Skip to comments.The soft war against masculinity
Posted on 10/17/2001 11:41:54 PM PDT by kattracksEdited on 07/12/2004 3:47:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
If you are a heterosexual male of any race, tear yourself away from the war on terrorism and let Howard S. Schwartz inform you of your real enemy. His book, "The Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry into the Roots of Political Correctness," has just been released by Praeger Publishers in Westport, Conn. The book is a bombshell.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The only difference is that when the men do it, they get in trouble and when the women do it, they get a promotion.
At least that's what I saw.
And when Mr. Roberts has less than all the facts, he has less than all the facts.
I worked for this individual during the time he comitted the offenses for which he was RELIEVED. I was also a victim of his offenses...of which I won't detail here, but trust me it was way more than walking through a MILITARY ACADEMIC area in spandex shorts and a tank top, flexing his muscles and making inappropriate comments.
He did create a hostile environment. And it wasn't just women who were ridiculed and harassed. But it also happened during the time we were hearing about X42 and his travails with Monica. So of course it was a witchhunt. This person's behavior, for a Full Colonel, Department Head, Military Officer with over 30 yrs of service was no better than X42's behavior as President was. Period, end of statement.
I think you're confusing Paul Craig Roberts with someone else. He's not married to Cokie. That would be Steve Roberts.
Prepare yourselves by consuming mass quantities of refried beans, pickled eggs and chili...
Go to their meetings...
Answer: Males, and in most cases white males, their favorite whipping boy.
I think the author's point is *nothing* is too petty to be admitted on to the list of offenses against women.
I won't detail here, but trust me
Why?...to both clauses. If you wish to refute Schwartz work, please do so. As it stands, you appear to be equivocating
I could be wrong, but I don't think this is the same Roberts.
Answer: Males, and in most cases white males, their favorite whipping boy.
Actually it was male and female though mostly male.
(With profound apologies to rats, dogs and pigs...)
If that is not good enough for you, don't accept it, or ask her to give more details, but don't go further and insult a long time respected FReeper. The lack of dignity and class you showed there is deplorable.
Frankly, were I a sexually abused woman, I am not sure I would really want to tell the world about the indignities forced upon me.
The vast technological superiority of our weaponry still masks the damage most of the time, but there will be repeated instances such as our recent dithering failure to take out Mullah Omar, the enemy's leader, where the injury to the warrior culture will be made glaringly manifest. As a direct result our men (and women) will die unnecessarily.
Only in those cases where an overwhelming, massive, 'first strike' use of force is required can the silent but deadly Beer Fart be justified.
There are limits, sir... even in war.
You know what? War is a hostile environment. Effective warriors are men (not women--despite the Whoreywood fantasies to the contrary) who are suited to exhibiting controlled aggression and extreme hostility.
If you decapitate the military by booting out its warriors for not being touchy-feely "sensitive" to feminists, gays, lesbians, bestials, and every other category of culture rot, you compromise the lives of the airmen, soldiers, and sailors on the field of battle.
I never thought I would say this, but I have come fully around on the issue: we must get women out of the military NOW. The only exception should be to allow them to serve in strictly support positions and non-combat related roles where they are not brought into more than incidental everyday contact with the fighters and warriors.
Possibly because they were lies, or because your behavior had invited them, or....
A very classic case of "sexual harrassment" occurred at my workplace. A female hired because of nepotism, who's favorite word was f..., whose favorite rejoinder to a request was f... you, used to run around our facility teasing and flirting with the largely male staff. One day, somebody said something that got her little panties in a wad. So she went to HR and claimed sexual harassment.
She subsequently (about a year later) seduced her "harrasser", got knocked up and broke up his marriage. Obviously she felt severely negatively towards this person, right? Bullpuckey. She was and is a spoiled, heartless brat.
I have zip for faith in vague allegations. It's either facts or opinions. All this "hostile work environment" crap is exactly what the article's author is talking about. Quid pro quo harassment deserves to be punished. But "I'm upset because you make me feel uncomfortable" ? Get another job or shut up.
OTOH you must see how easy it is to come to the conclusion that he was sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and for those of us who only have newspaper accounts to go on it seems that the charges against him were pretty thin.
If you feel like you can fill in any details for us I urge you to do so. If you can't, we'll understand as well.
Possibly because they were lies, or because your behavior had invited them, or....No, those would not be possibilities in my hypothetical, because I would still be me and I do not do those things.
OneidaM has been here a long time, and has established credibility. Perhaps not in your eyes, but that is fine. You don't have to believe her.
Those who know her do.
Those who trust our assessment of her do.
And even if the posters originally did not, that does not excuse their lack of manners and civility.
What a load of crap! I served 12 years on active duty and I had no problem at all with the women I served with.
What an awful thing to say. I am appalled and very angry at such an allegation.
Feminism understands neither real femininity or real masculinity. It would be nice to see someone point out that femininty is also threatened by feminism.
Men need to do a better job at communicating exactly what masculinity is, and how it differs from femininity.
That's the PC line. The truth is otherwise. In and of themselves, the women are not a problem. In and of themselves, the men are not a problem. Mix them together in a war-fighting culture, add the poison of feminism, and you will experience continuous and serious problems. That's exactly what happened throughout the 1990s.
You've bought deeply into the lie. There are still dyed-in-wool Marxists meandering about in Russia, too, who had no problem with communism. I wouldn't credit their PC indignation any more than I credit yours.
Go back to looking for quasars. People problems are beyond your ken.
That is not what I experienced while I was in. And yes I love looking for quasars :)
OKAY!! Don't yell at us!...and do something about that low self-esteem thing and capitalize your ' I 's.
or just turn off your cap-locks :-}
Apparently these wounds you speak of were not deep enough to restrain you from coming out of your personal tragedy long enough to take another swing at Hallums, and without giving any substantive idea of what engendered such animosity.
I wonder what your assessment of General George Patton would have been? I have no doubt you and others found his behaviour objectionable. What I question is the distinctly feminine notion that people have a right to be comfortable, and the lack of said comfort is an actionable offense when it can be traced to a specific individual.
I find the canard "sometimes words hurt like a fist" to be specious. Fists hurt like fists, and the only way to conflate words and fists is with a breathtaking exercise of petulance and vanity. Thus far, my fourty years of experience with this type of vanity has come exclusively from women.
This will be my last post on this however.
..not subject to rebuttal and cross-exanination by the accused - and take down a man they don't like. The pernicious idea that "women don't lie about these things" is laughable.
Hallums had his rubuttal opportunity, all the way up the chain...it was the proper authorities who determined through an extensive investigation and they determined he was no longer fit. He also admitted to some of the things for which he was charged. SO I did not lie. Keep in mind also, there were male soldiers who also had complaints against him, for his abusive leadership tactics...not just sexual harassment.
I wonder what your assessment of General George Patton would have been?
FWIW my assessment of GP is that he was the best General the Army had and we need more Generals like him.
John Wayne is my hero, as well as Ronald Reagan...the Colonel they sent to the department to replace Hallums used to be the military aide to Ronald Reagan during his presidency. This man took over the department, made it well again...and after five years of being the best boss I ever had in my Military and Civilian careers, retired to become the Dean of VMI.
Do I think that some women lie about being sexually or otherwise harassed??? YES
Do I think ALL women lie about it?? NO.
Do I think if you are accused you have the right to rebut and face your accusers?? YES ABSOLUTELY.
Would it surprise you to learn that when Tom Ricks did this article, he did not interview ONE single person on the opposing side?-
the WSJ has a lot of credibility on this with me. You have none.
How credible I am with you is a moot issue as far as I am concerned. I've never heard nor read your posts since this thread.
What happened is, some nasty females ganged up on a guy they didn't like - and because there is a vicious anti-white male attack gang that hasn't been stopped yet - they won.
No, that is what you BELIEVE happened. You have NO CLUE what happened, because YOU WEREN'T THERE. But because you READ it in the WSJ journal or because it is mentioned in this article from the WT's its gospel?
That other men joined the attack means nothing - there are girly-men in lots of places.
These so-called Girly-men you seem to know so well, were and are some of the finest soldiers I had/have the privilege of serving with, both in my military and civilian careers. They have my utmost respect and admiration; something I can't say about you.
Are you aware that Coughlin, when shown a photo lineup, identified as someone who "harassed" her, a Marine photographer who wasn't even AT Tailhook?
I remember the face of the person who harassed me,,,I looked at that face for a year and half. I looked at his face when he asked me to have phone sex with him on the intercome. I looked at his face when he "Jokingly" told his wife I was sitting on his lap when she phoned him. I looked at his face when he told me what a wonderful physique he had, and how he could tell I wished I had him. I looked at his face for many days and many weeks and many months. He was there, and so was I and I had NO problem identifying him.
I can't help but wonder if I were your sister/mother/wife/daughter would you still have such a difficult time believing me.
If you felt it was so wrong for the most Disgraced Commander In Chief of the United States Armed Forces to conduct himself in such a disgusting manner, and you believed Monica Lewinsky was so credible,,, why are you having such a difficult time with this one?
Welcome to Free Republic. OneidaM is well known, and has a reputation. I and several others will vouch for her.
She also makes some valid points to which you are non-responsive. 1. The Col. had due process. 2. Due process, in the military, tends to be comprehensive. (lots of CYA).
Please lay off the personal attacks. Thanks.