FOX News: "Women in the Military Deserve to be Raped!"

[BigBallinStalin]

In a sense I disagree with Carpet insofar as his statement that the armed forces represent the lowest common denominator of society. In the west, deflating force size and increasing pay rate seems to have rendered this a hangover perception from the 1800's that isn't true anymore.

That said, I think all men are - at their core - rapists. Only when the restraints of formal society are removed for a long period of time does the savage core of man (that of the hunter-breeder) manifest. This could be in a scenario of large scale social devolution or the more limited confines of prolonged theater combat. (In this case the primal personality may usually be directed at the enemy population.)

I've said before, and I still feel, that Frank Herbert was right when he envisioned an army composed entirely of women, whose primal personality is that of the caregiver, as a more humane tool of war. It would be difficult to implement this overnight, however, over a course of 50 years we could see gradual reverse segregation in which the support forces were made all-female, then combat-support, and, finally, combat arms. To transfer all the power of state violence into women hands would represent the ultimate victory of feminism!

Spoken like a true rapist.

[saxitoxin]

In a sense I disagree with Carpet insofar as his statement that the armed forces represent the lowest common denominator of society. In the west, deflating force size and increasing pay rate seems to have rendered this a hangover perception from the 1800's that isn't true anymore.

That said, I think all men are - at their core - rapists. Only when the restraints of formal society are removed for a long period of time does the savage core of man (that of the hunter-breeder) manifest. This could be in a scenario of large scale social devolution or the more limited confines of prolonged theater combat. (In this case the primal personality may usually be directed at the enemy population.)

I've said before, and I still feel, that Frank Herbert was right when he envisioned an army composed entirely of women, whose primal personality is that of the caregiver, as a more humane tool of war. It would be difficult to implement this overnight, however, over a course of 50 years we could see gradual reverse segregation in which the support forces were made all-female, then combat-support, and, finally, combat arms. To transfer all the power of state violence into women hands would represent the ultimate victory of feminism!

Spoken like a true rapist.

BBS, let me offer you this delicious, refreshing Coke Zero. That's all it is. Really!

[Haggis_McMutton]

I've said before, and I still feel, that Frank Herbert was right when he envisioned an army composed entirely of women, whose primal personality is that of the caregiver, as a more humane tool of war. It would be difficult to implement this overnight, however, over a course of 50 years we could see gradual reverse segregation in which the support forces were made all-female, then combat-support, and, finally, combat arms. To transfer all the power of state violence into women hands would represent the ultimate victory of feminism!

hmm...

I'll agree as long as all the women are issued pink guns.

[Woodruff]

you would all clearly rather get into a state of upset and cry about rape than debate this rationally. you seem to equate my saying that the woman should take reasonable precaution with my blaming a woman for her rape. which i am not doing. i don't know why you do this but clearly you can not read.

In fact, you explicitly did blame women for being raped in the military. You quite clearly stated it.

all i said originally was that the army is a very dangerous place for a woman, and it is not somewhere she would be safe (i would not let a daughter of mine go to a warzone with a group of killing men).

So not only do you put the blame on women for being raped, but you also believe you can control your daughter for the rest of her life. You're quite the misogynist, aren't you?

[natty dread]

That said, I think all men are - at their core - rapists.

I've said before, and I still feel, that Frank Herbert was right when he envisioned an army composed entirely of women, whose primal personality is that of the caregiver

That's such bullshit, saxi. The whole notion "men are violent hunters, women are gentle caregivers" is antiquated thinking that has no basis in reality. The fact is, you can't make broad generalisations based on gender alone, there are violent women as well as caring and gentle men. Or why do you think we have prisons for women, or male nurses?

Furthermore, the notion that "men are all rapists" is based on the same cultural paradigm that considers male sexuality as inherently predatory. The implications are that men only use women for sex, and that when a man has sex with a woman it is always inherently degrading to the woman... this is basically just more antiquated victorian-era thinking, which is based entirely on the fear of female sexuality, a fear that is still incredibly prevalent in our culture.

[Woodruff]

durdurdur. i do not trust my daughter's safety among savage men. therefore i am a sexist. nice arguement.

you would want your daughter sister or mother to serve with men like these? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbZIK9Ce0yM

You're taking it out of context. Are ALL men in the army savage? Yes, there may be some (Woody, how many "savage" men did you come across in your 25 years in the army?) but it certainly isn't the majority.

They're certainly there, but they're few. More in the Army than the other services, of course.

[saxitoxin]

I've said before, and I still feel, that Frank Herbert was right when he envisioned an army composed entirely of women, whose primal personality is that of the caregiver, as a more humane tool of war. It would be difficult to implement this overnight, however, over a course of 50 years we could see gradual reverse segregation in which the support forces were made all-female, then combat-support, and, finally, combat arms. To transfer all the power of state violence into women hands would represent the ultimate victory of feminism!

hmm...

I'll agree as long as all the women are issued pink guns.

EXCUSE ME, this is serious, not some chauvinst schoolboy fantasy.

There will be NO pink guns.

Just an army of six-feet tall, incredibly physically fit, women warriors who stop aging at 25 but are endowed with the insatiable sexual appetites of 35 year old cougars and who drive across the wasteland in dune buggies capturing men with nets to be used as their playthings.

[the carpet man]

heh. what kind of child would ignore the strongly held and reasonable wish of their parent? is this the society you live in? (to woodruff)

natty - you pretend that men and women are the same. do you feel this makes you a liberal of the 21st century? that you are clever for ignoring basic biological difference? men are naturally stronger and more aggressive. women are naturally less aggressive and the sex who have and feed the children. nature has created these differences, and you ignore them. why?

[saxitoxin]

That said, I think all men are - at their core - rapists.

I've said before, and I still feel, that Frank Herbert was right when he envisioned an army composed entirely of women, whose primal personality is that of the caregiver

That's such bullshit, saxi. The whole notion "men are violent hunters, women are gentle caregivers" is antiquated thinking that has no basis in reality. The fact is, you can't make broad generalisations based on gender alone, there are violent women as well as caring and gentle men. Or why do you think we have prisons for women, or male nurses?

Furthermore, the notion that "men are all rapists" is based on the same cultural paradigm that considers male sexuality as inherently predatory. The implications are that men only use women for sex, and that when a man has sex with a woman it is always inherently degrading to the woman... this is basically just more antiquated victorian-era thinking, which is based entirely on the fear of female sexuality, a fear that is still incredibly prevalent in our culture.

go watch "A Boy and His Dog" ... it's fiction fortelling truth

[Woodruff]

heh. what kind of child would ignore the strongly held and reasonable wish of their parent?

Most likely, any child who might have the great misfortune to be under your care.

[the carpet man]

heh. what kind of child would ignore the strongly held and reasonable wish of their parent?

Most likely, any child who might have the great misfortune to be under your care.

hello, i am woodruff! i like to insult you when i do not agree with you. why? because i have no ability to reason or debate. it is best for me to just throw childish insults.

[Woodruff]

heh. what kind of child would ignore the strongly held and reasonable wish of their parent?

Most likely, any child who might have the great misfortune to be under your care.

hello, i am woodruff! i like to insult you when i do not agree with you. why? because i have no ability to reason or debate. it is best for me to just throw childish insults.

Do you mean to insinuate that I intend to tolerate such diabolical impertinence from such an inferior phenomenon as you?

You remind me of the poker player who sits at the table believing he's getting on the other players' nerves with his insinuations and jabs when in reality, everyone else at the table is just laughing at him.

[natty dread]

heh. what kind of child would ignore the strongly held and reasonable wish of their parent?

If you are the parent... a smart one.

natty - you pretend that men and women are the same. do you feel this makes you a liberal of the 21st century? that you are clever for ignoring basic biological difference? men are naturally stronger and more aggressive. women are naturally less aggressive and the sex who have and feed the children. nature has created these differences, and you ignore them. why?

I don't ignore or pretend anything. Your arguments are full of shit, and you can't back up a single one of them, in this or any other thread.

The differences between sexes are largely superficial - there are some biological differences, but they are statistical differences and do not apply to individuals. The average physical strength of men is slightly higher than the average physical strength of women, sure, but to assert that "men are naturally stronger" is bullshit.

When it comes to behavioural differences, the situation is far, far more complex... even if you can find statistical differences in behaviour of different sexes, there's no way to separate how many of those differences result from biology and how many result from the rigid enforcement of gender norms and societal pressure for conformity.

[saxitoxin]

BTW, the quote "all men are rapists", IIRC was from the great radical feminist Marilyn French, not Queen Victoria. The proclivity toward sexual violence of all men is a cornerstone of modern feminism and has nothing to do with denying female sexuality. Females can engage in sexual relationships that do not subjugate them if they assume the dominant position.

[the carpet man]

is this regular from mr. woodruff, or am i lucky to get this rude treatment from him?

natty - lower testosterone and his estrogene in women. woman's body is the one to give birth and feed child (restricting her for at least some time to the raising of children). as you have accepted, men are stronger. look at body shape. woman have wide hips and more fatty bodies (breasts, hips etc). men have more triangle shape and bigger shoulders.

[saxitoxin]

is this regular from mr. woodruff, or am i lucky to get this rude treatment from him?

the usual

woman have wide hips and more fatty bodies (breasts, hips etc). men have more triangle shape and bigger shoulders.

This thread suddenly became 10th grade Health. Is there a self-conscious pregnant girl lurking in the corner of the thread, I wonder?

[natty dread]

BTW, the quote "all men are rapists", IIRC was from the great radical feminist Marilyn French, not Queen Victoria.

I don't care if it was from your mother, it's still misandrist.

The proclivity toward sexual violence of all men is a cornerstone of modern feminism

Lol, no it's not. It maybe was some few decades ago. Times are a'changing, old man.

The assertion that male sexuality is predatory is a view held only by some sex-negative radical feminists, and paradoxically, also by many traditionalists/conservatives... but most of truly modern feminism takes a far more reasonable stance to the issue.

Females can engage in sexual relationships that do not subjugate them if they assume the dominant position.

Unless we're talking about roleplay (in which case, use a safeword!) neither party has to be dominant or subjugated. The whole notion that sex is somehow degrading to women is based on victorial ideals of purity... which are of course offensive to both men and women.

In an ideal situation, each sexual act is negotiated explicitly by both parties, to ensure consent from both.

[QoH]

QoH - you are talking about the developed world armies? congratulations. i am talking about all armies.

Bullshit you're talking about all armies. Why are you only posting a video about the Congo army? Give me a video from any other army that says the same thing.


Also, I absolutely love how you ignore all of my arguments. You clearly have nothing to your argument but a sexists impression of a man and a woman, and what it means to be a soldier. You should go back to high school debate team. You might learn something.

[saxitoxin]

BTW, the quote "all men are rapists", IIRC was from the great radical feminist Marilyn French, not Queen Victoria.

I don't care if it was from your mother, it's still misandrist.

The proclivity toward sexual violence of all men is a cornerstone of modern feminism

Lol, no it's not. It maybe was some few decades ago. Times are a'changing, old man.

The assertion that male sexuality is predatory is a view held only by some sex-negative radical feminists, and paradoxically, also by many traditionalists/conservatives... but most of truly modern feminism takes a far more reasonable stance to the issue.

Females can engage in sexual relationships that do not subjugate them if they assume the dominant position.

Unless we're talking about roleplay (in which case, use a safeword!) neither party has to be dominant or subjugated. The whole notion that sex is somehow degrading to women is based on victorial ideals of purity... which are of course offensive to both men and women.

In an ideal situation, each sexual act is negotiated explicitly by both parties, to ensure consent from both.

I can assure you I've been in far more sex act negotiations than you. I even keep a stack of carbon paper and my notary seal next to the bed in case Es and me decide to switch positions.

[natty dread]

I can assure you I've been in far more sex act negotiations than you.

Congrats, want a medal for that?

I even keep a stack of carbon paper and my notary seal next to the bed in case Es and me decide to switch positions.

That's not what negotiating actually means in this context, but hey, it was kind of funny in a flaccid sort of way, so carry on.

[saxitoxin]

I can assure you I've been in far more sex act negotiations than you.

Congrats, want a medal for that?

Natty, if you were a woman, or a decent looking tranny, I would rock your world so hard you'd be in a wheelchair for a week.

[natty dread]

You're so politically incorrect, saxi.

[oVo]

am i lucky to get this rude treatment from him?

The majority of remarks you've made in this thread are an insult to ignorance.
You are fortunate there isn't a Tar & Feather app on this site.

The rapes and gang rapes you've posted that have been ongoing with the civil wars
of Africa are an entirely different subject than the one posed in this thread. Those
horrific acts of sexual violence as a psychological and physical weapon of war against
the general population --regardless of age-- are ethnic and not sexually motivated.

[the carpet man]

so i am ignorant to suggest that woman can take precaution against rape.

but it is acceptable for you to say that rape in africa is ethnic. and that is not racist? i guess the black people of africa are just much nastier (in your eyes)

[natty dread]

The rapes and gang rapes you've posted that have been ongoing with the civil wars
of Africa are an entirely different subject than the one posed in this thread. Those
horrific acts of sexual violence as a psychological and physical weapon of war against
the general population --regardless of age-- are ethnic and not sexually motivated.

Furthermore, rape is not gender-specific - men are raped as well as women, it's just that men seek help or report the rapes far less often than women, thanks to the stigmatizing effect of rape on men.

so i am ignorant to suggest that woman can take precaution against rape.

Yes, because it's not true. There's no precaution you can take apart from locking yourself in your home 24/7 - and even then, someone can break in... furthermore, the whole idea that "women have to take care not to get raped" is utterly moronic, because it puts the responsibility of the crime to the victims.

Women should have the right to dress the way they want, and express themselves freely, without misogynist fuckheads going "she deserved it for being a slut" if they get raped.

but it is acceptable for you to say that rape in africa is ethnic. and that is not racist? i guess the black people of africa are just much nastier (in your eyes)

You just keep spouting more idiocy... He never even implied that africans rape people because they are black. That's just the conclusion you jumped into, which frankly speaks volumes of your own racism.