Santorum: Women’s “Emotions” May Not Be “In The Interests Of The Mission” In Combat

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, December 4, 2022 21:40
VIEWED: 7853
PAGE 1 of 1

NIKI2

Saturday, February 11, 2012 5:56 PM

Quote:
Coming off of his three stunning primary and caucus victories earlier this week, Rick Santorum made a controversial statement about women in the armed forces on Thursday that could slow his surging momentum. His opposition to women in increased combat roles could highlight the disparity between the staunch social conservative and more moderate voters.

On Thursday, the Pentagon officially opened up thousands of positions close to the front lines to women, authorizing them to work closer to combat than ever before. (In reality, many women have been filing these roles for years in the US’s recent conflicts.)

In reference to this decision, CNN’s John King asked Santorum whether broadening roles for women in combat was a “good idea or bad idea”.
Quote:
“I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat.”[/uote] http://live.drjays.com/index.php/2012/02/11/santorum-womens-emotions-m
ay-not-be-in-the-interests-of-the-mission-in-combat/
And Anthony asked "Are we still a sexist society to such an irrational degree?" You betcha!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

ANTHONYT

Saturday, February 11, 2012 6:16 PM

Hello,

How is this person a candidate? Who can hear such rhetoric and not be overcome with bewilderment or anger?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, February 11, 2012 6:43 PM

Senator Rick Santorum today was asked to expand on his statement yesterday that women's "emotions" in combat may not be "in the interest of the mission."

He said, "Now, I know how that sounds, but hear me out. While I do not believe women's emotions are appropriate to a combat situation, by the same token, I do not believe that men's lack of emotion in such situations is appropriate upon return to civilian life. Now, do you see what I'm talking about? I don't want women in combat because they're needed to run all our civilian opperations, while I believe men, all men, upon reaching the age of majority should be sent off to one battle field or other to live out the rest of their natural lives in a situation more conducive to their emotional needs. Ya get it? That's not sexism, that's just human nature."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, February 11, 2012 6:54 PM

Hello,

A humorous spoof, Mr. Cavalier.

However, his attitudes do not seem so very different from the spoof!

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NIKI2

Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:00 PM

Hee, hee, hee...that's the LEAST ridiculous thing he's said, you know. I watch almost all of the current candidates and giggle my head off, because NONE of them talk sense this time around. I know they're vying to be "the most right", but they're making SUCH assholes out of themselves doing so, it can't help but be amusing.

Just a sampling of just Santorum:

Quote:
In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Santorum proclaimed that when a woman becomes pregnant after being raped, she has a duty to keep the child.

The former Pennsylvania Senator said the victim should not get an abortion, but instead welcome their "horrible gift from God."

Santorum phrases being raped as “women in such a position." He goes on to justify that having a baby after rape as “making the best out of bad situation."

Arguing that gay relationships “destabilize” society, Santorum wouldn’t offer any legal protections to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president.

During an appearance on Christian television in January, Santorum said he was surprised that President Obama didn’t know when life began — given his skin color. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people,” he explained.

Speaking in Le Mars, Iowa in December, Santorum promised to significantly reduce federal funding for food stamps, arguing that the nation’s increasing obesity rates render the program unnecessary.

While discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban in June, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony.” “They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective,” he said.

Santorum, who claims that Obamacare motivated him to run for president, told reporters in April that his daughter Bella — who was born with a genetic abnormality — wouldn’t survive in a country with “socialized medicine.” “Children like Bella are not given the treatment that other children are given.”

Answering a question about the uninsured, Santorum explained that health care, like a car, is a luxury resource that is rationed by society and recalled the story of a woman who said she was spending $200 a month on life-saving prescriptions. Santorum told her to stop complaining and instead lower her cable and cell phone bills.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does."

"Look at the political base of the Democratic Party: It is single mothers who run a household. Why? Because it's so tough economically that they look to the government for help and therefore they're going to vote. So if you want to reduce the Democratic advantage, what you want to do is build two parent families, you eliminate that desire for government."

"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”
~Rick Santorum, opposing contraception and frighteningly suggesting that he would love to make pre-marital sex illegal.

“Yeah, remember, under the Bush administration, welfare — I mean, excuse me, poverty among African Americans and among single unmarried wo

KWICKO

Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

A humorous spoof, Mr. Cavalier.

However, his attitudes do not seem so very different from the spoof!

--Anthony

Indeed. And ol' Frothy is showing a lack of historical knowledge. Women have made fierce warriors in many eras, including WWII, where there were many, many female snipers in the Red Army. They were terrifying to the enemy, because they were cold, detached, deadly effective, and the idea of women doing such "dirty" combat work completely unnerved the male-centric Nazi army.

There were also female bomber pilots on the Russian side, and they proved quite effective as well.

Seems that when lives are on the line, women are at least as able to turn off their emotions and do the job at hand as men are.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

BYTEMITE

Saturday, February 11, 2012 10:16 PM

He's talking about rape, in case anyone missed it.

On the other hand... They REALLY need to stop drugging the mess tent food to make them more aggressive and battle-ready.

And honestly, like he said, it's not like this doesn't happen among deployed MEN. Of course in any tense wartime environment, this kind of thing will happen, whether or not women are there.

KWICKO

Saturday, February 11, 2012 11:33 PM

Byte, I guess I missed that angle. I thought he was referring to women being "too emotional" for combat, as if they'd get freaked out and start crying in the middle of a firefight or something. Hadn't heard that he was suggesting they put their emotions on hold when it comes to being raped while serving their country. That would be a whole new level of horrific from a man whose name already has a really shitty connotation!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, February 12, 2012 12:19 AM

Byte,

You sure you're not giving the man way too much credit? Here's the clarification I found on this topic, in his own words (And I promise this one's the real quote):

“I was talking about men’s emotional issues; not women. I mean, there’s a lot of issues. That’s just one of them. So my concern is being in combat in that situation instead of being focused on the mission, they may be more concerned with protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position.”

“You throw on top of that just simply physical strength and capability and you may be out there on a mission where it’s you and a woman and if you’re injured, the ability to transport that person back. And you know, there’s just, there are physical limitations,” Santorum said.

Good gravy is this guy sexually repressed. Just look at the Freudian innuendo flyin': "someone in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position..." "You throw on top of that..." Man, where are Beavis and Butthead when ya need 'em?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 12, 2012 12:42 AM

It's pretty much the same argument that was used against women serving on naval ships. As though men are unable to keep their hands to themselves. Really, it's offensive to BOTH men and women.

I see he's also using the physical capability differences argument too. Apparently he doesn't realize some women in the military can easily benchpress 200 pounds.

HERO

Sunday, February 12, 2012 3:37 AM

He did not say women's emotions.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

HERO

Sunday, February 12, 2012 4:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
He did not say women's emotions.

It goes further.

Reaction to this is typical of liberal sexism against women. It's more subtle, but just as insidious as overt sexism.

Santorum talks about "emotions" in this context and liberals think "women are emotional" and immediately condemn his statement for their own mental leap to stereotypical thinking.

Women in combat places discipline and unit coehesion at risk because of the emotional response it would generate. In many ways this is similar to the argument used against blacks and other minorities. While it is easy to get caught up in tht example please consider that the actual circumstances are entirely different.

The military can be a powerful instrument for social change. But change is not always for the best. Women could and should serve in nearly every capacity in our armed forces, they should not be frontline combat soldiers. Please keep in mind the Constitution is far from silent on this issue.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:51 PM

Just think of the destructive power we could unleash !

Until the enemy deployed their own secret weapon... cute baby picture.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NIKI2

Sunday, February 12, 2012 4:36 PM

Quote:
a lack of historical knowledge

You ARE kidding, of course. It's not lack of historical knowledge, although that's probably true, too; it's pure mentality. I don't think for a minute he was talking about rape--respectfully I think that might be transference--but I have no doubt that in HIS mind, he meant emotions the way every misogynist has always used it. Given he's a prime example of the worst of men's thinking about women currently in the forefront of the MSM, it would be hard for it to be anything else. He's not that subtle. Back-tracking later doesn't change it. Any more than it's helped ANY of the current candidates with their various faux-pas.

Bear in mind this is a guy who thinks a raped woman should bear her rapist's child...it's pretty much all of a piece. Santorum isn't worth spending more than five minutes on; and that only to shake one's head in amazement and laugh at his ignorance and stupidity. Because yes, in this case it IS deliberate stupidity; he knows full well the facts about rape, etc., but chooses to show his stupidity.

Given Hero feels exactly the same as he does, I'm not going to respond to that!

Rap; I just HAD to click on that, tho' I knew what it was the minute I saw it. When I first saw it, I almost fell off my chair laughing. Oh, how I miss them...sigh...good TV is so damned hard to come by! Wouldn't work for me, tho', I'm pretty impervious to babies...now if it was a dog (tho' just photos wouldn't do it, either)...

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 12, 2012 4:40 PM

If he's not talking about rape, explain to me why Santorum talks about men struggling with the same emotions with other men, and women exacerbating the problem.

He's pussyfooting around it, but what he means is pretty clear to me, because it's the same old argument against women in the military I've seen before.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 12, 2012 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
If he's not talking about rape, explain to me why Santorum talks about men struggling with the same emotions with other men, and women exacerbating the problem.

He's pussyfooting around it, but what he means is pretty clear to me, because it's the same old argument against women in the military I've seen before.

What, that you think the military is the place for co-ed shower scenes, like Starship Troopers ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:08 PM

Quote:
What, that you think the military is the place for co-ed shower scenes, like Starship Troopers ?

While Israel is not necessarily a military I'd emulate for various reasons, they are gender integrated, and most of these problems people worry about are non-existent with them.

I expect people to act professional. If our soldiers don't act professional around women soldiers, then the problem is discipline, not the presence of women.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:30 PM

" professional " means little to a young adult trying to cope with a million years of human sexual evolution, while trying to also train to be a soldier. The last thing anyone needs is more distractions, just to appease the social engineering crowd.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

1KIKI

Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:55 PM

Then how do the Israelis manage? It seems it CAN be done - it's just a matter of how.

PIRATENEWS

Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:41 PM

I say send all the dykes and lesbians to the front lines in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Mexico, et al, starting with Rachael Mancow.

M52NICKERSON

Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
" professional " means little to a young adult trying to cope with a million years of human sexual evolution, while trying to also train to be a soldier. The last thing anyone needs is more distractions, just to appease the social engineering crowd.

You mean the same young men also coping with millions of years of flight response also? It should be noted that many armed forces around the world allow women to serve any role and they have little in the way of problems. Including the Israeli Defense Force.

If US soldiers can't deal with mixed combat units they can't claim to be the best in the world.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:23 PM

As long as you can pass the training and fitness requirements, it shouldn't be an issue. Combat training should take care of the other issues. It'll soon weed out people, male or female who cannot think and operate under stress.

That being said, I don't love the idea of women in combat, but can't think of a rational reason why they should be excluded.

GEEZER

Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
He did not say women's emotions.

In a discussion on "Morning Edition" today, the understanding the participants had was that the "emotions" mentioned by Santorum were those of men in a combat situation who would, in his opinion, be likely to take greater risks to protect the women with them.

Not saying that this is a valid conclusion on his part, but it does appear he wasn't talking about the womens' emotions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NIKI2

Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:13 PM

The participants had that understanding because it's what Santorum SAID, as Cav quoted:

Quote:
“I was talking about men’s emotional issues; not women. I mean, there’s a lot of issues. That’s just one of them. So my concern is being in combat in that situation instead of being focused on the mission, they may be more concerned with protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position.”

He said all that AFTER his original statement became an issue. Kind of like his "I wasn't saying Black people, I started to say 'Blah' then changed my mind" (not verbatum, but close enough). In other words, that's the spin Santorum gave, whether it's true or not.

I don't see rape coming into it; I interpret it as women's emotions getting in the way of them doing their job...killing maybe, or the "emotions" of their periods, I dunno...I'm not inside his weird mind to even guess. But when people talk "emotions" about women being anywhere (business, combat, etc.) it is generally pretty easily understood what they mean. And what kind of person they are, in my opinion.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:47 PM

Combatants tend to care about one another's wellbeing, don't they? They look out for their own.

All of the concerns can be overcome by training. I mean, you are training people to function when they are in the middle of enemy fire, to go against a basic survival instinct so it should be a cake walk to get them to overcome concerns, instinctual or otherwise, re their emotions about women serving with them.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:50 PM

Hello,

I agree it should be easier to train Men to cope with Women than to train Men to charge a machine gun nest.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 13, 2012 12:08 AM

Niki: Still doesn't explain the men thing.

When a person is trying to save their own ass because they said something dumb, they'll say all kinds of things, sometimes which have nothing to do what the original point they were making was.

What is noteworthy about this is that he swallowed his own foot a little more with his follow up "explanation."

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, February 13, 2012 12:38 AM

Exactly - mind you supply units, reserve ones primarily, have long since made this a non-issue.

In fact my original Drill Instructor down at Ft Jackson was female and such a hardass professional I actually respected her MORE than the FMJ wannabes who didn't actually seem to comprehend the difference between training young punks and abusing them...

Not to mention my unit of record, the few times I was with em, didn't have too many problems regarding race or sex, can't see why it would with my platoon being all female but me and one other grunt, and me being the only cracker there stirred up some resentment initially - which didn't last past the first real exercise when they realized I was a hell-bent shocktrooper somehow dumped on a third-rate supply unit.
(Although it did raise some really obvious suspicions given the amount of time I was "on detail" across the street with the spooks)

Whatever misogynistic notions folks have, one way to put a crimp in them is hand them a rifle, and tell them to imagine that same rifle a hundred yards away, aimed at them by a trained soldier.
AT THAT POINT, dude - do you CARE if it's a chick?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

KWICKO

Monday, February 13, 2012 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
" professional " means little to a young adult trying to cope with a million years of human sexual evolution, while trying to also train to be a soldier. The last thing anyone needs is more distractions, just to appease the social engineering crowd.

So do you think that girls and boys going to school together is also "social engineering"? How are students able to keep from raping each other in the classroom?

How are young adults in the workplace able to restrain themselves from groping their customers and coworkers? The Abercrombie store at the mall must look like Plato's Retreat or Studio 54 at the height of the sexual revolution!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

KWICKO

Monday, February 13, 2012 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
He did not say women's emotions.

In a discussion on "Morning Edition" today, the understanding the participants had was that the "emotions" mentioned by Santorum were those of men in a combat situation who would, in his opinion, be likely to take greater risks to protect the women with them.

Not saying that this is a valid conclusion on his part, but it does appear he wasn't talking about the womens' emotions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

That makes it sound like Frothy's basically accusing the males in the military of cowardice, if he's thinking that they might stick around and fight harder for the women in their unit, whereas they'd simply up and run away if their male friends were under attack.

It really doesn't make his position sound better, if you ask me.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 13, 2012 3:26 AM

Hmm. Okay, THAT might explain the thing about the men's emotions, though it's a strange argument.

GEEZER

Monday, February 13, 2012 3:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That makes it sound like Frothy's basically accusing the males in the military of cowardice, if he's thinking that they might stick around and fight harder for the women in their unit, whereas they'd simply up and run away if their male friends were under attack.

The folks on "Weekend Edition" seemed to think he meant men would take more reckless and possibly foolish risks to protect women than they would other men in the normal course of combat operations. Seems like Mr. Santorum's still stuck in "Damsels in distress need rescuing" mode to me.

One of the interviewees was a female ex-Army officer who'd done tours in Iraq and noted that generally the military awards medals for folks who take extraordinary risks for their fellow soldiers, and that men had been taking those risks for other men for ages, and - in her experience - probably wouldn't do much different with women involved.

I suspect you're suggestion that he's hinting at cowardice is bias on your part.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

OONJERAH

Monday, February 13, 2012 3:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I agree it should be easier to train Men to cope with Women than to train Men to charge a machine gun nest.

--Anthony

It is far easier to train Men to charge a machine gun nest than to teach them to cope with Women.

Based on my lifelong observation of Men & Women in the USA. If Israel has solved the problem, they must be doin' it different than us (who brainwash kids with heavy gender roles & limits); and maybe we could learn from them.

As for Santorum, much of what he says was prevalent opinion 50 years ago. i.e., Conservative = Retro = WASP.

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

KWICKO

Monday, February 13, 2012 3:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That makes it sound like Frothy's basically accusing the males in the military of cowardice, if he's thinking that they might stick around and fight harder for the women in their unit, whereas they'd simply up and run away if their male friends were under attack.

The folks on "Weekend Edition" seemed to think he meant men would take more reckless and possibly foolish risks to protect women than they would other men in the normal course of combat operations. Seems like Mr. Santorum's still stuck in "Damsels in distress need rescuing" mode to me.

One of the interviewees was a female ex-Army officer who'd done tours in Iraq and noted that generally the military awards medals for folks who take extraordinary risks for their fellow soldiers, and that men had been taking those risks for other men for ages, and - in her experience - probably wouldn't do much different with women involved.

I suspect you're suggestion that he's hinting at cowardice is bias on your part.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I suspect it's bias on HIS part. After all, if, as you suggest, females in the foxholes would make men MORE brave and valorous, isn't that something you'd want in a soldier? We praise them as "heroes", but then don't want them to do anything, y'know, heroic when it comes right down to it.

Sounds like Frothy wants LESS heroism and gallantry in the field.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, February 13, 2012 6:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
It is far easier to train Men to charge a machine gun nest than to teach them to cope with Women.

Bwahahaha.

While I suspect maybe not intentionally so, that's bloody hi-larious.

-F

RIONAEIRE

Monday, February 13, 2012 7:04 AM

I agree with Magon's. If anyone, male or female, wants to be a warrior and can pass the necessary tests and requirements then they should be able to do it. I personally would never want to (I couldn't anyways but that's irrelevent), I'm a nurturer and don't think I could kill anyone unless they were hurting my kids or going to hurt someone else I love. I like watching documentaries about historical wars but that's as far as I could go. I do know women though who could potentially be very good and able soldiers.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

OONJERAH

Monday, February 13, 2012 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
It is far easier to train Men to charge a machine gun nest than to teach them to cope with Women.

Bwahahaha.

While I suspect maybe not intentionally so, that's bloody hi-larious.

-F

'Tis a bloody hi-larious fact of life, I say.

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

GEEZER

Monday, February 13, 2012 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I suspect it's bias on HIS part.

I agree, hence the "damsels in distress" comment.

But the idea that soldiers will take even greater risks - and greater losses - in combat because they must "protect the ladies" will go over well with his base, so why shouldn't he suggest it, from a campaign point of view?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NIKI2

Monday, February 13, 2012 3:24 PM

Quote:
When a person is trying to save their own ass because they said something dumb, they'll say all kinds of things, sometimes which have nothing to do what the original point they were making was.

Oh, Byte, sweetie, you don't need to tell ME--that's what politicians do every time they make a "faux pas"! They either, if they're dumb or stubborn, double down, or they backtrack as fast as they can with some kind of "spin" on the statement.

Rap: "more distractions" is one of the same excuses made against inter-racial military and gays in the military. I see no difference between those two and women in the military; they are excuses which military training proved wrong. I think that's an argument grabbed when reaching for SOMETHING to back up the mentality. You don't think African Americans in the military was a helluva distraction back when there were MANY in the military who were aggressively racist? Or when there was the big mess about gays--despite gays having been serving in the military since time began. People don't like change; they reach out for a reason not to have it, especially when it's something THEY don't like. Of course, I have a suspicion where Santorum's concerned that he's not happy with ANY of those being in the military (especially gays!), but it's just a suspicion.

Geezer, yes, I think he IS still stuck in the "damsel in distress" mentality...among other things. It seems obvious to me from many of his stances that Santorum has some opinions regarding women which are, at the very least, out of date. And I agree wholeheartedly with your last post.

Yes, Frem, it IS unintentionally funny, while at the same time very sad.

OONJERAH

Monday, February 13, 2012 9:12 PM

Bill, Army MSgt retired, been married to the same woman for +35 years. I dunno, but I've been told the 1st 10 years of marriage is a crash course in how to get along with someone of the opposite sex (not your mother-in-law). Bill learned to get along with his Mrs. Did Bill ever charge a machine gun nest? I dunno; he doesn't say.

Bill sends me jokes, the majority of them gender based. The differences between the genders is constantly on his mind. Example:

A woman walked into the kitchen to find her husband stalking about with a fly swatter.

"What are you doing?" she asked.
"Hunting flies," he responded.
"Oh. Killing any?" she asked.
"Yep, 3 males, 2 females," he replied.
Intrigued, she asked. "How can you tell them apart?"
He responded, "3 were on a beer can; 2 were on the phone."

The military should be the best possible place for men & women to get along well. The service is extremely structured as to communication and conduct. The exact same rules of conduct apply to men and women, so misunderstandings are minimized. At least in principle. I have read a few articles about when there's a conflict between a man & woman in the service, given that they are of the same rank, the rights of the man will be more important than the rights of the woman. I believe it.

Men find it easier to charge the guns than to get along with women.
The remark is funny. I knew it was funny. I didn't say it because it was funny. I said it because it is true.
People tend to be funny, weird, in-survival and rigid.

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

HERO

Monday, February 13, 2012 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
. You don't think African Americans in the military was a helluva distraction back when there were MANY in the military who were aggressively racist?

I considered the comparison, but it does not hold water. The African-American military legacy of good and faithful service in the front lines predates the founding of our country. Truman merely recognized what was common fact. African-Americans proved themselves time and again on the battlefield. By 1945 the Army, though segregated, had acknowledged as an institution that segregation was not necessary.

While homosexuals have a claim to a similar (if less obvious) legacy, woman have instead a long history of being shielded from combat (notable exceptions exist...Russia and Isreal are among them). Its practical and cultural, but those things don't carry the weight they once did. Modern medicine and birth rates eliminated the practical distinction and this has eroded the cultural one.

Ours is a dsciplined and professional military. I trust that our men in uniform are capable of serving honorably alongside females in frontline combat units...one wonders about the reactions of our enemies. The Taliban HR Dept is notoriously slow in handling sexual harrassment complaints.

Abuse of women will be common, it creates a risk, it puts our men at risk because they know this to be true.

How likely are you to resist interrogation when your female squadmate is being gang raped by a hundred North Koreans? This is my own concern...one of many.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NIKI2

Monday, February 13, 2012 10:23 PM

Some excellent points, Oonj, thank you for that perspective.

The "logic" that, because something has been the case for X amount of time, it should stay that way, is something I won't even bother addressing.

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 13, 2012 10:30 PM

We're at war with North Korea now?

You would have been closer if you said the Taliban or something, because they're aggressively repressed beyond any belief and just waiting for a socially acceptable outlet, and they have this homophobic thing against male rape.

But seriously, if you think rape is the worst torture someone can come up with and that only women are a concern (and men worrying about that concern), you're not being creative enough.

ANTHONYT

Monday, February 13, 2012 10:35 PM

"How likely are you to resist interrogation when your female squadmate is being gang raped by a hundred North Koreans? This is my own concern...one of many."

Hello,

About as likely as when it happens to your male squadmate, I suspect.

Resisting interrogation isn't actually a big deal. You only have to last until your side can get the message that you've been captured.

Hours. Maybe a day. Possibly two. By then, the sensitivity of your information has been assessed by your side and they've made any adjustments they feel are necessary.

The idea of soldiers indefinitely resisting interrogation is more for the movies than for real life. For most people, it's not IF. It's WHEN.

-Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

ANTHONYT

Monday, February 13, 2012 10:37 PM

"they have this homophobic thing against male rape."

Hello,

I'm not sure that they do. They may just use a surrogate, like a stick or a pipe. I seem to remember something similar on the news recently.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 13, 2012 10:43 PM

Ah. Duly rescinded.

OONJERAH

Monday, February 13, 2012 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Some excellent points, Oonj, thank you for that perspective.

The "logic" that, because something has been the case for X amount of time, it should stay that way, is something I won't even bother addressing.

Did someone say "should"? I mostly avoid that word.

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

HERO

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
We're at war with North Korea now?

I note for the record that the Korean War never ended...its just an unusually long halftime.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

STORYMARK

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
" professional " means little to a young adult trying to cope with a million years of human sexual evolution, while trying to also train to be a soldier. The last thing anyone needs is more distractions, just to appease the social engineering crowd.

Yeah, Israel - the land of social engineering.....

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NIKI2

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:10 PM

Sorry, Oonj, I wasn't clear enough. The first sentence was directed at you; the second sentence was both agreeing with you and directed at those arguing against allowing women in combat. I'm not going to bother going back to see who wrote essentially "it's always been this way...", but that was what I was responding to.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 8:33 PM

Hero: Huh. Okay then.

Guess I learn something every day.

OONJERAH

Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Sorry, Oonj, I wasn't clear enough. The first sentence was directed at you; the second sentence was both agreeing with you and directed at those arguing against allowing women in combat. I'm not going to bother going back to see who wrote essentially "it's always been this way...", but that was what I was responding to.

I didn't know. Thank you.

Here is my notion of a primitive (apes thru humans) society defending their village.

The females will form a ring around the children. The males will form a combat line around them
or in front of them. If the males lose the fight and things begin to look hopeless, the mothers
will probably grab their kid(s) and run like hell. Any females without kids will join what remains
of the male line in order to give the moms a headstart and the clan a chance to survive. In some
societies, females would not fight at all if they know the enemy means to capture, not kill, them.

I suspect that this behavior would be instinctive due millions of years of inter-tribal wars. (Yes,
I also suspect that inter-tribal war is not nearly as prevalent with apes as it is with the human
tribe.)
i.e., Genentically, males are built to fight. Females are built to protect the young. Females will
fight only if they have to.

For this reason, I assume that most women are not attracted to life in the military. And those who
are might be quite well suited to it.

P.S. "If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose
to save the infant's life without even considering if there is a man on base." --Dave Barry

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
. You don't think African Americans in the military was a helluva distraction back when there were MANY in the military who were aggressively racist?

I considered the comparison, but it does not hold water. The African-American military legacy of good and faithful service in the front lines predates the founding of our country. Truman merely recognized what was common fact. African-Americans proved themselves time and again on the battlefield. By 1945 the Army, though segregated, had acknowledged as an institution that segregation was not necessary.

While homosexuals have a claim to a similar (if less obvious) legacy, woman have instead a long history of being shielded from combat (notable exceptions exist...Russia and Isreal are among them). Its practical and cultural, but those things don't carry the weight they once did. Modern medicine and birth rates eliminated the practical distinction and this has eroded the cultural one.

Women warriors predate the founding of this country, too, y'know. You may have heard of the Amazons before?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:37 AM

See also the Celtic tribes. Granted, it's possible that the number of women warriors have been exaggerated, but we do also know that they DID have them (and sometimes they fought naked). It's one of the reasons the Romans labeled them barbarians.

OONJERAH

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:25 AM

I have always known that Amazons were a myth generated by the fevered male libido ... Maybe.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_amazon/interview
.html <= Interview with Jeannine Davis-Kimball
My description: "Amazon" tribes of the Eurasian steppes, slightly B.C.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/biographie1/fr/daviskimball.htm <= Review of Davis-Kimball's Warrior Women

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news22.htm <= Were ancient Amazons more than myth? by Kathy Sawyer

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 6:49 AM

Statistically speaking, the percentage of women willing to fight is quite low, sure...

But within that percentage they'll kill the hell out of you, believe it.

Also, physical differences mean little, I was profoundly offended when our regular army chose to discard most of its marksmanship training in favor of more physical conditioning and indoctrination to the point where being able to hit anything with a rifle seemed almost an afterthought - and of course the combination of exhaustion and sleep deprivation makes that indoctrination all the more effective...
But it kills troops.

The marines get a certain premium on marksmanship training, and more of it, and THAT FACTOR ALONE, increases average survival chance and duration by 40% or more, I went over it here before.

And here's the rub, boys and girls - I am all of maybe 5'6" and even with a middle age spare tire well under 150lbs, but factually that means NOTHING - I don't care if the other guy is a 320lb glob of mutant man-muscle capable of breaking me in half like a toothpick, if I put a 7.62x54R through his damn skull (and helmet, and vehicle, and the buddy behind him...) he is still dead, and I am not.

All that lameass bullshit machismo which constitutes most of our military "training" these days is OF NO USE on a battlefield, but the army can no more realize this than admit that the gotterdammerung battles of the past are over, that the aircraft carrier and the thunder of field artillery are relics of the past - they're STILL trying to fight the battle of the somme, and that is why they lose.

Hell, even when I trained back in the mid-80's, they STILL included dress-right-after-volley in marching orders, it really was that bad, and nowawadays, it's worse - cause after the disaster of that little survey game in which they asked the troops if they'd fire on americans who refused to comply, and they realized that even 1-in-10, maybe as low as 1-in-30, balking at that order would cripple their intentions, they cut even more combat-useful training to increase the level of indoctrination, and added techniques that came more or less straight from those juvie hellcamps.

There's a REASON why I don't trust the mental stability of "The Troops" and consider them potentive enemies rather than potential allies.

Anyhow, muscle is meaningless on a modern battlefield, as are the excuses of these hidebound morons.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

OONJERAH

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 7:40 AM

Quote Fremdfirma: "it's worse - cause after the disaster of that little survey game in which they asked the troops if they'd fire on americans who refused to comply, and they realized that even 1-in-10, maybe as low as 1-in-30, balking at that order would cripple their intentions, they cut even more combat-useful training to increase the level of indoctrination, and added techniques that came more or less straight from those juvie hellcamps."

Morons? I don't think so. Their agenda is different than the old one.

If we now have a standing Army on U.S. soil just in case TPTB find it necessary to subdue citizens,
then you don't want a soldier who is a loyal American. You want someone who'll do anything to anyone
if he's told to. However, the discipline among such has got to be the pitts. Very scary.

OK. I've not been in the service. But I think its intentions are different now.

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

HERO

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Women warriors predate the founding of this country, too, y'know. You may have heard of the Amazons before?

You can't learn history from watching Xena...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Women warriors predate the founding of this country, too, y'know. You may have heard of the Amazons before?

You can't learn history from watching Xena...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

Hello,

But Xena may get some of its ideas from History.

There is Historical precedent for female warriors and warrior queens.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:42 PM

Oonjerah: That's pretty much exactly what Frem was implying. Though I'd say it's less so much that they've changed, and more that it's more of the same. We haven't had anything well-meaning in military training since the end of world war II, when the training tactics of our enemies "INSPIRED" us. Since then, it's pretty much been shifting towards less marksmanship, more indoctrination.

NIKI2

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:00 PM

Frem: "Yeah" to pretty much everything you wrote. I'm surprised to learn the focus has receded from marksmanship, tho', it would seem like that would be a very useful tool to have! Certainly moreso than any hand-to-hand, it would seem to me. But what do I know?

I think a good point has been made by both you and Oonj; however MANY women choose to join the service in a fighting capacity is unimportant, because those who would so choose would probably be suited for it, n'est pas? Certainly they'd be weeded out in Basic if they were foolish enough to join without realizing what they were getting into, I should think.

I always enjoyed Meg Ryan in Courage Under Fire...yeah, pure Hollywood, but I thought it was well done and I'm not a big fan of her OR Harmon.

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Women warriors predate the founding of this country, too, y'know. You may have heard of the Amazons before?

You can't learn history from watching Xena...

And you can't learn it on a diet of only Reagan movies, either. ;)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Frem: "Yeah" to pretty much everything you wrote. I'm surprised to learn the focus has receded from marksmanship, tho', it would seem like that would be a very useful tool to have! Certainly moreso than any hand-to-hand, it would seem to me. But what do I know?

The idea behind that is that "modern warfare" will be door-to-door urban fighting, where you're more likely to be hand-to-hand with your enemy than you are to be far enough away for any real marksmanship skills to have much bearing.

It's a wrong-headed idea, of course, because as we've seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan, you need BOTH kinds of training, because you're going to run into both kinds of trouble, and then some.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:32 PM

Well come on, it's bloody obvious they're setting these guys up to pacify US - still hoping to pull off REX84/CONPLAN or whatever the hell they're calling it now, and watching it proceed step by step seriously annoys the piss outta me, cause all it'd do is get a lotta people killed.

Seriously, it wouldn't even work, not only for obvious logistical/tactical/strategic reasons, but also for the simple fact that people both within and without the military and it's logistical support have been working to undermine it since that jackass Scoop Jackson first proposed it back in the freakin 70's - although he shelved it as unfeasible, till the Neocons of the late 80's early 90's pulled it out, dusted it off and decided to move on it, causing a retroactive coverup when the sent the alphabet boys to clean house on those files.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson#Jackson_Papers_controver
sy

But what has been seen, been read, cannot be unseed, unread - you cannot take back knowledge from peoples minds, and retroactive classification is meaningless at that point - mostly they just didn't want that stuff laying around as potential CRIMINAL evidence against them should their intentions fail, since it proves premeditation.

I think the worst of it is when folks cry "conspiracy theory" over this mess, cause how exactly is it still "theory" when more than half of it is OFFICIALLY DOCUMENTED POLICY, printed, signed and filed ?

The breaking point with me though, was deploying active duty elements of the dirty 3rd HERE equipped and trained to pacify us, their so-called protectees, that is on the very brink of treason it is, and following the atrocity committed by the 82nd Airborne following Katrina, those in power can have no good intentions for this, cause you may have noted they do NOT get deployed for disaster relief, do they ?

No, this is about power, and control, and with intentions that hearken back to at least 1933 if not before - one might notice a common theme of the same power collectives, much of it the same family dynasties, behind every goddamn bit of it, and tell me WHICH party was fronting this the whole way, hmmmmmm ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot

And all we need is another Robespierre for things to get REALLY ugly.
I worry, I do.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

OONJERAH

Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:15 AM

Quote FremdFirma: "hidebound morons"

After I slept on it, I agreed with Frem's assessment of current Military Intelligence.

They are ready/planning-to pacify us when it is, politically, strategically, the stupidest thing they could do.

Why is it the Stupidest? Because we are such marvelous serfs to begin with.

What do people in the USA want? Food (includes dessert), entertainment, sports, cars. +the illusion of bein' Cool.
We have that. Even most homeless people have most of that. We're never gonna rebel, so we don't need pacification.

"Conspiracy theory"? Of course! Most folks are "USA, love it or leave it."
They couldn't believe our freedom & rights are a sham until the storm troopers drag them from their homes.
I was warned, but the reality of it took years to sink in. We are thick. See my signature.

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

HERO

Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But Xena may get some of its ideas from History.

There is Historical precedent for female warriors and warrior queens.

Not since the Middle Ages.

You find me a woman who hears the voice of God, maybe we'll let her fight.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:23 AM

Quote:
Hero wrote:
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 14:44
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But Xena may get some of its ideas from History.

There is Historical precedent for female warriors and warrior queens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not since the Middle Ages.

You find me a woman who hears the voice of God, maybe we'll let her fight.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

Hello,

If you're looking to Joan of Arc for the pinnacle of female warriorhood, then you're looking in the wrong place. I sure wouldn't race anyone who heard voices to the front line.

If all the numerous warrior women of the 20th century are distasteful to you, I invite you to examine the warrior Queen of AD 60, Queen of the Iceni.

ETA: Oh, and Princess PingYang, who heeded no divine voices in her campagins, and was given a military burial at her death.

ETA2: Annnd this 19th century example, Rani Lakshmibai.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

KWICKO

Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:04 AM

Forget it, Anthony - there is literally NOBODY who would satisfy "Hero" in his demands. Basically, his criteria is "show me a woman warrior who wasn't a woman."

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

OONJERAH

Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:26 AM

I am hearing voices. But they are nice voices. They say, "Hero is well read in history, and a lover
of books in general. Has excellent objectivity." They say nothing of his manhood.

I will meditate on this.

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

KWICKO

Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

I am hearing voices. But they are nice voices. They say, "Hero is well read in history, and a lover
of books in general. Has excellent objectivity." They say nothing of his manhood.

I will meditate on this.

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

OONJERAH

Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:18 AM

Quote Kwicko: "Still not sure if serious or completely sarcastic."

Intended as a playful mediation.

I see the cause for confusion tho.
One minute I want to be taken literally spot-on! The next, I am kidding around.
How can one's correspondents tell?

Clue: I didn't hear any voices.
_________________________________

P.S. I have long believed that Joan of Arc did hear voices, true prophetic ones, not schizophrenia.
I believe this because Mark Twain did, and I took him for an authority on it. Or was that book
intended as a novel?
Anyway, I couldn't see the French following a lunatic peasant girl. Something made them believe her too.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:35 AM

"Anyway, I couldn't see the French following a lunatic peasant girl. Something made them believe her too."

Hello,

You never have to guess or wonder about God's prophets, according to the examples in the Bible. As much as the book tells us the virtue of believing without proof, it goes on at some length about how God will have his way. Hearts are even hardened or softened in the midst of plagues, as God exerts a kind of mind-control on his human pawns.

In short, you can't hinder a messenger of God until God wants you to. Given that fact, I'll use a healthy dose of skepticism when people claim to be taking orders from the big guy. My skepticism will never hinder the will of God.

As for Joan, she wouldn't be the first crazy person to inspire multitudes, nor even the first peasant crazy person to do so. The part of her story I find interesting is not so much her rise to lead an army.

Rather, it's her persecution, prosecution, abuse, and murder by those who felt she was threatening the status quo.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
I was warned, but the reality of it took years to sink in. We are thick. See my signature.

See Also: Bigfoot Effect, yeah.

I had an edge, I was born into such injustice and hypocrisy that I couldn't ever miss it if I tried.
It made for a... turbulent childhood, a bitter puberty, and somewhere in there I more or less devoted my life to dumping sand in the gears of the machine by the fistfull.
Not the usual petty and ineffective vengance of the young, although it kinda started that way, but a larger scale and scope aimed at crushing the roots of tyranny, primary among them warping children into its eventual acceptance, if not outright conditioning them to be its triggermen.

And first I learned how such monsters came to be, following the works of Andrew Vachss, Alice Miller, Doc Bruce Perry - and while I couldn't have much of an impact on how people parent, nor would I being an Anarchist wanna even try to run their lives for em anyways... I did start putting foot to arse in regards to WWASPS and their collaborators, a campaign that surprisingly paid off in Feb2009 and left me a bit bewildered since I hadn't thought to finish the job in my own lifetime, so now my focus is on reforming our educational and foster care systems while trying to cut Big Pharma and said systems off from medicating children into obedient little robot drones.

In short, I mean to deprive them of the triggermen tyranny DEPENDS on in order to function, cause without those merry little jackboots willing to take their orders, a would-be tyrant is naught more than a jackass with a loud mouth - individually a threat, but no more so than the average mugger.

What winds me up though, makes me hateful - is those who KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, who willingly and gleefully CHOOSE to serve such agendas out of hatred, intolerance, malice for their fellow man, that I cannot abide, not whatever.

As for warrior women...

How bout Leigh Ann Hester ?
Dunno who she is ?
http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/003847.html

Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko ?
http://soviet-awards.com/digest/pavlichenko/pavlichenko1.htm

The Lady of the Cannon ?
(Agustina Aragon)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agustina_de_Arag%C3%B3n

Our Lady of the Axe, whom my shotgun, Forquet, is named for ?
(Jeanne Laisne)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Hachette

I could go on, but what's the point - anyhow, again, while the percentage of women *willing* to fight is quite small in comparison to the whole, those within that percentage are people I'd not mess with by choice, oh hell no.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:41 AM

Were Joan's voices from angels or from sz? It isn't my place to say. Either way she inspired many and did what no man could seem to do at the time, does it really matter which they were from?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

HERO

Friday, February 17, 2012 2:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Were Joan's voices from angels or from sz? It isn't my place to say. Either way she inspired many and did what no man could seem to do at the time, does it really matter which they were from?

Actually it matters a lot. If its a miracle it matters more then if it was all in her head.

You see, if it's just her it means a lot to the French at the time, and less over time. If God was speaking to her it means a lot to all of humanity...because there is a God and he practices direct intervention.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

ANTHONYT

Friday, February 17, 2012 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Were Joan's voices from angels or from sz? It isn't my place to say. Either way she inspired many and did what no man could seem to do at the time, does it really matter which they were from?

Actually it matters a lot. If its a miracle it matters more then if it was all in her head.

You see, if it's just her it means a lot to the French at the time, and less over time. If God was speaking to her it means a lot to all of humanity...because there is a God and he practices direct intervention.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

Hello,

One way or the other, it changes nothing for us right now. You still need faith to believe she was receiving divine instruction. But you also need faith to believe in God at all.

So, one way or the other, it really doesn't matter whether her crusade was personal or divine. Unless God comes down and gives personal testimony, which would get the job done with or without Joan.

I will forever remember her primarily as a wronged individual who was persecuted and prosecuted for upsetting the status quo. That lesson resonates through the ages much better than a few captured fortifications.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

BYTEMITE

Friday, February 17, 2012 4:52 PM

If the voices in your head are RIGHT and incredible military strategists, I don't see how it matters.

Of course, this is coming from my assumption that it's really all in their heads for anyone who believes they're hearing messages from God.

I also agree that the sticking part was her prosecution. I found it interesting how in the end, she even managed to convince her British executors, who as they burned her at the stake repented to God, fearing they would be damned for having killed a Saint.

NIKI2

Friday, February 17, 2012 5:28 PM

Oonj: "Military Intelligence"...your oxymoron for the day.

OONJERAH

Friday, February 17, 2012 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Oonj: "Military Intelligence"...your oxymoron for the day.

It was I'm a foxy moron for the day.

Quote Hero: "Actually it matters a lot. If its a miracle it matters more then if it was all in her head.

"You see, if it's just her it means a lot to the French at the time, and less over time. If God was speaking
to her it means a lot to all of humanity...because there is a God and he practices direct intervention."

Exactly!

Anthony, Rionaeire, What matters to me is often totally irrelevant, even frivolous, to others.

If there is a God and He practices direct intervention, I'd think only an atheist could say "it doesn't matter."
In fact, I'd have to regard that view as intellectually lazy -- or someone who's just tired of hearing about God.
But here is a clue: Religion is rarely about God. And God is not about religion.

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

NIKI2

Friday, February 17, 2012 9:23 PM

Quote:
Religion is rarely about God. And God is not about religion.

Oh, MOST excellent, Oonj!

BYTEMITE

Friday, February 17, 2012 9:28 PM

Quote:

If there is a God and He practices direct intervention, I'd think only an atheist could say "it doesn't matter."

...I am confused by the contradiction.

But you are right that I'm an atheist, and that I don't believe hearing voices matters at all.

Quote:
Religion is rarely about God. And God is not about religion.

Thank you for the clarification. Being atheist I was unaware of that nuance.

HKCAVALIER

Friday, February 17, 2012 9:59 PM

Oon,

I think what they mean by "doesn't matter" is more like "doesn't change anything." Whether god talked to M. D'Arc or not, doesn't change anything. We are still stuck right here where we are. N'est-ce pas?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, February 18, 2012 4:26 AM

Quote:
I'd think only an atheist could say "it doesn't matter."

Hello,

Most people would think that, and I would say that such thinking is also intellectually lazy.

I am a Christian with few 'friends' in my own faith.

If someone is God's prophet, and we know this, then it is of great importance.

But if someone is God's prophet, and we do not know this, we are left in the position we were before: Choosing to believe or not choosing to believe.

If we are believers, nothing has changed for us. We still believe.

If we are skeptics, nothing has changed for us. We still lack evidence.

Thus the practical impact is nil. Like the cat in the box, we can't tell the truth until we open it. Meanwhile, we enjoy the same uncertainty or certainty we already had, because both conditions can be true, and we don't have any more information than before.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

BYTEMITE

Saturday, February 18, 2012 4:44 AM

That is an accurate representation of the source of my confusion.

OONJERAH

Saturday, February 18, 2012 9:56 PM

What AnthonyT said encapsulated: a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, February 18, 2012 11:55 PM

I had an answer to this which drove a Chem teacher up the wall, prolly still does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

All of this assumes the cat is an inactive participant, and thus can be assumed whoever proposed this theory knows nothing of cats.

It would only require waiting till the feline in question grew hungry, bored or annoyed at being stuck in a box, a period of substantially less than one hour, and whereupon said feline would make its presence and desires known, progressively and in an escalating fashion till impossible to ignore, as all felidae will themselves to be.

Ergo if said cat isn't throwing a fit within an hour or so, it's toast.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

OONJERAH

Sunday, February 19, 2012 12:21 AM

"Emotions” May Not Be “In The Interests Of The Mission” In Combat.

Female cats, giving way totally to their emotions, are great fighters.

non sequitur anyone?

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 19, 2012 12:34 AM

Give in to your anger, you don't know the power of the dark side.

OONJERAH

Sunday, February 19, 2012 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Give in to your anger, you don't know the power of the dark side.

Hear, hear!

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 19, 2012 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

As for Joan, she wouldn't be the first crazy person to inspire multitudes, nor even the first peasant crazy person to do so. The part of her story I find interesting is not so much her rise to lead an army.

Rather, it's her persecution, prosecution, abuse, and murder by those who felt she was threatening the status quo.

--Anthony

Well it wasn't so much a status quo that she was fighting, as being involved in the middle on a nasty ongoing dispute that was pretty close to being a proxy war and that she was used by both sides for their own gain.

Although it appears she was genuine in her belief in her visions, they were possible used to fire up a dispirited population, those loyal to the Armagnacs and Charles VI, and anti British forces. France as a country, wasn't really anything like how we imagine it today, not at all cohesive, with various factions warring for who and how it should be ruled.

Nothing like a visionary to inspire awe in your followers and despair in your enemies

OONJERAH

Sunday, February 19, 2012 3:09 AM

Quote MagonsDaughter: "Nothing like a visionary to inspire awe in your followers and despair in your enemies."

Very true. But if she was a fake, there was no reason to kill her when they were done with her.
Nothing like a true prophet to embarrass TPTB.

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

ANTHONYT

Sunday, February 19, 2012 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Quote MagonsDaughter: "Nothing like a visionary to inspire awe in your followers and despair in your enemies."

Very true. But if she was a fake, there was no reason to kill her when they were done with her.

Hello,

There's this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

"The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 executions.[1]"

If she was a fake prophet, then she'd be a witch or other instrument of Satan. At the time, this was a guaranteed way to be invited to a fireside chat.

ETA: Though technically, Joan was a few decades ahead of the curve...

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

BYTEMITE

Sunday, February 19, 2012 4:59 AM

Seems it was a good way to get roasted whether you were a true prophet or not.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

There's this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

"The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 executions.[1]"

If she was a fake prophet, then she'd be a witch or other instrument of Satan. At the time, this was a guaranteed way to be invited to a fireside chat.

ETA: Though technically, Joan was a few decades ahead of the curve...

--Anthony

She wasn't burnt for being a witch, she was burnt for the crime of heresy which was quite common practise. It was all politically motivated of course, as she was handed over to the pro English Burgundians, probably for cash. the trial was a bit of a farce and then eventually everyone apologies but it was a bit too late.

Oops. Poor Jeanne. Only 19.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

There's this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

"The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 executions.[1]"

If she was a fake prophet, then she'd be a witch or other instrument of Satan. At the time, this was a guaranteed way to be invited to a fireside chat.

ETA: Though technically, Joan was a few decades ahead of the curve...

--Anthony

She wasn't burnt for being a witch, she was burnt for the crime of heresy which was quite common practise. It was all politically motivated of course, as she was handed over to the pro English Burgundians, probably for cash. the trial was a bit of a farce and then eventually everyone apologies but it was a bit too late.

Oops. Poor Jeanne. Only 19.

Hello,

I'm pretty sure she was executed for wearing men's clothes. And her conviction was overturned on the basis that wearing men's clothes could sometimes be allowed.

To my knowledge, she was never actually convicted for any word or action against God or Doctrine beyond that one.

But my point was that being a false prophet wouldn't be any safer than being a real prophet.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

OONJERAH

Sunday, February 19, 2012 8:42 AM

Quote AnthonyT: "I'm pretty sure she was executed for wearing men's clothes. And her conviction was overturned on the basis
that wearing men's clothes could sometimes be allowed.

To my knowledge, she was never actually convicted for any word or action against God or Doctrine beyond that one.

But my point was that being a false prophet wouldn't be any safer than being a real prophet."

Wearing men's clothes? That's an eye-opener!
I dunno what false prophets have to say ...
A real prophet would be telling the truth. A very dangerous practice in my opinion.

She was a warrior woman; she wore men's cloths, and she told the truth ala God.
How much more offensive could she be?

"All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest" ~Paul Simon

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, December 4, 2022 9:40 PM

Born as a man named Richard

Rachel Levine sought studies favoring gender transitions for minors, email shows

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/hhs-rachel-levine
-pennsylvania-childrens-hospital-gender-transition-surgeries