Monument2

The joke of equality in the military

As a man living in Eastern Europe looking at the huge debate in the United States after the Pentagon’s announcement of gradually lifting the ban on women who seek to serve in the military, I just cannot restrain myself from laughing loudly.

Now don’t get me wrong, in my opinion there are only two legitimate solutions in this problem: either make all people eligible for the draft and register to selective service, or make no-one. Any other option is just unfair. As simple as that.

The only state that is close to having that is Israel, albeit the Zionist state still exempts women from non-Jewish communities (but not men!) and married women (but not men!). There are some other countries (such as China or Peru) that also have laws that ensure full equality when it comes to conscription and compulsory military service, although China has never enforced the law since the establishment of People’s Republic of China because there are already more than enough people (male and female) that volunteer for a career in the military.

So, basically, with the notable exception of Israel, all the other nations and countries in the world can be divided into two big categories: those that don’t conscript anybody (this includes countries like China that have the laws but don’t enforce them) and those that actively enforce male disposability.

In the patriarchal Iran, men that don’t go through military service cannot leave the country and are prohibited from getting a driver’s license, whilst there are no such restrictions for women. Oh, and Iran has the highest ratio of female undergraduates in the world[1].

But do we ever hear about that? Of course we don’t.

In Eastern Europe, we’ve seen Marxist regimes first hand and we’ve seen the Great Patriotic War (Великая Отечественная война) which is basically the Soviet winning part of the World War II. These events have provided us a perspective that the general public in the USA has no idea of.

During the communist years, schools from Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, etc. etc. never stopped talking to us about the bravery of women like Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya[2] and Zinaida Portnova[3] who volunteered to help “the anti-fascist and anti-Hitlerist Soviet Union” and whose combined efforts killed hundreds of Nazi soldiers (all of them men that have been forcibly conscripted) and ended up being killed when they were around the age of 18.

There were 800,000 women in total that served in the Soviet army during WWII[4] and 89 of them were decorated with the highest distinction of the Soviet state. Even today there are still some gender ideologues that have the nerve to state that it was the ‘grrrl power’ that helped the Soviets eventually to win the war. And the same gender ideologues claim that it was “post-war patriarchal oppression” that prevented women to seek full equality into the Russian military after the war. And they claim these with little to no consideration to the actual facts.

And the actual facts are as follows: The overwhelming majority of those 800,000 women enrolled voluntarily and left the military (also voluntarily) once the war ended. Oh… and most of them survived.

I’ve heard a feminist claiming that the Russian women’s suffering from WWII was “comparable as a class” to the one of men. Again, let’s stick to the facts.

The Wikipedia page about the Red Army[5] says the following about the WWII:

During the Great Patriotic War, the Red Army conscripted 29,574,900 men in addition to the 4,826,907 in service at the beginning of the war. Of this total of 34,401,807 it lost 6,329,600 KIA, 555,400 deaths by disease and 4,559,000 MIA (most captured). Of these 11,444,000, however, 939,700 rejoined the ranks in the subsequently liberated Soviet territory, and a further 1,836,000 returned from German captivity. Thus the grand total of losses amounted to 8,668,300. This is the official total dead, but other estimates give the number of total dead up to almost 11 million men, including 7.7 million killed or missing in action and 2.6 million POW dead (out of 5.2 million total POWs), plus 400,000 paramilitary and Soviet partisan losses.

So, there were 10 times more men that died than women that served overall. On what planet is this “comparable”?

The reason I’m going with this history lesson is because my great-grandfather did not survive the war (whilst my great-grandmother got to live up to the age of 88) and my paternal grandfather did survive the war but came back with huge distress and with a permanently damaged lung that gave him breathing problems throughout his life (whilst my grandmother got to live up to the age of 80).

Another reason I am giving the facts of the much praised “equality” in the military is because my mother went through compulsory military service. She went to the University in a STEM field (which was difficult for anyone during the Communist era due to the harsh exams and the highly limited number people that could be admitted). Because she was a student, the schedule was a bit more relaxed. She had to go one day per week in a military facility for 6 hours and go through military training and during the summer vacation, she had to go for three weeks and stay only in the military facility like any other conscripted individual and live by the military oriented way of life.

Of course, during the same years, there was a huge propaganda as to how we must provide more affirmative action and more entitlements in order to have absolute equality of outcome. But at least the Marxist regime was honest all the way through and sought absolute equality of outcome (and made no secret from that) including in the hard labor areas.

Immediately after the fall of the Communist regime, the new government signed two decrees: lifting the ban on abortion and abolishing the female compulsory military service. The male compulsory military service remained in place until October 2006, almost 17 years after the female obligation was dropped.

So, the moment they had the possibility to abolish the equality in this respect, women’s groups had no problem to do so.

So let’s see how “gender equality” works in the militarized institutions in Romania (firefighters, police personal, correctional fighters, etc.).

On the official page of the “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” Police Academy from Bucharest[6][7] we learn that in order to go through an entrance exam for this school in order to become a firefighter, a guard in a prison or a police officer, one must be fluent in Romanian, have no prior convictions of any kind and:

Have a minimum height of 1.70 meters (5 feet and 7 inches) if the candidate is a man and a minimum height of 1.65 meters (5 feet and 5 inches) if the candidate is a woman

The same specification is made for any department of this military school. So this basically means that a 1.65 meter woman is tougher than a 1.69 man. I am sorry, but it’s hard for me to believe this is actually true, but the lawmakers seem to believe that.

Moreover, besides from admitting shorter people than the minimum requirement simply because they’re women, the physical tests are also easier for women.

From the minimum requirements sheet on the same academy’s website[8] we find out that men need to run for 50 meters in 7.2 seconds (preferably even faster), whilst it’s enough for women to run the same distance in 8.1 seconds. Also, the 1000 meters marathon (resistance running) must be covered by men in 3 minutes and 45 seconds, whilst women have to do the same thing in 4 minutes and 10 seconds. Now, excuse me, but I was walking (indeed, walking fast, but not running) 5,500 meters in 14 minutes when I was 12 years old and was selling newspapers on the street. And I have never been a sportive person. The physical standards for women are a joke.

The only “equal” physical requirement is when the candidates need to throw a medical ball 7 meters away. But again – women throw a 2 kg (4.4 pounds) ball whilst men throw a 4 kg (8.8 pounds) ball.

So here’s your military “equality”. Men do up to two times more heavy lifting (literally) but end up being paid the same as their female colleagues who get to be subjected to lower standards than 12 year old boys.

When the chief of the General County Inspectorate of Police (IPJ) from Vâlcea stated that the female police officers under this establishment are generally useless[9], he was rendered as a misogynistic bigot. But was he?

Let’s not be hypocrites. Under this law, female officers run slower, have slower strength, lower resistance, are generally shorter and tend to go more often on parental leave. These are the facts – whether the feminists like it or not.

But in spite of these facts, the websites of most military academies are filled with pictures of females, as if they were truly the equal of their male counterparts and as if they were as many as their male counterparts. Most militarized institutions have a small limited number of students they welcome and it’s usually 40 males, 5 females and 3 minorities. And by “minority” the Romanian law understands gypsies, Hungarians, women, Ukrainians and other minorities except for the citizens from Republic of Moldova which usually have a separate category. But often times not even those 5 places for women aren’t filled, in spite of the commercials, the physical standards comparable to 12 year old boys and non-formal female favoring promotions that are now in place throughout militarized institutions. Could it be because women don’t actually want anything to do with this?

To sum up, there is little to no doubt that this will happen in the USA in the following years (unless it’s already happening). The NCFM appeal[10] does a good job but it doesn’t go far enough. Not only USA must either end military conscription altogether or extend the Selective Service registration requirement to women, including penalties for failing to register, but what USA must also do is not to lower the standards for women. By doing so, USA will end up like the “egalitarian” Europe with its mostly useless (but highly consuming of taxpayers’ money) military structures. When the conflict in Libya started, France deployed mainly personnel from Légion étrangère[11]. Why? Because it’s the only military service wing from the French army that still works as an army, where skills are more important than misleading understandings of “equality.”

Having a taxpayers’ funded huge army is controversial enough. But having a useless taxpayers’ funded huge army is plain stupidity.

[1] http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_gir_to_boy_rat_pri_lev_enr-boys-ratio-primary-level-enrolment

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoya_Kosmodemyanskaya

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Portnova

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army#The_Great_Patriotic_War

[6] http://www.academiadepolitie.ro/root/studii/admitere/2012/documente/admitere2012_conditii_adm_politie_pompieri.pdf

[7] http://www.academiadepolitie.ro/root/studii/admitere/2012/documente/admitere2012_conditii_adm_penitenciare.pdf

[8] http://www.academiadepolitie.ro/root/studii/admitere/2012/documente/admitere2012_probe_sportive.pdf

[9] http://www.realitatea.net/seful-ipj-valcea-nu-mai-vrea-femei-in-politie-vezi-aici-motivul_861740.html

[10] http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/ncfm-calls-for-equality-in-selective-service/

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion

About Lucian Vâlsan

Hated by the local feminists, despised by most ideologues and appreciated by high profile debate societies, Lucian Vâlsan is the Romanian guy that will tell you unapologetically that misandry has no language barrier. He is also the European News Director for AVfM, the host of The Voice of Europe radio program, and can be reached at lucian@avoiceformen.com .

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Jay

    Thanks for the article Lucian. I think what is very surprising is the amount of women in America who do not even realise that boys and men are required to sign up for the national draft. Amazing that feminists continually carry on about equality, but whenever this “equality” is detrimental for women, ignore it, and hope that nobody notices. Or societal indifference about male suffering or problems means nobody cares.

    I would support women being in the army, provided they are required to face the same risks that men are subjected to. If women were ever to start dying on the battlefield at anywhere near the rate as men, then people might actually consider the price of war as too high.

    Female blood has always been more valuable than male blood; throughout human history. Yet time, and time again, the mainstream media and schools tell everyone that men had it easy and women had it tough in the past. What utter nonsense.

  • Gareth Bull

    I’ll just link an article written by (female) US Marine Corps Captain Katie Petronio and published in the US Marine Corps Gazette in 2012.

    http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

    And a couple of quotes from the article:

    “Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change.”

    “Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.”

    • TigerMan

      Thanks for the link – it was very much on topic and have tweeted it to all my followers :)

    • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

      DEAR GOD!!!

      I haven’t finished Capt. Petronio’s article, and yet I am appalled by it. She’s gone through damn-near everything the Powers That Be seem to recommend that the Entitled Oppressed Feminist Princess Of The Future should be able to handle – and she buckled, and she makes no secret of the fact that she, as maybe the 99th-percentile-capable Powerful Lioness Woman, could NOT keep up with the average male Marine.

      We, the United States, need the very best, the very toughest, the very most capable, on The Wall.

      We cannot prevail, we cannot even survive, if there’s a ‘weak point’ on The Wall.

      And Captain Petronio – not only a superbly-capable woman, but an intensely-motivated woman, a woman in the most prideful position as a woman Marine!!! – admits that she would be ‘a weak point on the Wall.’

      Captain, you may well be ‘a better man than I am,’ seeing as I’m an old fart who retired as a DOD civilian. I respect you for your service. But I respect you even more for acknowledging that you weren’t up to being able to go into combat with your MALE counterparts.

      Semper Fi, Captain – pardon me for saying!

  • thefeministmra

    I often hear the argument that a women is just as capable with a gun that a man is, so the physical requirements don’t really matter. This of course, ignores both the physical requirements for handling various types of equipment (something as rudementary as throwing a grenade far enough it won’t kill you) and the gear required in the field and various enviromental exposures in said fields.

    So if we ignore all of that, it shouldn’t matter right? Because a gun is the great equalizer. Well, as ‘Starship Troopers’ illustrated, the enemy cannot press the button if their hand is detained. You can’t shoot an enemy soldier if they’re busy wrestling your gun away from you.

    Where is the tired feminist mantra “women can do anything a man can do” when it comes to the physical requirements for various jobs? If the military doesn’t do it for you,how about the wieght lifting requirements for fire fighters? They have to break doors down and carry people to safety wearing full gear. So all things being equal, why shouldn’t we hold women to the same standards?

    This is not an argument, this is biological fact; men are physically superior, and in jobs that require physical capability, men will always exceed the capabilities of women. So what kind of fucked up rationality justifies supporting programs which encourages weaker candidates to join that lowers the average effeciency of whatever organization? Harvard might as well start giving out scholarships to D level students.

    • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

      You got it right, sir.

    • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

      @ thefeministmra:

      Well, as ‘Starship Troopers’ illustrated …

      I never watched the movie. Did you ever read the book?

  • Kimski

    “The physical standards for women are a joke.”

    And still the number of female soldiers dying in war are nowhere near the amount of men doing the dying. If this doesn’t prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that more women in any army will lead to more men dying on the battlefields, then go back to living in your make-believe bubble of perceived equality, because you’re beyond reach of reality.

    More women = more male sacrifices, both in lives lost and the amount of work the surviving men have to do.
    Why would you want to cripple an army to the point of being useless to prove a point that can’t be proven, because you’re trying to fight nature and reality at the same time?
    Seems to me, it would be a lot more sane and rational to just hand over your country and avoid war altogether, ’cause the outcome would be just about the same:
    You’d loose.

    Winning a couple of desert wars against people armed with outdated weapons, by way of higher technological means, can not be compared to fighting an army with an equal standard in force and weapons, and eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
    Not eternal “equality”.

  • Tawil

    “Oh, and Iran has the highest ratio of female undergraduates in the world[1].”

    Wow, and it was the second-last remaining ‘patriarchal’ nation on my list of crossed-out candidates. Now only Afghanistan is left!

    You are a well of knowledge, Lucian… love your articles.

    • Near Earth Object

      My understanding is that Iran has far fewer male undergraduates because of the male losses during the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980’s. To what degree and level, I am uncertain, but Persian women were in the fight as well.

      Thanks for the good read and (real) history lesson, Lucian.

  • Aimee McGee

    I’m a woman who develops muscle fairly easily in training. Laying aside my coordination issues, I doubt I would be able to achieve more than 2/3 if the actual strength of a man of similar height and weight. There are a couple of anatomical and a blindingly obvious physiological reason for this – to remain ‘healthy’, I.e. fertile, women need to carry a certain % body fat, drop below it and ammenorhoea kicks in. From the high number of reported pregnancies in active service I can assure you those women are not exercising to the kind of level needed to get within shouting distance of male fitness

  • Shrek6

    I am against conscription. But if you are going to have it where men are hauled into the armed forces during a war crisis, by a huge govt dragnet, then you need to have no ‘minimum requirement’ if you are also going to conscript women.

    The same dragnet should be used to haul in women under the same criteria as they do men, and the whole lot must be forced to face the front line in battle, not kept hidden out of harms way.

    However, I am also a firm believer that there should never be a mix if sexes within the ranks of the military, mostly those forces on the ground. Because women will always be a liability to the men and they will always cause unnecessary deaths among the men.

    There should be separate camps, and all exercises carried out separately, with no bias as to the hard jobs only going to the men. The women need to do the same as the men, regardless of whether they are strong enough or tall enough or not.

    Operating machinery and technical equipment alongside men, is probably okay, but not out on the front line. The women should be out there in their own groups/squads/platoons without a male soldier in sight, save and except for the enemy.

    Although I have to say that I pity the enemy if the women happen to all be on the rags and suffering PMT. Even worse still, if they are predominantly angry redheads. That battle will see a slaughter of the enemy and lots of body bags on the day.

  • Roland3337

    Hohlee Phuck…

    Been hanging around here since before the ‘new’ version of AVfM came out in ’09. And I just checked the whirling 3D globe stats. 3,331,206 hits.

    Only a few months ago it was maybe 2 million.

    Oh…feminist ideologues…feminist liars…man-tits…Hugo shitters…all of history will soon see you clearly as the horror that you really are.

    • Near Earth Object

      Awesome, isn’t it!

      Something I noticed last night:

      GirlWritesWhat:
      Feminism and the Disposable Male
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA
      498,849 hits

      An awakening is going on people.

      • TheBiboSez

        Oddly, GWW herself thinks of that video as one of her lessor efforts. Some of her newer stuff is breathtakingly good, but 101-level stuff is still crucial to the MRM.

  • Greg Canning

    Thank you Lucian. Australia has also recently passed legislation that will allow women the option of enlisting in the “combat” arms and units. Whilst there is no current conscription or registration for selective service in Australia it was not that long ago that we had compulsory conscription for males ( during the Vietnam war) men only were conscripted and many were sent to be wounded or killed. Both my elder brothers were involved in the draw for “birthdays” that were to be conscripted. One brother was lucky not to be drawn , the other was drawn but exempted as he was enrolled in a university degree but has to complete several years in the “citizen military forcers” . Again it was the least educated and least privileged by birth, men that took the brunt of the conscription era.

    It is also interesting to note that wealthy families of those with contacts in government frequently can exempt or buy exemption for their sons from military service in places like Russia.

    • Jay

      Yep. The song compulsory hero by 1927 is exactly about conscription during the 1960s in Australia. Great song, great lyrics, touched a chord with me when I first heard it as a young boy.
      “Got a new game for all you boys it’s war without a choice”
      “You’ve really got no say in it, you’ve got to fight, that’s the law”
      “Grandad heard the call to arms for the war to end all wars, and your dad went off to do his bit when they had to go one more”

  • GurrenLagannX

    So the solution is to either make a standard training for both genders based on the average but competent strength of women or based on the (average) physical strength of men.
    The former will mean that not only lots of women could be part of the force, but also ‘scrawny guys’, your average physically weak guys. The latter will mean a small percentage of women and basically a bunch of strong men.
    Then again, I wonder if physical-weak or clumsy people, whether they’re men or women, get placed in positions that are better suited for them. Aerial combat? Using tanks?

    • cvar

      The physical fitness requirements for the US military really aren’t that stringent. Pretty much every adult male should be able to meet them barring physical disorders or injury(even then it’s not a sure thing to fail, you can get a waiver if you can prove your physical ability). I know a fellow whose 5’5″ or so and not abnormally muscular who has no issues meeting them. Frankly, they’re low enough that women can meet them if they were willing to put in the effort (without dropping their weight/bodyfat to dangerous levels either).

      Your MOS is determined by your scoring on the ASVAB test and the needs of the military. There isn’t any distinction made between “desk jockey” and “mudpounder” for the PFT either, though the grunt’s likely to be in better shape since their job involves all the running around with shit on their backs. People with recurring injuries are often cross trained into less strenuous jobs, but a real inability to maintain basic standards will get you shipped out.

      The military maintains it’s “You must be this tall to ride” sign, it just made a second one since some women didn’t want to get up from their scooters to even check to see if they could make it. The girls that come and box at the gym have no trouble throwing out 30-40 pushups, so I’m forced to assume that women in the military that can’t, just don’t want to. The best solution, imo, is to force everyone to check at the same sign. I’d rather the military suffered a 90% wash out rate from basic instead of allowing people that can’t handle the stresses and demands of combat to feel good about themselves.

      As for the draft, I’d rather we just scrap the damn thing, but if it has to be kept, then everyone should have to register at 18.

  • Stu

    OT

    One of the best videos I’ve ever seen.

    • Tim Legere

      Agreed Stu. I watched it and am now subscribed (i.e. to Barbarossa).

  • keyster

    Conscription (Selective Service) will end before women are included in what remains of it. But since there are ZERO politicians willing to take the lead role in ending it, (because it involves a supposed benefit to young men), it will be a long time coming.

    Everyone keeps saying “as long as they can pass the same standards and the standards remain the same…”
    They said this about women firemen (now “fighters”), too. Some municipalities made adjustments to “gender neutralize” physical requirements.

    At first GRRL Power was rampant in qualifying to be a fire fighter, but eventually it wained and they lost interest. Most fire departments are predominantly male because women aren’t interested in it, and it’s hard. If there are any women remaining at all they’re promoted to Chief for diversity visibility reasons, and they’re typically lesbians.

    As you posit, the same thing will happen in the military. This is all about advantaging women “equally” to men in opportunity to advance up the ranks. Many deserving men, some with families, will be passed over for promotion because of “diversity sensitivity” to women in leadership roles. But most women aren’t interested in “combat” and (just like many men), won’t be able to qualify anyway.

    The first time princess has to squat in the latrine hole while the guys whip their dicks out, or she has to change a tampon in front of everyone – we’ll either have created a “hostile work environment” or women will ask to be transferred. GI Janes are the exception that proves the rule.

    Just like all “equality” measures, this is ALL ABOUT appearances. No ones taking it that seriously and it’s not a “huge” debate here.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Count me as something of a dissenter. Not to most of the facts laid out here (I accept them all at face value for the moment) but to the idea that this new policy is laughable.

    It starts with this: in the US military, and the military of other technologically advanced nations (which Communist Romania never would have qualified as, for example), there are a large and growing number of enlisted personnel (not just officers) who would never be able to meet the physical standards required for direct combat duty, and would likely die in shorter order and/or be a direct hazard to those who are.

    To repeat, there are a large number of enlisted MEN who would be at such hazard because they don’t meet the physical requirements; at this point those men are almost certainly the majority of men in our armed forces.

    The modern military is not the military of 50, 60, 100, 200 years ago. 21st Century warfare is increasingly one where direct combat roles are a distinct and steadily shrinking minority. This was a trend that started in the mid to late 20th century and has been increasing exponentially.

    The metaphor most often used is a spear: the tip of the spear is the boots on the ground combat troops on the so-called “front line,” although even the term “front line” is now a misnomer, which I’ll explain momentarily. Anyway, the tip of the spear is those directly taking fire on the ground. The shaft of the spear is all the roles that go into what they ultimately do: logistics, supply, surveillance, computer operations, bombing, missiles, targeted strikes, and so on. And what’s been happening steadily for decades is that the tip of the spear is growing smaller, sharper, and more effective, and the haft of the spear that helps make that tip more effective is getting longer and stronger, adding incredibly leverage to the increasingly effective tip of the spear.

    It is probably not an exaggeration to say that a single man at the tip of the spear in the modern military is probably about as effective as 1,000 men were during World War I, because of the length and strength of the shaft of the spear behind him.

    Recent conflicts have made it increasingly clear that there is rarely any such thing as a “front line” anymore, and that what is increasingly needed is people with different skills in abilities and capacities–i.e. SPECIALTIES–and there is now rarely a distinct “front line” which you can be “on” or “behind.” Driving a supply truck leaves you just as likely to get shot at as being in a unit that’s defending a particular point from enemy encroachment–indeed, driving the supply truck can be significantly more dangerous than being in a visible, fixed, but enforced position. So what is the point any longer in saying “we’re keeping the women out of the direct combat role because it’s safer for all concerned?” SUCH LINES DO NOT EXIST, for the most part.

    Our modern armed forces are characterized more than anything now into specialties. Increasingly technical ones.

    Someone sitting in the operations center of an aircraft carrier or a surveillance drone operations center has such a different set of requirements from a special forces strike team it’s not even funny. That op center guy would likely be dead within minutes or a serious liability to the rest of the team, if you suddenly stuck him in the middle of Kandahar and gave him a gun and said “help defend this position.” Nor would the front line guy who depends on the op center people to say “the enemy is precisely 102 meters away at this precise angle to you, behind that wall” be very useful if you pulled him out and put him in the ops center.

    You don’t need big muscles and sharp vision to operate a computer. You just don’t.

    The military has slowly been making allowances for male and not just female recruits to put them in positions and make use of them, who 50 years ago would not have been accepted at all.

    IF the US military does this properly, and for positions REQUIRING speed and stamina does not lower those requirements, and instead makes requirements to suit the job–which they have been increasingly in the habit of doing, slowly more and more over the decades–then the dire predictions here are not likely to come to pass.

    Yes, if they lower physical standards for women in on-the-ground infantry roles (which they have done in the past) this is not going to work out well and women are going to tend to be a liability. If they don’t–and they’re at least suggesting they won’t–then I don’t see a problem, I see it as a step forward.

    The short of it: stories from 30, 40 years ago where women were integrated clumsily into a unit and men wound up having to do all the heavy lifting for them may be out of date for the modern military, which seems to have gotten increasingly good at finding specialties in which people with multiple possible shortcomings in some areas are put into specialties where they can serve very effectively.

    Double standards bother me. An array of standards for an array of jobs do not.

    • keyster

      I agree Dean, but you’re daring to be realistic and rational, rather than emotional about it.

      If our nation’s fathers and brothers are perfectly fine with their daughters and sisters being marched off to be used as cannon fodder in a foreign land (that hates America to begin with anyway), then I’m perfectly fine with it too.

      What we’re saying is that women are no more valuable than men, and just as expendable. You go grrls!

      A society that sacrifices it’s gestational carriers in war, will eventually lose the numbers game. But then war ain’t what it used to be. Silicon is the new gun powder and America owns it……for now……

    • tallwheel

      I agree. The only thing I’m a bit uncomfortable with in this is that if you have the tip of the spear all/almost entirely comprised of men while women are almost exclusively serving as part of the shaft – as practical an arrangement as this may be – it still serves as another expression of male disposability. Males may serve on the tip because they are physically better suited for that role, but it also means that there will always be far more male casualties than female. This is the current situation, and as you pointed out, it may ultimately be the best solution, but it entails “brave men” risking their lives so that the ‘womenfolk’ can do their part largely safe from harm. And the torch of male disposability is thus carried forward for generations to come.

      The more one thinks about this, the more one realizes there really is no perfect solution. I only have one idea for the future: drones and robots. :)

  • http://mrafront.blogspot.com/ MRA.

    When the conflict in Libya started, France deployed mainly personnel from Légion étrangère[11]. Why? Because it’s the only military service wing from the French army that still works as an army, where skills are more important than misleading understandings of “equality.

    Sum it it better:

    When shit gets real they need men to fix it.

  • Skeptic

    Repeat comment, with slight amendments (as it seems relevant here)

    Feminists and their chivalrous military brass side-kicks are lying bigoted cowards. They suddenly rationalize that women are fit for front line combat.
    Newsflash – many women always were fit for such disposability dispensed only upon men, for the fact is for example many of the Vietcong men were of such slight build, malnourished and under-armed to boot that many USA women can be said to have their physical strength and firepower or more.
    They purposefully wait until warfare becomes ever more a nice safe cozy armchair drone-strike video game then start to look at integrating women into front line combat positions. How fucking typical.
    I expect by the time ‘front line combat’ becomes a virtual botwar with scant few humans in sight (very soon, see attached videos), then, and only then will women be ‘integrated’ into ‘front line’ USA military duty.
    Count on it.
    Same old, same old. Men – disposable in cum.

    No apologies for droning on –

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      I can’t deny the irony in what you’re saying. :-/

  • sondjata

    I registered just so I can post this. I don’t know who the person is who wrote this but I can certainly say that the following MUST be total BS:

    “Also, the 1000 meters marathon (resistance running) must be covered by men in 3 minutes and 45 seconds,”

    1k is twice around a standard track plus 200 meters. To do it in 3 minutes is running a 6 minute mile or 10MPH. Most people cannot do this (I can) but this brings us to the completely un-real claim:

    ” Now, excuse me, but I was walking (indeed, walking fast, but not running) 5,500 meters in 14 minutes when I was 12 years old and was selling newspapers on the street. ”

    Excuse me? This guy just claimed to “Walk” 5.5 kilometres in 14 minutes? Look, not even the great Kenyans are “walking” 5.5K in 14 minutes. My “regular” run of 5K happens in about 20 minutes (“easy” run) and that’s 8.7 MPH.

    How exactly is this guy at “12 years old” “Walking” more than 5K at a time?

    I’ve run with the military dudes in Virginia Beach Va, USA and while they are fast they are not “walking” a 5K in less than 14 minutes.

    I have nothing against this website and in fact find it very informative, but the claims noted here ought to be noted by the site owner as being completely bogus. Such claims do nothing to advance the cause here.

    • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

      Well, if you speak Romanian, you might want to check the links before accusing anyone of bullshiting because these are the numbers taken from the „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” Police Academy from Bucharest, Romania.

      As for my walking well, it is your right to distrust me, since I have no way of proving the claims of my experience as a 12 year old who was selling newspapers on the street – at least not through Internet.
      What I know for a fact is that the distance from the newspaper’s headquarters to the factory outside my hometown was roughly 5.5 kilometers and I was going there every morning because there were a lot of people willing to buy the “today newspaper” first thing in the morning.
      I was grabbing my newspapers at 5:00 AM sharp and then I was leaving towards that factory and I was always there around 5:15 AM. This happened for almost a year in the town Bârlad, Vaslui County – Eastern Romania whilst I was working for the “Monitorul” newspaper who then had it’s headquarters on “December the 1st” street, right nearby the City Hall.

      You can chose to think whatever you want – but I know what I’ve been through during my tough childhood when not selling newspapers in a day might have meant not eating in that day.

      • caratheodory

        I speak romanian and I have verified your source for the running times and found it to be correct (that is your referred times are indeed in the provided manuscript). However, It doesn’t change the fact that your claim to be walking 5500meters in 14 minutes is a complete lie to anyone willing to read it.

        Given the already great distrust people have in anything that remotely speaks against the feminine imperative, I urge you to edit your article to remove that part. It is doing nothing, but hurting our cause.

        The world record for the 5000m RUN is 12:37.35 by Kenenisa Bekele. The record for women is 14:11.15 by Tirunesh Dibaba. These are record set by people whose train year in year out solely for this, with all expense paid and performance enhancing drugs. Your claim is that you are WALKING 5500 meters meters in the same time. It is simply false. The average man (although out of shape) runs the 5k in ~30+ minutes and is winded out by the end of it. Athletic people training for it can get times around 18-22minutes and are absolutely exhausted by the end of it.

        Your allegation simply prove that you either do not know how to measure distances, or keep track of time. On top of having a very faulty memory. Again, I urge you to let your ego aside for a moment and edit the article.

      • cartidge

        You know that at the last Olympic games the 5,000 km gold medal winner, Mo Farah, won with a time of 13:41.66? You can walk faster than the fastest man in the world can run, and could do so when you were a child? Yeah, you’re full of shit as the other dude said.

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com August Løvenskiolds

          5,000 km would be a looooong race – the distance between NY CIty and Los Angeles is only 3940 km. There has never, EVER been a 5,000 km race in the Olympics.

          What was that you were saying about shit and being full of it?

  • Wolverine1568

    Just listened to a local mangina talk show host in my area just beaming about all the heroic women out there already in combat. He had some political sciece mangina from some uni saying how great this decision was for the future of the military.

    He then brings on a women who served as a medic in Iraq as the the quintesential example of female combat prowess. She served one single tour in Iraq and did a total of 3 humanitarian medical missions outside the wire for the locals. She herself said during the interveiw that they were surounded by up to three layers of perimiter defence with arial overwatch. This is hardly a fine example of the front line meat grinder the troops at the perimeter defences were facing and were expected to face on a daily basis throughout thier multiple tours to Iraq.

    Anyway, it was what this political science bookworm was saying that really pissed me off. This is how they are framing it now.

    1. Women can go longer without food and require less rations than the men.

    2. Women have more endurance than men.

    3. Women have a higher pain threshold than men

    4. Women are mentally stronger than men.

    5. Women have more college degrees than men and the military needs women to take command.

    More half truths and outright lies promoted by the lackeys of higher re-education and the ministry of truth.

    I was so pissed off after listening to the interview that I broke my car door latch I slammed it so hard.

    Well, off to fix it I go. Wait, maybe I should find a woman to do it for me. She would obviously be more capable.

    • Steve_85

      1. Women can go longer without food and require less rations than men…

      because they have a much larger percentage of their body composed of fat, and therefor a much lower portion of their body composed of muscle, the part that burns the majority of your body’s energy (brain functions not withstanding). This is true for fatties as well due to their HUGE storage reserves of fat, although they will burn more energy hauling it all around.

      2. Women have more endurance than men…

      but only if what you’re testing endurance by is length of time spent watching day time TV.

      3. Women have a higher pain threshold than men…

      But only during labour, when their body releases specially designed hormones that have this effect. At all other times, men have higher pain thresholds, by a large margin.

      4. Women are mentally stronger than men…

      again, only when you’re talking about the mental fortitude required to sit through hours and hours of day time TV.

      5. Women have more college degrees than men…

      because college and university campuses have become so hostile to men that we actually don’t want to go to uni anymore. Also, something about anti-male discrimination in classes.

      Like you said, half truth, outright lies and unless I’m mistaken, it was all said without any evidence to back it up. What the fuck does ‘mentally stronger’ even mean?

  • MGTOW-man

    The facts about European and adjacent countries’ fallacies relative to women in the military is just another example of how far some foolish men will go to purchase women.

    Whether it be for sex, for ego-inflation, or just to stay in the good graces of women, apparently some men have no shame limiting how far they will stoop to get women to like them (called schmucks). They think it makes them more manly… when in fact it highlights them as cowards afraid to be honest with women—behavior that would have been hugely unpopular and unacceptable if done in yesteryear’s REAL manly times— before mass numbers of men were feminized (punished and controlled…something feminists/women call “changing men”).

    You are also correct when you compare the way things were/are in your old country military with that of the US. I have been there, seen that, done that. I know for an absolute fact that not only have the standards been lowered (for women only), but the general atmosphere toward women in the military is chivalrous, don’t notice their shortcomings, shut up ( or be charged with harassment…for being honest), and other ways to pretend women are equal in the military.

    I could take pages here to provide example and example of the numerous events that transpired while in the military that prove women are not equal in the military…nor are they expected to be (shhh! the brass will give you an article 15 for being too truthful!!!). One account here and there, of women “proving themselves” is nowhere sufficient enough to override this mammoth, basic, fundamental truth that we all know without even have to say another word about it.

    This will continue as long as men allow it. When men stop buying women, things will improve. Until then, status quo…lies, pretending, looking the other way, and accepting punishment for noticing the inconvenient-to-them truth.

    Just as Warren Farrell said, ” Men still compete to be the best protectors of women”. That is what is happening when men cave in; they think they are protecting women. But they learn not that appeasement of feelings is destruction, not protection…and the boys slip farther and farther down the river.

    It is our job as MRA’s to show them. Let’s get busy!

    As long as we have men who are confused about manhood, masculinity, and real manliness, things like ego-inflation will remain intact, as will the lies—even in the military!

    Change men, make them be honest, and you change the world!

  • cynthia long

    I had read your article and agreed with most of it. My son was a Recon Marine and is a Firefighter. My husband has been a Lt. in the fire dept. for 18 years. I was a firefighter for 8 years. We both have worked construction, he for over 30 years, and me for 16+ years. I have gone back to school for my Master’s degree and was reading your article for a culture and gender class. Like I stated, I had agreed with most of it… up until the last few posts. Now I’m seeing the sexists come out. Sorry guys, your jerks. I would say use your brains, but it is evident you don’t have any. Muscle does not equal brains, and war is not won by muscle alone. Understanding culture is relevant when fighting other countries, if not for any other reason than psychological warfare. (By the way, brains are needed in construction and in the fire department, too. I had to earn my place by proving myself and working twice as hard as a man. But every man I came in contact with respected me and asked for my opinion. They were real men. They didn’t let sex get in the way of working hard to get the job done right.- oh, I’m 5’4″)