RANGER AGAINST WAR: A Room of Her Own II <

Sunday, June 23, 2013

A Room of Her Own II


 --Princess Kitana,  
Mortal Kombat video game 

Every day I wake up, then I start to break up
Lonely is a man without love
Every day I start out, then I cry my heart out
Lonely is a man without love 
--Lonely is a Man Without Love, 
Englebert Humperdinck 

Sometimes I feel I've got to
Run away I've got to
Get away 
--Tainted Love, Soft Cell 

 Under my thumb
Her eyes are just kept to herself 
Under my thumb, well I
I can still look at someone else 
--Under My Thumb, Rolling Stones
__________________
[Pt. II of series ...]
 
The disconnect in our original piece (Sex and Violence) came in the concluding paragraph:

"The same people who would criticize porn (overtly) are the same [sic] who would argue for (someone else's) women to kill, fight and die in the depravity and degradation of war. How is having sex with strangers and pretending to enjoy the encounter less socially acceptable than fighting?"

In fact, the truth is neither so neat nor so partisan. Both liberals and conservatives avail themselves of porn, usually on the sly. Additionally, both would also claim to champion women's rights. Conservatives are no longer all of the Phyllis Schlafley stripe, and presumably accept women in both "Houses" now (though their numbers are still pathetically small.) Liberals give lip-service to women's participation in all walks of life, though neither political party has yet  managed to achieve economic equality for women.
Our main point was, it is hypocritical to argue against the objectification of women in porn, while also arguing for their objectification in the guise of an Infantry soldier. Just as in the identity-less world of porn, so a fighting woman would be separated from her personhood (save on her dog tag.) Just as most men enjoy porn, but would not want their wives or daughters to make a career of spreading her legs before the camera, so, too, would their views of women's roles on the battlefield be conflicted. 

Just as on Ranger's workshop floor, where the Union accord said "no" to helping women, but for the real live woman on the bench next to you, the rules get broken.

If true equality were to be granted, fighting women would become fighting personnel and expected to fully carry their own weight (literally). They would become sexual eunichs and alter their physiology accordingly, a physical impossibility.

Here are the things Ranger knows:

--Men and women are different, and possessed of different strengths

--Like many of his fellows, he has viewed porn and so can state that he feels it to be an objectification versus a glorification of women; it is, however, something men do

--In male's compartmentalized brains, there is also a place for "his" women -- actual women. These women elicit a different response

--There are some spaces and subjects which are the chosen domain of men (see, Fight Club for the idea.) In his life, the Army's Combat Arms was such an area -- their real-world "Outward Bound" in which men tested their limits against their fellows and the enemy, and lived the Jungian warrior archetype.

--We have no warrior princesses today, no Boudiccas, outside of Hollywood or cartoon versions of Zena the Warrior Princess and ilk. For most girls today, that image has been superseded by Snow White or Cinderella. For most women, their reality lies somewhere in between (They can bring home the bacon, serve it up to a man, all the while retaining their ineffable femininity.)

What we wonder is, what of the male-female dynamic? Are men suffering a la feminist Faludi's anthem to men in the age of feminism, "Stiffed"? If women walk onto the battlefield shoulder-to-shoulder, will they fall into line as genderless automatons, one-each? Teams will not be gender-separated -- there will be no women's Field Artillery Unit.

They will fight on a biologically unequal playing field, and to whose benefit?


[more to follow ...


p.s. -- Here is a little debate on the topic @ debate.org.

Labels: , , , ,

29 Comments:

Anonymous Eric Hodgdon said...

Capitalism needs war. War needs porn. War and Capitalism go hand in hand. Porn serves those trapped in War and Capitalism.

Humans, people, men and women do not need Capitalism, nor porn, an never war.

Inherent in those three is violence. The Earth is harmed by the violence. End the violence.

Free yourselves from the intentional harm of war, porn, and Capitalism. Then the disconnect between the sexes and the Earth will end.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 12:03:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

Erm...

I suspect that there is a teesny bit more to this than capitalism = war = porn. But that'd take more than a comment on a blog post to explore.

Again, I can't really improve on my comments on the previous expositions you guys have had on this subject. I don't like the idea of fighting as a qualification for citizenship but it has been a factor as such since 1775 and 1789. To categorically prohibit a citizen from taking up arms to defend her country you make her less than a full citizen. Full stop.

You defend that as a functional necessity and I'll be the first to admit that you have a good argument. There are good reasons why we don't employ small people as professional basketball players or weightlifters as competitive swimmers.

But in this case you have the complication that since the advent of the popular citizen-democracy participating in the democracy's armies has always been considered an important part of the full qualification for citizenship; full participation, not qualified by being restricted to certain types of units or certain MOSs. If not, why weren't African-Americans OK with segregated units? Why is the story of the 555th PIR still considered shameful? Wasn't fighting forest fires still considered valuable to the war effort?

Basically, what your argument comes down to is that "the girls will have to just accept this because the boys can't get over the way they feel about the girls." But we HAVE gotten over a lot of the way "we" feel about "the girls". We don't consider them property anymore, most of us don't consider them a life-support system for either a womb or a vagina anymore...why CAN'T we get over the other stuff?

Again - I DO understand the difficulties, I DO understand your arguments. But - given the reality that the only women capable of making the grade as 11-bush are going to be the hardest of the hardcore - I'm not sure that those arguments trump the political reality that if you can tell me I "can't do that because you're a girl" then how am I your political equal?

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 9:06:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Podunk Paul said...

Lisa, I think what you and Ranger are describing is the notion of honor – that certain actions, regardless of their immediate utility, are forever verboten. Most, or many, people today live in a kind of moral free market, where whatever the affected adults consent to is permissible. And this does result in objectification. Sex has become just another biological function. Prostitutes have become “sex workers,” mind-altering drugs are a form of recreation and combat is seen as a career-enhancing experience.

While the points you make have validity, somehow the argument leaves on adrift. We can’t control what other people do with their freedom. So I’ll end with these sad, but oh-so-human lines by Garcia Lorca:

Córdoba.
Lejana y sola. Distant and alone.

Jaca negra, luna grande,
Black pony, full moon,
y aceitunas en mi alforja. Olives in my saddlebag.

Aunque sepa los caminos Although I know the roads
yo nunca llegaré a Córdoba.
I never will arrive in Cordoba.
Por el llano, por el viento, Across the plains, through the wind
jaca negra, luna roja.
black pony, red moon.

La muerte me está mirando
Death watches
desde las torres de Córdoba.
from the towers of Cordoba.
¡Ay que camino tan largo! Aye, the road is so long!
¡Ay mi jaca valerosa!
Aye, my brave little pony!
¡Ay que la muerte me espera,
Aye, that death awaits me
antes de llegar a Córdoba! before I reach Cordoba!

Córdoba.
Lejana y sola.
Distant and alone.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 9:13:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Paul,

Yes, you understand. What we are doing is running a series of internal dialogs, if you will, trying to suss out all of the perspectives on the matter. We are curious to get feedback, and you have done so beautifully, esp. with your excellent Lorca selection.

Just this a.m. Ranger and I were discussing his contention that the less repressed (sexually) a culture is, the more robust. While I agree (what sensible person could not) that freedom is a marvelous thing, the actualization of an excellent society will only be had when we combine that freedom with a truly "free" individual.

Who amongst us is free of the constraints imposed by a life? We agreed that Orwell in his 1984 hit on the idea well: We will deem our slavery "freedom" and call it a wrap.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 9:30:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Eric says,

Porn serves those trapped in War and Capitalism --

I agree, and therein lies my opposition. I can see limited utility for porn -- for shuts-ins, parapalegics, temporary needs ... Oh, I'm sure many would see my views as parochial or elitist, but that is not how I feel.

How do we achieve what we never have, institutionally: parity between the sexes, a situation inherently disjunctive?

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 9:50:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Chief,

I think where we are actually heading with this is to address your question, "why CAN'T we get over the other stuff?"

Perhaps the other stuff is inherently insurmountable. I recognize we still have the frontiersman's mindset that the mountains (though not necessarily the mons, ahem) are there for us to summit, but maybe we cannot move, or reconfigure, all divisions.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 9:55:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

I dunno.
1: It seems to me like the whole premise of women as 11 series is based on unproven lefty bullshit "academics" and the experience of living in insulated overprotected bubbles as well as a lot of thoroughly dishonest smoke and mirrors coming from proponents.

Extreme leftist thought, which has totally taken over the education system K - grad school (so insidiously and so completely that it doesn't even appear as extreme any more) holds the belief that gender differences are just social constructs. This is no longer a hypothesis in academia. It is a fundamental core BELIEF that is unquestionable. Questioning it will result in loss of tenure (or failure to be hired in the first place). An entire generation has been indoctrinated to this belief.

This belief is then reinforced in the course of daily life where the most strenuous thing most people have to do is type on a computer key board or talk.

2 As I have said before, the feminist movement is not about celebrating feminism. It is about increasing society's net masculinity and a denial of femininity. So the revolution isn't even honestly or appropriately named.

3: The movement isn't really about equality. It is a power grab and shift. Once power has shifted from males to females does anyone really think that women will treat men fairly?

4: There are a lot of people who are just plain in denial about what is happening with women in the service today. Truth is it's pretty much just a wanton orgy from naval vessels at sea to FOBs in A-stan. Female personnel frequently supplement their pay by prostituting themselves to horny male personnel who have no other options. This is as true of the officers as it is the enlisted.

5: The people promoting the concept are lying manipulative cynics. Neither they nor the important women in their lives will be in the infantry.

6: People are stupid and will parrot whatever lying manipulative cynics say as if it is truth; especially if they think it makes them sound enlightened or their getting something out of it.

All of this is my way of saying the idea is so absolutely retarded that I can't believe it is seriously discussed.

Fuck it. Let'em live in depravity and get killed or maimed. Maybe that's the slice of reality we need to get our culture back on track.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 11:28:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

Lisa: That's the thing; I don't know. Of all things hardwired gender may be the hardest, if I may be excused a pun on the same lines as your mountainous one.

But we've been told before that there were things that we just "human nature"; remember that the Greek philosophers concluded that women were inferior because they had smaller teeth and therefore smaller brains? Once upon a time we were told that brown people were "natural savages", that they were closer to animals than whites, that you couldn't mix them because...well, just because. Guess what? All that bullshit turned out to be...bullshit.

Gender may be different. Gender probably IS different. But I'm not going to simply buy that based on the "argument" that "boys are boys and must have their toys".

It there's a legitimate reason for denying some subset of the U.S. citizenship the full rights and burdens - and as a guy who carried a rucksack I won't pretend that being an infantryman is anything BUT a burden for all that the Army and USMC may dress it up with pretty blue trinkets - of citizenship there needs to be a better reason than that.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 12:42:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

no one: "Truth is it's pretty much just a wanton orgy from naval vessels at sea to FOBs in A-stan. Female personnel frequently supplement their pay by prostituting themselves to horny male personnel who have no other options. This is as true of the officers as it is the enlisted."

Let me get this straight. Service women are whores? Many of them peddle their asses for TDY? The women I served with, the women I supervised, were fucking my male troops for pay and allowances?

Are you serious? Do you have any fucking proof of this, beyond your own fevered imagination?

I'll be the first one to tell you that men and women serving together in military units fuck each other when they have nothing pressing to do militarily. I've had to deal with it in outfits I've served in. It's a problem the same as it's a problem in any other organization, or in any marriage.

But in 22 years of military service I have never, never run across a verified case of intraservice prostitution.

Never.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 12:48:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Chief,

The prostitution is institutionalized; what allows for it transcends lax morals. This behavior has been with us since time immemorial, with some women like the Greek Hetaera and the Japanese oiran/geishas at the top of the totem pole(oops -- I did it again), and others less capable and less remunerated.

"(T)he Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) coordinator for Fort Hood was caught running an on-base prostitution ring and sexually abusing female soldiers under his command. He was also accused of forcing subordinate female soldiers into prostitution.

"The soldier was identified as Sgt. First Class Gregory McQueen, and in the face of allegations ranging from sexual abuse to pimping and misuse of power, he has been suspending from his duties, though officials maintain he has yet to actually be charged with crimes related to this.

"Officials familiar with the situation say Sgt. McQueen got his start when he persuaded a private under his command to sell sexual favors to other soldiers. The ring grew but he was finally caught after he approached another private as a potential recruit and sexually assaulted her when she refused to be a prostitute. She reported the attack to military officials."

fr. Military Sex Abuse Prevention Official Ran On-Base Prostitution Ring

(My link is from AntiWar.com, but it inc. all relevant outside links.)

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 1:59:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

Lisa: OK, I get what happened at FHTX. But that's not what "no one" was saying, which was that it was the female soldiers who were peddling their own asses for their own enrichment, not being pimped out by some slimeball.

And am I reading correctly that by your measure than ANY organization that places men in positions of authority over women is inherently prostitue-y? I surely hope not.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:19:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Chief, I don't have any personal experience with military personnel prostituting themselves nor is it a claim I make lightly.

I have heard the claim made by multiple Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. I didn't believe it the first couple times I heard it, but when I started hearing it over and over again, with supporting details, I started to believe it.

In Iraq, especially, according to the stories, female personnel take advantage of the opportunity to make serious bank due to the presence of well paid contractors.

The problems you acknowledge involving male/female dalliances are well known in the Navy (and to some extent the Marines) and many a female sailor fails to complete a cruise because she is knocked up as a result of the dalliances.

I have it from a trusted Navy source (my daughter - who seemed pretty disgusted at what was going on around her) that money and other things of value are exchanged for sex.

Times have changed my friend.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:20:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

Chief,
I was thinking of the Boston bombing and the flood of armed federal troopers, and it flashed on me that i didn't see any females in any of the pics from Boston.I did see patrol officer females.
Why doesn't the fed LE give the ladies a chance to reach out in their careers?
I wonder if any federal agency has females on their national level special response teams? I've never seen or heard of any females employed as such.
So why does all the press fall on the armed services to push the issue?
jim

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:31:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Chief,

Please know me well enough to know that I am no knee-jerk feminist :)
Of course, male authority does not = prostitution. Let the act be defined precisely as pay for services rendered.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:34:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

And Chief, just to clarify, I am not saying that anyone is walking the streets of Baghdad or the green zone in fishnet stockings when they're off duty.

I am saying that it is very easy for those sexual encounters you are aware of to become a business opportunity. You know, a little help paying the bills back home. You hook up, you make a few bucks in the process and it gets a little easier to do next time you're bored and a little frustrated.

Is this really such a stretch of the imagination?

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:40:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Chief, "It there's a legitimate reason for denying some subset of the U.S. citizenship the full rights and burdens...."

Why would serving in logistics and support not be a meaningful contribution?

I wanted to be a helo pilot but was denied because my eyesight wasn't quite right. Should have let me train and fly any how? You should know that they put you where they need you and, ostensibly, where your individual assets will make the best contribution to the mission.

So when all two hundred and seventeen women capable of meeting infantry standards both in and out of theater are allowed to become 11 boom booms, will cultural victory be declared and the matter finally put to rest?

Quotas anyone?

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:54:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Eric Hodgdon said...

Lisa, I can't fathom why there's this discord between the sexes. Sure, I was a horny in my youth, 6-39. Yes 6 - I had my first erection that I can remember. But I didn't force myself on anyone.

However, close proximity between the sexes will lead to body contact most likely from the absence of healthy views of each other while growing up.

"...institutionally: parity between the sexes..."
I accepted this in the early 70s!

Whether women should be in combat is better answered by answering why the USA has engaged in illegal warfare for the past 68 years? Armed Forces personnel are following illegal orders when they fight overseas. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE FOLKS. Illegal is every action since the end of WW2.

As to porn, it's mostly boring (no pun intended), but, I'm more complex than the average man or woman, and would require a likewise more complex depiction.

These are all people problems going to the basic set of morals, or lack of.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:58:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Chief, just this one last. It occurs to me that the difference between your experience and the current one is perhaps due to a) multiple long deployments and b)the relatively large numbers of national guard and reserve units involved in the deployments.

If your called away from your civilian job where you made more money than your military pay, you still have bills, mortgages and all of that to cover.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 3:06:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

no one: There is a significant difference between some war stories about hookers in digital camoflage and "Truth is it's pretty much just a wanton orgy from naval vessels at sea to FOBs in A-stan. Female personnel frequently supplement their pay by prostituting themselves to horny male personnel who have no other options.

Just as Lisa pointed out, there are documented cases of female soldiers turning tricks (tho in the case Lisa cited it sounds like the whole magilla was started by a male senior NCO and the women wouldn't have been hooking if not for his pimping) but that sure as hell ain't "a wanton orgy" and "female personnel" as a class.

I've served with some damn fine female soldiers, enlisted, NCO, and officers and the implication that the majority of them were whores pissed me off pretty damn hard and still does, and that's pretty much all I have to say on this subject.

As for "quotas", I'd say that I worry as much about the Army waiving the physical standards for the men so as not to fail too many of them as much as I do the Army pencil-whipping the women to get a "quota" of 11-bushbeaters.

We all know perfectly well that a tiny handful of gals would even WANT to go to the Benning School for Boys and of that tiny fraction only the hardest of the hardcore would even make it through OSUT. Those gals would be so scary that anyone sensible would run from them.

But y'know what? We don't really have a dogfight here. As far as I know all that DOD did was rescind the 1994 memo. That doesn't mean that anyone without something hangin' goes to 11B OSUT. We're getting all spun up about this and it likely turns out to be something out of nothing.

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 7:34:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

jim: So far as I can tell "the press" doesn't really give two shits anymore than We the People do. It's a "man bites dog" story and good for a laugh, that's all. I don't see anyone pushing this in the bulk of the news reportage. The usual noise machines on the Right are spun up about it while the usual demagogues on the Left want to see it happen. The massive lump in the middle could give a damn, just like everything else in the U.S. Army not connected with "Call of Duty 3".

And I'm not sure about the history of various HRT and other elite units is a good go-by. We didn't have a woman Senator until 143 years after the Republic was founded. Should we tell the ladies to wait in the car a little longer? Why not simply set a tough standard for everyone in the unit and if she can meet it, she's in? How hard would that be? How would that be a "quota" or "special rights" or whatever?

Monday, June 24, 2013 at 7:40:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

"There is a significant difference between some war stories about hookers in digital camoflage and "Truth is it's pretty much just a wanton orgy from naval vessels at sea to FOBs in A-stan. Female personnel frequently supplement their pay by prostituting themselves to horny male personnel who have no other options."

Chief, I recognize that there are some damn fine female personnel.

That said, I stand by my statement regarding the level of hook-ups and of sex in exchange for....in the service today.

However, I can understand why my statement upsets you and it was not intent to do so.

I am also disturbed that sexual behavior of an unknown, but definitely significant, % of female (and male) personnel results in a negative dispersion being cast on those who are serving in accordance with the highest standards.

Honestly, even if someone is enjoying a roll in the hay and getting something material in exchange, it doesn't mean that their performance as with regards to accomplishing the mission isn't otherwise STRAC.

We can do what the military does and pretend these are things happening and bury the evidence as fast as it comes to light. Or we can recognize that it is and understand that it contributes to some of the negative opinions of presence of female personnel in combat coming from people who have been there and know.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 7:27:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that most of these discussions are about sexuality in the service, but there are real practical reasons, I oppose women in combat roles. Not because of issues of strength or endurance, but of the reality of living in the field. Having served on the Cambotian-Laos boarder, I can sum it up in one word...leeches. If any political or Military decision maker doesn't under stand the problem, they shouldn't have any say.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 8:37:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

Anon,
Jun 25,
In past posts i've discussed jungle realities such as epiditimitis (sp?) due to constant filth and wetness around the genitals.
I've also written of the skin condition that still resides on my face and crotch areas. This never leaves me.
Your point and mine is that a female wouldn't last in that environment.
Thanks for writing.
jim

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:02:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

To all,
I'd like to go on record as saying once again that i prostituted myself every day of my time on active and reserve duty.
I'd get fucked and take it SO AS TO GET A PASSING GRADE ON MY OFFICER EFFICIENCY REPORT.
So what do i care if a female would do the same for something much more quantifiable.?
We are all, or were whores for our careers.
The first thing you learn in the Army is that you're gonna get it in one form or another.
jim

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:23:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

As Chief says, it will likely be a small percentage of women applying for these frontline positions anyway, but ISTM the implications are profound beyond the actual numbers.

While I think we all agree (hope) the majority of women are doing a very fine job, the sexual dynamic is obviously being exploited, by both sides. Chief is probably right in that most hook-ups don't necessarily involve an exchange of cash ("why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"), but this a brave new world, and the theatres in which we now operate place access to a female for recreational pleasure at a premium. Additionally, many women entering the military today are mothers who have no better career choice, and times are hard. (We'll address this angle in our last installment.)

Jim said even in Vietnam, the "donut dollies" (=Red Cross relief workers) were known to turn tricks. Again, this is a discussion about power as much as it about strength.

As Chief says, if we simply keep the physical standards high, that would knock most women out of contention, but we know how equal access imperatives operate, and likely standards will be reduced across the board to allow greater access to all. (If the standards were reduced only for females, would that be fair or correct?) Would the increased access aspect trump the reduced effectiveness possibly introduced?

In addition, even if most women women couldn't pass muster, the topic of how women will rise through the ranks sans combat or Special Forces experience remains unanswered, and that really seems to be the argument undergirding the call for women to be granted access to these areas.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:29:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

"In addition, even if most women women couldn't pass muster, the topic of how women will rise through the ranks sans combat or Special Forces experience remains unanswered, and that really seems to be the argument undergirding the call for women to be granted access to these areas."

I know I need to tone down the "goofy liberal" statements. So I'm going to start trying right here and now........but it ain't going to be easy.

WHY IS THERE A PRESUMPTION THAT WOMEN (OR ANYONE) HAS A *RIGHT* TO RISE THROUGH THE RANKS. WHY IS THERE EVEN AN ASSUMPTION THAT SERVING IN ANY CAPACITY AT ANY RANK IS A RIGHT?

These are assumptions based on ideals; ideals that are developed in, and propagated from, highly insulated and over protected environments by radical power grabbers in the guise of idealists who, overwhelmingly, will never be the ones to suffer the consequences of testing the ideas out in the real world.

They win converts and support by peddling utopian ideals.

According to the same people who want to put women directly in women because they have a "right" to be there - btw,where is that written? - the right to own firearms, as delineated in the second amendment, is NOT an unlimited right. The 4A and the 1A also have limits, they say.

Either rights have limits or they do not.

If one right can be limited, then all rights can be limited. So whining, from the same sector that wants to limit my rights in one area, over limits on the rights that they want to emphasize, leaves me unconvinced that there is any sincerity in this debate at all.

I think it is a cultural war that is being waged in a no holds barred manner. Prisoners will not be taken. E.G. Poor old Paula Dean gets stripped of her apron because she admitted that once a long time ago she used the "N word". But Eric Holder, once a radical black activist, is ensconced in a critical position? Does anyone wonder how many times he used the term "cracker" in his past?

I object to women in infantry for the simple reason that it is a battle, another liberal assault, in their culture war that is destroying our country. There are practical reasons I object as well, but others can speak to those.





Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 2:08:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

"According to the same people who want to put women directly in women..."

Obviously I meant to say, ...women directly in combat...."

Though I suppose what I accidently wrote is true as well.

For some people change, any change, from the status quo = progress.

Another unexamined and highly dubius premise.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 3:03:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

no one,

'Tis a cultural war, and you are right -- movement does not = progress.

If rights must be delegated, enumerated and delimited, it really makes mockery of the concept of "natural rights", or rights at all. The fact that they are and must be reveals the romanticism of Rousseau and even our own cherished Constitution.

Men do not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... only inasmuch as the state permits them to do so. Those rights will be curtailed if your happiness entails the infringement of my rights.

So much for the successful life of a sadist in a democracy.

Wait a minute ...

Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 3:09:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

"If rights must be delegated, enumerated and delimited, it really makes mockery of the concept of "natural rights", or rights at all. The fact that they are and must be reveals the romanticism of Rousseau and even our own cherished Constitution."

That is a really good point, Lisa.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 8:59:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home