I just don’t see how this is going to work

A Congressional panel is advocating the removal of all restrictions between women and the front line.  Aside from the same problem that arises with gays at the front line — the possibility of sexual jealousy interfering with unit cohesion — there are a few biological realities that I see as problems:  (1) women pee sitting down, although there are doo-hickies that get around that; (2) women have periods, which are, to put this as nicely as possible, messy; (3) women are targets for Islamist men who already think that Western women are asking for rape; and (4) women get pregnant, which ties in with the sexual jealousy and risk of rape issues.

I know that, when the whole world is a front line, as happened to resistance fighters during WWII, women have served in active combat and acquitted themselves well.  Those have been battles of necessity, though.  Absent the exigencies of an all-encompassing enemy, I simply don’t see any practical virtue to putting women on the front line.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. Charles Martel says

    In the Congo in the 60s there was rebellion by tribesmen, called “Simbas” (Swahili for lion), who went into battle without armor or protection because they had been promised invulnerability to bullets by witch doctors.

    At the beginning of the rebellion, their government soldier counterparts, although heavily armed, were also primitives who believed in the rebels’ mojo. Eventually, once they caught on that the Simbas could be obliterated simply by pointing modern weapons at them, the government soldiers brought a quick end to the rebellion.

    Now we have feminist witch doctors who claim that women can go into combat without anymore harm to themselves or their mission than a Simba facing a hail of witch doctor-disapproved bullets. The idea of women in combat is so laughable that only a military and a civilization in rapid-descent decline could take it seriously.

    Many of the people pushing it may believe the malarkey that women can engage in combat on a equal basis with men. But the real danger here is the group that knows it can’t work. Their real intent is to deal another blow to the U.S. military. You can aim the blow to the knees—the rank-and-file troops who will have to waste their time trying to protect women combatants from rape and their own inherent physical limitations—or you can direct it at the head, the feminized officer corps that already holds way too much sway in the armed forces’ upper ranks. 

    Bravo, Bill! Bravo, Bernadine! Bravo, Betty, and Rachel, and Glorias (Allred and Steinem)! Bravo Nancy and Michelle! The United States takes one more big step toward its downfall and destruction.

  2. says

    You ever think that, given falling birthrates and rising birthrates amongst Muslims, Democrats want to get more women killed in combat, thus also coincidentally extending their influence and power over such women? After all, if women know that they will be killed in combat, wouldn’t they be interested in lobbying Congress to set rules that “regulate” such risk taking?

  3. says

    I’m so with Sadie on this one – it is a political tactic; one which is not just diversionary, but, also threatening by telling the folks in the Pentagon that if they don’t allow for the repeal of DADT then they might have to deal with trying to integrate women into combat positions.  And, of course, the Pentagon brass will be blamed for failing to protect women in combat positions.

    As a side note there is also another good reason to not allow women in combat positions – pregnancy.  At the beginning of both invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq the number of female soldiers who got pregnant went up; for getting pregnant was a quick way to get leave and NOT be set into the war theater.  Combat troops need to be ready AT ANY TIME, losing a troop member can throw a monkey wrench into that unit’s readiness.

  4. Danny Lemieux says

    It’s even worse than that: we have gotten reports that Army training camps had to install special protective walls for grenade training: too many women could not throw the grenades far enough not to be injured by shrapnel, so now they get to throw and duck behind a wall.
    Also, the Israelis discovered that men would too often put themselves into danger to protect their fellow women “combatants”. When my military son is in danger, I would like to think that he does not have to worry about whether his team mates have his back.
    In other areas, though, women might excel. I have read reports that they make excellent fighter pilots because they have quick reflexes and are better able to withstand G-forces. I would like to learn more if that is true.

  5. jj says

    Been tried, notably by Israel.  Failed.
    The physical limitations on the ground are obvious.
    Aviation probably offers the best possibility, there are female fliers who do okay, though the Navy in particular finds training them is pretty horrendous.  A fair piece of carrier ops involves depth perception.  Males and females perceive differently, the system has been in place oriented to males for seventy years – it’s therefore difficult getting the ladies able to successfully put the thing down on a carrier deck.  But it is indeed possible – and it happens often.  (And I don’t remotely imply that females are inferior at it, just different.  It makes it a lot tougher than it ought to be.)  Air Force and Army aviation is less demanding, the tolerances of two miles of runway are a bit easier than a carrier deck, so they do commensurately better in the land-bound air forces.  In helicopters, on the other hand, they do great, because despite (or maybe because of) the depth perception difference they function just fine in three dimensions. And the aircraft, or course, doesn’t care if it’s a man, woman, or 12 year old child who presses the launch button.  It just fires the missile when the button’s pushed.
    It’s what happens out of that environment, when you have to leave the thing and parachute down, that the difference matters.  because, of course, the first thing that occurs to most of those with whom we either are or would be in combat is rape.  Raping the women has been part of the deal in war only since the beginning of time, so it’s unlikely to change now.
    They can do all of the “thought” stuff just as well as males, but not the physical.  The gray area where the two collide is the problem, plus what happens when the cocoon of the plane, ship, sub, tank, whatever, is ruptured; and you’re on your own.  Then they’re in trouble, and put everyone around them in trouble.
    See, the sad thing is, our relentless lurch to equality far too often ignores biology, or tries to pretend it doesn’t exist.  Males and females are different – period.  Hips and shoulders are jointed differently.  The way in which depth is perceived is different.  Females see colors differently than do males.  Males and females perceive odors differently.  Males and females hear differently – females usually have a somewhat wider spectrum, and can isolate specific sounds from amidst a cacophony – males are less able.  When reacting to the same stimulus, different parts of the brain light up in females than do in males.  Aside from being weaker and less able to fight back physically, women are simply differently wired, and it’s a drawback.

  6. says


    My martial arts training proves how true your point about physical differences is.  Even though I’m always the smallest in the class I can pretty much hold my own against any woman (this is sports fighting, at about 70% effort, of course, not hard core competitive).  I cannot however hold my own against even the smallest man.  The strength differential is too great.

    Of course, my hope is that, if I ever get stuck in a dangerous situation on the street, my training will give me an advantage.  But opposite a man with equal training?  No advantage.  None.

    I first got an inkling of this back in the 1980s when I friend took me to a gay disco.  I love to dance, but I swear I thought I was going to get crushed to death there.  Being in a room full of male and female bodies means that half are soft and light.  Being in a room comprised almost entirely of male bodies means that, if you’re a small female, you’re constantly smashing into bone and muscle.  I wasn’t scared they’d hurt me intentionally; I was scared that the moving male press of bodies would hurt me unintentionally.

  7. says

    ” I cannot however hold my own against even the smallest man.  The strength differential is too great.”
    I know a couple of styles of martial arts training that doesn’t rely on size, speed, or strength for technique effectiveness. MMA is a much harder/external focus than the internal styles.

  8. says

    Danny: I, too, remember reading that women have advantages over men as fighter pilots because of their ability to handle G-forces. I think it has to do with the body’s center of gravity. For women, their center of gravity is in their hips, a biological design enhancement for having babies; otherwise, pregnant women in their last trimesters would very easily fall over and not be able to get back up again. For men, their center of gravity is in their chests. This differential can be easily demonstrated with a simple test. Put a chair with arm rests, a chair that you can normally lift, up against a wall with the seat facing out. Stand in front of the chair and then bend at the waist until your forehead is touching the wall. With your forehead still against the wall, reach down and pick up the chair. Then try to stand up. Women can do it all day long. Men can’t because of their center of gravity being in their chests. It makes sense that when G-forces press down on a pilot’s chest making it hard to breathe, women have the advantage.
    Now regarding women being in combat. I don’t think all women should be automatically disqualified from combat; rather, any woman who can meet the same physical requirements as the men should be accepted.  I realize that would most certainly eliminate virtually all women, but I’m sure there are a few women in the US military who have the physical capabilities to meet those standards.
    And any women who are accepted as combat troops must have shots to stop all menstrual cycles while on combat duty because they have to be as low maintenance as possible when they’re on the front lines.

  9. dicentra says

    The chair thing was demonstrated on All in the Family, waaaay back in the day, when the purpose of all  sit-coms was to challenge the status quo.
    But this idea that all barriers need to be eliminated is what happens when you assume that all barriers exist merely because of bigotry and prejudice.
    This may end up being the worst legacy of slavery and the injustices that followed: now that we’re familiar with the absolute wrongness of one line that was drawn and held by otherwise decent people, we now have a really hard time justifying all of the other lines that still exist, because what if they’re as wrong as the racial thing?
    It’s as if those who smashed the Berlin wall with sledgehammers, flush with their victory, went on to smash all the other walls in their path: school walls, hospital walls, homes.
    The unwillingness to identify real differences is a hallmark of the destructive class, and I’m afraid their poison has left many of our society unable to stand on a line and defend it. Because lines are bad, right?

  10. SADIE says

    …has left many of our society unable to stand on a line and defend it.
    The word, unisex (circa 1966) was born and about the same year common sense died.

  11. Mike Devx says

    If the military held women and men to exactly the same physical standards – if it truly were egalitarian – I’d have no objection.
    But they are held to different physical standards.  It therefore makes sense that their combat duties can, and should, differ.
    Why the politicians are getting mixed up in these internal minutae of the military is beyond me – no, wait, silly me, I’m talking about our POLITICIANS here!  They have lost all sense of their proper duties, as we’ve all noted.  They’d rather intrude where they have no business intruding, and demonstrate daily their incompetence across the board.

  12. Mike Devx says

    Kim Priestap said,
    > Now regarding women being in combat. I don’t think all women should be automatically disqualified from combat; rather, any woman who can meet the same physical requirements as the men should be accepted.  I realize that would most certainly eliminate virtually all women, but I’m sure there are a few women in the US military who have the physical capabilities to meet those standards.

    I think that’s a very reasonable statement.  Instead of segregating them all simply by sex, allow those who meet qualifications for particular jobs to perform them.

    I am tempted to disagree with those who say that because men are programmed to protect women, that women should *automatically* therefore be restricted from all physical combat duties.  Soldiers are soldiers, and I’m sure there are females in the military who deeply want to participate in combat and would be very good at it.  As Kim said, there may not be many, and most might not meet the physical qualifications, but I’m sure they exist, and they’d be as hard-core and gung-ho as any guy.  (And as patriotic too, by the way.  I’d rather be with them in a foxhole than Obama or one of his other Administration flunkies.)

  13. SADIE says

    IDF and women


    Anti Aircraft corps in the Surface to Air Missiles (SAM) elements.

    Combat Engineering corps in the Atomic Biological Chemical (ABC) unit.

    Light infantry (Karakal) – positioned in the peaceful border with Egypt.

    Military Police (Sachlav) – stationed in the Occupied Territories, usually in Hebron.

    MAGAV – SAMAG – a special patrol unit.

    Israeli Police – YASAM – a special patrol unit akin to the MAGAV SAMAG.

    Air Crew including fighter pilots.

    Naval officers

    Unit 869 – in peacetime borders, mainly along the peaceful border with Egypt.


  14. says

    “I am tempted to disagree with those who say that because men are programmed to protect women, that women should *automatically* therefore be restricted from all physical combat duties.”
    In such situations, all you do is to have all male units and all female units. It works great and Sun Tzu himself was known to have been given a challenge to train the concubines of a king into a military unit with discipline. He did so by gathering them together and using capital punishment if they disobeyed.
    For every problem there is always a solution so long as there is the will. The Dems, however, only have the will to make Americans suffer. That’s about it.

  15. says

    Men can’t because of their center of gravity being in their chests.
    It depends on how higher their center of gravity is and on how much the chair weighs. So long as most of the man’s weight is on his legs and toes, not on his head using the wall as a support, he can take the chair and transfer the weight to his legs. Then become upright using the lower back muscles.
    It will require flexibility in the knee and toes of course. The greater the weight on the torso, the more the person will feel their head trying to push through the wall. They have to sit their weight on their toes through the legs. Bending the knees may also help.
    I’ve tried using a variety of distances from the wall. So long as your head is resting up against the wall forming a sort of square, you can’t even lift your own body up. Because your weight is distributed into the wall and if there is no wall, you just fall down. As in fall forward. But if your weight is on your legs, it’s rather easy to raise the torso back up.
    It’s simply not an exercise in strength and people fail because they think it is a strength test. It is not a strength test. It’s a scale balancing test. The more you weigh at one end, the more you’ll tilt that way. But the body is perfectly capable of changing the scales.

  16. says

    In Afghanistan, they prefer to rape men. (Epic argument failure!)
    In Afghanistan, women are effectively already serving in combat operations.  If you are in the country you are in a place where you are taking fire.  They need women for the strategy we are using in Afghanistan because when the Army enters a village where the Taliban is popular the men hide in the mountains.  That leaves women to communicate with, to gain information from, to build trust with, and in Afghanistan women will talk to foreign women much more easily than to foreign men.
    The issue seems to be about the changing definition of “Combat Operations” and “Front Lines.”
    There maybe situations where women, especially small women, wouldn’t do the job very well.  But honestly, children seem to be able to fight in African wars, small size is probably an advantage as often as not.
    I think it is extremely important to make clear distinctions between men and women (and small and large people too).  Women and men are clearly different in many ways.  The differences can be used to our military advantage.  (When Charles M. was going on about witch doctors I thought he was going to point out how effectively blood and sex taboos have been in warfare.  The Boxer Rebelion in China was partly built around these, they often blamed their battle failures on menstrual blood!”)
    During a surprise attack it is very valuable to have both women and men.  Men get a massive hormone dump into their systems within seconds, they can fight with gross motor movements only, they get tunnel vision, they can’t hear, they can’t plan very well.  Women get the same hormone dump about 20 minutes later!  That means they can plan, they do have fine motor control and they may be better able to see and hear for the first 15 minutes.  It complicates things to put women in the mix but it is likely to be a big improvement once people understand the differences between the genders.  In the long run this will also have a very positive effect on American society.
    (see the book “On Combat” by Dave Grossman, my copy came to me after being read by a bunch of Marines in Iraq, one of my students is still active duty.)
    A former female martial arts student of mine joined the Army and is shipping off to Afghanistan in 2011.  I’m quite sure she will make a fine soldier.  She fully expects to be part of combat operations on the front line.
    –Bookworm,  these are for you:  Women’s Self-Defense,  —–and——  The Greatest Self-Defense Sytem Ever Invented
    I hope you get to attend Rory Miller’s workshop next time he is in town!

  17. says

    Good training takes care of the adrenaline issue for men. They just need to stay calm and reduce the fear with proactive actions. If the fear level gets too high due to recognization of a danger, adrenaline will increase exponentially with time.
    However, with experience plus good training, men can function quite well at high adrenal stress levels. Dextrous actions like aiming a rifle, for example, requires solid control. Otherwise the gun will just fire  and miss.
    Many self defense instructors don’t know how to train women in bypassing the societal chains that limit their ability to use violence as a tool of survival.
    Even when a self defense instructor, one with decades in true MA, recognizes that women aren’t willing to go far enough to protect themselves (he knows cause he asked them), he does not know how to help them bypass those restrictions. So the ethical action was to stop teaching women’s self defense.
    Book, if you want an effective SD program, I second Scott’s recommendation of Rory Miller.
    The TFT guys train in a facility down at San Diego. Not that close to you in Marin but closer than some other places like Seattle.
    Also like Scott said, there are tribal or cultural issues that would benefit from women being in the US armed forces.

  18. Mike Devx says

    Rory Miller has some good books out. One I read was called, I think, “Meditations on Violence”.  It convinced me that I am not ready to defend myself.  Quite a good book.

  19. Mike Devx says

    Ymar said,
    >> Mike Devx, you doing any training in MA or SD?  If you aren’t, but would like to, and you have someone that can help you, I have a recommendation in mind.

    I’m interested, and I should have time available soon.  Let me know.

  20. says

    Ymarsakar, I took Rory’s workshop in September, it was great as I think you saw from my blog post.
    Good training?  It’s really worth trying to do, and it can work very well.  My Wilderness first-aid for instance has worked well when I needed it.  But novelty and surprise are really hard to train for.  Even very well trained and experienced people freeze, fumble, and act in uncreative and foolish ways.
    They have designed military guns to account for the fact that men loose fine motor control and my Marine student told me they specifically train them to expect not to have it.
    Competence is sexy.

  21. says

    I would recommend, depending on how much cash you can easily burn, you get either Nuclear Weapons II or the Striking series.
    If you are reasonably sure you are going to want your family or a friend to get involved and help you two train together and that this is a “stable” setup (meaning, it’s not like on and off every month or so), then the TFT Seminar series will give you what they teach at their 2 day seminars, averaging around 1,000 dollars per person plus a reduced price or free guest pass for another. It provides the complete training system and then you just follow the guidelines and safety instructions and get to work at home.
    Unlike other systems or MA/TMAs (traditional martial arts such as kung fu differs from mixed martial arts), you don’t need to buy additional equipment or even have a soft mat to practice on. That’s an additional convenience if you don’t have a MA gym to train at or a large enough space at home.
    For those solely concerned about guns or getting attacked by other weapons, or if they need a close ranged backup in case their gun misfires, jams, is lost, or some such, I recommend Nuclear Weapons II. Each DVD product does provide you the complete training methodology so you can practice at home if you wish. It just doesn’t go into the other components of TFT as well, such as striking, throwing a person, or lethal leverage. There’s always going to be overlap, just not a focus.
    If you aren’t concerned about guns, either in using them in close quarters or having them used against you, and simply want to focus on learning striking, that’s what the striking series is for. If you don’t have martial arts background, don’t know how to shift your body weight or what is behind power generation, that’ll give you the tools you can then use to train up at home. If you have more money to spend, then definitely the seminar series will get you up to speed faster.
    The returned products marked down extremely low are sold out. But there seems to be a couple of sets left over from their graphic redesign. Marked down almost as much.
    There are many DVD products in the SD (self defense) world that teaches incomplete, partial, or just technique based stuff. Given my research, personal experience, judgment, talking with other high level martial artists, I can say with a high degree of confidence that anyone, with or without martial arts experience, can learn 70% of what TFT considers the entire system. That’s if you have a training partner. If you don’t, you’ll have to use operant conditioning, which does work, but it’s less than 70%. Progress will be slower, but not impossible. Nor will it get you killed due to lack of the right information while you are learning.
    TFT, in fact, is related to martial arts although they do not claim any lineage. The martial art in question is a form of Southern Shaolin kung fu. It’s not relevant to what will help you, Mike, but I thought I’d throw that out there as future reference. Experienced Kung fu practitioners can in fact recognize some of the movements in TFT, although it doesn’t look traditional. So if you wanted to learn kung fu, this is sort of an indirect method. As a person that has grasped TFT’s fundamental principles, will have a lot easier time training in kung fu.
    Whether you want to invest the time and money into this, Mike, will depend on how credible you think I am. If you think I’m giving out accurate information and you can invest the resources, then do so. If you don’t believe it is so, then there are plenty of other systems that cover a more generalized take on SD.
    If you or anyone else have any burning questions on this matter, I would be pleased to hear them. I have yet to read Rory Miller’s book, but I find the subject fascinating.

  22. says

    I think it is important to be as clear as possible.
    Bookworm said:
    “My martial arts training proves how true your point about physical differences is.  Even though I’m always the smallest in the class I can pretty much hold my own against any woman (this is sports fighting, at about 70% effort, of course, not hard core competitive).  I cannot however hold my own against even the smallest man.  The strength differential is too great.
    Of course, my hope is that, if I ever get stuck in a dangerous situation on the street, my training will give me an advantage.  But opposite a man with equal training?  No advantage.  None.”
    Sadly I’ve come across this serious confusion many times.  For instance a woman I met said she no longer practiced martial arts because they just didn’t give her an advantage against men.  She had trained (Tai kwan do I think) three hours a day, seven days a week, for 5 years.  She started in her early twenties and after five years of hard training, first year guys were still able to beat her.
    The training she was given had some health benefits. It gave her a chance to enter competitions with referees against people her own weight with similar training and rules.  It gave her the life skills she could possibly use if she caught one of her friends in bed with her husband–she could execute an “educational beat down.”  –Meaning she could challenge the offending women face to face and so humiliate and dominate her that she never came back.  That’s social violence.
    Bad guys use asocial violence, they don’t follow rules.  They only attack if they have overwhelming advantage.  If your main practice is face to face challenge matches where you only go 70% and you avoid striking vital areas, wear gloves, and never use the environment as a weapon—well, you’ve made yourself more vulnerable to asocial violence than you were before you had any training at all.  And I would say the same thing to you if you were 6’6″ and 240lbs. 

    There are many different types of violence and each type requires a different sort of response.  The best training in the world will not work if it is applied to the wrong problem.

  23. says

    It depends on how higher their center of gravity is and on how much the chair weighs. So long as most of the man’s weight is on his legs and toes, not on his head using the wall as a support, he can take the chair and transfer the weight to his legs. Then become upright using the lower back muscles.

    Keep in mind, you have to keep your legs straight and together the whole time, too. The point of this exercise was to demonstrate the center of gravity in men versus women and nothing else.

    I tried this experiment with my Dad when I heard about it, which was 20+ years ago.  I was in college and a waif at 100 pounds. We used a kitchen table chair because it was very easy for both of us to lift and the chair back wasn’t so high that it got in my way (I’m 5’3″ at the most). With my legs straight and together, I could bend over at the waist, put my head against the wall, pick up the chair by the armrests, and then stand back up at the waist.

    Then my Dad tried it. He picked up the chair, but he could not stand back up no matter how hard he tried. And he wasn’t a big, heavy man, either. He was, and still is, 5’10” and physically fit.

    My point was that women’s bodies provide them with some advantages over men. I remember a college professor saying in one class that clinical studies that showed women, on the whole, tend to handle pain better than men. This was confirmed by Mythbusters, too, in an episode aired just this past April.

    Wouldn’t it be smarter to take advantage of the various advantages we all have instead of trying to pretend there aren’t any?

  24. says

    I think in general it is a good idea to adapt to circumstances rather than try to change fundamental issues of terrain, nature, advantages, or disadvantages.
    Meaning, unless you need women in a war, the difficulties of integrating them or creating all female units, would be outweighed by simple strategy and efficiency.
    Because the current military tries to train for a top level and is volunteer based, females and males can be relatively equivalent in terms of providing the resources to fight and win wars. The top 5% of females is far better than males in the 50% to 80% percent range. Due to the modern logistics required for modern war making, women would also make great administrators and resource distributor.
    In a drafted or mass citizen military, individual differences between men and women might become more important. Since you could form separate divisions of women and create a SOP that makes them as efficient if not more efficient than men in fighting the war.
    What the Leftist alliance and DemonRats are doing to the military is neither volunteer quality control or mass producing soldiers: it is insurgency plain and simple. The military has been historically something the Left has often failed to infiltrate. While they easily took over the civil liberties orgs and women’s lib front groups, they failed in doing so to the US military. It doesn’t mean they had zero temporary successes. Drugs and such were rampant before Vietnam due to the 60s. But the Army cleaned that up, probably because if they didn’t, too many people would keep dying and that would get noticeable. Wars keep happening and that keeps the US military grounded in reality, not Leftist drug soaked dreams of world Utopia and domination. But the Left never stops. They never give up. They will try again and again, no matter how many times they have failed, to corrupt and subvert the US military from root to tree top.
    The US military was designed and produced to fight against foreign invaders, not enemies from their own nation, in their own chain of command. The problems and difficulties involving with men or women in war, regardless of how different men are from women, pales in comparison the danger and cancer of the Left inside the US.
    Even if there was a doable policy and way to make effective use of women in combat (and in Afghanistan/iraq there is), the Obamas, the DemonRats, and the Leftist alliance will nullify it, reverse it, and then drink in celebration when people are slaughtered en masse due to their actions. As evidenced in Book’s latest post on education snobbery, this is not so much a political divide as it is a tribal division. A division between those mostly calling themselves Democrats and those who are not part of their social club or circle.

  25. says

    Peggy Noonan, for example, is a member of the Leftist alliance. How can that be, you say, when you look up her bio and see she was a defender of Bush 2 and a speech writer for Reagan? Easily answered. She is part of the Left solely because her friends and associates of her social circle in DC are part of the DC government patronage crowd. She is part of the Left because she owes her allegiance to her society, and her society is part of the greater Leftist alliance.
    It is as simple as that. When her circle told her that Palin was a no go, she complied and obeyed. When Leftists like Juan Williams do not comply, when even lightly political Democrats like Neo-neocon refuse to comply with the standards set by her social peers, they will be punished and even expelled from the group. This is a tribal function: exile to leave people out in the wilderness to die.
    Why is Grim Beorn of Blackfive 5 not part of the Left, even though he self labels as a Georgia Democrat and has been adamant about it since he first began to learn about politics? Because his social circle is part of the conservative South, full of guns and squirrel shooting and warfare buddies in the Marines and what not. That is his social circle. Thus he cannot be part of the Left because he obeys the rules set by his peers and does not refuse to do so by… say… supporting Polanski and his raping children. Even if he had an argument that disagreed with the majority, his publicly worded line will be tempered by societal reaction. For most people of the Southern lineage, that means he’ll say what he means to say, just differently worded. Whereas in the Democrat circle, your social peers actually determine what you say. If you don’t want to support Polansky but your friends told you to do it or else, you’ll do it. And that’s your proof of membership in the Left. Since the Left encompasses many different tribal identities, it also includes the rich fat cat crowd as well. It can even include blacks that hate guys but vote for Obama and don’t like women and call them hoes, allied along with NOW and women’s feminazi advocates. If that functions “smoothly” enough for the Left, why not all the other stuff as well?

  26. says

    Btw, for people that want a definition of social violence vs asocial violence, it simply means every tribe or society has rules governing the proper use of violence. It could be a threat such as “if you don’t knock it off and leave that girl alone I’ll put your face so out of joint your mother wouldn’t recognize you” or it could be physical hazzing or violent deterrence. The code Duello of the West is a codified form of societal violence. So is the bar room brawl actually. The reason is simple. The goal there isn’t to kill or destroy the enemy but to communicate a message. The message in a brawl is “I’m tough and so I’m going to have this territory and I’ll beat you enough that you’ll run away and leave”.
    Asocial violence is when you aren’t interested in communicating a message. You just want to objectively destroy and kill someone so that their existence ceases to be. Because corpses don’t understand talk, you are not interested in talking.
    What people term as street fights “with no rules” is actually describing fights with variable rules. The rules could be a simple territorial dispute that escalates into an asocial situation because somebody started getting a little crazy.
    The human brain actually has different states of consciousness to deal with these issues. For women, there is an easily recognized parallel processor that computes all the various ways in which you can insult another woman or how she can get back at you or how you can compete with her for boyfriends or other resources. This is relatively known as the “monkey brain”. The one that is solely concerned with social status. Then there is the “lizard brain” which ignores all the social status issues and ego issues and goes straight for what will allow you to survive now.
    To deal with asocial violence, a person needs to be thinking with the lizard, not the monkey. If you think that you cannot fight because the laws will punish you later, that is the monkey telling you that you need to pay attention to his fear injection. But the lizard just says “do what it takes to live, don’t worry about the past or the future or even remembering any of this stuff. Put all brain resources to survival”.
    Mothers that lift cars up to save their children trapped underneath, is feasible and is not entirely a urban legend. But at the same time, the cost is horrendous. The female would essentially break all the muscles in her back, plus spine damage, with that kind of excursion. The human body naturally limits itself to what is “safe” in parameters. A person thinking about what society will react to their actions, is functioning in a “safe mode”. This has extremely bad consequences if you are trying to survive against someone functioning in the asocial. Because like I said, the asocial has no safety parameters, rules, or limitations. It is like the mother lifting the car. Except the guy isn’t lifting a car. He’s trying to end you. And if you react with “safety margins”, you just aren’t going to have the speed, strength, or mental agility to figure things out before you start getting engaged. All you can then depend on is “luck”. Maybe the serial killer will stab you once and leave for another victim. Maybe. Maybe you’ll get lucky and can hold off the knife hand until somebody jumps your assailant from the back. Maybe.
    Things like that I don’t really care.

Leave a Reply