She wanted to run with the bulls.

Drudge has a news story up today about a woman the local Tennessee media celebrated back in July of 2015 for showing that women can be in combat just like men.  At the time Erika Lopez was the first woman in the state to enlist in the Army as a combat engineer.  The story is in the national media because Lopez is now considered a deserter.

Lopez was in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. An Army spokesperson tells Local 8 News that Private Lopez was scheduled to return from convalescent leave on January 4th. She was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on January 5th after she failed to return.

Spokesperson Tiffany Wood issued a statement saying, “After 30 days in an AWOL status, a Soldier is considered a deserter and a federal warrant is issued for his or her arrest.”

This story and others like it are bad for the narrative, but they won’t change the political decision to open all combat roles to women.  In the end it really isn’t all that bad for the narrative either, because for nearly all feminists this isn’t about actually having women perform at the level of men, but about disgracing the institutions that they see as conferring status on men.  Nearly all women understand at a deep level that they can’t actually perform the same roles;  feminists know they can’t attain the honor and respect that they are so envious of, so instead they set out to mark the space as feminine to ensure that men can’t either.  From this perspective Lopez is accomplishing the feminist mission whether she sticks around long enough to join a unit or makes a laughingstock of the whole process.

On the other side we have conservatives, who tend to fall into two camps*.  The first conservative camp is dedicated to showing that they embrace opening all roles to women so long as the military holds women to the “same high standards as men” and pretends this is about finding the best talent for every job.  This isn’t really serious though.  This is a plea to feminists to maintain the fiction conservatives see as their tacit bargain with feminists.  We saw the same nonsense last summer when the Republican leadership telegraphed their willingness to open the military to transgendered.  As House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) put it at the time:

The department “needs to look at a variety of policies. As long as they look at it objectively, based on what’s best for the security interests of the country, then we’ll oversee or review what they do,” he told The Hill.

“When there’s a sense that there’s some extraneous social or political agenda … people get concerned,” Thornberry added.

This wasn’t a new argument, as it was the same rationalization Republicans have been using to first accept women in the military and then later women in combat.

The second conservative camp relies on a different fantasy to get them through the day.  They start with the same lie the first camp of conservatives uses to rationalize the process, and then pretend it is the other conservatives who have driven the feminist process all along.  This is an extra level of psychosis, but is their only way of claiming to support biblical sex roles while avoiding confronting the feminist rebellion that surrounds them.

Both groups are in full denial of what feminists have been entirely open about all along.  This is about envy of men.  The Lopez story of women’s empowerment is the same story feminists have been selling all along.  Her desertion wouldn’t be of any interest to Drudge if she hadn’t been sold as a feminist hero from day 1.  While both camps of conservatives have been denying that pushing women into the military is about feminism, we were all being bombarded with messages of feminist empowerment like the original local Tennessee news story:

A Knoxville woman has signed up for a job that could lead her straight into battle, and she is the first in Tennessee to do it. She hopes her journey will inspire her children and women around the world.

After delivering her first son at 16 and staying home to raise the next one that came along, Erica still found a way to follow her dreams.  She stepped out of her role as a housewife and enlisted in the Army as a combat engineer.  But Erica had no idea that her choice would be so unique.

Yet in the same piece her decision to leave her husband and two sons in order to “follow her dreams” is presented not as selfishness, but as a sacrifice she is making for them.  No one notices the contradiction because feminism is now one of our highest values as a society.  Promoting it even at the expense of her family is seen as a sacrifice she is making for her family:

She left her husband and two children in September of 2015 for basic training where she was learning to build bridges, detonate artillery, and detect roadside bombs under combat conditions. She said, “You make sacrifices your whole life for your children and for your family, this will be a sacrifice… Women can do anything they set their mind to just as well as men I don’t really see any difference at all. I hope women will want to join.”

Here is the video of the original news story from Youtube.  Some of the audio cuts out on the youtube version but the version on the Local8 page has the audio intact:

 

*Drudge and the WND story he links to are of course proof of a remnant of conservatives still pointing out that putting women into combat is a game of politically correct theater.

Update:  Private Lopez has turned herself in.

This entry was posted in Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Denial, Envy, Fantasy vs Reality, Feminist Territory Marking, Military, Running with the bulls, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to She wanted to run with the bulls.

  1. Anonymous Reader says:

    One question: which man or group of men can we hold responsible for messing up feminism for her? Husband? Commanding officer? Training officers?

    Some man must pay for this outrage!

  2. Pingback: She wanted to run with the bulls. | Neoreactive

  3. Pingback: She wanted to run with the bulls. – Manosphere.com

  4. DrTorch says:

    But Gone Girl looked like so much fun in the film.

  5. Damn Crackers says:

    Any woman who willingly attempts any combat role should be put immediately into the “Pink Ribbon Cannon Fodder” Brigade. It can be integrated into the “Cuck-Command” Division, which will be the first men and women to be put into combat directly under enemy bombing runs.

  6. DeNihilist says:

    This fits nicely with rollo’s recent post. Watch the short video, and see this Dahnish feminist coming to the stark realization that their men are now just women with outty vagina’s.

    The real laugh is watching the Rusky interviewer keep on throwing all of the euro fem crap into her face. Ruskies seem to still take their masculinity somewhat serious.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/refugees-go-clubbing-in-russia-harass-girls-wake-up-in-hospital-the-next-morning/

  7. bradford says:

    Interesting, she has already been on “convalescent leave”. Went to Leonard Wood in September. Three months later she is convalescing from an injury I assume occurred in basic training. I was a combat engineer. Not a job for the frail. I guess she decided she wasn’t cut out for it.

  8. Anchorman says:

    convalescent leave

    So, she went on Sick Call because her body likely broke down, got a special period of convalescent leave to recover, and decided her commitment really didn’t mean anything.

  9. Anchorman says:

    Interesting, she has already been on “convalescent leave”. Went to Leonard Wood in September. Three months later she is convalescing from an injury I assume occurred in basic training. I was a combat engineer. Not a job for the frail. I guess she decided she wasn’t cut out for it.

    She didn’t even make it that far.

    Basic Training is eight weeks.

    Not sure how long CE AIT is.

    Let’s assume she completed BCT (8 weeks), plus 4 weeks to be considered “deserter.”

    How many actual weeks, outside of Basic, did she actually complete? That’s not even factoring in when she first went on Sick Call.

  10. bradford says:

    @DeNihilist,
    You’re link doesn’t go to the Rollo story, but to another gratifying story about rowdy migrants in Russia. Eighteen of them ended up in the hospital after tangling with a gang of serious guys from Murmansk. Pretty funny, thanks!

  11. Lazelle says:

    I presume that women should now be required to register for selective service. And failure to do so will result in loss of all government programs, just like the guys. Welcome to equality. If this doesn’t happen, it is yet another example of “all rights, no responsibility, no adverse consequences.

    [D: This is a different fantasy.]

  12. @Dalrock:

    “This is story” should be “This story” to start paragraph 2.

    Thank you for your writing.

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

  13. Anon says:

    In the end it really isn’t all that bad for the narrative either, because for nearly all feminists this isn’t about actually having women perform at the level of men, but about disgracing the institutions that they see as conferring status on men.

    This is important, and needs to be stated more often. This is not well-understood even among most red-pill types. Everything from women in the military, to women in tech, to women in Wall Street, stems from this.

    Note that when ‘feminists’ want to disgrace institutions that confer status to men, they want to dismantle the pillars that civilization is built on. Hence, ‘feminists’ are precisely opposed to civilization, to a degree no other group is.

  14. The Question says:

    When it comes women in the military Matt Walsh is quite good.

    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/i-will-not-allow-my-daughter-to-be-a-victim-of-gender-equality/

    “My daughter will not sign up for the draft, no matter what the government says. If this becomes law, I will break the law and do so proudly. I will not allow my daughter to be a part of this national disgrace, and if that means we must leave the United States altogether — good riddance. I honestly do not want to live in a country that uses its women as human shields.”

    On this issue, he and I and I’m sure others among you are in complete accord.

    This nation is nearing critical mass.

  15. cynthia says:

    I have to wonder if she understood what she was getting herself into, or if she was just as blinded by all the grrl-power BS as everyone who supported her when she enlisted. I don’t think many civilian girls understand what combat entails, much less the stress factors and risks inherent in training for such a role. What frame of reference does your average American girl have for understanding the truth of the situation? Marvel movies, where all of Black Widow’s most physically demanding stunts are performed by men in wigs, while Scarlett Johanssen prances about in her size 2 catsuit? Rhonda Rousey can’t do a lot of the stuff we see female action heroes do in movies, and that woman is built like a tank.

    Personally, I would hope girls would know better, but most don’t. The cold hard bitch slap of reality is seldom worse than it is in the military, though, and I’d bet this girl got it hard. My prediction is she realized what a mistake she’d made and ran. But there’s no excuse for deserting. I hope they throw the book at her when she’s finally caught. I doubt she’ll see the inside of a jail cell, but one can always hope.

  16. I guess they will have to line her up against the wall and shoot her once she is found, right? Or is only male desertion to be treated so harshly?

  17. Anchorman says:

    Cynthia,
    That’s just it. Like Bradford said, she barely got out of the gates before it ended. She essentially washed out shortly after (possibly) finishing the exact same basic training clerks/typists, mechanics, and other non-combat MOS’ take.

    Where were the older women to tell her to 1) knock it off and raise the family she recently birthed and 2) remind her that a 14 year old boy can overpower adult women?

  18. cynthia says:

    @feministhater

    That’s a bit of a false comparison. We haven’t executed anybody for desertion in a long time. They didn’t give Bergdahl so much as jail time, and he got people killed when he deserted. Court martials these days tend toward lenient punishments for everybody. She’ll probably weasel out of punishment on gendered grounds, but it’s not like they shoot men who do this either.

  19. Anchorman says:

    I guess they will have to line her up against the wall and shoot her once she is found, right? Or is only male desertion to be treated so harshly?

    It could have changed since I served, but the military doesn’t actually pursue deserters.

    They declare them deserters and wait for local cops to pick them up following a speeding ticket.

    Once detained, they typically slap the Dishonorable Discharge on them. Keep in mind, she barely made it out of the blocks and the military had little invested in her. Also, male desertion after Basic happens. I don’t think they look to throw the book at folks who got a taste of the life and freaked out. However, they do permanently bar them from things, like civil service. I think it is recorded as a felony conviction, after all.

  20. cynthia says:

    @Anchorman

    One consequence of our feminized society is that very few women are personally aware of how helpless she would be against a man determined to hurt her. I’ve done martial arts off and on since high school, and it’s scary, the first time a man puts his full strength into a sparring session. And that’s more or less friendly. But girls don’t often feel that anymore. All most have is the Narrative.

    This is what I hate about feminists. It’s not just that they lie; they’ve taken away our ability to understand the truth, and they’ve done it to the same women they claim to want to help.

  21. Dalrock says:

    @The Question

    When it comes women in the military Matt Walsh is quite good.

    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/i-will-not-allow-my-daughter-to-be-a-victim-of-gender-equality/

    “My daughter will not sign up for the draft, no matter what the government says. If this becomes law, I will break the law and do so proudly. I will not allow my daughter to be a part of this national disgrace, and if that means we must leave the United States altogether — good riddance. I honestly do not want to live in a country that uses its women as human shields.

    On this issue, he and I and I’m sure others among you are in complete accord.

    This nation is nearing critical mass.

    At least from the quote you include Walsh is engaging in the same fantasy that I referenced in the OP. This isn’t women demanding to usurp men’s roles, but cowardly men using women as cannon fodder to avoid combat duty.

  22. cynthia says:

    @Anchorman

    Lost my previous response (unless Dalrock’s filtering?)

    [D: Looks like you used a different email address so wordpress took you for a first time commenter and held it for approval.]

    Most women aren’t aware of how strong men are. I wish I was kidding, but it’s the truth. Why would they, in our feminized society that demonizes male physicality? Some feminists go so far as to claim that the only reason men have better scores in the Olympics etc is because they’re “socialized” that way.

    This is what I really hate about feminists. They don’t just lie; they’ve taken away our ability to comprehend the truth.

  23. Oh but these evolutionary dead ends would be useful in combat. Most of the enemy can’t get laid unless they die for Mohammed or some towelheaded guy with delusions of grandeur. By putting these women out there, it will attract these forty year old virgins of Al Quedo ISIS Iguana, so our guys can send them to meet their maker, Satan. These womyn are expendable anyway. Think of the cats who can live free if they die now. I don’t know about you, but whenever I see these sexless man-hating lesbos, all I think about is PUSSY.

  24. Bluntobj says:

    Dalrock, you need to add an asterisk after conservatives, indicating that you don’t need to split them into two camps, but just use one term: “cuckservatives.” ‘Nuff said.

  25. Anchorman says:

    @The Question,
    So Matt Walsh is okay with the rebellion and the destruction of social order, but not with his daughter actually being handed true responsibility as a consequence of her rebellion?

    What a peach!

    The cherry on top, as Dalrock noted, is his attempt to shame other men who don’t share his conviction to fight to the very last neighbor’s son.

  26. craig says:

    cynthia says: “They didn’t give Bergdahl so much as jail time, and he got people killed when he deserted.”

    Bergdahl was a political case. Dear Leader wanted an excuse to release five Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay, and so pretended not to notice that Bergdahl was not captured but deserted of his own free will.

  27. Anchorman says:

    @DeNihilist,
    First, it won’t pass.

    Second, remember what the #1 deferment was for the draft? Now, who is more likely to be drafted, the women over-representated in college populations (as a share of general pop) or the men who avoid those hostile environments?

    You got your choice, boys. Run the risk of false rape allegations/convictions, constant verbal battering, shaming . . . or war.

  28. DeNihilist says:

    Anchor, I expect it not to pass, just another straw on the camel’s back.

    We must take the long view.

  29. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anchorman is correct, it won’t pass
    Draft deferral for college is so 1960’s, I would not count on it in the future.

    Matt Walsh is an immature, childish man engaging in fantasy, or perhaps some form of role-playing. He reminds me of leftists who claimed they’d move out of the US if GW Bush won. To the best of my knowledge, none of them did. And I seriously doubt Matt Walsh would really be willing to stand up to the legal implications of his role-playing, fantasy pose.

    “Only Real Man In The Room” isn’t impressive from Mark Driscoll, and he’s got some cred that Walsh ain’t got.

    Now, dang it, where is the man responsible for messsing up this woman’s feminism?

  30. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock @Anchorman

    I somehow missed this sentence in the article when I was scanning through looking for male-shaming.

    “Men as unspeakably selfish and weak as that can be of no use in the rebuilding process.”

    And here I was thinking he had finally seen the light.

  31. Dalrock says:

    @Anchorman

    The cherry on top, as Dalrock noted, is his attempt to shame other men who don’t share his conviction to fight to the very last neighbor’s son.

    I see that Walsh’s sole concern in the article is that one of his two fraternal twin children could be harmed by this. He has a boy and a girl, but I don’t think it has dawned on him the risk integrating the military poses to his son in the event of a draft.

    And now they’re coming for my daughter. But I will not allow them to take her.

    I promise you — whatever this means — I will not allow it.

    This is more of the same desperation for female approval that is so common for him. He also makes it clear that the real problem is that cowardly men are pushing to draft women in their place. It is these men (and not feminists) that we need to expel after societal collapse if we are to rebuild as God intends:

    I cannot fully articulate just how damnably evil and cowardly it is to send women into war against their will. Whether or not such a war ever comes — and I believe it may, sooner or later — the very fact that we are prepared to do such a thing, that the law has mandated such a thing, is enough for me to pray that God finally smites our hideous, craven society, so that we can construct a new one from scratch. And if that ever happens, I’d like to hereby suggest that we banish from our new society any gutless, reprehensible, cowed little man who is now nodding with approval at the idea of forcibly shipping our daughters off to be blown apart. Men as unspeakably selfish and weak as that can be of no use in the rebuilding process.

  32. ACThinker says:

    I was talking about something like this over on another blog. I was mentioning that it isn’t that quality women don’t fight, and don’t become soldiers. It is that quality women only become soldiers because the need is so great that to do otherwise is to die. See Russian snipers during the Great Patriotic war, or Israeli women during the 1948-49 war of independence.
    yes women rise to the occasion (see Molly Pitcher American Revolution) but they more often the exception, not the policy. Stupid policy.

    Speaking of Israel – they are the only country requiring all adults (men and women) to server in the military…. and the women are not in combat units. At the closest that they have are 2 light battalions whose primary role is defending the border with Egypt – aka being the lock on a door that isn’t expected to be opened – see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/?page=all

  33. Jim says:

    “I honestly do not want to live in a country that uses its women as human shields.”

    Ok Mr. Gyno-worshiper. But people seem perfectly ok with the government using us men as human shields? Fuck yourself. I, nor is any other man, a piece of cannon fodder meat for you t osend half way across the world to get maimed or killed. I don’t believe in using ANYONE as human shields or cannon fodder.

    I have no problem letting the bitches get destroyed if we have to do it too. And why should I fight? For what? I have ZERO rights in my own fucking house. I’m NOT fighting so cunts can have yet even more power over me. No thanks.

    The US hasn’t legit war in decades. It’s all about imperialism, money (the military industrial complex that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about) and power now.

  34. Mike43 says:

    1. If she was enlisted for less than 180 days, most likely she’ll get a General Discharge, and will not be able to enlist again. That’s a typical administrative separation. It’s fairly normal, one of my friends was in a Basic Combat Training Company, said his first job with new recruits was to prepare a dozen discharges. About 10-15% washed out for one reason or another.

    2. Bergdahl has not been adjudicated, yet. They had the Article 32 hearing, and I think the result was he was bound over for court martial. But no “trial”, as we know it.

  35. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    I’m reading through the article again. What was I thinking? Same old stuff.

  36. Anchorman says:

    He has a boy and a girl, but I don’t think it has dawned on him the risk integrating the military poses to his son in the event of a draft.

    Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

  37. fakeemail says:

    A few weeks ago Hannity made the “brave” statement that he thinks Western Civ. (whatever that is anymore) is superior to Islamic Civ.

    His rationale? Because here we let women go to school, vote, work, etc.

    From a cuckservative, Wesern Civ. is only justifiable/legimitate under feminist/liberal terms.

  38. Jim says:

    ” fakeemail says:
    February 5, 2016 at 2:05 pm”

    Yup. It’s always about the vagina isn’t it? Let’s forget about all the other amazing things western civilization created before it degraded into a matriarchal shit hole. Let’s just talk about how we put pussy on a pedestal the height of the Sears Tower. These little boys are just constantly begging and aching for a pat on their widdle heads from mommy. Do these guys spend all their time with a dominatrix or something? Pathetic.

  39. feeriker says:

    After delivering her first son at 16 and staying home to raise the next one that came along, Erica still found a way to follow her dreams. She stepped out of her role as a housewife and enlisted in the Army as a combat engineer. But Erica had no idea that her choice would be so unique.

    No, not unique at all in its shortsightedness, stupidity, selfishness, and callousness toward her family, something that manifests itself in countless other YouGoGrrrrrllll fantasies that other femitards seek to bring to fruition, albeit in less overtly reckless and insane ways.

    I cannot imagine what kind of pathetic cucktard Lopez is married to. What kind of “man” would put up with this wife deserting him and their children to go live some teenage girlchild fantasy? Also, I would categorize Lopez’s recklessness as abandonment. I have to imagine that her husband is every bit the pathetic cucktard who approved of his wife’s reckless behavior. Otherwise he would’ve slapped her with divorce papers due to desertion and would’ve taken his kids as far away from her as possible. The only other alternative I can think of is that he wanted to be rid of her and her joining the Army was what he thought was a sure way to get rid of her once and for all (a female in combat isn’t likely to survive very long). If that’s the case he’s in for a MAJOR disappointment.

  40. Jason says:

    We probably want to be a little careful dancing around pointing out how we were right at this point.

    If it turns out she is dead in a ditch somewhere and that is why she couldn’t return on time then we aren’t going to look good.

  41. Anchorman says:

    feeriker ,
    Your comment got me thinking.

    In the news reports, where is the husband? No quotes, no interview. There’s a picture of the family (he is described as “daddy” in the video, but that doesn’t mean he’s the biological father). That’s it.

    Maybe he did tell her she’d come home to divorce papers. Doubtful, but his absence from the reports is noticeable.

  42. Anchorman says:

    If it turns out she is dead in a ditch somewhere and that is why she couldn’t return on time then we aren’t going to look good.

    What?

    First, there are missing person reports.

    Next, the Army very likely reached out to her multiple times. they knew her address and contacts.

    She probably just freaked out.

  43. Anchorman says:

    There aren’t missing person reports.

  44. Dalrock says:

    @The Question

    I’m reading through the article again. What was I thinking? Same old stuff.

    I think it is the headfake he does in the beginning of the post. When he is talking about women in the NFL, he argues that only three women want to be there and that feminists are running amok. But when he switches topics to the military, he pivots and starts talking about cowardly men. Ironically cowardly men are responsible for this, but it isn’t being driven by liberal cowards who want his daughter to fight in their place. It is cowardly men, men like Walsh himself, who are too afraid to upset women to say no to feminists. Walsh complains about the most radical feminists in this post, but he is extremely careful not to offend the feminist who make up the bulk of his female audience.

    This is a lesson he learned back in 2013, where he offended his audience by stating that he wasn’t a feminist. Walsh was terribly wounded that the feminists he is writing to withdrew the one thing he craves the most, their feminine approval:

    …what disturbed me more than the inevitable Attack of the Trolls, were the literally hundreds of people who told me they agreed with the message, and thought it constructive and urgently necessary, yet I “lost them,” or they “stopped reading,” or they “changed their minds about me,” because of one three word sentence halfway through my rather lengthy post. Here is that decisive phrase: “I’m no feminist.” There goes the whole heartfelt and sincere piece about loving, protecting, and being loyal to women; apparently negated in the minds of many because I didn’t give myself the proper label.

    This is the same fear that lead to us first bringing women into the military, and ultimately opening up all roles to them. But making women unhappy is terrifying. There must be another way to oppose this without angering the women whose approval he craves…

  45. Anon says:

    He has a boy and a girl, but I don’t think it has dawned on him the risk integrating the military poses to his son in the event of a draft.

    A daughter is always seen as more valuable than a son. This is simply because since, historically, more women reproduced than men, so a daughter was a greater probability of grandchildren.

    The only societies that temporarily favored sons (China, etc.) was because wars killed off so many men that there was a surplus of women, and hence a chance of too many old maids. These aberrations led to sons being temporarily placed at high value.

    Frankly, age should not be a restriction to Walsh’s cowardly armchair whiteknighting. HE should volunteer to be cannon fodder, even if he is 50, or 55, or whatever. Why not?

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Anchorman

    In the news reports, where is the husband? No quotes, no interview. There’s a picture of the family (he is described as “daddy” in the video, but that doesn’t mean he’s the biological father). That’s it.

    Maybe he did tell her she’d come home to divorce papers. Doubtful, but his absence from the reports is noticeable.

    He is in the news video, but they don’t show his face. He is the perfect feminist husband; there but invisible.

    Edit: My mistake. That was her son in the shot I had in mind.

  47. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    Frankly, age should not be a restriction to Walsh’s cowardly armchair whiteknighting. HE should volunteer to be cannon fodder, even if he is 50, or 55, or whatever. Why not?

    Walsh is pretty young. I think he is in his mid 20s.

  48. Anchorman says:

    I do find it highly implausible that a modern woman completely disappears and no one can reach out to her. I don’t think I know a woman under 30 who isn’t on FB, at a minimum.

    She has kids.

    Kids go to school.

    Schools have phone numbers and records. Heck, mom probably picks them up.

    I’m not suggesting the Army couldn’t find her. Again, they don’t chase deserters. They just let them go and wait for someone else to pick them up and serve the warrant.

    I just think news articles about it should have info from the family, the husband, etc. Heck, they took footage from her front yard.

    I wager they reached out to her and the story couldn’t be spun to support the FI.

  49. Anchorman says:

    Again, without a missing person’s report.

  50. Robert What? says:

    The worst part is that if women are placed in combat, their male counterparts are going to needlessly be put in grave danger when they have to pick up the slack for the women who just can’t do it. Maybe even get killed white knighting for some female soldier who foolishly gets herself into trouble.

  51. Anon says:

    Walsh is pretty young. I think he is in his mid 20s.

    Then he REALLY should volunteer, rather than be a cuckservative who demands others do his whiteknighting for him.

    I am sure his wife would prefer to have the house to herself and receive the life insurance payout. Why is he making his wife unhappy by not going off to battle?

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    Frankly, age should not be a restriction to Walsh’s cowardly armchair whiteknighting. HE should volunteer to be cannon fodder, even if he is 50, or 55, or whatever. Why not?

    Obviously because Matt Walsh is married and has responsibilities, plus if he volunteered then who would puck up his role as The Only Man In The Room for the entire world wide web? No, no, no, he’s much too important and precious to risk in that way. Ditto his daughter.

    His other kid? Eh. Expendable…

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    Robert What?,pretty sure that’s already happened in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Sandbox vets know stuff that never made any news, isn’t in any book, won’t ever be in any movie.

  54. feeriker says:

    The worst part is that if women are placed in combat, their male counterparts are going to needlessly be put in grave danger when they have to pick up the slack for the women who just can’t do it. Maybe even get killed white knighting for some female soldier who foolishly gets herself into trouble.

    There’s also the distinct possibility that male soldiers in combat will very quickly tire of having themselves needlessly put in harm’s way by useless, loudmouthed, cowardly, space-consuming, ball-busting dike femtards and will revive the old tradition of “fragging” (or call it “friendly fire” if you want to be less crude about it).

  55. Anchorman says:

    Robert What?
    I haven’t had the uniform on in years, but when I served I found almost all women in war zones behave one way and it’s ain’t virtuous. That’s a major source of morale problems and breakdown of unit cohesion.

  56. Harcerz says:

    I am impressed. She definitely has some killer frisbee moves.

    Now that she is AWOL, some Taliban somewhere can sleep well. They are safe now.

  57. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    Another head-fake for me was his proclamation about how his daughter was raised to be feminine and made it clear that women should not be in the military and/or combat roles.

    The excerpt I posted here (except for the last sentence) affected me because even though I don’t have any kids (bachelor) I share Walsh’s attitude on how I’d respond if the government tried to force my daughter (or son, for that matter) to fight. I am too intimately familiar with the plight of too many vets who have PTSD and the bodies of 50 year olds when they’re still in their 20s. They can’t quite figure out what they fought for, why they’re on a Homeland Security domestic terrorist watchlist after they got half-blown up by an IED outside Fallujah, or why their wife cheated on them while they were away and then took them for everything they got. Some are never going to walk again and others are six feet under.

    Putting aside the lack of concern for his son’s wellbeing, the problem is Walsh has a daughter who presumably doesn’t want to join the military, so he is writing from that perspective that all women are like that. But if his daughter did want to join, and accused him of “restricting” her? Would be blame men for putting that bright idea into her head?

    My initial comment on his article, though, does not apply to his writing, which is very melodramatic and verbose. It reminds me of the sort of rants I penned when I was in my early twenties for the university student newspaper.

  58. rdchemist says:

    “Women can do anything they set their mind to just as well as men I don’t really see any difference at all. ”

    Yeah, you wish, sweetheart. You weren’t the only one to think that.

    http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/

  59. Jim says:

    “Anchorman says:
    February 5, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    …when I served I found almost all women in war zones behave one way and it’s ain’t virtuous. That’s a major source of morale problems and breakdown of unit cohesion.”

    Could you elaborate on that?

  60. Anchorman says:

    The Question,
    Ah, but that’s the rub.

    If she go grrrls it, he’ll bust with pride and her rebellious attitude and take-no-crapitude.

    But no one (man) will compel his daughter to do anything.

    FI uber alles.

  61. Jim says:

    ““Women can do anything they set their mind to just as well as men I don’t really see any difference at all.”

    Yeah that cracked me up. Earlier, Cynthia mentioned how many women seem to be clueless about how helpless they’d be against a man. What I don’t get though is why people like this are so incredibly blind about simple human biology. For crying out loud it isn’t rocket science.

  62. Anchorman says:

    Jim,
    They went into full-on war bride mode, bed hopping and branch swinging. Some did it to get preggo. Others did it to score as many manly men as they could before they had to go back to the States. My time with the military ended before the current slate of wars, though. Things may have changed.

  63. Anchorman says:

    Jim,
    My oldest, when he was younger (12 years or so) overpowered my ex-wife, who kept in very good shape for a woman. He simply held her arms and moved sort of behind her so she couldn’t kick him. He held her for about five to ten minutes until she was exhausted.

    She called me “to take care of him.” I didn’t take the bait (they have a very complicated relationship) and told her privately that the time of her being able to force him to do anything is over.

    He was 12.

  64. Cecil Henry says:

    ‘ In the end it really isn’t all that bad for the narrative either, because for nearly all feminists this isn’t about actually having women perform at the level of men, but about disgracing the institutions that they see as conferring status on men.’

    This is the key issue, not only to this topic but to all drives for ‘equality’.

    Be it socialism, liberalism, SJW’s, multiculturalism, or social justice.

  65. Jim says:

    “He was 12.”

    A full grown woman is almost defenseless against a 12 year old boy and yet we have women who think physical strength and athleticism is some sort of social construct? How delusional can you get? It seems it’s just massive penis envy. Why not just be happy with being women? They should be busy fulfilling their roles to the best of their ability not trying to envy someone else. And besides, being a man is not always the fun and games so many women seem to think it is.

  66. The Question says:

    @ Anchorman

    I said this in a previous post, but it’s hard for me personally to come down hard on Walsh when he says things like this because I see so much of who I was or might have been had life turned out differently and my early twenties more akin to his. It would be foolish of me to think that I’m here now and see this for what it is because I’m wiser or smarter than men who think as he does, just as it would be foolish for a soldier to think he didn’t get shot like the man next to him because he’s braver.

    My hope is that some sort of manageable crisis will cause him to snap out of this thinking and send him searching for answers that will lead him to the right place.

  67. honeycomb says:

    She’s turned herself in.

    [D: Good find. I added an update along with a link here.]

  68. Heidi says:

    @Jim: Dalrock did a post last year on feminist self loathing. So, yes, they’re delusional, and they despise femininity.

  69. feeriker says:

    Anchorman says:
    February 5, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    My single-mom daughter is soon going to get that lesson from my 13-year-old grandson. The only two things currently saving her from an asswhupping by a teenage boy are 1) she has a physical disability and he has learned to respect that, and 2) he hasn’t quite yet reached his tolerance threshold of being the victim of her frustrations and incompetence at motherhood. She shouldn’t count on that tolerance lasting forever; I’ve already seen signs that it’s weakening.

  70. DeNihilist says:

    It’s the most popular MOS for women so far –

    http://www.ktvb.com/news/nation-now/woman-combatengineer-recruit-deserted-training/33342996

    “During the federal fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 49 female soldiers shipped to combat-engineer training. Since Oct. 1, 122 more have shipped, and another 143 are in the Future Soldier Training Program waiting to start training, Bland said.”

  71. fatmanjudo says:

    The feminism is a head fake/stiff arm (to borrow football terms since the superbowl is immanent). The military has every job that the public sector has plus military specialties. Many of these jobs require medical expertise and other specialized training. They have everyone arguing about women in combat and that diminishes arguments relative to selective service/ the draft. Anyone who even remotely is paying attention knows that WW III is coming soon to a theater near you. Everyone here believes the government is stupid or incompetent. It is neither. They are crazy like a fox. They get useful idiots to cheerlead women in combat, the argument is won and then there is no rational reason to keep women from the draft. Equality. After all women can do everything men can do. Google “Overton window.” But, when they come for your daughters it will not be to fill combat jobs.

  72. Dave says:

    You got your choice, boys. Run the risk of false rape allegations/convictions, constant verbal battering, shaming . . . or war.

    This is what happens when bullies attack a group of people, and the people continue to play nice. Bullies don’t let up simply because their victims don’t fight back; they let up when there is a pushback.

  73. feeriker says:

    And besides, being a man is not always the fun and games so many women seem to think it is

    Most of them already know this, or very quickly find it out the hard way when they attempt to run in men’s shoes. That’s why they always in the end scream out for a man to save their bacon..

  74. DeNihilist says:

    Like her Feeriker?

    H/T – Rollo

  75. feeriker says:

    “During the federal fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 49 female soldiers shipped to combat-engineer training. Since Oct. 1, 122 more have shipped, and another 143 are in the Future Soldier Training Program waiting to start training, Bland said.”

    One of three things will happen:

    1. The attrition rate among women will be nearly 100 percent.

    2. Standards will be adjusted downward for women while remaining the same for men (and these have been dumbed down heavily over the last three decades).

    3. Standards will be lowered for everyone in order to accommodate the darlings, leading to the complete collapse of the training program as a tool for combat effectiveness.

    Number 1 will be an immediate given, but probably won’t be allowed to continue due to its political implications. Females will simply be “gundecked” (one of us old sailors’ terms) through the program, regardless of their having met the training standards or not.

    Numbers 2 and 3 will have the same ultimate effect, which, as Dalrock pointed out, is exactly the result that the progtards want.

  76. feeriker says:

    Like her Feeriker?

    Yes, like that one. And dammit, I did NOT need to look at her face and hear her voice again …

  77. enrique says:

    As a veteran of the military and long time LEO myself, I can tell you her story is only all-too-common. Women constantly get props for doing some “initial” step of something (boot camp, police academy, learning how to fire a weapon), but there is never that follow up about how she later shot a partner at the range, claimed carpal tunnel two days out of the academy (with the obligatory and common “braces” on her wrists); went into “recruiting” to get off patrol, lost a gun, got her ass beat, couldn’t make a march, etc etc etc.

    It’s a joke, and everyone knows it is, but like the fat kid in gym class that makes the final lap on his 20 min one mile run, with everyone cheering, there is a downward deviation of any expectations of women actually achieving anything in said occupations. For them to just SHOW UP and not get blown up on day one at any male-oriented job, makes them a hero. Then they immediately start badgering for management positions, and start talking about how “the numbers just don’t add up” with promotions, etc. Like any field.

    Women absolutely SUCK at anything they do outside of teaching, child-rearing and nursing.

    Ask yourself: Who is the most famous female aviator in history (back when it was still relatively dangerous to fly): That’s right, you got it. And she crashed and died, along with her male co-pilot. She is famous for FAILING.

  78. http://therationalmale.com/2014/06/03/male-space/

    Overseers in the Locker Room

    The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

    When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

    Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; According to their proper feminized conditioning, they embrace the opportunity to impress these ‘trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their feminine overseer(s), or they become easy foils of an “out-moded” way of thinking that the new ‘in-group’ happily labels them with.

    Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ‘feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space, while in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on out-group men’s failure to comply with, or the rejection of, the Feminine Imperative’s ‘correcting’ influence on the in-group.

  79. Fifty Seven says:

    “Ask yourself: Who is the most famous female aviator in history (back when it was still relatively dangerous to fly): That’s right, you got it. And she crashed and died, along with her male co-pilot. She is famous for FAILING.”

    There’s also Hanna Reitsch, the German WWII test pilot… Who flew into besieged Berlin in 1945 for Hitler’s birthday🙂

  80. enrique says:

    Right, and there was a man a few year ago that actually had a baby. And what, 8 women are on the Vietnam Wall or something? I once knew a woman that could deadlift 315lbs. I also met a gal who was responsible with a credit card…

    Who’s gonna pipe in with the female (3rd) cousin that’s a coal miner?

  81. Dban says:

    “Women absolutely SUCK at anything they do outside of teaching, child-rearing and nursing.”

    They suck at teaching and child-rearing too.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @Enrique

    Ask yourself: Who is the most famous female aviator in history (back when it was still relatively dangerous to fly): That’s right, you got it. And she crashed and died, along with her male co-pilot. She is famous for FAILING.

    It is even worse. Her true claim to fame was when she was thrown a ticker tape parade and invited to the White House after being the first woman to fly across the Atlantic. This feat was what earned her the nicknames “Lady Lindy” and “Queen of the Air”.

    By “flying” I mean she sat in comfort while the menfolk piloted the aircraft (no word on if she made them snacks). This was a much shorter flight than Lindbergh had flown to become famous a year earlier, and was only noteworthy because it was the first crossing with a woman passenger.

  83. xxxxxx says:

    Anchorman says:
    February 5, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    …when I served I found almost all women in war zones behave one way and it’s ain’t virtuous. That’s a major source of morale problems and breakdown of unit cohesion.”

    Could you elaborate on that?

    I don’t think he needs to elaborate. You know, using the military as their personal, large scale, pre-selected dating service. Not surpring since all the selfies posted by female soldiers (yes, including those in the almighty IDF) are of themselves with skimpy clothing, heavy make-up, long tinted and styled hair and manicured nails. This is not the look one would adopt if one was serious about fighting or defence. They look more lilke a Kadashian in fatigues than a Vasquez (in Aliens 2).

  84. Fifty Seven says:

    She’s not going to be court martialed or anything. At worst they’ll admin separate her. These days, maybe not even that.

    As far as the GWOT is concerned, I was a ground pounder, and I got out in ’06. Was in an airborne infantry unit attached to an MI brigade, doing sneak and peek stuff for them. There were some females in the MI unit, but we didn’t really interact with them, except one who used to come on patrol with us sometimes.

    One of our platoon sergeants eventually flat out refused to take her along. The Arabs, you see, don’t just not treat women as equals; they lose respect for YOU if you do, either.

    The pregnancy thing is real. Chicks bellies are their get out of deployment free cards. Once they’re preggo, they can choose an early out, no negative repercussions. For fuck’s sake, they make *MATERNITY CAMOUFLAGE UNIFORMS*. Some of my ex-Navy buds have told me the pregnancy rates on the aircraft carriers (crews of around 5000) is close to 100%. Granted, with DADT gone, that’ll prolly drop, but even so.

    One more thing: there was a real rape concern on one of the FOBs I was on in 05-06. FOBs are big, and badly lit at night; one or two guys with bad intentions would have– and from what I hear, did have– very little trouble waylaying some E-4 on her way back from wherever. The military attracts its own share of assholes, too.

  85. greyghost says:

    Enrique has got it right. Women are not very good at anything really. Even stuff that you would think they could handle like nonphysical office work. here and there maybe but on a whole …..nope.
    my money quote

    “Women can do anything they set their mind to just as well as men,” Lopez told WVLT-TV when she enlisted. “I don’t really see any difference at all. I hope women will want to join.”

    She needs to add except for me. Pvt Lopez
    Those women are going to be every where except on the line working. The sexual social issues are going to be awesome. Those infantry and other combat officers are in for a world of trouble that will never go away.

  86. Pingback: She wanted to run with the bulls. | Reaction Times

  87. Fifty Seven says:

    “Women absolutely SUCK at anything they do outside of teaching, child-rearing and nursing.”

    Now, now, let’s not be cruel. I’ve met some very nice waitresses and receptionists in my time.

  88. enrique says:

    Karen Straughn (anti-feminist) has noted that it always follows the same pattern: Women, smartly, stay out of any dangerous profession, like coal mining, then when it becomes so damn safe you could send a child in to do it, they sign up…then shortly after, they start demanding they be in positions of authority/mgt, and threaten suits, and we get the whole press conference stuff :

    female media darling taps the mic:

    “for far too long, women were told they could not be coal miners, then it was that we couldn’t be managers of coal miners, that we couldn’t be pregnant and working at a coal mining site…now they say we cannot be presidents and CEOs of coal mining companies…well I’m here to tell you…”

  89. Michael says:

    It will be interesting to see how she is punished – comparatively speaking.

  90. greyghost says:

    If they don’t general discharge her. She will stay in and before deployment to Afghanistan she will get pregnant by someone other than her husband and file for divorce. And then get orders to some training command and play soldier as a single mom of three kids.

  91. feeriker says:

    Women absolutely SUCK at anything they do outside of teaching, child-rearing and nursing.

    They also suck at the first two and are mediocre, at best, at the third.

  92. feeriker says:

    Update: Private Lopez has turned herself in.

    Quite revealing that the linked article essentially reiterates those words in the first paragraph, then says nothing more on the matter. The rest of the article is an irrelevant YouGoGrrrrrllllll puff piece about how the cowardly cupcake wanted so badly to be gruntette and how she “broke new ground” by enlisting.

  93. Micha Elyi says:

    Females in combat? It’s their country, let them defend it.

    Oh, but girls make babies!

    As long as they refuse to produce at or above replacement rates, a lot of females can be spared from bearing, birthing, and child-rearing to do their duty of doing their country’s fighting.

  94. feeriker says:

    greyghost says:
    February 5, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    I predict that 95 percent of what you’ve predicted here will pan out exactly as you describe. My only quibble is with “…she will get pregnant by someone other than her husband.” That might well happen, but equally likely is that the cucktard husband will follow her to whatever shit hole post they assign her to and continue to be her cucktard househusband for as long as she stays on active duty*. Very likely she’ll let him make a third kid with her just to ensure that she doesn’t deploy anywhere. Meanwhile she’ll be a ball-busting bitch at home, never failing to remind cucktard hubby of what a failure as a husband he is and that it is SHE who is wearing the pants and providing for the family by being a badass warrior.

    (* Given that actual superior performance of duties has not been a factor for consideration for promotion in ANY branch of the armed services for a VERY long time, odds are that Lopez will be able to stay on active duty, her cowardly transgression quickly swept under the rug and forgotten/flushed down the memory hole. She will in fact be allowed to stay on active duty for a 20-year career, rising to at least the rank of E-7/Sergeant First Class, getting promoted well ahead of her male peers who actually have done MULTIPLE combat tours. She will not only acquire no combat experience, but no useful professional or leadership experience either. Yet that will not stop her for one second from lording it over her male peers with an arrogance of authority that would make Napoleon Bonaparte blush with embarrassment.

    How do I know this? Because I served for 17 years on active duty, separating in disgust three years short of eligibility for retirement because I was not about to abide, among other things, the prevalence of wopeople in “leadership” roles who were exactly like the future Erika Lopez I describe above. That was nearly 20 years ago, before PC feminism ran amok in the U.S. military. I can only imagine how prevalent the “SFC Erika Lopez” caricature is now in real life.

    TL;DR version: only a gelded moron would remain voluntarily on active duty in what passes for a “military force” in Amerika today.)

  95. mmaier2112 says:

    “Once detained, they typically slap the Dishonorable Discharge on them. Keep in mind, she barely made it out of the blocks and the military had little invested in her. Also, male desertion after Basic happens. I don’t think they look to throw the book at folks who got a taste of the life and freaked out. However, they do permanently bar them from things, like civil service. I think it is recorded as a felony conviction, after all.”

    I worked with a broad in the NG or AR that was going to go AWOL to avoid going to the ME. She only went because they were going to fire her from her federal govt job if she didn’t go.

    I’m sure she still takes her free meals at Dennys, though.

  96. mmaier2112 says:

    Jim says:
    February 5, 2016 at 3:06 pm
    “Anchorman says:
    February 5, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    …when I served I found almost all women in war zones behave one way and it’s ain’t virtuous. That’s a major source of morale problems and breakdown of unit cohesion.”

    Could you elaborate on that?

    They’re whores. No hyperbole. Many become LITERAL whores to make money, including officers.

  97. Locard says:

    Walsh felt no outrage when the government destroyed the greatest institution in our collective history, you know, the one that we and the entire world owes its freedom to, one based on maleness and honor…

  98. Spike says:

    In the Iran-Iraq War, Iranian Army Engineers cleared minefields by attaching steel poles to motorcycles, riding as fast as possible and setting off the mines (they had to lead by example to get others to follow). In the Korean war, Soviet jet pilots rammed American planes. So too did German fighter pilots to American bombers, and of course the Kamikazes. Russian jet pilots are expected to do the same to this day.
    In Stalingrad, soldiers of both sides fought waist-deep, sometimes chest-deep in their own excrement to gain control of the sewers.
    The various ideologies of these men don’t matter – think what you want of them (and I have a very poor opinion of any “-ism”). What matters is that they understood what was expected of them and they did it.
    Can we say the same about Erika “AWOL” Lopez? About any woman on the current battlefields?
    Sure, in movies they step up, but historically they have avoided war, run to the lifeboats first and struck politically when their countries were at their weakest (Emmeline Pankhurst).

  99. Atticus says:

    I’m actually sad Lopez “washed out”. I’m sure the combat engineers need someone to direct traffic and hold the stop sign on nation building construction projects.

  100. America is stuck in a game of Ass-Kiss-Rodeo with women at the center and LIberals and Cuckservatives fighting for position #1. The only thing preventing women from obtaining the honor of being “The Destroyer of America MVP” will be Corporate Interests.

  101. nastynate says:

    Matt Walsh said:
    “I honestly do not want to live in a country that uses its women as human shields.”

    I see. As long as it’s the young men used as human shields, we’re perfectly comfortable.

  102. Anon says:

    ““Women can do anything they set their mind to just as well as men I don’t really see any difference at all.”

    What is funny is that women are failing even at things that they perhaps should have done well at :

    Marissa Mayer (Yahoo)
    Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos)
    Sheryl Sandberg (her ‘lean in’ traveling circus is an overt admission that Facebook never really needed her active presence in daily corporate operations).
    Carly Fiorina (no man with such a resume would be able to run for President).
    Janet Yellen (the Fed, which went from being the most innovative central bank in the world, to the least. Totally leapfrogged by Japan, the EU, and even China).
    Hillary Clinton (what, exactly, has she demonstrated competence at)?

    These are women who cultivated impressive resumes for decades, and could have been among the token minority of women to truly do a good job irrespective of gender. But they failed visibly and conspicuously. It is hard to name even five women who have ascended to a very high profile position and done well…..

  103. Anon says:

    greyghost,

    Women are not very good at anything really.

    The scarcer reproductive resource is :

    a) More valuable. 50 men dying to save 1 woman used to be seen as normal, even in Muslim countries.
    b) More specialized. There is almost no brain matter available once the functions of pursuing tingles, assessing male alphatude, cuckolding a mangina, and extracting resources through a range of evolutionarily optimized tactics are met.

    * More biologically valuable (as long as reproduction is the primary purpose of a species), more specialized, no interest in/ability for innovation, hence more vulnerable to eventual obsolescence.
    * Less biologically valuable, less specialized, more innovative, and hence less vulnerable to obsolescence.

  104. Jim says:

    “Anon says:
    February 5, 2016 at 7:44 pm”

    This and your other recent post got me thinking….

    As technology continues to progress what’s going to happen when and if we are able to develop artificial wombs and make them affordable? This would mean that women will become almost obsolete outside of sex. With how nasty most of them have become they might end up with two choices. Either they straighten up and behave themselves (maybe helping to heal the severe rift between men and women right now) or end up alone unless they are willing to become sex slaves.

    After all, they can’t seem to lead companies (with extremely rare exceptions), institution or nations well at all. Companies are not going to play this PC game forever if their bottom lines are destroyed. I think they’ll finally come to their senses at some point.

    And very few women have more than just sex to offer a man these days. Heck, just listen to these harpies when they threaten a man. It’s always the same:

    *You can’t get laid
    *You’ve got a small dick
    *I won’t have sex with you

    By their own admission they’re saying all they have to offer is sex. And you know what? They did this to themselves. All of this just might happen if this rift between the sexes continues to grow because of their bitchy behavior. Even pussy boys can only take so much before something finally clicks in their brains. We’ll see.

  105. greyghost says:

    By their own admission they’re saying all they have to offer is sex. And you know what? They did this to themselves. All of this just might happen if this rift between the sexes continues to grow because of their bitchy behavior. Even pussy boys can only take so much before something finally clicks in their brains. We’ll see.

    This is already the case in Europe with the rape by immigrant thing going on. And nothing is being done about it. The men are not out raged to violence by this .

  106. Kaminsky says:

    Just wait until the first Cyborg/HGH popper can actually cut it as a female in combat. She will be lauded for decades, maybe carved up onto Mt. Rushmore…..FOR SIMPLY DOING HER JOB. (Sorry).. But my point stands. They have turned it into a social/cultural cause and it’s not that. It’s a job. Tasks that you are trained to do and paid to do.

    About Bergdahl. Don’t forget that he went Muzzie while on duty, seemingly enjoyed being a receptacle for homosexual Mozzies and especially don’t forget who our President is. His family’s invitation to the White House for his desertion was our country’s lowest historical point in a lot of ways. A coward cozies up to a religion that killed thousands of us on our home turf, deserts, and his family is given one of the highest honors.

  107. Kaminsky says:

    Also,

    Unless, she’s 5’11” in that photo there is no way she handles the physicality. Too small.

  108. pb says:

    “The only societies that temporarily favored sons (China, etc.) was because wars killed off so many men that there was a surplus of women, and hence a chance of too many old maids. These aberrations led to sons being temporarily placed at high value. ”

    No — East Asian cultures value sons because sons carry on the family line and they are the ones responsible for taking care of the parents when they get old. Daughters are married out into other families.

  109. Anon says:

    pb,

    That is too simplistic. East Asian cultures have long sent tens of millions of men to die as cannon-fodder, frequently creating a gender ratio of surplus women.

    How many East Asian male troops have killed each other in the last 80 years (WW2, Korean War, Southeast Asia wars, Sino-Vietnamese wars, etc.)?

    Japan only surrendered in WW2 once women started to die (the only women of Japan who really died in WW2 were those that died in the last few days before surrender, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Until then, almost all of the 4 million Japanese deaths were men. As were almost all of the 300,000 American deaths, but that is a different story).

    China saw no problem expending a few million men across their aggressions in Korea, VietNam, Tibet, India, etc. That is a lot of ‘sons’ used as cannon fodder. Hence, it is clear that male expendability by state mandate greatly trumps the ‘family line’.

  110. pb says:

    It’s not simplistic at all. Are you East Asian? That’s the very reason for female infanticide in China (why sons are preferred) and was enshrined in East Asian ethical code (Confucianism and its derivatives).

    Don’t confuse what a government does with its people with what the people believe. That’s a category error. I can assure you that government officials usually have no problem wasting the lives of other people’s children.

  111. Scott says:

    Once detained, they typically slap the Dishonorable Discharge on them. Keep in mind, she barely made it out of the blocks and the military had little invested in her. Also, male desertion after Basic happens. I don’t think they look to throw the book at folks who got a taste of the life and freaked out. However, they do permanently bar them from things, like civil service. I think it is recorded as a felony conviction, after all.

    Typically, a soldier in this situation, if they are caught will be brought back to face the chapter separation (chapter 11) that is initiated by the company commander.

    After 30 days (like in her case) I believe they are dropped from the rolls (DFR) and are not supposed to be receiving pay.

    They will have a brief interaction with me during the process where I do what is a very short hand/abbreviated version of what civilians would analogize as a competency to stand trial evaluation. (Making sure they have the capacity to understand the charges).

    The process is administrative in nature and is only available (at this very easy level) to soldiers with < 180 days active duty.

  112. Kaminsky says:

    There’s more than your one reason given for female infanticide. East Asia is made up of strongly male worship cultures. If it sounds cool and red pill, it’s not. It turns out males who are so comically latent that I hardly know how they marry and reproduce. Sexual relations in any culture where one gender is elevated so far above the other becomes a mess of latency and unhappiness. Look at the homosexuality among Muslims (the reality, not the public scapegoating sessions of tossing some twink off a building and then celebrating the act by nailing an eight year old boy-whore.)

    Western culture is getting there with the female primacy getting very close to the inverse of Muslim male primacy. Homosexuality among the dominant, idealized gender ensues. No one even seemed to notice how wrong it is for college girls to so casually make out with each other at parties. As always, reverse the genders to see where you’re at on something.

    It seems like Latins are the ones who seem to simultaneously pedestalize both the masculine and the feminine. And look at how they love to nail each other all the time. Maybe the Slavs too.

  113. pb says:

    “There’s more than your one reason given for female infanticide. East Asia is made up of strongly male worship cultures. If it sounds cool and red pill, it’s not. It turns out males who are so comically latent that I hardly know how they marry and reproduce. Sexual relations in any culture where one gender is elevated so far above the other becomes a mess of latency and unhappiness.”

    What does a “male worship culture” even mean?

    The stereotypical Asian beta (or male of an even lower status) has very little to do with the preference for sons or “patriarchy” in that limited sense, and more because of other aspects of East Asian culture — an emphasis on study and material success, the denigration of manual labor, the lack of proper socialization and so on. The same patriarchy pre-existed the creation of industrial economies and mass urbanization in East Asia, and East Asian males of the 19th century and early 20th century were probably more masculine than their grandsons and great-grandsons.

  114. pb says:

    “Look at the homosexuality among Muslims”

    More likely due to a culture of perversion or the lack of access to women.

  115. Looking Glass says:

    It should be “look at the culture of raping Children in Islam”. That’s got a lot more to do with it than “direct” homosexuality.

    East Asian cultures, things operate a bit differently than direct implications. They’re not Westerners and their development is different. My knowledge of the Japanese is greater than the rest, but don’t mistake “patriarchal” with “hyper hierarchical”. They all enforce a harsh hierarchy, not a strict patriarchy. This is important as the Women run most of the place. The hilarious part about Feminists is that they don’t realize those claimed “oppressed Women in Asia” run far more than their slutty asses can imagine.

    There’s also the issue that most Men in those cultures are so disconnected from their Children that they’re almost all functionally single-parent children. Though as they’re all Shame-based cultures, it does work a little better at keeping their Women in line. Guilty can be rationalized & legalized away; Shame is ever present and enforced by others. It’s still a terrible system, but you can understand why they’d look at Westerners and think we’re a bunch of idiots, in that regard.

  116. Kaminsky says:

    “What does a ‘male worship culture’ even mean?”

    I apologize for that zany, indecipherable koan.

  117. yamanous says:

    Didn’t even know about this girl till today. I watched the video first, and thought this was something just now happening. After reading her body language, my first though was “lol I’ll be shocked if she even makes it past boot camp.” Then after seeing that she had family….I knew right away she wouldn’t last. Her face reeks of “Look at me! Attention to me! NOW!”

  118. They Call Me Tom says:

    What if a federal law was passed…. and all women who weren’t married, stay at home moms were required to enlist in the draft…

    But enough with the jokes…

    …in the make believe world where that could happen, would women as a whole start valuing family higher than themselves again?

  119. Mark Citadel says:

    Women should only be in the military in medical roles, and even then only in times of great need. This is a plea for attention, and a will to emulate the characteristics of men. A very unhealthy trend.

  120. Remo says:

    Federal prosecutor: “Well you could plead no contest and take the federal prison sentence, felony criminal record, no veterans benefits, and suffer many years away from your family -OR- you can say that you were sexually harassed by the other men in your platoon and that’s why you left. You’ll get acquitted, keep all your benefits, be entitled to disability payments, and likely get to hit the talk show circuit with a lucrative book deal. I know you’ll do the right thing.”

  121. Mike says:

    Pvt. Erika Lopez, as direct result of the man-splaining, man-spreading, stare-rape, micro-aggressions, early morning wood and, last but not least, all of the false sexual assault and false rape accusations she was forced to levy to make it to the rank of private, is the victim patriarchy induced PTSD – Premenstrual Traumatic Syndrome Desertion.

    For all of the suffering Pvt. Erika Lopez has endured, she will be promoted to general, given an honorable discharge will full benefits, given free healthcare for life, given full free college tuition for herself and her daughters and double full retirement pay.

    After having been forced to live with that level misogyny and patriarchy for so many weeks, it is only just that General Lopez be fairly and adequately compensated for her bravery. General Lopez is a credit to women and to feminists the globe over.

  122. Roger says:

    In principle I agree with Mark in the post above, although I think there are ancillary roles women can play in the military beyond medical. Clearly, they do not belong in combat, and putting them in combat will only weaken our forces. If it becomes law that young women must register for the draft, we’ll see a lot of fathers resorting to civil disobedience (or moving to Canada) to keep their daughters out of it. And I wouldn’t blame them. My daughter is already past draft age, but I can’t imagine any father worthy of the title expecting his daughter to go out and fight to protect him. Nothing could be more unnatural.

  123. Beautiful Truths Ignored says:

    There is a third type of conservative.

    Patrick Buchanan.

    “A nation that relies on women for defense, isn’t worth defending.”

  124. If women want the vote, they must take the same risk as men. You cannot have a democracy where the majority attains majority of the vote because the minority has to fight to defend it. Either your daughters get drafted or their voting rights need to be removed.

  125. Easttexasfatboy says:

    In the coming war with Islam…..let’s just say this…..Women who are captured will be gang raped and beheaded. That’s standard practice as the Kurdish women say plainly. They say in a matter of fact way…..save some way to kill yourself, even if you’re severely wounded. Moslems b are extremely insulted when women fight and kill them.

    There’s no way to escape the coming war. Islam says, with justification, that the West is wicked. We all know that. Perversions weaken the will to fight. Open infanticide means we’re near the end of our rope. So, it’s going to be fought in many places, in many ways. Lopez is just a sign of our internal corruption.

    God has been banished from most people’s lives. That always presages true destruction. As a man who fears God, it has amazed me just how fast degeneration has spread. Yeah, Islam is cruel and barbaric, no doubt about it. But their men aren’t manginas, and they control the destructive aspects of women. Yes, they kill them at times. That keeps things like feminism at bay. Because, if you read the Word of God, you know that Jezebel is alive and well nowadays.

  126. Easttexasfatboy says:

    After some thought, I would think that Lopez is an unfit mother. She really illustrates the times, doesn’t she? You know, a lot of moslem men are smaller and thinner than American men. That means….if they kill Lopez, they can use her body armor. Just thinking…….the idea of a woman in a desperate hand to hand fight…..can American feminists bear up under a beheading video that features Lopez? In English, that taunts American weakness?

  127. greyghost says:

    “A nation that relies on women for defense, isn’t worth defending.”

    This is straight up blue pill unaware of the truth cuckservative talk. Women are not in to serve they are there to get benefits.

  128. Jim says:

    “A nation that relies on women for defense, isn’t worth defending.”

    No, no. Let’s get it right:

    “A nation that destroys a man’s human rights, isn’t worth defending.”

  129. Easttexasfatboy says:

    We are on the vanguard of men’s rights. Thing is, we will never be respected. That being said, quit protecting women.

  130. Drudge and the WND story he links to are of course proof of a remnant of conservatives still pointing out that putting women into combat is a game of politically correct theater.

    Remnant? I am not well versed in internet traffic metrics, but WND and Drudge have been in the very top tier of internet traffic for 20 nearly 20 years. A quick check showed me that Drudge is number 3 and WND number 12..

    Sure, the traffic count cannot prove anything about the nature of the traffic, I wonder if we can also negate the indicator that we see when we recognize that this site gets more traffic as time passes. Should we say that suggests something about the people?

    I am sure there are folks that will school me on why those ratings are wrong (but lookee over here at THESE sites with high ratings).

    Im not entering my own argument yet again, Im merely saying that the word remnant is a bit over wrought.

  131. ridman says:

    When you see the high command allowing females in combat roles it should tell you at least one thing – the big shows are over. Casualties going forward are anticipated to be low compared to warfare in previous generations.

    Can you imagine the hew and cry if (say) several hundred females return in body bags over a year long period? The mummies and daddies and mewling progeny would want to sue the military for “lack of care” or something and bleed to the press about how their princesses were poorly protected and let down in combat by males.

    Not going to happen. Warfare going forward will be more and more automated, impersonal and safe for highly technological nations

  132. Kevin says:

    Regarding the 12 year old overpowering women – that is a little young – your son must be a stud.

    Almost all female world records in athletic events track very well to the world records held by 15-17 year old boys. College basketball female teams struggle against high school teams. WNBA teams – I think I read somewhere – practice with high school boys which is what you would expect. College men would be far too dominating for practice. The physical differences are real.

    Medicine has had a steady decline in how demanding the training is as women have increased in numbers. All doctors are training in a more “gentle” manner. That being said and joking aside the evolutionarily endowed superior simple pattern recognition that women possess and average superior communication skills and empathy make women very good doctors and nurses.

  133. Pingback: Marching off of a Cliff | Spawny's Space

  134. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    Drudge and the WND story he links to are of course proof of a remnant of conservatives still pointing out that putting women into combat is a game of politically correct theater.

    Remnant? I am not well versed in internet traffic metrics, but WND and Drudge have been in the very top tier of internet traffic for 20 nearly 20 years. A quick check showed me that Drudge is number 3 and WND number 12..

    The Republican candidates were asked during the debate on Saturday if they supported the push to include women in selective service. The answers ranged from yes to no answer, with the yes answers divided between seeing selective service as a fundamental right for women, to the argument that since we haven’t lowered standards including women helps fill the ranks with the best possible people. No one pointed out the current PC fantasy. Farah and Drudge have always been outsiders, and both reflect snapshots of conservatism from their founding in the late 1990s.

  135. quigboo says:

    @Dalrock

    Out of interest, what would your rebuttal be to the ‘as long as they have to meet the same standards’ argument? A non-religious one, preferably. I can think of lots of practical arguments, but none derived from enlightenment principles, so to speak.

  136. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, Empath’s on record regarding Republicans – “ok, but what about the conservatives?” – so your question could be a non sequitur as far as he’s concerned. Of course the problem with that is pretty obvious: if one disqualifies all Democrats and all Republicans from the category of True Conservative, then one is left with a small and rather insignificant group of people, not exactly the vanguard of a new cultural revival. I have some sympathy for the self-labeled “conservatives” who on the one hand feel like a beleagured minority everyone picks on, and yet on the other hand feel they should be the cultural leaders of their society.

    Novaseeker’s observation about the longer term effects of the churches being cultural leaders, who gradually over time have become transformed into cultural followers, is a clue. When I go to churches that are culturally conservative (no women leaders, etc.) it’s often like stepping into a kind of theme park. The women tend to defer to the men (at least in public…), the men tend to be a bit more decisive than their non-church counterparts, in some churches nobody can remember the last time there was a divorce within the church*, and so forth. Within that cultural mileau, “conservatism” is normative, and works, and it surely seems like “well, everyone is or should be like this”.

    But it’s never quite what it seems. A bit of time spent listening to the middle aged men soon reveals that at least some of the women defer in public, but are harridens in private. A bit of time spent observing people under 30 reveals young women who are likely carousel watchers, if not riders. A bit of time spent observing the 30-somethings almost always reveals at least one ex carousel rider who’s looking for her Beta (single mothers are even more obvious). A bit of time spent in a Sunday school may reveal teachings that are entirely oriented to the hot topic book of the month, rather than more substantive things. In other words, even the most conservative churches I’ve been in are clearly following the world trend rather than leading any trend, just following with a time lag. That Overton window is a real pain.

    * One of the ways that a church can keep divorce numbers down is via counseling. If a couple is bent on divorce for any reason other than the 3 A’s, pushing them out of the church before they divorce keeps the record clean. “Oh, the Smiths divorced? What a shame, but you know it isn’t a total surprise, because they didn’t really fit in here at this church, that’s why they left…”.
    This doesn’t have to be a conscious process on the part of leadership, either, it could…”just happen”…

  137. Anonymous Reader says:

    Out of interest, what would your rebuttal be to the ‘as long as they have to meet the same standards’ argument?

    I’m not Dalrock but the “same standards” argument makes me laugh. It’s an open secret that “same standards” has meant “different standards but we pretend otherwise” for the last 30 or more years. “Same standards” is a total sham, because the result of “same standards” washes out 9+% of women from the military, that is politicallly unacceptable (because “equality” means “equal results”), therefore different standards are always the answer, so long as they have some pretend “sameness” about them.

    “Same standards” is about as credible as “separate but equal” was back in the 1940’s IMO.

  138. Dalrock says:

    I’m not Dalrock but the “same standards” argument makes me laugh. It’s an open secret that “same standards” has meant “different standards but we pretend otherwise” for the last 30 or more years. “Same standards” is a total sham, because the result of “same standards” washes out 9+% of women from the military, that is politicallly unacceptable (because “equality” means “equal results”), therefore different standards are always the answer, so long as they have some pretend “sameness” about them.

    Exactly. Where this gets truly hilarious is when they apply the argument to opening the military to transgender people claiming the reason is to ensure that the military can choose from the best and brightest. Because expanding the pool that extra .3% is really worth it, and there is of course no cost associated with the big win. No one believes this, but yet men like House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Senator McCain go along with the ruse. The argument is no less laughable with women in infantry, spec ops, submarines, etc, and everyone knows this. This is all about SJW objectives, but conservatives insist on using the cover feminists have offered them as if it were reality. They aren’t really feminists’ bitch, they just find it handy to hold on to their turned out pocket to avoid getting lost on the way to the yard.

  139. Scott says:

    I think the “same standards” argument is funny because there is no such thing in the army right now.

    For current and past soldiers this is remedial, but sometimes I get the feeling this is not common knowledge outside the big green machine.

    The scores for the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test) are obtained by converting your raw push-ups, raw sit-ups and raw 2 mile run into a scaled score. Each event is worth a total of 100 points, so a perfect score is 300. (You can obtain a higher score, called the “extended scales” but it’s not important for this example.)

    The scaled score is calculated by looking at a chart which is stratified by AGE and SEX.

    For example, I am a 44 year old male. In order for me to obtain a 300 on my APFT, I must do 69 push-ups (in 2 minutes or less) 72 sit-ups (in 2 minutes or less) and run 2 miles in 14:06 (or faster).

    For an 18 year old female, a 300 is obtained by doing 42 push-ups, 78 sit-ups and running her 2 mile run in 15:36.

    An old man like me (I am now in the highest age bracket) has to out perform a young, entry level private (except on sit-ups) by a huge margin just to obtain the same score.

    So when you hear that a female who made it into Ranger School with the “same standard” what they mean is, she obtained a score on her APFT with the men HEAVILY handicapped.

    This has been the scoring system for as long as I have been in the army, (15 years) and I have no idea when it was implemented.

  140. quigboo says:

    So what you are saying is that they can’t meet the same standards unless the standards are lowered to accept them. With this I would agree – IQ tests, for instance, were changed a few decades ago so that the average woman would score the same as the average man.

    I am more interested in arguments about why even the rare cases should not be allowed. In the army, a wealth of practical considerations come up, but in other areas not so much. Anyways, usually when you hit upon women who succeeded notably on a man’s level in a man’s area, it certainly has nothing to do with feminism, and those few women would tell you so themselves – re: Margaret Thatcher.

  141. Scott says:

    It’s interesting you mention Thatcher.

    I read her book “The Downing Street Years” way back when it came out.

    The thing that always stood out to me was she said that in order to rub shoulders with guys like Reagan and Gorbachev she had to basically act like a man. She said she was glad when it was over because her husband suffered the consequences of that.

    She said she was happy to finally give up the title of prime minister to just come home and take care of him.

  142. quigboo says:

    Ya, so even though she could do it, it didn’t make her or her husband very happy. Sounds about right.

    I find that line of thinking more persuasive – that is, women should stay out of male areas unless there is a dire need (eg. WW2). Life is, after all, about happiness – not some bullshit contest where the entire point of a woman’s life is to convince her and her friends that she is better than men.

    That’s why I find Dalrock’s point about envy so important and astute – I don’t see other people saying this. My interactions with women are just like this! When they can’t get the things from me they want, they are always doing things to convince themselves they are better than I am. Fault-finding, essentially. I think a lot of what some call ‘shit-testing’ is this. In former times I bet this was far less common since women were socialized not to compete with men, so it wasn’t an issue.

  143. Mike43 says:

    Scott,
    The Army replaced their prior APFT with the current system about 1975. The previous one had 7 events and required sand pits, vertical ladders, and was done in boots. Logically, it made sense to lose that requirement. I took both, and vastly enjoyed the new system. Much easier on the hands and feet.

  144. Casey says:

    Unbelievable.

    The story of her turning herself in as a military deserter is largely a regurgitation of the original puff piece encouraging women to join in her foot steps.

    Hogwash.

  145. Scott- The APFT has never been the primary physical fitness entrance test for Ranger School. Prospective students have to have passed a recent Army APFT (age and gender normed) certified by their unit before reporting to Ranger School. The students then have multiple physical tests during the first few days at are go/no go events, which ARE NOT age or gender normed.

    http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-special-operations/army-ranger-pft

    The day one Ranger PT test is notorious for washing out large numbers of students, mainly because the instructors can be highly selective in grading criteria in order to limit overall class size.

    So when the cadre at Ranger School discuss holding a female recruit to the same physical standard, I think you can give them the benefit of the doubt that they are doing just that (unlike the rest of the institutional DoD.) The guys that run the place are some of the best officers in the US Army, with a real huge amount of integrity and desire to see the institution of the Army and Ranger school preserved. The probably is that they lost the argument about women in combat along time ago. Of course you can find three women in their prime out of hundreds who can eventually pass the rigorous physical standards. What you can’t do is make American society believe that they shouldn’t be there in the first place, because most of them don’t.

    Those of us in the service who would prefer to see the feminist gains of the 1990s rolled back are fighting a losing battle, but its a reflection of the larger culture. As long as feminists hold the largest voice in American society they will continue to “infect” the military to the detriment of the organization and possibly the nation as a whole.

    @CitznSoldier

  146. empathologism says:

    Sorry to plop in that comment and vanish. I was fortunate to have been invited to go to Durham and watch Duke play Louisville Monday evening. An experience that put conservatism out of my mind for two hours.

    Yes I know that Republican candidates and the majority of conservatives are afraid of women and cater thereto, Lift chasing and all that. I am eons more with you than against you on these points, and its unproductive for me to keep trying to pound in my shim.

  147. Opus says:

    I am not and have never been a member of The Tory Party but – speaking as an unaffiliated punter – I always gained the impression that Mrs Thatcher – who in those days looked and sounded like a SAHM – was elected as leader of her party because the men could not agree among themselves as to which man if any should replace Edward Heath (I have seen the same sort of indecisiveness played out in work-based scenarios) and then once she had secured a couple of victories in Parliamentary Elections attempting to boot her out had the danger of being seen as anti-female and thus cruel. Her election to power also brought out in some men, such as the late Cecil Parkinson (a member of The Cabinet), an entirely cringe-worthy devotion which one never sees evinced towards male leaders. Had Thatcher been a man I think we might also have seen a far more aggressive stance from the man who wanted her crown, Micheal Heseltine. Mrs Thatcher’s successor John Major had far more trouble with his Cabinet – the aptly named ‘bastards’ – possibly caused by a smaller majority, than ever did Thatcher. Women should be kept out of politics though were we to insist on that we would have been spared the hilarity last week of time being set aside in The House of Commons to enable The Minister-ess for Misandry to denounce Roosh V. and entirely supported therein by her ‘Shadow’ in the Official Opposition who is also, amazingly, female. Frankly, it has to be said, both were too old and too ugly – with or without consent – to attract Roosh V.

    Was Mrs Thatcher merely the mouthpiece of her wealthy husband Denis? Did she use her female nature to make herself appealing to Ronald Reagan, as is sometimes suggested? I have no idea, but I cannot imagine that had she been a man that when she was finally sacked (mid-term by her party – hence no lame-ducks Prime Ministers – they fight for the position every day) that one of my then colleagues would have been, as he was, in tears – not that Thatcherism had ever done him, so far as I could see, any favours; quite the reverse in fact. Her death a couple of years ago brought back to the surface the intense hatred many had for her and sent that little song form the Wizard of Oz “The wicked witch is dead” to the top of the pop charts.

    Somehow – the military dragging their feet – I feel that front-line female troops will be moth-balled as an idea long before the plan is put into action; probably about the time American troops are involved in a real war.

  148. Opus:
    “Somehow – the military dragging their feet – I feel that front-line female troops will be moth-balled as an idea long before the plan is put into action; probably about the time American troops are involved in a real war.”

    Doubtful- we’ve been in two shooting wars for the past ten years, and even having women attached to front line units has has predictable results. It will take a hundreds of men being killed before the gender equility nuts that run DoD would ever consider it a “mistake”.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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