Oafs, Wimps, Flirts, and Controllers
by Motte Brown on 11/06/2007 at 6:00 PM
Candice's post "Male Leadership in the West" sparked quite a discussion on the role of women in marriage and church. In this week's World Magazine, John Piper explores a somewhat related topic -- women in combat -- that may help us further understand the "divine wiring" that God gave us.
In "Combat and Cowardice," Piper writes,
If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying that no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he's a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea. Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women.
As for how we know men have this responsibility, Piper takes us back to the creation in Genesis.
God created man first in order to say that man bears a primary burden for protection, provision, and leadership. And when man and woman rebelled against God's ways, God came to the garden and said, Adam, where are you? (Genesis 3:9), not Eve, where are you?
We don't often think about the significance of the order of things. Piper suggests that God calls to Adam after the fall because Adam bore primary responsibility for that act of spiritual disobediance. Adam's role was to protect and to lead, and he failed. And deep down, Piper says, we all know this is true. God wrote it on our hearts.
The problem is that sin ruined this "imprint." Piper says it "tells men to be heavy-handed oafs or passive wimps" and it "tells women to be coquettes or controllers." And feminism, he explained, "enlightened" us that "competencies, not divine wiring, governed the roles we assume."
And though this application was about women leading men into combat, I think it says something about women leading in marriage and church as well.
Editors Note: The link to Piper's full article is now available. Thanks JB.
1. Justice said the following at 6:19 PM on Nov 6:
hmmm,
interesting thought he has. He almost seems too old school at this point though, maybe he should use his spiritual capital on something else instead.
Christian speakers are always finding something wrong with something, it gets real old. NewsFlash, we are sinners living in a fallen world! Why waste time getting worked up about something. Ya, fallen people are wimps, so were the disciples
2. Alex C. said the following at 8:40 PM on Nov 6:
Darn. You have to pay in order to read the full article ><.
It seems that the basic idea of the article is that "every man in society should be willing to defend their country, before any women need to entire the service." or something like that? He's also basicly gone and insulted a lot of people right off the bat. (any guy who supports women in the military is a coward?) I don't think "women in the military" is a symptom of cowardice, cause it's not like they're saying "women should fight in the army INSTEAD of men", but that women should have the right to defend their country if they choose to. And maybe there is some compelling biblical evidence for only men to participate in the Army (I'd like to read the whole article...) but I don't think that necissarily translates to the idea that the US military should prevent women from participating.
3. Chris Roberts said the following at 10:06 PM on Nov 6:
Justice said:
"Christian speakers are always finding something wrong with something, it gets real old. NewsFlash, we are sinners living in a fallen world! Why waste time getting worked up about something. Ya, fallen people are wimps, so were the disciples"
There is something to be said for being willing to recognize problems in the world and being willing to try and do something to address those problems. Yes, we certainly are fallen and while that isn't necessarily something to get "worked up" about, it also doesn't mean that we should be happy being fallen. Hence the whole call to holiness we find in Scripture, and being holy means living the way God has intended us to live, including in how we relate to one another as men and women.
4. JB said the following at 10:16 PM on Nov 6:
It looks like the whole article is here for free:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2475_Coed_Combat_and_Cultural_Cowardice/
5. Jethro said the following at 10:32 PM on Nov 6:
Just because he's John Piper doesn't mean that his opinion is more valid than anyone else's. He's just some guy opining on an issue. There are plenty of them around. I might stick with listening to the ones who make sense though.
6. James said the following at 11:13 PM on Nov 6:
He's not talking about all women in the military, rather women in combat. That's only a portion of the military.
And by his reasoning, I agree with him.
7. Rachael said the following at 11:22 PM on Nov 6:
The comment was addressing woman in combat, not women in the military, and Piper was saying that he would not want a woman going before him to defend his country. The idea is not to keep women in their place, but to put men back in theirs. It is far too popular and easy for men to "allow" women the right to do whatever their hearts desire, whether it is in their best interests or not. The fact is that a man's apathy or permissiveness or whatever it is actually does a great deal of harm to himself AND women. Just as Adam's attitude effectively plunged humanity into sin, men are also liable to sin in what they approve regarding gender roles. Men shouldn't expect or desire to win popularity contests by taking a stand on God-ordained gender roles; they should take these stands because God was clear in his design and is dishonored by anything contrary to it. As a woman who is often baffled and disgusted by this "fallen" world's take on gender roles, I find it a little frustrating that so many Christian men are too concerned with being nice guys to bother finding out what it means to be a godly man. Bravo, John Piper, for caring enough for my soul to be man enough to tell me what you believe is best for me, whether I like it or not! I think that is the essense of speaking the truth in love.
8. Kylie said the following at 11:31 PM on Nov 6:
Alex C.,
I think you may have misinterpreted Mr. Piper's argument. I understood the article to be saying only that women should not go into combat - which I wholeheartedly agree with. I don't, however, think that women shouldn't be allowed in the military, and I don't believe that's what Mr. Piper was trying to say, either (although I can't say that for certain - I haven't read the entire article).
On a more general note:
Women can play valuable roles in areas such as military intelligence, engineering, nursing - really, anything that isn't combat. I just don't think that women have a place in an infantry division: we simply are not "equipped" for it. A woman can work to become physically strong enough to go into combat, but the amount of effort it takes for a woman, compared to that of a man, is substantial. We simply aren't physically built to carry a 50 lb rucksack or spend days "camping" in a battle zone (read: menstruation). I'm sure there are plenty of arguments for women in combat, but I just can't endorse it.
9. JB said the following at 12:26 AM on Nov 7:
I don't think John Piper makes his case here. He presents no practical evidence that women are not successful in the military (other than some psychologist who says men don't like to follow them) and his scriptural evidence is extremely weak. (God wanted to talk to Adam first and this means that women can't serve in the Army?) All that remains is his personal chauvinism (his word, and one I think is accurate) and some name calling for men who disagree with his position. This is an argument?
Women don't seem to have damaged the US military (or Israel's, the UK's, etc.) Why shouldn't qualified women be allowed to serve their country in that capacity? Piper is uncomfortable with the idea of women possibly protecting him, but that discomfort isn't shared by millions of men in this country and around the world.
I think it's telling that when Piper talks about men defending women, it's always about men defending "our women" and "their women." The possessive pronoun really gives the lie to the argument that preventing women from joining the military is about respecting women. I seems to be more about controlling them.
Or maybe I'm just a "passive wimp" and a "cowardly man."
10. Patricia said the following at 6:09 AM on Nov 7:
I disagree that God's questioning of Adam suggests that he was supposed to protect her. Of course God asked Adam where he was-God KNEW where Eve was so it doesn't logically make any sense the other way. That said, I agree w/ Justice that it's a waste of Piper's personal capital to write about women in combat. There is no biblical commandment against women fighting and given modern technology, women can perform numerous roles equal to men. Personally I wish more Christians would promote working for peace rather than calling men "cowards" because they "let" women fight.
11. Christina said the following at 6:44 AM on Nov 7:
I am of the opinion that a man needs to lead, protect, gaurd.
I am of the opinion that a woman needs to let him.
Aside from the obvious women going into battle, there are other reasons why a woman going to war needs to be guarded against by men. From what I understand, the training for women in combat is very destructive - not that it isn't for men, but there's something about being taught how to face rape and not spill all your secrets that is morbidly wrong...
What man who is protecting a woman would want to see her go through that even BEFORE she has left for battle?
Seems to me that men are more concerned about protecting us as leaders so they don't have to lead. Which goes into the cowardice ruling =p Sorry, Alex, but I don't care if a woman is capable of taking over the world. Divine decree is that we shouldn't.
And Justice, yes we're fallen people, but this is one of those things that actually effects every aspect of everyone's lives. From work, home, family dynamics, society. And the fallen people who claim to follow biblical principles buck the authority of divine decree for gender roles thinking they are an exception to the rule because God made them capable of leading. Its one thing to accept it and struggle while trying to learn how to fall into your role. Its a completely different thing entirely to constantly claim that those roles are BS.
12. John D. said the following at 6:50 AM on Nov 7:
Piper is right about women in combat.
But see Judges 4:17-22.
13. Adam Sloope said the following at 8:02 AM on Nov 7:
Piper is the man. Opinions and preferrences can run around like crazy, but when you are rooted i nthe Word, this issue of male and female is not muddy water. Good post.
14. Holland said the following at 8:04 AM on Nov 7:
I agree with Justice. Christian leaders often feel compelled to speak on any topic and with any phraseology that will keep them fresh in the minds of their publics ... no matter how irrelevant the topic. Sounds like courting controversy for the sake of being controversial.
15. Louise said the following at 8:10 AM on Nov 7:
This is a very negative post.
The entire title is name-calling.
A few weeks back Ms. Watters wrote a nice essay about how pretty CO autumns are, so we all know it is possible for the contributors to actually write something positive.
The question is, why don't they do it more often?
16. John Thomas said the following at 8:52 AM on Nov 7:
As I read the article, it's women in combat, not women in military, that Piper discusses. I don't think he's trying to make the case that there is no place at all for women in the military. It's combat that he seems to pinpoint.
You can read the full article here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2475_Coed_Combat_and_Cultural_Cowardice/
17. nikki said the following at 8:54 AM on Nov 7:
It seems that these thoughts are trying to bite off more than they can chew. It's true that his point is only valid if women are going into battle AND MEN AREN'T. I don't think any men are sending women in their place. But there is a good point about the created order, the fact that God held Adam responsible for what started out as Eve's sin. I suppose that sense of responsibility can be applied in a military sense, although I don't know that one could necessarily make that jump. But for application within a church or marriage, he's right-on.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that a man who supports women in combat is a coward, although it's possible of course. But I think his cowardice might be towards the woman - he might be afraid to tell her to stay home. I would direct any disagreement towards those who personally choose to leave their families and serve in combat, perhaps never to return - although honestly, it's really hard for me to mentally justify a father doing that as well as a mother.
18. Robert J Espe said the following at 8:59 AM on Nov 7:
I agree with Piper. I'm all for women learning to defend themselves and their homes (so they aren't helpless in the event of an invasion), but there is a big difference between that and putting them in a military that has only been used for overseas action since the war of 1812.
I would be for bringing back the para-military auxiliaries that the militia used to be. Citizens groups training in modern tactics so they can defend their homes but aren't part of the military so they can't be called away. It's also Constitutional. It works great in Switzerland (where the government provides citizens with standard rifles and an allotment of ammo a year for practice).
19. Emily said the following at 9:14 AM on Nov 7:
Alex,
You can read the article for free at the DGM web site:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2475_Coed_Combat_and_Cultural_Cowardice/
20. DH said the following at 9:17 AM on Nov 7:
Here's a link to the entire article listed on Desiring God (I always check here as almost all of Piper's sermons/articles are free):
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2475_Coed_Combat_and_Cultural_Cowardice/
I would encourage us all to be careful from being 'armchair theologians'. Pastor Piper has carefully developed a theology taking into account 'the whole counsel of God' (Acts 20:27) and has devoted his life to faithfully proclaiming the whole truth of the Bible. It is very easy for me to sit back and say, "Well, I don't agree with this because it makes me feel such and such a way." Instead, we should be like the Bereans in Acts 17:11 - "who examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true".
What we need to figure out is what the Bible says about this issue - even if it is what we don't want to believe. That is when it gets interesting - when I run into a truth of scripture that I simply don't want to believe because it rubs me the wrong way.
21. Adam D said the following at 9:52 AM on Nov 7:
I think Israel has already tried this, with women serving in combat in the field. Now since my memory isn't perfect and I cannot remember the book to cite my source, but I think that I remember that women being torn apart and dying on the field had a deep psychological impact on the men serving. Men are hurt and dismayed when they see their brothers die, but when they see their sisters die, it's something entirely different. Most good men's natural reaction is to protect women and I feel that that might be an underlying aspect why men usually don't want women to fight or serve.
Personally I feel that women are more than physically capable of serving in the military, but I'd rather not see them do it.
22. Nelson said the following at 10:15 AM on Nov 7:
> Christian speakers are always finding something wrong with something, it gets real old.
It probably gets real old because the point isn't to "find something wrong", but to direct people back to Christ, which is the way to salvation and perfection. Bringing people back to God is one of the goals of Christ's death on the cross.
23. AC said the following at 10:28 AM on Nov 7:
I couldn't read the whole article, but I would like to know if he makes a distinction between women in combat and women in military service before I draw a conclusion. Has anyone read the full text?
24. Patricia said the following at 11:08 AM on Nov 7:
Honestly, I think a lot of this discussion about women in combat is irrelevant to modern warfare. Modern warfare recognizes no difference between civilians and combatants so if a major war breaks out, women and men would likely be involved in "combat" since civilian infrastructure, buildings, marketplaces, etc are all targets. And again, the biblical argument for male protection is weak. Sure, Adam was called to protect Eve but remembe Eve was created as Adam's "ezer" or partner or helper depending on your translation. I believe both people should support each other but we are both accountable for our sins.
25. Esther said the following at 11:17 AM on Nov 7:
Not to say that women should be in combat, but it is a historical fact that in nearly every war in history, women have fought alongside men. I read an interesting (nonfiction) book awhile ago about women who disguised themselves as men and joined up during the Civil War, arguably one of the most gory, miserable and difficult wars of our nations history. If they were discovered, they were of course sent home, but many made it through the entire war, and some even kept up their "act" in order to own land and have jobs that weren't available to women of the time.
Again, it's not recommended, but I just wanted to throw in the argument that women wanting to fight is not especially new- now they just want to do it openly. Personally, I'm more than happy to let the men deal with the smell, the mud, the cold (or heat), the boredom and drudgery that generally defines military service. (My Army captain brother has burst any bubbles of romanticism regarding combat.)
26. Jade said the following at 11:20 AM on Nov 7:
I am proud to be a woman, a wife, a sister, a daughter, an officer in the United States Army and an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran. I am thankful that I have the opportunity to serve this country in the capacity that I do. My job does not require me to kick down doors and dodge (too many) bullets, but I believe that by performing my duties to the highest standard, I have earned the respect of my male subordinates, peers, and superiors.
Although I absolutely do not think that women should be in the direct line of combat, women can serve well in many jobs in the military, just as they can in the civilian world. Maybe in a perfect world where men are assuming their biblical roles as protector and provider, then women would not be as likely to join the military or work a job outside the home. (As a side note, in this perfect world I wouldn’t see heartbreak in the eyes of my single, female, Christian friends as they discuss their longing to be married in the dearth of Christian men, but that’s another discussion.)
However, I am offended by people such as John Piper who get up on their soap box and beat the no women in the military drum when they themselves have never served their country in this capacity. I have great respect for Mr. Piper’s Christian teaching, but for him to say “I would want the honor of saying that no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country,” when he has not served (as far as I can tell from a few websites I checked out) is hypocritical. Perhaps he has been consumed by his ministry for all of his adult life, but has he encouraged any of his four sons to join the military? Maybe, maybe not. Same goes for all other Christian teachers who oppose women serving in the military, how many of them encourage their sons to serve in the military? I dare say from experience, statistics, and casual observation, not many.
27. Scott W said the following at 11:52 AM on Nov 7:
Piper did a good job with this article. I found it made a great case by pointing us back to Scripture and the roles of men and women. The application of timeless truth is always wonderful.
28. Miss S said the following at 12:01 PM on Nov 7:
I'm glad that this topic is coming up again ~ women are more and more going into combat, and I think it's reprehensible.
Several years ago, I remember the Independent Women's Forum (IWF)had several articles relating to the topic ~ and they featured some commentary from the Center for Military Readiness that addresses this issue. I found a Q & A on there website that hits the highlights of why women should not be in combat roles.
http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?DocID=237
Good Stuff!
29. Nancy said the following at 12:29 PM on Nov 7:
Rachael & DH made some very important points - so thank you to them!
Maybe women are in combat because in our sin ridden society where men fail to be men,women have been allowed to become more dominant and aggressive and so fighting is seen in some women's minds to be within their 'equal rights' - they have never known a man's love and protection - so they take it upon themselves to do something about a problem themselves. I am not in agreement with women going into combat but who has the clout to stop them - would they be fined for infringing their rights?
Sorry to digress, but I rather like the fitting title 'Oafs, Wimps, Flirts and Controllers' - I see how easy it is for men and women to lose sight of their God given roles and be moulded incorrectly by society around them....perhaps because (I dare to say) men ain't bein' men! :0
30. Yev said the following at 12:56 PM on Nov 7:
Louise -
Perhaps the posts are negative because the world is generally a negative place, and so the issues in and of it are as well. I'm sure there are positive things to write about, but when it comes to real life issues, we have to understand that we live in a fallen world.
Patricia -
that line of reasoning doesn't make any sense. God knew where Eve was, and He knew where Adam was just as much, yet He asked Adam because Adam was responsible for the both of them. To say that God didn't know where Adam was would be saying God is not all-knowing.
Holland -
Maybe I'm wrong but this seems to be a relevant topic. There are, after all, women in the military today. You're generalizing and putting all leaders into one group. Let's try not to judge our pastors and leaders about everything they speak about. There are certainly cases where leaders say something controversial for the sake of being controversial, but this is not one of those cases.
JB -
I guess you understood it differently, but I take the "our" and "their" to show care, not possession. it's like saying "our children" instead of "the children"
Again, to clarify - Piper was talking about the women in combat and in battle, not in the military in general. I believe there are many things women can do, as someone has already mentioned, but I don't believe combat should be one of them, even if it's physically possible.
31. Christina said the following at 1:20 PM on Nov 7:
John seems to be specifically referring to women in combat. And the people he calls cowards specifically at the end are the ones who believe its wrong for women to be in combat but don't say anything so as to save their jobs.
I.E. instead of following basic instinct to protect their womenfolk, they are choosing to avoid losing their job and letting those women die instead.
However, he does make it a point to say that the men who push women ahead into battle are also cowards.
I would really honestly like to set aside the whole debate about women and whether they are capable of it or not and actually discuss the implications on the men and the lack of leadership in the men that lead to stuff like this.
32. Resa said the following at 1:51 PM on Nov 7:
When God created Adam, he did not look around and say "hmm, he needs someone to protect". HE said "it is not good for man to be alone." that is why he created eve. and when eve was created, there was no evil in the world to protect her from, so the idea that man was created to protect woman is not based on the creation story. And after the fall, I am not aware of anything in Genisis that says that Adam is to protect eve. Piper is adding in his own ideas into the biblical text. There is nothing in the creation story or the story of the fall that supports his argument.
33. Jade said the following at 3:36 PM on Nov 7:
As an addendum to my prior post, I have now read all the thought provoking posts so far, as well as the original text of John Piper’s article and I would like to clarify a couple things. I stand by what I have already written and while I would agree with Piper if I thought that he is indeed taking issue only with women in combat, I think he might be referring to military service in general. (Mr. Piper, you out there?) If he is referring only to women serving in traditional “combat” roles ie. infantry, armor etc, I would like to point out that there are really no “front lines” anymore, all Soldiers are equally capable of picking up their weapon and shooting the enemy and all are also equally a target of said enemy.
34. Mike Theemling said the following at 3:45 PM on Nov 7:
The problem with the "military does not equal combat" idea is that it assumes (incorrectly) that the two can be mutually exclusive.
It is true that some jobs are distinctively on the "front lines". These mainly consist of rank and file ground infantry in hot zones and those in special operations like Navy SEALS.
However, as someone who used to be in the military, we were all taught that EVERY person in uniform could be called upon to take up a weapon and be in the thick of things. To the best of my knowledge, there is no "woman" clause in any military statute saying that if there were a homeland invasion ala Red Dawn that only the military men would defend the base and the miltary women would evacuate first.
Furthermore, who would make the call on what jobs constitute true "combat" or not? What about a female cargo pilot flying supplies to/from Europe to Baghdad? Or a female field medic? Or someone standing guard at a base in S. Korea? In each of these jobs, there is a very real possibility that they would be involved in combat. Past terrorist targets such as Khobar Towers clearly show that merely being stationedat a base overseas is no guarentee of safety.
Finally, there's the fallacy that John writes regarding 'hard wiring':
"Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women, period."
Let's assume for a moment that this is indeed the case (and to a certain extent I believe it is, but it doesn't necessitate that it always is the case nor that it ought to be a cardinal rule in living). If true, and if Mr. Piper is using this as the crux of his argument saying, "Because of this women should not be in combat because it's not the nature of men to follow women" then one could also say, "Women should not be in the workplace where they are in charge of any men because it is unbiblical for a woman to follow a man". Not only is this illegal and impractical, but it has little evidence in the Bible. Only in the church setting do I see anything close to an absolute "command" to women not to be in charge of men.
That being said, if women truly want to be equal with men, I would propose they have to register with Selective Service just like men who are 18 have to do (Which was used in the past as a means of being Draft eligible). In addition, that physical fitness tests be on a unified scale. Not a 'male' category and a 'female' category. But, there's idealism, and then there's reality.
35. Rhonda said the following at 4:13 PM on Nov 7:
I wouldn't want the last man on the planet to go into battle before a woman; think of future generations! He needs to procreate!
36. Adam T. said the following at 5:08 PM on Nov 7:
Put yourself in the shoes of a Taliban for a minute... see through his eyes. What do you think when you see the West sending women to war?
I think a devout Taliban man sees it as further evidence of the decadence of the West and the righteousness of his cause. I think he sees it as a sign that the West lacks the will to defend itself - after all, from his point of view, what is he going to make of a society where men stay home playing their video games while women go to their defense?
If you were in his shoes, would you see it any differently?
Just food for thought.
37. Patricia2ndPoster said the following at 5:26 PM on Nov 7:
Adam- I strongly disagree with the implications behind your message. Sure, there is oversexualization in Western culture. But having women in positions of leadership is a positive part of Western culture. Women under the Taliban had no right to an education, to work for wages, were considered the property of their fathers and wives and as such, were often beaten or even killed if they disobeyed male authority. Men who sympathesize with the Taliban will only be convinced that Western civ is not decadent when women in western culture are essentially the same as children but worse-because even children in Western culture have more rights than women in extremely conservative Islamic countries.
38. Leah said the following at 5:36 PM on Nov 7:
Resa- it was not creation which gave man the role of protecting women, that is true. But there are other passages in the New Testament which give that role to men.
39. k. said the following at 6:11 PM on Nov 7:
I think there are some good arguments against women in combat (there's probably some good arguments in favor, as well). But I'm not buying Piper's intellectual leap here between Adam being created first, and women not being allowed in combat.
And Kylie--menstruating and "camping" aren't mutually exclusive. You could also avoid the whole problem by using the pill, a la Seasonale. I think you have some good points otherwise. :)
40. Leah said the following at 7:53 PM on Nov 7:
Although this isn't that important, I think it is important to mention that Adam was not necessarily created first. It depends whether you are reading Genesis 1 or 2. In Genesis 1, God created mankind rather than man (it is important to read a direct translation).
I think that women can and should participate in combat if they want to. I'm sure that it could be incredibly life-enriching to overcome physical hindrances and make a difference. But I do agree that men should feel obligated to protect women. What I think it most important about the subject it that men need to stop being apathetic and act like men again. Indifference is highly unattractive.
41. brx said the following at 8:25 PM on Nov 7:
Thanks for your practical input, Jade & MikeT. It's good to see people with actual military experience commenting. I've only done ROTC myself but did grow up in a military family with a pretty high ranking father and a mother who used her clout to help implement various family support programs.
Regarding women in the military, my personal thoughts are: forget the socialist gender equality and right-to-serve issues please! - this is about performance under physical/mental stress and cost-effectiveness in terms of money and human lives. In general, men and women are wired differently, physically and emmotionally. There are job functions in which it may be generally beneficial to have certain genders. Are there some individuals who have the physical/emmotional ability to swap roles? Of course there are - but they comprise a small percentage and trying to accomodate their personal desires to serve in a few particular areas is just not cost effective. Military service is NOT about an individual's personal fulfillment (though that does factor into performance); it's about service first, personal desires last. I realize that has not been the experience for everyone, but that is what my ROTC officers and NCOs taught with vigor and it's what I saw modeled by my parents.
BTW, if anyone is in a college with an ROTC program, I highly recommend taking their leadership/management courses; they're open to all students and waaay better than most similar school of business courses (probably because the instructors know that lives depend on the quality of their training).
May God grant our troops' leaders wisdom, regardless of gender.
42. Abby said the following at 10:06 PM on Nov 7:
Since the Bible does not say "Women, Thou Shalt Not Serve In The Military," I find it disgusting that a civilian man would tell any woman to avoid joining the military. In my opinion, it is very wimpy for a civilian man to contribute to this argument unless he were to offer the perspective that any military service would be morally wrong irregardless of gender. I don't think John Piper has served in the military, so I really don't care what he has to say about the topic. I would rather listen to someone who has experience in the military tell me about who should or should not serve. Most civilian men probably have no idea what they are talking about when this topic is discussed. If men don't want women to serve in combat, they need to do the job themselves.
43. farmer Tom said the following at 10:26 PM on Nov 7:
But having women in positions of leadership is a positive part of Western culture.
It all boils down to this.
Do you believe God would have men lead or don't you? It appears that many of you have swallowed the feminist line, and believe that whatever a man can do a woman can do better.
Good luck with that.
44. farmer Tom said the following at 10:26 PM on Nov 7:
But having women in positions of leadership is a positive part of Western culture.
It all boils down to this.
Do you believe God would have men lead or don't you? It appears that many of you have swallowed the feminist line, and believe that whatever a man can do a woman can do better.
Good luck with that.
45. Naomi said the following at 11:01 PM on Nov 7:
Feminism is too overrated. Girl power? Sheesh... that's a worldview that's just too hyped. Grace and power, sure. But defined in the world's terms, you'll get to see the flaw.
I remember following Xena, the Warrior Princess way back. I actually like women warriors... BUT...
Let's face it. The hyped up view of strong women in leather pants and high heels a la Charlie's Angels is all Hollywood. Women in combat is 180 degrees away from this picture.
For one, we are biologically different! We have breasts and have our periods. Some of us have cramps that go with it every month. If I were a general and have to deal with that liability for a soldier, I would risk the life of other soldiers.
I'm not saying that a military battle will fail just because a woman has her period. The biological factor is for one a very plain fact that women who want to go in combat need to consider.
It's called wisdom. Wisdom comes from God.
46. Jethro said the following at 12:53 AM on Nov 8:
Look. Women have brains. Women can assess risk and reward. Women can make independent decisions. If women choose to engage in combat roles that's their perogative.
My question is this, if we deny women the right to engage in combat roles, where do we stop? Why stop in the miltary? Why should women be allowed in management positions in companies? Why should women be allowed to work at all? I mean, after all, as Piper has pointed out, God spoke to Adam first.
47. Patricia2ndPoster said the following at 6:41 AM on Nov 8:
Farmer Tom-what about Deborah? Was she not a leader? What about Mary? When the Angel came to hear, I don't remember her running to Joseph and obtaining his permission to have Jesus. I don't think there is a unilaterial ban on female leadership in the Bible. Wives are told to submit to their husbands-but ultimate submission is to God and women can certainly be leaders in the Bible. If women's roles are so restricted that we become like the Taliban, we are literally wasting half of our human potential. To me, that would be a great tragedy.
48. Leah said the following at 7:05 AM on Nov 8:
Why are people bringing up menstruation as a reason for not being in the military? I can go camping out in the middle of the bush and still handle menstruation just fine. I don't see how battle makes it any different. (NB: I'm not supporting or opposing women in battle. I'm simply saying using menstruation as an excuse is... well, I don't understand it.)
And a little possible self-defence here... the "Leah" who said Although this isn't that important, I think it is important to mention that Adam was not necessarily created first. It depends whether you are reading Genesis 1 or 2. In Genesis 1, God created mankind rather than man (it is important to read a direct translation). is not me... I am, to the best of my knowledge, the original Leah on the Boundless Line, the 19 year old Australian student studying Journalism.
And to the Leah who made the above comment: Adam was DEFINITELY made first. Genesis 1 and 2 do NOT clash with each other. Adam was made and then God said how it was not good for him to be alone, so he made woman as a companion for man. Not to mention, woman was made out of Adam's rib! Adam was unarguably the first to be created. Not to mention 1 Tim 2:13 says "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."
49. Louise said the following at 8:20 AM on Nov 8:
If the "original" nineteen year old Austalian Leah is the one who commented on "my mind" on the other thread...then let me get this straight....I'm forty two and you are nineteen and you actually think you know what is going on in my mind?
Well folks, if I die now it is perfectly fine, since I have at last truly heard everything.
50. Resa said the following at 8:53 AM on Nov 8:
Leah, Piper was making the argument that the creation story showed that men are to protect women. I was proving that it does not. I have no respect for John Piper's theology on gender roles because he clearly writes his own views into the biblical text as you have already acknowledged by saying that the creation story does not show this protection mandate. I know of a few passages that you might use to argue this mandate, but I could easily debate you on those points.
51. Carrie Lea said the following at 3:46 PM on Nov 8:
Mike Theemling and brx,
You bring up good points, regarding Selective Service and the needs of the military coming first. Far be it from me, a woman working in a male-dominated field, to say that women cannot or should not do almost anything a man does. However, our society does place a heavy emphasis on individual rights, with less attention to group rights.
The American individualist in me wants to say that while women in combat may not be a great idea, they should be allowed to do it if they so desire. On the other hand, only a few people on this thread have brought up the implications for the military.
Are women to serve alongside men, sharing the same quarters and bathrooms? Or are they to have their own female-only groups? At what point does modesty get sacrificed? (And what woman would want her military husband being in an immodest situation with other women?) What kind of training do women have to undergo to withstand not only usual torture methods, but also the possibility of rape? How do seeing the injuries and deaths of women affect the men they serve with? What are the costs, both monetary and otherwise, of accommodating women in the military or in combat? These are all questions that need to be considered, and it shouldn't be assumed that the individual right of a woman to be "fulfilled" automatically trumps the right of the military to work in the manner that it deems most efficient.
While I'm a civilian, don't think that I speak completely without experience. I have already tried and failed to meet the basic physical training requirements to join a Navy dive class. I could choose to be offended at being denied the opportunity, but I accept that the military does what it does for a reason.
52. BB said the following at 3:48 PM on Nov 8:
a change of subject but does anyone remember Andy Kaufman. Here is a quote from wikipedia on him:
"Kaufman grew up admiring professional wrestlers and the world in which they perform. For a brief time, Kaufman began wrestling women during his act and was the self-proclaimed "Inter-Gender Wrestling Champion of the World." He offered $1,000 reward to any woman who could pin him."
People laughed at this but what made it funny? He was so proud of pinning all those women but how many people were really impressed by the feats?
53. Alex C. said the following at 5:36 PM on Nov 8:
Wow, so many comments. And the article! *goes to read it* That was shorter than I expected.
hmmm.
"Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does."
I don't really like this analogy and how he applies it to his arguments because he seems to be concluding that this example implies that women should not act to protect themselves or companions if a man is around, even if it might be beneficial to do so. I would definitly commend the bravery of the man in his example, especially in the light that he knows he might not be 100% capable of defending his female companion, but I wonder, how would Piper react if "Sarah" in the example stepped forward, of her own volition, and attempted to stop the assailant? I don't think such a situation would have anything to do with "cowardice" on the man's part. The way Piper uses it seems to downplay any protective desires the woman might have for her companion (if Jason did initially step forward to protect her, and began to get beat up, should Sarah refrain from driving off the assailant because it "isn't her role", even if doing so means Jason could be injured more or killed?)
I agree with what a few of the others said, the leap Piper makes between the verses in Genesis and the idea that Women should not be in combat is one that seems tenuous to me. But the comments by brx, Mike Theeling, and Carrie also make a very good point about the workings of the Military and the practical issues surrounding Women in combat.
54. Sara said the following at 6:24 PM on Nov 8:
I can't believe that karate-Sarah example. What if Jason is a quadriplegic? Should she still just step back and let him play out his Biblical role? And if not, where do you draw the line?
Next they'll say that the husband of a women who faints in the kitchen shouldn't take a boiling-over pot off the stove because housework isn't part of his 'role'.
Opening doors for someone is one thing; in emergencies, preserve yourself! It's like the normal custom of farmers being able to milk their cows on Sundays because not milking them would hurt them.
55. Jo said the following at 3:05 AM on Nov 9:
I'm with Sara, that's a crazy example. Sarah stands back, lets Jason get knifed, and then what? If Sarah really is far better qualified to defend them, then Jason jumping in straight away like (dare I say it) an oaf is not going to help matters. I would expect in an emergency situation, that people would work together to defend themselves. Gender roles go out the window at this point.
As to the topic, I haven't thought about it enough to have a strong view. If I knew a Christian woman who wanted to be in combat, I would ask them why (as a serious question) - in fact can any answer that? I also think Mike Theemling is 100% correct when he suggests that the standard of physical fitness required should be the same for women and men. That's not a gender equality issue, it's an issue of whether someone is physically able to defend the country or not. If setting the same standard would mean that hardly any women would pass the test, then so be it, in my opinion. I'd rather see an angry woman staying at home, than the same woman doing a vital job that she cannot perform.
56. John said the following at 5:27 PM on Nov 9:
"I don't think John Piper should say anything about women, because the last time I checked...he's not a woman."
Don't have to have served to speak common sense.
Militias should be brought back. States should train citizens to defend themselves (like Switzerland, but at a state level).
Sparta, believe it or not, was more equitable with its women than Athens.
"Jason" should workout, get stronger, and learn to defend himself and "Sarah".
But sadly, "Jason" is probably like so many "men" who come through our feminised/sexualized society. Serving your country=yeah right
One night stand=you bet.
57. Leah said the following at 7:15 AM on Nov 10:
Louise- if you had read my reply on the other thread, you would know I wasn't telling you what was going on in your mind.
58. kaarina said the following at 10:02 AM on Nov 10:
So now that we've insulted not only my brother who is entering into the military (who believes women have the right to serve in military roles) but also very brave servicewomen I know personally who have served in the Russian and Israeli military as border control, stopping terrorists from entering their countries...
...I don't think most people understand the logistical absurdities of the women v. men debate of the military. In the United States, it is good and well to talk about our soldiers in combat zones and thinking we have a lot of choice about who those people should be, because we don't actually have fighting inside our country. In countries where invasion and terrorism are daily facts of life, where women are threatened in their own homes, they want to serve, to have the military expertise to defend their homes and their families, from a constant threat. Countries where women are forbidden to serve in the military, especially poor ones, give rise to women victims who cannot defend their livelihood and family.
The United States is lucky to have a small military, because we have controlled the violence in our own country. We have never had whole towns erupt into ethnic conflict... but I have friends, women, who have had to make the call between staying in their houses, or picking up a gun and going outside to try and save the lives of their friends lying in the street. Such experiences change you, and make you willing to do what is required to bring security to your community and your country. Even if that's serving in a hot zone of conflict.
The attitude of women in military service is very much tied to the actual danger women live in every day. Most people in the United States, and most developed countries, will never understand the kind of instability and danger that drives women to leave their houses and take a proactive stance in the safety of their communities.
59. BDB said the following at 10:59 PM on Nov 10:
The article wrote:
>>Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. <<
Boy, there are so many problems with this tactical situation it's hard to know where to begin.
To Kaarina's point-one of the reasons that the U.S. has no violent invaders is that the population is so heavily armed. There are something like 250 Million guns owned by private citizens in the U.S. This is compared to about 2 Million men and women in the military.
First, why are they "walking" in an unsafe area after dark? Jason should be using the drive-thru.
Second, thugs are too cowardly to work alone. As they say, trouble comes in pairs. There will be at least two of them. If the situation requires a fight, BOTH Sarah and Jason will probably need to fight.
Third, depending on the style, karate is not an ideal response to an edged weapon attack. A 100-lb Sarah will probably be seriously injured by a 200-lb assailant regardless of how many punches and kicks she gets in. True, putting up a fight may be enough to convince a potential rapist that it's not worth it and he'll leave. But remember that size is often almost as important as training.
Fourth, before fighting it's better to try to talk your way out of a situation. One way to do that is to take out your money and throw it one way - then run the other way. (Don't try this if your date is wearing heels.)
Fifth, Sarah and Jason probably have a tactical advantage. The attacker won't be expecting her to be combat-ready Jason should know Sarah's skills. (Heck, if he's dating a cop or something he should have some security training of his own.) Anyway, Jason should draw the assailant's attention, allowing Sarah to get behind him and take the guy down from behind.
Sixth, if I ever have any daughters, I'm teaching them combat tactics. I'll also encourage their participation in athletics. Should they ever be in a tactical situation, good training will help them to stay calm when the adrenaline hits them. That's a good way to stay alive, even if all you do is offer to pray for your attacker. (Oddly enough, this can work as well as fighting - it confuses them when they expect only fear.)
60. Cheryl said the following at 9:34 AM on Nov 11:
With advance stages of weaponry today women can fight in combat. Snipers ,women FBI agents, airplane pilots etc. The days of hand to hand combat will always be filled by and needed by men but not exclusively. The whole issue is moot in my opinion. Women who fill these roles are the cream of the crop and definately are not on the radar screen of patriarchs. These women are non normative. PTL and I am one of them.
BTW as a woman the bar has been set rather high for me regarding who I find masculine and most men in the church aren't even on MY radar screen.
61. Chris said the following at 2:35 PM on Nov 11:
Third, depending on the style, karate is not an ideal response to an edged weapon attack. A 100-lb Sarah will probably be seriously injured by a 200-lb assailant regardless of how many punches and kicks she gets in. True, putting up a fight may be enough to convince a potential rapist that it's not worth it and he'll leave. But remember that size is often almost as important as training.
If Sarah studied Judo, Hapkido, Aikido or other such arts, she would have the advantage. A smaller 100 lb person has a distinct advantage (if used properly) since he or she has as lower center of gravity, which is advantageous for throws. Defense is more than just about punching and kicking. It's about avoiding strikes and putting your opponent on the ground. Once you get your opponent on the ground, you've automatically got the advantage (again, if used properly) since you're on top and weight/strength advantages are greatly diminished.
As for the other points you made, these are good. When I studied Hapkido, the first "defense" I always used when being tested was to run. Simple logic: They can't hit you if you're not there. The money-throwing tactic is very smart.
62. Jethro said the following at 3:18 PM on Nov 11:
Quote "To Kaarina's point-one of the reasons that the U.S. has no violent invaders is that the population is so heavily armed. There are something like 250 Million guns owned by private citizens"
Yep! Also the reason the US has significantly more gun deaths per capita than most other countries. So really, in America, it's just as likely the assailant will have a gun and shoot both Jason and Sarah. Love that 5th amendment.
63. xeres said the following at 3:28 PM on Nov 11:
Jethro,
you mean the 2nd amendment and the issue of that amendment has more to do with the right of self-defense against invaders. I'm not sure your comment is that helpful.
64. BDB said the following at 4:42 PM on Nov 11:
Chris wrote:
>>If Sarah studied Judo, Hapkido, Aikido or other such arts, she would have the advantage.<<
Yes, but since the author specified karate, I'm assuming that is Shotokan or Tae-Kwon-Do, both of which are more focused on the person using kicking or punching. Aikido would be good if he attacked her first, but not if he attacked the guy. Of course, those with training are a lot more likely to stay calm and be able to talk their way out of a situation. When the thug expects instant fear, and instead gets calmness, sometimes that's unnerving enough to stop the attack. They may not know what you're thinking, but they know that you aren't scared and probably have an option they hadn't planned on.
Jethro wrote:
>>Yep! Also the reason the US has significantly more gun deaths per capita than most other countries.<<
Ah - but given how many guns are out there, there should be quite a bit more than there is. Massacres like Kosovo happen when only one side is armed. In that conflict, criminals and para-military folks were given guns by the ruling party to create mayhem. It's no accident that all totalitarian regimes rely on loyal paramilitaries - whether Hitler's brown shirts or Mao's red guards. Blue states - like California and New York - disarm law-abiding citizens, making them easier prey for criminals.
65. Chris Krycho said the following at 5:02 PM on Nov 11:
Jethro - that's actually not really true. Other countries with significantly stricter gun laws have higher rates of gun death (Russia and other places) from crime, not just war. Moreover, it's been repeatedly demonstrated that the higher the rate of personal gun ownership by regular citizens in a municipality, the lower the rate of violent crime, burglary, etc. in that same area. Interestingly, the areas in the US with the strictest gun laws are the areas with the highest violent crime rates - including the highest gun crime rates (Washington, D.C. being one of the best [worst?] examples).
Private gun ownership, contrary to liberal views, is not a threat to society.
Your theory goes to pieces further when you consider that the places with the highest rates of gun ownership in the world (Switzerland, for example) also have the lowest rates of gun crime.
Consider: if I, a law-abiding citizen, maintain a firearm for recreation and self-defense, I have a deterrent against a criminal who is likely to be armed. If I do not, I no longer have that deterrent - but the criminal is still likely to be armed. The criminal is already set on committing crime: he is not likely to be deterred from procuring and using a firearm to achieve that goal despite its illegality, since he is already set on committing an illegal act.
All that gun laws do are remove firearms from the hands of those who would use them responsibly and safely and leave them only in the hands of those who would use them for mischief.
66. Leah said the following at 7:32 PM on Nov 11:
Chris Krycho- I think your example with Switzerland, while I understand your point, is faulty. The Swiss do not simply own guns, but every man over 18 is conscripted and has served at least 2 years in the armed forces (I think it's 2 years, anyway). So not only do the Swiss own guns, but they are trained militarily how to use them and are also trained in military discipline, self-control and honour and respect. Almost all men in Switzerland are ex-servicemen. I think that probably has a lot to do with the low gun crime rate, not just the fact that everyone owns a gun.
I also understand your point that Other countries with significantly stricter gun laws have higher rates of gun death (Russia and other places) from crime, not just war. However, you have to think of external factors. I think Australia is probably a better parallel comparison with the US than Russia (socially). While I'm no big fan of Australia's gun laws (it does make it harder for people to shoot recreationally), a fact we can't escape is that gun crime has dropped significantly since the more stringent gun laws were enacted after the Port Arthur massacre.
67. John said the following at 8:44 PM on Nov 11:
Why even discuss with a person who believes that the right to avoid self-incrimination causes a high rate of gun deaths?
“I plead the fifth!”
“Oh yeah, eat cold steel pal!”
Bang, bang!
Let’s follow the bouncing ball of logic girls and boys.
Women should not be forced to fight in combat situations.
Women should not be deliberately put into combat situations.
A woman should not be in these situations because a man forsakes his duty to defend his country.
In this world, sadly, women (of the USA, because that is the scope of this post), will be in combat situations. That’s being realistic.
However, we should not promote or support women in combat. That’s cowardly.
Can a woman serve in this capacity? Sure
Can most women serve in this capacity? No
Do we actually need women to serve in this capacity? Of course not, we have enough well able men to do it.
Should a woman serve in this capacity? Absolutely not.
Will women serve in this capacity? Sadly, yes.
Men need to act like men to make that as infrequent as possible. The official policy should also be to avoid this as much as possible.
68. Leah said the following at 11:43 PM on Nov 11:
BDB, quick note: tae kwon do is not karate. One of my best friends does tae kwon do and she'd kill you with a death stare if she heard you call it that :P Karate is japanese, Tae Kwon Do is Korean. The main similarities are the formalisation and ranking systems. (ie. belts). I know, it's trivial, and I'm not getting upset or anything, it's just a random side issue :D
TKD is not just punches and kicks but involves its fair share of throwing too. You're certainly right when you say it's not much help against a weaponed attack, though. Unless the person doing TKD is very, very good and the person wielding the weapon is smaller, younger, or never used it before!
69. Louise said the following at 8:42 AM on Nov 12:
Leah, I read your replies on the other thread.
Telling someone "this connotates within your mind" is telling someone what is going through their mind.
70. Christina said the following at 9:09 AM on Nov 12:
Ok...here's what I got -
There's no examples of women actually fighting in the Bible (that I can think of).
Women are also hard-wired to protect, and will likely want to stand beside her husband to protect her family and play some significant role in defending it. Think Rahab - spy, Abigail - diplomat, and Michal - rescuer. All three played critical roles that put themselves in danger to protect their families or to do what was right. And I don't think they sacrificed their feminity to do it, either.
And on the subject completely off topic, the guns were used as an example of why other nations would NOT want to invade America - and I think he made a very valid point. Americans are given the right to arm themselves to protect them from their own government, but they could just as readily protect themselves from an invading government as well =p
71. Robert J Espe said the following at 9:49 AM on Nov 12:
I trained for two years (fairly intensively 2 hours a day every week day) in Pekita Tersia (Filipino martial art dealing mainly with knives) when studying the mixed martial arts. We introduced new people to knife combat with a simple saying: "There are 3 outcomes to a knife fight: you both get cut and you die, you both get cut and your opponent dies, or you both get cut and you both die". Knife fighting is horrible. There is no way to go through it unharmed.
Don't think it is easy, or that you are prepared unless your combat training specifically involved knife training and had real time drills and sparring. Karate-esque martial arts are notorious for teaching "simple" disarms that almost never work (the theory is good, but they only work on single line attacks in controlled situations). Just try one with an 8" (although anything longer than 1/2" is lethal even if your attacker is 16' away) rubber knife and someone twice your size. If the blade edge touches your skin, whatever "move" you were trying is canceled out, and that hand probably no longer works. BDB had the right plan, unless there is no other option, throw you money and run (unless you are Dan Inosanto)
72. BDB said the following at 10:38 AM on Nov 12:
Leah wrote:
>>The main similarities are the formalisation and ranking systems. (ie. belts). <<
They also train with both forms and sparring. Functionally, the training has the same components. If we want to get really technical, Ninjitsu is a hybrid because it combins everything from Shotokan through judo to weapons training. But that's minutae...
I can't let the thread die before mentioning that the average woman is a better shot than the average man...
73. BDB said the following at 12:35 PM on Nov 12:
Robert J Espe wrote:
>>(the theory is good, but they only work on single line attacks in controlled situations).<<
Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to get into a fistfight with a crazy guy with a knife. I'd want to approach the situation with something more - a jacket, a belt, pick up a stick or a rock. Sparring with a rubber knife convinced me that it's a losing proposition. Better to go with some kind of asynchronus defense. A good leather belt provides about a 2-foot reach on someone with a knife, and can be swung too fast for someone to see. They get close with the knife, they lose an eye. It's the same way a wolverine survives a tactical situation with a bear: the bear is 4 times bigger, but the wolverine is mean enough that the bear leaves because it's not worth the risk of getting hurt.
But if I was dating a cop, I'd just want to distract the guy long enough for her to pull her gun out of her purse...
74. Adam D said the following at 1:40 PM on Nov 12:
BDB
I would still run as soon as I see a knife, even if I had a 2 foot long lead pipe. The reason is anyone whose tough and unthinking enough to try to harm you with a knife anyways, might not be stopped by a good whack on the head. It's very easy for someone to just surprise you and tackle you then start stabbing. It's hard enough to throw a person off of you in wrestling, it's even harder if you're focusing on the weapon they are trying to KILL you with while trying to throw them off. Running has and always will trump any other tactic and I don't think anyone will consider you to be a wimp if you run from a knife.
75. BDB said the following at 2:54 PM on Nov 12:
Adam D wrote:
>>I would still run as soon as I see a knife, even if I had a 2 foot long lead pipe. <<
True, that wouldn't be a good tactic. It would be too heavy to swing quickly and not long enough to provide a reach advantage.
A 4-foot stick, on the other hand, would be enough to even the odds. Given the proper training, of course. In this case, the Japanese refer to it as a "jo."
But then again, a lone assailant probably wouldn't challenge a couple of people with only a knife.
76. Leah said the following at 8:42 PM on Nov 12:
Louise, you need to take in the context. I wasn't saying what was going on your mind, I was saying that the word connoted as opposed to denoted. If I was saying anything about your mind, it was simply that X cannot denote Y in your mind... because X doesn't mean Y! That's all :)
77. Leah said the following at 8:43 PM on Nov 12:
Louise- the same goes for my mind and anyone else's. X can't denote Y if X does not mean Y :)
78. Jo said the following at 9:03 AM on Nov 13:
BDB wrote: "A 4-foot stick, on the other hand, would be enough to even the odds. Given the proper training, of course. In this case, the Japanese refer to it as a "jo.""
Yep, '4-foot stick' is a pretty accurate description of me. :)