Every submarine, every SEAL team.

Oscar commented:

I’ve served in all-male units and I’ve served in mixed sex units, and the all-male units simply worked more smoothly…

This of course was what the Marine Corps found when they compared teams with all men and mixed sex teams.  The Marine Corps study was promptly dismissed because it doesn’t fit the narrative.  The only solution here is to make it impossible to compare mixed sex and all male units.  This is one of the reasons that all units, every single one, must include women. If there are any units without women, the men will be able to identify the difference.  Every submarine, every SEAL team, etc. must include a woman or it will be possible to point out that all male teams perform better.  This won’t happen overnight, but it is the fundamental goal and we should expect that it will eventually be accomplished.

The other reason this has to happen is women’s envy of gratitude and respect. Our nation must never again be grateful for the sacrifice of men without in the same breath stating that we are equally grateful for the sacrifice of the women who were present. At all costs.  Never again. To feminists it is better to lose a battle, or even a war, than to suffer that unbearable indignity.  Our political and military leaders have heard this order, and are fully committed to carrying it out.

The new bargain here is identical to the new bargain on marriage. Men will retain sole responsibility for the success or failure of the mission, but women will be declared fully equal partners while having a long list of special rights. This is why the fact that failure is much more likely doesn’t really bother most (conservatives or liberals). All we need is for the men to stop complaining, man up, and somehow make it all work. Then we can get on with the business of thanking the men and women who protected us.

This entry was posted in Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Military, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

105 Responses to Every submarine, every SEAL team.

  1. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    “At all costs. Never again. To feminists it is better to lose a battle, or even a war, than to suffer that unbearable indignity.” [OP]

    Great, so: in the near future, after Hillary is POTUS & Commander-in-Chief, and in a confrontation over the Spratleys & Paracels, the People’s Republic of China puts four American aircraft carriers at the bottom of the western Pacific with their fancy new missiles (and help with satellite telemetry sold to them by back channels courtesy of Hillary’s husband, back in the 1990s), how many days minutes before there is a coup d’état and the current US constitutional order is overthrown?

    Countries don’t put up with this sort of cr@p: when push comes to shove (i.e., when facing existential threats), governments either address the problem, or get replaced by governments that will address the problem.

    I can’t see “the narrative” lasting twenty-four hours past the Chinese nuking Honolulu.

  2. M.W. Peak says:

    All we need is for the men to stop complaining, man up, and somehow make it all work.

    Along with the expectations and sense duty, there is also an unspoken demand of justice. It is men who have caused the suffering of women, so it is right and just that men bear sole responsibility with only half, or even none, of the respect.

  3. Pingback: Every submarine, every SEAL team. | Aus-Alt-Right

  4. Chris Nystrom says:

    I was a Surface Warfare Officer in the Navy in the late 90s on an amphibious assualt ship. We had an all-male crew, but at one point we were assigned a midshipmen training cruise which included a large number of females. The character of the ship changed overnight from a fighting unit to the Love Boat. People who have not experienced it can not comprehend the difference. They think everything is like on Star Trek. Part of the reason I got out of the Navy was that I could see the writing on the wall. It was not what I signed up for.

  5. Mr. Woot says:

    I work in ~40 offices for an all-male consulting firm. I get to see all kinds of dynamics between “mostly women” to “mostly men” to all of one or the other.

    I can speak to men with a sense of urgency, which requires a certain tone or cadence, and cannot be directed at the majority of the womanly population without conflict. If I say “I need this done!” in a low tone, with authority, to a subordinate he will GSD. If I spoke the same way to most women I am instantly a monster.

    As for job roles, even though I inhabit the “knowledge worker” sphere, most of the women are performing tasks that can be completed by perl scripts, provided a cultural shift. The highest paid and respected women in the office I work in are those who inhabit the role of “wife” to an executive. One lovely lady will put together her boss’ entire 3 day out of town event. Everything is printed, labeled, scheduled, and documented. She knows every who and when for those three days. He simply picks up the binder and boards the plane. She then takes care of his three houses, schedules deliveries, gardener, housekeeping, and any repairs. Once she is done – soaps and conversations with her coworkers of similar skill, until “the men” return.

    Once the robots take over the jobs that women have filled – if they are not coding – how will they complain or adapt?

    OT: Suicide Squad with Harley Quinn was given a vision of what she REALLY wanted – a husband, children, and a clean home. Even at the bar there was a conversation that “you are ugly on the inside” when she was not kicking ass.

  6. feeriker says:

    The other reason this has to happen is women’s envy of gratitude and respect. Our nation must never again be grateful for the sacrifice of men without in the same breath stating that we are equally grateful for the sacrifice of the women who were present. At all costs. Never again. To feminists it is better to lose a battle, or even a war, than to suffer that unbearable indignity. Our political and military leaders have heard this order, and are fully committed to carrying it out.

    The irony is that as the quality of the armed forces as a fighting force continues to deteriorate, as more disasters in combat unfold, as more defeats are suffered, as leadership continues to reveal itself for the Keystone Kop Klavern that it is, and as the inevitable catastrophic results of today’s PC-saturated training are made evident for all to see, all respect for the U.S. military will eventually be lost. Military personnel will find themselves treated the same way their forebears were in the late 60s and early 70s: with bemused scorn at best or overt hostile contempt at worst. Women in uniform will bear the brunt of this negativity, as it will be their shortcomings that will be the most obvious cause of all that has failed.

    As someone who spent nearly two decades in uniform (two decades too many), ths is actually a very welcome development, as it might FINALLY penetrate the thick, empty skull of the typical American that the military he so worships is NOT “serving” him at all (and never has). I, for one, live for the day when “thank you for your service” becomes as rarely used a clichè as “far out!” or “groovy!” (and I swear, I’m going to spit in the face of the next person who “thanks [me] for [my] service”).

  7. Jim says:

    The Marine Corps study was promptly dismissed because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

    Of course. Welcome to the Idiot Left where only the narrative matters. Facts be damned.

    All we need is for the men to stop complaining, man up, and somehow make it all work.

    Translation: Be a good little slave boy no matter what we do to you. No thanks. I’m not going to anyone whose going to constantly spit in my face and tell me to like it.

  8. Dalrock says:

    @Yac-Yac

    in a confrontation over the Spratleys & Paracels, the People’s Republic of China puts four American aircraft carriers at the bottom of the western Pacific with their fancy new missiles (and help with satellite telemetry sold to them by back channels courtesy of Hillary’s husband, back in the 1990s), how many days minutes before there is a coup d’état and the current US constitutional order is overthrown?

    Countries don’t put up with this sort of cr@p: when push comes to shove (i.e., when facing existential threats), governments either address the problem, or get replaced by governments that will address the problem.

    In 9-11 we lost 3,000 civilians in a single day, with another 6,000 wounded, to Islamic terror. Did we stop being PC about who commits acts of Islamic terror, given the cost in lives or political correctness? No. We pretended that terror was something nebulous, and a Jewish or Christian grandmother in a wheelchair required the same security scrutiny as a young Muslim man.

    I believe a modern carrier has around 6,000 total on board. If half were killed, this would mean the same deaths and fewer injuries than 9-11. If all were killed, it would mean twice the death toll. But we are even more committed to feminism than we are to pretending terrorism has no relationship to Islam. If only 6,000 service members were killed, and we lost influence on shipping lanes, I think we’d find a way to rationalize staying the course. After all, over 80% of the deaths would be men (and therefore not matter much), and the women who died would be martyrs for the feminist cause. Our most likely response would be similar to the 10 step emergency plan Vox shared here: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/10-step-emergency-plan.html

    I’m not saying that no price would be too high in practice. But today, this is our policy. This is why women need to be present in our last ditch nuclear deterrent (ballistic subs). I also don’t think one lost battle or war, even with thousands killed, would be enough to sap our enthusiasm for this project. It would take a profound defeat, with tens or hundreds of thousands killed.

    Edit: I see that I misread your original comment. Four carriers in one engagement, with all souls lost (24,000), might be enough to cause us to rethink this policy.

  9. feeriker says:

    It would take a profound defeat, with tens or hundreds of thousands killed.

    That’s an inevitability on our current course. It’s just a question of when, where, and under what specific circumstances.

  10. Feminist Hater says:

    The other difference is that one was civilian casualties and the other would be military. Having many casualties of civilians is far less to bear, funnily enough, than many military causalities.

    One can be used as a means to drum up support for war as an attack against innocents and the other means the government cannot defend you against enemy threats because they suffered a massive defeat during a military engagement. One strengthens government and the other diminishes it.

  11. Feminist Hater says:

    Aircraft carriers are more of a deterrent now rather than an effective weapon. Both China and Russia have the means to sink American or European carries with far better means at their disposal than the Japanese had. The carrier now acts more as a symbol of power but can also be a symbol of defeat if the enemy sinks it with ease.

    The are also expensive to run, maintain and use.

  12. redcastle600 says:

    I retired after 23 years in Army serving both as enlisted and as an officer. I’ve been in all male and mixed units. I’ve commanded all male units and it doesn’t matter what service you’re in, all male units get it done without a bunch of BS. Having served in a mixed unit, many females were sent home from a combat theatre for getting pregnant while on the FOB. Some of them married to other than who knocked them up and or single. Maybe that’s a way of keeping them out combat, keep them “occupied”

  13. Dalrock says:

    On second thought, four carriers sunk in one engagement definitely would not cause us to rethink this policy. Lets say a total of 25,000 are killed, and by then 20% of the crew are women. This would mean that 5,000 women died along with 20,000 men. Who is going to buck the system and call for the reversal of feminist policy? Keep in mind that all of our civilian and military leaders (opinion and actual) have tacitly approved all of this. They would be indicting themselves. Moreover, they would be seen as indicting the 5,000 dead women sailors. Think of the outrage from conservatives when Trump responded to the on the record islamist/pro sharia Khan. Now multiply that outrage by 5,000.

    We wouldn’t turn back, we would double down.

  14. Camden says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised to find the goalposts being shifted with arguments that officers don’t need to be particularly fit or strong as their role is to ‘manage’ the fighting rather than actually taking part. It will be the military equivalent of the makework ‘managerial’ jobs that are created to give women the illusion that they’re doing something useful.

  15. Dave says:

    It is men who have caused the suffering of women,…

    I do not claim to know everything that happened in the past, but I do know that there has never been a period in history when women were caused to suffer, by men, and for the simple reason that they were women.
    However, throughout history, the rich, strong and powerful have always oppressed the poor, weak and vulnerable, and both men and women have always belonged to both groups. Oppressors were never exclusively male, and the oppressed were never exclusively female. It was more about their social standing rather than their genders.

  16. Anon says:

    BAM! Someone has finally done the research to confirm what we knew :

    As a group, only men are net taxpayers.

  17. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    Regarding when the charade ends, it’ll end when men stop LARPing.

    https://anarchistnotebook.com/2016/08/05/statism-and-larping/

    “The difference between statist LARPing and regular LARPing is that, unlike an anachronistic organization, the state puts a gun to someone’s head and say, “You will believe what we tell you. You will pretend.”

    So we pretend. It’s why people get outraged when we play make believe in ways that threaten state-reliant fantasies. They perceive the vulnerability inherent in their ideologies. Were it not for the state, the coercion that enables their type of LARPing to exist would end.”

    The Soviet Union collapsed suddenly and relatively peacefully because Russians just stopped pretending to believe what they knew to be lies, including those who were expected to enforce those lies.

    It’ll get to the point when the state is so weak it cannot respond effectively against men who decide to stop believing and stop pretending or it lacks the men needed to keep it going.

    Feminism is only as strong as the men who enforce it.

  18. Feminist Hater says:

    We wouldn’t turn back, we would double down.

    Your response seems to suggest that the only means of this coming to a head is via the top down. I don’t think those in power will decide to change the course we’re on. Not when it gives them so much power through women. No, the change wouldn’t come through them but through the families unwilling to send sons and daughters off to die in a needless war to simply approve of feminist agendas.

    At the moment, it’s kick ass women in movies showing the men a thing or two, when it’s not so kick ass women coming home in body bags or being KIA at the bottom of an ocean and never heard from again, the spell might be broken once and for all.

    Or perhaps you’re right and everyone is in on the action and cannot wait to have all those women fighting the big bad wolf.

    The outrage over Trump’s talkings were from the usual liberal chorus, media and democrat dolts, the mother and father country people, not so much, they probably agree with trump. They might think sending their daughters to fight because of some ideal of equality is fun but when those daughters don’t come back, there will be anger, a fury.

    I can only laugh, it seems to me that America is two different countries merely joined by geography, the spirit of your nation exists in two parts split entirely by ideology.

  19. Anon says:

    There is no reason for American men to risk their lives from ungrateful women, that too to fight the one ideology in the world that ‘feminists’ dare not criticize, no matter what they do to women (that women are aroused by abuse of women is a different topic).

  20. This all makes it easier to defeat the evil when it comes to blows. Aim for the kneecaps (of the women).

  21. Anon says:

    A few stats that bear repeating :

    US Casualties :

    In World War 2 :
    Male : 300,000
    Women : 16 (so 1 for each 20,000 men)

    In VietNam :
    Male : 58,800
    Women : 8 (so 1 for each 7500 men)

  22. Anon says:

    We wouldn’t turn back, we would double down.

    Which is exactly why the US does not deserve to win. What, exactly, does the US stand for, at present?

    In the aircraft carrier scenario above, why is the US more worthy as a nation than China? The US’s primary ideology is ‘feminism’. China’s is mercantilism. I think mercantilism is more noble than ‘feminism’.

    There was a time when the US was definitely much more moral than China. That time is no longer the present.

  23. Dalrock says:

    @Fem Hater

    Your response seems to suggest that the only means of this coming to a head is via the top down. I don’t think those in power will decide to change the course we’re on. Not when it gives them so much power through women. No, the change wouldn’t come through them but through the families unwilling to send sons and daughters off to die in a needless war to simply approve of feminist agendas.

    It won’t just be the leaders, but the grass roots, especially the parents. The parents of the dead women sailors will say:

    My daughter didn’t give her life so the military can be converted back into an old boys network. Sarah knew the risks when she joined the Navy, and she loved this country and everything it stands for. She was proud to be a role model for millions of girls around the nation, and even around the world. These despicable men are dishonoring the memory of my daughter, a woman who gave her life so that they could be safe. They want to blame her and the other women on board those ships for the failure of our leadership to keep this kind of catastrophe from happening.

    The parents of the dead men won’t want to compound the grief of the other parents who also lost children. Very few will want to step forward and play the role of the person who dishonors the memory of their son’s shipmates.

    Then something else, anything else, will be deemed the reason for the catastrophe, and all energy will be focused on fixing that issue.

    The outrage over Trump’s talkings were from the usual liberal chorus, media and democrat dolts, the mother and father country people, not so much, they probably agree with trump.

    There are a few on the conservative fringe who have defended Trump in this (Coulter, Brietbart). The rest were appalled, and at the grass roots level it is all but universally seen as an embarrassing mis step by Trump.

  24. Feminist Hater says:

    There are a few on the conservative fringe who have defended Trump in this (Coulter, Brietbart). The rest were appalled, and at the grass roots level it is all but universally seen as an embarrassing mis step by Trump.

    Then your people are done, hope for a swift merciful death. What Trump spoke was truth, if they can’t take that. Then they will be taken on the battlefield.

  25. I don’t think that our military is being designed for a foreign threat. More specifically it is designed to be the threat. It might get hung on the horns of some conflict and largely broken, but that is just collateral damage and besides the point. The point of “our” military is that is a rhetorical, ideological and lastly physical weapon of the Godless left. Whose battles is it fighting? Not mine.

  26. Sean says:

    It would take a profound defeat, with tens or hundreds of thousands killed.

    Nah, they’d time their attacks during a new season of America’s Got Talent, Next Top Model or some other such banality and nobody would notice.

  27. Matamoros says:

    This whole conundrum with women in the armed forces is simply the latest iteration of “equality” which began with the integration of negroes forcibly into the all white combat forces of the United States. That never worked well, women are working even less well.

  28. Lost Patrol says:

    @Dalrock

    At substantial risk of being labeled The Kiss Ass, I’ll say you can add the military-industrial complex to the list of people and organizations you seem to know better than they know themselves.

    “The only solution here is to make it impossible to compare mixed sex and all male units. This is one of the reasons that all units, every single one, must include women.” And this will eventually have to be a certain (substantial) percentage. One or two or a handful will not be adequate.

    “…the fundamental goal and we should expect that it will eventually be accomplished.” Each decade since probably Vietnam has seen an exponential increase in speed over the preceding decade in reaching this goal.

    “Our nation must never again be grateful for the sacrifice of men without in the same breath stating that we are equally grateful for the sacrifice of the women who were present.” You categorically HAVE to say this now when addressing any public forum, even if there was only the one, or a half dozen females present.

    “Men will retain sole responsibility for the success or failure of the mission, but women will be declared fully equal partners while having a long list of special rights.” I would opine already there on this one.

  29. Leiff says:

    The answer seems simple to me and is not required to come from the top down. If 100% of women suffered training exercise fatalities during boot camp after being warned “this is going to be very dangerous for you, I think the problem would evaporate in less than 3 months.

  30. What great social drive is causing the inclusion of trans in the military? I don’t believe it is an extension of equality. Something more nefarious than feminism is motivating this using bought and paid for Narrative to cover it’s tracks.

  31. Jim Christian says:

    Hey, Dalrock,

    I’ve had my say about Naval Aviation a time or two around here. My main gripe is the lady sailors WILL NOT DEPLOY. They take the jobs, the pay, benefits, the shore billets, but way too many will not deploy because, what about their children? Yet we allow them to stay in in spite of the fact that they’re in violation of their pre-deployment plan (that promises how their children will be cared for when they deploy), a contract they signed when they started getting said pay and benefits. They simply don’t go to sea and the Navy does not charge them with missing movement of their vessel. For that reason, you won’t see four carriers in the Pacific, ever. Worldwide we only are able to keep three out at sea and a forth home ported in Japan. Out of 10 or 11 carrier, or may 12, can’t remember how many are out these days, count from Nimitz forward. After four carriers are at sea, the rest are non-mission capable for “man”power. Seriously. That goes for the squadrons and escorts. There really is no more need to build new ships from here on out, we cannot man them.

    All THAT said, one of ya was right, a carrier is a tripwire. Vulnerable and except perhaps as a Drone aircraft Naval carrier force, useful for only a very little bit longer. But a carrier is not a tripwire that would spur a nuclear attack these days like it would have under the Soviet days. That is unless a bunch of women got killed and Hillary impractically launched nukes because women got killed. That aside, in the China/Pacific 4 carrier disaster scenario you present (which can’t happen because of insufficient personnel in any case) the policy that would get the ship and crews killed isn’t the policy of women on board the doomed ships, the policy that doomed them would be the policy of sailing them into such an environment to begin with.

    Frankly, the deceased ladies-of-the-sea I’d have no particular sympathy for, or not any more than for any other troops that get killed, anyway. No one gave a shit when pilots or my fellow enlisted of the day got killed, the attitude was, “Hey, you joined”. Like another of you mentioned, “Thanks for your service” gores my ox a little, too, given the neglect of Veterans who are service-connected and unassisted by the VA. Meh, that’s it. But I contend, integrating the women into Naval Service was one sin. Not enforcing, strictly and equally, their responsibility to deploy and and then not punishing their refusal to deploy is by far the greater sin. Because what we’ve done is rendered 2/3 of our Navy useless, not to mention the blow to morale to the men and women who DO deploy.

    Cheers..

  32. sipcode says:

    “The other reason this has to happen is women’s envy of gratitude and respect.”

    The basis for ALL ill post fall in the garden is Gen 3:16+17: Women desire the authority and firstborn nature of men, and men, after Adam, willingly hearken to the voice, the leading of women. God never told Adam not to do that in the form of a commandment but it is the man being derelict of duty, giving up his post, his command. Stop it.

    Women are not to get respect. They are to get the loving confrontation / blessings of Christ, as savior [provider] AND lord. Let’s start now.

  33. mrteebs says:

    The other reason this has to happen is women’s envy of gratitude and respect.

    The truth of this cannot be repeated often enough, loudly enough, or fully enough. It is the fault line along which nearly all “christian” teaching on the topic of marriage and gender roles depart from the Bible. Husbands loving their wives is unconditional. Wives respecting their husbands is optional and barely tolerable – and only when slathered with constant disclaimers that it is conditional, mutual, and bi-directional.

    Somewhat by accident, I came across a book recently that had a very refreshing – and totally unexpected – message. My wife asked me if I would purchase a book for her called “Who Stole Cinderella” by Denise Renner. I was very skeptical so read the first chapter or two on Amazon’s preview before ordering a hardcopy.

    This is definitely a case of not judging the book by its cover. It is excellent.

    Excerpts follow…

    Page 57
    Have you ever been tempted to try and control your husbandand nag him like a continually leaky faucet – or running sewage? Is it possible you do this in your marriage because it’s what you saw your mother do? If so, did you ever ask yourself what your mother’s nagging and complaining ever accomplished? Did your father change? Was their communication sweet? Did he ve and adore her and feel grateful toward his bride for her attempts to change and control him?

    Page 59
    The dynamic of wives trying to control their husbands began as a result of the Fall in the Garden of Eden…This tension is often the source of great problems in marriage.

    Page 63
    It is deception for us as women to think we’re going to change something in our husband. We can’t change him! Let me say that to you one more time: We’ll never be able to change anything in our husband. Change is up to the Holy Spirit; change is His job. Tensions arise and problems come when we start believing that we’re commissioned and appointed to change our husband. This wrong belief causes so much conflict.

    Page 65
    It sounds somewhat comical that the Lord said in His Word, “Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, than in a house shared with a contentious woman.” It may sound humorous, but the living reality of that principle is not funny at all. God is trying to give wives serious guidance about how dangerous our immature or underdeveloped character can be. It has the potential to chase our husband out of his house – and it can certainly cause him to close off part of his heart to us.

    Page 69
    There is so much meaning in this word “respect,” and many marriages fail because we don’t have the true knowledge of its meaning.

    Page 70
    But just as women are nurturers by nature with their children, it seems the opposite is true when it comes to respecting their husband. THAT does not come naturally.

    Page 71
    Another characteristic of wise women is the ability to control their emotions. Foolish women tear down what they’re building with just a few angry words.

    In Titus 2:3-5, God commands the older women who have grown in wisdom to teach the younger women in the church. If these younger women are not taught according to the Word, they will probably do exactly what they saw their own mothers do…As a result, this younger generation of women will perpetuate ways of doing things that will not lead to success in their homes.

    Page 73/74
    <The order that God recognizes is God the Father; Christ the Head of the Church; husband; wife. One reason we can cause all kinds of problems in our marriage is when we try to control or rule over our husband is that it creates chaos where God intended there to be order…When we try to take charge over our husband, we are getting things out of order. The order then becomes God, Christ, WIFE, husband. That plan will not work. God is not going to bless that plan because His order is God, Christ, HUSBAND, wife…In the home of a married couple, there's only one head in the family, and it isn't the wife. It's the husband. It's important to keep in mind that your husband was appointed by God to this position as leader in the home. it wasn't his idea, but God's…So instead of trying to reverse the order between husband and wife, we should honor our husband in his position as leader and head of the home. If our husband isn't a Christian, he is still the head of the home.

    Page 77 (compare and contrast with Kathy Keller’s china-smashing episode and Barbara Rainey’s ultimatum)
    A wife can be tempted to take the reins and start telling her husband what he is and isn’t going to do. But there’s no blessing in doing that! We can’t go against God’s Word and His order and expect him to bless us.

    Page 81
    A wife my be asking … questions innocently because she values excellence, but her questions show mistrust. She’s dishonoring her husband by questioning his abilities and even his character, and she’s disrespecting his leadership.

    Page 82
    How should a wife respond when she believe her husband is making a wrong decision? 1 Peter 3:4-6 gives us an answer…There were times when Abraham had the wrong idea about how to handle things, yet Sarah submitted to her husband’s leadership and authority, and God honored her. We should respond to our own husbands in a similar way.

    Page 85
    I encourage you to have a trusting attitude toward your husband about even the big things. Let him lead in those matters. He may make mistakes, but learn to trust God that he will work in each situation to turn it around for good. Don’t argue with your husband or try to take over if you disagree with his decision. Don’t say “I told you so” or rub his nose in his mistakes. That would be an example of “tearing down your house” with wrong words and attitudes.

    Page 90
    So much rests on your husband’s shoulders for which he is responsible. Your responsibility lies in understanding and supporting him.

    Page 92
    One very powerful way of showing respect to our husband is to learn to be a better follower.

    Page 98
    You may wonder if this husband got saved first and then God helped him make all those miraculous changes. No, that wasn’t the order of things at all. This woman was a living example of 1 Pet 3:1 … In the words of the apostle Peter, she won her husband “without a word.”

    Page 116 (this is from a testimony of a woman named Irina who was talking about how the teaching in this book had healed her marriage)
    I was almost constantly at odds with my husband over everything. Because of my wrong attitudes and actions, our relationship did not improve. There was no peace or joy in any way. I began to understand that I needed to receive him as he was and to quit judging and correcting him. His attitude began to change toward me, but there was still one area where I had greatly wronged my husband: It was our sexual relationship. I knew it was important to him, but I had a wall up. It was four years after our daughter was born, and I was still refusing to have sex with him! I was so wrong. I repented to God and my husband, and God has restored our relationship.

    Page 126
    It isn’t our responsibility to make sure our husband is doing what the Word of God tells him to do. We’re not the Holy Spirit – were’ not our husband’s lord OR his mother. Our responsibility is to allow the Holy Spirit to work change and transformation in our own heart and allow Him to work in our husband’s heart WITHOUT OUR HELP!

    Page 147
    Affirm your husband’s strength and masculinity. Sometimes a wife tries to humble her husband and “deliver” him from this pride. But the truth is, God made him that way. She needs to enjoy and appreciate her husband’s masculine strength.

    Page 153
    Affirm his pride in you and his desire for status. Status is very important to men. If your husband wants a better education or a better job — or even if he wants to work more hours at the job he has – be proud of him because God made him that way. He’s trying to be a good provider. Providing well for his family is part of his status.

    Page 157
    I realize that many wives have jobs and careers to help provide income and the family’s household needs. But it’s very hurtful if wives constantly call attention to that fact, especially in front of others…God designed men as providers. YOur husband probably does not want the spotlight placed on him as someone who needs help to do what God created him to do! Funtioning in his role as provider is part of his image and status. When that image is undermined — or even if it’s under-affirmed — he feels put down.

    I could keep going, but you get the idea.

    For once, this is not another book that spends hours on the caveats and microseconds on the principles. It is also entirely devoted to teaching wives, which is another thing I appreciated. It didn’t try to “balance” the message with an equal number of pages (or any pages) aimed at instruction for men.

    Guys, it might be a little heavy handed to leave this on your wife’s nightstand, but I wish it were the primary message that wives and women were digesting these days.

  34. Kevin says:

    Trumps comments on Khan were an embarrassing misstep which cost him significantly in the polls – probably for similar reasons why McCain tumbled in the polls with the financial crisis. People lose confidence in a leader who loses his mind whenever someone says “squirrel” or whatever trigger word gets them. Trump was introduced nationally and people seemed to like what he was selling and he deep sixed himself going after pointless targets.

    As far as Dalrock predicting losing the carriers would cause the parents and grassroots – dang! When you write it out like that it becomes clear that would most likely happen. The parents of the females would be the voices calling for it – same as stupid dads right now making their little princesses into feminist sluts and sports athletes right along with the cultures. What a mess

  35. feeriker says:

    My daughter didn’t give her life so the military can be converted back into an old boys network. Sarah knew the risks when she joined the Navy, and she loved this country and everything it stands for. She was proud to be a role model for millions of girls around the nation, and even around the world. These despicable men are dishonoring the memory of my daughter, a woman who gave her life so that they could be safe. They want to blame her and the other women on board those ships for the failure of our leadership to keep this kind of catastrophe from happening.

    Since it’s mostly idiots who are breeding in any significant numbers in the U.S. today, I can very easily envision during “wartime” this type of drivel emanating on an almost daily frequency from the mouth of some bereaved moron who valued not only the abstract collective interests of the State, but his or her own face-saving over the life of his or her own daughter.

    Sadly, I can see “pissing and shitting on the memory of the dead” becoming an almost irresistible pastime among the minority non-imbecile segment of the American population.

  36. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    “My daughter didn’t give her life so the military can be converted back into an old boys network. Sarah knew the risks when she joined the Navy, and she loved this country and everything it stands for. She was proud to be a role model for millions of girls around the nation, and even around the world. These despicable men are dishonoring the memory of my daughter, a woman who gave her life so that they could be safe. ”

    Not that they would, but that could easily be reframed by the parents of a dead male sailor.

    “My son didn’t give his life so the military could play make believe. John knew the risks when he joined the Navy, and he loved this country and everything it stands for, but he died needlessly so women could pretend to be as strong and capable as him. These despicable women killed my son by forcing their way into an institution they shouldn’t be in just to boost their own egos. To them, ideology and “grrrl power!” is more important than winning war or the lives of young men like my Johnny.”

    That actually would be an interesting dynamic. Parents of dead male veterans might reach a point where their self-censoring gives way to rage and they speak power to truth. They can tolerate the LARPing until it endangers the lives of their sons.

    When enough dead sons come home in a raw pine box (or in pieces), then the “be nice, don’t say that unkind thing” could go right out the door.

  37. Opus says:

    As long ago as 1961 – long before anyone had thought of joining the words Ghost and Busters in one expression – a film was produced under the title Petticoat Pirates which concerned a groups of WRENS (The Women’s Royal Naval Service) who decided that they were every bit as good as men and to prove it took over a Frigate and went to sea. The senior female officers were portrayed by actresses usually cast towards the LGBT end of the spectrum. I forget what happened but there was at least one male stow-away. I laughed but the film was apparently like the new GrrlBusters not a commercial success. I look forward to the first American Capital ship manned entirely by girls – it will not be long delayed.

    I live inland but the town has a Training Ship (i.e. no ship but probably a Gym) and on Armistice Day the officers and boys (and girls) march up and down. Some of these Officers are female but it only reminds me of Anderson’s story of the Emperor and his new clothes. I cannot take women pretending to be men, which is what they are doing, seriously. I never went to sea but on dry-land working with women means that they either want to fuck-you or kill you. That is never however the real problem; the problem is always the jealousy of the Manginas and White-Knights (who are never of any romantic interest to the females).

  38. Dalrock says:

    @Jim Christian

    in the China/Pacific 4 carrier disaster scenario you present (which can’t happen because of insufficient personnel in any case) the policy that would get the ship and crews killed isn’t the policy of women on board the doomed ships, the policy that doomed them would be the policy of sailing them into such an environment to begin with.

    I think this is a safe bet in any hypothetical scenario one could offer. Failures tend to have more than one cause, and it will always be plausible to argue that something other than feminist policy was to blame. There will always be other factors in play, and since feminism is outside the Overton window, those other factors will always be the ones focused on. I can imagine an exception to this, but it would involve an existential threat and even then only following a long and slow process of many examples demonstrating that our force simply couldn’t match the enemy.

  39. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    Frankly, I doubt the feminization of the military would ever become an issue, even in a catastrophe scenario, simply because between all the frantic waving of the bloody shirt and the virulent vitriol aimed at the ‘evil’ Chinese/Russian/goatherders, the bodies will never be more than sexless statistical props for whoever needs them to make their point. The demographic composition of the corpses would be mostly irrelevant, excepting maybe some gutless feeb wailing about “they’s killin’ our wimmin!”

  40. Feminist Hater says:

    Trumps comments on Khan were an embarrassing misstep which cost him significantly in the polls – probably for similar reasons why McCain tumbled in the polls with the financial crisis. People lose confidence in a leader who loses his mind whenever someone says “squirrel” or whatever trigger word gets them. Trump was introduced nationally and people seemed to like what he was selling and he deep sixed himself going after pointless targets.

    Yea, they went for him first buddy. Furthermore, Trump went after the father, not his son. Furthermore, this Khan fellow is allied with the exact people who sent his son off to die, not Trump’s problem. He was against the Iraq war, as was I, since the damn beginning. Get off your fucking high horse, what Trump said was truthful and on point. Unlike liberal cunt bags.

  41. Feminist Hater says:

    And for future reference, when the sons of your enemies are fighting in your military, you have a problem. Khan’s son was never meant to be in the American military, he didn’t belong. Soon, you will have a foreign people running your military and you cucks will have been the cause. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

  42. Feminist Hater says:

    Opus, world war one and world war two losses for those at sea was horrendous, often times more than 75% of the crews or even close to 100% would be lost on deck or at sea. I applaud all women battleships, frigates, cruisers and the like. Let them have at it. We will give them some lifeboats and they can choose which women go first.

  43. Feminist Hater says:

    When the Bismarck was scuttled, the English ships in the area only picked up close to 100 men when the full crew was almost 2000 for fear of German subs.

  44. feeriker says:

    Soon, you will have a foreign people running your military and you cucks will have been the cause. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

    Oh, but that “warning” precedent happened almost 1,600 years ago. “We” know better than that now. Don’t we …?

  45. feeriker says:

    When the Bismarck was scuttled, the English ships in the area only picked up close to 100 men when the full crew was almost 2000 for fear of German subs

    Sharks were said to have had quite a feast that day also..

  46. Keith Hillton says:

    Nobody listed when we said the same thing about mixing the races either. The military fought that too and once again a liberal nitwit ignored the experienced military commanders.

  47. Opus says:

    @Feminist Hater

    The Bismark was sunk by Fairey Swordfish fighter-bombers – incredibly slow bi-planes – launched from HMS Ark Royal and effectively a suicide squad. Ark Royal was one of five British Fleet Carriers to be sunk in WW2. Carriers always strike me as vulnerable but BattleShips tend to get attacked even more. Graf Spey was hemmed in in The River Plate off Montivideo by HMS Ajaz and HMS Exeter and by HMNZS Achilles. The Graf Spey was scuttled and its Commander committed suicide. In the excellent film of the event Commander Langendorff of The Graf Spey is very sympathetically portrayed by Peter Finch and HMNZS Achilles played herself (!) whilst Graf Spey is played by USS Salem which is really odd as Salem looks like an Iowa and thus it looks as if we were fighting America.

  48. Anon says:

    Trumps comments on Khan were an embarrassing misstep which cost him significantly in the polls

    Not when you recognize that his goal was to clear a path for Hillary all along.

    Trump wants to get exactly 44-46% of the popular vote and 150-180 EVs. That way, he looks like a real opposition (and his base can be used again in the future by another such WWE creation). He does not want to win, nor was that the arrangement he struck with Bill Clinton.

    When you see that his goal is to thread the needle with 44-46% of the vote, his actions make sense.

  49. Oscar says:

    “This is one of the reasons that all units, every single one, must include women. If there are any units without women, the men will be able to identify the difference. Every submarine, every SEAL team, etc. must include a woman or it will be possible to point out that all male teams perform better.” ~ Dalrock

    I used to believe that women should be excluded from combat arms units (Infantry, Armor, Combat Engineers, etc.), but now I know I was wrong. Women should be excluded from the military entirely, because regardless how it starts, the endpoint will always be as Dalrock described it.

  50. Lost Patrol says:

    “My daughter didn’t give her life so the military can be converted back into an old boys network. Sarah knew the risks when she joined the Navy, and she loved this country and everything it stands for. She was proud to be a role model for millions of girls around the nation, and even around the world. These despicable men are dishonoring the memory of my daughter, a woman who gave her life so that they could be safe. They want to blame her and the other women on board those ships for the failure of our leadership to keep this kind of catastrophe from happening.”

    It will be exactly like this. I’ve already overheard similar speeches from parents whose daughter is still very much alive, but someone dared suggest girls aren’t the best fit for war.

    Substitute whatever you need at the moment for ‘Navy’. The message will then be embossed on 3×5 cards and circulated widely. The family can read from them or just hand them out.

  51. RICanuck says:

    “The Americans believed that their nation could
    endure the sight of women as POWs. Perhaps they
    were right. Whatever the case, America was shocked
    by what we did next: We used our infamous Boys
    Brigade to rape the women, and then to amputate their
    limbs and burn their faces. Though we let them suffer
    terribly, we were careful not to kill them. We told the
    world that our women suffered much more in the
    atomic catastrophe.”

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6155&context=faculty_scholarship

  52. CEO Nikolic says:

    As you pointed out Dalrock, the vanity of women knows no limits.
    The hilarious thing, though, is women know know they’re less valuable than men in every practical sense, and don’t even know how to rebuttal the reality. Instead they complain and whine, which is their modus operandi in all social circumstances, using their female-in-group iron rules of “fairness” and “sharing” to shame men. They’re too dense to realize that pseudo-Communism doesn’t work on men.
    Good post, though. If you ever saw that movie with Demi Moore as the Special Forces chick — I wasted my money on it; temporary insanity — you’ll remember how she was “raped” as a “form of torture” in one of the climactic scenes. Only, I don’t think sex with a handsome stud like her commanding officer would have been that much of a punishment, especially being an alpha like he was. Ah well. Perpetual Hollywood blindness, again.

  53. Feminist Hater says:

    The Bismark was sunk by Fairey Swordfish fighter-bombers – incredibly slow bi-planes – launched from HMS Ark Royal and effectively a suicide squad. Ark Royal was one of five British Fleet Carriers to be sunk in WW2. Carriers always strike me as vulnerable but BattleShips tend to get attacked even more. Graf Spey was hemmed in in The River Plate off Montivideo by HMS Ajaz and HMS Exeter and by HMNZS Achilles. The Graf Spey was scuttled and its Commander committed suicide. In the excellent film of the event Commander Langendorff of The Graf Spey is very sympathetically portrayed by Peter Finch and HMNZS Achilles played herself (!) whilst Graf Spey is played by USS Salem which is really odd as Salem looks like an Iowa and thus it looks as if we were fighting America.

    As far as I know, the Brits launched those planes as a last ditch effort to catch the Bismarck as the German ship was faster than any of the British ships in the area that could match her for firepower. Luckily enough, they damaged the Bismarck’s ability to turn properly thus forcing the battleship to go around in circles, which eventually allowed the rest of the British fleet to catch up at which point they could damage her almost freely. Not wanting to let the British capture her, the German’s scuttled the ship.

    As for the Exeter, the ship was so damaged by the Graf Spee that she was forced into repairs with the further two ships tailing the Graf Spee into port; and then sending out messages to the affect that the English fleet were awaiting the Graf Spee in numbers. Knowing they would not be allowed to stay in Montevideo, the Germans were forced to scuttle the Graf Spee.

  54. Jim Christian says:

    @Dalrock,
    “I think this is a safe bet in any hypothetical scenario one could offer. Failures tend to have more than one cause, and it will always be plausible to argue that something other than feminist policy was to blame.”.

    Well, however they’re crewed, if you sail with crummy tactics into harm’s way, a big boat into lots of missiles, that’s pretty much the ball game. A bad guy won’t really need to sink the thing, just get a big juicy fire going on the flight deck and that’s the end of ops. I’ve been aboard for one of those, the launching and recovery and re-arming and fueling planes drop rather rapidly in priority on the task sheet when things are one fire up there. My experience is planes gone astray at the ramp, I don’t want to think about a war shot hitting one of those. Find the old 1966 Forrestal fire video for a sample look.

    Our question will always be whether policy makers continue to buy and support these things. As far as the ladies of Naval Air, reports from relatives serving are that very, VERY few are tasked with flight deck duty and the Navy cannibalizes personnel across decks and squadrons to make up the deficits cause by refusal to deploy. Of course, some folks never are ashore, not even for short periods. They’re fried. But for documentaries and news reports? Ha! The women are the HEROS!

  55. One need not posit a motive to observe that this policy is objectively an attack on our military. This is weaponized feminism.

  56. Lord Rofl says:

    “To feminists it is better to lose a battle, or even a war, than to suffer that unbearable indignity.”

    I would say this can be generalized: “To women it is better to lose a battle, or even a war, than to suffer…” the glorification of sexually unworthy males.

    Women are now involved in warfare; men are committed. Invasion is terminal for men, but can present exciting opportunities for women.

    “Ficki, ficki?” Will you be my soul-mate?

  57. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Has anyone heard that radio commercial — for an insurance or financial company, I think — in which the announcer introduces, “Lisa, a brave Marine who was wounded in Iraq.”

    Lisa then touts the benefits of the product she’s endorsing. I don’t know the product, because I always tune out. I’m suspicious of who Lisa is, and the nature of how she was “wounded” in Iraq.

    I also tune out because I’m so sick of hearing about “our brave men and women who serve…” I hear that phrase all the time, especially on conservative talk radio. Then I see all those photos of pregnant women in camouflage, cluing me in as to “how” they serve.

    The below is not satire. An active duty military woman, posting a video about her daily hair routine. At the end of the video, she’s in full military uniform, stepping out for a day of work. The insignia on her collar indicates that she’s a corporal (or a sergeant?). She also mentions at some point that “I’m also pregnant.” No mention of her husband or boyfriend. She also jokes that her hair gel “looks ‘uniform’ with the rest of my hair.”

  58. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Same women give us an update on her pregnancy update. She tells us about her she informed her bosses about her intention to breast feed. And her future plans for the military — she plans to stay for “another year” but also to take her “pregnancy leave all at once” since she doesn’t have that much time left for her “command.” About a year. She also whines about how tired her pregnancy makes her while on “my command.”

  59. Spike says:

    On the subject of women in the Armed Forces: I’m not sure about the USA, but in Australia, if I watch advertisements for the Armed Forces, I hardly see any men. I see helmeted pilots flying planes, I see women barking orders and dropping cargo out of transport planes for Emergency relief. I see close-ups of very satisfied women who have graduated from some course while in the Army.

    Consider a couple of examples:
    http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/education/Adfa/?gclid=CLzUw7ymzM4CFYOZvAodmOoHRQ&gclsrc=aw.ds

    Looks to me that this is a Western world-wide phenomenon.

  60. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Feminist Hater

    ‘Sink the Bismarck’ is an excellent narrative on the Bismarck’s effort to breakout and into open water. (C.S. Forrester is the author) Net/net is that the steering was jammed and it was game over.

    ‘Raider 16’ is a great read on Kriegsmarine merchant marine vessels. (it’s hard to find)

  61. Remo says:

    “The new bargain here is identical to the new bargain on marriage. Men will retain sole responsibility for the success or failure of the mission, but women will be declared fully equal partners while having a long list of special rights.”

    Disagree here – men retain sole responsibility for the *failure* of the marriage but if it lasts then this is *always* because of the long suffering fortitude of the wife. Man = bad is true success or not and this cannot be overemphasized. Thus we should expect to see the success of Seal team ___ to be entirely due to the contribution of Abdia Abu Ashraf but failure will be the fault of Michael Jones.

  62. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Feminist Hater

    ‘When the Bismarck was scuttled, the English ships in the area only picked up close to 100 men when the full crew was almost 2000 for fear of German subs.’

    From memory of Clay Bair’s excellent works on the Kreigsmarine the casualty rate was north of 90% for the U-boat crews. “Hitler’s U-Boat War’ You have inspired me to watch Das Boot again.

  63. The feminization of the military simply is another step in the philosophy of defeat and weakness. The Obama/Clinton military strategy is the complete antithesis to Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”.

    This country needs to get back the principles that made it great. The United States of America has utterly failed at ‘Nation Building’. We mostly create failed narcotic states whose products ravage our lower classes. I guess Germany and Japan are phyrric successes as both are doomed to extinction due to low fertility. Angela Merkel is practically waving the white flag to the invading Islamic Hordes.

    The United States needs a Cato the Elder loudly declaring ‘Carthago delenda est’. The United States was once just as ruthless as the great empire builders to expand across the continent then fend off threats to our own nation.

    God commanded Joshua and the Isrealites to exterminate all the Canaanites and seize the land for a good reason. Julius Caesar and Roman Legions killed a million Gauls to break their resistance. Qin Shi Huang killed millions and millions of people to ruthlessly unify China as a nation.

    The sole purpose of war is to win and you do that by killing all your enemies, crushing them utterly, then taking all their stuff.

    Anything else is defeat.

  64. Jason says:

    I had a roommate from 1996-1999 in San Francisco who was a “Desert Shield / Desert Storm” US Army veteran. One night we just chatted about ‘women in the military’

    He laughed……said that they all played “tough” and always liked to say they were “one of the guys” and always a dig about teaching the “guys” a thing or two.

    Deployment started in the summer / fall of 1990 and he said “suddenly every woman in my unit was pregnant and couldn’t go fight / liberate Kuwait”

    Workloads doubled and tripled for the rest of us. Most of the women were not married or their “simp boyfriend / hook-up” (his words, not mine) were not even military…….

  65. MarcusD says:

    Women should appreciate masculine virtues.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1021823

    Do you need permission from Bishop for temporary separation?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1021832

    Point, counter-point…
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1021766

  66. Anon says:

    In 2016, any man who joins the military is a fool. To join a military with these priorities is absurd, and the insanity has been flagged enough that men should know better.

    They think they are ‘defending their country’. ‘Cuntry’ is more like it. That is what they are defending and artificially sustaining.

  67. shadescale says:

    @declineandfall

    Given that the US Military may be used against civilians in the (near) future, I don’t see the weakening of it as a bad thing.

    @Dalrock

    “Men will retain sole responsibility for the success or failure of the mission, but women will be declared fully equal partners while having a long list of special rights.”

    A little off-topic, but the Washington Examiner just declared most Americans want ‘obey the husband’ stripped from the wedding vows.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americans-want-obey-husband-erased-from-wedding-vows/article/2599626#.V7Ws6TCPRSU.twitter

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americans-want-obey-husband-erased-from-wedding-vows/article/2599626#.V7Ws6TCPRSU.twitter

  68. Gnomon says:

    1. I was an XO of a unit that became gender integrated. The first thing the first female, an E6 noncommissioned officer, did was start an affair with another NCO who was married. When she broke it off she complained that the other NCO was stalking her. Counseling sessions all around, with the senior NCO present of course. Then she started an affair with a junior enlisted E2 who was 9 years younger. The E2 then started bossing around the female’s subordinates in the dining facility. Counseling sessions all around and statements to justify the non recommendation for promotion to E7. Highly disruptive.

    2. Feminism is now part of the official ideology of the USA and EU. I worked in international aid programs and every project funded by the USA EU or UN must include gender considerations in the terms and most often must hire a gender specialist for the team. These are professional feminists who place Western feminist concepts above any other consideration of order, tradition, and culture. All the old must be broken for the brave new world.

    3. I was talking to a U.S. soldier who had been in Iraq for a year. In the course of the conversation about his experience in Iraq he said “One thing we have to do, is get these women out of the army.” I asked him why. I expected him to talk about avoiding duties by pregnancy, lower body strength, manipulation of superiors by sex, etc.

    He said something surprising. “Because they are goddamned killers.” He then reeled off a bunch of incidents in which female soldiers in HUMMV turrets had killed innocent civilians because they lost their cool over relatively minor stuff, e.g. protesters throwing rocks caused her to machine gun into a crowd.

  69. Opus says:

    Female Soldiers, Female Lawyers: they are all the same: Half the time they burst into tears and the rest of the time they are making sexual advances/wanting to kill you. Germaine Greer says of female poets: “you have to take yourself seriously to do poetry, and women either couldn’t manage that at all or assumed a levity that became mere self-importance”. Surely the same applies to women in the military (and certainly the Law). Greer also observed and again it surely equally applies to the Military, that Poetry is a man’s way of achieving a wholeness that a woman is perhaps more inclined to take for granted and further that a woman can only be a truly great poet by becoming a man – which of course they can’t. How often have I come across female lawyers more masculine (aggressive and unpleasant) than any man. Such behaviour no more makes them male than a man becomes female by going Bruce Jenner (or Eddie Izzard). A drag queen is not a woman and a female soldier is not a man: the purpose of war is to defeat the enemy’s military; the men are then enslaved or killed and the fertile women assumed into the tribe of the victors. This year the willingness of women in Germany and Sweden to defend the behaviour of the invading invitees and to diss their own native men must give a clue as to why the experience of war might be fundamentally different for a woman.

    Females in the military are a signal to a country’s enemies that even if they man the breach with women they will still win – how humiliating – however, it is possible that America’s overwhelming military superiority might prove to be a Maginot line.

  70. Feminist Hater says:

    ‘Raider 16’ is a great read on Kriegsmarine merchant marine vessels. (it’s hard to find)

    I picked up two books awhile ago. Have so many now that I can’t read them all and they get put in storage but these two are ones that I should pick up and read at some point in the near future.. both about German surface raiders.

    Atlantis: The Story of a German Surface Raider by Mohr and Sellwood; and
    The Black Raider by Weyher and Ehrlich

    If you have read any other the two above. Let me know if they were any good. I do enjoy reading but I have to get in the mindset first, then I can read a book in a day or two depending on length. Strange how that works.

  71. Sir_Viver says:

    Almost 20 years ago our Baptist pastor “preached” that if ANYTHING is wrong in the marriage, “it is the husband’s fault!” He is such a good preacher that I’m convinced everyone went home believing this crap.

    A few years later my God-rebellious wife quoted our pastor’s statement to me during argument. A year after that she abandoned our marriage and our home.

    This is how long the feminist agenda has been infiltrating evangelical pulpits. Men, we must not tolerate this any longer!

    Please visit the AMBEC facebook page (LINK below) and then join it! Make “AMBEC” a household acronym in the church. Be a change-agent to make the ground at the foot of the cross level again for both genders!
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/reportAMBEC/

  72. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I don’t know what AMBEC is. And I don’t do social media, so I can’t log into Facebook, which means I can’t read the page.

  73. Tarl says:

    Dalrock is absolutely right. If our carriers got sunk, the nation would not blame the women on board, they would find some other thing to blame it on. A nation capable of rationalizing away countless Muslim attacks from 9/11 onwards as being “nothing to do with Islam” – and continuing to admit thousands of Muslims a year – is too insane to seek (let alone to understand) the weaknesses that feminism imposes on the military. Heck, neither the nation nor the military has made a serious effort to understand the reasons for our defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan – though maybe these didn’t “hurt bad enough” for us to do such profound contemplation.

    Loss of a carrier is actually the less interesting scenario from the standpoint of causing a re-think of women in the military. A defeat on the ground with thousands of women prisoners, who then spent years in enemy camps being abused and impregnated, and betraying their comrades for better treatment, is a scenario that is bound to happen eventually if we continue down this stupid path.

  74. Tarl says:

    I can speak to men with a sense of urgency, which requires a certain tone or cadence, and cannot be directed at the majority of the womanly population without conflict. If I say “I need this done!” in a low tone, with authority, to a subordinate he will GSD. If I spoke the same way to most women I am instantly a monster.

    Heh, I see this all the time just when talking to my son and daughter. Gotta use a completely different tone with the girl child than the boy child.

  75. sipcode says:

    Women’s most basic nature is adultery. Refer to Gen 3:16. Adultery is used frequently in scripture and is defined as an idol, putting anything before God. Don’t think of it so much as a thing but as a heart attitude of desiring to be equal to or better than God. No fear or respect for Him. That’s women. And they exhibit it, they take it out on God by taking it out on His representative, the man. Don’t think your otherwise godly wife is not capable of this. It is right under the surface.

    Adultery: it’s what women do.

  76. Roger says:

    One of the commenters (a woman) at the NPR site wrote:
    “When are they going to test all men for the combat skills unique to women, like strategy, communication, tracking abilities (they have better noses for detecting humans passing nearby), keeping unit cohesiveness?”
    Where even to begin with this nonsense? The only combat “strategy” women have a knack for is shaming men, at which they have unfortunately been very successful. They have better “tracking abilities”?!? Is that why they were so skillful at hunting in primitive societies? (sarc.) And “unit cohesiveness” is precisely what female presence does NOT contribute.
    According to the feminist narrative, men are not permitted to be good at anything. If scores show that men, as a group (not as individuals), perform better at math and spatial reasoning, then it simply MUST be the result of sexism or the lack of proper role models. We simply CAN’T be allowed to be good at something.

  77. sipcode says:

    Nailed it Roger:

    “The only combat “strategy” women have a knack for is shaming men, at which they have unfortunately been very successful” and ” “unit cohesiveness” is precisely what female presence does NOT contribute.” Proverbs never talks about men destroying the home but it only refers to women destroying the home.

    Destroy: it’s what women do.

  78. Novaseeker says:

    Point, counter-point…
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1021766

    Yeah, that’s the residue of sex-negative, mostly Irish, Catholicism that still is prominent in quite a few (certainly not all or even most) faithful Catholics. It’s not universally Catholic, really, but was particularly strong in Irish Catholicism, which was hugely influential on the development of American Catholicism overall, and which therefore still has purchase in some quarters of it.

  79. Feminist Hater says:

    When are they going to test all men for the combat skills unique to women, like strategy, communication, tracking abilities (they have better noses for detecting humans passing nearby), keeping unit cohesiveness?

    Horseshit lady! Women have none of these things better than men, not a damn single one. Men score better than women on every single metric with respect to anything to do other than birthing babies. These cunt bags just don’t quit at making up such extreme bullshit.

    Strategy?! A woman’s strategy is bound to one area and one alone, and that’s obtaining resources without doing the work. A strategy to defeat an enemy when seriously out manned… yeah, I wouldn’t trust a woman to come up with a more comprehensive plan other than opening her legs for the enemy.

    Men have proven year after year, decade after decade, century after century, millennia after millennia that they can do all of these above and far more and yet this cunt bag thinks men should get tested for doing these things but it comes naturally for women…. WTF?!

    Listen, it’s called moving up the ranks. You start off as a Private and move on up to officers classes when you prove that you have a tactical mind and can come up with different strategies as and when they are needed to move the battleground to a divisive victory. Snowflakes can’t even cook anymore, what makes them think they can or even deserve to command men?

  80. elmertjones says:

    In the future, we will all be Navy SEALS for 15 minutes.

  81. Oscar says:

    “When are they going to test all men for the combat skills unique to women, like strategy, communication, tracking abilities (they have better noses for detecting humans passing nearby), keeping unit cohesiveness?”

    Continuing with the theme of my comment that Dalrock quoted; unit cohesion is the first thing to go when the sexes are mixed. Again, I’m not very good at articulating these things, but all-male units simply function more smoothly. There’s less conflict, less drama, more teamwork and – believe it or not – less stress.

    That’s right: less stress (especially if you’re in a leadership position).

    There’s a lot more yelling, much harsher discipline, far tougher competition… and yet there is less stress.

    Try and explain that to someone who’s never experienced it, though.

    And here’s the key: unit cohesion wins wars. A unit that fights as one man is greater than the sum of its individuals. Even if the Soldiers in the more cohesive unit are individually weaker, less skilled and less numerous than those of a unit without cohesion, the more cohesive unit will win nine times out of ten.

    That’s the real problem with including women in the military. Yes, they’re individually weaker than men, that is true. But that wouldn’t matter much if women actually helped at “keeping unit cohesiveness”. The damage that women’s presence does to unit cohesion is the biggest danger to the unit.

  82. Lost Patrol says:

    @Coloradomtnman, @Feminist Hater, and any other Dalrock naval history readers,

    Given the nautical flavor that ebbs and flows (pun intended) in this thread, see if you can get a copy of “Castles of Steel”, Robert K. Massie, published by Random House, copyright 2003.

    Comprehensive, and well told story of The Great War at sea. A little known and rarely treated arena of WWI and development of modern naval warfare. Shows the truly global aspect of that war featuring U-boats, surface raiders, the best telling of Jutland I’ve yet seen, early naval aviation and carrier ops, mine warfare, etc. (amazing the number of British ships of the line sunk during the Gallipoli campaign).

    Personalities figure prominently (of course Churchill), as well as an unexpected dose of feminism. The mighty Fleet Admiral Beatty “There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today”, is laid low by a classic 1st wave feminist socialite, who treats him like a dog, even as he laps it up.

    FH – It is a thick book, but sounds like if you start on it, it won’t make it into the book storage unread.

  83. Lost Patrol says:

    @Oscar:
    “The damage that women’s presence does to unit cohesion is the biggest danger to the unit.”

    Amen. Think Band of Brothers vs. some episode of General Hospital or whatever.

  84. M.W. Peak says:

    Women join the military to follow warrior men as opposed to the “servant-leader” of American churches. However, they also work real hard to usurp warrior men because servant-leaders are too easy to usurp.

  85. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    I had wondered why Luther talked about lustful sex in marriage. I heard it a long time ago, but I don’t remember the quote. That would make much more sense if contrasted against the idea that sex was only for procreation and not enjoyment.

    It sounds like many of the Roman Catholic fathers had a Gnostic approach to life, viewing partaking of physical pleasure was bad. Luther was responding to that.

    That is what I saw. I have not delved deeply into the topic otherwise.

    Interesting.

  86. BillyS says:

    We should make a unit of harpies that we can paradrop into ISIS territory. They will nag ISIS into compliance in no time!

  87. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Feminist Hater

    ‘Raider 16’ is by Hoyt – it’s likely only available on Ebay or Amazon used. A great read, and the story of ‘Atlantis’ who was Captained by Bernard Rogge. I believe Rogge’s manuscripts must have been well done and readily available since the story is very detailed. Schiff 33 and their 357 day circumnavigation of the globe sounds very interesting – ‘Pinguin’ was the first merchant raider to be sunk and had the most tonnage primarily since it was in open seas while Bismarck was still a viable threat in the N Atlantic.

    I just ordered Brennecke’s ‘Pinguin’ on Kindle. It’s time for me to get my mind to something bigger, thanks for the inspiration!

  88. Looking Glass says:

    @BillyS:

    I believe the issue is more Neo-Platonism than it is Gnosticism. Though they can get confused together.

  89. Lost Patrol says:

    Well, I guess I have to take back my previous comments.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/opinion/when-women-fight-isis.html

    “When the might of the US, the Free Syrian Army and the other regional armies in Iraq were unable to stop the advance of ISIS, young women in military fatigues and floral scarves defeated men who can barely tolerate fully covered-up women.”

    “Many of these guerrillas were women, for a basic principle of the decades-long Kurdish liberation movement is that women cannot wait for others to defend them, but must themselves fight to be free.”

    “…whose guerrillas have been some of the only forces capable of fighting the Islamic State — not in spite of their feminism, but because of it.”

  90. Pingback: A Double-Edged Sword | House Hazelshade

  91. kaminsky says:

    If there is a conflict in which an American female combat soldiers get killed (say, 20 of them) it will immediately be turned into a male-shaming vehicle.

    “Well, if men would man up and serve….”

    “This is what happens when they are no good men….”

    There won’t be even a moment of grave, sad remorse for those women as fallen heroes who ‘paid the ultimate price’. The use of their deaths for male-shaming will begin right away and the 20 dead females will be the ammo backing up any and all criticism of males for years to come.

  92. kaminsky says:

    @Anon (concerning China)

    I lived in China and while it is only arguably more moral than the US right now, I can say that it is;

    —Definitely more logical and rational. They simply cut straight to practicality. It’s not always fair and it certainly doesn’t follow any lofty ideals but they aren’t arguing about allowing dress-wearing freaks play around in bathrooms with female children.

    –Definitely far more free. Even the most ardent libertarian will come away from crazy-ass China calling for more regulation.

    –Definitely far more fun. It is wild there. An absolute free for all.

    Not all of these things are good. I’m just trying to make the point that when China (EVEN CHINA) is far more free than the US then good ol’ boys with their ‘Freedom Ain’t Free’ bumper stickers need to shove those bumper stickers up their ass.

  93. feeriker says:

    Not all of these things are good. I’m just trying to make the point that when China (EVEN CHINA) is far more free than the US then good ol’ boys with their ‘Freedom Ain’t Free’ bumper stickers need to shove those bumper stickers up their ass.

    Most of those inbred dolts have never set foot outside of their own county, let alone ventured into any foreign country, so they’re pretty much universally and immediately recognizable as idiots to be ignored. They would know “freedom” if they saw it about as readily as a newborn baby would recognize a nuclear reactor.

  94. HerbN says:

    All we need is for the men to stop complaining, man up, and somehow make it all work. Then we can get on with the business of thanking the men and women who protected us.

    Is it odd that every time you point that out I can’t help but hear the wreckers and hoarders of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged telling the industrialists they are sure the industrialists will figure out a way to make it still work with all the new rules.

  95. Lost Patrol says:

    Avowedly pro-feminist active duty officer author has doubts.

    http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/how-not-to-integrate-females-into-combat-arms

    “The author is in favor of allowing women more opportunities to serve, but thinks that treating them like men is a non-productive effort: either standards will have to change or we won’t get many in combat arms.”

  96. infowarrior1 says:

    @Lost Patrol
    ”“When the might of the US, the Free Syrian Army and the other regional armies in Iraq were unable to stop the advance of ISIS, young women in military fatigues and floral scarves defeated men who can barely tolerate fully covered-up women.”

    “Many of these guerrillas were women, for a basic principle of the decades-long Kurdish liberation movement is that women cannot wait for others to defend them, but must themselves fight to be free.”

    “…whose guerrillas have been some of the only forces capable of fighting the Islamic State — not in spite of their feminism, but because of it.”

    No doubt they are excluding the Kurdish men who did the vast majority of actual fighting. But what this shows that it certainly is possible for women to fight courageously and for men to treat them non-sexually given enough conditioning.

    However those facts still stand:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420826/putting-women-combat-even-worse-idea-youd-think-mike-fredenburg

    Study after study shows how women in combat degrades overall performance. The fact that ISIS lost shows how much of bottom barrel males they are: poorly trained,disciplined and facing airstrikes.

    So firearms may have made all the difference in the modern world at least in regards to those males.

  97. Lost Patrol says:

    @infowarrior1:

    You’re right of course. My take it back comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. Technology has enabled child soldiers in Africa to kill, so you can hand a rifle to most women and they can fire it and do some damage. In fact, you can search up a great video of some geniuses in an African country I now forget, that handed a loaded AK-47 to a chimpanzee that then, absent opposable thumbs, nevertheless shot the place to pieces while they scrambled.

    The presence of women absolutely disrupts and corrupts a fighting organization. Everything in the manosphere explains why, with much of that ground being covered in the last couple of military themed Dalrock posts.

    I thought the NYT article was a classic, finding a small sampling of females associated with the Peshmerga, then inflating them to warrior princess status (wearing flowered scarves) that fight off the bad men because they cannot wait for others (men) to defend them. This is how to work the scheme. The women can’t just be part of it, they have to be the ones saving the day.

    Before I get too long winded here, please allow me to pull this from another thread and post here as confirmation of the scheme.

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/08/10/female-sailor-recognized-for-bravery-iranian-detention-incident.html?

    The male sailors have been, or are in the process of being punished for their part in this embarrassment. The one female aboard has been awarded a medal for calling for help. She literally did next to nothing at all, just follow SOP, but has been made into the only real “warrior” present.

    If that link doesn’t work just search for:

    ‘Female Sailor Recognized for Bravery During Iranian Detention Incident’

    This isn’t a one off. Women will be placed everywhere, and they will be lauded no end.

  98. GS Jockey says:

    Dalrock, check out this video–it perfectly illustrates your point. Skip to the 3:30 mark to see how the media artificially celebrates/elevates the role of women at the expense of men.

  99. Gunner Q says:

    “I’m just trying to make the point that when China (EVEN CHINA) is far more free than the US…”

    A consequence of the Chinese gov’t not (currently) intending the destruction of China. The American gov’t does intend the destruction of America. We became the greatest nation in human history on a foundation of Christianity and limited government, and for that we will never be forgiven even by our own leaders. They would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven… rather sell out to their ChiComm brother-butchers than be another Ronald Reagan.

    http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2014/10/02/chinese-flag-flies-over-sf-city-hall-despite-thousands-protesting-for-democracy/

    I love the picture of SF’s mayor waving the Chinese flag from city hall with the PRC’s liaison officer standing at his side. Says it all. Don’t tell me China is better than America while I watch our leaders climb in bed with each other.

  100. kaminsky says:

    Well there is China through the media/global-dramatics and then there is China ‘on the street.’ As an individual human being just living my life, I quite liked ‘street China’ and how it felt. It was not unlike how I felt in wild and free South America. But watch out on those Chinese crosswalks, brother!

  101. momosgarage says:

    There are multiple things going on with the contemporary Military Industrial Complex, first, there are some real penalties that occur when a man between the ages of 18-26 does not register. For example, being unable to obtain a drivers license or work for government agencies in some states. Men whom failed to register are also not able to take out student loans or get a federal job.

    If the Military Draft ever becomes a real law, that women had to follow, I can guarantee that half the women in the country, between the ages of 18-26, at the time the law changes, would be rendered ineligible for all the above noted items and benefits, in short order, due to ignorance of the totality of situation and/or bad advice from parents that won’t know or understand the current status of the law.

    Here is an old topic posted on MetaFilter, outlining the consequences of not applying for Selective Service Registration:

    http://ask.metafilter.com/133491/Failed-to-register-for-Selective-Service-ruined-for-life

    http://www.brethren.org/news/2014/many-state-laws-link-drivers-licenses-to-draft-registration.html

    Again, since women have never needed to register and there is over 100 years worth of “word of mouth” supporting that idea, MANY women will be blindsided years later, after they realize that they needed to register, but did not, after the law changes.

    Second, I can also explain why this push for “Front-line Females” is happening, at least within the USA, beside the obvious “political reasons” that are forcing “equality” in the form of “numbers of female bodies present in the Armed Services”.

    The USA may soon have its first female Commander-in-Chief, in the form of Hillary Clinton (and if not her, it will happen easily within the next three Presidential Administration cycles).

    Right now, the USA military is very combat veteran heavy. Meaning units all over the various branches have many people that have been in actual combat, which is very different than the military force that Bill Clinton led in his last term and even the one that Bush led in his first.

    So, why is this relevant?

    What senior ranked, combat veteran, in their right mind, is going to agree with ANY order given or strategy issued by someone like Hilary Clinton? The answer is NONE. I can almost guarantee there will be a mass exodus of “experienced combat staff”, if, Hilary Clinton becomes Commander-in-Chief and this exodus will occur across all service branches.

    So, this begs the question, how will those “manpower loses” be replaced? By gung-ho women joining up, of course! By opening up “front line duty” to women, the armed forces will be able to put “bodies in place” that will be able to make up for the loss of real “combat veterans” (does the first females in Ranger School make sense now?). Granted these forces will be very inefficient and far less experienced, but they will be highly obedient, will follow procedure manuals to the letter and will willingly act as a force-wide CID on the behalf of the up-and-coming, “Politically Driven Commanders” of tomorrow.

    So, even though, Bill Clinton and Obama had no military experience when they were in charge and “Bush II” had very little, if any, MARK MY WORDS, Hilary Clinton, acting as Commander-in-Chief, in retrospect, will make Bill Clinton look like Churchill, Obama like Franklin Roosevelt and Bush like Eisenhower.

    Think of it this way, would you want to receive or give a “life or death order” issued from someone who WILLINGLY let their husband cheat on them and then stayed married to that cheater, simply for potential future political gains and the chance to eventually become the first female President?

    That is the LAST type of person that regular USA citizens can trust, in a position of power, that has the ability to order regular people to their deaths in war. Divorcing Bill would have given her a HUGE credibility boost, but it would have been at the cost of Political Power and her current chance at being the “First Female President”. Since she did not divorce him, it should be a clear indication of what her primary motive are.

    Final item to consider, Mark my words when most Millennial’s reach their late 40’s and beyond, deaths by way of falling down stairs at home, or simply slipping on the floor at work, will balloon to unheard of proportions. Millennial’s have spent far too little time getting bumps and bruises during their childhoods, meaning the bones in their bodies are not strong and may as well be chicken bones, due to all the “seat time” they have built up, in comparison to previous, more active, generations. Here is a study, showing how, what I have said, is a very possible outcome for Millennial’s and its anyone’s guess how Public Health Policy will deal with them later:

    Essex University, studied how strong 315 children, at 10-years of age were, in 2008 and then compared them with 309 children in the same age range, using data collected in 1998. They found the following:

    -The number of sit-ups a 10-year-olds could do declined by 27.1%, between 1998 and 2008
    -Arm strength fell by 26% and grip strength by 7%, between 1998 and 2008
    -1 in 20 children in 1998 could not hold their own weight, when hanging from wall bars. In 2008 one in 10 could not do so and another 10% of that 2008 cohort refused to even try the activity

    Now add in neck and back problems from texting and you have huge public health disaster on the horizon. So, as I said above, basically a fall down a flight of stairs or a heavy box falling on them, when they get older, is far more likely to kill them INSTANTLY, than in previous generations. Their bones have sustained far less impact over the same amount of time, versus people born just 2 decades earlier. Their bones will be as fragile as porcelain when they reach 40+ years old and what’s REALLY funny is that insurance companies currently raise rates for people over 40. So that begs the question, what will happen when these kids hit 40+, based on the current insurance polices? Honestly, they should be completely uninsurable when they reach 40.

    Now try to imagine how the military is going to deal with this public health issue affecting service age Millenial’s. The most realistic solution is more drones, more butt-in-the-seat time for soldiers and a higher emphasis on “college academics”, so they can do more butt-in-the-seat military jobs. In a scenario like this, what difference would it make to have an out of shape man or a physically weak woman in these military jobs? Not much , especially when the whole cohort is already filled to the brim with physical weaklings to being with.

  102. American says:

    I say force women into combat roles at the exact same ratio as men. Tag them and bag them when they fall same as men. They want all the benefits but none of the risks and it shouldn’t work like that. If they can’t handle it, dishonorably discharge them same as a man.

  103. Anon says:

    They want all the benefits but none of the risks and it shouldn’t work like that.

    Unfortunately, such fairness is a concept alien the female brain, as well as the brains of mangina/ whiteknight men. Hence, what you suggest will be rejected by the same ‘feminists’ who insist that they stand for equality.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s