Reflections on Veterans Day (Part I)
November 11th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Veterans' Day 2007 was the 89th anniversary of the end of one of the greatest tragedies in human history--World War I. My grandfather volunteered for the War, and was wounded in the decisive Battle of the Argonne Forest in 1918. He was awarded the Purple Heart and the French Croix de Guerre.
A couple years ago feminist Helen Caldicott, co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, made a speech called "Men: Natural Born Killers." Caldicott told feminist antiwar demonstrators that the male of the human species has unbridled bloodlust, explaining that "young men rushed off to battle in the first World War. So eager were they to participate in the noble act of killing that they lied about their age."
Actually, my grandfather lied about his age so he could join the army, wanting to show his gratitude to the country which had allowed him to escape foreign tyranny. Caldicott is certainly correct that the war was a senseless slaughter, and the Russian revolutionary Lenin was correct that it was an imperialist war. But unlike Caldicott, I believe that men go to war out of a sense of duty and obligation, not bloodlust, as Caldicott maintains. I criticized Caldicott in my column Dr. Helen Caldicott Spits on My Grandfather (Cybercast News Service, 3/28/03). I wrote:
"According to Caldicott, societies dominated by 'male values' approve of violence and killing, and she criticizes women for being 'absolute wimps' who 'condone [male] psychotic behavior by their silence.' She ignores the fact that, rightly or wrongly, American women support this country's wars as much or nearly as much as men do. According to a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted on Sunday, March 23, 78 percent of men and 66 percent of women support the current war. When the United States went to war against Iraq in 1991, 87 percent of men and 78 percent of women approved.
"Caldicott also ignores the fact that women have always played a crucial role in ensuring that men serve in wars. As men's issues author Warren Farrell notes, during the Civil War Southern women 'hissed and groaned' at male civilians. According to historian Ken Burns, few Southern men tried to hire substitutes to fight for them because the Southern women 'wouldn't permit it.' During World War I women in the capitals of the warring cities of Europe would hand civilian men flowers to show that they viewed them as cowards for not enlisting.
"An excellent illustration of women's power to shame men into fighting can be seen in the Australian movie Gallipoli. The movie is the story of how two young men from the Australian outback come to enlist in the army and fight in one of history's bloodiest battles, the Battle of Gallipoli.
"Of the two main characters, one is determined to enlist, believing it is his patriotic duty. The other, played by Mel Gibson, has no desire to fight and says the war is 'an English war' which has nothing to do with Australia or its interests.
"However, while at a small dinner party where both Gibson and his friend interact with an attractive young woman, Gibson is shamed for his lack of martial spirit. Shortly afterwards, he tells his friend that he does not want to be treated like this the rest of his life and enlists.
"Similarly, several years ago an Israeli political analyst pointed to this phenomenon to support his assertion that support for militarism and hard-line policies had declined precipitously in Israel. His evidence? For the first time in his country's history a draft dodger could get a girlfriend, he explained."
"));
19 queries. 0.349 seconds.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Exactly. My father joined the Navy for WW2 because signing up what good boys did: The same reason his father and uncles joined the Navy for WW1. There was some patriotism in his joining the Navy and some family honor (we were and still are a Navy family).
Caldicott and her myriad ilk assault the memory of my father and millions of good men with their contempt for good men. Their view of men as killers is so twisted it would not be tolerated in any other segment of society; only because it is "only" hatred of males does she have free reign to spew her venom.
Here in Canada November 11 is Remembrance Day. Let us remember the good so many did and continue to do from sense of honor and, as you say Glenn, from sense of shame. Let us also remember those who hate for their own spiteful reasons, after all, they represent one of the CAUSES of war.
November 11th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Were it not for these "natural born killers", individuals such as Caldicott would not have the opportunity to freely opine in the press with her desecratory views on those who sacrificed their own lives out of a sense of duty to their country, a desire to protect their own families, which surely included protecting their own mothers, their own sisters and brothers, wives and girlfriends, aunts, uncles, grandparents and of course their children and children they hoped to have in the future.
I have never known any man who went to war who would not admit having been in real fear, and having had to face their own fears and private feelings of terror at the prospect of inescapable death at such a young age. And in fact, inescapable death is what met so many who served in World War II, for example on Omaha beach on D-day in Normandy, France.
One wonders why Dr. Caldicott engaged in this grotesque distortion of the role of gender in her speech -- other than the fact that she was addressing a seeming future generation of man-haters being bred on a steady diet of misinformation at "Code Pink" (here is a link I found to her speech:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={220463A0-D4DC-4B2F-A05F-C2F687A3640E}
I would argue to Dr. Caldicott, that the dangers of war and inherent in nuclear weapons are more the consequence of the tiny percentage of PEOPLE (male and female) who are afflicted with a rare and arbuably "abnormal" lust for power which is COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO GENDER.
Some people take the view that Hilary Clinton is one example of a female with that type of lust for power. On average, many more men with this lust for power have made it to the top of governments over the span of human history, but the psychological traits which give rise to the ability to manipulate their countries into war, and to commit so many of their citizens (usually males) to the slaughter of war, are not, by all indications, gender based, nor do these very real traits afflict more than a very tiny, single-digit percentage of all people worldwide.
Where one may actually find a significant number of females who do reflect this frightening lust for real power over the lives of others, is in America's family courts, of all places. In these places, an individual, most typically a judge or a GAL, can have and easily abuse dictator-like powers over the lives of defenseless individuals. Thus, such a position can appeal very greatly to those few within any population of humans who aspire to control others, and care little about whom they hurt and destroy.
That is the real evolutionary story behind what Dr. Caldecotte is talking about. And no, it is not about gender at all, but about power lust, a human trait which cuts destructively and blindly across genders.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:30 am
I don't think war is about 'lust for power'. Well actually, it is, but in a slightly different way. War is simply politics with guns. When people disagree, there will be war. Men are more suited to leadershiip positions, and so will be more likely to lead a country to war. ** notes at the bottom
However the moral division on whether war is just or not does not appear between men and women. The example Glenn used for Iraq is only because the Democratic party has foresaken to blue-collar male for more 'worthy' victim-groups, hence young, poor men vote overwhelmingly republican, and so support the republican-backed war. Similarly, both men and women would rather send men off to die than women, and both genders react badly to seeing women hurt.
The problem really is that suffering is an aspect of masculinity itself. People will always be turned of men's rights because it is simply the radical notion that men CAN be victims. In the past, all male victims were applauded for accepting such suffering, and demonised for not. Hence, to argue that men are victimised is difficult because people are so used to seeing male suffering that it does not shock them, as female suffering does.
**
Just think, why do women wear suits with shoulder pads at work? To enhance their masculinity. Men wear suits to look good, women prefer to look feminine when looking good. Women in leadership positions need to enhance their masculinity because men are more likely to succeed in leadership roles (more of a trend than a hard rule, as there are many excellent female leaders) Similarly, women's voices have deepened significantly since the fifties, as women have entered the workforce and been pushed into leadership roles.
November 11th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
To insult the men that have literally put their lives on the line. I agree she has the right to say those words but I cannot agree with them. From what I can tell when the Bush led the current charge into the Middle East there were men AND women supporting the war effort as well as women AND men that are protesting it now (don't let the mainstream media trick you into thinking that only women that have lost men in this war are the only ones protesting).
November 11th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
We mustn't overreact to the typical radical feminist nonsense that insults bravery because they associate it with maleness. I, for one, grow weary of responding to their self-righteous blather and the vast majority of people, men and women, don't think men are natural born killers. The vast majority of people understand that men and women are different, and men were made more agressive largely by biology, not cultrure as the idiots in radical feminism believe, because there has always been a need to protect, to hunt, and, yes, sometimes to kill. These needs change forms as the centuries progress but they still exist. This fact is one that most everyone takes for granted because it is self-evident. If the radical feminists had their way, America and the rest of the world likely would be ruled by the Nazis today. We need to call their rubbish what it is, and heap out the appropriate ridicule for their positions. But their positions should NOT be taken seriously.
November 11th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
When such crimes occur, I cannot help but think - Where do these crazy loonies come from? I cant believe they are born that way. Sure, if you are traumatized, you change, but to think up is down, left is right and patriotism is psychopathic... is a far stretch. I think Caldicott conveniently forgets what is happening to millions of men, women and children when they find themselves either in the middle of a war or completely dominated by a foreign power. The other thing she forgets is, you could die if you join the armed forces and enter a war. But then a few feminists have talked about the eroticism of death in males (others limit the male sexuality to rape).
Shouldn't such crazies be in the news as the sociopaths of the century??
November 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
The only "Natural Born Killers" I see in this situation are the pro-abortion feminists. According to Helen's logic: stabbing a fully developed child in the head with a needle; injecting air into it's blood stream minutes before birth; in order to cause a brain aneurysm isn't murder. But an American solider killing a Nazi in order to prevent hundreds of thousands of jews from being slaughtered is.
What planet do these people come from?
November 11th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
The first link illustrates abortion deaths compared to war deaths as of 3/11/2000. In 2000 there had been 35,000,000 abortions performed; now the number is 50,000,000 since 1973.
The second pertains to partial birth abortion.
The third pertains to partial birth abortion and gives you access to an extensive pictorial archive of children retrieved from abortion clinic dumpsters. If you have the courage to view these photos, be prepared to be completely horrified.
May God have mercy on us all.
Kevin Merck
http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html
November 11th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
The first link illustrates abortion deaths compared to war deaths as of 3/11/2000. In 2000 there had been 35,000,000 abortions performed; now the number is 50,000,000 since 1973.
The second pertains to partial birth abortion.
The third pertains to partial birth abortion and gives you access to an extensive pictorial archive of children retrieved from abortion clinic dumpsters. If you have the courage to view these photos, be prepared to be completely horrified.
May God have mercy on us all.
Kevin Merck
I posted the above comment and this is what happened.
It looks like Feminists aren’t the only ones suppressing free speech.
November 11th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
It's more likely Kevin, that as on many blogs, posting a comment with more than one link triggers a spam filter. At that point the blog owner is then asked to verify if the comment is spam or ham.
Sadly, the Feminists are not the only ones whose lack of experience, ignorance and arrogance enables them to self righteously and incorrectly judge the world.
November 11th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
[...] Background: Veterans' Day 2007 was the 89th anniversary of the end of one of the greatest tragedies in human history--World War I. My grandfather volunteered for the War, and was wounded in the decisive Battle of the Argonne Forest in 1918. He was awarded the Purple Heart and the French Croix de Guerre. My previous post about him was Reflections on Veterans Day (Part I). [...]
November 11th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Jerry:
I didn’t realize that.
You’re right, I jumped the gun.
However, I don’t think the rest of your statement is justified if it’s directed at me.
Seems to me the self righteous, arrogant and ignorant person is someone who would take a cheap shot like that.
I’m not the one depriving anyone of their rights.
Kevin Merck
November 12th, 2007 at 11:25 am
First I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS and proudly serve in the Patriot Guard.
My father was in Korea the forgotten war; I grew up with the horrors of Vietnam, and now many of the lies of the desert wars.
Because of this influence I do not and will not serve in the military (I am too old now anyway but would pick up a pitchfork if I had to defend this country and our rights and freedoms) unless there is a clear cut rational reason to do so . . . That being said I do not nor can I find fault with out troops they are just grunts and do not have the power to make the decisions I blame those higher ups and it is their responsibility for any abuse of our powers.
b
November 12th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Sorry I drifted off there so my point is that I am not a natural born killer . . .
November 12th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
A couple years ago feminist Helen Caldicott, co-founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, made a speech called "Men: Natural Born Killers." Caldicott told feminist antiwar demonstrators that the male of the human species has unbridled bloodlust, explaining that "young men rushed off to battle in the first World War. So eager were they to participate in the noble act of killing that they lied about their age."
_____
I wonder how she would respond to the well known Christmas truce of December 14th 1914 . . . hummmmmm
b
November 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Bernie.. didn't you know that Christmas is a patriarchal holiday? That is why all men force this holiday on all women, buy them gifts and force them to be happy. It is offensive to women to be treated like that, rather than mirroring the contempt that women have for men.
Just kidding, can't help but have some fun with the way these individuals theorize their world.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Stupid feminist bitches like Caldicott can yap away incessantly with their big fat mouths today, BECAUSE brave young "bloodlust psychotic" men with a full life ahead of them, sacrificed their precious lives in order to protect the freedom of tampax scumbags aforementioned!!! If only they (soldiers of free society) knew back then, "WHAT" they were saving! Caldicott and her putrid feminist cronies would now be rotting in Nazi prison camps around the world or would have been gased in order to put their foul mouths out of use and their ashes would fertilize the lush flower beds surrounding the "new improved" death camps like Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz, etc...
November 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Pankaj Says:
November 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Bernie.. didn't you know that Christmas is a patriarchal holiday? That is why all men force this holiday on all women, buy them gifts and force them to be happy. It is offensive to women to be treated like that, rather than mirroring the contempt that women have for men.
Just kidding, can't help but have some fun with the way these individuals theorize their world.
=======================
I would have know that without you mentioning it.... that was great by the way LOL
b
November 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Stevie . . .PLAY NICE!
b
December 26th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
[...] He was awarded the Purple Heart and the French Croix de Guerre. To learn more, see my blog posts Reflections on Veterans Day (Part I) and Part [...]
March 8th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Dear Mr. Sacks,
The other day, I went to a second-hand store to pickup some old music records (Military Marches), and found between the fly-leaf of one record was an old postcard sent by one "John Coffey," dated "June 16th"(no year on that side), but on other side, the addressee was a "Mr. Tom Webster, Holyoke, Mass., USA" and the "Field Service Post Card" (Army Post Office) dated
"17 Ju 18" -- which I take to be 1918, WW I -- and i Googled the name "John Coffey" and find that this may be your illustrious grandfather. If you can confirm that this is your grandfather, I would be glad to send you the original post card (I also collect memorabilia, but feel it is more properly yours, if a member of your own family. The interesting thing about the post card is that it apparently has to meet stict security codes,no personal messages, only pre-written statements: "sick/wounded/i am being sent down to the base/i have received your letter dated ___, (and the item earmarked by John coffey), "Letter follows at first opportunity." Please let me know if this is your grandfather, and where to send his postcard.
Cheers from California, Richard Arthur
May 12th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
[...] up your family unnecessarily?" This ethos is long gone now. (To learn more, see my blog posts Reflections on Veterans Day Part I and Part [...]
May 12th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
[...] up your family unnecessarily?" This ethos is long gone now. (To learn more, see my blog posts Reflections on Veterans Day Part I and Part [...]
May 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am
[...] up your family unnecessarily?" This ethos is long gone now. (To learn more, see my blog posts Reflections on Veterans Day Part I and Part [...]