When War Gets Personal
April 19, 2012
ANDREW, a lance corporal in the Marine Corps, writes:
I think this Kate Perry music video accurately portrays what happens to women when they enlist in the military, especially in a combat-oriented branch such as the Marine Corps. They destroy their femininity.
Laura writes:
That’s stunning. A woman is filled with rage because her boyfriend cheats on her. And so she joins the military. What a great reason to fight for your country. The enemy is not some foreign threat, it’s her boyfriend.
Feminism is one big, very unconvincing way for women to say, “I don’t need you.”
—- Comments —
Josh F. writes:
When “war gets personal,” the military is liberated. The U.S. military is a mercenary force by way of its liberation from any criteria in which it will accept a next soldier. What we will then see and do already witness are two distinct types of radically liberated soldier. We see the totally debauched, merciless and savage killer soldier and the pure fodder, i.e., the self-annihilator by way of radical autonomy. The former psychologically INVITES the inclusion of the latter as the latter is drawn towards total liberation. Final liberation. Self-annihilation. Devout dykes are both the main target of this female recruitment AND the main force pushing for this FEMALE targeting. It’s a vicious cycle that then renders our military as a whole as TOTALLY unpredictable in its actions. Does our mercenary military fight viciously due to its “liberated” state or does it not fight at all due to its “liberated” state? It appears to do whatever it “feels” like. It has both viciously trained and barbaric killer soldiers and a brand new stream of fodder just SEEKING to self-annihilate. Our military leadership and the radical liberal elite are recruiting those females who are desperately seeking final liberation so that they may never be forced work towards a state of womanhood and thus motherhood. In essence, our male elites in the military and politics are feverishly recruiting our females to serve as fodder in our totally unpredictable wars abroad AND fight NEXT to some of the most viciously trained male soldiers in the world. What would that do to the female psyche?
Laura writes:
This music video, by the way, was not made as a recruitment video. It is Kate Perry’s version of her song, “Part of Me.”
Carolyn writes:
What is Josh’s source of information regarding the incidence of lesbianism in the military, and/or regarding the female recruitment strategy you describe?
Laura writes:
Josh tends to use the term “dyke” to describe any masculine woman. I’ll let him answer, but I believe he was not referring to lesbians only.
Michael D. writes:
I watched Katy Perry’s new music video while working out at the gym on Monday evening. I both laughed and sighed. The imagery of women like Katy Perry on the battlefield trying to be “tough” with short-cropped hair and a painted face is risible and it demonstrates that nobody can possibly take the idea of women on the battlefield seriously. In the music video her character joined the U.S. Marine Corps not to serve her country, but to satisfy her own self-centred motives and thereby feel better about herself after her boyfriend cheated on her. The effect of this video on young men will be more interesting though as I suspect many will be deterred from joining a feminised military. If I were to volunteer to serve in a combat role, I want dedicated, trained and capable men beside me, not angry, vengeful and piqued little girls with short haircuts. The very idea of women being placed in harm’s way on a battlefield is offensive and destructive to a well-ordered and moral society, in my humble opinion. Currently women are barred from combat roles in the Australian military but last year the government indicated its will to change this in order to address gender balance, equality and non-discrimination…
Personally I have no interest in joining the military, but if my country were attacked or if war were judged necessary to protect and defend the interests of the Crown I would not hesitate to volunteer. In a major war there would be no operational need for women in the military and I expect most men would simply refuse to serve alongside them. I certainly would. However I realise this situation is more complicated in the United States as your nation was openly attacked in September 2001, triggering the war on terror.
To my main point: what should be our response, as traditionalists, to this situation? Should we actively discourage young men from joining the military and encourage them to maintain good personal fitness, private ownership of and proficiency with firearms and perhaps private para-military training instead? If there were rising participation from young men in militias combined with the defence force failing to meet its recruitment targets, then surely this ought to provide future conservative governments with ample justification to wind back female participation in the military. I am interested to know your view.
Laura writes:
It seems like some dramatic form of resistance is necessary, but I don’t know what that is.
Veterans are in an especially good position to speak out against the feminization and homosexualization of the military. I don’t know what else is possible but an effort by various factions, including conservative women, to reclaim the armed forces. As for the feasibility of private militias, that is not something I have seriously examined.
Michael makes the most important point and, that is, normal men don’t want to fight alongside women. Even if this music video was not an official recruitment effort, the Marine Corps has made it possible. It has invited this kind of bizarre vision of enraged fighting girls, a vision which turns men away.
Lisa writes:
As for the issue of lesbians in the military, in the mid 1980’s, my husband was stationed at MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina. Through a mutual Christian friend, we made the acquaintance of a fairly newly enlisted eighteen-year-old girl who lived in the base barracks for women. Though we were in officers’ quarters, we welcomed her into our home (a borderline no-no) as often as she could leave the barracks because the pressure from the many lesbians there was opressively, disturbingly stifling, to say the least. I do not have statistics, but I had this girl’s eyewitness experiences that still shock and amaze.
Paul writes:
Josh makes some important points. We have a combination of a mercenary military and a patriotic military. Rome fell in part when most of its military were mercenaries, not Italian/Roman. Now women are part of America’s mercenary faction. If we get into a war of attrition or even, more likely, a fast and very deadly war, women will get pregnant and many men will desert as a result. Who could blame the men?
I posited an idea to a co-worker from the 1970s Navy. The idea was women want to join the military, at least in part, to be surrounded by an inexhaustible supply of lustful men. I sure would have been sorely tempted to join a manly organization that was 70%-90% female if I could have sat out of danger and indulged myself. His response was that they were whores, not the paid kind. He is smart and impressively logical.
This is provocative. But it could use airing since nobody in the Media talks about it. Laura Ingraham is a perfect example of a wannabe traditionalist in favor of women in the military; she equates the restriction on women in the military for the same reasons blacks were restricted from the military. Yeah right, a woman is equally capable at physical combat as a black male. (And she has not married but instead has adopted at least one, maybe two, minority children. Great, intentionally depriving your children-toys of a father so you don’t have to battle over the remote!)
Laura writes:
Women would never admit to joining the military to meet men, but it makes sense that in at least some that would be a motive. Haven’t you ever heard the Irving Berlin song, “Gee, I Wish I Was Back in the Army?”
Gee, I wish I was back in the Army/ A million handsome guys with longing in their eyes.
Josh writes:
It seems to me that the military takes care of recruiting the viciously ruthless soldier while it leaves to Hollywood and the music business the recruitment of female fodder. This video was most definitely recruitment propaganda geared towards the self-annihilating tendencies found in the radical female autonomist. Most men and males will simply see hilarity in this female autonomist (how is Kate Perry a “woman” in this video) doing something totally unpredicted, irrational and highly self-destructive. That the usual suspects watch this video and see female empowerment should only tell us that they call everything that a female does to destroy her chance at womanhood and motherhood empowerment. Abortion is empowering. No-fault divorce is empowering. Having sexual relations with whomever you please is empowering. Now, getting blown to bits on the front lines or getting brutality raped by a fellow mercenary soldier is empowering. Doing things to self-annihilate is empowering.
As for why I use dyke and not lesbian or lesbian “woman,” it is because I need to be true and concise in my language. A true dyke is, by definition, a self-annihilator and the true woman does not debate vigorously to be on the front lines of war because she is not, BY NATURE, a self-annihilator (lesbian “woman” is like homosexual “man,” nonexistent). Further, lesbian is to the female dyke as gay is to the male homosexual. Both labels represent deceptive euphemisms meant to obscure the female dyke and male homosexual “nature,” i.e., the self-annihilating “nature.” The drive to be on the front lines of war is not spearheaded by woman or women. Such an assertion is absurd on its face. So WHO spearheads this drive to recruit female fodder for the front lines of war. I say the “devout dyke” and her self-annihilating “nature” spearheads this drive.
Lisa writes:
As far as women joining the service just to be surrounded by lustful men, some of us were truly just stupid, naive, and idealistic, not looking for a man at all. That sounds so incredibly unbelievable to me now, thirty years later, but even fellow mids and family members would roll their eyes at the “doe in the headlights” stupidity of those of us who were not on the make, yet surrounded 12-to-one by college age males. It makes me want to scream even today.
John E. writes:
Feminism is one big, very unconvincing way for women to say, “I don’t need you.”
Well said. The silver lining of the storm cloud of feminism is that it gives us an example right under our noses of the ridiculousness of man in his assertion that he does not need God. While Katy Perry and the feminists screech out that they don’t need a man, and look delusional and downright silly doing so, we can attribute to ourselves the same delusional characteristics when we assert that we don’t need God, or even ungratefully forget that we owe all things to Him.
