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

[QoH]

Also, on topic...

It seems to me that Carpet Bag, who keeps advocating that it is the victims fault as well etc. etc. is implying that there are a bunch of hard trained killers surrounding a poor, defenseless woman with absolutely no training whatsoever. Correct me if I'm wrong Woody, but wouldn't one of the first thing the military might teach to a new woman recruit is how to protect herself from a man?

And yeah. CB, I think it's a load of bullshit that the military should be a bunch of soulless, unfeeling killers. Yes, they need to be mentally tough when in combat-they can't very well sit down in the middle of the battlefield and start bawling-but having emotions-and accepting and expressing those emotions-is part of what makes a strong person. Bottling up all your emotions and never expressing yourself only hurts yourself. Do you think that it's good that you're holding a weapon in your hands when you finally can't hold those emotions back anymore?

And I don't seem to recall when we killed more of our own people than the enemy. Also, technology plays a major role in the military, but I'd think it would come down to the talent more than anything. Give 2 armies the same weapons, and I'd hazard a guess that the army with the better training would win.

[Lootifer]

Did you spend some time with Hunter S in your hey-day ole Sax?

I'M IN MY HEY DAY, YOU ASSHOLE.

[Woodruff]

Whats your point then Carpet? What is your ideal military look like?

i was saying that emotion and similar have no place within fighting and combat. if a soldier is in a situation where people are trying to kill him then it is useless to have his brother complaining about his rights and crying about how the commander gives him less food. if his brother wants to be a little boy then he can leave the army and go cry to his mother.

a man who experiences a difficult time in his army camp and complains about it, goes crying, is not going to be a good soldier in the mayhem of war.

None of this is relevant to the subject at hand, of course. In fact, I would suggest that a rapist is acting on their emotions.

[Woodruff]

It seems to me that Carpet Bag, who keeps advocating that it is the victims fault as well etc. etc. is implying that there are a bunch of hard trained killers surrounding a poor, defenseless woman with absolutely no training whatsoever. Correct me if I'm wrong Woody, but wouldn't one of the first thing the military might teach to a new woman recruit is how to protect herself from a man?

It's definitely part of basic training, sure.

Bottling up all your emotions and never expressing yourself only hurts yourself. Do you think that it's good that you're holding a weapon in your hands when you finally can't hold those emotions back anymore?

In fact, this is typically what causes soldiers so much difficulty in returning home. Trying to deal with the emotions inherent in combat (anyone that believes there are no emotions in combat has never experienced combat).

[the carpet man]

QoH: your arguement is silly. you have clearly not read much of what i wrote

1 - wow, another man who pretends i am blaming the victim. i have said it very clear: rape is caused by the attacker, but the woman must also recognise where she went wrong if we are to prevent further rape. it is no good telling the female soldier 'yes men are very bad' and then putting her back in a camp full of angry men. i

it is like you say to a motorcyclist - 'it is no good being dead right'. sure, the car that hit you should have indicated. but it did not and now you are dead, because you did not consider that maybe it had forgotten to indicate. congratulations for you in following all the rules and showing no common sense.

2 - i would ask what kind of man has an emotional breakdown. i am sure of their existence, but why do they join the army? there are bakeries who need staff in all big cities. what emotional man starts a job that requires him to kill and see the horror of war?

[natty dread]

hey, stop saying I blame the victims! By the way, women should take some responsibility for getting raped.

[Woodruff]

QoH: your arguement is silly. you have clearly not read much of what i wrote

1 - wow, another man who pretends i am blaming the victim. i have said it very clear: rape is caused by the attacker, but the woman must also recognise where she went wrong if we are to prevent further rape.

There you have it. Trying to claim that you're not blaming the victim while...simultaneously blaming the victim. Either you're a troll, in denial, or you're stupid. Which is it?

2 - i would ask what kind of man has an emotional breakdown. i am sure of their existence, but why do they join the army? there are bakeries who need staff in all big cities. what emotional man starts a job that requires him to kill and see the horror of war?

Thanks for clarifying that you've never actually been in combat. Not that any of us actually thought you had been, but it's nice to see it confirmed.

[QoH]

QoH: your arguement is silly. you have clearly not read much of what i wrote

1 - wow, another man who pretends i am blaming the victim. i have said it very clear: rape is caused by the attacker, but the woman must also recognise where she went wrong if we are to prevent further rape. it is no good telling the female soldier 'yes men are very bad' and then putting her back in a camp full of angry men.

Ummm... So you ARE saying it's the victims fault? I'm confused. First you say it's the attackers fault, and now you turn around in the next sentence and say it's partly the woman's fault as well? And are all army men angry? Since when? Woody-confirmation on this one?

it is like you say to a motorcyclist - 'it is no good being dead right'. sure, the car that hit you should have indicated. but it did not and now you are dead, because you did not consider that maybe it had forgotten to indicate. congratulations for you in following all the rules and showing no common sense.

So it's the motorcyclists fault that he got run over because the car ran him over after not putting on his turn signal? Right. I see what you're getting at.

2 - i would ask what kind of man has an emotional breakdown. i am sure of their existence, but why do they join the army? there are bakeries who need staff in all big cities. what emotional man starts a job that requires him to kill and see the horror of war?

Hmmm... maybe seeing their friends get killed might have something to do with it. Let's do an experiment. Gather 25 of your closest friends, and then watch as they get shot, right in front of you. Now, tell me that you wouldn't feel some kind of pain or emotion, and that you'd want to let it out.

Also, for everyone wondering, here's a great NPR article (with a transcript) on why it's difficult for soldiers to return to the normal ways of society. http://www.npr.org/2011/10/10/141213271 ... ilian-life

[the carpet man]

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.

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). if a woman soldier gets raped then i would suggest she leave the army. it is all very good to cry 'this should not be happening', but it does and always will. so whatever your moral on this situation is, the reality is that these crimes happen.

[QoH]

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.

No, you're saying that if the woman doesn't take proper precautions, it's all her fault. WHo in their right mind thinks, before stepping out of the house, "I might get raped today. Better bring my mace, pepper spray, and my body guards."

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). if a woman soldier gets raped then i would suggest she leave the army. it is all very good to cry 'this should not be happening', but it does and always will. so whatever your moral on this situation is, the reality is that these crimes happen.

The army is a dangerous place for anyone, man or woman. To say that it's a place fit only for men is completely wrong, and also sexist. And you somehow are equating "warzone" with "army". Huh. Never made that connection before. Ever heard of downtime? Weren't you supposed to be in the army? And you STILL continue to make references to women as if they are ordinary women thrown to a pack of dogs. Again, wrong. They receive the same training as any man, and if they aren't cut out to be a soldier, they don't make it past basic training. And as Woody said, they get training in how to deter men from raping them.

It just seems to me that you have a very convoluted idea of what a soldier really is, and a very convoluted idea of what goes on in the army.

[the carpet man]

i say it is all her fault? you make me laugh. i already say earlier that it is the attacker who causes the rape, but that the woman should take precaution against these attackers.

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

[natty dread]

i have said it very clear: rape is caused by the attacker, but the woman must also recognise where she went wrong if we are to prevent further rape.

So, please enlighten us, carpet. Where did the woman who got raped "go wrong"? Was she acting too "slutty"? Did she dare to do some things only men should have the right to do?

Please, do share.

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

No, you're a sexist for a lot of reasons. Do you want a list?

[QoH]

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.

Also, if you even bothered to read the subtitles of that video, you would notice that the guy isn't talking about women in the army, he's talking about women in villages that they attack or stay in. Besides, women in Congo have such low status in society that to join the army would be unheard of. Please stay in context of 1st world countries, since that is clearly what we all are talking about.

[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!

[the carpet man]

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

why ask woodruff? as someone who served in american between now and the 1980s, what horror will he have served amidst? vietnam? interventions in african civil war (don't make me laugh)? bloodshed in south america? no. so why cry to him for your evidence of the character of a soldier? it is easy for a man to be gentle when he still lives in society (similar to what saxitoxin says about the man leaving society)

[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.