The Femi-Nazi Movement

Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

The Femi-Nazi Movement brought us legally-mandated, feminized, Politically Corrected, RESTRICTED speech and expression, laying the groundwork for Homo-Nazism and Eco-Nazism. Did "Women's Lib" just go wild, or was it commandeered?

Legitimate Feminism was radicalized, commandeered and virtually re-invented by the Left.

Now, someone will immediately jump up and declare themselves conservative and/or religious and yet still on-board with all Femi-Nazi projects. There is no accounting for the number of FLORMPORIFs that might publicly uncritically embrace any particular movement, including Femi-Nazism. And, first, let me state the fact that this treatment does not oppose Feminism, but Femi-Nazism.

The Femi-Nazi movement I'm criticizing here was born of and is predominantly supported and empowered by Leftist-Liberal-Marxist thinking. Which is a rigid ideology of either state-planned or Party-planned economic and societal organization. As such, it demands social indoctrination, and thus it must always oppose the exercise of good critical thinking. Just as it must oppose the notion of any external, fixed, objective truths, because it must redefine and indoctrinate a new and different morality - a new sense of right and wrong. Marxism in particular and Materialism in general must always oppose any collective or cultural sense of ethos, and it must oppose any pre-existing individual sense of morality.

What do I offer as evidence of this claim?

History.

The greatest historical destroyers of nations and peoples and freedom were Materialist, Atheist and Marxist. They were all rewarded for their butchery and destruction with boundless dedication and love, by millions of people, who could no longer do critical thinking, regardless of education level, regardless of I.Q., regardless of intellect, regardless of occupation, regardless of talent, regardless of economic condition, regardless of political power or any other form of power. To this very day, Russians can be found who “love” Lenin and/or Stalin. All of history’s greatest Materialist, Atheist, Marxist killers – Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol – all had and still have their devoted following. Whole groups, whole nations, whole races can loose the ability to think properly. History proves it. And today, we, here in America, are on the road to mental mediocrity, as we ever increasingly sit back, become spectators, and let others do our critical thinking for us. We just trust “the experts” to handle it all for us.

Well, here is a warning: the experts are bureaucrats. Now, no sizable organization can do with out some bureaucracy; but unrepresentative civil bureaucracy always needs to be held on a short leash, because, by its very nature, civil bureaucracy always seeks to grow itself. If you give a civil petty bureaucrat an ounce of authority, he will spend the rest of his career protecting it, increasing it, establishing sub-bureaucracies beneath him, and convincing the rest of us of his absolutely vital importance to us all.

A word of warning: I am not a creature of fashion, and have no interest at all in striving for “Political Correctness”, in my thinking, in my speech or in my writing. Relatively recently we have all been introduced to the shocking, shocking discovery that the English language lacks a gender-neutral pronoun. You might ask, so what? Well, the Femi-Nazi discoverers of this shocking, shocking news would have us all know, upwards of one half of the human population is marginalized, at least, and perhaps even eliminated, by the mere use of a male pronoun, even when context would indicate gender neutrality and human-race inclusiveness. Obviously, I disagree.

I do not attempt to “properly” include both genders in every sentence intended to be so inclusive. I ask you, the reader, to look at the context, and to use your dictionary, and your common sense. In this work, whenever I use a masculine term such as man, him, etc. where context would indicate inclusiveness, I am speaking of mankind, which includes women; it also includes all races, creeds and ethnic groups. Look at any English dictionary. The second definition given for “man” will be humankind, mankind, all human beings; I’m not making this up. This has been in your dictionary for a very long time. If many people have been “taught” otherwise then those people have been taught improperly, they stand in need of remedial education, and their English teachers ought to be fired.

The very Femi-Nazi notion that anyone is “marginalized” or “eliminated” by the mere use of the word man or any male pronoun is just plain stupid, and I will not submit to it. And I will not go through the gymnastics of language required just to use a feminine term every time that I use a masculine one, or to be consistently gender-neutral, race-neutral, creed-neutral, etc., just to please the elitist social-planners, group-thinkers and fools among us who are among the least likely to visit this WebSite or read this WebPage in the first place.

Nor am I willing to submit to a total rewrite of history simply to use currently popular terms, such as the replacement of the American Indian Wars with the Native American Wars, or the history of black slavery in the Americas to African American slavery. I will change my views on this matter just as soon as everyone begins to refer to me as a Lithuanian-Norwegian-American. If you agree with me that such an expectation would be both pompous and preposterous, then we may proceed; if not, then perhaps you're reading the wrong WebPage.

Although I believe very strongly in equal rights and equal protection under the law for all citizens without any exception or reservation whatsoever, I am not a master of the English language, and I do not intend either to pretend to be one or to attempt to become one in the time that it should take to write this textual content. Nor do I intend to bow to pressure from anyone who claims to have some new copyright or patent on the currently “acceptable” use of English. I’ll continue to use the English dictionary, and leave the Femi-Nazi, Eco-Nazi and Homo-Nazi style sheets and speech codes to the SLIMC, the rest of Show-Biz, Upper Academia and the rest of the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, I will make no apology for being white, male, heterosexual, happily married, once and only once, to a woman whom I actually love, or for not either hugging someone, apologizing for something, or bursting into tears on a regular basis, or for my religion, or high moral standards, or for being a staunch defender of Jeffersonian Democracy, an anti-Socialist, a strong pro-Capitalist and a “petty bourgeois,” all of which seem to be out of fashion and definitely not Politically Correct, at least at the moment. Not only am I not ashamed of any of these things, but I am quite proud of them all.

I reject outright the notion that only females, minorities, perverts or odd-balls, exclusively, have any justifiable right to “pride” in their heritage or culture or history or sacred tradition or progress or current condition. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in my personal popularity, let alone in kowtowing to the “conventional wisdom”, “popular opinion” or “well known facts” on any particular topic as expressed by all of the “experts” of the popular media or of the liberal intelligentsia; I speak directly on all topics, skirt no issues, and do not mince words. My subject matter has much more to do with objective truth, relentlessly pursued, than with diplomacy or current fashion and popular opinion, and any attempt to make my every phrase Politically Correct would mean to write content that, not only would be blatantly dishonest, but may well be out of fashion by next Tuesday or so. I therefore refuse to bow before the Neo-socialist Political Correctness Thought Control Police. Anyone who doesn’t like it is just going to have to get over it, because it’s my WebSite.

Question: Why do I use the clearly pejorative term Femi-Nazi rather than a softer and more Politically Correct term, such as Feminist or Women's Liberation advocate?

Answer: Because I prefer the more offensive Femi-Nazi term. If I could think of a stronger term, I would use it.

And my quarrel is not with the older and still existing feminine liberation movement that sought and seeks to gain for women the same rights guaranteed, but historically not always granted, to all American citizens. Which, boiled down, amount to equality in legal rights and remedies before the law. Which means voting, running for and holding office, and so forth. For more details, refer to our United States (and your state) Constitution and Bill Of Rights.

Femi-Nazism, while paying lip-service to these older feminist issues, seeks to gain the total authoritarian power required to actually modify culture, through restrictive speech codes, modification of English itself, and even thought control, under the cover of terms like Political Correctness and equality of opportunity, while seeking the ultimate goal of feminine equality (at least) in all existing statistical demographic representations.

When we look at what I call the Femi-Nazi movement, we're looking at yet another of the so-called disenfranchised groups, typically taken over if not created by Leftists who love to create or increase strife. Each of these groups come with their own new sense of ethics, which is completely worldly and devoid of the objective, external truths related to any culture's ethos. It's a new, replacement set of moral rules. Some similar groups are discussed in the Eco-Nazism page, and the Homo-Nazism page, where their new social mores are discussed. All of these new replacement “right” and “wrong” rules contribute in some way to strife and class conflict; some more than others. All either ignore, trivialize or oppose the morality based on the fixed Western Culture ethos in favor of their own new set of favored rules they would like to impose upon the larger society.

Perhaps the most powerful and easily the largest of these groups is the Femi-Nazi movement, which must be described as a completely authoritarian, intolerant, combative and radical feminist movement, which is why I refer to it as the Femi-Nazi movement. Whatever Femi-Nazism says is right; anyone who opposes the Femi-Nazi position is automatically a bigot and a Chauvinist. There is no tolerance for any critical thinking here. Don't even try to be a good, critically-thinking Catholic. Shut up and get on the cattle car.

Femi-Nazism has already forced (although it didn’t take much force) the SLIMC, the rest of show-biz, and virtually all of American academia to modify all language in common use, to not, Heaven forbid, exclude anybody in any sentence that anyone might utter to anyone, from the newsboy to the pizza vendor to your poker buddies. They seek to force us to use unnatural language, language that does not come readily to mind or to tongue and that always comes out stilted and queer sounding. For no valid reason. Anyone who does not recognize that the word “man” has, among its definitions, a generic one, defining the whole human race, is a rather poorly educated semi-literate in need of remedial English classes, and I don’t particularly care how many advanced degrees they might hold. Don't take my word for it; get out the dictionary.

Yet you will hear Femi-Nazi's proclaiming that every time you use that English word its generic sense, you are somehow, and purposely, unfairly excluding half of the human population. See?

Political Correctness-driven Inclusiveness, particularly of the Femi-Nazi variety, drives a class wedge between women and men, and between women and other women; it causes strife and discord. At the center of it is another “struggle” lie about another “group” that has been “exploited,” and this time around the villain is ugly old Patriarchy and Male Authoritarianism, which, of course, act to enslave American women. Right. Especially all of the Ph.D.s among them.

Women who buy into the Femi-Nazi line go through torments and anguish and agonizing over such things as who they are, who they should be, and who’s the scapegoat. Society did it. Society must go. This is the beginning of a new revolutionary feminist, and the Left loves it, because strife is good. And so we see all sorts of impossible rules popping up all over the place, regarding quotas by other names, “Equal Opportunity” that is anything but equal, “Affirmative Action” that is, when it is not purely racist, purely sexist. Whenever any of these labels are attached to any help wanted add, it seems to me that it would be more efficient to simply re-word it to say “white males need not apply.” But it goes farther than hiring and firing and promoting and demoting. It begins to infect the very rules of Democracy.

Corporate rules, and even private club charters, and even Church council By-Laws, are using Femi-Nazi wording and rules. The most common involve how “candidates” for office must be numerically representative of races, ethnicities and sexes among the membership; and not only candidates, but actual elected office holders. Now, just how do you do that, and remain a Democracy? If no woman candidate comes forward, or allows her name to be placed on a ballot, what do we do then? After all, we have a rule, and we must live by our rules. So, the only alternative is to drag some woman, kicking and screaming, against her will, into candidacy, so that we can have a sexually balanced group to elect from.

And, if nobody votes for her, what then? After all, we have a rule, and we must live by our rules. So, she must forcibly be put into office, and the voters may be damned. And Democracy may be damned. The rule says that for every man in office, there must be a woman in office, and so the rules take over, and the humans take a back seat.

Obviously, this is another example of sheer stupidity that approaches the lunacy level, and it cannot work, but note well that you personally can very easily prove for yourself that these kinds of Femi-Nazi rules exist everywhere. You don’t have to look too far to find them. In your office, in your factory, in your Church or Parish Council, in your private club, in your City Council. Look around.

Bottom line, whatever favors the advancement of a woman (or a black, or a Hispanic, or a homosexual, or a handicapped person,) is right and whatever favors merely the best qualified and most capable and practical candidate for the job is wrong, simple practicality is wrong, and this new sense of right and wrong moves the Decalogue farther back into the back seat, perhaps even out of the back seat and into the trunk.

Note well that it is not possible to give preferential treatment to someone based solely on sex or race or whatever without simultaneously giving detrimental treatment to someone else based solely on sex or race or whatever. And the name for that brand of purposeful detrimental treatment is sexism or racism or whatever-ism. Not affirmative action, and not equal opportunity. Affirmative racism and/or affirmative sexism would be a more appropriate title for it, and there is absolutely nothing equal about the opportunity. Indeed, these programs are unfairly stacking the deck.

And all this is still disregarding the injury that such programs do to the principle of excellence in performance, in almost all areas of society.

If you think I'm going too far, look at what Femi-Nazism is saying. Go to your library or to Lexis and count how many papers and articles and broadcasts have used comparative statistics between women and men CEOs, or Small Business Owners, or High Office Holders, or Big League Football Payers, or Billionaires, or Ranking Academics, or Preachers, or General Officers, or Prize Fighters, etc., etc., etc., to provide "proof" that America itself is hopelessly Chauvinistic and anti-woman to the core. If I'm going too far, then exactly what is Femi-Nazism doing?

I submit that all I'm doing here is responding to pre-existing Femi-Nazi false charges and fatally flawed rhetoric.

Mull over the term "Catholic Priestess" for a moment.

I have been taken to task by instructors and fellow students alike in official Catholic classes (see the Cafeteria Catholic 1 page, the Cafeteria Catholic 2 page, the Cafeteria Catholic 3 page, the Cafeteria Catholic 4 page, or the Cafeteria Catholic 5 page) taught in the name of Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk and by his authority in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. The coursework material, texts and teaching were Femi-Nazi (and Homo-Nazi) to the core.

The main contention of the instructors I argued with on the side, and the classmates I argued with on lunch breaks, was my use of the "negative" term priestess, rather than the more positive woman priest. Again, I refer you to any English dictionary. The feminine form of priest is priestess. Some of these discussions were almost hysterically funny, due to the absurd lengths to which Femi-Nazi women (and men) would go to avoid a male pronoun, and yet would not accept the feminine form of priest.

A Femi-Nazi will change chairman to chairperson or even chair just to avoid the maleness of a perfectly harmless term like chairman. They actually prefer to call a person a chair. And yet they absolutely bristle with rage at the open use of the completely feminine term priestess. It just doesn't get any dumber than this.

What's more important is the fact that so-called Catholic Femi-Nazism cannot and will not accept the Catholic doctrine of an all male Catholic priesthood. Period.

In one such argument, the Femi-Nazi challenger asked, with apparent incredulity, if I stood fully prepared to tell all young ladies everywhere that, no, they had no hope of ever being ordained as Catholic deacons or priests. To which I answered, yup, I stand fully prepared to tell them precisely that, right now; and so what, exactly, was the Femi-Nazi prepared to tell them? To plan on Catholic ordination? To make it a goal for their life? To put everything else aside and study hard for it, in hope that one day some heterodox bishop like Pilarczyk might actually get up the nerve to go heretical and ordain them as deaconesses or priestesses? Instead of any rhetorical or reasoned response, what I got was an open-mouthed, flabbergasted look of disbelief.

The question I put before you, the reader, is this: which of the two arguments above is the most insensitive and potentially hurtful to Catholic young ladies everywhere?

Male Catholic Priesthood Vs. Femi-Nazism

Jesus Christ, the Lord thy God, established His priesthood when He selected His twelve male Apostles. His Church continued the teaching when she selected a male successor for Judas Iscariot, and when she selected a male as the first Deacon. The Church has consistently taught that the priest stands In Persona Christi, that is, In The Person Of Christ when he consecrates the Eucharist, and when he absolves sin, and that only a male can properly "image" the male person of Jesus Christ, Son Of God.

In November of 1975 Pope Paul VI wrote that the Church

"holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."

In May 1994 Pope John Paul the Great issued his "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" (Priestly Ordination), an Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone. He said, in part,

"Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Which was an infallible teaching in accordance with the Ordinary Magisterium of his office. As usual, it was an old, unchanged teaching that had come under question, and in it's self defense, John Paul invoked his authority and definitively taught it, in a universal letter addressed to the whole Church. And still we have Femi-Nazis who contend that this mere "discipline" can be changed by a future pope. (Indeed, there are faculty members of the Athenaeum of Ohio that do not even recognize the infallible teaching authority of the pope in his Ordinary Magisterium. Their needle seems to be permanently stuck in the Ex Cathedra only groove.)

If you look at the wording, John Paul the Great (and all other popes) never said that he wouldn't change this teaching; what he said was that he couldn't change it. It was firmly established in the unchangeable Depositum Fidei, which no pope can ever add to, modify, or subtract from.

But, Femi-Nazism kept pushing on the issue.

In October 1995, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (and the future Benedict XVI) issued a statement which said:

". . . the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women . . . This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church., it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium . . . Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."

The Femi-Nazi theory of Gender Equality

In the bizarre world of Femi-Nazism, the only differences between men and women are institutional and/or learned behaviors. Right. These people are just plain nuts. The clear and obvious differences between their own mothers and fathers were learned? Acquired? Not natural?

The major differences in size, strength, sex organs, psyche, temperament, aggressiveness, musculature, skeletal biology, hairiness, hormones, chromosomes, DNA, etc., etc., etc., between males and females of the human species, are all institutional rather than natural?

That is just a typical load of Femi-Nazi horse-hockey-dooty-poop.

Men are bigger, stronger and more aggressive than women. Period.

If Femi-Nazism took charge of their young lives, and made all little boys play with dolls and little tea sets, and made all little girls play with toy guns and trucks and planes, when they all grew up, the men would be bigger, stronger and more aggressive than women.

If Femi-Nazism continued the experiment on into their young adulthood, and all the boys studied ballet, art and homemaking, and all the girls went out camping, hunting, fishing and playing football, and martial arts, when they all grew up, the men would be bigger, stronger and more aggressive than the women.

If Femi-Nazism took a whole population and put them into a Maoist reeducation camp to learn the error of their ways for fifty years, when they came out, the men would be bigger, stronger and more aggressive than the women.

This is not rocket science. There is nothing difficult about any of this. It's the reason that the lady’s Tee is closer to the pin than the men's. All the institutions in the world are not going to change the necessity for that handicap. There is a very practical reason that boxers are divided into weight classes, and that women do not box men; it's a rule that dramatically cuts down on the number of deaths in the ring. Very simple.

Check out the scores, whether times, distances, weights, accuracy, laps or whatever, and you'll find that, among all the women Olympic medal-winners, none of them would have even made the men's team for that same event. (Unless it was something like water ballet, or maybe ice-skate dancing, or something else that more correctly would be called an art rather than a sport, because of the need for purely subjective judging.)

The Femi-Nazi Fireman (Firewoman? Fireperson?)

Femi-Nazism has forced its way into fire departments and police departments all over the country, to the detriment of public safety. While a good argument can be made for a woman cop, it still must be admitted that it would be difficult if not impossible for a woman cop to out perform a male cop, even of comparable or smaller size. Still, a good argument can be made. And a stronger one can be made for women Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) in the fire department. But, when it comes to actual fire-fighting, smoke-eating firemen - there is simply no way that women can perform the same fire fighting tasks that men perform as a normal part of their job.

And this is a fact that is officially censored. Some few years back it was carefully documented, but you probably won't be able to find the films now because of official censoring. A fire department ran a film of trainees going through firefighting training and testing. The parts of the film that got censored showed women trainees failing strength tests miserably.

Part of the test involved picking up a big ladder end and then "walking it upright" by walking underneath it and lifting it progressively higher to get it into position. All the girls would only go a few rungs before getting stuck, and even pinned under the ladder. They couldn't do the task.

Another part of it showed the girls in their typical fire-fighting regalia - those big heavy boots, the coats, helmets, tanks and all the heavy stuff firemen have to wear and carry. The test was to get themselves and all their equipment over a brick wall that looked to be about six and a half or seven feet tall. All the men did it with alacrity; but the women - they all wound up looking like flies stuck to fly paper. Standing with faces and bodies pressed against the wall, arms up, looking up, but, doing nothing in particular. Not even moving. They couldn't do the task. It was pitiful.

But the interesting thing about it is that the only reason it was even on the news, and the only reason I saw it, was due to the tidal wave of Femi-Nazi induced legal and editorial outrage being expressed against, not the truth of it, but the simple fact that it was recorded and played back for people to see. It was done for trainees, for them to see how not to do the tasks; it was not made for the public. But, in the Femi-Nazi view, nobody should ever see any such film, and, most especially, no female trainee should ever see it. Because it might hurt her self esteem, or "institutionalize" (and thereby make real) her physical inferiority or something. See?

The upshot, if I remember correctly, was the failed girls got the job anyway, because of the need for affirmative action, you know. Physical standards are now lowered for women firemen across the board, all over the nation, and women are not required to carry the load men normally carry for the same job, pay and benefits. Because - well, because they're girls, see? Make sense?

Just between you, me and the gatepost, if I'm ever unconscious in a fire with the smoke getting thicker and the flames getting closer, I pray that the fireman who shows up to rescue me is the biggest, meanest, ugliest, hairiest, strongest mother's son who ever ate smoke and belched fire. Try to picture an average 130 lb woman quickly throwing an overweight grown man over her shoulder and then running up several flights of stairs to toss him into a catching device. Maybe you can picture it; I can't.

The Femi-Nazi Soldiers

Some time back the courts caved on the issue of men-only educational institutions being unfair, but women-only educational institutions being perfectly fair; see? It started with the military schools; now we have women in the dorms, learning how to be soldiers along with the men. And this is supposed to make sense. When it came around to Virginia Military Institute (VMI), and they caved, I read an article by one of my favorite authors, Florence King, a Southern lady whom I have always loved from afar. What she recommended, if I remember correctly, was that it should be:

Razed to the ground, plowed under and sown with salt

However, VMI is now co-ed; isn't that nice? And so is Annapolis, and West Point, and all the others. Our American culture is now debased to the point that an important part of a young lady's formal education now involves learning how to march, and how to run with heavy equipment, and how to slam bayonets into bellies.

Just mention admission of men into any female-only educational institution and you will hear outraged screams, howls and hissy-fit editorials, coming from the same SLIMC that fought to get women into all male-only academies and into military uniforms everywhere.

The argument was, and is, that military women cannot expect to advance to general officer level at the same rate as men if they are denied access to three things:

1. the military academies
2. fighter and/or bomber pilot training
3. actual combat experience.

Becoming a great military general or admiral is not and never was the predominant dream of most little girls. It's nothing more than another invented disenfranchised class of citizens being prepared by Leftist Femi-Nazism for further exploitation by the Marxist-Left.

The distinctly American problem for the Left is the utter classlessness of American society. We have this huge, seemingly all-encompassing middle-class, and literally no rigid class stratification in which it is not possible for individuals to ever move between classes. Since we have no rigid class structure here, and since Marxism absolutely depends upon class warfare, unhappy classes must be created, nurtured, and carefully educated and indoctrinated in just how disenfranchised they are. As an investment toward a future of Socialism. It's the only way to deal with the problem of all the American individuals who are so certain that they can not only make their own way, but do or become whatever the hell they choose. Which means prefer, which is not the same thing as being guided toward.

Most enlisted men and non-coms know what a ticket-puncher is. The title is exemplified by John Kerry. A ticket-puncher is a young officer who somehow finagles for himself just the right assignments at just the right times, to get himself just the right awards, commendations and decorations, e.g., just the right punches in his ticket, before moving on to the next step. His ultimate goal has nothing to do with the unit, but with his own future. The units he gets into and out of are mere stepping stones to get him somewhere else.

Following this line of logic, Femi-Nazism claims that women are not able to compete in the political arena with men who have illustrious military service in their resumes. I suppose there is some validity to the claim; sometimes male politicians flaunt their service records and run on nothing else.

But the world has seen women Commanders-In-Chief and leaders of powerful nations; the names Golda Meier and Margaret Thatcher come immediately to mind. Neither of them ever went to any infantry school, and both got themselves elected. Among those who voted them into office were a whole lot of ordinary veterans, and serving soldiers and sailors. (I would vote for Condi Rice for President in a heartbeat.) The fact that any given woman might make a piss-poor infantryman does not mean that the same woman might not make an absolutely great President.

Let me be clear:

Purposely incorporating women into combat units is just plain stupid.

This is not ancient Sparta. Exemplary performance of Russian women soldiers in World War II is not a good, practical example, because,

1. Russia had already abandoned the civility, mores and standards of Western Civilization, just as she had rejected and even persecuted Judeo-Christian belief and morality;
2. The Russian situation was at times absolutely desperate, as she had already lost millions of citizens just in the opening weeks of the war.

Women should not be billeted with men or even be in the same military units with men. Military women should not be in any combat units, nor should they be in any combat support units that go anywhere close to military action. Women should not be among pilots or crews of combat aircraft, or aircraft that may be expected to fly over or near combat zones. Women should not be on ships that go into harm's way.

The reasons should be obvious, but we'll discuss them anyway. Billeting men and women together in typical military situations leads to nothing but hanky-panky and trouble. The whole purpose for the existence of any military unit is hindered and not helped by sexual distractions, entanglements and sub-plots among the members of the unit. Our military should not be wasting time and tax money designing maternity uniforms, and somehow quickly replacing key members needed to fulfill the mission of the unit, but who are off on maternity leave.

You put a bunch of young men and young women together and there's going to be some screwing around; that's the way it is. We should leave the co-ed screwing around to the increasingly degenerate campus culture of American academia, and get it out of our military, because the mission of our military is much more vital to all of us.

Men naturally tend to be defensive and protective of women near them. What combat men need to be is flat out aggressive, in a cohesive, well trained aggressive team. Combat is no place for special treatment, or for anybody looking out for someone weaker. That's a distraction from the mission.

Mike Royko, R.I.P., once asked in an Op-Ed article, "what, exactly, is a 120 pound infantry-woman going to do with a 110 pound combat pack, other than sit on it?" An excellent question. Women cannot carry as much weight, cannot run or march as far or as fast, cannot get over or through obstacles as well, and simply cannot perform as well as men in any combat infantry type tasks. Period. Hollywood can make all the Zena movies and G.I. Jane movies and Wonder Woman cartoons and female karate expert movies it wants to; the objective reality of it simply does not change.

An infantry rifle team with one woman in it will not perform up to the same standard as any other rifle team. A rifle squad with one woman in it will not perform up to the same standard as any other rifle squad. A rifle platoon with one woman in it will not perform up to the same standard as any other rifle platoon. You can carry this to whatever level you want to, but the important thing to note is that, on the battlefield, initiative is most usually taken or lost at or below the squad level.

Added to the physical and mental disability of the female infantryman or other combat participant, is the SLIMC - censored fact that women P.O.W.s taken by America's enemies are quite typically gang-raped by them. It happened to female American pilots taken prisoner in the first Iraq war. Gang rape turns out to be a very popular Moslem activity.

Our women pilots have distinguished themselves in combat, and, of course, may be expected to oppose the notion that they should not be doing what they are doing. But, the fact is, they should not be doing what they are doing. Men can do the same job better, and they could do it even better in the absence of co-ed sexual side-issues within the unit. Women should not even be on aircraft carriers, let alone in the cockpits of combat aircraft on combat missions.

Now that women are so deeply imbedded in so many diverse combat and combat-support units, thanks to Femi-Nazism, it may appear to be impossible to change that situation. But it can be changed. All that's really required is a Commander In Chief with the balls to issue the order, and then stick to his guns afterward. Women could be and should be reassigned out of these units and into non-combat support roles, or out of the military.

That's my opinion.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Sun Dec 27 03:09:26 2009
From: YOTEECH
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Hey Vic,

Here is another area where I must agree to disagree with you...I am a feminist b/c I had the good mental and emotional health to resist the conditioning that was foisted on me by my culture. I objected to using "masculine by preference" pronouns when the sex was not know as far back as 7th and 8th grade when that old fashioned grammar was being taught. Perhaps the nazi or commies had put something in my drinking water? Yes language needs to be updated to reflect my reality...not just yours. A good example - your use of the word priest as an assumed masculine word with a "feminine version 'priestess' " - that only is valid if one assumes that actor, priest, are masculine. Today the word "actor" is used to describe one who acts...regardless of the sex of the actor. For someone who grew up before the feminist revolution those language changes may feel threatening b/c it calls into question "male privilege" . I grew up in a family of strong women. My grandmother bore 14 children and raised 13 of them. She also raised several grandchildren who had lost their parents. There was nothing weak or helpless about her and she was one of my role models. So the notion that males deserve preference or that females need a male protector seemed like nonsense in my young mind. My experience - which I trusted and still trust - told me something else.

There is white privilege in this culture and there is male privilege the world over. And the world is changing. Get over yourself and face reality...Everything passes, even the era of white male dominance.

Date: Dec 27 06:20:36 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Yoteech:

Feel free to convolute the language all you want; I am not going to participate. Gimme that old time English. All Catholic priests are men; my wife is a fisherman; anyone who doesn’t like it is just going to have to get over it as best they can. I grew up in a family of strong women as well as strong men; so what? There is nothing wrong with either.

I suppose there is such a thing as male preference, but obviously there is more female privilege. A female can fail a physical strength test as a job requirement and still become a fireman, but a male cannot do that.

I suppose there is such a thing as white privilege, but obviously there is more black privilege. A black can get a lower SAT score and get into college, but a white cannot do that.

You have been subjected to miss-education all your life, coming out of the egalitarian mold of class envy, jealousy and “revolutionary” thinking of your Leftist teachers. You will be happier when you learn to accept and celebrate the physical and emotional differences between men and women. And you will live a happier life when you learn to think properly about other people rather than react to what you have been taught to perceive as their immutable “station in life.”

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.