There’s also the very real value added by female Soldiers or Marines being in Iraq or Afghanistan, it allows our forces to interact with the native females in a way that no male can. I’ve seen it firsthand, and having a female alongside to talk with, or at least accompany a native female during any encounter makes a difference.

My 45 person company had 16 females in it, over 1/3 at all levels from enlisted to officer. Short of a draft, females are needed to fulfill the personnel requirements of the military, period.

Outside of a small amount of MOS’s that require high physical strength, females can fulfill most roles that a male can.

For all the talk about the risk of males being overly concerned about the safety of their female counterparts in a combat environment, in my three tours in Iraq I did not see that concern become noticeable, let alone a detriment to the mission.

Reply

Henry April 2, 2011 at 4:19 pm

Off topic I guess, but I’ve never once heard a female Marine referred to as a BAM. The term I’ve heard most often is Wookie Monster, or just Wookie. Sometimes just WM. Of course, these are not officially sanctioned terms.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 2, 2011 at 4:35 pm

Sounds like it died out in the early 1970s. There weren’t as many of them when Husband was in, so there might have been more novelty at that point.

Reply

genes April 2, 2011 at 9:12 pm

mid 70’s, killed by the PC police sponsored by NOW. One of the BAM cpls at Lejeune was written up for wearing a sweatshirt that had B.A.M. on it. Same captain put two women cpls on weight control for being 10 and 15 lbs “overweight” while she was heavy enough that her BMW leaned to the drivers side.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 2, 2011 at 9:19 pm

So the “tokens” were sensitive about the weight issue . . .

Reply

genes April 3, 2011 at 7:05 pm

Personally I always thought the captain was jealous as the young ladies in question were competent, good looking and in very good shape.

Polly April 2, 2011 at 5:49 pm

My mother was a Sergeant in the Marines during WWII; she was a cook. She had to learn to shoot and to field strip a rifle, even though there was little chance of her having to use it in battle. She proudly called herself a “B.A.M.” In fact her email account name was BAMSARGE.

Reply

Jake April 2, 2011 at 4:41 pm

@CRS… Dude, I was in 1st Recon and went through Amphibious Reconnaissance School, Jungle Warfare School, Scuba School (short version of BUDS at Coronado), Jump School, Parris Island, Infantry Training at Geiger, OCS & TBS at Quantico, Officer Infantry, and was a instructor at JWS on Okinawa. Eat me.

Reply

Tail Gunner Joe April 2, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Somebody here suggested that women make great pilots. But every flight instructor knows that women have problems with spatial awareness. This has been identified by the aviation psychologists and is not in doubt. The first Navy female helicopter pilot is dead. The first Coast Guard female helicopter pilot is dead. The first Navy female fighter pilot is dead. The fact that they are all dead is bad enough but they took 6 more guys to the grave with them. There is a place for women in the Armed Forces but probably not in the pilot’s seat.

Reply

NukemHill April 2, 2011 at 9:33 pm

The first Navy female helicopter pilot is dead. The first Coast Guard female helicopter pilot is dead. The first Navy female fighter pilot is dead.

FTFY.

Reply

Thomas Hazlewood April 2, 2011 at 5:48 pm

I’m not making an argument here. I served 20 years in the Army and worked with many women whom I would trust in many situations. I do wish to mention one period, however, which caused me concern then and has never, since, been put at ease.

While serving in Korea there were ten women in my company. At one point, ALL TEN were pregnant. None were married at the time. All had to be put on light duty (pushing papers in the Orderly Room) and were unfit for anything strenuous. Just sayin…..

Reply

Darleen Click April 2, 2011 at 6:18 pm

Jaysus, TailG Joe, I guess someone should do a DNA test on Nicole Malachowski, right?

And, wow, how did Annie Oakley really do it?

Reply

Darleen Click April 2, 2011 at 6:24 pm

Thomas

Were all those pregnancies Virgin Births?

Reply

Micha Elyi April 3, 2011 at 5:25 pm

Unlikely. And you won’t see a pregnant man either – virgin or otherwise.

Reply

Kelly April 2, 2011 at 6:47 pm

I’ve got to call bullshit on the marines supposedly valuing woman marines. I’ve known several female marines with recent service and they are no more wanted nor looked at as “real marines” than a homosexual. Plus , I hate with a passion, the kind of talk that civilians can’t have an opinion unless they’ve served. By the way, I served in the army for 3 years.

Reply

Skyler April 2, 2011 at 6:55 pm

I first started affiliating with the Marines in 1982 and at that time the term BAM was known to me, but only as a term that we were told to never, ever use. I surmised that it had been used until recently but just like WM was never official.

I’ve never heard the term “wookie” being used, but I suppose some units might.

There certainly is value to having women to talk with the local women. But I submit that since we’re not serious about winning this war and don’t send enough people over to Afghanistan, where I am now, to fight the enemy and occupy it properly, that we have to use whatever desperate measures that we can.

Reply

Paul April 2, 2011 at 7:06 pm

I also enjoy seeing pictures of sassy females in combat zones with muskets, trailers, and civilians! That surely proves that females are competent soldiers and a vital part of the armed forces.

But snark aside: Women in the military are great. So, a modest proposal to ensure a fair shot for all: Let’s start setting and enforcing PT standards by MOS instead of by sex. Let’s start doing gender-blind branch assignments. Let’s stop segregating assignments by sex–e.g., Military Transition Teams are all male when the MOS slots are mixed combat- and non-combat arms, and the assignments are anywhere except large headquarters bases such a Bagram, Baghdad, et al. On OERs, ORBs, and ERBs, let’s black out names, race, and sex for advancement boards. Let’s let low-level commanders enforce disciplinary measures necessary to the success of their units–Tony Cucolo’s order for his division in Iraq a year ago may not have been the most effective, but the heat he received for giving it was surely undeserved. (for those who don’t follow it–MG Anthony Cucolo gave an order directing or allowing punishment of any soldiers who conceived in a combat zone, along with their significant others/partners as a measure to ensure continued combat readiness of his female troops.)

On the whole, females in the armed services are a good thing. On the whole. There are significant disciplinary and performance issues that cannot be ignored when constructing policy and determining who serves where. We should craft policy not to ensure diversity or equality but to ensure the most effective armed forces. Reasonable folks can disagree on the particulars, but let’s focus on that effectiveness piece. And then we can get our female Ranger battalions and SF and OCF units going.

Reply

Marcus April 2, 2011 at 7:36 pm

Jake,

So you were a mustang? How long was your tour @ 1st Recon?

Marcus

Reply

Eric Scheie April 2, 2011 at 8:07 pm

Why it is “sexist” for a man to have the opinion that the above women are attractive?

Are woman (or gay men) allowed to hold similar opinions about men?

Who should police the inner thoughts of the inner thought police?

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 2, 2011 at 8:13 pm

Eric, am I missing an irony neuron, here? I don’t follow.

Reply

tree hugging sister April 2, 2011 at 8:13 pm

“but I’ve never once heard a female Marine referred to as a BAM.”

Oh, that’s an oldie and goodie. When I enlisted, I did so with my dad’s stories in my ear. He was also enlisted (But, thanks to a few semesters at Rutgers and a pilot’s license, wound up a Marine Corps aviator) and, when they’d hit the base theater and the WM’s would be in the front couple rows, in obnoxious, testosterone fueled early 1950’s Jarhead fashion, one half would call out, “How do the big guns go?” the other half would respond, “BAM! BAM! BAM!” When I finally hit MCAS El Toro, CA after bootcamp graduation and a year of school, and was wandering around the exchange, I picked up a postcard of a field artillery piece and sent it home to Daddy.

All I wrote on it was, “How do the big guns go…? Love you!”

Kelly:”I’ve got to call bullshit on the marines supposedly valuing woman marines. I’ve known several female marines with recent service and they are no more wanted nor looked at as “real marines” than a homosexual.”

I’ll call bullshit on that, having spent 12 1/2 years active duty in (and having served side by side with my very dear friend Skyler from the comments above). Every single WM’s experience is different and a very great deal of it is what the individual makes it. Unfortunately, it’s also what has been made FOR her by the WM’s that have come before her in her unit.

By no means is it EVER an easy thing to be, both by the very nature of the Marine Corps and the very paucity of females in our branch of the service. I have always held that it’s the last bastion of Neanderthalism and needs to be so and have had very little patience with females who expect it to be a white gloved, mealy-mouthed affair, even in peacetime. (Join the Navy if that’s what you want.)

As for women in combat ~ no one ever asks the Lance Corporal, who would have to slog through that Afghan mud and heat with 90 lbs of gear on her back, plus girl stuff. It’s always the Congresswoman or the feminist blogger or the female officer who needs the combat fitness report who are all squawking to get women in combat. Oh. And “polls” of people who would never consider being in combat themselves being awfully quick to volunteer the little girl down the street who went in the service last year. But for the poor chicks who would be the “grunts”, nobody’s asking them.

As for the MP who gets the Silver Star fighting off the Taliban or, God Bless them, the Marine Corp Lionesses ~ they react to a situation at hand magnificently! Their training comes to the fore, unlike poor Jessica Lynch and the cooks in THAT convoy, but that’s NOT the day in, day out grind, like the guys do every miserable day, humping up and down those Godforsaken mountains and shithole little fields, under the constant pressure of death from any corner, or any palm tree, or any five year old. Ask Skyler. Sure women can do that ~ SOME women. VERY FEW. Not enough to make every WM an 0311/infantryman.

And to be able to pull their weight and to save the guys in their squad like those guys would save them, those physical standards need to be sacrosanct. Really. Armchair GiJanes need to STFU. They’re not doing the girls any favors.

Reply

Synova April 2, 2011 at 8:22 pm

I’ve long thought that a mandatory Norplant would solve a lot of problems.

I know that people would howl over it but you either take your commitment seriously or you don’t. Women will have babies while in the military, I did. The fact is that child-bearing and military-serving years overlap and nothing to do about that. But something like a four or five year implant to get a serving female past the first few years after enlistment or commissioning followed by fertility except in cases of scheduled deployment or war seems functional and reasonable. The military used to refuse to let low level enlisted guys even marry.

I served with a number of idiot girls. Stupid boys, too, of course. Most 18 year olds are still idiots. Girls seem to feel entitled to whine, which I found dreadfully annoying. In the end, though, expectations make a lot of difference. I served around the time of Desert Storm when we still believed that there was such as thing as “behind the lines.” The mindset is different when you don’t even think of yourself as a soldier because the official policy is that you’re not allowed to be. I mean, I shot an M-16 once… at basic training. I doubt that’s typical anymore, not for any service. The Marines always required infantry training for everyone. I expect that the other services have caught up on that a bit.

A lot to do with the military is tradition, ceremony, and identity. It’s hard to fully assimilate duty, honor and sacrifice when the official rules prohibit you from the sacrifice part and history means you don’t have heroic example and burden of honor you could never live up to but have to try. So I don’t really blame the women for not quite being there yet. There is more of that, now, more examples to help along that identity thing, but I have to agree with those who seem to have suggested that we’re telling ourselves pleasant lies about women in the military. We are.

Reply

Jim Oz April 2, 2011 at 8:30 pm

Fact is…you can dress a woman up in soldier costume, which we do, but she is still a camp follower. Armies have always had them. It’s just that now they are paid by the Gov’t, instead of the soldiers, themselves. The convoy that was ambushed at the beginning of the Iraq war… Every Man joined the fight. Every woman panicked, and cowered in their trucks. The lesbians in the Pentagon tried to create a story of the Rambo Jessica Lynch. Didn’t hold water. Men were killed that day. Had there been men holding those rifles, instead of camp followers, would the fight have been won? Doesn’t matter. We hold men’s lives cheap. A woman’s career choice is far more important. Our time in the sun will end because of this.
Oz
SGT 11th ACR -no longer on the line

Reply

Micha Elyi April 3, 2011 at 5:48 pm

Not the Pentagon. Lesbians in the Washington Post, maybe.

When I see as many stories reported of some female rescuing men who are strangers to them as there are of a man rescuing females who are strangers to him, then there’ll be a chance a case could be made that courage, duty and honor aren’t primarily masculine traits. For now, the term ‘male chivalry’ remains a redundancy.

Still if one must experiment to find out if females can match men in the military, go start with something where less-than-lethal outcomes are at stake. Integrate sports first then after a couple of Olympics’ worth of stats well talk about integrating the military.

One last thing, let’s see all those who are on Little Miss Atilla’s side show their correspondence with their Member of Congress demanding that draft registration be made non-sexist, with the same penalties for non-compliance imposed on females as are now heaped on men. If both sexes can serve on draft boards (as they do now) then both sexes can be drafted. Where are the feminists demanding this glass cellar be cracked so females can enter? Hmmm??

– – – – – – –
Not Found
The requested URL /wp-content/plugins/ajax_spellchecker/comment/spell-checker.php was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 3, 2011 at 8:00 pm

“those who are on Little Miss Atilla’s side”

So you haven’t really been following this at all. Okay.

Reply

SMSgt Mac April 2, 2011 at 9:08 pm

RE: Debating “Women in Combat”
That’s nice (Pat on the head) Did any ‘civil rights’ crap come up?
Here’s the bottom line.
1. Make all physical fitness standards for entry into combat jobs appropriate for the combat job and grant NO waivers. This eliminates 95% of the nominally fit female population.
2. Index fitness standards for age for personnel already in the combat jobs so you don’t lose the equally valuable experience and knowledge you have for slight decrements in physical performance.
3. Make the last 5% of the nominally fit female population sign waivers prior to entry into the field. This waiver has them acknowledge their lower expected survival rate from having deficient (relative to male) blood oxygenation, blood quantity per pound of body weight, bone density, skeletal design.
4. Allow the females to serve in combat only in those jobs where their personal limitations will not endanger their fellow warriors, such as no mixed-sex aircrews where high-g maneuvering (fighter/attack) may be experienced. You want to die, that’s your business. You taking someone else with you is that someone else’s business.
Do the research on the depth of physiological differences between men and women. Spare me the ‘hear me roar’ bit.
To prevent emoters from going off on tangents: I’m not against women in the military. I’m all for it in theory. I’m quite proud of my Daughter In Law who has served in Afghanistan and is now serving in a tough environment of another kind at Misawa AB, Japan. I had a female officer do my first re-enlistment ceremony because I respected her the most of all the officers in my unit. In practice, females need to be able to physically hang with their male counterparts when the going gets tough (combat or training), and they must not create gaping holes in unit manning or cause the males to pull more ‘hard’ duty just because the females are pregnant (too common in the Navy – walk around Norfolk and count the baby bumps and ask yourself who’s having to fill in at sea with all these pregnant sailors pulling shore duty?)
You are Dismissed.

Reply

Cassandra April 4, 2011 at 1:24 pm

In practice, females need to be able to physically hang with their male counterparts when the going gets tough (combat or training), and they must not create gaping holes in unit manning or cause the males to pull more ‘hard’ duty just because the females are pregnant (too common in the Navy – walk around Norfolk and count the baby bumps and ask yourself who’s having to fill in at sea with all these pregnant sailors pulling shore duty?)

Yep.

Reply

David R. Graham April 2, 2011 at 9:09 pm

Did you serve your country in uniform? If not, are you going to volunteer now? If neither, have you grounds to talk? And is not gloating a waste of time?

Reply

Synova April 2, 2011 at 9:38 pm

See now, Jim Oz is wrong.

None of the women in that convoy, and none of the men most likely, had been trained to fight. Sure, someone gave them a gun and maybe showed them the right way to point it and maybe they shot 20 rounds into a target once.

Expecting someone to react correctly under fire with no training whatsoever after enlisting with the expectation that they will not see a firefight since they’re required by Congress to be kept behind the lines is patently unfair… stupid, and not to mention dangerous. But the failure was not those women, or Jessica who’s gun jammed and she didn’t know how to unjam it. How was she supposed to know how to unjam it? At that time no one bothered to train support personnel. The guy she handed it to couldn’t unjam it either. The error that set the whole convoy in the wrong place wasn’t made by a woman. Nothing about that cluster f*ck was the responsibility of any woman in it. The screw up was MALE. Lori Piestewa had presence of mind and was driving when, yes, they crashed under fire. And while Lynch didn’t do anything particularly heroic, the notion that everyone with male chromosomes *did* is patently ridiculous. Lynch did what many soldiers do, which is nothing but get hurt very badly. Without any training, at least allow her to honorably bleed. The men get to honorably bleed. How can you expect women to perform as soldiers when you don’t even allow them that?

And just a little bit of actual *military* training is a good first step too. Female soldiers get it now but when that convoy set out they got nada. Learn how to salute and drill and wear the uniform correctly. Brilliant.

Reply

Xray April 2, 2011 at 9:42 pm

Good comments. First off, it depends on the person. Male or Female. I’ve known some few women in the military who would work your ass off during the day and screw it off during the night. I would never say that any particular woman couldn’t do the job. But for squad level 0311 work I don’t think women are a good idea. Just like I don’t think gays at that level are a good idea. And again… it ain’t that someone can’t do the fricking job. But it just adds extreme complexity to what is already an extremely complex job. IOW’s a squad leader has enough to worry about without having to worry about interpersonal relationships between his troops. Takes away from his time in working out how to protect his troops and kill the enemy.

And… it isn’t being done because it needs to be done, we’ve plenty of young men willing and able to take the mission. It’s being done because it is PC. The worst possible reason in the world in my opinion. It’s late and I’ve had a drink, hope I make sense.

Xrayactual/M/3/9 67-68

Reply

Peter April 2, 2011 at 9:48 pm

I have no particular problem with women in the Services. I do have a problem with all of the slots that used to be available for an combat-worn troop to rest and recharge being filled by those who are not allowed to be in the combat slots.

When I was in there were few women troops in any of the Services. Our officers were trained to spot the men who were plumb worn out. These men needed a few months as the Colonel’s jeep driver or the assistant in the Arms Room. Men who did get out of the bush recovered and went back as experienced Snuffies. They are the ones who taught the FNGs the survival skills they needed to become effective Infantrymen. Those who did not get off the line made stupid mistakes and made the trip home in a zipper bag, at best they were the ones with post traumatic stress.

An Infantryman’s effective life in combat is really measured in weeks before he needs a rest. Much longer it gets problematic. My father’s Marine Corps used a unit for one big operation, then it was back for rest and refit. My Marine Corps used 13 month tours, really too long once Silent Lew Walt had to start keeping us in the bush all the time. Yet the effective company officers and Gunnery Sergeants watched us and we managed to spend time unloading trucks and filling sandbags when we we got close to the edge.

Today? I dunno, it looks like we are wearing our grunts down with the jobs that used to be there now filled by civilian contractors or service women. Fine, those are worthy jobs. Still, what do we do with an Infantryman who is just plain worn out?

Since we seem to have to put down our bonififes, my first tour I was three minutes behind the first wave at Chu Lai. My last tour included the fight at Hue City after Tet of ’68.

Reply

Jim Oz April 2, 2011 at 9:55 pm

Every man joined the fight. Not one woman did. Every soldier trains to fight. That’s where you get your marksmanship badge. truck driver, cook, admin, line soldier. All go through basic training. Every man in that transportation unit joined the fight. Not one woman did.
The only mutiny in recent US Army history occurred in Iraq. Female Captain.
We hold the lives of men cheap, sacrificing them on the altar of political correctness.

Reply

Xray April 2, 2011 at 10:20 pm

What the hell, one example. My unit, when I joined it was recuperating and re-manning after Con Thien. Shortly after I got there we hit the bush again, but with many new troops, myself included. I don’t remember many details now, too long ago. But in the first few days of the bush we ended up on a hilltop at dark. No time for fighting holes, just a loose perimeter. No time for individual shelters either. The temperature was in the mid sixties I think, raining, cold as hell in other words, for a jungle. We made a hasty group shelter, 10 or 12 guys sleeping, when not on watch, asshole to bellybutton as the saying goes. Exhausted, cold, scared, but doing the duty. Now, interject a few females, or gays.

I’ll tell you right now, that up close to a female, you think I’d sleep? Which I have to be doing. Would the gay guy behind me? The effort required for ‘normal’ combat ops is superhuman, really, for most. Add natural sexuality to the mix and it does not help. It makes things much, much worse. Or, tell me I’m an idiot. But you better parse well.

Reply

Synova April 2, 2011 at 10:34 pm

Jim, you know as well as I that you can get your marksmanship badge in one afternoon because the person next to you on the range was firing at the wrong target.

OTOH, if someone could have just read a map correctly no one in that convoy would have died. And you’re claiming that exchanging a few women for male soldiers would have made a difference when the convoy ended up entirely cut off behind enemy lines?

If you want to talk about criminally incompetent women, I’d be happy to rag on Karpinski with you for hours on end.

But you are *factually* wrong. The claim that all the men “fought” and not a single woman “fought” on that convoy is downright fantastical, if unprovable. The claim that every person, including women, in 2003, were “trained to fight” isn’t a fantasy, it’s just a lie. The Marines always made a big deal that every Marine is an infantryman. That took more than basic training and the Marines were the only ones who did it. Not even the active duty Army (and certainly not Navy or Air Force) made any real effort to train people to fight who would never fight. What a waste of resources. And this was National Guard, not active duty Army. The *peacetime* National Guard. I wouldn’t say it *now* because it’s no longer true, but the difference in seriousness between female active duty and weekend sorts at *basic* was stark and the source of some bad feeling when I went through it. Both Lynch and Karpinski were weekend sorts, with weekend expectations… no weekend expectations exist any longer for anyone. Times change. And I wouldn’t want to insult Hester or Piestewa.

And when it comes down to it, I don’t really blame someone for believing what they’re told. It’s only just yesterday, practically, that we’ve told women that they might actually have to go to war.

Reply

Synova April 2, 2011 at 10:44 pm

Data point… my room mate in college in, well, a long time ago, was in Army ROTC. Army ROTC did little combat exercises all the time. They love that stuff. (The Air Force ROTC loved to get to go fly.) Whenever they did, SHE got to play the local resistance and get shot early on to teach the guys to get directions *first*. Not even in the little war games they staged did they ever tell her that she needed to know how to function in combat, or even that she ought to train for it anyway so she’d understand what other people were doing.

I can’t even imagine something so irresponsible happening now.

Reply

Synova April 2, 2011 at 11:04 pm

When I was active duty AF “war games” in my shop were “where is the hammer to destroy the classified crap before you bug out” and “do you know CPR.” We had one .38 in a safe that the NCO on duty would wear (sans ammunition), and this while we were (technically) “forward deployed” and getting hazardous duty pay. Preparation for possible deployment to Saudi was “hey, you need to know how to start the generator.” For someone who actually had a real chance of deployment it was, “I know you didn’t touch a M-16 even once in 8 years, so you need an afternoon refresher course.”

I’m *sure* the Army was better. That doesn’t mean they still didn’t suck.

Reply

RM April 3, 2011 at 12:11 am

Synova

Your experience in the AF is great. I applaud your service. I spent 27 years in the Army. ALL Army members recieve basic training to include marksmanship. The idea that women passed marksmanship because their neighbor fired on their target for them implies that women wouldn’t care about training for their future duties but that they would be happy for someone to pass for them. I give them much more credit than that. Your comment that the Army doesn’t train those that they expect not to fight is laughable when you realize that BCT (Basic Combat Training) occurs before AIT (Advanced Individual Training) and where you are going to serve isn’t necesarily even decided prior to BCT.

I have no idea who fought and who didn’t in Jessica’s 2003 debacle but the women in that combat service support organization were as well trained as the men.

Reply

ed April 3, 2011 at 2:10 am

“Funny, my husband told me that female Marines were called “Broad-Assed Marines,” or BAMs. I suspect, however, that one has to be in the Corps to get by with that usage; I would damned well never hazard it.”

Female: BAM=Broad Assed Marine
Male: HAM=Hairy Assed Marine

Reply

ed April 3, 2011 at 2:20 am

Darleen Click April 2, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Thomas

“Were all those pregnancies Virgin Births?”

Darleen,

Five were the result of heterosexual intercourse.
Three were thre result of artificial insemination.
Two were virgin births.

Hope this helps.

Reply

"phene" April 3, 2011 at 6:24 am

BAM=bare ass Marine. Never heard anyone say broad assed Marine. Some new version of policically correct speech?

Reply

Tennwriter April 3, 2011 at 1:14 pm

The PC cant is ‘diversity is strength’, and while its true that it brings advantages which get trumpeted, its also true that a ‘unified team with everyone on the same page’ brings advantages. And Unity’s advantages trump Diversity’s most of the time.

Feminism introduces division into the team, and in general decreases success.

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 3, 2011 at 3:07 pm

No. Divisions are introduced by those who 1) make fun of feminist conservatives; 2) declare that we don’t exist; and 3) insist that Sarah Palin is somehow wrong for identifying herself as such.

There is no reason to fight over this–the conflict is between those who say “oh, Palin is against sexism, which she’s certainly experienced, and she used the term ‘feminist’ to declare her opposition to it; whatever,” and those who go, “OMG SHE USED THE TERM FEMINIST!!!! We must demonstrate why she DOESN’T EVEN KNOW HER OWN TEENY-TINY MIND!!!!!”

Reply

Tennwriter April 4, 2011 at 12:42 pm

Miss Attila,

Division is inherent in this case in business or war. Biology demands its due. Politics is in great part the effort to deal with division, so I don’t extend my case to that.

As to your 1), well, I’ve read some of the recent comments on another of your posts, and I see Cynthia Yockey talking about socons, and I realize she just doesn’t get it. I read a comment by Roxanne de Luca, and it was so full of non-conservative notions as to be eye-boggling.

As to 2) I’m not sure you do exist as a conservative. Are you a Conservative or are you a Libertarian? I’m not overly familiar with your work, but I got the impression you leaned Libertarian.

As to 3) Palin/Cain 2012! or Palin/Bolton 2012! or Palin/Hunter 2012!…..notice the unchanging element there? I’m a fan. Probably some would call me a Palinbot. But….she’s human, and she makes mistakes.

Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century, and he too made mistakes. Sometimes really big ones.

Put not your trust in princes.

What is the common definition of ‘feminism’? Marxism in pink, I’d say. Man-hater. Supports equal opportunity for women.

Now you can question the wisdom of using a term that is 2/3rds horrible, and 1/3rd doubtful. You can also see that Palin is attempting to do a form of hoisting the Left on its own petard, and still think she’d be better off doing something else.

Its like with the term ‘intellectual’. I might be an ‘intellectual’, but I would not call myself that generally, as it means….Lefty …

Reply

Little Miss Attila April 4, 2011 at 2:06 pm

Hey, Tennessee–

As to your 1), well, I’ve read some of the recent comments on another of your posts, and I see Cynthia Yockey talking about socons, and I realize she just doesn’t get it. I read a comment by Roxanne de Luca, and it was so full of non-conservative notions as to be eye-boggling.

Cynthia is a special case: she is several years my senior, buried a woman she lived with for decades, and is naturally hoping that the libertarian arm of the party “wins” when it comes to the gay marriage issue. When she uses the term “SoCon,” she is referring specifically to the anti-gay crowd, and her deep concern about the treatment of religious nonconformists.

A willingness to use tremendous rhetorical force does not mean that such energy and insights are not really important to our shared goal of defeating Obama in 2012.

Roxeanne is a young lady of immense talent and unshakable faith, and we are lucky to have her on our side. She identifies as a SoCon more–because she links it to issues such as being pro-life, and the need to give girls and women the psychological tools to live lives of chastity and modesty (which I happen to be interested in doing, as well).

She may have the best analytical ability in the conservative blogosphere; what she has to say must be listened to, even when you disagree.

As to 2) I’m not sure you do exist as a conservative. Are you a Conservative or are you a Libertarian? I’m not overly familiar with your work, but I got the impression you leaned Libertarian.

I think I’m probably in the libertarian end of the party, but it really goes issue-to-issue. Certainly I “exist”! I’ve also been blogging in favor of American exceptionalism, fiscal discipline, a robust foreign policy, and Judeo-Christian ethics for eight years.

As to 3) Palin/Cain 2012! or Palin/Bolton 2012! or Palin/Hunter 2012!…..notice the unchanging element there? I’m a fan. Probably some would call me a Palinbot. But….she’s human, and she makes mistakes.

Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th Century, and he too made mistakes. Sometimes really big ones.

Our abrupt departure from Afghanistan comes to mind.

What is the common definition of ‘feminism’? Marxism in pink, I’d say. Man-hater. Supports equal opportunity for women.

“One of these things is not like the others.”

But let’s go back to Merriam-Webster’s, which gives us “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” This is a standard descriptive dictionary, so it’s telling us what standard usage is.

Now you can question the wisdom of using a term that is 2/3rds horrible, and 1/3rd doubtful. You can also see that Palin is attempting to do a form of hoisting the Left on its own petard, and still think she’d be better off doing something else.

Its like with the term ‘intellectual’. I might be an ‘intellectual’, but I would not call myself that generally, as it means….Lefty …

That is your prerogative. But what you cannot do is tell me what I am, at least when it comes to an area as subjective as people’s personal, individualized definitions of feminism.

And I shan’t let you do that to Governor Palin, either. This is not analogous to Reagan pulling our advisors out of Afghanistan, potentially allowing them to be recruited by Islamic radicals: Ms. Palin’s self-description is up to her.

Reply

Tennwriter April 4, 2011 at 9:22 pm

Miss Attila,

I understand why someone who calls them a Conservative Lesbian is in favor of gay marriage. I and Conservatism in general just disagree with them. They are of course, welcome to their opinion.

What anti-gay crowd? There is a pro-civilization continuing crowd.

As to treatment of religious nonconformists, you’re joking right? You’re talking to a Baptist, aka, my religious ancestors are a large part of the reason we have Tolerance and Non-Establishment of Religion. Its a very good thing Pagans did not found this nation, or we probably would not have those things.

‘tremendous rhertorical force’= a nice way to say divisive as all get out?

Your first para about Roxanne is wonderful and good for her.

Your second para about her, um no. I do not have to listen when she says things that are obviously silly and unconservative. If someone says ‘we need to raise taxes, and I’m a really smart conservative’, I’m entitled to make faces.

“One of these things…”….problem is that in reality, not theory, but hard dirt and stone and blood and deeds, man-hating and Marxism seems to have a whole lot to do with feminism. Arguably, one could say that the veneer is equality and the beating heart is the destruction of conservative manhood.

Deep in American and English history, you find three groups. Anglicans, Separatists, and Puritans. This defines what to do with a problematical institution or word or movement. The Anglicans were the Established Church of England and the King was the Head of the Church. The Separatists said ‘bad, we leave.’, the Puritans said ‘bad, we fix them, we reform them’.

Over at Riehl World I sometimes see the same arguement between Ragspierre and Pasadena Phil. Rags wants to reform the R Party. Phil thinks they’re so corrupt its not worth bothering with. We need to go third party. Rags is a Puritan, Phil is a Separatist, and Lindsay Graham is the Anglican church elder.

You and the other Conservative? Feminists are Puritans. I and a number of others are Separatists. To me, Feminism is irretrievably corrupt, was so even before I was born, and hasn’t on the whole improved. Fact is, when they kissed Mr. Clinton’s toe, they pretty much gave up their last claim to integrity, and they stank like a dead deer before that.

I can say you’re attempting an honorable crusade while also pointing out that its a waste of time. You can’t take Pickett’s Hill, General Atilla.

Again no. Humpty Dumpty is wrong. A word does not mean just what I think it means. Words are not the private property of the speaker. I’m shocked that you suggest they are. Words are held in common, and interpreted and revised with certain rules. And if one is attempting a drastic revision, one is well-advised to make precisely clear what one means.

As in…

“I am a Woppledorf. Woppledorfs are male, and read a lot.” or “I am a racer, and by that I do not mean I race my car, but that I race through books.”

But not…

“I am a Democrat.” (By which I mean that I have voted for a few, but am not so secretly cheering for the utter destruction of the D Party.)

I do not get to define what Democrat means. Howard Dean has a great deal of say in that, as he held authority at one point. I don’t.

Little Miss Attila April 4, 2011 at 10:38 pm

I understand why someone who calls them a Conservative Lesbian is in favor of gay marriage. I and Conservatism in general just disagree with them. They are of course, welcome to their opinion.

What anti-gay crowd? There is a pro-civilization continuing crowd.

So, you are in favor of civilized people with good values raising kids. So am I. Yay!

But I assure you that there are people out there who call themselves “conservatives” who are truly anti-gay, and not just in the context of heated policy debates over single-sex marriage or DADT (may it rest in peace).

As to treatment of religious nonconformists, you’re joking right? You’re talking to a Baptist, aka, my religious ancestors are a large part of the reason we have Tolerance and Non-Establishment of Religion. Its a very good thing Pagans did not found this nation, or we probably would not have those things.

No pagans here, though I do know one, and he’s nice.

And . . . please do not take this all personally–I was attempting to illuminate why some people have concerns about the social conservative element within the movement. I wasn’t putting you down, or saying anything about you or your family in particular.

Your first para about Roxanne is wonderful and good for her.

Your second para about her, um no. I do not have to listen when she says things that are obviously silly and unconservative. If someone says ‘we need to raise taxes, and I’m a really smart conservative’, I’m entitled to make faces.

Then please do it quietly. The rest of the class is trying to study.

“One of these things…”….problem is that in reality, not theory, but hard dirt and stone and blood and deeds, man-hating and Marxism seems to have a whole lot to do with feminism. Arguably, one could say that the veneer is equality and the beating heart is the destruction of conservative manhood.

So . . . feminism is out to get you? I’m starting to think either you’ve had some bad experiences that have messed with your head, or you think that the word in question refers only to radicals in the 1960s/1970s–whereas most of the rest of us see it as dating back to the 1700s.

Deep in American and English history, you find three groups. Anglicans, Separatists, and Puritans. This defines what to do with a problematical institution or word or movement. The Anglicans were the Established Church of England and the King was the Head of the Church. The Separatists said ‘bad, we leave.’, the Puritans said ‘bad, we fix them, we reform them’.

Over at Riehl World I sometimes see the same arguement between Ragspierre and Pasadena Phil. Rags wants to reform the R Party. Phil thinks they’re so corrupt its not worth bothering with. We need to go third party. Rags is a Puritan, Phil is a Separatist, and Lindsay Graham is the Anglican church elder.

You and the other Conservative? Feminists are Puritans. I and a number of others are Separatists. To me, Feminism is irretrievably corrupt, was so even before I was born, and hasn’t on the whole improved. Fact is, when they kissed Mr. Clinton’s toe, they pretty much gave up their last claim to integrity, and they stank like a dead deer before that.

They all did that? Every single one of them? That must have taken a lot of time. It also sounds unhygeinic.

I can say you’re attempting an honorable crusade while also pointing out that its a waste of time. You can’t take Pickett’s Hill, General Atilla.

You’re confused about the battle lines–because here I am.

The fight of the old guard to keep modernity out of the conservative movement will lose, just as the fight of Islamic radicals to keep modernity out of Islamic nations will lose. Neither group will succeed.

Again no. Humpty Dumpty is wrong. A word does not mean just what I think it means. Words are not the private property of the speaker. I’m shocked that you suggest they are. Words are held in common, and interpreted and revised with certain rules. And if one is attempting a drastic revision, one is well-advised to make precisely clear what one means.

You’re the one who’s doing battle with the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Shall I get you an address so you may send them your concerns about their definition of feminism?

As in…

“I am a Woppledorf. Woppledorfs are male, and read a lot.” or “I am a racer, and by that I do not mean I race my car, but that I race through books.”

But not…

“I am a Democrat.” (By which I mean that I have voted for a few, but am not so secretly cheering for the utter destruction of the D Party.)

I do not get to define what Democrat means. Howard Dean has a great deal of say in that, as he held authority at one point. I don’t.

And yet here you are, from a vantage point well outside of mainstream plain-vanilla feminist culture, attempting to shake your finger at the women in its ranks, and telling them that you’ll define who they are, thank you very much. When some of them join you in your efforts to get the country back on track, you sound like you’re saying you don’t want their help unless they proclaim that every single woman back at Camp Feminism was a real man-hater. And those of us who know that most of them went on to get married and live happy, non-man-hating lives–upholding a sober, middle-class morality–are supposed to lie, just to make you happy.

Your answer starts with an n. It ends with an o.

Tennwriter April 5, 2011 at 9:14 am

I do not see a reply button below Miss Atilla’s reply so, I’m up here replying.

Homosexuality does not equal good values for being around children. Marriage is already threatened by no-fault divorce (which should be destroyed), and the camel does not need another straw.

I don’t take it personally. I find it amusing. But some people who have concerns are….idiots or excessively partisan or ignorant of history. When you go to pray at your own church, thank a Baptist, m’kay? Once you accept that reality, you realize that a lot of the hot air generated about socons is just so much garbage.

Now, I’m being harsh here. I wish I didn’t have to be.

And I’ve probably met a lot more pagans than you, and yes, in general, they’re nice enough. That’s not really the point. Niceness does not equal an enthusiasm for religious tolerance if one is in a position of power. Liberals are often nice, and they are enthused for the First Amendment until they get their hands on teh levers of power/ then suddenly its ‘hate speech’.

The rest of the class may be trying to study, but when the teacher says the earth is flat, I have to stand up and object. Studying is worthless if you’re learning untruth.

You’re good at trying to dodge with a sense of humor, but you have a distinct disadvantage here. What I’m saying is pretty much clearly conservative and correct. This enables me to be less skillful in debate, and still win. Its kind of like having the high ground in a battle.

I have not had a great number of bad experiences with feminism, just lived in the culture, and paid attention. And Feminism is not out to get me specifically, but Conservative Manhood, yeah.

Yes, I see Feminism as largely a modern movement, although not limited regretfully to the Sixties. And I’m fairly certain that the vast majority of men and women agree with me. Again, my positions (mostly) are basic common sense with a dash of thought and the faith to smile as I speak the unspeakable.

The War Between the Sexes is a different thing and is eternal. Men and women will always argue and jostle for power. Much of the problem is that people are trying to measure two different nebulous things, and be fair about it. And then self-interest clouds everyone’s vision. And a whole lot of people think you ought to have one standard which is nonsense.

I do suggest you read some of Dean Esmay and his suggestions that the Victorian Age was a matriarchy.

Regarding whether every Feminist kissed Mr. Clinton’s toe, enough did, and they were in positions of authority. It really must have tasted like ash to be a peace loving Japanese when Togo attacked Pearl Harbor. All you want to do is grow your bonsai in peace, but now the Americans are dropping incendiary bombs all over your city.

General, when I speak of the hopeless charge at Gettysburg, I speak of your attempting to win back Feminism from the Lefties. Its an honorable attempt, but you really are wasting your time.

As to the attempt to bring modernity to Conservatism….I say its time to cast off the dead ends of the last few decades. We need less modernity, and more reality.

I am merely the messenger telling you what reality and the common culture has to say about the definition of feminism. In theory, Communism is wonderful, according to the Commies (its not, even in theory it stinks.). Well, in theory Feminism is wonderful (its also not, even in theory, but it sounds almost good). The commenter ‘Monster’ described this better than I could at RSM’s place. RSM was talking about reality, and you were talking about theory according to him.

What we have when we have normal-ish kinda sorta women living middle class lives is the Triumph of Common Sense over Ideology. Women are, I think, better at this than men. Those women would probably be happier as non-feminists, and they’r enot willing to destroy their lives for politics (and good for them) so they tolerate hypocrisy in their lives(also good on the whole).

Again, let’s go back to Puritans and Separatists. The Separatist does not think ALL Anglicans are totally disgusting. He does however think that its not worth the effort (possibly because of futility) to reform the Anglicans. The Puritan believes there is yet hope.

You’re a Puritan. I’m a Separatist.

A lot of that is tactics to me. I could be sorta Puritan, or at least be okay with them, if I thought they had a chance. Of course, from much of what I’ve read, many of the so-called conservative feminists are not that conservative so thats a real problem right there.

I’m not sure we’re not more than allies of convenience in opposing Obama.

Okay, that was really long.

Little Miss Attila April 5, 2011 at 11:35 am

Homosexuality does not equal good values for being around children.

You, my friend, have a bigotry problem.

Marriage is already threatened by no-fault divorce (which should be destroyed), and the camel does not need another straw.

I think you’re talking about same-sex marriage, but the two don’t really have anything to do with each other.

I don’t take it personally. I find it amusing. But some people who have concerns are….idiots or excessively partisan or ignorant of history. When you go to pray at your own church, thank a Baptist, m’kay? Once you accept that reality, you realize that a lot of the hot air generated about socons is just so much garbage.

And a lot of fundamentalist cultists call themselves “Baptists,” too. Are you okay with that? Because just as you have decided that feminism = the excesses of some who call themselves feminists, I could decide that about Baptists, couldn’t I? And make you defend the excesses of the Christian fundamentalists.

You’re good at trying to dodge with a sense of humor, but you have a distinct disadvantage here. What I’m saying is pretty much clearly conservative and correct. This enables me to be less skillful in debate, and still win. Its kind of like having the high ground in a battle.

You’re flirting here with a concept that strikes to the heart of my dispute with Stacy: the notion that others should be able to police my language just as the left does with its dictates about what’s “politically correct.” I don’t hold with that stuff, whether it’s from the right or from the left.

As for the substance, well . . . “I’m right” does not make an argument. And “I’m the conservative here” makes it sound like you’re trying to appeal to team spirit, rather than trying to get at the truth.

I have not had a great number of bad experiences with feminism, just lived in the culture, and paid attention. And Feminism is not out to get me specifically, but Conservative Manhood, yeah.

What the hell does Conservative Manhood even mean? The collective right-wing penis?

Yes, I see Feminism as largely a modern movement, although not limited regretfully to the Sixties. And I’m fairly certain that the vast majority of men and women agree with me. Again, my positions (mostly) are basic common sense with a dash of thought and the faith to smile as I speak the unspeakable.

It’s not that it’s unspeakable, but that you aren’t making much sense, here. We are involved in a war with elements within Islam because some in their tent are rejecting modernity in general, and women’s and gay rights in particular. And while we are at it, you’d like us to reject modernity in general, and women’s and gay rights in particular.

I do suggest you read some of Dean Esmay and his suggestions that the Victorian Age was a matriarchy.

I used to write for Dean. BTW, does he know that you’re an anti-gay bigot?

General, when I speak of the hopeless charge at Gettysburg, I speak of your attempting to win back Feminism from the Lefties. Its an honorable attempt, but you really are wasting your time.

I’m simply asking that I be allowed to espouse my egalitarian ideals, a la John Stuart Mill–provided that they are limited to equality of opportunity, rather than the forced equality of outcome that leads to social engineering–in peace. Why is that such a damned tall order?

As to the attempt to bring modernity to Conservatism….I say its time to cast off the dead ends of the last few decades. We need less modernity, and more reality.

Swell: it appears that if I want to be part of your clubby little movement, I must go find a burka to wear. Do they have them in patterns, by the way?

I am merely the messenger telling you what reality and the common culture has to say about the definition of feminism. In theory, Communism is wonderful, according to the Commies (its not, even in theory it stinks.). Well, in theory Feminism is wonderful (its also not, even in theory, but it sounds almost good). The commenter ‘Monster’ described this better than I could at RSM’s place. RSM was talking about reality, and you were talking about theory according to him.

Actually, it’s the opposite. It sounds like you didn’t listen to our radio debate at all. Stacy is the one who’s coming from theory, and I’m the one who wants to get down to what’s concrete.

What we have when we have normal-ish kinda sorta women living middle class lives is the Triumph of Common Sense over Ideology. Women are, I think, better at this than men. Those women would probably be happier as non-feminists, and they’r enot willing to destroy their lives for politics (and good for them) so they tolerate hypocrisy in their lives(also good on the whole).

This is nonsense, of course. I pointed out that most feminists go and get married and have kids, refuting the contention that it’s mainstream for feminists to be man-haters . . . and the only way you can reconcile this is to say that they are hypocrites!

Much easier than taking the dictionary at its word.

Tennessee, sometimes the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Maybe it’s time to take the dictionary at its word, and to believe the married, middle-class feminists who say that they don’t hate men.

Again, let’s go back to Puritans and Separatists. The Separatist does not think ALL Anglicans are totally disgusting. He does however think that its not worth the effort (possibly because of futility) to reform the Anglicans. The Puritan believes there is yet hope.

You’re a Puritan. I’m a Separatist.

As I understand it, your analogy has the feminists as the Anglicans. But if that’s what you’re trying to do, you’re making no sense whatsoever, because the Anglicans had a power structure and civil authority. Mainstream feminists have none of that–they have zero authority over how Darleen, Roxeanne, and I conduct our lives. Darleen and I argue about things all the time, and Roxeanne and I will probably be doing the same, for we have a few little areas of disagreement. And at no point will anyone say “oh, but see it my way–it’s the FEMINIST thing to do.”

If any of us did that, the response would be laughter.

How ironic that you’re attempting this same thing with the notion that I should see it your way because “it’s the CONSERVATIVE thing to do.”

My interest here, as I’ve told Stacy, is truth. I’m not going to lie about what I believe in order to fit in with the crowd a little better.

A lot of that is tactics to me. I could be sorta Puritan, or at least be okay with them, if I thought they had a chance. Of course, from much of what I’ve read, many of the so-called conservative feminists are not that conservative so thats a real problem right there.

I’m not sure we’re not more than allies of convenience in opposing Obama.

It sounds like you want to hang out with “real conservatives.” So . . . go find some. Build yourselves a nice little movement of people who meet your purity test.

I’ll be out here interacting with the society at large–you know: the place where elections are won.

Tennwriter April 5, 2011 at 7:31 pm

Truth is an absolute defense against bigotry.

Gay Marriage and No-Fault Divorce are both attacks by the Left on traditional marriage. They have quite a bit to do with each other once you understand the plans of the Left. Of course, NFD is greatly more damaging than GM, and so Conservatives should focuse more on NFD than on GM. We get caught up in the Latest Outrage instead of the truly important.

If most “Baptists” were like Westboro Baptist, I’d call myself something else. Which is really part of the reasonable request we make of you. If you’re not with the very large array of nutjobs who command positions of authority and make the most noise, and seem to be the great majority, then why take their name?

You claim to be conservative, that means you have to agree to certain things. Or more accurately, a short list of essentials, and a longer list of pick ten of eighteen. So yes, I do police.

Let’s have me call myself a feminist. Can I do that, and have it respected? At what point do you decide that I’m not really a feminist after all? Can I be a feminist if I openly advocate for the end of the female right to vote?

We’re both supposed to be conservative. So yes, an appeal to team spirit. A team has a wide array of already agreed upon ideas.

There are various habits, ideas, character traits that define the Conservative Man. Feminists in general theory are opposed to this. Feminism will tend to create men who are boys, and men who are thugs. It will not tend to create the sort of man who gets married, stays married, defends his nation, and works hard for himself, his family, and his community. Feminism will tend to create a world of polygamy.

Mmmm, I think we’d be at war with Islam just because we’re not dhimmis.

Of course, as a number of guys have pointed out, Feminism is doomed. Either, Americans kill it in order to save themselves from Islamofascism, or the Islamofascists kill it when they take over.

Hey, espouse away. I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist. But while you’re going on for your ideas, I’ll be pushing mine. Now, what you really were asking for was that we conservatives stop giving you a hard time when you’re not being conservative. I think you know the answer to that.

The tall order is that society is more complicated than a simplistic set of ideals. Its one of the chief problems with Libertarians. Going on, men and women at the level of men and women are different. You cannot apply the same standard to both of them about many issues.

As to your last comment, you did say that RSM had a bigger blog than yours. Consider further. Socons are vastly more numerous than Libertarains, and more energetic. You’re the person in the little club.

It’s been educational and interesting. Thank you for your time.

I R A Darth Aggie April 3, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Not as hot as the Israeli chicks…

Reply

bud April 4, 2011 at 9:41 am

Data point:

My son was range NCO in Kuwait when Lynch’s outfit came through to qualify. His comment (in a conversation well after the action) was that the officers and NCOs of the unit should have been court-martialed. No one, right up through the battalion commander, took “actually shooting” seriously. Not a single one of their weapons was anywhere close to zeroed, and most of the troops had no idea of even what that meant, much less how to do it.

Reply

AndyJ April 4, 2011 at 3:33 pm

Women can certainly do EOD…
Not paying attention to details means you’re splattered…

Using a weapon or physical combat is a case of doing your own homework. anyone who handles a weapon -must- practice 1) safety 2) shooting or 3) blowing stuff up. Not shooting frequently, often and many rounds is stupid… same as martial arts… If your life depends on it; practice it. Most martial artists will tell you that the best defense is never having to prove it-IOW pay attention… Not everyone is paying attention all the time.

have you ever noticed how many rounds a local law enforcement officer fires at a bad guy-? Most only ire to qualify a few times a year. VERY few will spend thir own money on ammunition to practice… But if you wear the uniform and you carry a weapon- you’re a target… male, female, green, purple or multi-hued…and all the other permutations of humanity in our politically correct world…anyone who doesn’t know what they’re doing should stay home…

My experience with the new warriors is that “This ain’t your Daddy’s military” we are a long way from the 90-day cycle from HS graduation thru boot and into combat then back home in a bag or hospital. The world changed… some things not-so-much but quite a few -Very Much… and this group is the amazing…

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: