Comments are now closed due to spamming and personal attacks.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/huffpoclub

Breaking News

Women and DADT… Spoiling War for the Men! by Andrew

Posted on Sunday, 13th May 2012 @ 01:24 AM by Text Size A | A | A

Deep in their bellies, men know, in the absence of force, women are clearly in charge.

Men know, humans are not predisposed to instinctively, automatically, impulsively, and with undomesticated depravity, rush into each others arms for the continuance of the species.

We men know, women have learned to cheerfully dally, toy, tease, flirt, and deceive; then with such unrestrained mirth, smile while saying ”no”. Whereas we men, have learned to beg.

We men know, women (for their own amusement), are designed to require we tantalize and entice. We men know, women are free to choose; but more significantly, each of us knows – ‘I won’t be chosen’.

So, if civilization is measured by the absence of violence, women have evolved to a more advanced state than men. Men remain designated as the choosers of force, while women have matured to argue against it. Women are selected to control man’s violent urges, and are largely responsible for the creation of morality and the laws governing civilization, while leaving enforcement to the men.

On the other hand, women can and do perform the same jobs as men, including those more stereotypically thought of as a “man’s” job; so they have crossed over (so to speak) into those enforcement positions men have attempted to keep for themselves. Currently, even though many men still resent the encroachment, women can enlist and serve in the police forces or the military in any capacity for which they qualify, but ( and to make one more large scale generalization) their participation seemingly amounts to a patronizing, paternalistic, and perhaps even chivalrous, multi-leveled token, provided mostly and begrudgingly by men both in and out of the military.

In other words, many men prefer our military be populated only by men. So, what are the stated reasons for keeping women out of the military, and then, what are the actual reasons, and what is the importance?

“To the victor belong the spoils”! We’ve heard it before, most likely said it before. Unfortunately, most of us have never asked what it means. So, what are the spoils of war?

The answer, at least in short form, is land and women.

Among the victorious, the land part is easily, willingly, proudly, and loudly displayed, disbursed, celebrated, and discussed.

More seriously, the women remain as an additional and in some ways more valuable part of the bounty. Once having killed the enemy and captured their land, the victors only need to disburse their newly acquired wealth. For the triumphant, women are available and unprotected because all or most all their men are dead. So it seems, the other old saw about rape, pillage, and plunder may have some basis in fact.

This women part then, seems cunningly avoided, or dismissed as fabrication, or cleaned up (supposedly) by shielding it within the ethnic cleansing label; but mostly, the women part, meaning rape, is considered as not worthy of discussion or intervention. If discussed at all, rape is often used as a false justification to keep our women from serving in the military.

For men, rape has always been a fringe benefit of going to war. It makes risking one’s life worthwhile. Even now, in some countries an entire cottage industry has emerged around rape. Women are rewarded to the foot soldiers, while women and land are divvied up among the aristocracy.

Among the civilized, the women part is difficult to acknowledge. Rape, if acknowledged at all, is of course never something our soldiers would do; it is always something their soldiers would do, which then becomes a primary reason to keep our women from serving. We must keep our women safe.

Those against women serving, claim they will be bad for morale because the men will worry that the women will be raped if captured by the enemy, then imprisoned and raped again. Thus our male soldiers will be busy keeping their fellow women safe during battle instead of trying to achieve the military objective. More importantly, protecting our female soldiers from rape is not as salient as protecting them from being impregnated by the enemy. After all, we must never forget (nor acknowledge), the nation’s ethnic purity is at stake. Men duck the issue, and attribute the necessity of protecting the women to the primary reason of not wanting to subject them to the violence and indignation of rape, rather than from the other possible result of rape, a child.

The more politically correct position taken by those against women serving in the military, results from acknowledging the potential for men and women to develop sexual relationships among members of their own unit. Although forbidden, these relationships, as the argument goes, destroy discipline, morale, and unit cohesiveness, resulting in interference with the mission. This stance maneuvers to divorce civilian and military life. For seemingly valid reasons, acceptable relationships in the civilian world are not acceptable in the military world. Moreover, this argument conveniently avoids the rape issue altogether.

Since it is such an easy sell (even though currently unsuccessful in practice), voluntary sexual activity between men and women is passing as the primary reason to keep women out of the military. It appeals to those afraid to consider anything else, even though the potential for the rape of our female soldiers is clearly present. (Even more difficult to acknowledge is that a similar potential for our male soldiers also exists.)

Conversely, our virile servicemen will have the opportunity to rape the defeated opposition’s surviving female soldiers as well as female members of their civilian population. This last is so vicious and unpleasant for us to consider, we mostly claim we are too moral a society to ever participate in such activities, even though evidence to the contrary, is in plentiful supply.

At this point, especially because it is so obvious, it needs saying that men do the raping, not the women. The male soldier rapes; the female soldier, if present, gets to watch. But, why should she bother; or why should she need to find something else to do; or why should she have to pretend the rapes never occurred; or does her presence provide tacit approval; or if the enemy’s women are some sort of prize, then she doesn’t want one. Her inability and lack of desire, or better still, her revulsion to overt or even covert participation in this dishonorable part of the victory celebration, is the real, albeit unacknowledged reason, some men seek to exclude women from military service. The female soldier’s presence is often enough to stop the male soldier from committing rape. Thus, he is unable to acquire what he perceives as a valued part of the victor’s spoils – to which is his right, or so he has been told. It is time for him to claim his prize, and she has neither right nor recourse to stop him, as now he believes.

Custom keeps men in line. In the absence of female group members, men will not only belch, fart, wolf whistle, tell off color jokes, and leer at whatever non-member women are present, but are more likely to get in some fights, get really drunk, holdup liquor stores, steal a few cars, get really drunk, do a bit of gay-bashing, and maybe even find a woman to bother, tease, torment, harass, and then molest a little – or even to rape. Rarely, very rarely, do men rape or participate in gang rapes in the presence of women, and especially when in the presence of women who are members of their own group. Men just plain operate differently when women are around. In other words, women tend to cause men to behave themselves. They cause men to clean up their act. They cause men to control their most violent urges, or as novelist Frank Herbert argued, their adolescent fantasies.

Men see women as spoiling their fun, or as mandating a secure stable relationship. Meaning, men should settle down, establish that relationship, and abandon those adolescent fantasies. In the lives of men, women serve a mellowing function.

With little effort, women hold men in check – especially their own men. In our ‘across group’ scheme, a woman’s company reminds men of their non-military responsibilities and can often keep men from doing things they might do in her absence. Men do not want to face a woman’s scrutiny. It is and always has been far easier to exclude women from the board room to the locker room, from the golf course to the tennis court, and from the playing field to the battle field, than to ignore them when they are close at hand. Her proximity alone, can either put her at risk or clean up their act, and post victory, to the eternal gratitude of the enemies’ surviving women, just might serve to keep all those testosterone driven, triumphant, men of the hour, well in hand and nicely subjugated. A female soldier’s presence serves to hold all men accountable.

For the men, secret knowledge among them (including those who do not rape) is the glue holding it all together. It holds, because silence is a powerful norm. Those who rape, trust each other to keep silent; and the trust also extends to those who didn’t rape to keep silent. Silence is essential because the possibility exists for nobody on the outside to believe them anyway. The non-rapers will only be able to control the rapers by using force themselves, not by using reason. However, if American women soldiers are present, many times their presence has the potential to stop the rapers from raping. In this situation, that they are female is more powerful without violence, than the male’s is with violence. Their femaleness brings men to heel.

With a salute to the Madonna/Whore Dichotomy, if women are present, or at least those some men would call proper women, they will restrain the mens’ behavior. Consequently, under many circumstances, men only want to be in the company of other men, or if women must be present they need to be a certain kind of woman. Even then, sometimes the presence of any woman can keep some men from acquiring their share of the spoils of war. More powerfully, with the aristocracy claiming the land, and their fellow women soldiers maintaining the safety of the enemy’s women, little motivation remains.

Unfortunately, that the presence of a woman from within our military, may keep some of our men from raping women who are not in our military, then is the unspoken, yet authentic reason, some folks don’t want women to serve in our military. (We should also remember the statistics show our male soldiers are quite willing to rape their fellow women soldiers, if the enemy’s women are unavailable.)

Men will rape in the presence of other men but not in the presence of women. Women’s abhorrence to rape is normally strong enough for them to intervene or for some men in their company to intervene and attempt to halt a rape. Men know this; consequently, they are more inclined to control themselves when in the company of a woman. In a larger sense, a woman’s presence changes the dynamic, and may change the entire situation so that women from the enemy’s civilian population can no longer be available to the victors.

So for men, the simplest method for handling the ‘Spoils of War” problem (at least as they see it and define it), is to gallantly ban women from serving in the military from the outset, all the while creating specious reasons for doing so in order to appease the public, themselves, and of course, their women (or so they think).

Ah but then, if such is even partially the case, then I wonder why some folks are so determined to keep gays from serving in the military?

 

Related News On HPUB:

... post your own so far 0 comments

Comments

No comments yet.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

Breaking News