Dying to be treated like one of the guys.

Feminist blogger Gooseberry Bush writes in her post G.I. Jane (emphasis mine):

There’s absolutely no reason why women can’t be drafted and no reason why they can’t serve in the military right alongside of men in every capacity. Israel requires compulsory military service for both men and women. If women defer to men who say that they want to exclude us in order to protect us, then we rightly deserve to have privileges withheld from us. We’ve given them that power by appointing men as our protectors while we cower in the corner and bite our fingernails, like some simpering love interest in a Hollywood action movie marketed to men, written by, directed by, produced by, and starring men. It’s time we got all Lara Croft on their asses.

Well, no reason except for the large difference between women and men, which is why feminists always lobby for different standards required of women at the same time they argue that women can be firefighters, police, or serve in combat positions in the military.  For example, consider the Marine Corps Combat Fitness Test (CFT).  According to Pfc. Michelle Mattei:

The Marine Corps’ Combat Fitness Test measures a Marine’s physical readiness for battle with three real-time combat drills. Each assessment is designed to determine various aspects of combat fitness. Every active-duty Marine and reservist is required to meet the Corps’ recently implemented CFT standard.

You hear that?  Every Marine must pass this test, including the women.  See, that proves men and women are equally fit for combat, right?  Well, sure.  So long as you fudge the test for women.  I haven’t found the latest requirements, but here is what the minimum standard was for men and women as of 2008:

Note that while some account is made for age, the oldest, weakest, and slowest men must meet a higher standard than the youngest, strongest, and fastest women.  In the case of the ammo can lifts, the lowest standard for men is more than twice that of the highest standard applied to women.

Despite all of our technical advances, combat is still a literal, physical fight.  Michael Yon describes this frequently in his blogging on Iraq, as he does in his post Gates of Fire:

When the bullet hit that canister, Prosser—who I thought might be dead because of all the blood on his leg—was actually fighting hand-to-hand on the ground. Wrapped in a ground fight, Prosser could not pull out his service pistol strapped on his right leg, or get to his knife on his left, because the terrorist—who turned out to be a serious terrorist—had grabbed Prosser’s helmet and pulled it over his eyes and twisted it.

Prosser had beaten the terrorist in the head three times with his fist and was gripping his throat, choking him. But Prosser’s gloves were slippery with blood so he couldn’t hold on well. At the same time, the terrorist was trying to bite Prosser’s wrist, but instead he bit onto the face of Prosser’s watch…
…Prosser quickly reholstered his pistol and subdued him by smashing his face into the concrete.

Even with all of our technology, that fight ended up as a no holds barred ground fight where the victor bashed the loser’s head into concrete.  This brings me to an article from the Cleveland Scene about the death of a female Marine* titled Fallen Angel.  Welmer linked to it in  a recent post on The Spearhead about the deaths of female service members in war zones.  In that story lies the full contradiction of the feminist view of women as warriors.  It starts off spreading it thick about how tough the female Marine was.  We are told those on base called her the Fiery Angel, and it is at first suggested that she made it a habit to hone her ground fighting skills by wrestling with men on base as just another one of the guys:

One day in October 2008, two months into her tour in Iraq’s notoriously bloody Anbar province, the feisty [redacted] wanted to try out some new grappling techniques, according to the story of a sailor who was also stationed on the base. It led to an impromptu wrestling match between the two, and [she] came away from it with an injury.

As improbable as this story might sound to anyone whose life experience isn’t limited to watching episodes of Xena:  Warrior Princess, we learn in the article that it matched with what the Marine told her own mother:

the story closely matched what her daughter had told her on the phone the night before her death.

The Marine’s father found the story harder to swallow, and after keeping the pressure up he ultimately heard what really happened.  The true story was a tale of feminist myth-making colliding head on with an ever stubborn and in this case fatal reality:

In a phone conversation with a female NCIS investigator, he learned that on the day before [she] died, she had been spending downtime with other Marines and a group of U.S. Navy sailors when one sailor snarled, “Marines ain’t shit” at them.

Armed with nothing more than the power of moxie, the former cheerleader and choir girl turned Packaging Specialist decided to physically punish the Sailor for his words.  Borrowing a phrase from Gooseberry Bush, she decided to go all Lara Croft on his ass:

Enraged, [she] rushed the sailor. “I’m going to show you what a Marine is!” she shouted, and proceeded to knock the much larger rival to the ground.

Unfortunately for her, this was neither a video game nor a movie, and the man she assaulted had the bad taste to fight back:

the sailor then jumped back to his feet, grabbed [her], and body-slammed her. Her head whip-lashed onto concrete.

The scuffle was broken up by witnesses, and [she] retreated without seeking medical attention. But within a few hours, she complained to commanding officers and fellow Marines of a headache. The next day, she was dead.

Now all of a sudden instead of portraying the female Marine as a tough-as-the-guys modern day GI Jane, the tone turns to her as a helpless victim of the very Sailor she assaulted:

[her] father understands the law. What he doesn’t understand is why the sailor wasn’t held accountable for slamming a much smaller woman to the ground.  He was never given the name of the sailor in question, and the name of the sailor and the eyewitnesses were redacted from the report.

“Shouldn’t the sailor at least be charged with manslaughter?” he asks today.

For those keeping score at home, the feminist line is:

  1. Women are just as capable in physical fights/combat as men, and can perform the very same roles as men, even those which require significant physical strength.
  2. When opening up traditionally male jobs to women, different physical standards must be established which apply only to women, because we all know women aren’t as big/strong/fast as men.
  3. Men must continue to meet the same high standards they always have, because the job requires great physical strength and a weaker man couldn’t do it.
  4. Men who hit women back are acting criminally, because that is no way to treat a lady.

*I’ve decided not to use the Marine’s name in this post so that it won’t come up under a search of her name by friends or family members.

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Envy, Fantasy vs Reality, Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, Michael Yon, Military. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Dying to be treated like one of the guys.

  1. At least, in the movie, G.I Jane asked the same standard of the men. She didn’t accept the lower standard nor asked to lower the standard for all.
    At the end of the movie she lifted the wounded “Aragorn” showing she was strong as much as a man (the point “Aragorn” made about female not be fit to combat roles).

    But G.I Jane is a movie and real women able to do the same phisically and mentally would be counted on one hand or two.

  2. Timitz says:

    It drives me up the wall that women are allowed to get away with lower standards in the military. Check out this link to see what the massive gap in standards is. http://www.apft-standards.com/

    If you look at Push up scores, a score of 60 is the minimum needed to pass the test, a 60 for a man in his early 20s is almost a perfect score for an equally aged woman.

    It is a slap in the face to anyone who sees the different scores, and it potentially endangers the life of the men these women serve with if they are unable to be held to the same standard as their male counterparts, especially when the shooting starts.

    The worst travesty is that any military members who speaks out against this inequality, let alone says anything disparaging against women in the military in general is guaranteed to kill his career, so it will never happen.

  3. HarmonicaFTW says:

    As a kid in cadets, the majority of my NCOs were females. A whole year went by as they schemed and fought for the Warrant Officer position. They even went so far as to promote the brother of a female flight sgt. six months after he joined, which is against both the military’s rules and the cadet program rules. One year of instruction makes you eligible, not nepotism. I quit soon after. I had two years experience and passed Leadership training with flying colors. But vaginas overcome merit.

  4. Flavia says:

    Hi guys,

    I think it’s fine to allow women in the military, police force, even the NFL- as long as the standards are not lowered for them. There probably ARE *SOME* women who are as strong and fast as guys in the army, and if they want to compete in a meritocracy I think that’s fine. I also don’t like standards in universities and ESPECIALLY in things like medical and accounting exams being lowered to the altar of the diversity gods. Opportunity for all, but favoritism for none.

  5. dragnet says:

    I don’t even understand what the point is of having the male standards be so high. Why is a woman who can do 20 ammo can lifts more fit and ready for service than a guy who can only do that many?

    And I’m really glad that you quoted from an actual soldier’s blog about what modern war is really like…which is basically the same as it’s always been in a lot of ways. There’s a tendency of feminists and manginas to assert that technology has obviated the need for brute strength in warfighting. That this is false should be obvious in the age of asymmetrical warfare, but I guess it isn’t. The real danger is that these clowns are influential up to the highest levels of our military hierarchies.

    God only knows the damage they have yet to inflict with their reality-free ideology.

  6. painlord2k says:

    The point of a male standard so high is to prevent any loser out there to apply and beat the women, being faster and stronger than them.

  7. Bike Bubba says:

    It’s worth noting here that not only do lower standards kill women, but they also kill the men called upon to cover for their lower physical strength, and finally the lower physical standards lead women to take the jobs that older male soldiers used to take.

    Consider that last bit carefully; more or less, your “tail” portion of the military was older soldiers who knew what combat was. Hence, the “tail” understood and appreciated what the “teeth” needed.

    Now, today, 70% of combat soldiers are said to reject homosexuals in combat, while about 80% of noncombat soldiers would accept it. In other words, women in the military with weaker physical standards contribute to the “tail” not knowing what the “tooth” is all about.

    Which will, if we ever get into a serious war, be very, very deadly.

  8. dragnet says:

    “Now, today, 70% of combat soldiers are said to reject homosexuals in combat, while about 80% of noncombat soldiers would accept it.”

    I have to call this out as bullshit. Male homosexuals have fought and died alongside their brothers-in-arms for thousands of years including openly in some cultures (Greek, Roman—someone correct me if I’m wrong here). Homosexuality wasn’t always based on “gender bending” and effiminacy—that a reason development due to the unholy alliance influential gays have formed with the feminist movement. Jack Donovan talks a bit about this. In any case, allowing male homosexuals to serve openly doesn’t (have to) feminize the military.

    Allowing women in combat absolutely would.

  9. dragnet says:

    “Homosexuality wasn’t always based on “gender bending” and effiminacy—that a reason recent development due to the unholy alliance influential gays have formed with the feminist movement.”

    Fixed. Damn the typos.

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    Flavia
    I think it’s fine to allow women in the military, police force, even the NFL- as long as the standards are not lowered for them.

    I think it’s fine to allow unicorns to serve in the military, police, even the NFL so long as their pretty manes don’t get dirty.

    My comment as exactly as much relevance to reality as yours does…

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    There is something very important that can be derived from the tables presented.

    And that is: the average middle aged man is stronger than the average 20-25 year old woman. Let’s let that sink in a bit…nobody is pushing for 40-year old men to go out to the sandbox for combat, right? But those men are more fit to fight than the mythical GI Janes. So clearly the whole “women in combat” script has nothing to do with actually winning fights, or wars. It’s pure politics. It’s like the lord of the manor demanding that his 13 year old son be given a charger and sword so that he can pretend to be a knight, when he’d have zero chance in a real fight.

    Now let’s let that fact sink in more. Dalrock excerpted one of Yon’s fight stories. A whole lot of men who have been to the sandbox can supply even more intense ones; there’s a serious set of stories the Marines could tell about the fighting in Fallujah, for example. And many of those stories wind up with a fight that goes to the ground and gets down to the finger-in-eye, boot-knife-in-chest level. Once again, a 40 year old man can beat up a 20-25 year old woman most of the time.

    What chance, therefore, does GI Jane have if she winds up in the dirt with a 20-something jihadi? Pretty close to zero, I’d say. So once again, the issue clearly isn’t winning fights. It’s making the ladies feel like they are “one of the guys”.

    This is how an army is prepared that will lose. Countries with armies that lose have a nasty tendency to go out of existence, sooner or later. I’m sure that the politicians in Constantinople who spent plenty of time fomenting intramural fights so much that Anatolia was lost to the Ottomans didn’t really think they were setting up the Eastern Roman Empire for extinction, but they were. I’m sure the politicians who have spent the last 30 years feminizing the military don’t really think they are setting up a lot of American men and women to die horribly sometime somewhere, but they are.

    And if this goes on, all that will be left to fight is the unorganized militia.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dragnet
    I don’t even understand what the point is of having the male standards be so high.

    Because men who can function at that level are more likely to be able to win fights. The purpose of having an army is to win fights, and wars. If a time machine existed, we could bring soldiers forward from 1943 and except for details like uniforms, rations, radios and a few other things, all of them would be able to fight effectively because warfare on the ground is substantially similar to what it was over 60 years ago.

    Machineguns use up a lot of ammunition. They have to be replenished. That means moving heavy cans of ammunition right now or else. Artillery and tanks are quite automated, but there is still a lot of physical, manual labor involved in keeping them running, keeping the tracks on, and so forth.

    There is no “second place” in warfare. If a machinegun position on a firebase defensive perimeter runs out of ammo and gets overrun, men die. Lifting ammo cans is not some empty exercise, it is but one of the necessary things required to win fights.

    Hope that makes things clearer.

  13. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Now, today, 70% of combat soldiers are said to reject homosexuals in combat, while about 80% of noncombat soldiers would accept it.”

    Dragnet
    I have to call this out as bullshit.

    Don’t tell us. Go tell it to the Marines. The polls have been taken off and on for years, and the numbers are pretty much as stated above. There is essentially no privacy in a lot of the forward areas where combat units work; not on any Marine assault ship, not in any forward Army or Marine firebase. An openly homosexual man in those situations will cause, shall we say, various morale issues. The combat troops know it.

    Male homosexuals have fought and died alongside their brothers-in-arms for thousands of years including openly in some cultures (Greek, Roman—someone correct me if I’m wrong here).

    Pretty much irrelevant. The Sacred Band of Thebes has been extinct for a very long time. You are apparently more interested in politics than in winning fights.

    Homosexuality wasn’t always based on “gender bending” and effiminacy—that a reason development due to the unholy alliance influential gays have formed with the feminist movement.

    This strikes me as hogwash. The homosexual boys in the Roman baths were just as effeminate as any young man using Kool-Aid powder as rouge in a modern jail today.

    Jack Donovan talks a bit about this. In any case, allowing male homosexuals to serve openly doesn’t (have to) feminize the military.

    It certainly won’t help win fights or wars. That’s what the combat vets of the last 10 centuries or so seem to say. So I guess losing fights, getting men killed is ok with you, so long as it’s done in a politically correct manner?

    No thanks.

  14. Dalrock says:

    Great points Bike Bubba and Anon Reader. I would add that the theoretical line between those who fight and those who support them isn’t as nice and clear as many would suspect. One of the things I recall hearing recently is that in Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) the cooks picked up rifles and went out to fight. I did some searching and found this paper from Rand:

    Everyone at the staging area is potentially an infantryman: cooks, mechanics, MPs, anyone who is there when bullets fly must be thinking about war. Who would have thought that two Blackhawks would have been shot down in the city? God bless our cooks who stepped up and came to our assistance in the relief convoys. They literally put down the spoons and spatulas and grabbed their weapons to go to the fight. That is the warrior mentality. When we go again, it just might be that low-density military occupational specialty (MOS) soldier who becomes the last line of defense. He has to be prepared.

  15. painlord2k says:

    The women in the military, in a serious war, will suffer large numbers of POWs and KIAs. Then, it will be interesting to see how they react.
    Serious war is when you lose ground and lose battle and the enemy kill and take prisoners many thousands of soldiers, often even from second and third lines.

  16. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader
    A whole lot of men who have been to the sandbox can supply even more intense ones; there’s a serious set of stories the Marines could tell about the fighting in Fallujah, for example. And many of those stories wind up with a fight that goes to the ground and gets down to the finger-in-eye, boot-knife-in-chest level. Once again, a 40 year old man can beat up a 20-25 year old woman most of the time.

    I have it on good authority from Gooseberry Bush that the need for physical strength in combat has been eradicated. Moreover, women in the military who are too weak can simply opt out of any fight where they aren’t confident they can win:

    Just because most men are stronger than most women doesn’t mean that we can’t still inflict damage, the same as a weaker man can. A smart man will not generally engage in combat, war or no, with another man who is obviously stronger than him, unless circumstances force him to do so, as a survival tactic.

    Also, I agree that the same standards should exist for men and women in the military. My point is that women are capable. especially in this day and age, when most of “combat” does not involve hand to hand combat, of serving in the military just as proudly as men. Make the standards “realistic” standards and then apply them equally to both men and women.

  17. M in CAN says:

    The topic of different physical standards for men and women for the same job has long been a sore point for me.

    When talking various women I’ve always managed to stump them into a long, uncomfortable pause with the following (sarcastic at times) come backs to common points:

    “Women typically exceed the standard anyway”
    “Cool – then we should raise their standards to reflect that”
    SILENCE

    “Different standards are ok”
    “Fine, lower the men’s standards to match the women’s”
    SILENCE (or an uncomfortable but but but when they realize that even the wimpiest men they know would still pass the women’s standards)

    “Women should be able to serve in combat positions”
    “Damn straight – the dead and wounded have been disproportionately male. We need to even that up.”
    SILENCE

    The second one is especially hard hitting because everyone thinks of soldiers as super-fit individuals. The picture of a male couch potato covered in Cheetos dust besting a buff female is just too hard to bear for most women.

    My other suggestion that always gets scoffed at is, if women are just as capable then simply form an all female division with mandatory birth control injections for combat positions then deploy them just like any other unit.

    Dalrock – your quote from Gooseberry Bush shows that she has been blinded by technology as many before her have been. The original F4 Phantoms were armed only with missles because the era of the aerial dogfight was supposedly over. The Air Force added a cannon to that aircraft post haste once they figured out that the MiGs were downing too many of them (with guns).

    Guns run out of ammo and when they do what once was a gun is now effectively a club. To use that club effectively you need brute strength.

    [D: Great points. I was thinking about your exact point the F4 earlier. Also, from what I’ve read the load our infantry has to carry today is actually much higher than in previous wars. They are pushing the limits of the (male) body.]

  18. Author says:

    Hi Dalrock,

    I’ve written a blog post in response to this blog post. If your readers would like to comment, they’re free to do so at:
    http://gooseberrybush.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/soldier-barbie/

    Please at least take the time and trouble to read the links and comments first and respond politely. Thanks. Any thoughtful, respectful dissenting comments will be published, like usual.

  19. Author says:

    In response to most of the combat in war not being hand to hand combat in modern warfare, I read more than one piece that said that the “combat” military that women are banned from only makes up a total 14% of the military. Do we really believe that only 14% of the military actually fight?

  20. Author says:

    As for gays in the military, the Roman army had an established standard of homosexual conduct. Would anyone call the Roman army “sissy”? Oh, maybe these men weren’t actually “gay,” but what makes a man gay? Is it butt fucking other men? If it is, then a significant proportion of the ancient Roman military was, in fact, openly gay.

  21. Author says:

    I think I’ve proven with my example, if you actually read it, that an intelligent person could easily have chosen the wrong answer. If you don’t even know what an orange is, from experience, then how are you supposed to imagine this and somehow be deemed “intelligent.” It’s ridiculous.

    I am all for having the same physical standards for men and women where those physical standards are actually required in order to do the job. The problem is that women are barred from the ability to apply for certain jobs, even if they can meet those requirements. And the second problem is: are the standards actually real requirements for doing the work, or are they purposely exclusionary towards women?

    As for the different standards for men and women: Dalrock readily published them but didn’t bother to publish the acutal RESULTS of the physical tests. How often do women in the military actually exceed the requirements? How often do they actually meet or exceed the requirements for men? That would actually interest me.

    Would you like to actually respond to this challenge? Because I’d be interested in the results.

  22. Chris says:

    I don’t think this is only a problem in the military. The same problem occurs in civilian life, in fact it’s worse. In the acute psych unit where I work we don’t have enough male nurses. We have a bunch of petite female nurses — who can be physically overwhelmed by patients. For example,yesterday one of the women in assessment was physically draggning two nurses with her as she was trying to get out of the unit.

    If you are going to contain someone who is agitated and aggressive, you will need to take them to the floor, and then you have options to sedate. With the right ward environment and enough(read 500 kg) trained nurses, this is a trivial evolution… however, the unit is in a historic building… we have to transfer such patients. Or wait for the men to come on shift.

    And in the prison service it is worse. There are some places where you have to be physically strong to do the job. Most men are strong enough into their 50s, while a minority of women meet that standard.

    What legislation is doing is putting all who work in those jobs at risk.

  23. Chris says:

    Written after I looked at Soldier Barbie. (Dear Barbie. You are a twit).

    1. Everything I said about civilian life applies to the infantry — a good big ‘un will beat a good little ‘un. Most women are comparatively little. I know some very fit women — who make national teams. But (in my youth) I was a “B” grade harrier: in mixed races I usually finished around the same time as female Olympians. (In my defence, there were three sub four minute milers in the “A” team at that time). You can’t legislate against biology.

    2. The Armed forces go into harms way. They interact with various cultures. Many of those cultures are different from that of the USA. And as an unamerican, if you invade my nation (unlikely, we fought in Vietnam and are fighting for the alliance in Afghanistan) I/we don’t care about your merit badges, your constitution or your rights. We care about our way of life… and we fight to win.

    3. There are many roles that women can do in the military — and they free up men to be in the front line. In Isreal, most of the infantry are men, but the staff positions are female.

    4. In times of desperation, women can and have fought, but so have 13 year old boys and 60 year old men. In NZ, we want the most competent and professional small army and navy we can afford: I am uncertain as to if the US elite want the most competent military or one that “reflects society”.

    Sorry, found typos on re-reading the previous post. I meant “dragging”.

  24. NameWitheld says:

    “How often do women in the military actually exceed the requirements? How often do they actually meet or exceed the requirements for men? ”

    From my own observation, which is hardly scientific; not very often initially. The more important consideration is how you compare to the other people exceeding the standards. I’ve almost never seen a woman who could beat the men and the ones that could, weren’t able to beat the hardcore guys. An example: when you join the military you have to pass a PT test consisting of pushups, situps, and a run. You have to get a minimum of 60 points in each event to pass, and can get up to 100 for a maximum total of 300 points. If I had been judged using the female standards I would have passed with a perfect score, with no training. I’m talking straight from couch to military. Using the male standards, however, I only got 220 points. A female perfect score is actually barely above a failing male score in my age bracket, the exception being situps, which aren’t that hard for either gender.

    The other issue is that those are the minimums. Its expected that while you do your test, you’ll work out and be able to do well in other areas. Especially if you are in a combat role. Thus, just passing the male standards, which is hard for most women, isn’t enough. It certainly isn’t for the guys. This is because you are only as strong and fast as your weakest and slowest guy, thus there is incredible pressure on the lower performers to do better. Women are an unspoken handicap, especially by lower ranked soldiers. Thus even men are “supposed” to do better than the minimums. The best example of this is the Navy Seals. To get in you only NEED to do 6 but if you don’t do FAR more than that, you’ll never make it. Thus to truly succeed in the military lifestyle you have to be able to exceed the standards.

    There are a couple that do, but they always look more like men than women, and have all the symptoms of high testosterone levels. By far most of the women are unable to meet the maximum male standards, let alone exceed them. Really though, the best test, that would end all the debate forever, should be to make an all female combat unit and test them in actual combat conditions.

  25. Bike Bubba says:

    Actually, “Author,” open homosexuality and pederasty was mostly a thing of the Greeks, not Romans. That said, it’s worth noting that the Greeks were pretty good at winning wars–e.g. Alexander–but pretty bad at sustaining the peace afterwards–e.g. Maccabean Wars and wars between districts of Alexander’s empire after his death.

    So although homosexuals have been soldiers, the historical record does not bear out the idea that they are effective at what we want to do in the U.S.; win the war AND the peace that follows. To put it mildly, the great post-WWII economic resurgences of Japan and Germany would have been far less likely if our GIs had been hitting on German and Japanese boys instead of the girls.

  26. Pure White Trash says:

    @Author

    Since results for the test all discussion is fruitless. Women could be aceing the test. Or they could be failing it miserably. We don’t know. What we do know is that war COULD involve hand to hand combat. There fore unless a woman can pass the exact same standards as a man, she has no business even wearing the uniform.

  27. Pingback: Soldier Barbie « Gooseberry Bush

  28. painlord2k says:

    Open pederasty in Greek time was nothing like what is now.
    The average Greek freeman would keep his wife closed in the gineceo and fuck her to have children. As many as she could carry on. Then, when not fucking her, he would frequent other men and do as he please.

    Romans despised Greeks for they decadence.

    What Romans did was raping slaves (male, female, whatever). A Roman man fucking another man was a master imposing and showing his power over the fucked. The master was admired as strong, the fucked despised as weak.

  29. Pingback: Feminist scavenger hunt. | Dalrock

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hi Dalrock,
    Author:
    I’ve written a blog post in response to this blog post. If your readers would like to comment, they’re free to do so at:
    http://gooseberrybush.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/soldier-barbie/

    I for one will not come play in your sandbox.

    Please at least take the time and trouble to read the links and comments first and respond politely. Thanks. Any thoughtful, respectful dissenting comments will be published, like usual.

    I have more than enough experience with feminists, in both unmoderated and moderated newsgroups as well as websites. I know that “thoughtful” means “agreeing with the premises of the moderator”. I know that “respectful” means “not disagreeing with or criticizing feminism”.

    I am certain that you will, sooner or later, creatively edit my postings, flame them without allowing any reply, hang comments up in “moderation” indefinitely, and eventually ban me. Because that is what feminists do to dissenters. I have seen it often enough.

    Repeat: I for one will not play in your sandbox. It would be a waste of my time.

    Now, when are you going to report back to us on the strawman fallacy?

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    Author
    In response to most of the combat in war not being hand to hand combat in modern warfare, I read more than one piece that said that the “combat” military that women are banned from only makes up a total 14% of the military. Do we really believe that only 14% of the military actually fight?

    That sounds a bit high in terms of post 1942 military, but probably is about right given the nature of the sandbox(s). If you don’t know anything about the “teeth to tail” ratio, if you don’t know why professionals study logistics, then you don’t know much about war fighting.

    In that case, you should be spending a whole lot more time reading and learning, and a whole lot less time posting from a position of ignorance.

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    Author
    As for gays in the military, the Roman army had an established standard of homosexual conduct.

    Really. Then it should be easy for you to provide a pointer to this established standard. You should have a citation ready to hand, to prove your claim.

    Do it. Show us all this established standard. We don’t have to have the Latin version, a translation will suffice. Tell us all where it can be found.

    Oh, and please get back to us on the strawman fallacy, as you were previously tasked with.

    PS: Nobody here is impressed by vulgarity. Nor are we shocked by it. So frankly, you might as well give it up. It’s not working.

  33. Paul says:

    Frankly i say go ahead and open it up to woman. If history is any indication, it won’t make much of a difference.

    I imagine that the Military will be seen in the same light as STEM jobs and manual labor: women, for the most part, won’t touch them with a ten foot pole. Anything dirty, disgusting, dangerous and labor intensive will NOT be the career of choice for most women.

    Hell, as far as STEM jobs go, the feministas have done everything conceivable short of ordering women into those jobs to try and get girls interested, and no dice.

  34. grerp says:

    Women do not belong in the military, except perhaps in traditional functions: clerical, laundry, camp follower – and only in those if they do not make trouble. Given today’s reality, my inclination would be to make the military an entirely male zone. The goal of a military is not complex. It should operate to make war, to get in and do enough human and material damage to win it as safely, quickly, and cheaply as possible. The proximity of women to fighting men makes the accomplishment of this goal much more difficult. This is bad.

    The bottom line? If something or someone does not make winning easier, it or she should be discarded. Anyone deliberately making winning the war or accomplishing any other military goal less likely should be court martialed and found guilty of treason. The end. The military is not a self-actualization program. It is a war machine. Women are physically inferior to men when it comes to fighting or running, lifting or carrying. The denial of this fact is both expensive and deadly. I’m quite active and in good shape for my age and sex, but my seven-year-old son can outrun me, and my sixty-seven-year-old father can outwork me. I am not too proud to notice and admit it.

  35. Lavazza says:

    I did the minimal mandatory military service (8 months) and sometimes I got angry with a fellow soldier who was permitted to leave for hockey training (he was a professional player in a first division team) but I never thought about the fact that no women were forced to work for free for the state. Consciencious objectors had to do a minimum of 10 months community service. The “cheapest” way out for a man was to fake psychological problems or to refuse flat out, which only gave you a short (4 months) jail sentence, if you were prepared to live with having a criminal record.

  36. Dalrock says:

    thetrollking was kind enough to post this on Reddit, which has thrown a great deal of traffic my way (803 hits and counting today). Lots of great comments over there. One by “barbadosslim” is too good not to share:

    lol the article is defending a guy who beat a woman to death
    ❤ mensrights

  37. Paul says:

    ^ Wow… talk about missing the point entirely.

  38. lifeinlonglegs says:

    “There’s absolutely no reason why women can’t be drafted and no reason why they can’t serve in the military right alongside of men in every capacity.”

    Awesome! [add sarcasm] – now I, too can get shot at in the front lines instead of making jam in a kitchen somewhere. Thank you birth control and abortion! [Otherwise, rape would have been too much of a risk – you invest in training an officer, only to have her be assaulted by the enemy. Suddenly, you’ve got a battalion disabled with morning sickness.]

    Only our massive disobedience to God could do so much damage to society. It’s a good think Jesus is coming back.

  39. lifeinlonglegs says:

    “There’s absolutely no reason why women can’t be drafted and no reason why they can’t serve in the military right alongside of men in every capacity.”

    Awesome! [add sarcasm] – now I, too can get shot at in the front lines instead of making jam in a kitchen somewhere. Thank you birth control and abortion! [Otherwise, rape would have been too much of a risk – you invest in training an officer, only to have her be assaulted by the enemy. Suddenly, you’ve got a battalion disabled with morning sickness.]

    Only our massive disobedience to God could do so much damage to society. It’s a good thing Jesus is coming back.

  40. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Classic Edition

  41. Pingback: Feminist scavenger hunt

  42. Pingback: Intermediate guide to selling divorce; overcoming women’s better judgment. | Dalrock

  43. Pingback: The value of men as protectors. | Dalrock

  44. Matt says:

    Re: “…October 2008, two months into her tour in Iraq’s notoriously bloody Anbar province…”

    By 2008 Anbar wasn’t that bad of a place, in fact by that time it was viewed as a model of what the rest of Iraq could hopefully become. The “notoriously bloody” period was from around 2005-2006. I was in Anbar from 2006-2007 and we saw a huge overall reduction in enemy activity over that period. That isn’t to say that it was a picnic, as my platoon lost two men towards the end of 2007, but it was much safer than it had been. Not that any of that matters anyways to a POG who never leaves the FOB…lol

  45. Danno says:

    This blog post brings up some excellent points.
    I would love to see comments from sailors regarding the US Navy allowing women on submarines.

  46. Pingback: Soldier Barbie replacing the Old Hands « Traditional Catholicism

  47. Pingback: The problem that has no name. | Dalrock

  48. Pingback: Affirmative action brigade meets a real life riot | Dalrock

  49. Pingback: Affirmative action brigade meets a real life riot

  50. maaldweb says:

    Those idiots who argue that the Romans and the Greeks had gay armies should at least offer some sources to back up their claims. Discovery channel “documentaries” and similar pseudoscientific american crap doesn’t count.

    thanx in advance

  51. Pingback: Sudden outbreak of patriarchy in the occupy wallstreet camp. | Dalrock

  52. Pingback: Don’t Hit Me I’m A Girl! | Dalrock

  53. Pingback: Demand a Lady « stagedreality

  54. Pingback: What to do with your broken Pedestal « stagedreality

  55. Pingback: Do not be alarmed. | Dalrock

  56. Pingback: A Mother’s Day Parade of Fools « stagedreality

  57. Pingback: Feminist territory marking. | Dalrock

  58. AmyA says:

    While I agree somewhat with this article, there are two parts that need clarification. One is that you can’t use an overall fitness test to say that females want lower standards. The overall fitness test is making sure that each person is overall in shape. This means different standards based on sex and age. It is a simple fact that the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women. The majority of people in their 20s are stronger than the majority of people in their 40s. If someone wants to prove that point, then look to the career fields that have their own, higher standards. Those jobs have those standards because it is saying that each person can do a certain job, have a certain set of skills. As I’m sure some of the people that want women in these jobs would expect those standards to be lowered for them, he should have used that as an example. The whole military is not in hand to hand combat, or combat of any kind. Quite a few jobs never see combat.

    Two is that in a lot of cases, even cases where it is a women severely hurting/killing a man, when someone uses excessive force like that, body slamming someone, they can get in trouble a good amount of the time. While she definitely should not have attacked him, and I’m sure she only did because she either genuinely thought she could best him (which is delusional) or, most likely, she didn’t expect him to do anything back, because she is a female. He should still not have used that amount of force. That could have killed anybody, not just her. If it was another man, and they had charged him at all, nobody would care. While I personally don’t think he should be charged with anything, some training might prevent it from happening again, as well as training for women.

  59. Greg says:

    No amount of training can change the fact that 98% of time (give or take a little) men are stronger than women and it is suicidal to attack a man. He is justified in doing anything at all to retaliate.

  60. Pingback: Why do modern women have such filthy mouths? | Sunshine Mary

  61. Pingback: Boys against girls. | Sunshine Mary

  62. Pingback: Liberal Misogyny | A War Room

  63. Branko says:

    “I am all for having the same physical standards for men and women where those physical standards are actually required in order to do the job. The problem is that women are barred from the ability to apply for certain jobs, even if they can meet those requirements. And the second problem is: are the standards actually real requirements for doing the work, or are they purposely exclusionary towards women?”

    I don’t think you understand what the army. Let’s not sanitize what the army is. The army is a killing (or be killed) machine. There’s no other way around it. It’s not a job where satisfying some minimum requirement is enough – you want the absolute maximum out of the soldiers, and then more then that. You want that – because that’s the way to win, and failing means dying.

    In the candid words of a ex-Soviet general when asked “… they threaten the lives of innocent people” [the context is not terribly important and would side-track the discussion, but this statement is refreshingly honest]

    “An army threatens the lives and well-being of innocent people. It is created for this purpose. Officers who have graduated from military school—they are professional killers, or didn’t you know this? You did not know? This is not a man who walks with a flag at the parade, but a man who kills another man in a trench.

    He learned this, just as I did—in my case, to become a fighter pilot. A beautiful word; at home it is common. Remove the word pilot and understand what I am: a fighter, an exterminator. What do I have to do?—Exterminate.”

    [note: Russian word for fighter in the context of a fighter plane or pilot would be directly translated as “exterminator”]

  64. don Fefinho says:

    Women doublethink a lot. I noticed it quite some time ago, but only recently found the right words that describe the phenomenon appropiately.

  65. KP says:

    To ‘Author’ I say: G*d d*mn you to hell.

    And I say that as someone who believes those words actually mean something.

    Seriously: you and your intellectual mates are going to get lots and lots of us killed–many more than otherwise would be–just to satisfy your bloody delusional theories.

  66. S. Chan says:

    The Marine Corps has now announced the scheduled end of an 18-month experiment to vet women through its Infantry Officer Course. Of the 29 women who started the three-month Course, 0 succeeded. For comparison, of the 90 men who started the Course, 81 succeeded. You will be shocked—shocked—to learn that feminists are now calling for the Course to be revised to make it easier for women to pass.

    The original story is here: “Last IOC in Marine infantry experiment drops female officers“, Marine Corps Times (8 April 2015).

    Some feminist pleading is here: “It’s time to reevaluate standards for women in the military“, Washington Post (16 April 2015).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s