COMMENTS: 39
The New G.I. Janes: Damsel to Dominatrix
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.
Serving in combat is one of many important changes for female soldiers in the current war, according to author Carol Burke, who has studied military culture and women's place in it.
A professor at the University of California, Irvine and a former faculty member at the U.S. Naval Academy, Burke wrote a book on the military last year. Camp All-American, Hanoi Jane, and the High-and-Tight: Gender, Folklore, and Changing Military Culture drew considerable attention for its examination of military hazing rituals. Some of the very same rituals -- forming pyramids or being led on a leash, for example -- were staged at Abu Ghraib.
In a recent interview, Burke discussed Abu Ghraib and the role of women there, as well as the little-known experiences of female soldiers in Iraq and the U.S. military.
What are the dominant images of women in this war so far, and how do the images contrast with reality?
With Jessica Lynch, you have the damsel in distress, and the flip side is the dominatrix, which is Lynndie England. Although those two pictures are spun to fulfill a host of stereotypes, what you actually have in this war is a group of real women in the military doing things that are quite significant. There's a whole group of women who -- on the ground, not officially -- the soldiers refer to as the "lionesses of Iraq."
What is their role?
These are women brought in when soldiers go house to house to make inquiries or to apprehend a suspected insurgent. What the female soldier does is quiet the situation. It doesn't look like a gang rape is about to happen. The level of anxiety is diminished slightly, so these women are being used more and more.
Even though these women are not combatants, that is, they are excluded from the infantry, artillery, and armor, commanders are assessing risk, and as the risk abates they're putting in these women to go along with combat units.
These commanders are not engaged in social experiments or in equal opportunity; they are using female soldiers in this way because they're effective and because they need them. That's how military culture is transformed, on the ground.
Is the unpredictable nature of this conflict changing women's roles in the military?
The female soldiers in Iraq are not like World War II WAC and WAVES behind the scenes. The problem with this war is there really is no behind the scenes. They're being used more and more in what looks like regular combat missions. In this war of endless insurgency, women are certainly finding themselves under attack.
Jessica Lynch wasn't a combatant. She was a member of the 507th maintenance company, a company that, in a conventional war with front lines, would have been a good deal removed from the ground war, not in the middle of it.
Those in the military think the war they're fighting now is going to be the kind of war they'll be fighting in the future. For years, the Marine Corps has been training for this kind of war.
What are some other ways the Iraq war is redefining women in wartime?
In the first Gulf War, the press was preoccupied with the departure photograph, the woman leaving her children. It was the desire, not so much on part of the Pentagon but on the part of the media, to cast women as mothers who reluctantly were soldiers.
But in the buildup to Operation Iraqi Freedom, you really didn't see that. I think there is a much greater acceptance of women going to war. What was always used as an argument against women in combat was America's perceived intolerance to women coming home in body bags. Well, flag-draped coffins, whether you've got a female or male in them, are pretty much sorrowful events, and I don't think the American public feels any more sorrow for someone's daughter than for someone's son. Each loss is incredibly profound.
What else are female soldiers experiencing in this conflict in particular?
Another story to be told about women in this current war is the number claiming they've been sexually assaulted, and not by the Iraqis. That has been just appalling. Not only have they reported rapes but the military has not been responsive to their reports. Some female soldiers who were raped even report the denial of appropriate medical attention. If the military is going to post signs in female field showers cautioning women, for safety, to have a "battle buddy" while showering at night, they should, at the very least, supply medics with inexpensive rape kits.
In many cases, it's the same old problem of sexual assault in the military. Whether it's at the Air Force Academy or in the field in Iraq, a woman who reports sexual assault or sexual harassment is often sent back to work with or for the perpetrator and retaliated against by other members of the group.
The organization that has done the most to gather information on these recent assaults, a pernicious kind of gender friendly-fire, is the Miles Foundation.They also keep the statistics on domestic violence and spousal abuse involving members of the military. They testified before Congress on this issue before Abu Ghraib broke last spring.
Did Abu Ghraib document an emerging role for women in warfare, that of sexual predator?
We now know that the infamous photo of Lynndie England leading an Iraqi prisoner around on a leash was cropped and that other soldiers were part of the original scene. We also know that Pvt. Charles Graner, England's former boyfriend, captioned the photo with the quote, "This is what I make Lynndie do." Like the Iraqi prisoners, England, too, was posed, even as the Iraqis were being posed.
What's your take on reports of women interrogating captives in Guantanamo?
Reports allege that there was at least one woman interrogator who tried to sexually arouse or intimidate detainees. Released detainees reported that a woman smeared menstrual blood on the faces of conservative detainees for whom such a practice would ensure certain shame.
What other changes are you seeing for women in the military?
When I was at the Naval Academy, the top marksman for the entire brigade of midshipmen was a female English major. OK, women are quite good at controlled marksmanship. But the Army won't make them snipers because snipers hold "combat" positions, even though the Air National Guard has been sending women to sniper school since 2001. If you had women trained as snipers and allowed them to go out with a unit, you'd instantly have a hero. Everyone loves snipers because they get the guy who's about to get you. Consistently, when properly trained, military women have demonstrated their value.
Is there resistance to the changing role of women in the military?
The loud calls for women's restricted roles have come not from field commanders who have worked with women but from civilian conservatives lobbying to keep women in their places. One such group to enjoy the favor of the current administration goes by the innocuous title of the Center for Military Readiness. Founded by Phyllis Schlafly, it exists to keep women out of combat.
And how do male soldiers react to female military accomplishment or bravery?
I recently had a group of Marines come to one of my classes. I asked about the women they served with. They described most in stereotypical terms, except for one they described as really gung ho. They spoke of her in glowing terms. But in order for her to be one of them, she had to separate herself from the other women. A study on peacekeepers in Kosovo that looked at women's role in international forces found much the same thing. There's the denial of femininity in military culture anyway. It's a powerful culture in which the group rules. Who wouldn't want to have that kind of cohesion in the face of horrible possibilities?
So women are thoroughly entrenched in the military?
Yes, but the other question to ask is, are women transforming this hypermasculine culture? I would say the jury's still out on that.
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: apodapa on May 20, 2005 3:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today, the male soldiers in Iraq really ARE rapists and babykillers. I don't know what to think of the women torturing and raping Iraqi prisoners, but the whole thing is pretty damned sick, and it reflects our onw American society at large. People volunteering to be a murderer and a rapist.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: beatpunk
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: jinfante3
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: hbw
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: jinfante3
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: apodapa
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: apodapa
Comments are closed-
Posted by: churchofone on May 20, 2005 4:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ConvictedSexOffender on May 20, 2005 4:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it a bit 'quaint' almost that women are not allowed in the infantry or artillery in the U.S.A's armed forces. Women do serve in these roles in the Irish army (I am Irish) and I assume in the armies of many other 'western' countries.
I remember reading, maybe three or four years ago, a newspaper article written by a former Irish army officer on the role of women in the military. In it he (and he was a 'he') stated that special forces were trained that when confronted with a mixed group of male and female opponents they should kill the women first. This was because women were in general supposed to show qualities such as greater adherence to discipline under pressure, greater willingness to obey orders and greater willingness to sacrifice their lives than men. Consequently they were more dangerous opponents being less likely to surrender or to try and negotiate a non-violent end to the engagement. Women, he argued, in many ways could make 'better' combat troops than men.
I wonder what sort of transformation of hypermasculine culture will be created by greater involvement by women in the military. It may lead to a change in military culture but not necessarily a progressive one.
What sort of people, men or women, are attracted to military life anyway?
I find it very disheartening when so much supposedly feminist struggles are for equality with men. If men are allowed to be combat troops, Roman Catholic priests, boxers (as in the sport were people knock each other senseless), rugby players and so on – think up your own list, then women should be allowed to do this as well. Who wants to be a combat soldier, Roman Catholic priest, boxer or rugby player anyway? Sometimes maybe the argument should run the other way, if women are not allowed to do it men should not be allowed either. Maybe the world would be better off without soldiers, Roman Catholic priests – in their current model of being anyway, boxers and rugby players.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: esbuck
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: MATA
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: sarah
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: sarah
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: theywillknowusbyourabsurdity
» YOur name?
Posted by: sarah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maryelizmc on May 20, 2005 5:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe it is a dangerous indicator of the growing destructive nature of our culture. This frightens me as we become increasingly insensitive to violence, killing and subtle psychodestructive ways. The naturalness of womanly ways will be deteriorated and lost. Is this another sign of the decline of our civilization as we have known it to be?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: maryelizmc
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: maryelizmc
Posted by: dolenbee
» RE: maryelizmc
Posted by: jinfante3
» RE: maryelizmc
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hapibeli on May 20, 2005 6:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ole playing
Posted by: bettsoff
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RoguebotV on May 20, 2005 9:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The classic roles and interplay of fighting personnel have been exampled clearly in all of our historic texts.
Questions regarding the compatibility of the sexes while engaged in combat are directly related to the culture that the soldiers come from.
Right or wrong is determined by the society of those individuals and each army in history has had benefits and drawbacks due to the prevailing culture's values.
40's America had stong patriarchal values and the military of the time reflected that morality.
Today, most of us have observed 1000's of mock killings, torture, mental duress situations.
Including the personal retraining of individuals to "Societal Normal" standards that have clearly allowed the de-humanizing of opponents, winning at any cost, and jusitfication of those views with propaganda, we take on a new fanatical perspective convinced of our own "Rightness"
The point is we are pretty violent as a baseline...;<
Vigilante-ism is promoted by simple children's cartoons while we continue to remove the lessons of history from our classrooms and our lives at the expense of control over our own perceptions as P.O.V.'s become more important than HISTORY.
I ask you directly Dear Reader, have we not spent the last twenty years creating a society that values Vengence over Compassion? War over Peace? Propaganda over Truth?
Millions of hours of violent media content ranging from playground violence to snuff flicks that fuel our rage.
Our soldiers reflect the truth of what we are to the World for as we claim Peace and Truth are our light from those outlets of policy and governance, we really are about control and death to those different from us.
All Empires were/are, intolerant of any other types of societies and labored mightily to remove them or co-opt them.
We now face our own depravity as a culture and those of us enlightened enough to be reading from these pages will continue to choke on the Velvet Glove of our dictators, marvel at the loss of humanity of both sexes, and write vehement long-winded rebuttals while T.V. sucks the soul from our people and world troubles give us the stage on which we replay the violence and confusion of our own lives.
DUCK AND COVER.....;>
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Terrible Goddess
Posted by: hapibeli
Comments are closed-
Posted by: karyse on May 20, 2005 10:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
9 men + 1 woman = 1 child per year
Does that make men or women more important? Or stated another way, do we want to increase or decrease the population? If the former, put more women in combat; if the latter, more men.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: biological fact??
Posted by: theywillknowusbyourabsurdity
» RE: biological fact??
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iamnotafruittree on May 20, 2005 10:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Jealousy will not win wars!
Posted by: Armafied
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sarah on May 20, 2005 12:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem i have with all the hoopla and uproar about the female soldiers in Iraq (and their respective situations) is that they are not "regular army." i don't mind much about saving POW's... they are all victims, male or female.
BUT i do have a prob. with lindie england. in fact, i take offense. This woman is a morally reprehensible person. However, her actions are not representative of "regular army" US soldiering, whatever that means. A reservist, Lyndie England lacked the training and foresight of someone, male or female, who is pursuing a career in the military or even the betterment of her self, and therefore, made choices that were reprehensible not only to the American public, but to Army standards. I'm not damning all reservists serving in the war zones, just her and her equally idiotic prison guard compadres.
i want to lend some insights to this. even though i was raised in the army, i chose not to join as an adult. this was mostly because i knew that the military had dictums that apply not only to work environments, but to private choices as well. These included things as benign as how well we groomed our yards--our homes were as subject to inspection as any barrack. As a liberal, i was not willing to volunteer to an adulthood of inspections, and now i live happily in a paint splashed sloppy studio that looks like it was hit by a paper bomb of poetry in progress....)
continues next post
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "my insights" CONTINUED
Posted by: sarah
» MY INSTINCTS... one more page.
Posted by: sarah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jinfante3 on May 20, 2005 3:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: philosopherintraining on May 20, 2005 4:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eloise on May 21, 2005 9:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Jun 12, 2005 8:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: timtufuga on Jul 6, 2005 11:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just for paradoxical propaganda for anti-Americanism, even if it is considered inadvertant, The "War of the Worlds" has inspired the insurgents in Iraq even further with American and its Allies occupation of their soveriegn territory.
In conclusion, The special forces motto, "De Oppresso Liber", is a misnomer and an indignanty for American men of arms serving in Iraq, you are unworthy to join this noble "Corp" soldier, you should be dismissed!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: apodapa on May 20, 2005 3:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today, the male soldiers in Iraq really ARE rapists and babykillers. I don't know what to think of the women torturing and raping Iraqi prisoners, but the whole thing is pretty damned sick, and it reflects our onw American society at large. People volunteering to be a murderer and a rapist.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: beatpunk
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: jinfante3
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: hbw
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: jinfante3
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: apodapa
» RE: Another reason not to "Support the Troops"
Posted by: apodapa
Comments are closed-
Posted by: churchofone on May 20, 2005 4:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ConvictedSexOffender on May 20, 2005 4:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it a bit 'quaint' almost that women are not allowed in the infantry or artillery in the U.S.A's armed forces. Women do serve in these roles in the Irish army (I am Irish) and I assume in the armies of many other 'western' countries.
I remember reading, maybe three or four years ago, a newspaper article written by a former Irish army officer on the role of women in the military. In it he (and he was a 'he') stated that special forces were trained that when confronted with a mixed group of male and female opponents they should kill the women first. This was because women were in general supposed to show qualities such as greater adherence to discipline under pressure, greater willingness to obey orders and greater willingness to sacrifice their lives than men. Consequently they were more dangerous opponents being less likely to surrender or to try and negotiate a non-violent end to the engagement. Women, he argued, in many ways could make 'better' combat troops than men.
I wonder what sort of transformation of hypermasculine culture will be created by greater involvement by women in the military. It may lead to a change in military culture but not necessarily a progressive one.
What sort of people, men or women, are attracted to military life anyway?
I find it very disheartening when so much supposedly feminist struggles are for equality with men. If men are allowed to be combat troops, Roman Catholic priests, boxers (as in the sport were people knock each other senseless), rugby players and so on – think up your own list, then women should be allowed to do this as well. Who wants to be a combat soldier, Roman Catholic priest, boxer or rugby player anyway? Sometimes maybe the argument should run the other way, if women are not allowed to do it men should not be allowed either. Maybe the world would be better off without soldiers, Roman Catholic priests – in their current model of being anyway, boxers and rugby players.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: esbuck
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: MATA
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: sarah
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: sarah
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: This issue is very confusing
Posted by: theywillknowusbyourabsurdity
» YOur name?
Posted by: sarah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maryelizmc on May 20, 2005 5:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe it is a dangerous indicator of the growing destructive nature of our culture. This frightens me as we become increasingly insensitive to violence, killing and subtle psychodestructive ways. The naturalness of womanly ways will be deteriorated and lost. Is this another sign of the decline of our civilization as we have known it to be?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: maryelizmc
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: maryelizmc
Posted by: dolenbee
» RE: maryelizmc
Posted by: jinfante3
» RE: maryelizmc
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hapibeli on May 20, 2005 6:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: ole playing
Posted by: bettsoff
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RoguebotV on May 20, 2005 9:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The classic roles and interplay of fighting personnel have been exampled clearly in all of our historic texts.
Questions regarding the compatibility of the sexes while engaged in combat are directly related to the culture that the soldiers come from.
Right or wrong is determined by the society of those individuals and each army in history has had benefits and drawbacks due to the prevailing culture's values.
40's America had stong patriarchal values and the military of the time reflected that morality.
Today, most of us have observed 1000's of mock killings, torture, mental duress situations.
Including the personal retraining of individuals to "Societal Normal" standards that have clearly allowed the de-humanizing of opponents, winning at any cost, and jusitfication of those views with propaganda, we take on a new fanatical perspective convinced of our own "Rightness"
The point is we are pretty violent as a baseline...;<
Vigilante-ism is promoted by simple children's cartoons while we continue to remove the lessons of history from our classrooms and our lives at the expense of control over our own perceptions as P.O.V.'s become more important than HISTORY.
I ask you directly Dear Reader, have we not spent the last twenty years creating a society that values Vengence over Compassion? War over Peace? Propaganda over Truth?
Millions of hours of violent media content ranging from playground violence to snuff flicks that fuel our rage.
Our soldiers reflect the truth of what we are to the World for as we claim Peace and Truth are our light from those outlets of policy and governance, we really are about control and death to those different from us.
All Empires were/are, intolerant of any other types of societies and labored mightily to remove them or co-opt them.
We now face our own depravity as a culture and those of us enlightened enough to be reading from these pages will continue to choke on the Velvet Glove of our dictators, marvel at the loss of humanity of both sexes, and write vehement long-winded rebuttals while T.V. sucks the soul from our people and world troubles give us the stage on which we replay the violence and confusion of our own lives.
DUCK AND COVER.....;>
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Terrible Goddess
Posted by: hapibeli
Comments are closed-
Posted by: karyse on May 20, 2005 10:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
9 men + 1 woman = 1 child per year
Does that make men or women more important? Or stated another way, do we want to increase or decrease the population? If the former, put more women in combat; if the latter, more men.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: biological fact??
Posted by: theywillknowusbyourabsurdity
» RE: biological fact??
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iamnotafruittree on May 20, 2005 10:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Jealousy will not win wars!
Posted by: Armafied
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sarah on May 20, 2005 12:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem i have with all the hoopla and uproar about the female soldiers in Iraq (and their respective situations) is that they are not "regular army." i don't mind much about saving POW's... they are all victims, male or female.
BUT i do have a prob. with lindie england. in fact, i take offense. This woman is a morally reprehensible person. However, her actions are not representative of "regular army" US soldiering, whatever that means. A reservist, Lyndie England lacked the training and foresight of someone, male or female, who is pursuing a career in the military or even the betterment of her self, and therefore, made choices that were reprehensible not only to the American public, but to Army standards. I'm not damning all reservists serving in the war zones, just her and her equally idiotic prison guard compadres.
i want to lend some insights to this. even though i was raised in the army, i chose not to join as an adult. this was mostly because i knew that the military had dictums that apply not only to work environments, but to private choices as well. These included things as benign as how well we groomed our yards--our homes were as subject to inspection as any barrack. As a liberal, i was not willing to volunteer to an adulthood of inspections, and now i live happily in a paint splashed sloppy studio that looks like it was hit by a paper bomb of poetry in progress....)
continues next post
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "my insights" CONTINUED
Posted by: sarah
» MY INSTINCTS... one more page.
Posted by: sarah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jinfante3 on May 20, 2005 3:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: philosopherintraining on May 20, 2005 4:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eloise on May 21, 2005 9:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Jun 12, 2005 8:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: timtufuga on Jul 6, 2005 11:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just for paradoxical propaganda for anti-Americanism, even if it is considered inadvertant, The "War of the Worlds" has inspired the insurgents in Iraq even further with American and its Allies occupation of their soveriegn territory.
In conclusion, The special forces motto, "De Oppresso Liber", is a misnomer and an indignanty for American men of arms serving in Iraq, you are unworthy to join this noble "Corp" soldier, you should be dismissed!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Beer Battles: Workers in Belgium Take on Brewing Giant
White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well




