Chivalry and Women

Two citations today, to inform our recent discussion. The first one is from the invaluable book The Archaelogy of Weapons: Arms and Armor from Prehistory to the Age of Chivalry by Ewart Oakeshott. The quote is from pp 186-7.

The inevitable development of what we might call the official knightly attitude towards women began to take hold in the middle of the twelfth century. It was given impetus by the poets of southern France, particularly after Eleanor of Aquitaine (one of the most glamorous women of the Middle Ages, who later married Henry II of England and became the mother of Richard Lion-Heart and John) came from Provence to Paris to become for a while the Queen of Louis VII of France. The mingling of the tongues of "oc" and "oui" in overseas expeditions strengthened it.

["Oc" and "oui" here refers to two major dialects of Middle French, in which the word for "yes" was pronounced one of two different ways. This was not the only difference, of course, just the one chosen as an easy symbol. In Ivanhoe, Richard the Lionheart offers to sing "a 'sirvente' in the language of 'oc,' or a 'lai' in the language of 'oui,'" but ends up singing a ballad in the English at the request of the Holy Clerk of Copmanhurst, that is, Friar Tuck. -Grim]

Henceforth the influence of women dominates chivalry, and religion and feudal loyalty take second place. Only war, a glorious and exciting pastime and a stimulating way of winning wealth, kept its high place as a gentleman's most cherished occupation; but the influence of love as the mainspring of warlike aspiration gave a much lighter rhythm to it, and to literature and life itself. Poets sing now only of their ladies' perfections, crave their pity and strive to merit their grace. The knight fights as hard as he ever did (he was not to be deprived of his business or his fun) but it is to win his lady's favors, and the word amoureux comes to mean more than it does today, for it covers the entire range of knightly virtue. The idea has prevailed that:

Hee never were a good werryoure
That cowde not love aryghte

"He who loves not is but half a man" and "pour l'amour des dames devient li vilains courtois."

The "influence of women" which "dominates" chivalry is not an oppressive influence. It liberated women and gave them a powerful voice in society, without either demeaning men or making them resentful of feminine power. Just the opposite: It is one embraced cheerfully by men of the sort who can tame horses and ride them to war.

Unlike the culture war of today, the situation provoked by Eleanor's court was a genuine improvement of the relationship between men and women -- one that, from the distance of the twelfth century, still inspires us, and seems almost to glow across the ages. It may mark the high point of the relations between the sexes in all human history.

That said, Eric is not wrong to say that the 19th century made a great deal out of this period, and a lot of our understanding has to do with what we inherited from them. Here is something you probably have not seen before: Sir Baden Powell's likening of life to the task, familiar to Scouts, of paddling a canoe in rough waters. Women represent a rock in the river: not a bad thing, as it adds to the beauty of the river and the glory of navigating it, but a hazard that has to be considered with a clear mind:

You will, I hope, have gathered from what I have said about this Rock "Women," that it has dangers for the woman as well as for the man. But it has also its very bright side if you only manoeuvre your canoe aright.

The paddle to use for this job is CHIVALRY.

Most of the points which I have suggested as being part of the right path are comprised under chivalry.

The knights of old were bound by their oath to be chivalrous, that is to be protective and helpful to women and children.

This means on the part of the man a deep respect and tender sympathy for them, coupled with a manly strength of mind and strength of body with which to stand up for them against scandal, cruelty or ridicule, and even, on occasion, to help them against their own failings.

A man without chivalry is no man.

I would strongly suggest that "sexism" is a false star. Navigating by it leads us into errors and anger with one another that are needless and pointless. What is wanted is not that men and women should be treated as if they were exactly the same: no one wants that, not the most sincere feminist, who at least believes that women have something special to offer. As indeed they have!

Women should always be treated with chivalry, with "deep respect and tender sympathy." Equality of opportunity aside, women and men are not the same -- it is good that a man should understand how they are different, and take pains to make women feel welcome and valued. He should showcase his valor in the way of the knights and poets of old: so that, in him, the entire range of knightly virtue is expressed through love.

Ave, Pope

Ave!

Let us hail the Pope on his visit to America. This particular pope is a serious and careful thinker, and agree with him or disagree, you have to be impressed with the quality and clarity of his thought.

Although not a Catholic myself, having spent a fair amount of time studying Medieval history I've learned a great deal about the history and teachings of the Church. It is at its best a highly admirable institution that purifies what was already good.

At its worst, it is a human institution, which no worse than other things of Men -- yet, as Chesterton said, the more blameworthy for that, for its business is to be better. So too we might say of our nation, which hosts him today.

"God bless America," said Benedict robustly, to cheers from the excited throng.

Amen.

UPDATE: Here is video of his remarks.

A Small Admission:

I am really enjoying this moment where Senator Clinton tries to win on the votes of Southern white men. I'm neither shocked nor especially upset by Obama's "bitter" comments -- as has been noted elsewhere and often, it is really the standard Marxist reading of economic determinism. Given his education and associations, it's what I'd expect him to believe; no doubt he does believe it.

For that reason he shouldn't be President; but I won't chide a man for saying what he really thinks is true. However much I disagree with his analysis, his methodology, and his worldview, I do appreciate his honesty. I just wish the pair of them would be as straightforward all the time.

For more on the South and the Democratic Party, newer readers might enjoy this post from 2004. For some more current advice from Tennessee, try this.

More sexism

More Sexism:

At the Corner, where they note:

Tag is a game "of intense aggression," according to one McLean, Va., school.

(This, Senator Obama, is how you create bitter people.)

And Cassandra finds another example.

Wunderbar. When the possession and use of Eyeballs (or more specifically, Evil Men's Eyeballs) near children has been made a felony offense, only The Bad People will have them and violent crime will magically vanish from the face of the earth.

Of course, this sort of "sexism" is anti-male sexism. So what?

I think it would be wise to simply accept that what we call "sexism" is a permanent feature of human society: men and women instinctively treat each other differently, and furthermore, want to be treated differently. There are benefits and hazards for both sides: Hillary can cry on stage and see her poll numbers shoot through the roof with women without hurting her numbers with men, for example. A man who cried on stage, unless it was for his dog, would see his poll numbers crash with both sexes.

On the other hand, a man's laugh is unlikely to drive voters away from him as a candidate: though, in the case of Hillary's laugh, what's so awful about it isn't so much the sound of it as the way she uses it. 'Conflict of interest? HAHAHAH! How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' (Apparently at least eight hundred thousand dollars' worth.)

If the laugh was merry, rather than a bald and scornful way of suggesting that these issues can't apply to her, it probably wouldn't be bothersome.

Sexism?

Sexism?

We've heard that older feminists were angry about Senator Obama's pushing aside of Senator Clinton as presumptive favorite. Now, Slate says that younger feminists are feeling the same way.

And yet, as Lossia wrote in a recent e-mail, "I've been really bothered by what I perceive as sexism [among some male Obama supporters] and have spent hours defending [Clinton] ... A lot of guys just can't stand Hillary, and it's the intensity of their irritation with her that disturbs me more than their devotion to Obama."

I only mention the issue at all because I had a sergeant in Iraq say exactly this to me. I asked him what he was planning to do come election day, and he said, "I could vote for Obama or McCain [which is to say, given the distance between the men's positions, that the sergeant's decision is not at all based on policy or politics. -Grim]. But the thought of having to listen to that woman's voice for the next four years..."

Now, he's a good lad, and doesn't seem to have any problem with women in general -- neither does he treat them disrespectfully, nor show difficulty working with them, nor taking orders from them (his unit commander, in fact, is a female major). So I'm not sure sexism is really the issue here.

It may just really be her. And, er, that voice. And laugh. And the fact that she will look you in the eye and tell you she landed under fire in Bosnia without shame or apology.

Now, what is plainly sexism in the sergeant's comments was that he didn't say -- as did the "young progressive man" cited by the article -- that her voice made him want to punch her in the face. I suppose he might have said it about a man: like with most sergeants, I didn't get the sense that he was opposed to punching people under the right circumstances.

That sort of "sexism" is something I'd like to see more of in our society. Any young man who gloats about wanting to punch a lady in my company, whether Senator Clinton or any other, will not leave off thinking he was speaking well and cleverly.

I certainly believe that the sex of a person is a relevant factor in how you should treat them, or act around them, and that certain protections and courtesies should apply to women especially. I prefer the old fashioned term, chivalry, but if you insist on calling that sexism, so be it. I still believe it.

words to live by

More Words to Live By:

"Close Air Support covers a multitude of sins."

To whit.

Beer song

Hark, the Bold Milboggers Sing:

"Beer is the cure for everything."

WELL. This is just plain fascinating.

Memeorandum, at 10:20pm EST on April 12th.

Senator Obama has, as the saying goes, stepped on his training aid; and reveals that he really does not have a clue. Either that, or he's just not experienced enough to act in the Kabuki theater that American presidential election politics has become lately.

And you know what else? I still think he's going to get nominated by the Democrats.

Now, as in wars, those who make the fewest (or maybe the smallest) mistakes typically win. McCain at this point just basically has to not make any big mistakes like this, and he's going to get elected President.

"You need to know where you stand with them at all times."



Not quite as good as 'More cowbell', but still.

Scenes from Savannah

Scenes from Savannah:

I'm still very busy.



Oh, I found out a secret. Cassandra's opened a store down here.



Think I'm making that up? Check out the store's T-shirt for the final, clenching proof:



The prosecution rests.

Thanks, Chuck.

Requiescat in pace.

...“You probably have time to put on pants, Sir.”

LT G relates his and his platoon's experiences during the recent Mahdi army 'revolt' in Iraq.

I want to send SSG Bulldog more milkbones.

world Tour

Grim's World Tour:

Almost home. One more flight. I've been several places lately.

Friday:



Saturday:



Sunday:



But the sight I want most is waiting at the end of this next flight: my wife and little boy. Months of longing, days of debriefings, and now I'm at Reagan waiting for the last flight.

You may not hear from me for a little while. I should be back around the 15th.

By the way, I want to congratulate my fellow bloggers. I put the blog through John Donovan's cuss test:

That's outstanding. Thank you all for helping to make this a place for the exchange of ideas in the best traditions of the West.

Goodbye

Goodbye, Iraq:

Sir, said she, leave your horse here, and I shall leave mine; and took their saddles and their bridles with them, and made a cross on them, and so entered into the ship.... and so the wind arose, and drove them through the sea in a marvellous pace. And within a while it dawned.

Sir Thomas Malory, Le Morte D'Arthur

Reality intrudes.

I encounter an enormous and growing number of people who have no frame of reference to the whole world, and everybody and everything in it, except that which they learned from watching, listening to, or reading entertainment. But unlike the elderly I mentioned, they are not using the TV to remind them of a world they have already participated in. They are deriving their reality from the flickering screen. Every single thing they say or do is filtered almost entirely through the lens of movies, teleplays, and magazines --paper or virtual-- things that use reality only as a veneer, if that, and simply to lend verisimilitude to wholly fictitious inventions.

(via American Digest)

...And I saw a leg.



The Onion scores again.

(via OPFOR)

McCain Misspeeak Reminder

McCain's "Misspeak" - a small reminder

There’s plenty of commentary around on Sen. McCain’s recent statement about Iran assisting al-Qaeda. I’m not going to write about whether he was right the first time –- as others have -- but I am concerned about the idea (which seems to be behind some of the commentary) that they couldn’t work together because of ideological or religious differences. I remember similar ideas from the beginning of the war – from people who assured us that Saddam’s “secular” Ba’athist regime could never work with Islamist terrorists, as it could and did.

Of course, it’s good to know the difference between Shia and Sunni, between Ismaili and “Twelver” Shia, between Salafi/Wahabi and other Sunni, between the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and more besides; I fervently wish that more of our leaders and commentators had a good basic grounding in these things (and I hope to keep improving my own, which is far from perfect). But in getting this knowledge, don’t let’s forget some of those basic truths about politics and strategy and strange bedfellows that continue to apply. Everyone knows the Assassins were a radical Shia sect; not everyone knows they allied variously with the Sunni Sultan Saladin – who had supplanted the last Shia Caliph – and with the Christian crusaders. As some say, the Arab Revolt of WWI may have been considerably exaggerated, yet it still amounted to Sunni Muslims allied with Christian westerners against Sunni Turkey – whose ruler was also the Sunni Caliph. Many have remembered the U.S. giving support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war; not as many, I think, remember that Israel supplied arms to Iran during that same conflict. Some commentators have noted that, per the 9/11 Commission Report (scroll to “Turabi sought to persuade”), Iran did train al-Qaeda in the early 1990’s. Ideological purity doesn’t survive warfare any better than it does electoral politics. This is as true of the religious as of the secular kind. 1 Maccabees 2:32-41.

Pron

Grim's Hall: Your Home for PR0N!

I see that Magic Island Technologies, which provides the private internet service to Camp Victory, has banned the entire Blogspot system as "a pornography site" -- I can still get to Blogger to post, but not to Grim's Hall. I expect it was our Holy Week series that did it, or possibly Joel's writings on Rules of Engagement (just the sort of thing you'd want to keep soldiers from reading).

Since I figure there's no hope of convincing the Army to reconsider, I suppose I'll just have to live down to their expectations. Here follows "The Ballad of Lily and Sam," by The Limeybirds.

A bonny young lass fresh and wholesome
was married to a much older man:
Listen close to this tale we will tell you
'tis the ballad of Lily and Sam.

When he comes home in the evening
Lily sat a nice table for two.
Sam says he's already eaten,
and then heads right on up to his room.

She followed him happy and hopeful
dressed in her best lingerie,
and there he's high up on the bedposts
sound asleep, much to Lily's dismay.

She tried and she tried O to tempt him;
Sweet nothings whispered in his ear.
Sam pushed her off and he shouts up,
"Speak up girl, you know I can't hear!"

Lily slipped him one night some Viagra;
She didn't know what else to do.
But from that day on they were happy
and soon they were no longer two.

Many years later when Sam died
Lily she moaned and she cried;
We heard that old Sam had been found
Wearing naught but his socks and a smile.

So if your lover is older
Don't worry, there's hope for you still:
Just think of Lily and her Sam,
and trust in the little blue pill!

There, that ought to do it. Plus -- I swear I am not making this up -- I just received an email from "Erica Blair" advertising penile enhancements. That should really cement our status.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

The LT G post that Eric linked to below is very troubling. That post appears to demonstrate a real lack of understanding of some important concepts within the rules of engagement (ROE). I want to stress the word “appears” because I am not currently deployed to Iraq and I do not know what guidance and/or instruction LT G may have received concerning the ROE. Furthermore, I was not there and did not see the situation develop. This post is not intended to be a critique of LT G. What follows is intended to address what I believe is a real misunderstanding of key concepts of ROE that is shockingly widespread.

LT G described a situation in which members of his unit observed individuals low crawling towards a road at midnight pushing a box. He then describes the hard decision making process he went through before telling his soldiers to flash a light at these individuals and fire at them if they ran. LT G’s order was overruled by his captain who forbade the soldiers from firing at the low crawling individuals unless those individuals fired first. The box turned out to be an improvised explosive device (IED).

As I understand the ROE, and as I instructed my Marines in Iraq, all of the above was unnecessary unless done for some other reason than simply complying with the ROE.

Let me start with some concepts and definitions. Under the Joint Chiefs of Staff Standing Rules of Engagement armed force is authorized to deter, neutralize, or destroy individuals or organizations committing hostile acts or demonstrating hostile intent.

A hostile act is defined as “an attack or other use of force by a foreign force or terrorist unit (organization or individual) against the United States, U.S. forces, and in certain circumstance, U.S. citizens, their property, U.S. commercial assets, and other designated non-U.S. forces, foreign nationals and their property. It is also force used directly to preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of U.S. forces, including the recovery of U.S. personnel and U.S. government property.

Hostile intent is defined as “the threat of imminent use of force by a foreign force or terrorist unit (organization or individual) against the United States, U.S. forces, and in certain circumstances, U.S. citizens, their property, U.S. commercial assets, or other designated non-U.S. forces, foreign nationals and their property.”

Long story short, if someone is attacking or threatening to attack you or your unit you have the right to use armed force to deter, neutralize, or destroy the source of the attack or threat.

Unlike hostile act (everyone can tell when they are being attacked), hostile intent is a broad concept can be hard to describe with specificity. What constitutes a threat can change from situation to situation. What is or isn’t a threat will depend on enemy techniques, tactics, and procedures in an often fluid environment. Consequently, I can’t provide a bright line rule that will clearly define hostile intent in every situation. However, the individual grunt does not want that. The concept of hostile intent needs to be broad in order to allow the individual soldier, sailor, or Marine to exercise personal judgment based on his knowledge of the situation and the enemy. For that very reason I would tell my Marines that if they could explain in basic commonsense terms why they thought someone was a threat then they had nothing to worry about.

Now back to the scenario presented by LT G. In the above situation two individuals low crawling toward a road at midnight pushing an object that could be an IED are, at the very least, demonstrating hostile intent. I would argue that IED emplacement, in and of itself, is a hostile act. Consequently, the individuals could be engaged with deadly force for the actions described. However, LT G wanted to flash a light at these individuals to see if they fled and use their flight as the reason to engage with deadly force. This is precisely the wrong criteria to use. Running away from coalition forces is not, in and of itself, a demonstration of hostile intent. At any rate, you don’t have to wait. As stated above, the individuals could be engaged as soon as they are observed low crawling towards the road with the box. Furthermore, there are any number of additional variables that might indicate hostile intent long before flight becomes an issue.

I used to use a much less clear scenario than that described above to instruct the Marines of my battalion that if they caught insurgents emplacing an IED that they could kill them if they believed that was what the situation required. I did this because I wanted my Marines, both officer and enlisted, to clearly understand that they could use deadly force to defend themselves and their fellow Marines. There may be any number of reasons why they may not want to shoot the insurgents, i.e. intelligence gathering, etc. Nevertheless these are tactical decisions that are separate from what is permitted under the ROE.

One of my greatest concerns is that individual soldiers, sailors, and Marine will be confused about the ROE and that this confusion will cause them unnecessary hesitation in life or death situations. It does not have to be this way.

Ah, Tony McPeak:

Of course I respect the service of retired Air Force General Tony McPeak, who gave his country thirty-six years of his life. I nevertheless disagree sharply with him on his ideas about warfighting.

Longtime readers of Grim's Hall will remember that we discussed McPeak's vision for war in 2004, when he was for the Kerry campaign what he is now for the Obama campaign.

McPeak was all in favor of bombing Iraq to ruin, and then leaving it as rubble -- in spite of the fact that the majority of the people of Iraq were not part of Saddam's violence; in spite of the fact that failed states are as big a challenge to security, in the age of terrorism, as tyrannies. To replace a tyranny with a failed state is small advantage -- you may cut off a source of funding or diplomatic support to terrorist groups, or weapons, but you give them a haven in which to operate. The failure of Pakistan to control its northern provinces today shows how dangerous this is.

If we "do it right," McPeak said, we'd have to stay for a hundred years (or fifty years -- he seems to have simply meant, 'a really long time'). So he advocated doing it wrong:

The man who headed the U.S. Air Force during Desert Storm will tell you, over black coffee in a Lake Oswego cafe, that the potential attack on Iraq is "the fight you dream about, a wonderful kind of war to have."

The former fighter pilot calls the conflict a "no brainer," pitting the U.S. military machine -- with precision-guided munitions that he conceived -- against a nation whose gross national product is dwarfed by what the Air Force spends each year.

"Everybody's going to get decorated out of this thing," says Tony McPeak, a four-star general who retired to Oregon in 1995. "Everyone comes home. It has a lot of appeal to me."

But what to do when the war is over? The Air Force can't do the work of occupying nations that need rebuilding, but that's OK, as McPeak is against it:

Airstrikes would wipe out Baghdad's communications system again, McPeak says. "If we go in there and occupy the place for 50 years, which is my prediction, we'll have to rebuild it."

Kerry's actual position was different from McPeak's, so it wasn't clear that he was paying any attention to what McPeak was saying -- he just wanted a General Officer on his team, to give him credibility.

In Obama's defense, so to speak, he seems to feel the same way: McPeak's stated positions and preferences are not apparently related to Obama's positions. We've been talking about this at the Politburo. The discussion is too long to reproduce here, but the point is that Obama's "brigade or two a month" position seems to be one that he is presenting as a "moderate, responsible" pace. In fact, a single brigade represents a massive amount of combat power, and geographic control -- and equipment! Pulling out "one or two a month" would be taxing our logistical systems; it would represent the most rapid withdrawal of forces we could actually, physically manage without simply abandoning our equipment and marching to the sea.

I'm not suggesting Obama is being deceptive -- presenting a shocking, sudden withdrawal as a 'relaxed, easy' pace. I'm suggesting he probably lacks the experience to understand just what a Brigade Combat Team is. There's no reason he should be expected to have the experience -- he was never in the military, has spent little time at the Federal level, and mostly has served in minor state or city functions. There's nothing that would suggest he's had occasion to learn what a Commander in Chief would need to know to formulate a plan of the type he's proposing.

That though, is why you have advisors. Nobody has all the experience a potential President might need. So you get people who do on your team. The problem is, Obama's statements on the Quadrenniel Defense Review are at such odds with McPeak's own preferences that I can't take away any sense that McPeak is really a "military advisor." He's a showpiece -- which, given that I disagree with his ideas entirely, is fine with me.

But it makes an issue of Obama's experience. It makes it clear that he's going on his own, and on his own, he really doesn't have a capacity to understand the issue.

The only thing McPeak has ever said that harmonizes with what others in the Obama campaign have said is his position on American Jews and their support for Israel. The piece linked there is a hit piece -- I'm not sure how McPeak's "affinity for alcohol," which is surely no business of the public's so long as he suffers no more DUI arrests, is meant to be linked to his ideas about Israel -- but they're right about his general thinking on what he considers the problem of American Jewish support for Israel, as it affects American defense policy.

Unless Obama either harmonizes his own views with McPeak's, or gets another (and hopefully a wiser) advisor, it will be hard to take him seriously. It's plain he doesn't really know what he's talking about. It's plain he isn't listening to the people he's pulled in because they know more about the subject than he does himself.

That's reason for concern.