Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Training From America's Army Game Saved a Life

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the learning-is-half-the-battle dept.

The Military 379

russoc4 writes "Most people who play the United States Army's freeware FPS sit through training simulations so that they may be able to get into the action and rack up some kills. The medic skills learned in the training allow you to heal teammates in the game, but it seems that they also apply in real life situations. According to Wired and the America's Army forums, 'a North Carolina man who saw an SUV flip and roll on a highway last November was able to provide medical aid to the victims with skills he learned from the America's Army.'" See? We learn things from videogames! Feign Death works sometimes, too.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I am black (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119456)

Does that make me a NIGGER?

Re:I am black (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120192)

Yes. Yes it does.

Yeah! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119462)

Suck on THAT Jack Thompson.

LOOK! (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119648)

We have issued propaganda, that validates the production of our propaganda!

Now, "this is your rifle..."

YES!!! (5, Funny)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119468)

Now I have a valid excuse to play violent games! Take that you game banning politicians!

And yes I am being serious.

Re:YES!!! (4, Funny)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119518)

America's Army also helped me learn the exact angle at which to fire a 203 as soon as I come out of a tunnel near the bridge to hit the guys getting out of the convoy on the other side! And to close doors in people's faces if I think they have a grenade! And always fire machine guns into vents if I think there might be movement! AA is incredibly educational.

Re:YES!!! (5, Funny)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119570)

Why did he have to go through all that trouble? Were they too lazy to respawn, just like everybody else? Bah.

Re:YES!!! (5, Informative)

Heembo (916647) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120510)

Unfortunately, you do not respawn in AA. Also, even after you get shot once, you start to bleed and aiming is tougher. It's easy to die.

Re:YES!!! (5, Funny)

Valar (167606) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119646)

Everyone knows that if the SUV driver hadn't learned to drive from GTA, then the vehicle wouldn't have flipped in the first place.

Re:YES!!! (5, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120280)

It wasn't the driving itself so much as managing the four screaming kids, three cell phones, two GPS and the latte which triggered the impromptu rendition of "When the Touaregs Broke Free"


(apologies to Roger Waters)

Re:YES!!! (0, Redundant)

IntergalacticWalrus (720648) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119712)

What game? America's Army is US Army propaganda disguised as a purty game.

And yes I am being serious.

Re:YES!!! (2, Funny)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119992)

I pretty sure everyone understands that, however that fact still does not decrease it's awesomeness.

Re:YES!!! (1)

Higaran (835598) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119950)

What do you have to say about that Jack Thompson?

Re:YES!!! (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120406)

Now I have a valid excuse to play violent games!

No. Now they have a valid excuse to ban violent games. I can hear it now: "We've been trying to tell you for years that doing something in a game can teach you how to do it real life. Today it was someone who learned how to save a life. Tomorrow it will be someone who learned how to take it."

The worst part is they kind of have a point. Every time violence in games comes up, our first counter-argument has always been that games and reality are different and the skills don't translate across. So, what do we say now? It seems like we have a choice between claiming that this guy did not learn first aid from a video game, or that people only learn good skills from games. Both of those ring pretty hollow.

And yes I am being serious.

Sadly, so am I.

And people say you can't learn anything from games (4, Insightful)

Invidious (106932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119488)

See? Things like this are what make that MMO that NASA's considering developing less-than-ridiculous.

Re:And people say you can't learn anything from ga (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119796)

Do you think when that gets off the ground we'll be able to learn how to cure the space clap and other extraterrestrial sexually transmitted diseases? It is something that seems very important... at least according to Star Trek and other Slashdot fare. And, it might make anal probes and the goatse guy less scary.

Re:And people say you can't learn anything from ga (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119966)

just in case a civilian needs to emergency land a space shuttle?

Re:And people say you can't learn anything from ga (1)

ma1wrbu5tr (1066262) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120132)

"MMO that NASA's considering"

Link, please?

Re:And people say you can't learn anything from ga (1)

Invidious (106932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120226)

See yesterday's /.

Don't try this at home (5, Insightful)

FlatCatInASlatVat (828700) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119500)

And if anything goes wrong, the guy AND the game makers will get sued for millions.

Good Samaritan laws (2, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119546)

It's usually pretty tough to sue someone for trying to help out.

Re:Good Samaritan laws (2, Insightful)

CautionaryX (1061226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120094)

Too bad people can sue you for anything these days... and win.

Re:Don't try this at home (2, Insightful)

Isaac-Lew (623) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119560)

I would like to think that a) North Carolina has a Good Samaritan law [wikipedia.org] and b) it would apply in this instance.

Re:Don't try this at home (2, Interesting)

BadHaggis (1179673) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119604)

And if anything goes wrong, the guy AND the game makers will get sued for millions.

As far as rendering first aid to an accident victim, most states have a Good Samaritan law which exempts the person trying to render first aid from legal recourse. The game maker probably has some extremely small print disclaimer somewhere which states that they can not be held liable for anything in or resulting from participating in the game. It wouldn't suprise me if the disclaimer probably states something along the lines of 'procedures learned in the game should not be tried in real life.'

Re:Don't try this at home (3, Informative)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119734)

It normally applies if you are certified in First Aid/CPR/AED.

There are limits to what a non-certified person can do. At least thats I'm taught when I get re-certified every year, that it will prevent you from being sued under the good samaritan law, in Indiana at least.

Re:Don't try this at home (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119998)

Right. I'm "certified" for first aid but at a lower level and have no idea how I'd react in an emergency like this type of situation. I like to think that I wouldn't lock up and hopefully be able to find someone more capable than myself.

Re:Don't try this at home (3, Interesting)

besalope (1186101) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120134)

Yet if you're "certified" and identify that at an accident you become liable for the victims until EMS or professional aid arrives. If something happens to them (death or worse injury) whether or not it's your fault, your balls are still on the line. You can and most likely will be sued. This is why off-duty ems and doctors aren't always willing to respond to nearby incidents. Sure it'd be a nice fantasy world where we could help everyone and be safe, but this is America... Land of the Sued.

Re:Don't try this at home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119704)

Good Samaritan laws dont hold up in court if youre a Medical Professional. Ie Nurse, Doctor.

Most people (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119520)

Most people who play the United States Army's freeware FPS sit through training simulations so that they may be able to get into the action and rack up some kills. The medic skills learned in the training allow you to heal teammates in the game, but it seems that they also apply in real life situations. According to Wired and the America's Army forums, 'a North Carolina man who saw an SUV flip and roll on a highway last November was able to provide medical aid to the victims with skills he learned from OH MY GOD THERE'S SHIT COMING OUT OF MY EYES

Propaganda (3, Interesting)

david_craig (892495) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119522)

To me this seems like a propaganda story. Especially considering that the article mentions that this story comes from a press release.

All in the name of making an army recruitment tool seem like a benefit to society.

Re:Propaganda (1, Troll)

Cromac (610264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119562)

Of course it comes from a press release, do you think that ABC/CBS/CNN/etc would ever print something positive about either the military or a recruitment tool?

Re:Propaganda (1)

bball99 (232214) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119886)

+1

eff the mods!

ooh rah!

Re:Propaganda (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119680)

you're talking about the same media that will cover thousands of homicides a year without fail but barely makes a peep about hundreds of thousands people using firearms in self defense situations annually. what do you think the real chances are of a story like this making the mainstream media?
 
don't come off like one of those morons who actually thinks the news prints/broadcasts every noteworthy story they get. you know damn well that the mainstream media pigeonholes stories as policy and not as an exception.
 
look at slashdot: nearly everything microsoft that is posted here is negative and yet if a six man office in cuba adopts linux it's treated like a major victory. sure, there's no bias here. why didn't we see a front page article about my company abandoning our linux servers in 2006? we are a fortune 50 company after all.

Re:Propaganda (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120038)

Note how all replies to this post are marked as "Troll". Seems to me that the parent is a troll or at least flamebait.

Re:Propaganda (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120128)

I find it quite suspicious that the guy who helped out is the person quoted as saying that he saved a life.

Normally in these types of stories, it's the medical professionals who treat the victim afterwards which are quoted as saying "Without this person's help, the victim would not be alive today." It carries some weight, because they're professionals, and they should know.

With this story, we have the guy himself saying it. He admits himself he's no healthcare professional - we're supposed to trust his judgment on how valuable his help was? Besides, what's he going to say? - "Actually, all the stuff I did had no bearing on the victim's survival. I was pretty worthless out there." or even "Trying to emulate A.A., I actually got stuff wrong, and actually made the victim's chances for survival worse. It would have been much better just to wait for the trained medical professionals to come. Sorry."

Although what he did sounds like reasonable medical care (I'm no doctor), I don't think you can leap to the conclusion that without America's Army, the person in the SUV would be dead/disabled. I'd like a third party's opinion on it, thank you.

So... (2, Insightful)

ChePibe (882378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120330)

Is the argument then that military recruiting is a detriment to society? Would you prefer conscription?

Re:So... (1)

david_craig (892495) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120508)

My argument was not about the military recruitment, but about the whether the article was newsworthy.

Re:Propaganda (1)

strathmeyer (208375) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120378)

Well, it's not a press release, it's "according to the video game publisher", which really means posting to their webforum the complete text of a newspaper article (http://forum.americasarmy.com/viewtopic.php?t=271086 [americasarmy.com] ) and the gamer in question also appears to be posting in the thread, so can't we just feel good about this?

By that logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120394)

By that logic, everything the media says about video games causing violence and being murder simulators is true cause its doesn't come from the government.

Lawsuits? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119526)

While there are places in the rest of the world where law requires you to help anyone involved in an accident, I thought this was different in USA.
I had the impression that people don't usually help others over there because they just get sued by the family of the victims for not providing proper medical care.
Does the non-helping part have anything to do with real-life situations over there or not? Do people just call 911 and move along?

Re:Lawsuits? (5, Informative)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119564)

In the US - and elsewhere - most people have no clue how to help a car accident victim and any attempt by an untrained individual to help is invariably counter-productive.

The best thing to do is to stop, observe, and call 911. Trying to do anything else in a car accident situation is almost always going to cause more harm than good.

And in the US, most states have good samaritan laws so that if you are acting in good faith, you are not liable. A few places have laws that compel you to render assistance as well, but they are normally only enforced on TV shows like Seinfeld.

Re:Lawsuits? (1)

naturalog (1123935) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119668)

But keep in mind that if you're a doctor you're obligated to stop and provide help and the good samaritan laws generally don't apply because you've had sufficient medical training.

Re:Lawsuits? (1)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119918)

Actually, they do apply to doctors as well. Acting in good faith to the best of their abilities..

Re:Lawsuits? (2)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120048)

But keep in mind that if you're a doctor you're obligated to stop and provide help and the good samaritan laws generally don't apply because you've had sufficient medical training.
Well, hopefully one's extensive medical training would have explained a medical professional's responsibility in that kind of situation.

"Doctor, aren't you going to help?"

"No, ma'am, some guy on slashdot said I didn't have to."

- RG>

Re:Lawsuits? (5, Informative)

dschl (57168) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119844)

In the US - and elsewhere - most people have no clue how to help a car accident victim and any attempt by an untrained individual to help is invariably counter-productive. The best thing to do is to stop, observe, and call 911. Trying to do anything else in a car accident situation is almost always going to cause more harm than good.
That is so wrong that I am almost speechless (luckily I can still type). The skills you learn in a basic (one day) first aid course can make a huge difference as those courses train you to:
  • Assess the incident scene and hazards - is it safe to help / is further harm going to take place to the patients
  • Ensure that the victim does not move - that can cause more injury, especially in a crash where spinal trauma is expected, such as any vehicle collision. They may also be able to stabilize the person to prevent accidental movement.
  • Check vital signs and if airway, breathing or circulation is not present, clear the airway / perform artificial repsiration / CPR as necessary.
  • Manage a major bleed

The above isn't as much care as a paramedic or hospital can provide, but good initial response is critical for the safety and health of the victim. If your airway is blocked and you are not breathing, you're facing brain damage within 5 minutes. If you get moved improperly when you have a spinal injury, you're more likely to end up in a wheelchair.

I spent 3 years as a volunteer ski patroller, and 3 years as a volunteer firefighter for a department which averaged a few first medical response calls a week. Sure, I've received a lot more training in the past than a one day course can provide - just my spinal management ticket alone took me a weekend. However, anyone with a recent one day first aid training course can be ready to stop a major bleed, apply CPR, and monitor vital signs so that paramedics know if the victim's condition is deteriorating. Most importantly of all, a trained individual can prevent some stupid and misguided untrained know-it-all (and many such idiots exist) from doing something stupid such as improperly moving a patient with a potential spinal injury, etc.

I strongly believe that everyone should at least have a basic level of first aid training, and carry a small first aid kit in their cars. I carry a lot more than a basic kit, but it provides me a higher level of comfort knowing that I'll have both the tools and the training that I need in event of an emergency. There is nothing sadder to hear than the story of parents whose child died from an incident that basic first aid training could have managed, but they either stood by helplessly, or even worse, exacerbated the situation with their improper efforts to help their child.

Re:Lawsuits? (0, Flamebait)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119960)

Not only are you wrong, but you're answer is dangerous.

I strongly believe that everyone should at least have a basic level of first aid training

And almost no one does. And what someone who either doesn't know what they are doing or did know and has forgotten would do more than likely will make the situation worse.

In the event of a car accident, the first thing the professionals do (and I am one, and you are not), is to stabalize the spinal cord. The first thing an untrained person would probably try to do is drag the person from the car, possibly killing them in the process.

Re:Lawsuits? (1)

mindwhip (894744) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120176)

You really need to read peoples posts properly before attacking them...

any attempt by an untrained individual to help is invariably counter-productive.
So after a 1 day training course your are still 'untrained'?

I agree fully with you that all people, everywhere, should be trained to a basic level of first aid, even as far as making it a compulsory part of the school curriculum, learning to drive, or something along those lines that most people would not be able to avoid doing... However the point the grandparent was making is most people have no training AT ALL, and would probably try and pull the person from the car and do irreparable damage to the victim's spine, or worse. If you have had absolutely zero training at all you probably will do more harm than good unless you are either really, really, lucky or really, really, brilliant and should have been a doctor instead of a delivery driver....

Yes you can learn things (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119540)

The other day it was late at night and my car broke down. I had forgotten my phone and wallet, and needless to say I was SOL. But thanks to my "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" training, I quickly dispatched an old lady in a station wagon who stopped at a nearby traffic signal, and drove home. Thanks "Rock Star", you saved my a$$.

WTF? (0)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119556)

America's Army is about squad tactics. About the only time you save a life is when you avoid shooting a teammate. This article makes NO sense to me, unless there's something about the later versions of AA that I don't know about.

Re:WTF? (4, Informative)

MicktheMech (697533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119598)

The training missions to be able to play as a medic are simulated first aid lectures. They have nothing to do with gameplay itself. It's an illustrated presentation and goes through things like how to dress a wound. Having gone through them, this news does make sense. I have to say that the AA training gave me a much better idea about how to approach somebody in shock than I knew before. I can only assume that the lessons are accurate.

Re:WTF? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119828)

given what the purpose of the game is, they should be...

Re:WTF? (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119678)

Well, apparently you can sign up for some advanced field training, where you will learn all those advanced skills lacking in this version.

Basic First Aid (4, Insightful)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119558)

Everyone should know basic first aid techniques. They aren't difficult and can make a big difference in an emergency.

At least learn how to control bleeding and perform CPR.

Re:Basic First Aid (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119834)

Right now I've only walked over those white boxes with the red cross on them, and it's only gotten me bonus health points. Only recently I've discovered the black box gives me Berserker! mode. What is this America's Army you speak of?

Re:Basic First Aid (3, Informative)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120032)

Indeed, and don't learn them (exclusively) from a video game. Learn them from a professional, who will also tell you your legal rights, responsibilities, and limitations as a first aid provider.

The headline could just have been "man sued for improperly using first aid techniques he learned from a video game".

- RG>

Re:Basic First Aid (1)

teg (97890) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120220)

The headline could just have been "man sued for improperly using first aid techniques he learned from a video game".

Can you be sued for e.g. trying to stop heavy bleeding or doing CPR in the US? And if so, can you be sued if you don't? (e.g. because you're afraid to be sued)

Re:Basic First Aid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120432)

>Can you be sued for e.g. trying to stop heavy bleeding or doing CPR in the US?

In the US, you can take a complaint on any matter before a court, to have it decided in a legal venue.
In most states, you can have a hearing (judge and jury trial) on *anything*.

So the answer you are fishing for is "yes" but it does not mean what you might want it to mean.
Think about it in terms of "Everyone having recourse to the law" instead of "people needing protection from other litigious people." Do you want to give up your rights in order to allow someone to save your life? That is problematic on a number of levels.

If you give up the right to seek damages, how can you be specific about what is "CPR?" Where do you draw the line? How do you not exploit this in a way that legalizes assault?

Re:Basic First Aid (3, Informative)

plover (150551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120456)

Technically, you can be sued for anything in this country. You could be sued for trying to stop the bleeding, or you could be sued for standing by and doing nothing.

However, if you are going to sue for a stupid reason, your lawyer should be responsible for telling you that you are filing a frivolous case, and not to pursue it. Most lawyers wont take a paper-thin case, but some would rather try for the money. Pursuing frivolous lawsuits is a black mark against them, and if they do it too often they risk being disbarred.

Re:Basic First Aid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120124)

Isn't first aid training required to get a driving license in the US? It is in most - probably all - countries in the EU, but I personally think that's not enough, since after 15 years of using essentially nothing I've learned there, I;ve forgotten most of it.

Re:Basic First Aid (1)

The Iso (1088207) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120282)

When I took driver's education in high school (which is not a requirement for a license), we were shown a film going over what to do at the scene of an accident, but I don't think it was covered on the knowledge test.

Re:Basic First Aid (1)

IdolizingStewie (878683) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120310)

No, it's not. At least not in NC.

I believe it (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119566)

The first aid training missions actually do cover some first aid basics that could save a life if its something simple enough.

Let's just hope... (5, Funny)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119576)

He didn't go through sniper school too

Depends on the state (2, Informative)

Lt.Hawkins (17467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119580)

We have Good Samaritan laws that shield good samaritans acting in good faith from lawsuits.

Re:Depends on the state (4, Informative)

xigxag (167441) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119798)

In the US, anybody can be sued, and probably will be sued if their actions may in any way have contributed to someone's death. Good Samaritan laws only mean that after they've gone through the expense and humiliation of defending themselves, if a jury finds that they acted in good faith, they can't be held liable. N.B., outside of North America, Good Samaritan laws [wikipedia.org] usually denote an affirmative responsibility to assist someone in need in an emergency situation (as well as the pursuant lack of liability therefrom).

Re:Depends on the state (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120412)

I recall an ambulance officer's anecdote here (Aust) about a man who was giving CPR to a woman.

The woman was blessed with particularly sizeable 'lungs' and the man had to remove her over the shoulder boulder holder to get them out of the way (if anyone here had actually experienced boobs, you'd know they're mostly squishy and would absorb a lot of the energy from the CPR, rendering it useless).

This one man is the sole reason that the woman is alive today, and she likely wouldn't be if he hadn't flopped her titties out. He rendered assistance until the paramedics arrived and took over.

The fucking ingrateful bitch took him to court, sued him for exposing her breasts and a couple of other things to do with touching her cans and won damages for the humiliation of said events.

ArMY sCUM (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119602)

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.

It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.

The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can't relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings -- hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt -- and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn't.

Although completely physical, the male is unfit even for stud service. Even assuming mechanical proficiency, which few men have, he is, first of all, incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but instead is eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity, feelings rooted in male nature, which the most enlightened training can only minimize; second, the physical feeling he attains is next to nothing; and third, he is not empathizing with his partner, but is obsessed with how he's doing, turning in an A performance, doing a good plumbing job. To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo. It's often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure.

Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he's lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim through a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He'll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity. Why? Relieving physical tension isn't the answer, as masturbation suffices for that. It's not ego satisfaction; that doesn't explain screwing corpses and babies.

Completely egocentric, unable to relate, empathize or identify, and filled with a vast, pervasive, diffuse sexuality, the male is pyschically passive. He hates his passivity, so he projects it onto women, defines the make as active, then sets out to prove that he is (`prove that he is a Man'). His main means of attempting to prove it is screwing (Big Man with a Big Dick tearing off a Big Piece). Since he's attempting to prove an error, he must `prove' it again and again. Screwing, then, is a desperate compulsive, attempt to prove he's not passive, not a woman; but he is passive and does want to be a woman.

Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, to become female. He attempts to do this by constantly seeking out, fraternizing with and trying to live through an fuse with the female, and by claiming as his own all female characteristics -- emotional strength and independence, forcefulness, dynamism, decisiveness, coolness, objectivity, assertiveness, courage, integrity, vitality, intensity, depth of character, grooviness, etc -- and projecting onto women all male traits -- vanity, frivolity, triviality, weakness, etc. It should be said, though, that the male has one glaring area of superiority over the female -- public relations. (He has done a brilliant job of convincing millions of women that men are women and women are men). The male claim that females find fulfillment through motherhood and sexuality reflects what males think they'd find fulfilling if they were female.

Women, in other words, don't have penis envy; men have pussy envy. When the male accepts his passivity, defines himself as a woman (males as well as females thing men are women and women are men), and becomes a transvestite he loses his desire to screw (or to do anything else, for that matter; he fulfills himself as a drag queen) and gets his dick chopped off. He then achieves a continuous diffuse sexual feeling from `being a woman'. Screwing is, for a man, a defense against his desire to be female. He is responsible for:

War: The male's normal compensation for not being female, namely, getting his Big Gun off, is grossly inadequate, as he can get it off only a very limited number of times; so he gets it off on a really massive scale, and proves to the entire world that he's a `Man'. Since he has no compassion or ability to empathize or identify, proving his manhood is worth an endless amount of mutilation and suffering and an endless number of lives, including his own -- his own life being worthless, he would rather go out in a blaze of glory than to plod grimly on for fifty more years.

Niceness, Politeness, and `Dignity': Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit. Overwhelmed by a sense of animalism and deeply ashamed of it; wanting, not to express himself, but to hide from others his total physicality, total egocentricity, the hate and contempt he feels for other men, and to hide from himself the hate and contempt he suspects other men feel for him; having a crudely constructed nervous system that is easily upset by the least display of emotion or feeling, the male tries to enforce a `social' code that ensures perfect blandness, unsullied by the slightest trace or feeling or upsetting opinion. He uses terms like `copulate', `sexual congress', `have relations with' (to men sexual relations is a redundancy), overlaid with stilted manners; the suit on the chimp.

Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society: There is no human reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most. All non-creative jobs (practically all jobs now being done) could have been automated long ago, and in a moneyless society everyone can have as much of the best of everything as she wants. But there are non-human, male reasons for wanting to maintain the money system:

      1. Pussy. Despising his highly inadequate self, overcome with intense anxiety and a deep, profound loneliness when by his empty self, desperate to attach himself to any female in dim hopes of completing himself, in the mystical belief that by touching gold he'll turn to gold, the male craves the continuous companionship of women. The company of the lowest female is preferable to his own or that of other men, who serve only to remind him of his repulsiveness. But females, unless very young or very sick, must be coerced or bribed into male company.
      2. Supply the non-relating male with the delusion of usefulness, and enable him to try to justify his existence by digging holes and then filling them up. Leisure time horrifies the male, who will have nothing to do but contemplate his grotesque self. Unable to relate or to love, the male must work. Females crave absorbing, emotionally satisfying, meaningful activity, but lacking the opportunity or ability for this, they prefer to idle and waste away their time in ways of their own choosing -- sleeping, shopping, bowling, shooting pool, playing cards and other games, breeding, reading, walking around, daydreaming, eating, playing with themselves, popping pills, going to the movies, getting analyzed, traveling, raising dogs and cats, lolling about on the beach, swimming, watching TV, listening to music, decorating their houses, gardening, sewing, nightclubbing, dancing, visiting, `improving their minds' (taking courses), and absorbing `culture' (lectures, plays, concerts, `arty' movies). Therefore, many females would, even assuming complete economic equality between the sexes, prefer living with males or peddling their asses on the street, thus having most of their time for themselves, to spending many hours of their days doing boring, stultifying, non-creative work for someone else, functioning as less than animals, as machines, or, at best -- if able to get a `good' job -- co-managing the shitpile. What will liberate women, therefore, from male control is the total elimination of the money-work system, not the attainment of economic equality with men within it.
      3. Power and control. Unmasterful in his personal relations with women, the male attains to masterfulness by the manipulation of money and everything controlled by money, in other words, of everything and everybody.
      4. Love substitute. Unable to give love or affection, the male gives money. It makes him feel motherly. The mother gives milk; he gives bread. He is the Breadwinner.
      5. Provide the male with a goal. Incapable of enjoying the moment, the male needs something to look forward to, and money provides him with an eternal, never-ending goal: Just think of what you could do with 80 trillion dollars -- invest it! And in three years time you'd have 300 trillion dollars!!!
      6. Provide the basis for the male's major opportunity to control and manipulate -- fatherhood.

Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity): Mother wants what's best for her kids; Daddy only wants what's best for Daddy, that is peace and quiet, pandering to his delusion of dignity (`respect'), a good reflection on himself (status) and the opportunity to control and manipulate, or, if he's an `enlightened' father, to `give guidance'. His daughter, in addition, he wants sexually -- he givers her hand in marriage; the other part is for him. Daddy, unlike Mother, can never give in to his kids, as he must, at all costs, preserve his delusion of decisiveness, forcefulness, always-rightness and strength. Never getting one's way leads to lack of self-confidence in one's ability to cope with the world and to a passive acceptance of the status quo. Mother loves her kids, although she sometimes gets angry, but anger blows over quickly and even while it exists, doesn't preclude love and basic acceptance. Emotionally diseased Daddy doesn't love his kids; he approves of them -- if they're `good', that is, if they're nice, `respectful', obedient, subservient to his will, quiet and not given to unseemly displays of temper that would be most upsetting to Daddy's easily disturbed male nervous system -- in other words, if they're passive vegetables. If they're not `good', he doesn't get angry -- not if he's a modern, `civilized' father (the old-fashioned ranting, raving brute is preferable, as he is so ridiculous he can be easily despised) -- but rather express disapproval, a state that, unlike anger, endures and precludes a basic acceptance, leaving the kid with the feeling of worthlessness and a lifelong obsession wit being approved of; the result is fear of independent thought, as this leads to unconventional, disapproved of opinions and way of life.

For the kid to want Daddy's approval it must respect Daddy, and being garbage, Daddy can make sure that he is respected only by remaining aloof, by distantness, by acting on the precept of `familiarity breeds contempt', which is, of course, true, if one is contemptible. By being distant and aloof, he is able to remain unknown, mysterious, and thereby, to inspire fear (`respect').

Disapproval of emotional `scenes' leads to fear of strong emotion, fear of one's own anger and hatred. Fear of anger and hatred combined with a lack of self-confidence in one's ability to cope with and change the world, or even to affect in the slightest way one's own destiny, leads to a mindless belief that the world and most people in it are nice and the most banal, trivial amusements are great fun and deeply pleasurable.

The affect of fatherhood on males, specifically, is to make them `Men', that is, highly defensive of all impulses to passivity, faggotry, and of desires to be female. Every boy wants to imitate his mother, be her, fuse with her, but Daddy forbids this; he is the mother; he gets to fuse with her. So he tells the boy, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, to not be a sissy, to act like a `Man'. The boy, scared shitless of and `respecting' his father, complies, and becomes just like Daddy, that model of `Man'-hood, the all-American ideal -- the well-behaved heterosexual dullard.

The effect of fatherhood on females is to make them male -- dependent, passive, domestic, animalistic, insecure, approval and security seekers, cowardly, humble, `respectful' of authorities and men, closed, not fully responsive, half-dead, trivial, dull, conventional, flattened-out and thoroughly contemptible. Daddy's Girl, always tense and fearful, uncool, unanalytical, lacking objectivity, appraises Daddy, and thereafter, other men, against a background of fear (`respect') and is not only unable to see the empty shell behind the facade, but accepts the male definition of himself as superior, as a female, and of herself, as inferior, as a male, which, thanks to Daddy, she really is.

It is the increase of fatherhood, resulting from the increased and more widespread affluence that fatherhood needs in order to thrive, that has caused the general increase of mindlessness and the decline of women in the United States since the 1920s. The close association of affluence with fatherhood has led, for the most part, to only the wrong girls, namely, the `privileged' middle class girls, getting `educated'.

The effect of fathers, in sum, has been to corrode the world with maleness. The male has a negative Midas Touch -- everything he touches turns to shit.

Suppression of Individuality, Animalism (domesticity and motherhood), and Functionalism: The male is just a bunch of conditioned reflexes, incapable of a mentally free response; he is tied to he earliest conditioning, determined completely by his past experiences. His earliest experiences are with his mother, and he is throughout his life tied to her. It never becomes completely clear to the make that he is not part of his mother, that he is he and she is she.

His greatest need is to be guided, sheltered, protected and admired by Mama (men expect women to adore what men shrink from in horror -- themselves) and, being completely physical, he yearns to spend his time (that's not spent `out in the world' grimly defending against his passivity) wallowing in basic animal activities -- eating, sleeping, shitting, relaxing and being soothed by Mama. Passive, rattle-headed Daddy's Girl, ever eager for approval, for a pat on the head, for the `respect' if any passing piece of garbage, is easily reduced to Mama, mindless ministrator to physical needs, soother of the weary, apey brow, booster of the tiny ego, appreciator of the contemptible, a hot water bottle with tits.

The reduction to animals of the women of the most backward segment of society -- the `privileged, educated' middle-class, the backwash of humanity -- where Daddy reigns supreme, has been so thorough that they try to groove on labour pains and lie around in the most advanced nation in the world in the middle of the twentieth century with babies chomping away on their tits. It's not for the kids sake, though, that the `experts' tell women that Mama should stay home and grovel in animalism, but for Daddy's; the tits for Daddy to hang onto; the labor pains for Daddy to vicariously groove on (half dead, he needs awfully strong stimuli to make him respond).

Reducing the female to an animal, to Mama, to a male, is necessary for psychological as well as practical reasons: the male is a mere member of the species, interchangeable with every other male. He has no deep-seated individuality, which stems from what intrigues you, what outside yourself absorbs you, what you're in relation to. Completely self-absorbed, capable of being in relation only to their bodies and physical sensations, males differ from each other only to the degree and in the ways they attempt to defend against their passivity and against their desire to be female.

The female's individuality, which he is acutely aware of, but which he doesn't comprehend and isn't capable of relating to or grasping emotionally, frightens and upsets him and fills him with envy. So he denies it in her and proceeds to define everyone in terms of his or her function or use, assigning to himself, of course, the most important functions -- doctor, president, scientist -- therefore providing himself with an identity, if not individuality, and tries to convince himself and women (he's succeeded best at convincing women) that the female function is to bear and raise children and to relax, comfort and boost the ego if the male; that her function is such as to make her interchangeable with every other female. In actual fact, the female function is to relate, groove, love and be herself, irreplaceable by anyone else; the male function is to produce sperm. We now have sperm banks.

In actual fact, the female function is to explore, discover, invent, solve problems crack jokes, make music -- all with love. In other words, create a magic world.

Prevention of Privacy: Although the male, being ashamed of what he is and almost of everything he does, insists on privacy and secrecy in all aspects of his life, he has no real regard for privacy. Being empty, not being a complete, separate being, having no self to groove on and needing to be constantly in female company, he sees nothing at all wrong in intruding himself on any woman's thoughts, even a total stranger's, anywhere at any time, but rather feels indignant and insulted when put down for doing so, as well as confused -- he can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of any creep around. Wanting to become a woman, he strives to be constantly around females, which is the closest he can get to becoming one, so he created a `society' based upon the family -- a male-female could and their kids (the excuse for the family's existence), who live virtually on top of one another, unscrupuluously violating the females' rights, privacy and sanity.

Isolation, Suburbs, and Prevention of Community: Our society is not a community, but merely a collection of isolated family units. Desperately insecure, fearing his woman will leave him if she is exposed to other men or to anything remotely resembling life, the male seeks to isolate her from other men and from what little civilization there is, so he moves her out to the suburbs, a collection of self-absorbed couples and their kids. Isolation enables him to try to maintain his pretense of being an individual nu becoming a `rugged individualist', a loner, equating non-cooperation and solitariness with individuality.

There is yet another reason for the male to isolate himself: every man is an island. Trapped inside himself, emotionally isolated, unable to relate, the male has a horror of civilization, people, cities, situations requiring an ability to understand and relate to people. So like a scared rabbit, he scurries off, dragging Daddy's little asshole with him to the wilderness, suburbs, or, in the case of the hippy -- he's way out, Man! -- all the way out to the cow pasture where he can fuck and breed undisturbed and mess around with his beads and flute.

The `hippy', whose desire to be a `Man', a `rugged individualist', isn't quite as strong as the average man's, and who, in addition, is excited by the thought having lots of women accessible to him, rebels against the harshness of a Breadwinner's life and the monotony of one woman. In the name of sharing and cooperation, he forms a commune or tribe, which, for all its togetherness and partly because of it, (the commune, being an extended family, is an extended violation of the female's rights, privacy and sanity) is no more a community than normal `society'.

A true community consists of individuals -- not mere species members, not couples -- respecting each others individuality and privacy, at the same time interacting with each other mentally and emotionally -- free spirits in free relation to each other -- and co-operating with each other to achieve common ends. Traditionalists say the basic unit of `society' is the family; `hippies' say the tribe; no one says the individual.

The `hippy' babbles on about individuality, but has no more conception of it than any other man. He desires to get back to Nature, back to the wilderness, back to the home of furry animals that he's one of, away from the city, where there is at least a trace, a bare beginning of civilization, to live at the species level, his time taken up with simple, non-intellectual activities -- farming, fucking, bead stringing. The most important activity of the commune, the one upon which it is based, is gang-banging. The `hippy' is enticed to the commune mainly by the prospect for free pussy -- the main commodity to be shared, to be had just for the asking, but, blinded by greed, he fails to anticipate all the other men he has to share with, or the jealousies and possessiveness for the pussies themselves.

Men cannot co-operate to achieve a common end, because each man's end is all the pussy for himself. The commune, therefore, is doomed to failure; each `hippy' will, in panic, grad the first simpleton who digs him and whisks her off to the suburbs as fast as he can. The male cannot progress socially, but merely swings back and forth from isolation to gang-banging.

Conformity: Although he wants to be an individual, the male is scared of anything in himself that is the slightest bit different from other men, it causes him to suspect that he's not really a `Man', that he's passive and totally sexual, a highly upsetting suspicion. If other men are "A" and he's not, he must not be a man; he must be a fag. So he tries to affirm his `Manhood' by being like all the other men. Differentness in other men, as well as himself, threatens him; it means they're fags whom he must at all costs avoid, so he tries to make sure that all other men conform.

The male dares to be different to the degree that he accepts his passivity and his desire to be female, his fagginess. The farthest out male is the drag queen, but he, although different from most men, is exactly like all the other drag queens like the functionalist, he has an identity -- he is female. He tries to define all his troubles away -- but still no individuality. Not completely convinced that he's a woman, highly insecure about being sufficiently female, he conforms compulsively to the man-made stereotype, ending up as nothing but a bundle of stilted mannerisms.

To be sure he's a `Man', the male must see to it that the female be clearly a `Woman', the opposite of a `Man', that is, the female must act like a faggot. And Daddy's Girl, all of whose female instincts were wrenched out of her when little, easily and obligingly adapts herself to the role.

Authority and Government: Having no sense of right and wrong, no conscience, which can only stem from having an ability to empathize with others... having no faith in his non-existent self, being unnecessarily competitive, and by nature, unable to co-operate, the male feels a need for external guidance and control. So he created authorities -- priests, experts, bosses, leaders, etc -- and government. Wanting the female (Mama) to guide him, but unable to accept this fact (he is, after all, a MAN), wanting to play Woman, to usurp her function as Guider and Protector, he sees to it that all authorities are male.

There's no reason why a society consisting of rational beings capable of empathizing with each other, complete and having no natural reason to compete, should have a government, laws or leaders.

Philosophy, Religion, and Morality Based on Sex: The male's inability to relate to anybody or anything makes his life pointless and meaningless (the ultimate male insight is that life is absurd), so he invented philosophy and religion. Being empty, he looks outward, not only for guidance and control, but for salvation and for the meaning of life. Happiness being for him impossible on this earth, he invented Heaven.

For a man, having no ability to empathize with others and being totally sexual, `wrong' is sexual `license' and engaging in `deviant' (`unmanly') sexual practices, that is, not defending against his passivity and total sexuality which, if indulged, would destroy `civilization', since `civilization' is based entirely upon the male need to defend himself against these characteristics. For a woman (according to men), `wrong' is any behavior that would entice men into sexual `license' -- that is, not placing male needs above her own and not being a faggot.

Religion not only provides the male with a goal (Heaven) and helps keep women tied to men, but offers rituals through which he can try to expiate the guilt and shame he feels at not defending himself enough against his sexual impulses; in essence, that guilt and shame he feels at being male.

Most men men, utterly cowardly, project their inherent weaknesses onto women, label them female weaknesses and believe themselves to have female strengths; most philosophers, not quite so cowardly, face the fact that make lacks exist in men, but still can't face the fact that they exist in men only. So they label the male condition the Human Condition, post their nothingness problem, which horrifies them, as a philosophical dilemma, thereby giving stature to their animalism, grandiloquently label their nothingness their `Identity Problem', and proceed to prattle on pompously about the `Crisis of the Individual', the `Essence of Being', `Existence preceding Essence', `Existential Modes of Being', etc. etc.

A woman not only takes her identity and individuality for granted, but knows instinctively that the only wrong is to hurt others, and that the meaning of life is love.

Prejudice (racial, ethnic, religious, etc): The male needs scapegoats onto whom he can project his failings and inadequacies and upon whom he can vent his frustration at not being female. And the vicarious discriminations have the practical advantage of substantially increasing the pussy pool available to the men on top.

Competition, Prestige, Status, Formal Education, Ignorance and Social and Economic Classes: Having an obsessive desire to be admired by women, but no intrinsic worth, the make constructs a highly artificial society enabling him to appropriate the appearance of worth through money, prestige, `high' social class, degrees, professional position and knowledge and, by pushing as many other men as possible down professionally, socially, economically, and educationally.

The purpose of `higher' education is not to educate but to exclude as many as possible from the various professions.

The male, totally physical, incapable of mental rapport, although able to understand and use knowledge and ideas, is unable to relate to them, to grasp them emotionally: he does not value knowledge and ideas for their own sake (they're just means to ends) and, consequently, feels no need for mental companions, no need to cultivate the intellectual potentialities of others. On the contrary, the male has a vested interest in ignorance; it gives the few knowledgeable men a decided edge on the unknowledgeable ones, and besides, the male knows that an enlightened, aware female population will mean the end of him. The healthy, conceited female wants the company of equals whom she can respect and groove on; the male and the sick, insecure, unself-confident male female crave the company of worms.

No genuine social revolution can be accomplished by the male, as the male on top wants the status quo, and all the male on the bottom wants is to be the male on top. The male `rebel' is a farce; this is the male's `society', made by him to satisfy his needs. He's never satisfied, because he's not capable of being satisfied. Ultimately, what the male `rebel' is rebelling against is being male. The male changes only when forced to do so by technology, when he has no choice, when `society' reaches the stage where he must change or die. We're at that stage now; if women don't get their asses in gear fast, we may very well all die.

Prevention of Conversation: Being completely self-centered and unable to relate to anything outside himself, the male's `conversation', when not about himself, is an impersonal droning on, removed from anything of human value. Male `intellectual conversation' is a strained compulsive attempt to impress the female.

Daddy's Girl, passive, adaptable, respectful of and in awe of the male, allows him to impose his hideously dull chatter on her. This is not too difficult for her, as the tension and anxiety, the lack of cool, the insecurity and self-doubt, the unsureness of her own feelings and sensations that Daddy instilled in her make her perceptions superficial and render her unable to see that the male's babble is babble; like the aesthete `appreciating' the blob that's labeled `Great Art', she believes she's grooving on what bores the shit out of her. Not only does she permit his babble to dominate, she adapts her own `conversation' accordingly.

Trained from an early childhood in niceness, politeness and `dignity', in pandering to the male need to disguise his animalism, she obligingly reduces her own `conversation' to small talk, a bland, insipid avoidance of any topic beyond the utterly trivial -- or is `educated', to `intellectual' discussion, that is, impersonal discoursing on irrelevant distractions -- the Gross National Product, the Common Market, the influence of Rimbaud on symbolist painting. So adept is she at pandering that it eventually becomes second nature and she continues to pander to men even when in the company of other females only.

Apart from pandering, her `conversation' is further limited by her insecurity about expressing deviant, original opinions and the self-absorption based on insecurity and that prevents her conversation from being charming. Niceness, politeness, `dignity', insecurity and self-absorption are hardly conducive to intensity and wit, qualities a conversation must have to be worthy of the name. Such conversation is hardly rampant, as only completely self-confident, arrogant, outgoing, proud, tough-minded females are capable of intense, bitchy, witty conversation.

Prevention of Friendship (Love): Men have contempt for themselves, for all other men whom they contemplate more than casually and whom they do not think are females, (for example `sympathetic' analysts and `Great Artists') or agents of God and for all women who respect and pander to them: the insecure, approval-seeking, pandering male-females have contempt for themselves and for all women like them: the self-confident, swinging, thrill-seeking female females have contempt for me and for the pandering male females. In short, contempt is the order of the day.

Love is not dependency or sex, but friendship, and therefore, love can't exist between two males, between a male and a female, or between two females, one or both of whom is a mindless, insecure, pandering male; like conversation, live can exist only between two secure, free-wheeling, independent groovy female females, since friendship is based upon respect, not contempt.

Even amongst groovy females deep friendships seldom occur in adulthood, as almost all of them are either tied up with men in order to survive economically, or bogged down in hacking their way through the jungle and in trying to keep their heads about the amorphous mass. Love can't flourish in a society based upon money and meaningless work: it requires complete economic as well as personal freedom, leisure time and the opportunity to engage in intensely absorbing, emotionally satisfying activities which, when shared with those you respect, lead to deep friendship. Our `society' provides practically no opportunity to engage in such activities.

Having stripped the world of conversation, friendship and love, the male offers us these paltry substitutes:

`Great Art' and `Culture': The male `artist' attempts to solve his dilemma of not being able to live, of not being female, by constructing a highly artificial world in which the male is heroized, that is, displays female traits, and the female is reduced to highly limited, insipid subordinate roles, that is, to being male.

The male `artistic' aim being, not to communicate (having nothing inside him he has nothing to say), but to disguise his animalism, he resorts to symbolism and obscurity (`deep' stuff). The vast majority of people, particularly the `educated' ones, lacking faith in their own judgment, humble, respectful of authority (`Daddy knows best'), are easily conned into believing that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, ambiguity and boredom are marks of depth and brilliance.

`Great Art' proves that men are superior to women, that men are women, being labeled `Great Art', almost all of which, as the anti-feminists are fond of reminding us, was created by men. We know that `Great Art' is great because male authorities have told us so, and we can't claim otherwise, as only those with exquisite sensitivities far superior to ours can perceive and appreciated the slop they appreciated.

Appreciating is the sole diversion of the `cultivated'; passive and incompetent, lacking imagination and wit, they must try to make do with that; unable to create their own diversions, to create a little world of their own, to affect in the smallest way their environments, they must accept what's given; unable to create or relate, they spectate. Absorbing `culture' is a desperate, frantic attempt to groove in an ungroovy world, to escape the horror of a sterile, mindless, existence. `Culture' provides a sop to the egos of the incompetent, a means of rationalizing passive spectating; they can pride themselves on their ability to appreciate the `finer' things, to see a jewel where this is only a turd (they want to be admired for admiring). Lacking faith in their ability to change anything, resigned to the status quo, they have to see beauty in turds because, so far as they can see, turds are all they'll ever have.

The veneration of `Art' and `Culture' -- besides leading many women into boring, passive activity that distracts from more important and rewarding activities, from cultivating active abilities, and leads to the constant intrusion on our sensibilities of pompous dissertations on the deep beauty of this and that turn. This allows the `artist' to be setup as one possessing superior feelings, perceptions, insights and judgments, thereby undermining the faith of insecure women in the value and validity of their own feelings, perceptions, insights and judgments.

The male, having a very limited range of feelings, and consequently, very limited perceptions, insights and judgments, needs the `artist' to guide him, to tell him what life is all about. But the male `artist' being totally sexual, unable to relate to anything beyond his own physical sensations, having nothing to express beyond the insight that for the male life is meaningless and absurd, cannot be an artist. How can he who is not capable of life tell us what life is all about? A `male artist' is a contradiction in terms. A degenerate can only produce degenerate `art'. The true artist is every self-confident, healthy female, and in a female society the only Art, the only Culture, will be conceited, kooky, funky, females grooving on each other and on everything else in the universe.

Sexuality: Sex is not part of a relationship: on the contrary, it is a solitary experience, non-creative, a gross waste of time. The female can easily -- far more easily than she may think -- condition away her sex drive, leaving her completely cool and cerebral and free to pursue truly worthy relationships and activities; but the male, who seems to dig women sexually and who seeks out constantly to arouse them, stimulates the highly sexed female to frenzies of lust, throwing her into a sex bag from which few women ever escape. The lecherous male excited the lustful female; he has to -- when the female transcends her body, rises above animalism, the male, whose ego consists of his cock, will disappear.

Sex is the refuge of the mindless. And the more mindless the woman, the more deeply embedded in the male `culture', in short, the nicer she is, the more sexual she is. The nicest women in our `society' are raving sex maniacs. But, being just awfully, awfully nice, they don't, of course descend to fucking -- that's uncouth -- rather they make love, commune by means of their bodies and establish sensual rapport; the literary ones are attuned to the throb of Eros and attain a clutch upon the Universe; the religious have spiritual communion with the Divine Sensualism; the mystics merge with the Erotic Principle and blend with the Cosmos, and the acid heads contact their erotic cells.

On the other hand, those females least embedded in the male `Culture', the least nice, those crass and simple souls who reduce fucking to fucking, who are too childish for the grown-up world of suburbs, mortgages, mops and baby shit, too selfish to raise kids and husbands, too uncivilized to give a shit for anyones opinion of them, too arrogant to respect Daddy, the `Greats' or the deep wisdom of the Ancients, who trust only their own animal, gutter instincts, who equate Culture with chicks, whose sole diversion is prowling for emotional thrills and excitement, who are given to disgusting, nasty upsetting `scenes', hateful, violent bitches given to slamming those who unduly irritate them in the teeth, who'd sink a shiv into a man's chest or ram an icepick up his asshole as soon as look at him, if they knew they could get away with it, in short, those who, by the standards of our `culture' are SCUM... these females are cool and relatively cerebral and skirting asexuality.

Unhampered by propriety, niceness, discretion, public opinion, `morals', the respect of assholes, always funky, dirty, low-down SCUM gets around... and around and around... they've seen the whole show -- every bit of it -- the fucking scene, the dyke scene -- they've covered the whole waterfront, been under every dock and pier -- the peter pier, the pussy pier... you've got to go through a lot of sex to get to anti-sex, and SCUM's been through it all, and they're now ready for a new show; they want to crawl out from other the dock, move, take off, sink out. But SCUM doesn't yet prevail; SCUM's still in the gutter of our `society', which, if it's not deflected from its present course and if the Bomb doesn't drop on it, will hump itself to death.

Boredom: Life in a society made by and for creatures who, when they are not grim and depressing are utter bores, van only be, when not grim and depressing, an utter bore.

Secrecy, Censorship, Suppression of Knowledge and Ideas, and Exposes: Every male's deep-seated, secret, most hideous fear is of being discovered to be not a female, but a male, a subhuman animal. Although niceness, politeness and `dignity' suffice to prevent his exposure on a personal level, in order to prevent the general exposure of the male sex as a whole and to maintain his unnatural dominant position position in `society', the male must resort to:

      1. Censorship. Responding reflexively to isolated works and phrases rather than cereberally to overall meanings, the male attempts to prevent the arousal and discovery of his animalism by censoring not only `pornography', but any work containing `dirty' words, no matter in what context they are used.
      2. Suppression of all ideas and knowledge that might expose him or threaten his dominant position in `society'. Much biological and psychological data is suppressed, because it is proof of the male's gross inferiority to the female. Also, the problem of mental illness will never be solved while the male maintains control, because first, men have a vested interest in it -- only females who have very few of their marbles will allow males the slightest bit of control over anything, and second, the male cannot admit to the role that fatherhood plays in causing mental illness.
      3. Exposes. The male's chief delight in life -- insofar as the tense, grim male can ever be said to delight in anything -- is in exposing others. It doesn't' much matter what they're exposed as, so long as they're exposed; it distracts attention from himself. Exposing others as enemy agents (Communists and Socialists) is one of his favorite pastimes, as it removes the source of the threat to him not only from himself, but from the country and the Western world. The bugs up his ass aren't in him, they're in Russia.

Distrust: Unable to empathize or feel affection or loyalty, being exclusively out for himself, the male has no sense of fair play; cowardly, needing constantly to pander to the female to win her approval, that he is helpless without, always on the edge lest his animalism, his maleness be discovered, always needing to cover up, he must lie constantly; being empty he has not honor or integrity -- he doesn't know what those words mean. The male, in short, is treacherous, and the only appropriate attitude in a male `society' is cynicism and distrust.

Ugliness: Being totally sexual, incapable of cerebral or aesthetic responses, totally materialistic and greedy, the male, besides inflicting on the world `Great Art', has decorated his unlandscaped cities with ugly buildings (both inside and out), ugly decors, billboards, highways, cars, garbage trucks, and, most notably, his own putrid self.

Hatred and Violence: The male is eaten up with tension, with frustration at not being female, at not being capable of ever achieving satisfaction or pleasure of any kind; eaten up with hate -- not rational hate that is directed at those who abuse or insult you -- but irrational, indiscriminate hate... hatred, at bottom, of his own worthless self.

Gratuitous violence, besides `proving' he's a `Man', serves as an outlet for his hate and, in addition -- the male being capable only of sexual responses and needing very strong stimuli to stimulate his half-dead self -- provides him with a little sexual thrill..

Disease and Death: All diseases are curable, and the aging process and death are due to disease; it is possible, therefore, never to age and to live forever. In fact the problems of aging and death could be solved within a few years, if an all-out, massive scientific assault were made upon the problem. This, however, will not occur with the male establishment because:

      1. The many male scientists who shy away from biological research, terrified of the discovery that males are females, and show marked preference for virile, `manly' war and death programs.
      2. The discouragement of many potential scientists from scientific careers by the rigidity, boringness, expensiveness, time-consumingness, and unfair exclusivity of our `higher' educational system.
      3. Propaganda disseminated by insecure male professionals, who jealously guard their positions, so that only a highly select few can comprehend abstract scientific concepts.
      4. Widespread lack of self-confidence brought about by the father system that discourages many talented girls from becoming scientists.
      5. Lack of automation. There now exists a wealth of data which, if sorted out and correlated, would reveal the cure for cancer and several other diseases and possibly the key to life itself. But the data is so massive it requires high speed computers to correlate it all. The institution of computers will be delayed interminably under the male control system, since the male has a horror of being replaced by machines.
      6. The money systems' insatiable need for new products. Most of the few scientists around who aren't working on death programs are tied up doing research for corporations.
      7. The males like death -- it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die.
      8. The bias of the money system for the least creative scientists. Most scientists come from at least relatively affluent families where Daddy reigns supreme.

Incapable of a positive state of happiness, which is the only thing that can justify one's existence, the male is, at best, relaxed, comfortable, neutral, and this condition is extremely short-lived, as boredom, a negative state, soon sets in; he is, therefore, doomed to an existence of suffering relieved only by occasional, fleeting stretches of restfulness, which state he can only achieve at the expense of some female. The male is, by his very nature, a leech, an emotional parasite and, therefore, not ethically entitled to live, as no one as the right to life at someone else's expense.

Re:ArMY sCUM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120030)

This particular stupid, insensitive male thinks you should go fuck yourself.

Serious Play. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119628)

"See? We learn things from videogames"

Of course we do. [blogspot.com]

Not surprising, not as good as a first aid course (3, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119688)

Human beings learn things in lots of different ways. People learn both correct and incorrect behaviour from watching TV for example. The trick is to learning how realistic the information and techniques you are getting are, and when they can actually be applied.

For example it's easy to learn the wrong thing from a TV show. Try and play MacGyver for instance and things might go pear shaped. More subtley here in Australia the number for emergency services is 000, but we have had critically ill people receive delayed medical care because people have dialed 911 after watching American TV.

Why should games be any different? They're interactive so if the simulation is accurate they should be better at teaching us how to react to a situation.

However like television, usually the primary reason people play games is for entertainment not education. I'm not a betting man but I'd be surprised if you couldn't pick up many many more skills by doing a weekend firstaid course than by playing Americas Army.

Re:Not surprising, not as good as a first aid cour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120166)

Why cant you aussies just forward 911 to your emergency number like other countries do?

Re:Not surprising, not as good as a first aid cour (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120544)

Mod this guy up he has a valid point. What was 911 taken already? If I was on vacation in Australia and there was an emergency I would dial 911... how the hell would I know about 000?


Sometimes it's cool to be "different" sometimes you're just a pain in the a$$.

Re:Not surprising, not as good as a first aid cour (1)

Tarison (600538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120570)

So do you have 000 divert to 911 in case any non-TV-watching aussies happen to visit the States?

Re:Not surprising, not as good as a first aid cour (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120554)

Why cant you aussies just forward 911 to your emergency number like other countries do?

Because our government is a bureaucratic mess.

Qualifying as a Medic (4, Informative)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119726)

For those of you who haven't played AA, Medic Training consists of walking into a classroom, sitting down, looking at the screen, and listening to a lecture. Then you take a multiple choice exam. So, there's a real possibility of learning something.

Re:Qualifying as a Medic (4, Funny)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119936)

This is the main reason I stopped playing AA. If I wanted to learn, I wouldn't be playing an FPS.

Re:Qualifying as a Medic (2, Informative)

erbbysam (964606) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120060)

If I remember correctly, when I played through all of the training to unlock everything a few years ago, all of the answers were available online and I just did something else while the lecture played... so much for learning how to dress a wound while I wanted to be shooting some terrorists.

Re:Qualifying as a Medic (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120322)

Yeesh, reminds me of Under a Killing Moon [wikipedia.org] from waaay back. Apparently it was somewhat ground-breaking at the time on my 8MB 286DX2. Amazing graphics!

Pong and "both ways in the snow" comments coming in 3, 2, 1...

BF2 is not so good in this area (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119812)

Similar thing happened to me but the outcome was not so good.

A buddy of mine got knocked out when I threw a first aid kit and it hit him on the head.

And the shock paddles only made things worse.
   

Valuable skills (4, Funny)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119824)

If flesh eating zombies attack my house they're seriously fucked.

Re:Valuable skills (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120352)

Why, are you Charlton Heston?

BF2 Encouraged me to become a medic (4, Interesting)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119856)

BF2 encouraged me to become a medic. I played a lot of BF2 and BF2142 and always used the medic kit or the assault class with a medic loadout.

It fostered in me a desire to obtain basic medical skills. Just as it is helpful to be able to revive your comrad in the game, I thought it would be helpful to be able to render real aid to a person in an accident.

So I registered for an EMT-B certification class and after about 120 hours of class time and 24 hours of on-site training, I was qualified to take the exam and am now a certified EMT-B and considering pursing the certification all the way up to paramedic.

I will do it only on a volunteer basis - I already have a profession - but it is a worthwile skill and I am glad I obtained it.

Re:BF2 Encouraged me to become a medic (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120068)

You are not a medic.

Leave it to the pros except for immediate danger (5, Informative)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119902)

Paxton Galvanek pulled one of the passengers out of the smoking car, then found another bleeding heavily from his hand where his fingers had been lost during the crash.

A very, very VERY important rule regarding assisting someone who is injured, and this applies to bike, pedestrian vs. car, car vs. car, and motorcycle accidents:

Unless someone's life is in IMMEDIATE danger, do not move them, especially if they are unconscious. Immediate danger means the car is on fire, for example, AND unconscious. If the are in immediate danger but conscious, ASSIST them (ie, help open the door or smash the window, cut the belt, etc but let them move themselves. If they are in no danger but conscious, encourage them to LIE STILL; shock keeps them from feeling injuries. Leave everything you can to those trained in what to do.

For example, the first thing bystanders LOVE to do is rip off a motorcyclist's helmet. Helmets are pretty snug and this causes a lot of pull on their neck/spine. If they've' got a neck/back injury, you can turn them from "I'll walk in a few weeks after an operation" to "I'll be in a wheelchair the rest of my life because you ripped apart my spinal cord trying to be a hero." The rule for helmets is simple: if they're breathing, it stays on. If they stop breathing, that takes priority. Some motorcycle riders are now installing inflatable bladders that harmlessly lift the helmet off their head and have a blood-pressure-cuff inflator attachment for the crew to use, and some ambulances are equipping themselves with the version that can be slipped up into the helmet.

Many riders put labels on their helmets that say "DO NOT REMOVE MY HELMET UNLESS I HAVE STOPPED BREATHING" because all of the idiot bystanders who think it's important to do.

Also: fire extinguishers are meant to be used to save people, not save cars. If you have someone trying to get out of a car that has a small fire in the engine compartment and you use up the extinguisher trying to put it out- now you have someone still in the car, a fire, and an empty extinguisher. If you have one, use it to protect people in the car should the fire spread far enough while someone else assists the occupants in getting out.

Re:Leave it to the pros except for immediate dange (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120180)

Not *technically* correct, at least as far as my training goes. Generally, yes, you leave the helmet on. Good rule.

IF you've been taught proper procedures though, the helmet will come off if the person is unconscious; you need access to the airway whether they're breathing or not. It does need proper training though, and shouldn't be attempted without it. (Unless, as you say, they've stopped breathing and are going to be dead anyway.)

Helmet removal, maintaining an airway on a casualty with suspected spinal damage etc are quite easy with the proper training, it's well worth doing a course if your first aid skills are already quite good.

Re:Leave it to the pros except for immediate dange (2, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120278)

IF you've been taught proper procedures though, the helmet will come off if the person is unconscious; you need access to the airway whether they're breathing or not.

Why the hell would anyone on the side of the road need "access to someone's airway" if they're breathing, and said bystanders have no medical equipment (unless, of course, there's a Rescue Rodger on the scene.) The only reason you remove a person's helmet if they've been in a motorcycle crash is because you need to perform CPR to keep them alive. The risk of complete paralyzing them otherwise is far too great.

Re:Leave it to the pros except for immediate dange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120232)

Well he did "learn" first aid from AA. In the real army when someone is hurt on the battlefield getting them out of the line of fire takes priority. Of course there is no line of fire in a car accident so it would be best to wait for the medics most of the time.

Please use the fire extinguisher early.. (1)

Ragnarr (555058) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120308)

I used to be a firefighter. Please, if you have the fire extinguisher available and the fire is small enough to knock it out early: use it. Saving it until the end, as the OP is suggesting, won't work as the fire has now grown beyond the capability of your typical 5# dry chem extinguisher to put out. So please, use the extinguisher as quickly as possible and knock the fire out so people have time to remove the victim(s) properly.

Re:Please use the fire extinguisher early.. (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120504)

I used to be a firefighter. Please, if you have the fire extinguisher available and the fire is small enough to knock it out early: use it. Saving it until the end, as the OP is suggesting, won't work as the fire has now grown beyond the capability of your typical 5# dry chem extinguisher to put out.

People aren't trained to know what is 'in capability of a typical 5lb dry chem unit', and they're almost never trained in how to use an extinguisher effectively. What if they try to fight it, and fail? Now you're doubly fucked- the person is still trapped and you have nothing left to protect the person with. Fuel/oil fires re-ignite very easily and will do so repeatedly, and cars that are on fire are typically on fire because they started leaking something flammable onto something hot, and that's not going to change. An AFFF (Aqueous Foam) unit has a better chance because the foam cools and also contains vapors to prevent re-ignition.

By using the extinguisher to keep fire off them, you keep them alive and unburned until the big boys (who are hopefully more versed than you are) arrive with a couple hundred gallons of water and extraction tools.

Re:Leave it to the pros except for immediate dange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22120386)

Many riders put labels on their helmets that say "DO NOT REMOVE MY HELMET UNLESS I HAVE STOPPED BREATHING" because all of the idiot bystanders who think it's important to do.

If they're so concerned for their spinal cord, why are they riding a motorcycle?

BAD ADVICE (1, Informative)

Pentagram (40862) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120438)

Unless someone's life is in IMMEDIATE danger, do not move them, especially if they are unconscious

This is contrary to my first aid training. The rule I learnt (and this was a first aid course taken less than a year ago) was that if you find someone unconscious, you put them in the recovery position if (or once) they're breathing. The risk of someone suffocating is greater than any potential damage you might do to them in moving them.

I've just looked it up (DK First Aid Manual authorised by the British Red Cross, St. John's Ambulance, and St. Andrew's Ambulance).

The rule is:
  • First, assess the situation (act on any immediate danger)
  • Then, check for consciousness or response
  • If the casualty is not conscious, open airway (if not breathing, go to CPR)
  • If the casualty is breathing, put in the recovery position


(After the above, treat other conditions, such as bleeding)

I need training from America's Army like I need... (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 6 years ago | (#22119926)

...a bullet hole in my head. No wait...bad example.

AAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22119946)

It takes on the job training to learn the real lessons [msn.com]

Does AA have a Cardboard Box? (2, Funny)

nodnarb1978 (725530) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120010)

Everything I needed to know about warfare and life I learned from Metal Gear. Yeah, that's right. The original.

You can infiltrate classified military installations by disguising yourself as an innocuous cardboard box. There's nothing more indispensable than a pack of smokes. And nothing in the entire arsenal of the Military-Industrial Complex is as singularly lethal as a ninja.

Sorry, but here come some sour grapes (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120152)

Two guys, one case undocumented, learn crappy, inadequate first aid from a crappy, simulated lecture in America's Army and it gets a write up, even though the game is about efficiently killing people. I think that's terribly misleading, if not propaganda.

Great, he elevated the arm, but I hope he had good reason to move that other guy, because that was *really* dangerous (I'm hoping the smoke was in the passenger compartment and it was truly required, otherwise the guy should be smacked, not praised).

But did he know where the pressure point is on the upper arm? Did he know how, and especially *when*, to apply a tourniquet should there be a severed limb? Could he perform artificial respiration? How about CPR? The victim was LUCKY there wasn't a serious injury involved.

America's Army, the game, benefits no one but the military-industrial complex. If you want to save lives, and not end them, skip AA and get real training. The Red Cross is a "great place to start."

--
Toro

Tourniquets aren't that bad. (1)

AnotherUsername (966110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120414)

The thing about tourniquets is this: If there is bleeding that is more than a mere scratch, apply a tourniquet. As in, the bleeding isn't likely to stop anytime soon by itself, and could be life threatening.

People seem to have a fear of tourniquets, but they can be left on for several hours without any damage. Put them about 2 inches above the wound, but not on a joint. Write the time on the casualty's head. Better to just put it on right away rather than using up the casualty's dressing on something that won't work anyway.

In keeping with the modern trend for convergence (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120320)

We need some novelists, educators, engineers, and coders to recast the old trivium [wikipedia.org] and quadrivium [wikipedia.org] as games so that kids can do something valuable like "learn" without doing something boring like "learn".

And how many did it COST?! (0, Flamebait)

pheldens (990493) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120340)

Bah, damn propaganda for your subsidized war machine conscription db.

First thing I think of... (1)

ohgood (1144715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22120450)

is that hawt orange bikini Halle Berry slithered out of the water in on 'Die Another Day' back in 2002. Don't worry, they will, and they'll likely be done in together, in the same spot, around the same time, in the same type of vehicle http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html [car-accidents.com] . You humans are so predictable ! Halle Berry on the other hand, is a fantastic example of what you humans may assimilate someday: http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0246460/Ss/0246460/au2_14s.jpg.html?path=gallery&path_key=0246460 [imdb.com] which would truly be worth Dying Another Day ! (I know I'm getting modded wayyy down for including that nasty IMDB in a post!)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?