Cowering in front of women.

National Review has a new editorial complaining about the answers from Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio on Selective Service registration during the Republican debate on Saturday.  They frame this as men cowering behind women for protection in Only a Barbaric Nation Drafts Its Mothers and Daughters into Combat (H/T PokeSalad)

Men should protect women. They should not shelter behind mothers and daughters.

This is all part of the fantasy which has brought us to the situation we find ourselves in. The problem isn’t that men are cowering behind women.  The problem is that men are cowering in front of women.  The idea that sending women into combat will lower the number of casualties for men is pure fantasy. Adding women to combat roles will increase, not decrease the number of men wounded, captured, and killed in future battles.  The National Review touches on this fact in their editorial, but still pretend that this is about men wanting women to protect them.  It is not.  This is about women demanding to usurp men’s roles, and men being too terrified to say no. You can see this by the way the three Republican candidates framed their answers.  The focus is on empowering women and not restricting their feminist rights.  You can see the full transcript here (do a word search for selective service), but here are the highlights.

The question:

I want to move on to the military. Senator Rubio, all restrictions on women in combat as long as they qualify. Positions including special operations forces, like Navy Seals. Just this week military leaders of the Army and Marine Corps said that they believed young women, just as young men are required to do, should sign up for Selective Service in case the Draft is reinstated.

Many of you have young daughters. Senator Rubio, should young women be required to sign up for Selective Service in case of a national emergency?

Rubio:

First, let me say there are already women today serving in roles that are like combat. That, in fact, whose lives are in very serious danger, and so I have no problem whatsoever with people of either gender serving in combat so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised. But, I support that, and obviously now that that is the case I do believe that Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a Draft is ever instituted.

Next Bush:

RADDATZ: Do you believe young women should sign up for Selective Service, be required to sign up…

BUSH: … I do, and I do think that we should not impose any kind of political agenda on the military. There should be — if women can meet the requirements, the minimum requirements for combat service they ought to have the right to do it. For sure. It ought to be focused on the morale as well. We got to make sure that we have readiness much higher than we do today. We need to eliminate the sequester which is devastating our military.

We can’t be focusing on the political side of this, we need to realize that our military force is how we project our word in the world. When we’re weak militarily it doesn’t matter what we say. We can talk about red lines, and ISIS being the J.V. team, and reset buttons and all this. If we don’t have a strong military than no one fears us, and they take actions that are against our national interest.

[Moderator repeatedly redirects Bush to the fact that Selective Service would determine who was drafted if a draft were implemented.]

BUSH: … we don’t have a draft. I’m not suggesting we have a draft. What I’m suggesting is that we ought to have readiness being the first priority of our military, and secondly, that we make sure that the morale is high. And right now, neither one of those are acceptable because we’ve been gutting the military budget.

Finally Christie goes full feminist:

CHRISTIE: Can I — can I be really — can I be really clear on this, because I am the father of two daughters. One of them is here tonight. What my wife and I have taught our daughters right from the beginning, that their sense of self-worth, their sense of value, their sense of what they want to do with their life comes not from the outside, but comes from within. And if a young woman in this country wants to go and fight to defend their country, she should be permitted to do so.

Part of that also needs to be part of a greater effort in this country, and so there’s no reason why one — young women should be discriminated against from registering for the selective service. The fact is, we need to be a party and a people that makes sure that our women in this country understand anything they can dream, anything that they want to aspire to, they can do. That’s the way we raised our daughters and that’s what we should aspire to as president for all of the women in our country.

Rubio says Selective Service should be “opened up” for women.  Bush says women have a “right” to be in combat, and argues that by allowing women into combat we are allowing the best qualified to be selected and thereby avoiding playing politics with the military.  Christie says women should not “be discriminated against” by denying them the right to register for the draft.  The pandering to women by the candidates is undeniable.

What very few have noticed though is it isn’t just Bush, Christie, and Rubio who are afraid to say no to women.  The authors of the National Review piece are just as afraid to say no to women on this issue as the candidates are.  The candidates framed this as a women’s rights issue, and National Review framed this as a women’s safety/privilege issue.  Both are avoiding saying no to women, they are just using different methods of avoidance.  The former assures women their desire to usurp men’s roles won’t be hindered.  The latter complains that men are forcing women into usurping men’s roles.  This is the real cowardice.

Men aren’t cowering behind women, men are cowering in front of them.

See Also: 

This entry was posted in Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, Military, National Review, Rebellion, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to Cowering in front of women.

  1. Pingback: Cowering in front of women. – Manosphere.com

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    National Review authors are uniformly conservative feminists. That’s one reason I quit reading the site and the ‘zine. Jonah Goldberg is one example (hi, Micha!), he married a woman older than he is who did not take his name (oh, so traditionalist, eh?), a woman whose main accomplishment so far as I can tell is a book on Title IX . Not a book attacking Title IX as a bad law based on a ridiculous premise, no, a book that claimed TItle IX was a great idea but then feminists took it too far. Clinton went too far. The unstated “women and men have equal interest in sport so any difference in participation at the college level is solely due to sexism! and discrimination!” premise isn’t questioned. Which is hardly a surprise, since Jessica Gavora played basketball back in the day; she almost certainly benefited from Title IX version 1.0.

    Conservative feminsim is the norm there. Title IX, affirmative action, different requirements for women when it’s to their advantage, White Knighting for almost any bad behavior by women, etc. in other words 1970’s-1980’s radical to mainstream feminism is now “conservative” (Hi, Empath!). But since the conservative feminists at NR are opposed to abortion and mostly opposed to lesbian weddings, they get to strike the bold, righteous Anti-Feminist pose.

    So of course they are all afraid to say “no” to a woman. They can’t even say “no” to their own female writers, seems to me; back when I used to read NRO’s “The Corner” I noted that the senior herd mares such as Mona Charon could shut down any discussion with no backtalk, when they chose to. Rather like watching a man in his 30’s responding to his mother with “Yes, mommy…”.

    I have told a couple of Republican party types I know – state level, not national – that a whole lot of voters out here in flyover are not going to vote for another Bush, especially this one. Each time I get a kind of goggle-eyed surprise. I’ll be sure to bring this insanity up, and see how they take it, a real conservative traditionalist should be opposed to putting women into combat situations, most especially ground fighting, but party loyalty can be a strange thing.

  3. Pingback: Cowering in front of women. | Neoreactive

  4. Novaseeker says:

    It’s very true that no-one on that side (really any side of mainstream/Overton political discourse) wants to be capable of being construed as being anti-woman or as attacking women, or as not favoring what women want. (Trump is an exception here, but he isn’t exactly mainstream/Overton, as we can see from the endless, relentless attacks in the MSM.) It’s certainly cowardice, social and political — they are afraid of losing women’s votes, given that women tend to vote more than men do.

    At the same time I think that the tactic taken here by NR is very much the common one of “man up and don’t be such sissies!” approach, which sort of comes naturally in the culture at large, but is stronger, more virulent, and more knee-jerky on the conservative side of things, generally. In this way, events and outcomes that are really the result of literally incessant lobbying by organized political femaledom can be placed at the foot of ordinary men’s failure to man up. It allows them to attack the issue without attacking women (directly), and also allows them to pummel men in general for being inadequately masculine, which is, of course, a favorite pasttime of the culture as a whole (heck, it’s even a recurrent theme among some commenters on this blog, of all places).

    You’re right that it’s all cowardice in any case — based on fear of alienating women — in this case that’s political, in the case of corporate America it’s commercial (fear of losing women as customers and consumers, etc.). But it’s even jucier when you can pander to women indirectly (by refusing to confront them on things like this) AND wallop men in general at the same time. That’s an almost irresistible twofer, because it serves both the political interest and the visceral one at the same time.

  5. I had an argument with somebody over this. They were against women in combat as well as against women being registered for selective service, even in the environment we had now. I was asked why I was in favor of women registering for selective service:

    ME: I’m not in favor at all. I’m in favor of not allowing ANY women in the military.

    PERSON A: But you still want women to register for the draft NOW, right?

    ME: If women want the demand the right to be allowed to go into combat, then they also get the responsibility to die in combat.

    PERSON A: But you’ll be weakening the military and condemning men to die!

    ME: No, I won’t be. I don’t want this at all. But feminists do.

    PERSON A: Look, I get what you’re saying and all. But you’re really willing to let people – men – DIE over this to make a point?

    ME: No. I’m not. But I’m also not willing to let people off the hook for risking peoples’ lives with this insanity. This isn’t a game. Either you don’t want women in combat, or you want women to die in combat. there is no in between.

  6. unsigma says:

    They can stand in front of us – as in radical feminists have stated that if women were in charge there would be no more war making selective service moot.

    They can stand beside us and accept the same responsibility while at the same time having less strength, endurance and skill than us.

    Or they can stand behind us and let us tell them how to stay alive.

    The current culture is all three at once.

  7. Jim says:

    Just more bitches and white knights who say women should have anything they want and in any way they please and if you deny them anything you’re labeled a “misogynist”, “coward” or some other silly shaming nonsense. Like Dalrock mentioned, the real cowards are those who just don’t have the guts to say that beautiful two letter word: No. Guys really need to grow some balls and real bad. What is it with these weak ass pussies? Were they all dominated by mommy when they were little? Geez.

  8. The Question says:

    “Only a Feminist Nation Drafts Its Mothers and Daughters into Combat”
    “Only a Matriarchal Nation Drafts Its Mothers and Daughters into Combat”

    Fixed it.

  9. PokeSalad says:

    The National Review has a new editorial

    Dayum, where’s my h/t? 🙂

    [D: I hadn’t seen that.]

  10. “Men aren’t cowering behind women, men are cowering in front of them.”

    I’ve been saying this about the church for many years.

    I was commissioned to write a position paper for my presbytery on women in the military. Its purpose was to have a defense for women being drafted on religious grounds. The paper stated in summary there is no warrant in scripture for women to be part of the military in any function. There was no argument on the merits of the paper, but there was an outcry on what the implications would require if such a rigid biblical stand was codified. The position was generally applauded, but adoption was indefinitely delayed by parliamentary wranglings. The church is afraid to fight for women and against feminism and so it is willing to let them fight and die at the hands of our enemies.. God is not mocked, we are reaping what Chisto-feminists have sown. By failure to pull the weed of feminism the complementarians have let it grow and take root.

  11. mrsktc says:

    Reblogged this on To our bodies turn we then and commented:
    Good post:

  12. cynthia says:

    18 year old girls have been traditionally kept off the front lines for three very important reasons:

    – Combat effectiveness
    – Their own safety
    – The reproductive future of their country

    You would think that the first bullet point would be more than enough. The second is a direct contradiction to this “protecting women” BS that is always drug up. The last is something so fundamental to civilization that it appears we’ve forgotten about it completely.

    What I find amazing is how everyone seems to have forgotten what this entire push was about in the first place; Army women wanting to receive credit for combat time. As I understand it, under the old rules, there were certain awards and recognition they weren’t qualified for on account of not holding a “combat MOS” which in turn affected the promotions process. It wasn’t about wanting to be in the Infantry. It was about being able to get a dec for something like returning fire when your convoy got attacked, etc. A simple rules fix would have corrected the whole mess. It’s an idiotic paperwork hiccup, one that likely affects male support troops as well. Hell, even creating a separate category for such situations and weighing it more lightly (so you don’t have to give them the same consideration as the combat troops) would have solved the problem. Tell women who are still whining after that to STFU. It’s not a hard answer. Certainly not worth hanging the entire future of the Army on.

    But the DoD bureaucracy is a disaster, and military men so frustratingly beta when it comes to women, so this is what we get instead. It’s so idiotic.

  13. Anon says:

    Too bad most cuckservatives don’t find out about articles like this (which will provoke them into making bigger fools of themselves)…

  14. Bruce says:

    Good catch Dalrock. I’m glad they didn’t ask Trump.

  15. Nothing like seeing a bunch of presidential candidates in the Republican party who want women to get raped.

    Because that is what happens when you put women on the front lines. You think these middle eastern men will treat them like proper women? No, these are people who play games where they gang-rape women.

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    cynthia
    What I find amazing is how everyone seems to have forgotten what this entire push was about in the first place; Army women wanting to receive credit for combat time. As I understand it, under the old rules, there were certain awards and recognition they weren’t qualified for on account of not holding a “combat MOS” which in turn affected the promotions process.

    Yeah, but it’s an older story that you think. During the invasion of Panama to take out Noriega (history book stuff, 1980’s) there was some girl MP LT. who led a couple of jeeps to attack some dog kennels or some similar Very Critical Military Objective. She put in for the CIB, the badge that Infantrymen get after combat. The Army turned her down, because Military Police are not Infantry (words mean things). She became a feminist cause celebre’ for years after that. Never mind that male-oppressor MP’s were not eligible for the CIB, A Woman Wanted Something!

    So your suggestion that the CIB be diluted to let various REMFs receive it is just another variation on the theme – words should mean only what a woman wants them to mean at the time.

    Now this whole “women should serve their country if they wanna because GRRLPOEWER” has taken on a life of its own. I can’t say when it will become obvious that feminism has jumped the shark, but recent events in Cologne, Germany are suggestive.

    Men have been afraid to say “no” to women for 40+ years. I have the modest proposal that any man who cannot say “no” to a woman isn’t any sort of “conservative” at all. I’m sure many won’t like this, because it is verifiable and testable, and doesn’t lend itself to a rousing round of No True Conservative.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tell women who are still whining after that to STFU. It’s not a hard answer.

    Apparently it is, or so the last 40 to 50 years of history tells me.

  18. Anon says:

    Among the legion of reasons to no longer vote for cuckservatives is that despite groveling to women, they have been branded as the ‘anti-woman’ party, and either lose female votes in droves, or retain a few through big-government spending on women.

    In other words, a collection of manginas. Grovel to women, yet not get women’s votes. Yeah, that is a winner to back….

  19. Anon says:

    swiftfoxmark2,

    Nothing like seeing a bunch of presidential candidates in the Republican party who want women to get raped.

    That should be the least of our concerns, and is certainly not our problem. Remember that a lot of women join the military because they WANT to get a free trip to the Middle East as a sex tourist.

    Plus, perhaps you have not figured out that the importation of Muslim men into the West is with the enthusiastic support of female voters, who voted for the politicians that did this, and STILL will no matter how many incidents like Cologne happen.

    The West would not be importing Muslims if female voters did not want it.

  20. TomG says:

    We will never have a draft so this is just nonsense. Also, just because the Selective Service might be opened for women doesn’t mean they will be forced into combat missions. Let’s be clear, where women are placed in service is the military’s discretion. Women in the military will at least free up more men to serve in the front lines. The future is drones, smart weapons, and terrorism. These politicians could be toeing the feminist line. The best offense is taking the feminist demands to their logical conclusion. Regular, normal women will eventually say no. Selective service should have a caveat that women can decide to ignore their summons. After all, how many men tried to opt out?

  21. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Yeah, but it’s an older story that you think. During the invasion of Panama to take out Noriega (history book stuff, 1980’s) there was some girl MP LT. who led a couple of jeeps to attack some dog kennels or some similar Very Critical Military Objective.

    If this is the situation I recall, she “lead them” over the radio, from the rear.

  22. Kevin says:

    Amazing. Very disappointing but the Republicans are not the traditional party they are apparently the small government strong military party. Bush even denounced the only cost saving measure ever – the sequester.

    Trump would at least have said to make America GREAT we need all the best people in the best spots and woman should be on the front lines- but only if they are the best! As the most liberal candidate by a wide margin I am sure he is all in for this crap.

  23. Anon says:

    Very disappointing but the Republicans are not the traditional party they are apparently the small government strong military party

    What? They are none of the above.

    They are the cuckservative party. A party of approval-seeking manginas.

  24. Having women vote and not be drafted means they get to rule the country with their vote whilst not sacrificing for that right. Why should a man die to protect the very women who vote against his very interests?

    Caring about combat effectiveness and whether women should be drafted and allowed to serve in combat is a side issue. The issue is that women should have been told ‘no’ at the start. No, you don’t get the vote, you don’t get an abortion, you can’t do everything you want, you don’t have the right to wear and do whatever the hell you want. There should be restrictions on women because nature itself provides them with enough power over men already. You give women more and this is the crap you end up with.

    I don’t care what this dipshitz say about women in the military, I care about what they say about the responsibilities that women have towards men and society. Until that is addressed, the rest is a crock of poo..

  25. Robert says:

    Dalrock,
    I’m leaving a comment here because I don’t want it getting lost in the older comments. Pastor Saeed’s sister has contacted me from an email I had sent to Franklin Graham’s retreat directed to Pastor Saeed ( from a link left here) asking if there was any way we could help Pastor Saeed.

    If there are brothers wanting to help Pastor Saeed please feel free to email me at aman.hiswife.thebible@gmail.com. I am not technical enough to set up a go fund me site so if there is someone that is able to help with that that would be good.

    She is going to speak to him and get back to me with how we can help best. And I will pass along those needs. But please keep him & his family in your prayers.

  26. It’s fascinating (and by fascinating, I mean sad) that women get “whatever you set your heart on” and dreams, but men get “man up” and duty.

  27. craig says:

    Even though I agree completely with your overall thrust that men are afraid to speak the truth about this, and that the military really is no place for women, the candidates were correct not to take the bait. Face it: this was a ‘gotcha’ question precisely intended to goad one of the candidates into saying “the poor dears can’t handle it”, which while true, would revive the #WarOnWomen campaign narrative and boost Hillary’s sagging polls. It is this year’s version of Stephanopoulos in 2012 asking Romney did he really want to ban contraception.

    Of course, the knowledge that this gotcha would have worked (again) is proof of how decadent we have become.

    Any good Democrat would know that the trick is to verbally pretend to defuse the electoral bomb while subtly leaving an out that indicates to one’s base that the bomb is still armed. Obama drops these pseudo-declarations all the time (e.g., with amnesty, health care, homosexual ‘marriage’): the moderates get the appearance of defending moderation, while the Left hears the insincerity and applauds it. In this situation, a candidate should say “women should not be denied jobs which they prove themselves capable of doing to the same standards, but military preparedness must always be job one”. Or something to that effect — no one can disagree with it, and it neither denies nor affirms the premise. Machiavellian? I suppose so, but be wise as serpents and all that. Why say things that aid the enemies of common sense, if you can fudge not saying them?

  28. Megamerc says:

    I’m all in favor of black knighting this. Women want into the military? Put them in the military and register them for selective service. Women want on the front lines? Put them there. In the very, very, very front.

  29. cynthia says:

    @Anon

    Interesting story. I haven’t heard that one before. I was commenting on what I saw when I was still in, but it doesn’t surprise me that this has been going on for longer than that. There’s always some idiot who wants to ruin it for everybody.

    So your suggestion that the CIB be diluted to let various REMFs receive it is just another variation on the theme – words should mean only what a woman wants them to mean at the time.

    This isn’t what I was suggesting. I don’t think we should dilute what’s already existing, as there are good reasons for certain things being specific to certain career fields. I wouldn’t advocate giving a flying medal to a Personnel guy either. However, considering the nature of combat today, there needs to be some kind of option for recognizing extraordinary actions taken by people who aren’t front line combat troops. The situation is such that people who shouldn’t be in combat are finding themselves there. My understanding (and I admit I could be wrong) is that the Army wasn’t accounting for that.

    There is obviously a line that can’t be crossed, and I’m sure there are women who have been agitating more than what’s reasonable. Demanding the exact same promotion consideration for lesser actions is wrong. If that’s what’s going on, those officers need to be told to shut up. However, having no credit/consideration awarded on the basis of MOS alone seems like an issue that goes beyond gender. And it’s not like pencil-whipping doesn’t already happen when it comes to senior officer promotability requirements. It’s nice to think that our upper ranks are populated by the best warriors in the service, but truth is, everything above O-5 is strictly political.

    It’s not an ideal situation, but the Army should have dealt internally with this problem immediately. Instead, they’re attempting to troll Congress by proposing women should be drafted. Anyone in the military who’s got any grasp on reality knows this is insane. This is a paperwork game. It should have stayed a paperwork game.

  30. If women want to vote, they must be drafted.

  31. If we combine your posts on Pastor Abedeni and this post perhaps we can understand better why THe Ree-pew-bicks are cowering. Women are consistently irrational and ALWAYS favor the woman by about 6 to 1. If you are ACCUSED of abuse by ANY woman no matter the circumstances you are GUILTY. Done. No defense. Put a fork in it.

    If you do not pander sufficiently you are anti-woman. If you oppose to women in combat you are restricting women. If you do not roar loud enough against an ALLEGED abuser with the most extreme and ridiculous allegations possible then you HATE women.

    The democraps are openly saying it: If you don’t vote for Hillary, the woman, and you don’t favor and support the woman THERE IS A SPECIAL PLACE IN HELL FOR YOU.

    I notice you didn’t include a quote from Trump, the only Alpha male in the race. He also has a secret weapon in his daughter so he is not afraid to stand up to the the fem-cunts.

  32. LeeLee says:

    Feminists are all about sleuthing for supposed misogynistic hidden cultural symbols and “microaggressions” — well, this is one of theirs.

    You could debate whether or not a draft is even likely to happen (I would argue that it’s not and I think they’re counting on that), but it doesn’t matter. The symbolic damage is enough to deliver a serious hit to the heart of both manhood and womanhood.

    Women — you’re not the humble, grateful recipients of protection anymore. You are now the protectors – of men. Your delicate vulnerability which was your beauty has been cancelled. Men — your core identity as protectors and warriors has been compromised. Your access to masculine honor and respect has been cut off.

    Welcome to the new world where we’re all just gray, nebulous, poorly defined genderless humans.

  33. Joe says:

    I’m in favor of drafting women because if we have to gender norm the infantry in the name of equality, then we by fuck should be drafting them for the infantry too, in the name of equality.

    Oh, does this ever end badly.

    But I sort of don’t care at this point. If this is what America wants, then this is what our stupid, sheep like left wing moron citizenry deserves. Maybe a really hard crash landing, and soon, knocks this stupidity out of their head. And if it doesn’t… well, black knighting on this will ensure that the misery ends more sooner than later. Matter of fact, I want gender parity in the infantry within a year. Make it happen, Mabus and Carter.

  34. UpInSmoke says:

    @Cynthia: There are already alternatives for the CIB: the Combat Action Badge (non-Infantry MOS) and the Combat Medic Badge (combat medics only). The former was created in 2005 and retroactively awarded for folks who had been in direct action at any point since 2001 once it became clear that “the front line” as we knew it didn’t really exist anymore, the latter in 1945. So no, “a simple rules fix”, as you phrased it, would not have corrected this. The rules fix is here and women still demanded to be let into male space.

  35. Pingback: Cowering in front of women. | Reaction Times

  36. Lazelle says:

    The push to get women into combat positions has never been from men. It has been from the feminists. No person, woman or man, should be allowed to hold a position they are not capable of performing. Women are so used to the privilege of attaining jobs that better qualified men are denied, that they are now convinced they can out perform men in every endeavor. We are all blessed to live in a time that affords society the luxury of such gross inefficiencies. There will come a time in the immediate future of our world that all of this nonsense will be cast aside because it will be necessary to our survival, individually and collectively. Nature has a callous and powerful way of achieving balance, and it will not be pretty.

  37. Jim says:

    “Having women vote and not be drafted means they get to rule the country with their vote whilst not sacrificing for that right. Why should a man die to protect the very women who vote against his very interests?”

    Thank you. If she wants equality then she can suffer like men do. Well what if it hurts the military effectiveness? I say let the damn ass woman protectors in the military get killed if that’s the case. Let them die protecting the almighty girl power she-males yet defenseless, delicate little flower female (contradictory eh?) and maybe some of those men will learn a lesson and protect themselves instead.

    What if they get captured and raped? Well, so what? That’s THEIR decision. Human stupidity seems to know no limits so why not do what God would do. What is that you say? This:

    Let them learn the hard way.

    Ooooh how misogynistic of me some say! I guess God hates everyone then. You think he showed any mercy when he warns people of what’s going to happen to them and they don’t listen and do something stupid anyway? You think God gives pussy passes? Try Lot’s wife. Remember what happened to her after God warned her and Lot what would happen if they looked back? After Lot’s wife did it anyway did God look at the ground and say, “Oh ok, since you’re just a girl you don’t have to suffer the consequences of your actions. It will only apply to your husband. Nope. BOOM, he let her have it.

    Sorry guys but some dumb asses just have to learn the hard way sometimes. Live with it. I’d even say that in most cases the more they suffer the better. They’ll actually LEARN something for fucking once! It sucks but hey, not my problem. it’s theirs.

  38. ray says:

    “The candidates framed the issue as a women’s rights issue, and National Review framed this as a women’s safety/privilege issue. Both are avoiding saying no to women, they are just using different methods of avoidance.”

    Left, Right, Center — they serve the FI, not God . . . or even the nation. Nobody of any gender or political persuasion takes office in America unless the FI approves. Take it from the National Cucked Review:

    “Men should protect women.”

    Rebellion against God and against male authority won’t be protected. No matter how much shaming or however many ‘laws’ you inflict. That goes for male, female, fauna, flora, and everything else. Including nations.

    No obedience, no protection.

  39. Joe says:

    @Jim – indeed. There is a physics in battle – heavy stuff to carry, hard stuff to dig in, fast moving bits of metal, rock, or if you’re particularly unlucky your friends trying to blow through you, gear like tank tracks that is impossible to maintain and fix if you can’t lift 150 pounds, enemies who match up with you in close combat based on size, physical ability, genetic ability and how much work has been done in training (work over time = your ability to fight) and so forth. *Everything* in actual battle is about the physics of the thing, it is force meets force.

    Aggressively revolutionary political philosophy is simply inadequate to overcome physics, no matter how vicious the SJWs are when they spout it. A mouthy 98 pound female activist will never beat a male fist from an enemy or a properly delivered butt stroke series to the head from one of our male enemies. *Ever*. This idea will die eventually, likely in the same way that a lot of American women do, bayonetted, head crushed by a rock, overpowered in a fight by a much stronger force. Or raped to death. They really like rape.

    Come on women, you been talkin a lot of shit lately. Let’s hear you roar and see your war face. And BTW, no student loans, federally backed mortgages, small business loans or jack shit, until you register for the draft. Sorry – equality. You understand, right?

  40. ascott1978 says:

    For what it’s worth, I left this comment at The Corner
    “This article feels like arguing for a kinder, gentler feminism; one where women have the right to join the military, but never to be forced to do it. They should explore their dreams, but other people face the consequences. Men should protect the weak and helpless, but women are never too weak and helpless to be just like a man, unless they don’t want it at the time. If you want men to “man up”, they probably will for a woman, but not for a female who acts like a man except for accepting consequences. Our government has decided that women can be in combat; if so, then there is no reason that the burden of conscription should fall solely on the shoulders of men for the sake of a chivalry which is not wanted or appreciated elsewhere. And,now is the time for us to hash this out, before we’re in a real war and wake up to how unreal all of this is.”

    sorry if I’m posting this more than once – I’ve never commented here before and maybe I’ve screwed up the submit button…

  41. ascott1978 says:

    Actually, by now I’ve made a lot of points there; you can find me as A Scot, if you’re interested.

  42. @Megamerc –>> I’m all in favor of black knighting this….

    The cancer needs to be removed, but not at the expense of the host, civilization. I believe that the mature, manly and Christian thing to do is to rid society of feminism and take dominion in the patriarchal fashion of the Bible. That objective is both arduous and unpleasant, but war is seldom pleasant, it is just preferred to the alternative. It is up to men to put down feminism and say no to the shortsightedness of women. That repentance begins in the church, and then in no particular order: law, politics, business, art, media, economics, education, and medicine. Without reformation back to patriarchy, society will languish in the excruciating decay of the feminist malignancy, in all it’s various strains and pathologies.

  43. Cane Caldo says:

    Holding the door for feminists.

  44. patriarchal landmine says:

    as a child abuse survivor, I am absolutely finished protecting women.

    they deserve everything that’s coming to them, and more.

  45. Anon says:

    I am absolutely finished protecting women.
    they deserve everything that’s coming to them, and more.

    Indeed. While some people whine about the Cologne incidents, while others cover it up, the real question is overlooked :

    Why have there not been more incidents in the 40 days since?

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Craig

    Even though I agree completely with your overall thrust that men are afraid to speak the truth about this, and that the military really is no place for women, the candidates were correct not to take the bait. Face it: this was a ‘gotcha’ question precisely intended to goad one of the candidates into saying “the poor dears can’t handle it”, which while true, would revive the #WarOnWomen campaign narrative and boost Hillary’s sagging polls.

    This reinforces my point. The candidates are quite obviously pandering to women. All three made very open feminist arguments. Then the NR comes along and panders to women by accusing the candidates of pandering to men. No one actually believes this, but it allows the NR (and Walsh, and the CBMW, and everyone else who adopts this pose) to frame themselves as heroic while taking the easy road.

  47. American says:

    I wholly agree with Dalrock’s analysis in this post.

  48. Kevin says:

    @Craig

    This is an astute observation. I don’t know what they believe but pandering to women is no more criminal that pandering to anyone else. This was probably a war on women set up and they avoided it. Expecting our politicians to speak truth to power. The liberal Trump sort of did on immigration despite fact his white papers are middle of road stuff but otherwise that’s not really how a Republican can operate with the media at their throats.

  49. donalgraeme says:

    @ Dalrock

    So basically, its feminism all the way down?

  50. Spike says:

    Dalrock has pointed out a number of times here that con-(‘cuck’)-servatives are simply an anchor dragging on the progressive Agenda. They differ in degree, but not in type, of political thinking. Thus they have undoubtedly gotten access to polling which tells them that they can lure the Women’s vote on this issue, so they will play the rhetoric of “Women in Combat” because “Men won’t Man Up”.
    The big problem is when policy gets implemented and they have to deliver on those policies. Another large scale war is entirely possible, with a proxy war happening in Syria. This however would be the sideshow. The real war will be civil, as incompatible religions clash in developed countries.
    Will women soldiers really carry out and implement what would be necessary to ensure survival in such a civil war? Would men, who may enlist to protect their way of life really try saving women who demand more fatherlessness, more welfare, more separation, more abortion, more cuckoldry, more divorce – in other words, more feminism? Logic tells us all that men won’t – and that is where the late great West will decline.
    Civilisations die because men in them don’t perceive them as worth saving. It’s that simple.

  51. ChildofRa says:

    Why do would need a draft anyway? If you want to serve our country then go right on ahead. As for women in the military personal I dont like the idea of it but hey if you do it,gotta roll with the punches.

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock on the 1980’s feminist icon:

    If this is the situation I recall, she “lead them” over the radio, from the rear.

    That sorta is plausible. Anyway, it’s not a new thing. It’s in fact a version of the same old feminist territory-marking. With all the socially promoted female officers in the DOD now, we can only expect more of the same.

    Returning to NRO, I consult my Magic 8-ball and conclude that the writers there are going to get really, really tired of the word “cuckservative” this year…

  53. joshtheaspie says:

    @Jonadab-the-Rechabite

    To what civilization do you refer?

  54. Isa says:

    I shall leave this here. Upside for the finances at least if women are allowed in!!!
    http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/02/dod-to-pay-women-73-cents/

  55. Taciturn says:

    Dalrock –

    CBMW joins the chorus of feminists here:
    http://cbmw.org/topics/manhood/we-will-never-let-our-daughters-die-for-us/
    and here:
    http://cbmw.org/public-square/the-christian-worldview-stands-against-women-in-the-draft/

    The second calls for women to draft-dodge, saying “it should still be the woman’s choice”.

  56. Dale says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    >I have the modest proposal that any man who cannot say “no” to a woman isn’t any sort of “conservative” at all..

    Your comment made me think of my choice to say “no” to the option to marry the kind of woman typically available. I do not identify as MGTOW, but being able to say no would be a critical part thereof.

  57. infowarrior1 says:

    Excepting Thomas Sowell of course.

  58. I don’t think people are even remotely honest about the reasons why women enlist in the military. They do it because they love the attention of men. They do it to be around men, to be intimate with lots of men. It has nothing to do with wanting to serve or die for their country. It is about upping their sexual odds as much as possible by immersing themselves in as many horny men as they can find. This is calculated. On this, women aren’t stupid. They are maximizing their SMV.

    Of all the women I knew that enlisted (and that is very few and was just the navy and the air force) most of them caught themselves a husband. Most of them. They were mostly married to a sailor or another airman before they were even 22. Married. All the ones who WANTED to be married (young) well, they were married. Not hard at all for them. And the few that weren’t (which included a couple ex-GFs of mine) they admitted to me that they just wanted to be around men. They love men. They love to party (and have sex) with lots of men. Right or wrong. But it is what it is.

    The best adaptation of women serving in the military (in a movie that is pretty recent) is Camp X-Ray.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X-Ray_(film)

    IMHO, that was Kristen Stewart’s best acting performance of her life. Now maybe that is not saying very much (as she is not much of an actress) but I think she totally nailed this role. She exemplified the concept of military women really wanting to be around and intimate with men (even to the point where she all but molests another soldier in the bathroom when he walks in on her looking at a porno magazine.) You see her and two other female soldiers wearing bikinis and going out on a charter boat with their male soldier comrades while they are all on liberty, that is totally what happens for women in the military.

  59. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Nice Post Mr.’D’. I think women should be drafted into the military and put to the riggers of combat just like men.I also want to see the same numbers of body bags,male & female,coming home.All in the name of “equality”! Anything short of this is not “true equality”.Let the femtards get “whacked” on the battlefield.

  60. Hermes says:

    Nitpick: the title of the magazine is [i]National Review[/i]. There’s no [i]The[/i].

    [D: Thanks. Fixed.]

  61. KP says:

    Jonadab,

    Ah, are you PCUSA too? I’m hanging in there, somehow. (Where ‘somehow’ is in large part being in a theologically-conservative congregation in a theologically-conservative region. Our watchword: “May the Lord bless and keep the General Assembly…. FAR away from us!”)

  62. Roger says:

    Dalrock, and many commenters, have hit on the real drive to have women in combat: whenever feminists see “male space,” they want to break it up and infiltrate it, no matter what it is. When they see a male-dominated field, they are more driven by fantasies about being the “first woman” to break into it than by a genuine interest in the field. As for “female space,” well, that’s a different matter. They take it as a matter of course that they should have their female-only space.
    But I don’t have much patience for people who argue: “Well, yes, let’s put them in combat and keep them there until they’ve had their fill of ‘equality.'” As if this were some sort of debate tournament, and forcing women into combat would certainly show them a thing or two! I don’t care about winning “debates.” I care about our survival as a nation and as a civilization. Having women in combat–even on a volunteer basis, nevermind comscription–weakens our fighting forces. Our casualties will go way up, and our military effectiveness will be greatly compromised. All so that we can “win” the debate with the feminists by giving them a taste of their own medicine. That’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.

  63. desiderian says:

    Nova,

    “to pummel men in general for being inadequately masculine, which is, of course, a favorite pasttime of the culture as a whole (heck, it’s even a recurrent theme among some commenters on this blog, of all places).

    You’re right that it’s all cowardice in any case”

    So are you including yourself and Dalrock among those “pummeling men for being inadequately masculine”? You’re both calling (some) men cowards here. What could be less masculine?

  64. john03063 says:

    Make selecting service gender neutral. Draft women. spend taxpayer money to train them. Send them overseas. Do all this and you still will never see a woman in combat unless it is her choice. When it’s time to face the enemy, any woman who doesn’t want to participate can simply get pregnant. Pregnancy disqualifies her from front line duty, and they all know it. She’ll get a cushy desk job somewhere (or maybe even get sent home), and lots of bennies for her and her child. Maybe even an honorable discharge for being (but not serving) in a front line position. We’re going to allow this while weakening our military and putting our men at risk? It’s been proven time and time again that women increase the danger for everyone on the front lines. I say it’s time for men to take a stand by refusing to join the military or leaving as soon as they can. Military MGTOW.

  65. Herman Robak says:

    (This is kind of an aside, but not very far off-topic, in my opinion…)

    @TomG

    Let’s be clear, where women are placed in service is the military’s discretion. Women in the military will at least free up more men to serve in the front lines. The future is drones, smart weapons, and terrorism.

    Speaking of drones and smart weapons, in the context of humouring women. An article(*) about Microsoft’s voice interface agent “Cortana” was brought to my attention the other day. Quote:

    “According to Harrison, when Cortana was first launched in 2014, “a good chunk of early queries were about her sex life.” Now the team behind the AI is fighting back; Cortana is a true woman of the 21st century, you see, and she doesn’t take any crap.”

    Now extrapolate this, say, ten or twenty years into the future. Some not-too-distant descendant of Cortana is now controlling a drone, or some other device with lethal capabilities. Autonomously. Fatal hilarity ensues…

    Surely I jest, but not entirely so. If a mad genious or a budding AI were to play the long game, then pandering to one half of the competition (here: humanity) could buy some time to gain total superiority. Especially if they choose the half with the fewest super-geniouses and contrarians.

    I’m not saying that this is how it’s going to play out. It’s just one of many plausible outcomes, where feminism provides the useful idiots to be played for fools. And that part would hardly surprise anyone here…

    (*) http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/microsoft-cortana-sexual-harassment/

  66. hoellenhund2 says:

    military men so frustratingly beta when it comes to women

    Does that actually surprise you? Soldiers are expected to face horrible suffering and death, and they are told such sacrifice is necessary to defend the virtues, welfare and safety of “their” women. Do you think it’s a coincidence that it’s usually betas who willingly sign up for that?

  67. It’s been proven time and time again that women increase the danger for everyone on the front lines. I say it’s time for men to take a stand by refusing to join the military or leaving as soon as they can. Military MGTOW.

    It’s for this reason that the draft must include women. For the insanity to stop, the insanity must be increased quickly and to levels where normal people have an absolute heart attack. Only then will change occur, we must go towards the abyss and then into it to fully emerge from feminist insanity…. or die trying.

    Women in combat is a must, the death tolls must increase, the injuries must increase, the losing of battles and wars must be had to once and for all disprove the notion that women should have equal rights as men. I fully support every and all females being drafted, even the pregnant ones!

    Onwards, to glory!

  68. I care about our survival as a nation and as a civilization. Having women in combat–even on a volunteer basis, nevermind comscription–weakens our fighting forces. Our casualties will go way up, and our military effectiveness will be greatly compromised. All so that we can “win” the debate with the feminists by giving them a taste of their own medicine. That’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    This civilization is not worth saving, it treats men like crap. Why would you even consider that men would want to save it? Your fighting forces are so greatly hamstrung already they cannot even beat cattle herders or some 30000 IS forces. This isn’t about winning some stupid debate with feminists, this is about completely and utterly destroying the myth of female equality to males and thus removing their rights to vote and order men around and about restoring men to their rightful authority in both their homes and communities.

    Most Western Nations around the world are female dominated and thus females must put up or shut up as it were. They MUST be drafted, end of discussion. They want the vote, they get the draft.

  69. I’ll just ask a question of all the chest bangers here stating that civilization is worth saving…

    What did those men who fought for and died in WW1 and WW2 get out of it?

  70. rugby11 says:

    Nothing out prices the ability to live with oneself.
    “Men aren’t cowering behind women, men are cowering in front of them.”

  71. Emily says:

    I’ve always wondered why some women want to join the military. It seems so unfeminine. There seem to be three main reasons:
    1) to usurp the roles of men (mostly devout feminists in this bunch)
    2) snag a husband
    3) be around men and have a good time
    Given the marriage market these days, I can almost understand number 2. But surely there are easier ways to accomplish this. Numbers 1 and 3 are just wrong.

  72. @ KP

    Not PCUSA. I have served in the OPC, the PCA and the CPC,. The result is the same, “don’t offend the chicks” that is not gentile and Christ-like.

  73. Kevin says:

    Cuckservative, with few exceptions, is a word that signals the user is a retarded political neophyte more impressed with tantrums than the actual hard work of the political process. This assumption is usually rapidly confirmed by the user announcing he supports Trump because…reasons. NR must be failing conservatives, so let’s rally behind a complete liberal because he “talks tough” on immigration but changes his opinions so fast we really have no idea what he believes. I really sympathize with the what has that party done for me lately, but the insanity of the Trump is just that. Its comedy hour in America.

    As for betas being more willing to be in the military than alphas, that does not track very well unless alpha means PUA pansy. Evo-psych wise the alpha is the dominant male and therefor the male most likely to confer protection. Good genes are crap if the kids get killed. Alphas are often protectors, but not always. Alpha tendencies are often violent tendencies. We tend to forget that violence is the primary alpha feature because in our current non-violent era we conflate alpha with has lots of sex when alpha more correctly is about how much violence a man can do to dominate other men.

  74. michael savell says:

    At the end of ww2 in the UK,most of the men that came back in one piece did not automatically get their jobs back,these jobs and these were not ones where you had to keep up to date with courses etc.
    If you allow women to have the choice of joining up or not,be prepared to kiss any hopes of future
    gainful employment goodbye,because you will be totally redundant when you come home.Ask
    Vietnam etc vets how they were treated.I saw ex soldiers on the streets selling matches to get a meal,standing on their one good leg.Forget trying to be a hero,it lasts 5 minutes until some woman sticks you with something.Be wise and live another day.Some other country takes over,might be your lucky break.

  75. @Kevin

    It’s not “Trump because… reasons” it’s Trump because of immigration. If immigration continues, conservatives lose ground on all other important issues because immigrants all vote Democrat. If you think importing lots of non-white third-worlder’s is no big deal, then you haven’t been paying attention to the Left and their dangerous racial identity politics. Can you imagine, given the anti-White sentiment that permeates the zeitgeist, how bad it would be for Whites to be a minority in the US? Do you think that a Mestizo majority would be as good to a White minority as a White majority is to a Mestizo minority? No way.

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kevin
    Cuckservative, with few exceptions, is a word that signals the user is a retarded political neophyte more impressed with tantrums than the actual hard work of the political process.

    Cool rant, bro. Tell us all more about the hard work of the political process. Nobody here has any idea what that looks like, nope. Not a one of us.

    Lay it out for us. Don’t use big words, we’s all too retarded in our politics to grasp the hard words.

  77. No Kev, it’s quite obvious why the word Cuckservative is used. Conservatives haven’t conserved their nations, their identity or the religion, they only care about taxes and conserving the status quo at that point in time.

    I guess you’re a cuckservative then?

  78. frenchy says:

    At Anon reader.

    The Army did eventually come up with a combat award for the non-infrantry/SF branches. They had to. What was happening was that the CIB granted promotion points only to the infantry/SF types. So if you were any other MOS, and in combat, you got nothing, but your infantry/SF brother got, I believe, 35 points. It simply was not fair, so they created the Combat Action Badge.

  79. Novaseeker says:

    It’s not “Trump because… reasons” it’s Trump because of immigration.

    I actually see Trump as being basically one set of white folks against another set of white folks. It’s basically working class and lower middle class whites against upper middle class and elite whites (and, yes, it’s because the former see the latter as selling them out with immigration, but not only that — it’s also about trade deals, globalization, income disparity, bank bailouts and so on). On the Democratic side, it’s also working class and some middle class whites, plus the young, against the elite white democrats and the non-whites, as Sanders and his mostly white fans will soon be learning in Nevada. Poor whites are actually somewhat split between Trump, who is anti-immigrant, and Sanders, who is not anti-immigration but is very anti-elite. Both Trump’s supporters and Sanders’ supporters hate the elite, and their reasons for doing so do overlap somewhat, but also differ somewhat when it comes to things like immigration and social issues.

  80. Emily,

    I’ve always wondered why some women want to join the military. It seems so unfeminine. There seem to be three main reasons:
    1) to usurp the roles of men (mostly devout feminists in this bunch)
    2) snag a husband
    3) be around men and have a good time

    I basically said this up-thread. I think #2 and #3 are where its at… chiefly.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    frenchy
    Combat Action Badge

    Makes sense. I know of a woman in a transportation unit who did pretty well in a counter-ambush gunfight over in the sandbox back 10 years ago. She and the others in the unit fought well. Some kind of recognition certainly was merited and if the Big Green Machine chose / chooses to take such recognition into account in promotions I think that’s fine.

    The trouble is, after the action was done then I had to hear “See! See! Women can so be infantry!” as if a 20 minute counter ambush gunfight out the door of a truck with only a belt of 30-round mags as a load is just like a typical day at the office in Infantry…

    Again, all this is feminist territory marking, and it’s predicated on the “women are just like men except babies” false premise. It’s remarkable how buck-nekkid the Emperor is, and yet, and yet…all the manly-man Conservatives can’t bring themselves to Just Say NO to a woman / women.

  82. Emily says:

    @innocentbystanderboston
    Yes, I read your comments with great interest. I was just trying to boil it down for myself. Thanks for the insight:)

  83. Snowy says:

    The percentage of actual women actually desirous of entering combat must surely be infinitesimal. It’s purely political vote-buying, since the 99.99% (recurring) of women not desirous of entering combat will vote for it because…usurp men’s roles; invade men’s spaces; penis envy, etc. So it’s just another straight-forward case of politicians securing the vote. Should never have allowed women the vote.

  84. JDG says:

    Should never have allowed women the vote.

    Exactly!

  85. PokeSalad says:

    The percentage of actual women actually desirous of entering combat must surely be infinitesimal.

    I promise you the percentage of men isn’t significantly higher.

  86. I promise you the percentage of men isn’t significantly higher.

    Yeah, but that’s not really a point. Men don’t get the choice of whether to enter combat if they are drafted. They get shoved in there and have to do what they are told. And then they get shafted some more when they get back and find their jobs gone and their lives destroyed.

    Whilst women get to vote, watch the battles on the sidelines and choose whether they want to participate at all. And because of this, those very men who fight don’t return home as masculine heroes but as simple soldiers equal to those same women who got to sit it all out but who can now pretend that they were every bit as heroic but stating the ever popular, “men and women in our military”…

    Screw it all!

  87. Dalrock says:

    @Emily

    I’ve always wondered why some women want to join the military. It seems so unfeminine. There seem to be three main reasons:
    1) to usurp the roles of men (mostly devout feminists in this bunch)
    2) snag a husband
    3) be around men and have a good time
    Given the marriage market these days, I can almost understand number 2. But surely there are easier ways to accomplish this. Numbers 1 and 3 are just wrong.

    I think the sexual/marriage opportunities are one lure. But I don’t think this is the driving desire, at least to explain the burning desire of the original entryists.

    For the entryists, there is one core desire that we see expressed in two different ways. At the root it is a desire to be “one of the guys”. This is envy of men at a very basic level. While the apex fallacy is true, even the average man has a status that women envy; he is “one of the guys”, and taken seriously by other men. The first expression of this envy/desire is sincere, and this is women who want the opportunity to succeed or fail as they would if they were men. Men have great sympathy for this category of women, and they tend to be the first ones men let in (unless hard core feminists are able to simply order the group to accept women). Women who not only start but remain in this first category are rare, and the easiest way to spot them is their frustration about what women in category 2 do.

    Category 2 women may have had the same original desire, but somewhere along the way figured out that they will never be “one of the guys”, and won’t even be able to bask in a modified version of this like category 1 women can. Since they can’t have it, they don’t want anyone else to have it either (man or woman). Category 2 women make it their mission to enter the male space to destroy it as a male space. The hallmark of these women is constant agitation to modify the space in feminine ways. Thus the bizarre obsession by women in the military to be seen breastfeeding in uniform. Another expression of this is the push to make the men march in high heels. Some of these will be over the top, but other demands will also be practical and seem reasonable (separate lockers, bathrooms, etc).

    From a practical level the biggest problem is that category 1 women break in and then inevitably pave the way for a much larger group of category 2 women to follow and focus on destroying what they can’t have (manly pride). Ironically, category 1 women are much more aware of this than men, as most men mistakenly assume that the category 2 women are from category 1.

  88. Pingback: Collective delusion | Dalrock

  89. Anonymous Reader says:

    Excellent summary, Dalrock. I have worked with Category 1 women in various demanding fields and they generally are OK. They also can be reasonably good supervisors, as long as they don’t succumb to the sistahood & start catering to Cat 2 women. Which brings up a point…

    There have been rumblings from time to time to apply Title IX to STEM, because despite all the “gap-closing” & such, it appears that when it comes to engineers, science, techs, coders, etc. women top out at about 20% of the group, max. (Doctors are different because Clinton mandated 50/50 med skools). So this surely must be discriminAYshunun, not a combination of traits, talents, and preferences on the part of women. Yet, I know women who toe the feminist line in STE who are totallly opposed to applying Title IX to STE. It never made sense to me before, but your model explains this. Those women are Cat 1 women who are capable of the work and opposed to letting Cat 2 women in just because they have boobs.

    Your model explains a piece of reality beter than any other model. That’s very convincing.

    Now I want funding to do PET scans on a few hundred Cat 1 and Cat 2 women to see if their brains have any notable differences or not…

  90. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Woo hoo…I chimed in over at The Corner as well.

    Why was their not speaking out surprising to you. Conservatives (especially males) have evolved into de facto feminist allies, manginas, and white knights. No one wants to say “no” to the Feminine Imperative, much less to women.

    If this plays out, it’s going to have to play all the way out, and it will NOT be the average man’s fault, but the fault of cuckservatives who have bowed to the stronghold of the the feminine primary social order.

    They should have said NO – to no fault divorce, NO – to abortion, NO – to default custody, NO – to serving in combat roles, NO – to VAWA, NO. NO. NO to anything that could potentially break up and destroy families and sully the souls of women.

    Men saying NO to women should have ALSO meant saying NO to so much of the Eve-like nature that exalts itself against God and enables so much sinful and irresponsible behavior throughout the diaspora of the American landscape.

    Feminism is Anti-Christ. And a feminist, gynocentric society will fall like Rome. As well it SHOULD.

  91. Dalrock,

    @Emily

    I’ve always wondered why some women want to join the military. It seems so unfeminine. There seem to be three main reasons:
    1) to usurp the roles of men (mostly devout feminists in this bunch)
    2) snag a husband
    3) be around men and have a good time
    Given the marriage market these days, I can almost understand number 2. But surely there are easier ways to accomplish this. Numbers 1 and 3 are just wrong.

    I think the sexual/marriage opportunities are one lure. But I don’t think this is the driving desire, at least to explain the burning desire of the original entryists.

    For the entryists, there is one core desire that we see expressed in two different ways. At the root it is a desire to be “one of the guys”. This is envy of men at a very basic level…..

    ….Women who not only start but remain in this first category are rare, and the easiest way to spot them is their frustration about what women in category 2 do.

    Category 2 women may have had the same original desire, but somewhere along the way figured out that they will never be “one of the guys”, and won’t even be able to bask in a modified version of this like category 1 women can. Since they can’t have it, they don’t want anyone else to have it either (man or woman). Category 2 women make it their mission to enter the male space to destroy it as a male space.

    Mmmmm, no. This is not red pill. I’m sorry Dalrock, this is almost blue pill. And after I get done explaining why, I think you might even agree.

    The mistake you are making regarding women enlisting (with your category 1 women and your category 2 women) versus my reasoning (women joining the military to find a husband and/or party and ride cock carrousel) is that you are listening to the loudest women. You are basing your reasoning on feminist women who are screaming the loudest. In this instance, they are the minority (and their screams might even be… LIES that they are telling.) The majority of women who enlist, do so for very pragmatic reasons (the reasons I gave) and they are entirely quiet about them. Silent. They do NOT want you (or me, or anyone really) to know what their true motives are. Do that, and they most CERTAINLY will not be taken… seriously. In that sense, their silence, adds to their power.

    I have a little bit of personal experience here on the silence part. When I was young boy, I was girl crazy. I totally loved being around girls. I suppose you could say (from a childlike innocence kind of way) I was in a perpetual state of horniness. I just couldn’t be away from the girls. I loved them too much. I loved them so much that I invaded THEIR space, and got involved in drama, musicals, and dancing. In school, I was an athlete, but also I was heavily involved with musical theater. I can’t say I didn’t enjoy performing and singing, I did. But that wasn’t the motive for joining those extra-circulars’. I just wanted all the attention I got for being one of the only boys surrounded by pretty girls. But NO WAY was I going to let them know about that. I would lose my power. The same is true for girls who enlist in the army, air force, navy, and especially, the marines. They simply HAVE TO BE where the young men are, have to be where the testosterone is. Due to nothing but their hormones, they are almost COMPELLED to enlist! They aren’t doing this because of penis envy or to vengefully destroy a male space. They do it because they are boy crazy. And they are quiet about it. And I can see this very clearly because that reality is pure red-pill.

    As red pill men, we can’t mistake obnoxious loudness for reality. Its kind of like you going off on National Review and cuckservatives. They are pretty loud about being pro-feminist. But at the end of the day, I think even they would admit that their ideals are in complete conflict with reality, a reality they have to deny if they want to maximize their readership and placate the sensitivities of their feminist wives and daughters.

    -IBB

  92. Pingback: Drafting Women | Free Northerner

  93. Emily says:

    @Dalrock
    This is interesting. I never thought of Category 2 women in that way. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that they simply wanted a husband and once they achieved that goal were no longer interested in staying in the military. There is no other place where there is such a concentration of masculine men which might explain a woman’s desire to enlist. Still, it seems to me that women who are less feminine than most are the ones who want to join. I must admit I’m baffled by the desire to join (from a woman’s point of view).

    I can see how Category 1 women pave the way for all the others. They wanted an opportunity to prove that they are equal to men in some respect and now other women are ruining it for them.

    @innocentbystanderboston
    I can see your point about wanting to be around the opposite sex so badly that you try to invade their space. I suppose women are worse in this regard because some women want what you described and others are just envious of men. As Dalrock said, women can spot the difference better than men. Interesting.

  94. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    The mistake you are making regarding women enlisting (with your category 1 women and your category 2 women) versus my reasoning (women joining the military to find a husband and/or party and ride cock carrousel) is that you are listening to the loudest women. You are basing your reasoning on feminist women who are screaming the loudest.

    Category 1 women are not only rare, they are much quieter than the average feminist. They are however the women the loud feminists pose as/point to in order to to open the male space. For an example of a Category 1 woman I offer the author of: https://web.archive.org/web/20120712085432/http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

    She very much wants to be one of the guys, but she is arguing against the feminist position.

    Your argument that women want to be around men for sexual access is (as I already noted) also true. But the two are separate, and non exclusive.

  95. Pingback: Drafting Women | To our bodies turn we then

  96. Pingback: No crisis here. | Dalrock

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