The Citadel
Hambone
Minister2B wrote:
>
> Did anyone else hear the news that two of the Citadel wimmyn were
> supposedly "threatened" and had some of their clothing burned? Neither the
> school, its lawyers, and investigators will confirm it.
>
> Threatened? Probably something like "You don't belong here." or "I'll rip
> off your head and tear out your heart." I heard both of them many times.
> Not a real big deal. On the other hand, we can say, "We told you so."
>
> Thanks Supreme Court.
Welcome to the new, "feminized" military, my friend, courtesy of Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and the other Supreme Court stooges of the
lesbian/feminist diktat.
The media and the feminists have been holding their breath, awaiting the
moment when they could weigh in and have their circus at Citadels
expense, and this may provide local hairy legged Old Maids from N.O.W.
with an opportunity to get in front of the cameras and wail about the
victimization of women at the hands of an aggressive, oppressive male
dominated institution.
I read on CNN that the fellow who was sort of the area commander has
already been sacked, because this allegedly happened on his watch.
My feeling is that if women want to put themselves in harms way, they
should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
This is the "Ginsburg Gift", and Merry Christmas!
Hambone
Alan Madsen
Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Minister2B wrote:
: >
: > Did anyone else hear the news that two of the Citadel wimmyn were
: > supposedly "threatened" and had some of their clothing burned? Neither the
: > school, its lawyers, and investigators will confirm it.
: I read on CNN that the fellow who was sort of the area commander has
: already been sacked, because this allegedly happened on his watch.
should that have happened, i'd say good; but only if
the perps were also sent down...
not so much because of those harrassed, but because
of the stupidity of those who'd use such harasssment...
(hambone's just pissed that clinton won)...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Barry
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <32B34B...@ix.netcom.com> Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com>
> writes:
> >
> >Minister2B wrote:
> >>
> >> Did anyone else hear the news that two of the Citadel wimmyn were
> >> supposedly "threatened" and had some of their clothing burned?
> Neither the
> >> school, its lawyers, and investigators will confirm it.
> >>
> "I'll rip
> >> off your head and tear out your heart." I heard both of them many
> times.
> >> Not a real big deal. On the other hand, we can say, "We told you
> so."
> >>
> >> Thanks Supreme Court.
> >
> >Welcome to the new, "feminized" military, my friend, courtesy of Ruth
> >Bader Ginsburg and the other Supreme Court stooges of the
> >lesbian/feminist diktat.
> >
> >The media and the feminists have been holding their breath, awaiting
> the
> >moment when they could weigh in and have their circus at Citadels
> >expense, and this may provide local hairy legged Old Maids from N.O.W.
> >with an opportunity to get in front of the cameras and wail about the
> >victimization of women at the hands of an aggressive, oppressive male
> >dominated institution.
> >
> >already been sacked, because this allegedly happened on his watch.
> >
> >should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
> >
> >This is the "Ginsburg Gift", and Merry Christmas!
> >
> >Hambone
>
> Ah, so this is like "friendly fire" eh? Guess what, you little
> boys with small nads are going to have to take it or leave it;
> women in the military are here to stay; women at VMI are also
> here to stay; let me put it this way; the women who were harmed
> won't have to leave.....by the time they get thru with you, you
> will be more civilized, and less caustic. The Ginsberg gift is
> gratefully accepted.
>
> Lefty
yes, that was detailed on the major news networks this night, and i was
really suprised that some would go that far...the news reports stated
that one sophmore year cadet has been suspended, and that an fbi
investigation was enlisted ...the 4 female cadets are standing steadfast
in there determination to remain at the citadel and complete there
studies..right on!
Carol Ann Hemingway
Christine A. Owens
> My feeling is that if women want to put themselves in harms way, they
> should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
Let us, just for grins, assume that a group of women at a women's college that had
recently gone coed threw flammable liquid on, and ignited the clothes of, one of the
newly-enrolled male students. Would you say the same thing?
Chris Owens
Roger L. Perkins
In article <32B34B...@ix.netcom.com>,
Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Minister2B wrote:
>>
>> Did anyone else hear the news that two of the Citadel wimmyn were
>> supposedly "threatened" and had some of their clothing burned? Neither the
>> school, its lawyers, and investigators will confirm it.
>>
>> Threatened? Probably something like "You don't belong here." or "I'll rip
>> off your head and tear out your heart." I heard both of them many times.
>> Not a real big deal. On the other hand, we can say, "We told you so."
>>
>> Thanks Supreme Court.
>
>Welcome to the new, "feminized" military, my friend, courtesy of Ruth
>Bader Ginsburg and the other Supreme Court stooges of the
>lesbian/feminist diktat.
>
>The media and the feminists have been holding their breath, awaiting the
>moment when they could weigh in and have their circus at Citadels
>expense, and this may provide local hairy legged Old Maids from N.O.W.
>with an opportunity to get in front of the cameras and wail about the
>victimization of women at the hands of an aggressive, oppressive male
>dominated institution.
>
>I read on CNN that the fellow who was sort of the area commander has
>already been sacked, because this allegedly happened on his watch.
>
>should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
>
>
>Hambone
No, "Hambone", it's just the law of the land. And the lumps you get in combat
against the enemies of your nation should not be the same as you get from your
comrads in arms. If you don't know the difference, then shut the hell up. I
suppose you think the rape of trainees at Aberdeen was pretty funny too.
There is no excuse... not one... that justifies cruelty to those entrusted to
a leaders care and to make jokes about is calls your integrity into question.
This just isn't a funny topic and your treating it so only encourages other
assholes to try the same. That is where Mi Lye (sp) and other acts came from.
Lack of and acceptance of that lack of honor on the part of leadership. Guys
like you are a much larger threat to good order and discipline than women are.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Roderic Fabian
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<58vh4a$1...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>...
> -------
> Ah, so this is like "friendly fire" eh? Guess what, you little
> boys with small nads are going to have to take it or leave it;
> women in the military are here to stay; women at VMI are also
> here to stay; let me put it this way; the women who were harmed
> won't have to leave.....by the time they get thru with you, you
> will be more civilized, and less caustic. The Ginsberg gift is
> gratefully accepted.
There will be an accretion of politically imposed "reforms" in the military
and in military schools until the US suffers a big defeat in battle. In
war, "more civilized" soldiers are not what is desired. What counts is who
can win. It is at that point that career women in the military will be
tested and will either prove themselves with deeds, not with court cases or
rhetoric, or will be cast aside as yet another failed social engineering
experiment. Judging from the performance of some reserve units in the Navy
and Army in the Persian Gulf War, in which up to 60% of the women personnel
were lost due to the sudden onset of pregancy when their units were called
up, we can look forward to a significant correction in social policy
vis-a-vis the military when the next big conflict come up.
=Roderic
Anonymous
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:38:34 -0500, Barry <usmc...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
)Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
)>
)> In <32B34B...@ix.netcom.com> Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com>
)> writes:
)> >
)> >Minister2B wrote:
)> >>
)> >> Did anyone else hear the news that two of the Citadel wimmyn
were
)> >> supposedly "threatened" and had some of their clothing burned?
)> Neither the
)> >> school, its lawyers, and investigators will confirm it.
)> >>
)> >> Threatened? Probably something like "You don't belong here." or
)> "I'll rip
)> >> off your head and tear out your heart." I heard both of them
many
)> times.
)> >> Not a real big deal. On the other hand, we can say, "We told you
)> so."
)> >>
)> >> Thanks Supreme Court.
)> >
)> >Welcome to the new, "feminized" military, my friend, courtesy of
Ruth
)> >Bader Ginsburg and the other Supreme Court stooges of the
)> >lesbian/feminist diktat.
)> >
)> >The media and the feminists have been holding their breath,
awaiting
)> the
)> >moment when they could weigh in and have their circus at Citadels
)> >expense, and this may provide local hairy legged Old Maids from
N.O.W.
)> >with an opportunity to get in front of the cameras and wail about
the
)> >victimization of women at the hands of an aggressive, oppressive
male
)> >dominated institution.
)> >
)> >I read on CNN that the fellow who was sort of the area commander
has
)> >already been sacked, because this allegedly happened on his watch.
)> >
)> >My feeling is that if women want to put themselves in harms way,
they
)> >should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
)> >
)> >This is the "Ginsburg Gift", and Merry Christmas!
)> >
)> >Hambone
)>
)> -------
)> Ah, so this is like "friendly fire" eh? Guess what, you little
)> boys with small nads are going to have to take it or leave it;
)> women in the military are here to stay; women at VMI are also
)> here to stay; let me put it this way; the women who were
harmed
)> won't have to leave.....by the time they get thru with you, you
)> will be more civilized, and less caustic. The Ginsberg gift is
)> gratefully accepted.
)>
)> Lefty
)
)yes, that was detailed on the major news networks this night, and i
was
)really suprised that some would go that far...the news reports stated
)that one sophmore year cadet has been suspended, and that an fbi
)investigation was enlisted ...the 4 female cadets are standing
steadfast
)in there determination to remain at the citadel and complete there
)studies..right on!
If the same thing had happened to men there would be much less fuss.
Probably them victims wouldn't even complain about it - they weren't
harmed. They have this wacky thing called a "code". You'd never
understand.
But since it's women and they have no code they had to go whine,
assuming that it was just evil male sexism.
Sickening.
Anonymous
)> My feeling is that if women want to put themselves in harms way,
they
)> should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
)
)Let us, just for grins, assume that a group of women at a women's
college that had
)recently gone coed threw flammable liquid on, and ignited the clothes
of, one of the
)newly-enrolled male students. Would you say the same thing?
Yeah - but I don't see it happening unless the guys were little weasly
wimps.
Noone was hurt here, why is the FBI involved? You can bet worse stuff
has happened to male cadets in the past - but they took it like men.
Unlike these girls.
Anonymous
On 15 Dec 96 21:43:41 MDT, bad...@cc.usu.edu (Roger L. Perkins) wrote:
)In article <32B34B...@ix.netcom.com>,
) Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
)>Minister2B wrote:
)>>
)>> Did anyone else hear the news that two of the Citadel wimmyn were
)>> supposedly "threatened" and had some of their clothing burned?
Neither the
)>> school, its lawyers, and investigators will confirm it.
)>>
)>> Threatened? Probably something like "You don't belong here." or
"I'll rip
)>> off your head and tear out your heart." I heard both of them many
times.
)>> Not a real big deal. On the other hand, we can say, "We told you
so."
)>>
)>> Thanks Supreme Court.
)>
)>Welcome to the new, "feminized" military, my friend, courtesy of
Ruth
)>Bader Ginsburg and the other Supreme Court stooges of the
)>lesbian/feminist diktat.
)>
)>The media and the feminists have been holding their breath, awaiting
the
)>moment when they could weigh in and have their circus at Citadels
)>expense, and this may provide local hairy legged Old Maids from
N.O.W.
)>with an opportunity to get in front of the cameras and wail about
the
)>victimization of women at the hands of an aggressive, oppressive
male
)>dominated institution.
)>
)>I read on CNN that the fellow who was sort of the area commander has
)>already been sacked, because this allegedly happened on his watch.
)>
)>My feeling is that if women want to put themselves in harms way,
they
)>should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
)>
)>This is the "Ginsburg Gift", and Merry Christmas!
)>
)>Hambone
)
)
)No, "Hambone", it's just the law of the land. And the lumps you get
in combat
)against the enemies of your nation should not be the same as you get
from your
)comrads in arms. If you don't know the difference, then shut the
hell up. I
)suppose you think the rape of trainees at Aberdeen was pretty funny
too.
)There is no excuse... not one... that justifies cruelty to those
entrusted to
)a leaders care and to make jokes about is calls your integrity into
question.
)This just isn't a funny topic and your treating it so only encourages
other
)assholes to try the same. That is where Mi Lye (sp) and other acts
came from.
)Lack of and acceptance of that lack of honor on the part of
leadership. Guys
)like you are a much larger threat to good order and discipline than
women are.
This isn't serious - noone was harmed. You think shit like this
doesn't happen to male cadets from time to time? You don't hear them
getting the FBI involved or causing people to get fired.
As for the army issue - it's rape. That is serious, but no more or
less serious than a civilian rape. The fact that it's in the military
is not really an issue - it transcends normal military relations into
the realm of Real Crime. There can be no argument that this is wrong.
Now the sexual harassment, _that_'s funny. "Waaaa, he said I have
nice tits! These are my lawyers. GIMME GIMME GIMME!"
I say if a woman gets hysterical over anything less than physical
force or coersion ("have sex with me or I'll not promote you, or I'll
throw you in the brig") she should be shown the door. You're in the
Man's army, try to act like one.
Hambone
Christine A. Owens wrote:
>
> > My feeling is that if women want to put themselves in harms way, they
>
>
If that situation would have been reversed, there would have STILL been
a story of violence against females. They would have gotten their heads
cracked if they did it to a guy.
A simple story of what happened to those girls, reversed, would have
produced NO STORY.
It wouldn't have run. We would have been expected to take care of this
ourselves. And we would have, in most instances.
The double standard that will now exist at the Citadel and at VMI will
now commence in earnest.
Hambone
Hambone
Anonymous wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the title any of you can use, as this Cadet obviously realized
when he assumed this identity, and tell of the coming debacle as you
yourselves witness it.
YOUR story will not be told in this miserable affair because the media
reporting it are 90% degenerate liberal scum ( by their own
admissions..)
but an audience of millions can be reached in minutes of notice,
worldwide, and without any filtration of any kind by media elites or
censors or others in authority at these institutions who will almost
certainly put a gag on your free speech as the strangulation of these
institutions is implemented by N.O.W. and others imposing the
lesbian/feminist agenda at your schools.
Spread the word about how to post anonymously to usenet amongst
yourselves, and use this tool to make public to the world the double
standards and LOWERED standards that are part and parcel of the ongoing
feminization of VMI and Citadel.
Always remember that EQUALITY is a word used to begin the lowering of-
or doubling of, standards, and that is what you can bear witness to.
Remember, if you yourselves don't tell your story, noone else will. To
the press, y'all are the enemy.
Hambone
Hambone
Roger L. Perkins wrote:
>
> In article <32B34B...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Minister2B wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Welcome to the new, "feminized" military, my friend, courtesy of Ruth
> >
> >The media and the feminists have been holding their breath, awaiting the
> >
> >I read on CNN that the fellow who was sort of the area commander has
> >
> >should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
> >
> >
>
> No, "Hambone", it's just the law of the land. And the lumps you get in combat
>
>
> AIRBORNE!
Sounds like you're in line for a big promotion there, Roger...
Hambone
quill
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> Ah, so this is like "friendly fire" eh? Guess what, you little
> boys with small nads are going to have to take it or leave it;
> women in the military are here to stay; women at VMI are also
> here to stay; let me put it this way; the women who were harmed
> won't have to leave.....by the time they get thru with you, you
> will be more civilized, and less caustic. The Ginsberg gift is
> gratefully accepted.
>
> Lefty
>
We understand. It's ok for men to do this sort of thing to each other
but it's not ok to do it to women. Is that your point? If so, be sure
to pass it on to the captors of these women should they ever be
unfortunate enough to be taken prisoner during a time of war. I'm sure
the captors will make every effort to be as "civilized and less caustic"
as possible so as not to hurt the delicate psyches of their female
prisoners.
Since you've never been involved in a war, or a POW, I'll forgive you
your ignorance in these matters, and settle for telling you that it's not
a tea party. Despite the dictates of the Geneva convention, prisoners
are still beaten and tortured for the information they may, or may not
possess. If you don't believe it, ask the young lady who was taken
prisoner and beaten during Desert Storm.
If these women can't take the hazing at VMI and the Citadel, how the hell
can we expect them to even begin to take what lies in store for them
should they ever become POWs? Better they learn the capacity of military
minded men to treat them badly under these conditions than under
conditions of confinement at the enemy's hands with no such prior
exposure to such insanity.
You (women) say you're tough. You say you're strong. You say you want
to be treated as equals and when you are, the first thing you start doing
is whining and complaining instead of learning from the experiences. War
is a dirty business, lady. War is about maiming bodies and minds and
killing human beings. If you don't believe war is nothing more than an
absolute horror, ask the Nam vets who went to fight a war for people who
didn't want to be fought for and didn't want them there, and who couldn't
tell the difference between who was a friend and who was an enemy. Ask
the guys who went over to Nam as "innocent" kids and came back with their
minds all "fucked up" (pardon my french), only to have their warm,
loving, nurturing women spit in their faces and call them women and baby
killers (in this very specific arena, you women make me sick).
War and the military is not about being politically correct. If you can't
stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. As long as no bodily
harm is done during hazing, there's nothing wrong with it, whatever form
it takes. It helps toughen the mind and believe me, a tough mind is a
hell of a lot more important during war and imprisonment than a tough
body.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32c20026...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com (Anonymous)
writes:
>
(edited a bunch of good stuff)>
>If the same thing had happened to men there would be much less fuss.
>Probably them victims wouldn't even complain about it - they weren't
>harmed. They have this wacky thing called a "code". You'd never
>understand.
----
hehehehe! If anyone understands the "existence" of a "code" it is
women who have been excluded by such. A moral code is a bit dif-
ferent than a good-old-boy code and the women in VMI will make sure
that the right one of the two is honored. Trying to tell women
they don't understand just doesn't cut it anymore...the "boys will
be boys" era is gone.
------
>
>But since it's women and they have no code they had to go whine,
>assuming that it was just evil male sexism.
>
>Sickening.
-------
It IS just male sexism, and it will pervade our news for quite some
time to come. BTW, at least one of the cadets is suing. That will
expidite the matter. Those in charge will have to address the
problems that seem to be intrinsic within our society. Perhaps
some of that stems from the subtle messages we send our children.
This weekend I took my son to see 101 Dalmations (a Disney produc-
tion). In the very begining of the movie, a little boy is playing
a video game for a company...the kid always picks the one that will
be the winner for the year.....the best seller. At one point, upon
giving a negative review of the game he says the game is so bad
that "EVEN GIRLS WON'T PLAY IT!" I think that says a lot, and I
also think the message it conveys is that girls are either stupid
or unable to recognize value and adventure. That's too bad.
The more we separate by gender, the more reason each gender will
find to mistrust the other. The more we work together, the easier
it becomes to find a common bond.
Lefty
Mary E Knadler
In <1996Dec15.2...@cc.usu.edu> bad...@cc.usu.edu (Roger L.
Well, I was sorry that the Supreme Court ruled against all male
military schools. I think both The Citidal & VMI should be allowed to
continue to offer that kind of program to all male students. That's
what I hate about these Federal Judges. But I of course do not support
any inappropriate hazing that could have been harmful to these women
cadets. But I think if Smith, Mt Holyoke & other all women's schools
feel they offer something special that is beneficial to their female
students, why can't male students have something similar for just
males. I know, so please do not say the military schools are tax
supported. I ralize this is the reasoning behind admitting women, but
I still think males should have schools, military or not that they can
attend that offer males that something special too! yasmin2
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32c400ee...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com (Anonymous)
writes:
>
(edit)
>I say if a woman gets hysterical over anything less than physical
>force or coersion ("have sex with me or I'll not promote you, or I'll
>throw you in the brig") she should be shown the door. You're in the
>Man's army, try to act like one.
-------
hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a few
lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with total
equality; they know that. If the only way to serve is to "act
like a man" in this army, it appears that the gals will have to
learn how to rape and harssass in order to get promoted. Somehow
I don't think that's going to get written into the manual.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32c30089...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com (Anonymous)
writes:
>)> My feeling is that if women want to put themselves in harms way,
>they> should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
>)Let us, just for grins, assume that a group of women at a women's
>college that had >)recently gone coed threw flammable liquid on, and
ignited the clothes>of, one of the >)newly-enrolled male students.
>
>wimps.
>
>Noone was hurt here, why is the FBI involved? You can bet worse stuff
>has happened to male cadets in the past - but they took it like men.
>Unlike these girls.
------
The account that I heard suggested that no hazings had ever before
included being set on fire. Men have, on other campuses been
harmed in fraternity hazings. I would expect that someone, over
the course of history at the Citadel must have been harmed in a
hazing. Are you REALLY suggesting that hazings, in any form, are
an acceptable form of behavior to encourage at our children's
instituions of education? Oh, I get it; like frat-house-rapes,
it's just a part of growing up. Thanks for the explanation.
Lefty
Steve Bartman
bad...@cc.usu.edu (Roger L. Perkins) wrote:
>No, "Hambone", it's just the law of the land. And the lumps you get in combat
>against the enemies of your nation should not be the same as you get from your
>comrads in arms. If you don't know the difference, then shut the hell up. I
>suppose you think the rape of trainees at Aberdeen was pretty funny too.
>There is no excuse... not one... that justifies cruelty to those entrusted to
>a leaders care and to make jokes about is calls your integrity into question.
>This just isn't a funny topic and your treating it so only encourages other
>assholes to try the same. That is where Mi Lye (sp) and other acts came from.
>Lack of and acceptance of that lack of honor on the part of leadership. Guys
>like you are a much larger threat to good order and discipline than women are.
>
>Roger
>AIRBORNE!
Bravo! Well said. At least someone who served in the real military is
trying to provide an example for the young people this ng is intended
for.
But it bears saying again: you cannot produce comrades-in-arms by
assault. Yes, recruits need to be "shocked" and broken down before
they can be molded into the group. This can be done without hitting,
burning, fracturing, choking, or raping. But it takes trainers who
know what they're about, not nineteen-year-old college students on a
power trip.
Steve
Joshua Simer
Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Welcome to the new, "feminized" military, my friend, courtesy of Ruth
: Bader Ginsburg and the other Supreme Court stooges of the
: lesbian/feminist diktat.
This is not a feminist issue. It's a stupidity issue. Maybe it
wouldn't be receiving as much media attention if the victims had been
male, but it's just as serious either way.
--
**************************Joshua M. Simer*******************************
"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south,
and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none
remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed..." - Joshua 10:40
*************************Live Free Or Die*******************************
Joshua Simer
Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: YOUR story will not be told in this miserable affair because the media
: reporting it are 90% degenerate liberal scum ( by their own
: admissions..)
Well, technically speaking, in the polls I saw they did not
explicitly admit to being either degenerate or scum, but both of those
two logically follow from what they DID admit to being....
Hambone
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> ----
> hehehehe! If anyone understands the "existence" of a "code" it is
> women who have been excluded by such. A moral code is a bit dif-
> ferent than a good-old-boy code and the women in VMI will make sure
> that the right one of the two is honored. Trying to tell women
> they don't understand just doesn't cut it anymore...the "boys will
> be boys" era is gone.
> ------
<snip>
> Lefty
Achieved with the instrumental assistance of a Supreme Court in the
service of the lesbian/feminist agenda. Give credit where credit is due,
Carol Ann.
Hambone
Hambone
An astounding admission from one in the belly of the beast up there at
Harvard! You must be EXTREMELY lonely!
Hambone
Andrew Rush
The really amusing about this is that you say that the real military
is always professional and perfect in training at the same time that
reports of rape, sexual harrassment, and the like are coming out of
military training centers across the country.
Perhaps even professional military trainers don't all "know what
they're about"? Just as the same can be said for isolated instances
at The Citadel? Or is that too easy to see?
You don't have to be 19 to have a power trip -- ask the Army captain
at Aberdeen.
Lori R Creel
On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Anonymous wrote:
> )
> This isn't serious - noone was harmed. You think shit like this
> doesn't happen to male cadets from time to time? You don't hear them
> getting the FBI involved or causing people to get fired.
~>
> As for the army issue - it's rape. That is serious, but no more or
> less serious than a civilian rape. The fact that it's in the military
> is not really an issue - it transcends normal military relations into
> the realm of Real Crime. There can be no argument that this is wrong.
>
> Now the sexual harassment, _that_'s funny. "Waaaa, he said I have
> nice tits! These are my lawyers. GIMME GIMME GIMME!"
>
> I say if a woman gets hysterical over anything less than physical
> force or coersion ("have sex with me or I'll not promote you, or I'll
> throw you in the brig") she should be shown the door. You're in the
> Man's army, try to act like one.
>
How can you take anyone's opinion seriously when they send it anonymously?
Perhaps it is time to visit OZ and get some courage, buddy!
Lori
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
That's horse manure, pigsnout. These are state schools. Why do you expect
socialism for your kind and free enterprise for everyone else? I pay VA taxes & I
am tired of paying them to subsidize you whining right wingers as a class. Go
start your own boys school with your own money.
--
Buddy K
Mary E Knadler
In <593kcu$r...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol
Ann Hemingway) writes:
>
>In <32c400ee...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com (Anonymous)
>writes:
>>
>(edit)
>
>>force or coersion ("have sex with me or I'll not promote you, or I'll
>>throw you in the brig") she should be shown the door. You're in the
>>Man's army, try to act like one.
>
> hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
> who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
> the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a few
> lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with total
> equality; they know that. If the only way to serve is to "act
> like a man" in this army, it appears that the gals will have to
> learn how to rape and harssass in order to get promoted. Somehow
> I don't think that's going to get written into the manual.
>
> Lefty
>
I would like to ask, Lefty, if you have ever served in the military?
It is hard for people to know what the military is like when they have
never been there or have ever exprienced combat. I would not like to
see women being drafted & being forced to go into combat because some
feminist feel they want to be just like men. They are not. yasmin2
Hambone
quill wrote:
> You (women) say you're tough. You say you're strong. You say you want
> to be treated as equals and when you are, the first thing you start doing
> is whining and complaining instead of learning from the experiences.
What I think women want out of these military experiences is not so much
the SUBSTANCE of inner toughness, authority and command, but merely the
APPEARANCE of these things, all in accordance with the fashion of the
day. Certainly this is the objective of the wealthy elite feminists who
shell out the money and then push these kids through the front gates.
Of course, there are the occasional Joan of Arc's out there waiting for
history to place them at the lead of an Army in a desperate battle, and
they may well be successful, but it is just my hunch, that is all, that
form is more important in this whole thing than substance.
This view completely accepts those women who have always done a hitch in
the service without the fanfare and hoopla that always accompanies
anything the feminists are seeking to destroy.
Hambone
Hambone
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
------
> The account that I heard suggested that no hazings had ever before
> included being set on fire. Men have, on other campuses been
> harmed in fraternity hazings. I would expect that someone, over
> the course of history at the Citadel must have been harmed in a
> hazing. Are you REALLY suggesting that hazings, in any form, are
> an acceptable form of behavior to encourage at our children's
> instituions of education? Oh, I get it; like frat-house-rapes,
> it's just a part of growing up. Thanks for the explanation.
>
> Lefty
Carol Ann, I fear your wrist is permanently welded to your forhead!
Hambone
John M Atkinson
hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.) wrote:
>quill (qu...@voyager.net) wrote:
>: Since you've never been involved in a war, or a POW, I'll forgive you
>: your ignorance in these matters, and settle for telling you that it's not
>: a tea party. Despite the dictates of the Geneva convention, prisoners
>: are still beaten and tortured for the information they may, or may not
>: possess. If you don't believe it, ask the young lady who was taken
>: prisoner and beaten during Desert Storm.
That does not mean that it is acceptable for Americans to do it to
eachother. Unless you are suggesting you see no difference between an
Iraqi and one's fellow American soldiers.
>
>Do you want to tell us your credentials as a warrior?
Something tells me Hambone's experience with the military is limited to
watching Platoon over and over.
>
>
>: If these women can't take the hazing at VMI and the Citadel, how the hell
>: can we expect them to even begin to take what lies in store for them
>: should they ever become POWs? Better they learn the capacity of military
>: minded men to treat them badly under these conditions than under
>: conditions of confinement at the enemy's hands with no such prior
>: exposure to such insanity.
>
>With fellow soldiers like these men, why would they even need any enemies?
>Criminal acts in our society are not acceptible. You can talk as tough
>as you want, pissant, but that's the way it is and that's the way it is
>going to be.
And criminals have no place in the Armed Forces. I would not want one of
these idiots that cannot tell the diference between friend and foe in my
Army.
John M. Atkinson
--
It is the Soldier, not the reporter who has given us freedom of press
It is the Soldier, not the poet who has given us freedom of speech
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer who gives us freedom to
demonstrate
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
who serves beneath the flag,
and who's coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag.
--Father Dennis Edward O'Brien
Hambone
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> -------
> hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
> who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
> the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a few
> lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with total
> equality; they know that.
Total equality is to be avoided at all costs, Carol Ann, and you know
it. In fact, there is absolutely NO INTENTION on your part or on the
parts of the circles who are involved in the destruction of the U.S.
military of instituting "equality".
Consistant with all other liberal scams, you and yours will follow this
general path: You will get in under one set of pretenses, and then it
will be worked looser bit-by-bit until standards have either been
lowered or been divided into a double standard.... probably both. This
will occur with no fanfare, at off times, with no announcement, but it
will happen that way eventually.
The reason for this is because very few women could compete effectively
with men in the PT department, and those who qualified would be too few
to make the feminist point.
So you shoe-horn yourself in on the <wink> "equality" thing, even though
you know it's impossible in this area to be equal, THEN implement the
REAL agenda.
One important victory can be won here by the Cadets that will have to
take this on the chin, and that is to stress to everyone who will listen
of the "inequality" that these schemes will be implemented in.
Never let an opportunity go by to underscore the "double standard" and
"system of preferences" that will surely have to be put in place in
order for feminists to get the foothold in these institutions that they
seek to gain.
You Cadets can rob them of this victory, the essence of the victory they
seek in this challenge, but you will have to endlessly repeat the mantra
of "double standard" and "phoney equality" over and over until the media
must print that.
Hambone
Alan Madsen
Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: quill wrote:
: > You (women) say you're tough. You say you're strong. You say you want
: > to be treated as equals and when you are, the first thing you start doing
: > is whining and complaining instead of learning from the experiences.
: What I think women want out of these military experiences is not so much
: the SUBSTANCE of inner toughness, authority and command, but merely the
: APPEARANCE of these things <snip>...
hambone is projecting again...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Hambone
Bob Dobson wrote:
>
> Ham, the only exception I'd make is that to really change something you
> have to be ready to stand up, in the open, for what you believe. Anonymous
> posts, especially here, are treated with the proper amount of
> circumspection. I could create an Anonymous post of my experiences at the
> Citadel, and having never been there, could generate some interest.
> If those who *KNOW* the truth really want to make it change, they need to
> stand up and be counted. Just imagine the Cadet who is expelled for telling
> the truth, in public. I would encourage people to stand up, if they really
> believe
Well, that is of course the most dramatic statement, but lets be real
here. A person posting anonymously on this issue can establish
credibility very easily in this connection, and it could be done by the
naming of names for one. Knowing and reporting on the principles
involved in this thing would establish immediate and lasting
credibility. Eyewitness accounts of things have a way of ringing true,
when told by one who experienced them.
I would be willing to bet that ANY whistle blowers who come forward with
insider info will be facing a likely dismissal, so why be stupid?
Being gallant and noble are quaint, but completely out of style.
Especially with the crowd the cadets find themselves up against.
Hambone
Bob Dobson
My experiences with military didn't include the Citadel so forgive my
ignorance... but is someone implying that burning Cadet's clothes is a
normal part of development and training?
--
Bob Dobson
RAD Solutions
www.radsolutions.com
Bob Dobson
Ham, the only exception I'd make is that to really change something you
have to be ready to stand up, in the open, for what you believe. Anonymous
posts, especially here, are treated with the proper amount of
circumspection. I could create an Anonymous post of my experiences at the
Citadel, and having never been there, could generate some interest.
If those who *KNOW* the truth really want to make it change, they need to
stand up and be counted. Just imagine the Cadet who is expelled for telling
the truth, in public. I would encourage people to stand up, if they really
believe
--
Bob Dobson
Lefty,
Do you honestly believe women are held to equal standards in any branch of
the service?
(not anonymous)
John M Atkinson
> Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Minister2B wrote:
>>>
>>> Did anyone else hear the news that two of the Citadel wimmyn were
>>> supposedly "threatened" and had some of their clothing burned? Neither the
>>> school, its lawyers, and investigators will confirm it.
>>>
>>> Threatened? Probably something like "You don't belong here." or "I'll rip
>>> off your head and tear out your heart." I heard both of them many times.
>>> Not a real big deal. On the other hand, we can say, "We told you so."
>>>
>>> Thanks Supreme Court.
>>
>>Bader Ginsburg and the other Supreme Court stooges of the
>>lesbian/feminist diktat.
>>
>>moment when they could weigh in and have their circus at Citadels
>>expense, and this may provide local hairy legged Old Maids from N.O.W.
>>with an opportunity to get in front of the cameras and wail about the
>>victimization of women at the hands of an aggressive, oppressive male
>>dominated institution.
>>
>>I read on CNN that the fellow who was sort of the area commander has
>>already been sacked, because this allegedly happened on his watch.
>>
>>should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
>>
>>
>>Hambone
Frankly, whether one likes that law of the land is irrelevent. We are
sworn to uphold that law regardless of our personal feelings. It is all
well and good for a civillian who never wore the uniform (Pegged you
Hambone?) to pontificate on this topic, but as a Soldier, it sickens me to
the stomach to know that some of our number cannot act in a professional
manner regardless of the alleged reasons for this conduct. Two wrongs
don't make a right. If you knew who your mother was, you might have heard
that before.
Rich Soyack
Interesting. Douglass College is an all girl unit of Rutgers University, a state school
in New Jersey. Why isn't Douglass College co-ed? Hmmm?
Rich Soyack
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Mary E Knadler (yas...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <1996Dec15.2...@cc.usu.edu> bad...@cc.usu.edu (Roger L.
: Perkins) writes:
: >
: >In article <32B34B...@ix.netcom.com>,
: >
: >No, "Hambone", it's just the law of the land. And the lumps you get
: in combat
: >against the enemies of your nation should not be the same as you get
: from your
: >comrads in arms. If you don't know the difference, then shut the hell
: up. I
: >suppose you think the rape of trainees at Aberdeen was pretty funny
: too.
: >There is no excuse... not one... that justifies cruelty to those
: entrusted to
: >a leaders care and to make jokes about is calls your integrity into
: question.
: >This just isn't a funny topic and your treating it so only encourages
: other
: >assholes to try the same. That is where Mi Lye (sp) and other acts
: came from.
: >Lack of and acceptance of that lack of honor on the part of
: leadership. Guys
: >like you are a much larger threat to good order and discipline than
: women are.
: >
: >
: >Roger
: >AIRBORNE!
: Well, I was sorry that the Supreme Court ruled against all male
: military schools.
They didn't, Mary. They just ruled that the state can't run an all-male
school.
: I think both The Citidal & VMI should be allowed to
: continue to offer that kind of program to all male students.
Not on my dime. Let them start their own private school.
: That's
: what I hate about these Federal Judges.
That they are required to follow the Constitution?
: But I of course do not support
: any inappropriate hazing that could have been harmful to these women
: cadets. But I think if Smith, Mt Holyoke & other all women's schools
: feel they offer something special that is beneficial to their female
: students, why can't male students have something similar for just
: males. I know, so please do not say the military schools are tax
: supported. I ralize this is the reasoning behind admitting women, but
: I still think males should have schools, military or not that they can
: attend that offer males that something special too! yasmin2
If you know the reason, why are you whining? Send your contributions
to someone willing to start an all-male school.
You right wingers want socialism for yourselves and free enterprise for
everyone else.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Minister2B wrote:
: >
: > Did anyone else hear the news that two of the Citadel wimmyn were
: > supposedly "threatened" and had some of their clothing burned? Neither the
: > school, its lawyers, and investigators will confirm it.
: >
: > Threatened? Probably something like "You don't belong here." or "I'll rip
: > off your head and tear out your heart." I heard both of them many times.
: > Not a real big deal. On the other hand, we can say, "We told you so."
: >
: > Thanks Supreme Court.
: Welcome to the new, "feminized" military, my friend, courtesy of Ruth
: Bader Ginsburg and the other Supreme Court stooges of the
: lesbian/feminist diktat.
: The media and the feminists have been holding their breath, awaiting the
: moment when they could weigh in and have their circus at Citadels
: expense, and this may provide local hairy legged Old Maids from N.O.W.
: with an opportunity to get in front of the cameras and wail about the
: victimization of women at the hands of an aggressive, oppressive male
: dominated institution.
: I read on CNN that the fellow who was sort of the area commander has
: already been sacked, because this allegedly happened on his watch.
: My feeling is that if women want to put themselves in harms way, they
: should just take their lumps. This is bound to happen.
: This is the "Ginsburg Gift", and Merry Christmas!
So you condone criminal acts against women if they put themselves "in
harm's way?"
You're a rather miserable excuse for a human being.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
quill (qu...@voyager.net) wrote:
: lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
: > Ah, so this is like "friendly fire" eh? Guess what, you little
: > boys with small nads are going to have to take it or leave it;
: > women in the military are here to stay; women at VMI are also
: > here to stay; let me put it this way; the women who were harmed
: > won't have to leave.....by the time they get thru with you, you
: > will be more civilized, and less caustic. The Ginsberg gift is
: > gratefully accepted.
: >
: > Lefty
: >
: We understand. It's ok for men to do this sort of thing to each other
: but it's not ok to do it to women. Is that your point? If so, be sure
: to pass it on to the captors of these women should they ever be
: unfortunate enough to be taken prisoner during a time of war. I'm sure
: the captors will make every effort to be as "civilized and less caustic"
: as possible so as not to hurt the delicate psyches of their female
: prisoners.
: Since you've never been involved in a war, or a POW, I'll forgive you
: your ignorance in these matters, and settle for telling you that it's not
: a tea party. Despite the dictates of the Geneva convention, prisoners
: are still beaten and tortured for the information they may, or may not
: possess. If you don't believe it, ask the young lady who was taken
: prisoner and beaten during Desert Storm.
Do you want to tell us your credentials as a warrior?
: If these women can't take the hazing at VMI and the Citadel, how the hell
: can we expect them to even begin to take what lies in store for them
: should they ever become POWs? Better they learn the capacity of military
: minded men to treat them badly under these conditions than under
: conditions of confinement at the enemy's hands with no such prior
: exposure to such insanity.
With fellow soldiers like these men, why would they even need any enemies?
: You (women) say you're tough. You say you're strong. You say you want
: to be treated as equals and when you are, the first thing you start doing
: is whining and complaining instead of learning from the experiences. War
: is a dirty business, lady. War is about maiming bodies and minds and
: killing human beings. If you don't believe war is nothing more than an
: absolute horror, ask the Nam vets who went to fight a war for people who
: didn't want to be fought for and didn't want them there, and who couldn't
: tell the difference between who was a friend and who was an enemy. Ask
: the guys who went over to Nam as "innocent" kids and came back with their
: minds all "fucked up" (pardon my french), only to have their warm,
: loving, nurturing women spit in their faces and call them women and baby
: killers (in this very specific arena, you women make me sick).
: War and the military is not about being politically correct. If you can't
: stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. As long as no bodily
: harm is done during hazing, there's nothing wrong with it, whatever form
: it takes. It helps toughen the mind and believe me, a tough mind is a
: hell of a lot more important during war and imprisonment than a tough
: body.
Criminal acts in our society are not acceptible. You can talk as tough
as you want, pissant, but that's the way it is and that's the way it is
going to be.
--
Buddy K
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <594gaj$e...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E
Knadler ) writes:
>
>In <593kcu$r...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol
>Ann Hemingway) writes:
>>
>>In <32c400ee...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com
(Anonymous)
>>writes:
>>>
>>(edit)
>>
>>>I say if a woman gets hysterical over anything less than physical
>>>force or coersion ("have sex with me or I'll not promote you, or
I'll
>>>throw you in the brig") she should be shown the door. You're in the
>>>Man's army, try to act like one.
>>
>> hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
>> who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
>> the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a
few
>> lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with total
>> like a man" in this army, it appears that the gals will have to
>> learn how to rape and harssass in order to get promoted. Somehow
>> I don't think that's going to get written into the manual.
>>
>> Lefty
>>
>
>
>I would like to ask, Lefty, if you have ever served in the military?
>It is hard for people to know what the military is like when they have
>never been there or have ever exprienced combat. I would not like to
>see women being drafted & being forced to go into combat because some
>feminist feel they want to be just like men. They are not. yasmin2
-----
I totally agree with you that men and women have some fundamental
differences. One that steps right up and bites one in the shorts
is gestation. However, the ability to gestate need not make our
lives any more precious than male lives. I have no objection to
a universal draft, nor do I have any objection to a voluntary
military where the women who wish to volunteer may do so and those
who don't need not. Different strokes for different folks, so
where is it where we don't agree? In answer to your question, no
I have never been involved in the military, but I have two female
friends who are lifers; one is almost ready to retire....twenty
years and out.
Lefty
Anonymous
On 16 Dec 1996 13:47:42 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
)In <32c20026...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com
(Anonymous)
)writes:
)>
)(edited a bunch of good stuff)>
)
)>If the same thing had happened to men there would be much less fuss.
)>Probably them victims wouldn't even complain about it - they weren't
)>harmed. They have this wacky thing called a "code". You'd never
)>understand.
)
) ----
) hehehehe! If anyone understands the "existence" of a "code" it
is
) women who have been excluded by such. A moral code is a bit dif-
) ferent than a good-old-boy code and the women in VMI will make
sure
) that the right one of the two is honored. Trying to tell women
) they don't understand just doesn't cut it anymore...the "boys
will
) be boys" era is gone.
) ------
It's the moral code I'm talking about. Unless they're raping them or
beating them badly then they have no cause to become whiney weaklings.
A man in the same situation would have taken it like a man. If you
don't you might as well leave, you'll never be respected.
These bimbos will never, ever be accepted. You might not think that's
such a bad thing. "Why would they want to be accepted by those people
!?"
They want to be accepted because the military doesn't work without
trust, honor, and a code. People like these girls should be run out
of Dodge. They might have earned some respect if they'd accepted what
happened to them with a small word to a commander or, better yet, if
they had just taken it in stride as something you have to deal with
when you're a freshman.
They circumvented the rules, and they'll never be let in now. They
can go through school for four years, but after that they're on their
own.
And at this point comes in your boogee man, the Old Boys club. This
club is what comes of suffering and triumphing through an ordeal
together. The men will make it through on their own, without being
weak, and as their reward they will earn eachothers respect and
lifelong friendship. They deserve the spoils of group cohesion.
These girls do not. They'll have the Old Lawyers club - their scumbag
lawyer cronies will be their only "friends" when they get through it.
Give me the Old Boys club anytime.
Like I said - you wouldn't understand.
)>
)>But since it's women and they have no code they had to go whine,
)>assuming that it was just evil male sexism.
)>
)>Sickening.
)
) -------
) It IS just male sexism, and it will pervade our news for quite
some
) time to come. BTW, at least one of the cadets is suing. That
will
) expidite the matter. Those in charge will have to address the
) problems that seem to be intrinsic within our society. Perhaps
) some of that stems from the subtle messages we send our children.
) This weekend I took my son to see 101 Dalmations (a Disney
produc-
) tion). In the very begining of the movie, a little boy is
playing
) a video game for a company...the kid always picks the one that
will
) be the winner for the year.....the best seller. At one point,
upon
) giving a negative review of the game he says the game is so bad
) that "EVEN GIRLS WON'T PLAY IT!" I think that says a lot, and I
) also think the message it conveys is that girls are either stupid
) or unable to recognize value and adventure. That's too bad.
First, I figured there would be a lawsuit. It's a sickening symptom
of our society that these pathetic, honorless, bimbo hags would start
screaming "gimme,gimme,gimme!" They were waiting for their chance to
get the popular media and people like you feeling sorry for them so
they could get their money grubbing hands on some dough.
As for your second point - it sounds fairly psychotic to me. I'm not
sure you're thinking too clearly here.
The boy says that because that's the kind of thing boys say. You
people hate it when art imitates life, don't you? You want art to
imitate fantasyland because you think it will turn the world into a
better place.
) The more we separate by gender, the more reason each gender will
) find to mistrust the other. The more we work together, the
easier
) it becomes to find a common bond.
We don't separate by gender, gender separates us. It's the way is has
been and the way it always shall be. You people will never change
anything, thank god. You're impotent.
Anonymous
On 16 Dec 1996 13:55:42 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
)In <32c400ee...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com
(Anonymous)
)writes:
)>
)(edit)
)
)>I say if a woman gets hysterical over anything less than physical
)>force or coersion ("have sex with me or I'll not promote you, or
I'll
)>throw you in the brig") she should be shown the door. You're in the
)>Man's army, try to act like one.
)
) -------
) hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
) who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
) the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a
few
) lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with total
) equality; they know that. If the only way to serve is to "act
) like a man" in this army, it appears that the gals will have to
) learn how to rape and harssass in order to get promoted. Somehow
) I don't think that's going to get written into the manual.
You've just absolutely proven my point beyond a doubt.
"it appears that the gals will have to learn how to rape and harass to
get promoted."
Precisely! I'm glad you're coming around.
You are correct. Their pimp lawyers will sue until the army lowers
its standards enough to let all these pathetic specimens in.
I'm overgeneralizing a bit. There are places women can fit into the
military. Leadership in combat or actual combat are not examples of
these places.
The reason these women can't get promoted is because, in the military
at least, there's always going to be a man better suited. This isn't
generally true outside the military, I'll admit.
You are not even in the same realm of thought as a soldier or a man.
A man earns what he's got coming to him, he doesn't bring in slimy
lawyers to get it. If women were so capable they'd prove it and have
some patience instead of forcing their way in like weasels. Like
snivelling, greedy, greasy, cowardly weasels.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <593hpq$q...@vixc.voyager.net> quill <qu...@voyager.net> writes:
>
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
>> Ah, so this is like "friendly fire" eh? Guess what, you little
>> boys with small nads are going to have to take it or leave it;
>> women in the military are here to stay; women at VMI are also
>> here to stay; let me put it this way; the women who were harmed
>> won't have to leave.....by the time they get thru with you, you
>> will be more civilized, and less caustic. The Ginsberg gift is
>> gratefully accepted.
>>
>> Lefty
>>
>
>We understand. It's ok for men to do this sort of thing to each other
>but it's not ok to do it to women. Is that your point? If so, be
sure >to pass it on to the captors of these women should they ever be
>unfortunate enough to be taken prisoner during a time of war. I'm
sure >the captors will make every effort to be as "civilized and less
caustic" >as possible so as not to hurt the delicate psyches of their
female >prisoners.
-----
Actually, sexual harassment isn't ok for anyone, but, as we all
know "all's fair in love and war"; therefore, while those on our
own "team" must play by the rules toward one another, we can beat
the snot out of the enemy by any means possible.....within our
own guidelines and orders. That means that women must face what
ever consequences exist....the same for men. So, what's your
point?
-------
>
>Since you've never been involved in a war, or a POW, I'll forgive you
>your ignorance in these matters, and settle for telling you that it's
not >a tea party.
-----
One need not From: lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway)
Newsgroups: alt.military.cadet,alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Citadel
References: <32B0A1...@worldnet.att.net> <19961214021...@ladder01.news.aol.com> <32B34B...@ix.netcom.com> <58vh4a$1...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <593hpq$q...@vixc.voyager.net>
In <593hpq$q...@vixc.voyager.net> quill <qu...@voyager.net> writes:
>
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
>> Ah, so this is like "friendly fire" eh? Guess what, you little
>> boys with small nads are going to have to take it or leave it;
>> women in the military are here to stay; women at VMI are also
>> here to stay; let me put it this way; the women who were harmed
>> won't have to leave.....by the time they get thru with you, you
>> will be more civilized, and less caustic. The Ginsberg gift is
>> gratefully accepted.
>>
>> Lefty
>>
>
>We understand. It's ok for men to do this sort of thing to each other
>but it's not ok to do it to women. Is that your point? If so, be
sure >to pass it on to the captors of these women should they ever be
>unfortunate enough to be taken prisoner during a time of war. I'm
sure >the captors will make every effort to be as "civilized and less
caustic" >as possible so as not to hurt the delicate psyches of their
female >prisoners.
-----
Actually, sexual harassment isn't ok for anyone, but, as we all
know "all's fair in love and war"; therefore, while those on our
own "team" must play by the rules toward one another, we can beat
the snot out of the enemy by any means possible.....within our
own guidelines and orders. That means that women must face what
ever consequences exist....the same for men. So, what's your
point?
-------
>
>Since you've never been involved in a war, or a POW, I'll forgive you
>your ignorance in these matters, and settle for telling you that it's
not >a tea party.
-----
One need not ho was an enemy.
------
I have no need to ask; my dearest friend died over there, but not
before he shared his experiences with me. Apparently American men
in the military always have difficulty with telling friends from
enemies since they are treating their own fellow soldiers as the
enemy by raping and/or harassing them. Too bad they're not good
team players.
---------
Ask the guys who went over to Nam as "innocent" kids and came back
with their >minds all "fucked up" (pardon my french), only to have
their warm, >loving, nurturing women spit in their faces and call them
women and baby >killers (in this very specific arena, you women make me
sick).
------
Guess what? Jane Fonda wasn't alone in that; there were also
male celebs who went over and called the war unethical, but it
was Fonda who received the notoriety. Ask Tab Hunter for his
review of Viet Nam. The returning soldiers didn't get the res-
pect they deserved because of their own misguided military and
politicians who wanted to forget that boodoggle and put it be-
hind them ASAP......It wasn't women who screwed you; it was
your own ranks, and the govt. that sent you there in the first
place. As for me, I have never made a critical remark about
those soldiers from that war; the war may have been immoral but
those who fought in it were used and then spit out.
-------
>
>War and the military is not about being politically correct. If you
can't >stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. As long as no
bodily >harm is done during hazing, there's nothing wrong with it,
whatever form it takes.
------
You must have brown eyes, because your full of it...up to there.
There is no value in hazing, and, in fact, it can easily become
a felony. Those teachers in military school don't have the same
"protection" for stupidity that the military, itself has. Let's
see how the courts view this hazing. BTW, it wasn't the gals
who brought this to light of day; it was a male cadet who didn't
like assault and battery on a fellow human....
----------
It helps toughen the mind and believe me, a tough mind is a
>hell of a lot more important during war and imprisonment than a tough
>body.
>
-----
hahahaha! Well, if that's the case, we've got you guys beat
all to hell. I don't need the same kind of naive stimulation
required by "action Jackson"; in fact, I imagine that women
know much, much more about intimidation, subjugation and cap-
itulation than most men. Beside, we eat less, and laugh more.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32B5B5...@ix.netcom.com> Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> ----
different than a good-old-boy code and the women in VMI will
make sure that the right one of the two is honored. Trying to
tell women they don't understand just doesn't cut it
anymore...the "boys will be boys" era is gone.
>> ------
><snip>
>> Lefty
>
>Achieved with the instrumental assistance of a Supreme Court in the
>service of the lesbian/feminist agenda. Give credit where credit is
due,>Carol Ann.
>
------
I don't mind if I do....Thanks to the people who voted in those
who selected Justice Ginsburg, and those who had the foresight
to do the same ....AGAIN. Thanks to those brave men and women
who stood for "right" rather than "right wing". The Supreme
Court has worked much the same as it always has; the problem
being that the structure is changing, and those who are not now
in power don't like where that is headed....along with the maj-
ority vote.
Lefty
Anonymous
On 16 Dec 1996 21:18:34 GMT, "Bob Dobson" <bo...@radsolutions.com>
wrote:
)My experiences with military didn't include the Citadel so forgive my
)ignorance... but is someone implying that burning Cadet's clothes is
a
)normal part of development and training?
I'm sure there's much worse that goes on, though I too couldn't say
for sure.
Ohh no! Burning someone's clothes! Wait, don't women call them
outfits? "They burnt my best outfit! What will I wear tomorrow? I
wore that yesterday, I can't wear it again tomorrow!"
I'm sure freshman get beat up, locked up, spit on, and in general made
to feel not very comfortable. But you're right, I'd much rather be
mildly beaten then have my OUTFIT burnt!!!! The humanity!!!!
Alan Madsen
: > -------
: > hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
: > who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
: > the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a few
: > lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with total
: > equality; they know that.
: Total equality is to be avoided at all costs, Carol Ann, and you know
: it. In fact, there is absolutely NO INTENTION on your part or on the
: parts of the circles who are involved in the destruction of the U.S.
: military of instituting "equality".
<snip>
hambone, you see, is one of the right-wing
conservatives and opposed to what he thinks
is being lost...
both socrates and his accusers sought the regeneration
of athenian society. the former, however, insisted on
the necessity of criticism to raze the collapsing struc-
ture in order to build anew while the latter feared cri-
ticism as the subversive evil that had brought them so
low and would, if if unchecked, distroy the little that
remained.
benjamin jowett, dialogs of plato
3rd. ed. 1875
nels m. bailkey, readings in ancient
history - 2nd. (d.c.heath & co.) pp 211
Ennead
Minister2B wrote:
: >
: > Did anyone else hear the news that two of the Citadel wimmyn were
: > supposedly "threatened" and had some of their clothing burned? Neither the
: > school, its lawyers, and investigators will confirm it.
: >
: > Threatened? Probably something like "You don't belong here." or "I'll rip
: > off your head and tear out your heart." I heard both of them many times.
: > Not a real big deal. On the other hand, we can say, "We told you so."
: >
: > Thanks Supreme Court.
According to the AP report, the three knobs - one of whom was male - were
=wearing= the clothing when it was set on fire. Apparently a cadet
sprayed some sort of flammible liquid on the cadets and set
their clothes afire. This is against Citidal rules, and would still be
against the rules if all three of the freshmen set on fire had been male.
None of the freshmen reported the incident; apparently someone who knew
them blew the whistle. The cadet has been suspended for hazing. Five
student officers have been releived of duties pending an investigation,
since it happened on their watch and under their command, apparently.
No one has been "fired"; the Citidal has made public statements about the
matter through Clifton Poole, the president of the Citidal. Disiplining
students for dangerious hazing is part of what the Citidal does, not a new
rule made up for female students.
Yours,
--Ampersand
quill
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote::
>>We understand. It's ok for men to do this sort of thing to each other
>>but it's not ok to do it to women. Is that your point?
> -----
> Actually, sexual harassment isn't ok for anyone, but, as we all
> know "all's fair in love and war"; therefore, while those on our
> own "team" must play by the rules toward one another, we can beat
> the snot out of the enemy by any means possible.....within our
> own guidelines and orders. That means that women must face what
> ever consequences exist....the same for men. So, what's your
> point?
> -------
As usual, the point goes right over your head, and your VAWA mentality is
showing. That paragraph has to do with harassment and hazing, not war.
And sexual harassment has been alleged, not proved, as you well know,
lawyer lady. It *may* be that we aren't talking about sexual harassment,
but verbal harassment. It only becomes "sexual" because the persons
being harassed are women. In any event, you can bet your behind that the
millions of men who have served in the military before it became a PC
military went through plenty of harassment, both verbal and physical, and
neither they nor I, went "running home to mommy", or the press, or moved
off the base because we were "afraid".
------
> I have no need to ask; my dearest friend died over there, but not
> before he shared his experiences with me. Apparently American men
> in the military always have difficulty with telling friends from
> enemies since they are treating their own fellow soldiers as the
> enemy by raping and/or harassing them. Too bad they're not good
> team players.
> ---------
I don't care what experiences your friend "shared" with you. Sharing an
experience is not living it. You *know* NOTHING, and that is why most
of what you say is without validity. You haven't gotten up every morning
for 13 months wondering whether or not you are going to live through the
day to go to sleep that night, or drop off to an uncomfortable sleep
wondering whether or not you are going to wake up in the morning. You
haven't gone through every day wondering which bullet, or which mine, or
artillery shell, or grenade or punji stick has your name on it. No one
can share that feeling with you. Nor the feeling when you see your best
buddy walking around with a hole in his stomach, trying to push his guts
back in. Or watching someone else get blown to bits by a mine. You
*know* nothing.
As for the stupidity of your last two lines above, if your enemies are
all Asian, and they dress the same as your Asian friends, it's hard to
tell the difference who's who and it doesn't have a damn thing to do
with gender. And if we didn't work as term players, this country would
be the United States of Britain, or Germany, or Japan. It must be nice
to sit there at your computer and insult the memory of dead who provided
the very freedom under which you live. That's the kind of cheap shots
we've come to expect from women.
> Ask the guys who went over to Nam as "innocent" kids and came back
>with their >minds all "fucked up" (pardon my french), only to have
>their warm, >loving, nurturing women spit in their faces and call them
>women and baby >killers (in this very specific arena, you women make me
>sick).
>
> ------
> Guess what? Jane Fonda wasn't alone in that; there were also
> male celebs who went over and called the war unethical, but it
> was Fonda who received the notoriety. Ask Tab Hunter for his
> review of Viet Nam. The returning soldiers didn't get the res-
> pect they deserved because of their own misguided military and
> politicians who wanted to forget that boodoggle and put it be-
> hind them ASAP......It wasn't women who screwed you; it was
> your own ranks, and the govt. that sent you there in the first
> place. As for me, I have never made a critical remark about
> those soldiers from that war; the war may have been immoral but
> those who fought in it were used and then spit out.
>
> -------
Fonda didn't spit on the troops, and neither did Hunter, so there's no
comparison for you to make. I have no problem with people who disagreed
with the war. I didn't agree with it either. My problem is with those
pathetic women who, instead of taking their argument to the government,
spit in men's faces like the cowardly persons they are. Kind of like
killing the messenger, don't you think.
At Travis, AFB, I watched a GI in a wheel chair wheel toward a group of
three young women who were smiling at him broadly. Since he told me on
the plane that his mom and three sisters were going to be there to meet
him, I assumed that's who they were. He stepped on a land mine on his
second day in country without ever firing a shot. When he got up to the
three women, the grins disappeared, they leaned forward and one slapped
his face, then they all spit on him and called him a "fucking baby
killer". Now you tell me Hemingway, what kind of harassment is that? As
long as it's women doing it to men, it's no big deal in your mind, is it?
Oh, but reverse the roles and you women have shit fits. How bloody
hypocritical and completely typical.
>>War and the military is not about being politically correct. If you
>can't >stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. As long as no
>bodily >harm is done during hazing, there's nothing wrong with it,
>whatever form it takes.
>
> ------
> You must have brown eyes, because your full of it...up to there.
> There is no value in hazing, and, in fact, it can easily become
> a felony. Those teachers in military school don't have the same
> "protection" for stupidity that the military, itself has. Let's
> see how the courts view this hazing. BTW, it wasn't the gals
> who brought this to light of day; it was a male cadet who didn't
> like assault and battery on a fellow human....
> ----------
Spoken like a true woman who doesn't know what the hell she's talking
about. The purpose of the military is to kill. The purpose of hazing
and basic training is to make people do things they wouldn't ordinarily
do, like maiming and killing your fellow man, or sending your own men
out to die. The purpose of hazing is to teach people to follow orders.
You think no men have ever been hit with a rifle, or had their clothes
burned, or been insulted and demeaned over and over again? If so, your
naivete is astounding. This shit has been going on in the military for
centuries. Jesus, lady, why do you think the military has condoned it
for all this time? You don't care if men do it to each other, just so
long as they don't do the same thing to women. Heaven forbid we damage
their poor little psyches.
> It helps toughen the mind and believe me, a tough mind is a
>>hell of a lot more important during war and imprisonment than a tough
>>body.
>>
> -----
> hahahaha! Well, if that's the case, we've got you guys beat
> all to hell. I don't need the same kind of naive stimulation
> required by "action Jackson"; in fact, I imagine that women
> know much, much more about intimidation, subjugation and cap-
> itulation than most men. Beside, we eat less, and laugh more.
>
Ha ha ha yourself: you don't have anybody beat to anything. You can feed
that phony horsecrap to your fellow femininsts who aren't old enough to
know any better. I'm over 50 years old and when my aunts hear that phony
feces they grin and say "What the hell are they talking about?" Too bad
you weren't around to educate them in their time, huh? They were
subjugated and intimidated and never even knew it. And would laugh in
your face if you told them so.
Now, to set the record straight--I have no problem with women in the
military. I have no problem with women at VMI or the Citadel. I have no
problem with women in combat units, as long as those units are all female
units. I don't want men dying because women in their unit don't have to
meet the same rigid physical standards and put the men's lives at risk
because they can't keep up. You wanna go kill and be killed, do it with
my blessing, but do it with other women.
What I do have a problem with is your constant whining and complaining.
The military has been run a certain way for centuries, and men have
always adapted to the lifestyle. Women, on the other hand, can't seem to
adapt to anything. Seems like every time they get their noses into
something, whatever it is has to adapt to women. Women get into the
workplace and the workplace has to adapt to what women want. Women get
in the military and the military has to adapt by lowering its physical
standards.
Hazing, in any form, *as long as it does not result in physical injury*
as I *clearly* stated in the previous post, hurts no one. Everything
that has happened to these young ladies at the Citadel has happend to
male cadets before. We're talking about the Citadel here, not the
military, and none of these girls has been raped, so don't start talking
about it here.
That which does not destroy me makes me stronger. Despite all the shit I
went through in the military, I was a stronger and better person when I
left than when I went in.
Hambone
Alan Madsen wrote:
>
> Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> : > -------
> : > hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
> : > who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
> : > the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a few
> : > lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with total
> : > equality; they know that.
>
> : Total equality is to be avoided at all costs, Carol Ann, and you know
> : it. In fact, there is absolutely NO INTENTION on your part or on the
> : parts of the circles who are involved in the destruction of the U.S.
> : military of instituting "equality".
> <snip>
>
> hambone, you see, is one of the right-wing
> conservatives and opposed to what he thinks
> is being lost...
I knew sooner or later you would be along carrying Carol Ann Hemingway's
train, Alan...
You are such a lapdog....
Hambone
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32B61C...@ix.netcom.com> Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> -------
>> hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
>> who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
>> the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a
few lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with
total equality; they know that.
>
>Total equality is to be avoided at all costs, Carol Ann, and you know
>it. In fact, there is absolutely NO INTENTION on your part or on the
>parts of the circles who are involved in the destruction of the U.S.
>military of instituting "equality".
>
this>general path: You will get in under one set of pretenses, and then
it>will be worked looser bit-by-bit until standards have either been
>lowered or been divided into a double standard.... probably both. This
>will occur with no fanfare, at off times, with no announcement, but it
>will happen that way eventually.
>
>The reason for this is because very few women could compete
effectively>with men in the PT department, and those who qualified
would be too few>to make the feminist point.
Here is Hamhead's admission that women could, indeed, "qualify"
for specific areas of military duty. I am here laughing at you.
What does "too few" mean. I have never ever suggested that all
women, or even "most" women should line up for military duty.
That would be quite the sight. My mother, in fatigues presents
an amusing mental picture. It doesn't matter how many women OR
MEN qualify for any one area, only that they are given the OPP-
ORTUNITY to do so. Do you think it matters to feminists how
many women desire to join up? It doesn't. Somehow I can't picture
Tammy Lee....(one of the babe watch women) sign up for this kind of
work, can you? However, I know quite a few women who would have
qualified for many of these strength-needing jobs, and that's
really what bothers you, and some men, who can't seem to understand
why such women would want to do this in the first place. That I,
myself would have no desire to serve in the military doesn't give
me (or you) the right to prevent my more sturdy sisters from join-
ing and/or serving in say, the Seals.
------
>
>So you shoe-horn yourself in on the <wink> "equality" thing, even
though>you know it's impossible in this area to be equal, THEN
implement the>REAL agenda.
-----
The "real" agenda. Hmmm. Would that agenda, do you suppose, in-
clude the realization that our planet is composed of many races,
but ONLY TWO GENDERS. Would that also require some sort of ack-
knowledgement that BOTH genders, while different in some ways,
are deserving of equal opportunity, and the right to live and die
for ones country? If that's the hidden agenda of which you speak,
it would seem that I've just uncovered it.
-------
>
>One important victory can be won here by the Cadets that will have to
>take this on the chin, and that is to stress to everyone who will
listen>of the "inequality" that these schemes will be implemented in.
------
Well, men have been telling women for centuries that in order to
find success, we must do it in "a man's world". We don't place
much credibility in that, especially since we find much of what
men find "normal" activity, (such a hazings) we find can amount
to assault and battery in a civil setting, and behavior punishible
by suspension, on a school level, and perhaps, cortmarshalable, on
a military level. I guess we'll have to see what kind of effects
women are going to have on what was formerly "this man's army".
Now, if you're asking me if we should relax the standards whereby
we teach our cadets how to survive REAL WAR SITUATIONS, my answer
would be "hell no". If the gals can't take that, they don't belong
there, and the same thing goes for the guys who can't take it.
---------
>
>Never let an opportunity go by to underscore the "double standard" and
>"system of preferences" that will surely have to be put in place in
>order for feminists to get the foothold in these institutions that
they seek to gain.
------
I don't mind getting rid of any standards that amount to peeing
while standing, which was, indeed represented by this recent
hazing. The standards that should be upheld are related to mili-
tary excellence.
-------
>
>You Cadets can rob them of this victory, the essence of the victory
they>seek in this challenge, but you will have to endlessly repeat the
mantra>of "double standard" and "phoney equality" over and over until
the media>must print that.
>
>Hambone
------
As I've oft stated, "I don't mind anyone admitting that there are
two different genders; that is merely a repitition of the obvious.
What amounts to a "phoney equality" would be not being able to
admit that in the first place. The standards need to be fairly
established and coded so that everyone knows what requirements must
be met. Then, those who can't meet those standards simply don't
qualify. My guess is that Ms. Faulkner, would not have been able
to meet most of them, but that the women who are there now may pro-
vide some candidates who can meet them, and that is really what
is frightening to you.
Lefty
Steve Bartman
AF...@worldnet.att.net (Andrew Rush) wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:07:17 GMT, sbar...@ix.netcom.com (Steve
>Bartman) wrote:
>>bad...@cc.usu.edu (Roger L. Perkins) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No, "Hambone", it's just the law of the land. And the lumps you get in combat
>>>against the enemies of your nation should not be the same as you get from your
>>>comrads in arms. If you don't know the difference, then shut the hell up. I
>>>suppose you think the rape of trainees at Aberdeen was pretty funny too.
>>>There is no excuse... not one... that justifies cruelty to those entrusted to
>>>a leaders care and to make jokes about is calls your integrity into question.
>>>This just isn't a funny topic and your treating it so only encourages other
>>>assholes to try the same. That is where Mi Lye (sp) and other acts came from.
>>>Lack of and acceptance of that lack of honor on the part of leadership. Guys
>>>like you are a much larger threat to good order and discipline than women are.
>>
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>AIRBORNE!
>>
>>Bravo! Well said. At least someone who served in the real military is
>>trying to provide an example for the young people this ng is intended
>>for.
>>
>>But it bears saying again: you cannot produce comrades-in-arms by
>>assault. Yes, recruits need to be "shocked" and broken down before
>>they can be molded into the group. This can be done without hitting,
>>burning, fracturing, choking, or raping. But it takes trainers who
>>know what they're about, not nineteen-year-old college students on a
>>power trip.
>>
>>Steve
>The really amusing about this is that you say that the real military
>is always professional and perfect in training at the same time that
>reports of rape, sexual harrassment, and the like are coming out of
>military training centers across the country.
Reread my post. You add the word "always" to my words. However, the
current Army investigation in no way invalidates the efforts of the
thousands of men and women who every day train our forces in a highly
proffesional manner, by the book, without commiting felony battery.
>Perhaps even professional military trainers don't all "know what
>they're about"?
Some don't, including the two already convicted at court martial. This
morning I read of another who has been cleared. The trials will
continue, as they should. The difference here is the "proffesional
military" is ashamed that these people slipped into their ranks and
are tearing them out root and branch. Contrast this to the Citadel
apologists on this ng who whine that illegal hazing is just a fact of
life at this state-supported institution that purports to prepare
young people for service as commissioned officers.
Just as the same can be said for isolated instances
>at The Citadel? Or is that too easy to see?
The "isolated instances" at the Citadel are not " isolated"--they are
part of the bedrock culture of the school. Apologists simply can't see
that this is wrong. If they did the corps of cadets and alumni body
would be clammoring for those responsible to be brought forth for a
legal examination of the facts and prosecution where called for by the
law. Instead these groups seem to be closing ranks and telling outside
parties to go away and let the school continue to batter students.
Disgusting.
>You don't have to be 19 to have a power trip -- ask the Army captain
>at Aberdeen.
Who will be looking at the inside of a cell for a lot of years. It's
about a leader's accountability to his station and subordinates. Tell
me, when was the last hazing conviction obtained in Charleston?
Steve
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32b90049...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com (Anonymous)
writes:
>
>On 16 Dec 1996 13:47:42 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>Hemingway) wrote:
>
>)In <32c20026...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com
>(Anonymous)
>)writes:
>)>
>)(edited a bunch of good stuff)>
>)
>)>If the same thing had happened to men there would be much less fuss.
>)>Probably them victims wouldn't even complain about it - they weren't
>)>harmed. They have this wacky thing called a "code". You'd never
>)>understand.
>)
>) ----
>is women who have been excluded by such. A moral code is a bit
different than a good-old-boy code and the women in VMI will make
>sure that the right one of the two is honored. Trying to tell
women they don't understand just doesn't cut it anymore...the
"boys will be boys" era is gone.
>
>It's the moral code I'm talking about. Unless they're raping them or
>beating them badly then they have no cause to become whiney weaklings.
-----
First of all, these girls were set on fire; that's a crime in my
book....regardless of the intentions of the future felons. Second
ly, the girls didn't "whine"....someone else turned these guys in;
that's how the incident surfaced.
------
>
>A man in the same situation would have taken it like a man. If you
>don't you might as well leave, you'll never be respected.
------
No one needs the kind of respect that is buried in some vain code
of silence. Men who perpetrate this myth are the same types of men
who fear women because they give birth....the fear that if they
don't maintain "the code" that women will become superior, or that
their enemies will capture them. A code of silence based upon
harm and deceit will not prevail. Even cops who try this are find-
ing out that it's not productive.
------
>
>These bimbos will never, ever be accepted. You might not think that's
>such a bad thing. "Why would they want to be accepted by those people
>!?"
------
They will be accepted, but it will take some time. I know the
first woman who was company technician for Mountain Bell. She
wasn't accepted and wasn't aided by the same men who aided one
another in comradery. They were damned angry she was there. It
took her over a year before any of them would even speak to her.
It took another two years before she was accepted, and by then,
there were more women who joined her. Now, they are a cohesive
unit; the few assholes who couldn't learn to accept evolution
aren't there anymore.
--------
>
>They want to be accepted because the military doesn't work without
>trust, honor, and a code. People like these girls should be run out
>of Dodge. They might have earned some respect if they'd accepted what
>happened to them with a small word to a commander or, better yet, if
>they had just taken it in stride as something you have to deal with
>when you're a freshman.
------
You aren't listening; they didn't turn the guys in. Someone else
did, but now that it's out in the open, they are free to sue, and/
or demand whatever retribution is in store for these future felons.
------
>
>They circumvented the rules, and they'll never be let in now. They
>can go through school for four years, but after that they're on their
>own.
-------
hahaha! They were behind the eight-ball when they began; nothing
has changed. The men who will accept them already have. The man
who turned in the thugs that committed an act of battery (or worse)
is already one who didn't observe the code of silence of which you
are so enamored.
------
>
>And at this point comes in your boogee man, the Old Boys club. This
>club is what comes of suffering and triumphing through an ordeal
>together. The men will make it through on their own, without being
>weak, and as their reward they will earn eachothers respect and
>lifelong friendship. They deserve the spoils of group cohesion.
------
The women will also come thru with all of those things you mention;
the only difference will be that they won't choose assholes as
friends; if you really think that all the men there are anti-women
perhaps you should rethink. There are men there that hate these
women and also men who will respect them. As for the "spoils of
group cohesion", is that synonomous to gang rape? :]
-------
>
>These girls do not. They'll have the Old Lawyers club - their scumbag
>lawyer cronies will be their only "friends" when they get through it.
>Give me the Old Boys club anytime.
>
>Like I said - you wouldn't understand.
-----
I understand just fine. You see, after all these years, I still
see my old college buds from time to time, and cherish the valued
friendships I have maintained over the years. These girls are
going thru a unique experience and will eventually have much to
write about and share over the years. As for friends, if you think
that the male of the species (at VMI) are all ignoring the fact
that girls are there, think again. They will garner friends of
both genders, but enemies only of one.
------
>
>
>)>
>)>But since it's women and they have no code they had to go whine,
>)>assuming that it was just evil male sexism.
>)>
>)>Sickening.
>)
>) -------
>) It IS just male sexism, and it will pervade our news for quite
>sometime to come. BTW, at least one of the cadets is suing.
That>will expidite the matter. Those in charge will have to
address the problems that seem to be intrinsic within our
society. Perhaps some of that stems from the subtle messages we
send our children.
>) This weekend I took my son to see 101 Dalmations (a Disney
>production). In the very begining of the movie, a little boy
is>playing a video game for a company...the kid always picks the
one that>will be the winner for the year.....the best seller.
At one point,>upon giving a negative review of the game he says
the game is so bad that "EVEN GIRLS WON'T PLAY IT!" I think that
says a lot, and I also think the message it conveys is that girls
are either stupidor unable to recognize value and adventure.
That's too bad.
>
>First, I figured there would be a lawsuit. It's a sickening symptom
>of our society that these pathetic, honorless, bimbo hags would start
>screaming "gimme,gimme,gimme!" They were waiting for their chance to
>get the popular media and people like you feeling sorry for them so
>they could get their money grubbing hands on some dough.
-----
I don't feel sorry for them at all. As for "bimbo hags", I can
identify with them; I'm as ugly as a junk yard dog. Now that
that's over with perhaps you can get your dick (I meant brain out
of your pants and use it to think for a bit. No one needs to feel
sorry for them to take folks to court for assault and battery, or
sexual harassment or whatever else fits the bill.
---------
>
>As for your second point - it sounds fairly psychotic to me. I'm not
>sure you're thinking too clearly here.
>
>The boy says that because that's the kind of thing boys say. You
>people hate it when art imitates life, don't you? You want art to
>imitate fantasyland because you think it will turn the world into a
>better place.
-----
No, I will simply boycott (see a gender specific word:] Disney
until they recognize that our girls are tired of being put down
by their stupidity. I have raised my own daughter to be a person
rather than to be used by men. She is now enrolled in a pharmacy
school. She wasn't raised to believe in Prince Charming.....and
she wasn't raised to feel that there wasn't anything she couldn't
do.
------
>
>) The more we separate by gender, the more reason each gender will
>) find to mistrust the other. The more we work together, the
>easier it becomes to find a common bond.
>
>We don't separate by gender, gender separates us. It's the way is has
>been and the way it always shall be. You people will never change
>anything, thank god. You're impotent.
------
hehehe! If that's the case, then why are you running scared with
your tail between your legs?
Lefty
Mary E Knadler
In <5955td$m...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol
Ann Hemingway) writes:
>
>In <594gaj$e...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E
>Knadler ) writes:
>>
>>In <593kcu$r...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol
>>Ann Hemingway) writes:
>>>
>>>In <32c400ee...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com
>(Anonymous)
>>>writes:
>>>>
>>>(edit)
>>>
>I'll
the
>>>
>>> -------
>>> hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
>>> who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
>>> the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a
>few
>>> lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with
total
>>> equality; they know that. If the only way to serve is to "act
>>> like a man" in this army, it appears that the gals will have to
>>> learn how to rape and harssass in order to get promoted.
Somehow
>>> I don't think that's going to get written into the manual.
>>>
>>> Lefty
>>>
>>
>>
>>I would like to ask, Lefty, if you have ever served in the military?
>>It is hard for people to know what the military is like when they
have
>>never been there or have ever exprienced combat. I would not like to
>>see women being drafted & being forced to go into combat because some
>>feminist feel they want to be just like men. They are not. yasmin2
>
> -----
> I totally agree with you that men and women have some fundamental
> differences. One that steps right up and bites one in the shorts
> is gestation. However, the ability to gestate need not make our
> lives any more precious than male lives. I have no objection to
> a universal draft, nor do I have any objection to a voluntary
> military where the women who wish to volunteer may do so and those
> who don't need not. Different strokes for different folks, so
> where is it where we don't agree? In answer to your question, no
> I have never been involved in the military, but I have two female
> friends who are lifers; one is almost ready to retire....twenty
> years and out.
>
> Lefty
>
Well, I don't think that counts, just having friends in the military.
You have to be involved yourself & it is not for every women. I also
do not think that the femininist should decide for all the other women
whether they should be drafted or go into combat. I think alot of
women do not want to serve in combat or be drafted. Israel tried all
that stuff & I believe gave it up. One think that's good, altho I don't
know how much help it will be----"Patsy Scroeder is
LEAVING!!!!!!!HURRAH, HURRAH, HURRAH,HURRAH! yasmin2
Carol Ann Hemingway
Just one brief comment by Lefty...no other response will be needed
here:
I find it amusing that now that women are using the legal system like
they've never used it before, some men are moaning and groaning. It
appears that they think our laws were only meant for them. It is the
same thing when women join Congress. Sexists, we don't
care what you think. We will continue to use the system the same way
you have used it to your own benefit; we will continue to elect female
legislators, and support a President who will appoint females and those
men who share our beliefs to the Supreme Court. This isn't a conspir-
cy....get a grip. It has been a slowly-evolving country-shaping factor
since the 1920s when fems could vote. My Grandmother didn't vote; my
Mother voted the way my father voted; I vote the way I damn well
please; my daughter does the same. Dems the facts. Get used to it.
Women are already a big part of military life and I expect that to
grow. Schools like VMI are new to women, and like anything else, it
will take women some time to be accepted there. The more women who are
able to attend, the more easily that acceptance will come. The
Commanders at the school know this; they've seen it in the military.
Lefty
In <32ba02e9...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com (Anonymous)
writes:
>
>On 16 Dec 1996 13:55:42 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>Hemingway) wrote:
>
>)In <32c400ee...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com
>(Anonymous)
>)writes:
>)>
>)(edit)
>)
>)>I say if a woman gets hysterical over anything less than physical
>)>force or coersion ("have sex with me or I'll not promote you, or
>I'll
>)>throw you in the brig") she should be shown the door. You're in the
>)>Man's army, try to act like one.
>)
>) -------
>) hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
>) who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
>) the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a
>few
Rick Langel
som...@somewhere.com (Anonymous) wrote:
>Ohh no! Burning someone's clothes! Wait, don't women call them
>outfits? "They burnt my best outfit! What will I wear tomorrow? I
>wore that yesterday, I can't wear it again tomorrow!"
>
>I'm sure freshman get beat up, locked up, spit on, and in general made
>to feel not very comfortable. But you're right, I'd much rather be
>mildly beaten then have my OUTFIT burnt!!!! The humanity!!!!
You're either a troll or one of the stupidest people I've ever met, I can't
figure out which.
-Rick
Hambone
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> Just one brief comment by Lefty...no other response will be needed
> here:
You DO know how to lead the boys on, don't you Carol Ann...
>
> I find it amusing that now that women are using the legal system like
> they've never used it before, some men are moaning and groaning. It
> appears that they think our laws were only meant for them. It is the
> same thing when women join Congress. Sexists, we don't
> care what you think. We will continue to use the system the same way
> you have used it to your own benefit; we will continue to elect female
> legislators, and support a President who will appoint females and those
> men who share our beliefs to the Supreme Court. This isn't a conspir-
> cy....get a grip.
Beg pardon, Ma'am... when YOU do it, it's OK? Is that it? When WE do it,
well, that's sexist patriarchal oppression, right?
Or is this simply a "woman's perogative" ?
Special privileges, Carol Ann....group rights....very unegalitarian.
The way men have ruled for centuries has been primarily for thier
benefit, and that of thier families but in no way was that exclusively
so for themselves.... you had better hope that men do not develop a
group identity that specifically focuses on OUR objectives and OUR
agenda. A paralell consciousness does not exist with men as is
illustrated by your statement above.
It is a possibility that makes ALL liberals extremely uneasy. You
realize as I do, that we (men) are still asleep...that's why feminists
are always warning of a backlash.
Hambone
Rich Soyack
Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> >>>>> Mary E Knadler writes:
>
> Mary> I would like to ask, Lefty, if you have ever served in the
> Mary> military? It is hard for people to know what the military is
> Mary> like when they have never been there or have ever exprienced
> Mary> combat. I would not like to see women being drafted & being
> Mary> forced to go into combat because some feminist feel they want
> Mary> to be just like men. They are not. yasmin2
>
> Nobody should be drafted. It is involuntary servitude, and incompatible
> with a free society.
>
> ah
Just like no one should be forced to give tatooes in a free society.
Rich Soyack
Marg Petersen
In article <596c26$i...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>Just one brief comment by Lefty...no other response will be needed
>here:
>
>they've never used it before, some men are moaning and groaning. It
>appears that they think our laws were only meant for them. It is the
>same thing when women join Congress. Sexists, we don't
>care what you think. We will continue to use the system the same way
>you have used it to your own benefit; we will continue to elect female
>legislators, and support a President who will appoint females and those
>men who share our beliefs to the Supreme Court. This isn't a conspir-
>since the 1920s when fems could vote. My Grandmother didn't vote; my
>Mother voted the way my father voted; I vote the way I damn well
>please; my daughter does the same. Dems the facts. Get used to it.
>Women are already a big part of military life and I expect that to
>grow. Schools like VMI are new to women, and like anything else, it
>will take women some time to be accepted there. The more women who are
>able to attend, the more easily that acceptance will come. The
>Commanders at the school know this; they've seen it in the military.
>
>Lefty
Right on!! Clinton/Gore in the year 2000! (That's Hilary and
Tipper for those who don't get it.) :-)
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Roblin dB
You're right. Everything you've said is true. Now, it's time to move
on with life to bigger and better bickering matches. :)
Rob, USMCR
Roblin dB
You're right. Everything you've said is true. Now, it's time to move
on with life to bigger and better bickering matches. :)
Rob
USMCR
Roblin dB
Andrew Hall wrote:
<snip>
>True, if the government tried to force somebody into
>being a tatoo artist I would object.
>
>ah
>(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
Umm, never expected to read about indentured tattoo servants in
alt.military.cadet. :)
Rich Soyack
I agree, Hilary and Tipper would be the candidates of those who don't
get it.
Rich Soyack
Hambone
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >> hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
> >> who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
> >> the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a
> few lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with
> total equality; they know that.
Translation:
=============
The government can and MUST be enlisted in the effort to re-mold human
behavior, in order to realize the century+ old utopian dream of the
"ideal man". This will be realized through progressive judicial
intervention in the offending behaviors and cultural bugaboos of private
citizens, in pursuit of goals and ideals shared by control freaks and
bureaucrats and lawyers like myself.
<snip>
Carol Ann opined further...
------
> Here is Hamhead's admission that women could, indeed, "qualify"
> for specific areas of military duty. I am here laughing at you.
> What does "too few" mean. I have never ever suggested that all
> women, or even "most" women should line up for military duty.
> That would be quite the sight. My mother, in fatigues presents
> an amusing mental picture. It doesn't matter how many women OR
> MEN qualify for any one area, only that they are given the OPP-
> ORTUNITY to do so. Do you think it matters to feminists how
> many women desire to join up? It doesn't. Somehow I can't picture
> Tammy Lee....(one of the babe watch women) sign up for this kind of
> work, can you? However, I know quite a few women who would have
> qualified for many of these strength-needing jobs, and that's
> really what bothers you, and some men, who can't seem to understand
> why such women would want to do this in the first place. That I,
> myself would have no desire to serve in the military doesn't give
> me (or you) the right to prevent my more sturdy sisters from join-
> ing and/or serving in say, the Seals.
>
> ------
It doesn't give ME the right, because I am not a SEAL. If I were a SEAL,
I might object to having a woman in such a position, and my reasons
might be quite legitimate for the functioning of my unit. I don't know.
You however, presume to know.
> >So you shoe-horn yourself in on the <wink> "equality" thing, even
> though>you know it's impossible in this area to be equal, THEN
> implement the>REAL agenda.
>
> -----
> The "real" agenda. Hmmm. Would that agenda, do you suppose, in-
> clude the realization that our planet is composed of many races,
> but ONLY TWO GENDERS. Would that also require some sort of ack-
> knowledgement that BOTH genders, while different in some ways,
> are deserving of equal opportunity, and the right to live and die
> for ones country? If that's the hidden agenda of which you speak,
> it would seem that I've just uncovered it.
> -------
No, the REAL AGENDA is to access these institutions on your own terms,
and not on those imposed by those who might be so presumptuous as to
hold you to your stated <wink> goal of "EQUALITY". We've all seen
standards "dumbed down" in area after area to bow to the phoney
"equality" ploy. Women have been doing this for thirty years now in
police depts. and fire stations and other careers that have had
rationally developed physical requirements that women couldn't meet on a
quantitative basis.
> >
> >One important victory can be won here by the Cadets that will have to
> >take this on the chin, and that is to stress to everyone who will
> listen>of the "inequality" that these schemes will be implemented in.
>
> ------
> Well, men have been telling women for centuries that in order to
> find success, we must do it in "a man's world". We don't place
> much credibility in that, especially since we find much of what
> men find "normal" activity, (such a hazings) we find can amount
> to assault and battery in a civil setting, and behavior punishible
> by suspension, on a school level, and perhaps, cortmarshalable, on
> a military level. I guess we'll have to see what kind of effects
> women are going to have on what was formerly "this man's army".
> Now, if you're asking me if we should relax the standards whereby
> we teach our cadets how to survive REAL WAR SITUATIONS, my answer
> would be "hell no". If the gals can't take that, they don't belong
> there, and the same thing goes for the guys who can't take it.
I sense a hedge on the PT requirements here, Carol Ann...should women be
treated as equals in the physical training department, or shouldn't
they?
Do you agree that if ANY standards are lowered for the women, they have
not achieved equality, which is the essence of what they are purportedly
seeking, and in violation of the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling?
---------
> >
> >Never let an opportunity go by to underscore the "double standard" and
> >"system of preferences" that will surely have to be put in place in
> >order for feminists to get the foothold in these institutions that
> they seek to gain.
>
> ------
> I don't mind getting rid of any standards that amount to peeing
> while standing, which was, indeed represented by this recent
> hazing. The standards that should be upheld are related to mili-
> tary excellence.
> -------
Humph....the "peeing while standing" thing once more... a deja news
search of usenet could be done for you by searching the string "peeing
while standing". A deep, brooding jealousy boils to the surface in this
connection here time and time again...what is it Freud called that?
> ------
> As I've oft stated, "I don't mind anyone admitting that there are
> two different genders; that is merely a repitition of the obvious.
> What amounts to a "phoney equality" would be not being able to
> admit that in the first place. The standards need to be fairly
> established and coded so that everyone knows what requirements must
> be met.
Translation:
============
There's not much hope that many females will be admitted if they have to
keep up with the guys, so a double standard should be put into effect,
but let's not call it that.
We want the "look" of "total equality", but we don't want the "feel" of
"total equality".
Equality means WE get to run/jog/walk the distance, and the boys get to
do it the tough way, IF they want to... they shouldn't have to do that
hard, messy, sweaty stuff either if they don't want to...
Hambone
Rich Soyack
Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> >>>>> Rich Soyack writes:
>
> Rich> Andrew Hall wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>> Mary E Knadler writes:
> >>
> Mary> I would like to ask, Lefty, if you have ever served in the
> Mary> military? It is hard for people to know what the military is
> Mary> like when they have never been there or have ever exprienced
> Mary> combat. I would not like to see women being drafted & being
> Mary> forced to go into combat because some feminist feel they want
> Mary> to be just like men. They are not. yasmin2
> >>
> >> Nobody should be drafted. It is involuntary servitude, and incompatible
> >> with a free society.
> >>
> >> ah
>
>
> True, if the government tried to force somebody into
> being a tatoo artist I would object.
So, I guess you only believe in a free society when it suits your
purpose.
Rich Soyack
Joan Broneske
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> Just one brief comment by Lefty...no other response will be needed
> here:
>
> I find it amusing that now that women are using the legal system like
> they've never used it before, some men are moaning and groaning. It
> appears that they think our laws were only meant for them. It is the
> same thing when women join Congress. Sexists, we don't
> care what you think. We will continue to use the system the same way
> you have used it to your own benefit; we will continue to elect female
> legislators, and support a President who will appoint females and those
> men who share our beliefs to the Supreme Court. This isn't a conspir-
> cy....get a grip. It has been a slowly-evolving country-shaping factor
> since the 1920s when fems could vote.
I wonder if the long slow slide into moral bankruptcy, political
correctness, crimes committed by children, lack of respect for
authority, child abuse and child murder, class envy, socialism, unsafe
neighborhoods, etc.,etc., and the "femininzation" of America have any
direct correllation?
Just wondering. Oh, BTW, if women are now allowed in the Citadel, are
men allowed at Ratcliffe? If girls are allowed in Boy Scouts, are boys
allowed in Girl Scouts? Can you take your son to work with you on "Take
your Daughter to Work" day?
Just wondering.
"What's good for the Goose, is good for the Gander"
--
/ --<-@ --<-@ --<-@ --<-@ --<-@ --<-@ --<-@
,,/ Joan Broneske :#:
/(-\ uni...@calweb.com |
,__'/`- http://www.calweb.com/~unicorn/index.html |
/()__) (_)
// \\ --<-@ --<-@ --<-@ --<-@ --<-@ --<-@ --<-@
'' ''
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Rich Soyack (r.so...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
: >
: > Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > : Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
: >
: > : > hehehehe! If anyone understands the "existence" of a "code" it is
: > : > women who have been excluded by such. A moral code is a bit dif-
: > : > ferent than a good-old-boy code and the women in VMI will make sure
: > : > that the right one of the two is honored. Trying to tell women
: > : > they don't understand just doesn't cut it anymore...the "boys will
: > : > be boys" era is gone.
: > : <snip>
: > : > Lefty
: >
: > : Achieved with the instrumental assistance of a Supreme Court in the
: > : service of the lesbian/feminist agenda. Give credit where credit is due,
: > : Carol Ann.
: > That's horse manure, pigsnout. These are state schools. Why do you expect
: > socialism for your kind and free enterprise for everyone else? I pay VA taxes & I
: > am tired of paying them to subsidize you whining right wingers as a class. Go
: > start your own boys school with your own money.
: >
: > --
: > Buddy K
: Interesting. Douglass College is an all girl unit of Rutgers University, a state school
: in New Jersey. Why isn't Douglass College co-ed? Hmmm?
Well, file a lawsuit if it is state-supported and you want to go there.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: quill wrote:
: > You (women) say you're tough. You say you're strong. You say you want
: > to be treated as equals and when you are, the first thing you start doing
: > is whining and complaining instead of learning from the experiences.
: What I think women want out of these military experiences is not so much
: the SUBSTANCE of inner toughness, authority and command, but merely the
: APPEARANCE of these things, all in accordance with the fashion of the
: day. Certainly this is the objective of the wealthy elite feminists who
: shell out the money and then push these kids through the front gates.
The women I see applying for VMI, whose names are listed in the paper,
aren't exactly "wealthy elite feminists." One of them's father is a
warrant officer, I believe. In fact, I've noticed that many women who
go to service academies come from families with a military tradition.
: Of course, there are the occasional Joan of Arc's out there waiting for
: history to place them at the lead of an Army in a desperate battle, and
: they may well be successful, but it is just my hunch, that is all, that
: form is more important in this whole thing than substance.
: This view completely accepts those women who have always done a hitch in
: the service without the fanfare and hoopla that always accompanies
: anything the feminists are seeking to destroy.
Look, hogjowl, women pay taxes & they are entitled to a public education
on the same basis as anyone else who is accepted.
You forgot to tell us what medals you have won in combat, hogjowl.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: Mary> I would like to ask, Lefty, if you have ever served in the
: Mary> military? It is hard for people to know what the military is
: Mary> like when they have never been there or have ever exprienced
: Mary> combat. I would not like to see women being drafted & being
: Mary> forced to go into combat because some feminist feel they want
: Mary> to be just like men. They are not. yasmin2
: Nobody should be drafted. It is involuntary servitude, and incompatible
: with a free society.
It depends. In times of great danger, when a war has been declared,
everyone should be drafted for something, as long as they are physically
and mentally capable. The economic burdens should fall on all of society
- no guns and butter crap. Everyone is expected to be a citizen or you
have no society, much less a "free" one (nothing is free in this world).
However, the practice of drafting only a small number of society's males
while everyone else goes about their business is involuntary servitude.
--
Buddy K
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
: > here:
: You DO know how to lead the boys on, don't you Carol Ann...
: >
: > I find it amusing that now that women are using the legal system like
: > they've never used it before, some men are moaning and groaning. It
: > appears that they think our laws were only meant for them. It is the
: > same thing when women join Congress. Sexists, we don't
: > care what you think. We will continue to use the system the same way
: > you have used it to your own benefit; we will continue to elect female
: > legislators, and support a President who will appoint females and those
: > men who share our beliefs to the Supreme Court. This isn't a conspir-
: > cy....get a grip.
: Beg pardon, Ma'am... when YOU do it, it's OK? Is that it? When WE do it,
: well, that's sexist patriarchal oppression, right?
Nobody tells you how to vote or not to exercise your Constitutional
rights, hogjowl. What's the problem?
: Or is this simply a "woman's perogative" ?
: Special privileges, Carol Ann....group rights....very unegalitarian.
: The way men have ruled for centuries has been primarily for thier
: benefit, and that of thier families but in no way was that exclusively
: so for themselves.... you had better hope that men do not develop a
: group identity that specifically focuses on OUR objectives and OUR
: agenda. A paralell consciousness does not exist with men as is
: illustrated by your statement above.
No problem, hogjowl. None of the rest of us males want to develop a
group identity with you anyhow.
: It is a possibility that makes ALL liberals extremely uneasy. You
: realize as I do, that we (men) are still asleep...that's why feminists
: are always warning of a backlash.
Give us a break, you lamebrained loon. We're all wide awake except for
you.
--
Buddy K
John M Atkinson
In times of national emergency, I can see it. But in peace-time, no. The
United States has no need of slave soldiers. Besides, the Army turns away
a significant percentage of those who want to volunteer, and a significant
percentage of those who wish to remain in the service. Not because they
are not good soldiers, but because we can only afford to retain the best
of the best.
John M. Atkinson
--
It is the Soldier, not the reporter who has given us freedom of press
It is the Soldier, not the poet who has given us freedom of speech
It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer who gives us freedom to
demonstrate
It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
who serves beneath the flag,
and who's coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protester to burn the flag.
--Father Dennis Edward O'Brien
Roger L. Perkins
In article <593l8a$4...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
The real failure here is the lack of good examples by the cadre at the school.
There is an old saying "A unit does well those things the boss checks." The
"boss" didn't check very well here. It's called leading by example and it
works.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Roger L. Perkins
In article <32B61C...@ix.netcom.com>,>> -------
>> hahahaha! The army, navy, and marines belong to "we the people"
>> who are composed of both genders. This man's army is a thing of
>> the past. The army of the 21st century will have to go thru a few
>> lawsuits and other challenges before women are treated with total
>> equality; they know that.
>
>it. In fact, there is absolutely NO INTENTION on your part or on the
>parts of the circles who are involved in the destruction of the U.S.
>military of instituting "equality".
>
>
kinda guy after all! That explains alot.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Roger L. Perkins
FROM: som...@somewhere.com (Anonymous)
SUBJECT: Re: The Citadel
DATE: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:01:25 GMT
ORGANIZATION: Internet Access, Chandler Arizona
This isn't serious - noone was harmed. You think shit like this
doesn't happen to male cadets from time to time? You don't hear them
getting the FBI involved or causing people to get fired.
As for the army issue - it's rape. That is serious, but no more or
less serious than a civilian rape. The fact that it's in the military
is not really an issue - it transcends normal military relations into
the realm of Real Crime. There can be no argument that this is wrong.
Now the sexual harassment, _that_'s funny. "Waaaa, he said I have
nice tits! These are my lawyers. GIMME GIMME GIMME!"
I say if a woman gets hysterical over anything less than physical
force or coersion ("have sex with me or I'll not promote you, or I'll
throw you in the brig") she should be shown the door. You're in the
Man's army, try to act like one.
Just afew points. First off, it's the United States Army. That doesn't mean
a mans, womans, blacks, whites, or whatevers army. The US Army. A subtle but
important difference. But it is a hard life and everyone needs to take their
lumps within reason. However, with an issue as obviously volitile as this
one, common sense says to go easy. There is a spectrum of response and
chosing the low end is just smart until the fanatics on both sides go home and
leave the professionals to their trade. Besides, the cadets didn't call the
FBI; someone else did.
Rape in the military is most definitely different than in the civilian sector.
It is a breach of discipline, a discipline that civilians don't have to adhere
to. That alone makes it different. There is also a stronger level of trust
required between soldiers and soldiers and their chain of command.
And last, I wish there was a way to differentiate between stupid stuff and
real, damaging harassment. I refuse to treat a woman soldier different than a
male soldier. I recognize that everyone has their strengths and weaknesses
and, as a leader, I have to adjust my style for that. But I will not keep my
door open when I am counsElling a female or have a witness present. I trust
my troops, male and female, to be professional with me as I will with them.
And I have never - not once - been let down in that respect. Being
professional was all it ever took.
But the silly shit does damage, specially since there are so many stupid
people willing to propagate the ideas. Male and female. If everyone would
just shut the hell up and soldier, these thing would take care of themselves.
But no, someone is always yelling "Women don't belong in the Army" or "Men
are out to get us" or some other thing. Stupid and unprofessional.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Roger L. Perkins
In article <32b59d94...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
AF...@worldnet.att.net (Andrew Rush) wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:07:17 GMT, sbar...@ix.netcom.com (Steve
>is always professional and perfect in training at the same time that
>reports of rape, sexual harrassment, and the like are coming out of
>military training centers across the country.
>
>at The Citadel? Or is that too easy to see?
>
>at Aberdeen.
Correct. And the system that the Army has in place was taking action on the
reports a full 2 months before it hit the major TV news programs. Of course
there are failures. To think otherwise is stupid. But the difference is that
there is a climate of intolerance towards this kind of conduct in the Army
whereas at the Citadel there obviously is not. This is indicated by the type
of posts on this bb and the reports coming out of the school.
BTW, the Captain is being charged with Adultry, not Rape. In his case it was
consentual, but still a breach of faith and conduct unbecoming.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Roger L. Perkins
FROM: Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com>
SUBJECT: Re: The Citadel
DATE: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 06:21:00 -0800
ORGANIZATION: Netcom
Roger L. Perkins wrote:
>
> No, "Hambone", it's just the law of the land. And the lumps you get in
combat
> against the enemies of your nation should not be the same as you get from
your
> comrads in arms. If you don't know the difference, then shut the hell up.
I
> suppose you think the rape of trainees at Aberdeen was pretty funny too.
> There is no excuse... not one... that justifies cruelty to those entrusted
to
> a leaders care and to make jokes about is calls your integrity into
question.
> This just isn't a funny topic and your treating it so only encourages other
> assholes to try the same. That is where Mi Lye (sp) and other acts came
from.
> Lack of and acceptance of that lack of honor on the part of leadership.
Guys
> like you are a much larger threat to good order and discipline than women
are.
>
>
> Roger
> AIRBORNE!
Sounds like you're in line for a big promotion there, Roger...
Hambone
Just what I'd expect from you based on your previous posts.
No, I retired in 91 after 7 years enlisted and 14 commissioned. I saw it from
both sides and worked the leadership problems when women were first brought
into the Army from the WAC. So I know both soldiers and soldering. And
promotions aren't earned that way. If you had any experience, you'd know
that. What is earned is respect. You should try the technique. It might be a
novel experience for you.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
Rick Langel
som...@somewhere.com (Anonymous) wrote:
>It's the moral code I'm talking about. Unless they're raping them or
>beating them badly then they have no cause to become whiney weaklings.
>
>A man in the same situation would have taken it like a man. If you
>don't you might as well leave, you'll never be respected.
How do you not keel over with all that testosterone flowing through your veins?
>These bimbos will never, ever be accepted.
By you, for sure. By the rest of us, yes, they will be.
BTW, what are your military credentials? You claim these women will not be
accepted by the military, yet you seem to not know much about the military.
>You might not think that's
>such a bad thing. "Why would they want to be accepted by those people
>!?"
>
>They want to be accepted because the military doesn't work without
>trust, honor, and a code.
It takes honor to douse someone's clothes with a flammable liquid? It takes a
code to knock somebody upside the head with a rifle butt? Get a clue. You
certainly don't know what honor is all about, probably because you don't have
any.
>People like these girls should be run out
>of Dodge. They might have earned some respect if they'd accepted what
>happened to them with a small word to a commander or, better yet, if
>they had just taken it in stride as something you have to deal with
>when you're a freshman.
Don't give me this crap about that kind of hazing being the norm. You can haze
very effectively without humiliating someone. I know, I used to be a TAC
officer at OCS, and have lots of experience in hazing.
>They circumvented the rules, and they'll never be let in now. They
>can go through school for four years, but after that they're on their
>own.
Sure, just like every other Citadel grad. And what rules are you talking about?
Your idea of the rules?
>And at this point comes in your boogee man, the Old Boys club. This
>club is what comes of suffering and triumphing through an ordeal
>together. The men will make it through on their own, without being
>weak, and as their reward they will earn eachothers respect and
>lifelong friendship. They deserve the spoils of group cohesion.
>
>These girls do not. They'll have the Old Lawyers club - their scumbag
>lawyer cronies will be their only "friends" when they get through it.
>Give me the Old Boys club anytime.
>
>Like I said - you wouldn't understand.
You must be a troll, no one could be this stupid/
>First, I figured there would be a lawsuit. It's a sickening symptom
>of our society that these pathetic, honorless, bimbo hags would start
>screaming "gimme,gimme,gimme!"
It's a sickening symptom of our society that these pathetic, honorless, cadets
think they need to humiliate people that way. It's a sickening symptom of our
society that these pathetic, honorless people who defend those cadets and think
that women don't deserve the same chances as men.
>We don't separate by gender, gender separates us. It's the way is has
>been and the way it always shall be. You people will never change
>anything, thank god. You're impotent.
"You people"? Who are these people? The people that are trying to get equal
access for everyone? The people who are trying to let everyone roll the same
set of dice and see what shakes out? Gender will only always separate us if
people like you keep trying to force it to be so to protect your 'Boys Club'.
-Rick
Anonymous
On 17 Dec 1996 12:29:17 -0500, Andrew Hall <ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu>
wrote:
)>>>>> Mary E Knadler writes:
)
) Mary> I would like to ask, Lefty, if you have ever served in the
) Mary> military? It is hard for people to know what the military
is
) Mary> like when they have never been there or have ever exprienced
) Mary> combat. I would not like to see women being drafted & being
) Mary> forced to go into combat because some feminist feel they
want
) Mary> to be just like men. They are not. yasmin2
)
)Nobody should be drafted. It is involuntary servitude, and
incompatible
)with a free society.
They shouldn't be drafted for frivelous wars, I'll agree. But when
US soil and lives are in danger, and you avoid being drafted, you are
a vermin who should be publicly executed. If you live in this country
and don't want to protect you can leave.
WWII was the last "good war". The draft was necessary and right.
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <5947m6$u...@portal.gmu.edu> John M Atkinson <jatk...@gmu.edu>
writes:
<all else snipped but this great .sig>
>John M. Atkinson
>
>--
>It is the Soldier, not the reporter who has given us freedom of press
>It is the Soldier, not the poet who has given us freedom of speech
>It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer who gives us freedom to
> demonstrate
>It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
> who serves beneath the flag,
> and who's coffin is draped by the flag,
> who allows the protester to burn the flag.
> --Father Dennis Edward O'Brien
>
That is absolutely true. Couldn't have put it better myself. I thank
all those brave men and women who have fought and died or risked death
in defense of our precious freedoms.
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
Mary E Knadler
In <32B734...@worldnet.att.net> Rich Soyack
<r.so...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>Marg Petersen wrote:
>>
>> In article <596c26$i...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
>> >
>> >
>> >Just one brief comment by Lefty...no other response will be needed
>> >here:
>> >
like
>> >they've never used it before, some men are moaning and groaning.
It
>> >appears that they think our laws were only meant for them. It is
the
>> >same thing when women join Congress. Sexists, we don't
>> >care what you think. We will continue to use the system the same
way
>> >you have used it to your own benefit; we will continue to elect
female
>> >legislators, and support a President who will appoint females and
those
>> >men who share our beliefs to the Supreme Court. This isn't a
conspir-
factor
my
>> >Mother voted the way my father voted; I vote the way I damn well
>> >please; my daughter does the same. Dems the facts. Get used to
it.
>> >Women are already a big part of military life and I expect that to
>> >grow. Schools like VMI are new to women, and like anything else,
it
>> >will take women some time to be accepted there. The more women who
are
>> >able to attend, the more easily that acceptance will come. The
>> >Commanders at the school know this; they've seen it in the
military.
>> >
>> >Lefty
>>
>> Right on!! Clinton/Gore in the year 2000! (That's Hilary and
>> Tipper for those who don't get it.) :-)
>>
>> Marg
>>
>
>I agree, Hilary and Tipper would be the candidates of those who don't
>get it.
>
>Rich Soyack
Please, this is going too far!!!!! If we have Hillary I will HAVE to
leave the country. Nobody will be able to stand a woman like that.
Tipper is not so bad but Hillary wants to be the "National Nanny"!
Also, VMI will never be that same place as it was. It has been changed
just by women being there. They just can't compete with the physical
skills alone so that will change immediately. I wonder if our military
services are as strong as we think. I just read the other day that on
the Navy combat ships where women are aboard, 12% of them are pregnant!
What kind of Navy is this & how is it being run! Is this what Patsy
Scroeder had in mind when she started so much of this---especially with
the Navy. yasmin2
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32B706...@ix.netcom.com> Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>>
>> I find it amusing that now that women are using the legal system
like>> they've never used it before, some men are moaning and groaning.
It>> appears that they think our laws were only meant for them. It is
the>> same thing when women join Congress. Sexists, we don't
>> care what you think. We will continue to use the system the same
way> you have used it to your own benefit; we will continue to elect
female>> legislators, and support a President who will appoint females
and those>> men who share our beliefs to the Supreme Court. This isn't
-------
>
>Beg pardon, Ma'am... when YOU do it, it's OK? Is that it? When WE do
it,>well, that's sexist patriarchal oppression, right?
-----
Actually, no one "group" can take away the fundamental rights of
the other with any ease; none of us can do that any longer with-
out a total redux of the Constitution. However, having said that
groups can certianly make sure they have the same rights as those
of the other. Hope that answers your question.
--------
>
>Or is this simply a "woman's perogative" ?
------
Nope.
>
>Special privileges, Carol Ann....group rights....very unegalitarian.
-------
No "group rights" are needed, only individual rights based upon
group identification per discriminatory practices per that group.
There's a big difference between the two, but red-neck six-pack
toting, hate-radio audiences can seldom discern the difference.
--------
>
>The way men have ruled for centuries has been primarily for thier
>benefit, and that of thier families but in no way was that exclusively
>so for themselves.... you had better hope that men do not develop a
>group identity that specifically focuses on OUR objectives and OUR
>agenda. A paralell consciousness does not exist with men as is
>illustrated by your statement above.
-----
I'm not too worried about that since women are already over 50% of
the voting public and since they aren't likely to make love, have
children with, cook, clean or share a life with a man who would
also resort to that type of behavior. I am not intimidated by men
or their "entitlements", nor do I wish any entitlements for women.
--------
>
>It is a possibility that makes ALL liberals extremely uneasy. You
>realize as I do, that we (men) are still asleep...that's why feminists
>are always warning of a backlash.
>
>Hambone
-------
Ah, don't wake the sleeping giant. hmmmm. I suppose there is a
bit of truth in what you say since there IS a backlash. However,
no man in my own life has that agenda or philosophy. I don't have
any patience for men like that and the only thing I can't tolerate
in others is "intolerance". :] Other fems feel much the same way.
Women will determine what kind of men they are willing to befriend.
That is already happening to the degree that young men are complain
ing that they can't find wives; some guys even advertised on a
billboard; others gave free airfare to Alaska to single women who
wanted to move there. It's always about the laws of supply and
demand, and I'm sure you like capitalism.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <59649o$f...@vixc.voyager.net> quill <qu...@voyager.net> writes:
>
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote::
>
>>>We understand. It's ok for men to do this sort of thing to each
other>>>but it's not ok to do it to women. Is that your point?
>> -----
>> Actually, sexual harassment isn't ok for anyone, but, as we all
>> know "all's fair in love and war"; therefore, while those on our
>> own "team" must play by the rules toward one another, we can beat
>> the snot out of the enemy by any means possible.....within our
>> own guidelines and orders. That means that women must face what
>> ever consequences exist....the same for men. So, what's your
>> point?
>> -------
>
>As usual, the point goes right over your head, and your VAWA mentality
is >showing. That paragraph has to do with harassment and hazing, not
war. >And sexual harassment has been alleged, not proved, as you well
know, >lawyer lady. It *may* be that we aren't talking about sexual
harassment, >but verbal harassment. It only becomes "sexual" because
the persons >being harassed are women. In any event, you can bet your
behind that the >millions of men who have served in the military before
it became a PC >military went through plenty of harassment, both verbal
and physical, and >neither they nor I, went "running home to mommy", or
the press, or moved >off the base because we were "afraid".
-----
......So, what women are we speaking of who have "run home to
mommy?" I don't know any military women who have done that. These
cadets have, in fact, been harmed.....they may be filing charges as
we speak, and two cadets have alredy been expelled, from what I've
heard. I never saw anything where the fem. cadets stated that they
were "afraid"; perhaps their laughing their asses off; who knows.
--------
>
>
>> I have no need to ask; my dearest friend died over there, but
not before he shared his experiences with me. Apparently
American men in the military always have difficulty with telling
friends from enemies since they are treating their own fellow
soldiers as the enemy by raping and/or harassing them. Too bad
they're not good team players.
>> ---------
>
>I don't care what experiences your friend "shared" with you. Sharing
an >experience is not living it. You *know* NOTHING, and that is why
most >of what you say is without validity.
-----
To infer that I know "nothing" merely highlights your own ignor-
ance; you, in fact, have no way of knowing how much I may or may
not know. hahahaha! Who made you the "validity" god....?
-------
You haven't gotten up every morning
>for 13 months wondering whether or not you are going to live through
the >day to go to sleep that night, or drop off to an uncomfortable
sleep >wondering whether or not you are going to wake up in the
morning. You >haven't gone through every day wondering which bullet,
or which mine, or >artillery shell, or grenade or punji stick has your
name on it. No one >can share that feeling with you. Nor the feeling
when you see your best >buddy walking around with a hole in his
stomach, trying to push his guts >back in. Or watching someone else
get blown to bits by a mine. You >*know* nothing.
------
I know a bit about my dad who spent several months
in Okinawa making radios and seashell necklaces and coming home to
a military welcome with all the honors of someone who actually
put life and limb in danger. Also, I have male friends who have
served who welcome women in the military as full equal partners.
I am not alone in my beliefs on this issue. I need not fall off
the Brooklyn bridge to know that it's not going to be pleasant!
---------
>
>As for the stupidity of your last two lines above, if your enemies are
>all Asian, and they dress the same as your Asian friends, it's hard to
>tell the difference who's who and it doesn't have a damn thing to do
>with gender. And if we didn't work as term players, this country
would >be the United States of Britain, or Germany, or Japan. It must
be nice >to sit there at your computer and insult the memory of dead
who provided >the very freedom under which you live. That's the kind
of cheap shots >we've come to expect from women.
------
Women now know where all the skeletons are buried. We don't
believe much of what machismo has to offer. If you want that kind
of blind adoration, go buy a Stepford wife; from what I understand
they come cheaper by the dozen from Russia or China, etc. I am not
insulting anyone's memory....unless it's your willingness to garner
benefit from the memory of someone who actually did something for
his/her country.
-------
>
>
>> Ask the guys who went over to Nam as "innocent" kids and came back
>>with their >minds all "fucked up" (pardon my french), only to have
>>their warm, >loving, nurturing women spit in their faces and call
them>women and baby >killers (in this very specific arena, you women
make me>>sick).
>>
>> ------
>> Guess what? Jane Fonda wasn't alone in that; there were also
>> male celebs who went over and called the war unethical, but it
>> was Fonda who received the notoriety. Ask Tab Hunter for his
>> review of Viet Nam. The returning soldiers didn't get the res-
>> pect they deserved because of their own misguided military and
>> politicians who wanted to forget that boodoggle and put it be-
>> hind them ASAP......It wasn't women who screwed you; it was
>> your own ranks, and the govt. that sent you there in the first
>> place. As for me, I have never made a critical remark about
>> those soldiers from that war; the war may have been immoral but
>> those who fought in it were used and then spit out.
>>
>> -------
>
>Fonda didn't spit on the troops, and neither did Hunter, so there's no
>comparison for you to make. I have no problem with people who
disagreed >with the war. I didn't agree with it either. My problem is
withthose >pathetic women who, instead of taking their argument to the
government, >spit in men's faces like the cowardly persons they are.
Kind of like >killing the messenger, don't you think.
-------
I'm not sure what you mean then. I knew people who demonstrated
during the war, but they were composed of men and women. I don't
know any women who "spit in the faces" of men after the war. I'm
afraid you'll have to be more specific. As I've stated, I had one
very good friend who was killed in the war, and two other acquaint-
ances, one being male, the other female. I also have one friend
who was permanently disabled in the war.
--------
>
>At Travis, AFB, I watched a GI in a wheel chair wheel toward a group
of >three young women who were smiling at him broadly. Since he told
me on >the plane that his mom and three sisters were going to be there
to meet >him, I assumed that's who they were. He stepped on a land
mine on his >second day in country without ever firing a shot. When he
got up to the >three women, the grins disappeared, they leaned forward
and one slapped >his face, then they all spit on him and called him a
"fucking baby >killer". Now you tell me Hemingway, what kind of
harassment is that?
------
That is fucking stupid. I would have been shocked. Had I been
there, and had I known what happened, I would have wanted to belt
those women myself, but I don't think it makes any difference what
gender they were; ignorance is ignorance, and it comes in all
races AND BOTH GENDERS. What's your point? Did anyone come to
this fellow's defense?
------
As >long as it's women doing it to men, it's no big deal in your
mind, is it? >Oh, but reverse the roles and you women have shit fits.
How bloody >hypocritical and completely typical.
-----
I don't think you'll find me typical....if you do, you don't read
my stuff. Between you, me and the fencepost, there are probably
more uneducated women in this world than men...that says a lot.
------
>
>>>War and the military is not about being politically correct. If you
>>can't >stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. As long as
no>>bodily >harm is done during hazing, there's nothing wrong with it,
>>whatever form it takes.
>>
>> ------
>> You must have brown eyes, because your full of it...up to there.
>> There is no value in hazing, and, in fact, it can easily become
>> a felony. Those teachers in military school don't have the same
>> "protection" for stupidity that the military, itself has. Let's
>> see how the courts view this hazing. BTW, it wasn't the gals
>> who brought this to light of day; it was a male cadet who didn't
>> like assault and battery on a fellow human....
>> ----------
>
>Spoken like a true woman who doesn't know what the hell she's talking
>about. The purpose of the military is to kill. The purpose of hazing
>and basic training is to make people do things they wouldn't
ordinarily >do, like maiming and killing your fellow man, or sending
your own men >out to die. The purpose of hazing is to teach people to
follow orders. >You think no men have ever been hit with a rifle, or
had their clothes >burned, or been insulted and demeaned over and over
again? If so, your >naivete is astounding. This shit has been going
on in the military for >centuries. Jesus, lady, why do you think the
military has condoned it >for all this time? You don't care if men do
it to each other, just so >long as they don't do the same thing to
women. Heaven forbid we damage >their poor little psyches.
------
Hazing is ridiculous; you know it; I know it....hell, even Colin
Powell knows it. Hazing has nothing to do with military training,
but drilling does; there's a difference. Just because something
has been "going on for centuries" doesn't make it right OR effec-
tive. I don't think you need to worry about our "psyches", but you
might have to worry about our "lawyers".
-------
>
>> It helps toughen the mind and believe me, a tough mind is a
>>>hell of a lot more important during war and imprisonment than a
tough
>>>body.
>>>
>> -----
>> hahahaha! Well, if that's the case, we've got you guys beat
>> all to hell. I don't need the same kind of naive stimulation
>> required by "action Jackson"; in fact, I imagine that women
>> know much, much more about intimidation, subjugation and cap-
>> itulation than most men. Beside, we eat less, and laugh
more.
>>
>
>
>Ha ha ha yourself: you don't have anybody beat to anything. You can
feed >that phony horsecrap to your fellow femininsts who aren't old
enough to >know any better. I'm over 50 years old and when my aunts
hear that phony >feces they grin and say "What the hell are they
talking about?" Too bad >you weren't around to educate them in their
time, huh? They were >subjugated and intimidated and never even knew
it. And would laugh in >your face if you told them so.
-------
Yes, your aunts are a dying breed....enjoy them while you may. My
mother and grandmother were a bit more truthful about "how things
were"....they were not so great. Nah, I'm glad I live in these
times when I get to raise part of the next generation of women.
----------
>
>Now, to set the record straight--I have no problem with women in the
>military. I have no problem with women at VMI or the Citadel. I have
no >problem with women in combat units, as long as those units are all
female >units. I don't want men dying because women in their unit
don't have to >meet the same rigid physical standards and put the men's
lives at risk >because they can't keep up. You wanna go kill and be
killed, do it with >my blessing, but do it with other women.
------
I think that some "all-female" units might be quite effective; I'm
not sure it should be totally segregated; I tend to think that men
and women compliment one another well, once they learn that they
can trust one another. Of course, we will see what transpires.
-------
>
>What I do have a problem with is your constant whining and
complaining.
--------
I don't whine....I sue! :]
---------
>The military has been run a certain way for centuries, and men have
>always adapted to the lifestyle. Women, on the other hand, can't seem
to >adapt to anything. Seems like every time they get their noses into
>something, whatever it is has to adapt to women. Women get into the
>workplace and the workplace has to adapt to what women want. Women
get >in the military and the military has to adapt by lowering its
physical >standards.
Henry Higgins: Why can't a woman be more like a man
Eternally noble
Historically fair
:]
--------
>
>Hazing, in any form, *as long as it does not result in physical
injury* >as I *clearly* stated in the previous post, hurts no one.
Everything >that has happened to these young ladies at the Citadel has
happend to >male cadets before. We're talking about the Citadel here,
not the >military, and none of these girls has been raped, so don't
start talking >about it here.
------
No one at the Citadel has ever reported being set afire, from what
I've read in the press. As the facts are leaked out we will learn
more; I suspect these "cadets" (rather than young ladies) will see
a variety of things that have not been seen before, by other
cadets. I think they know that; I think they're prepared for it.
.....and so are their lawyers. It sometimes takes legal evolution
to alter discrimination of one sort or another.
--------
>
>That which does not destroy me makes me stronger. Despite all the
shit I >went through in the military, I was a stronger and better
person when I >left than when I went in.
---------
I can agree with that statement. I, you might be interested to
know, have been sexually harrassed on two occasions in my lifetime,
and have never needed to file suit; I discovered that my own sense
of retribution was much more rewarding, and I am, indeed, a strong-
er (and funnier) person for it. It's too bad that your strength
of character you claim did not extend itself to equality for all.
Lefty
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <597qt4$k...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E
Knadler ) writes:
>>>
(edit)
>
>Please, this is going too far!!!!! If we have Hillary I will HAVE to
>leave the country. Nobody will be able to stand a woman like that.
>Tipper is not so bad but Hillary wants to be the "National Nanny"!
>Also, VMI will never be that same place as it was. It has been
changed>just by women being there.
------
Why are you afraid of "change"?
They just can't compete with the physical>skills alone so that will
change immediately. I wonder if our military>services are as strong as
we think. I just read the other day that on>the Navy combat ships
where women are aboard, 12% of them are pregnant!
--------
Usually, patriarchal women with their heads up their butts
are sort of slow to say what they mean. I like your style; you
tell it like it is; women who have hubbies in the military are
scared to death of losing them to bunk mates in tight quarters;
I understand your fear. If I was married to a military man, and
had to follow my husband around from post to post, putting my
career on the back burner while he excelled in his own, I too,
might be afraid of losing my future to a female bunkmate. My
sympathies.
-------
>What kind of Navy is this & how is it being run! Is this what Patsy
>Scroeder had in mind when she started so much of this---especially
with>the Navy. yasmin2
--------
Patsy Sroeder must also present you with the Cruella Deville
chills and thrills; yes she is retiring, but only from her
present job; I wouldn't count on the fact that she'll be sitting
at home baking cookies :]
Lefty
Robert Sheaffer
In article <32B55A...@ix.netcom.com>,
Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Spread the word about how to post anonymously to usenet amongst
>yourselves, and use this tool to make public to the world the double
>standards and LOWERED standards that are part and parcel of the ongoing
>feminization of VMI and Citadel.
I'm not in a position to name names, but I know someone who is a
parent of a current Citadel (male) student. And what I've been
told is that "because of those women being admitted *everybody* is
being treated more leniently, to avoid the embarrassment of having
the women drop out." As I said, I can't "name the name", but you
folks know that I have *never* lied about anything I've said here.
You may not agree with my opinions, but you gotta admit I don't make
stuff up.
All this "feminization of the Citadel" (and elsewhere) suggests that
an enemy that DOES NOT feminize its military will have little trouble
walking all over us, when push comes to shove.......
--
Robert Sheaffer - rob...@patriarchy.com - Skeptical to the Max!
Visit my new Home Page - http://www.patriarchy.com/~sheaffer
Skeptical Resources Debunking All Manner of Bogus Claims
Also: Opera / Astronomy / Mens Issues / more
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <sheafferE...@netcom.com> shea...@netcom.com (Robert
Sheaffer) writes:
>
>In article <32B55A...@ix.netcom.com>,
>Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Spread the word about how to post anonymously to usenet amongst
>>yourselves, and use this tool to make public to the world the double
>>standards and LOWERED standards that are part and parcel of the
ongoing>feminization of VMI and Citadel.
------
Aw....are we just a tad bit afraid that women are going to succeed
and jerks like you will have to eat your words; looks to me like
you're simply hedging your bets.
Lefty
Marg Petersen
In article <597qt4$k...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Mary E Knadler <yas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Please, this is going too far!!!!! If we have Hillary I will HAVE to
>leave the country. Nobody will be able to stand a woman like that.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, as am I.
>Tipper is not so bad but Hillary wants to be the "National Nanny"!
I disagree.
>Also, VMI will never be that same place as it was. It has been changed
>just by women being there. They just can't compete with the physical
>skills alone so that will change immediately. I wonder if our military
>services are as strong as we think. I just read the other day that on
>the Navy combat ships where women are aboard, 12% of them are pregnant!
>What kind of Navy is this & how is it being run! Is this what Patsy
>Scroeder had in mind when she started so much of this---especially with
>the Navy. yasmin2
Gee, what a revelation; women getting pregnant! Who woulda thunk it.
And what of the *other* 88%? Oh, they don't count. I see.
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Kevin Davis
>HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR. wrote:
>>
>> Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>> : Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>
>> : > ----
>> : > hehehehe! If anyone understands the "existence" of a "code" it is
>> : > women who have been excluded by such. A moral code is a bit dif-
>> : > ferent than a good-old-boy code and the women in VMI will make sure
>> : > that the right one of the two is honored. Trying to tell women
>> : > they don't understand just doesn't cut it anymore...the "boys will
>> : > be boys" era is gone.
>> : > ------
>> : <snip>
>> : > Lefty
>>
>> : Achieved with the instrumental assistance of a Supreme Court in the
>> : service of the lesbian/feminist agenda. Give credit where credit is due,
>> : Carol Ann.
>>
>> That's horse manure, pigsnout. These are state schools. Why do you expect
>> socialism for your kind and free enterprise for everyone else? I pay VA taxes & I
>> am tired of paying them to subsidize you whining right wingers as a class. Go
>> start your own boys school with your own money.
>>
>> --
>> Buddy K
>
>Interesting. Douglass College is an all girl unit of Rutgers University, a state school
>in New Jersey. Why isn't Douglass College co-ed? Hmmm?
>
Because it is a fundamental difference between men and women. If
women want to have their own special group or club, men couldn't care
less and will leave them alone. Women can't stand it when men do the
same thing.
~~~Golf Tip: Don't pick up a lost ball until it stops rolling~~~o
Kevin Davis "Hoser" email - kda...@castlegate.net
Home Page - http://www.castlegate.net/personals/kdavis
Standard Disclaimer (Win95 Tips, sound bites, and more!)
Kevin Davis
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 19:32:55 -0800, Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>No, the REAL AGENDA is to access these institutions on your own terms,
>and not on those imposed by those who might be so presumptuous as to
>hold you to your stated <wink> goal of "EQUALITY". We've all seen
>standards "dumbed down" in area after area to bow to the phoney
>"equality" ploy. Women have been doing this for thirty years now in
>police depts. and fire stations and other careers that have had
>rationally developed physical requirements that women couldn't meet on a
>quantitative basis.
>
We've already seen it beginning with the Citadel. A newspaper article
written yesterday made the claim that "a unisex set of standards was
just an excuse to exclude women".
It looks like you're prphetic, they are in now and within 6 months
people are screaming for lower standards for the women.
Equality?
Yeah, right.
Hambone
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> ------
> Aw....are we just a tad bit afraid that women are going to succeed
> and jerks like you will have to eat your words; looks to me like
> you're simply hedging your bets.
>
> Lefty
No, Carol Ann, the truth in this case will almost certainly NOT be told,
because the script is now showing itself to have been written some time
ago.
One of the ONLY avenues open to these cadets who are witness to this
will be making it public here.
The media have shown themselves to be biased in favor of every and ANY
liberal cause, and this is one of the hot ones at the moment. The fix is
in on this story, and it won't be the cadets side either.
Hambone
Hambone
In a twist that could only have been part of an overall strategy to
deface and defame the Citadel and provide tabloid fodder for Hard Copy
and the other sensational news shows, the truth about WHO these women
were and WHY they were there is coming out!
CNN reports this morning that one of these women had hooked herself up
to a tape recorder to record the goings on between herself and the upper
classmen who interacted with her, but the recorder was discovered, and
she was ordered to "drop her drawers" and surrender the device. It is
reported that they did not strip search her, she was allowed to go
behind
a desk, and remove the device.
SPIES, SPIES, SPIES!
The script of events at Citadel can now be clearly seen, and the books
and the guest shots on Larry King and Oprah are only hours away for this
agent provocateur from N.O.W.!
The media circus continues!
Hambone
Alan Madsen
Hambone (hamb...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In a twist that could only have been part of an overall strategy to
: deface and defame the Citadel
some students were discovered planning
a party for hambone...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Mary E Knadler
In <32b86ee8...@204.177.236.3> som...@somewhere.com (Anonymous)
writes:
I guess you've been "brain-washed" by your leftists professors or maybe
you are one of those profs but it seems you think the only good wars
are those against right-wing dictators & we should embrace left-marxist
dictaors. Right? Therefore WWII was good, fighting against Communist
was bad. In any case I do not believe women should be drafted or serve
in combat. Most people who have ever served in a combat situation
agree with this. yasmin2
Mary E Knadler
In <597ugp$7...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol
Ann Hemingway) writes:
>
>In <597qt4$k...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> yas...@ix.netcom.com(Mary E
>Knadler ) writes:
>>>>
>(edit)
>>
>>leave the country. Nobody will be able to stand a woman like that.
>changed>just by women being there.
>
> Why are you afraid of "change"?
>
>
>
>change immediately. I wonder if our military>services are as strong
as
>we think. I just read the other day that on>the Navy combat ships
>where women are aboard, 12% of them are pregnant!
>
> Usually, patriarchal women with their heads up their butts
> are sort of slow to say what they mean. I like your style; you
> tell it like it is; women who have hubbies in the military are
> scared to death of losing them to bunk mates in tight quarters;
> I understand your fear. If I was married to a military man, and
> had to follow my husband around from post to post, putting my
> career on the back burner while he excelled in his own, I too,
> might be afraid of losing my future to a female bunkmate. My
> sympathies.
> -------
>>Scroeder had in mind when she started so much of this---especially
>with>the Navy. yasmin2
>
> Patsy Sroeder must also present you with the Cruella Deville
> chills and thrills; yes she is retiring, but only from her
> present job; I wouldn't count on the fact that she'll be sitting
> at home baking cookies :]
>
> Lefty
>
So I guess you approve of the armed forces running ships where people
are bedding down with each other? I still say what are we running here
a floating "whore house"? It's nice to keep the sailors happy, but are
we now also providing them with women on those long, lonely sea trips?
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32B7A3...@calweb.com> Joan Broneske <uni...@calweb.com>
writes:
>
(edit)
>I wonder if the long slow slide into moral bankruptcy, political
>correctness, crimes committed by children, lack of respect for
>authority, child abuse and child murder, class envy, socialism, unsafe
>neighborhoods, etc.,etc., and the "femininzation" of America have any
>direct correllation?
------
Evolution never comes without some pain. In times of transition,
the amount of pain to be suffered is, by and large, determined by
the amount of hatred for that particular evolutionary momentum.
The "feminization" of America, as you call it, is only a swing of
the pendulum to provide equality to over half the nation's people.
If pain results because of this swing, we can either bury our heads
in the sand and hope we don't want this equality or we can move
through it (like we are) and find a better way to problem-solve.
It all depends upon the type of society we desire.
-------
>
>Just wondering. Oh, BTW, if women are now allowed in the Citadel, are
>men allowed at Ratcliffe? If girls are allowed in Boy Scouts, are
boys >allowed in Girl Scouts? Can you take your son to work with you
on "Take >your Daughter to Work" day?
>
>Just wondering.
-------
Is Radcliffe....a public school? I hadn't heard that. As for
"boy scouts" and "girl scouts", there are two issues that haven't
really come to light. One is about money, the other about values.
1) The Mormon Church, and other religious organizations support
the scouting programs FOR BOYS. Girls who want similar funding
must put their little asses in gear and sell cookies. 2) Many
scouting programs for girls are run by churches or organizations
that are seeped in patriarchy; when I was a girl scout, many
years ago, I dropped out of the program when they wanted me to
learn to sew and can. I saw my cousin, a BOY scout, go river
rafting, camping, and learn to survive in the wilderness. Girls
who want that kind of program should be able to get it. I see no
problem with calling the programs "SCOUTING" and letting both boys
and girls sign up for those things that retain their own interest.
But, of course, The Mormon Church and others would balk....after
all they don't want female blood contaminating the priesthood.
>
>"What's good for the Goose, is good for the Gander"
------
So, when you show me something that equates, like female only
PUBLIC education....I'll respond accordingly.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <596d35$5...@portal.gmu.edu> hkil...@osf1.gmu.edu (HENRY E.
KILPATRICK JR.) writes:
>
>Rich Soyack (r.so...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>
(edit)
>: Interesting. Douglass College is an all girl unit of Rutgers
University, a state school : in New Jersey. Why isn't Douglass College
co-ed? Hmmm?
>
>Well, file a lawsuit if it is state-supported and you want to go
there.
>
>--
>Buddy K
------
You have to remember something, Buddy; there's a lot of men here
who want all the benefit without any of the work. THEY think that
the women who have privilege, i.e. this offering of a female sec-
tion of Rutgers should just step down from the goodness of their
hearts....:] It doesn't happen that way. If there is a man who's
dying to get in, he will have to sue....but don't worry, these
little whiners will have an easy time of it because women have al-
ready paved the way for them.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32b7cdd8...@news.nexusprime.org> kda...@castlegate.net (Kevin
Davis) writes:
(edit)
>>
>>Interesting. Douglass College is an all girl unit of Rutgers
University, a state school >>in New Jersey. Why isn't Douglass College
co-ed? Hmmm?
>>
>
>Because it is a fundamental difference between men and women. If
>women want to have their own special group or club, men couldn't care
>less and will leave them alone. Women can't stand it when men do the
>same thing.
------
hahahaha! Gee, are you saying that women at this alleged female
college at Rutgers WANT men to WANT to join up ? Or could it be
that traditionally "male" only institutions provide economic
incentive, and social and other incentives to attend, while
"female" institutions only provide female comradery? (something to
ponder)
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32B7FB...@ix.netcom.com> Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> ------
>> Aw....are we just a tad bit afraid that women are going to
succeed>> and jerks like you will have to eat your words; looks to
me like you're simply hedging your bets.
>>
>> Lefty
>
>No, Carol Ann, the truth in this case will almost certainly NOT be
told,>because the script is now showing itself to have been written
some time>ago.
-----
Oh my! What we have here is conspiracy of the liberal press,
despite the fact that those who OWN THE PRESS are, by and large,
wealthy and conservative. Interesting. You conservatives are
eventually going to have to face some difficult facts. The re-
ason there are more liberals in the professions is very apparent
to all of us but you. There are more liberal educators and more
liberals in law, and medicine; yes, there are more liberals in
the media....I wonder why?
-------
>
>One of the ONLY avenues open to these cadets who are witness to this
>will be making it public here.
-----
Go for it; I'm a real freedom of speech kinda gal, but make sure
we go for facts rather than bigotry in action.
------
>
>The media have shown themselves to be biased in favor of every and ANY
>liberal cause, and this is one of the hot ones at the moment. The fix
is>in on this story, and it won't be the cadets side either.
>
>Hambone
------
:] What can I say; many educated folks are simply attracted to
media jobs.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32B801...@ix.netcom.com> Hambone <hamb...@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
>In a twist that could only have been part of an overall strategy to
>and the other sensational news shows, the truth about WHO these women
>were and WHY they were there is coming out!
>
>CNN reports this morning that one of these women had hooked herself up
>to a tape recorder to record the goings on between herself and the
upper>classmen who interacted with her, but the recorder was
device. It is>reported that they did not strip search her, she was
allowed to go>behind>a desk, and remove the device.
>
>SPIES, SPIES, SPIES!
------
Why on earth would anyone be afraid of a little tape recorder;
why would those who are supposed to be on the same side have
any need of fear.....why would they be considered "spies"?
Could it be that these female cadets have some reason to tape?
.....to be alarmed? ...to want the truth to come out?
------------
>
>The script of events at Citadel can now be clearly seen, and the books
>and the guest shots on Larry King and Oprah are only hours away for
this>agent provocateur from N.O.W.!
>
>The media circus continues!
>
>Hambone
------
Well, I don't know about you, Hambone, but I'm a free speech
kinda gal.
Lefty
Mary E Knadler
University, a state school
>>in New Jersey. Why isn't Douglass College co-ed? Hmmm?
>>
>
>Because it is a fundamental difference between men and women. If
>women want to have their own special group or club, men couldn't care
>less and will leave them alone. Women can't stand it when men do the
>same thing.
>
>
>
>
>
>Kevin Davis "Hoser" email - kda...@castlegate.net
>Home Page - http://www.castlegate.net/personals/kdavis
>Standard Disclaimer (Win95 Tips, sound bites, and more!)
>
I know, you are so right. As a woman myself I cannot understand why
these women continually bash men & blame them for everything. I think
men as well as women should be able to have separate schools as well as
clubs etc. if that is what they choose. I really don't know what these
feminists want except to tear everything down & destroy so many
traditional values in our society. It certainly hasn't helped bring
about a better society. yasmin2