RANGER AGAINST WAR: A Room of Her Own, III <

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

A Room of Her Own, III

--Brave (2012)

On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake and morally straight
--Boy Scout Oath

 I knew I wouldn't be there to help ya along.
 So I give ya that name and I said goodbye
I knew you'd have to get tough or die
And it's the name that helped to make you strong 
--A Boy Named Sue, Johnny Cash 

 I am strong
I am invincible
I am woman
 --I Am Woman, Helen Reddy
 ____________________

It seems sensible and modern to allow women in the combat arms -- after all, we haven't exactly been Johnny-on-the-spot about according women their rights. It was less than 100 years ago U.S. women were given the vote, and grudgingly, at that. So Ranger seems positively Paleolithic when we oppose placing women on the Forward Line of Own Troops (FLOT), or whatever the equivalent is today. As a society, we look at Beyonce and Hillary (not at once) and figure, women can do anything, right?

Moreover, some argue that such a placement would simply be a repatriation (pardon the phrase) to a long-lost status, since women were once warrior princesses, right? But the reality of our lives today is far removed from those often incomplete and sometimes apocryphal tales. We will address this archetype later.

Our reality is that on the fields of athletic competition, men and women are separated in recognition of their different potentials. Title IX guaranteed girls could compete in sports to the degree that boys could, but their teams are gender-specific. When the feminists fronted the "Battle of the Sexes" in 1973 -- Billie Jean King against Bobby Riggs, 26 years her senior -- it was a put up, as the age gap could not possibly be overcome. Such showmanship should not be confused with the reality as played out in the Olympic games, where each sports competition is gender-specific.

One may argue for the politically-correct social-construction view of gender, but there is no confusing the proclivities of children at play. Even boys from the most pacifist families usually demand their toy guns, and girls are all about networking, communication and keeping their fictional houses in order. There is nothing inherently superior or inferior about either proclivity (see Tannen's, You Just Don't Understand) -- it just is.

Girls join the Brownies and Girl Scouts; boys, the Boy Scouts. There are notions of honor and duty implicit in carrying on the sacred duty of these brotherhoods or sisterhoods. We will not argue about the effectiveness of such separation, but there is something in the sexes which enjoys the fraternity with its own, especially when conducting projects to which each group feels a certain affinity.


--even Samurai Girls are just girls, after all

The feminine warrior archetypes often include the martyr (Joan of Arc) or the helper, like Native Americans Pocahantas or Sacajawea. Their power is more at being faithful servants who facilitate communication. They may also be crusaders like Clara Barton or Carrie Nation - warriors for God and soul. The true strength vis-a-vis the male is held by the Siren-crone-witch archetype, but this is not a pretty face and it is often destructive, especially to the male. Hence, our glamorizing society doesn't have much use for them.

The female archetype we are most familiar with is the needy wench (Rapunzel, Snow White or Cinderella), or the religious "good woman" (unlike the "bad" ones who leads men astray, like our very own Eve.) In Christianity, Mary is revered for her long-suffering status and for abiding; she is not part of the Trinity (godhead), though she served as the vessel, midwifing Jesus into this world. The faithful sing hymns to her virginity, which implies she is good by virtue of not reveling in her true sex.

The feminine warriors we have access to in the media today are tarted-up Barbies overlaid with deltoids, worthy of Hans'n Franz's designation, "girly-men": Wonder Woman, Lara Croft -- Tomb Raider, Xena the Warrior Princess, Japanese Manga, or Brave (Pixar). They are either Eddie Bauer Women on steroids, or they could be carrying Hello Kitty! purses across their chest. Like "The Bride" in the film Kill Bill they are striking a pose, and are fashion set pieces moreso than gritty warriors. The BESM ("Big eyes, small mouth") fetish of Manga depicts the woman as the baby doll of so many men's dreams: big baby eyes, and a small mouth for ... whatever one would use a small mouth for.

It may smack of paternalism and Old Boy's club to suggest that women ought not be on the FLOT, but we would not be the only civilized nation to take this stance. We like being  first, but being first is not always a good.

If the military institution is incapable of erasing the sexual subjugation of its service members while they not facing dire life-or-death scenarios, why would we imagine their burden would be any less so while facing challenges that already tax the frontiers of their brother's physical and psychological limits? It seems cruel and inefficient, in the most pragmatic sense. 

We are a free society, but we do not necessarily have liberal minds that are free from their apetitive animal desires and sense of entitlement and resentment and the whole lot of malignancies which plague our interpersonal relations. Even the boxing ring has the Marquess of Queensbury rules to ensure a fair fight, yet have not demonstrated the attainment of any such set of intrinsic rules governing our congress between the sexes. We stumble through life haphazardly making decisions we hope will not be too detrimental, but it's mostly a crapshoot. At our best, respect is the watchword; all too often, we are sneaky animals looking for our best angle -- that goes for both men and women.

Recent scandals show putting women in the military is like putting Tweety bird in front of Sylvester the Cat with no cage door. The documentary "Invisible War" confronts the culture of sexual assault in the military: "A female U.S. soldier in a combat zone is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire." This is not some quaint relic of a Neanderthal past but your Army, today. Feminists say, don't cage us in or out, but it might just be an enlightened move of self interest to choose not to enter the boxing ring with the men when the gloves are off, and no holds barred.

Child psychologist Piaget argued for the necessity of the phase in which children would touch a hot stove and react to the pain, thereby learning an action not to repeat. Unfortunately, when it comes to the relations between men and women, we demonstrate no such ability to learn. Putting the sexes into perhaps the most fraught situation a civilized society sanctions should not be a social experiment, and it is bound to not turn out well.

If placing women in the combat arms were a situational necessity (as in a young Israel, Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany) Ranger would support it. But we have a society of X-Box playing slobs just ripe for the picking (the draft) if we need to flesh out our military ranks.

We can barely face the returning caskets of our male soldier's bodies, and their presentation in the media is still fraught with indecision.  Bad enough we accept our men may come on their shield -- will adding women into the fray reduce our anxiety and discomfort?

A woman, regardless of her designation on the masculinity index (she could be the most thoroughgoing XXY in the book), still holds the staff for her sex. In her we see our mothers and every other woman who has nurtured us, as well as those for whom men hold (subliminal) destructive impulses. When she will be killed in action, we believe it will unleash a flurry of repressed responses.

Until such time as the sexes gain true parity, why would we add insult to injury, using women both as vessels for self-gratification and sending them off to be killed? Would we think it a good if women in Afghanistan went from being a handmaid to being fodder on the battlefield, before achieving full personhood?

Mind you, we are not nearly that bad, but we are not that evolved on this topic, either.


[Final installment: A Room of Her Own, Finis.]

Labels: , , , , , ,

23 Comments:

Anonymous Eric Hodgdon said...

Again, the issue before us is the illegal military actions undertaken by the Armed Forces of the USA.

Accepting the necessity of these murderers around the globe is the full-blown insanity of Washington DC and the Armed Forces of the USA. And, they are MURDERERS.

Make no mistake soldier boys and girls, you've been MURDERING for 68 years!

The larger issue is not about women in combat, but combat itself.

Humans must grow beyond the children they are. People must grow beyond their infantile view of each other and accept the responsibility before them, saving themselves and the Earth from themselves.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 8:44:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

"Until such time as the sexes gain true parity, why would we add insult to injury, using women both as vessels for self gratification and sending them off to be killed?"

Which is the classic "if you just wait we'll grant you equality" argument, the same one that was deployed in 1948 against racial integration. We all knew that letting the negroes in would inflame Southern sensibilities, so we had to wait until society matured.

But, guess what; the blacks got in and society figured out how to deal with them. Given that only the most ferocious and masculine women would even WANT to go through FBNC, I suspect that the same would happen.

"Mind you, we are not nearly that bad, but we are not that evolved on this topic, either."

And if the little girlies are always going to play in the pink playroom with little girlie toys, we never will be, now, will we?

Look, I don't want to see ANYone under a ruck. Infantry sucks, always has, always will. But there's no real two ways around it; if military service is an essential part of citizenship (and it has been so considered so for every racial minority in U.S. history, so there must be something to that notion) then a free citizen gets the chance to serve to the degree that he or she is capable of.

If they don't or can't then they're not a free citizen, but something about 3/5ths of a person or something.

Yes, there are tons of practical difficulties. Yes, girls are all girly and shouldn't get shot dead and all (tho why their lives are more precious than mine I have no idea). But - given that there IS NO REAL IMPETUS to putting any women in the combat arms - we're not talking practicalities here, we're talking hypotheticals.

And in the hypothetical, you're arguing on the side of the segregationists here.

Are you SURE you want to be Lester Maddox on this one?

Because I'm not sure there's any real "other side" to this...

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 12:33:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

"....If they don't or can't then they're not a free citizen, but something about 3/5ths of a person or something....."


And you say *I* have a fevered imagination. What a load of outlandish hyperbole.

Tell you what, why stop at half measures? You want to do it? Let's get serious about social engineering and go all Bloomberg. Let's ban Barbie dolls and the color pink. Make it felony to be in possession of either. We'll all wear those drab grey little Mao cultural revolution suits. We will eliminate the pronouns "he", "she", "hers"...etc, etc. Anyone caught using them will go to some re-education camp in the wilds of Idaho, where they will pick peoples' potatoes until they are sufficiently devoid of patriarchal notions that they can return to society.

As for women in the service, it will mandatory. They will be utilized in human wave assaults, thus proving their bravery and their intrinsic value. The more that die the more exalted their contribution to the glorious revolution.

Happy now?

Phase 2: Once all of the capable women have made the ultimate sacrifice and gained the missing 2/5ths of personhood for their less physically capable sisters (ooops, did I use a gender word, Idaho here I come) - we'll send up the sexual deviants divisions and let them similarly gain societal acceptance by slaughtering humans and being slaughtered and hence proving their worth, too.

Clearly a noble and just society is one that values most the participation in slaughter and that crushes out all notions of the soft and nurturing.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 3:59:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

What I'm saying Chief is that I don't even see a gender inequality problem where you do. I actually work in corporate America and I see empowered successful (from a career standpoint) women every where. I see women judges and lawyers, doctors...all walks of life.

Secondly, if there was a problem, the notion that combat would be a (or the) solution is insane. If that's who we are as a society then we have much deeper problems than gender inequality.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 4:03:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

When I was a liberal it was because I thought there would be a chance to align with a demographic that was for peace and loved mother earth and wanted to build our country for US.

What I see is that what liberals actually are - the ones calling the shots any how - is a group of greedy and power hungry revolutionaries. They love money and social class stratification and war and violence just as much as the so called conservatives they oppose.

The only difference is who gets to keep the spoils of war and who is placed on the bottom rung of the social ladder. Anyone who thinks they are on the moral high ground because they are a "liberal" is truly deluded, self righteous and indoctrinated.

So now liberals are all for war and they will send their own into it as a front in their effort to turn our society on its head. The revolution has become a monster with a life of its own and has crushed out any core values that might have once been there. A monster that devours it's own adherents.

After the revolution, who will nurture the children? Who will provide soft tender comfort to tired souls and hurting bodies? Who will paint in pastels?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH A TRADITIONAL MOTHER ROLE? CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? I fail to grasp how enslaving oneself - like, as Jim said, a whore - to a corporate career or to a life in the infantry is any more freeing or noble than raising children in a safe enriching environment.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH LIBERALS THAT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CHILDREN NEED AND THAT WOMEN ARE BIOLOGICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY BEST ABLE TO PROVIDE?

It's not nice to fool with mother nature and just because you can doesn't mean it's a good idea.



I guess in the brave new world it is the government's role to raise our children while we are all - men and womyn alike - out seeking insatiable self gratification by waging war and plundering our way to the top of a mindless consumer driven winner take all capitalist system.

Beautiful!

I will take a conservative any day over a liberal. At least a conservative has enough rudimentary intelligence to know that there is a difference between men and women.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 5:33:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

no one,
5;33
Pls plug in that ww1 and 2 were liberal Presidents. Plug in that conservatives have always , at least til 1941 been isolationist and America first. This is a global statement but it holds water.
The problem isn't who shot John however, BUT RATHER =why do we no longer have a mainstream party that opposes war?
If 1 opposes war all the other programs would fall in order just like a platoon formation.
A further problem is a electorate that is slap ass ignorant as to what is happening.
jim

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 8:16:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

No One 3;59
Well gyrene now you're getting it.
It's nice to see that u can get down and be tongue in cheek.
I give you an a + for this entry.
BTW i'll be in the next down from you.
jim

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 8:21:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Jim, I was actually thinking about core Marine values - like duty, honor, courage, commitment, hard work, sacrifice and teamwork.

These are what the country is lacking and the emergent liberal idealism tells us that it is OK to be deficient. It's always someone else's fault and you are owed and the government is here to make sure you get paid. Your own little personal hedonistic journey is all that counts.

Feh. I've had all I can take.

That said, I do recognize the faults of what passes for organized conservativism as well. When they started offering up Sarah Palin things became surreal.

Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 9:52:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Eric Hodgdon said...

3/5 ?
Military service is required to be a full citizen?

So, the USA is a gang where you must murder someone to gain entry and respect?

Liberal? Conservative?

The Two-Party Dictatorship is private enterprise doing its best in providing Gangland control of the country.

Men and Women - Yes, Join your favorite Gang and become a vital part by earning your Gang Patch by murdering someone, here or overseas.

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 11:42:00 AM GMT-5  
OpenID anotherdayintheempire said...

Someone should tell the kid that was abandoned in a subway that his mother should of been "biologically and spiritually" attuned to a mother role.

Maybe she can take her kid back from the gay couple who volunteered to raise him when she finds that, no?

Lets leave aside the obvious oppression of pushing this role, in the face of the various expressions of gender and sex that nature has always failed to perfectly separate. Lets forget how this assumption of being the "fairer sex" has not stopped (and/or allowed) women from backstabbing and manipulating in ways men never can for the same ends. Lets forget how this applies to women who for the first time in eons can choose to find a life outside of motherhood.

Has this been done before?

Trust me, the Soviets had issues with a woman being a mans equal on the battlefield, or being associated as a country that would let women fight for them. For most of the Cold War up to 1989 that was pretty much policy even when their Capitalist foes were amending theirs. Operation Barbarossa however and the resulting slaughter that followed changed all that.

Women crowding mens-only recruiting offices began being accepted. One of them, Lyudmilla Pavlichenko, became an accomplished sharpshooter shooting and killing 309 German soldiers including 36 snipers. I admit, its quite a bragging right being the birthplace of a sniper ace who has three times more confirmed kills than a sniper of any sex of her Cold War rival but certain ramifications are clear. She joined the military whose tremendous losses during the initial Nazi invasion made her enthusiastic inclusion reluctant but she fought the strongest war machine on the planet and took down hundreds of its officers and snipers, saving the lives of countless brothers-in-arms on the battlefield. After being hit by a mortar shell, as a Major she survived long enough to train thousands more to do the same.

She was not the only one.

I suppose the Americans can take a lesson from the Soviets. Men and women fought optimally when they trained and fought in separate units, especially the sniper battalions. By necessity, the only units that had to be integrated were in the air force. Different sexes have been integrated in the U.S. Air Force for decades without the Pentagon finding a need to change it. As the darling branch of the United States "humanitarian interventions" thats saying something.

Of course, I also think that as long as the United States is fighting imperial wars abroad and has fortresses across the earth this issue is a drop in the bucket in comparison. When an adversary crosses the Atlantic and lands marines off Virginia Beach then I can see the debate.

Interesting fact? Despite being a war hero emblazoned on stamps and shown abroad, she never married. There was no extracurricular activity in the field for her. From the historic evidence one can gather, she was probably lesbian.

Oh and, just know that the old Pentagon policy has not stopped the dress wearing, mascara types from becoming the nations most elite warfighters.

For what its worth.

-The New and Improved Nikolay Levin

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 7:48:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Nikolay Levin said...

Ranger, I would be the first one to hang a Switzerland-esque conservative president on my wall.

If only he existed.

Unfortunately for both of us history begs to differ. And if you don't count the Indian wars, just know that the Europeans also had experiences with a country with a "Manifest" sort of destiny on its continent. It starts with Lebens and ended in Raum.

For Gods sake, no one. Revolutionary? Eugene Victor Debbs sure considered his government "revolutionary" when the union leader found his class consciousness inside Dictator (sorry, President) Woodrow Wilsons prisons.

And who could forget how Trotskyists could only stare in befuddlement as the Stalinist Communist Party of America threw away thousands of its members and most of its credibility with the AFL and CIO when it joined ranks with FDR, on the former's orders no less?

If FDR lived, one can easily guess who would signed Executive Order 9835.

FDRs perhaps least underappreciated quote is "I'm the best friend the Capitalists ever had". When Democrat Harry Truman destroyed the party en masse and sent the rest of the Communist left into hiding I'd call him right.

Call these Capitalist Liberals what you like. Revolutionaries they are not.

Since Wordpress screwed up my avatar, I can say the historical error is more than forgivable. I can't fathom how hard it can be to transfer a JPEG to another service.

But then, I'm not smart or I WOULD WORK AT WORDPRESS.

-Not So Improved Nikolay Levin

Friday, June 28, 2013 at 9:07:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Nikolay,

So the 21st century United States should model itself after the 20th Soviet Union?

This is about as compelling as the gay seagulls argument. Who wants to emulate a seagull? Kind of pathetic, actually.

Yes, some women are defective and show little or no nurturing instinct. Some have six fingers, but they still make gloves with five fingers.



Saturday, June 29, 2013 at 2:21:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

NL,
Don't forget Napoleon.
Weren't the Swedes expansionists?
I always say that Truman started the theater level non-declared wars since ww2. The people and the Congress and courts sure seem ok with this concept.
I'm not.
jim

Saturday, June 29, 2013 at 7:35:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

NL,
I'm aware of the combat in Russia/ww2.
I always opine that women should only be used in situations of national survival as in ww2.
Having said that the Russians in ww2 did human wave attacks and often the attackers had to scrounge for weapons from the dead of the first waves.
I'd like to point out that women didn't take part in these sacrifices of front line infantry units.
From my readings women were mostly used as MP types close to the front.
I take my knowledge from the DA PAM series -The German Report series and specifically -Improvised Combat in Russia written by POW German Generals held by the US.
I'm aware of the Air Force pilots of distinction and the snipers you discuss, but i'd like to say that none of them ever won Field Marshall or GO status that i'm aware of.
In our Army the only females making GO will be West Pointers, and specially daughters of WP'ers. Statistically speaking if one can go by male experience.
The argument for combat for women is a joke when one looks at all the senior GO's in the combat arms, specifically the infantry and SOF who DON'T have CIB's. If they camn make senior status w/o cib's/Ph's/valor awards then why do women need these things?
Look at all the shakers and movers since 9-11 and how many even have a valor award?
Just askin'.
I enjoy your comments.
jim

Saturday, June 29, 2013 at 8:59:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

NL,
The Pam series also had a unit called Russian Combat Techniques.
I used to read this stuff as relaxation.
jim

Saturday, June 29, 2013 at 9:01:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

To "new & improved" Nikolai,

I appreciate your sense of humor, and see that you can mock Americans with alacrity (I appreciate this.)

Note that I have hung back from the final installment, as the issue is actually much broader in implication than I may be able to address. Nonetheless, I will try.

Saturday, June 29, 2013 at 2:38:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

p.s. -- Per your link to Navy SEAL Kristin Beck:

Please note that we supported former Ranger and Col. (ret'd) Diane Schroer in her quest for equality when most of the press ignored her. (She won her discrimination case.)


Transgender Rights
Congressional Hearing on Transgender Discrimination

Saturday, June 29, 2013 at 2:44:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Nikolay Levin said...

Ranger, thank you.

I will be the first to say that your expertise and clear understanding of the laws and rationale surrounding military force and terrorism is what I find most valuable.


Your willingness to discuss other aspects of national defense (or the lack thereof) is the icing on cake.


Its true women never made flag officers but it was mostly because they never could. As soon as World War II ended, all women under arms were promptly kicked out and largely forgotten. It must be remembered that the Soviet Stavka were never comfortable with women in combat roles, even those they conceded, no matter how well they performed. Its ironic that it was Soviet society itself that hid the chapter of the only power in the war to use women in the military, even if it did successfully.

Perhaps equally an aficionado of making wartime films as the Americans, Russian movies about the "Night Witches" and the snipers of the female variety were not made until only very recently.

Now on the subject of national survival I agree, I've always thought that the recruiting of women in the American military had more to do with the depletion of their Expeditionary Legions than anything feminist. As a documentary on the Battle of Kursk attested, the Soviet Tank Corps only recruited a woman in their platoon because she was a mechanic and all the mechanics that were able and male were either dead or out of commission. If a women is all thats left, what other option could one consider?

The argument I like for striking down the 1994 law is that women can now get combat citations when they couldn't before. One proponent noted a unit that was ambushed in Panama. It was mostly made up of support personnel and significantly, women. They could not get any medals despite fighting off a superior force. With the law gone, women can now get their chance.

Although I wish I knew what CIB and PH means, I assume they are now qualified for those.

No one, what you cite as defects I accept as the way things are. Some men are feminine, some women are masculine. Some like men, some like women and believe it or not some can't cut it as parents and neither would they want to.

They include women.

The 20th-century Soviet Union?

Thats a long time. Could you specify where and when?

Out of that period there emerged Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists and Brezhnevists to say nothing of Guevaraists and Maoists abroad.

Lets go back further to 19th century America. Americans had broader ideas of what freedom meant and it wasn't always synonymous with free enterprise.

Take a look

Lisa, and thats the reason I keep coming back.

Its bares a mention; while I was born elsewhere I have spent most of my life in the US of A.

Interestingly enough. But I myself will hold back on being improved until Wordpress gets their shit together.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 3:42:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

NL, IMO, if female troops get into the shit and perform with valor then they absolutely deserve to be awarded any valor decorations that male troops would have received under the same conditions.

In today's wars it is likely that female troops in certain roles will get shot at. Even support troops can, and do, make contact with the enemy. However, that is different than putting them in infantry MOSes where the job, by definition, requires physical and psychological attributes that must be consistently emphasized for months on end.

The Marines do not even have the Combat Infantry Badge or the Combat Action Badge - those are only for Army. I believe the way it works is that infantry troops who see action get the CIB. Non infantry troops who see action against the enemy would get the CAB (think engineers, certain intelligence, artillery maybe).

I am glad you know that even in Soviet Russia the women were utilized only in an existential national emergency. I can see that as the right move.

As for myself, I don't have a horse in this race other than, that as an American, I am disgusted with what passes for reasoned discussion. We are no longer allowed to call things what they are - or at least the elites are trying to make us afraid to speak our minds. We are supposed to repeat a mantra that has no differences between genders, were homosexuals are "heroes" just because they come out of the closet and/or want to get married. Obama, a uniquely unqualified individual, was elected only because he is black (whites voted for him because he offered the opportunity for catharsis and blacks.....well...). He has ridden the affirmative action gravy train his whole life, from Kenya to the WH. He gets a Nobel Peace Prize simply because he is black and, I don't know, maybe invokes the image of Nelson Mandela. Many of his policies, like supporting the worst jihadist on the planet, drone executing American citizens, are an abomination. Yet, so many of us can't say anything because, well, he is the first black president and that is supposed to mean something significant.

Our cities are broke, people are jobless, our rights are eroded and we perpetuate endless war all over the planet, yet the elites want me to focus on gay rights and women's equality ad absurdum even as my rights/your rights/their rights - the ones that really count - are taken away.

I call bullshit on the whole thing and will say what I think. The utter idiocy of the national "discussion" is so putrid that I have become a reactionary.

I would be really interested in hearing your perspective on Soviet propaganda compared/contrasted with post modern US propaganda.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 8:06:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

NL,
PH=Purple Heart.
CIB=Cbt Infy Badge.
I was NEVER aware of women not being qualified for personal awards to include valor awards.
Surely nurses in RVN rec'd BSM's for service and achievement. I'd bet my boots on it.
jim

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 9:37:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

No One,

I am with you in terms of witnessing our tremendous societal distractions and naming of "change" as the highest good, without regard to its consequences. In the process, we are amusing and distracting ourselves to death.

Few liberal thinkers are like philosopher Slavoj Zizek who calls the liberal's game for what it is: forefronting their underdog du jour at the expense of the masses, who are losing out. Focusing on the rights of minorities (blacks, Native Americans, etc.) make the crusading liberal feel good, without his having to address or effectively integrate the needs of the whole society.

It is a fragmented, self-congratulatory behavior, and roundly hailed lest anyone be labelled "reactionary", a tarring of the worst sort.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 10:28:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger no one said...

Thanks Lisa.

You know I consider MLK to be one of the greatest Americans ever.

Any how, is it just me or do you also see the mindset you just brought up to be getting worse?

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 11:02:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

no one,

Pls. look for more thoughts in the upcoming week.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 3:53:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home