Right thinking Aussie Hits it on the Head

Christianj, who blogs at What Men are saying about "WOMEN" write this gem, which I had to share.


Well, men aren't stupid, despite near-constant whinging to the contrary by women.

Men look at some of these women and say "Let's see: she expects me to earn more than she does, be her knight in shining armor, do the cooking, the cleaning, dress in bespoke suits and tuxes to go anywhere, listen to her constant, endless bellyaching about every little damn thing like one of her girlfriends and if I should marry her, when she gets into some midlife funk, she's going to sue for divorce and take half of my life's work and any kids we have.

"The male mind then turns the gears for a little while, netting this out on the bottom line of life:

"Nope. No sale."

Click here for more.

All Men Are Pigs!!!

Well, unless they have alleged power and can make me look good that is….

Before I could address this, I had to wait for the chaotic blog wars to die down. My reason? I like to stir shit up with the femikooks as often as I can.

So here is a tale. A tale of southern fried chicken in Harlem, ex Presidents, liberals, femikooks, alleged racism, “beautiful blue eyes”, and cat fights. So sit back, get a couple of beers and relax… this get’s long-winded….

Oops, forgot boobies! Yes, boobies!

But first, let’s set the stage a little shall we?

____________________________________
Briiinnggggggggg…..

TMOTS: “Hello?”

Caller: “Hi The Man On The Street, this is Senator Joseph Biden…”

TMOTS: “Really…”

Biden: “Yes, TMOTS.” “May I call you TMOTS?”

TMOTS: “Sure, everyone else does…”

Biden: “Let me get to the point of my call….”

TMOTS: “Please do.”

Biden: “I am having a gathering of sorts, a luncheon if you will and I would like you to be a participant.”

TMOTS: “Uhm, ok.”

Biden: “You see, I have been invited to chair a luncheon discussion group in Harlem NY…..

TMOTS: “Harlem? As in Harlem NY?”

Biden: “…er, yes. Anyhow, I was wondering if you’d be available to join our little get together on the 17th?”

TMOTS: “Why would you want me there?”

Biden: “Well, you see David Duke is setting this up…

TMOTS: “DAVID DUKE?!”

Biden: “Yes… Let me explain TMOTS.” “David would like to get a group of like minded thinkers of the blogophere to discuss….

TMOTS: “Wait!” You want me, to come to a dinner hosted by David Duke, where you are the guest of honor?”

Biden: “Yes. We would……

TMOTS: “..and you think that I am liken to you and David Duke?”

Biden: “Well, you do publish a blog that speaks from the white male point of view and we think….”

TMOTS: “Whoa! Wait a minute there Joey boy!” I do in fact speak from the white male prospective, this is true. But to insinuate that I would have any similarities to YOU or David is ridiculous!”

Biden: “I just thought…….”

TMOTS: No, you didn’t think there Joey. You see, I recall what you did to ALL MEN in 2000. I recall what you pushed through congress and the Presidency on two separate administrations…. I recall what VAWA stands for. And I am not it. As for David; Sure I do in fact believe that the EEOC and set aside laws for people of color are wrong. But I most certainly do not believe as Mr. Duke does when it comes to blacks in America.”

Biden: “But TMOTS, you are “one if us.”

TMOTS: “No, I am me. I believe in fairness for all, not just certain groups. I believe in the constitution that states fairness and equality for ALL, not just protected classes. You sir have bastardized what it means to be white and male in this country. You do not represent me, nor do you represent men or whites…. In the past, you have committed exactly what your ridiculous laws were claiming to fix. No Joey boy, you two do not think like me or most of the white males in this country. Good day sir!”
____________________________________

Now, if this were a real conversation… What?? it wasn’t? Oh wait, nope, it wasn’t. Ah well, let’s take a look anyhow ok? You see, although Mr. Biden is a powerful man, and no doubt would put me on the elite list just by being seen with him. I have my principles. I would no less sell my soul to the devil than play with a person that represents all that I fight against.

No different is the feminist writer wannabe who would sit and rub elbows with a KNOWN liar, adulterer, and sexual harasser... Just for starters. You see, supposedly feminists are against “the man”, the patriarchy ™, and the evil that men do like rape, oppression, and using ones power to get da poon tang. But I digress.

That is where the crux of this little ditty comes in. You see, Jessica over at Feministing had the “extreme pleasure” of doing just that. She sat at a luncheon with an elite few bloggers, all of the severe left of course, with none other than William Jefferson Clinton. That’s right folks! Ole Jessie-poo got to sit with Billy-bob and chit-chat about god knows what.

Actually, just what in Sam hell COULD they have talked about? Women’s rights? Nope. He has used his power to get pussy. Equality for all? Nope. Only whites were present at this little shin-dig. But wait! It was held in Harlem. You all know Harlem right? A predominantly BLACK and LATINO city in New York. Yea, THAT Harlem. Ah well, they did have fried chicken though. OOPS! That was a racial something-or-other wasn’t it. Oh well, so sue me.

And for your visual enjoyment, here is the crew in all its glorious wonderfulness! Please note that there are two pictures. And notice also, that there are subtle differences as well as similarities… But we’ll get back to that later, mmkay?





Ahhh, can you say “Photo op!? Sure, I knew you could! Who would have thought that such a wondrous collection of bloggers could be had - all in the same room! With none other than the king of hypocrisy, the mangina himself, Billy-bob Clinton! WOW! I have goose bumps! I think I might even have a hard on, but I am not sure. Can you imagine? Being in the same room with such a great sexual har… er man? Me neither! Can you see Jessica just oozing at the crotch, basking in the glory of such greatness? I think she might even be quivering at the knees too! Reminds me of the time that I met Andrea Dorkin… Nope, that was dry heaves; never mind.

Oh, wait, I’m sorry. You don’t know which one is Jessica? Take a wild guess. There ya go, I knew you could. That’s right. The one in the middle with the true blue wonder bra push-up stance that only a woman of babalicious status or a model could pull off. Can you just hear the song in your head? “I’m a model you know what I mean, when ah do mah little dance on the catwalk… yea the catwalk…” Can you hear it? Yea baby! That’s gold!

See? I told you this gets long-winded….. Stay with me though, it gets better!

So Jessica, all weak in the knees, wet in the crotch, and a twinkle in her eye comes (or is that cums) home and immediately blogs about her near miss with fame, power and status. And in true form of the feministing crew, they all gather their wagons and bask in Jessica’s greatness. Ahhh, all is right with the world. Once again, all the little people are green with envy at her obvious superiority over them. Feminists far and wide are now all singing the praises of Jessica Valenti, the EXECUTIVE EDITOR of Feministing, the owner of the prestigious Masters degree in Women and Gender Studies. WOW! Can you smell it? Can you feel it? That there is some good ole fashioned power right there!

Sorry. I got caught up in the moment for a second. So anyhow, while the minutes pass, and all the a-listers at feministing are gushing over Jessica, someone else has noticed her brush with fame. A fellow feminist! Surely she will bask in Jessica’s greatness as well, right? OOP! Guess not.

You see, over at Ann Althouse's Blog, Ann has a slightly different take on ole Jessie’s brush with fame. While everyone is touting the envy-line, Ann is strumming a different tune. You see, Ann is one of those “real feminists”. You know the ones that tow the femi-line no matter what. No matter the hypocrisy, the silliness, the blatant bigotry, or even the consequences. Ann is a true feminist. I can respect that. She sticks to her guns, elitist or not.

Ann essentially gets on her femiStep and begins to berate Jessica because she feels that Jessica is a sellout. She is in the presence of a known sexual harasser, and appears to be posing somewhat seductively or sheepishly girly (not sure), propelling her special women only card, the BOOBIES! Yes, all this fervor is about the boobies! How could a feminist allow herself to be photographed in an obviously male appealing pose? How could a feminist be so… Hmmm what’s the word I need here? Patriarchal ™! She is the only one of the group that is actually POSING in a cutesy manor. GASP! Girlishly! Naughty, naughty Jessica.

So true to form, all the manginas and femikooks comes to poor widow Jessica, the victim’s, aid. Turning what Ann was pointing out into the typical women making mean about another woman’s appearance. Nothing could be further from the truth, but in true FemiSpeak, if you can’t argue a point, change it. Ann was merely stating that Jessica is a sellout. She is not commenting on her looks per ce. Sure, she mentions the obvious push-up bra and the come hither model style stance versus everyone else in the photo.

But that isn’t her point. Even a male pig such as me could see what Ann was referring to. Look at the two pictures again. Notice the arched back, the half turn stance, the left foot in front of the right to enhance her figure. Yes Jessica that is what and why models do that. It enhances their figure and enhances their hips and curves. But of course, you know that didn’t you Jessica.

So Jessica gets wind of Ann’s comments and of course, goes right for the ‘twist it to make Ann look bad’ formula. You know it. You’ve all see it a million times. So instead of me explaining the conversation, I decided to just show it to you. Mind you, I am not going to make this already long bit even longer by posting all of it… just the juice parts… hehehehe

Jessica Feministing returns and says:
It's a picture; people pose. And I'm not sure I understand your logic anyway. If I "pose" for a picture (as opposed to sulking and hunching over?) then I deserve to be judged for my looks? I don't see anyone talking shit about the other bloggers smiling pretty for the camera.

Ann States:
Provoked, I decide to actually give her a small dose of the kind of judgment for brains she seems to demanding:

Jessica, I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.) I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don't know why people who care about feminism don't have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don't assume you're the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog....

Making this colloquy into this new blog post, I actually click over to Jessica's blog, and what the hell? The banner displays silhouettes of women with big breasts (the kind that Thelma and Louise get pissed off at when they're seen on truck mudflaps). She's got an ad in the sidebar for one of her own products, which is a tank top with the same breasty silhouette, stretched over the breasts of a model. And one of the top posts is a big closeup on breasts.Sooooo... apparently, Jessica writes one of those blogs that are all about using breasts for extra attention. Then, when she goes to meet Clinton, she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?

See? Ann clearly explains what her issue is with this image. But alas, a blog (oh, that’s a different blog, sorry) is about free exchange of ideas and discussions right? Well, only if you tow the correct party line that is, apparently. And said rules apply to movements as well I guess.

Well, if pissing off a fellow femikook isn’t enough, we have an additional spice to add to the mix; the ever-popular racial card. Yep. We all know that liberals, especially those of the feminists flavor are all about equalllleteee don’t we. Well not according to quite a few ‘progressive’ liberal bloggers such as this one (http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/09/about-meeting-clinton.html).

It seems that a predominant liberal bloggers get-together doesn’t consist of anyone of color. Hmm, as a white male fascist pig, I even noticed that discrepancy. Now why would that be? How is it possible to invite a bunch of liberals to a pow-wow with such a great man (cough – blowjob – cough) and not have one person of color present? Are you kidding me? Sure, the managed to have a femikook or two, a couple of mangina, an aluminum hat wearer or two, and more than likely a person of choice (read gay) in the mix. But not a one Black or Latino, shoot not even someone with a mixed heritage!

As a matter of fact, now that I look again, not even an Asian! Why not add a Muslim and an illegal Mexican to the list to round it out nicely. Nope. Not a one. Ah well, I guess the Arian race is alive and well in Bill & Hitlary’s land.

Anyhow (again), There are many speculations as to why this is. There are, of course in true liberal damage control, many excuses as well. From “well, we invited one but they declined” to “this just the first of many…. Blah blah…” You know the drill. You see, liberals don’t like it when they are called on their faults. Especially when you use their own canned arguments to prove it. Maybe they just didn’t want people of color present. Maybe they thought that a black person would be insulted if they showed up and was served ‘southern fried chicken’.

Maybe they DID IN FACT invite a Black blogger or two and when they discovered that ‘southern fried chicken’ was the chow de jour, they WERE insulted. Ever think of that? Sure, in my little world, I could care less about stereotypes. I happen to like the traditional white male foods like steak & mashed potatoes. But if you’re a liberal, you cannot fight the devil and ignore the stereotypes (perceived or otherwise). So of course, the ‘southern fried chicken’ part would piss at least one Black person off. Tell me I’m wrong.

Or could it be that Hitlary has hired none other than Peter Daou. Yes, you heard correctly. THAT Peter Daou. The one that was just hired by Hitlary for god knows what... You see Peter was in charge of gathering all of these intellectually special folks.

Nope, feminists are not opportunistic… Feminists are not into power and … dare I say, selling out!

At least be consistent Jessica. Swooning over a man that has treated women the way that you claim to be fighting against, is just bad PR. Even for a feminist.

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble.....

TMOTS

Click here for more.

Uppity men

Carey Roberts
September 19, 2006

Let's face it, we've been snookered.

They promised gender liberation, now we're becoming dependents of the Nanny State. They averred no fancy for special treatment, now we have affirmative action. They said they only wanted to give women a voice, now we've got speech codes. They claimed to be for gender equality, now boys are struggling just to keep up in school.

Why has it taken so long for us to catch on?

One of the tacit rules of the New Gender Order is that the opinions of men don't count. "If white men were not complaining, it would be an indication we weren't succeeding and making the inroads that we are" was the remarkable admission once made by the most influential media mogul in the country, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, owner and publisher of the New York Times.

Author Warren Farrell calls it the "lace curtain," the invisible hand of editorial censorship that throttles the First Amendment rights of half our nation's population.

It's like we claimed to be engaged in free and open debate, all the while holding one of the parties gagged, blind-folded, and hog-tied. Or if men were allowed to speak, it was made perfectly clear that they not say anything that might force the delicate gals to resort to smelling salts — remember l'affaire of Larry Summers?

But three weeks ago something snapped.

Michael Noer at Forbes.com wrote a column called "Don't Marry Career Women." It was an advice column for eligible businessmen thinking about making the plunge.

Predictably, the ladies reacted with well-rehearsed outrage, forcing Forbes to run a counterpoint by Elizabeth Corcoran, "Don't Marry a Lazy Man." [www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html]

True, some of Noer's facts could be disputed. Maybe he didn't qualify his statements enough.

But Noer's article struck a deep chord with hard-working men whose liberated wives had come to look askance at anything that might remotely be called housework. And it resonated with the average Joes who put in long hours on the factory line, only to come home and learn that he was a member of the male oppressor class.

This time there would be no "Button up that lip, little man!" Within hours the Internet was buzzing over Noer's apostasy as thousands of men spoke out at Forbes.com, FreeRepublic.com, and other sites. All of a sudden, full-throated debate became fashionable.

Remember this line? "I'm as mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" That rant won Peter Finch an Oscar for his role in the movie Network.

That pretty well sums up the attitude of many men and women who have become disgusted with feminist-driven, government-enforced intervention into the personal matters of private citizens.

For years, women like Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, and Phyllis Schlafly have been speaking out against government intrusion disguised as female emancipation. Now their protest is ringing through the land.

Take Doug Richardson of Detroit. He was forced to pay more than $80,000 in child support, even after paternity tests proved the child was not his. Now he's waging a one-man campaign to expose the swindle and bring the malefactors to justice.

In North Dakota, Mitch Sanderson got fed up with the raw deal that fathers were getting in divorce court. So he started up the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative. Then he quit his day job and combed every hamlet and town in the state to get the required 13,000 signatures to land his shared custody bill on the November ballot.

Some guys are willing to put everything on the line.

Like John Murtari of Onondaga County, NY. Murtari owes more than $60,000 in child support, an amount he couldn't pay because the figure was calculated based on an income far higher than what he now earns. On July 31 he was sentenced to jail, triggering a hunger strike that caused him to lose 29 pounds in just nine days. As of this writing his situation remains precarious.

April 19, 1775, a rag-tag group of Minutemen waited in muffled silence at the Old North Bridge in Concord, Mass. Within minutes they were engulfed in a desperate fire-fight with the British regulars.

Soon the smoke cleared. That shot heard 'round the world marked the first battle of the American Revolutionary War. It was the first hard-fought step to freedom from government oppression.

Over 230 years later, state-sponsored tyranny has re-appeared in our midst. And once again, a group of uppity men are willing to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in the defense of justice and family.
________

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060919

Click here for more.

The Passing of a Man’s Man and his Man

The Passing of a Man’s Man and his Man
Aug-2-2006
The Man On The Street


Mickey, Mike, Velda, & Besty; if you know the names, you know who they are.

It is truly a sad day in my life. Specifically not because the man that essentially created what was once, if not still called ‘the hard-boiled mystery genre’, but because it is two weeks after his death, that I learn of his passing.

When I as younger, I penned my protagonists to the likings of Mike Hammer, Spenser, and Sam Spade. Whenever anyone reads one of my stories, they almost always say that it reads like a Hammer novel. To me, that is the best compliment I could ever receive. I have fulfilled my goal.

One of the highest points of my life was when I was able to meet Mickey, Robert Parker, and Sue Grafton at a Mystery Writers convention years ago in Boston (home of Parker and his alter ego, Spenser). To have these folk’s autographs, to me, are probably the most treasured articles that I own. Mickey signed my first printing hard cover of I, The Jury, and Parker signed my first printing hard cover of The Godwulf Manuscript, his first Spenser novel. I was not able to get Grafton’s autograph, due to lack of time. Now if only I was around to get Agatha (Christie) and Dashille’s (Hammett), I'd have the essence of who I am and whom I mimic my writing style. But, alas, I wasn’t even a twinkle in my father’s eye during their time.

Mickey was a great writer, one of a kind. Sure his stuff was very popular way before I was even born. But I was able to read his stories growing up mainly due to his character's staying power. And even though the mainstream world had pretty much blackballed him during the 70’s for his “violent and sexual content”. His primary character, Mike Hammer was revitalized once again in the 80’s. The reprinting of I, The Jury, his first Hammer novel originally written in the late 40’s, was the pinnacle rebirth of Mike Hammer. Followed by the full compliment of reprints of all the Mike Hammer novels, as well as many compilation hard covers such as Hammer Strikes Again.

Even his goofy personas in the Bud Light commercials were ladened with his tough guy – blonde bombshell – film noir feel. The ending statement of these commercials’ “Ohhhhh Mickey!” by Blondie was atypical for the likes of Mike Hammer’s creator and Mike himself. Who said there ‘aint nothing good come from the 80’s’.

Three versions of his Hammer character were made into television series, with Mickey himself staring on the first version in the 50’s. Stacey Keach took the role in the 80’s. Several TV adaptations from his best novels were also made into made-for-TV-movies. In my opinion, they never did Mickey justice. The restraints of television would never allow his (Mike) to be who he really is, as Mickey wrote him. Sadly, today, in 2006, with society the way it is with gender neutrality (read woman = invincible / man = dumbass), we will most likely never see another Mike Hammer episode again. Thus, the second reason for my sorrow. Mike hammer, by today’s ‘rules’ of gender, is a dinosaur. He would never survive, sadly.

Goodbye my mentor. Goodbye Mike. Dinosaurs or not, I shall miss both of you dearly.

TMOTS

Click here for more.

Harassment hysteria threatens military morale

Carey Roberts
September 5, 2006

Last year Naval Academy instructor Lt. Bryan Black made a sexually-tinged remark to a female midshipman. It was not a case of rape or sexual assault. It was not even "I'll trade you a better grade for certain sexual favors." Rather, the comment was a vulgar remark — much like something you might hear during a Sex in the City re-run.

But Cupcake got offended and filed a complaint. The complaint eventually made its way to the Naval Academy's superintendent, Vice Adm. Rodney Rempt. All of sudden, Black found himself the target of a criminal investigation.

A criminal charge for salty language? What's going on here?

Tailhook, that's what.

In 1991 a group of Navy aviators touched down in Las Vegas for their Tailhook Convention, an annual round of carousing, imbibing, and other bacchanalian indulgences.

Gloss over the fact that most female personnel in attendance were repeat attendees who knew exactly what was coming. Ignore the libidinous ladies who lined up to engage in activities like "pleasuring the rhino." Pretend that the gals didn't engage in their own high-flying debauchery, including "package checks" of male genitalia and topless bartending.

And forget that Ensign Beth Warnick accused three male aviators of gang-raping her, only to later admit that she had lied so her boyfriend wouldn't learn the truth of her extra-curricular activities.

The fact was, after they sorted through all the tawdry tales, only three of the reported incidents of "sexual assault" could be considered criminal in nature.

No matter, the media began to compare Tailhook to the rape of Nanking. And feminists seized on the episode as proof of a warrior culture that needed to be brought to heel.

A full-throated — and well-orchestrated — hysteria over sexual harassment in the Armed Forces was about to begin. And elected officials who desired to curry favor with the feminist lobby began to call for a non-stop series of hearings, investigations, and task forces.

In 1994 the General Accounting Office did a survey on sexual harassment in the military. The GAO found that "unwanted sexual advances" ranked dead last on the list. One of the most common types of harassment, though, consisted of comments that the presence of women had lowered military standards.

That's right, men, stop griping because women can't drag a firehose across the flight deck or give the heave-ho to a 100-pound anchor. Don't you realize that such remarks are creating a hostile environment?

What has become clear from all the surveys, though, is that a crisis of false allegations now overshadows the problem of actual physical abuse.

Earlier this year the Sexual Assault and Prevention Response Office (SAPRO) reported on an analysis of 848 investigations. Among those alleged sexual offenses, 641 were found to be unsubstantiated, unfounded, or involved insufficient evidence. So three-quarters of the complaints were deemed unworthy of disciplinary action.

In May the Naval Academy Board of Trustees was informed that among 40 cases of alleged sexual harassment, 72% were found to be unsubstantiated or invalid.

Last year Joseph Schmitz, Inspector General of the Department of Defense, released a report on sexual harassment at the service academies. This survey featured a new twist — it also asked about false allegations.

Among men, 72% reported that fraudulent allegations are a problem. Likewise 73% of women said false claims were cause for concern. The gals realized that frivolous allegations do nothing to enhance their standing and respect among their male peers.

So why did it take over a decade of taxpayer-funded investigations to come to that common-sense conclusion?

Recently Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness concluded, "these polls embarrass the academies, demoralize the cadets, and make the case for more lucrative contracts for 'victim advocates' . . . Feminist pork needs to be trimmed from the DoD budget, not expanded even more." [http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/ED%20Testimony%20062706.pdf]

Meanwhile back in Annapolis, last January superintendent Rempt invited the Navy cadets to attend a performance of Sex Signals. Given that the play contained far more sexual innuendo and X-rated language than Lt. Black could have indulged in with Cupcake a few months before, maybe the play should have been called "Mixed Signals."

And exactly why did Vice Adm. Rempt decide to lower the boom on Bryan Black? Because Rempt had just launched a "zero-tolerance" policy on sexual harassment.

Of course, we live in a flawed world with imperfect people. So in practice, "zero-tolerance" becomes the basis for ramping up the penalties for an offense that no one can define, and abolishing due process protections for an allegation that no person can ever hope to refute.
________

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Robertshttp://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060905

Click here for more.

Double-standards cripple the fight against terrorism

Carey Roberts
August 30, 2006

It is a sign of cultural confusion when the most-heralded account of individual bravery in the Iraqi war centers around a teenage girl who did nothing that could be considered heroic.

When her convoy made a wrong turn behind enemy lines, 19-year-old Jessica Lynch passed out during the ensuing ambush. For that she was rewarded with fawning media coverage, an official biography, and a made-for-TV movie.

PFC Lynch didn't thwart the enemy attack, save anyone's life, or even fire a single shot. So what amazing feat of valor qualified Lynch for the Bronze Star? Get ready for this: she fell to her knees and started to pray. And then she smiled for the camera.

The chivalrous adulation that greeted Lynch's return covered over a dirty truth: Feminist double-think permeates the military more than any other institution in our society.

It's what Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, calls DSIW: double standards involving women. That dual standard now threatens the readiness and morale of our military services which must now cope with the surging threat of Islamofascism.

Women have long played an important and indispensable role in the military. And 20 years ago, different requirements weren't a concern when women were assigned mostly to nursing and stateside desk jobs. But shortfalls in military recruitment goals and demands by Rep. Patricia Schroeder of Colorado to assign the "real plum jobs" to the gals changed all that.

Soon women were being tapped to work as pilots, ordnance handlers, and grease monkeys — just like their daddies used to do. Everything seemed to be on track for the imminent arrival of the gender utopia.

Then the 1990 Gulf War came around and 40,000 females were ordered to report for duty. That's when the ladies began to rediscover their inner-mom. Long-barren women became rapturously pregnant, and military mothers were suddenly the reincarnation of Madonna-with-child.

Newspapers wailed because "thousands of American mothers are saying good-bye to their families to face the unknown dangers in the Gulf." Some G.I. Janes claimed their recruiters had promised they would never be sent to war.

Gender-integrated basic training, which came along three years later, proved to be an even bigger jolt. The Sergeant Furies wondered how the female trainees would be able to survive, much less pass, the hand-grenade exercise, given the fact that most women couldn't heave the thing beyond its 35-meter burst radius.

Soon the requirement was changed so just dumping the grenade over a cement wall gave you the green light. After all, grenade-throwing is simply a confidence-building exercise, and the key is to try your hardest, right?

Battle-hardened drill sergeants were ordered to remake themselves in the manner of Mister Rogers, and obstacle courses were modified to resemble a Romper Room set. Navy trainees were urged to wave a "stress card" to settle frayed nerves. And mothers were consoled with infant nursing breaks and assorted child-bonding activities.

Despite all the gender-norming and hand-holding, Stephanie Gutmann documents in The Kinder, Gentler Military that women in training suffer 2-3 times more stress fractures, back sprains, and broken ankles. And at the Marine Corps Officer Candidate School in Quantico, Va., last year's female candidates washed out three times more often than the guys. [www.cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/ED%20Testimony%20062706.pdf]

George Orwell once wrote, "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." That aphorism rings true in many of the official statements on women in the military.

"All soldiers, regardless of gender, train to a single standard, the Army standard," proclaims one regulation. "Differences in performance requirements between the sexes, such as Army physical fitness testing scoring, are based on physiological differences and apply to the entire force.

"How's that for twice-around-the-block double-talk?

Then we have those politicians who gush about "the men and women in uniform who are fighting for our country." Apparently these well-intentioned souls don't realize that a woman who slings an M-16 over her shoulder for a couple hours of guard duty does not qualify as "fighting."

And remember Lt. Kara Hultgreen? Her jet crashed and burned on the USS Abraham Lincoln because she approached the flight deck at too sharp an angle — an error she had committed twice before. Then Navy officials tried to pin Hultgreen's death on "engine failure."

Put that one in the "cover-up" category.

Six years ago Stephanie Gutmann asked, "Can America's gender-neutral fighting force still win wars?" Some found her question to be provocative; to others it was merely amusing.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11, it's time that we seriously ponder that question.

_______

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060830

Click here for more.