Adopting a Feminist Proposal for Women in the Military

A female Marine struggles to do her hair properly.

by J. Durden on December 22, 2010

One of my favorite conversations recently resurfaced here at The Spearhead, quickly rippling throughout the rest of the related blogosphere: the subject of women in the military. There’s been mumbles and whispers of it for a little while, ever since people started talking about the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal and whether we should be worrying about homosexuals openly serving in our armed forces. (The sensible folks, such as the Spearhead’s very own Jack Donovan, realize this question is largely unimportant, since having women in the military is far more detrimental and stands little chance of ever changing.) Trying to rationally suggest that we re-examine that status of women in the military is obviously met with all of the logical fallacies one has come to expect from the feminist camp – my favorite such being a red herring of the implication that critics of women in the military just want the ladies to be little more than prostitutes.

This got me thinking. What if women in the military were just prostitutes? Perhaps our feminist friends have actually stumbled upon a great suggestion. I used to joke that the Marine Corps should institute a “Barracks Whore” MOS (military occupational specialty, or job, basically), but laughs aside, maybe there is something to the idea. Allow me to elaborate.

We already know, thanks to government commissioned studies, that the average woman has 50% of the upper body strength and 65- 70% of the aerobic capacity compared to her average male counterpart. Studies regarding IQ have shown that men average about 3-5 points higher than women, and perhaps of more interest, that IQ tests tend to be rigged so that women and men appear to score equally. (What’s really going on behind the scenes is that women are only being compared against other women when scores are calculated, much like what happens with physical fitness test scores in the Marine Corps; women are competing only against other women in a test with easier standards, yet their “300 points” on the PFT counts just as much as a man’s “300 points” even if a man’s is much harder to earn.) This means the standby argument that women should serve because they can do the non-combat stuff just as well as the boys – be it turning wrenches, performing surgery, pushing paper or maintaining electronics – might not hold water. Nevermind the disastrous consequences that sexual competition introduces amongst the ranks. (Relevant quote from the previous link: “No one trusts a sexual rival, and nothing destabilizes a society like large numbers of single men. To avoid this scenario, our ancestors had to limit male polygamy and female hypergamy.”)

Anecdotally, I can tell you that most women do not join the service with the noblest of intentions. (Perhaps it is fair to say that most people don’t join with the noblest of intentions – but I suppose that’s to be expected what with the recession and the promise of a steady paycheck and other bonuses for signing up. Women in particular admitted some telling things to me, though.) I’d hate to be accused of exaggerating, so let’s say that half of all (read: literally all of them) the single female airmen I talked to admitted to me that they joined so that they could “travel the world” and “have sex with hot guys.” Pregnancy rates amongst the single female Marines at my base in Okinawa got so bad that the base Sergeant Major held regular PME’s (think, “classes”) with all the ladies to explain the dangers of pregnancy. It was also effecting operational readiness, since pregnant women can’t deploy (and as military readers probably already know and commenter DevilDog pointed out for those that didn’t, pregnancy to ditch out on deployment is a fairly common phenomenon). I don’t have as much direct experience with the other service branches but I figure my findings can probably be extrapolated. Perhaps zealous commenters can help fill in the gaps – I’ve heard pregnancy amongst female sailors is also a huge problem when it comes to staffing ships.

And before somebody gets all huffy and infuriated and starts shouting about the women that have served “in combat,” I’d remind you how precious few there are that have actually done so. When deployed to a war zone, women are generally kept safe on base, doing the same shit they would be doing in garrison (except collecting all the extra hazard pay associated with a deployment). Moreover, the women I know who have been to combat openly admit women shouldn’t be there (probably related to the whole physical fitness disparity mentioned above) or perform super effectively like Jessica Lynch. Maybe I’m beating a dead horse here, but I just wanted to establish that when it comes to the military, men can do everything women can do (except better). As Female Masculinist once remarked:

In short, the idea behind women in the military, police and workplace is that they benefit from being there. They think it’s fun. It flatters their egos, deservedly or not. The idea behind men in the military, police and workplace is that we all depend upon their being there and doing their jobs. All of society benefits from their work. And yet here we are, giving the dispensable privileges for the purpose of feeding their egos at the expense of the people we need who get by solely on their own merit.

Which brings us back to the suggestion that we just make women in the military prostitutes. I know what you’re thinking – it sounds extreme. But it wouldn’t actually be that drastic of a change. Most women in the military are already regarded – be it silently, or oustpokenly like DevilDog’s posts – as whores. Apparently quite a few of them could care less about this (such as the patriotic young lasses who expressed their true reasons for enlisting to me). So let’s take a look at some of the benefits of this proposal.

For the women, they wouldn’t have to worry about silly things like work or training getting in the way of their sex-filled, government-sponsored sojourns. In fact, it would stand to reason that they would be exempt from a lot of the silly hardships of military life. I don’t see why they’d really need to maintain a uniform anymore, for instance – since their job wouldn’t exactly necessitate one. They probably wouldn’t have to stand “duty” or “watch” anymore. Nor would they have to worry about the physical hardships and indignities of basic and follow-on training. Since this is government sponsored prostitution we are talking about, the ladies can expect a regular paycheck and the full compliment of government benefits – health care, dental care, 30 days paid vacation (you know, aside from all the other days of virtual paid vacation), the works. Safety would of course be paramount, including not just protection from physical harm but also safeguards against unwise sexual practices that could result in STDs, either for the ladies or the men.

There’s a host of benefits for the men and more generally for combat effectiveness and unit readiness. Single male service members would feel less pressure to get married in order to gain access to (the perceived benefit of) regular sex. Having regular access to safe sex would probably alleviate the pressure these guys feel to try and maintain untenable relationships, either with women around their base or the women “back home.” These relationships become especially strained during a deployment (or at a duty station far away – I can’t tell you how many nights I was kept up because my roommate was arguing with his girlfriend at two in the morning in Okinawa) and contribute to loss of focus, depression, decreased morale and a host of other difficult to quantify but certainly qualitative problems.

There has been a lot of attention paid to the sky rocketing suicide rate amongst service members – by which I mean especially male service members – and one has to wonder how much relationship issues play a part in this. The simple “reality on the ground” is that a lot of young men in the military (especially young enlisted guys) get married very early in their careers because of the bigger paycheck, the ability to live off base (thus avoiding some “duty” assignments and dodging the misery that is “field day” or whatever other term the other branches use to describe the once-a-week all-day-long haze fest of barracks room cleaning) and the aforementioned regular sexual relations (or so they think – most haven’t heard and refuse to believe that marriage is a leading cause of celibacy). Then they go on a deployment, hear on the grapevine that their lovely wife is getting gangbanged regularly by six or seven (different) guys every night back on base while simultaneously draining all of his accounts, and nobody wonders whether this is a contributing factor to our suicide rate. Hell, I I got more depressed just hearing about how some of the guys’ wives were taking a shit all over their hubbies.

Government sponsored hookin’ would make the barracks a much more attractive option than a nagging bride (there are no wives – hat tip W. F. Price) and future alimony (not to mention potentially child support) payment. Sew them oats young man, and consider a family after your service obligation. (Or once you’re more established and comfortable in your career.)

And before someone gets all NAWALT up in here, I understand that, yes, not all women in the military are “like that.” I haven’t personally met any, but I grant the supposed existence of the hard-charging female who is every bit a man’s equal. I have met a few good wives, as well. But the statistically tiny exceptions to the overwhelmingly obvious trends being discussed here do little to deflate the argument. And civilian brothers, don’t think I’ve forgotten you. If military hookin’ becomes a smashing success, it’ll only be a matter of time before the government decides legalizing and regulating prostitution for the rest of you wouldn’t be such a bad idea either. Can’t tell you how many gals we met in Biloxi who asked us whether they should go to college or become strippers – the market is there, Obama! Ya just gotta tap it (but before you do it, make sure you wrap it).

J. Durden moonlights as super-hero alter ego Dr. Deezee, a D-List internet celebrity of ill-repute working his way up the e-fame ladder by being a massive troll and associating himself with people who are much more talented than he is. He runs the Internet Hate Machine in his spare time and recently decided his life’s ambition would be to spread his personal philosophy of Hatronomics as far and wide as possible. He’s probably just trying to get a rise out of you, but you never can be too sure with his type.

Previous post:

Next post: