March 04, 2003
REAL WOMEN DON'T WAGE WAR?
Over at USS Clueless, Steven Den Beste has a post up about The Lysistrata Project, an effort by anti-war activists to encourage female chastity as a way to protest the war. The project of course assumes that all women are anti-war and all men are pro-war, and that furthermore the only way for women to make their political opinions known is to withhold sex, and further still that any woman would actually want to do that. It also implies that the best way that today's women have of influencing their worlds is not through their writings, speeches, jobs, money, or votes, but through their ability to have or not have sex, and that the sex will be solely with men, who are of course the real powerhouses in our society when it comes to shaping world events. You'll understand if I find that a creepy idea, akin to the MST3k short I watched on DVD the other night about the virtues of majoring in Home Economics at Iowa State.
Steven asks about the women being urged by the anti-war activists to go chaste for peace: "What if they actually support this war?"
Well, the solution is pretty obvious, really. Personally, I plan on dedicating tonight's hot-and-heavy boink with my fiance to the Lysistrata Project chicks. Who says political protest should only be defined by denial and inaction? And why not have more fun than the peacenik gals at their own inane game? And this way, there are much better slogans too: Fuck For Freedom! Make Love And War! Have You Hugged a Hawk Today?
And what would their rallying cries be? Frigid For Feckless Foreign Policy? UNdersexed for the UN? My Cunt Belongs To Saddam?
And it's not enough for these "feminists" that sexuality, or even specifically female sexuality, be used as an oxymoronic anti-war weapon, but that it must be denial of female sexuality that is the weapon, that very special tool for keeping their social order and their status quo intact. Sex, after all, should only be given up in the appropriate manner and to the appropriate person, and woe to they who disagree...waitaminute, this is starting to sound kinda familiar...
What also galls me is that these women are claiming not only sex, but femininity itself as a uniformly passive, gentle, loving, pacifist attribute. What rubbish. I shouldn't support waging war on a mass-killing dictator because as a woman, my place is to elevate discourse and consensus and eschew "manly", messy action? They're even implying that if I am not a peaceful, good-mannered, right-thinking woman like them, a woman for peace, then perhaps I am not really a woman at all? And these are the women who are telling me this?
I much prefer this illustration of the political power of American femininity:
 |
This graphic was created by then-17-year-old Eliza Gauger in the wake of 9/11. Her LiveJournal site is here and you can buy items bearing this image from her CafePress store here. It is a gender-specific evocation of that shock and rage so many of us felt after having been attacked. But don't count on the so-called "feminists" to claim it as a rallying point, nor to re-embrace Rosie the Riveter in her traditional place as wartime female role model. Women are For Peace, Women are Against War, Women should even Wear Pink to get that point across. A Womanly response to terrorism is to dourly call Bush a Fascist.
It would be nice, then, if there were some way to convey to these women just why so many of us are so adamant that the Arab world needs massive changes, and right away, starting for various reasons with Iraq. It would be really helpful if there were some analogy that came to mind, something that a feminist group could easily grasp, to explain our unyielding anger and determination to see this process through to its final, bitter ends. Many of these women simply do not comprehend what a gross violation of our sovereignty and our autonomy 9/11 was to us. How it caused massive trauma and scarring to many of us which we may never really get over. How it changed our perceptions of our personal safety and made us wary of whom we could safely trust in the world. But all we hear is some muted sympathy, mixed with a "you should have known better" condescension. We were probably asking for it, what with our troops in Saudi Arabia (what were you doing there in the first place?), our vetoing of the Kyoto Protocols (you're such a stuck-up tease), our muddling in the Arab-Israeli conflict (you were acting provocatively), and so on. But like I said, I just can't seem to think up a good analogy that one of these particular feminist groups would care to understand.
And should we now take action against those who hurt us in the past and will almost certainly seek to do so in the future? Should we take responsibility for our own safety and justice in the world, seeing as how no one else will?. Nah, say the anti-war feminist left. Might as well lie back and enjoy it, honey. It's a shame that it happened, but whatcha going to do about it, y'know? Get over it already.
To which I say: I am woman, hear me cheer when they drag Saddam's crushed and bloodied body through the streets of Baghdad.
And not just his, and not even primarily his, but all of the Arab world's despots who torture and abuse and mutilate and rape and sell their women for the crime of being so disgustingly female. (Nevermind Resolution 1441 or the WMD's in Iraq; let's stick to human interest stuff.) From Saudi Arabia where women cannot drive a car or walk outside without an accompanying male relative, to Egypt where the percentage of women whose clitoris and labia have been hacked off approaches 90%, to the West Bank where a woman's greatest possible achievement--and source of income--is that her child has blown himself up in a pizza shop, women across the Arab world are having their souls crushed by the societies they lived in. If we can liberate these women and reduce the pathological misogyny in these cultures by modernizing and, yes, Westernizing them, is that not to the benefit of these women, and for humanity as a whole? The women of Afghanistan have seen this--lived this!--within recent memory, and the women of Japan more distantly, both times expressly due to war waged by Americans. War can save womens' lives--or vastly improve them.
But no: war is bad, always and in all cases. And women should be--are, in fact--inherently above such things (all hail the cult of domesticity). Or, as Reverend Beverley Dale, the Penn chaplain who is heading up Penn Women for Peace, put it: "Women are more inclined toward peace." She's a woman: has she never had PMS? She's a chaplain: has she never read the Bible stories of Judith or Deborah? Or, more classically, read of the Bacchae or the Furies or the Amazons? And this: "Most of [the Penn Women for Peace] are against war of all kinds as part of the domination system," Dale said. "But we're not addressing that, we're addressing this war." Uh-huh.
War is part of the domination system. Women are naturally more pacifistic. Real women would talk things out. Not having sex is the most important way a woman can influence her world.
Excuse me while I fight the urge to rush home from work right now and boink my fiance silly. (Like I really needed a reason.)
UPDATE, 3/7: I wrote a follow-up post here.
Next Entry: PALESTINIAN TERRORISTS STRIKE AGAIN
Comments
Bin Laden's real mistake was that he got the women of America - the REAL women - mortally ticked off at him. Now Saddam's doing the same thing. Women have always been more aggressive than men when their homes and children are threatened. The real function of women in war is to make their men deathly afraid to come home without the scalp of an enemy, to inspire them to earn their woman's love. Righteous war is a partnership, the epitome of love, the apotheosis of human functioning.
Madonna certainly didn't become the media figure she is today by withholding anything, least of which would be sex. If the squeaky wheel gets the oil, what does the quiet wheel get?
I believe it was the women of Sparta who would tell their sons "With this Shield or upon it" , Come back victorious or dead upon your shield. For a prowar slogan how about " Babes for Bombing Baghdad"
The notion that women are more pacifistic is bullshit. People say that because women do tend to be more relationship-oriented. But these people forget something.Enmity is a relationship as well. P.S. Why do I suspect that Scott may start secretly hoping Saddam holds out as long as possible?
So now the terms of the debate are that Scott Ganz gets nookie in the name of Freedom, Victory Over Terrorism and The American Way of Life?How in Hell do I get in on this racket? Who do I have to talk to? How do I make it happen? Someone tell me.Please.And Chris: It is understandable to think that Scott would hope for a protracted war, but I'm sure that he places the well-being of our men and women at arms over the amount of action that he might be getting in the name of Old Glory and Apple Pie.Besides, just imagine how much fun V-I (Victory over Iraq) Day will be. And then you have Iran to liberate. And Saudi Arabia. And Syria. And Libya. And you have to do something about those Palestinian terrorists and . . . well . . . the end result may be that Scott Ganz will never actually sleep again for the rest of his life.
I'm sure that lots of warbloggers will masturbate more freely tonight, Asp, so thanks for sharing. There's an awful lot of backed-up semen there, which, as Swift noted, can turn a man's thoughts to killing people.
It would seem that even in western countries, many people still look at women through a traditional point of view!!!.
I'm surprised that none of the people involved in the 'Lysistrata' project actually seem to have read the play, or understood it.
I like "Fuck for Freedom", I'm sure my fiance will like that one too :-)Scott's not the only lucky guy in the blogosphere!
Check out the irony here! If things go according to plan, all of the men with anti-war girlfriends get no sex. Men with pro-war girlfriends get extra sex just to piss off the Lysistrata types. It won't be long before every man in the nation will be pro-war just so he can make time with the only women willing to hit the sack.
CMN,You are absolutely correct. Woman are relationship oriented, and we shouldn't forget that hate and the relationship between enemies might just be the closest relationship around. I certainly wouldn't fuck with a pissed off woman.And the Statue of Liberty? Best rendition of Lady Liberty ever. Damn that is sexy. All the great things about women rolled into one. Mother, Protector and Goddess. Boy, do I love women or what? Who wants to boink some stinky hippy chick anyway?
That's a great illustration, although I never pictured the Statue of Liberty as left-handed.
Brilliant analogy.I think I'll try it out tonight when I get home. But honey, it's for the war effort....
Honey? Hi, it's me.Please come home soon.I read yer post and now I'm feeling all... anxious.I've got Marvin Gay in the CD player and a bottle of wine.Love,Scooter
this could have interesting darwinian implications with war bloggers boinking and peaceniks celebateremember the 60's slogan, "girls say yes to boys who say no" (ie they will sleep with you if you resist the draft)this updated sex/power issue promises a long protracted dry spell for some.
I'm not easy -- I'm pro-war!!! ;)
Bob--I quote Lazarus Long:"Roman matrons used to say to their sons: 'Come back with your shield, or on it.' Later on, this custom declined. So did Rome."He also said, "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." Indeed.
Honey, that just rocked.
When did this war become about liberating every Middle Eastern country, Pej? If that's the aim, why are we stopping with the Middle East? Most of Africa stands to be liberated, some countries in S. America, N. Korea for sure, China, France (even though it claims to be democracy, we don't like them and should liberate the people, true?), need I go on? I am all for deposing Saddam, but if the rationale for invading Iraq, deposing its leader, and setting up a new form of government must include that Iraq gassed its own people years ago and has been in violation of UN resolutions since 1991 then what is the imminent threat to our national security? That Iraq may have some chem or bio weapons which couldn't reach us? That Iraq may be 5 years from developing nukes? I want to pop a cap in Saddam's ass, but I'm still waiting for a reason that doesn't make me say in response, so why aren't we planning to invade N. Korea, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia et al.
Shame on you. You have made a mature, 55 year old man start giggling in his office.
Asparagirl, spot on!One at a time, Mark, one at a time! Also, war isn't the only way to win (it just happens to be the only way to make Iraq quit building WMDs and attempting to assassinate American ex-presidents and abusing his country's people and...).
Brooke,Some of your best writing ever. I hope the muse stays with you. Warmest regards to you and Scott both.Best wishes,This old fart in Germany.John TwomeyUS Army
Once guys start to get word that anti-war women aren't putting out, the numbers at these protests will drop about 50%.
Just a few thoughts in response to today's article (March 4th). A gentle reminder that Aristophanes was a guy. The play itself was written as a comedy, it's primary focus to entertain. Its theme is equally critical of both men and women, the men may come out with huge "hard ons" but the women also try to sneak out and have sex with their husbands under false pretenses. One makes the not so subtle excuse that she has to go home and tenderize the meat "let me just roll it around in my hands for a while". While it is true that the Lysistrata Project is a statement in support of peace it does not suggest that women follow the play explicitly. Lysistrata is patently a farce, a series of thinly veiled innuendos and metaphors made to titilate audiences and get past the censors of the day. A key factor in the Lysistrata women's success in stopping a war is that they take over the treasury. This is hardly a kind or soft way of dealing with politics. It is in fact the underestimation of a woman's power that gets the men in such a fix. On the outside this power is indeed a sexual one; a conceit that has been used in entertainment since the Greeks first donned masks and dressed in drag. But it is impossible to dismiss the women's threats to "rip his balls off" as coy sexual maneuvering. The statement that "The project of course assumes that all women are anti-war and all men are pro-war, and that furthermore the only way for women to make their political opinions known is to withhold sex" purposefully takes the play at face value. The men in Lysistrata are all too willing to give up going to war when their home lives are disrupted. The Lysistrata Project is employing old tools to new purposes. Suggesting, not that women should withold sex, but that there are peaceful alternatives to war that the ruling powers (both men and women) would reap the benefits of if their dicks didn't get in the way.In closing, these "feminists" of the Lysistrata Project (both men and women) organized 1030 readings in 42 countries, reaching and entertaining almost 1 million audience members. Who says political protest should only be defined by denial and inaction?
Wow. Asparagirl, you're beautiful when you're locked 'n' loaded!
Henry,That was brilliant. Almost as brilliant as Brooke's post. I knew guys (hippie guys, no less) in college who admitted that the only reasons they went to protests, sit-ins, teach-ins, and poetry readings was to meet chicks.
Should we tell them that the whole theory of avoiding sex before a fight is that it will cause men to build up testosterone and become more aggressive?Of course, none of our marines would be dating women like that in the first place.
The Raelians are sponsoring a disrobe for peace rally this weekend. The anti-war stuff is starting to sound like a big tease.
Are you people for real?
That was erotic.
I suppose fighting back the urge to rush over to your local military recruiter's office and enlist is, of course, out of the question, right? Last time I checked, women could serve in the military. Put the weight of the [idealism = action] equation on the side of action, Miss Save the Clits. Peacenik hippies are pretty silly and contemptible, but so are right-wing warmongers too lazy and gutless to put their own ass on the line for their ideals.I mean, when I enlisted in the military back in the Cold War, I fucking hated communists--you know, the bad guys in the last century who were hellbent on worldwide revolution and conquest. My idealism required action on my part, not just empty words blurted out at a frat house beer bash to all my aspiring Willam F. Buckley-like Conservative, pro-Reagan, B-school brothers back at Pigsknuckle University. In my 8 years of service I wasn't given the opportunity to kill any commies, and now that I am older and wiser I am very glad I didn't have to kill any commies--vile and nefarious though they were. But, da-gummit, I would have killed those bastards if ordered to do so! Now I am not saying that protecting Afghani clits isn't a noble enterprise, but what I am proposing is that the [idealism = action] equation seems to be weighing heavily on the side of idealism these days in this country. I am sure in your case if you start doing pushups and situps before bed and when you get up in the morning, run 2-5 miles every day, and prepare yourself to enter a world where you get paid much less to do much, much more--oh, yes, you could die while doing it, and often horribly--then you too can go make the world safe for clits and whatever else your idealism demands. I am not saying that everyone who is for war right now needs to serve. However, for fuck's sake, some of you people should get off your flabby asses and put your money where your mouths are. The net weight of your mountains of rah-rah, pro-war idealism will not add up to a bucket of shit if you don't back up your words with substantive action, my dear. Your empty words will carry as much weight as the goofy buckets of shit being spewed out by the peaceniks.If you do that, if you enlist and go save the clits of the Muslim world, I might want to rush over to bonk you...well, at least pat you on the back and share a beer at the next VFW mixer while we tell war stories with all the other crusty old vets.
I can see the pro-test sign now "Fuck for Peace!"
What a fine piece of writing! Someone else said it before but you really do rock when locked and loaded.
The link to CafePress is broken, and various searches do not find it.Anybody know what's happened? Does she still have images for sale?
I was going to ask if you have ever read this play, ormaybe if you just didn't understand it. If you are goingto get "locked and loaded" maybe know what you areshooting at first.The women in the play are using sexuality as a weapon,not denying it.But T. Wojcczuk put it very nicely.
"But like I said, I just can't seem to think up a good analogy that one of these particular feminist groups would care to understand."Suuurrre you didn't. Not that I don't agree with the analogy, or why you let the reader realize it for her/himself.Moe Lane
You don't know me, but I love you.
And lest we forget, Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem titled "The Female of the Species is More Deadly Than the Male"....
It's about time the pro-war couples start to have some fun! YOU GO GIRL!
To piggyback on Mr. (Ms.?) Wojczuk's comments: Lysistrata is Aristophanes' most famous play, and its message has been interpreted as everything from the saving power of a virtuous woman (in the Victorian era) to, um, the power of women (since at least the 70s). But Aristophanes was a conservative, and a comedian. So we should ask: is it his funniest play? No. It has its moments (like when the women scream "We want to get laid!" at the protagonist) but it can't hold a candle to The Clouds, a biting satire of Socrates. You've stumbled on something brilliant when Philosophy and Sophistry cockfight in one scene.
The link to CafePress is fixed. Never mind. Thanks, Asparagirl.If Eliza Gauger is this good at age 17, well, dang!Now over to Cafe Press.
"I suppose fighting back the urge to rush over to your local military recruiter's office and enlist is, of course, out of the question, right?"Oooh! Oooh! It's the infamous chickenhawk argument! The one that says no one should be in favor of military action unless they themselves can serve in the military! As my man Scott has put it so ably in the past, if you want a military-controlled military, move to Cambodia. The US has a civilian-controlled military and plans on staying that way, and that means that J. Random Civilian can indeed shoot her mouth off about political issues that might involve military action without being hypocritical.Incidentally, I *can't* serve in the military. The dreaded "don't ask, don't tell" rule applies to us bisexual types, too. And I've got a passel of medical problems which would keep me out. Hell, my eyesight alone would get me laughed out of a recruiter's office. But yours was a rhetorical question; it's not like you actually care why some of us pro-war types aren't serving.By the way, the clits of the *Afghan* world aren't the ones that need saving; female genital mutilation is prevalent mainly in the northern African part of the Muslim world, particularly Sudan and Egypt. Again, not like you actually care.
"In closing, these "feminists" of the Lysistrata Project (both men and women) organized 1030 readings in 42 countries, reaching and entertaining almost 1 million audience members."And donating untold number of their proceeds to ANSWER, an actual real-live Stalinist group. Organized, widespread stupidity is still stupidity.
Well now, if you can't say anything nice...There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance:stu·pid adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.ig·no·rant adj. 1. Lacking education or knowledge.2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake. 3. Unaware or uninformed.*Perhaps you meant to call 1 million people ignorant. Possibly you belie that not a one of them understand, or are educated about, your views. But to assume that none of these people are intelligent, knowledgeable or sophisticated thinkers lets your ire get in the way of your smarts. And we all know what happens then. *American Heritage DictionaryAnd by the way, while ANSWER may be hyper-politically correct I fail to see how a news and information site is Stalinist (as he was notoriously against free media). Uh oh, does that make me stupid?
The word Irony comes to mind when I read about liberals reading Aristophanes. Aristophanes was conservative, and used to debunk Euripides' liberal assertions all the time. I wonder if they've read "The Clouds" or not, because they need to get out of "The Thinkery"
Thanks, Asparagirl, Judith and Deborah were always favorites since childhood. And: Jael ( Sisera, tent peg). Heh.
ANSWER is more than hyper-politically correct. It never met a "socialist" dictator it didn't like. Including such stalwart human rights advocates as Milosevic and Kim Jong-Il. Hell, I bet they cried on the anniversary of Stalin's death. http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.phpAsparagirl, I'll never think of the word "boink" in quite the same way again. :)
Post 19 asked:"When did this war become about liberating every Middle Eastern country, Pej? If that's the aim, why are we stopping with the Middle East? "When an avalanche is ready to start, you don't have to push every rock.
You got me thinking: if the peacenik libs are withholding sex for peace and killing off any "product of conception" that happens to be inconvenient at the time, whilst all us rightys are Doinking for Democracy and keeping all our kids, the Republican party (if it doesn't self-destruct before then) should win every election going away starting in about 2020 and thereafter.Boo-yah!
Kind of like the English in Scotland
Do you have a sister?
Yes, but she's a liberal Democrat and not exactly pro-war.
This post of yours was referenced in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web feature today!
first time reading your page.nice stuff.thanksheard about it via wsjonline...ricky
Asparagirl, I love your mind!
You're right. After all, "motherland" is often used as a way to inspire soldiers. The notion that women are for "peace" confuses the biological and the critical.Did Saddam cause 9/11? Personally, l think we should bomb Pakistan. They're the ones with all the terrorists. Or are they our friends? It's so confusing, sometimes, who are the good guys. The CIA and others generally consider Saddam and Osama different people.
Thank you for the wonderful laugh. I'm showing this to my boyfriend and I think we'll practice a little bit of pro-war advocacy tonight!
Asparagirl:I wish I had you for a pen pal when I was in Vietnam. Witty, intelligent and erudite - what more could a Marine want?
How about this for a response to the Lysistrata Project?Please tell me how my personal sex life is EVER going to influence Washington? I'm not Monica & obviously President Bush isn't Slick Willy. My denying sex to my significant other is going to go completely unnoticed by the media, the President, and everyone else EXCEPT me & my significant other. So - since this is a totally unpublicized event how will it help? Besides making me & my Beloved frustrated, cranky & give us the need to take our frustrations out somew oh wait youre really pro-war . I get it!
Asparagirl,Outta sight -- great column, from a first-time visitor (linked over from OpinionJournal). Love the graphic, too. What people fail to understand is that we have been at war with Iraq since 1990. His government signed a cease-fire, not a peace accord, incumbent on Iraq disarming in a verifiable manner, compensating Kuwait for war damages, and a host of other things that have never been done. Our planes fly war patrols over half of the country, and are occasionally attacked. We've been at war while both the UN and our government dithered about, trying to muster the will to enforce the cease-fire documents and the now seventeen UN resolutions that say the same thing over and over: adhere to your cease-fire agreement or else.Now, what else? How long are we supposed to stay at war? We need to get this over with, because as long as our military is pinned down on this front, we are handicapped fighting terrorism elsewhere. It's time for the US, Britain, Australia, and over a dozen other European nations that support action to declare themselves fed up with twelve years of stalling and put an end to this war, for our own sake and the sake of the people in the region. If we don't, every tinpot dictator is going to know that the UN and the international community will never muster the will to enforce its own treaties -- and then we're right back to Munich in 1938. Which country would like to volunteer to be Czechoslovakia this time around? Stupidity gets tiresome, but at least it's entertaining for a while. Thank God for people like you, who manage to be both smart and entertaining at the same time.Maybe I'll check out the Raelian protest ... see if abstinence is really an issue for these women ... ;-)
Great essay, Asparagirl. Loved Eliza Gauger's illustration.
I notice a lot of comments quoting "Lysistrata." That's funny to me, because there have to be at least 50 English translations of the ancient play so all these clever quotes aren't really the words of Aristophanes, rather, whatever horny person was assigned the task of interpreting ancient Greek.Well. I don't know about you all, but I'm excited to see how this will all turn out. And, as it is a movement, by joining, you create an effect...six degrees of separation...someone's bound to turn into a pacifist and have a spouse who is being shipped over to the Arabian Peninsula.....
Great piece, and congrats on the WSJ link. Hope it gets around.
Wilkins, why would you want to bomb Pakistan if you don't understand whether or not they are our friends? It's people like you who give war a bad name. Read the paper before you try to decide who this nation should and should not bomb.
Courtesy of Stacy at blogatelle.com(I hope this works, there's no preview...)
TO: Jane GaltRE: These WomenLook on it as evolution in action. Their pacifism will result in the fact that THEIR children are less likely to live to be parents themselves; end of another genotype for rampant stupidity and a general improvement of the gene-pool.Regards,Chuck(le)[The gene-pool could use a little 'chlorine'.]
Ok, didn't work. Just go here to see the image.
TO: asparagirlRE: Oops...My colorblindness is affecting my posting. So this ISN'T Jane's world?Oh well...RE: Don't Tell"Incidentally, I *can't* serve in the military. The dreaded "don't ask, don't tell" rule applies to us bisexual types, too." -- asparagirlNo 'telling' now. You can serve. Just don't tell anyone in the chain-of-command. They won't ask you. Or at least they aren't supposed to....Regards,Chuck(le)
TO: mjRE: Avalanche, Anyone?"When an avalanche is ready to start, you don't have to push every rock. " -- mj"The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." -- Ambasador Kosh [Babylon 5]Enjoy the ride, compadre....Regards,Chuck(le)[Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. -- Yeats [The Second Coming]Here's the 'rest of the story'...http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5379/TheSecondComing.html
Have You Hugged a Hawk Today?Shouldn't it be "Have you F
#6:I'm sure that lots of warbloggers will masturbate more freely tonight, Asp, so thanks for sharing. There's an awful lot of backed-up semen there, which, as Swift noted, can turn a man's thoughts to killing people.Okay, so the theory is war is caused by sexual repression. Therefore, NOT having sex with a pro-war guy would actually make things worse! F*cking a hawk would be a lot more effective! Think that would persuade the Lysistrata Project? :)
May I suggest a slogan:War and Piece!
Great essay.I always liked the line in the first Terminator movie where Sarah Connors asks Kyle Reese what the women of his future are like and he says, "they're good fighters". The best and sexiest line in the movie, in my opinion.BTW, I was in the Class of '80 at USAFA - first class with women. Proud to serve - and as far as I was concerned, the USAFA women were equally adept and determined to kill to defend the constitution, if necessary.Nobody in their right mind likes killing or war - but the deal is: will fighting a small war with an asshole today render unnecessary a huge war later? I know what I think the answer is.
This reminds me of the Junior Anti-Sex League from Orwell's 1984
I am not saying that everyone who is for war right now needs to serve. However, for fuck's sake, some of you people should get off your flabby asses and put your money where your mouths are. Thankfully, since military people are well respected by most Americans outside of the bedwetting liberal elite, the armed forces don't NEED my flabby ass. However, if they did, and the draft were used again, I'd be honored to serve. I don't have to be enlisted in the military to know that war in this case is a necessity.
Hey there. I came through via the Instalaunche. Thanks, it was great. And about Loserboy about the military thing: Everyone serves who serves. It doesn't matter that I serve by being in the military (and I do) to be able to say it. Just being a citizen is what it's about. Beautiful writing. Bill Whittle should take notice...someone's catching up here....
Why aren't you marrying me? I want a real pro-war boinking and I want it NOW!Thanks for your refreshing discourse. A balm in a balmy world.
Have impregnated my wife for war.Now what?
T. Wojczuk:It is good to see someone whose post shows such an intimate relationship with both stupidity and ignorance! Would you be a liberal, perhaps?
Hi, I came here via Instapundit and enjoyed your writing.To Chuck, what a bunch of bull. I was in the military, but that doesn't give me any more right to speak out than someone who has never served. If this were the case, peace activists the world over should have there mouths duct-taped shut since they know not of what they speak. Only soldiers know about war if you want to think along those lines.My husband is deploying any day now, HE has seen combat before, unlike you. Does the fact that he has actually gotten to shoot at people give him more say than you?? The answer is no.. Does it make him more of a soldier than you? Again the answer is no. Will the war stories he tells at the VFW be more interesting than yours? Most Probably.
Hmm, I'm a bit jealous. How come there is no The Lysistrata Project for men. I mean, I want to do my part for the war effort and I have a lot to do to apologize for the behaviour of my fellow Canadians.
Hang on, is it me or is the logic behind the Lysistrata manifesto relegating women to sex objects?
Female Gender = automatic pacifistHumbug.In modern times, four countries have been led into war by female leaders:UK (Thatcher)Israel (Meir)Pakistan (Bhutto)Sri Lanka (civil war)
Whoops - I forgot the Philippines as well.(and sorry for spamming the comments)
"I suppose fighting back the urge to rush over to your local military recruiter's office and enlist is, of course, out of the question, right?"Last time I saw a recruiter (September 12, 2001), I was rejected.However, I'm glad we've established minimum qualifications for having an opinion on the war. Anti-war arguments shall hereby be considered invalid unless made by people committed enough against war that they have volunteered to live the next two years of their life at military-level pay and under military-level discipline to serve as human shields in potential war targets. You can have your choice of being assigned in Iraq to protect it from the U.S., or in the neighboring countries to protect them from Iraq. Your specific location within one of those two groups will be assigned by others, just like military personnel don't get to choose where to serve. Everybody else against the war shall be dismissed as "chickendoves".
Well, as they say in the Army....Get Some!
Wow, I'm just sorry that Paul is away at a conference. I want to do my part for the war, you know.diana.
Hi there Asparagirl:Your post was one of the funniest and best written pieces of work I've seen on the net in a long time. You've got a new fan! Keep up the good work.
Great article!I guess something that bothered me, whilst listening to the 30-minute special interview with the Lysistrata Project founders on NPR, was that these young lasses honestly thought they were the cleverest people in the world for reducing themselves to nothing more meaningful than, well, [insert your favorite derogatory term for a vagina here].My wife is more of a dove than I, but good lord we respect each other's opinions... read that how you will ;) i'm gonna go share some respect right now...
When did bonking become boinking?I never heard it before ( but then I'm a limey )
I'm surprised to have received no substantive comments to my post (#19). Is there no reason to invade other than we can beat the crap out of Iraq? C'mon folks, if you're for war, convince me...I want to be convinced.
I wonder if the women in Lysistrata realise that witholding sex from men, makes us more aggresive rather then docile.
Another thought. A lot of Greek warriors had a liking for boys rather then women. If the Lysistrata story was reality then I doubt if it would have any impact in the way that Lysistrata would have liked.
For Mark (#91)1. Saddam is a mass murderer2. Saddam has aided and abetted extremists who have murdered thousands of innocent US citizens and nobody who's even halfway honest doubts that he won't do it again, given a chance and given weakness on our part3. Saddam hates the US and is on the verge of developing both weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver those weapons to distant places (if he hasn't already)4. Saddam is the leading (negative) power in a region of the world overrun with chaos, murder and strife, and (a region) with the potential for genocide on a Maoist (i.e., 4 times worse than Hitler) scale5. North Korea is bad, but one murderous despot at a time - take care of the more posing the most immediate dangerNow go take on the day
MarkG:"When did this war become about liberating every Middle Eastern country, Pej?"2001.09.11At which point we realized that all those folks foaming at the mouth in their hatred of America really aren't just blowing off steam, and that therefore something has to be done about them.
OK, MarlG, I'll give it a shot.Non-humanitarian reasons to invade Iraq:There is PUBLIC knowledge of Iraqi involvement with Al Qaeda, enough to strongly suspect that they are more than Involved. Go do some research.We are ALREADY at war with Iraq, and we should get it over with (they've been shooting at our planes as a regular part of life for several years, by the way).Even if Hussein is not already in bed with Al Qaeda, even the densest person can see taht giving nasty stuff (bio, chem , nuke, whatever) to them will see it used on the US. Hussein would obviously like that, and he has nasty stuff (and is trying to get more).Iraq has declared itself our enemy (again, public knowledge). Let's leave our enemy alone until he is stronger, that's a good idea.Hussein has goals of at least local dominance (again, public knowledge). If he aquires nukes, he will be able to deter others from taking action while he takes over the area (and a large part of the world oil supply, and to ignore that point would be tactically stupid, not just politically, as oil is one of the most important assets in the world today, and not just for the US).I could go on, but I'm at work.Oh, and not N Korea? Because they HAVE nukes, so we are at least somewhat deterred (hopefully, that will be the top priority after Iraq).Why not others? Well, one at a time, and also, politically, look at the cost of just taking care of ONE mess (Iraq). It would be very difficult, so you prioritize and deal with them one at a time.
MarkG,Post #60. I guess you must have scrolled past it. Along with a slew of others from other posters -- bad luck for you.Oh, wait, you're just saying that there will NEVER be a good reason to finish the Iraq war ... you just ask that question because you have cleverly reasoned that no matter what anyone says, you can just respond that you STILL haven't read a good reason! Oh, how clever of you. You don't even need to take a stand -- you can just ask questions until you die and pat yourself on the back for being reasonable. Now you can run on down to your local Mensa club and show them your posts and demand a membership, clever boy. You don't ever have to deal with hard facts and honest debate ever again. You make us all proud ... well, you make us all *something*, anyway ...
All this talk of female genital mutilation.. what about male genital mutilation here in the good ol' us of a?
Came here through WSJ online...If you recall, there was one woman who was putting her opinion where her you-know-what is. Remember in Gulf War I - that Italian porn star turned legistlator - Chicilina - or something like that? She offered to make love to Saddam if he would "pull out" of Kuwait..
hey eraszt if your referring to the practice of removing the foreskin then you need a lesson in physiology. a clitoridictomy is equivilent to cuting off the entire glans, or the head of the penis. removal of the foreskin is equal to removal of the 'hood' of the clitoris. that doesn't even get into the practice now as infibrulation. i could go into all kinds of nasty details about this but let's just say it involves total removal of all external gentalia and some sewing up. lovely image huh?
Wow! Great job!As a former Marine, my wife and I now talk about the need to make some little Marines... and this provides even more impetus :-)
Asparagirl, I have linked you in my blog as well...and I am SO VERY GLAD you posted that graphic. I remember when it first showed up on Free Republic. First reactions usually are the most true and accurate.Now, excuse me while I go online and find some toys to share with my hubby....
Hey #99 --Regarding Cicciolina, that's happened again --Why do dictator' get all the girls?
Unfortunately, it's not just the Lysistrata girls who are asking women to keep their legs closed. Our own administration is doing it as well.
http://www.iht.com/articles/88504.html
Asparagirl--I'm a first time visitor (came over from Instapundit) and I loved what you had to say. I think making War and Love is a great idea!^_^glad to see another Ferocious Female!
Mr. Fielek,Re: comment #103.The thing is, they DON'T get the girls. The girls offer themselves, but the dictators are unwilling - I think unable - to follow through.I am no shrink, but this fear of women amongst dictators might partially explain their anti social behavior.It has been suggested by other contributors here that sexually frustrated males might be more warlike (recall "Dr Strangelove...")But these guys aren't just frustrated...
"In a mind-boggling alliance with Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Iraq, the Bush administration tried to block a consensus at the UN General Assembly's special session on children last year in support of better education on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. The countries stood together in asserting that sex education promotes promiscuity. Not surprisingly, the administration's new budget calls for a $33 million increase in financing programs whose version of sex education is "abstinence only until marriage." (P.S. sorry for the multiple posts, my paste tool wasn't working)
If someone wants to use Greek literature, it would be best if they understood it. Greek women missed their husbands being gone so much....the comedy was about keeping men around, not disliking warfare.
oh manonce againyou have captured everything so perfectlyi am going to start to cult religion with you as our goddessFYII just had a sensual bath in the name of freedomROCK ON
Great Essay!I'm laughing so hard I've got tears on my face!
If we can liberate these women and reduce the pathological misogyny in these cultures by modernizing and, yes, Westernizing them, is that not to the benefit of these women, and for humanity as a whole? The women of Afghanistan have seen this--lived this!--within recent memory, and the women of Japan more distantly, both times expressly due to war waged by Americans.Look, it's a nice idea and all, that the US liberated the women of Afghanistan, but have you actually looked what state the country is in at the moment? For 99% of the women in Afghanistan not one damn thing has changed. CNN shows a few guys in Kabul shaving their beards and being allowed on the street, and we all immediately believe that we've liberated a country and improved their way of life. It'd be nice if it were that easy but I'm sorry to say it ain't. I'm glad it makes you feel better, and if it makes you sleep better at night to know that the Taliban is no longer in power in Afghanistan, more power to you! Keep watching CNN and believe that. Watch out that you don't accidentally bump into an alternative news source though, because maybe you'll learn about all those other countries and cultures that need to be "liberated".
I think you write well, and you have an interesting perspective. I enjoyed reading your essay; it is witty and biting. You make some viable points, and you do so with style. Furthermore, your rape analogy is powerful. However, two aspects of your posting struck a wrong chord for me. First, I am troubled to hear feminism disparaged. Feminism is a multifaceted thing, and to tar feminists with the Lysistrata Project brush is unjust. I am a feminist, however that is construed, AND I support war in Iraq as the most ethical option we currently have. Like you, I think many of the well-intentioned people protesting the war do not appreciate what an ethical dilemma really is, that in an ethical dilemma, already something bad is going to happen, and the question is how to proceed. The question should be: "How do we act to reduce harm?" Like you, I think we accept the sad necessity of action now to prevent greater harm later. So, if I think this, and I see myself as a feminist, maybe we need to rethink the term feminist. Please do not let the self-righteous and arrogant few steal an important word from us. Putting it in quotations is not protection enough. The other troubling feature of your post is that if you "boink" (or "bonk") in the name of war, (entertaining though the image is,) then like the pathetic Lysistrata Project supporters, you are reducing yourself to status as an object. How about having sex because you are in love with one another, or perhaps even just because you are both sexually attracted to each other? I say go ahead and boink, bonk, hump, and otherwise orgasm-quest, but do it for love and for fun, to celebrate life, not to make a political point, (not even to mock the manipulative closed-legged among us,) not as a sex object. I think you already understand this, that you wrote, toungue in cheek, appreciating the absurdity of your proposed reversal, but I am concerned that some of your readers took your clever appreciation of the absurd at face value. I wish you and your witty pen health and happiness. Congratulations on the inclusion in the WSOJ.
Your whole article is based on a misrepresentation of what the Lysistrata Project was all about. Do you find it so hard to argue against it on its own merits that you feel you need to erect a strawperson to make it easier? Are you aspiring to become the Asparalimbaugh?
TO: KellyRE: You Talking to Me?" To Chuck, what a bunch of bull. I was in the military, but that doesn't give me any more right to speak out than someone who has never served. If this were the case, peace activists the world over should have there mouths duct-taped shut since they know not of what they speak. Only soldiers know about war if you want to think along those lines." -- KellyWhere did I say that people who had not served in the military had not right to speak?Soldiers know what its like to be a soldier. More so than to people who have never soldiered."My husband is deploying any day now, HE has seen combat before, unlike you. Does the fact that he has actually gotten to shoot at people give him more say than you?? " -- KellyGood on your husband. And yes, I weep bitter tears of regret in my scotch ever night because neither God nor Uncle Sam saw fit for me to go out and actually kill someone. Got shot at a few times. Bombed too. But never got to fire a shot in anger myself. I feel so 'inferior' because there is no blood on my hands. And after 27 years in harness too. What are the odds? [Note: If you were in the service, you know the odds. And you also know its all a crap shoot.]"Will the war stories he tells at the VFW be more interesting than yours? Most Probably." -- KellyShould be interesting. About the best I can do is screaming in one night from 1000 feet up with a malfunctioning parachute, and hearing that still-small voice say, "Prepare to land," just seconds before impact. Got up and walked away from it.For you, best wishes and hopefully you can explain the connection between my comment about female pacifists and this diatribe about being in the military.For your spouse...Good Luck and Good Hunting.Regards,Chuck(le)[God is alive and airborne-ranger qualified.]
TO: KellyRE: I 'Served'"I was in the military..." -- KellyWaiting for your response to my reply.Regards,Chuck(le)["I shovelled shit in Louisiana." -- GEN Patton]
"Your whole article is based on a misrepresentation of what the Lysistrata Project was all about. Do you find it so hard to argue against it on its own merits that you feel you need to erect a strawperson to make it easier?"Um, did you even read the BBC article I linked to? Anti-war women connected to the Lysistrata Project are indeed urging women not to have sex with men to protest the war. The play was presumably chosen for performance in the first place--over many other anti-war plays in existence--because it's "woman-centric" in how it deals with anti-war sentiment...which is, to not have sex with men. So what am I misrepresenting?"Are you aspiring to become the Asparalimbaugh?"I think it's cute that you actually think that's an insult. :-)
Compare two translations of the text herehttp://rateyourmusic.com/yaccs/commentsn/b=90000004858_and_e=90421903#4795146and herehttp://rateyourmusic.com/yaccs/commentsn/b=90000004858_and_e=90421903#4795157
re the infibulation thread:fair warning......not for the faint of heart or squeamish.xxxxxxxxouch, ouch......most people don't realize that the real horror of the practice female genital mutilation is that this is no body alteration that heals and you forget about it, like a trip to the tattoo parlor or piercing salon. this is the mutilation that keeps on giving. for infubulation, the mistake of using the euphemism of "sewing up" of the vagina is that it is nothing like sewing at all but more a sealing by healing as the abraded vulva heals together. this scar tissue must be torn open for intercourse and childbirth, repeatedly with intervals of healing as the tissue regrows back together.for a description see the link belowhttp://www.angelfire.com/ar/pilgrim/fgm.htmlhumans come up with the weirdest things don't they? is this wrong or evil or is it just a local custom and we should not judge it? you decide. for me this is sexual slavery, torture and murder.
So the theory, as I understand, is take one dictator at a time, starting with the most imminent threat. N. Korea, under this logic, isn't a more pressing threat than Iraq b/c N. Korea already has nukes. So, here's a piss poor country with nukes, selling arms to Yemen, maybe selling or willing to sell nukes to a terrorist, shooting at our planes in international air space, firing test missles and no one doubts that Iraq is the more immediate threat b/c....why? What does one at a time mean? While we're having our way with Iraq, N. Korea could be selling nukes on the cheap. When do we stop them? When do we stop Iran, who our government has known for some months has been working towards nuclear weapons? If we're going to go to war, let's do it someplace that actually can keep our shores safe, not just allow us to get an easy victory.Oh, Mark, you'll never be convinced, no matter what people say. Well, I'm convinced that we should go after N. Korea b/c that country can, if we don't do something, send us to kingdom come. You people act as if, gosh darn it, those pesky Iraqis just don't get it. Let's kick their ass.
oh my
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! It is great to find a woman who believes as I believe. Sometimes war can be justified and not all women are wimps. To think that someone would suggest that the only way a woman can express herself is through sex, nudity or wearing pink is really sad. Where are all the real feminists hiding? The US feminists are too busy making sure that Fred down the hall isn't making a joke and possibly offending someone. Maybe, they haven't looked around the world and seen how oppresive the conditions are under which some woman live. Then again maybe they have looked around and they are so self centered that they do not want to focus on these conditions because it seems to make their complaints so trivial.
TO: MarkGRE: StrategyWe're going after Hussein first as a hands-on, performance-oriented, combined-arms, live-fire exercise to train the troops and the battle staffs.After blooding them with Hussein, and resting them, they'll deploy back to the States via a visit to the mountains of Korea in Summer.It'll be combat vets against troops that haven't known war for over 2 generations.Regards,Chuck(le)
I have a few female friends who have given up sex for the duration. Of course they are in the Army in Egypt and Kuwait, and I am almost certian that they are not anti war. The last time we went to the range they all qualified with M-16s.
I'm pro-US, Israel and WoT BUTcome on now!It's 20 year old boys out there (now and always) getting shot and killed not middle aged women. Mother and her children? What about the Spartan women that shamed their sons into dying for them? What about the women of the Confederacy that shamed their young men into running into a hail of metal death? Nowhere in history do I ever read of mothers running into battle to give their lives for their sons.This is 5000 kinds of bullshit AND YOU KNOW IT.
PS.How many young men have ever given women a white feather?Damn you with your mock courage and mock bravado. As always, it is we young men that will die for you as you jeer from saftey. Damn you.
So we're not to worry our pretty little heads about it, Mr. Ashton? What this is is the chickenhawk argument, with an added kick of misogyny. In arguing on my own blog with someone who took such a position, I said, "The problem here is a peculiar underlying idea that a human society consists of the coexistence of two separate races of H. sapiens, males and females, who cooperate with each other on a continual contractual basis, their obligations cleanly distinguished from one another." And that ain't how it is. War is a societal undertaking. Women may not always fight in wars, but they may suffer and die just as well.
TO: john ashtonRE: Come On Now..."It's 20 year old boys out there (now and always) getting shot and killed not middle aged women. Mother and her children?" -- john ashtonActually, it was 3000+ men, women AND children on 11 Sep 01. Wasn't it?All ages. All races. All persuasions.This time the war has come home. And, here, on the home front, for the first time, we're all going to get a chance to do our part.So......tell US......what form of heat will you be packing? I know women that will be packing what they need if the war rises up in their face.Regards,Chuck(le)
RE:REAL WOMEN DON'T WAGE WARIntelligent, spirited, and - RIGHT (that is to say CORRECT).Thank You SOOO MUCH! As a gay man (who happens to be a liberatarian), I oftem find myself "bitterly offended" by the preachings of the "left". they often appear to be patronizing in there attitudes and expressions. And yet, there appears to be no rational thought process going on with them. They appear to ge governed totally by "fealing". Well, I suppose that's nice and all, but... this is the real world and "rational assesment" of threats is more critically important than "feeling" right now. We are at a real risk of war and, yet, they appear to dismiss the issue all together. Would they rather hide from the truths an wish them away? Well, it's too bad, but the terrorists are at our doorstep and we'd better do something about them before they'ye threatening our households (gay and "straight"). No one detests war more than I do, but sometimes it is forced upon us, rather we like it or not! Better they die, then we. Thanks K.F.
TO: MarkGRE: The "Theory"" So the theory, as I understand, is take one dictator at a time, starting with the most imminent threat. N. Korea, under this logic, isn't a more pressing threat than Iraq b/c N." -- MarkGActually, as I see it, the "plan" is to:[1] Conduct a hands-on, performance-oriented, live-fire, combined-arms, command-and-control exercise against the Iraqis to 'blood' these troops; especially the ones from the heavy divisions.[2] Move 1AD, 1 Cav and 2d ACR in-country to occupy.[3] Redeploy the combat veterans to the States with a excusion through North Korea this Summer. [Note: The combat veterans will have a distinct advantage over the NKs who haven't known real war for two generations.][4] Victory parade ends in the parking lot at Disneyland. Champagne [California] for the troops.Regards,Chuck(le)
FUCK THE USA!!! And all the imperilists pigs!!!All the war pigs must be killed!!!WAR LORDS: FUCK YOU ALL!!!
See, if he'd actually read the post, he'd know we're war *ladies*.
A Poem to France > >Eleven thousand soldiers lay beneath the dirt and stone, > >all buried on a distant land so far away from home. > >For just a strip of dismal beach they paid a hero's price, > >to save a foreign nation they all made the sacrifice. > > > >And now the shores of Normandy are lined with blocks of white, > >Americans who didn't turn from someone else's plight. > >Eleven thousand reasons for the French to take our side, > >but in the moment of our need, they chose to run and hide. > > > >Chirac said every war means loss, perhaps for France that's true, > >for they've lost every battle since the days of Waterloo. > >Without a soldier worth a damn to be found in their region, > >the French became the only land to need a Foreign Legion. > > > >You French all say we're arrogant. Well hell, we earned the right-- > >We saved your sorry nation when you lacked the guts to fight. > >But now you've made a big mistake, and one that you'll regret; > >you took sides with our enemies, and that we won't forget. > > > >It wasn't just our citizens you spit on when you turned, > >but every one of ours who fell the day the towers burned. > >You spit upon our soldiers, on our pilots and Marines, > >and now you'll get a little sense of just what payback means. > > > >So keep your Paris fashions and your wine and your champagnes, > >and find some other market that will buy your aeroplanes. > >And try to find somebody else to wear your French cologne, > >for you're about to find out what it means to stand alone. > > > >You see, you need us far more than we ever needed you. > >America has better friends who know how to be true. > >I'd rather stand with warriors who have the will and might, > >than huddle in the dark with those whose only flag is white. > > > >I'll take the Brits, the Aussies, the Israelis and the rest, > >for when it comes to valor we have seen that they're the best. > >We'll count on one another as we face a moment dire, > >while you sit on the sideline with a sign "friendship for hire. " > > > >We'll win this war without you and we'll total up the cost, > >and take it from your foreign aid, and then you'll feel the loss. > >And when your nation starts to fall, Frenchie, you can spare us, > >just call the Germans for a hand, they know the way to Paris.
I have always said that the mistake that eve made was sleeping with Adam.
Think about it, if adam came home one day after they had been kicked out of the garden, and eve had decided that she did not like the hut he had build. What could she do to make it better.
One solution was to say, not tonight honey, but if you make the hut better then i will give you some loving.
Women from the beginning of time could have lorded over man. I mean just take a look the islamic countires (where they see more of the women on TV than in real life), Eve could have stopped all of that by keeping her legs shut.