Attraction to War

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Guest, Mar 3, 2003.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    kdubaz
    Moderator
    Posts: 163
    (7/7/01 2:41:55 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del All Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "A strange thing, war. With its bloodshed and cruelty, its pain, grief and tears, it ought to fill every civilized person with the utmost and unwavering resulsion. It ought to and often does. And yet, and yet............

    "Yet there is a strange and timeless fascination about warfare and the warrior that has exercised minds and emotions since time began. Entire libraries could be filled ony by books written about it; warehouses crammed with films of its depiction; archives stuffed with the talks and lectures given about it. Hardly an evening goes by but warfare is not evoked in fictional or documentary terms on television screens.

    "Limitless sums are expended and always have been to wage it, seek to avert it or prepare for it. Warrior civilizations have destroyed empires and created their own on the basis of it. Students have studied it, demogogues extolled it, pacifists denounced it and soldiers, willing or unwilling, taken part in it. Entire institutes have been and still are today founded and funded to probe it, dissect it and describe it. All this would not and could not have been possible but for one simple and no doubt deplorable fact - it interests us. The process of human beings making war against each other simply facinates other human beings, and that includes US.

    "Exactly why it does must be a matter for moralists and philosophers, and none over the centuries has really come up with the ultimate answer. We know only that we do applaud our victorious fighters, we do thrill to a marching band, and we do pay authors and film-makers to describe for us or show us acts of warfare. There must be something deep inside the human psyche that lusts for and thrills to the clash of arms while enabling itself to blot out the shrieks of the maimed and dying - though the intimacy and immediacy of television may be changing that."

    Excerpted from the Foreword written by Frederick Forsyth, for the book 'SOLDIERS', by John Keegan and Richard Holmes.

    Anyone have thoughts of this attraction (facination?) to war by the human male? I have interests in things military and campaigns wagered. I covet firearms and marksmanship. Does this mean I'm a warmonger - an unbalanced human being lusting to kill? Personally, I don't think so. What are your thoughts?
    Keep below the ridgeline!

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1088
    (7/7/01 9:11:02 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Warfare is the natural condition of Human life and history on earth.

    "Peace" is actually the aberration, since the dawn of time, and most if not all of the times there was what passed for "Peace," there was still warfare SOMEWHERE on the globe.

    Warfare is also the ultimate cooperative exercise, and man is the ultimate "Team Player."

    The gender issue Keegan has been pursuing as an aside in alot of his recent books.

    While Females of any species CAN be more vicious and violent than males, they usually sharply deliniate when they resort to violence, usually only to protect their young or home, and to acquire food for the family.

    Males are the ones who are "territorial." Thus it follows that for any reason other than food or defense, it's Men who start and carry on the war.

    Keegan is one of my favorite Military Historians, I've read just about everything of his.

    TYRVR
    Moderator
    Posts: 191
    (7/8/01 11:18:07 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do not mistake War with combativeness, Man is by nature A competitor, He competes for food and family and freedom, but only in A rather compacted area, but nations and religions use war to further it's own causes, long ago, the people in positions of influence disovered that if goaded, Man will fight for about any cause, as long as He can be made to believe His food, family or freedom is in danger, and the leaders of causes used this natural combativeness to THEIR advantage to wage war, are all wars bad? History is still pondering that verdict, and as long as the Human race exists, the Jury will remain cloistered, as each war has it's merits from someones point of view, so, whatever Race comes after Us will be the final Arbiter in this argument,
    If Heaven ain't got A loading bench.....I'm going to Hell,

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1099
    (7/8/01 12:55:40 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dunno Tyvyr, I still believe all wars are at their core "territorial," no matter what the overlying tensions, be they cultural, religious, ideological, Nationalistic, political, for food/water sources, natural resources, acquiring Lebensraum, etc. Even the fight over a woman can be considered territorial, not much different than animals fighting over available females in that territory.

    Which goes back to which gender is the "territorial" one...I've never seen a female anything "mark" it's territory.
    Patina is a custom finish that must be EARNED to be appreciated.

    kdubaz
    Moderator
    Posts: 172
    (7/8/01 6:18:30 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But, why do we find war itself so attractive?

    We spend gazillions on new and improved weaponry to enable the most effective method of killing the most people or the most surgical placement of mass destruction. We provide our military personnel with the latest gadgets for personal protection and lethality.


    Tons of articles and books are published monthly providing info on the latest means of such destruction and the equipment used to deliver/combat it. This is snapped up and read with interest by you, me and the guy next door.

    Movies are made depicting the mayhem of battle and the use of war materials. We pay to view these depictions either at the theatre or on video.

    I guess my questions is - what beats in the hearts of us or lies in the inner recesses of the mind that find these things attractive and fasinating. Almost like the moth and the flame.

    Perhaps the old hunter instinct of prehistoric times still beats in our breasts. The grudging admiration of someone of superior strength and skills to best both man and beast. Having that ability, to take that which is coveted and to force our will over those who cannot, or are unable to resist. To meet another equally capable foe on the field of battle and be victorious. To bask in the adulation of others - why else award and wear campaign and bravery metals?

    I enjoy firearms and hunting, the reading of military history, personal war histories and well written fictional war novels. "Patton" remains to this day my most favorite war movie. This may be my appeasement to these urges. There is glory is warfare, until you are the person to whom the bullets and artillery are directed. Then it becomes the panicky proposition of gaining any and all protection for your frail and exposed body! War is not so glorious then. That is probably the key - viewed from afar with no personal involvement, war is an interesting and entertaining thing.
    Keep below the ridgeline!

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1112
    (7/8/01 7:29:35 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think there is a distinct difference in people who think there is, or seek to find, "Glory" in war, and those who appreciate it for what it is, and study it more for the awesome sacrifice and spectacle that it represents.

    MANY uninformed people see it as "glorified," and that is what many times makes whole nations and peoples so militaristic AND warlike at times, recently, a GREAT example is the whole of Europe in 1914, or Germany in 1936-42.

    But there IS no glory in war, far from it. What there is is a marvelous story of "Duty, Honor, Country" woven within the story of wet, tired, hungry, cold common people who see none of that, and just want to do the job, survive, and go home, and usually in the process are changed, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but always CHANGED. And form special bonds with people from all walks of life who shared those experiences, but who in real life may not even have NOTICED each other, much less wanted meet, or socialize.

    THAT is what you and I study and celebrate, NOT war for war's sake, but the men (and women) who usually not through their own choosing become "heros."

    I use quotations because even the definition of "hero" is debateable.

    I see it as anybody who did what they were "expected" to do, even the minimum. Those expectations are from many sources, societal, familial, whatever, maybe THAT is what the sociologists should be studying, but no matter.

    You are right, I never have been in combat, or in the service. But I still think I can study, learn and appreciate at least a little of what it means, and appreciate those that have been and did, without glorifying it.

    And if SOMEBODY doesn't study it, MORE of those stupid mistakes of History will repeat and MORE wars, or rather avoidable wars, or wars with similar results to those past, can only result.

    No matter what, war in some form or another, will ALWAYS be with us. Studying war ALSO makes fighting wars in the future less costly, in terms of life and property.

    Peace does NOT mean "the absence of war." If peace is the ultimate goal, we, meaning everybody, not just the military, must ALWAYS be prepared for war.

    Geez, don't get me into the philosphical stuff, I'd much rather debate MG34 vs. MG42 and stuff like that!

    It's funner...




    Patina is a custom finish that must be EARNED to be appreciated.

    TYRVR
    Moderator
    Posts: 193
    (7/9/01 6:37:06 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some good points Polish, but on the matter of less deadly Wars of the future, witness Desert Storm, and tha effect of modern techniques of killing as opposed to manpower and individual soldiers, the amount of Iraqi dead was far out of proportion for A "Small War" any major war fought in the future will result in near-if not total destruction of all Human life, all the treaties being signed today are just so much bum wadding tomorrow, and any major country seeing it self on the losing end of A large war will attempt to take as many of the "enemy" as possible along, and this will be the end, as the atomic blasts and nerve poisons will permeate the entire planet with deadly toxins of one kind or another, so, even A small uninvolved country will be devastated when the skys rain poison and the seas are toxic beyond supporting any aquatic life, no place to go, just await the inevitable, too bad, all because of what? money-power-religion, pick one,
    If Heaven ain't got A loading bench.....I'm going to Hell,

    TallTLynn
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1198
    (7/9/01 7:41:01 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And there in a nutshell is why we as a species may not last all that much longer historically.

    We've developed enough totally destructive weapons and we have a hard time not using them.

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1131
    (7/9/01 7:50:14 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I see it differently!

    I see a return to 18th Century style warfare for limited objectives with small, professional armies.

    For whatever reason, two states have an argument over something limited, with limited ends, that leads to one "climactic battle," after which the war is over, both sides retire, one to reap the temporary rewards, the other to learn wait and train for round 2 in 20 years.

    Instead of fighting for continents or world domination, or a religion, or ideology, two countries fight for Alsace-Lorraine, or Kuwait, winner gets it.

    We as a global society have a GOOD track record at avoiding wars over ideology, or religion, that threaten the entire world with "weapons of mass destruction", especially over the past 50 years.

    I feel warfare has been trending back this way since Korea.

    18th Century limited warfare with small professional armies came about AFTER some pretty vicious "War-to-end-all Wars" based on religion.

    Desert Storm was Western-based "State of the Art" vs. Soviet based "Third World."

    With pretty predictable results.

    Maybe I'm an optimist...
    Patina is a custom finish that must be EARNED to be appreciated.

    Edited by: polishshooter at: 7/9/01 11:22:45 am

    southernfreedom
    Member
    Posts: 11
    (7/14/01 9:56:05 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    kdubaz : No I don't think your attraction to firearms and your fascination with war is
    abnormal or unusual. We are inculcated in this society and most others to believe war is
    glamerous and macho. The military knows this and capitaizes on it. IN Basic training as we marched we sang this....

    I want to be an Airborne trooper
    I want to go to Vietnam
    I want to kill me a Charlie Cong

    Well, I was 18 and sucked all that crap up and went to Vietnam. My friend who avoided the
    military and never served are even more fascinated at war than me. I really think it's a mach thing and for some a right of passage. Having been there, the older I get I think war really sucks.......old men thinking up wars for young men to die in.


    kdubaz
    Moderator
    Posts: 268
    (7/15/01 6:35:05 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Seems that original wars or attacks on neighboring countries/states/villages/tribes was for food recources and the enslavement of the peoples to work for the enbetterment of the victors.

    Later wars were fought for territory, loot and empire expansion.

    Then came idology to add to the aforementioned brew.

    Politics then mixed in and brings us to present day.

    There are times when I wonder if some of the latest conflicts were not fought to prove the usefulness of technology and weapons systems by the military planners and for personal gain in ego and the promotion lists. You've got to admit, the military/industrial complex is a driving force in our economy and technology advancement.

    Yes, the shame of it all is old men plotting and young men dying in any war. Those that propose should have to be the first ones to man the front lines or aircraft and ships when the lanyard is pulled.
    Keep below the ridgeline!

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1266
    (7/15/01 8:31:27 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think the "macho" plays a role, but not a main one. Probably more in building the "warrior," not so much in starting the war.

    Women have had a MAJOR role in warfare since the beginning of time, and in many conflicts serve to keep the passion alive.

    The Croation/Serbian/Albanian/Greek et al., raising her son to "hate" the other side, and to be a "good soldier" when they grow up, is not much different than the Nazi Woman trying to get pregnant to create another Werhmacht soldier, a Catholic or Protestant Mother in Ireland, or a Woman in ancient Egypt or Babylon doing the same thing!

    Society, not just men in that society, brings about warfare and militaristic ideals.

    The major wars come about when a nation or nations is/are overly militaristic, and thinks itself superior as a nation. Then the "military solution" becomes the "easy" solution to take, after all "WE" are superior, so it "will be over quickly." When everyone thinks this way, you have the BIG wars. This is what happened in the twenty or so years prior to WWI all over Europe. Militarism run rampant.

    Throw in a real or percieved "grudge," be it a past defeat, or whatever, AND avoid war for several generations, so no one is around to remind everyone of the pain and suffering, and there it is.

    Warfare will NEVER go away. Therefore, we NEED to revert to the 18th Century style of warfare. As long as there is ALWAYS a cadre of people who "were there," and can share the horrors, there will be checks and balances to "rampant militarism."

    Militarism does NOT mean absence of the military, any more than peace means the absence of war. A strong military and the will to use it WHEN NEEDED many times makes wars AVOIDABLE. It's when it becomes the ONLY solution considered is when it's "militarism."

    Kinda like a Union strike...as long as there are people on BOTH sides who remember "the last one," and can share what it's like to lose your house, or having to cross violent picket lines and work 100 hours/week, you'll usually get a settlement, that may not be a "win" for either side, but workable. When it's been awhile since the "last one,", look out, it may wreck the company and EVERYONE loses, simply because each side thinks, "We'll show THEM!!!"




    Patina is an acquired taste.

    Edited by: polishshooter at: 7/16/01 10:54:53 am

    kdubaz
    Moderator
    Posts: 277
    (7/15/01 11:27:02 pm)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    True words to ponder, Mike -

    National pride is strong in all countries, including the US. I'm glad of that - think we, as a nation, need to have it to overcome a lot of our internal strifes.

    Several of the past wars and brush fires were the result of the communist countries testing the resolve of the US and it's supposed allies. I'm also glad the US decided to draw the line and stand up to the aggresor. Had a lawyer tell me one time that pride is a very costly thing. This is true. In the case of war, it is the blood of the youth of the factions and the economic drain on the treasury.

    Again, I just wish that those making the war decisions, on both sides of the dispute, were the ones that had to go fill the trenches in the first assualt. Doubt if too many wars would be fought.
    Keep below the ridgeline!

    polishshooter
    Senior Chief Moderator Staff
    Posts: 1288
    (7/16/01 10:02:59 am)
    Reply | Edit | Del Re: Attraction to War
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I believe THAT is why it's important to have political leaders who have, or surround themselves with trusted advisors who have, direct "grunt" military experience.

    Some of our best leaders and generals in time of war were the ones who "saw the elephant" and vow NOT to have that happen this time.

    And yes, I know it goes the other way too...sometimes corporals who win the Iron Cross in the Trenches and saw all the horror of war learn the wrong lessons...
    Beware the Warped Crufflers.
  2. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    Whenyou first join the Service, it is easy to be eager for "Trigger Time" Funny how the Military is divided into two groups. a) Wannabes eager for trigger time b) Veterans who regret having gotten trigger time.

    I was on my first Submarine in the Med when the first Gulf of Sidra incident occurred.
    We were in La Maddelina Italy going through an upkeep. The Admiral told us "You have 24 hours to get underway!" Us "Kids" were eager to go to war. Back then, there were still a lot of Nam Vets in the Service and every one of them, to the man would tell us kids "Trust me! You don't want to go to war! Pray that cooler heads prevail among the leaders!" One former Marine, became so sick and tired of me cheering at the prospect of "Killing ragheads" that he finally slammed against the wall and began to choke me. He them warned me "Cheer for war in my presence oine more time and I'll kill you!" Naturally, I stopped. The words of "Jarhead Jim" never left me for the next 26 years I was in. After 13 years, I went into a reserve EOD Unit. We were called up after 9-11 and one day, we got the call. A Bomb threat under a ship.
    As I went down for real, All of the words of the Veterans came to light. I was going down and might not be comming up. All of a sudden, war in not a glorious Rambo Movie.
  3. firebird

    firebird New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    In the recesses of my little mind...
    Okay, I have some comments here: 1st off, I am a bit offended by assumption that war (or the attraction thereof) is only fascinated by males. Personally, I am a bibliophile and as such I have a crap load of books on different wars and warfare--particularly WWII and the Samuari. As a matter of fact, my other Master's is in History (I'm still working on this one, though). So the crux of this statement: Men are NOT the only ones fascinated with war/warfare.

    2nd: I had a HUGE laugh at the statement that females are not territorial. I mean, that is freaking hilarious! I'm actually kind of surprised that whoever it was who posted the above had the balls to do so because it's so ignorant. Just because females penis-free does not mean they are neither territorial nor "mark" their territory.

    Now I am fully cognizant of the fact that I am a different kind of "bird" (as it were), however last time I checked I am totally and completely female. Am I a feminist? Perhaps to a point. But I am more competitive, argumentative, and generally a smart ass than anything else. Further, I will always stand up for what I think is right and to anybody.

    ...maybe I just have too much testosterone in my body...
  4. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    First and formost, Women have been as eager to go to war as men have. How many Kings went to war because their "Lovers" seduced them into it? The 100 years war was stared by a Queen who divorced one King and married another. She then demmanded that her ex husband cede territory her father gave him as a wedding present.

    My first wife was into drugs and when I refused to support her habbit and the reckless spending that went with it, she became extremly violent. Fortunately, she was not physicaly capable of doing any real damage. By the way, according to the feminist organizations that supported her, did you know that refusing to reel from your wifes blows is considered spousal abuse? As is "Failure to support desired lifestyle?
  5. firebird

    firebird New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    In the recesses of my little mind...
    Bernie--I'm sorry you went through that with your wife; I know you are certainly not alone (on either side of the gender fence). However, I am a bit confused as to what that has to do with my post. Like I said, I suppose I can be referred to as a "feminist" to a certain point; by no means do I agree with everything they stand for (nor do I with just about ANY organization because that's just the way I am) and certainly the "failure to support a desired lifestyle" would fall into that "bull sh*t" category.
  6. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    However, I am a bit confused as to what that has to do with my post.

    Violence starts at the most personal level. Anybody who is quick to become violent with those around him or her is not beyond war. The "Feminist creed" is that women are non violent and men are violent. Everwhere from the personal level to the international level, women have not been beyond the inherant sinfull nature of man.

    P.S. I think even bigger B.S. than "Failure to supprt desired lifestyle" is
    "Failure to reel from ones blows" But I guess when you are high on crank, reason goes out the window.
  7. firebird

    firebird New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    In the recesses of my little mind...
    Neither drugs nor violence are respectors of gender.

    I know I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but I am still lost about what you are trying to say here.

    There was a bigger point I was making than feminism.
  8. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    I guess we are both in agreement. Women can be violent and war is not exclusive to males. Nor should it be. While I would prefer there be no rape, if there is one, my hope is that every rapist gets a .38 cal. vasectomy from his intended victim.
    Anybody who believes women are beyond war forgot about Elizabith 1 and Margret Thatcher. just to name a few.

    So, in re reading your post, we have little or nothing to disagree about.

    Back to the subject at hand. A lot of guys dream of "Being there" when bad guys do their thing. All too often, war is portrayed as some glorious adventure. Every war has its phases.

    1) Eager to fight and win
    2) Not as easy as once thought
    3) A long, hard & Bloody slog
    4) Disillusionment & reget. Sometimes one side will cut and run, sometimes they keep at it.
    5)Either defeat and surrender or hard won victory and few if anybody wants to do it again.

    Sometimes, you are not against a worth opponent and victory is quick and easy, all too often this is bad because it makes the victor cocky and they will bite off more than they can chew.

    Cowards will attack an enemy they know to be weak and build them up to wrthy opponent status after they win.
  9. firebird

    firebird New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    In the recesses of my little mind...
    Okay! Now I gotcha! :)

    I completely agree with you as well.

    Unfortunately, I can assure you that not every rapist gets a .38 cal vasectomy from his victim.
  10. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    Unfortunately, I can assure you that not every rapist gets a .38 cal vasectomy from his victim

    "Unfortunately" is the key word. I am always happy to teach a woman how to do it
  11. firebird

    firebird New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    In the recesses of my little mind...
    Being "taught" how to do it isn't always the problem
  12. Bernie109

    Bernie109 Former Guest

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Central CA
    True, mindset is the main factor. All I can do is teach those who are willing.
    The choice from that point on is theirs.
  13. firebird

    firebird New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    In the recesses of my little mind...
    I think you are missing my point, Bernie. But that's okay.

  14. Saber8g

    Saber8g New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    8
    I've been on here researching XD .40s for about two days, just reading everything everyone had to say about them, but when i read this comment I had to join to to say how absolutely correct you are. Im 20 years old, joined the Army as a Scout when I was 17, went to Iraq when I was 18, and I have never heard it put like that. Although, if you had told me that before I enlisted, I would have simply brushed it off because I was too eager.

    Dave
  15. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,078
    Location:
    Indiana
    Hey Firebird, that was me who said years ago that comment about "marking territory," and yeah, women can be downright VICIOUS especially with other WOMEN about "territory" but generally, and yeah there ARE exceptions to every rule, (Like my last BOSS!) women generally AVOID outright conflict NOW, but WILL harbor the resentment, never forget and perform "payback" LATER, although they do it differently and viciously...trust me, I've supervised, and been supervised by women in my life, and they ALL "could be" downright deadly." Not all were, but COULD be! But then again, many studies have shown that a majority of women prefer to be supervised by men, so I really DO think that much of female "aggression" is actually aimed at other WOMEN, ESPECIALLY if they "outrank" them...

    However in the context of most OTHER species, the female is generally NOT the territorial beast either.


    The discussion now that I remember it started 5 years ago over a book by John Keegan, who used the Gender issue as a thesis about warfare and "warriors."


    And hey, I am SO glad to see another Historian! (Female or otherwise!)
  16. As am I, Polish! Welcome to the fray, Firebird! :D

    Part of the issue here is, I think, anthropological. Despite all the feminist rhetoric we see today, I would argue that humans cannot--as a species, for there certainly are individual exceptions to any general rule--be other than what our genes have made us. We should never forget that it is the females who produce and must care for young, and in terms of biology, that function takes precedence. Aggressive and territorial tendencies are thus far more commonly seen in males rather than females, for it is they who are biologically compelled to fight and protect females as a condition of sexual access. OK, OK, we could make tons of jokes about that, but I think you see the point I'm trying to make. ;)

    Evolution is a VERY slow process, but it does move. For example, a million years ago the dimorphism we still see operative between males and females (dimorphism is the average difference in size and weight between the sexes) was far more pronounced. Human females were about half the size of males.

    Now, having said that, let me state also that what may have been true and biologically necessary million years ago, is not commensurately true or necessary today. Social and societal change moves much more quickly than biology. I strongly advocate weapons training for women and indeed I insisted that both my daughters learn to handle anything in my inventory. Neither of them is an avid shooter, but both know how to shoot quite well indeed. My son, on the other hand, IS an avid shooter and has been since he was old enough to hold a weapon. You mentioned in an earlier post, Firebird, that, "I can assure you that not every rapist gets a .38 cal vasectomy from his victim." Well, in my humble opinion, they damn well should! Rape should be criminally classified identically with first degree murder, and punished equally.
  17. firebird

    firebird New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    In the recesses of my little mind...
    Polish--while I see your point and generally agree (about the territorial part), I still believe women "mark their territory", just in a different fashion than using an appendage to do so. True, the majority of women are very manipulative. As a matter of fact, I can't stand most women precisely because of this fact and only have less than a handful in my life whom I consider a friend. I've been that way all my life.

    Now, by nature, I am a pretty jealous person. However, I would never harm anyone because of it--I would just throw a fit! :) But as someone mentioned earlier, I would kill ANYONE who did hurt or tried to hurt my son in a heartbeat. And I mean I would go circus animal crazy on their ass!

    The crux of it is, men tend to be more openly territorial while women tend to be more subtly territorial. But they are both territorial.

    Okay, now for this "supervised" stuff...what the hell is that about? The studies you speak of may very well conclude that, but I can tell you right here and now that NOBODY "supervises" me, nor will they EVER! Likewise, I have no desire to "supervise" anyone! A man already has a mother and I do not wish whatsoever to try to fill that role (except for my son). This will sound bad and I truly don't mean for it to, but there are plenty of men I can get to do whatever I want (if I wanted to) however I have no interest in them because of it.

    I do agree that the majority of women's agression is aimed at other women, but there is an old saying about a "woman scorned..." And remember Lorena Bobbitt?? Also, you might wanna listen to Alanis Morissette's song "You Oughta Know"!

    Now militaristically, women can be just as ruthless as men. And it seems like I read somewhere that women tend to make better snipers (I know I would make a great sniper except for the fact that I can't sit still or stop talking! lol). Of course, that's not to say that men don't or anything--as a matter of fact, one of the best sniper's in the world was a guy from Arkansas!

    Anyway, I've rambled on enough. Yes I do love reading and learning about history, and war, and warfare. My first Master's thesis was on comparing today's assistive reproductive technoligies with the American Eugenics Movement from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It's quite fascinating (to me anyway) that we (the US) spawned the Holocaust.

    ...oh...and thanks for the kind words.
  18. inplanotx

    inplanotx New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Messages:
    8,889
    Location:
    Texas
    Well, I can rightly say that the only thing that scared the living daylights out of me in the Marine Corps was






































    A platoon full of women with PMS!!!! :D :D :D :D
  19. firebird

    firebird New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    In the recesses of my little mind...
  20. firebird

    firebird New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,233
    Location:
    In the recesses of my little mind...
    Pistol--what about females who want more "sexual access" than males????

    And regarding rape...I'm actually pretty surprised that nobody is catching on to what I'm trying to say. PLEASE do NOT think that I in ANY way disagreed with the statement about shooting a rapist. I COMPLETELY and TOTALLY agree. With all due respect, I do not wish to talk about that portion any further.