Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Commentary: Infantry(wo)men & The Misogynist Reviewer

There are a couple of parts to this blog post that I feel are related so I will contain it all here. 'Patriot Dawn: The Resistance Rises' has been doing very well and the majority of reviews have been '5 Star' and very positive. There have been a couple of reviews that really miss the point. This morning I woke up and was disgusted by a review I read - and this was not because of any criticism of the book, but because of what the guy was saying about women.

At the risk of drawing too much attention to the 2 star review titled 'Feminazi fantasy prepper utopia' I have a few things to say. I may get a little 'Mountain Guerrilla John Mosby' on you, but I will try and edit out the cussing after I write this post! I was so motivated by this review that I went on Amazon and left a comment on it. This is what I said:

"This review is disgusting. I felt compelled as the author to comment. It is entirely misogynistic. The reviewer even supports pedophilia and rape. I am appalled by this review and I have reported it. I hope it is removed. I would rather people like this did not read my books (comments about poor grammar & composition aside, in the ignorance of the reviewer of correct English!)
As a combat veteran I know where females have strengths and weaknesses in both military training and combat. I have expressed this accurately in the book with some of the women not 'making the grade' but others do and subsequently excel. Some of the female characters, who are strong American woman to be proud of, just as some of the male characters are, are based on people that I know or have known. The characters are realistic and the reviewer is a weak misogynistic woman-hater who I have no time for. Get off my Amazon page! A true American male is not threatened by a strong American woman, he would be proud of such.
In my outrage, I further looked into this guy's other reviews and it turns out that he broke a chair rated for 300lbs and complained about it, giving it a poor review. He most likely is a hugely fat useless misogynist who will likely die in a pile of his own pizza and Doritos. His comments about the relationship between the book's main character and his wife clearly point to a lack of healthy relationships with strong American women, or any women at all for that matter. I am disgusted."

I hope they actually take the review down. Now, I don't want people to get the wrong idea. I am no 'feminist' and I believe strongly in the family and what I would term healthy married relationships. My vision of a good American woman is a strong character while being loving and caring. I am thinking frontier old west stuff here, painting a picture of a man and wife raising a family and teamed up to work the land and bring up their children. The reviewers comment on the relationship in the book between the main character and his wife clearly shows his unhealthy view of married life, which he probably has never experienced, and shows a lack of understanding of how marriage partnerships work. With a strong husband and wife, the man does not 'rule' the woman, and that is not even getting into the reviewers implication of pedophilia and also the denigration of women in their thirties. 

I am a huge fan of strong confident women. I don't feel threatened by them. I would not want a wife who was not strong and competent, a partnership relationship where the couple support each other in their strengths and weaknesses. I also do believe in natural gender roles, where mothers are best at raising their children but fathers will be involved and help out as best they can. Do what you are good at. This reviewer just strikes me as some fat useless weakling stuck in a sofa in a basement somewhere, a typical coward/bully. In my mind, competent strong loving caring women should be cherished. And by strong and confident I don't mean brash and rude and whatnot. I mean well brought up, polite and caring etc.

This brings me on to the announcement that women will be allowed to be in combat. Well, women are already in combat, so lets assume we are just talking about infantry here. I used to have rabid views against females serving in the infantry, but these views have evolved and matured somewhat.

I will say right here before I go further that I am certain that the way the US Military implements this new policy will be badly. There are ways and means of doing things and I am sure that they will get all tangled up in 'equality' and end up lowering standards so that the effectiveness of the force over all suffers. So let's put that whole nightmare to the side and just discuss the basics of whether females should or could serve in the infantry.

I believe that this is all about standards and merit. I think that standards should be set for infantry soldiers and if females wish to challenge those standards, meet them and pass training, they could be allowed to serve in the infantry. There are females who are very good at this kind of thing. The mistake happens when you lower standards and just let all kinds in, who just don't get it but are there for the wrong reasons and the effectiveness of the force suffers.

I realize that there are a lot of ancillary issues that people will point to, some valid, others not (like females attracting bears LOL!) A lot of these issues can be taken care of by instilling the correct culture in an organization. The females should not be coddled, and they should be no tolerance of them using their 'wiles' to get advancement or other favors. Fraternization is always a problem. I was reading that the Israelis have experimented with women in combat and now they have an all female infantry unit. Perhaps they felt that was a better way to go, but given the experiences reported to me of living in the female 'bay' at basic training I can imagine it would be a living hell 'bitch-fest' for many of the females! That's just a reality that many females would attest to, if they set aside any notions of politics and agenda.

In my book 'Patriot Dawn: The Resistance Rises' I have some key strong female characters. They don't overwhelm or 'whip' the males who are also strong and competent. They bring their own strengths to the party. In the book I am writing about a Resistance movement but a lot of what they do is infantry/combat based. Under such circumstances, I describe a training process that weeds out both males and females who are not suited or capable and re-deploys them to other roles. I do have a much higher attrition rate among the females, but those that remain are fully competent and in the book they add value and operate on their own merit, not by being 'coddled'. I have based a couple of the characters around women that I have known, or compositions of such. These characters are not unrealistic and I certainly do not have a feminist agenda - nor am I a 'Feminazi' in the words of that reviewer.

Whether females should serve in combat is another question that comes down to personal opinion. I will attest to knowing women who have been very good operators, very good outdoors and both physically and mentally in a tactical environment. I have no doubt that as long as the culture of the unit was maintained in an appropriate manner, some females have the ability to serve in infantry units. This does not mean that all females should have the 'right' too do so, but just as males have to pass standards the females should be expected to pass those same standards, with no compromise entertained. If there is an insistence that females serve in infantry roles, then these are the standards that should be insisted upon.

As far as females operating as shooters post-collapse and and/or in a resistance to tyranny environment, same rules apply. With both your males and females you may have little choice anyway, and will probably not have the opportunity to be too picky, but your team should be held to a realistic standard. If you are creating tactical teams and you have some choice over who is in it and standards, set a standard and hold everyone too it. That is real equality: equality of opportunity, which differs from some 'entitlement' to do stuff just because you feel like it.

Comments are welcome and encouraged, as is debate. I have not removed a comment form my blog yet. However, I will remove comments that are simply misogynistic and, in my opinion, inappropriate or from the loony fringe.

Max

***Inserted comment: Since I wrote this, a discussion has begun. I welcome that. Benjamin, below in the comments, is the very reviewer from Amazon who followed my blog link over. That is fine, he can have his say, this is America after all, despite his comments about his writing being better than mine ;-)
What I need to remind you all of, to bring this back into perspective  is that his original review was largely directed at two incidents in the book involving sexual assault and rape (not graphically described, before you worry). One of them involves a captured then rescued female resistance fighter. The other involves the captured daughter of a militia member, held and used as a sex toy by a Regime Commissioner, and she is described in the book as 'barely pubescent, maybe around twelve years old'. On that basis, I am unsure how this has devolved into a discussion about age of consent and marriage/child bearing age, because that is not  what I responded to in the Amazon review. Supporting that is pedophilia, and not acceptable.***

****Further Note: Sadly, I have taken my first steps towards censorship by deleting a select few of the comments below. The reasons for this are as follows:
1. They were tangential to the discussion.
2. I found some of the comments offensive and disrespectful to women. I'm happy for contributors to discuss women in combat and the role of women etc, but not what I consider arguments to justify sexual assault, rape or under-age sex counter to the current laws and norms of our society.
3. This is not the place for a religious or God's Law discussion specifically about what rape is or is not. IMO, rape is non-consensual sex or sex with a minor, whether that accords with your understanding of Gods Law or not. As Arctic Pilgrim suggests, please take such discussions elsewhere.
4. I don't appreciate being described as brainwashed by 'FemiNazis'. I, and those I know who I consider right thinking Patriots, have a healthy respect for women and do not consider them inferior in our society. They may be different to men, but not inferior.
If you don't like it, discuss it elsewhere.
Max
****

30 comments:

  1. bravo max! very well put. i have served with some women that would be very good infantry soldiers and would fit-in in a matter of hours. unfortunately, this is a political move by the regime. on the surface it is to "level the playing field" of high echelon officer promotions". so you will have "climbers" joining infantry to get a leg up on their competition rather than to fight. the real reason for this now is to gain votes and further weaken the fighting spirit of the infantry, to blunt the tip of the spear. i have served in the infantry for 10 years. i have also served in support units with women for 19 years. i know intimately the trials of leading a coed unit. this move will undoubtedly accomplish the missions of the regime. the saddest part is that the 1% of women able and willing to fight will be caught in this political mess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ditto!!! I too have served with many females during my 21 years in the Army that would put just about any male to shame with her confidence, physical fitness, and intellect. Bravo Max for your well worded points and YOUR confidence in the abilities of women. I also agree that standards should not be lowered to accomplish what the Pentagon is attempting to do, however, we all know that they will in fact do what they have been advised NOT to do. As far as opening doors for women, well, I open doors for anyone because that is how I was raised...respect and treat everyone with kindness. Keep it up Max and Benjamin...get off the air.

      Delete
  2. I will preface this lengthy comment by saying that I did not read the comment you are referring to. My thoughts on pedophiles and rapists -and those who support/condone these acts- are no secret. Those people should be beaten with a scourge, placed against a wall and shot, and then left to feed the birds of the air, if sanitation/hygene permits. Pedophiles and rapists should be executed.

    You said-

    I used to have rabid views against females serving in the infantry, but these views have evolved and matured somewhat.

    You offer your opinion on the matter as an evolved and more "matured" position. As I learn and mature, my thoughts on the matter have only been strengthened. I do not think the position that women should not serve in line units is a "less evolved" or "less mature" one, something that I think you said here by implication.

    I have always been against women serving in combat (or line units) for a variety of reasons, and on a variety of grounds. The Israeli military is often trotted out as an example of the sucess of this practice, but even they have had some issues with the performance of some mixed units in combats, as males abandon a single-minded focus on the objective in order to ensure women do not fall into the hands of the enemy. Mixed Israeli combat line units are, as a result, uncommon. Jessica Lynch's treatment by her captors was not and will never be an exception to the norm, and a man that does not do everything he can to spare a woman this fate is less than a man. I will not qualify or back down from that statement. See my opening comments on rapists. We can in no way be said to be honoring women as a society by placing them in greater danger of suffering various abuses at the hands of enemy combatants.

    -continued-

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Benjamin,

      You said: I hate to have to split hairs... but these are real and important issues ...

      I agree.

      I have yet to read the review on Amazon(as I stated above), or the entire book for that matter, but you are right, it is important to get one's terminology straight (ie "splitting hairs"- it is necessary much of the time), especially since terms are taken to mean so many things, and are very much subjective. I am not known for precision in my words much of the time. I am working on it...

      The point I see you making here is to not allow what is "legal" to become the authoritative definition/authority/determinant of moral right and wrong. Please let me know if I misunderstand you in this. In this, I would agree with you. In the details, well, I need to read the comment to get the full context.

      I agree that US law cannot be used as a measure of moral right and wrong, as it is perfectly legal in this country to kill one's unborn baby on a whim. Manlaws and human definitions of "justice" change from year to year, and therefore cannot be used as a measure of absolute right and wrong. There is something to be said for respecting and living within cultural norms and non-sinful legal boundaries, for instance, not giving my teenage daughter in marriage to a middle-aged man, but if those norms are twisted, away with them. By way of example, it is legal and accepted for teenage boys and girls to be alone together. That will not happen with my children as long as I am living.

      All in all, I think that I should read the comment at Amazon before commenting further on the subject. ;-)

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    7. Benjamin,

      I can agree to disagree in certain areas, but in others, I'd be interested in discussing this more to get a more thorough view of your position/views, as you have brought up some interesting points/perspectives. I do think that it might be "thread-hijacking" on Max's site to continue here. I have a contact form on my site or you can email arcticpatriot at nym dot hush dot com if you're so inclined.

      (Note to Max and others, this is not meant to discuss the book or the Amazon comment "behind closed doors", but to further discuss a Biblical issue that is somewhat tangential to Max's post).

      AP

      Delete
  3. -continued from above-

    I am not saying women cannot fight or cannot perform. Many in fact can. I am saying I do not believe they should, as long as American men are around.

    I explain it to people like this- My wife is capable of taking a firearm and clearing the basement in the case of a loud crash at 3 AM, and she would not hesitate to protect her family should the need arise. The bigger point is that I would be a poor excuse for a man if I had her do this instead of me. The point could be made that she can help me clear the basement, but this is a far cry from putting her in a majority-male unit in combat, halfway around the world.

    Women (and men) anxious for this "equality" (of dubious value as true "equality") should consider the future ramifications of this development/policy. I, for one, am not very excited about the possibility of my three daughters being drafted to fight in a line infantry unit. This will be the next logical step, should a draft arise again. To say that females will not be required to register for "Selective Service" at some point in the future because of this is to deny reality.

    Can women fight? Yes.

    Should women fight in a situation where they do not absolutely have to? No.

    Am I a misogynist in saying so? That is up to you, I suppose. My position is based on a deep respect and value for women, not on some "misogyny" (properly defined as the hatred of women). I have a wife and three daughters, and do not think they would say that I hate females. I believe the real misogynists are the people who would push to put women into combat. With the next draft, women in combat will not be a matter of "choice," but of state coercion.

    I believe that this move by the US government will, in the end, cheapen, degrade, and endanger women far more than anything done or said towards this end to date. It is to be expected in a hypocritical society such as ours that talks about "women's rights," yet degrades and objectifies them in advertisements, marketing campaigns, pop culture, and in every piece of filth that comes from Hollywood.

    Anyway. You did encourage comments. There are mine. If you think I am forceful on this matter, you should hear my wife, who fully agrees with me in a way that makes me sound tame. She's a mother of six, with 3 daughters. ;-) I love her and I love my daughters. Perhaps someday they will have to defend me or our family. It is precisely because of my love for them, however, that I will die before I willingly subject them to it.

    AP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AP: your comments are welcome. It was never going to be anything other than an emotive subject.
      I thought that I was not really making a conclusion in my post: simply saying that there is a 'could they' and 'should they' aspect to this. I think the US Military will make it a cluster, however they implement it.
      In reading 'Patriot Dawn', you may notice that there are some salutatory lessons in there about the dangers of women in combat. I have the full spectrum going on. The book is a little deeper than some realize! Among the women who are selected and trained to fight with the Resistance, one is captured and suffers an assault and rape, before being rescued. Another saves the day at one point.
      In the same way, some of the things the fighters do in the book do not pan out well for them. There is a lesson in there. The book is not about having the resistance always doing perfect things and succeeding at all times.
      So let me qualify it: 'Some' women do have the intrinsic physical and mental ability to fight in combat/infantry roles. I have known them. The debate as to whether they 'should' be included in US Army infantry units is separate from that. A debate over any survival or resistance force you may put together, and the inclusion or not of women, is also pertinent.
      In the book there is also a whole group of women who remain in a maternal role at the base with the families, including the wife of the main character.
      So, I am pretty sure that there are those women that 'could' and I leave the debate as to 'should' to people's opinion and comment.

      Delete
    2. My fire on this "emotive" (it is!) subject is not directed at you, Max, just to clarify. My fire is just broadly going downrange, i.e. "recon by fire," if you will. :-)


      I like how you closed-
      So, I am pretty sure that there are those women that 'could' and I leave the debate as to 'should' to people's opinion and comment.

      :-)

      I'll read that comment on Amazon. IMO, a dirtbag of a man who supports pedophilia and rape has a lot more to worry about that your book. :-D

      Delete
  4. I realize that even the idea that a man should always protect a woman is considered "misogynist" by some. It's "chauvanism," etc.

    Whatever.

    I still hold doors for females, teach my boys to do so, and teach my girls to not give and to look down on any boy/man who does not respect and honor them.

    I realize this is anachronistic in our society.

    Yet look where that society is. People cannot even sell sodas without objectifying women. Hollywood cannot even remake the simplest of movies without objectifying and degrading women.

    And this culture thinks it has the moral ground from which to talk about honoring and respecting women.

    LOL.

    That is just downright preposterous. But we're gonna "recognize their equality" by putting them in line units. Yeah.

    As for "feminists"? My wife raises and homeschools all six of our children by herself when I am not home. There is not a militant feminist in existence that can hope to hold a candle to her as a woman. Not one.

    AP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops.

      Fourth line should read "...and teach my girls to not give a second glace to..."

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I served in the United States Army when, shall we say, the role of women was expanded past that of the original mission of the Women's Army Corps.

    Huge mistake.

    They were a distraction, whiners, and generally not up to the task of most of their "recently opened" MOS's.

    True, there may be those very few bull dyke individuals that can function, but do you want to go through the process to identify them? And I can say without reservation that those I have have had the displeasure of working with in both the military and civilian world are wracked with problems. So much so that I would never hire another one. And I've hired a few over the years.

    Political correctness has seeped into every aspect of our society. It is important to recognize this. We accept the degradation of our military by allowing homosexuals of both sexes into our ranks.

    Combat is tough enough. There is no place in the mix for amorous feelings between team members or inherent psycological problems of the individual. The goal is to weed those people out. They have no place place in combat.

    I realize that I may be coming off as a homophobe. I am not. I believe there are many professions where such individuals can function at a high degree.

    Combat is not one of them.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Mullenax,

      Could agree with you more. Well written comments.

      DAN III

      Delete
    2. Why thank you Dan.

      I much prefer you praising me than chastising me.

      I save money on the therapy.

      Delete
  7. With soeroro-obama's introduction of females into combat units the USA has just more destruction of it's society. There once was a time when we had two-parent families. There once was a time when mom and dad taught values, family and religious values. There once was a time when a man would hold a door open for a lady or walk next to her on the curbside. No more.

    For those of you who believe the USA or USMC should have female grunts, I offer this hypothetical rather than appointed political scumbag
    Pinetta's creating "law" with the stroke of a pen. A "provisional" battalion of female LIGHT infantry should be created. That is everyone from BC on down to trigger pullers, cooks, bakers and candlestick makers ARE FEMALES. Load them up with all the MTOE weapons and equipment male troops are humping with in the mountains of
    Afghanistan. Then issue them a real world order to take their provisional, warrior asses to hunt down Hadjii carrying their personal defense weapons, crew-served wpns, ammo, water and a 60-80# ruck. Have real warrior NCOs eval them and not some soetoro-obama bootlickers that proliferate the US military today. Drop in a bad guy AO with a search and destroy, 30 day mission.

    They cannot accomplish the mission.

    America is dying. Our values are no more. And now soetoro-obama adds to the destruction of the American family with this sudden declaration of females in combat skills. It didn't work for the Israelis and it won't work for Americans.

    DAN III

    ReplyDelete
  8. Honestly the part in PD where the woman grabs a SAW and flanks a bunch of Regime Rangers was a little bit fantasy. First she had been in operation for days,weeks and yet was still combat effective like she Ramboed off the plane an hour ago, OK sure.

    Second the American Empire can go fuck off and die, I have believed this since the Panama operation, and I was an anti-commie since birth mind you, but I have been blessed by god I guess with good political instincts.

    Now you gentlemen who have cashed the Fedchecks from perpetual war since the end of the Cold War I have no problem with that since I am not a hyper-moralist bigot. Men like to fuck shit up and if it can be gussied up with such high minded stupidity with phrases such as "Defending Freedom", hell cash them checks, men.

    But for god's sake don't repeat the egalitarian non-sense like you just found the lost books of the bible and more importantly if you think this way don't get all butt hurt if others think its effin stupid.

    FTR I thought PD a very good book, I just have not had time to Amazon review it. robroy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well if the american empire goes off and dies, you won't have the right to spew your spittle all over the web then, would you? who or what ever is left in its place will hold no benevolence for you, or i, i'm sure. they shoot folks in china for less that what you just wrote. would that be your preference? i have problems with my government, but my america i love dearly. i agree that "we" stick our nose in too many places. i'm one that would like to see all or nearly all of our troops here on the border instead of securing europe. let us work together for a common cause rather than shoot ourselves. there will be plenty of others trying to shoot us as it is.

      Delete
    2. This post is really good, and also funny.

      It sorta reminds me of Fred. www.fredoneverything.net

      Well said, anonymous sir or ma'am.

      Respectfully,

      hyper-moralist bigot

      Delete
  9. I apologize for sidetracking the discussion, Max.

    I was attempting to deal with the Amazon comment on the two issues at hand from the context of Scripture, as it is my ultimate authority for determining moral rights and wrongs. I thought that this, in and of itself, was appropriate given the context of the first half of your post, ie the Amazon comment.

    I did see the textual hashing-out of details as being off-topic, hence my request to take it elsewhere.

    I will close by saying that I believe that both of the incidents you mentioned above in the added comment to the post (the captured resistance fighter and the treatment of the daughter of the militia member) are nothing other than evil. I would not/could not condone either act in any way, shape or form, from a Scriptural viewpoint. I largely agreed with your definition in your post's add-on (point 3) [with minor qualifications, mostly focused around the fact that the age of consent is different in some states in the US, and one could be wholly legally justified in one state, but a convicted criminal in another- these laws are arbitrary, IMO], and was working towards defining it as such and defending that viewpoint (the one you posited in #3, above) from Scripture. I also was (IMO) in no way advocating or endorsing illegal acts, or intentionally dishonoring women.

    Anyway.

    Thank you for being open about your thoughts on this matter, and opening your comments for discussion. Doing so is always...fun. ;-)

    AP

    ReplyDelete
  10. In the land of the internet especially, there are some very ignorant people. I think your response to the reviewer was adequate and warranted, but just be careful in arguing with fools. Some reviews on Amazon are purposely inflammatory or outright lies; unfortunately that's part and parcel of putting yourself out there. I'll be surprised if Amazon deletes it, even though they should.

    I don't know the point of my comment here, other than this: don't let this dude get under your skin too much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Archer: true. I notice that the character 'Benjamin' is all over the reviews and comments of Patriot Dawn spewing his filth. I have this to say: it is people like him that give the conservative/Patriot/Christian people in American a bad name. His warping of scripture to fulfill an agenda of misogyny and child sex is truly disgusting. By his logic, he would support keeping a pre-teen captive in a basement and using her for breeding - it appears his agenda is to clear the way for similar! I can only hope him and his type don't find victims in the chaos after a collapse. It is exactly this sort of 'American Taliban" madness that gives the progressives the ammunition they want/need to demonize the 'gun and bible clinging' parts of good America. Next thing guys like him have the FBI burning down and assaulting their compound to rescue the child-brides! Madness.

      Delete
    2. Finally got around to putting a review in at Amazon, look for WASP. And forgive my comment at the end. Robroyzimmons

      Delete
    3. Thanks Rob Roy, much appreciate, great review!

      Delete
  11. Max, you and everyone distracted by the surface appearance of this divisive issue has fallen for the head fake. The purpose of placing women in combat roles is so that the core, conservative, freedom-loving troop who doesn't particularly care much for Dear Leader or his agenda, gets phased out to the degree possible. Same for homosexuals. Who's gonna follow the order when it comes down, and who is going to stand down?
    - LEO's training with flash bang CQB with troops in your neighborhood
    - 7000 AR's (no doubt really m4's with select fire)
    - Billions of rounds of ammo
    - Probably are scarfing all the PMags :)

    When they put her on point and come for your guns, ammo, whatever, or to load you on the "re-education" van, don't tell me most of us won't hesitate to drop the young lady - even for a split second- and that's all they need.

    Posturing, posturing, posturing....

    Surely something wicked this way comes....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now they're talking about actively drafting our daughters.

    Not that I predicted this or anything.

    Yay. Egalitarianism's logical outcome- coercing women into combat. Sure glad I live in such an "equal" country.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/16/New-Bills-Would-Reinstate-Draft-And-Require-Women-To-Sign-Up

    ReplyDelete