tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post4490971003934835562..comments2024-03-28T09:54:55.115-05:00Comments on Dad29: Tell Me Again About Women in the MilitaryDad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-9048010691350848632008-04-19T21:46:00.000-05:002008-04-19T21:46:00.000-05:00FACT: Women are in the military and they are stayi...FACT: Women are in the military and they are staying. No matter if someone thinks that they shouldn’t be there they are going to stay. So instead of arguing about if women should or shouldn’t be in the military why don’t we be more mature and try to deal with this situation on a higher level of intelligence? Calling each other names isn’t going to get us anywhere. And this situation with women being raped we should think of solutions like make the consequences harsher and have everyone aware of them. That should make men think twice about assaulting women if the punishment is harsh. And to know whose point of view this is coming from is a sixteen year old girl and I am going to join the military and I’m honestly not really looking forward to it but the military is my only ticket out of this hell hole of a town. So you can say I shouldn’t be in the military all you want but I am going to be in there and I going to stay. Yours truly.Proud Americanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07036074802998325087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-20396634383714745122008-04-12T05:50:00.000-05:002008-04-12T05:50:00.000-05:00Men and women ARE different, in more than one way,...<I>Men and women ARE different, in more than one way, and we can both serve on the same force, albeit sometimes in different roles.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Sancho,<BR/>I've already made it abumdantly clear that women should serve.<BR/><BR/>WAAAAAAAAY far away from anything even remotly resembling a hot CZ, and in an administative capacity only. <BR/><BR/>And in general (hopefully to bring this to an end).... why in the hell should women be in combat roles when men are available? What REAL man would sit on his ass, safe and sound and STATE-SIDE while there are gals being deployed overseas? <BR/><BR/>Yes, I question their manhood.Kevin Whitemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07019976622801954677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-46316004531320816402008-04-11T11:06:00.000-05:002008-04-11T11:06:00.000-05:00Where logic leads so clearly, half a wit is all th...Where logic leads so clearly, half a wit is all that is required.PaulNoonanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01600099270280639424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-54497744758058637642008-04-11T09:15:00.000-05:002008-04-11T09:15:00.000-05:00I shouldn't be surprised that you are obtuse, Paul...I shouldn't be surprised that you are obtuse, Paul.<BR/><BR/>So I'll let your obtuse and half-wit comments stand as is.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-26548094102315915432008-04-11T08:25:00.000-05:002008-04-11T08:25:00.000-05:00Or we could do it your way and not let little boys...Or we could do it your way and not let little boys into church anymore.PaulNoonanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01600099270280639424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-55847700587202977122008-04-11T08:24:00.000-05:002008-04-11T08:24:00.000-05:00I'd rather win. Period.You're the one dabbling in...I'd rather win. Period.<BR/><BR/>You're the one dabbling in economic pragmatism here, not me. You're the on who wants to move out the ladies to help them out. YOu seem far more concerned with keeping the military an all boys club than with winning. <BR/><BR/>Even if women are not, on average smarter than men (they are, by the way), you are still punishing yourself by excluding them to the benefit of rapists. I don't care what tradeoff you think you're making, the tradeoff you are making is rapists over women. <BR/><BR/>Eliminating rapists (or at least bringing their numbers into line with the rest of civilization) is not impossible with the proper amount of punishment and a little less looking the other way. <BR/><BR/>Basically, it boils down to this. You want to protect a bunch of felons at the expense of 150 million potential troops. I want to expand my talent pool by 150 million troops, and get a bunch of felons out of the military.<BR/><BR/>My posisiton is morally superior and as an added bonus, also wins on pragmatism.PaulNoonanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01600099270280639424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-78221803029115210542008-04-11T06:46:00.000-05:002008-04-11T06:46:00.000-05:00So YOU maintain that "economics" should govern mil...So YOU maintain that "economics" should govern military assignment. Now THERE'S a 'moral' position, Paul. Somehow, I never imagined that cost/benefit was contained in the Golden Rule, or in the Decalague. Must be my deficient translation.<BR/><BR/>You also assert that women are "more intelligent" than men as a whole. Certainly applies in your case.<BR/><BR/>But as usual, it's your inability to read English which is most disappointing. You intimate that I absolved the rapists. Wrong.<BR/><BR/>But just as you would not drop off your sister on 13th/State and ask her to walk to 16th/Atkinson to meet you in the middle of the night, I suggest that the Clinton Administration's radically imprudent (and totally un-necessary) change in military assignments was imprudent.<BR/><BR/>Your asinine "economics" rant is identical to the Clinton move--asking women to do what men OUGHT to do and are inclined to do by nature.<BR/><BR/>You'd rather put women between you and the enemy for "economic" reasons.<BR/><BR/>And THEN, you'd rather put what you claim to be the "more intelligent" group in danger.<BR/><BR/>That's a helluva way to fight a war, Paul.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-7738058617704546862008-04-11T06:31:00.000-05:002008-04-11T06:31:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-89782176595526581322008-04-10T20:20:00.000-05:002008-04-10T20:20:00.000-05:00"Compared to what?"What a stupid question for a Ca..."Compared to what?"<BR/><BR/>What a stupid question for a Catholic to ask. Prudence does not tolerate such behavior in any capacity.PaulNoonanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01600099270280639424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-78658465072358868852008-04-10T20:19:00.000-05:002008-04-10T20:19:00.000-05:00Sure. I cannot match your vulgarity with analogy,...Sure. I cannot match your vulgarity with analogy, however I can tackle your stupidity.<BR/><BR/>You propose the functional equivalent of banning every clean player from baseball. <BR/><BR/>Except in your case, the steroid users are raping the non-steroid users, not just cheating at baseball.<BR/><BR/>You (as usual) have also failed to account for both opportunity cost and, shockingly, human capital. As the world advances intelligence is at more of a premium compared to strength, even in the military. Women are on average smarter than men. Men live in the troughs of the bell curve, but women dominate the slope. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, the military is dominated by the middle, and therefore, you essentially cut your human capital in half by not allowing woman. It's bad business in business, and it's bad business in the military.<BR/><BR/>But hey Dadsly, if you want to go with the good ol' boy policy of just lettin' rapists be rapists, consarnit, then you just stick to your guns until you're faced with being protected either by the world's finest fighting force, or a bunch of asshole fratboys who've just ordered the cute girls at the next booth a few roofie coladas while in on shore leave.<BR/><BR/>Since you asked...PaulNoonanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01600099270280639424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-61155341276972101252008-04-10T15:38:00.000-05:002008-04-10T15:38:00.000-05:00"Morally reprehensible"?Compared to what? Placing..."Morally reprehensible"?<BR/><BR/>Compared to what? Placing women in constant danger of assault and rape?<BR/><BR/>Please--be specific. I can't wait for you to 'splain how prudence is a 'reprehensible' position.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-61934659461252240352008-04-10T14:20:00.000-05:002008-04-10T14:20:00.000-05:00At least your morally reprehensible position was b...At least your morally reprehensible position was based on a shitty understanding of statistics, so there's hope for you yet.PaulNoonanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01600099270280639424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-65175675647620379982008-04-09T18:10:00.000-05:002008-04-09T18:10:00.000-05:00Technically, Sancho, your position is correct: wo...Technically, Sancho, your position is correct: women CAN serve in the military. I think that the pre-Clinton roles and assignments were fine (although there are no comparable statistics on rape/assault from that era by which we can determine whether such assignments were prudent.)<BR/><BR/>The Clinton changes exposed women to dangerous situations, as the article implies. <BR/><BR/>Without regard for women's actual capabilities, physical or psychological, putting them into 'the wrong place at the wrong time' is simply stupid.<BR/><BR/>And it is an implicit denial of human nature, to boot. Ironic in the extreme: this was Bill "Spotted Dress" Clinton, after all....Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-43421220693180691062008-04-09T17:33:00.000-05:002008-04-09T17:33:00.000-05:00dad29 - misunderstanding, my fault, I meant that t...dad29 - misunderstanding, my fault, I meant that the two statements represent two separate arguments. <BR/>vsc - true enough. Men and women ARE different, in more than one way, and we can both serve on the same force, albeit sometimes in different roles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-8187675585824016172008-04-09T17:09:00.000-05:002008-04-09T17:09:00.000-05:00In the National Defense Authorization Act for the ...<I>In the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Years 1992-1993, Congress rescinded female combat exemption laws and then the Clinton Administration opened a quarter million previously closed combat positions to women (GAO Report, July 1996).</I><BR/><BR/>Not exactly, Sancho.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-90365060650058644102008-04-09T17:07:00.000-05:002008-04-09T17:07:00.000-05:00Women most certainly do belong in the Armed Forces...Women most certainly do belong in the Armed Forces. In administrative and non-combat medical roles... that's about it. <BR/><BR/>We have to remember what the Armed Forces is all about. Once we get past the romance and the poetry, it's all about rotting meat. Carrion. Corpses. Dead f*****g human beings. <BR/><BR/>It's tough enough on the guys, but we're going to subject our womenfolk to this as well? <BR/><BR/>You know, if we have to hear about how women are "the natural nurterers" (as they are), why is it so hard to grasp that men are the "natural warriors"?<BR/><BR/>Besides, you put a gal in an ambush site, and if she's on her period, she'll attract every dog in a 5 mile radius. <BR/><BR/>That just might screw-up your ambush. <BR/><BR/>Anyhow, I've posted on this topic before --<BR/>http://catholic-caveman.blogspot.com/2005/11/americas-fighting-men-and-women-i-want.html#comments<BR/><BR/>Respectfully submitted,<BR/>Vir Speluncae Catholicus<BR/>MSgt USMC (ret)Kevin Whitemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07019976622801954677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-43962185278468022202008-04-09T16:32:00.000-05:002008-04-09T16:32:00.000-05:00"Fact: Women do NOT belong in the military" and "T..."Fact: Women do NOT belong in the military" and "They do not belong in the military, except as allowed pre-Clinton" don't look like the same argument... I think...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-48787010855061791132008-04-09T15:30:00.000-05:002008-04-09T15:30:00.000-05:00Ignorant people never cease to amaze me.The conten...Ignorant people never cease to amaze me.<BR/><BR/>The content, and point, of your article is as clear as day to me. Those accusing you of "blaming the women" on the other hand are only promoting their biased view points. <BR/><BR/>IOW, they aren't reading the article. <BR/><BR/>Having said that, I approached a very liberal colleague of mine who also happens to be a Navy veteran. He agrees that women shouldn't be in the military holding the same positions of men. Interesting how having been there and seen it first hand might change your view points otherwise.Disgruntled Car Salesmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08151648076485580643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-24978218156784355872008-04-09T14:47:00.000-05:002008-04-09T14:47:00.000-05:00You are pretty clear that women do not belong in t...<I>You are pretty clear that women do not belong in the military and you offer as evidence, in part, the fact that they are (and were predicted to be) raped</I><BR/><BR/>No error in your read of it.<BR/><BR/>They do not belong in the military, except as allowed pre-Clinton.<BR/><BR/>The rest of your post is the usual faux-logic-conflation of the Left.<BR/><BR/>Methinks the vibrations from your vocal cords have shaken loose your cortical-stem-brain connection.<BR/><BR/>Look around to see if you can find the "logic" part which is missing in action, Jay.<BR/><BR/>Serves you right for thinking I am a nice guy!Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-21696184852900841842008-04-09T14:28:00.000-05:002008-04-09T14:28:00.000-05:00In a conversation with another blogger recently--l...In a conversation with another blogger recently--like, an actual conversation, not email or anything like that--I defended you against charges of being one of the biggest slimes in the Cheddarsphere.<BR/><BR/>I guess I was wrong.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and you keep wanting me to read the post. I did. I have. I just did again. I keep reading it in the hopes I can see where I am misreading it. I cannot find my error. You are pretty clear that women do not belong in the military and you offer as evidence, in part, the fact that they are (and were predicted to be) raped.<BR/><BR/>What's next? James Byrd wouldn't have been dragged to death behind a truck if he'd not been allowed into the white part of town? Matthew Shepherd wouldn't have been beaten and left to die if he would have found a literal closet to stay in instead of going out for a drink?<BR/><BR/>Dr. King wouldn't have been assissinated if he'd just known his place?Jay Bullockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18303687624670151530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-91143732281506396292008-04-09T14:18:00.000-05:002008-04-09T14:18:00.000-05:00I wonder if any of this amazing logic can be used ...I wonder if any of this amazing logic can be used to address male-on-male assaults with a sexual component. Think it doesn't happen? Think it's not reported?Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-82290375255869655092008-04-09T13:44:00.000-05:002008-04-09T13:44:00.000-05:00Fact: NO ONE belongs in the military. Except fo...Fact: NO ONE belongs in the military. Except for murderers. Jackass.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13603910165854702494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-432540083879386122008-04-09T13:19:00.000-05:002008-04-09T13:19:00.000-05:00Is this post that hard to read? There is no implie...Is this post that hard to read? <BR/><BR/><B>There is no implied blame on women nor is there an acceptance of rape - READ THE POST.</B><BR/><BR/>Look at it this way: you can take the women out of the equation and there wouldn't be rape. PERIOD. But by no means does this lay fault on the women because they're in the equation.<BR/><BR/>Nick: "Predictable" doesn't equal acceptable - you should know better than that.<BR/><BR/>Al: I love the irony of wanting a "reasonable discussion on abortion" while using names like "trash" and "garbage".<BR/><BR/>On a final note, I am a <I>huge</I> supporter of our men and women in uniform but I too would prefer to leave women out of physically-daunting (combat) situations.Neo-Con Tastichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01745380266734620292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-71844374506708701792008-04-09T13:18:00.000-05:002008-04-09T13:18:00.000-05:00"Thanks for your service. Now learn to think."Wow..."Thanks for your service. Now learn to think."<BR/><BR/>Wow. Very respectful there, Dad. <BR/><BR/>So not only do you think that men in the military can't help but rape women, some of them also can't think. You seem to hold them in extremely low regard.<BR/><BR/>Or maybe <I>you</I> need to think before posting such utter dreck.Sam Sarverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03320204980483611465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-11910290212794695312008-04-09T13:00:00.000-05:002008-04-09T13:00:00.000-05:00No, actually, Sancho, the post says what I said: ...No, actually, Sancho, the post says what I said: Women do NOT belong in the military.<BR/><BR/>You can fantasize all you want about other "meanings," if you wish to make it clear that you cannot read.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your service. Now learn to think.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.com