Soldier and woman

Politics and pink camouflage

As the battle over women in military combat roles heats up to a pink fever, we are beginning to see the first signs of our government’s attempts to include women in combat without, of course, actually including women in combat.

You did know that was coming, didn’t you?

It was as inevitable as Leon Panetta strutting over his false proclamation that “”If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job — and let me be clear, we are not reducing qualifications — then they should have the right to serve.”

It was a statement with all the sincerity of, “I did not have sex with that woman.”

First, and let me be clear, qualifications were reduced a long time ago. In fact, qualifications for women in the military have never been anything like equal. I served in the early to mid-1970s, and have vivid memories of watching women do push-ups with their knees resting on the ground and walking past the chin up bars, which most of them could not jump high enough to reach, as though they could not see them.

It’s pretty much the same today. In the Army, a perfect score on a PT test means men between the ages of 22 and 26 must complete 75 push-ups and a two-mile run in less than 13 minutes along with 80 sit-ups, while women of the same age must complete 46 push-ups, run two miles in less than 15 minutes and 36 seconds and complete 80 sit-ups. The minimum number of pushups for men is 39, for women it is 17, or less than half.

The different expectation in upper body strength, something that might be rather important in something like, say, combat, is the problem. And it is one that feminists and the politicians trying to please them are making haste to avoid or talk around as much as possible.

Politicians are bound to Obama’s vote-mongering sales pitch that “Women can do anything men can do, and do it better, and do it in heels,” even if it means pretending that the average female soldier can throw a 200 lb. wounded comrade across her shoulder and hike two miles back to base camp in camouflage stilettos.

That brings us to problem number one for this nightmare policy in the making. Women, on average, cannot be expected to meet the same physical demands as men. The Pentagon knows this, which is why they have always had different physical standards for women, and why they have been kept out of combat as much as possible. It is because of the completely rational concern that their failure to keep up with their peers will get people killed.

Still, here we are, pretending to prepare for lifting all bans and restrictions. A new and improved level of bullshit will be required. As if Obama himself were holding the cue cards, a December report from the Congressional Research Service provides the language.

The use of the term “gender-neutral physical standards” raises questions depending on how it is defined. A plain reading of the term suggests that men and women would be required to meet the same physical standards in order to be similarly assigned. However, in the past, the Services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and women must exert the same amount of energy in a particular task, regardless of the work that is actually accomplished by either. Hypothetically speaking, if a female soldier carries 70 pounds of equipment five miles and exerts the same effort as a male carrying 100 pounds of equipment the same distance, the differing standards could be viewed as ‘gender-neutral’ because both exerted the same amount of effort, with differing loads.

Yes, of course. And hypothetically speaking, a weaker person exerts the same amount of energy carrying less weight as a stronger person exerts carrying more weight. Thank Jesus and feminist governance our leaders have figured out a way to set gender-neutral different standards for men and women based on sex, in order to establish equality in the military.

What genius.

In all seriousness, there are two fundamental solutions here. One, any lifting of bans, or even the imaginary lifting of bans, needs to be accompanied by the lifting of the double standards in physical readiness between men and women in the military.

Should women be allowed to fight? Yes, they should. Absolutely, if they fully qualify to keep up with their male peers. If they want to dodge bullets for oil companies in order to have a better chance at promotions down the road, no one should get in their way.

I will also add a message to those who worry that male soldiers won’t be able to help themselves from taking stupid risks to hover over their female counterparts: Just shut it. If they can’t accept military training and do their job, it is no one’s fault but their own.

However, should women be allowed to get their fellow soldiers killed so President Obama can fulfill back room promises to gender ideologues? Not so much, I’m thinking.

The only other possible solution is segregated units. It is the only rational answer for those soldiers hypothetically exerting just as much energy to get less done than the soldier next to them, whoever they may be.

I think I have a better solution, though; one that will allow all of us to put this in its proper perspective.

Just relax. Very little is actually going to change.

As the Defense Department and every politician within a mile of a microphone has been incessantly spouting since Panetta’s “decision,” the battlefield in this conflict is a markedly different one from wars past. Women are already there fighting and dying…in numbers somewhat akin to short white guys in the NBA.

That is not to dismiss or demean the sacrifices of individual soldiers, but the fairy tale we have been sold — that the women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan are somehow representative of women’s equal participation in combat — is a very, very bad joke. It is insulting to male soldiers who do almost all the dying, and to the women who have given their lives. Watching politicians and feminists glom on to those deaths, as though they were a part of some grand cause célèbre, makes me want to vomit every time I hear it. Enough already.

When the bans that they actually lift are completed, those numbers won’t change much. As soldiers returning from Afghanistan already report, when a woman and a man go missing in the field, the woman will get priority.

Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, reported that Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told him the policy change would not have much of an effect on the sexual make-up of military units.


I do not believe this will be a broad opening of combat roles for women, because as [a] 2012 report indicated, there are ‘serious practical barriers which must be resolved so that the department can maximize the safety and privacy of all military members while maintaining military readiness.

That is political speak for “We haven’t yet, for the sake of equality, figured out what colors the roadside potty stands for the women are going to be.”

No matter what the Pentagon or our president tells you, for the most part women in the military will walk past the brunt of combat hardships like they were chin-up bars. Men will continue to do the lion’s share of the dying, and before it is over Hana Rosin will write a book about how women survive combat at higher numbers because they are better, smarter soldiers.

Of course, under that is the fact that number of military women who can meet the same exact physical standards demanded of men in combat is statistically insignificant. Be as pissed off as you want to, but you can’t prove me wrong.

One last thing we might want to consider in this fetid mass of stinking political tomfoolery is that for women, this is still a game of pick and choose. Or as one soldier from Corpus Christy, Texas recently commented on a local news website there:


The Pentagon is now going to “allow” women to serve in combat jobs. Apparently this is Obama’s payoff to the radical feminists who voted for him. But if they truly want equality, then women should be “required” to serve in those jobs, same as the men.

You didn’t think all of those men in the infantry, combat engineers, artillery, etc. volunteered for those jobs? Some did but for most, that was the only choice they were given when they enlisted. And, if they failed to meet the standards for those military specialties, they were discharged. If women are “allowed” to serve in those specialties and they fail to meet the standards, they are not discharged, [they are] simply given another job or sent back to their old job.

So, give women total equality, “require” them to take those jobs, without lowering the standards. And don’t allow the government to cover-up the aftermath — let the chips fall where they may.

But of course, as we all know, the chips never fall where they may when the deck is stacked and the dealer is on the take.

God Bless America.

  • Winstone

    Off topic. A feminist has been sentenced to life for terrorism (7 people killed). But somebody on wikipedia is trying to remove this information and paint her as a victimınar_Selek

    • yinyangbalance

      This does not pertain to the main article…but I ask that you join my Wikipedia Dream team. Find me on the AVFM forum.

      Just a side note, if a user reverses the edits made by another user 3 times within a 24 hour period, it constitutes as “Edit Warring” and that qualifies the user to be banned by a moderator.
      The user “Kaheathe” can and should be reported for this.

  • dhanu

    Same energy? Don’t they know even the most basic Physics?

    Energy = Work = Force . Displacement = Weight . Distance

    Where dot . Denotes the dot product which is simply multiplication in the case of given example. Clearly, lower weight means less energy. How is that equal in any sense of the word? (Unless we’re talking of the ‘Swedish Equality’, under which any two things can be proven equal based upon the judgement of ideologues.)

    And effort is simply force which is weight in this case, this also is not equal.

    • BlueBlood

      A downvote already? Geez, a little bit of hard science really does rile the ol’ femi’s feathers.

      • Stu

        If you hold something out in your hand, and let go, gravity will pull it to earth.

        I’m just seeing if anybody downvotes me for that scientific observation.

        • BlueBlood

          Actually, Stu, funny you should use that precise example; recent studies from the University of Toronto gender studies department are indicating that an object dropped by a feminist will fall faster than the same object dropped by a male due to the innate patriarchal pull of gravity wishing to protect the value of teh menz object while oppressing the resale value of the feminist’s object.

          • Never Blue Again

            We’ve saw some feminist pseudo biologist & chemist. Never hard of a physicist. So, here i go …

            Actually gravity is the main culprit…. !! Main source of energy of all patriarch oppression against women !!

            Don’t believe me ? Try any physical experiment on space beyond any gravitational field. Anything a man can do , a women also can do… !! See … ?? OMG.. The Patriarch gravity … !!

            Newton first discover it … !! And then he hide it’s true nature behind a crazy looking equations which makes no sense. To disguise people , specially women…!! FUCKING OMG…!! 😯

            And then came Einstein and made it even worse. So worse that very few people actually read it … let alone understand it.

            Those two patriarch oppressor , evil men … !! 😈

            Now some are trying to make it completely horrific by combining with quantum physics, which literally makes no sense … !!

            Don’t you see …… ?? How much men are trying to hide the truth from us ?? 😯


          • harrywoodape

            @NeverBlue Again

            …that is soooo good. Lol.

        • http://none universe

          Just for laughs I wuz gunna downvote.
          But for common sense you get one on the left side.

      • Frimmel

        Here’s another downvote and one for you to since Dhanu isn’t giving any hard science. Energy is not the same as work and force. Displacement does not equal weight. I suspect Dhanu hasn’t ever had a physics class. At least one he passed.

        • Never Blue Again

          Relax…!! We can’t even convince femidiots 1+1 = 2 !!
          How do you expect we can make them to understand the complex relation between calorie, work, energy & displacement … !!!

          If we go hard, they go mad …. !!

          and dhanu is right in simplest form.
          Let’s see whether they can make sense out of it, first… !!

          • Bewildered

            ” If we go hard, they go mad …. !! ”


        • dhanu

          Displacement has not been equated to Work; that dot “.” is not a full-stop, it’s dot product of vectors, kinda like multiplication here. Displacement is the constant up and down motion of the weight being carried. During the upward motion, the body exerts force against gravity and thus transfers energy to the weight. During the downward motion, the body again exerts force against gravity (otherwise the weight will be in free fall) and hence has to do work. This continues as long as the person carrying the weight keeps on walking.

          Here’s the statement made: “the Services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and women must exert the same amount of energy in a particular task, regardless of the work that is actually accomplished by either.”

          A more accurate description of this system in terms of energy and work would be like this. Consider a machine with an efficiency factor of 0.7. This means, if you supply 100J or energy to the machine as input, you get 70J of work done as output. That is,

          Work_done = Efficiency_factor x Energy_supplied

          If a person is supplying the equal amount of energy to get less amount of work done than another person (or more energy for getting the same amount of work done), that means the Efficiency_factor is lower for the former person.

          More directly, that would mean that female soldiers are less efficient than male soldiers.

          Of course the Service is not gonna use this statement. “Gender neutral” feels way cooler.

          • Frimmel

            My misread. Apologies.

    • JJ

      I hope that soldier who spoke up does not realize like the one general does in Rolling Stone magazine in which:

      (Comments about lord god Obama * communistic narcissism)(donkeys * feminist ideologues)/federal tax theft(x(us)-(Social Security*Medicare*Medicaid*federal entitlements)= A cold day in hell; or in that general’s case, I guess he did not want to take a command in Antarctica?

    • JinnBottle

      Thanx, Dhanu. I *don’t* know, or have forgotten, “the basics of physics”; yet even I was not and have never been taken in by this “proportional” shit.

      So one insurrectionist turns to the other, as they see that a US gun opposite has not been fully put in place: “Well now, you gotta remember, Amad, the women lift weight *proportional* to their efforts. It’s only fair we hold off till they get the magazine in place…”

      Also, I love the way Feminist salaried professors, widowed intellectuals and overpaid civilian bureaucrats are so willing to allow their Latina housekeeper an opportunity (and there’ll *will* be at least some – for Maria, anyway) to get her guts blown into the sand for King Oil and country.

    • Paul Elam

      You clearly have no understanding of feminist physics.

      Here is the equation, you patriarchal shit:

      The energy I felt like I expended = the work I felt like I did = whatever it was men did MINUS patriarchal advantage and bias = women are stronger than men.

      Energy x emotion = equality

      • Never Blue Again

        :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

        your equation gave me a new thought…!!
        What about a new test for military ?

        We can give men and women to push a reinforced concrete wall from sunrise to sunset. Whoever pushed it further will be qualified. If both done the same both will be qualified …. !! Guess the result …. !!

        Now stop women form getting in military if you can … !! you patriarch oppressor evil MEN …. !!

  • Greg Canning

    Unbelievable , when I studied physics Work = force x distance , so a man carrying 100 lbs five miles is clearly performing more work than a female carrying 70 lbs five miles. Whats more the man will expend considerably more energy (METs or metabolic equivalents in doing so. How can the 2 scenarios possibly be possibly gender neutral? Feminist bullshit double speak if I ever heard it!

    • Stu

      Their notion is based on, if you try as hard, you deserve the same reward. Carrying a lighter load over a certain distance require the same amount of strain on a women as a man carrying a heavier load over the same distance.

      They are looking at it as…..if you try equally as hard, you deserve the same reward and consideration. But in the real world, it is results that count, not trying, or effort. The enemy soldiers aren’t going to give brownie points to our females because they tried. If they are sitting ducks, they get picked off. If they tire, go slow, they get picked off…….so will any men that help them along too for that matter.

      This is similar to the rules in some sports. In the sport of powerlifting for example. They have an award and trophy for “Best Lifter” The best lifter does not have to be the one that lifted the most. It is the one that lifted the most per kg of bodyweight. So it doesn’t even have to be the winner of a particular weight division. You could be at the bottom of your weight division and lift 1kg less then the winner who happened to be at the top of their weight division weighing several kgs more then you. Your lift, or total of you lifts, divided by your bodyweight comes out more kgs lifted per kg of body weight then the winner of the weight division, or any weight division……you win the best lifter trophy.

      For women, I can’t remember the formula, but it’s something like 65%. So she must lift 65% of the best male lifter per kg of body weight… one kg…….to win best lifter. Not just female best lifter…..overall best lifter.

      I have an idea. Why don’t we work out what would be fair for a paraplegic regarding the fitness test. I’m sure it would be just as difficult for someone in wheelchair to cover 2 miles in one hour with 100lbs pack on as it would for a able bodied soldier to cover it in….what was it, 13 mins……with situps and pushups thrown in. So, considering that amount of effort is the same for the wheelchair bound soldier, all persons in wheelchairs can go into combat if they can meet the special standards.

      In fact, I reckon a 95yo bed ridden geriatric, has to put in as much effort to make it to the toilet and back to his bed as a fit young soldier who runs 2 miles with a 100lbs pack and does pushups and situps in 13 mins. So, all 95yo bed ridden geriatrics who can make it to their toilet and back to bed……in……6 hours…….suit em up….off to the front they go.

      This is where you go in the end.

      • caimis.vudnaus.

        What I have never understood about that logic is using the same train of logic: I, being overweight, should be paid more and more valued in any physical activity because clearly I am trying so much harder than anyone in good physical shape…

      • JJ

        Their notion is based on, if you try as hard, you deserve the same reward.-Stu

        This variable is totally whatever the woman wants it to be.

    • Bellator Nam Parilitas

      Talking about the physics of energy (effort) output equivilents is all well and good. However the fact of the matter is that nobody in the military who has actually been in combat gives two shits about what it took to get the job done. All they care about is the outcome. Was the platoon able to march the 27 miles into the mountains of Afghanistan, each person packing more than 120 lbs of gear. Once there were they then able to make contact with the enemy and be fresh enough to defeat them with minimal losses.

      The fact of the matter here is that I have yet to see one woman in the military bear a full combat load for more than 6 miles without receiving some sort of preferential treatment. Do I think that women should be able to serve in combat arms MOS’s? Yes, without a doubt. Do I think that they should have to pass every physical examination and test that a man does? You fucking right I do.

      If you cannot carry a full combat vest loadout (40+ lbs.) a full ruck (65+ lbs) the Tripod to an M2 (30+lbs) and extra ammo for the M2. While at the same time cresting a hill, so that you can have the advantage of the highground, as fast as the slowest man in your platoon then you are needlessly causing the men around you to have to slow down and provide cover for you while remaining vulnerable to receiving small arms fire.

      I am sure that there is some feminist out there who will say that there are lighter loadouts within the infantry platoon that she could carry. That feminist would be correct, but now you are asking the men in the platoon to bear the brunt of the work so that the delicate little flower can have the “Honor” of serving in combat arms.

      I am with Paul, either make them meet the same physical standards as men or segregate them into their own units.

      • Wendy

        To be perfectly fair, they do usually give the heaviest loads to the biggest guys. My ex was a Marine and the biggest guy in his (not squad, one up from that, platoon?) group, so he was picked out in infantry training to be the guy who carried the biggest gun (honestly, I’m embarrassed I can’t remember all these names for this stuff). I still agree women should have the same physical standards as men, but there are guys who get into the military and would struggle with carrying the biggest loads.

        • Kimski

          Lol. You obviously haven’t got a clue, so let me help you out here.
          I was the tiniest member of my platoon at age 17, and I got to carry this little baby:

          -Which added another 25 pounds to my other equipment, when you add the ammunition needed.

          The reason why your ex got to carry the biggest load were most likely because he scored highest in the obstacle course, so they wanted to slow him down, to make the rest of the platoon able to keep up. Or he scored the highest amount of points shooting, as in my case, because I quickly found out I had to dig in to control the recoil.
          And, btw, I still had no problem walking 10, 15 or 20 km’s with this addition.

          Having watched my platoon leader and sergent following female interns around on an obstacle course on several occasions, in order to lift them over some of the obstacles, I seriously question if an average woman would be able to do the same.
          Especially considering that the vast majority of them couldn’t do it without taking twice the amount of time the worst male did it in, even with the added help of two men and no equipment.
          That’s the kind of thing that gets your team mates killed, when push comes to shove.

          • Wolverine1568

            I will back up Kimski on that point. In the Canadian Army it is practically tradtion to give the little guys the big stuff on course. Nine times out of ten that was usually me.

            Now that I am in leadership I now assign the task. YEAH!

          • harrywoodape

            They used to put the smallest guy in the pugil pit, pop a smoke grenade so no one could see each other and then send two guys in to clobber him. The smallest guy would be forced to swing away wildly and would be severely called out if he stopped fighting or submitted. Once it was done…if he fought his ass off…didnt matter if he “won”…he became 10 feet tall and guys would hoist him up on the shoulders and carry him to the mess hall. Everyone had a big grin.
            But if he quit fighting or backed down, it deflated everyone and they would usually send in a third opponent to clobber him. Heartless? Nope..just making a necessary point. We loved the littlest guys cause we knew they had size where it really mattered…in the heart.

          • Kimski


            We had a dark room version of that one, but I had been heavily into Taekwondo for a couple of years at that time.
            They only tried that once.

        • Bellator Nam Parilitas

          Well this is what happens when stories get told second hand. Key pieces of information are left out. Generally the heaviest loadout either goes to the person most capable of carrying it or the person the platoon sergeant hates the most. Unless of course you can get someone to volunteer for it.

          When you are in the military, regardless of skeletal design, you are required to at anytime take any load and move out. It is easy to make the case that women should be allowed to have the light load. What happens when the big guy catches one between the eyes? Does the mission stop? No the load is redistributed a soldier is assigned to carry the body and the mission moves on as planned. If you are not physically capable of adapting to the changing circumstances of the battlefield then perhaps you don’t belong on it.

          • Wendy

            I don’t think women shouldn’t be able to have to do those things if they are in the infantry. I am simply saying that it would make sense, for practical reasons, to give bigger loads to bigger, stronger guys, so it would make sense for a woman to not be given that biggest load. It wouldn’t be them giving her preferential treatment anymore than if they didn’t give it to the smallest guy in the squad.

            However, should she be able to carry that biggest load if she needs to? Yes, of course. Would it make sense for them to give her that biggest load as par for the course? Not really.

            I should say that although my ex said it was because he was so big that they gave him the biggest load to carry, thinking back on his behavior and attitude, it wouldn’t surprise me if they did it because they didn’t like him.

        • harrywoodape

          Wendy, why are you on a men’s rights site? You are not fit to judge who is a good man or a bad one. You are a female living vicariously through the lives of men you date. You find “your” marine sexy for his size and strength which you judge to be superior to other men and you see his accomplishments as enhancing your own status to the point where you think you have any authority to suggest that women should be entitled to serve in combat as if it is another peak to climb for women.
          It isn’t all about you women.
          It just destroys you that the marine couldn’t be put on a leash by you and that he didn’t conform to your entitled superior opinion that women are capable of everything and that everything would be better with women put at the front and centre.
          I think you should go into combat Wendy. Maybe you get a medal…maybe you get prosthetic leg.
          You would be an exalted hero with society backing you above all the men with prosthetic legs. No doubt they would hail you as a modern day Joan of Arc and make a star out of you, you could go on worldwide book tours and feminist junkets as a woman who braved combat and showed the ordinary men how to be…a man.
          You are an individual Wendy…a special snowflake.
          Who the hell are you to judge your “ex” marines character? Or any man’s. you judge their worth based solely on your perspective which consists only of their superficial and selfish attractiveness to you as a mate. Shallow.

        • Kimski

          You’re missing the point here, Wendy.

          The reason you’d want to place a bigger load on smaller guys is to toughen them up and add physical strength to compensate for size.
          Not doing the same for a woman would only be giving additional preferential treatment, besides what is already the case, and make them even more of a liability to the rest of the platoon or unit they’re a part of.
          If women want to join the military on equal ground with men, they should be able to handle the work and tasks involved without preferential treatment or lower requirements, as well as being able to handle the added work-outs it would require to gain that 40% more upper body strength, just like smaller or weaker men have to do.
          Changing the rules based on genitalia is just another example of dysfunctional reasoning, when your own and others lives are depending on it.
          Especially when the women who are in favour of this kind of thinking would choose a male fireman or soldier over a woman anytime, if they were in need of help themselves. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t want a 110 pound sparrow to carry you out of a crossfire or a burning building yourself.

          • harrywoodape

            Hey…she dated a Marine. So it’s like she was a Marine. She couldn’t get his agreement that women should be allowed in combat too. Which she judges as an example of his “brainwashing” and that it is “sad”.
            Apparently he suffers from PTSD. Which she points out gave her second-hand experience with PTSD.
            She goes on a men’s rights forum and called out her ex-marines bad attitude as a possible reason why his Sargeant might not like him.
            Seems to me like somebody likes to go into men’s spaces and give her opinions about who is a good man and who isn’t and can’t quite come to terms with any man she can’t control and judging who is man and who isn’t based on how strong they are. Rescue complex.

          • Kimski


            “Hey…she dated a Marine. So it’s like she was a Marine.”

            Ever meet a CEO wife?
            Same thing..

          • harrywoodape

            Yup. Makes you wonder who is the “trophy”, eh? It’s something they flaunt at other men…my man is better than you…therefore I am better than you.

          • Kimski


            We both know who the real “trophy” is.
            Who’s the only one who has anything to offer that isn’t gone in 20 years?

    • Paul Elam


      You patriarchal overlord shit, please see my above quote to dhanu. You obviously need reeducation in mythematics.

  • Perseus

    This is exactly the piece I would have written, had I written on this travesty myself, word for word, enriched with unending strings of profanity in vain attempt to express the singularity dense disgust warranted.

    The term that has been calculated by the feminists and prostitued out as lipstick to sell this whore situation to the public, to paint women prior-to shielded from the worst thing in the world- combat- unthinkably as victims, is the term ‘allowed’. That’s what the media whores are repeating over and over again to skull-fuck the public into internalizing females as the victims in this. Hardly could there be anything more hideous and sick than such a betrayal of humanity.

    Paul Elam speaks for me. He is my voice.

    The crux here is the standards, equal or not equal. You simply cannot have separate lower standards for females and be anything but grotesquely discriminatory. Discriminatory against smaller men, weaker men, men who would still destroy females in competition, but who are rejected not on merit, but on sex. It is fucking disgusting. Separate standards for females means there must be separate standards for asian men, european american men, africa american men and females, samoan men and females.. it is simply fucking disgusting the privileges claimed by females based on their vaginas, all the while crying victim. Fucking disgusting. I have less respect for females under such circumstances than I do for a pile of steaming dog shit.

  • Dean Esmay

    A rational set of standards that had different physical requirements for different jobs in a military that’s been busy evolving to ever more specialized roles wouldn’t bug me.

    If that’s not really what’s going on, though, I just have a headache, although I’m still inclined to see it as a net plus. Those returning from war zones will have their stories to tell.

  • JohnNewton

    “I will also add a message to those who worry that male soldiers won’t be able to help themselves from taking stupid risks to hover over their female counterparts: Just shut it. If they can’t accept military training and do their job, it is no one’s fault but their own.”
    While people are obviously responsible for their own actions and decisions, it’s not like men aren’t conditioned from a young age by everyone from family to the media to politicians to think of themselves as disposable and inferior to women. That’s not without consequences.

  • PaperrepaP

    over here , to join the police force you have a bunch of tests to perform back to back, and one of them is the situps and pushups where women only have to do 13 situps and 23 push ups and men have to do 28 situps and 43 push ups. seems a little unfair, but dunno

  • gateman

    I fully support having women in combat roles for 1 reason – society will find it far harder to contemplate the deaths of it’s precious women than those of it’s (disposable) males.
    War will then become a far less palatable undertaking.

  • gateman

    A soldier’s backpack weighs 65 pounds on average. Does it magically become lighter if the soldier has a vagina?

  • AntZ

    For a real treat, read this feminist article called “The Feminist Objection to Women in Combat”:

    Basically this narcissistic feminist is saying that, once women soldiers start killing people, feminists will no longer be able to argue that all women are goddesses who inhabit a higher plane of existence far above men, who are blood thirsty and savage brutes.

    They are scared that they will lose the privilege to bitch from “high ground” that all evil is caused by men.

    Here is the entire argument against women in combat (try not to lose your lunch):


    Still, while the change is certainly, and deservedly, a win for feminism, it is just as certainly a mixed one. On the one hand, the achievement of equality for women in the military highlights just how successful feminism in the United States has been in one of its primary goals—achieving equality. As Jean Bethke Elshtain argued in Women and War, military combat is, in some sense, the defining male role. Exclusion from combat, has, in turn, been one of the defining traits of femininity. A military policy that recognizes women’s participation in, and capacity for, combat, is, then, an important assertion that people are not their gender roles. It shows that women really can, and should be allowed to, do everything and anything that men can.

    The problem is, feminism has never just been about equality. Many feminists have written about the need for women to have the same opportunities as men. But many have also written about the need to criticize male patriarchal values and ideals. And one of the male patriarchal values and ideals that has been consistently criticized and questioned by feminists is war.

    • Astrokid

      One of the links in that article, is to a counter from Heather McDonald.
      Wrong on Women Warriors: The new policy is a disastrous mistake. While most of it is a sensible trashing of feminism, it ends with the below call to chivalry and protection. Fuck this double-whammy shit.

      Chivalry is one of the great civilizing forces, taming men and introducing social graces and nuance to what would otherwise be a brutish social world. It is already on life support, but sex-integrated combat units will provide the coup de grâce. If a woman is taken prisoner, will special efforts be made to rescue her to save her from the risk of rape? If so, the necessary equality among unit members will be destroyed. If, however, policy requires that she take her chances along with the male captives, we are requiring men to squelch any last remaining vestige of their impulse towards protection and appreciation of female difference.

      Phyllis Schlafly talking about preserving women’s privileges few decades ago.
      Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “The Equal Rights Amendment”

    • http://none universe

      This is the loaded gun of “successful feminism”. Point it and shoot at anything that moves, including the behemoth military.
      Since sexual equality toward military inclusiveness in real combat is the feminist ideal conscript only those who’ve wailed the loudest and longest for it – the feminist female. We know who some of them are. Leave the non-feminist out of it.

      The ‘enemy’ will pick off a symbolic facet of, what they’re really against – ‘the new world order’. By sending only feminist females to the fodder front lines our culture has one less caustic problem to deal with and it keeps the ‘enemy’ happy, too. Two issues solved.

      Then maybe we can have some real peace for a change.

      You Go!, Leon ( – just a little further).

    • tallwheel

      I think the quote “…feminism has never just been about equality,” says it all.

  • gthnk

    I fully support having women in combat roles. I think it is such a great idea we should have women only platoons in forward positions and let men take on support roles.

    I also think the gov’t is using some doublespeak. The idea women will face equal standards and they won’t be lowered could be read as, “We’re going to apply male standard to women, do away female pt standard, and thereby reduce the number of women in combat to an effective number near zero”.

    In short, men will continue to do all the heavy lifting. They will continue to be responsible for civilization and it’s maintenance and women will continue to be patted on the back for doing nothing and bad mouth men for being noble in their sacrifices.

    My only hope is that they actually have women on the front lines dying. My only hope is that women are drafted and face the same difficulties men who don’t register face. Then, and maybe only then, will men be inoculated by the presence of women from senseless deaths.

  • keyster

    If allowing women to serve in combat roles will actually make our military stronger, than why don’t we allow women to try out for the male sports teams? Why do we segregate the sexes on the playing field? Even golf, where the tee boxes handicap for driving distance…?

    If there are women who are just as strong and capable as any man and they should be given an opportunity to serve on the battlefield – why aren’t more women working construction, pole jockey power line workers or in coal mines? …because government is in charge of social engineering and the private sector knows better.

    Martha Raddatz or some other feminist journalist will be trotting out “examples” of some uber freak amazonian lesbians in a matter of months to “prove” women are equal to men in combat. Just wait.

    This whole matter was political pandering at it’s most obvious. It’s teeing up Hillary for President.

    P.S. – I found it odd that Obama said if he had sons he wouldn’t want them to play football because it’s gotten so dangerous and violent. How would he feel about his daughters pinned down behind enemy lines taking fire?


    I was wondering if anyone was going to take exception with the language…. “allowed” etc… Thanks Paul.

    Each time I read an article on this, the verbage indicated to me that they would not be TOLD where to go and what to do – you know, like the cannon fodd… er men are. They were YET AGAIN given a choice (how progressive). Ya see, men are considered ‘equipment’… whereas women are considered… well… NOT ‘equipment.

    Thus, they will CONTINUE to take the cushy jobs that would normally go to a guy that has already done three or four tours….and lost a leg, arm and an eye for good measure.

    And if things get too tough? Claim ‘female problems’, sexism, harrassment, pregnancy or the golden bullet, rayyyyype! It’s all good cupcake.

    Effin pathetic.

    Thus the reason why I am a civie now.


  • SkepticWithRaisedEyebrow

    Like the article. Would like to see the information about the declining physical health of incoming recruits on average, and the issues with fitness maintenance military-wide worked into the analysis. To be clear: I haven’t looked into it myself, but I think it would be great for the overall contextual understanding of the issues if someone could.

  • harrywoodape

    The culture we have been given by our masters is reflected in the movies, TV shows, and our media. Increasingly, women are shown to be kicking ass to us. The mass programming of our youth and society shows increasingly violent women. It is a fantasy.
    In reality, do we see women fighting men in the UFC?No.
    Do we see women playing in the NBA?
    Serving in a frontline combat unit requires intense training that people that have not done it cannot appreciate. I have seen fat young men be completely transformed within WEEKS of training. It’s like being encouraged to be capable men is something they were never allowed…but the military promotes it. In fact, there are very few jobs where men are encouraged to “Be all they can be”. But, it’s because it is necessary for the military to promote that…not because they care about the individual. It makes me think about what could men do if they were encouraged in society to be their best? What if they dropped the social programming that is keeping men hating themselves and having their great capabilities and character ignored?
    I think that a lot of it has to do with the military environment enabling men’s capabilities once free of the bullshit programming of regular society that is happy to keep them emasculated and unaware of their true capabilities.
    With women the opposite is true. They are promoted as being just as physically capable and aggressive as men ….in fiction. In reality, I see lots of big asses and lazy attitudes amongst over privileged women…despite social programming giving them false representation as physical equals to men.
    Penis envy is really power envy. Women today get creepy weird when men’s physical capabilities or good character is brought to light…even when it isn’t compared to a woman’s.
    I think men are being raised to be unseen servant, deviants and women are being raised to be narcissistic toddlers by our society.
    Put them both in the military and the men find their true nature…because they are allowed to…but only for the purpose of becoming expendable machines for the state. Women in the military are confronted everyday that they are not as capable as men in these roles…so it is a narcissistic injury to them. To protect their false realities, women are given more special privileges and easier duties. This whole “Women in combat” farce is just another way to protect the narcissistic women from narcissistic injury…by playing pretend.

    I think their is more to this proclamation by Leon the liar…I think they are somehow going to insert radical feminism into the military and use it to dissolve the existing culture if the military and turn it into a “people’s army”. AKA Communist China. Austerity is coming and war is quickly becoming robotic. Foreseeably it won’t be fought by humans. This is extremely grave for humanity in general and is part of a global plan to dominate the planets people. It’s important we all see it for what it is.

  • Carlos

    I’m rather surprised at how many here don’t seem to welcome this news. Personally I think it’s a positive development generally, though I fully concede all of Paul’s points as valid. I’m also eager to see men’s requirement to register for Selective Service rescinded or women registering the same as men do.

    It must be appreciated though that the US military, pound for pound, really has nothing that resembles a rival and, as such, “weakening” our military is not a major issue at present. The media criticizes “insurgents” in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere as if there is any other way to fight a force like the US. They seem to think that the fighters in these countries should don uniforms and line up on a field — as though that wouldn’t be suicide. We can send cruise missiles from half a world away that would blow them to shreds, not to mention our planes, helicopters, spy satellites and drones give us total air superiority and dominance.

    Leaving aside the issue of female combat troops, undoubtedly, reducing the effectiveness of ground combat units, there are other important considerations. First and foremost the fact that every time women enter a male dominated industry, the safety of that industry increases massively. In short we, as a society, are much less willing to see women injured or maimed. Translating this to the US military certainly means that the politicians, and the people, will have to think much harder before committing America’s military forces and sending our sons out to die. When sending out the US military means putting our son’s AND daughters in harms way the calculation changes immensely (due to things like male disposability and the widespread recognition of women’s human rights.)

    One things for sure, if women are cleared for combat, there will be no more white feathers.

  • Wendy

    Any woman, even if she has greater-than-average musculature and lung capacity, would require preparation in advance to even pass basic training at the same physical standards as men. We are not able, as men are, to be thrown into basic, out of shape, and come out on the other side. That’s why they had to put in those stupid women’s standards.

    I think they should have the standards the same for women as they are for men. It’s a safety issue for men who might end up in a unit with a woman. But, I sincerely doubt there will be many women who would put in the necessary effort. Even if they are allowed, they still won’t. It’s the same as with all those dangerous jobs, like lumber jacking and mining and construction.

    • harrywoodape

      Combat is a “safety issue”, Wendy. It isn’t just the physical demands of the job, it’s also about being able to function in a job where you will be forced to go out on patrol at times with a high likelihood that one of you will be blown to little pieces. In regular Western society, the way we have been programmed, that doesn’t compute.
      War is illogical and the soldier is expected to make that sacrifice based on a set of lies that tell him it is for a noble purpose or that he is a hero for doing it. But in reality it is almost always pointless and for no other reason than to help the uber rich profit in some way.
      War is bullshit.
      You don’t understand. Just because you dated a marine and have a 6′ frame…you just can’t understand and I’m glad you can’t.
      Women SHOULD be fighting…because the society you live in gives you more privileges and a lot more respect and favours than it does for the men…that’s for sure.
      But women can’t do that kind of work…they are more comfortable letting men do it for them. While they attempt to denigrate every masculine quality and reap all the advantages.
      If you want to do something constructive, stop looking at combat as some sort of front that women need to insert themselves in. Don’t you understand? With your special privileges and arrogance…you aren’t any good there. You are despised for your arrogance.
      You should have listened to your marine and his friends. They know things you don’t.

      • Wendy

        I was only discussing the physical standards and saying that, physically, women are inferior to men. And, unfortunately, of those who even could do the physical work necessary to be in combat, most would not do the extra work they needed to do to meet the current physical standards set for men. That is a problem with my gender that I am especially aware of.

        Of course I believe that women should either have their responsibilities be the same as men or have their rights be lessened to compensate for the difference (I like the former much better). I don’t think women need to insert themselves into combat in the sense you seem to think. I don’t think women need to do that outside of as a method for them to take the responsibilities they should take toward society as a whole.

        I’m not sure what you mean by arrogance. I’m sorry if I seemed that way. I was only conveying what I’d been told by actual soldiers, although they certainly could have been telling me something different if they thought it was what I wanted to hear. Perhaps they thought I wanted to hear that they were too chivalrous rather than they simply thought women couldn’t handle combat psychologically. I have heard stories about what goes on in combat, and I am not comfortable with anyone going through any of it. I have, in fact, experienced the second-hand effects of it when that same ex had horrific PTSD. He suffered terribly.

        Just because I am a woman does not mean that I want women to have special privileges, because not only does that negatively effect my boyfriend, my males friends and cousins, but it also negatively effects me and my female friends and nieces, in the long run. Not to mention any future sons and daughters I may have. When things are fucked up like they are now, it isn’t good for anyone.

        But I guess I just don’t understand.

        • harrywoodape

          Having “second hand” experience with PTSD by watching a marine go through it is nothing like having PTSD yourself. Your ex-marine you vicariously got second hand PTSD from HIS experiences is no longer with you and you called his opinion “sad” for having an opinion that women shouldn’t be allowed in combat????.
          Did it ever occur to you that maybe he deserved some respect for his opinion that he knows something you don’t?
          You ladies want the medals but not the prosthetic legs.

        • Kimski

          “But I guess I just don’t understand.”

          Okay, I’ll give it another try and then I’m done.

          What you women seem to have completely misunderstood is, that being soldiers or having to work are “priviledges” that are given to men, but not women.

          They’re not.

          They are OBLIGATIONS forced upon us, based on our gender and a general view of us as being disposable utilities for women. I don’t know of any men who wouldn’t trade in those “priviledges” at any given time, to live the pampered and protected lives that most women do. I have yet to meet a man who wouldn’t want to spend all day with his kids, and making the occasional meal, instead of having to see them grow up and leave the nest, without actually getting to know them deep down inside, because you’re always away from home working.
          Also, which sane individual would like to say goodbye to his family, to go into a warzone with the very real possibility of not returning, if you could stay at home and listen to male politicians ensuring you that you are the real victim, while your partner is being blown to pieces on the battlefield in some unknown country?

          Generally women don’t seem to get the fact that those are NOT “priviledges”, but forced OBLIGATIONS, a word that I know from personal experience is very unfamiliar to most of you, and that most of those forced OBLIGATIONS comes with a very high price of shorter life expectancy, and sudden painful death in some cases.

          It is however becoming more and more clear to me, which gender needs to walk a mile in which gender’s shoes.

          I wish you the best of luck with all that, but from what I read in the news, those “priviledges” seems to have made you the most unhappy generation of women to ever walk the surface of the planet already.
          Welcome to my world.

          • Wendy

            Okay, I’m going to reply to this and then I’m done. I give up.

            First, I NEVER said that going to combat was in any way a privilege. Ever. Please quote where I said anything about it being a privilege. I don’t think ANYONE should be going to combat. If anyone HAS to go, then I believe it should be men and women in equal measure. The physical standards for men and women should be the same (high) and whoever among men and women can meet them should be sent, again, in EQUAL measure.

            Second, I never said “my” marine was that special and that I was SO attracted to him that it was so super special to be dating him and that he gave me any sort of prestige. If you want to make that kind of ridiculous inference, that’s fine. I simply stated a fact — that he was a big guy and that was the supposed reasoning he gave me for having been given the largest gun. And I said his REASONING was sad, because he claimed that he couldn’t fight with women because he’d feel too obligated to protect them. Don’t you think it’s sad that a man would think he’s more disposable than a woman?

            Third, when I said I had second-hand experience with the trauma of combat, I meant that I saw how much HE suffered with his PTSD. I purposefully tried to avoid implying that I had actually experienced his suffering. Even so, the reason I say it wouldn’t surprise me if his drill sergeants and COs didn’t like him is because he thought racist jokes were the height of humor and didn’t particularly take the rules seriously, given that he was demoted for providing alcohol to minors in his squad (he joined later than most, at age 21) and dressed down for being drunk and out of control at the barracks (BEFORE his tour in Iraq).

            Fourth, although it’s none of your business and I didn’t want to mention it because I knew this was not the place and I didn’t feel it added to the discussion, I think I am an excellent judge of THAT particular man’s character, given that it was MY head he held a gun to and said he’d kill me and then himself. And it was my vagina he threatened to rape with a hot curling iron if I EVER dared leave him (and that was also before his tour in Iraq). Lucky for me, he threatened me and our neighbors with a .45 and got himself arrested and I was able to leave, because, for once, he didn’t disable my car to keep me from leaving. And yet, when I left, I didn’t take alimony. I didn’t demand his head on a platter. I didn’t press charges so that he could commit himself to the Veteran’s Hospital to get help.

            Finally, and lastly, I highly suggest you watch yourselves. You’ve basically misinterpreted everything I’ve said in light of the way YOU view women. Gee, who else does that? Judges every man based on the actions of a very select few? Do you really want to be like the feminists you so despise? Saying “You don’t understand because you’ve got a vagina” is the same thing as the feminists saying “You can’t understand because you’ve got a penis!”

            I thought this was the place to try and find out how I could help to fight for men’s rights. I’d like to have a son someday, and I want him and my boyfriend to feel good about the society he lives in — that it will take care of him if he needs it. Not continually violate his freedom. But, if I have to go somewhere else, please, direct me there.

          • Kimski


            First of all, I didn’t comment on your ex anywhere, as far as I can see. I merely pointed out that placing the bigger load on the bigger guy goes against everything I’ve ever seen or heard about before. Whatever took place between the two of you is, like you mention, none of my business, and seeing that I never commented or asked about it, I honestly don’t care at all. You picked a bad apple. Tough luck.

            But as others have pointed out before, this is an MRA-site and the number of women that drops by to tell us that we’re doing it all wrong, can be counted in the hundreds. I took you to be another one of those, and I’d like to add that I actually upvoted your comment in the new thread, just to clear out any misunderstandings between us.

            That leaves us with this:

            “Finally, and lastly, I highly suggest you watch yourselves. You’ve basically misinterpreted everything I’ve said in light of the way YOU view women. Gee, who else does that? Judges every man based on the actions of a very select few?”

            I won’t even go into you threatening me, ’cause that’s just ridiculous, when there’s roughly 8000 miles between us.

            But MY judgement is based on a little over 80 women in the 35 years that I have been dating women, and NONE of them have given me any reason to think otherwise. So, contrary to your picking ONE bad apple, I actually have a substantial amount of women to base my opinions on, and every single one of them have lied to me, played games, been shit-testing me, falsely accusing me, been unfaithful, and all the other crap most men have to deal with nowadays, to some extend.

            I have no problem with you being here after reading your last post on the new thread, and I’d like to offer you my extended hand to prove it.

            However, I will not excuse myself for anything I have written so far. I didn’t come off the assembly line like this. Dealing with women, while trying to live up to what society expected of me as a man, is what made me this way.

          • Wendy

            My apologies for my misuse of the reply button. I was also attempting to address several of harrywoodape’s comments.

          • harrywoodape


            Well I think you should stick around Wendy, to be honest. I think if you are a powerful believer that men are something more good and decent than what we are told…then don’t let my ignorant ass stop you. I’m certainly not a representative of all men’s rights by any means.

            If you only want to help stand up for men so you can have your pick of the litter so you can make him a servant to your great opinions then…yeah…well…f off if you must. But if you really do care and want to know…stick around. You will come to understand a couple things one way or the other.

            Your future son needs a strong mom for sure…not a dependant baby that believes she is innately superior and can’t handle criticism of her ideas…god knows there are enough of those in the world. It’s what society is promoting women to be. Maybe that isn’t you, maybe it is…I dunno. Maybe you are made of better stuff, eh? Maybe you have good character, courage even?

            My objection isn’t to women in combat…my objection is to human beings in pointless wars. Seems like you agree with that too. When I hear any man or woman today talking about joining a combat unit I think about how deadly all that crap is and how disturbing it all is to watch good quality people kill and be killed and how it shatters people inside so they dont feel anymore. So if you are going to do it…what are you doing it for? It should be a good reason right? You don’t want to get blown up for nothing special right? Would you sign up to a fight to the death so your neighbour could profit financially? I would hope not.

            I don’t believe in any of the garbage they peddle on the news anymore. So when I hear people advocating putting women in combat I think….that’s stupid. They should be advocating getting the men out of combat…not having women join them. Having served in the infantry a long time ago I can say that women wouldnt function well in combat…because even the strongest men dont always function well in combat to tell you the truth. The truth is that the men in the military at the sharp end of the spear are some of the finest human beings around but they are programmed to kill and follow orders. They are ground down quite fast and burned out quick. War is hard on men. 3 or 4 years of your life isn’t that long but it is enough time in the military to age the guy like no tomorrow. Then he has to live with it the rest of his life trying to “get right”. Because they have suffered much they are 1000 year old souls. Nothing scares them after awhile but they feel great emptiness and pain.

            It is a real kick in the ass that the society that they serve for doesn’t really understand this and denigrates the men’s characters and bends over backwards to keep women getting all the entitlements – while our young vets shortchanged. Many of them are fucked up and come home to be treated like a potential terrorist or domestic violence perpetrator after being forced to BE A TERRORIST OR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PERPETRATOR in a foreign land.

            The Marine you dated clearly has problems from what you said. A big part of the problem is the societal attitude is that men ARE problems and that women HAVE problems. He is far less likely to get any quality care in a prison somewhere and yet his head was pumped full of garbage that young men are only good if they sacrifice themselves for each other in a foreign war.

            Where are all the women standing up for …bringing the men home…instead of women should be allowed to go participate too? Misguided?

            Anyway, I think your reply was a bit shit but please do hang around. You might learn something.

      • Rick Westlake

        War is a racket …

        According to Marine Major General Smedley Butler.

        • harrywoodape

          Your damn right it is.

  • Bombay

    “if a female soldier carries 70 pounds of equipment five miles and exerts the same effort as a male carrying 100 pounds of equipment the same distance, the differing standards could be viewed as ‘gender-neutral’ because both exerted the same amount of effort, with differing loads.”

    “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. “

    • Mateusz

      Feminists are pretty quick to drop Marxism when it’s equality threatens their privilege. Or, maybe they just have their own take on words like “ability” and “need”.

      • Bombay

        You are right!

        Quote modified accordingly:

        From each according to his abilities, to each according to her needs.

  • Lysander Spooner

    Teh Wimminz in combat.

    Yippee !!!

    Americskanks in pink defending the bankrupt Warfare-Welfare State how can that be !!!?

    99% of deaths in War are Men.
    90% of Welfare payments are for Teh Wimminz.

    Men have nothing to fight for in Ameriskankland.

    Looks like the Men should grab some popcorn this time, this is going to be entertaining.

  • donzaloog

    Why are people so afraid to admit a simple fact that everybody knows. Women, in general, are not as physically strong as men. It’s as plain and simple as that. The majority of military women are not as efficient in combat as their male counterparts.

    • Bewildered

      In a post modernist age simplicity is not cool !
      Solid facts can be offensive hence they have to be softened and made fuzzy.

  • MRA.

    Women still can can keep long hair in the army, I wonder how many women will sued the army for lack shampoo, suddenly we will be required to pay for women hair product because of sexism and male privilege male soldiers do not have to worry about dirty hair.

  • Legion

    A couple of buddies and I worked out that women were functional as soldiers…around 1940, when infantry doctrine revolved around slow-firing bolt action rifles, crew-served machine guns, no body armour, no section radios, no GPS.

    Of course, now the amount of firepower the section puts out has increased approximately sixfold – with automatic, magazine fed rifles, the addition of light support weapons, underslung grenade launchers, the designated marksman’s rifle as well as the reintroduction of the fuck-off heavy beast that is the GPMG, along with other increases to the combat load (hard body armour, increased water rations, NBC gear, etc). So, ironically…now is probably the worst time since the 1600s, for women to be soldiers.

  • bulldogo67

    I haven’t read all the comments, so this may have already been touched on. Apologies in advance if it has.
    What about a bloke that can’t reach the male standards but can surpass the female ones? If equality is equality, shouldn’t he be given a go? Just cause he’s a skinny, weak bloke (by bloke standards), but he’s as strong or stronger, fit as or fitter etc. as a woman, why can’t he join? Aint that SEXIST?
    An extremely slippery slope there.

    I don’t agree with that argument, by the way. I believe in the old ways. A copper in NSW used to have to be at least 5’10” or 177.8 cm. I’m just 5’8″ or 172.72 cm. So in the old days I would have been knocked back. And so I should have been. When I need a copper, I want the biggest baddest one around. When I want a soldier/marine, same applies.
    The standards for police/ambulance/army/marine/sailor/fireman (sorry – firePERSON/security/etc. has steadily been lowered as the push for “you go girl” started back in the 70’s. I’ve seen cops that skinny, short, scrawny & diplomatic that I’ve known from the outset that I could beat them physically. Of course I don’t cause I’ve got respect for the uniform.
    But what about someone that doesn’t respect the uniform. I dunno, say a drunk dickhead that’s usually a “real nice guy”, but tonight he’s got some crisis going on & he WANTS to fight? How about some fucked druggo that’s passed the point of rational negotiation.
    What about some Islamist Ideologue that wants to kill as many Americans/British/Aussies/Candaians as he can? Add to that the fact that he believes women should be kept out of sight – even when they’re in sight.
    How is that Islamist going to react to a Western-type potential whore/abortionist/female supemicist? What, praytell, will that Islamist think of the potty-mouthed/opinionated/female first Western Woman?
    I don’t really know, but I think he’s gonna wanna kill her by the most degrading means possible.
    Absolutely none of these points will be raised by the Congrssional/Senate/Parliamentary committees that will be formed – and paid millions – but rule with the zeitgeist. You “just can’t say that”.
    Over the whole spectrum – Western Countries/police forces, armies etc. people will die because of these decisions.
    But it’ll mostly be men, so who cares?

  • dhanu

    How is dragging a weight horizontally along with you a force exerted perpendicular to motion? In addition to the vertical up down movements of the weight, the weight is also being carried horizontally. At almost no point is the velocity constant and hence there’s continuous horizontal acceleration back and forth, especially on a rough terrain. Since force is mass times acceleration, it’s obviously higher for bigger weight and so is the energy required, which is always being dissipated no matter the direction of acceleration.

    What bad Physics? They’ve made an erroneous statement and anyone can see it.

  • Bewildered

    ” Men will continue to do the lion’s share of the dying, and before it is over Hana Rosin will write a book about how women survive combat at higher numbers because they are better, smarter soldiers.”

    ROFLMAO! and manginas will clap in agreement!

  • Factory

    I like the uniform on the right better….

    • Rick Westlake

      ‘Sexist pig’ … so do I. Snort, snuffle, snort, yummy!

    • harrywoodape

      I don’t think it would be very good for arctic warfare.

  • PaperrepaP

    marines say that their biggest concern with women in the military is false sexual assault accusations:

    • PaperrepaP

      read elsewhere on yahoo that men are forced to shave their heads for combat, but the military aren’t allowed to force women to.