Subscribe via RSS Feed

A Bow Tie Does Not Make A Man An Intellectual, “Certain anatomical facts” Edition

[ 131 ] January 27, 2013 |

George Will…OK, pretty dumb. Roger Kimball outsources his anti-empirical gender essentiallism.  (Why do American conservatives despise the IDF?)   This brings us to Mr. Tucker Carlson, who draws an analogy that would need a lot more additional intelligence to approach the level of being dumb.   The problem is a familiar one: a conservative who fails to understand the concept of “consent.”  (“You think men should be permitted to serve in the armed forces.  But you also believe that homicide statues should apply to killings of men!  Make up your mind!”)

Comments (131)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jim Lynch says:

    I’d guess the supercilious Carlson began wearing his bow tie in emulation of the uber-supercilious Will. Or, who knows, maybe it’s a father-son thing.

    • efgoldman says:

      Carlson began wearing his bow tie in emulation of the uber-supercilious Will.

      I think its something about the way a bow tie cuts the blood flow to the logic circuits in the brain.

    • DrDick says:

      I suspect it is just that bowties cut of the blood to the brain cause irreparable damage.

    • DocAmazing says:

      He might trip over a Windsor tie.

    • Fred says:

      Well he has one thing in common with Jonathan Chait: Zero military service. Making them both experts.

      • spencer says:

        Oh come on. I’m a veteran myself, and even I think this is a bullshit standard.

        • Fred says:

          I did two tours, but not in the infantry. Are there women who can do the sheer physical jobs that are the ordinary work of junior enlisted members in combat arms? Sure they can, but how many to does it take to do the same job? Allot more. What’s going to happen is that in a mixed unit a great deal of manual work in the field will now be disproportionally done by the men. But not to worry, things will change for the officers, especially for womenofficers who aspire to be senior generals. It won’t change much for everyone else. While Dempsey said that t standards must be maintained in the physical capability area the services have already changed them at the service acadamies. What happens to combat efficiency of the unit? What is more important, combat power on the battlefield or theoretical equality in a now EEOC military? It fits Obama’s political agenda, that’s why it was done.

          • Origami Isopod says:

            Women are already in combat. Now they can get the same recognition and pay that men get for the same job.

            Also, please spare us the red herring about physical tests. People in the service are tested for their fitness at any one particular job. Women physically suited for combat will be admitted; women physically unsuited for combat will not, just like men physically unsuited for combat.

            This kind of pissing and moaning is nothing more than the flimsiest of covers for “Having the bitchez in our ranks cheapens the roles and degrades my manhood.”

  2. Davis says:

    They’re willing to make lame arguments loudly and without embarrassment. It’s a real advantage. Profitable, too.

  3. Matt says:

    Not that I’d want to read anything Will has to say anyway, but the link that’s associated with Will’s name here is the same one you have later for Carlson.

  4. Erik Loomis says:

    I’m assuming a James McMurtry reference with the post title. If so, a tip of the hat.

  5. MAJeff says:

    Ah, Seinfeld.

    Jerry: Elaine and I were just discussing whether I could admit a man is attractive
    Kramer: Hmm. Yeah. I’ll tell you who is an attractive man: George Will.
    Jerry: Really?
    Kramer: Yeah. He has clean looks, scrubbed and shampooed and…
    Elaine: He’s smart.
    Kramer: No, no, I don’t find him all that bright.

  6. commie atheist says:

    In that Slate article all the negative critiques use the same phrase: “social experiment.” As always, conservatives are standing athwart history, yelling, “Stop (taking away my white male privilege)!”

    One month later, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981, mandating an end to racial discrimination and segregation in the armed forces. This did not mean, however, that discriminatory practices ended immediately. Initially, some military leaders were reluctant to implement the President’s order. They believed that the military was not the place for “social experiments,” and worried that unit cohesion would be irreparably harmed if blacks and whites were forced to trust their lives to each other on the battlefield.

  7. Winchester says:

    I posted this in the wrong thread :

    ” 1) Obama officially renounces torture. At the same time: he appeals to the principle of the state secret to block any judicial oversight of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” opening the way for their exceptional use without fear of legal consequences for the perpetrators.

    2) Obama reasserts the principle of habeas corpus, the principle that protects against unlimited arbitratry detention without appeal. At the same time he asserts an exception for suspects considered terrorist threats. Given what we’ve seen about the malleability and indeterminacy of threat, and its way of short-circuiting objective evaluation and affectively legitimating foregone conclusions, this is hole that that can easily rip into a full-spectrum gash.

    3) Obama announces a desire to return to accepted norms of judicial procedure. At the same time, he institutionalizes trial by military commission for individuals deemed “unlawful combattants.” The concept of the military commissions is to lower the bar of what constitutes admissible evidence and to restrict a suspect’s rights to legal defense – in short, to stack the decks. Obama is different from Bush on this. His idea has been to close Guantanamo and institute the military commissions on domestic soil: basically, to repatriate this form of exception.

    4) Obama reaffirms US adherence to the Geneva Convention and the international laws of war. At the same time he expands the Bush-era system of secret “black sites” into which unlawful combattants disappear without a trace. In tandem with this, he unleashes the CIA, extending its mandate beyond information gathering to military special-operation interventions, so that the CIA becomes a full-spectrum paramilitary force unto itself, carrying out its shadowy preemptive war games under the cover of secrecy provided by its black sites. In an inverse action, he issues secret Executive Orders giving the Pentagon’s US Special Operations Command CIA-like surveillance capabilities, buckling the full-spectrum loop of exceptional force . This preemptive organ reports directly to the president personally without any form of judicial oversight or Congressional oversight, keeping it perpetually poised for instant delivery of extralegal action on demand.

    5) Obama talks the talk of human rights, to relieved UN and European Union ears. At the same time, he walks the walk of targetted assassination. The practice of targetted assassination has expanded significantly under Obama. It is contrary to the laws of war and international norms concerning the right to a fair trial. But exception is regularly made. The fact that the US is still not a member of the International Criminal Court helps. Obama has even extended targetted assassination to US citizens.

    6) Obama has waxed long on his respect for civil rights on the home front. At the same time he used the national security rationale to institute exceptions to constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. And he has expanded the high-tech surveillance system to unprecedented levels. Legal limits are placed on surveillance of private individuals’ communications, but state secrets can be invoked to prevent”

    — Brian Massumi

    • efgoldman says:

      Do we all enjoy pancakes for supper?

      • Erik Loomis says:

        Extra syrup for this one.

        • efgoldman says:

          Can’t be JenBob. It never wrote long form.

        • Winchy says:

          Are you for real?

          Massumi ain’t a conservative; he’s a communist, Negri-style. But he’s more intellectually honest than you partisan hack.

          Here‘s the link to the quote.

          • Winchy says:

            7) Obama has assured the world that the United States will no longer embark on foreign war adventures at the drop of a hat. At the same time, he has removed the conduct of war from democratic oversight, a function invested in Congress by the War Powers Act. In this case he has done this not by changing the law, but simply by ignoring it. He is not the first to do this. But in the past, presidents have initiated war action, citing the role of the president as commander-in-chief, then gone back to Congress within the required 90 days for rubber-stamp approval for their fait accompli. This was Bush’s approach. Earlier this year, Obama deployed the military in Libya without consulting Congress — and never went back to Congress for its rubber stamp. He said he didn’t want to, and if he doen’t want to he doesn’t have to, because he’s the Chief. This can only be interpreted as a radicalization of the principle of the “unitary executive” that Bush used to justify his arbitrary gut decisions and to shift the balance of power toward arbitrary executive decison exempt from the usual checks and balances.

            The situation now is that extralegal powers, escape-hatches for the exercise of exceptional powers, holes of arbitrary decision, now perforate the fabric of government. Permanent sluices have been built-in for the logic of preemption. Through these gaps preemption will continue to pass. It will continue to move-through as an historical tendency that has become a force in itself, sweeping everyone up in its momentum, explicit doctrine aside.

            – Massumi

          • Give it up, TDK-whoever the fuck.

            You aren’t fooling anyone.

    • Rarely Posts says:

      I posted this in the wrong thread

      And why is this the right thread for this comment?

    • herr doktor bimler says:

      I posted this in the wrong thread :

      So you decided to post it on another wrong thread?

    • SatanicPanic says:

      Too long, didn’t read.

  8. Carbon Man says:

    Will was, of course, engaging in satire. Something liberals don’t seem to ever understand in their perpetual mission to be offended about literally everything.

  9. efgoldman says:

    Will was, of course, engaging in satire. Something liberals don’t seem to ever understand in their perpetual mission to be offended about literally everything.

    Well, yeah, if “satire” means “shouting down the :::ahem::: woman sitting next to you, who’s actually been there, multiple times, in places you wouldn’t go with all of General Patton’s army protecting you, even for a billion dollars” that’s exactly right.

  10. Carbon Man says:

    BTW, it’s around 25 degrees where I am. Projected to be even colder next week.

    Where’s your doom-and-gloom Warmist proclamations now, Loomis?

  11. Will was on his Sunday show today pulling the old “What if a small woman has to put a big man over her shoulder and lug him around” gambit.

    Couple things you should know about this:’

    A.) This is not an actual requirement for serving on the front lines. There is no “carry this person on your shoulder test.”

    B.) There are men who could not carry another man.

    Try again, sexists.

    • Carbon Man says:

      The long-term effect of this will be the lowering of physical requirements in general for the infantry, that will redound mostly to the benefit of weaker, less physically able men.

    • efgoldman says:

      And as I said above, he made his point by shouting down the :::ahem::: woman sitting next to him, who’s actually been there, multiple times, in places he wouldn’t go with all of General Patton’s army protecting him, even for a billion dollars.

    • JoyfulA says:

      I learned how to do that in Red Cross Junior Lifesaving training when I was 15. Getting someone bigger than I was over my shoulder was probably easier in the water than on land, but I didn’t have a problem carrying the person out of the pool and +/- 20 yards down the deck. (Harder was running as fast as you can and jumping off the diving board; my first attempt was a spectacular bellyflopper.)

    • DocAmazing says:

      Military load-bearing equipment is designed to enable fellow soldiers/Marines to drag comrades out of harm’s way–no carrying required.

      • spencer says:

        But how would a conservative know that? The only piece of military equipment they know anything about is the AR-15.

  12. Carbon Man says:

    Israel needs women in combat because of its small population relative to its aggressive Arab neighbors. They need all the bodies they can get in combat.

    America is a nation of over 310 million people. There’s no dire need for more warm bodies in the infantry here, so adding women is not necessary.

    • Rob says:

      So Carlson was engaging in satire but you do agree with everything he said, got it.

    • Hogan says:

      Israel could probably fix that by removing the draft exemption for religious study. In any case, the example of Israel is meant to prove that having women serve in combat doesn’t destroy an army’s military effectiveness. And apparently it does prove that, since you’re bailing on that line of argument.

    • efgoldman says:

      More pancakes! Extra butter.
      This troll changes its name not only within the same day, but within the same post!

    • Leeds man says:

      There’s no dire need for more warm bodies in the infantry here, so adding women is not necessary.

      How many tours did you do in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, scum?

    • Mudge says:

      True. Most specifically there is no need for sons of Mitt Romney or the like in the military. Let those people die, not the elite or women.

    • DocAmazing says:

      Russia in the Second World War had a fairly enormous population and still made extensive use of women in combat. Google “Lily Litvak” or “Night Witches” one of these days. Remember, any of those women could have been in a factory making PPSh sub-machine guns and freeing up a man to go the front lines, but they were more effective where they were.

    • DrDick says:

      So you are saying that the IDF is inherently inferior to the much more virile all-male armies of their Arab neighbors?

  13. Bob says:

    Even Krauthammer came out in favor of women in combat. Will has successfully positioned himself to the right of Charlie Krauthammer, a maneuver I wouldn’t have thought possible.

  14. Pete Mack says:

    The guy’s right about one thing: military pregnancy rate is astonishingly high, at 10% per year(!). His conclusion that women don’t belong in uniform does not follow. But the problem still needs to be addressed.

  15. Domino says:

    Kind of related to all this -

    I am worried for any woman who is in the armed forces, given the numerous stories of sexual harassment/assault that has occurred.

    • Bettencourt says:

      If you see the documentary THE INVISIBLE WAR, you’ll be more than worried — you’ll be shocked and outraged. The statistics and the treatment of raped women (and men) depicted in the film call to mind all the stories about molestation in the Catholic Church.

      • Vance Maverick says:

        While I agree with both of you, I’m not sure what bearing you intend on the question of women’s service. Bettencourt’s comparison to the Catholic Church suggests that gender essentialism and strict exclusion of women from prominent roles doesn’t actually prevent abuse (indeed, might promote it).

    • witless chum says:

      Yeah, it’s some shameful shit in general. The military is not doing a good job of teaching male soldiers not to rape their comrades in arms.

      Conservatives will tell you this is because it can’t be done. And then they’ll tell you about how liberals and/or feminists hate men.

    • STH says:

      You don’t restrict the opportunities that women have in order to protect them–that doesn’t protect them, it just means they pay twice for somebody else’s bad behavior. You focus on preventing and punishing the bad behavior.

  16. cpinva says:

    i’m surprised no one linked to this:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/27/jerry-boykin-feels-humiliated-as-a-man-with-women-in-combat-because-of-personal-hygiene/

    i swear, boykin is pushing hard, for a Dr. Strangelove remake.

    • herr doktor bimler says:

      Sympathetic though I am to the cause of labour militancy, when people in the armed forces start demanding a veto power over which classes of citizen should be allowed to occupy to same job as them, I wonder whether they would be better off simply changing careers.

    • witless chum says:

      It’s a weird comment. Everyone whose ever served talks about the close bond that forms among soldiers who serve together, especially in combat. It seems like these kind of concerns would just fall away.

  17. Lurker says:

    I have served alongside a number of women in units that were or are training for combat duty. In Finland, we males have conscription, but women may volunteer for the service, with almost exactly the same rights and duties. The major differences are that they may drop out during the first 45 days without consequences. After that, they are in just like men: active service until their service period ends and reserve duty until 60 years of age. The second difference is that the women are not issued female-specific underwear (they get the male underwear and female swimwear, though) and sanitary towels, and receive 0.50 euros per diem as a compensation.

    In the units I have served in as a conscript and a reserve officer, I have met women who have been well suited for military duties and women who should not have volunteered. However, I have not once seen a situation where a squad or a platoon would have had a woman as its weakest man.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site