Wednesday, February 13, 2013

The Answer Is Yes

It seems that some women are starting to figure out that equality of the sort they've pursued zealously for decades, and from which they've extracted numerous personal and collective bennies, entails trade-offs that only now some are decrying...the erasing of substantive differences in how men and women, different creatures to be sure, are treated. The bill for their privilege is now coming due, and some don't like it:
"As we find ourselves on the cusp of women on the front lines of combat, we must ask some important questions about how we will raise boys in the future....if we as a country insist on pushing through [natural barriers] and throwing our women at the enemy by placing them on the front lines in combat, some important cultural and sociological changes will need to occur. We will need to raise a new generation of men who will be willing to stand by and watch women being shot, stabbed, tortured, raped and battered. They will need to be desensitized to the realities of harm befalling women. Additionally, once the United States crosses the barrier of women in combat, other countries will likely follow, so our men will need to learn to stand face to face with a woman, look her in the eye, and kill her in hand-to-hand combat.

"To accomplish this radical change in the psyches of male soldiers will require massive re-education. Will it fall upon parents to teach boys to stop playing gently with the girls? Will they teach their boys that girls must be treated the same - that it's now OK to rough the girls up a bit? Somehow male soldiers are going to have to learn to stop protecting women." Perhaps it will fall upon the churches to stop teaching the biblical mandate: "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7).

More than likely, I suspect the military will be in charge of the re-education, requiring lengthy brainwashing sessions to teach men to cease to care about women as anything more than faceless, genderless soldiers.

Kathleen Parker pointed this out in a recent Washington Post piece:
"We can train our men to ignore the screams of their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create? And though some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy men. It will kill us in the end."
To these questions, the answer is overwhelmingly "yes". I don't think the Gen X or later male is socialized to treat women as a whole with the sort of kid gloves that Ms. Boylard and Ms. Parker (be sure to click on the link to Ms. Parker's WaPo article and feast upon the naked and empirically illiterate fem-supremacy--e.g.,  "women...smarter/stronger/wiser/wilier"--found there) apparently think we should. Instead, we know Woman as a tough workplace competitor, a ruthless exploiter of advantageous rules and laws and social conventions, half the time a loving companion, the other half the time a mortal enemy with no moral truck with using the machinery of the State to sell their male counterparts into chains. "Rough[ing] the girls up a bit"? I'm sorry sister, you get what you dish out.

In addition, this bleating from aging Boomers over the equalist world they hath wrought strikes me as a bit ironic: isn't this the world they wanted, where women were the equal of men? They've been supra-equal in life for decades, enjoying all the advantages that net female social supremacy has had to offer; now that equality in duty and responsibility and obligation and suffering and death approaches--the equality the Seneca Falls feminists and the Suffragettes sought whether they realized it at the time or not--all of the sudden we have a problem that must, must, be fixed.

Left unsaid in Ms. Boylard's PJM article is how it is somehow acceptable for men to be "shot, stabbed, tortured, raped, and battered", but not women. Are men's lives less valuable in Ms. Boylard's and other socon's eyes? Are men expendable..have we become desensitized to male suffering to the point that we no longer notice it? If so, why does she think this? Surely it can't be for reasons that women are the only sex that capable of bearing children; that ship has long since sailed in a society where the native-born American woman can't be troubled to replace herself and her mate(s). That 4-bdrm colonial and two-income family is just too important a merit-badge when The Herd isn't passing out medals for mere mommyhood.

Fourth, Ms. Boylard cites the Gospel of Peter and its exhortation for husbands to honor wives as the weaker vessel and grant them grace for their differential nature. I'm glad she did, for in doing so, she provided me the opportunity to make mention that all of Scripture applies, not just the portions one finds convenient. Thus, since we're talking about husbandly duty, something I accept, let's whip out Ephesians 5:22 or Colossians 3:18 and watch female heads explode at mere mention of the Biblical requirement for wives to submit to male marital / familial authority. For the former to apply, the latter must as well. Besides, this sort of proof-texting is a waste outside of trad-con/socon circles, really...what fraction of American women claim to be Believers and, of these, what fraction *really* practice what Paul preaches in Ephesians, anyways? Or even attempts it?

Last, yes, the military is in charge of re-education of teh menz and teh womenz. What is diversity training, sensitivity training, and sexual harassment law and policy, if not a vehicle to teach men to treat their female colleagues as sexless Soldiers who just happen to be (generally) shorter, slower, and physically weaker, and not women to be protected and covered? Furthermore, some tenets of Christianity are practically hate speech in the US armed services these days; watch how fast mere mention that Scripture casts homosexuality as sin and / or that the Bible prescribes a particular hierarchy in the family lands one on the wrong side of an EO complaint. Press the Unitarian / secular humanist system hard enough, and one invites punishment by UCMJ, maybe even involuntary separation and an other-than-honorable discharge. Put simply, equality demands women and men be treated the same despite their differences. If one has problems with this, one needs to reconsider their entire post-Enlightenment outlook, something that I don't think Ms. Boylard or Ms. Parker are quite prepared to do.

We collectively made the decision to watch women be "shot, stabbed, tortured, raped and battered" on foreign fields the instant the 19th Amendment passed.  Bed. Made. Lay down and enjoy.


ScareCrow said...

Oh wow.

You just pointed out a total contradiction in modern feminist/woman dogma...

If men truly did beat and rape their wives regularly in days past...

Then it stands to reason that men would already be de-sensatized to women screaming and crying.

Yet, the article (or book or whatever) you point out - it starts out with this:

"What will be the impact of a generation of men willing to stand by and watch women being shot, stabbed, tortured, raped and battered?"

WTF... Which is it?

According to most feminists, if we did not have VAWA, and anti-marital-rape laws in place - men would be doing nothing but constantly beating and raping their wives...

In which case - men do not care about the laments of women to begin with... Moreso when it is somebody they love...

Dang - talk about a serious loophole in the feminist machinery...

ray said...

"now that equality in duty and responsibility and obligation and suffering and death approaches--the equality the Seneca Falls feminists and the Suffragettes sought whether they realized it at the time or not--all of the sudden we have a problem that must, must, be fixed."


at the first WHIFF (not actuality) of real Equality, Amerika's Holy Grail, the Fempire's Medea begins laying the groundwork: we want all the salaries and medals and perks of upper-echelon male officers, we want to rule over military males as we now rule over civilian males, but, but, because we're Delicate Darlings, we dont actually want to SUFFER even in the slightest for our next hop up the Free Ride Ladder to total supremacy

you must acknowledge us as your Equals in military and combat, but but but youre not actually gonna hurt a GIRL are you?

note Ms. Parker trotting out the 18-year-old Strong and Empowered Women who are, y'know, really just "girls" . . . gee, as every mommy and daddy knows, theyre just babies! . . . uh except when they take a man's job or education -- then the 18-y.o. "little girls" instantly become Powerful Women again)


i want fried ice and if i dont get it, youre a Criminal!

this fem-prop is just the beginnings of making the military "female friendly" like the grrrls made the skools and workplaces and churches and families fem-friendly -- endless female power and advantages, without actual risk

every u.s. female over 16 and under 50 should be required to register, and then be drafted into combat, until Equality is achieved with the millions of male deaths that were sacrificed so women and castrated men could build a femsupremacist, godless nation that hates, exploits, and persecutes its males

when the death-toll evens up, well, thatll be a start (but only a start!) in the long road toward real equality, not the one-way jive "equality" that Team Woman sells

the idea that the United Sisterhood of Amaryka would actually put its Precious Ones into combat en masse is beyond ludicrous . . . all this nonsense is just The Darlings posturing to conquer the last island of masculinity, the military, while removing actual risk to the Greatest Gender

one of your best pieces

Unknown said...

Great insight. This post reveals also that at the base of the entire feminist position is the age-old desire of women to control men. It doesn't really matter what the issues are - the only issue of relevance is control. If there's an opportunity to control men and place herself in the drivers seat that's the position the average woman will take. In general, they don't have any real moral objectivity or care for a particular side of an issue - whichever side affords them the best opportunity to exert control is the position they will yearn for and eventually take. The consequences are irrelevant to them until it threatens their position of control. That's why women as a class are so changeable in their stated desires.

This is classic biblical behaviour - Eve's sin, revisiting time and again. Thankfully, the path for Adam is clear - take the righteous path and offer a hand to the repentant but let the unrepentant Eve suffer the consequences of her own sin. In other words, men, do precisely what the Manosphere is doing.

Elusive Wapiti said...


"Then it stands to reason that men would already be de-sensatized to women screaming and crying."

I'll admit to a twinge when I see this on the street. There is something in males I think that is primed to relieve female suffering.

But then logic takes hold. Would I come to the rescue if that were a man? Is it a trap? Or is my sentiment being exploited?

But yes, curious contradiction there. Men get it from the "men are animals" Left and "men will become animals if we don't watch out" right. A no-win fem-supremacist double envelopment.

@ Ray,

Thanks. Missing in all this apex-fallacy-infected carping is, strangely, the desire to break the glass floor as well as the glass ceiling.

@ Unknown,

Yes it is quite interesting to see the female desire for dominance and security manifest itself in so many, yet contradictory, ways. So much traces itself back to the Fall it's not even funny.

ScareCrow said...

@Wapiti - If I heard anybody shouting for help - I would help them.

I think most people are like that...

They do not care who is shouting for help - although, I have heard that the younger the voice - the more an impact it has on the human "psyche" - hence, a child screaming for help will almost definitely get attention.

Sorry - just my two cents worth.

This is a serious design flaw in modern thinking - men will not sit by and listen to/watch women getting beaten and raped by enemy troops, yet men will beat and rape their wives (and women in general I guess) if laws were not in place?


That is Check and Mate.