Yeah, maybe we could run the experiment in other people's countries first.
Arnaud Amalric has some thoughts.
YMMV, but "embedded with" =/= "beloved by"
Terps are like officers. Maybe someone somewhere had a good one, but for all the rest of us, they're the people most likely to get us killed.
Don't get me started on why revolutions are always worse than the regime they replace. The most modern of Reformation schismatic sects is busy recreating the monastery system in academia, where holy men undergo sexual reassignment to become a privileged caste of eunuchs.
I'm guessing more than you or anyone you know.
The strength of christianity historically has been its willingness to empower women due to the ease of extracting the fruits of that empowerment from them. Women being able to inherit property was an early core tenet of the catholic church, which they forced on most of Europe, because then they could then transfer that property to the priests. How do you think the church became a major landowner? Bequests from widows, divorcees and other women were a key source of income for the early church.
Of course, there isn't shit in the Bible that mandates any of this, but surviving religions come to have a theology that funds their continued existence. Christianity is a "topping from the bottom" religion, and as such has always had its core support among women. This is also why more masculinist philosophers have always hated it, from Aurelian to Nietzsche.
Our modern childish individualism sees people as complete and perfect, needing no training or education at all. We are taught to resist and subvert legitimate authority, and submit to the opinions of strangers on the internet.
How much of our educational idiocy is downstream of the inability of teachers to command the respect and attention of their students?
How much of our criminal idiocy is downstream of the resistance of large sections of the public to basic enforcement of the laws?
How much of our political idiocy is downstream of the unwillingness of our ruling class to support the government they control?
Ultimately, we all spend our lives on what we find important. We follow the rules we must to get where we want to go. We all serve, we are all limited. Freedom is not the lack of restriction, it is the choice of restriction.
Yes, women are perfectly capable of doing basic office jobs so long as no hardship is involved. Not sure that qualifies as "military", but we let the officers wear uniforms, so waddaya waddaya.
1: The Navy is heavily, but not exclusively homosexual. Thousands of dudes on a ship, and it only takes one to knock up the girlboss.
2: If you've seen the level of attractiveness of military women, a gay man could be forgiven for making a mistake.
Universal draft and holding all recruits to male fitness standards would do it, no need for war.
Trust me, they'd get pregnant to get out of a ten-mile road march.
Women want to be in combat arms for that sweet combat pay,
I don't think this is it. The push for women in combat has come almost exclusively from female officers. There are to a rounding error zero women in the whole US trying to be enlisted infantry.
Officers want a combat billet for promotion purposes, and for the sweet sweet uniform garland. Bunch of awards you can only get in an infantry unit, and command of a combat unit is huge in officer promotions. There are essentially no women in the whole world who want to actually do the job of combat. Not for love, money or insanity. What there are is wanna-be girlbosses who need to stamp the Infantry page in their promotion journal.
Furthermore, women have an easy out of an actual deployment, because the Army doesn't deploy preggos. When the 11th deployed in '05, there was so many pregnancies in the support units that they had to transfer in eight hundred male soldiers to backfill all the women getting out of deployment. Only one female out of roughly a thousand deployed. And they weren't even combat arms!
Hear me now, believe me later, this is all bureaucratic manouver. There is no cadre of females who will actually fight in combat units. There are only two reasons women want to get into hardcore units, it's either promotion or pregnancy. They're looking for a star or a train.
What they really object to is Trump teaching the Republicans to do politics like Democrats. The Republican Party has its first tiny little riot in a hundred years, and the party of all-day-every-day rioting falls about hyperventilating about "insurrection".
Trump does normal, technically gray area stuff like have classified documents or pay off mistresses and it's a hundred felony counts. James gets grilled about mortgage fraud and it's the end of Democracy.
It's a bad precedent, but it isn't Trump's precedent. Turnabout is fair play and so far nothing I've seen from Trump rises to the level of what his enemies have already done to him personally.
Why are structurally advantaged people worried about the opinions of the structurally disadvantaged?
As with many marginal religious groups, it was very successful under the original charismatic preacher, and fell to infighting starting immediately after his death (from a perfectly treatable medical issue).
At the least he had the conviction of his beliefs.
Funny the behavior we punish in our heroes.
Tangentially, I have come to see hatred of religion as the first and largest red flag that someone has converted to a new one.
Structurally, yes.
No real denomination, independent evangelicals. Faith healing cult out of Indiana, google Hobart Freeman.
My recollection is that it was very liberal-coded and "complementarian" grading on the curve of evangelical christianity. Very much a normie American christian thing, which my more strict upbringing recognized as "not real christianity".
Must take a ton of work, what with their brains really being female and all. Can you imagine resisting the urge to knit for years on end while you paint miniature fantasy soldiers?
I do not believe that "society" treats "ugly" transitioners worse than they treat normal men. A bit worse than society treats women, which only heightens the contradictions we're talking about.
The discrimination in society is against men, and transitioners get less of it the more spectacularly their transition intrudes on the lives of those around them.
Being avoided is discrimination?
I need a lot more discrimination in my life.
My dad took me to a PK conference in the Silverdome back in the day. Mid-90s PK was booming. Not sure what you mean by "identitarian", but it was a paint-by-numbers evangelical men's movement. I was a very lost cause by then, but PK was as unobjectionable as a religious group that size is capable.
Who is doing all this discrimination, and how could it possibly keep them from transitioning? The entire medical field, academic, governmental and NGO complex are foursquare behind them and discriminating against anyone who disagrees with what they imagine trans people want. What's the mechanism here? How does chuds using terms like "troon" on Twitter translate into kids in the Tenderloin dropping out of their polycule?
- Prev
- Next

Not with US public opinion we couldn't.
"Administering justice and securing a power base" are, to the media and the US public, genocide and war crimes. We have to send our diplomats to hawk sex change surgeries to hillside goatherders and offer to "learn from Women of Color" who have an explosive belt locked around their waist by the warlord their family sold them to.
More options
Context Copy link