Woman Says “Combat Not For Women,” Other Musings of Interest to Men

Women in combat? They should be used like boys were used in the Iran/Iraq war. They used to walk through the mine fields setting the mines off so the men could walk in their footsteps. Oh yeah…the boys were blow to pieces….but that’s ok, they were only males.

Women have ALL the strength and ability they need to wander around setting off landmines, roadside bombs, getting shot at by bad guys and mown down. Hey in WW I men were sent over the top of the trenches without even guns on occasion to get the enemy to ‘use up their bullets’, you know, by mowing down defenceless men. And these men, mown down defenceless? They were the same ones who were somehow miraculously oppressing their wives and children while on the battlefield, didn’t you know?

War dead? 98% male.

When women represent 51% of the war dead as counted over the entire history of the world I might listen to ‘women are equal’. Off you go ladies. Go off to Iraq and get yourself dead for your sistahood!

Women should be allowed in the military, but just as professional prostitutes. It would be the patriotic thing to do, to ensure little Johnny gets laid more than just a handful of times before he gets his dick blown off by an IED. Think about their medals: The Red Star, for taking it up the ass. The Double Mounted Service medal, for doing two guys at once. The Distinguished 10 Star medal, for being hot. The Exemplery Service Medal, for providing a dozen blowjobs everyday while deployed. The Bronze Orbs medal, for having fake boobs done in the name of patriotism.

It’s not showing up on the main page for me either.

I simply have no idea how we all found our way here in the first place!!

Why, these hard-chargers
are practically ready
to Iwo Jima again

Generally, it’s best to be alive before the battle starts.

I wonder if the high suicide rate has anything to do with the high divorce rate?

Putting women in the military weakens it. It puts a strain on the men who have to pick up their slack. Women do not belong in the military. Let men have one last bastion of masculinity ffs.

We talk too much about women …

… What they think, what they feel, what they say, what they want, what they are doing or not doing etc. etc.

How about talking of our own positions on things as men. And making this perspective of the utmost importance in the scheme of things eh ?

>What about the chicks in the IDF?

They tried women in combat — and had to abandon the idea. Women’s presence increased casualties among male soldiers who couldn’t get past the inclination to protect the women even at risk to themselves. Women were also disproportionately injured (go figure, huh?).

Women should be allowed in the military to provide non-combat support only. They should be called “service members” but NEVER “soldiers”! Pathetic.

Buffalo Soldiers.

Seriously.

If the “solution” to the “problem” of black solders was to put them in their own, all “coloured” platoons (and then use em as cannon fodder of course) then surely there is ample precedent and logic in creating “Slit Soldiers”, all female platoons (and of course use em as cannon fodder)

I fail to see the problem.

Feminists?

OK, create all male platoons “Cock Soldiers” and stick EVERYTHING ELSE in their own platoons, and use em as cannon fodder.

———————————-

BTW I wouldn’t put too much weight on upper body strength, that is a purely US Military predilection.

UK Army boys will tell you the yanks can bench press a truck, but they can’t yomp worth shit.

Why don’t female demand a quota for a minimum percentage of female soldiers? Come on equality is important, isn’t it? How about deploying separate female batches of soldiers and see how they will be doing?

“Locals thought female Marines were a joke when they saw us on patrol.”

Hardly suprising considering that their culture hates women.

“I like math. Let’s assume she is an average woman. If she gave 110% effort, that means she had a whopping 55% of the upper body strength and 77% of the aerobic capacity of an average man! Still not quite cutting the mustard, but hey, she did her best, right?”

Hey, guess what: not all military jobs are physical or combat-related, and upper body strength and aerobic capacity are not the sole determining factors of combat effectiveness.

The repeated suggestion that women should only serve as prostitutes in the armed forces is yet another example of how the “men’s rights” movement is nothing but pure misogyny. I also do not understand why there should be any prostitutes in the military, because if you’re that desperate to get laid then maybe you should just stay home.

Currently, American women are already allowed in many different occupational specialties that expose them to the possibility of hostile fire. This is not in dispute and is obvious given the nature of the conflict. So, this leads one to ask, what exactly is the purpose of this stubborn fantasy of forcing the last remaining all-male specialties to accept women?

If sabotaging the military was their goal, one would be hard pressed to find a more effective way of going about it. In fact, the etymology of the word sabotage indicates that its original usage was to describe the low quality work of unskilled or disgruntled employees.

The primary reason for the push for women in combat has never had anything to do with combat effectiveness. It is allegedly about “citizen equality” framed in terms of civic responsibility.

But the civic responsibility rationale is a lie. These women are not consumed with an overpowering sense of duty to their country.

These ivory tower intellectuals don’t give a damn about duty, merit or efficacy because those concepts are completely alien to them. The overwhelming majority of them have not served, nor do they have any intention of serving in the military and don’t have to live with the consequences of their stupid ideas. Instead they will do what they have always done: sit on the sidelines as pompous spectators, heckling the unfair men who do all their dirty work, and complaining that they are doing it all wrong. The military has been slowly but surely succumbing to the enlightened opinions of leftist civilian social scientists who could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

In November of 2009, Major General Anthony Cucolo III had the brazen audacity to order his troops to avoid pregnancy while on deployment (the order also applied to the male soldiers that got the females pregnant). Judging by the feminist outcry that was generated, you would have thought he ordered all females in his command to get hysterectomies. We have not learned a damn thing from Exercise NIFTY NUGGET back in 1978, nor all the other similar situations since. This is all about feminist entitlement. These women resent any expectations of self-discipline or restraint. They have some dishonest notions of “fairness” that are completely at odds with reality. These contemptible ignoramuses know about as much about the military as they know about any other topic, ie nothing. They do not give a shit about the mission. What they do know very well is female entitlement. What they are very concerned about is enshrining military women’s right to be privileged malingerers that damage unit cohesion, lower morale, erode discipline and ultimately, damage a unit’s ability to accomplish their assigned mission. That is the practical result of their dystopian feminist vision.

it’s not ‘out-there’ to think that a man might ’snap’ or ‘lose-it’ after receiving news that his wife is cheating on him

I think this happens more than the military wants to admit. Several years ago, there was a series of wife murders at Ft. Bragg that caught the attention of media. Journalists were mystified. There was speculation that it was due to combat stress, drugs, or that George W. Bush himself was personally responsible. Nobody seemed to want to explore the adultery angle.

Hey, guess what: not all military jobs are physical or combat-related,

The ones that get you promoted are. And that’s what this is about – ambitious careerist female officers wanting combat jobs so they can make general someday. It has nothing to do with the actual needs of the Service.

When women were restricted to jobs that did NOT require physical strength, they howled about the unfairness of it all.

Oh, and by the way, every woman who can’t pull her weight in the front line just makes it harder for the men who have to get the job done.

and upper body strength and aerobic capacity are not the sole determining factors of combat effectiveness.

Combat is physically demanding. Women are not equal to its demands, period.

Word Twice “This is true and I think those jobs should be contracted out. Some of them already are anyway.”

Every single military job that does not involve direct combat and physical exertion should be contracted out to civilians? Uh…

“Do tell. What are the determining factors of combat effectiveness?”

If being physically fit is the only thing that matters in combat then I guess the US should just send football players to Iraq. No need to put them through boot camp or teach them anything.

Tarl “Combat is physically demanding. Women are not equal to its demands, period.”

Which does not change the fact that there is more to being a soldier than just fitness.

null January 20, 2010 at 17:52: …military job that does not involve direct combat and physical exertion should be contracted out to civilians? Uh…

Blows your mind, doesn’t it. I am not surprised.

null January 20, 2010 at 17:52:If being physically fit is the only thing that matters in combat then I guess the US should just send football players to Iraq. No need to put them through boot camp or teach them anything.

Nice straw man. You have not answered the question.

null January 20, 2010 at 17:52: Which does not change the fact that there is more to being a soldier than just fitness.

Once again; what are the determining factors of combat effectiveness?

Jay Hammers January 20, 2010 at 17:57: Is it solely based on rank, and is it true that rank is earned mostly through combat?

I was a bit hasty in answering so I will try to clarify.

Rank is not earned through combat, far from it. Meritorious promotions are possible, but combat promotions are a thing of the past, when attrition due to casualties was far, far worse.

Service in combat is something that reflects favorably on you when you are being considered for promotion.

However, these days I have noticed that some people have really been stretching their definitions of “combat”.

null January 20, 2010 at 18:37: Your suggestion is sheer lunacy. The military could not function properly if half of it was a hodgepodge of (completely unnecessary and way too expensive) civilian contractors.

Actually, in many cases contracting is cheaper and more effective. I am not convinced of your ability to judge either sanity or military efficiency.

null January 20, 2010 at 18:37: Please stop embarrasing yourself. It is completely obvious that physical fitness alone does not result in an effective fighting force.

The only one who should be embarrassed is yourself, for your utter failure to provide an answer to the question. What is completely obvious is that you have no idea what you are talking about, which is why you continue beating on your straw man.

Word Twice “Actually, in many cases contracting is cheaper and more effective. I am not convinced of your ability to judge either sanity or military efficiency.”

Handing out some jobs to contractors is hardly the same thing as contracting out every single job in the military that isn’t directly involved in combat.

“The only one who should be embarrassed is yourself, for your utter failure to provide an answer to the question. What is completely obvious is that you have no idea what you are talking about, which is why you continue beating on your straw man.”

Does your knowledge of the military come from Commando? Do you really think 21st century warfare is based on nothing but physical prowess? How do you think infantry units engage the enemy? Do they perhaps just punch them in the face and deflect incoming fire using their muscles?

For fuck’s sake, even in the ancient world it took more than just fitness to defeat the enemy.

J. Durden “Please show me where I suggested women should serve as prostitutes in the armed forces?”

Women should be allowed in the military, but just as professional prostitutes.

Actually, even ourside the military. I was ‘drunk talking’ with a mate recently and proposed the idea that women would do us all MUCH better service if there were prostitutes provided for men to keep them working.

They should also be paid less (because they aren’t risking life and limb) and assume the role of prostitutes for ACTUAL soldiers (ie. men) when duty calls.

“Furthermore, fun as it is to toss around the term misogynist, that’s a common feminist debate tactic.”

Only when the word is misused. And in this case it is not.

“I’m not a misogynist, I’m a realist, and ignoring real differences between men and women won’t correct those differences.”

Real differences between men and women == women should be military prostitutes?

Welmer “And that’s why we need menstruating women manning the HR departments at HQ — so that soldiers can be evaluated based on null’s mood depending on what time of the month it happens to be.”

Men are incapable of menstruating. I’m not sure if you were aware of that, but now you know.

Bob Smith “Are you really trying to say physical fitness isn’t necessary for a soldier?”

You’re the one who’s saying that. I make the plainly factual observation that fitness isn’t the sole determining factor of combat effectiveness, and you interpret that as fitness being unnecessary.

null January 20, 2010 at 19:39: Does your knowledge of the military come from Commando?

Funny, I was going to ask you the same question.

null January 20, 2010 at 19:39: Do you really think 21st century warfare is based on nothing but physical prowess? How do you think infantry units engage the enemy? Do they perhaps just punch them in the face and deflect incoming fire using their muscles?

I am quickly becoming bored with you. Are you going to answer the question or not?

Last time: What are the determining factors of combat effectiveness?

J. Durden “Did you misunderstand me when I said please show me where I stated that women should serve only as prostitutes? You are attributing the comments of people who have responded to my article to me. Am I to be held responsible for the free opinions of my reading audience, now?”

First you wanted to be everybody’s official spokesperson but now you’re refusing to take responsibility for what they said. Make up your mind.

Words Twice “Funny, I was going to ask you the same question.”

Based on what?

“I am quickly becoming bored with you. Are you going to answer the question or not?”

No, seriously: what do you think combat troops actually do out in the field? Do they intimidate the enemy by flexing their muscles? Do they dodge IEDs by running really fast? Let’s hear it.

On the subject of Women in Combat, Null said:

null January 20, 2010 at 17:14: … and upper body strength and aerobic capacity are not the sole determining factors of combat effectiveness.

Besides the fact that this is a blatant straw man, I wondered what other factors Null considered to be more important.

Words Twice January 20, 2010 at 17:33: Do tell. What are the determining factors of combat effectiveness?

Null then deployed a smokescreen and engaged in fierce battle with numerous straw men that appeared seemingly from nowhere. Alone and under heavy fire, Null continued to engage enemy forces with whatever meager and poor quality ammunition was available. Undaunted, Null began hurling ad hominem grenades and continued to fight even though there was no hope of victory. I recommend Null for the Bronze Star with Internet device for exemplary performance of duty, above and beyond what would be expected of a know-nothing of of their rank and experience.

Word Twice “Null then deployed a smokescreen and engaged in fierce battle with numerous straw men that appeared seemingly from nowhere.”

Nonsense. I am simply trying to tell you that you’re insane. Combat, whether today or in the ancient world, requires more than just physical fitness. That is an irrefutable fact.

Charles Martel “weight weight weight”

Yes, yes, yes. But the fact remains that muscles alone do not win wars. Being able to carry around lots of stuff doesn’t mean much if you have no idea what you’re doing or what you’re supposed to do with all that stuff.

@ Charles Martel

Off topic, but I wanted to say I enjoyed your post on John Bagot Glubb.

@Null

Being able to carry around lots of stuff doesn’t mean much if you have no idea what you’re doing or what you’re supposed to do with all that stuff.

Yes. Smart of you to concede the point. Not only can the women not do the physical work of infantry combat, as you so rightly say they (most of them) have no idea what to do with all that stuff.

@Words Twice

Off topic, but I wanted to say I enjoyed your post on John Bagot Glubb.

Thank you. I was blown away when I first found Glubb. An unknown historian with amazing insights. Made me want to run off to the British Museum and do more research from original sources on feminism in ancient Greece and Rome. The feminist narrative of historical female oppression is pure fiction.

Different topic – there’s something about Null that reminds me of a Turing machine. His posts are computer-like – every one designed to negate the point he’s responding to. Hence Null. The poor creature does not like himself.

Alright, I’m going to use a movie example (sort of). Just about every movie that follows a storyline on the experiences of a small group during a war will have a scene where one of the group members is injured and on the ground out in a very exposed position where (presumably) hidden enemy soldiers and/or snipers are waiting for others in the group to attempt a rescue of their fellow soldier. Their concern that death will certainly be the outcome if they do not risk being hit themselves to retrieve their friend who is obviously in great pain. Military units have to think and work as a cohesive group, so when one person separates and then is injured or killed, the rest of the group may put themselves at risk as well which endangers them all. If there are members or a member of a unit who is perceived to be weaker than the majority of their group, the enemy is going to choose them as the target in hopes of using that to push the remaining members into acting seperately and thus becoming easier targets as well.

The tendency for hostile interaction and sexual harrassment between the genders is just as common on base as it is in deployment circumstances. Not that it’s good or acceptable, it’s just how it is.

msexceptiontotherule January 20, 2010 at 22:52: If there are members or a member of a unit who is perceived to be weaker than the majority of their group, the enemy is going to choose them as the target in hopes of using that to push the remaining members into acting seperately and thus becoming easier targets as well.

Now, think about this in a POW context.

fedrz January 20, 2010 at 22:41: Here are some articles I have at the MGTOW Library in regard to women in the military…

Lind is excellent. Mandatory reading if you want to make sense of what is going on.

BTW, I am glad to hear you are OK after your recent fisticuffs.

words twice: I would imagine POW situations where the goal is information extraction, the enemy would use the torture of said weaker individual to compel the rest of the group to supply the information that the enemy is asking for. I read quite a bit of the interviews John McCain did shortly after he returned to the United States from Vietnam, regarding his experience as a POW. One thing’s for sure – that guy wasn’t a prima donna in the field, and he didn’t go along with the vietnamese gov’t, even when it resulted in serious consequences for him during his stay in the ‘hilton’.

Charles Martel: hey, I’m a military widow, not a veteran. But yes, I should have probably mentioned that movies are not the most accurate source since they’re to entertain (unless they’re documentaries, which can be entertaining…sort of.), but then again I never said I knew for a fact what goes on during combat, and it wasn’t something that my husband and I discussed in a matter-of-fact sense. It was his job, though I always got the sense that he didn’t want to make me worry any more than I already would.

They’re going about it the wrong way. Crime & violence goes down when porn and sex is freely available to men. The obvious solution here is for the military to enlist more women. After all a 50% quota is what’s fair to feminists, right? Yay equality! /s

Actually if the gender ratio was balanced we’d see a whole host of problems in the military resolve themselves. A big one would be infidelity by women. Right now the ratio is so bad they’ve got all sorts of opportunity and little competition keeping them in check.

Tarl “Combat is physically demanding. Women are not equal to its demands, period.”

Which does not change the fact that there is more to being a soldier than just fitness.

Women are unequal to the mental and psychological demands of combat, and are disruptive to small-unit cohesion. So, yes, the unfitness of women for combat extends beyond the realm of mere physical fitness.

Please stop embarrasing yourself. It is completely obvious that physical fitness alone does not result in an effective fighting force.

Physical fitness is necessary, but not sufficient, for an effective fighting force. Also necessary are morale and esprit de corps, and the presence of women reduces the morale and esprit de corps of fighting units.

Does your knowledge of the military come from Commando? Do you really think 21st century warfare is based on nothing but physical prowess? How do you think infantry units engage the enemy? Do they perhaps just punch them in the face and deflect incoming fire using their muscles?

No, seriously: what do you think combat troops actually do out in the field? Do they intimidate the enemy by flexing their muscles? Do they dodge IEDs by running really fast? Let’s hear it.

I want Null to put on 90lbs of combat gear and armor and walk around for a while in 120 degree heat for a few hours. No combat, just walk around for a while. Then if she is still scornful of “physical prowess”, we’ll have her kick down some doors, run up stairs, and sprint to cover when the shooting starts. Oh no, her buddy is down! Time to carry the wounded man out of the line of fire! Don’t need any upper body strength for that, no sir.

And if all you have is fitness, then you’re still useless. See how this works?
You obviously don’t know very many military men, to assume that all they have is brawn. Do you really think that modern asymmetrical warfare can be fought by men who are nothing but lumbering idiots?
Brawn is definitely necessary, but it’s hardly all they have. We have the most advanced and well-trained fighting force that the world has ever seen. But they should be strong, too.

The point is that soldiers should be chosen on health, brawn, intelligence, and abilities. Saying that brawn isn’t enough, is to deny the fact that brawn is essential.

I’m back to believing that Null is a female. That, or a really fat asian nerdy guy whose only chance of getting laid is to ferociously white-knight other guys to prove his manhood.

Null-

How old are you?

What do you do?

Where do you live?

How might I find you? As I’d love to sit down with you face to face and just tickle you, and tickle you some more, and when you can’t breath from laughing, I’m going to break all you typing fingers. Metaphorically.

And Null, why do you have a problem with prostitution? Whats wrong with it? Why would prostitution being a part of the military be a bad thing? You must not want women to have the freedom to do whatever they want with their bodies. You, my dear sir, are a blatent mysoginist.

Those currently arguing with Null would do well to look very carefully at its preceding comments. Null has claimed that physical ability is not the only thing necessary for physical combat–which is true but irrelevant–in an effort to convince you that it actually said that women are suitable for combat.

The fact of the matter (as indicated to me by those with greater military experience than myself, both here and elsewhere) is that physical ability is necessary (though not generally sufficient) for all combat roles, apparently rendering women a drain on combat effectiveness. Null has carefully not taken a position that in any way contradicts this, presumably in an effort to shift the lines of debate to a ridiculous position.

This is a common debate tactic–if you cannot defeat your opponent’s initial position, try to convince them to defend something less tenable, by presenting a non-contradictory position with an air of disagreement. You would be well advised when responding to Null, and trolls in general, to look carefully at what precise position Null is defending–you may just find that it is making a non-sequitur in a contrary way.

@ B & G

Yes woman cause massive amounts of turmoil in Garrison. Especially in with a bunch of Sappers.

Jabherwochie “I’m back to believing that Null is a female.”

That’s what happens when you stop taking your medication.

“That, or a really fat asian nerdy guy whose only chance of getting laid is to ferociously white-knight other guys to prove his manhood.”

I’m sure this is all based on meticulous evidence and rock solid reasoning that you will no doubt share with the audience in your next post. I wait with bated breath.

“And Null, why do you have a problem with prostitution? Whats wrong with it? Why would prostitution being a part of the military be a bad thing? You must not want women to have the freedom to do whatever they want with their bodies. You, my dear sir, are a blatent mysoginist.”

Hey, guess what: there’s a clear difference between advocating the legalization of prostitution and suggesting that female soldiers should all be turned into prostitutes (and that the military needs prostitutes to begin with).

“Null, it is logical. Point out the inconsistency of it. Why would this statement not be logical? ”

Because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It doesn’t make the least bit of sense.

“Saying that a bullet isn’t enough to shoot someone, is to deny the fact that a bullet is essential.”

This is equally nonsensical.

Arbitrary “Null has claimed that physical ability is not the only thing necessary for physical combat–which is true but irrelevant–in an effort to convince you that it actually said that women are suitable for combat.”

I have not said anything about whether or not women are suitable for combat (they are not).

“Null has carefully not taken a position that in any way contradicts this, presumably in an effort to shift the lines of debate to a ridiculous position.”

Or presumably I just didn’t care enough about the subject to comment on it.

“This is a common debate tactic–if you cannot defeat your opponent’s initial position…”

Why would I want to defeat it?

“You would be well advised when responding to Null, and trolls in general…”

Trolls like you? You are trying to derail the thread into an argument about trolling. That is the number one strategy of modern trolls. Pretty much their only strategy.

Charles Martel “Null is male. He is playing a game, which he shares with us through his alias, Null. Every post is destined to negate, or nullify the post he is responding to. There is no logic involved, other than restate to nullify. Only he knows the point of this. Responding to Null is about as useful as debating a magic eight ball.”

Translation: wah wah wah, how dare this person come into our echo chamber and say things we don’t agree with.

@ null

If all you have is fitness you will be a pretty boy body builder. We are talking about combat, the tactical aspect of warfare, not the operational one. Nice try at building a strawman.

The operational art of war is culminated in combat. I will refer you to the writings of Von Clauswitz. If you do not read Deutsch remember that the English translation is missing a few key points about the Schwerpunkt.

Tactics or maneuver if you will, is known colloquially as outwitting your opponent. If you can’t sustain your aerobic capacity while engaging the enemy and he can then you die. Your only hope at this point is to draw him into a trap, but I guess if you’re out of breath or have reached muscle failure, then you can’t even set the trap up eh?

Not one person has said physical fitness is all you need to be effective at warfare. Don’t misrepresent other people. It makes you appear to be foolish. Defeating an army of strawmen is no victory try again.

Why? Would that somehow alter the fact that success in warfare is dependent on more than just physical fitness?

So what exactly did you mean by the above then?

Except all the people who did. Why else would this argument still be going on?

You are the only that has claimed this albiet by accusing others of holding this position.

Got anything with substance?

“I’m sure this is all based on meticulous evidence and rock solid reasoning that you will no doubt share with the audience in your next post. I wait with bated breath.”

I’m hiding in the bushes outside your window, so clearly, I can see you are a fat, asian nerd.

Next question.

null January 20, 2010 at 17:14

“Locals thought female Marines were a joke when they saw us on patrol.”

Hardly suprising considering that their culture hates women.

ya should see how they LOVE Marines.

Hmmm…a tag error is hopefully obvious at the end of my previous comment.

Arbitrary “That’s right. And talking about something else is off topic. You aren’t the only one to engage in an off topic conversation here, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t do so.”

I’m not sure if you actually understand how discussion threads tend to work.

“Your claim that their culture hates women is orthogonal to the issue of whether or not they think female Marines are a joke…if true, your claim would merely mean that they hated the female Marines.”

Obviously the fact that Iraqi culture hates women just might have something to do with Iraqis not taking female marines seriously.

“This is a non-sequitur. The discussion was, up to that point, about combat effectiveness of women.”

So? Maybe you should consider what I was replying to instead of just randomly taking stuff out of context.

“This is pretty obviously irrelevant, and additionally serves the purpose of making it clear that you are unab le to comprehend humor.”

So people suggesting that women are only fit to work as prostitutes is not irrelevant, but me responding to those suggestions is irrelevant. How does that work?

“What I said can be easily interpreted to indicate that you are a troll, just as what you said can be easily interpreted to indicate that physical ability is not necessary for a soldier to be effective. ”

Nope. You called me a troll and I never said that physical fitness is irrelevant. Deal with it.

“No he did not”

Yes he did.

Black&German “And who says that Islam hates women?”

Anyone who is familiar with Islam.

I’m not sure if you actually understand how discussion threads tend to work.

Your inability to assess even trivial facts about others is duly noted.

Obviously the fact that Iraqi culture hates women just might have something to do with Iraqis not taking female marines seriously.

On the contrary, hating someone rarely makes them a joke in and of themselves (a member of the KKK is unlikely to start laughing hysterically at just the word “nigger”, for example), although it often makes them a convenient target for punchlines. Even assuming the truth of your claim, it is insufficient as an explanation for why female Marines might actively be viewed as a complete joke.

Furthermore, I have claimed that any apparatus bridging this gap will reveal why they think of female Marines as a joke without reference to something as nebulous as the claim that their culture hates women.

So? Maybe you should consider what I was replying to instead of just randomly taking stuff out of context.

I did consider what you were replying to…a previous commenter has noted that average female physical abilities are less than average male physical abilities, and interjected a farcical abuse of mathematics. You then made an assertion regarding what is or is not the sole determiner of combat effectiveness–this is a non-sequitur.

So people suggesting that women are only fit to work as prostitutes is not irrelevant, but me responding to those suggestions is irrelevant. How does that work?

I didn’t claim that what they said wasn’t also irrelevant (though I rather think it was a joke). I claimed that what you said was irrelevant. The truth of my claim is not (in this case, or in general) dependent upon other claims I have made.

Yes he did.

I supplied a reference (albeit not a particularly short one) you can check to verify that he did not. Supply a quote to the contrary if you desire to convince me that you are in fact correct.

What do you think I meant? I only ask because it should be perfectly obvious what I meant: success in warfare is dependent on more than just physical fitness.

Dodge not accepted. You have to answer the question not pose another. Another red hearing. Where did you learn logic, the school of sophocles?

Hahahaha. Right, because consistently pointing out that success in warfare is dependent on more than just physical fitness is the same thing as saying that success in warfare is dependent exclusively on physical fitness. Oh wait, no it isn’t.

Oh wait that’s another strawman. Try reading comprehension.

Why do you keep arguing about this? Do you perhaps disagree with the assertion that success in warfare is dependent on more than just physical fitness?

And yet another. You are not even good at sophistry. Try again.

@ B & G

You are correct about Islam. The Sharia’s are like inquistors. The moslems are not. Mohamed and Jesus bear the same message. Later generations corrupted it. Same with Buddha.

I’ve never been in the military, but I have seen similar stupidity elsewhere – when I was working in the bush fighting forest fires.

We had to meet certain physical requirements for the job.

I’ll never forget how absurd it was to do the one test. We had to walk, not run, a certain distance – a can’t remember exactly the distance, it was only a few miles.

The stupidity of it was that the men had to carry 50lbs on their backs, and the women had to carry 30lbs on their backs. And, the men were required to complete the distance something like around a minute or two before the women.

I’ll never forget that walk… not because it was so difficult, although admittedly, I had to push it hard to make it and my calves and thighs were burning pretty good at the end… but I’ll never forget just how insane I kept thinking it was as us guys started pulling away from the women…

Like a forest fire is going to burn friggin’ slower behind a woman than a man.

And furthermore, since the weight we had to carry was for essential equipment in case the wind shifted and we had to boogie… didn’t they calculate exactly how much equipment would need to go, and shouldn’t that mean that women are a direct disadvantage to any such operation, and shouldn’t there then be a restriction of exactly how many women ought to be permitted to be part of such crews?

And also, isn’t it just increasing the danger for everyone, because of course, looking at how far behind us the women were, there is no way that any of the guys would have left the women that far behind us if we were actually hoofing it through the sticks, outrunning a fire. We all would have been back there, kickin’ them in the ass to move faster, or taking on their 30lbs of weight so they could speed up…

In other words, you are only as strong as your weakest link, and by the time I finished that walk, I had already concluded that it was dangerous to me to have those women working on those crews.

It really shows how absurd the whole feminist agenda is, that they are willing to deny simple facts, such as forest fires don’t care about what sex you are, in order to placate these screeching harpies.

I think rape isn’t punished as strictly here because the burden of proof is so much lower.

I think a lot of feminists (both male and female) are oblivious to the most basic aspects of human nature. They assume that it is always men who are trying to oppress promiscuous women. But you’ll often find that virtuous women will be the ones to “cast the first stone”. Promiscuous women are the biggest threat to the chaste. They lower our value by lowering the worth of sex. It’s like breaking ranks and undermining the price fixing.

A lot of the stuff discussed on here is actually a tale of collateral damage; intra-feminine warfare, with men and children caught in the crossfire and occasionally used as cannon fodder. The “nice girls” on the one side and the sluts on the other.
May I further venture the guess that the new political interest in father’s rights is partially fueled by second wives’ and paternal grandmothers’ indignation and grievances?
Or am I just becoming cynical?

May I further venture the guess that the new political interest in father’s rights is partially fueled by second wives’ and paternal grandmothers’ indignation and grievances?
Or am I just becoming cynical?

Nope.

Especially now that sometimes second wives have been told to pick up the slack themselves, and kick in their own money.

Firepower,

Dear, you missed my earlier point. The men who join these ranks are among the most chivalrous. So, they’d be the last ones to complain and point figures at the women. They’ll just pick up the girls’ packs and keep on running. That is in the nature of men who are attracted to such noble service. Honor, chivalry, and stoicism in the face of adversity are all interlinked traits.

Charles Martel “Null is male. He is playing a game, which he shares with us through his alias, Null. Every post is destined to negate, or nullify the post he is responding to. There is no logic involved, other than restate to nullify. Only he knows the point of this. Responding to Null is about as useful as debating a magic eight ball.”
–
@Null-n-void — Translation: wah wah wah, how dare this person come into our echo chamber and say things we don’t agree with.

I answer only questions that need to be answered.
__

‘Null-n-void’,

Its not that we care if you disagree with us, its that we have no respect for you since you are a punk who doesn’t have the courage to back up what he says, or claims to believe.

Until proven otherwise, Charles Martel’s statement stands, and you are a bad faith commenter who is here to merely disrupt the conversation.

In other words, you are not here to debate — you are here to irritate — and it is not cool to be a passive-aggressive jerk who has nothing to add to the dialogue.

*Welmer, please ban Null-n-void until he learns to properly behave, and has something meaningful to say.*

@ null

Now you have been called a troll

B & G

I think rape isn’t punished as strictly here because the burden of proof is so much lower.

That and with all the various forms of rape, we are cutting the road to the land where the crime of rape is punished by a fine. I don’t understand why women keep pushing for this outcome. Insanity???

Ban Null.

If for anything, he thinks a bullet can shoot someone without a gun.

LOL

I think they’re just filled with irrational passion, and they’ll keep going until somebody stops them. Momentum.

Anyway, rape ignites (or used to ignite) such passion because it was assumed the woman was being robbed of something valuable: her fertility, her virginity, or her virtue. When a woman is drunk, bar-hopping, chemically sterile, a slut, and dressed like she’s a whore, the indignation wanes considerably. What exactly is she being robbed of? Her dignity? What dignity?

I’m not saying that it’s right or just, but that’s how human nature is. It’s like breaking and entering a mansion versus trespassing somebody’s mobile home. They’re both crimes of equal weight, but which one do you think will make the front page? By teaching women to act like skanks, they’re risking our losing interest in their fate. And thereby, losing interest in all women’s fates. Thereby, endangering all women, including myself.

In other words, feminists are women’s worst nightmare.

Alas, it has nothing to do with these women getting the same pay as men who fulfill not only their job obligations, but literally carry the water of weaker women co-workers.

What I meant was that it makes sense that these sort of ridiculous situations take place at their most extreme in the service because those men are going to be the last ones to complain, due to their chivalric nature and their keenness to be “fair”.

Black&German January 21, 2010 at 12:58

What I meant was that it makes sense that these sort of ridiculous situations take place at their most extreme in the service because those men are going to be the last ones to complain, due to their chivalric nature and their keenness to be “fair”.

All the worse, for occupations dealing with life or death.

I knew when I wrote a logically brilliant response
your eyes would glaze over
to fix your mascara
victory is
mine

You can’t be TOO tough on the little lady
she’s a delicate loverly flower in bloom.
Deep thinking leads to boredom
then crankiness
finally shopping

fedrz January 21, 2010 at 11:20: In other words, you are only as strong as your weakest link, and by the time I finished that walk, I had already concluded that it was dangerous to me to have those women working on those crews.

Clearly, the answer is to pass legislation that regulates the speed of forest fires.

Actually Words Twice, I think that women should be drafted.

They should be 50% of the armed forces – in women-only squadrons.

And they should be sent into battle first of all.

That’s my idea of equality.

I spent 13 years in the Marine Corpes and left in 1996. I could see the military changing even back then. The feminizing of the military picked up the pace when Clinton got elected. I remember the Army SGT at the Aberdeen proving grounds being convicted of rape for having consentual sex with privates. The reason it was rape and not fratenizing was because of the difference in “power.” The same people the nailed this guy gave the President a pass years later when he was playing stinky finger with an intern (talk about difference in power). I also remember the bomber pilot that was screwing an enlisted woman’s husband and got a free pass on that. I remember when they had female pilots after the “tailhook” Four out of the first five was dead within the first year or so.
Overall the point I’m trying to make is women have no responsibility at all in any area of adult life. Not even women that should be considered warriors are held to any standards. They are either frail helpless victims or victims of traditions or standards to keep women from participating or some other garbage. I don’t see how anyone can really take a women serious and most wouldn’t. So what the military has done is set up a bunch of rules to silence males and dumb down standards to show female acheivement. I saw it loud and clear in the navy and saw it creeping into the marine corpes when I left.
It has got to be terrible now.
And you know something else, I bet if I studied the high suicide rate in the military I could trace a lot of the stress to the burden of misandry. Just a few thoughts I had.
BTW I love this site you guys here talk like men. I’m here from Glenn Sacks site. I get a lot of my post deleated there.

Snark “I would imagine that Islamic women are quite familiar with Islam, yet they remain Islamic. Why would this be?”

I dunno, could it be because they’ll be killed if they leave? Not that it really matters if they do, because it’s not like a religious society’s rules suddenly cease to apply to you just because you renounce the religion.

Arbitrary “On the contrary, hating someone rarely makes them a joke in and of themselves (a member of the KKK is unlikely to start laughing hysterically at just the word “nigger”, for example), although it often makes them a convenient target for punchlines. Even assuming the truth of your claim, it is insufficient as an explanation for why female Marines might actively be viewed as a complete joke.”

It is a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation.

“I did consider what you were replying to…a previous commenter has noted that average female physical abilities are less than average male physical abilities, and interjected a farcical abuse of mathematics. You then made an assertion regarding what is or is not the sole determiner of combat effectiveness–this is a non-sequitur.”

No it isn’t, since physical fitness is not the only thing that’s needed in the military. A lot of soldiers sit behind a desk or fix stuff.

“I didn’t claim that what they said wasn’t also irrelevant (though I rather think it was a joke). I claimed that what you said was irrelevant. The truth of my claim is not (in this case, or in general) dependent upon other claims I have made.”

So responding to things that other people say is now “irrelevant.” Got it.

“I supplied a reference (albeit not a particularly short one) you can check to verify that he did not. Supply a quote to the contrary if you desire to convince me that you are in fact correct.”

I read all of his posts so I’m perfectly aware of what he has said.

Migu “Dodge not accepted. You have to answer the question not pose another. Another red hearing. Where did you learn logic, the school of sophocles?”

I just answered the question, genius. Try reading harder.

“Oh wait that’s another strawman. Try reading comprehension.”

Oh wait no it’s not. I never said or implied that physical fitness is the only thing that matters. I said the opposite. Repeatedly. Over and over again.

“And yet another. You are not even good at sophistry. Try again.”

Translation: “I can’t come up with any counter-arguments so I guess I’ll just repeatedly make completely vague references to some kind of straw men.”

“Yes you did. You just put the assertion in everyone else’s mouth and then argued against it. You know the strawman.”

I never argued it and I never put it in anyone’s mouth. Try again.

“Mohamed and Jesus bear the same message.”

If by “same” you mean “completely opposite,” then yes. I find it strange that despite all the politically incorrect posturing of the “men’s rights” movement, they still spew out orthodox liberal theory like Islam is a Religion of Peace.

Kulak “Its not that we care if you disagree with us, its that we have no respect for you since you are a punk who doesn’t have the courage to back up what he says, or claims to believe.”

And what, pray tell, are you expecting me to “back up?”

“Until proven otherwise, Charles Martel’s statement stands, and you are a bad faith commenter who is here to merely disrupt the conversation.”

Yes, it really sucks when an echo chamber is disrupted. It ruins the echo.

“*Welmer, please ban Null-n-void until he learns to properly behave, and has something meaningful to say.*”

Also, despite the fact that we ban/would like to ban people for disagreeing, we’re still totally different from feminists! Somehow!

Jabherwochie “If for anything, he thinks a bullet can shoot someone without a gun.”

You are insane. I have never said or implied anything like that anywhere.

Just to make it clear, I was support crew, not front-line fighting the fires. I have a commercial pilot’s license, and when I was seeking flight hours, it was a good job for me. They hired me as a radio-operator/dispatch/flight follower, and my job was to talk to all the aircraft fighting that particular fire, make sure they were in contact at least once a half-hour, tell them where to drop their buckets and so-on.

But, we were only a few miles from the fires… and the winds of change they keep blowing.

This to to null. If you have ever had to go through a day in the crucible, or anything remotely close to that, you would understand, physical fitness is a huge factor in combat. If you’re getting shot at, are you just going to mosey along, or sprint you ass off, under a 60 pound combat load to get to cover? I think I would choose running. Carrying 50 pound a piece ammo cans, do you really think that doesn’t take physical strength? My challenge to you, go through the crucible, and after that, come back and say that physical fitness does not play a role in the military

True, but the other extreme is also prevalent throughout the Military That is where I learned PUA after all.
This is true. But it’s often the same guy at different ages.

Moreover, it often seems as though families are an additional burden to service members as opposed to a support network (which is the common perception).

That’s because people have it exactly backward.

I wrote a post called What is Marriage?, where I explore that a bit. I didn’t even know about this before I wrote the post, but it came up in my research.

It seems that the reason the military promotes marriage (through benefits, and the like) is not because the marriage helps the soldier, but because being married makes them a better soldier. Based on evidence in reports like this one from the Congressional Budget Office.

We have to remember that the military’s makeup is changing dramatically. Instead of looking for foot-loose and fancy-free cannon fodder, the goal is to recruit highly stable, loyal, competent, intelligent soldiers and then keep them around for as long as possible. The military invests huge sums of money, time, and effort into the training of each soldier, so each soldier has become very valuable. The emphasis is on re-enlistment, rather than recruitment.
But this tactic is being strained by frequent re-deployment.

Also, the perception that only married service members are “stable, loyal, competent and intelligent” drives many out of the service who are single but otherwise stable, loyal, competent and intelligent.

Of course I didn’t mean that single men aren’t able to be competent and such (hope you know that). My point was that the military has been conducting surveys and research and has come to the conclusion that there is a benefit to them for promoting marriage. Although there is always the spectre of self-selection.

“Jabherwochie

“If for anything, he thinks a bullet can shoot someone without a gun.”

You are insane. I have never said or implied anything like that anywhere.”
————————————————————————
I’m sorry, I meant to say you think a gun can shoot someone without a bullet. See below:

“Saying that a bullet isn’t enough to shoot someone, is to deny the fact that a bullet is essential.”

This is equally nonsensical.

-Null

J. Durden January 20, 2010 at 19:44: This is certainly a tired issue as you’ve described it. It is not everyday, however, that you see women who have been to combat expressing through the news media that women shouldn’t be there at all.

Sometimes, to some people, it is more important who is broadcasting a message than what the message is, and they will only accept the message if it comes from an appropriate source…

You think that feminists will change their minds if they hear it from the horse’s mouth? I doubt it. Remember, combat effectiveness has never been on the list of priorities for the people that are pushing this agenda. Military need has never been a rationale for having women in the military (let alone combat), not even in WW2.

The issues have been unchanged for 30 years. Women’s anatomy and physiology have not changed in the last three decades and although you might be able to point to increased female participation in athletics, that still makes no significant difference.

The only thing that allowing women in the military has done is it has brought sexual politics from the civilian world into the military.

J. Durden January 20, 2010 at 19:44: Obviously, some of the things Sgt. Perrine says are confused and misguided (I tried to point these out)…

I am just disgusted with Charity Perrine. What she is really saying is that she wants to have her cake and eat it too. She wants to play Marine, but she doesn’t want to go on deployment, because the Iraqis don’t take her seriously and that hurts her feelings. If she wanted to wear a uniform, she should have become a bus driver or something. Unfortunately, she will retire from the Corps and America will give her a pension. Ooo Rah.

As I have said before, I don’t think that most enlisted women were all that eager to go outside the wire to begin with. And I have doubts that the majority of mainstream Americans are actually in favor of women in “combat”, if they really give it much thought at all. It is a minority of activists that are pushing this agenda that have the passive support of people who want to show off their progressive, enlightened opinions.

J. Durden January 20, 2010 at 19:44: There have been a few comments wondering about whether or not divorce and combat suicides are linked – I have reason to believe that they are.

Divorce and suicide have always been a problem for military personnel, long before the Conflict Formerly Known as the Global War on Terror. I distinctly remember an incident at one of my duty stations where a Marine committed suicide in spectacular fashion with a rifle at the base swimming pool. As I recall, he was going through a divorce and then got nailed for DUI. His marriage was over and his career was over, so he blew his brains out.

fedrz January 21, 2010 at 19:52: I’m gonna have to use that from now on when I relate that story.

Be my guest.

fedrz January 21, 2010 at 20:13: They hired me as a radio-operator/dispatch/flight follower, and my job was to talk to all the aircraft fighting that particular fire, make sure they were in contact at least once a half-hour, tell them where to drop their buckets and so-on.

But, we were only a few miles from the fires… and the winds of change they keep blowing.

Thank you for sharing that anecdote.

I have several friends who are firefighters/paramedics, and they are great guys. Lots of people loathe the military and hate the police, but everyone loves firefighters.

But how are they punished?
Depends on the country. Remember that Islam isn’t a purely Arabic religion. There are Muslims here, that punish with ostracization, for example.

IMHO, feminists are like the men that women used to hate.
That is because feminists admired those men, so they emulated them.

Black&German January 21, 2010 at 19:28: The original post is about women in COMBAT, not women working as paper-pushers at headquarters, or cooking in the canteen.

More specifically, offensive operations involving ground combat conducted by expeditionary units.

Proponents of women in the military frequently conflate offensive operations with merely being a member of the military, just as they conflate women and ethnic minorities.

They will state things like “war is hi tech now”, “there are no front lines anymore” and “women are already exposed to hostile fire”, as if they are saying something profound. The truth is that this was all said when this debate really began heating up over 30 years ago* and they are still not addressing the key issues:

-High intensity combat is physically demanding.
-There are significant anthropomorphic differences between men and women.
-These differences have a direct, negative influence on their effectiveness in high intensity combat, and the success of the mission.
-The number of women who are as physically capable as men are statistically insignificant and do not justify the additional burdens they impose.

If we had a truly serious military, it wouldn’t have any women at all, but we aren’t very serious these days. Feminists and “progressives” look at the military as just another government job, like the Postal Service or the Department of Health and Human Services.

*You could also argue that this debate is even older than that, if you consider that the Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services was formed in 1951. You know, back in the 50′s when women were so horribly oppressed.

J. Durden January 23, 2010 at 18:54: These types of women are the ones who would tend to be persuaded by a woman’s point of view rather than a man’s.

Perhaps, but what exactly are they being persuaded to believe by Charity Perrine?

J. Durden January 23, 2010 at 18:54: Certainly we can agree that culture may have pushed ideas into her head that wouldn’t have been there otherwise?

Probably true, but so what?

I am holding her to a higher standard of accountability than you are.

You think her message is even marginally a positive one? It is horrible. She is actually just engaging in the same old feminist sophistry. They feel they have a “right” to a military career regardless of their inferior capability, and therefore the military must cater to their special demands.

Even after she got a brief glimpse of reality, she is still clinging to feminist fiction. What she is really saying is that based on her sex, she wants the same rank, pay and benefits as you, with less responsibility and accountability, and some special privileges on top of all that.

Women like her will proudly wear the EGA on their maternity uniform and tell everyone they are just as much of a Marine as you are, and thank you for being so outstanding and supportive.

“The repeated suggestion that women should only serve as prostitutes in the armed forces is yet another example of how the “men’s rights” movement is nothing but pure misogyny.”

“Nothing but”. . . “pure” . . . misogyny ?? As opposed to what? Partially impure misogyny?

Rubbish! It’s an example of how a handful of disaffected commenters on a male-friendly website have a penchant for arguably tasteless black humor—which, given the rampantly anti-male character of our present world, may justifiably be written off as justifiable snarkery.

Also, why the scare quotes around “men’s rights”. That is a serious question. WHY??

As a rule, when people use scare quotes in that manner, it means they find the concept not quite “respectable”. . . and wish to distance themselves from it.

fidelbogen January 24, 2010 at 18:20: Rubbish! It’s an example of how a handful of disaffected commenters on a male-friendly website have a penchant for arguably tasteless black humor…

What is really funny is that there actually have been military women who have been caught engaging in prostitution while on deployment. Even though they may have been facetious, it’s not like the suggestions are unprecedented, shocking ideas.

Hell yeah Mckovin, fuck that slut bitch. Hoorah.

Man, if only I could get laid, maybe I should go buy a whore?

From what I can see there is very little illusion about women’s equality in the military. If anything they are scorned for being marked as “equal” when they are clearly not.
I have no real idea of where exactly the female bell curve is and neither do you, as I’m sure you have no actual interest in finding out, you are underestimating women.
If a woman can do a job as well as another person who does that job why shouldn’t she be able to do it? It’s a human right, and women aren’t less important than men JUST because they are women. If a woman can pull her weight (and some CAN) then the discrimination is just sexist.
Sexual tension? I’m sorry that you don’t like t be around women and that it makes you and your friends uncomfortable. I am going out a metaphorical limb here and saying that MAYBE that is YOUR problem. Having the emotional flexibility to work with women is a requirement to be successful in today’s society. A solider that is unable to control their emotions around women would indicate that they’re unable to control their emotions in other situations.
In the article you referred me to, it makes a lot of assumptions about WHY women aren’t as prevalent as men in certain career paths. For instance it says SEVERAL times that the work force depends on male labor. It only depends on male labor because males make up the majority of the work force, if women made of the majority of the work force then you wouldn’t be able to have one without them. In addition to the obviously offensive assumption that women have nothing important to contribute, you assume that the REASON women aren’t in the work force is because they aren’t as good at the jobs they are the minority in.
I assume that you have read or at least heard some things about feminism. What did you miss? Assuming a girl can’t do things as well as a boy gives the girl low self esteem and causes them to put in less effort. Simplistic, but in a nut shell, low expectations = low results. High expectations = high results. There are exceptions, but this is a pretty good rule to go by.
This article SEEMS to suggest that women should be homemakers, and nothing else. Since women clearly have no interest in working exclusively as homemakers shall I assume you wish to have this policy enforced somehow?
Once again I am brought back to the issue that if women can do things as well as male counter parts but you STILL don’t think they should be allowed to do those jobs you are just being sexist. If you didn’t know what sex people were and were required to hire them anyways you would probably hire at least some women. If the ONLY reason you would discriminate against a person is there sex then you are sexist.
(Ultimately I believe that this is the underlying reason we will never agree and it’s completely useless to argue about, BUT none the less…)
I would hate to leave your question unanswered. I think that people should be allowed into the military based solely on their merits.
That’s it.

Hey .

In the military the only time there is a relative pulling of yournown weight is if you are injured or female. Your assertion is wrong