A jury convicted Lynndie England and a cop arrested Cindy Sheehan on Monday. Sheehan, a mother victimized by war, plays a traditional feminine role in relation to war. England, an enlistee who mistreated Iraqi prisoners, plays a less familiar one. Women make war policy (Condi Rice), and protest war policy (Cindy Sheehan). They've played the hero (Jessica Lynch). They've played the goat (Lynndie England). They've even played terrorist. Shortly after the war began, for instance, two women--one pregnant--unleashed a suicide bombing that killed three coalition soldiers.

We've never become used to women in their traditional war role, as the grieving mother, widow, or sister. It's not likely that civilization will be quicker to embrace these new roles--woman as soldier, woman as terrorist, woman as sadistic jailer. Women shooting and getting shot, as prisoner-of-war brutalizer and brutalized, blowing up themselves and other people--all this seems even more unnatural for women than for men. It's only 2005. There's more on the way. At least when it comes to war, for woman to approach equality with man she had to subtract from her traditional station.

Women are least equal to men in the heinous acts department. Just look at the abortion stats. The prolife movement blithely assumes that women are tricked into getting abortions or do so out of ignorance. I just don't see this as the case. The woman who get abortions know exactly what they are doing, they just calculate it coldly and compartmentalize it away. Is Lynndie England any different in what she did? This is the nature of a large portion of the female population.

As me old Irish mother once said to me: woman are far more calculating and are typically more insidious thinkers than most men.

I’ve always taken that to mean that what women lack in size and physical strength, they more than make up for in guile and superior planning skills. In 2005, this tends to equalize the sexes as society has catapulted women beyond the traditional and into the realm of the man’s world especially where repression based on gender seems to be a thing of the past.

Protecting the “weaker sex” is passé so many of the perks once known and enjoyed by the opposite sex do not apply anymore.

With our various pseudonyms, who knows male from female posting on this blog. However, the topic makes me wonder, not for the first time, where are the women commenters? Do women read this blog? Are they posting comments without me recognizing their gender? I cannot recall a single comment that I knew was made by a woman, and I don't recall this dearth of femininity ever being mentioned here. Is this, after all, a cigar and cognac club?

more like a bone and a bud light crowd I would say!

There are definitely a few women who comment, but I had a few similar thoughts after 1. seeing no response from the ladies to the first two comments on this post; and 2. writing this post, when it dawned on me how infrequently I post on topics more appealing to women than to men. So, I wonder if I'm responsible for the dearth of females posting comments. Most of the political-type posts on the blog are gender neutral, but the pop-culture stuff--the Ultimate Warrior, NFL pools, boxing posts, Led Zeppelin--seems to appeal to a decidedly hairier and smellier demographic.

well that depends on where u live doesn't it?

I agree Dan. You should post more female friendly topics. Like, I for one wouldn't object to a post and discussion about Victoria's Secret lingerie.

Just wanted to let you know that yes, there are women out there that read this blog. My boyfriend turned me onto Flynn Files a while back. On the contrary, Dan, it is because of your pop-culture-stuff that I check back here often. We share a very similar taste in music and I am a huge baseball fan (eh, not so much football) so I do find the non-political stuff appealing, even though I am not as hairy and smelly as you or your regulars. Or at least, I hope not.

I represent that remark!

I think Obi Juan and ASDF have a point in so far as it is sadly true that women are capable of being very wicked, just as men are, it is the human condition of corruptible free-will. Both sexes are moral agents and thus quite capable of great evil.

However, I do not think that abortion statistics are as reliable an indicator of female capacity for crime. Mostly b/c for all the Amy Singers (I think that was that sicko who wrote in the Times about choosing which 2 of her triplets to murder) there are certainly any number of actually scared women having abortions for reasons that are still bad but not nearly so callous or cold-hearted, as witnessed by the huge number of women who suffer from depression after killing their babies.

Apparently Dan you could also post about knitting to attract the gals. (Click on Sandra's name above to see what I mean).

Dan suggests that violent acts by women (as torturer, soldier, suicide bomber) seem more "unnatural" than for men. I agree but this brings up all sorts of interesting questions about whether or not there exist pertinent differences of psychology, and emotional and physical make-up of women that would dictate different roles based on gender. Too me the existence of such differences is just obvious but thanks to contemporary liberalism/feminism our society has stopped even having this discussion.

I want to point out just one of, for me, the most glaring aspects of this change in the way women are viewed. What is with women "kicking men's arses," becoming so omnipresent in our popular culture? Look at the Tarantino "Kill Bill" movies or the "Charlie's Angels" vehicles for examples of leather-clad women beating the snot out of guys. I remember seeing a stupid interview w/ the Angels cast where Diaz and Barrymore kept saying *brilliant* things such as "it is just, like so great, you know, getting to play women who are smart and strong and can still be beautiful, all at the same time!" What they don't realize is that women clad in tight leather grinding their heels into some guys chest is just an old fetish of the nerdy comic book-ish (think Wonder Woman) slightly masochistic set; someone like Tarantino.

Turning an old fetish mainstream that glorifies female violence against men doesn't seem to me to be a good thing for women. If women become seen as a physical threat and force for men to reckon with then isn't that just one more barrier of restraint gone keeping some guy from pummeling his girlfriend or wife in anger? And if women are such an equal "threat" then why shouldn't they be in the military and in combat zones or in the police patrol cars? But when they end up in coffins and body bags (or as torturers) b/c society deluded itself into thinking that either a) mothers are just as expendable as fathers or b) that women are just as capable of making use of force to restrain others as men are, then what will we have become?

But wait, we already have become that society, just look at the case down in Georgia (these details are roughly accurate) earlier in the year when a 6-3, 200-pound rapist was being walked into a courtroom by a 130-pound, 5-4 female sheriff (a grandmother). Unsurprisingly he overpowered her, took her gun, killed her, then the judge, and I think one or two other people as he made his escape. That woman is d-e-a-d b/c feminist/liberals have convinced us to ignore pertinent and *obvious* differences between the sexes.

As another woman who posts on this site, who is involved in law enforcement and has earned a doctorate in medicine, I think that Brian, though he makes some strong points, doesn't realize that women on average are in anumber of ways superior to men (just as men are on average superior in a number of ways to women, brute force being the most obvious).

For one, the whole premise of this post is that a few women have begun to do things so terrible that only men are thought capable of them. Look at crime stats, look at perverts, look at underclass crime and white collar crime--men practically do it all.

The challenge indeed is for the woman to maintain what traditional strengths she has while execizing her new equality of dignity in the public realm.

how about using your handcuffs and some brute force on me officer?

I've always thought that as women go, society goes. To a very large extent, women have the power to make or break a society.

A generation or two ago, when women were the 'stand by your man' type, kids were happier and more secure, men (husbands particular) were happier and more secure and woman were happier and society seemed to have a sense of direction.

With the advent of Women's Lib, women started thinking that to get to society's promised land of species dominance, they had to act and be more like men. So, now there is competition between the sexes and all of the respect for one another that once was the backbone of our society, is off the table and confusion reigns.

Women oft times say "where have all the good men gone". Well, they're right in front of them. But, instead of having to deal with an ultra-competitive psycho wench who thinks that swearing and drinking like a long shoreman, going to male strip clubs and indiscriminately using sex as a social tool, a lot of guys are taking a pass.

The family is in big time trouble folks and until women develop a new sense of center, society as we know it will suffer.

asdf, very well said!

has anyone noticed that pfc. england and mr.flynn kind of look alike? I was looking at her picture on msn today and thought the photo looked like mr.flynn on his book cover? heeheehee