I’ve always been suspicious of arguments about institutional equality, that is to say, the idea that if gays can get married and women can kill foreigners, we will have achieved some sort of a just and equitable society. Expanding access to the institutions of inequality doesn’t engender equality. Approbation isn’t equity. Belonging isn’t justice.
Now, the human intellect is a remarkable and supple thing. Although I happen to believe that most of our anthrocentrism is pride and vanity, that the capacities for thought and sentiment, happiness and sadness, memory and culture are shared by our animal sisters, I do think we exceed them all in one way: we are unique in our capacity to construct realities at utter odds with reality. Dogs dream and dolphins imagine, but only humans are deluded.
So, a human thought the thought that produced this sentence:
Hopefully the greater inclusion of women into the military will help us all see that violence and war is learned behavior—it’s not inevitable.
Professionalized equality has escaped from the lab and threatens to overthrow its creators. The military is a machine for killing; its purpose is to wage war. Inevitability and inherency are not paired concepts. Nature vs. nurture isn’t germane here.
What’s really sad is that this argument actually recapitulates almost exactly the most inane conservative case against the inclusion of women in so-called combat roles: that it will “feminize” the military and make it less inclined to the psycho violence so necessary to, well, whatever it’s necessary for. The only difference is that Amanda Marcotte believes this is a good thing. The presumption is identical: women will decrease the army’s efficacy as a dealer of death.
Believing, as I do, that women are pound-for-pound, neuron-for-neuron just as capable physically and intellectually as men, this argument seems to me to be completely crackpot. Just as women are very good at flying helicopters, they will be very good at shooting guns. Their presence in the ranks will have not the slightest disincentive effect on the use of force as a first resort of American statecraft.
18 thoughts on “Sabotage”
I so “sap”pily (sap has many meanings, one: a sort of outward, somewhat profuse – given a certain season – bleeding from a tree, quite restrictively anchored in its place and circumstances of birth….) love so much of your meditated (I feel) regurgitations of the disease we’re so surrounded by:
though it does tend to be just us folks ™ who strike with that oar on the “lifeboat” ….. or trip up our best Facebook Fwend ™ …. in that malevolent game, so malevolently “innocent”ly named:
♫ Musical Chairs ♫
(a forever lasting kiss, to Matt Mullenweg, I hope I’ve spelled that correctly, who has provided a solace from THE GOOGLEPLEX, it is not surprising no one knows his name, as he never ever set himself up as a GOD.)
.. and, of course, it is quite clear to anyone whose favored sites emanate from WordPress, that those sites are the most likely to be crippled by a Denial of Service attack against a ‘blog,’ or nebulous filtering issues which may well have to do with something quite other than WordPress; such as Stop Me Before I Vote Again clearly has in the last few days since justly trashing the inaugural poetry ™ as the malefic trash that it was, and justly equating the U$ Department of JUSTU$ with NAZIS.
It should be duly noted that WordPress has not been the entity to clearly censor Stop Me Before I Vote Again.
another malodorous ingredient (already present) in the military death stew: rape. . .
I might feel a bit more equal and justice-served if I could remain single whilst obtaining the politico-economic benefits of marriage.
Why doesn’t anyone ever point out that single people pay higher tax rates?
because no one cares about us
favoured, and flavoured , what are we having for dine to night jacob , something leafy that goes well with a dog eared shew , .. and cumin seeded,florentine no flounder of ‘ grass this evening ..
Eh, inanity recapitulates inanity. They were arguments, dude?
Except that Emma Goldman was wrong. Jessica Chastain and Laurence Olivier are not capable of torturing me with equal sexy.
i’m all for equality, but did it ever occur to anyone that, in this instance, equality could instead have been achieved by barring men from combat?
this feminism thing is a real fucking disability for Marcotte, christ. she should stop.
effeminate the eschaton!
like America’s never done the things that all of our “enemies” are only capable of.
is mr fun tom flanagan
obviously you are not a golfer
no, not a golfer ,.. i dans’ on a pin / .. .a x is / ” Anne, please post here more often. Now, where’s Mr. Fundamental when we need him? If we can get the two of them conversing, we’ve got blawg go ‘ld .” -said leonard /muammar ..
and i meant of what tom is wearing .. . toot , viola
Of course the ‘Fourth Estate’ has followed up with commentary that includes – of course in its midsections – fleeting critical stances, yet begins and ends with SUPPORT for a sadistic, QUITE IRONIC (historically) move, by insatiable and elite, entities:
From The Guardian, ™ ….. a Headliner… (and yes, I did “favor” The United Kingdom’s ™ Guardian ™ – when it was doing a pot kettle thing re the $US American P$ychciatric A$$ociation, ™ and so?):
01/29/13 The US-born soldier fighting for Israel: ‘Women should have the privilege’Corporal Arielle Werner, now a member of the IDF, welcomes the US decision to allow women to serve in combat roles
From the midsection (can’t say the reality wasn’t addressed!), which is known to be ignored, as the fourth estate realizes that no one who cares has the time in the day to fully read and meditate anymore, all the ghastly nooz that surrounds:
(No room for feeling, let alone sorting out basic right from wrong: life giving … versus death bringing.)
Lastly, the crucial end paragraph, which generally cements ‘Fourth Estate’ intent:
Quite unlike the Malefic, Toothless Ledbetter Act, this fucker has fangs that will have an actual, tangible effect; …an actual follow through …. of the mission noted.