Soldier Barbie

February 17, 2011 at 1:01 am 47 comments

I wrote a piece on the history of women in the military that argued for the inclusion of women in the draft and allowing women to be in combat positions. Typically, this piece was flagged by some of the manosphere guys who want to point out that:

1)   Most men are stronger than most women. Really. I hadn’t noticed.

2)   Most men are faster than most women. You don’t say.

3)   Women in wartime can be raped and tortured. So can men, but no one thinks about that.

4)   Current physical fitness tests for men and women in the military are not equal. Women are spotted an advantage, in other words.

5)   Therefore, women should not be in combat situations in the military.

Wow. That’s really sound rhetoric. I mean, I can absolutely see why you would have to come to that logical conclusion. Excuse me. My tongue is stuck in my cheek. That’s really painful.

Dalrock, in a piece meant to refute mine, mentions an anecdote of a young female Marine who was beaten to death in a bar fight. This is supposedly an example of why women shouldn’t serve in combat positions in the military. It’s a sad story, but the young woman didn’t die because she was ill prepared for military combat. She died because she was stupid enough to pick a bar fight with men who were larger, stronger and faster than her.

No doubt, alcohol affected this woman’s judgment, but even most men know better. Every once in a while some smaller, weaker man with a few beers under his belt decides to pick a fight with someone twice his size, and every so often that man beats him to death. But those deaths can’t be used as an “example” to keep women in line. That’s just the story of another bar fight gone bad.

There is absolutely no reason why women can’t serve in the military in combat situations. It’s happened before. It will happen again. I’m not about relaxing physical fitness requirements. I’m about making them fair. Push ups, pull ups and sit ups are ways of measuring a person’s strength against his or her own body weight. Any woman in the military should be able to do just as many as a man can.

Let’s make the requirement for lifting, instead of being arbitrarily based on a certain weight requirement, fixed on some reasonable amount based on the person’s size. In addition, if lifting a particular object is required for a particular military job, then don’t allow anyone of either gender who can’t lift the object or its equivalent weight have that particular job in the military. It’s just that simple.

I have a friend who has a son in the military. This kid is 21 or so. He’s only 5’ tall at best, and I’d be really surprised if he weighs more than 130 pounds. He meets the physical fitness requirements for men in the Army. If he can do it, then it’s possible for most women who put forth an effort to meet most of the same requirements, with the possible exception of upper body strength.

One thing that’s frequently mentioned for why women can’t serve in combat positions, and this one’s my favorite: she won’t be able to carry out her buddy if he’s wounded. Who says her buddy is a he, if women are allowed in combat? And do I really think my friend’s son could lift out a 6’ tall, 270 pound man? Maybe, but not for long. However, I think even fat out of shape me could fireman carry his tiny ass for a little ways. Conversely, if a woman is injured, because she’s lighter, then she’s easier to carry out. But the manosphere doesn’t see things like that, because they don’t want to do so.

I’m not the only one who thinks that women should be allowed to serve in the military, and in any capacity that they choose. Take a look at the links for actual intelligent information on the subject of women in combat:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/18/women-in-combat-the-debate-begins-anew/

 

http://www.npr.org/series/14964676/women-in-combat

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/commission-to-recommend-allowing-women-in-combat-units-1.131807

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/102737/20110119/lift-the-ban-on-women-in-combat-panel-says.htm

 

 

 

Entry filed under: Human Rights, Politics, Violence, Women's Rights. Tags: , , , , , , , .

Technical Difficulties Lord, Make Me An Instrument of Thy Peace

47 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Melissa  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:08 am

    The military has had to accept a lot of out-of-shape men because of shortages… I worry much less about women than about some of the out of shape individuals that have been allowed in.

    I think they should have different tests for different tasks. There are clearly things women can do just as well and in fact there is evidence women make better snipers for example. I do doubt women could qualify for some ground jobs though. We have to be realistic here.

    Reply
    • 2. Author  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:25 am

      No argument here, but if a woman can qualify she shouldn’t be banned solely on the basis of her gender.

      Reply
    • 3. Robert the Wise  |  February 24, 2011 at 2:46 am

      What is the evidence that women make better snipers?
      Please post some links.
      There is no evidence women make better snipers. If you knew anything about sniping or warfighting you’d already know that.

      FYI I’m a U.S. Army Infantry veteran.

      Reply
      • 4. Author  |  February 24, 2011 at 2:50 am

        I posted a link. Please read the rest of the comments. You can disagree with it, of course, and having been in the military, you would be better qualified to give an opinion. But I did post a link that made that argument. Thanks for commenting.

      • 5. Author  |  February 24, 2011 at 2:54 am

        I’d be curious to hear about your opinions on women in the military, if you served with them. What did you think?

  • 6. Dalrock  |  February 17, 2011 at 3:46 am

    My point about the marine killed was that she drank the Lara Croft koolaid, and had no idea how much stronger men really are than women. It works different in video games and the movies than in real life. Once that happened, all of a sudden she was a poor little woman picked on by the mean man she assaulted and there was talk of prosecuting him for fighting back.

    You still haven’t addressed the questions I raised. Would you lower the bar for men in the military to requirements women can regularly pass, or throw out the women who can’t hack it?

    And your assertion that physical strength isn’t important for infantry forces is nonsense. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the idea of a high tech push button war is a pipe dream. Those guys are scaling walls, kicking in reinforced doors, and often enough fighting the enemy hand to hand. And the pack loads they have to carry are heavier than in previous wars. The men are carrying so much weight that it is right on the edge of what the (male) body can endure.

    I know it doesn’t fit the way the world works when you close your eyes, whisper “Girl Power!” and imagine it, but men are simply far stronger than women. The percentage of women who can perform at the level required of an infantryman is miniscule. In practice this means one of two things will happen:

    1) Standards will be lowered until ‘enough’ women can pass them. The men in the units will be forced to pick up the slack for the women who literally can’t pull their weight.

    or

    2) The military will be forced to move heaven and earth to accommodate the handful of women who have both the desire and ability to do the job. See the firefighter link in my blog post for an example of how this works.

    My guess is it would be some combination of 1 & 2. Either way, the military is worse off but feminists can check another item off of their to-do list and go back to really not giving a crap about the military.

    Reply
    • 7. Author  |  February 17, 2011 at 4:08 am

      Hi Dalrock,

      I think your point about the Lara Croft bit is lost, unless you can prove that this particular woman was obsessed with Lara Croft. It’s no different than any other bar fight.

      As for women being exempt from accusations of physical violence, I think that’s bullshit. I’m not sure how it’s enforced, but women being violent towards men should be treated in the same way that men being violent towards men should be. At no point in any of my posts do I give approval of women being violent towards men without expecting them to provide self defense. But like a man will be judged towards another man in a fight, if excessive force is used, then it’s no longer just self defense but it is also murder or manslaughter. Did the men continue to beat this woman after she was subdued? If so, then they deserve to have the same standards applied here as would be applied in a bar fight of a weaker man against stronger men. Did they continue to beat her even after she was incapable of inflicting damage upon them? That’s an important question in any bar fight, whether or not the instigating person was male or female.

      My answer to your question about the standards is that once the standards are fairly assessed for what is actually required for each of the jobs, then men and women should be judged by the same standards.

      I never said that physical strength wasn’t required for hand to hand combat. But if you actually read the links I posted, which I can readily tell that you didn’t bother to do, that women are actually capable of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan; it’s just not “conveniently” called combat. We use women in these roles but don’t give them proper credit for it. The fact that you especially use the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as “proof” for you argument proves that you don’t know anything about the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars. PLEASE actually bother to read my links. I read yours, after all.

      I’ve never closed my eyes and whispered “Girl Power,” and I think that if you do a search of my blog you will find how absurd that statement really is. I readily admitted that most men are physically stronger than most women. CAN YOU READ? I have to wonder, because you obviously do not get that concept, even though I actually wrote: MOST MEN ARE STRONGER THAN MOST WOMEN. What part of that sentence did you NOT understand, STUPID?

      Also, read my comments where I say that men and women should have to meet the same realistic requirements.

      You obviously don’t or can’t READ.

      Reply
  • 8. Dalrock  |  February 17, 2011 at 3:57 am

    @Melissa
    The military has had to accept a lot of out-of-shape men because of shortages… I worry much less about women than about some of the out of shape individuals that have been allowed in.

    Do you have any links to info on this? Are the Marines not following the policy I referenced in my blog post? (Gooseberry Bush you forgot to include the link to my post. Can you add it and then zap this part?)

    I’m also curious if you have any links on women being better snipers. Aren’t snipers held to a higher physical standard than ordinary infantry? I would be very surprised if they were held to a lower standard at the very least. Any info you can share would be appreciated.

    Reply
    • 9. Author  |  February 18, 2011 at 12:48 am

      http://www.snipercountry.com/articles/firstwoman.asp

      Please note that the commanding officer quoted in the article is a man.

      Reply
    • 10. Melissa  |  February 18, 2011 at 12:56 am

      http://tinyurl.com/6jrdueb

      Reply
      • 11. Author  |  February 18, 2011 at 1:00 am

        OMG. Melissa, you made me laugh out loud. Literally. That’s great.

    • 12. Melissa  |  February 18, 2011 at 1:00 am

      Marksmanship is one of the few sports in which men and women can compete without men compete dominating. The top war snipers are mostly men, but there is a woman in the top 10.

      Reply
  • 13. Amanda  |  February 17, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    If a woman wants to be in the military and do the same things a man can do, then she SHOULD be thrown out if she cannot hack it or meet the same requirements that men have to make.

    I am more concerned with countries that aren’t as advanced as the US with women’s equality. This could potentially put ALL soldiers in danger, men and women, especially if they are traveling together. Not to mention warfare. It might also make us look “weak” in the eyes of other countries….

    That being said, if my daughters want to join the military, then I am all for it. They just need to educate themselves on what will be required of them before they join.

    It is an admirable job regardless. And definitely one where more serious men and women are needed.

    Reply
  • 14. Bike Bubba  |  February 17, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    The Marine who died was in Iraq, where liquor is not provided to soldiers.

    If you want women in combat, fine, but please; for the sake of the guys there, don’t lower physical standards. Warfare is intrinsically a physical endeavor.

    Moreover, it’s not a “possible” exception of upper body strength, it’s a “definite” exception, and one that becomes very critical in any number of tasks–grappling, handling Ma Deuce or antitank weapons, moving a wounded comrade. To draw a picture, all male recruits are required to do pullups–average is around ten or more after basic–and 98% of women cannot do even one.

    Now let’s imagine what happens when a woman–say Lori Piestewa, Jessica Lynch, or Shoshana Johnson–finds herself in a transportation batallion hit by enemy fire. What happens when the physical strength needed to remove a jam from an M16 just isn’t there?

    We know, don’t we? The ugly reality of war is that soldiers don’t always get to work in a little defined area–the machinegunner mans the squad antitank gun, helps the medic evacuate other soldiers, and finally picks up an M16 or (a la York) 1911 to carry on the fight when his buddies can’t.

    Reply
  • 15. Dalrock  |  February 17, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    @Bike Bubba
    The Marine who died was in Iraq, where liquor is not provided to soldiers.

    I was wondering where she came up with that. It didn’t say anything about a bar or alcohol in the article I linked to. I suspect she was confusing it with an episode of She Spies.

    Gooseberry Bush, I noticed you still didn’t link to my post, the one you are rebutting.

    Reply
    • 16. Author  |  February 17, 2011 at 5:33 pm

      I’ve never seen an episode of She Spies. I had to google it to know what you were talking about here. For the record, I’ve never watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Xena Princess Warrior, either. You’re getting your link. I’ll put it in the post.

      Reply
      • 17. Robert the Wise  |  February 24, 2011 at 2:49 am

        That’s too bad. Xena and Buffy are both great shows.
        Totally unrealistic, but great.

      • 18. Author  |  February 24, 2011 at 2:52 am

        That’s funny. I wouldn’t expect you to say that. I’m glad that you like shows with strong female characters. Those shows have just never appealed to me. But maybe it’s the eye candy thing. I preferred Highlander.😉

      • 19. painlord2k  |  February 24, 2011 at 9:29 pm

        Well, fighting (fit) women show good genetics for fighting (fit) sons and daughters. If they fare well in fighting, they also show willpower and intelligence.

        Anyway, Xena and Buffy were showing very masculine traits with their will to sacrifice themselves for others and combat until the end, whatever it could be. This without losing their femininity (Buffy – with Xena this is debatable, apart when pregnant).

        Anyway, Buffy was a show designed to flip near all stereotypes over their head.

      • 20. Author  |  February 25, 2011 at 3:38 am

        Wow! You actually made a comment that I like. We might have some common ground, after all.

  • 21. Dalrock Reader  |  February 17, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    Hi GB:

    In the interests of transparency, I came to this blog by way of Dalrock. My views are loosely aligned with his.

    My nation has conscription for all males, and we have real enemies in the world. I was a squad leader for an anti-armor infantry unit. I believe there are several reasons why women should not serve in combat roles, but I will only present the most unobjectionable reason.

    Interchangeability. The most important attribute of a well-organized military is that each unit is interchangeable and expendable. If my unit is destroyed, another unit that is essentially identical to mine can be used instead. This ensures uniformity and evenness in combat effectiveness, even after attrition losses. This means that we can’t afford “special” units in the organization. We can’t start subdividing infantry units into units with burly men who are capable of CQB and units with women and weaker men. All infantry units should perform more-or-less identically. Obviously, there are differences between signal, recon, armor, arty, and infantry, but these differences are due to equipment and function. And all are expected to fight. At the Battle of the Bulge, German armored units overran front-line combat troops, and even cooks, medics, and traffic police found themselves facing tanks.

    There is also interchangeability at an individual level. A smaller person might eat less and drink less, but the weight of a rifle and ammunition is invariant. A loaded 30-round magazine of 5.56 weighs about one pound. A typical load might range from eight to more than twelve magazines. Then there is body armor, water, and comm gear. A smaller person would essentially carry exactly the same weight, through uneven terrain. Also, when it comes to lifting wounded, it’s not enough to be able carry someone your weight. You have to be able to carry anyone. Again, the military isn’t about to create units that are made exclusively of women and weaker men. Being strong “for your body weight” just isn’t good enough. If you’re in an artillery unit, you have to be able to lift a 155mm round, which is the size of a fire extinguisher but weighs over 60 pounds. They don’t make proportionately smaller rounds for smaller people.

    You might argue that modern push-button war doesn’t need physical strength – but it still very much does. Virtually all of army training is devoted to physical fitness. In urban combat, typical indoor distances might be less than 5 meters. And as any infantryman knows, although a 9mm or 5.56 round can kill, it may not kill your enemy quickly enough. Even if you shot him through the chest, he can still take two running steps, and stab down through the exposed neck.

    You might argue that the IDF allows female combat troops, but that is misleading. Tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers have died over the decades of war, but how many IDF women have died in combat? One. I wonder just how combat-oriented these units were. Sounds more like lip service. And while the Pentagon does publish studies and the media writes stories (no prizes for guessing what they think), the proof is in the pudding. All elite combat units in the world are all-male. I have a friend who was a US Army Ranger for 8 years, multiple tours in Afghanistan. He showed me a photo of a large dent in the optics of his M4 where he used his rifle to block a knife.

    I know this all sounds like macho puffery, but we live in a very civilized world, and it’s easy to forget how primal and terrible a kill-or-be-killed situation is. Combat units are not trying to score points in the gender wars, it’s purely about effectiveness. Perhaps the US, being the strongest country in the world, can “afford” to put women in combat units. But “afford” is the wrong word. You don’t want to reduce your margin of advantage over the enemy. You want to have an unfair advantage in every fight, and you want that advantage to be as large as possible.

    And IMO, you’d have to be an a**hole to bring up “women don’t die in wars” as an argument against women. But don’t hold that against the men who are doing the fighting.

    Reply
    • 22. Author  |  February 18, 2011 at 12:10 am

      I like men, and I appreciate the men who serve in our military. I appreciate the women as well. Women are already serving in combat situations in the US military. Whether you call it combat or combat support, it amounts to the same loss of life. Hundreds of women have died in the line of duty in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Most of you men at least raise excellent points and considerations, like cultural factors in an enemy environment.

      Did you ever think about the fact that the reason why the only elite militaries are all male is because they prohibit women from joining?

      Listen, I get that you guys have your minds made up about this, and I’m not going to change your opinions. I just want you to see my point of view, and instead of dismissing it or calling me an idiot simply because I don’t agree with you, debating the issues intelligently and being willing to see the other person’s side of the story.

      I think that we’ll probably never see a world where there are as many female combat soldiers as male. I just don’t want women who might qualify and who can do the work to be denied the opportunity based solely on their gender.

      Reply
      • 23. Dalrock Reader  |  February 18, 2011 at 1:09 am

        “I just don’t want women who might qualify and who can do the work to be denied the opportunity based solely on their gender.”

        That’s a reasonable position. There are other objections I could raise that have to deal with more fuzzy things like “desert queens” (Google it!) and esprit de corps, but I won’t get into it.

        I think you may be underestimating the gap between male and female physical strength. How many women do you know who can do 10 chin-ups? I know none, and I’ve only known one woman who could do two. She was a collegiate lacrosse player. Ten is a very moderate amount for any fit male.

        Well, how about weight training? Well, no dice there either. Men respond dramatically to weight training, and the gap between men and women increases, rather than decreases. It’s literally due to testosterone. This is why body-builders take steroids.

        As an aside, I’ve never heard an argument for how adding women to combat units would increase effectiveness, only arguments why it won’t decrease effectiveness, or why it won’t be the end of the world. Again, I’m not sure why any military would want to make a change that doesn’t promise to increase effectiveness. Being fair is a distant second to being good at winning wars.

        Finally, to address the reason why women aren’t allowed in elite units. Of course, this is a historical legacy. Do you believe that sexism is the reason why all militaries have done this, or could their be legitimate concerns?

      • 24. Author  |  February 18, 2011 at 1:35 am

        I don’t think i underestimate the gap between male and female physical strength. I get it. I live with it on a daily basis. Maybe one of the reasons why you and other men from the manosphere so clearly point out the Freudian slip of women being “given” equal rights is that we understand all too well that without your cooperation or complicity, then we don’t have any rights. Physically, if men chose to do so, then they could literally force us to do nothing but be barefoot and pregnant housekeepers. I get that. So does every other woman. We understand it all too clearly.

        I think there are a lot of fine arguments for women adding to the military and improving the military. If nothing else, then they could serve in less physically demanding positions, thus allowing the men who would usually occupy those roles to be free to engage in the needed hand to hand combat.

        I don’t foresee a military with a lot of women in combat roles. I just don’t want the ones who could to be denied the opportunity.

        I think the military is better for having women in it, maybe not by the standards in which you choose to judge their performance. But women can and do contribute in significant ways to the modern military. They deserve to be commended for their contributions and their sacrifices, same as the men do. And, last but not least, one more soldier, whether male or female, is still one more soldier. It’s another body committed to the fight. We don’t prohibit able bodied, smaller men from joining. Why should we then prohibit women?

      • 25. Dalrock Reader  |  February 18, 2011 at 6:05 am

        Able-boded smaller men are still much stronger than all women. Again, the gap.

        “I think there are a lot of fine arguments for women adding to the military and improving the military. If nothing else, then they could serve in less physically demanding positions, thus allowing the men who would usually occupy those roles to be free to engage in the needed hand to hand combat.”

        We already do this…this is the distinction between combat and non-combat roles. Women can certainly be excellent pilots, support and logistics personnel, intelligence, signals, and even MPs. The question is GI Jane.

        ” Maybe one of the reasons why you and other men from the manosphere so clearly point out the Freudian slip of women being “given” equal rights is that we understand all too well that without your cooperation or complicity, then we don’t have any rights. Physically, if men chose to do so, then they could literally force us to do nothing but be barefoot and pregnant housekeepers. I get that. So does every other woman. We understand it all too clearly.”

        True…but where is this coming from? I didn’t write anything remotely related to this. I’m not constantly emphasizing superior male strength because I think men should use that strength to coerce women. That’s barbaric – and one of the key achievements of civilization is that might doesn’t make right. We have rules which enforce ethical norms.

        But war is precisely where there is no civilization. Might makes right. And even in the 21st century, it often comes down to a contest of physical strength. You can’t apply the nice equality rules of the civilized world into the uncivilized world of combat.

        (I also made a second comment, a few below, which makes other points)

    • 26. Author  |  February 18, 2011 at 2:04 am

      I’m pretty sure that even I could lift sixty pounds. Now maybe I might not be able to do it for long, but the more experience I had with it the better I’d be at it and the longer I’d be able to do it.

      Reply
      • 27. Dalrock Reader  |  February 18, 2011 at 5:52 am

        I don’t want to belabor the point, but you’re missing the point. Why compromise? Why take the chance? Maybe you can lift 60 pounds. Fine. But what if it’s 120 degrees, you’re dehydrated and sleep-deprived, your right knee is sprained, and your eyes are stinging from smoke? This happens all the time. You don’t want soldiers who can just make the minimum, you want them to be massively overqualified for their jobs. (And I double-checked the weight …it’s 95 pounds, I had it wrong.)

        Again, the gap is huge – the average man, without special training, is stronger than 99% of women! And training makes the gap bigger! A high-school beanstalk-boy, after a few months of training, will easily outperform virtually all women, even if those highly-motivated women who train for years!

        I won’t argue here if gender equality is a desirable goal. Let’s simply assume that it is. Even then, the concerns of gender equality are superseded by combat effectiveness. I’ve already touched on the issue of interchangeability, which directly addresses most of your arguments in your original post.

        I believe it would be unethical to put combat units in possibly greater danger, just to satisfy the gender warriors sitting at home tapping on their computers. You can come up with plans and systems that would integrate women, but war is serious business, and experimentation is hazardous. “We could do this…how about that…” No. The first priority is to win, and to do it with as few getting killed as possible. Any accommodation or adjustment or compromise is just that – something which reduces the effectiveness of the military for the sake of some other goal. This reduction in effectiveness will cost us more lives. It is immoral, because we would be trading soldier’s lives for to satisfy our penchant for social engineering.

        Gender warriors can fight it out in other areas…academia, government, boardrooms. But please, not the military. Mistakes in the military are paid with lives and ruined nations.

      • 28. TrollKING  |  February 18, 2011 at 3:21 pm

        Can you lift a large bag of dog food at walmart easily? I worked stock at 18 and when hired was ased by the store manager if I could lift a 80lb bag of dogfood. I respnded with a cold glare but he had to ask because I was about 5’5″ at 18 and about 110 lbs. I realize today that my feminist mother, neglecting all domestic duties as oppression, had basically malnourished me. I would be taller today, infact I am at almost 5’8″, if I had had more than one meal a day and actually had home cooked stuff instead of cheap shit. At 18 my bulimic gf would marvel at how far my hip bones stuck out. It amazes me that between 19-20 I grew two inches from actually eating a lot, especiially quater pounders from mccy D’s.

        The fact is that I would unload trucks and then put the contents on the shelf. Could you take a manual pallet jack and jack a pallet of canned goods only up to a 15 deg angle and then pull that 5-8k pallet off of a truck? My boss at the time couldn’t do it by himself and he was a 6’3″ former olympic athlete, divorced hence working as a stock manager, who was in his 40s and in prime physical shape. When we had pallets of all cans we, me and another short guy, would get behind it and push as he pulled and it would wind us all.

        I can however pull a mixed pallet of cans and dry goods off by myself and that was when I was super skinny and hadn’t worked out. Today I figure I am twice as strong as I was then and I have gotten fat. Something that I have realized isn’t a bad thing if I want to gain weight. Putting on weight and then working out and then putting on weight after quitinig for 6 months or a year or two and then working out is what allowed me to build muscle mass.

        We have to distinguish between strength and muscle mass, both of which men have much more of. Men have denser muscle fibers and this is why a skinny guy can often times beat a larger more muscled guy in a fight. Ok, not if it is trained boxers. But determination and actual strength are the prime factors in non boxing/martial arts trained fights.

        I remember the last time I was at the gym I saw this super skinny guy my height benching three times more than this more muscled looking guy. The reason is mass v. strength. It also depends on which muscle groups you are using and how strong they are for the task. Remember muscle weighs more than fat so for a guy with strong arms but skinny arms too to throw a hard punch he doesn’t have as much mass to move. The size of the bicept and deltoids doesn’t matter as much as the strength it can produce and the bigger it is the more strength or force is required to move it.

        If you actually look at pics of the guys who stormed omaha you will see many were kinda scrawny guys. In my life the marines and rangers I have met usually were somewhat lanky, not all there are some hulk looking dudes out there but the abiltiy to move fast and strong is more important than being big, bulky and slow. It also makes a bigger target for a bullet to hit.

        Could you pic up a case of meat? As a butcher I unloaded meat trucks every other day and the smallest case size is about 80lbs. I would have to unload two or three pallets and also rotate the other cases on the shelf and I could do it in less than 20 minutes and again that was when I was half as strong as now and much smaller and skinnier. I could still do it today and if you saw me you would realize I am not the epitome of what a soldier is supposed to look like.

        I almost joinged the military and am now glad I didn’t. From what I have heard about it from guys in it, it sounds like a feminized hell. I have heard about women flirting and having gangbangs and false rape claims and even more I have heard about women who could carry their own tool bags and these were just engineers.

        Seriously, why do you women even want to compete against men? Men already have to compete against women and men and we don’t want to compete against women in the bedroom or board room. Having lived over seas I am not turned off by western women. Your attitudes are just toxic, all the constant attempts at not only competing but also trying to best men and put us in our place are the most unattractive features of women today.

        In the south were I live I went to the court house the other day and saw they had put up another memorial. It listed all the names of guys from the area, my home town, who had died in Iraq and afganistan. I was taken back by how many were on it and noticed two from my HS. I really wonder if they would be alive today if they didn’t have to serve with women.

      • 29. Author  |  February 18, 2011 at 5:32 pm

        Hi Troll King,

        I think this is all in how you choose to see it. I don’t think women want to compete with men as much as they want to serve and work with them and to have their contributions taken seriously, instead of only being valued for our abilities to produce children or serve you sexually or cook your dinner or clean your house. We have a lot to contribute to the world, including being able to serve in the military. If you actually read the links I provided you’d see that women are already serving in combat, admirably. They aren’t killing people; they’re saving lives.

        I think the real question here is: when women assert themselves, why is that so threatening to you?

  • 30. Dalrock Reader  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    As for the girl who was killed in what was basically a friendly brawl, I can paint a picture of what happened. I don’t know the details, of course, but it’s easy to guess.

    The military is a masculine environment. It’s about aggression, hierarchy, competition, and physical toughness. There’s a sort of feedback cycle, as soldiers feed off of each other’s energy, like a sports team. Soldiers don’t really care about respecting one another. You obey the chain of command, even if you despise your officers, and respect among soldiers must be earned by being tough, responsible, and a “stand-up” guy. The second thing is soldiers are bored. There is a lot of time spent doing absolutely nothing. This leads to a lot of bullying, teasing, and general goofing-off. They burn off all that excess energy lifting weights, playing video games, and ripping on each other.

    Put a woman in that situation. She wants to earn respect and acceptance. She does this by being tough, swearing, and generally adopting the behavior of the males around them. But most women (don’t want to generalize too much) haven’t learned one thing that most men learn, usually fairly early in life. Men know that you can only provoke another man to a certain point before you actually produce violence. Because most men are trained (for good reason) not to hit women, women can provoke men in ways that a man would never provoke another man. But in that all-male environment, where even the women act like men, that mental safety isn’t there. She attacks the man, and the man responds instinctively, with the violence he would use on another man. She probably was surprised by that response, as most likely, in all her previous altercations with men, the male had that mental safety in place, and held back from using his full strength. Unfortunately, the disparity in strength means than even one hard shove against the wall or body slam to the floor kills her. Incidentally, neck muscles are one of the first things you strengthen in boxing.

    It’s not a bar fight, because if a woman attacks a man in a bar, he would not respond that way. Different environment, different rules. This leads me to a second point. In a combat unit, designed to kill enemies, which mode of response is preferred?

    Reply
    • 31. Author  |  February 18, 2011 at 12:30 am

      This is actually a thoughtful response, and a very good one, I might add. That is a possible scenario.

      Reply
  • 32. Solomon II  |  February 17, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    Barbie should have been at home tending to the children and cooking her man a sammich in the nude.

    Now that I got your attention, you should write about this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-mcmillan/why-youre-not-married_b_822088.html

    I’m salivating just waiting to hear your thoughts on this one…

    Reply
    • 33. Author  |  February 17, 2011 at 11:59 pm

      I’ve read that article, and I just didn’t think it was that interesting or controversial. I think there’s some truth to the fact that if a woman really wanted to be married, then she probably could be…at any age. The issue is how badly you want to get married. I did want to get married once upon a time. I just never wanted to get married that badly. But marriage is a series of compromises between a man and a woman with give and take on both sides. The author raises some good points.

      Reply
  • 34. painlord2k  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    The point (3) is wrong.
    It is not really important if women are raped or tortured.
    The problem is when they become pregnant POW.
    Do their loyalty will go to their child(ren) or to their country?
    Do you think the children will stay with them? Or they will be taken by the fathers or by the hostile party/government?

    “Realistic requirements” for military is ambiguous.
    If the force need 100K soldiers, the right requirements are the requirements that allow to recruit the 100K individuals with the best abilities (if they are good enough to do the job).
    If the best 100K individuals are 100K men, 999.999 men and a woman or 999.999 women and a man or 100K women it don’t matter.

    Unfortunately, evolution selected for men to be able to kill and fight better than women on average. We are bigger, meaner, stronger, more resistant to physical pain. The man relations are more rule based than the female relations that are more relation based.

    Women were and can be used to some jobs in the military. Unfortunately they are not fit to first line combat positions and surely not for attack roles.
    For example, do you think a detachment of women sent to do crowd control would be able to control an angry mob of men without resorting to live fire more often than a detachment of men?
    Remember their upper body strength is less than half of men on average.

    Then look at the video of the Gaza flotilla and the SOF sent there to stop it. Now, substitute them with women. Would they have hold the fire so much, as ordered by their superiors? Would they be able to defend themselves enough to regain the upper hand as the male did?

    Using women as guards or other defensive roles could be done, because they can organize for their ability level and this would free men for attack roles.

    Reply
    • 35. Author  |  February 17, 2011 at 10:27 pm

      The motherhood debate is just plain stupid. Men are fathers as well. Also, not all women choose to be mothers. That argument just doesn’t cut it.

      Generalities and stereotypes abound. Men and women aren’t the same. However, not all men and not all women readily fit into the cookie cutters we like to stuff them into. Most men are faster than most women, but I guarantee you that Florence Griffith Joyner was faster than the average man on the street and probably the average man in the military as well. There are female bodybuilders. They are going to be stronger than the average man on the street, for sure.

      What I’m saying is that opportunities to serve in the military should not be withheld from women simply because they’re women.

      Reply
      • 36. painlord2k  |  February 17, 2011 at 11:23 pm

        Male POW can not be made pregnant. You can rape them as much as you wish they will not get pregnant.
        Yes, they could become fathers, but I don’t see the enemy to give them women to have them impregnated.

        Florence Griffith Joyner used steroids to obtain her records.
        Now, I’m not against steroid use by male or female. Being an anarcho capitalist I’m against all prohibitions on drugs, foods and so on.
        But the only way a small number of female can keep up with the same current standards of the males in the military is to go all in with AAS and other drugs to grow much more muscles. Many military personnel in SOF and other positions use them to keep up with the requirements. It is not only the sheer muscle mass, it is it help heal faster and take more stress. Many males in these roles are the genetic equivalent of a Blue Belgian cow.

        The reason exoskeletons like the HULC is that the men are carrying all the equipment they can and there are more. Often they discard some body armor (against orders) to be able to run faster and resist better to hot conditions.

      • 37. Author  |  February 17, 2011 at 11:53 pm

        I used FloJo as an example because she’s a famous one, but there are lots of female athletes who can run faster than the average male. And I bet that a lot of athletes use performance enhancing drugs, male or female.

        Yes, male POWs cannot be made pregnant, but a women who’s really committed to the military won’t have a problem with being required to get a Norplant or an IUD in order to go into combat. It’s in her best interests to do so, so I don’t see the women protesting over that requirement. I highly doubt that in a POW camp they’re going to go to the trouble of removing them or even checking for them. The women who are impregnated in times of war are usually civilian women, especially in civil wars or wars precipitated by racial prejudice, i.e. as a tool of genocide. But rape and the fear of rape are practically an everyday reality for women, war or no war. Are the chances higher? Yes. So are your chances of being raped on a college campus. I hesitate to mention this one, because I don’t doubt that some man from the manosphere will say that’s why women shouldn’t go to college, either.

    • 38. Author  |  February 18, 2011 at 12:20 am

      You are bigger and stronger, but I beg to differ about the resistance to pain and the meaner. Actually, I know tons of women who are just as mean as any man I’ve ever met. You might be surprised. And several studies have shown that women have better resistance to pain, might have something to do with the menstruation and childbirth thing.

      There are advantages to having women at war that might not be as readily evident as their bodies. You mentioned that women are mostly relation based? Well, we’re definitely better communicators. There have also been several scientific studies that have produced those results. In war, you just might want to have a few superior communicators around.

      Yes, I think it’s possible that a detachment of women could do crowd control. Crowd control is about the threat of implied violence, not so much about the application of it. Send a bunch of women with weapons. That’s what is done with men anyway. Upper body strength or not, we don’t send a bunch of male soldiers out to do crowd control without any weapons. Anyway, I don’t want an Amazon military, just women serving alongside men. Capable women.

      Reply
  • 39. Dalrock Reader  |  February 17, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    Is there a reason my previous two comments were not approved? I see that quite a few comments submitted after mine have been approved, so clearly you are actively managing your blog at this time.

    It is of course your freedom to manage your blog as you wish, but without any response I will resort to posting my comments on Dalrock’s blog, with attached explanation for such action.

    Reply
    • 40. Author  |  February 17, 2011 at 10:15 pm

      If you’ve commented previously, then your comments auto post without my approval. You’ve never commented before. I work for a living.

      Reply
      • 41. Dalrock Reader  |  February 18, 2011 at 12:31 am

        I see… I’m new to internet commentary. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

      • 42. Author  |  February 18, 2011 at 12:57 am

        You know, you’re actually smart and thoughtful, and I get the feeling that if you blogged you might actually raise some fine, legitimate concerns for the manosphere. There are actual instances of misandry in our culture. Men do get the short end of the stick in some ways. The military, business, politics, careers, and pay aren’t among them. But…we do have a culture now that seems to approve of demeaning and devaluing men in a lot of ways. Their roles as father and husband, for instance, are sometimes discounted. Men are sometimes portrayed on television as being simpletons or another child in the household, instead of as capable and intelligent contributors. You should comment more often, or better, write your own blog.

      • 43. Dalrock Reader  |  February 18, 2011 at 5:17 am

        Thanks for the kind comments. I’ve thought about it…but my knowing my own nature, I fear it will quickly consume much of my time!

        Also, the some views I have aren’t exactly politically correct – even what I wrote here would not be welcome in most real-world situations. It’s sad that free speech is stifled in PC-mad America (seriously…compared to other nations, even Europe, Americans are absolutely hypersensitive), but I have a family and career to consider.

  • 44. Bike Bubba  |  February 17, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    Painlord makes a good point; you put women boarding the “Gaza flotilla,” they can’t outwrestle even hippie men, and hence you end up opening fire on any number of people that ship–killing more people on both sides.

    Again, war is Hell–and fair fights get people killed.

    Reply
  • 45. Feminist scavenger hunt. | Dalrock  |  February 17, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    […] gadgets!  Gooseberry Bush links to an article which makes much the same point in her blog post Soldier Barbie: Heather Pfleuger — an exuberant, all-American, girl-next-door — was transformed when […]

    Reply
  • 46. Feminist scavenger hunt  |  February 20, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    […] gadgets!  Gooseberry Bush links to an article which makes much the same point in her blog post Soldier Barbie: Heather Pfleuger — an exuberant, all-American, girl-next-door — was transformed when she […]

    Reply
  • 47. Army soldier  |  October 30, 2012 at 1:43 am

    Clearly, men and women are built different…their bodies are different – that is why their physical fitness tests vary slightly.

    I am 5’1″ – I can’t run as fast as a man who is 6’2″. However, I can max my PT test and kick some ass, just the same as men in the military.

    I can maintain high standards, unlike some of the men in.

    I don’t act like an idiot like some of the men.

    I HAVE TO WORK TWICE AS HARD TO GET RECOGNIZED in a world full of men like YOU YA JACK***.

    Your behind the times brother.

    Reply

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

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Blog Stats

  • 171,566 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 82 other followers

February 2011
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28  

%d bloggers like this: