Introduction:
There has been some backlash across the internet recently concerning some comments that Rick Santorum made about the use of women in frontline combat units. His original reasoning was not just an argument of physical prowess, but also one of men’s emotional issues. His explanation of that is as follows:
“So my concern is being in combat in that situation instead of being focused on the mission, they may be more concerned with protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position.”
I call bullshit. He kicked the ball into typical Social Conservative territory, and placed the onus of the argument on men. There are a number of things I am going to point out here that really define the argument, away from the sound of the sharpening blades of the Feminist PC Police. It’s time to say what Rick Santorum was too afraid to say, and place the entire argument in full context. I will break it down the same way you break it down to a new recruit.
Tasks, Conditions, and Standards:
Task: Shape the Red Pill argument for not placing women into front-line combat units.
Conditions: One PC with an internet connection, half a brain, and a set of virtual balls.
Standards: To be able to take this argument anywhere, that we can keep some form of military preparedness.
Physical Readiness:
In the U.S. there are two different standards to meet the Physical Requirements to pass any of the Armed Forces PFTs (Physical Fitness Tests). These tests are set up by the sex of the individual. There is one standard for males, and another one for females. For our purposes, we will use the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). The minimum scoring for each event (push-up, sit-up, and run) is 60 to pass. Failure to score at least 60 points in each event counts as a failed APFT. Administrative action can be taken against those that fail the APFT, flagging them against future promotions, or even for military discharge.
Keep in mind the minimum amount of points required to pass each event is 60.
Here are the standards to pass each test for males:
And for Females:
As you can see, the women’s minimum standard for the Run fall off the chart after the age of 31.
The Sit-Ups are the same regardless of sex.
These are the minimum standards required in order to pass each event, regardless of your occupation in the military.
There are certain standards that individual units have that may exceed the regulation for purposes of consideration for privilege or promotion in any unit. It is up to the Commander’s discretion as to how to implement an “above regulation” standard for the APFT, and usually it depends on the function of the unit to which one is assigned.
For example:
Fort Bragg, N.C. is the home of the 82nd Airborne and the 18th Airborne Corps. These units are comprised of their own types of units. 18th Airborne is comprised a lot more of MP’s, logistics, intelligence, and some special operations units. 82nd Airborne is comprised a lot more of infantry, artillery, and mechanized infantry. These Corps units write their own standards that meet or exceed the Department of the Army’s standards for physical fitness. Usually, 18th Airborne will leave the standard as is, and allow the alterations in unit regulation to be made at a brigade level or lower. 82nd Airborne does the same thing for the most part.
Do you think a Commander of a military intelligence unit is going to alter the expectations for passing an APFT?
No. Chances are that commander will not worry about it. These soldiers rarely see frontline combat, and are trained to provide information assets that serve battlefield commanders and logistics commanders at a moment’s notice.
Do you think a Commander of an infantry unit will change the expectations for the soldiers when it comes to passing the APFT?
ABSO-FUCKIN’-LUTELY! This commander knows that the minimum requirement to pass the APFT is not nearly good enough to be an effective frontline combatant. More than likely, he will commit his soldiers to a minimum standard of 75-85 points to score on each event. Failing to meet those requirements by regulation may not land you in for administrative action, but it sure will affect how you are viewed by your team. It will also affect your likelihood of promotion (scoring on the APFT counts toward promotion points), and those with the highest promotion points get promoted first for the ranks of Sergeant and above. You will likely have fewer privileges, and also be placed on a remedial PT program until you meet or exceed the standards of the unit.
Take this time to compare the minimum men’s standards of 60 points to the minimum infantrymen’s standard of 75-85 points.
Now…compare that infantryman to the minimum female standards.
Do you notice quite a difference? You bet your ass.
Keep in mind that these events are done back to back in the order listed. The energy you have to perform one action is not restored before moving to the next, excepting about 10 minutes in between each event. If you really want, you can look at the application of the APFT in Chapter14 of the Army Field Manual 21-20 (FM 21-20).
I consider myself a pretty in shape guy. I can still pass an APFT with the same standard as when I got out…and I even switched age categories in the last couple of years. Let’s look at what an average veteran like me can do:
I’ll use my current age category for scoring: 37-41
Push-Ups in 2 minutes: 57 Score: 84
Sit-Ups in 2 minutes: 72 Score: 96
2 Mile Run-Time: 16:30 Score: 75
Total Score on APFT: 255/300
I might still fare well in an infantry unit for my age.
Indeed
Chances are, if I would have entered the military at 18 and gone into an infantry unit, I would now be a Sergeant First Class trying to keep up with the young bucks, with only my will to keep me going…considering the years of abuse to my body. Ever see a combat infantryman after 20 years on the job? Do you have any idea of the pain these guys have learned to live with every day as their knees, backs, shoulders, and feet break down under the constant stresses of the job?
Now, place your standard female in those positions. Let’s see her carry around not just herself and her gear (about 70lbs or 31Kg worth) for 10-12 miles, but also carry 160-210 lbs. of her fallen comrade – perhaps with his gear – for a few hundred yards.
The Argument against using Feminism against itself:
It has been argued that perhaps we should allow females into frontline combat positions off the misguided notion this will either teach these feminists a lesson or end wars as women come home in body bags. I find that argument abhorrent for a few reasons and I will outline them below.
While I sympathize with the idea that we should be teaching society better than to go to war for a country that uses and abuses half the population, the fact remains that the circumstances under which many men find themselves makes the Armed Forces a more viable way to stay alive than living on the streets. I have seen assholes turn into fine and responsible men.
Compare the stats. There are more men dying in our prisons and on our inner-city streets than in our wars (U.S.). Many young men turn to the military for both financial and physical survival when the chips are down. In this case, we are talking about individual choice. I do not condone propagandistic action on a societal level, but pragmatism overcomes idealism when your business tanks, you sell what you have to stay alive, and then realize that the only way you are going to get three hots and a cot is either go to prison or go into the Army.
Where else men are going to get the resources they need? There are few shelters worth a damn. Those that do exist provide little training or hope for advancement in society. Those that do provide job training are filled with the worst of misandric crap talk and no sense of camaraderie or belonging.
What I am saying is this. The Armed Forces have always been used as social institution for men to be able to make a living. It provides benefits, meals, clothing, and training in a variety of tasks. It provides job security. It provides meaning to many men (even if you don’t agree with the meaning). It also provides the opportunity to look oneself in the mirror. I should know. That’s how I found myself re-enlisting after nine years of being in the private sector.
The Armed Forces have provided a means for young men from some really fucked up backgrounds to rise above the level of homelessness or drug dealing and make something of their lives. It has broken cycles of poverty in numerous families, and has allowed men to perform at a standard they did not know they could. It has provided millions of men with a “second chance” while the rest of society would have fucked them with spiked dildos and no lube. It is not just about going to war, or playing some fucked up game on a politician’s chessboard. To many of the men in the military, it is simply a means to an end – a means you will not find anywhere else in society.
Not all these men are indoctrinated fools. Many of them know that they are simple mercenaries, and are just trying to bide their time long enough to get their foot in the door of the private sector long enough to allow that free training they received to be worth something. In today’s age of entitlement culture, it also offers these men something that a lot of civilian sector men lack – self-worth and a sense of accomplishment.
I don’t care how much spitting and sputtering anyone does about some idealistic bullshit concerning fighting wars for all the wrong reasons…the truth of what I say about these individual choices weighs more heavily than any anti-war argument. Within the context of this article, an anti-war sentiment means jack shit. Wars are not going to end anytime soon.
Now…when we solve the problems of institutionalized misandry in the private sector, free men up for the same opportunities (note: not the same “results”) that all these women have, and see some real progress, then come back to me with some ideologically based argument for men not going off to fight wars. I assure you I will be in perfect agreement.
Until then, if we start placing women in front line battle units because of some fucked up idea of equality…or trying to teach a “lesson” to these ignorant feminists, ideologues are consigning more men to die. It’s twice the damn risk for the same fucked up causes. It makes them no different than the politicians who already do such things over oil or land by using men’s lives to further a political or ideological agenda.
We are NOT disposable. That means protecting our assets. I refuse to go along with a plan that would place thousands in danger for truths we already know to be self-evident.
Onto the REAL psychological effect on men:
There are a few things that commanders have to keep in mind in order to have effective units. Two of the most important are supply and morale. In our argument we will focus on morale.
Take a unit of heavily trained combat soldiers. They have worked together in training for some time, usually 4-6 months before being deployed. They probably have two months of field time, a couple of months of garrison time, and maybe a little leave. These soldiers have learned to depend on each other for almost everything. From toilet paper and digging foxholes to live fire training operations and obstacle courses that require creative thinking and teamwork in order to cross.
Each of them has a role. They know their own strengths and weaknesses. They live, breathe, and sleep in the same close quarters for days and weeks at a time. These guys also realize that they all have to meet a minimum standard set by the unit in order to be part of the group…in order to be trusted, respected, and sometimes even befriended. They have gone through some seriously fucked up shit in training, and they have come through better for it. They have been trained to be cohesive unit capable of performing maneuvers, taking risks together, and respecting each other.
Let’s place some women into the unit. These women are not expected to conform to the same high physical standards that the men have to conform to. Most of them are placed there “by quota”, and even if they can score well on the women’s version of the APFT, the fact of the matter is that it does not take as much for them to make the same scores.
They are placed there by a system that perpetuates this notion of equality…and forces it into the unit.
How will the commander handle this? Will he make only the men carry the heavy weaponry in the unit, and only use the women as riflemen? Who will carry the extra ammo stores? Will these women be able to carry 70lbs. of equipment and an injured buddy for half a mile? Will you let the women only fill the role of radio carriers, or medics?
Ask yourself how that builds resentment in the unit. All these guys are pulling not just the stuff they have to deal with but the extra that is needed because these women cannot handle it. The unit is allocated a certain number of personnel to perform the necessary task, male or female. How will they get over the worst part of an obstacle course that was set up to test the endurance of bodily strength in men? How will their “teamwork” change in order to get the women across the course in a training scenario?
Morale will drop. Unit cohesion will suffer. The men will not trust these women to meet or exceed their own physical capabilities, and the women will get pissed because they know this.
Let’s look at it form a slightly different perspective. Have you ever been around an infantry combat unit and seen their speaking tact? Ever see them at rest in the field? Do you have any idea of the things they say or do to each other? I assure you, I could regale you with all kinds of sick, twisted, and supremely funny things these guys do to each other. It’s our version of play when the veneer of civilization is stripped away. Like it or not, it is also a method to release the day into memory, and it creates a bonding experience with the others.
Let’s place a bunch of women in there. These guys all of a sudden have no outlet. The “male” space they have to bond and work together in their own way is, all of a sudden, disrupted. They have to become cautious and conscious of every little detail, repressing that play, for fear of a cry of sexual harassment.
Believe me, when it comes to shit like that, the military is pretty damned misandric. Try bullshit seminars every quarter of the year to listen to yet another speech by some government funded Women’s Representative telling them what pieces of shit they are. Place that crap into the middle of a combat zone with the fear of reprisal for normal male play. I guarantee you that unit morale and cohesion will plummet.
This is the effect on the psychology of men…without even accounting for that “protective instinct” crap that social conservatives like to bandy about.
More on the Standards of Excellence Quotas:
Within the Armed Forces there are similar quotas in place for women as there are in the policing and fire-fighting fields. These quotas effectively force a lower standard to be required in order to be recognized by promotion boards, and for awards and merits.
The ultimate price of PC
We have already seen the double standard that exists within the U.S. Army in relation to the APFT, and how it relates to effective combat units. Other military occupations do not usually require the same level of physical prowess that a combat unit requires, and many of their functions can be performed in relative safety behind the wires of a Forward Operating Base (barring checkpoint incursions and the occasional mortar round). This is not to say that there are not supply vehicles that are manned by women on mounted .50 caliber machine guns or the occasional M240B machine gun in a turret that do not come under sniper fire or IED attack.. However, all these areas are scanned and patrolled regularly by scouts and infantry.
The Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures of moving through the areas require our soldiers to look for newly dug holes, wires, or even rocks that are out of place. They come to know the territory like the back of their hand, and become increasingly adept at discovering suspicious behaviors or suspicious areas. These roads are in essence relatively secure, as compared to the new paths that are forged by our fighting men everyday. These positions of relative safety come at the cost of a much greater amount of combat deaths to men than to women.
While there are many female soldiers that are capable using the same techniques in a supply convoy trundling along a dusty road, this is not the entirety of the infantry and scout functions. They actually take the fight to the enemy, and this requires a physical prowess and physical training that most women cannot perform.
Unfortunately, placing women into combat units will not alter the military policies concerning double standards and quotas. The powers that be in the sexual grievance industry and various “women’s superiority” groups have already infiltrated the military machinations on a very deep level. They will continue to purport lowering the physical requirements for women, when the fact is that there are many men who cannot meet the standard, even with a biological advantage. They will also push these women into leadership positions, and further their own agenda at the cost of lives.
Selection for promotion boards works off of quotas. Let’s say that several positions for the rank of Sergeant open up within a battalion. The units within may submit 5 personnel files each. These people represent those with enough promotion points to go to the board. From these, perhaps 10 are selected. What they do in order to fulfill the “quota” (though they won’t call it that) as guide-lined by the military’s equal opportunity program is knock of the bottom ranks of the files and fill them with women and minorities who have the requisite promotion points (with women minorities usually given a double whammy), and then proceed with the board.
We have seen successful integration of minority males into combat related military professions, and these men are expected to uphold the exact same standards that every other man is expected to uphold. No pass there; discounting a couple promotion points (which is what it usually comes down to). What happens when we do that for women who are not required to meet the same standard?
We suddenly have an influx of substandard leaders in one of the most dangerous professions in the world. Talk about having a crappy effect on morale, unit readiness, and unit survivability.
Do you want a lowered standard for combat troops when your ass is on the line? Will elements of the MRM still try to push for this so-called equality?
I say we don’t throw grease on this particular fire in an attempt to put it out. We will have blood on our hands for doing so.
6 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
quolls:
Jared White:
Codebuster:
napocapo69:
Rper1959:
You forgot to include the Pregnancy[PDF] problem.
“Some deploying units reported that non-deployable rates for pregnancy among women were as much as 30% of those assigned.”
Why not just make it an all female military. Fair is fair, men had all the combat roles to themselves for thousands of years……it’s the woman’s turn. No more men allowed in the military……enough male privilege already. I understand it now……being drafted is equal to winning the lottery…and it’s been a male only club for long enough…..from now on…..only women should be drafted……and men shouldn’t even be allowed in the military at all.
You know the truth, Stu.
I was a Washington-echelon mapmaker for 25 years, and a fukkin’teacher for 11 more. My Selective Service number was “8-I” – meaning that if the invaders reached 8th and I Streets Southeast (Washington DC), they’d call me up for the draft. (Truth: I worked for some years a few blocks from that corner. If I told you why, they’d have to kill me.)
I have some colleagues that came to my last duty-post via the Sandbox … Jerry S., Bob V., Paul J., Geri T., etc., etc. I don’t name them explicitly because their lives are still “on the line” and you have no Need To Know. Men and women alike, they’re devoted enough to the USA and the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights that they continued working for these after the military said “Thank you very much, now find another job.”
I am happy to honor anyone who has put themselves between their homeland and the war’s desolation. Honestly, though, I give my greatest honor to the MEN, the possessors of a “Y’ chromosome, who held their nation and its future as worth more … to themselves personally … than their own lives.
I think Paul dealt with this issue in a youtube video a few years ago. If women want to fight in combat then give them all female combat units.
The purpose of the article is to define how this relates to men more than women, without even touching on the viability of women’s reproductive choices, or other women’s issues.
Not that I did not even bother to consider the psychological implications to women in combat. This article simply brings it home in direct relation to our men in combat positions.
Perhaps you haven’t heard yet, but it’s once again “Mission Acomplished” time, we won the war don’tcha know, and we are getting ready to dump tens of thousands of unemployed veterans into an already faltering job market.
Personally, I predict the hero worship is about to end and the hate will begin…but that’s another story for another time.
The military is going to be pared down to a small size never witnessed in our collective memories, and is going to become a very different animal than the one we’ve always known and loved…kind of like when the Telephone company turned toward technology, “bodies” will no longer be all that necessary. It’s about to turn into button pushing lever pulling warfare from air conditioned offices, and face it – any woman can serve on the front lines of a war like that.
Having a large male population trained and familiar with weaponry and killing techniques is getting less and less appealing to the powers that be.
The War is over, you may now return to your regularly scheduled programming…
I agree.
Warfare as we know it is the the midst of a huge paradigm shift. We’ll be pairing down our military from a million and a half (.5% of the population) to less than 500,000 within ten years. This “women in battle” thing is a gratuitous gesture to feminist politicians.
The new warfare is precision strikes, small skirmishes and counter-terrorism. Basically everyone knows if somebody tries anything like massing huge batallions of troops to invade someone else somewhere, the US will intervene…from the air, if we have to.
The days of the bloody battlefield are over. Pulling threats to civilian populations into it, disrupting economies is stepping up.
This is troubling. I’m pretty sure I don’t want a equal opportunity feminist sitting in a bunker somewhere with her finger on a button that could send a ballistic missile into my bedroom window because a drone with a camera catches me having fun in the pool with my underage daughter who was wearing only her bathing suit.
I could argue that I have the advantage over you in this respect, that I have no pool nor have I any daughter.
But I have no confidence in that “advantage.”
There is a “hopeful escapism” in me, that hopes my beta-ineptitude will keep me off the radar until I’ve gone beyond the horizon.
That’s what police SWAT teams are for.
The US has already initiated hostilities with Iran, and may be planning a false flag attack which will ensure a pro-war presidential candidate wins. We’ll be at war with Iran by the end of the year. Could even lead to WW3. The economy is also about to crash. Maybe we’ll get to see martial law and a police state in every sense of the word. Should be interesting!
Nah, Iraq, Afganistan, just warm ups. The real war is yet to begin.
Canada, amirite?
Great article.
I think that segregated units are a good idea. If women are just as capable as men then it shouldn’t be a problem. The all-female unit should perform just as well… In theory.
It would be a good test.
Great in theory…but they will scream to the rafters that it is no different than the Jim Crow laws that existed pre-60′s U.S.
And women wouldn’t join up then. They will only join if they are guaranteed the protection of men. Even women will not want to rely solely on other women to cover their backs.
Santorum didn’t articulate it very well, but I think he’d agree with you 100% (privately of course).
All this Grrl Power on the front lines seems to be coming from the pointy headed beauracrats in the Pentagon. There are no Feminist groups pushing for it; there doesn’t need to be.
What’s happening is that, now that the scope of the battlefield has changed (its no longer batallions confronting each other from trenches), hand to hand…that it can now be safer for females.
There is a much softer, covert and vague gender-normalization that goes on in the private sector. Everyone knows a certain female is not as competent or capable as the guys, but she’ll get the promotion because of quota, and the guys will be expected to support her (support the PC environment). I speak from experience here.
There is no place a man can go to be with just men anymore (except in gay bars). The workplace, the military, clubs, etc. It’s important women monitor our feelings towards them. Anywhere men are gathering without women present is deemed to be threat. It’s patriarchy trying to reform itself.
FWIW, “Science Fiction” author Tom Kratman wrote an entire book in his (thinly veiled) allegory to the modern war on terrorism that deals explicitly with Women in combat.
Let’s just say the results are like to make PC heads explode as he addresses issues like the lower percentage of women who “get” something like the loyalty to a “boys club”, lower strength, sex and favoritism, ad infinitum.
People ask me if I have thought about going back in. It gives me the opportunity to tell them about the disgusting facts about affirmative action for women in the military.
I also remember those women coming and lecturing us during field training exercises about sexual harassment, date rape in the military and domestic violence, James.
There were also other women from animal protection agencies who had the power to shut down a training exercise if desert tortoise was being endangered. Every year we did a CAX (Combined Arms Exercise) and a MCRE (Marine Combat Readiness Evaluation) and I remember both of these exercises being interrupted as we would form huge school circles — sometimes comprised of an entire company — around some feminist lecturer in the field. At the time, I did not know what the term “feminist” meant and that term was never used. But looking back, I am certain that these were feminist women lecturing us.
I also remember how differently we interacted with each other when women were around. We had two or three women in our unit. They did not stay in the field like us. They were so weak that they could not carry two ten gallon water jugs fifty yards (something we all had to do several times per day). As for walking with an artillery shell on their shoulder? Forget about it. I carried two at a time – one on each shoulder. They were 92 pounds each. We would line up beside the ammo truck with one shoulder reader. The Marines on the ammo truck would slowly lower one down onto our shoulder. We would then turn around the other way and get a second. Most Marines carried one. I always carried two because I was capable of carrying two and wanted to do every single part of my job to the very best of my ability. We had one Marine who carried three. After getting both shoulders loaded, he would turn around with his back facing the deck of the ammo truck and the ammo guys would lower a third shell across the ends of the other two, resting against the back of his helmet. To release the shells, he would pitch the two shells on his shoulder so the third shell would roll off.
My point about this is that while Unit SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) only required us to carry one shell, we actually did a whole lot more without being told. So, even if women could meet the minimum requirements of countless many physical details such as the one that I just listed, they would still only be doing the bare minimum. But, what am I talking about; they can’t even carry water jugs. They were literally – and I mean LITERALLY – useless when I was in artillery. I was infantry prior to being artillery and there were none with us in the infantry. The idea of them putting women in infantry units with men is jaw-droppingly insane.
When women were around, I remember them telling us to watch our language, too. When I was just a Lance Corporal, I remember a female Corporal (although that is only one pay grade higher than Lance Corporal, it is enormously more powerful, as it is a NCO) telling us to watch our language one day when we were horsing around and wrestling and stuff in the dirt in the field. That was a long time ago. It is probably much worse now.
Also, women police the behavior of men, even in a setting where there is one woman and two dozen or so men. Men see other men as competitors so they facilitate this. Women have gotten into a habit of hen-pecking men who step out of line here in our study room without opposition. I have seen this occur when there was just one woman down there and over 25 men. Could you imagine a man in a room full of women who felt at liberty to hen-peck any woman who stepped out of line, only to have the other women join him in mocking and ridiculing the women he had chosen to target? Women would stick together in that situation. Men know their place, while in the presence of a lady and it makes no difference if he is the only man in a room full of women or if he is among 50 men in a room with just one woman. I would like for my fellow AVfM readers and contributors to close your eyes for a moment and really think about that last sentence. It is worth pausing for and fully absorbing, I think.
There is one female in the basement study room as I type this. There are 28 men. I just glanced around and counted. The entire social dynamic is profoundly different than it was 5 minutes ago, before she was here. She is also the president of our campus’s American Society of Mechanical Engineers, which is our version of class president.
And those women are oppressed!!!
My father objected strenuously when I first broached the topic of enlisting in the military because of the way he’d seen women treated during WWII.
Women serving during WWII was not a feminist exercise or show of “equality” but a genuine show of patriotism and solidarity.
If you think about it, it had been less than 40 years since their own Grandmothers had taken up arms while crossing the prairies and homesteading this country alongside their men.
I served during a time before the words “sexual harassment” were ever uttered. I served when men could – and did – speak as freely as they wanted, no longer constrained by the social mores of previous generations. If anything my presence intensified it, for there certainly was no holding back. I served during a time when a guy convicted of rape was given the choice to enlist in the military or go to prison. I found this out from the guy himself, laughing about it. I certainly wasn’t given any indication from the military.
At age 18 I was “promoted” to NCOIC and placed in with the roughest criminal thugs(we’re talking heroin dealers) with orders to demand they get hair cuts, wear starched and ironed uniforms instead of crumpled vomit spattered uniforms they’d slept in all week, and “order” them to actually work.
This “promotion” was instigated by over weight middle aged NCO lifers who were peeing themselves because they were too afraid to do it, while threatening ME with prison time in Leavenworth for disobeying orders because I was too afraid of them as well. I had already decided Leavenworth looked to be a better option than finding my body in a dumpster.
I didn’t mean to go off on a personal story, except to say there have always been and always will be women who feel obligated to do their part – even when they are not welcome.
…and have you noticed how so many of the so called “strong” women also frequently indulge in misandrist bigotry. I bet you they’re “policing” the men because they feel they are better than them.
Thanks James for this writing and helping everyone gain a piece of your insight(s).
Australian Defense Force Physical Requirements:
All services have the same requirements for shuttle runs and sit-ups. Push ups are the only difference.
Army: Men- 15, Women- 8.
Navy: Men- 15, Women- 6.
Airforce: Men- 10, Women- 4.
Army Special Forces: 30 push ups, 60 sit ups, 10.1 shuttle run. Women are not eligible it seems.
I remember when I applied to join the forces some years back these requirements were much high. Almost double. Seems they’ve been lowered a lot in the last few years.
Has any man who could not meet the men’s standards but could meet or exceed the woman standards ever challenge being excluded from military service? If weaker women can serve a country, why can’t weaker men? I am not advocating this, but it is another angle on the discrimination that is happening here.
You could just take the test very casually as to fail, then try to make make a shitstorm about it.
A particularly ripped and in-shape looking man doing this would get bonus points for style from me.
The same things are happening in the Australian Army
Our BFA ( Basic Fitness Assessment) for 25 years and under is
Push Ups (max possible in 2 min) Male must make 40 Females only 21 to pass
Sit Up ( max 100 in timed cadence) Male and Female must make 70 to pass
2.4 km run, Males must complete in 11min 18 sec and female in 13 min 30 sec to pass
Our government has announced changes to legislation that will remove any barriers to women acting in any role within our military within the next five years. http://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/media/news/2011/89_11.html
And whilst I hope conscription never rears its ugly head in Australia again , you can just imagine the outcry if it were, in the name of gender equality, applied to women as well as men. (Australian young men were conscripted to fight in the Vietnam war including many (18-20 old enough to fight and die but not old enough to vote or drink legally )
Personally I think there is an argument for all Male and all female combat units, exactly based on the dynamics of men or women being best able to cooperate together in a unisex environment, this argument applies to segregated team and individual sport, so why no to combat.
Then the question of equality would relate to the task/ missions allocated to male or female units, guess which ones will get the easier missions?
equality in the military pfffttt!
Great article James and I agree with everything you said, even though I have never served in the armed forces. But even blind/dumb Freddy, can see that putting women in the armed forces, will be fraught with all sorts of problems and dangers, most of which will be borne by men.
I also agree with the idea of having women only units, because this will remove some of the problems that you have spoken of.
There is however one issue to do with women that hasn’t been mentioned here, and I believe it hasn’t because most see it as something we all know about but are maybe too afraid or respectful to talk about.
I would like to see how it will pan out, when you have a whole unit constantly cycling monthly and each and every member at some point, becoming bitchy and nasty toward the rest of the unit.
It will be interesting to know how the unit will cope with these emotionally disturbed and abusive women.
Also, and remaining on the same topic of monthly cycles. How will warfare go in the future, when we have these same hormonally erratic females sitting at a desk somewhere controlling drones that have high explosives on board and certain critical decisions have to be made as to whether or not a target should be annihilated?
It will be interesting to know how the military will get past the fact that women in just about any walk of life and in any profession cannot make decisions that are not either emotively driven, or hormonally driven.
I’m not apologising for raising this topic, because I would most definitely NOT want to be in a combat zone relying on any female that was hormonally unbalanced. She would end up getting us all killed.
And yeah, that is an unknown assumption, but in my opinion, I believe it would be a true assumption, if there is such a thing.
They are all like Samantha Carter on Stargate SG1. You didn’t get the memo?
Could be worse; they could all be Starbuck from BSG.
She appeared to be the Alpha amoungst the fighter jocks…don’t see that in real life every day.
I’m not sure if that would happen in real life on any day.
you *never* see that… science fiction indeed!
I have seen some pretty strange creatures walking around out there. You have to watch what can, shower or shacks they walk into to make some determination. You sometimes can’t even be sure of that, so into the pers files you go to check which box they ticked off.
You see this same shit everywhere, lowering standards to accommodate women.
I’ll tell you a story of one of my many examples of this bullshit. Going back to when I was 23yo. I found myself unemployed after getting into a full on punch on with a guy twice my size at work, lost the fight, and my job lol. The worst part was facing my stay at home wife and telling her I was unemployed……so I didn’t. Told her I was having some time off because I’d injured myself at work. And after few days, I started putting on my overalls and steel caps and heading off like I was going to work. Boy was I hussling for a job….any job…I would have waded neck deep in sewage 60 hours a week for a paycheck.
I walked into this truck tyre retreading plant. I noticed all the guys there were filthy, covered in black shit, sweating….the place stunk of molten rubber and it took your breath away, it was hotter then hell as well. I rocked up at just the right time, One of their pot men as they called them, had quit…..after a few days on the job…..it was their 5th pot man on that line in a few weeks….the job just ate men and spat them out and it was normal for them to go through a few try outs before they got someone that could hack it for the long haul.
It was a truck tyre retreading plant. There were a number of production lines, all identical. At one end of the factory, the bald tyres were delivered, they went through a process of inspection, and puncture repair etc, and then got allocated to a line. This was all done by the shift supervisor, who done that, and the office duties, as well as arranged dispatch of finished goods.
The next stage in the process was buffing, this was the easiest of the production jobs. The tires were lifted onto a hub, inflated, and spun….it was like a tyre lathe, and the tyre was machined down to just above the first steel belt. The machined surface was then sprayed with an adhesive rubber compound, and hung on a hooked pole which fed in through a tunnel that heated the tyre to a high temp. When they came out of there, the builder bonded new tread to the casing, which was a pretty hot, heavy job, and required him to work at break neck spead trying to keep up with the line.
The next process was the pot man. Everyone that started in that place started on the pots. The hardest, hottest, filthiest and most dangerous job in the place, and if you couldn’t hack it there, you went no further, and got the boot out the door. The manager of the place was a Pom, ex military, and a real ball breaker.
The pot man had to fit tubes to those tyres, put them on rims….inflate them to pressure, and fit these really thick, tight fitting rubber envelopes that covered the entire tyre and part of the rim….he then stacked the on this poles…eight high……these were lifted by crane into a vertical autoclave, sealed up…and run at about a zillion psi of pressure and equal temperature. Each pot man had two boilers, and two autoclaves to run…..that’s 16 tyre and rim sets to cure per cycle. You had to have the next 16 stacked and ready to go in when the current 16 completed their cure cycle. As soon as you got 16 fresh ones into the autoclaves and fired up, you had a race against the clock to strip down the 16 that came out, hot enough to strip your skin off at a touch. You operated between two giant autoclaves, two big boilers, in temp over 120F handing tyre and rim sets that weighed over 250lbs each, were smoking hot, while wearing overalls, steel caps, gloves, goggles, face mask. You had to strip that 16 down, spray them with rubber compound, and build another 16 sets…..in 1 and a half hours. A new start got help for two weeks…..after that you were expected to handle it all on your own.
A pot man worked his way through the production line as other jobs became vacant. I was on the pots for 18 months, then I became a builder, and finally a buffer.
Then one day, this little blonde piece of fluff walks in the door looking for a job. After being shown around the place, and convinced that there were no jobs suitable for her at this site, she left. A couple of days latter she put a complaint in, and some bitch from some discrimination, equal opportunity joint came around. She insisted that her client could do a job here…..not the job that was coming up for vacancy though….a pot man……because no matter who left…..the pot man moved up…and the pot mans job became vacant…..that is the way this place had operated since day one…….start at the bottom….everybody. Anyway…..she got the job on buffing…….my job….and I got booted back to building, and a pot man that would have moved up to building, stayed on the pots. To make matters worse…she couldn’t even lift the truck tyres onto the buffing hub…….so I, and others had to keep going over there to do that for her……it was a total joke. She made several complaints in her short tenure there, about swearing, dirty jokes, etc. All the guys felt like they had to top toe around on egg shells. She however used to bring in little goodies that she baked at home….cakes, biscuits…..one of her big hits….was chocolate cocks…..yes….moulded chocolate cocks….she used to add a dribble of white chocolate to some of them too.
If I didn’t have a stay at home wife and a young son at home, I probably would have just walked out when they bumped me back down to building….from the job that I had earned…to give it to her. But I decided no matter how many breaks they cut this chic, she won’t last anyway…..and I was right…..10 weeks…and she left. She’d driven a few guys to leave by then, including the shift supervisor, who cracked the shits one day about her and just thew his keys and pass on the bosses desk and stormed out……never to return. 5 years he had been there. This paved the way for me to become shift super…..and finally assistant manager……so I suppose I owe that to her LOL
Quite a few years later, and with me single, and my son grown, I had a similar experience with a woman getting all the breaks, and a promotion which was actually due to myself, all because she was a pretty little woman, and useless at everything else……so….put her in charge right. I was also instructed at that point, that I would teach her the new job she had been promoted too…..because I had been doing most of it…….for a few months. I threw my security pass and keys to the plant at the bosses head lol. Gave him a rant before I stormed off. I was taking home over $1000 per week from that job….sometimes up to $1500 with massive amount of overtime, but I drove home with a smile on my face.
I saved this story. Thanks for all the detail. That is enraging.
Shocking. Absolutely shocking. On top of not needing to fulfill the job requirements (in the army or elsewhere), women censor men’s conversation (harassment) and behavior. Then other men have to jump in for their shortcomings.
I just wrote an article about women getting the same pay at Wimbledon as men. But to sell all the seats for the women’s final, they have to reduce the ticket price. And it was hard work to find that the #203 man totally wiped out 2 of the top 10 women in one afternoon. And it seems an average college team man could win against the women’s #1 in the world.
And worse, Ignatius Loyola, the editor of reddit men”s rights defended equal prize money for women.
Women’s tennis: higher pay for weaker play, less work, less spectators, less advertising dollars
The same crap is going on everywhere in every army in NATO. Special treatment for the royal sex. Practically every female on the Basic course I am instructing on now can barely pull the cocking handle back on their service rifle to engage the bolt catch. The PTB are going to try and put this PC square peg in round hole until they convince themselves they did it. The only thing you can do is soldier on and take care of your own job and those who matter. Smile and wave troops, smile and wave.
It is amazing how women are so weak they get scarred for life when listening to shocking words or being exposed to an objectifying gaze.
Weakness is a mighty weapon for fragile feminist crybaby girls: The Sexual Harassment Industry
And these people want to serve in the army or at hard work, and then order the men to obey their speech code, so they will not be profoundly hurt by having to listen to “offensive” speech.
Shocking.
Yes I’ve laughed about that before. Feminists claiming woman are equal to men in everything….better at most things actually…..they can be firefighters, soldiers, police, anything you can name…..but….they are also so weak and pathetic….that they need draconian laws to protect them from a dirty joke….a verbal argument…..a dirty look, they are so easily damaged and destroyed…..that merely hurting their feelings becomes a crime of such magnitude that swat teams have to be sent out in their defence.
And the same feminists preach both versions..with a straight face. When the fuck is society going to demand a straight answer….which is it….weak and pathetic…..or strong independent and as good as any man…….make up your minds.
Stu, you’re an Aussie like me and you know the deal when it comes to equality.
I gotta tell you that your above post about the truck tyres was very interesting and thank you for taking the time and energy explaining it to us.
However, deep down I think you secretly loved helping the sheilas lift up heavy stuff in that workplace and maybe,, yeah just maybe in doing so you you did so in order to have your bloke way with her.
There. I said it.
You sir are in fact a misogynisticle person that in actual fact just needs a most ripping and stout hug to release the inner girl. The girl that’s whimpering for even more hugs.
Nothing wrong with that. I heard it’s natural when I was at one of them “bloke kissing trees tribal in the hills events.”
Tofu was fucked but.
OT:
False accusations are rampant in the front range (CO):
February 15, 2012: Police: Boulder Woman Made Up Attack
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/30468382/detail.html
January 27, 2012: Police: Woman Made Up Attack For Boyfriend’s Attention
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/30316513/detail.html
January 18, 2012: Sheriff: Woman Fabricated Police Impersonator Sex Assault
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/30245379/detail.html
So are we approaching 90% of alleged attacks are false for this area?
Back in 1995 Newt Gingrich reported that menstruation makes women unfit for combat.
http://holyhormones.com/womens-health/menstrual-cycle/liddy-gingrich-limbaugh-and-supreme-menstruation/
Deprovera shots can stop women’s periods or reduce them to a few times a year.
Wonder how much combat Newt saw…
There should be feminist minefield clearers. They’d join hands and march across fields singing, “I Will Survive!” Follow-on male combatants would just follow the craters.
I’m not sure technowars would be painless. First, enemies can hijack weapons electronically, like Iran did recently with a US drone.
Also, “primitive” cultures tend to improvise. Who predicted IEDs when we entered Iraq?
Also, America is particularly vulnerable because it’s a fairly open, tolerant country, easily infiltrated. It’s also been spared much homeland bloodshed since the Civil War (perhaps why we’re so gungho about attacking others). Car bombs going off every day in small towns will bring us to our knees…and/or bring a dictatorship to “protect” us.
Plus technology increases and miniaturizes. How long before a country with nothing to lose unleashes anthrax, etc.? Or carries nuke-like devices in suitcases? We never saw 9-11 coming. I’ll wage the next attack won’t be by air.
A few power stations being sabotaged would bring the first-world back to the third. We are just too used to our iPods and flat-screen TVs.
The idea of America as policeman to the world is getting old…and more dangerous. There are only so many “small force” units one can use before bigger weapons are brought to bear. Smaller, deadlier forces tempt “enemies” to consider bigger weapons on softer targets (like civilians).
America is acting crazy. We went into Iraq because a few guys from Saudi Arabia attacked us. Only 3000 died out of 300,000,000. Not nothing, but compare it to Russia’s losses during WWII.
Anyway, it was as China destroyed Canada because Brazil killed a few thousand Chinese. Wrong target!
Some claim we’ve killed a total of 1 million Iraqis. If true, percentage-wise, that’s like Russia wiping out every man, woman and child in:
Baltimore and Boston.
Plus Columbus, Detroit, and Indianapolis.
FIVE bit cities…gone.
Can you imagine America’s reaction if everyone in even ONE city were killed, much less f-i-v-e?
But wait: to the above deaths we’d have to add everyone in Memphis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Phoenix, AND San Antonio.
And we’d still not be done. We’d have to add all living in San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle, too.
That’s right. ALL those folks would be dead while Russians sat back watching TV and drinking vodka, thinking nothing about what their country’s military was doing.
Yet some wonder why not everyone is keen about our “way of living.”
Oh well.
Brian Mitchell wrote a great book on women in the military:
http://www.amazon.com/Weak-Link-Feminization-American-Military/dp/0895265559
David Horowitz (whom I tend to agree with, save when he’s doing his “Israel uber alles” shtick) wrote about the issue, too, in HETERODOXY.
He did it here, too:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/women/horowitz1.html
I wish Joseph Heller were alive to update his great anti-war opus, CATCH-22. Perhaps he’d call the new tome “Catch-ing Hell”…about the maddening hypocrisies and duplicities of fembotulism.
I work with an Iraqi guy, he’s one of the best blokes at work. During a conversation one day, he made the comment that he finally realized that there was no Santa when he was 8, and it was really just his dad leaving presents from him under the tree.
I hadn’t realized that he had been raised christian at that point in time. I asked him about that, what it was like being a christian family in a predominately Muslim country. He said, when he was growing up, it was fine. There were millions of Christians in Iraq, whole communities of Christians, and at xmas, you could see all the xmas decorations. Some areas looked just like it does in western countries.
He said that under Saddam, people had a great deal of personal freedom, religious and otherwise, women were everywhere dressed just like they do in the west, a little more conservative, but definitely not very restrictive.
He actually said that the west seen Saddam as a monster, and mad man, a butcher, but he said, believe me Stu if you run a country with so many Muslim fundamentalists who would love to impose all their restrictions and discrimination on everybody, the only way to keep them down is with an iron fist, and the US is doing exactly the same thing, on a much larger scale. And he said to look at Iran, this is what a country looks like when Islamic fundamentalists take over. Iraq was like Iran was before the Islamic revolution, now Iraq will be like Iran is now, all that was stopping this happening was Saddam. Look at it now……..sharia law, we never had sharia law before, Saddam done a better job of maintaining peoples freedom then the US has done, and he didn’t kill as many people as the US either. He’s been to the US a number of times, he has family living there, and he said that people in Iraq living under Saddam were freer than people in the US today. Look at the way the police treat people, look at the laws they have now, all this because of 9/11, but every day would have been 9/11 in Iraq if it were not for Saddam.
I asked him if he ever goes home to visit. He said he has been twice since the war, but he will not go again. His family have nearly all left, and are now spread out all over the world. None of them want to go home.
He got married recently, (sign of insanity) he invited nearly the whole world to his wedding. I did my usual, told him I’d skip the wedding, but I’d come to the divorce lol. He had this huge wedding, with hundreds of people, people from all over the world, his family is spread all over, he left an open invitation for anybody on his shift at work to come…..that’s a lot of people…about 15 or so went, and they reckon is was a real celebration. All these Arabs, drinking, laughing, dancing, all the Aussies there that I spoke to were really impressed with how warm and friendly and fun loving his relatives were…..the Aussie girls were impressed with how the couple received hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and presents…..ho hum…..what else would they be impressed with.
A bit of an eye opener. Apparently there was over 3 million Christians in Iraq, and many other minority cultural and religious groups, all living pretty much free to practice their lives without harassment, as long as they didn’t challenge the political establishment, that was not tolerated. Now that population is drastically reduced, and those that remain keep much lower profiles…..Christians are dressing like Muslims, to avoid harassment in the street, people are starting to keep their religious practices out out of public view.
He thinks that Iraq will go the way of Iran, and probably even end up joining in some sort of alliance with Iran.
I could be wrong about the following, but the only reason I reckon why the US went into Iraq, was because Saddam dared to challenge them over the oil. Sure he tried to annexe Kuwait, but that could have been orchestrated too.
But the US used their own orchestrated 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq to secure the oil again and keep it flowing to the US. They only wanted to go into Afganistan, because the Taliban (which the US instituted in the first place) were interferring with the lucrative Opium industry.
When you interferre with commodities/money that the US deems is there’s, they send in the troops. On these occasions, they had to orchestrate attacks to get the public to agree to going to war. Otherwise nothing would have happened.
You got it………..oil. Saddam was going to start selling oil in non US dollars. Oil is traded throughout the world in US dollars….and Saddam was selling oil to other countries in other currencies.
Also, in the case of Kuwait…..apparently they were stealing Iraqi oil by drilling horizontally from the border….into Iraqi fields. My friend says this is common knowledge in Iraq, but barely received a mention in western countries. The technology to do that, could only have come from the US at that time, and would have taken years to implement.
I remember when thy hung him, and the US media reports were saying things like he was cowering in his cell before they came for him….and he was like a scared broken man at the gallows. Then the mobile phone footage came out. Scared broken man my arse. He was just as he had been during his trial……defiant……balls of steel…..and dignified. I seen a version with English subtitles of the conversations taking place as they prepared him for hanging. He refused his hood, walked calmly to the gallows, traded insults with the lynch mob gathered below…..and stood there with the rope around his neck and said his final proclaimation of faith before they hung him. He showed no sign at all of being afraid.
You can say whatever about him…madman, butcher, dictator, blah blah blah……..but coward…..no way. Even if every bit of US propaganda said about him is true…..still have to respect the man for having the balls to stand up against the biggest military force in the world….and for giving them the finger right to the end.
I served in the United States Army for 4 years. During this time, I saw time and again the fact that women were not able to cut it. Yet time and again the United States Army made exception after exception to allow them to pass so that they could make “Quota”. I will share with you a couple of the experiences where it directly affected me.
The first one happened in Basic Training where you are required to learn and be able to accomplish the basics of soldiering. One of the final tests is the 7 day FTX (Field Training Exercise) where you are required to spend an entire 7 days training in the middle of nowhere (at least men are). Half way through this training exercise all of the women were rounded up and taken back to the barracks by bus. There the women were allowed to shower, wash laundry, eat in the chow hall and sleep in beds with mattresses.
At the end of the 7 day FTX we are required to pack up our gear and hump it all back to base in a forced 15k ruck march. About two miles into this march the women in our group began to fall out (fall behind and give up). However, because we are a team in which we pick up the slack for our platoon mates, I was required to carry all of one of the woman’s gear for her while she got to march beside me the rest of the way with no gear whatsoever.
Just so that you know my rucksack was 65 lbs, my rifle (M249B) weighed around 14 lbs (loaded) plus the extra ammo (25 Lbs), my personal gear (Flack vest, canteens, side arm, ammo = 30+ lbs). Now just double that because a woman had to be coddled. Imagine having to do all of that and then at the end of the march, having to fight for your life and most likely protect this woman. Insane!
Second I was completing my AIT (Advanced Individual Training) where you learn your actual job. I was EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) basically Army Bomb Squad. This is an MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) where women are allowed. During one of the tests we had to set a 2000 lbs demo charge.
This required us to lift, carry and properly arrange over 1900 lbs of various explosive ordinances. Then once it is all set up we are required to properly set C-4 in strategic positions to maximize to explosive force. While doing this we are required to wear the Bomb Suit, which is black and very heavy. This is in Florida in the middle of summer. We were doing two at a time so that we could save time. So while I was doing mine a fellow soldier (Female) was doing hers about 100 meters to the south.
About half way through arranging the ordinance for demo she passed out. Since there were only two bomb suits I had to stop in the middle of the training exercise and go to her, pick her up, carry her back to the Observation Post (Half a mile) walk all the way back to the Demo site and then finish not only my demo but hers as well. Yet even after this she passed. Just as a side note I was rolled back to a new class just starting this section of the schooling because I had failed to properly demo (her) site. I had missed a brick of C-4 when I was wiring it all together. Mine was perfect but my female instructor informed me that unexpected things can happen in the field (which she is right) I had failed because the other woman couldn’t hack it. Yet the woman who couldn’t hack it passed? Hmmm.
Now put this woman in a combat situation in Iraq, where it is hotter and there are infantry soldiers being shot at while you are supposed to demo an IED so that the convoy can continue on their way. Do you think she could hack it then if she could not hack it in a training exercise stateside? I think not.
Yep, same Army I was in.
Paul,
Sorry for changing the topic — I sent you an email regarding a video that I posted on youtube. I’m not sure how to get in touch with you.
Sorry, I often miss emails. You can link the video here if you like.
Sure. Here you go.
Awesome video, Jack. Really great.
LET US UNITE.
This is very eye opening. Thanks for sharing. It’s interesting that none of these examples are in the news.
None ever will. It is not PC to show publicly a woman not being able to do what their male counterparts can. Why doyou think in the military promotional ad’s they always show the men and women descending the ropes out of the choppers with all their gear on and not climbing up it. Women just do not have the upper body strength to be able to climb a rope on a hovering heli with all their gear on their backs. No… No feminist would ever allow that on T.V.
Meaning the chopper must land to extricate female soldier.
I would suggest all female inanfry units if they insist on being in the military in the 1st place and hope to hell the generals know better than to count on them to take and hold a position where they may break a nail.
They cry discrimination if held to the same standards as men. They really do remind me of young boys playing at “war”.
The difference being their game of war will cost very real human lives.
It is very simple psychology. We have something that they don’t and so now they want it. They are to jealous toddler in the proverbial sandbox. No matter how much we allow them to have they always want more.
Look at the family court system in the U.S. Women divorce their husbands and their husbands have to pay alimony and child support so that their ex wife who divorced him because she wasn’t happy with the choices she made, doesn’t have to work to hard. Now they bitch because that same husband who works 70-100 hours a week so that he can afford to pay that enormous sum of money every week isn’t spending enough time with his children.
It is the same thing with the military. We will end up letting them in the infantry. Then they will want to be in Special Forces Units. Then they will be upset because some woman who allowed herself to get captured while on routine patrol was raped and tortured to death. Then suddenly they wont want it so badly.
“We have something that they don’t and so now they want it.”
For me that “something” was a coat to wear in the winter and a pair of shoes and underwear without holes in them.
It was the ability to send money home to help out my family after my father became disabled from a work place accident and lost EVERYTHING. It allowed me to know the pride of having served my country, of taking a solemn oath to defend the Constitution.
It allowed me to be self sufficient, the opportunity to go to college, to be self supporting without resorting to prostitution – as in marriage.
Let’s face it – military service does not attract wealthy or comfortably middle class women. Not many, anyway.
I was lucky. I was just “poor”. Like so many males, most women I served with were “throw aways”. Unloved, unwanted, many of them from incest and abuse situations, many had experienced abortions which were still very illegal at the time.
I thought I had done an honorable and noble thing, only to scolded for not having “stayed home and gotten married” – although marriage was equally scorned as “legal prostitution”.
It’s very rare that I meet or speak to other women who have served in the military, so I can only speculate. But I’ve always thought military service would do a lot a spoiled, entitlement princesses a lot of good. But then, I’m an Oklahoma farm kid who always had to do physical work, so what do I know?
I learned at my 20 year class reunion that only me and one guy enlisted and served from my class of over 400. Men weren’t exactly beating the doors down to enjoy the “priviledge”.
I served during VietNam, from 1971-1974. I quickly learned then – and it hasn’t changed in the decades since – that speaking up about this topic does anything but bring derision, but I don’t believe ONLY men should serve in the military because of their upper body strength anymore than I believe ONLY women should get the children because of their upper body mammary glands.
I would like to state that I do not beleive in precluding women from joining the military. Far from it, infact I beleive that women should be encouraged to join. When it comes to defending our country and our way of life then nobody should be told that they are not allowed for any reason other than that of physical incapabilities.
However, I will say that if women want to be in a combat arms MOS then they need to be able to compete on the same level as their male counterparts. When serving in a combat arms MOS your life expactany is far greater when your ENTIRE squad/platoon/company is able to operate at the same level. Having to stop in the middle of an mission to assist a comrade (female) over an obstacle, not due to injury or illness but instead due to the fact that the physical requirements were reduced to allow a certain quota of females to be active is not only demoralizing and derailing but also deadly.
If a woman can compete on the same level as the rest of the platoon without assistance or coddling than I would have been more than happy to welcome her into the platoon.
“I’ve always thought military service would do a lot a spoiled, entitlement princesses a lot of good.”
I agree with this statement to a point. It would definately to them alot of good. However that is only if they are required to be treated the same as their male counter parts. I can not tell you how many times I was hit, screamed at and dragged around durring basic training. However when I would look around the females were never treated this way.
All they would have to do is break down crying and the Drill Seargants would back off. Should a EO (equal opportunity) or sexual harrassment claim be filed against a Drill Seargant then it could be a career ender.
When you take women with a sense of entitlement and then treat them better and allow them to get away with more than their male counter parts then all you are doing is adding fuel to the fires of entitled women. Now when they get out of basic training they already know they are going to get away with more than the men. Add to that the quarterly EO and Sexual harrassment classes that last 8 hours and are nothing more than man bashing and enforcing the victimization of women.
Whether speaking on a subject could cause derision or not should not be cause for us to hold our tongues or our typing fingers in this instance. I just recently took my first dose of that bitter pill a little over a year ago and a few months ago had another dose. I am tired of holding my tongue due to some PC machine telling me that it is not couth to speak of such things. Well if we will not speak of it than who will.
When I served, the big PC Machine spotlighted “Race Relations” with all it’s incredibly abusive quotas, accomodations and trespasses.
My father’s generation saw nothing wrong with putting black American soldiers behind white German POWs at a Lena Horne USO show. They didn’t want inferiors in their ranks. They weren’t forced to hold their tongues with name calling or keeping them in their place. They sure as hell weren’t going to take ORDERS from them.
My generation paid for it.
My generation saw nothing wrong with allowing convicted rapists a “get out of jail free” card for their service. Demeaning female personnel in the military was just boyish fun, and besides they deserved it, all of them being whores, lesbians and nymphomaniacs looking to trap a husband.
Subsequent generations now pay for it.
The writing is on the wall that with the repeal of DADT the PC machine is going into overdrive to right all wrongs, and once again…the current generation will pay for it.
> [OneHundredPercentCotton wrote]: “My generation saw nothing wrong with allowing convicted rapists a ‘get out of jail free’ card for their service. Demeaning female personnel in the military was just boyish fun…”
Did they “demean” women because females “served” as donut-dollies while the men “served” on frontlines? My stepmother’s sister served as a Marine. A Marine….clerk! To her credit, she never pretended to be a combat grunt. And was quick to point out she was always safe, working in offices state-side.
Now…not for nothing, but what did you actually do in the military, Cotton? Were you a “tunnel rat”? Did you serve on frontlines? Or did you serve safely in the rear? I’m not trying to bust you, just want clarification.
Military men don’t like guys who brag about military exploits they never participated in (Like con men who pretend to be Navy Seals to collect kudos and cash). They know the difference between pencil-pushers and those who go on LURPS.
The difference between miltiary men and women? The most pampered, coddled, “connected” far-from-frontlines male can STILL be called up and put on frontlines. Women in the military know THEY will never face that.
Do military women die in war? Sure. As do civilians. And cows. But we don’t call dead bovines “soldiers” for a reason.
More men have died during peacetime maneuvers than all military women have in all situations/theatres/eras.
The objection MRAs have to women in the military is that ladies enjoy a relative cakewalk. It’s like men demanding and getting the perks mothers do for giving birth while, you know, actually not undergoing labor. Meanwhile, they endlessly preen about parenting and how hard it is for guys to give birth.
In other words, total horseshite.
Men are TIRED of feminist heiferpoop. And increasingly (than goddess!) angry and outspoken and united.
A typical fembot is like the baseball commissioner’s daughter. She expects to get (and heretofore has gotten) a homerun every time she bats. At too long last the professional male players are not going along. As a result, Missy and her ilk are pissed, confused, and scared.
Their game is up.
Black men fought on both sides during the American Civil War. They did not say they wanted to be soldiers, doing everything whites did, except, yuh know, fighting and dying. Yet that’s what feminists do. Endlessly. They DEMAND to be treated equally, then do everything in their power to make sure things are easier, safer, and more rewarding for vaginates.
The days is rapidly ending.
“The most pampered, coddled, “connected” far-from-frontlines male can STILL be called up and put on frontlines”
I heard that a lot…except I was in the Air Force, and out of the thousands and thousands of men I encountered, I never met a single one that was put on any front lines.
Like every male, I raised my right hand and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States – an oath I took seriously. It’s why I am here.
I was ASKED to serve at a time most males tried to avoid serving. You see, I didn’t think it was FAIR that women had no obligation to their country when men did.
I still don’t.
I already stated what I did in a previous post on this thread.
You can say what you will, I did not set the policy, I did not make the rules. The circumstances I faced at the time wouldn’t have mattered if I were sent to the front lines or not. I make no apologies for having chosen Military service over letting my family starve in the street or having my siblings farmed out by the welfare lady.
It’s not the women serving that made the policies or decided the rules. It’s ineffective and downright cowardly to attack those who had no more say in the matter than you did.
OneHundredPercentCotton – I thank you for your service. I completely understand that sometimes it is not your choice where you serve or how. More than that, it does not matter where or how you serve simply that you do. So again I thank you.
I can agree and even understand on a very personal level why you chose to serve. I think that all people regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation should be allowed to serve. The only point I was trying to make earlier is that any woman that intends to join the military should have to be able to perform on the same level as their male counter parts.
I am sure that you can agree with that. In the army we had a saying for racism. It went something like this “We are all green on the outside and we all bleed red white and blue.” However this is not the same with females. They very simply are given preferential treatment over males. This may not have been the way it was when you served but it is very simply the way it is now.
If you want to serve in a combat arms MOS then you (male/female) should have to meet the same requirements without assistance.
Not sure what the article is trying to do for Men’s Rights here, but I wouldn’t advocate men being continually used as cannon-fodder. I expect thousands of women to be shot and killed.
OK, so let me get this straight: you think women should be banned from combat roles because the average woman can’t run 2 miles as fast as the average man?
Dude, I’m a man and I couldn’t have made those fitness limits back when I was 18! On the other hand, I know plenty of women who COULD’VE done just as good as the men.
Wouldn’t it be better to simply say “Here’s how fast you need to run as a grunt” and leave it at that? Let anyone in who can make the cut? That, to me, would be the non-sexist, mission-oriented position to take.
As for women being out because of pregnancy, for hundreds of years, western militaries lost significant numbers of their effectives due to venereal disease. I think that the modern military can cope.
There is so, so much wrong with this, both in your over simplified reduction of the article to a foot race, and in your equally obtuse comparison of STD’s to pregnancy. If I get time I will write an article on it.
The issue is not whether or not they can run as fast as their male counterparts but rather that they are not required to. There are already set physical standards for soldiers and if you cannot pass them then very simply you cannot be a soldier.
However women are not held to the same physical standard as men and even more they are not held to the same standards period.
There is much and more to this issue than just physical capabilities. However physical incapabilities is the most apparant and most likely to get a male soldier killed the fastest.
Ask yourself this, Would you put yourself in a life or death situation with someone you knew was not only physically incapable of performing at the level needed to complete the mission but more so you would be required to make up whatever slack there was due to her incapabilities?
Another huge issue with this is the psycological ramifications for the men in the unit of placing females within the unit with them. This entails everything from the biological drive of men to protect women even at the expense of themselves and their mission. As well as the knowledge that placing a woman within this unit would take a bunch of already high strung and stressed out soldiers and making them bottle everything up rather than let it out in ways that a woman might see as inappropriate and sexually demeaning.
There is alot you need to take into consideration before you make a decision on this issue. I served in the Army and am in my 3rd year of 4 years pursuing a degree in sociology and there is much and more that I am sure that I am not taking into account with this issue.
“I couldn’t have made those fitness limits back when I was 18! On the other hand, I know plenty of women who COULD’VE done just as good as the men.”
No. No you don’t.
You may have known some women who could have done just as well as the men you know, but the best woman in the world cannot compete with the top men.
If you look at sport, it is often said that the women’s Olympic teams would be a fair match for a male high school team.
Example, tennis: http://www.topendsports.com/sport/tennis/men-v-women.htm
To simply qualify for a place on the Men’s track team, men have to beat the current (female) world record by several seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth#p/u/13/Oqb2icrpVVM
You seem to think that combat itself is comprised of two mile runs. Women in combat has nothing to do with women running physical fitness tests on a sunny, southern California day.
You suggested we say, “‘Here’s how fast you need to run as a grunt’ and leave it at that.” So you agree that there should be a minimum speed. Shouldn’t this minimum speed be set for maximum combat effectiveness? See, if the bar is set too low, the average speed of a grunt is too slow, right? If the bar is set too high, the average speed of a grunt is very fast, but there aren’t enough grunts because too few will pass the test, right? Wouldn’t both of these scenarios be less than ideal?
Are you familiar with optimizing things? You know, finding that perfect required speed of a grunt to have the most effective infantry? Shouldn’t we optimize our military effectiveness by formulating some speed that is fast enough that the mean speed is satisfactory but not so fast that our strength is diminished due to less men available to fight?
Women have the bar lowered for them already but receive the same pay. Why isn’t THAT injustice the focal point of your argument? After all wasn’t it you who suggested the speed be set in a certain place regardless of the sex of the person being timed? Again, that is ALREADY not the case. Women get extra time time.
Should women be given extra time?
You seem to be saying also that the standards for men are too high. You said that you, yourself, as a man could not have passed even at your peak at 18. Well, I didnt have any trouble running 3 miles in 18 minutes in US Marine boot camp. Neither did tens of thousands of other men. Why lower the requirements for men? Seems to me that he requirements for men are about right. Remember what I said about optimization?
Men that are too slow are not allowed to join the infantry because they MIGHT GET A PLATOON KILLED.
I guess women who are in this same category do not pose a similar threat to the mission?
You also said that you know women who would do just as good as the men. No, you don’t. You may know women who can complete the run just as fast. But I will refer you to my first paragraph. Completing a jog and then heading to the barracks for a shower and some pizza is not the same as fighting your way to the top of a literal hell-on-earth mountain where the limits of evolutionary-selected male capacity for biblical proportioned battle are even blown to smitherenes.
So, um, women don’t get venereal disease too? Would their contracting STDs not hinder a military mission just as much as it would if men were becoming affected? What kind of stupid insinuation is this?
Sorry, but let’s stay on target, please.
I can agree with the notion that there may be absolute physical requirements in order to be an infantry soldier and that these requirements shouldn’t be lowered for women.
My point is that if there are indeed absolute physical requirements, then if individual women can meet them, they should be allowed in. THAT would be anti-sexist.
Regarding the so-called “overwhelming biological drive men have to protect women” that Bellator brings up, I call “bullshit”, seeing as how that supposed drive doesn’t seem to stop many men from beating, raping and killing women, especially in war zones. And before someone’s knee jerks, let me make it perfectly clear that I make no claims here as to how often this occurs or to what degree it occurs in comparision with women’s violence to men. I think we can agree, however, that it occurs enough to call into question the view that there’s some sort of “overwhelming biological drive” to protect women.
Bellator, you seem to fancy that you’re a sociologist. I’d like to ask you, then, where in sociology do you find proof of your “overwhelming biological drive?”
As for soldiers “bottling up and repressing”, please. Men don’t stop swearing or screaming or saying “inappropriate” things in front of women outside the war zone: I hardly believe they’ll do so within it.
Dear Steve,
I certainly am not claiming that “the best women need to compete with the best men” in order to serve in the infantry. I AM saying that women who can meet the bar set by the infantry should be allowed to serve, period.
You know, or should know, that the infantry doesn’t only take tri-athletes. If it did, the U.S. would HAVE no infantry force at all. So why you think the relative capacities of the “best women and best men” have a bearing on this issue is completely beyond me.
Also, as long as we’re on “absolute physical requirements”, it strikes me that women’s reactions are just as good as men’s, if not better.
So while women may not make the best grunts, on average, it would seem that there’s no physical argument that would stop them from being combat pilots, armored vehicle crews or any one of several other combat roles. In fact, it would seem that there are several physical arguments in their favor for combat roles requiring low body weight, good hand-eye coordination and quick reflexes.
You guys seem to be fixated on the infantry as the be-all and end-all of combat troops. Infantry is very much a minority profession in today’s U.S. military and its not likely to increase in size any time soon.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70006
How many men have you known, including yourself, that DON’T have a “drive to protect women” vs. men who are “driven to rape and beat” women?
In Feminist parlance, if there is one man out of a million that rapes or beats a woman…and the other 999,999 serve to protct her from that man. Most men are then prone to want to rape and beat women, and not protect them.
Take the Red Pill dude.
You’ve been officially indocrinated and need to break from the cult of feminism.
He might be looking at historical circumstances, like the Battle Of Berlin, for example.
Good call, Keyster. He is looking for the Red Pill whether he knows it or not.
Wow Thaddeus. First off I would like to state that I never proclaimed nor do I “Fancy” myself as a Sociologist. I merely stated that I was pursuing a degree in Sociology. So please do not put words in my mouth.
Secondly, This is on target. This article was written to attempt to address all issues with placing women in a frontline combat group.
“where in sociology do you find proof of your “overwhelming biological drive?” Well first I would like to state that while Sociology is a science it is not one that can be measured in the same way that biology, chemistry or physics can. While we can prove our points through the study of society and how it mingles and evolves we can not recreate our experiments because there are too many variables in the way humans interact on a societal level. However, one place I could turn you right off the top of my head is a book written by Malcolm Gladwell a fairly well known Sociologist, called the “Tipping Point.” Please read it before you decide that you know enough to make educated decisions on the social workings of society at large.
You refute my point by stating that “that supposed drive doesn’t seem to stop many men from beating, raping and killing women, especially in war zones.” However by making this statement you are judging all men by the actions of a few. It is easy to see some horrible atrocities like Abu Graib portrayed on CNN and attribute that to the military at large. The hard and responsible thing would be to sit back and make the judgment that the people that commit these crimes are no different than that of society at large. Just because a co-worker of yours molests her daughter does not then make you a molester by association.
You also go on to state that “I think we can agree, however, that it occurs enough to call into question the view that there’s some sort of “overwhelming biological drive” to protect women.” If we were to go with your logic in this then we would also have to call into question the very thought that there is some sort of Biological imperative in women to nurture and protect their children. Your logic is flawed.
“As for soldiers “bottling up and repressing”, please. Men don’t stop swearing or screaming or saying “inappropriate” things in front of women outside the war zone: I hardly believe they’ll do so within it.” As for this nonsense, you seem to think you know a lot about the interactions of Soldiers for never having served yourself. I will tell you from first hand knowledge that the entire dynamic changes with the entrance of a woman. The very fact that you openly admit to not having served and then turn around and try and tell Veterans that the way Soldiers interact will not change with the entrance of a female into that equation is not only ignorant and arrogant but insulting.
You need a massive dose of the RED PILL!
Your arguments are not up to your usual standards Thaddeus, but the responses are not much better either.
Step outside of your experiences and consider the difference between creating an all inclusive PC culture in academia and a warzone.
You might appreciate this explaination which provides a better discussion of the issues you raise.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/Articles/01summer/simons.htm
Very well written and articulate article.
That’s because there is no “argument”.
Just as the military has racially integrated the ranks and now accepts open homosexuality there WILL be women in combat roles.
No brakeman on that train. It’s. Gonna. Happen.
Once women realize it’s not such “powerful fun” that they “GET” to whitewash that fence, when they try to balk or avoid combat duty they will find out all along it wasn’t something they were “allowed” to do, but something they are forced to do.
Dear Denis,
Do you know sweet fuck-all about Brazil or the academic culture here?
Until recently, I taught at what would be considered a community college in the U.S., nestled smack dab between two of South America’s largest and most violent shanty towns.
Half of our students were from those shanty towns and many of those kids were involved in what we somewhat jocosely call “the local culture of violence”.
Both my wife and I taught legal sociology classes to military police officers who’d come into class and hang their nines on the wall like so many raincoats. Take a look at the violent death statistics for Rio de Janeiro policemen, by the way: I bet you will discover that they are substantially higher, both in absolute and percentage terms, than the violent death statistics for American service personel in Afganistan. And these guys are in it AS A CAREER. 20-30 years, non-stop.
Rio cops don’t rotate out of a deployment after 30 months, max: it’s year after year after year of the same old shit until they wise up, get a degree and apply for precinct house work, preusming that they can do that.
Can you say “well-armed students with raging PTSD and heavy anti-psychotic drug regimes”?
At this school, my wife ended up having as a student the wife of Elias Maluco, one of the main drug dealers who put journalist Tim Lopes in the microwave. Do a google for “tim lopes” AND microwave, please.
She also had a couple of students who were drivers for the Caveirão, which you can see here… http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveir%C3%A3o
One of these nice police gentlemen liked Ana so much that he gave her a card at the end of the semester for his personalized hitman service. Needless to say, our domestic arguments have been rather one-sided since then.
During our tenure at this happy little !PC liberal” nest of higher education, several professors were physically threatened or attacked by students. One was beaten almost to death. On a half dozen occasions, school was cancelled because the campus was taking rounds from the nearby favelas. This is the same favela, btw, to which the police needed to call in armored support last year. You may have seen some pictures of this on the international news.
Ana and I routinely get awoken, nights, by full-on firefights in the favela across the valley from us, which is not a particularly violent favela. From long practice, I can tell you the caliber of most of the shots being fired, the probable general make of the weapon firing them, whether the rounds are outgoing or incoming and how close they are to hitting our house. Not big tricks for combat vets, to be sure, but not skills civilians in most countries generally develop.
I’ve seen a total of four bullet-ridden cadavers over the past decade, just lying in the streets, pre-police arrival. And, trust me, I don’t go looking for this sort of thing. Three months ago, coming home late from school, my taxi was stopped at a cop roadblock. The cops stopped us through the simple expedient of simply aiming their nines at us through our windshield until we stopped. They then searched the car, with their pistols pointed directly at our temples until they were satisfied we were “clean”.
And I live in the “privileged, peaceful” south zone of Rio de Janeiro, mind you, in a country which is supposedly at peace. The city I live and teach in, Denis, has a bigger annual bodycount than some countries engaged in civil wars.
You might want to watch this video here, on youtube and in English, before you start making presumptions about how I live and work in a liberal, academic fairyland, Denis: http://deepbrazil.com/2011/02/16/all-you-need-to-know-about-drug-dealers-and-soccer-geniuses/
Oh, and that’s just my general work and living environment. That doesn’t take into account the fact that I research prostitution here and that I’ve acquired some five death threats in the course of that work over the last decade (thankfully, mostly from big-talking gringo idiots who couldn’t find Sugar Loaf with a map and a telescope, but still).
So please, please brother, bull me no more arrant shit about how you know all about my peaceful, liberal, PC academic life and how far this life is from a warzone. I’d wager I hear more bullets fired in anger in the course of a year than most serving members of the U.S. military, most of whom never come anywhere near combat. My school isn’t named “Harvard”, or “Yale”, or “UC Berkeley”. Most Americans I know can’t even deal with my city when it’s relaxed and partying at Carnaval, let alone when “a chapa esquenta”. [roll eyes]
Thaddeus dear, you are out of your element and clearly have no experience with combat or any real perspective of this issue. Worse still, you stereotype those opposed to women in combat as not having experience when the exact opposite is true about you.
You have ceased being an open minded academic in pursuit of knowledge and are now just engaging in a pissing match based on your beliefs with nothing to back it up. It’s not difficult to find REAL soldiers with first hand experience and studies about women in the military written from a military (rather than academic PC) perspective.
A 1994 article by John Luddy for the Heritage Foundation said: “History shows that the presence of women has a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle. For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield.”
http://www.pkinfo.com/essays/womeninarmedforces.html
And you do have experience with combat, Denis dear?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Hey, at least I’m not ashamed of who I am and what I do. Nor am I afraid of posting under my real name. Your mileage obviously varies, “Denis”.
As for Luddy’s article, as much as you might enjoy The Heritage Foundation, they are a right-wing think-tank, not a scientific organization. Luddy’s piece is an opinion piece. Thjat’s fine, he’s entitled to his opinion. But opinions are notoriously like assholes: everyone has one and they are generally full of shit.
I agree with one thing, however. It is not difficult to find soldiers with first hand experience of women in combat zones. I don’t see many of those combat vets bitching and whining about their sisters in arms.
Maybe you’d like to point us to some who do? And I mean real, verifiable names “Denis”: not anonymous internet commentators like our pal Bellator here.
How about you link us to real life vets in the U.S. military who are willing to go on record as saying that they’ve served with women in combat zones and those women’s performance was under par?
I mean, if this is such a huge problem as you’re making it out to be, surely you can find us three examples…?
TGB: In order for us to have become MRAs, we all had to strip away a great deal of social programming and do a scientific analysis of a wide spectrum of issues impacting men and boys, free from the influence of emotion. At some point, it required each of us to abandon emotional, knee-jerk reations and replace them with fact-based, nuts-and-bolts type meditation on the issues impacting men and boys in order to come to grips with the matter. This was not a comfortable endeavor and for many of us, it took months to fully grasp the state of affairs facing men and boys because of the fact that this view point has been carefully kept out of public view intentionally. I think that a lot of AVfM readers know exactly what I am talking about.
There should at least be equal access to conflicting viewpoints on such matters, right? In any scientific experiment, do we ever say to ourselves and others that we don’t want access to the full spectrum of the governing data to be interpreted? Do we say that one side of the spectrum is emotionally taboo just skip it? That is exactly what has gone on as women have dominated the debate, using emotional manipulation, as the sexual selectors of the human race, to silence and control men by giving and revoking approval. Men have physical strength as a mechanism for group survial; similarly, women have emotional manipulation and stirring up male competition, etc.
Consider this, for example.
How can it be that a story about a man being chained to a bed and having his dick cut off is seen as hysterically funny by women in mainstream talk show audiences but men would not find a woman having her sex organs cut out with a knife by her husband funny at all? How can we seriously believe that women will risk their lives on the battlefield to protect men at the same rate that men would do the same to protect women in within this same exact culture???
Have you honestly sat down and really thought about the message of this article, or other MRA articles, for that matter? In order to have a serious discussion here, you will have to strip away some of that feminist programming that you have. Most of us had to do the same and you absolutely ooze with it. Everyone here can see it with shining clarity, too.
Quick thought: A double standard is usually defined by a condition in which one set of rules is applied to one person or group that does not apply to the other. Wouldn’t our current, lower physical requirements for women be an example of a double standard?
If so, is it a justified double standard? And, finally, are there any double standards that benefit men while negatively impacting women that are also justified or are double standards only justified when they benefit women?
Dear Ben,
I agree that it takes some doing to step back from the sex/gender game and try to suss out what’s really going on. I disagree that the way to do that is to copy what the worst sort of feminists do, turn that on its head, and call oneself an “enlightened victim”, as so many MRAs unfortunately seem to do.
My original point, however, before Bellator and Denis started talking about their unimpeachable records as war heroes, is this and only this:
If there is indeed a minimum physical requirement to be a footsoldier, that should be set and those who pass it should be allowed in, period. I do not buy all this romantic happy-crappy about men’s performances being inevitably downgraded by women’s presence in a combat zone because men are naturally such caring and chivalrous human beings. If the women want to fight and have the requisite skills to do so, they should be allowed to do so. Period.
That, my friend, is true anti-sexism, not feminism and not inverted-feminism, wrapped in an MRA banner and proclaimed to be the truth.
And I agree: if it can be shown that a certain degree of physical conditioning is needed to perform a certain task, then ANYONE – male or female – who can’t make that line should be out.
I disagree that women have any more or less innate ability or drive to “protect” people in their primary social groups than men. I say this, for one reason (of many), from my observations of female Military Police here in Rio who probably have more experience getting shot at than both Dennis and Bellator combined.
Very few people are “natural warriors” and any real combat vets here can definitely attest to that. Training is what makes an effective soldier, not gonads or how much weight one can benchpress. If you don’t believe me, because I’m not a soldier, ask any military person actually involved in boot training.
(The fact that our anonymous, self-proclaimed combat vets here apparently don’t understand that simple trueism indicates to me that if they have indeed ever been in the military, it was more towards the back, shuffling papers and cases of MREs, rather than towards the front, humping packs, SAWs and carbines. But that’s just my opinion and I digress.)
So I think it’s pretty well proven that if you’re relying on people’s “natural” tendencies in combat, then you’ve pretty much lost the battle to begin with, independent of what gender your so-called “soldiers” are.
I will take a band of combat-trained females, any day, over an equal number of guys off the street in a fight.
Obviously, some women can make good soldiers. They should be allowed to.
From Fred Reed:
Occasionally I have written that placing women in physically demanding jobs in the military, as for example combat, is stupid and unworkable. Predictably I’ve gotten responses asserting that I hate women, abuse children, cannibalize orphans, and can’t get a date. A few, with truculence sometimes amplified by misspelling, have demanded supporting data.
OK. The following are from documents I found in a closet, left over from my days as a syndicated military columnist (‘Soldiering’, Universal Press Syndicate). Note the dates: All of this has been known for a long time.
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey’s in 1993):
The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.
Further:
The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:
Women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.
From the same report:
Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men…. Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.
(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.
The following, quoted by Brian Mitchell in his book Women in the Military: Flirting With Disaster (Regnery, 1998) and widely known to students of the military, are results of a test the Navy did to see how well women could perform in damage control – i.e., tasks necessary to save a ship that had been hit.
TEST
% WOMEN FAILING % MEN FAILING
BEFORE TRAINING AFTER TRAINING BEFORE TRAINING AFTER TRAINING
Stretcher carry, level 63 38 0 0
Stretcher carry/up, down ladder 94 88 0 0
Fire hose 19 16 0 0
P250 pump, carry down 99 99 9 4
P250 pump, carry up 73 52 0 0
P250, start pump 90 75 0 0
Remove SSTO pump 99 99 0 0
Torque engine bolt 78 47 0 0
Also from the Commission’s report:
Non-deployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead’s testimony before the Commission, ‘the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.’
Maybe we need armored strollers.
My friend Catherine Aspy graduated from Harvard in 1992 and (no, I’m not on drugs) enlisted in the Army in 1995. Her account was published in Reader’s Digest, February, 1999. She told me the following about her experiences:
I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn’t. It wasn’t even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries.
They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women weren’t allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called them ‘Battle Buddies.’ It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I couldn’t go to the bathroom by myself.
Women are going to take on the North Korean infantry, but need protection in the ladies’ room. Military policy is endlessly fascinating.
When I was writing the military column, I looked into the experience of Canada, which tried the experiment of feminization. I got the report from Ottawa, as did the Commission. Said the Commission:
After extensive research, Canada has found little evidence to support the integration of women into ground units. Of 103 Canadian women who volunteered to joint infantry units, only one graduated the initial training course. The Canadian experience corroborates the testimony of LTC Gregor, who said the odds of selecting a woman matching the physical size and strength of the average male are more than 130-to-1.
From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon library:
One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while participating in field exercises. (p. 690)
Because peeing was embarrassing. Or,
Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women. (p. 661)
Depression, says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera.
The military is perfectly aware of all of this. Their own magazine has told them. They see it every day. But protecting careers, and rears, is more important than protecting the country.
Anyway, for those who wanted supporting evidence, here it is.
[Paul says, "Maybe we need armored strollers."]
That is tremendously funny. Can you see a brilliant cartoon depicting this ?
Mate where the fuck do you come up with this stuff ?
Bloody love that, ta.
P.S.
My real name as opposed to my dishonest moniker is actually:
Dr. Frank Lee Sikkashit.
That’s all very nice Paul, and would be really substantive evidence if I were arguing that women have the exact same bodies as men or should be allowed in combat positions REGARDLESS of whether or not they meet the physical minimums for those position.
Unfortunately, that’s not my point, is it? Let’s state it again, as you’re obviously having a hard time understanding it:
Women who pass the basic physcial requirements for combat positions should be allowed to do them. Period.
I note that the only thing you seem to bring up with regards to women’s supposed psychological incapacity for combat positions is one study from military medicine noting that women pee a lot when in the field. I note that there’s no comparison to the numbers of men who show the same “problem”, by the way.
The one REASONABLE issue that’s been brought up so far is pregnancy. But here I thought that the men’s movement wanted EQUAL RIGHTS with women’s privileges during pregnancy. Personally, I’m in favor of male personel getting the same breaks as female personel when their partner is pregnant. I’d also make it a big black mark on someone’s career, male or female, if they avoided a deployment because of pregnancy.
But that’s just me. I want equal rights and privileges with women, not more or less privileges.
Your mileage apparenbtly varies, Paul.
“Regarding the so-called “overwhelming biological drive men have to protect women” that Bellator brings up, I call “bullshit”, seeing as how that supposed drive doesn’t seem to stop many men from beating, raping and killing women, especially in war zones. And before someone’s knee jerks, let me make it perfectly clear that I make no claims here as to how often this occurs or to what degree it occurs in comparision with women’s violence to men. I think we can agree, however, that it occurs enough to call into question the view that there’s some sort of “overwhelming biological drive” to protect women.”
That supposed dive DOES keep the great preponderance of men from raping and killing women and also from keeping the miniscule percentage who would from doing so. And yes that goes for war zones too. Tell me something, if you and a female comrade were taken prisoner by the enemy do you not think that you would spill the beans to the interrogator if he told you that his buddies would stop rapping and torturing your friend in the room next door while you heard her screams? I can almost guarantee that you would find it easier if it were a male friend than a female friend.
Do an experiment. Find a female drama student at the nearest college and hire her to go to a bar with you and feint an altercation with you ending with her slapping you in the face. See what happens. Yup, you guessed it nothing. Now go to a bar down the street and feint the same altercation except with you striking her in the face. See what happens. You would never even try such an experiment would you?
I agree with you Robert. My point isn’t the feminist point that men are inherently evil. I just son’t buy Bella’s point that men are inherently chivalrous defenders of women in combat zones.
No, it doesn’t go for war zones, too. Men and women are notoriously unpicky when it comes to killing people defined as “the enemy” in war zones and both men and women show great loyalty to people in their tight, proximate social units in war zones.
And I agree that in most non-crisis situations, social training is such that men will tend to come to women’s “rescue” if they see them being threatened, but also only when said men think it’s in their interest.
I’ve seen plenty of women who are socially defined as being “beyond the pale” getting an incredible amount of violence from men. Remember: I work with prostitutes in RdJ and just let me add before Paul starts frothing at the mouth that I am foursquare AGAINST the feminist view that sex work should be abolished.
So yeah: IF the woman is identified by the man as being a relative social equal or at least a “good girl” and IF the intervention doesn’t seem to bring him much risk, most men will at least say something if they see a woman getting abused.
But most men won’t say shit if they classify that woman as a whore or other social untouchable.
“…where in sociology do you find proof of your “overwhelming biological drive?”
I have to agree with this point. Evolutionary psychology may posit such a drive, but EP is the most flawed science I know of- it is vitiated with fallacies and nobody with an ounce of dignity should take thier gender stereotyping seriously.
If there were a biological drive we would see virtually no anomalies. However, enculturation perfectly explains why not all males have this drive to protect women.
Women, likewise, are encultured to defer all heavy lifting to men, or defer to males when danger is present…. in which case I’m inclined to agree with Paul Elam’s suggestion of all-female battalions if feminists and their henchmen want to push the point – (ie. like Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette does).
It would certainly be a secret weapon, wouldn’t it?
I mean, if it’s true that men are “hardwired” to not hurt women as Bella suggests, than an all-female infantry battalion would be unstoppable by anything but another all-female battalion.
Of course, just playing out that mental scenario shows you how full of horse hockey the idea that men are “hardwired” to protect women is.
“The very fact that you openly admit to not having served and then turn around and try and tell Veterans that the way Soldiers interact will not change with the entrance of a female into that equation is not only ignorant and arrogant but insulting”
He didn’t say anything that wasn’t verifiably true, whether he’s a veteran or not.
I might point out that ignoring females are Veterans or Soldiers too “is not only ignorant and arrogant but insulting” as well, if I were given to Veteran shaming.
The fact is that I haven’t served in the military (though I HAVE served in many other ways). But, as I mention in my reply to Denis, above, I have almost certainly heard more shots fired in anger than most members of the U.S. military.
I’m very conversant with organized violence and its side-effects. Probably more so than most folks posting here, although God only knows that, seeing as how most folks posting here are doing so anonymously.
And using a screen name on the internet means exactly what?
Is that your point here, your intellectual coup d’état at the internet forum? Your real name is Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette so we should all take your non military expertise in military matters more seriously?
What the fuck did you wake up and smoke this morning?
I am still waiting for you to make a cogent argument as to why no one should object to the increased risk and hardship that virtually all women bring to the battlefield. You have not done so. And I say this as a vet who thinks women should be forced into battle (in their own battalions) whenever men are.
You are not making your point. Your just spouting Utopian drivel about how you think the world “ought” to be.
As a vet I am glad to hear you are not former military. Anyone presenting as such a complete non hacker here would only have dragged his fellow troops down with him.
For one thing, it means that one’s cliams can be checked up on to a much greater degree than if one is anonymous.
Normally, I wouldn’t care. But if a commentator’s entire argument revolves around his supposedly superior knowledge of a topic, due to his personal experiences with it, then it’s only polite to back that up with something more substantive than “because I say so!”
Oh, so you’re a vet, huh? A COMBAT vet, Paul? When and where, to cop Bella’s question? Because based on everything I can see that you’ve posted so far, your “stint in the service” was post-Vietnam, pre- any other major conflict.
So what REAL EXPERIENCE have you had seeing women perform in a combat zone, Paul?
For example, if you are indeed Paul Elam, I now know that if you have indeed spent time in the military, as you claim, there’s a vanishingly small chance you saw any combat and an even smaller chance that you saw any women in combat.
So if you claim that your military service gives you special insight into how women act under fire, it’s pretty obvious that you’re being intellectually dishonest.
“The very fact that you openly admit to not having served and then turn around and try and tell Veterans that the way Soldiers interact will not change with the entrance of a female into that equation is not only ignorant and arrogant but insulting”
He didn’t say anything that wasn’t verifiably true, whether he’s a veteran or not.
In fact he did make statements that were not true. “Men don’t stop swearing or screaming or saying “inappropriate” things in front of women outside the war zone: I hardly believe they’ll do so within it.” This in itself is a very untrue statement. On several occasions my platoon mates and I would be messing around and a female would walk around the corner of a vehicle in the motor pool or some similar location and the joking would stop. He is taking what he perceives military life to be and placing in a slot that should be filled with what real military life is like.
I might point out that ignoring females are Veterans or Soldiers too “is not only ignorant and arrogant but insulting” as well, if I were given to Veteran shaming.
At no point in this did I ignore that woman are Soldiers and Veterans. If I made that impression I apologize. However the points I was trying to make are valid. There are far more sociological and psychological ramifications to placing women in combat roles than are addressed here. Whether you want to admit it or not the sexes are not equal. Equality is a dream and not a reality. Everything from the way females and males interact socially to the way our bodies have evolved is different. In no way am I saying that one sex is better. I am simply stating that you cannot have equality when things are not equal.
He goes on to make the statement that women can work in other combat roles such as armored, artillery and the like without having to be infantry. I will address this in an article I am going to submit to Paul on the physical requirements of each and every combat arms MOS and why it would be extremely difficult of not impossible for a female to not only pull her own weight but exceed in these areas of service.
I will also be submitting an article on the perceived social dynamic flux that would come with women entering combat roles. If they are posted you can read them there. I do not have the time right now to explain just how or why it is far more than physical ability and intellectual aptitude.
The female lion hunts for the male
Female bees are the worker/soldier
Male drone bees are cruelly cast-out to die
The black widow spider eats her mate after
“The female is the deadlier of the species”
send ‘em up front let ‘em take point
Women are taking all the jobs and the military is the last bastion for men. Now man-hating women want to take that away too… taking the best jobs and sending men to die for them. Just like female bee discards the drone.
What will be the result for the male soldier when man-hating politically correct feminists take command?
Women have it all: entitlement to jobs and special rights. Now, because of twisted sexual psychopathy, they demand to prove that they are just as good…nay…better than men.
Allowing the feminazis to take over the military will not save men’s jobs. Men will loose the best jobs and be fit for just one thing…dying.
It is important to drive this point… the subconscious taboo that women should not suffer as men do. Even as these same women openly despise these men who die for them. These men who loose their jobs, loose in court, and are subject to open hostility, degradation, and ridicule. Loreena Bobbit was a real big joke remember? “Boys are stupid throw rocks at them” remember that?
Women will be forced to bend to the hard reality that they are not equal and that it is men that grant them their special status upon the pedestal of the anglobitch.
Because if they are not forced to face reality, this society of ours is doomed. Look at how our world has changed since the feminists took control. Unemployment, several wars, government institutionalized perversion of youth, depression, the decline of the population, alarming increases in brutal hate crime attacks, gang warfare, etc.
If the feminization is not stopped American army jobs will no longer exist anyway. The war will be lost not on the front lines but in the decay of the society.
Rub their faces in it. The last and only hope in the losing battle against the scourge of feminism is to give them a taste of their own medicine…the affirmative action, equal-opportunity battlefield, where women are empowered to the ultimate sacrifice.
First off, feminists didn’t “take control”of anything, cadgbd. It was granted to them by those few rarefied MEN that pull the strings, for whatever purpose they have deemed fit.
Secondly, those “Army jobs” you so fear women are going to wrest away from deserving men were once jobs men were protesting in the streets, willing to go to prison or deny their own country by repatriating to Canada to avoid.
Thirdly, this whole goat dance is nothing more than distractions, dividing and conquering. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, my friend. Your TRUE enemy isn’t some 98 pound 18-year-old female “taking control” on the front lines.
@OneHundredPercentCotton
“First off, you are admitting that women are in control and that men allow this. I agree.
Secondly, I do not want those “army jobs”. Women want them. The vast majority of casualties in war, even since Vietnam, are men, not women.
Thirdly, it is women who want into the military and claim that they are equal or better than men. But in your second point, you stated that women have taken the “army jobs” from male war protesters. Now you admitting that 98 pound 18-year-old female” are indeed physically inferior for battle. These are contradictions, my friend.
Feminists use the claim that they are equal or better than men to gain all sorts of privileges and to denigrate men. Now they want equal opportunity in the military, which will compromise men’s lives. Therefore the women should be required to expose themselves to the same risk as the men.
This is not a “goat dance” it is life and death.
It is not a joke about the wizard of oz. It is about men risking their lives to protect their country and women’s audacity to deny the reality of true differences between the sexes, for political gain. It is a feminist behind the curtain pulling the strings of life and death and ruin for men, in the society, and now on the actual battlefield.
Let women fight in the front lines. In fact, since they claim equality, they should be treated equally: that means they should be drafted and sent to the front lines just like the men. When casualties between the sexes are equal then there will be true equality.
Feminism has divided and mortally wounded the basic unit of the culture…the family, and the fall and decline of America is nigh. Fight whichever enemy you choose…it was in the end Eve, that doomed America.
@OneHundredPercentCotton
There were plenty of hippie chicks and cute communists protesting the Vietnam war along with some guys.
The difference is that it is the men who do the dying.
Feminists are going to find themselves ridiculing men one day and turn around and find them gone.
When men refuse to fight your anglobitch wars.
http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat#p/a
Watch the whole video, but the part I’d like to highlight starts at 21:59
Cad. NObody protested the Vietnam war.
They protested the DRAFT.
It’s why the “Next VietNam” war isn’t protested today. No draft, no protest.
So very much has been written about this, that I don’t really have anything new to add, except leave you with this video showing what is wrong with the mere idea of women on the frontline, in a very real way.
When you have stopped laughing, I want you to go back and watch it again. This time I want you to focus on the two men and ask yourself this question:
-If this was a real combat situtation, how long do you think those two guys would still be alive?
There can be no doubt that she is effectively getting them killed quicker than any enemy would be able to.
Dear Keyster,
I have no particular compulsion to protect women, in general, nor do I know many men who do. Even if we were to agree such a compulsion exists, it’s far from “overwhelming”, as Bellator describes it. Women get beaten, killed and raped all the time in war zones. So where’s your “overwhelming compulsion to protect women” in those instances?
Or are you claiming they don’t occur?
Bellator,
Dude, if you are pursuing a degree in sociology, you at least fancy that you might one day become a sociologist. And if you’re in the last years of that degree, you should be conversant with the classical postulates and works of it.
Now, you’re claiming there’s some “overwhelming male desire to protect women”. Fair go. If such a thing existed, it should be well documented in the classical sociological lit and you, an upperclassman majoring in the topic, should be able to point us to that lit.
And I mean peer-reviewed, solid sociological studies, Bellator, not articles in pop science magazines.
Asking a soc major at the end of his college undergrad days to cite some of this stuff doesn’t seem to me to be a big deal.
I mean, I appreciate your citing of one of Gladwell’s more popular books, but it doesn’t really address my question, does it?
By the way, I’m not “judging all men by the actions of a few”. I’m well aware of how feminists do that. Let’s stick to the point: you claim that this “protect women” drive is “overwhelming”. That means that we should see very few men doing violence to women. It is afact of military history – whether you want to admit it or not – that this is simply not the case, however. 100% Cotton brings up the Battle of Berlin, which was far from being an aberrition in terms of military history.
In fact, up to the 19th century in Europe and even today in most of the world, a woman in a war zone can be expected to be brutalized and rapes. And these acts, by the way, were not just carried out by a few abherrent men, as is the case with rapes during peace time: they are normalized behaviors in the strictest Durkheimian sense in that they are found everywhere and that the men who perform them are found everywhere.
Now, before you start frothing at the mouth with the standard boiler plate about how MEN are also beaten raped and brutalized in war zones, know that I’m well aware of that. That truism, however, has no bearing on your contention that there’s an “overwhelming” drive for men to protect women in war zones. The historical record quite clearly shows your contention to be false.
As for knowledge about soldiers and what they do or don’t do, I have plenty of vets in my family and have worked intimately with vets who’ve suffered from PTSD.
I will point out, however, that it’s very easy for someone who’s posting under an anonymous handle on the internet to claim firsthand knowledge of combat. I personally know a lot of people who’ve served in the military who didn’t do more in wartime than shuffle papers and boxes, but to hear these folks talk, every single one of them was a Rambo. Why should I presume you aren’t one of these folks, given that the “beans and forms” tail of the U.S. Army outnumbers its teeth by a factor of about 50 to 1? I don’t know who the hell you are in real life, so why should I believe that your understanding of military life is so superior to mine?
In my experience – and maybe you are an exception to this rule – vets who’ve really been through hard times on the firing line don’t spend their days on internet forums telling civilians how their military service makes them better able to judge what war is about and who is and who is not able to make a good soldier. I’ve heard enough combat vets remarking, quietly and not in a chest-thumping public forum, about their comrades to know that you can’t judge how someone is going to react under fire simply by looking at how big or fast or tough they are.
In fact, most combat vets I know who HAVE worked alonside women on the battlefield have only praise for them. They don’t spend their days on the internet trying to belittle the work of their sisters-in-arms.
You know who in the military DOES bitch about “the girls”? (And again, I’d like to stress that this is only in my fairly extensive experience with vets and it may not apply to you.) The folks who have too much time on their hands in rear area supply bases or relatively safe postings as air support crew. These are the barracks philosophers who waste their breath arguing about this sort of thing, not most combat vets.
Just my two cents.
I like the way that you talk about how women are routinely raped, beaten, and then raped some more in war and then mention that men are also similarly “brutalized” as an afterthought even though 99% of combat deaths are men, most of whom are only about 19 years old. You want to drag this debate into some gray area that goes nowhere as we try to figure out if men are biologically, or otherwise, conditioned as a group to have a tendance to more readily protect women than other men. Of course there is some conditioning within male psychology at play there. That is almost 100% undeniable. But, why is THAT the focal point of your debate? Even if men were not inclined to protect women but were inclined to just beat and rape them — something that you seem to keep bringing up — what does that have to do with lowering the standards for women or whether women should be in the infantry? We are not your college students and you are not debating kids around here.
After all, if you do actually believe that women are so routinely raped and beaten in battle, but you support women being in combat, are you saying that you want them to all go get raped and beaten?
I’m glad you like that, Ben. And I like the way that you have avoid my original point, which has nothing at all to do, whatsoever, with which sex is supposedly the more beaten in the victimization Olympics.
Let’s review where we are, shall we?
1) Bellator claims that men have an overwhelming natural drive to protect women in combat zones.
2) I point out that women get raped, murdered and beaten by men all the time in combat zones, obviously no “overwhelming natural drive” to protect them exists.
Now, I am not arguing that women are MORE beaten or whatever than men. Nor am I arguing that WOMEN have some sort of deep-rooted, overwhelming drive to protect men in combat zones. So while I appreciate your deep need to complain about how men are the victims of violence, that really has no bearing at all to the argument at hand.
Oh, and by the way: I’m not arguing that men have any “natural inclinations” whatsoever. I’m simply saying history proves that there’s no “overwhelming” male desire to protect women in combat zones. If there was, we wouldn’t see the violence we see.
Is that clear enough?
Now, you ask an interesting question at the end there:
“After all, if you do actually believe that women are so routinely raped and beaten in battle, but you support women being in combat, are you saying that you want them to all go get raped and beaten?”
Men are routinely raped and beaten in combat zones. Some have even been known to get killed. I don’t think that the so-called “fairer sex” should get a pass with regards to the “joys” of combat, especially if individual members of that sex want to participate.
No, I don’t want to see ANYONE, male or female, get beaten or raped. But you know what? Those things happen in war and they happen to men as well. I fail to see why I should be more outraged that they happen to women as opposed to men.
By the way, I like your circular arguement there, Ben: men are 99% of combat deaths and that’s oppressive to men. So let’s ban women from combat so that we can continue to ensure that men are 99% of combat deaths.
Thaddeus,
You may not feel this compulsion, nor may the “many” men you know. However, I am certain that the “many” men you may know do not hardly constitute the majority of the male population of the world. The only contradiction to what I have said that you have stated is that “women are beaten, killed and raped all the time in warzones.” What warzones have you been in where you have seen these actions first hand? Date and area please.
You continue to harp that women are constantly “beaten, raped and killed” in warzones the world round. Yet you haven’t acknowledged the opposite end of the spectrum, which is that men are constantly beaten and killed themselves while attempting to stop these atrocities from happening. I have seen first hand men from my platoon risk life and limb to drag Afghani and Iraqi women out from the middle of firefights.
Now I am certain you will agree that there is a biological imperative for survival. This biological imperative is one of the strongest. A compulsion to risk your survival to protect the survival of women you do not know and are not blood related to thus overriding your own biological imperative for survival could only be described as overwhelming.
I do not fancy becoming a sociologist; in fact just so that you know there are many and more professions that will appreciate someone with a sociology degree outside of the sociology field. My primary goal is to use my sociology degree to gain entrance into a Business Admin Masters program. However your proposal that by my being in a sociology degree program I will become a sociologist is off point and neither here nor there. You state that I should be able to tell you off the top of my head a particular paper or book dealing directly with the subject at hand. Let’s reverse the tables on this. You tell me a book or peer reviewed paper supporting your arguments.
You state that you are not judging all men by the actions of a few and yet you are. You continue to use the statement that women are brutalized in warzones all the time as a basis for your counterpoint. However if you were to take all of the men in this modern day in age who have committed such atrocities as you have mentioned and were to add them all together I am willing to bet it would add up to less that 10% of the worlds male population. So by saying that men the world round can not have an overwhelming compulsion to protect women because less than 10% of that population have committed atrocities against women is the very definition of judging the many by the actions of the few.
Also if you were to take the time to read the tipping point by Gladwell you will notice that he does touch on the subject even though it is not the primary subject of the book.
Now you go on to attack my claims at combat experience and military service based on the fact that I use a pseudonym. Using this as a basis for discrediting any argument against your point is ridiculous. You might as well pack up and head back to “The Good Man Project” since 90% of the people here use a pseudonym. I do not need you to validate my personal and professional experience. You state that in your “extensive” experience with Veterans, the only ones who bitch about “Girls” are rear detachment people who never stepped outside the wire. (most of this is my words but it means the same as what you said)
Well I will counter that by stating that in my “extensive” experience the only people who will jump off topic to attack the person, who is stating a differing opinion and vehemently opposing their statements, on a personal level are those that are not using logic and reasoning but rather social programming and Blue Pill logic.
Take the Red Pill and wake up!
As I’m sure that the “many” men you know also do not feel the same way about things as you do, Bellator.
But you’re the one arguing that you have the inner skinny on what all or most men “overwhelmingly” feel: not me. It’s thus incumbent on you to prove your point, not me.
I mean, if you have some science to back you up, let’s see it. Otherwise, you’ve got an opinion and I’ve got an opinion and that’s it. And if that’s it, then please refrain from telling me what the majority of men must “overwhelmingly” feel, as you certainly don’t know.
“What warzones have you been in where you have seen these actions first hand? Date and area please.”
Oh, I see. So it’s all anecdotal experience we’re going on here, huh? History is all made up, eyewitnesses who are not either you or me should be simply ignored, is that it?
How about this, Bellator: YOU put so much faith in what you seem to feel is your unimpeachable personal experience (because you, of course, are the only human being who has ever experienced violence or combat, so only your opinion is valid), why don’t YOU come out from behind your anonymous mask and post your name and service record, your combat postings and what not?
Hell, my CV is right there on the net.
Now, as to where I’ve seen trained men firing assault weapons into buildings where they know women and children are hiding, the last time I saw that was in the favela de Santo Amaro, and it was probably in early 2006 when the Army went into the favela. We could see the fighting from our window and saw soldiers spraying shanties with automatic weapons fire into which women had run .
Where was your “compulsion to risk survival to protect the survival of women you do not know and are not blood related to” then?
Is that specific enough for you, or do I have to send you atrocity snapshots to be considered one of the “cool kids” in your book?
Now, you ask “Let’s reverse the tables on this. You tell me a book or peer reviewed paper supporting your arguments.”
You consider yourself to be some sort of scientist or to at least have scientific training, Bella, right? So perhaps you can tell me how I could give scientific proof of a negative?
My position is this: I see no proof that men are hardwired to feel an “overwhelming” desire to protect women in a combat zone. I’m asking you to prove your hypothesis. You’re asking me to prove a NEGATIVE: that men DON’T have this desire. That’s neither a rational nor a scientific argument.
And furthermore, why should I be required to prove anything at all when I’m not the one slinging about some sort of grand theory regarding how all men are hardwired to do something?
What I have brought up is concrete evidence that seems to mitigate against your theory: the massive historical and eyewitness record of men acting completely without regards to women’s survival in the combat zone. I have asked you to explain why this evidence should be ignored. So far, your explanation seems to amount to this: “I have been in a combat zone and you haven’t, so there! Nyah!”
Now that’s a nice and logical response, Bella, especially seeing as how it comes from an anonymous voice on the internet who could be claiming anything at all.
I personally and frankly don’t care if you choose to say who you are or not. I do think, however, that if your only argument to date is based upon your supposed massive experience, then you should back that up with some proof.
Otherwise, you shouldn’t get your balls in a twist when I refuse to give you the “respect” you claim you deserve as a supposed combat vet.
Hey, guess what, Bella: I once killed thirteen terrorists with a fingernail clipper!1!! Do you doubt that? How dare you question my personal experiences in serving my country and protecting you!
My take on you so far? You’re some kid who served in the National Guard, maybe, and got shipped out to a rear depot somewhere in the mideast to shuffle papers and crates. You had to take a lot of guff from female superiors in this job who you knew you could beat up if it ever came to fisticuffs and your little heavy metal “I am a WAHHHEEEAHHH!!!” fantasy suffered as a result. So now that you are back in your safe suburban enclave in the States and getting on with your life and your state-subsidized education, you think it’s a nice sport to piss and moan about your fellow soldiers simply because they have vaginas and can’t do as many chin ups as you could.
Now, maybe that’s not who you are. But when I see self-proclaimed combat vets whining about fellow female vets on the internet behind an anonymous mask, that’s the image that certainly jumps to my mind.
Oh, and please give me no shit about how you “respect female combat veterans”.
Yeah, you “respect” them. You “respect” them so much that you come on here complaining that they can’t do their jobs. But you’ll only do this anonymously and on the internet because you and I both know, friend, that were you to do this to any female vet in real life , she would quickly chew you a new asshole.
“It’s thus incumbent on you to prove your point, not me.” Why is it then incumbent upon me to prove my statement, because you say so? You are the one who feels the need to dispute what I have said. Yet you make no points other than that it has happened that some soldiers somewhere during some time period (the number of which would make up less than 10% of the total male populace cumulative of the time frames you are speaking of) have committed atrocities against women so therefore because a small amount of men have done so it is not possible that there can be a subconscious urge for men to protect women? Where is the logic in this?
“I mean, if you have some science to back you up, let’s see it. Otherwise, you’ve got an opinion and I’ve got an opinion and that’s it. And if that’s it, then please refrain from telling me what the majority of men must “overwhelmingly” feel, as you certainly don’t know.” Really? Aren’t you doing the same thing? You have shown no science to validate your claims and yet they should be viewed as far more valid and realistic than mine?
“Oh, I see. So it’s all anecdotal experience we’re going on here, huh? History is all made up, eyewitnesses who are not either you or me should be simply ignored, is that it?”
You are blind my friend. History is not only written by the victor as the saying goes but also written either by people with first hand knowledge or through interviewing those with said knowledge.
“How about this, Bellator: YOU put so much faith in what you seem to feel is your unimpeachable personal experience (because you, of course, are the only human being who has ever experienced violence or combat, so only your opinion is valid), why don’t YOU come out from behind your anonymous mask and post your name and service record, your combat postings and what not?”
Not once through any of my posts have I ever made the claim that I am the only person who has experienced such violence and combat nor have I made the assertion that my opinion is the only one that matters. My points in this regard have been that it is easy for one such as yourself who has never served, never been in combat and has always been on the outside of military organizations to say what should be and shouldn’t be allowed and how things should or should not run.
“Where was your “compulsion to risk survival to protect the survival of women you do not know and are not blood related to” then?”
You see here is where I could stoop down to your level and spout off a bunch of crap about how I do not know you and that you are probably so crack pot wannabe professor in Brazil and as such your words cannot be trusted. However I am not going to do that. It is interesting though how you know that these soldiers knew that there were women inside that building.
“Is that specific enough for you, or do I have to send you atrocity snapshots to be considered one of the “cool kids” in your book?” Why do you care what I think of you? To be honest I will most likely never think much of you.
“You consider yourself to be some sort of scientist or to at least have scientific training, Bella, right? So perhaps you can tell me how I could give scientific proof of a negative?
My position is this: I see no proof that men are hardwired to feel an “overwhelming” desire to protect women in a combat zone. I’m asking you to prove your hypothesis. You’re asking me to prove a NEGATIVE: that men DON’T have this desire. That’s neither a rational nor a scientific argument.”
Really, you want to spout that old outdated load of bull. Fine, here is some logic for you then. What you are actually reaching for is that “a universal negative cannot be proven.” However this is not correct. This was a theory developed by scientist who could not prove that a divine being did not actually exist. However when you look at this from a logical point of view you will realize that this is a fallacy. i.e. if you can’t prove universal negative, you cannot prove universal affirmative. The claims, “No swan is black” is equivalent to “All swans are non-black” via simple obversion. Or more generally “No S are P” –> “All S are non-P”. Obversion is truth-preserving.
So you see by telling me that you cannot prove a universal negative (that men do not have an overwhelming urge to protect women) you are not only ignorant but also you are allowing that there is no way for me to prove a universal affirmative (that all men do have and overwhelming urge to defend and protect women). I will now let you go to recess.
And furthermore, why should I be required to prove anything at all when I’m not the one slinging about some sort of grand theory regarding how all men are hardwired to do something? No you are not the one slinging around some grand theory. You are just the one claiming that it cannot be true.
“What I have brought up is concrete evidence that seems to mitigate against your theory: the massive historical and eyewitness record of men acting completely without regards to women’s survival in the combat zone.” What concrete evidence? Your conjecture of history? That is neither concrete evidence to contradict my statement nor is it without fallacy. I have followed your train of thought to its logical conclusion and explained exactly how flawed your logic is and yet you wish to continue pushing your blunted point as if it were gospel.
“I personally and frankly don’t care if you choose to say who you are or not. I do think, however, that if your only argument to date is based upon your supposed massive experience, then you should back that up with some proof.” If you do not care then why do you keep bringing it up? You are to most illogical and ignorant professor I have ever spoken to.
“Otherwise, you shouldn’t get your balls in a twist when I refuse to give you the “respect” you claim you deserve as a supposed combat vet.”
At not point in this have I demanded respect from you. I have related to my previous experience in an effort to educate you but you are beyond educating. You have been so immersed in the doctrine of female good men bad that you are beyond helping.
Honestly I could careless whether you think I actually did what I say I did. I do not need you to validate my existence nor my experience. As to my apparent lack of credibility due to my use of a pseudonym, like I said before you cannot come to a place where 90% of the people use pseudonyms and complain because of it. That would be like me going to your class and complaining of the use of poor logic. It just wouldn’t make sense.
You are one arrogant and ignorant ass. You come in here and treat everyone as if they were one of your freshmen students postulating on some bullshit that is beyond their grasp. You need to get over yourself. I have known a few people just like you. You need to posture everywhere you go so that everyone will know that you are smart. You do this because you have done nothing with the education that you have and as such feel the need to validate your existence through intellectual bullying.
I however am not some freshmen student. I will not back down. I have shown time and again throughout this “discussion” irrefutable logic. Which you skirt so that you can push your “Points” again and again, which I have already logically proven to be either false or illogical. I have known people who argue like you do. They have all been what we here at aVfM call white knights. Take your crap back to “thegoodmanginaproject” where you belong.
Dear Bella,
Put up or shut up time.
Either give us some reason to believe that you’ve seen women in combat or abandon the argument that your personal experience means you know more about it than anybody else.
If you can’t prove your hypothesis, friend, don’t resort to ad hominems.
If you don’t want to be thought a freshman, don’t ask other folks to prove a negative if you can’t be arsed to give proof for your hypothesis.
So far, your ENTIRE argument boils down to this: “I, an anonymous commentator, was once in the military and so I know from my own experience that women can’t be put into combat positions.”
That’s the long andf short of it. Where’s the beef?
For those of you anonymously posting who claim that no civilian could possibly have any insight into combat and organized violence, you might want to watch the beginning of this video, which accurately portrays the general environment of the city I live in, before making assumptions about my personal familiarity with violence.
http://deepbrazil.com/2011/02/16/all-you-need-to-know-about-drug-dealers-and-soccer-geniuses/
Or you can see a more flash-and-bang, cops-’n-robbers fictionalized version of the same, here:
http://www. youtube .com/watch?v=EWn-uWEas9s
(You’ll need to turn on the subtitles in the second video by clicking on the CC option to the lower right.)
That favela where the shooting starts? It’s just on the other side of the hill from us, about a kilometer away. Another, similar, favela is right outside our living room window.
You’ll also notice that the intro song – which was hugely popular here in town – takes as its refrain the general rhythym of an assault-rifle equipped favela firefight.
Also, another aside, that second film was made with the aid of urban anthropologists, some of whom were my professors, who worked with ex-members of BOPE to tell their stories. Several members of the Rio PM have been students of my wife and I. I do not teach or work in a “PC, academic, liberal, ivy-covered, ivory tower” environment, even though I’m no longer teaching in the community college I once worked at.
So if you’re going to complain about my “presumption” for talking about the military, I’ll thank you to keep your presumptions about my academic background and what it means – and what it means I “naturally” must know and not know – to a minimum, too.
I’ll get back on topic later today when I come back up the hill.
Can you distill your message in a single short paragraph please ?
You are saying lots and lots of things but seem to be like a helicopter trying to land somewhere.
You come here with details about your life where guns and blood and bullets are normal, about the place you work, the favela, Brazil and war zones, hitmen with business cards…
When people reply to your posts you go mean. I don’t get it ? The personal attacks and the sarcasm and patronising language here and there ?
You say, “I’ll get back on topic later today when I come back up the hill.”
I don’t get this bit either because I don’t know what the topic is you are addressing.
What exactly is your message to us ?
Sure Dr. F.
Here’s the point, again. I’ve stated it a couple of times now and a few people seem to have taken umbrage at it:
If a woman can pass the minimum physical requirements for a combat-related job in the military, then she should be allowed to do that job. THAT is an anti-sexist position. I agree that minimum requirements, insofar as they are proven to be necessary for a job, shouldn’t be reduced because of a person’s sex. And I disagree with the romantic notion that all (wo)men have some sort of innate emotional or mental capacity that makes them “naturally” better or worse for modern combat positions, especially given the wide variety of combat positions modern combat requires. I cannot, for the life of me, see why a woman couldn’t make a good tank crewperson, for example.
Regarding “attacks”, “sarcasm” and “patronizing language” and “meaness”, does that apply to everyone, or just me?
It is incredibly patronizing to claim that I have nothing of substance to say on this issue because I have supposedly never been in combat. Furthermore, requests to “take a red pill” dished out simply because someone disagrees with my opinion are patronizing, aggressive, sarcastic, dismissive and – in general – mean.
And you wonder why I talked about my life? Because Denis, you’ll note, seems to think that he knows all about it and other commentators have intimidated that my life as lived means that I couldn’t possibly have a valid opinion on this issue. I didn’t bring my life up: Denis and a few other folks did.
I am perfectly willing to give back the exact degree of respect I get – or the exact degree of lack of respect.
When self-proclaimed experts think that their jobs make their opinions unquestionable while my job automatically makes my opinion invalid, why the hell should I show these peoples’ supposed experiences any more respect than they’ve shown mine?
If they don’t want mean, they shouldn’t be mean. If they don’t want sarcasm, they shouldn’t be sarcastic. If they don’t want digressions on personal experiences, they shouldn’t bring personal experiences up as if they were the be all and end all of knowledge. And if they don’t want patronizing, they shouldn’t BE patronizing.
Or is it only the folks with unpopular opinions that get told to “play nice” here?
You are welcome to be unpopular here, and you are succeeding admirably. What we don’t long tolerate is intellectual dishonesty.
You made your point that you believe that women should be allowed into combat positions (at least where they might be able to do the job) like a member of a tank crew.
But your lack of military experience shines through as abject ignorance, because sir, you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
And here is where the rubber meets the road with your continued presence here. So hear this loud and clear, and repeat to yourself as necessary to allow it to sink in to your rather obnoxious brain.
For a woman to serve alongside a men in a combat situation, she must be physically and psychologically able to do everything the other men can do that serve with each other. If she can’t, the other men have to pull her weight, and that puts them in more danger. There is no “my job.” That is a luxury for people like you who judge things you don’t understand from a safe distance.
Soldiers often have to take over for wounded and killed comrades, but we are not talking about just that. What we are essentially talking about is that if an M-60 gunner is taken out, another solider has to wield that weapon and use it, as well as carry it with them, maybe the ammo, too.
Soldiers have to be able to carry each others jobs as well as each others bodies because people die in combat. This is not some fucking office cubicle where Affirmative Action Annie can be put on a lightweight job and be expected to stay there no matter what.
I know you think you covered yourself because you said you think everyone should have to meet the same physical requirements. Guess what. They don’t have to no matter what you think, so any conversation about women’s actual participation on the battlefield is pretty much fucking moot unless you address that first.
Be sarcastic all you want. Be rude. As you said, those who dish it out should be able to take it and I know I am dishing it out. But at the end of the day, whether you are rude of polite, you’re still a dim witted fuck-knuckle with far less sense than you came here imagining you have.
Your whole shtick here is a total fail.
“Be sarcastic all you want. Be rude. As you said, those who dish it out should be able to take it and I know I am dishing it out. But at the end of the day, whether you are rude of polite, your still a dim witted fuck-knuckle with far less sense than you come here imagining you have.
Your whole shtick here is a total fail.”
I couldn’t breath I was laughing so hard!
Paul, I thought you were taking some time? If you need to get away then please by all means. Taking care of yourself is by far the most important thing.
I may not have the ability to boot him off the forum but I will continue to meet his illogical, irrational and irritating comments with logic, reason and intelligence where ever they may be found. So please make sure you are taken care of.
Paul. I sent you an email just now.
Paul-
Thank you for bringing us back to a more physical reality of women in combat roles. I will admit that I got a bit caught up in debating the validity of my statement that I lost the actual soul of the article. We are none of us infallible, this just showed me that I have a long way to go in my MRA development. Thank you.
Dear Paul,
How am I being “intellectually dishonest”, exactly?
You might reasonably believe that I am “ignorant” because I haven’t served (I disagree), but not having served and not believing that I need to serve in order to know something about how violence works is not “intellectual dishonesty”.
Here’s your point:
“For a woman to serve alongside a men in a combat situation, she must be physically and psychologically able to do everything the other men can do that serve with each other.”
Here’s mine:
“If a woman can pass the minimum physical requirements for a combat-related job in the military, then she should be allowed to do that job… and I disagree with the romantic notion that all (wo)men have some sort of innate emotional or mental capacity that makes them “naturally” better or worse for modern combat positions”
Our disagreement is on one point alone: you seem to think that women have some sort of innate psychological problem with combat. I don’t. Again, there’s nothing “intellectually dishonest” in that disagreement, unless you think that people who don’t believe exactly as you do are by necessity intellectually dishonest.
And Paul, seeing as how you are NOT anonymous and seeing as how you seem to feel that it’s “intellectually dishonest” to have an opinion on this issue without having served in a combat zone, perhaps you’d like to enlighten the mens’ issues blogosphere with regards to what your own combat service was?
Just curious.
Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette,
You’ve gone silent after a flurry of posts from you. Why have you gone away ?
Is it because since you’ve been here there have seen some replies to your last post that have been difficult / inconvenient to reply to ?
Your absence is telling and time is running out for you with regards to maintaining good stead / credence.
Please respond.
Beep beep. Calling all Thaddeuses of the Gregory Blanchette variety…
*Crickets chirping*
Sorry, Dr. F.
I sleep. I work. I eat. What can I say?
I thought it was bothering you that I was making too many comments. Now it’s apparently bothering you that I’m not. Hard to please some folks, I guess.
Do you have anything of substance to say with regards to my reply to you or are you only taking the opportunity to lament my absense?
Lament your absence?
Mate, I don’t care if you grow mushrooms up your crack.
Addressing issues you’ve brought up ? What the hell for – ‘you’re in the groove’.
You come across as a self important fluffed up sort that get’s off on stirring the pot while at the same time bring nothing here except a show of how well you can fence with the suckers. Your vanity rivals that of a twelve year old girl brushing her hair in front of a mirror counting in the four digits.
You think women are not entitled things and you have credence behind you to back it up. You think women should not be lumped into a romantic notion that have some sort of innate emotional or mental capacity this way or that. You have a CV we should investigate and you’re smart as a whip. Your wife teaches stuff and you’ve seen violence right up close.
You think gals go great in a tank like blokes and it’s sexist to treat them differently, and at the same time you acknowledge the differences in physical strength.
However, you’d rather be with a well trained squadron of chicks than a bunch of random big shot blokes here. ,
I get it. I get it. You’re the brave chap doing mightily well after being plonked right down into the den of wolves. The feminists on the side are squealing, “Look at ‘im go !”
I also get that you are boring now with your one groove song and this is the last time I will interact with you.
There, that’s my response of “substance”, and it’s all free with absolutely no hidden charge to it.
Would you like to know how I think you come across, Doc?
Or would that make you protest, again, that I’m being too mean and sarcastic?
Thanks for saying I’m smart as a whip. I don’t agree: I just try to stick to logic and provable facts, unlike many people in the gender debates.
And you’re right: it is hard to try to maintain an even keel taking a position which pretty much everyone else vehemently disagrees with. I try to do my best and give back only what I get, but that’s a tricky game.
As for “feminists squealing”, mate, the one thing I’ve found that many feminists and MRAs have in common – at least in the blogosphere – is their spite for anyone who doesn’t toe their line. That and the sectarianism, whereby both groups spend far more time trying to root out “heretics” in their midst than really trying to change the world.
But here’s a difference I’ve noticed regarding this site, at least, and the feminist blogosphere. Here there are no threats of censorship because the ruling clique on the site claim their opponents “hate” the opposite sex. No: here the ruling clique calls the people they dislike “intellectually dishonest” THEN they call for censorship.
All the difference in the world, right there. I mean, that really shows you the HUGE differences in male and female brains when faced with conflict, don’t it mate?
Now you go have fun rolling in your little echo chamber, Doc, and I’ll try to log on again sometime in the next day or two so you don’t miss me.
In the
Get rid of the troll. He is a waste of time.
OK, it is under consideration. He is trying to make points, and failing. I want to give him a chance to answer my post. If he avoids intellectual honesty, I will boot him.
He deserves a chance to answer, there is some IQ here but more importantly we want to know if there is some versatility in his thinking (he hasn’t shown any yet)… I’m yet to decide whether he can think on his feet and openly explore issues with others or whether he has all his answers finalized and wants to pontificate on behalf of the gynocracy. That he hasn’t replied to you may say something about his openness… time will tell.
I hope that he is able to openly explore issues and allow for the possiblity that his current point of view is not the end all be all of possible conclusions on the subject. He is very intelligent and could be a very effective MRA.
What do you think I should answer, Tawil?
I’m trying to address the points being made, but seeing as how most of them ammount to ad hominem attacks, it’s easy to lose a substantive question in the midst of all this.
So if you could see fit to ask the question again, I’d be happy to give a crack at answering it.
Thaddeus,
You really are going to sit here and complain of Ad Hominem attacks? One should not complain of dirty people without first looking in the mirror. This means that you cannot whine about the tactics that are used when you yourself use the same tactics.
I, for one, hope you don’t boot him.
I have a kid down with Mono and don’t have time to read all comments, but I find his arguments to be more valid than not.
Everyone is flying off the handle at the notion of female Rambos or GI Janes, when there is no word from “on high” that is what is in the works.
A more realistic scenario to consider would be the introduction of female battlefield MEDICS, Field Air Traffic Controllers, communications or other similar positions.
Roles that are vital, valuable, and subject to casualties.
Women currently work in these intensely high stress jobs without distracting, wimping out or looking for a savior. It’s stuff they can reasonably expect qualified women to do.
Until this bit of history is reenvisioned, it was the support and cooperation of men and women working together for a common cause that buildt this country in the first place.
The Pilgrams progressed, the Pioneers pioneered, the wagons were circled and the West was won.
The predicted “downfall of America” will come from our growing divisiveness and infighting, not from “allowing” combat roles for women.
It’s classic divide and conquer.
Trigger warning: Pure Conjecture but something to consider:
Native American women didn’t join their men in taking up arms against the white intruders. Pilgram women joined their men on ships to colonize unknown lands, they pioneered across plains and prairies in covered wagons while pregnant or with children, armed and prepared to fight alongside their men.
WWII women readily worked in factories and volunteered for military duty to support their men with the war effort. It was during that war that propaganda efforts successfully served to discourage women from further involvement, and to diminish men’s appreciation or even aknowledgement of their support or efforts, being regarded with contempt or ignored altogether.
VietNam war – female volunteers are discouraged and openly resented by their male counterparts. Vietnamese women, on the other hand, took up arms in support of their men. The world’s wealthiest, best armed and equipted military… did not come out the winner.
…and here we are, once again embroiled in war, the resentment, bitterness and infighting among American men and women seems to have leveled the playing field in spite of it’s military force against a declared enemy whose women seem to be taking a passive role.
As they say, ” A house divided….”
I agree, 100%. If they want to fight and make the minimum objective requirements, let them fight.
And you’re right: even if we were to say “OK, women can’t be grunts”, they CERTAINLY should be allowed into battlefield positions where they’d be endangered and where their physical restrictions – if any – aren’t an issue.
But I brought up a point that no one has yet seen fit to address: what physical limitations prevent women from being competent armored crew?
I mean, there’s a job where it’s a positive bonus to be small and light. There should be a MAXIMUM size for tank crew, not a minimum.
Good Afternoon Thaddeus,
“what physical limitations prevent women from being competent armored crew?” You bring up what seems to you to be a good point. This may seem to you to be a valid point; however all it does is reinforce our already strongly held belief that you are ignorant. This statement alone shows that you cannot read a book about the military or listen to someone recalling his experiences in the military and suddenly understand all that military service entails. I was going to ignore this ignorant statement but you continue to bring it up so I shall address it.
There are to main reasons why women cannot physically serve in a tank or other armored weapon crew. The first and largest being physical capabilities. The second issue is biological requirements. I will address these as two separate points even though they do seem to overlap slightly.
The primary armored weapon of the United States Army is the M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank. This tank weighs approximately 67 tons fully loaded. The primary weapon is the M256 smoothbore gun which fires a multitude of shells however each of these shells may vary in design but all fit the 120mm diameter of the gun and weigh approximately 50lbs. Though the M1A1 Abrams does use a manual assist loader to aid in the loading of the gun, any Veteran can tell you that military equipment rarely functions properly.
The M1A1 Abrams using the manual assist loader operated by a qualified crew should be able to fire 10 shells per minute. This equates to loading, firing and clearing the weapon every 6 seconds. Should the manual assist loader fail while in combat there are safety pulls with which you can use to remove the malfunctioning manual assist loader so that the cannon can be operated entirely by hand.
As any military or ex-military personnel will tell you, the ability to place shells on target more accurately and quickly than your enemy is a deciding factor in any combat scenario. This would require the tank crew to load, fire and clear the weapon entirely by hand (hefting the 50 lb shell from the storage rack to the breach repeatedly) at least once every 10 seconds. The time frame I spoke of is an Army standard that all tank crews must pass in order to be deployable.
The M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank is a tread based weapons platform. Should the treads become entangled or otherwise unserviceable it then becomes necessary for the entire tank crew to leave the safety of the tank to break track and replace the damaged sections. These sections are removed in three piece increments for expediencies sake (wouldn’t want to expose the tank crew to enemy fire for longer than absolutely necessary.) The three piece sections weigh approximately 80 lbs and it is necessary to move them by hand. In order to remove these sections you must use a tankers bar (similar to a wrecking bar with the exception that there is a 1” in diameter protrusion used to knock out the pins that hold the track sections together) as well as a 16 lb sledge hammer and forcibly knock the pins out.
So you see just from this part alone that most women would not be able to perform these tasks. I am sure that you will state that you know tons of women in Copacabana or the Favela that would easily be able to perform these tasks. So the following is a few biological reasons why women would not be suitable for service in armored crews.
When speaking to a veteran tank crew member buddy from basic training about this issue this morning he brought up several strong points and below is two of them.
During Operation Enduring Freedom he was required to be out on mission for weeks at a time. This required him to not be able to shower or take care of his personal hygiene. There were times in which his entire crew would not be able to leave the tank for security purposes. (they ate, slept and breathed that tank) When the biological need came to urinate they used their empty bottles and empty shell casings. (I don’t know any women that can successfully urinate in a Gatorade bottle at this time. I am sure that you will say that your women from the favela can not only urinate into a Gatorade bottle but do it from 30 feet away without missing a drop.)
Also should the time of month come around that a woman is on her period and she was to be assigned to a tank or armored unit she would not have anywhere to use a tampon. There are no privacy compartments on board an M1A1 Abrams.
I am sure that you will still have some crap to say about this. However I hope this helped you to recognize your ignorance in military matters.
Though I am certain you will simply blow this all off since I am using a pseudonym. Because what person using a pseudonym could possibly know what the hell they are talking about.
Unless of course you are for spending hundreds of millions of dollars on developing specialized equipment so that women can perform these tasks. Equipment that is not currently needed due to mens ability to perform said tasks without assistance.
Or is it that you beleive that women should get preferential treatment and be placed in a position within the tank crew (i.e. driver) and then be made exempt from aiding in these duties, to the expense of her male crew members?
Censorship being, of course, something only the eeeeevil feminists engage in, hey Paul?
A good debate is always constructive, and judging by the amount that Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette has written, one might be led to believe that there is a compelling position being defended. Upon closer scrutiny, however, nothing of the sort.
We don’t need science to tell us that men and women think very differently, and that women are more likely to take their expectations of entitlement, whether consciously or unconsciously, into the battlefield. If TGB needs science to tell him that, then he has a problem. Science tells us that men’s and women’s brains are wired very differently… can anyone really believe that how the brain is wired has no relevance to how men and women behave in the battlefield? Now an entitlement princess pretending to fight on the battlefield whilst insisting on her entitlements might deserve to get her head blown off, and TGB might even agree that fair is fair… but her attitude is unlikely to have a positive impact on troop efficiency or morale. Do we really need science to establish this? Sure, if a woman is able to meet physical standards, that’s one thing… but women’s survival instincts are very different to men’s, and that’s a harsh reality that will play out most starkly in the battlefield. In any battlefield, you want survivors, not affirmative action entitlements or concessions.
With regards to women getting “raped, murdered and beaten by men”, the word “raped” is redundant. It doesn’t mean anything. It certainly does not mean what it used to 50 years ago. These days, every woman is getting raped every hour of the day, whether it’s going to a coffee dispensing machine, being served at MacDonald’s or walking across a crosswalk. These days, you have date-rape, changed-my-mind rape, not-in-the-mood-rape, hostile-environment-rape and lurid-thoughts-rape. “Murdered and beaten” succinctly establishes what TGB getting at. Including “rape” within that context serves only to trivialize “murdered and beaten”.
While we are arguing semantics, keep in mind that science today is not science as it used to be. The academia that teaches science is pretty much the same academia that peddles feminism. ‘Nuff said.
“Dude, I’m a man and I couldn’t have made those fitness limits back when I was 18! On the other hand, I know plenty of women who COULD’VE done just as good as the men.”
This personal anecdote is not very scientific. In fact it is downright silly. If someone needs me to explain why, then they are far too silly to be taken seriously. If someone is a skinny, malnourished herb-eater, and if all his friends are, as well, then there may well be many women that do just as well as the men that he’s known in his life.
“Wouldn’t it be better to simply say “Here’s how fast you need to run as a grunt” and leave it at that? Let anyone in who can make the cut? That, to me, would be the non-sexist, mission-oriented position to take.”
The brain of a woman that is capable of meeting physical demands is always going to be wired differently to that of a man. There are significant structural differences, differences in the way that white matter (glia) and grey matter (neurons) are distributed in men’s and women’s brains. Survival as it relates to intellect and attitude matters… or, if this has not been scientifically validated, then it also has not been disproven, and commonsense, given the scientific evidence and the gravity of what’s at stake, dictates that we err on the side of caution. The battlefield is not the place to be conducting sociological studies. Again, if someone needs an explanation as to why this is important, then we’re going to have trouble taking them seriously.
“Hell, my CV is right there on the net.”
If someone’s views are politically correct, then what do they have to lose regarding biases in law, career or employment? Indeed, a pc position would more likely be to someone’s advantage rather than their detriment. Putting one’s CV up while expresssing politically correct views can only enhance one’s opportunities.
Sorry, but I can’t take TGB seriously, hence address him in the third person.
Codebuster,
You have some nerve Mr “Codebuster” who hides in the dark with a phoney name.
We’re doing just fine here thank you very much, and you dance in here as merrily as can be holding up sciency papers involving genetics and PDF’s about brains.
Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette might not be back now, and you sir have robbed us insights into matters of relevance like CV’s and the favela outside living rooms, and songs on YT and chicks in tanks.
Maybe we don’t wanna know about brain wires and science hhmmm ? Maybe we want to know more about hearts and feelings ?
Did you stop and think ( oh yeah… more thinking instead of feelings ) about how wars and scowls and smacks can stop forever if we just put down our test tubes and lab coats and turn to the person next to us and say, “I love you and I am now a hater of wars.” ?
The truth is in the beating of warm kind hearts, not in the bad things made by men like guns and handcuffs. (Which incidentally are cold and hard and do not beat which is the exact opposite of warm hearts upon reflection)
So what do you say boy’s ? Let us find a new way, a kinder way where we all agree to say “no” to bad things and a cheery “yes” to good things.
Incidentally my first name really is “Dr.” and my last name really is “F” and it’s a sore point for me as I was teased mercilessly as a kid. To this very day there is confusion especially more so when I am ever involved in medical procedures in a hospital.
Ha!
So nice that you’re foursquare against sarcasm, Dr. F.
To be the devil’s advocate, isn’t it true that the brain and it’s wiring display “plasticity”? (ie. brains can change if challenged)
See neuroplasticity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity
That’s the new buzz word these days
Plasticity… brains – Plastic brains ?
Noooo thank you Tawil. Count me out.
The real war is between hearts and brains. Quite frankly I am a soldier in the army of hearts fighting the soldiers in the army of brains.
Now you are telling me that the government is making plastic brains in this war ?
I’ve always been suspicious of brains, and if they are “going plastic” then I will run swiftly away from them all the more.
Let’s all agree to say “no” to brains and a cheery “yes” to hearts.
So what do you say boy’s ? Let us swell the ranks of the heart army and fight the ‘plastic brain insanity’ now sweeping our way courtesy of a covert black budget military madness built by actual organic brains.
After 20 years or so of wiring up to be pampered and provided for, can we realistically expect a woman to be able to rewire her brain to deal with the realities of mortal combat? Critical learning periods apply… for example if you don’t learn to speak any language by a certain age, current theory holds that you will never be able to acquire any language. There are shades of grey of course, but wiring up your brain is not simply a matter wishing it, but of years of experiences.
The question of how long it takes to partially rewire a brain is a more convincing line of enquiry than presuming permanent brain differences (not that you were necessarily suggesting the later).
How long does it take? I’m sure there’s many answers to that question, but with you I suspect it would take a long time – perhaps something akin to a 4 year military induction to reconfigure women’s brains and accompanying mental schemas… this being needed prior to them even applying to join the military. After that maybe a CAT scan and a psychology exam could be used to detect if the ‘gynocentric brain’ had sufficiently rewired itself and become suitable for field combat alongside men.
As for those ‘safe’ and ‘light’ jobs in the services, the gynocentric brain is probably fine as it is. In fact the gynocentric brain may even be an advantage in strategising and fighting the enemy in order to gain turf and spoils… not much different to strategising in the divorce courts courts, or fighting amongst others at the latest shopping sales.
Suffice to say it’s theoretically possible for female brains & beliefs to be reshaped, but this needs to be addressed for at least a few years before these dames join certain parts of the military… which of course is not happening.
Tarwil,
If it was at all possible to rewire the brain of a female, I would still be concerned. You would never know if they were going to change again in a few weeks time.
There is an issue that many here have not addressed with regard females in battle. Yeah I agree with the argument about women being an issue for male soldiers and a distraction, but what about women when they go through their monthly cycle.
Please somebody tell me if this is a topic that is taboo for this site, and I shall never mention it again?
I mention this, because women are not emotionally and psychologically stable. Or at least stable long enough.
I have been on this planet for over 50 years and I have never yet met a woman, who does not at some point turn quite nasty. When I was young and ignorant, I use to think it was something I did. Now that I know the truth, I realise it is simply hormones and also the woman has chosen to not rise above the temptation to rip some flesh of some unsuspecting victim.
Yes there are women who do try, but there are many who do not.
My point in this discussion is. How could you work alongside a woman who at some point in a field operation, is likely to be completely irrational and ready to go after the enemy with an atomic bomb (if she had one) and how would you reign her in?
She would be a huge liability. What if she starts arguing with the orders given to her, just simply because she is driven to argue for the bloody hell of it?
Women like this today, well in western nations, will not and can not be reigned in. They demand the right to be abusive and society has given them this right and they are applauded with the usual feminist chant of “You go girl”. Well, that is until the savage female turns on the other women, then it’s a different tale.
Dysclaimer!!
Now, I know I have just made some quite sweeping and generalised statements. But the gist of what I have stated is true and if you go out and ask X number of men if they have had to endure this problem with women, the vast majority will overwhelmingly state that they have and that they hate putting up with it.
And don’t attack me because someone thinks I have only ever met a few women or some other stupid thing. And don’t say that women can easily control themselves, because in all walks of life to date, they have failed to control themselves.
I have also watched this topic with interest. And I have to say that I agree with Paul also. If they are going to put women in the armed forces, then there should be complete segregation of units/battalions or whatever.
I don’t think it could work any other way.
“..not much different to strategizing in the divorce courts, or fighting amongst others at the latest shopping sales.”
That was meant to be a joke, but in hindsight realize its not very funny and comes off as demeaning. So for the record, there are plenty of roles in the military that women can admirably carry out, equally to males. And there are very few roles that have a legitimate question mark over them – it was to those roles i was aiming the need for women to possess/develop similar constitution and expectations to males, in order that things not become lopsided and dysfunctional (eg. frontline foot combat).
Brilliant.
Codebreaker, in mortal combat between Mr. Elam and any woman up to his age, taken out of the Complexo do Alemão in RdJ at random, my money is on the woman.
The majority of the women I see, every day, are certainly not “pampered and provided for” and the fact that you seem to think that the majority of females are speaks volumes about who you generally deal with.
I bring this up because you seem to think that the differences you see in men and women are all hardwired, and yet you don’t seem to even notice who the majority of the women in the world ARE.
I’d just love to see you down on Copacabana one night with your theories on how women are all pampered and provided for and can’t take care of themselves.
By the way, there’s a way we can resolve this, Codebuster…
I say we organize a mud-wrestling match between Paul
Elam and Amanda Marcotte.
Marcotte is a couple of decades younger, but Paul has all those ‘leet combat skills he learned during his military service.
I think they should make an adequate physical match.
Then we can see who’s just more devious, nasty and downright mean.
My money’s on Marcotte, for all your beliefs in “inherent brain differences”.
Well, I have been reading this entire exchange, and decided that I would not get snarky and stay out of it.
Codebuster, you made the icing for this cake worth waiting for.
Thanks for summing it up so well.
I’m done for the night.
Have to get my beauty sleep….might be drafted tomorrow…wanna be ready. lol
You rock.
Izzey
(real name Lisa Noneofyourfuckingbusiness…builder of the A-10 Thunderbolt, cross-country truck driver, carpenter, yacht detailer, accomplished sailor, tournament fisherman, captain….)
That was for you, “Thaddeus”. And I happen to think as a woman; women are a distraction, cannot pull their weight, and will take advantage of any ‘white knight’ within earshot… if it will help them do their job, even if it gets another injured…or dead.
I have military in my family, friends that never came home, and whole bunch of other shit I’m not going to get into for now. (I’m real tired)
You disrespected many of the men here. Read back some of your posts. Slap yourself in the face, shake off that self-righteous indignation, and start over.
Everyone deserves a second chance.
Read you tomorrow.
++thumbs up!
X10 LOL
Codebuster, I agree that there might indeed be differences in male and female brains. The two questions which science hasn’t settled yet are these:
1) How large are these differences?
2) Do they have any meaningfull impact on a person’s performance on the modern battlefield?
Now, you complain that I’m not making a compelling position, but it seems to me that your position is simply an assumption that these so-called brain differences make a notable impact on the battlefield.
As for women and men’s survival instincts being different, citation needed, please. I would be very interested in any information that shows that sort of thing
And yes, what you call an “entitlement princess” might be a pain in the ass on the battlefield, but there are also MALE pains in the ass and we don’t say that their existence proves all men are incompetent. In fact, isn’t it a big MRA beef that the feminists judge men PRECISELY by the violent acts of a small minority…?
By the way, if you hate arguing semantics (and I do), why did you bring up the whole “what is really rape” thing? All I said is that men get raped in war zones, too – however you want to define rape, that’s true. My point being that women getting raped by the enemy shouldn’t be a barrier to their combat service as it has never been a barrier for men and men do indeed get raped in war zones.
(Here’s an excellent resource regarding that point, btw, for those of you who haven’t seen it yet: http://www.forcedmigration.org/podcasts-videos-photos/video/gender-against-men/)
“If someone’s views are politically correct, then what do they have to lose regarding biases in law, career or employment?”
Uh huh.
And you think telling people that prostitution should be legalized, that trafficking in persons is waaaaaay exagerated, that police abuse prostitutes more than any other group and that State feminism is largely responsible for maintaining prostitutes as second-class citizens somehow wins me brownie points with cops, feminists and policy makers, huh?
Right.
Next….
You are missing the point here about ‘entitlement princesses’. Are you deliberately obfuscating this widespread reality to protect womens’ collective reputation? It isn’t a “small minority” of women who expect (and often get) special entitlements and protections for being a woman. It’s the majority. It’s part of their enculturation. These expectations play into the core battlefield issues of self-sacrifice vs’ being protected by others.
You say that a minority of males and females are “pains in the arse” as if this comment meaningfully addresses the issue of female expectation of protections by males in tough situations. It doesn’t.
To gloss over this widespread fact as you do above does make you appear intellectually dishonest. A lot of what you are saying is valid and engaging, but you appear to me to be displaying a chivalrous tone in your assessments, unawares.
Agreed.
Notice how this guy keeps mentioning the word “anonymous” .
He does so while knowing full well the real reason for our choosing to be anonymous yet refers to it repeatedly to give the impression that we are dishonest.
Yet it’s him being the dishonest one by sprinkling “anonymous” in his posts.
He’s nasty, not just pompous.
I won’t engage the prick because of this one point alone if nothing else.
It’s possible he has come here with an axe to grind against MRAs… there’s an undertone of aggression in his posts that can’t be fully accounted for by the attacks or challenges others have aimed at him, although in fairness they account for a reasonable amount of his defensiveness – but certainly not all.
I don’t see that he’s pompous, more that he’s smart in some respects, aggressive, and partly on the defensive. However being smart is not a protection against unconscious chivalry and bias… he reflexively tries to protect women from MRA insult, but if thats the only tool in his ideological box we are not likely to see too much of interest.
Personally I’m hoping he’s versatile…. his discussion style is potentially useful to shake things up and get people thinking- if he is capable of a broader range of perspectives than he has thus-far shown.
So my question to Thaddeus is this- can he see the widespread belief among the world’s women that they entitled to be -and often will be- protected by men when danger appears, but they do not believe they are required to put their lives and limbs at risk in the same way for men? And can he detail and empathise with the problems such a sense of entitlement causes for males in the battlefield?
Izzey: “And I happen to think as a woman; women are a distraction, cannot pull their weight, and will take advantage of any ‘white knight’ within earshot… if it will help them do their job, even if it gets another injured…or dead.”
Are you saying this is the best performance you, yourself would offer in service to your country?
Perhaps I misunderstand.
Are you saying YOU would be a distraction? YOU would not pull your own weight? YOU would ” take advantage of any ‘white knight’ within earshot… if it will help YOU do YOUR job, even if it gets another injured…or dead”?
It just doesn’t seem to be in keeping with other things you have said about yourself.
http://www.bmtflightphotos.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/031101-F-1968A-048.jpg
I suspect that Izzey is talking about the overall effect of women as a percentage of combatants in a heavy combat situation.
I don’t think she is talking about a smaller sampling of just one woman, herself in this situation, being a distraction or not pulling her weight or taking advantage of a ‘white knight’ and therefore getting another injured or dead.
She might think she’d be like this or the exact opposite, and I’m guessing she’s thinking her own responses (to a heavy combat situation) are of no significance when expressing the truth as she sees it with her assertions
Izzey is telling, hypothetically, of greater numbers of women in this situation and their varying responses beyond her own thoughts about how she, herself would react. She as one woman, a sampling of one, is of no substance in her thought experiment. She is thinking of percentages and is ignoring the predictable responses of one person, her.
I could be wrong for sure, and Izzey when she returns is the one to ask about this when she returns to respond.
Izzey, you there mate ? What’s the story ?
Good morning, Hundred Percent.
Okay, you have opened the proverbial ‘can of worms’ so I will take a break from my power tools, and address your post.
Women do not belong on the battlefield. I personally don’t think men belong there either, but that would be a whole nutha article in itself, and I can only take a break for so long today. You are baiting me now, and I know you have read some of my articles here, but I will take the bait anyway.
Most of the people here know that I do a lot of volunteer work. I have yet to see, or have to help, a homeless female veteran living on the street because she has no place to go. I have yet to see a woman stripped of the home she broke her back for, her children taken away, and her paycheck garnished because a judge has ordered it in family court…whilst her husband enjoys all of her worldly possessions, holds her children hostage, and makes her life downright miserable…just because the law has designated her the inferior, expendable, yet held most accountable, gender. Nope, have not seen that yet.
What I have seen, is women working right next to me complaining about the work they are doing, not doing the job they are paid to do without ammenities, and a considerable amount of ‘enabling’. (One example, is when I was working on the Warthog, they had to have couches in the ladies room of the plant to accomodate women when they were having their menstrual cycle, and needed to ‘lie down’ as well as having a female nurse on duty to also accomodate their ‘special needs’. Let’s face it, Ms. Cotton….women’s bodies require some maintenance that men’s do not.)
Do you think there’s a place to change your tampon on the battlefield? When you are having a heavy period, do you think your brothers-in-arms deserve to take a bullet for you because you are not up to par on ‘the hill’ that day? Do you not realistically believe that there are physical, hormonal, as well as emotional differences between the genders? Do you think that a man deserves to die because of them? Do you think these questions have no merit?
If you have been reading my posts here, you also know that I cannot stand princess entitlement. Men don’t have that luxury. We are not, nor will we ever be EQUAL. Our bodies determined that from birth. There’s no gettting around that.
I work my ass off, and have hired as well as fired, a whole bunch of women. One woman left me hanging out to dry on a job that had to be completed in four days…no matter what. It was a six day job. On the fourth day, she ‘called in sick’ because she had bad sunburn and also got her fucking period. I lost my mind, and ran around the marina and ‘borrowed’ one of their workers to help me finish the job with my crew. A crew of men that all showed up for work. The client was taking his yacht down to Florida at 5am on the fifth morning…finished or not….myself and crew, paid or not. It turned into an eighteen hour day for all of us because of her cry-baby shenanigans.
I respect women that know their capabitlities, perform to the best of them, and do not think that just because they are WOMEN….that they have special privileges. Men don’t have that. You know it, I know it.
As far as myself….you should know that I would help a man into ‘the lifeboat’ as quickly as I would help a child. If you don’t know that about me…then you have read nothing at all. The rest, you can read between the lines.
Have a nice day.
Izzey
Izzey, well spoken and thank you very much for your candour.
I dips me lid to you!
I agree with many of your points, Izzey, but how many women in the world – outside of a very small minority – are given couches to lie down on when they menstruate?
And I also agree that there are a lot of women who do the crap you point out. But even more who don’t.
It’s a bit hard for me to see the “entitlement” most of the women I deal with get. But then again, I don’t work with women in an A-10 plant in the U.S.: I work with prostitutes in the streets of RdJ.
I think this “entitlement” stuff comes attached with a hell of a lot of class and other expectations. I don’t think the vast majority of the women in the world get entitlements the way you describe.
I think the kyriarchical model explains the sort of stuff you are talking about very well. The women you mention, in the global scheme of things, are the privileged “daughters of the house”. Yes, they are lower down on the pyramid than the patriarchs, but they are MUCH higher up than practically every other man and woman. “Slave”, “servant” and “foreign” women (to say nothing of “fallen” women) don’t get those privileged passes you’re talking about, even among their peers.
It seems to me, once again, that the MRA position is fundamentally identical with the feminist position: it simply changes the gender polarity of the axis along which privilege is presumed: men good; women bad.
But the world is full of privilege axises and it’s the combination of these in any given time and contect that constitute power.
A lot of this English language debate between feminists and MRAs, to me, frankly sounds like the folks at the top of the pyramid, squabbling over crumbs.
I think your work with prostitutes and women who genuinely suffer has rendered you myopic. You need to struggle up for some air and a broader perspective or otherwise you will confirm yourself as a one-demographic pony. The the women you work with and see are not the women of the rest of the world, generally speaking, and certainly not the women being discussed on this forum. If you can do nothing more than conflate the two demographics then you don’t belong here- your “women of interest” are those feminism champions as mascots, and so you might be better served by feminist forum/s. Not saying this to be harsh, just trying to pinpoint that you appear to be out of synch with the subject matter of this forum.
Of course you are welcome to correct me if you think thats wrong, and I’m sure you need no invitation.
Good evening, Iz.
I appreciate your laying down your power tools to address my post, and hope I didn’t keep you from them too long.
You decreed that women don’t belong in combat because they are a distraction, don’t pull their own weight, take advantage of “White Knights” for their own benefit even if it gets them injured or killed.
This applies to all women other than yourself I gather.
You know all (women besides yourself) are a distraction, don’t pull their own weight, and endanger White Knights because you have never encountered a homeless female veteran.
You have never known a woman to lose her home or children to a man because of the law, which proves beyond reasonable doubt they don’t belong in combat.
I’m presuming the nurse on duty menstural couch inhabiting women you refer to work in a civilian capacity. A quick check with your family members who are in the service will confirm accomodations like that are not offered to women in the service, rendering them more the “enablers” than partakers.
Women managed to survive in the wild for centuries LONG before tampons were introduced in the 1920′s. I don’t know how many generations of men have died because of women’s menstrual inconviences since there doesn’t seem to be much recorded history of such complaints.
If you have been reading my posts here, you also know that I cannot stand princess entitlement, either, although I am not in denial that there ARE men who enjoy pampered poodle status.
In fact, that is why I believe talk of women in combat is even being floated.
What your relatives who serve in the military have neglected to tell you is that there ARE no “Entitlement Princesses” being considered for combat duty, and any woman who has actually served in the military can tell you – there are no White Knights, either.
I am not “baiting” you – I am debating you about something you display little inside knowledge about.
Long Term For Profit wars cannot succeed without eventually employing low status “throw away” women in combat roles.
Get used to the idea. It IS going to happen.
The conscription of precious pampered Soccer mom’s sons and glaring omission of wealthy “Fortunate sons” is a bygone era that will never see the light of day again.
It’s a social class thang, not a gender war, and those poor, dumb women are going to take a brutal beating in the name of “feminism” until it’s finally realized.
Back to your power tools, my dear. Been nice chatting.
Internet etiquette, “my dear”.
When you put your original post to me in CAPS the way you did…”YOU…YOU….YOU…etc.
I read it as sarcasm, and baiting.
I went right to defensive.
I respect you, OneHundredPercentCotton.
But I take an insult as an insult.
As far as “women in the wild”….we are not living in those times now, are we? Too bad…women back then, didn’t take their men to the cleaners.
“What your relatives who serve in the military have neglected to tell you is that there ARE no “Entitlement Princesses” being considered for combat duty, and any woman who has actually served in the military can tell you – there are no White Knights, either.”
Au contraire about the “White Knights”.
And do not assume anything at all about what my relatives have told me.
“I am not “baiting” you – I am debating you about something you display little inside knowledge about.”
Again, you assume.
This, I will come back to. I really am working very hard renovating a home that was destroyed by Hurricane Irene over the summer here.
Back to my tools.
Toodles…
(By the way, I do consider myself to be one of ‘the exceptions to the rule’ when it comes to women. And that just makes me very, very, sad.)
Izzey
It was internet emphasis, internet ettiquette notwithstanding.
I WAS asking “you”, Izzey, would your evaluation of ALL women in the military would also apply to y.o.u.? If y.o.u. were in uniform serving your country, would y.o.u.” be a distraction?
Doing the stuff you say you do, aren’t you a “distraction” in your current capacity? Should you take responsibility for being a distraction and just…go away?
Would you, Izzey, ” take advantage of any ‘white knight’ within earshot… if it will help YOU do YOUR job, even if it gets another injured…or dead”?
As a woman who served myself, and I’m sure my fellow male veterans will confirm the validity of this, the vast majority of men vehemently dislike the notion of women being in the service. There is no respect for women who serve unless specifically enforced by regulation, and feel absolutely no more obligation to “enable” or defend women than they do anyone else they have such contempt for.
These are not time we live in the wild, but they ARE times we live with technology. I work with young women whose birth control methods pevent them from having periods for years at a time. Being a holistic person I am horrified, but they seem quite happy to trust in modern technology. I guess preventing menstruation isn’t any worse than the vast array of forced innoculations for men. Anthrax and Agent Orange notwithstanding.
Women taking men to the cleaners in divorce has nothing to do with combat. I brought this up with my son yesterday, however. The conversation ended pretty quickly when he pointed out in his circumstance HE would come out ahead since his girlfriend comes from a very wealthy family and she earns substantially more than he does(and he does very well).
My son in law is active duty career Marine and a former Navy Seal. (Long story and his to tell). He is one of the first military men I’ve ever met that genuinely holds a high regard for female military members. I thought maybe he was just being “nice” knowing I was former military, but later learned his Grandmother was a Marine Corp Major during VietNam and still works the family farm in her ’80′s( my 80 year old mother does too).
My own sons have the same picture you see posted here prominently displayed right side up in their homes. Right next to their Dad’s. My older son was denied the opportunity to serve because of a false rape conviction. My younger son has applied for OTS.
My baby brother is a big, burly guy. People startle away and cross the street from him because of his size, but he’s a lamb. He’s never raised a hand against anyone in his life. Doesn’t have to, he just has this…look. He’s not a good looking guy, so I had to ask him nervously, why all the women on his ship LOVED him. He’s happily married to a great woman….
“I just remember as a little kid all the times you called home crying or scared. It’s nuthin’…when the guys pick on ‘em I just give ‘em my….look…(shrug) same as the small guys getting picked on…
That’s not “White Knight”. It’s leadership. It’s having a sense of justice.
If you’re a bimbo or ugly girl trying to fit in, you are going to get USED. If you’re a lesbian, you’re going to be hated or ignored. If you’re attractive without any more to offer than just there to do the job you are going to really piss ‘em off. Only a FNG that’s not in on the situation will attempt any “white knighting” they get over it very quickly when there’s nothing in it for them.
It’s not too hard to “assume” when your statements are so far removed from personal experience.
You may consider yourself exceptional, but I don’t. While I met a lot of sitbirds, I met a lot of exceptional women that served this country. Women that used power tools, worked on aircraft, spoke Russian and jumped out of airplanes. Women that served in combat zones as nurses or supply clerks during rocket attacks on DaNang( reenlisted volunteers only). Women that went through a world of shit when they could have weaseled out.
I can tell you right now, everyone will always remember the girl that gave 26 black guys the clap one weekend, while the guys that sold heroin or cut off ears or raped “enemy” women or fragged officers quietly fade from memory.
I cannot reply off your post, but came back here to answer your questions, OneHundredPercentCotton.
Yes, I would believe I would be a distraction.
No, I would not take advantage of any ‘white knight’ within earshot…because I would not be there in the first place.
Too many special accomodations need to be made for women to be in battle.
And, in spite of my physical strength, knowledge of tools and weapons, common sense, and overall ‘gusto’ to get the job done……..I would not be able to live with myself, if I could not save another man’s life, when another man in my position could have. Nor, could I live with myself if I were the cause of his death because he was behaving ‘chivalrously’
Izzey
Beep beep. Calling all Thaddeuses of the Gregory Blanchette variety…
*Crickets chirping*
Mad hugz back to you, too, Doc!
OK, here’s a question I have for all you guys who think there’s some “overwhelming”, hard-wired male drive to never hurt women, even in a combat situation….
If that’s true, then shouldn’t we logically make ALL of our combat soldiers women?
I mean, if your argument is that women can be on the battlefield because men can’t stand to see them get hurt and that this is a hard-wired male trait, then it makes perfect sense that the U.S. should move to an all female combat force, right?
After all, 99% of men, everywhere, would feel an overwhelming desire to protect and not harm our soldiers… right?
(Men abandoning biodeterminist arguments in favor of cultural-determinist arguments in 5, 4, 3… )
Again, get rid of the troll. He is a waste of time.
Here he presents a strawman argument. The position presented was men helping their female comrades and he throws it back with not being able to shoot the female enemy and uses the term “logic” within the same context. As Izzey puts it, he is just stirring the pot with what a child could see through.
Welcome back, Thaddeus.
Stirring the pot again? Can’t wait to see how this soup comes out.
Did you read everyone’s posts?
In my opinion, every feminist that demands “equality” should be on the front line.
With all the little princesses hiding behind their shirtails.
Thanks, Izzy!
I’m trying to read everyone’s posts, but when most of them amount to multi-page diatribes about how I’m irrelevant because I’m playing semantic games with the word “rape”; or how I’m intellectually dishonest for having the temerity to disagree with Paul Elam, it’s hard.
And I agree: equality does mean being on the front line.
Apparently, many MRAs and I differ on that point.
They need to be there by themselves.
Nicely manipulated.
2 points.
He is a slippery bastard for sure.
Nearly a dozen times on this thread he mentions the word “anonymous”. He knows full well that people here posting online are at risk of losing their jobs, their friends or their family.
He also tries, by mentioning that word that others reading his posts here will get the idea that we are that deceitful lot.
He is very dishonest by doing this.
Oh, yeah, Doc.
Sure.
People get fired every day because they post comments to the effect that women shouldn’t be allowed in combat positions.
Just a huge problem in the west, innit?
And how in the hell is believing that someone should post behind their true name if they want their annecdotal information to be taken as ultimate authority “dishonest”? That’s not a fake or dishonest opinion. You can disagree with it, but what in the hell makes it “dishonest”?
Or is “dishonest” the pro-censorship buzzword around here among the cool kids, like “unsafe” on some feminist blogs?
I write, routinely, about sex work and I’m sex worker supportive. I do volunteer work for a sex workers’ group in a country where defending sex work is against the law. I got banned from TGMPM because I “made people feelo unsafe” for talking frankly about sex work and why I didn’t think it was so horrible. I have articles in those academic journals people like Denis claim are so “PC” and “feminist dominated” critiquing common feminist beliefs. People who take positions like mine routinely get fired from jobs, Doc, and I doubt I’ll get tenure when I come up for it.
And still, here I am, posting under my full name.
I don’t know a single person who’s ever been fired from a job for posting commentary on whether women should be allowed in combat positions or not. Please cry me no heartfelt tears about how your opinion puts you at risk.
“Intellectual dishonesty” much, Doc?
Again a strawman fallacy.
Dr. F: “He knows full well that people here posting online are at risk of losing their jobs, their friends or their family.”
TGB: “I don’t know a single person who’s ever been fired from a job for posting commentary on whether women should be allowed in combat positions or not.”
He is a waste of time.
I’d be happy just to see them there, by themselves or with others, frankly.
I think that one of the BIGGEST gender inequalities in the world is the socially-inculcated view that men and men alone are responsible for a communitys defence. That men, and men alone, should be subject to violence or deal out violence in a community’s defence.
It appalls me that the physical violence of combat is overwhelmingly directed at and carried out by been, but that hardly anyone thinks that this is a form of engendered violence.
You bring this up among feminists and most of them will say “But it’s men DOING the violence!”, as if that somehow swept it all under the rug; as if men, in the first place, weren’t socialized to putting themselves in that position to begin with; as if it weren’t EXPECTED of them.
So as long as a military is needed, it seems to me that it would be a very good thing for everyone concerned that its frontline positions not be restricted to one gender alone.
Kinda funny that many of the guys responding above, who normally rightly complain about the violence men are subjected to, in this context would jealously protect an inequality that targets men.
They’re also, unwittingly, giving ammunition to their feminist critics who claim that combat duty is some sort of male PRIVILEGE.
Here’s the beef: if it’s not a privilege, why protect it? Let the women fight if they want. If it’s so bloody obvious that it would be a debacle, then let them try and prove the point.
But hey, I don’t expect much intellectual honesty from gender warriors so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when I don’t find it.
In regards to screen names,
Try this one on for size
Prone to Violence By Erin Pizzey
This book (heavily suppressed by Feminists) suggests that some women are prone to violence and their attendence at at women’s refuges is more like a revolving door. Erin Pizzey had threats made against her in an attempt to silence her. Pizzey started the first women’s refuge in the World at Chiswick, London.
http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/article.htm
And there is lots more where that came from.
Personally how about this gem from my personal life. Implied threats made by the local keystone constabulary made to my ex-fiance when I wasn’t around. While she was walking down the street by herself.
Or how about this little gem;
one day while she was on her way home she was stopped by an individual who was trying very hard to look like a gang member who asked her ” How is Daniel doing these days ?”
Nobody but my mother calls me that. The next few lines were along the lines of ” Is he still dealing marijuana?” (which is incredibly funny as after being with her for 3 years and never hiding my recreational use of weed to her she knew I never ever dealt it)
As soon as my ex asked the person are you a cop he was gone like a bat out of hell.
All that because I chose to stand up to a misandric Canadain Justice system.
Then there is this article located on the website here:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/we-are-all-being-watched/
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
So before you go on preaching from your ivory tower about your holier than thou because I use my real name attitude you might want to do a little background research about just how brutal being a men’s rights activist can be.
One last thought the only reason I do not use my real name is not because I am afraid for myself it is because I fear for my nephew’s well being. His father, while I consider him a coward, is an entrepenure and it is his business that keeps a roof over that child’s head.
These femies know they won’t be held accountable for their crimes and so they run around doing as they please and thumb their collective noses at the justice system.
One day and I hope I live to see it there will be a day of reckoning where women are put on death row for their inexcusable shit.
just a little more on the lengths the feminazis went to intimidate Ms Pizzey
Holding women responsible for their violence was so at odds with the received wisdom of the movement’s activists that, for her whistle-blowing pains, Pizzey’s dog was killed and her entire family received death threats. Undaunted, she pursued her equal-responsibility crusade in the United States for many years in a fusillade of articles and books.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=a41532d6-d4df-46a2-a784-f6499938f3b0&k=49786
Get it now not just her but her whole family had death threats.
Good job at disarming that strawman, Izzey.
P.S. Izzey,
I forgot to mention that this guy might deepen his display of dishonesty by making some reference to how my point about him being dishonest using the word “anonymous” repeatedly is of no consequence.
That reference will no doubt be something along the lines of how my point about this is moot because he uses his names in situations where he might get flak but he presses on honestly all the same.
When he does this, I suspect he will, it serves to indicate that this guy is narcissistically suggesting that what he does is the right thing to do, and by virtue of this fact an anonymous publication is the wrong way to go.
He might even suggest that because he has never had problems in the past then that would actually suggest that nobody else will ever have problems in any way with pro MRA publication.
I’ll also bet he will not address the assertion that he is deliberately trying to confuse the matter by using the word “anonymous”
Oh hell, he’s already posted.
Dear Doc,
Why don’t you just drop your “dishonesty” buzz word and say that I make you “feel unsafe”?
Y’know, claim that me asking someone to back up their personal claims with their name somehow threatens your job and family?
It’ll give you mambo brownie points with those feminists you seem so concerned about.
People pay the price all the time for what they post on the Internet, Tweet and IM. Not to mention the most recent article here:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/court-imposes-jail-sentence-for-facebook-rant/
PC is here and those who deny it are either foolish, trolls or both.
Yeah, I agree, Bombay. People pay the price all the time for speaking out, whether its on the internet or elsewhere.
Nevertheless, I have NEVER seen nor heard of one case where a person has gone to jail or been fired because they’ve posted a comment claiming they don’t think women belong in combat.
If you have any example to the contrary, I’d like to see it.
And again, let me make one thing clear again: I don’t think anyone HAS to put personal info on the net. I DO think that if they want to claim that their personal experience should be recognized as the supreme argument for something, they should be prepared to back that up or have their claim ignored.
Is that clear now?
Try looking at Daddy Justice’s website on how many times he has gone to jail for being an MRA.
The issue isn’t about commenting on this specific article it is about being an MRA period
TGB your an over-educated fool
Just for being an MRA, Dannyboy? No other reason at all? The cops said “We are arresting you for being an MRA”, did they?
I’m betting if I go over to the website, I’ll find some other reasons. And whether Daddy Justice was right or wrong, the fact of the matter remains: he DIDN’T get busted for saying women shouldn’t serve in combat positions.
The cops didn’t bust him for his internet comments.
Get real.
[Quick google for "Ben Vonderheide"]
Well look here. It says Daddy got busted because an ex-girlfriend lied about him. And Ben isn’t hiding behind false aliases on the internet with regards to his legal problems, he’s rightly publicizing them to hell and gone!!!
If we were living in the dystopian universe you seem to think we live in, wouldn’t Ben have been disappeared by now by the P.C. Police by now? Instead, his public stance seems to be paying fruit for him.
Internet anonymity isn’t saving Ben: internet publicity seems to be helping him
nice cherry picking of Ben’s website try looking a little deeper.
http://daddyjustice.com/wp/?p=157
Give me a few minutes and will find more
Daddy Justice tries to help a man in a legal battle against a woman who committed fraud against him. Instead, Daddy J. gets arrested himself.
One can’t simply add thier identity, name, photograph etc when talking about their belief that they don’t think women belong in combat, and then make the details invisible for other subjects – back and forth with each post. That this would be a rediculous position is self evident.
Dr. F was right- you have a persistent fantasy about why MRAs are “hiding” thier identities and you have an axe to grind against this hiddeness- a crusade of sorts. I doub’t we will get the full story on this fantasy of yours, but FWIW its starting to appear oversold.
And to add a bit of necessary reality here, feminists are famed for misrepresenting people’s identities and information- misrepresentation that most certainly could get someone fired or put in jail.
I’m starting to lose faith that you are here for constructive purposes. If you are then its time to settle down and start riffing instead of biffing.
“Oh, yeah, Doc.
Sure.
People get fired every day because they post comments to the effect that women shouldn’t be allowed in combat positions.
Just a huge problem in the west, innit?”
Again…. Strawman….
MRAs often chose anonymity for obvious reasons, which are widely beyond the scope of mere women-in-combat concerns.
Dr. F did not say anything about MRAs getting fired. He said that MRAs are at risk of getting fired. Pointing to the fact that, to our knowledge, there are not large numbers of MRAs getting fired everyday throughout the west and presenting this as if it proves that there is no risk of an MRA getting fired is at least logically flawed, perhaps intellectually dishonest.
I will help you understand this the best way that I can. There are not large numbers of lion tamers being eaten by lions. Does this mean that lion taming is therefore not a dangerous profession? First of all, there are about as many MRAs as there are lion tamers. In addion, lion tamers take precautions to avoid being eaten like knowing what the fuck they are doing, for one thing. Would you suggest to them that they don’t need to take the precautions that they take because you don’t hear about lion tamers being eaten in the west all the time?
In addition, he also said that MRAs are at risk of losing their friends and family. You only attacked the notion of job loss risks, after upgrading that notion to mean large numbers of actual job losses. Then you tried miserably to attack that.
Downplaying our reasons for chosing anonymity, by cherry picking just one trivial reason, such as our position on the women-in-combat argument, out of hundreds of more formidable reasons, and then strategically aligning only this most trivial reason alongside the most severe possible outcome (getting fired) that this MRA mentioned is what you have done. Was this an effort on your part to deliberately make it appear that MRAs chose anonymity because they support a shameful postion, by making it appear that we have no good reason to be anonymous and, therefore, must chose anonymity out of shame?
I think this was exactly why you framed the debate that way. Take your morally relativistic, manipulative reframing techniques back to your college classroom. You are out of your league here.
Why is it a strawman, Ben?
Can you show me an example of an MRA being fired or otherwise socially destroyed because of his internet comments?
I mean, if it’s such a threat, there should be a couple of examples out there. Can you point me to them?
And if it isn’t a threat, my argument isn’t a strawman in the slightest.
“I will help you understand this the best way that I can. There are not large numbers of lion tamers being eaten by lions. Does this mean that lion taming is therefore not a dangerous profession?”
Let me get this straight: you’re comparing snarking about gender on the ‘net to being a lion-tamer, Ben?
And strictly speaking, no, if the number of lion-tamers getting injured is low compared to the total number of lion-tamers and that total percentage is low compared to percentage of injuries in other jobs, then it isn’t a dangerous job. (I have no idea, however, how many liontamers get eaten. I know of one case where a tiger tamer got mauled, though.)
As for being “at risk”, let’s get real: if the risk rergarding this stuff is so huge, then when do you think we can expect to see James Huff – OR ANYONE ELSE WITH A SIMILAR OPINION – get fired?
I’ll tell you when: St. Never’s Day.
As for your argument on cherry-picking, again, get real. This is the internet: someone can post under their own name on this topic and make a calm, considered argument, then go back to ranting away under whatever handle they like.
And again, I have no beef with ANYONE choosing anonymity. But if they do so, I won’t take their claims to personal experience with an issue seriously, ESPECIALLY when the issue is 1) not politically explosive and 2) the person in question seems to think that their anonymous claims should have ultimate authority in the argument over the issue at hand.
Sometimes I wonder about guys who make the claims you do. I mean, to hear you talk, you’re living in some post-apocalyptic authoritarian systopia, where your every word and action is being closely scrutinized by Big Brother.
Get over it. NONE of us are that imporant that our run-of-the-mill comments on blogs are being combed through by the Brain Police, “PC” or otherwise.
Thaddeus,
You are still continuing with this pointless crap about anonymous screen names? You might as well give it up. I will not post my real name on this forum for reason that I do not feel the need to explain to you. If you cannot understand that or come to grips with it then that is your problem.
If you cannot beleive anything someone says simply because they use an anonymous handle, then perhaps you should not be debating on an open forum where people use such handles constantly. I bet even some of the people who use handles that look like real names are actually not their real names.
You choose to focus on the fact that I use an anonymous handle because your arguments lack logic and I have shown this to everyone. You choose to attack peoples personal experiences and lives because you are on the defensive.
Why don’t you just slow down, Breath for a bit and realize that nobody here wants to hurt you. We all simply want to broaden our own view points and debate the validity of our beleifs in an effort to strip away the feminist social programming. If you cannot except this then please leave.
Thank you,
Anonymous
“You are still continuing with this pointless crap about anonymous screen names?”
Which is exactly why he is gone now. With all respect to Dr. F, this guy is not that slippery or wiley. His MO is to repeat a lot of drivel (I use my real name and you don’t, BAM!) get circuitous and verbose. and never really address any points.
I will give him credit for repeating ad infinitum that if a woman can pass muster with the physical testing that she should be allowed to serve in a combat unit (at something she is actually able to do), but he fucked that up by avoiding facts that were inconvenient for him. As in, 1. Since women currently get a general pass on even non combatant physical standards, then this discussion is moot, unless it is in Thad’s pipe dream of military Utopia. And 2, there are dynamics at play between men and women that the lining of his own colon is preventing him from seeing.
Bob O’Hara (His real name, WHOA!) covered that nicely, and in Thad’s response he didn’t even try to answers Bob’s questions.
Thad obfuscates with volumes of nothingness and avoids every issue in front of him that does not fit his model.
Fact is, male soldiers would have every legitimate reason in the world to have misgivings about depending on a female soldier in front line combat. And even for the 3% that might be able to pass the PT exam, that is not nearly the only determinant of how someone will be able to perform in combat.
Check the numbers from Fred Reed again. Females, even the few that can pass the PT exam, are more prone to injury, have less pound for pound physical strength, less aerobic capacity – less of almost everything their male counterparts have…all things that make life or death differences when things get really bad.
Thad wants to ignore this, and side-stepped his way around it. That is the intellectual dishonesty I knew was there all along.
Well I have to agree with you that giving him the boot was probably for the best. I was just hoping to see his response to my points on why women can’t serve in armored positions.
Oh-well, It would have probably amounted to nothing more than “you are anonymous and therfore you cannot be trusted” or “the women I know from the favela could easily do all of those things you list.”
Thanks Paul, I was looking forward to more of his circular logic and whining about people using tactics he was using.
Thanks Paul for removing the spammer. I was about to start pushing his posts into my spam folder.
I also think that Thaddeus has been watching too many TV cop shows and war movies, where the top physically tough and dangerous guy, is actually a female and she has a weaker male side-kick as her lapdog.
That’s why I only watch CSI Miami. You simply cannot go past “Horatio”! LOL
Ta Paul, All your points here are very clear.
He reminded me of a cat with a bottomless bladder wissing on everything. He was everywhere on the thread like a drunken spider.
There seemed not an ounce of civility about the man from the get go, and when it came to giving grace his arms got short and his pockets grew long.
When I get all froth and no beer from someone I just put down the glass. That’s why I kissed out on him, but you did one better though and let him run his mouth ragged before giving him the Shepard’s crook.
That’s real style Mr Paul Bloke and I like it.
Thanks Paul, glad to see the last of TGB.
“I don’t know a single person who’s ever been fired from a job for posting commentary on whether women should be allowed in combat positions or not. Please cry me no heartfelt tears about how your opinion puts you at risk” AND “Can you show me an example of an MRA being fired or otherwise socially destroyed because of his internet comments?”
Such consistently stupid, ignorant comments. On AVFM we discuss a breadth of topics all the time, not just women in combat positions on the odd occasion. Google IS used by HR departments worldwide and AVFM entries DO come up on google. Googling “Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette” (retaining the scare quotes) comes up with 4,280 hits. His name comes up with 362 entries alongside AVFM. He is a contributor for the Good Men Project – and here’s a sample of his comments. He is an anthropologist at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, and so it is reasonable to infer that his work probably conforms to the strictures of political correctness. We know that in the west, academia comes very much under feminist influence. Whatever TGB’s politics, we take it that maybe as a tenured professor, he is in little danger of losing his job anyways, no matter how silly his commentary online. So does TGB still believe that using one’s real name online (when they do not have a tenured position at a university) does not constitute any real career threat? If he does, then he’s an idiot. If he’s still lurking (I’m sure he is), here’s a tip for TGB, given that he has an easily retrievable profile on google… he should try looking for a job in private enterprise, outside of academia… just as an exercise… and see how far he gets. Maybe he should even try government… he might be surprised… it’s one thing to be pc, but if one’s online comments are consistently silly, maybe even their own friends will identify them as a liability and avoid them like the plague.
Of course he is living outside of the Anglosphere (Rio de Janiero). Is it remotely conceivable that the Brazilians have averted the worst idiocies of the Anglosphere? Somehow, I don’t think so.
“Affirmative action” quotas are fucking disgusting. Should we have quotas for old people, short people, fat people in the military? Should we have special APFT’s for short people, fat people, weak people, retarded or autistic people so that they can be ‘affirmative actioned’ into combat roles? “Affirmative action” quotas for schizophrenics as judges, short people as long jumpers? That FEMALES specifically, as a self-identified identity group, claim entitlement to special standards, lower fucking standards and quotas for shit that they have not, do not, and cannot earn is utterly revolting. What about dwarfs, females? Why YOU? Why do just specifically YOU get the special standards and unearned, undeserved roles? Short or weak men who don’t make the cut, don’t make the fucking cut. They find something else to do, somewhere else where they can make a fitting contribution. But you, you fucking insist on a separate, tailored standard? What are you, fucking retarded? Are you saying that you are so fundamentally inferior that you require a special standard? Fuck you.
WTfuckingF has come of this world? It has literally gone mad.
Fuck these scum of assholes.
To be clear:
Dear affirmative actioned female ‘policeperson’, ‘fireperson’, ‘manager’, ‘military person’, especially ‘military officer’, ‘politician’, ‘actor’, ‘doctor’, ‘lawyer’, ‘astronaut’, ‘athlete’, ‘scientist’, ‘professor’ etc. etc. etc.,
I do not respect you.
You do not have my respect.
I will not respect you.
You will not have my respect.
You are a despicable fraud.
You have not earned my respect,
And therefore,
You do not have it; you cannot have it.
Your entire place is based on a fraud
And therefore
Any respect which I could have held for you
Is irretrievable
When I am unfortunate enough to have you cross my gaze, I will envision spit spattering you in your fraudulent face.
I will subvert you at every opportunity. I will seek every opportunity to undermine you, as you are a disease.
I will undermine your fake leadership, it is ultimately in my best interests to do so. The sooner you fail and are exposed, the sooner a proper leader can rise and fulfill the role. It is in everyone’s best interests.
I will not be manipulated by you, motivated by you, and I will not perform for you.
Slay the beast, one action at a time.
Justice must prevail.
Interesting. That ass Thaddeus didn’t even take into account that the Author of this article is indeed using his real name, is in fact a 10 year veteran of the United States Army, and has served in two separate conflict zones, those being Bosnia in ’94-’95, and Iraq in ’08-’09.
Well, I finally get my say on this matter. A lot of stuff has been said, so I do not want to repeat it. However, ditto, to most of you and to Mr. Elam.
However, I WAS in the Army for 8 years and served in the first gulf war of 90-91. I do have experience with how women can’t cut it. Men are lying to women and to themselves when they tell women whatever they want to hear about military preparedness as well as most other TRUE equality issues.
While in Saudi theater, I had to work alongside females, sort of…read on. We worked in the rear.
Showers were rare at first. Then came the resources to build shower stalls with painted black tanks atop that sun-heated the water. There was no privacy for males—nor should there be— because it takes too much money, effort, and time and other resources to erect privacy screens for all when that energy needs to be spent on our jobs and preparedness instead of acting like sissies… afraid of someone seeing their penises. Even though there were partitions between the male and female shower stalls, women constantly complained that men could see over the walls, or though knot-holes, or other ways to “harass them”. That is enough reason to not have the women there in the first place. There is no reason to argue that the females’ showers could be built better or elsewhere away from males. Space and resources were limited and there is really no true argument there.
Add to this, the well-known fact that every woman in my unit (about half our total count) was unable to hoist their own supply of water straight up and atop 12 feet of tower to the tanks. We all were given 10 gallons of water for our showers. Each person, except for commissioned officers, had to carry their own water up the tower and pour their share of water into the sun heated tanks. If you wanted to shower (and hygiene was an order), you had to carry your own water.
This lasted for about two days. The women simply could not hoist up that much weight (water is much heavier than most other liquids due to its molecular weight as H and O). Injuries were rampant among the females due to this task, so the commander, a man, had to change the rules. From then on, for 6.5 months, MALES ONLY were designated to carry all the water up to the tanks, in addition to their other tasks in which they were given no reprieve in exchange. The women, they went about their jobs without having to take up some of those same very males’ other work in exchange.
Too, the women were consistently given easier jobs compared to males. However, the women were paid the same. I still bear injuries from overworking my bones due exactly because females were not routinely expected to toil as hard. If their slots were filled by males, my body wouldn’t still hurt as it does today.
The same result is true when a blinding sandstorm followed by a very rare pelting rain hit our compound. The women had insisted that they erect their own tent and not have the males do it for them— also a rarity allowed by supervision. When the severe winds blew their tent down, but not the male tent located right beside it, the women ran out from under their collapsed tent and entered the males’ tent, dripping wet and muddy from the dust (all except one because she was injured and had to have med help). It seems the tent erected by the females was insufficiently erected due to their lack of, AGAIN, upper physical strength—even when combined with each other.
One female became pregnant while deployed. She got to go home. She had an abortion but was not expected to return to her unit. Tell me THAT is fair and I will call you an idiot.
Then, when nudged, those very same females proclaimed, with anger in their voices, “what!!?, we are carrying our weight in the Army”.
Whew! It seems women need to be lied to; men need to pretend they do not see the truth. The arguments became so volatile that the commander put out an order effectively silencing men on the truth. We could no longer be truthful. Our silence and censorship was required of us, else be punished. That is what feminists call equality! That is their version of it.
Now apply this to front-line combat analogies and if women are present, the same inequalities will interfere.
Women do not belong in the military at all. But if we are going to have our war machine be a laboratory for social experimentation, then we need to keep the variables identical as with any other reputable and respectable experiments. We need just as many women being vaporized, maimed, etc as men. We need identical standards because women will be expected to zig-zag to safety, under fire, whilst carrying a huge male on their shoulders all the while also carrying their own gear. Hair should be identically short as mens because lice do not discriminate and we can’t have soldiers with lice eating their scalps and suffering other hygiene problems, and still expect them to perform top-notch. If women are going to get to stand in for men and alongside men, then they have to muster such substantiation and surely, they can’t— no matter how much they want us men to lie for them.
I will not lie for them. You? There might be a handful of females that can somewhat approach and accomplish the same standards and expectations as men, but the question isn’t “can they” but “should they”. The answer is a resounding NO!
I also do not think any woman should hold any public office or be a leader of any kind if they can’t also equally pay the sacrifices that men MUST do. There used to be valor and honor tying the two together, but these days with so many wimpy, feminized males, it seems some of our societal components prefer to pretend that such honor didn’t really mean a single thing… but supposed oppression for females, of course.
As for the Thaddeus dweeb, he does not know what he is talking about. He has not been where some of us have. All he has is an incorrect opinion. He is exactly the type of man/men who have been fooled into letting things unravel as they have. He wants women to like him so he lies to them, lets himself be brainwashed into the feminine perspective and ends up making a fool out of himself. Let him speak, but he should be completely ignored and end up with egg on his face. Arguing with him is futile and it goes against us spending our time to agree, organize, and be effective. I am against censorship and prefer to leave that unfair tactic to the feminazis and fembots, who despise the truth that isn’t in their corner representing their idealistic conveniences, so they silence men and women who are actually correct. But he should be ignored because he is the problem, not the solution.