Friday, April 22, 2005

Men Against Chivalry

The IWF Inkwell got an awesome letter from a guy disgusted with Charlotte Hays' argument that men should protect women, and only men should serve in the military. Here's what "B.G." said [emphasis added]:
"Charlotte Hays should be ashamed of herself for suggesting that it is the duty of men to protect women. So if a WOMAN fights in a war and is captured and tortured and then killed on some godforsaken field, it’s a tragedy, but if a MAN does so he’s just doing his job? Please.

"Hays and other ’traditionalist’ women seem to think they’re on the side of men for ripping into feminists who want to see equality on the battlefield (and elsewhere). By all means, leave me in the hands of the feminists if it will save me from Charlotte Hays. The feminists might actually see me as an equal, rather than as a meal ticket, personal valet and unpaid bodyguard. Death to chivalry. Long live equality and basic human decency."
Yes, B.G., I will see you as an equal. Too bad I'm already engaged, haha. I hope another equality-seeking woman comes your way, because you deserve that respect. Don't let those traditionalist hags tell you that you should be the provider of all things princess.

Comments:
Great blog! I discovered it after you posted some comments on my own blog, and am quite glad I did. Your knowledge is impressive, as are your views. This is going on my reading list!
 
Yeah, he's right. Either you have equality or you have strict "men's roles" and "women's roles". There's no having your cake and eating it, too.

I would, however, like to see some kind of device that would prevent rape if a female soldier is taken prisoner. That is something women face far more often than men. Modified chastity belt?
 
Karen, I've heard of placing... "things" in a woman's vagina that will basically cut up any guy who enters. Ouch!

John, glad you like the blog. I'll try to be nicer to conservatives since you'll be reading. :)
 
Hey, does that mean I have to be nice to righties and lefties who read my blog? And here I was getting settled in for some serious anarchist ranting over the next few days!
 
Hmmmm karen, your concern is about the raping of women soliders????. Seems to me that in every WAR, men on the front lines have had to face much more horror than just plain old sodomy committed by the opponent when captured. Torture, multilation, castration of arms, legs, private parts and please lets not forget the maiming and permanent disfigurment that bullets, schrapnel and other weapons can be. WAR is not tiddly winks and there is a lot more worse things than rape that can and do occur.
 
As a man, I wouldn't want to serve in combat with most women I have met for two reasons. First, they are at a physical disadvantage because the female body is not designed for upper body strength and second, most of the ones in my generation would make terrible soldiers or marines. I am still at the draft age as I am not quite 22 and most of my female peers at my state university would make terrible ground troops. They just don't have the kind of mental discipline necessary.

That's not meant to be a blow against women, as I do believe that women have a legitimate role in the military. They should be in support units which allow them to leverage intellectual skills rather than physical skills, such as repairing military assets, medical work and even some air support units. The problem is that a woman in one-on-one physical combat is more likely to lose than a man because her foreign male adversary is statistically likely to be bigger, stronger and faster than she is.

There is one "advantage" that a woman has though, and that is she is more likely to be raped than shot when captured. I have never understood the women that say they'd rather be murdered than raped because getting murdered is kinda... extreme compared to rape. It's not a matter of honor, it's a matter of being able to see your loved ones again, being able to have a semi-normal life again. I think that a lot of men would rather be sodomized periodically and be able to get home to see their loved ones rather than be shot.

The only other thing to keep in mind is that the male-female dynamic in a combat unit has been proven to be dangerous by the Israeli Army. The Israelis' tests found that the men would prefer to protect the women in their unit instinctively, and that's not something that is going to change. What feminists seem to want is for men to go against their biology which is to defend women against aggression. Sorry, but from a biological perspective, humanity would be worse off if men really could abandoned this principle.
 
MikeF, I agree that most women around our age wouldn't make the best soldiers. That's one reason I don't support any kind of gender-based affirmative action policy. Nor do I think standards should be relaxed for female soldiers. We need the BEST out there. If some of the best happen to be women, I support them. But I realize most of the best soldiers will be men, due to general physical differences.

That protective instinct in itself isn't a bad thing. Men sometimes feel it toward weaker men, too. And I sometimes feel it toward other women. For example, I once worked a very physically grueling job. I was the only chick, until this other woman got hired. I was always afraid to throw stuff at her for her to catch, just in case I hit her. But she didn't last long in the job anyway. My male co-workers were protective of me at first too, but that didn't last once they saw what I was capable of.

So yeah... only women who can meet the physical requirements should be in combative military roles. I think that would curb the protective instinct toward those qualified women, without de-socializing us to abandon protection for the weak alltogether.

Also, I would indeed rather be raped than shot or mutilated! Those are some grand choices, eh?
 
Hi, RedFem. Do you recognize me? That "B.G." was I. (Small world, eh?)

As you've seen on another board, you and I won't always agree on every single issue, but that's life. I appreciate you finding my comments and spreading them around. Those ladies (as I'm sure they'd like to be called) at IWF have their good points, but I often see that "why don't men throw themselves in front of speeding trucks so I don't get mud on my shoes, like they used to?" attitude there a lot.

Thanks again,
bmmg39
 
OMG, I had no idea that was YOU! I am totally cracked up.

Yeah, I remember you from "another board" and also ifeminists. We don't agree on everything, but I do support equal custody rights and other father's rights issues. Of course, I argue it from a feminist perspective, but still...

I'm glad you stopped by.
~drumgurl
 
This is a excellent blog. Keep it going. I found you while searching for how to please women. I have a site on how to please women located here, how to please women Maybe you can stop by sometime.
 
That kind of spam is just too funny to delete.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?