“Over the Top”

“Though the pride of the godless person reaches to the heavens, and his head touches the clouds, he will perish forever, like his own dung; those who have seen him will say, ‘Where is he?’” Job 20: 6-7.

I am not a pacifist, but I do believe that old men in all ages have been spendthrifts when it comes to the blood and bones of men younger than they. A pacifist says that nothing is worth a fight.  Safe in their infirmities, these crafty old men can discover a casus belli in just about anything. Thus I am suitably sickened when I watch the movie Gallipoli.

But I must say that I would be sicker still if that movie showed young women going “over the top” to be slaughtered by those Turkish guns. And yet, that they should have done so is now the law of our very far from lovely land. As you have no doubt seen, a Texas judge has ruled that young women must now register for the draft. Assuming the ruling is not overturned, this means that our Constitution demands that we slaughter our young women with a profligacy equal to the profligacy with which we have slaughtered our young men.

I have two sons and a daughter. I would demand that crafty old chickenhawks demonstrate an extremely good reason before I would send my sons “over the top.” There is no craft by which those chickenhawks could persuade me to send my daughter.   Or that should be yield my daughter, since this ruling states that American principals entitle those crafty old chickenhawks to demand my daughter’s blood and bones.

This is a monstrosity against which I would send her brothers to fight.

And yet I am told that this monstrosity has been gestating in the heart of the American ethos from the very beginning, and that a good American can only deplore that it did not come to term earlier, so that gender equality could have been observed on the field at Gettysburg, or the beaches of Normandy, or the banks of the Little Bighorn.

If I am sickened by the movie Gallipoli, it now appears that it should be because the battle was sexist.

If this is entailed in the ethos of our nation, then our nation deserves to perish and go the way of its own dung.  And then in no time at all, less foolhardy nations will say, “where are they?”

99 thoughts on ““Over the Top”

  1. Cold comfort but I can just about guarantee they will not be forcing women into combat in large numbers. You have to remember consistency means nothing to the left, even the women in the military now receive special treatment (not to take anything away from their sacrifice ).

    • A sacrifice isn’t much of a sacrifice when it is being incentivized and compensated by a host of special treatments. In any case, I have my doubts “they” will necessarily have to “force” conscripted women into combat roles, if and when it comes to that. One of strongest (if darker) reasons to oppose this horror is because of the female propensity to vanity, and to become drunk on the intoxicating elixir of the sense of empowerment the female combat veteran status naturally carries with it.

  2. I had a discussion over this potential with my daughter some time back shortly before she turned eighteen and just at the time when this very wicked idea was reaching the main stream. I simply highlighted the absolute sickness of “equality” dogma. Noting that this (universal) “equality” dogma can justify and rationalize any pathology including sending my daughter to war because it is “fair” and “equal” to what the “boys” have to do.

    There are demons at the top of this turd pile.

  3. I share your sentiments completely, JM. I have always been unsparing in my criticisms of the feminist “reasoning” that has paved the way for this sickening development, but I am equally sickened by comments appearing on MRA sites cheering this decision (“Now they can find out for themselves on the battlefield what equality looks like,” etc. etc.). I suppose they think that, in order to score a few debating points with the feminists, it’s worth it to weaken our forces (and I am convinced that such would be the case) and to go counter to what human history dictates is a feature of our natures: that such protecting roles have been largely assumed by men.
    I can’t imagine any father in his right mind willingly sending his daughter off to protect him. How could he ever forgive himself for allowing such a thing? Any father would rather go off to protect his daughter (and that includes me; even at age 65 I’d enlist in a heartbeat rather than send my 34 year-old daughter off to battle). We’re going to see massive resistance to this if it is not overturned. Too many fathers out there still have their senses about them.

    • As you say, it is sick to see this as a just revenge against women. But the abomination will be redeemed if it causes people to question (and reject) the doctrine of equality.

      • It is the obvious logical outcome of ‘equality’. It bears out the truth of Chesterton’s definition of madness; that madness does not imply the loss of reason, but the loss of everything else. Capable reason, working on false premises, leads to this vile insanity.

        I have three daughters.

  4. I love “Gallipoli”. Glad to hear it mentioned.

    I agree that making women fight is even more evil than allowing them to fight. If this goes through, hopefully it will be the end of America’s willingness to use its military, which is by-and-large a force for evil in the world. In a majority-minority USA, I can’t imagine many of any group will be willing to risk their lives for a government they see as mostly benefiting other groups. That leaves conscripts.

  5. Pingback: “Over the Top” | Reaction Times

  6. Will men and women be drafted in equal numbers? Honest question: Is there a winning side in the history of warfare that would not have been the losing side of their infantry was composed of 50% women?

    • The doctrine of “equality” necessarily stipulates that the 50 percentile number cannot possibly apply only to an army’s infantry, but must also apply to and throughout its leadership. Meanwhile, your question might better reflect reality were we to put it before the god of Matriarchy in the Abrahamic form: wilt thou destroy the city if ten righteous be found there? One supposes it is “too bad” the god of Matriarchy should answer that if she finds 50 righteous there she will indeed destroy it. It being very near and dear to her to thusly deal with the unrighteous, as well as with the wicked.

  7. It’s funny how close this article comes to this rather good argument *for* female conscription:
    – war is bad
    – we too easily sacrifice young male lives
    – therefore, we should include more females in the military, since it would make it that much harder to deploy military force for unjustified reasons.

      • The price is indeed too high, precisely because, as has been understood since time immemorial, nations go to war for Just as well as Pretended Causes; and even the most virtuous and wisely administered among the nations does not always have it within its power to prevent aggressive foreign belligerents from inventing “Just Causes” for which to make war on their enemies, any more than a virtuous private citizen always has it within his power to not offend, or to ‘keep the peace’ with his neighbor. Like individuals, collections of individuals do not necessarily need a good reason to despise their rivals, but only a reason.

      • Chivalry is definitely dead in a great part of the good ol’ US of A; from whence sections the greatest number of fools and buffoons who rule it over us in the USG are extracted.

    • Would it, though? Do you honestly think the ‘Invade the world, Invite the world,’ proponents will have significantly more trouble watering the sands of Afghanistan with the blood of women than with the blood of men?

      • I’ll answer that by saying, only if watering the sands of Afghanistan (etc.) with female blood becomes inconvenient to that faction; certainly not from any principled position on the matter.

  8. Remember that this is for the defense of the United States – so, not that important. For really important events, like the Olympic Games, men and women are recognized as having different physical capabilities, and therefore compete separately.

    The NFL has also not implemented affirmative action for women, but that is no doubt because football is considered too important. The defense of America not so much.

  9. I saw that and was tempted to wax philosophic on the subject, I am glad you did rather than I. Besides the obvious insanity of the decision, I saw that this was an effort by something like “The national association for men” i.e. Masculists as opposed to ‘feminists’. These are weak and effeminate men who charge that men bearing the burden of national defense is ‘unfair’. I charge that those men do not speak for the rest of us. That some men still recognize their duty to put their life on the line for God and Country, in that order. Some men still see it as their duty to stand defense for the women at home.

    This ruling will not stand. The reason women were excluded from the draft is not because women are unable to fight, but because a womans vocation is indispensable at home, and someone must remain to raise sons whose fathers were killed in battle.

    Masculists are pursuing fairness, by which they mean they are pursuing the great self effacing indignity of insisting their wives and daughters go to war.

    God help these lost men.

    • I think masculinists are pursuing revenge, not fairness. But they know that invoking fairness will make the American system wreak revenge for them. Which is a pretty effeminate way of wreaking revenge.

      • This sparked a small tangential thought.

        The State insists on being Male and turning everyone else Female. Precisely so far as the State involves itself in a facet of life, both men and women must take the Female role to the State’s Male.

        This is another way to say that the State claims to be God.

        Another:
        Working the system sideways to get what they want is an effeminate response because the State is strong. When the State is weak, the male response becomes possible and even dominant: forming and deploying the posse (or warband, or freikorp, or whatever).

      • Interesting. “Let’s you and him fight” is, of course, classic female behavior. I know I was manipulated in this way more than once. Getting the state to destroy your enemies seems to follow the same pattern. Of course some would say that this is the alpha and omega of politics.

      • Rhetocrates@:

        I used to joke (facetiously, but probably not a good idea in hindsight) that between the lines of every state marriage certificate may be read,

        ‘This certifies that [Johnny male] is wedded to [Jane female] for life, and in turn that [Jane female] is likewise hereby fully wedded to the State, her strongest advocate and greatest protector against [Johnny male’s] insistence on acting the part of a man, a father, and a husband, whenever she should come to resent it.’

        With an abundance of “Whereupons” and “Hereinafters” sometimes added for effect.

  10. For non-idealogical guidance on this, let us look to how our cousins handle the matter. Baboons live and move in troops. Ideally, the younger adult males are the outriders to the group – scouting for danger. When danger is found they alert the group as a whole. Being young and fast they can do this quicker. Meanwhile the females, babies and juveniles are in the centre, protected by the big males. However, when the leopard comes the big males have to move out to meet it. If there is only one big male, he must go on his own. His function is not to win (unless by some happy accident). His function is to distract the leopard while trying to stay alive long enough for the others to escape. This is when he pays for all the extra food he got when young to build himself up for this moment. If there is no big male, then younger males must take on the foe. If there are no adult males at all, then and only then will the senior female delegate her proper role of supervising the children to safety and assume the role of the dominant male to confront the leopard. She has even less chance but, if push comes to shove, she will try and do what she can.
    But, under no conceivable circumstances will a troop of baboons place their females on the front line as a matter of course rather than in response to dire necessity.
    Human societies were all once as wise as baboon societies.
    They are not all so now, it seems.

    • But in baboon culture, the young male got the extra food and better treatment for his role. What treatment do males get in our culture?

      Frankly, I don’t see much chance of a draft. The effectiveness of what you haul in through a draft is not very proficient (or motivated), and we will fight with drones and other tech anyway.

      • You may be right that the age of mass conscription is over, but the improbability of enactment does not remove the stain of the principal. Law expresses the will of a people, so it is now our will that young women be slaughtered in numbers equal to young men. This is now “who we are,” whether or not we put it into practice.

  11. a Texas judge has ruled that young women must now register for the draft

    Not precisely. He has ruled that equal treatment, part of the [(un)written] constitution, implies equal treatment. Therefore it follows that the current status is unconstitutional, but nothing new is forced (yet).

    “Now they can find out for themselves on the battlefield what equality looks like,” etc. etc

    There is a certain amount of justice in the desired equality being gotten good and hard.

    • You’re correct that we haven’t quite reached the end of this road, but there are no obstacles between us and the end of this road.

    • I dare not claim that poetic justice isn’t, at times, very appealing and satisfying to my sensibilities. But in this particular case I can honestly say it has no appeal or satisfying quality to me whatsoever. If this policy only affected the kind of woman we all rightly despise (or at least pity), that would be one thing and true poetic justice. But that cannot possibly be the case, and, moreover, even if it were it would still put our male soldiers in an unnecessarily precarious position, mostly against their collective will and better sense.

    • It is true that many of the early romances stressed “romantic” (i.e. erotic) love, but the one we know best tells how Lancelot, the greatest knight, was undone by his adultery with Guinevere. It was this adultery that prevented him from finding the castle of the Fisher King and seeing the Holy Grail. With that said, there is a point to Dalrock’s renunciation. White knights now defend a feminism that is bent on destroying white knights. I’m sure some white knights are already out there slaying the dragons that oppose this ruling.

      • One point he does raise explicitly is the folly of how chivalry played out on the Titanic, likely causing the deaths of many more than was necessary. Already I see how the comparison of the sorting process on the Titanic is different in some important ways from the traditional sorting process of the draft (i.e., male = can be drafted; female = cannot). Yet the full Titanic experience that our chivalrous society lusts after can be seen as played out in the drafting and sending to war of young men, as you note being portrayed in Gallipoli. I don’t see the same lust to see women send off to be incinerated.

      • Here is another song from Harvey on Sandra Lee Scheur (Sandy) who got killed by a stray bullet at Kent State University, Ohio, on the 4th May 1970: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe-22-BaRA

        My point is not the protest, which Sandy was not part of. My point is to ask whether we really wish, as a society, to put our young women (as a matter of course rather than extreme emergency) in the position of holding the gun in such an incident as that in which Sandy was killed. If we do then we are doomed – and deserve to be.

      • There is a schism in the soul of our species. Some propose to heal it by treating the two halves as if they were identical. Others want to make the schism permanent and complete, excepting periodic exchange of sperm and eggs on a purely clinical and cash-and-cary basis.

    • @buckyinky I went over to read that because the idea of ‘rejecting’ chivalry seems gravely misinformed. I offer the following response because you mentioned it here, even though i know you don’t claim any of his ideas for your own.

      He says the following:
      “After due consideration I have decided to adopt the label unchivalrous Christian. The label is more accurate than anti-feminist Christian, or traditional Christian, because antifeminist and traditional Christians almost always stress chivalry as their strategy for fighting against feminism.”

      He immediately equates “unchivalry” with “antifeminism” and “traditionalism” which, in turn, equates “Chivalry” with “feminism” and “anti-traditionalism”. It seems to me that this Dalrock fellow has succumbed to the great lie that feminists stand for women, which they do not. Feminists stand for feminists.

      The vocation of women is extremely important and extremely unrepresented in discussions about ‘feminism’, and the only virtuous response to a virtuous woman practicing her vocation is virtuous behavior, which is chivalry. Virtuous women deserve unequivocally the deference and defense from and by men. His argument is fallacious from the start.

      Chivalry cannot be rejected any more than I can reject “Honesty” or “Charity”. If Dalrock is a virtuous man, he will necessarily be chivalrous to all humans, inclusive of women. If he is not a virtuous man, he cannot be said to have been chivalrous from the start, and so he is merely acknowledging the current state of reality.

      As it pertains to the draft, it is misinformed to think that an offense against chivalry is the only thing wrong with drafting women.

      • Given how Courtly Love is how people know chivalry(as well as the inversion of sex roles)
        https://gynocentrism.com/2013/07/14/the-birth-of-chivalric-love/

        and how there is already protection for women and in non-chivalric societies as well as pre-chivalric Christian societies. I don’t think that argument holds water.

        There is also the factor that Chivalry far from counteracting feminism seem to have reinforced its power through the surrender of such men to this wickedness.

        Not withstanding how Chivalry or its offshoots have resulted in women getting away with murder:

        Title: “1912: “A Man Is Killed By A Woman Every Day!” – Petticoats Confer Immunity”
        https://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Chivalry%20Justice

      • It may be useful to separate chivalry from the code of courtly love, since the later tends to corrupt the former. Ideally, chivalry was simply a code of righteous or sanctified violence. The chivalrous knight put his strength in the service of God and the good. The crusades were the clearest expression of this code. Thus rescuing a “damsel in distress” was chivalrous only when rescue didn’t mean seizing her so you could rape her yourself. In the code of courtly love, a knight was inspired by his “lady love,” a married woman woman with whom his relations were supposed to be Platonic, but with whom they very often were not. This is the origin of our idea of “romantic love,” and of the terrible idea that romantic love (i.e. eros) is the foundation of sexual morality.

        Chivalry is hacked when “white knights” come to the rescue of the wrong gal. If a modern white knight came upon Rapunzel in her tower, he would think it his duty to help the old witch lock the door. If a modern white knight saw Andromeda chained to her rock, he would think it his duty to help the poor little sea monster. Chivalry detached from a sound understanding of God and the good is a malignant force. Chivalry is also corrupted when the knight expects erotic compensation for his services, since virtue is its own reward in true chivalry.

      • I agree with @JMSmith above: separating chivalry from courtly love is important. History suffers from a misconception due to cartoonish depictions of chivalry. Chivalry is derived from french Chavalier (anglicized, Cavalier), which is in turn derived from Latin for horse, Caballus. Chivalry has it’s roots in the crusades, where holy orders of knights took vows before God and man. This idea captured the cultural imagination, resulting in works such as Ivanhoe, which I consider to be a reasonable depiction of Chivalry, and satirical works such as Don Quixote which is a scathing rebuke of the cartoonish chivalry we are all most familiar with. So first and foremost lets make sure we are working with the same understanding of chivalry.

        Second, Chivalry adequately understood has built into the idea an oath to uphold Christian virtues. Indeed a “Gentleman” used to speak to this, but as CS Lewis observes in Mere Christianity, it has been overused and stretched to the point that now it simply refers to a term for a person whom the observer likes. Christian virtues existed before Christ and still exist after Christ; Christ simply exemplified their perfection. These virtues are valuable in the west and outside the west, and are not bound by geography. Chivalry then can be considered an ‘umbrella’ term for the collective virtues with which a man conducts himself.

        Given the above, Chivalry is not designed to ‘counteract’ feminism. Chivalry presents an example that does not conform to the feminist worldview. How can there be a patriarchy of pig-men when men behave decently and virtuously to all people, especially women? So feminists choose to ignore Chivalry or choose to use a different conception of chivalry so that it doesn’t challenge their world view so much. Chivalrous men hardly surrender to ‘wickedness’ but are bound by virtue and honor to protest all instances where a person is being treated unjustly, or contrary to the Pax Dominum (not being a latin expert, my intent is to say ‘the Lord’s Peace’, perhaps I ought to have just said that).

        So “murder” is, as such, totally contrary to Chivalry nor can I imagine there being genuine ‘offshoots’ of chivalry, since chivalry is a body of virtues and not a political ideology. Treating chivalry as a political ideology is the same error of the feminists: it leads to Feminists only standing for feminists, and ignoring women, thus neglecting their true objective. Political ‘chivalrists’ only standing for themselves, and ignoring the virtues their name implies.

      • @Scott

        Chivalry cannot be rejected any more than I can reject “Honesty” or “Charity”.

        Why not just say “live by Christian virtue?” Are women not sufficiently protected/honored by this way of life?

      • JMSmith said this in a comment on a different article:

        Words come into being because they are useful. This is also why they survive. Deadbeat and bum came into being under special circumstances, but once they came into being, people saw they could be used to describe related characters. Political correctness has been trying to replace bum with homeless person for forty years, but I doubt they will ever succeed. Homelessness is accidental, but bums are essentially bums.

        So too with Chivalry. Chivalry came into being as a word because it was useful and targeted a specific circumstance and set of values. ‘Live by Christian Virtue’ is good advice for daily life. ‘Live Chivalrously’ has implications of Duty, and an explicit commitment to God. Living by Christian Virtue is not an exhortation to commit oneself to God. Chivalry is explicitly so.

      • JM: ‘The crusades were the clearest expression of this code. Thus rescuing a “damsel in distress” was chivalrous only when rescue didn’t mean seizing her so you could rape her yourself.’

        This is an excellent description of the Fourth Crusade,
        when the Queen of Cities was both seized and raped.

      • Perhaps I should have said the idea of the crusades. As I say in the subsequent post, there will always be werewolves.

      • Scoot,

        Living by Christian Virtue is not an exhortation to commit oneself to God. Chivalry is explicitly so.

        I don’t understand. To live by the Christian virtues of piety and religion (of course the Christian religion) is to commit oneself to God. Chivalry is not necessary to do this.

      • In theory, chivalry was to commit one’s sword to God. The chivalrous knight was, in theory, a monastic warrior. Of course Germanic warriors were pretty rough around the edges at first, and the whole thing degenerated into a cult of courtesy. St. Bernard called it the “new knighthood” and described it this way

        “They can fight the battles of the Lord . . . . It is not without reason that the solider of Christ carries a sword: it is for the chastisement of the wicked, and for the glory of the Good.” St. Bernard, Book to the Knights of the Temple, in Praise of the New Knighthood (c. 1130)

      • @buckyinky,

        I guess in my mind the distinction is between living (passively, i.e. ‘being virtuous’) and doing (actively, doing virtue). An argument could be made that the two are semantically related. My argument leans on the active component of Chivalry (which is derived directly from an Oath to God, see a previous comment in this section). Deeds of course don’t necessarily imply belief nor does belief imply deeds.

        Chivalry is not applied universally to all christians because it highlights a unique facet. If Christian virtue meant Chivalry, and vice versa, there would be no need for an additional word. This is all the weeds of semantics.

        Put simply, my argument is that one requires Christian virtues to be accurately described as Chivalrous, and that dependency implies something over and above Christian Virtue.

      • Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Matt, 26:52

      • Scoot,

        I don’t see where you have addressed where chivalry makes up for where the simple practice of Christian virtue lacks, specifically in giving women honor that is due to them. As JMSmith notes, it was a code for the wielding of the sword in a society that was strikingly different than ours; it was not a code principally of how men should relate to women, as it is almost universally understood today, as indeed you seem to understand it by your emphasis on its applicability to men today vis-a-vis women.

      • That is a helpful clarification. Chivalry was not primarily a code of how men should relate to women. It did demand that the knight ensure justice for the weak, and this took in the whole “damsel in distress” business, but the chivalrous knight had no special obligation to the bitches and witches with which medieval Europe was so well supplied. As we have learned to our sorrow, “justice for the weak” can easily degenerate into “social justice for the weak,” which means the weak are always in the right, but chivalry really meant standing up to bullies (or the Sheriff of Nottingham).

      • Its the deference to women in general that is engendered by Courtly Love that I don’t think people are able to separate from Chivalry except through mass reeducation that contributes to this problem.

        The Courtly Love aspect and the celebration of Adultery that is inherent in its culture. As well as putting women on a pedestal like they are Goddesses.

        Somehow that Chivalry is the solution to female rebellion by past “Conservatives”. I think why Dalrock seeks to dismantle that so that women can again be held accountable for their actions like Murder.

        By taking women off the pedestal.

      • @JMSmith
        ”In theory, chivalry was to commit one’s sword to God. ”
        In theory it should be similar to the code of Bushido. But in practice it is Courtly Love through centuries and especially in contemporary “conservative” society.

      • @buckyinky

        I was responding in the context of your question, quoted here: “Why not just say “live by Christian virtue?” Are women not sufficiently protected/honored by this way of life?” I apologize if that emphasis seemed disproportionate, but I was trying to stay topical. I agree that Chivalry is not exclusively how men should relate to women and I don’t believe what I have said is inconsistent with that knowledge. I will say that Chivalry does not ‘make up’ for a ‘lack’ in Christian Virtue. Wood does not lack something because it has not been made into a chair. Wood is the raw material, the Chair the product. Chivalry is the product of Christian virtue. That is true historically and philosophically.

        @info

        I don’t think ‘female rebellion’ requires a solution, nor do I think we suffer from an epidemic of criminal women. I think many modern women are behaving in the way many modern men are; that is with frivolity, vice, and materialism. Chivalry is not so much a ‘solution’ because Chivalry doesn’t prescribe behavior for anyone but the one who is chivalrous. It is a code of how a Man might walk through the valley of the shadow of death and be unimpeded by whatever he might encounter there. Courtly love is a separate and distinct issue from Chivalry as has been already addressed. I think you should re-read this thread and unburden your mind of this idea you have, because it is preventing you from speaking with clarity about these two ideas. The one is not the other, they are related but only by modern misconception. That said, I don’t think women should be on or off a pedestal. They, like all people, should be treated with a basic respect that speaks to the sanctity and dignity of all human life. If that respect is not returned, then turn the other cheek and shake the dust from your shoes. But Chivalry at the barest of minimums prescribes a means for treating people with decency. if Dalrock wanted to reject courtly love, he should have rejected that. If he wanted to take women off a pedestal, he should have said that. But instead he said he rejects Chivalry and describes himself as unchivalrous. My prior admonition stands: If he wasn’t already treating people with respect and dignity, he’s not adding any new information, just acknowledging reality.

      • Whilst we can talk about chivalry theoretically should be. Especially how its practiced now and how most knows it as it actually is courtly love.

        It would require mass reeducation to change that.

        Unfortunately a lot of conservatives treat the 2 as equivalent.

      • @Scoot
        ”So “murder” is, as such, totally contrary to Chivalry nor can I imagine there being genuine ‘offshoots’ of chivalry, since chivalry is a body of virtues and not a political ideology. Treating chivalry as a political ideology is the same error of the feminists: it leads to Feminists only standing for feminists, and ignoring women, thus neglecting their true objective. Political ‘chivalrists’ only standing for themselves, and ignoring the virtues their name implies.”

        And those are the implications. Of the practice of what people back then thought was “chivalry”.

        Maclay Hoyne – Illinois State’s Attorney of Cook County – 1914

        “The manner in which women who have committed murder in this county have escaped punishment has become a scandal. The blame in the first instance must fall upon the jurors who seem willing to bring in a verdict of acquittal whenever a woman charged with murder is fairly good looking and is able to turn on the flood gates of her tears, or exhibit a capacity for fainting.”

        John E. W. Wayman – Prosecuting attorney of Cook county (Chicago). – 1912
        “It appears absolutely impossible to find 12 men in this country who will convict a woman of murder. This mistaken idea of chivalry has resulted in numerous miscarriages of justice and a reckless abandon, on the part of women who are criminally inclined. All that is necessary for a woman is to retreat behind the protecting wall of her sex, and an avalanche of tears, and make no other defense.”

        Thomas Lee Woolwine – Los Angeles District Attorney – 1922

        “The reason it is well night impossible to punish women for crimes of violence in particular is simple: It is because they are women, and because sex plays a vital part in every such trial. Men are innately loath to punish women. Women naturally arouse a feeling of false chivalry in men which allays and tempers their judgment upon the evidence. It is more difficult for a prosecutor to overcome this powerful factor than it is to convince a jury upon the state of facts presented.”

        As I said above mass reeducation would be needed to eradicate this reluctance based on what you would call distorted chivalry. To convict guilty women of murder and punish her with the just penalty of death and to put an end to the practice of courtly love.

      • @info:

        I have to say, a contemporary example of a woman literally getting away with murder because she is a woman would help your argument here. Not to say your point is not received, or received poorly.

        Honestly, I think we might be talking past each other. The problem I think we both agree exists. I think you believe Chivalry (via courtly love, or not) adds to the problem. I think Chivalry is unrelated. Would you say that is an accurate description?

        So the question becomes, what is the root of these social ills. Because certainly, to focus on women is to miss half the problem, because Men cannot be said to be, on the whole, more upstanding as citizens and people than women. If Chivalry is additive to the problem with women, how are we to diagnose the problem with men?

      • No one (except a female) denies that females get away with a lot of things, especially when they are young, pretty and innocent looking. Some of this is hardwired into our biology, but the hardwired signal is amplified by the cultural code of chivalry and courtesy. We can’t really blame these codes for our present predicament, though, since they existed for hundreds of years without undermining patriarchy. The downfall came in the late nineteenth century, when it was taught that women were morally superior to me, rather than decidedly evil in distinctly feminine ways.

      • ”I have to say, a contemporary example of a woman literally getting away with murder because she is a woman would help your argument here. Not to say your point is not received, or received poorly.”

        The trouble is whilst I was able to find out 1 in 10 murders were committed by women it appears google bias is covering up the fact that women murder so its hard to find. So I searched the FBi murder statistics:

        https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls

        Women commit 10% of murder. But make up only 2.9% of all national executions. Whilst men make up at least 97.1% of all executions justly.

        Here is the references he is using:
        https://web.archive.org/web/20170321112613/https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44261-youtube-the-truth-about-male-privilege/

        As for speaking past each other we may be. And as you have discussed what chivalry actually is. Is very different from how its been practiced.

        Most contemporary people would conflate chivalry with courtly love because that’s what they think chivalry actually is. And this mutation of chivalry which in no way resembles that ideal aside from Bushido is wreaking havoc as it stands know.

      • I am going to take a look at this and build what I hope to be a suitable rebuttal. I’ll post it over on my blog so as to avoid overcrowding this space, on a subject that has already deviated a bit from the OP.

        Thank you for giving me a lot to think about!

      • And the fact that the mainstream have ready made excuses as to the fact that its “self-defense” or “abuse” or “mental illness” that makes the murder valid.

        How its always the victims fault.

      • Hi Info: I have written my rebuttal as promised, I hope you will take a look and let me know if I have been reasonable or misrepresented your case at all. You can find it here

  12. This issue also highlights the malignancy of “equality” by way of the subversive use of “woman;” a trend originating with the original male sexual liberationists of the MRA.

    When my daughter turned eighteen nearly two years ago, she was no “woman.” Heck, she’s not even a “woman” now, actually. At best and gratuitously ideal, she is a “young woman.” But the females getting selectively served on their eighteenth birthday are, by-and-large, still girls in almost every way that matters. Assigning them “woman”-status is actually a subversive tactic used by those willing to sacrifice them on a future battlefield. It is an attempt at creating a collective female maturity that doesn’t exist at the point of real impact. The very fact that “equality” dogma is used to justify this atrocity is explicit proof that neither real men or real woman are involved in crafty this diabolical piece of “mass consensus.”

    This is an effort to DRAFT teenage girls, first and foremost. Calling these teenage girls “women” is an inexcusable subversion at this point.

    • Well, I think it is an effort to require teenage girls to enroll in Selective Service upon their 18th birthday, along with their teenage boy counterparts, to be more precise. Not necessarily to draft them, but to make them eligible for the draft, which is right and proper and “fair” don’t ya know. The latter of which, btw, cannot be said to be “men” either in the vast majority of cases.

      But you’re right that by-and-large 18 year-old girls are still adolescents transitioning into adulthood. I think “young woman” is the proper term, or even “young lady” if indeed she conducts herself as such. But, no, an 18 year-old female is not a “woman” in any truly meaningful sense of the term. Go to any college campus in America and tell me I am wrong.

      Oddly enough I used to complain about this very thing fairly often back in the old VFR days. It’s possible that some of those complaints got posted as comments to Larry’s entries, but I don’t know for sure and am not especially inclined to search them out. But the reason I would lodge those complaints with Larry is because I would read one of his post titles such as “Black Queens Man Attacks White Woman,” or something to that effect, and more often than not the “man” would be a 17 or 18 year-old adolescent.

      In any case, Thordaddy, we can all now look forward to adolescent females all across the land arguing that if they are old enough to fight and die for their country, they are certainly old enough to purchase liquor and that sort of thing. ‘Merica!

  13. Another truth that is revealed with this issue of “Constitutionally” drafting teenage girls for future battle is the fact that the “feminist” movement is heavily front-“manned” by dykes and faggots who thoroughly permeate the upper echelons of government and military bureaucracy.

  14. I have to share this anecdote:

    A few years ago my boys and I were remodeling a house for a couple my age, who’d also been married for about 30 years. Both he and she worked, but she was the real breadwinner as she had built a lucrative pet grooming business boasting a regular clientele of over 250 regular customers.

    Anyway, about midway through the project (which lasted about a month-five weeks) we all somehow got into a discussion about women in combat. Neither of them were especially keen on the idea of its becoming a broad national policy, but both were very ‘fair minded’ inasmuch as they believed that if a young woman’s desire were to serve in a combat role, she should be given the “opportunity” to do so.

    Of course I disagreed vehemently, stating emphatically that I would personally never want any woman fighting beside me or one of my boys in a foxhole except out of absolute necessity, and even then I would not like it at all. To this, the woman retorted that “oh, you would definitely want *me* in your foxhole,” going on to explain how exceptionally mean, and tough, and ruthless she can be when necessity dictates. I replied that while I certainly did not doubt her capabilities in the specific area of ruthlessness, and that even if she was everything she was portraying herself as, she would nevertheless be the extreme exception to the rule, and I therefore would not want her in my foxhole either. Best to sacrifice the few for the greater good of the whole.

    Now, fast-forward a couple of weeks: My boys and I are within a day or two of finishing up on the project. The woman, by this time, is nevertheless stressing out and on the verge of having a meltdown. She is trying to adjust a shelf in a vanity I had installed in her (now luxurious) master bathroom, but the shelf simply wasn’t cooperating. This is when the meltdown ensued. I happened along just in time to catch the very beginning of it; I admit I did feel kind of sorry for her since she didn’t try to take her frustrations out on me, but instead just began to sob and blubber uncontrollably. After I learned the source of the problem, I gently asked her to “let me do it, you’re too upset.” I of course had no trouble with adjusting the shelf at all. Later I said to her husband that *that* is why I would never want your wife fighting alongside me in a foxhole, no matter how “tough” or “mean” she apparently thinks she is.

    • I think tough and competent women have an especially hard time dealing with the limits to their toughness and competence. They have given their toughness and competence political significance, and this compounds the shame of personal failure. I feel disappointed in myself when I fail, but I don’t feel as if I’ve failed the cause of men everywhere. And I especially don’t feel this way when I am acting outside my gender role. I’m perfectly willing to cook and clean and feed a baby, but none of these acts have political significance for me.

      • As Dr Johnson [might have] said: “Sir, a man’s cleaning a baby is like a dog’s walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”

      • I’ve certainly done my share of ‘women’s work’ over the years, as I’m sure you can well imagine considering all of my kids. But like you, I’m not especially good or proficient at any of it like my wife and daughters are. And, like you, my relative lack of competence in these areas has never weighed very heavily on my mind. It is what it is, as they say; I’m very good at some things, not s’much others, particularly woman’s work.

        Of course Biblical complementarianism takes all of this into account and teaches that man is generally not very good at woman’s work because he isn’t suited for woman’s work, and vice-versa. But as R. L. Dabney said, when once we should succumb to the demands of women’s rights women in this country, the result would no doubt be the giving up of our Bibles and the creation of those freakish androgynous infidel creatures we see all around us today.

      • There is a world of difference between willingness to temporarily assume a woman’s role and denial that there is a “woman’s role.” A knife will work as a screwdriver in a pinch, just not very well.

    • Polygyny is one solution to the gender imbalance caused by the slaughter of males, but it generally produces dangerous rivalry between the males who remain. You will still have plenty of ugly old spinsters under polygyny, since no man who can afford polygyny will be interested in ugly old spinsters.

      • How does surplus of women in that scenario not prevent this dangerous rivalry and what historic examples you can point to provebe this?

      • In theory, the surviving males should be able to mate with more desirable females than the would have if a large number of their rivals had not been massacred. But under polygyny, the most desirable females are gathered in harems by the most powerful males. There is rivalry between these top males because the rules are not “one and done.” There is rivalry among the bottom males because the top males have soaked up the surplus. The monogamous system is the best at ensuring that normal men get a wives, and that there is a reasonable chance these wives come to the altar as virgins. We see this demonstrated in “free love” communes. I wrote about this in the Battle Ax Community a few months ago.

      • There is a theory I heard that I found interesting that Civilization was able to rise when beta males were able to mate. In “baboon society” as it was so eloquently described earlier, an alpha male can dominate a hareem of females, with brutality and strength being evolutionarily selected for. When Monogamy allowed beta males to not just mate but to survive, the great apes could turn their attention to other matters. I think it would be fair to say that the brutality and strength trait was permitted to decline in the evolutionary pool, while creativity and intelligence helped replace the security lost by that decline in brutality.

        Polygyny not just breeds but requires rivalry among the lesser males to drive strength for the security of the community.

      • I think this is correct. Monogamy greatly increases the chance that a beta male will be able to mate with a female in her fertile years, and this generally increased the supply of beta males. As the guys on the pick-up blogs constantly remind us, betas are not sexy, but they make civilization run. It’s really a matter of getting the proportions right. Too many alphas and civilization breaks down in power struggles. Too many betas and civilization breaks down for want of leadership.

  15. Today I attended my brother’s funeral.
    The minister read out a poem by John Donne: ‘No Man is an Island’;
    but, before he did so,he felt it necessary to apologise for the language,
    for the ‘un-pc’ language contained therein.
    How sad. How unutterably sad.

      • Thank you Kristor. Much appreciated.
        But, as the late Scots poet Sydney Goodsir Smith might have said:
        “We’ve come intil a gey queer time
        when quotin’ Donne is neir a crime…:

      • It’s not that that bothers me. It’s the denial of the inclusiveness of ‘man’ as in Genesis 1:27
        “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” [KJV]
        It’s the rejection of nuance, the destruction of ambiguity (unless in sexual practices of course), to reduce the riches of English to a machine language fit only for ‘croak-voiced Daleks’ and desk-bots.

      • Brian, the double sadness is that it was not only your poor brother who was buried, but Father Donne, and all his patrimony (Catholic and Anglican, both): us. The very words used to honor your honorable brother were themselves dishonored.

        “I mean now to honor the beloved departed with these dishonorable words, for which I beg your pardon, and which I thereby dishonor; so that by them I dishonor the honorable dead.”

        If it were not all so horribly stupid and dull and absurd, I should characterize it as a tragedy. But alas, it is all too stupid and dull and absurd for any such nobility as that of tragedy.

        Indeed, the real tragedy is that the criterion of tragedy was by that poor deluded minister intentionally failed. He might for all his audience have transcended the petty sad considerations of this merely mortal coil, and so redeemed it, as tragedy tends to do. Instead, he subscended, and so ruined; and, doomed.

        Better for him a millstone.

        It is a great pity. It is a pity inflicted where it most mattered, that was a fitmost occasion to rise above pity and sorrow, and then toward ultimate, everlasting triumph.

        I am indeed sorry.

        God bless you and your brother, and all of your clan. Know that, despite the nonsense spewed forth at his funeral, the truth of him – aye, the dire all of it – is reckoned truly in the Book of Life. Nothing therefore has been irretrievably lost. There is some condolence in that.

        I now here pray for the lot of you, and especially for your brother. RIP; and may angels sing him to his rest.

  16. Thank you Kristor, but let’s not be too hard on a wee Anglican minister who has very likely felt the rough edge of the harpies’ tongues in the past and has no desire to have the process repeated. My complaint is with the zeitgeist, not with him. Certes, Allen wouldn’t have cared.
    But thanks again. God bless.

  17. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 03/03/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

  18. Pingback: XXXV – Chivalry is Dead, Long Live Chivalry – Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth

  19. Pingback: XLI – Don Quixote Tilting against the Patriarchy – Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.