The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
If Only the Obama Administration Had Acted One Day Earlier, Mrs. Farook Wouldn't Have Felt So Alienated
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the NYT:

Pentagon Opening All Combat Roles in Military to Women
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG and DAVE PHILIPPS 8:07 PM ET

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter made the announcement on Thursday. The Pentagon put out a mandate in January 2013 to integrate women into all combat jobs by 2016 or justify exemptions.

 
Hide 109 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This is almost a comical level of disassociation from reality. For those who are familiar with the Bible (and if you are not you should be) the foolishness has gone beyond Proverbs level and has entered Isaiah level (that is not a good thing, for the record).

  2. Because nothing gets America juiced up and clamoring for war like the thought of some poor woman being held by jihadis. So we will send a couple platoons of pretty white girls to Syria where they can be captured. In a few weeks there will be jihadi videos decapitating or torturing them. After that, every politician in America will be demanding full scale war against every Arab country.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    In a few weeks there will be jihadi videos decapitating or torturing them.
     
    Unfortunately, you know, that's not what would happen to them. Morbid to dwell on it, but more likely we'd get videos of sallow girls wearing headscarves and saying haltingly how wonderful it is to be the wives of their captors.
    , @jJay
    So we will send a couple platoons of pretty white girls to Syria where they can be captured. In a few weeks there will be jihadi videos decapitating or torturing them.

    No disrespect to the Comanche but it will more likely unwind like the life of Cynthia Ann Parker.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Ann_Parker

    ISIS will kill and torture men but not women. The girls that Boko Haram kidnapped have already become pregnant and have young children to raise. They will not return. This is a problem that should arch an eyebrow about even sending rugged athletic women into battle.
  3. It’s official.. Trump is a Sailer reader. Watching him on Hannity and he says we need to retaliate against terrorist family members. I suspect he got(or his advisors anyway) the idea from Sailer’s taki article on 4 ways to save Europe…

    It’s a pretty common sense approach, which I always thoughte was necessary, but only Sailer can verbalise it so well..

    This is really turning out to be a Sailer/Breitbart News election….

  4. You know, this is the problem with having an impossibly good strategic situation. We’ll keep doing all this stupid stuff, and the butcher’s bill will never come due, because *nobody can invade the continental USA*. The Israelis tried this and had to back off. But we’ll keep doing this garbage, and our male soldiers will wind up picking up the slack for the gals who would be soldiers but can’t carry 100 pounds.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    They've already invaded, and are launching periodic attacks.

    There was a Chuck Norris movie in the 1980s called Invasion USA. The plot was that a bunch of Muslim terrorists entered the US via Zodiac boats. What a quaint idea! They could have just applied for visas.
    , @H2
    America has already been invaded. It'd be more accurate to say America is being colonized. Immigrants who don't assimilate are really colonists.
    , @Wilkey
    Why the hell would anyone invade us, when they can come here freely and suffer no risk of death?

    The real people who suffer from this will be the women who join the military and wind up getting sent into battle. The amount of gear you have to carry into battle is hell on the backs of even lots of strong men. Good luck if you're a woman trying to do that.

    I'm not really sure this is meant as a serious policy. It's either meant to completely destroy the military, or to bait Republicans into fighting "the war on women." A responsible Republican administration will have to reverse this, and it will make them look bad.
  5. Women are well suited to combat. That’s always been my experience.

    • Replies: @bomag
    It depends on which side you are on. A commander choosing an attack point would do well to close on the units carrying the most women; info supplied by a fawning press eager for stories of Kardashians in battle.
  6. So will women have to register for the draft now?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    So will women have to register for the draft now?

     

    The Selective Service System is the last sane bureau in the entire federal government. Largely because no one's paid it any attention since 1980. Don't screw it up.

    Its very existence is a tacit admission that double standards can be valid.
    , @SFG
    I doubt it. The feminists would be stuck with the reminder of a clear double standard that favors women.

    Which is exactly why I'm in favor of it. If that doesn't give the MRA movement a shot in the arm, nothing will. Well, short of an actual draft, which is unlikely (and I am not in favor of).
  7. In what reads like a parody, the WaPo reports that The Backlash™ has been cited near the Imperial Capital: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-paris-and-california-attacks-us-muslims-feel-intense-backlash/2015/12/03/bcf8e480-9a09-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html

    “Rabia Chaudry kept her 7-year-old daughter home from her private Islamic school in Maryland on Thursday, fearing anti-Muslim backlash from Wednesday’s massacre nearly 3,000 miles away in San Bernardino, Calif.”

    The Backlash™ can reach anywhere at any moment.

    • Replies: @boogerbently
    Anyone ever check what they teach at those private muslim schools ?
    , @Boomer the Dog
    If you listened to Serial (season 1), you'll remember that Rabia Chaudry is the name of the woman who inspired Sarah Koenig to investigate the case to begin with--and that, among other things, she complained that Adnan Syed was a helpless victim of The Backlash. It seems very likely that the Rabia Chaudry of Maryland quoted in the Post story is the same woman. If so, she has quite the talent for attracting attention from the national media.
    , @Front toward Enemy
    Nothing says backlash like keeping an upper class 7 yr home from school on an imaginary threat from a non-existent event.
  8. @SFG
    You know, this is the problem with having an impossibly good strategic situation. We'll keep doing all this stupid stuff, and the butcher's bill will never come due, because *nobody can invade the continental USA*. The Israelis tried this and had to back off. But we'll keep doing this garbage, and our male soldiers will wind up picking up the slack for the gals who would be soldiers but can't carry 100 pounds.

    They’ve already invaded, and are launching periodic attacks.

    There was a Chuck Norris movie in the 1980s called Invasion USA. The plot was that a bunch of Muslim terrorists entered the US via Zodiac boats. What a quaint idea! They could have just applied for visas.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    It was the Cubans and the Russians invading in Invasion USA. Norris took on the Muslims in 1985's Delta Force.
  9. “or justify exemptions.” – probably the key piece of this order.

    • Replies: @Power Child
    I thought that was an interesting inclusion too. I actually like it as a reasonable compromise in a world where affirmative action is shoved down our throats: it wouldn't be so bad if you were always allowed to justify exemptions (and of course if those justifications were considered justly).
  10. Would it be a dirty trick to tell women that Carter’s action meant the dems want to draft them into the Marines?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Would it be a dirty trick to tell women that Carter’s action meant the dems want to draft them into the Marines?
     
    That other Carter suggested registering them in 1980. Reason prevailed, though.
  11. @Mr. Blank
    So will women have to register for the draft now?

    So will women have to register for the draft now?

    The Selective Service System is the last sane bureau in the entire federal government. Largely because no one’s paid it any attention since 1980. Don’t screw it up.

    Its very existence is a tacit admission that double standards can be valid.

  12. Let’s just ban men entirely from the US military.

    Then we can sit back and see how much women like doing this job that men have had the “privilege” of doing for so long.

    Of course then the sea lanes would be stolen from the world in short order, air and space would be lost in a flash, and we would be conquered overnight by the first opportunistic army to come along.

    • Replies: @Another Canadian

    ...we would be conquered overnight by the first opportunistic army to come along.
     
    Don't worry, you'll learn to enjoy hockey. And poutine can be a tasty holiday treat!
  13. Ashheap Carter: “But, but, they have to pass the standards you know! They’ll be just as good as having a man in that position!”

    The upside is that this is bound to make it easier to persuade the U.S. military to take our side in the inevitable winner-take-all contest that is coming our way.

  14. @SFG
    You know, this is the problem with having an impossibly good strategic situation. We'll keep doing all this stupid stuff, and the butcher's bill will never come due, because *nobody can invade the continental USA*. The Israelis tried this and had to back off. But we'll keep doing this garbage, and our male soldiers will wind up picking up the slack for the gals who would be soldiers but can't carry 100 pounds.

    America has already been invaded. It’d be more accurate to say America is being colonized. Immigrants who don’t assimilate are really colonists.

  15. @SFG
    You know, this is the problem with having an impossibly good strategic situation. We'll keep doing all this stupid stuff, and the butcher's bill will never come due, because *nobody can invade the continental USA*. The Israelis tried this and had to back off. But we'll keep doing this garbage, and our male soldiers will wind up picking up the slack for the gals who would be soldiers but can't carry 100 pounds.

    Why the hell would anyone invade us, when they can come here freely and suffer no risk of death?

    The real people who suffer from this will be the women who join the military and wind up getting sent into battle. The amount of gear you have to carry into battle is hell on the backs of even lots of strong men. Good luck if you’re a woman trying to do that.

    I’m not really sure this is meant as a serious policy. It’s either meant to completely destroy the military, or to bait Republicans into fighting “the war on women.” A responsible Republican administration will have to reverse this, and it will make them look bad.

  16. In 2003 a female reporter with the Chicago Tribune was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq. The reporter, Kirsten Scharnberg, recounted her experiences with trying to live in the field and keep up with the soldiers in an article entitled A woman goes to war in a man’s world. Here are some choice excerpts from this Iowa-raised farm girl who had run a marathon before the war.

    After learning that I was to be the Tribune’s only female embedded journalist, I promised myself never to write the woman-on-the-front-lines story.

    It just wouldn’t be an issue. I would find a way to blend in. I wouldn’t be treated differently because I wouldn’t let anyone treat me differently.

    The soldiers I had met up with said I could accompany them into the city–a 4-mile hike. I didn’t know whether I could hike 4 feet with all that gear, let alone 4 miles, but we set out. At about mile 2 1/2, I was about to give out. I was contemplating saying something needlessly melodramatic like, “Go ahead, save yourselves,” when a soldier asked, “Ma’am, can I carry that battery for you?”

    All my resolve failed. I handed the battery to the young man–who already was lugging a much heavier load than I was, including a fully loaded M-4 assault weapon that he would be expected to use in case of an attack.

    The decision nagged at me for days. Not only had I not been able to pull my own weight, I also had potentially put that young soldier at risk. What if he had not been able to aim his weapon effectively had we been ambushed in that wooded expanse of territory approaching Najaf? What if he had fallen on the rough terrain and misfired his weapon, injuring someone?

    As tough as I think I was out there, as proud as I am to have lived for more than two months in conditions I never dreamed possible, those questions bother me still.

    Back in Chicago recently, the Tribune had a welcome-home party for a bunch of us who had covered the war. A female editor asked me whether my experience had given me an opinion about putting female soldiers into the infantry and on the front lines. I told her about the car battery and also about the many times I watched big, tough, burly male soldiers nearly collapse during 10-kilometer hikes with rucksacks, ammunition, TOW missiles, radios and machine guns. I’m not qualified to say that no woman could do that job, but I suspect that it would be a rare one who could.

    I had run a marathon not long before the war and worked out almost every day. I grew up on an Iowa farm where manual labor was part of the bargain. But I had been bested by a car battery, and when I handed my load to that soldier, I admitted that I never could have cut it in the infantry.

    My guess is she was in better shape than most of the females going into the military today. I wonder if Ash Carter has read this first hand account. God help the infantry.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Maybe our troops are carrying too much equipment. The North Vietnamese had some female combat troops, as did the Russians in WW2, and the average Iraqi insurgent was probably in lousy physical shape compared to US infantrymen.

    After Vietnam, the US Army deliberately put some capabilities in the Army Reserve and Guard so some of them would have to be activated in the event of a war. The idea was to give politicians pause before starting a war. Didn't work. Maybe women in combat arms will? Probably not, but worth a shot maybe.
  17. Captured female soldiers being raped and or used as sex slaves is a distinct possibility. Becoming the star of an ISIS snuff film/propaganda video is also in the cards.

    Anybody thought of this at the Pentagon?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The hawks have been trying to get more boots on the ground in the Mideast for like what, 6 years now? If anything, they'd see that as a positive, as it'd generate more popular outrage hence support for military interventions.

    ISIS is a completely American fabricated organization. It's been developed by covert US money and arms support along with US media coverage, and its purpose is to wreak havoc and mayhem against US adversaries and justify intervention if necessary, just as mujahideen in Afghanistan were developed by the US to fight the Soviets, and just as Al-Qaeda was afterwards. Al-Qaeda, "the base", refers to the database of mujahideen fighters and contacts the US had in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and the name was repurposed for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Now the Al Qaeda name no longer scares anyone and is associated with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which are unpopular and which Americans are generally war weary of. It's no longer a good bogey and outlived its usefulness. A new adversary was necessary, so ISIS was cooked up, and here we are.
  18. Haven’t you seen Full Metal Jacket? A woman with a gun can do a lot of damage. They don’t call it “the great equalizer” for nothing. And with greater advances in weaponry, women become more effective on the battlefield, especially against less well equipped male adversaries.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    As long as she has a caddy to carry her depleted uranium ammunition.
  19. The Pentagoons are not thinking of the Army chicks. They are preening for the NY Times and following orders from our Muslim Man in the White Hose

  20. That’s what you get with a defense secretary named Ashton. Who names their kid with the initials ABC anyhow?

    Gen. Joseph E. Dunford Jr., the former commandant of the Marine Corps who recently became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not attend the announcement

    Good for JED.

    Women have long chafed under the combat restrictions

    Yes. Just the other day, my 40kg girlfriend was wearing her child-sized pink Converse sneakers and saying, “I’d love to shoot me some towel-heads–if only I could have a combat assignment in the army! Life is so unfair…” when my 60 year old mother replied, “Yes, deary, I really wanted to squat next to a jungle trail for hours, waiting to put some bullets in the Viet Cong, but the army has been holding us back for years!”
    That’s when my grandmother put down her tea and said, “I always said these hands were made for throttling Krauts, not holding teacups. My youth was wasted!”

    which remain crucial to career advancement.

    Yes. Because, after all, what is the purpose of the military if not to provide more career options?

    the Marines requested an exemption for infantry and armor positions, citing a yearlong study that showed integration could hurt its fighting ability. But Mr. Carter said he overruled the Marines… He characterized the change as necessary to ensure that the United States military remained the world’s most powerful.

    Hmmm… Again, Ashton. B. Carter.

    “I’m overjoyed,” said Katelyn van Dam. “Now if there is some little girl who wants to be a tanker, no one can tell her she can’t.”

    “Humping a hundred pounds, man, that ain’t easy, and it remains the defining physical requirement of the infantry,” said Paul Davis, an exercise scientist

    Obviously, infantry could be humping (?) 200 lbs, but the standards are based on what men can do, and so, obviously, the answer is to change the standards. Infantry should only have to carry what they feel like… then, if there’s some girl who doesn’t want to carry a heavy pack, no one can tell her she must!

    Mr. Carter acknowledged at the news conference that simply opening up combat roles to women was not going to lead to a fully integrated military. Senior defense officials and military officers would have to overcome the perception among many service members, men and women alike, that the change would reduce the effectiveness of the armed services.

    “Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once”

    What is the military equivalent of Firewatcher?

    • Replies: @Spmoore8
    As a former Marine infantryman I am skeptical of these new developments. But I was in a long time ago. So it's not my fight or problem now.

    Combat arms has a very proud and macho culture. Not sure how women fit into that. But I guess we will find out.
  21. @Anonymous
    Haven't you seen Full Metal Jacket? A woman with a gun can do a lot of damage. They don't call it "the great equalizer" for nothing. And with greater advances in weaponry, women become more effective on the battlefield, especially against less well equipped male adversaries.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8VB2QEVAc0

    As long as she has a caddy to carry her depleted uranium ammunition.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Are there any man-carried weapons that fire DU ammo?
  22. WGG [AKA "World\'s Greatest Grandson"] says:

    There are some very high quality people who join the armed forces, and some very low quality ones, but I personally think they are all daft to do so, the women are slightly more so. As the Sailersphere knows full well, the threat to America is through immigration not ground wars. If we were under real threat from these Arab holes we could simply let the air force drop some bombs from a comfy chair. No, these wars are for show and profit, and for the greater good of Israel. No thanks. Not worth my life or a soldier’s life… why can’t they see that?

  23. @iSteveFan
    In 2003 a female reporter with the Chicago Tribune was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq. The reporter, Kirsten Scharnberg, recounted her experiences with trying to live in the field and keep up with the soldiers in an article entitled A woman goes to war in a man's world. Here are some choice excerpts from this Iowa-raised farm girl who had run a marathon before the war.

    After learning that I was to be the Tribune's only female embedded journalist, I promised myself never to write the woman-on-the-front-lines story.

    It just wouldn't be an issue. I would find a way to blend in. I wouldn't be treated differently because I wouldn't let anyone treat me differently.
    ...

    The soldiers I had met up with said I could accompany them into the city--a 4-mile hike. I didn't know whether I could hike 4 feet with all that gear, let alone 4 miles, but we set out. At about mile 2 1/2, I was about to give out. I was contemplating saying something needlessly melodramatic like, "Go ahead, save yourselves," when a soldier asked, "Ma'am, can I carry that battery for you?"

    All my resolve failed. I handed the battery to the young man--who already was lugging a much heavier load than I was, including a fully loaded M-4 assault weapon that he would be expected to use in case of an attack.

    The decision nagged at me for days. Not only had I not been able to pull my own weight, I also had potentially put that young soldier at risk. What if he had not been able to aim his weapon effectively had we been ambushed in that wooded expanse of territory approaching Najaf? What if he had fallen on the rough terrain and misfired his weapon, injuring someone?

    As tough as I think I was out there, as proud as I am to have lived for more than two months in conditions I never dreamed possible, those questions bother me still.

    Back in Chicago recently, the Tribune had a welcome-home party for a bunch of us who had covered the war. A female editor asked me whether my experience had given me an opinion about putting female soldiers into the infantry and on the front lines. I told her about the car battery and also about the many times I watched big, tough, burly male soldiers nearly collapse during 10-kilometer hikes with rucksacks, ammunition, TOW missiles, radios and machine guns. I'm not qualified to say that no woman could do that job, but I suspect that it would be a rare one who could.

    I had run a marathon not long before the war and worked out almost every day. I grew up on an Iowa farm where manual labor was part of the bargain. But I had been bested by a car battery, and when I handed my load to that soldier, I admitted that I never could have cut it in the infantry.
     

    My guess is she was in better shape than most of the females going into the military today. I wonder if Ash Carter has read this first hand account. God help the infantry.

    Maybe our troops are carrying too much equipment. The North Vietnamese had some female combat troops, as did the Russians in WW2, and the average Iraqi insurgent was probably in lousy physical shape compared to US infantrymen.

    After Vietnam, the US Army deliberately put some capabilities in the Army Reserve and Guard so some of them would have to be activated in the event of a war. The idea was to give politicians pause before starting a war. Didn’t work. Maybe women in combat arms will? Probably not, but worth a shot maybe.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    Maybe our troops are carrying too much equipment. The North Vietnamese had some female combat troops, as did the Russians in WW2, and the average Iraqi insurgent was probably in lousy physical shape compared to US infantrymen.
     
    Dave, there is no doubt some women can fight and were used in the situations you described. However, keep in mind what those situations were. First, the Russians and others were in dire straits and had to use women in a manner akin to scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

    Second, they were used on their home turf to fight an invader. Because of this, both males and females, were able to get resupplied by friendly villagers and nearby weapons caches that were located throughout the countryside. So these folks did not need to carry heavy rucksucks full of food and ammo to sustain themselves for multiple days.

    The US Army on the other hand is an expeditionary force. Ideally it means we won't fight on our home turf. As a result we have to take our gear with us. Soldiers going out on patrol must carry a lot of gear because they might have to sustain themselves for 3 days or more without support. They don't have the luxury of buried caches or helpful villagers. Notice how the Russians used scorched earth to deny the Germans anything they could scrounge on Russian soil.

    This is why women are going to kill the infantry. If one soldier in the squad cannot carry his load, the load is not left behind. It is simply redistributed among the rest of the squad members. Not only does each squad member carry a few days rations of food and water, he carries his personal ammunition PLUS he will carry extra rounds for the crew served weapons that are attached to the squad.

    For example, everyone will have to carry one or two rounds of 60mm mortar ammunition along with a couple of 100 round boxes of ammunition for the medium machine gun. If one guy pulls up lame, the other guys have to double up. That story of the lady reporter giving up her load to the already burdened infantrymen is going to be repeated a lot unfortunately.

  24. @AnAnon
    "or justify exemptions." - probably the key piece of this order.

    I thought that was an interesting inclusion too. I actually like it as a reasonable compromise in a world where affirmative action is shoved down our throats: it wouldn’t be so bad if you were always allowed to justify exemptions (and of course if those justifications were considered justly).

    • Replies: @boogerbently
    I was thinking the opposite. Women want to be soldiers? No "exemptions" men don't get.
    And, the PC police with their govt lackies have mandated there is NO difference between men and women, how can there be any differentiation? Either with exemptions OR standards ?
  25. @Stan D Mute
    Because nothing gets America juiced up and clamoring for war like the thought of some poor woman being held by jihadis. So we will send a couple platoons of pretty white girls to Syria where they can be captured. In a few weeks there will be jihadi videos decapitating or torturing them. After that, every politician in America will be demanding full scale war against every Arab country.

    In a few weeks there will be jihadi videos decapitating or torturing them.

    Unfortunately, you know, that’s not what would happen to them. Morbid to dwell on it, but more likely we’d get videos of sallow girls wearing headscarves and saying haltingly how wonderful it is to be the wives of their captors.

  26. @Steve Sailer
    As long as she has a caddy to carry her depleted uranium ammunition.

    Are there any man-carried weapons that fire DU ammo?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    You mean person-carried?
    , @kaganovitch
    There are some civilian loads like

    http://www.luckygunner.com/12ga-3-uranium-drone-load-tacnition-5-rounds

    and I think there is a russian company that has something similar but there is nothing in us military arsenal similar
    , @Brutusale
    Using a quote from a previous post about a little girl becoming a tanker if she wants, the main gun on an Abrams tank fires depleted uranium rounds. I imagine they're pretty heavy to the average size loader, never mind a woman.

    Military units have historically had little tolerance for malingerers not pulling their weight. Now it'll be a feature, not a bug.
  27. We need a rapid response team consisting entirely of women and we can send them over to Syria and see how they do. If having a Japanese Regiment was OK in WWII then why not an Amazon Regiment?

    Sometimes you have to let your kids fall off the bike before they learn a lesson.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Do you think uglier officers would send prettier soldiers on more dangerous missions out of spite?

    Or hold them back out of concupisence?
    , @iSteveFan

    If having a Japanese Regiment was OK in WWII then why not an Amazon Regiment?
     
    Actually there is merit in your suggestion. I was on another site once and somebody brought up the fact that blacks were segregated until Truman issued his order to integrate them with the whites. People were trying to use this example as proof that women too should be allowed to integrate.

    But someone came up with a great point. He pointed out that blacks prior to integration had served in all-black combat units, and thus they had a record of being in combat. American women have never formed all-female combat units, so there is still doubt about their potential combat effectiveness. Therefore, this guy suggested that women first form all-female infantry units akin to to the 'Buffalo Soldiers', and once they have established a proven combat record, then we may talk about integrating them with men.
  28. “Pentagon Opening All Combat Roles in Military to Women”

    I’d wager that the generals In Beijing and Moscow are laughing.

  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @David Burke
    Captured female soldiers being raped and or used as sex slaves is a distinct possibility. Becoming the star of an ISIS snuff film/propaganda video is also in the cards.

    Anybody thought of this at the Pentagon?

    The hawks have been trying to get more boots on the ground in the Mideast for like what, 6 years now? If anything, they’d see that as a positive, as it’d generate more popular outrage hence support for military interventions.

    ISIS is a completely American fabricated organization. It’s been developed by covert US money and arms support along with US media coverage, and its purpose is to wreak havoc and mayhem against US adversaries and justify intervention if necessary, just as mujahideen in Afghanistan were developed by the US to fight the Soviets, and just as Al-Qaeda was afterwards. Al-Qaeda, “the base”, refers to the database of mujahideen fighters and contacts the US had in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and the name was repurposed for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Now the Al Qaeda name no longer scares anyone and is associated with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which are unpopular and which Americans are generally war weary of. It’s no longer a good bogey and outlived its usefulness. A new adversary was necessary, so ISIS was cooked up, and here we are.

  30. Have any of these fools thought of the political implications of telling parents that their daughters have to serve in combat? It’s hard enough for parents to stomach their sons going to war, but at least they tend to think the young man might have a fighting chance.

    Women in their prime are about comparable in terms of physical ability to 14yo boys. Why not lower the age of military service to 14? What’s the difference, morally speaking? To me, one of the creepiest scenes from WWII video footage was of Hitler patting adolescent boys on the head before sending them out to die in a lost cause. Listen to the last boy. He’s a little kid. If I ever found myself sympathizing with Nazis, all I’d have to do to cure the sentiment would be to watch that clip and I’d be ready to string them up without compunction. Does Obama want to be shown sending women off to combat? Does Ash Carter?

    These people are sick in the head. Women and children should only have to fight as a last resort, and our current situation is anything but that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Hitler was desperate, whereas the Pentagon has no serious adversaries and can indulge in this sort of thing.
    , @Harold

    Women in their prime are about comparable in terms of physical ability to 14yo boys.
     
    Check out the picture here.
    , @SFG
    Never thought I'd be the one to say this, but Hitler had an excuse--he was defending his country to the last man. (Of course, the Germans would have been better off if they'd shot him in 1943 and handed the whole country over to Eisenhower so the Russians didn't get any, but whatever.)

    It could just be my misogyny, but I'm all in favor of the ladies finding out what 'equal rights' really means. ;)

  31. @Stan D Mute
    Because nothing gets America juiced up and clamoring for war like the thought of some poor woman being held by jihadis. So we will send a couple platoons of pretty white girls to Syria where they can be captured. In a few weeks there will be jihadi videos decapitating or torturing them. After that, every politician in America will be demanding full scale war against every Arab country.

    So we will send a couple platoons of pretty white girls to Syria where they can be captured. In a few weeks there will be jihadi videos decapitating or torturing them.

    No disrespect to the Comanche but it will more likely unwind like the life of Cynthia Ann Parker.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Ann_Parker

    ISIS will kill and torture men but not women. The girls that Boko Haram kidnapped have already become pregnant and have young children to raise. They will not return. This is a problem that should arch an eyebrow about even sending rugged athletic women into battle.

  32. @Dave Pinsen
    Are there any man-carried weapons that fire DU ammo?

    You mean person-carried?

  33. @TangoMan
    We need a rapid response team consisting entirely of women and we can send them over to Syria and see how they do. If having a Japanese Regiment was OK in WWII then why not an Amazon Regiment?

    Sometimes you have to let your kids fall off the bike before they learn a lesson.

    Do you think uglier officers would send prettier soldiers on more dangerous missions out of spite?

    Or hold them back out of concupisence?

    • Replies: @TangoMan
    Investment banks came around to banning employees taking clients to stripper bars because female employees didn't feel comfortable taking their male clients to such fine establishments.

    The lesson here is that institutions have to change their ways. If female officers want to punish good looking female subordinates, then hey, stop with the mansplaining and stuff - the old way that men ran the Army is no more. Time to adjust.
  34. @The Z Blog
    In what reads like a parody, the WaPo reports that The Backlash™ has been cited near the Imperial Capital: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-paris-and-california-attacks-us-muslims-feel-intense-backlash/2015/12/03/bcf8e480-9a09-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html

    "Rabia Chaudry kept her 7-year-old daughter home from her private Islamic school in Maryland on Thursday, fearing anti-Muslim backlash from Wednesday’s massacre nearly 3,000 miles away in San Bernardino, Calif."

    The Backlash™ can reach anywhere at any moment.

    Anyone ever check what they teach at those private muslim schools ?

  35. @Chrisnonymous
    That's what you get with a defense secretary named Ashton. Who names their kid with the initials ABC anyhow?

    Gen. Joseph E. Dunford Jr., the former commandant of the Marine Corps who recently became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not attend the announcement
     
    Good for JED.

    Women have long chafed under the combat restrictions
     
    Yes. Just the other day, my 40kg girlfriend was wearing her child-sized pink Converse sneakers and saying, "I'd love to shoot me some towel-heads--if only I could have a combat assignment in the army! Life is so unfair..." when my 60 year old mother replied, "Yes, deary, I really wanted to squat next to a jungle trail for hours, waiting to put some bullets in the Viet Cong, but the army has been holding us back for years!"
    That's when my grandmother put down her tea and said, "I always said these hands were made for throttling Krauts, not holding teacups. My youth was wasted!"

    which remain crucial to career advancement.
     
    Yes. Because, after all, what is the purpose of the military if not to provide more career options?

    the Marines requested an exemption for infantry and armor positions, citing a yearlong study that showed integration could hurt its fighting ability. But Mr. Carter said he overruled the Marines... He characterized the change as necessary to ensure that the United States military remained the world’s most powerful.
     
    Hmmm... Again, Ashton. B. Carter.

    “I’m overjoyed,” said Katelyn van Dam. “Now if there is some little girl who wants to be a tanker, no one can tell her she can’t.”

    “Humping a hundred pounds, man, that ain’t easy, and it remains the defining physical requirement of the infantry,” said Paul Davis, an exercise scientist
     
    Obviously, infantry could be humping (?) 200 lbs, but the standards are based on what men can do, and so, obviously, the answer is to change the standards. Infantry should only have to carry what they feel like... then, if there's some girl who doesn't want to carry a heavy pack, no one can tell her she must!

    Mr. Carter acknowledged at the news conference that simply opening up combat roles to women was not going to lead to a fully integrated military. Senior defense officials and military officers would have to overcome the perception among many service members, men and women alike, that the change would reduce the effectiveness of the armed services.
     
    "Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once"


    What is the military equivalent of Firewatcher?

    As a former Marine infantryman I am skeptical of these new developments. But I was in a long time ago. So it’s not my fight or problem now.

    Combat arms has a very proud and macho culture. Not sure how women fit into that. But I guess we will find out.

  36. @Dave Pinsen
    Maybe our troops are carrying too much equipment. The North Vietnamese had some female combat troops, as did the Russians in WW2, and the average Iraqi insurgent was probably in lousy physical shape compared to US infantrymen.

    After Vietnam, the US Army deliberately put some capabilities in the Army Reserve and Guard so some of them would have to be activated in the event of a war. The idea was to give politicians pause before starting a war. Didn't work. Maybe women in combat arms will? Probably not, but worth a shot maybe.

    Maybe our troops are carrying too much equipment. The North Vietnamese had some female combat troops, as did the Russians in WW2, and the average Iraqi insurgent was probably in lousy physical shape compared to US infantrymen.

    Dave, there is no doubt some women can fight and were used in the situations you described. However, keep in mind what those situations were. First, the Russians and others were in dire straits and had to use women in a manner akin to scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

    Second, they were used on their home turf to fight an invader. Because of this, both males and females, were able to get resupplied by friendly villagers and nearby weapons caches that were located throughout the countryside. So these folks did not need to carry heavy rucksucks full of food and ammo to sustain themselves for multiple days.

    The US Army on the other hand is an expeditionary force. Ideally it means we won’t fight on our home turf. As a result we have to take our gear with us. Soldiers going out on patrol must carry a lot of gear because they might have to sustain themselves for 3 days or more without support. They don’t have the luxury of buried caches or helpful villagers. Notice how the Russians used scorched earth to deny the Germans anything they could scrounge on Russian soil.

    This is why women are going to kill the infantry. If one soldier in the squad cannot carry his load, the load is not left behind. It is simply redistributed among the rest of the squad members. Not only does each squad member carry a few days rations of food and water, he carries his personal ammunition PLUS he will carry extra rounds for the crew served weapons that are attached to the squad.

    For example, everyone will have to carry one or two rounds of 60mm mortar ammunition along with a couple of 100 round boxes of ammunition for the medium machine gun. If one guy pulls up lame, the other guys have to double up. That story of the lady reporter giving up her load to the already burdened infantrymen is going to be repeated a lot unfortunately.

    • Agree: Percy Gryce
  37. @Power Child
    I thought that was an interesting inclusion too. I actually like it as a reasonable compromise in a world where affirmative action is shoved down our throats: it wouldn't be so bad if you were always allowed to justify exemptions (and of course if those justifications were considered justly).

    I was thinking the opposite. Women want to be soldiers? No “exemptions” men don’t get.
    And, the PC police with their govt lackies have mandated there is NO difference between men and women, how can there be any differentiation? Either with exemptions OR standards ?

    • Replies: @TangoMan
    There will always be exemptions for women because it's the equality of outcome which matters, not the equality of opportunity. Once you grok this point then the focus shifts on how to most equitably allocate the fallout - the deaths and maiming which result from bending the rules to allow women to achieve equal outcomes and the most enlightened principle here is to align benefits and costs - women get all the benefit, so women should bear all the risk.
  38. @Dave Pinsen
    Are there any man-carried weapons that fire DU ammo?

    There are some civilian loads like

    http://www.luckygunner.com/12ga-3-uranium-drone-load-tacnition-5-rounds

    and I think there is a russian company that has something similar but there is nothing in us military arsenal similar

  39. @TangoMan
    We need a rapid response team consisting entirely of women and we can send them over to Syria and see how they do. If having a Japanese Regiment was OK in WWII then why not an Amazon Regiment?

    Sometimes you have to let your kids fall off the bike before they learn a lesson.

    If having a Japanese Regiment was OK in WWII then why not an Amazon Regiment?

    Actually there is merit in your suggestion. I was on another site once and somebody brought up the fact that blacks were segregated until Truman issued his order to integrate them with the whites. People were trying to use this example as proof that women too should be allowed to integrate.

    But someone came up with a great point. He pointed out that blacks prior to integration had served in all-black combat units, and thus they had a record of being in combat. American women have never formed all-female combat units, so there is still doubt about their potential combat effectiveness. Therefore, this guy suggested that women first form all-female infantry units akin to to the ‘Buffalo Soldiers’, and once they have established a proven combat record, then we may talk about integrating them with men.

    • Replies: @TangoMan
    Better to risk the lives of female feminists than have their incompetence lead to the loss of life of men who are skeptical of female equality.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    The problem with having all-women combat arms units is it will expose how few women are actually interested in serving in combat arms.
  40. @Chrisnonymous
    Do you think uglier officers would send prettier soldiers on more dangerous missions out of spite?

    Or hold them back out of concupisence?

    Investment banks came around to banning employees taking clients to stripper bars because female employees didn’t feel comfortable taking their male clients to such fine establishments.

    The lesson here is that institutions have to change their ways. If female officers want to punish good looking female subordinates, then hey, stop with the mansplaining and stuff – the old way that men ran the Army is no more. Time to adjust.

  41. @iSteveFan

    If having a Japanese Regiment was OK in WWII then why not an Amazon Regiment?
     
    Actually there is merit in your suggestion. I was on another site once and somebody brought up the fact that blacks were segregated until Truman issued his order to integrate them with the whites. People were trying to use this example as proof that women too should be allowed to integrate.

    But someone came up with a great point. He pointed out that blacks prior to integration had served in all-black combat units, and thus they had a record of being in combat. American women have never formed all-female combat units, so there is still doubt about their potential combat effectiveness. Therefore, this guy suggested that women first form all-female infantry units akin to to the 'Buffalo Soldiers', and once they have established a proven combat record, then we may talk about integrating them with men.

    Better to risk the lives of female feminists than have their incompetence lead to the loss of life of men who are skeptical of female equality.

  42. @boogerbently
    I was thinking the opposite. Women want to be soldiers? No "exemptions" men don't get.
    And, the PC police with their govt lackies have mandated there is NO difference between men and women, how can there be any differentiation? Either with exemptions OR standards ?

    There will always be exemptions for women because it’s the equality of outcome which matters, not the equality of opportunity. Once you grok this point then the focus shifts on how to most equitably allocate the fallout – the deaths and maiming which result from bending the rules to allow women to achieve equal outcomes and the most enlightened principle here is to align benefits and costs – women get all the benefit, so women should bear all the risk.

  43. @iSteveFan

    If having a Japanese Regiment was OK in WWII then why not an Amazon Regiment?
     
    Actually there is merit in your suggestion. I was on another site once and somebody brought up the fact that blacks were segregated until Truman issued his order to integrate them with the whites. People were trying to use this example as proof that women too should be allowed to integrate.

    But someone came up with a great point. He pointed out that blacks prior to integration had served in all-black combat units, and thus they had a record of being in combat. American women have never formed all-female combat units, so there is still doubt about their potential combat effectiveness. Therefore, this guy suggested that women first form all-female infantry units akin to to the 'Buffalo Soldiers', and once they have established a proven combat record, then we may talk about integrating them with men.

    The problem with having all-women combat arms units is it will expose how few women are actually interested in serving in combat arms.

  44. @Bill P
    Have any of these fools thought of the political implications of telling parents that their daughters have to serve in combat? It's hard enough for parents to stomach their sons going to war, but at least they tend to think the young man might have a fighting chance.

    Women in their prime are about comparable in terms of physical ability to 14yo boys. Why not lower the age of military service to 14? What's the difference, morally speaking? To me, one of the creepiest scenes from WWII video footage was of Hitler patting adolescent boys on the head before sending them out to die in a lost cause. Listen to the last boy. He's a little kid. If I ever found myself sympathizing with Nazis, all I'd have to do to cure the sentiment would be to watch that clip and I'd be ready to string them up without compunction. Does Obama want to be shown sending women off to combat? Does Ash Carter?

    These people are sick in the head. Women and children should only have to fight as a last resort, and our current situation is anything but that.

    Hitler was desperate, whereas the Pentagon has no serious adversaries and can indulge in this sort of thing.

  45. @The Z Blog
    In what reads like a parody, the WaPo reports that The Backlash™ has been cited near the Imperial Capital: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-paris-and-california-attacks-us-muslims-feel-intense-backlash/2015/12/03/bcf8e480-9a09-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html

    "Rabia Chaudry kept her 7-year-old daughter home from her private Islamic school in Maryland on Thursday, fearing anti-Muslim backlash from Wednesday’s massacre nearly 3,000 miles away in San Bernardino, Calif."

    The Backlash™ can reach anywhere at any moment.

    If you listened to Serial (season 1), you’ll remember that Rabia Chaudry is the name of the woman who inspired Sarah Koenig to investigate the case to begin with–and that, among other things, she complained that Adnan Syed was a helpless victim of The Backlash. It seems very likely that the Rabia Chaudry of Maryland quoted in the Post story is the same woman. If so, she has quite the talent for attracting attention from the national media.

  46. OT – Steve your favorite Chechen is in the news vowing revenge for the latest beheading victim of ISIS.

    The head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, has confirmed that the man killed by Islamic State terrorists on their latest video was a Russian citizen from Chechnya and promised that lives of those who committed this crime won’t last long.

    Kadyrov told reporters on Thursday that the victim of the beheading was a Russian citizen and an ethnic Chechen, but noted that there was no confirmation of the man’s previous connections with the Islamic State group (previously ISIS/ISIL).

    The Chechen leader also promised to avenge the killing. “Chechens remember, know and will not leave this unanswered. Those who slaughtered our citizen will not live long,” Interfax quoted him as saying.

  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Getting completely off topic, I just watched the finale of the “Hunger Games” series, and I am impressed. This is a much darker and more mature instalment than the previous films of the franchise. The nihilistic and despondent tone of the film is not the kind of stuff that suits the typical American viewer, who tends to like black-and-white morality and leading heroes who are charicatures of simple-minded heroism, and not actual people, with complex motivations and inclinations, and full of inner condlict and self-doubt. But I love it.

    The one thing is I didn’t like much was the protrayal of Katniss Everdeen. She came across as excessively calloused and cynical, and a little bit too emotionally wise and hardened for a 17 year-old. Her concerns about the greater good, her tendency to postulate political repercussions in the distant future for her actions, her emotional fortitude in withstanding great personal losses and her overall gravitas and stoicism, are all more fitting to a 40 year-old than a 17 year-old adolescent. But then, kids these days are completely obsessed with adult characteristics, and the wisdom, self-awareness and inner strength that only comes after having lived a long time and experienced a lot – and even then it only comes to some-. and like to identify with characters their age that are actually proxies for their absent parents. This is probably because true adults are very rare these daya, and kids feel the absence strongly. I think the message kids are sending to adults by having as icons these teenage characters that are so self-aware, tough, contemplative and emotionally wise is

    “We don’t want you to be like us. We want you to be grown ups. We expect you to be overall a lot more formidable than we are because you have been around for so much longer and had a lot more time to improve yourselves in every way. And that is what we need from adults: your guidance and protection. So why aren’t you?”

    Donald Sutherland is a master at playing bastards, and he is the true star of the film. While Coriolanus Snow was already a sadist and a ruthless cold-blooded killer in the previous films, he now has become much worse and is one of the most evil characters ever depicted in fiction. He sadistically making it so that his enemies kill their own loved ones without knowing it and then making sure that they realize what they did for no other reason other than to cause them agony and suffering, the sadism with which he butchers children before their parents in cruel games and forces them to watch it, the way that he orchestrates terrorist strikes against his own people and makes it seem like the resistence did it just to increase the fighting spirit of the Capitol and it’s loyal districts, and the way he poisons his own supporters when they do anything even slightly incompetent, he truly is an absolute monster. Truly a figure of horror. But as horrifyingly callous and vicious as he is, the leader of the resistence gets the better of him with his own despicable tactics in the end. A nice turn of events.

    The face off between the defeated Snow and Katniss in the end, when he points out that he did not kill her sister but that it was rather the leader of the resistence, who was i n fact an ambitious power tripper and almost as vile as Snow, when Snow gives Katniss a cynical smirk and saus:

    “You know that I am not above slicing and gassing little children…but I am not irrational or wasteful… Your sister’s death was completely unnecessary. But, think about, now that Coin has won who is her bigget enemy…? Who can challenge her for the the position of leader of the new regime?”

    Is one of the best movie moments of the year. The tension, moral ambiguity, and display of all the incrdibly complex interests and motivations of everyone involved, is one of the best scenes of the year. The perplexity in Katniss’s face as she realizes that she was played the whole time, and the laughter from Snow, a laughter that combines contempt, bemusement and a cynicism towarss human beings and their true nature. Sutherland deserves an Oscar for the many expressions and voice intonations he makes during this scene, as he explains to Katniss, with his demon cunning, how she was fooled the whole time, and how things are far lesss black-and-white they they appear.

    A great film. Four stars out of five.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's a stupid kids' movie. Get real.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Have not seen any of the Hunger Games movies, but whenever I see a trailer on TV, I wonder why Jennifer Lawrence is outfitted with a longbow. Don't they have compound bows in the future?
  48. @Bill P
    Have any of these fools thought of the political implications of telling parents that their daughters have to serve in combat? It's hard enough for parents to stomach their sons going to war, but at least they tend to think the young man might have a fighting chance.

    Women in their prime are about comparable in terms of physical ability to 14yo boys. Why not lower the age of military service to 14? What's the difference, morally speaking? To me, one of the creepiest scenes from WWII video footage was of Hitler patting adolescent boys on the head before sending them out to die in a lost cause. Listen to the last boy. He's a little kid. If I ever found myself sympathizing with Nazis, all I'd have to do to cure the sentiment would be to watch that clip and I'd be ready to string them up without compunction. Does Obama want to be shown sending women off to combat? Does Ash Carter?

    These people are sick in the head. Women and children should only have to fight as a last resort, and our current situation is anything but that.

    Women in their prime are about comparable in terms of physical ability to 14yo boys.

    Check out the picture here.

  49. @Mr. Blank
    So will women have to register for the draft now?

    I doubt it. The feminists would be stuck with the reminder of a clear double standard that favors women.

    Which is exactly why I’m in favor of it. If that doesn’t give the MRA movement a shot in the arm, nothing will. Well, short of an actual draft, which is unlikely (and I am not in favor of).

  50. I really believe that this is being pushed by ambitious female officers in the military who want to command combat units (not actually serve in the field in combat), because such commands are rightfully seen as a fast-track to general. Younger women, those who might actually have to serve in combat, can always avoid it by getting pregnant, as many do already to avoid lengthy overseas deployments. There are a lot of capable, patriotic women in the armed forces who do their current jobs well and I don’t want to disparage them, but women in general are just not cut out for the infantry, or for most special operations jobs.

  51. @Bill P
    Have any of these fools thought of the political implications of telling parents that their daughters have to serve in combat? It's hard enough for parents to stomach their sons going to war, but at least they tend to think the young man might have a fighting chance.

    Women in their prime are about comparable in terms of physical ability to 14yo boys. Why not lower the age of military service to 14? What's the difference, morally speaking? To me, one of the creepiest scenes from WWII video footage was of Hitler patting adolescent boys on the head before sending them out to die in a lost cause. Listen to the last boy. He's a little kid. If I ever found myself sympathizing with Nazis, all I'd have to do to cure the sentiment would be to watch that clip and I'd be ready to string them up without compunction. Does Obama want to be shown sending women off to combat? Does Ash Carter?

    These people are sick in the head. Women and children should only have to fight as a last resort, and our current situation is anything but that.

    Never thought I’d be the one to say this, but Hitler had an excuse–he was defending his country to the last man. (Of course, the Germans would have been better off if they’d shot him in 1943 and handed the whole country over to Eisenhower so the Russians didn’t get any, but whatever.)

    It could just be my misogyny, but I’m all in favor of the ladies finding out what ‘equal rights’ really means. 😉

  52. @Buzz Mohawk
    Let's just ban men entirely from the US military.

    Then we can sit back and see how much women like doing this job that men have had the "privilege" of doing for so long.

    Of course then the sea lanes would be stolen from the world in short order, air and space would be lost in a flash, and we would be conquered overnight by the first opportunistic army to come along.

    …we would be conquered overnight by the first opportunistic army to come along.

    Don’t worry, you’ll learn to enjoy hockey. And poutine can be a tasty holiday treat!

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Another Canadian, Your Canadian army would blanch at the thought of marching into states that have no Tim Horton's, so basically it would be a border skirmish. And ah yes, poutine an artery clogging biological weapon.
  53. This is a jobs generating plan by Obama. For every woman signing up, the military will need to hire 2 men. One to protect her, and the other to do her job.

  54. No joke, Dina Temple Raston said that investigators in San Bernardino are considering the possibility that the Farooks’ spree might have been touched off by run-ins with white supremacist gangs, or also possible is that Mr Farook’s duel identity (US/Pakistan) may have caused a mental breakdown.

    Mrs Farook doesn’t look very Arab to me. She looks like someone from rural West Virginia to me.

  55. Um, people, this is the Web site for Noticing ™ and no one is Noticing ™.

    Remember that TV ad for an agile four wheel drive automobile touted by a trio of women sports stars where a certain Czech tennis champion turns to the camera and taunts, “What do we know about cars . . . we’re just girls!”

    Yes, Ms. Navratilova, we can see that you are a “girl” (i.e. female), but . . .

    So long that we are not drafting someone’s daughter, or wife into the military and placing them into combat units, this issue is about women in combat, but is it really about “women” in combat? Steve had some posts on this topic, especially about which women are in the upper officer echelons and what “ticket punch” they need to do to become generals?

  56. Steve,
    Not long ago you made a comment to the effect that whereas Plato had seen sharp divisions in the Nature of Things because his method was based on Idealizing reality, ours today is based on statistical inference and so we don’t draw hard lines between things but see them instead as fuzzy around the edges and blending into one another. This troubled me then and I’ll tell you why.

    Early 20th century physicists thought that, as one pumps coherent, harmonic energy into an atomic system, electrons would gain energy in a continuous smooth fashion. Instead they were perplexed to discover that the energy was absorbed (and given off) in discrete jumps, integral multiples of what came to be called Planck’s constant. And further, the total configuration of electrons clustered about the nucleus, although distributed statistically, oscillated between states whose shape could be likened to standing waves. There was no in between. Also, adding an electron to an atom caused all of the other electrons to adjust, resulting in a new overall pattern. The resulting shapes resembled coherent wave patterns. So even though, statistically, the shape of the electron cloud may oscillate between two configurations, there was no smear between shapes, it is not a continuum.

    The requirements of uniform overall distribution of charges in a sense dictates the possible allowable configurations. Understanding the balanced, integrated whole is as important as tracking the behavior of each part.

    Now we come to the issue of social categories such as gender roles. A feminist friend with whom I argue tells me that there are no hard and fast lines between male and female traits. They are all arrayed along a continuum. And recently, a scientific paper was published that claimed that mental capacities of both men and women are similarly arrayed along a continuum and that we differ only individually in the proportional distribution of each of these within us.

    Now, my question. Are these traits really distributed continuously along an axis? Or are they not quantified (at the gene level) and does not the presence of one or more of them not cause the others to align in a standing-wave like coherent wholistic configuration that imposes order upon the parts?

    Those who argue for shaded edges assume that all these traits are distributed uniformly, a diminishing blur. But nature doesn’t seem to work that way. And summing parts doesn’t just create an agglomeration but rather alters overall configuration. And those configurations are coherent (internally self consistent where all parts relate to one another in a lawful manner). So reality is discrete and favors certain stable states and Plato was right–but then, so are you in arguing that Plato was wrong in insisting on hard and fast logical lines of demarcation and in pointing out that today we use statistics to help us get a handle on what’s going on. Yet, although the state of any state can only be predicted with statistics, nevertheless, nature prefers coherent, discrete states of Being. And just so the genetic differences between men and women.

    My feminist friend is wrong. There is no smooth continuum along which traits between the sexes blend. And just as atomically, a small difference in quantity may result in dramatic differences in outcome, so too may small genetic ticks result in completely different configurations. Women are quantitatively fundamentally different from men (and therefore qualitatively) and nature didn’t draw up their Form with the intention of having them fight on the front lines.

    I didn’t word this well, and perhaps someone smarter than I am can do a better job of getting the point across but I hope this will be at least suggestive of the true relationship between the nature of things and our categories of understanding.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right.

    A useful concept is "bimodal distribution." For example, this recent brain structure study says that there are 29 different features of the brain where sex differentiations are sometimes observed, but only a few percent of men and women have all 29 aligned with their sex's tendency. But if you plotted it out, there would be a bimodal distribution with the great majority of men toward one end of the graph and the great majority of women toward the other end. So, male-female is an extremely good way to carve nature at the joints, to summarize information, but there are costs in terms of lost information in that much reductionism: some individual women are going to have more maleish brains than some individual men.

  57. WhatEvvs [AKA "Internet Addict"] says:

    Putting women in combat is nuts. Women have fought in defensive wars, as has been pointed out here, but no invasion force in history has ever had women.

    As corrupted as our military has become, don’t you think they know that? This is PR. It’s lies. It’s wrong of the brass to lie about this – because lies have legs, and they become cause for more corruption, but women won’t be part of any expeditionary force, ever. Of course, what’s the point of fighting for such a corrupt society? That’s the question the elites haven’t figured out.

  58. @Dave Pinsen
    They've already invaded, and are launching periodic attacks.

    There was a Chuck Norris movie in the 1980s called Invasion USA. The plot was that a bunch of Muslim terrorists entered the US via Zodiac boats. What a quaint idea! They could have just applied for visas.

    It was the Cubans and the Russians invading in Invasion USA. Norris took on the Muslims in 1985’s Delta Force.

  59. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    All these wars of choice have been sold to us partly on the basis that they were to ‘liberate’ women. It’s always for the women. So now women should step up to the plate and do their share to liberate the sisterhood around the world. Since gays and women seem to get along so well with each other then an all-gay & women military would seem to be a logical next step. Those who think it can’t work are being short-sighted since in our wars of choice success is defined differently; it’s a matter of awarding huge contracts and diverting public money into the connected people’s bank accounts. So if they want to go then just go. If guys are looking for excitement they can just switch to things like base jumping. People like Carter support our troops like a rope supports a hanged person.

  60. There are above and below level supports for women in combat positions.

    1. The moderate American figures we are unlikely to need major ground combat ops anytime soon, so nice government jobs like in the military should be open to any “qualified” woman just like with police and fire departments. No thought, just the input of anecdotes of women succeeding and the cultural imperative of “equality.”
    2. The more liberal idea from Senator Fulbright in the 60s “if we have a military that can go anywhere and do anything, we’ll forever be going somewhere and doing something.” So the inclusion of women might drum capability down so we surely wouldn’t invade Iraq again. So this dumb but apparently widely held idea goes. Plus, the military then becomes another civil service spoils, so for equality the girls should get their fair share.

    The below level imperatives are:

    3. The military ultimately is another (and huge) government bureaucracy. Those at the top are those who win at bureaucracy, not those who win at war. Women, and men who leverage women to defeat macho competitors, want women in combat positions to justify more women general officers.
    4. Since the end of the draft, the civil service has taken over much of the military bureaucracy. They don’t like pushy macho military types bossing them around; and they like the added civil service responsibilities of more females in the military. Things like more health care, day care, and social services.
    5. Finally, there are the actual feminists who are all over D.C. who want to deliberately de-masculine the military as part of their overall cultural marxist project.

    On the positive side, as long as we have a volunteer military I suspect this initiative will have as much impact as opening the military to open gays; i.e. very little as few women actually want to be in combat (as opposed to those many women who are OK with some other girl being in combat) just as there turned out to be few gay men interested in working in the mud with a bunch of straight men.

  61. There is one combat group that could use women soldiers – snipers. With higher levels of empathy to better find enemy positions and a smaller stature to hide from opposing forces, women snipers have proven deadly in the past. In this role they would also be able to carry less gear and their other physical shortcomings would be minimized.

    It’s not ideal, but it is a solution that would be more acceptable than having female squad leaders. It may even prove wise. Female pilots are well suited to better absorbing g-forces because of their small stature. Furthermore, operating cargo planes/tankers/etc with their reduced accident rates has proven beneficial as well.

    • Replies: @Karl
    >> snipers. With higher levels of empathy to better find enemy positions


    sniping is the same as hunting.

    Are females better hunters than men?
    , @Drakejax
    Much of the "deadly female sniper" idea came from World War II Soviet propaganda. On closer examination is appears to have been largely nonsense to help morale, not any sort of accurate battle account. Full Metal Jacket was make-believe; the real Battle of Hue pitted Marines against a North Vietnamese infantry division, not female insurgents.

    Snipers carry more, not less, gear than most infantry. This is because they need to sustain themselves in a hide site for a long period of time without moving much. They also carry heavier rifles, and often a secondary weapon (in case they need to shoot their way out of being discovered), plus their own long range radio. Shooting well is the least significant attribute of a good sniper.
    , @iSteveFan
    Yak - not to demean the women who have served valiantly in the past, but when you have to start fielding women in such roles it means things are not going well and you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
  62. @Dave Pinsen
    Are there any man-carried weapons that fire DU ammo?

    Using a quote from a previous post about a little girl becoming a tanker if she wants, the main gun on an Abrams tank fires depleted uranium rounds. I imagine they’re pretty heavy to the average size loader, never mind a woman.

    Military units have historically had little tolerance for malingerers not pulling their weight. Now it’ll be a feature, not a bug.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I was familiar with the DU tank rounds. I think there already women in artillery though, and some of those rounds may be heavier (because they are larger than the tank's sabot rounds).
  63. @goatweed
    Would it be a dirty trick to tell women that Carter's action meant the dems want to draft them into the Marines?

    Would it be a dirty trick to tell women that Carter’s action meant the dems want to draft them into the Marines?

    That other Carter suggested registering them in 1980. Reason prevailed, though.

  64. Anybody knows who created this graph? What do the numbers on the left scale mean?

    View post on imgur.com

    • Replies: @Karl
    >>>> What do the numbers on the left scale mean?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(statistics)


    In layman's terms: making sure that you're ==correctly== comparing the sweetness of an apple, to the sweetness of an orange.
  65. @The Z Blog
    In what reads like a parody, the WaPo reports that The Backlash™ has been cited near the Imperial Capital: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-paris-and-california-attacks-us-muslims-feel-intense-backlash/2015/12/03/bcf8e480-9a09-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html

    "Rabia Chaudry kept her 7-year-old daughter home from her private Islamic school in Maryland on Thursday, fearing anti-Muslim backlash from Wednesday’s massacre nearly 3,000 miles away in San Bernardino, Calif."

    The Backlash™ can reach anywhere at any moment.

    Nothing says backlash like keeping an upper class 7 yr home from school on an imaginary threat from a non-existent event.

  66. Well, FMJ is just a movie, obviously, but it does seem that a woman might find a guerrilla-style infantry easier going in some ways. The VC didn’t carry much gear. A rifle, some ammo, a canteen, a bag of rice, that was about it. Helps when you’re fighting a defensive war on your own turf.

    Are there any man-carried weapons that fire DU ammo?

    Outlier, but wouldn’t be surprised if DU rounds for anti-materiel rifles were a thing.

    Women in their prime are about comparable in terms of physical ability to 14yo boys.

    Difference being, 14 y.o. boys are kinda mentally suited to roughing it outdoors and being trained to kill people and blow shit up.

    Combat arms has a very proud and macho culture. Not sure how women fit into that. But I guess we will find out.

    I believe the term is “camp follower.”

    Never thought I’d be the one to say this, but Hitler had an excuse–he was defending his country to the last man. (Of course, the Germans would have been better off if they’d shot him in 1943 and handed the whole country over to Eisenhower so the Russians didn’t get any, but whatever.)

    Might’ve helped if the Allies had offered any terms in return other than unconditional surrender.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The sniper lady in Full Metal Jacket could have used body armor. But that innovation is heavy.
    , @Anonymous
    There was no justification for anything other than unconditional surrender. Any conditions that the Germans would have demanded would have involved Germany holding onto some territories from the multiple countries it had invaded.
  67. Looks like some people are starting to make the connection between immigration and terrorism.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/12/04/sens-rubio-graham-vote-continue-muslim-immigration-countries-jihadist-movements/

    Only 10 Senators took the patriotic side, but a year ago even debating this would’ve been unthinkable. Has the potential to be a big issue in the primaries.

  68. I like the idea of Amazon regiments. For a start it could allow weapons to be developed suitable to the fair sex e.g. lighter rifles with lower calibre ammunition (didn’t the Japs use 0.25″ in The War?), lower calibre mortars, and so on.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I recall reading that M-16s were popular with female Viet Cong because they were so light and had such little kickback. I think the smaller M-4 is even lighter.
    , @Kilo 4/11
    (didn’t the Japs use 0.25″ in The War?)

    They did, but the thing was about four feet long and had a heavy wooden stock. Also a bayonet nearly as long as a cavalry saber.
  69. And you could design a rifle with a mirror in the stock. I like this idea even more.

  70. @Svigor
    Well, FMJ is just a movie, obviously, but it does seem that a woman might find a guerrilla-style infantry easier going in some ways. The VC didn't carry much gear. A rifle, some ammo, a canteen, a bag of rice, that was about it. Helps when you're fighting a defensive war on your own turf.

    Are there any man-carried weapons that fire DU ammo?
     
    Outlier, but wouldn't be surprised if DU rounds for anti-materiel rifles were a thing.

    Women in their prime are about comparable in terms of physical ability to 14yo boys.
     
    Difference being, 14 y.o. boys are kinda mentally suited to roughing it outdoors and being trained to kill people and blow shit up.

    Combat arms has a very proud and macho culture. Not sure how women fit into that. But I guess we will find out.
     
    I believe the term is "camp follower."

    Never thought I’d be the one to say this, but Hitler had an excuse–he was defending his country to the last man. (Of course, the Germans would have been better off if they’d shot him in 1943 and handed the whole country over to Eisenhower so the Russians didn’t get any, but whatever.)
     
    Might've helped if the Allies had offered any terms in return other than unconditional surrender.

    The sniper lady in Full Metal Jacket could have used body armor. But that innovation is heavy.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wasn't it too hot and humid and cumbersome, even for men? In Vietnam War footage and movies, you see a lot of GIs in sleeveless type tops and very little gear.
  71. Putting women in combat roles is probably a tactic to improve the image of the military in the eyes of left-liberal voters. Generally speaking, people on the liberal-left are passivists who hate guns and violence and the popular image of the military as macho and sexist only adds to this. By getting more women in the military, liberal hawks like Hillary can make warfare more palatable to passive progressives.

    In practice very few women will actually serve alongside men in combat roles, but their will be just enough for the media to create an image that women are playing a key role in the military.

  72. @Anonymous
    Getting completely off topic, I just watched the finale of the "Hunger Games" series, and I am impressed. This is a much darker and more mature instalment than the previous films of the franchise. The nihilistic and despondent tone of the film is not the kind of stuff that suits the typical American viewer, who tends to like black-and-white morality and leading heroes who are charicatures of simple-minded heroism, and not actual people, with complex motivations and inclinations, and full of inner condlict and self-doubt. But I love it.

    The one thing is I didn't like much was the protrayal of Katniss Everdeen. She came across as excessively calloused and cynical, and a little bit too emotionally wise and hardened for a 17 year-old. Her concerns about the greater good, her tendency to postulate political repercussions in the distant future for her actions, her emotional fortitude in withstanding great personal losses and her overall gravitas and stoicism, are all more fitting to a 40 year-old than a 17 year-old adolescent. But then, kids these days are completely obsessed with adult characteristics, and the wisdom, self-awareness and inner strength that only comes after having lived a long time and experienced a lot - and even then it only comes to some-. and like to identify with characters their age that are actually proxies for their absent parents. This is probably because true adults are very rare these daya, and kids feel the absence strongly. I think the message kids are sending to adults by having as icons these teenage characters that are so self-aware, tough, contemplative and emotionally wise is

    "We don't want you to be like us. We want you to be grown ups. We expect you to be overall a lot more formidable than we are because you have been around for so much longer and had a lot more time to improve yourselves in every way. And that is what we need from adults: your guidance and protection. So why aren't you?"

    Donald Sutherland is a master at playing bastards, and he is the true star of the film. While Coriolanus Snow was already a sadist and a ruthless cold-blooded killer in the previous films, he now has become much worse and is one of the most evil characters ever depicted in fiction. He sadistically making it so that his enemies kill their own loved ones without knowing it and then making sure that they realize what they did for no other reason other than to cause them agony and suffering, the sadism with which he butchers children before their parents in cruel games and forces them to watch it, the way that he orchestrates terrorist strikes against his own people and makes it seem like the resistence did it just to increase the fighting spirit of the Capitol and it's loyal districts, and the way he poisons his own supporters when they do anything even slightly incompetent, he truly is an absolute monster. Truly a figure of horror. But as horrifyingly callous and vicious as he is, the leader of the resistence gets the better of him with his own despicable tactics in the end. A nice turn of events.

    The face off between the defeated Snow and Katniss in the end, when he points out that he did not kill her sister but that it was rather the leader of the resistence, who was i n fact an ambitious power tripper and almost as vile as Snow, when Snow gives Katniss a cynical smirk and saus:

    "You know that I am not above slicing and gassing little children...but I am not irrational or wasteful... Your sister's death was completely unnecessary. But, think about, now that Coin has won who is her bigget enemy...? Who can challenge her for the the position of leader of the new regime?"

    Is one of the best movie moments of the year. The tension, moral ambiguity, and display of all the incrdibly complex interests and motivations of everyone involved, is one of the best scenes of the year. The perplexity in Katniss's face as she realizes that she was played the whole time, and the laughter from Snow, a laughter that combines contempt, bemusement and a cynicism towarss human beings and their true nature. Sutherland deserves an Oscar for the many expressions and voice intonations he makes during this scene, as he explains to Katniss, with his demon cunning, how she was fooled the whole time, and how things are far lesss black-and-white they they appear.

    A great film. Four stars out of five.

    It’s a stupid kids’ movie. Get real.

  73. I like the idea of Amazon regiments. For a start it could allow weapons to be developed suitable to the fair sex e.g. lighter rifles with lower calibre ammunition (didn’t the Japs use 0.25″ in The War?), lower calibre mortars, and so on.

    Don’t forget chopping off the dominant-side breast to make aiming easier.

    They’ve already got the pink/purple guns and gun furniture, so we can check that off the list.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    Don’t forget chopping off the dominant-side breast to make aiming easier.
     
    I don't see the dominant-side mammalian protuberance being a problem, except perhaps with bullpup-style rifles.

    They could always be trained to hold the rifle like the brothas do, or like the Arabs seem to do and hold it over the head and fire.
  74. @Steve Sailer
    The sniper lady in Full Metal Jacket could have used body armor. But that innovation is heavy.

    Wasn’t it too hot and humid and cumbersome, even for men? In Vietnam War footage and movies, you see a lot of GIs in sleeveless type tops and very little gear.

  75. @Svigor
    Well, FMJ is just a movie, obviously, but it does seem that a woman might find a guerrilla-style infantry easier going in some ways. The VC didn't carry much gear. A rifle, some ammo, a canteen, a bag of rice, that was about it. Helps when you're fighting a defensive war on your own turf.

    Are there any man-carried weapons that fire DU ammo?
     
    Outlier, but wouldn't be surprised if DU rounds for anti-materiel rifles were a thing.

    Women in their prime are about comparable in terms of physical ability to 14yo boys.
     
    Difference being, 14 y.o. boys are kinda mentally suited to roughing it outdoors and being trained to kill people and blow shit up.

    Combat arms has a very proud and macho culture. Not sure how women fit into that. But I guess we will find out.
     
    I believe the term is "camp follower."

    Never thought I’d be the one to say this, but Hitler had an excuse–he was defending his country to the last man. (Of course, the Germans would have been better off if they’d shot him in 1943 and handed the whole country over to Eisenhower so the Russians didn’t get any, but whatever.)
     
    Might've helped if the Allies had offered any terms in return other than unconditional surrender.

    There was no justification for anything other than unconditional surrender. Any conditions that the Germans would have demanded would have involved Germany holding onto some territories from the multiple countries it had invaded.

  76. @Brutusale
    Using a quote from a previous post about a little girl becoming a tanker if she wants, the main gun on an Abrams tank fires depleted uranium rounds. I imagine they're pretty heavy to the average size loader, never mind a woman.

    Military units have historically had little tolerance for malingerers not pulling their weight. Now it'll be a feature, not a bug.

    I was familiar with the DU tank rounds. I think there already women in artillery though, and some of those rounds may be heavier (because they are larger than the tank’s sabot rounds).

  77. @dearieme
    I like the idea of Amazon regiments. For a start it could allow weapons to be developed suitable to the fair sex e.g. lighter rifles with lower calibre ammunition (didn't the Japs use 0.25" in The War?), lower calibre mortars, and so on.

    I recall reading that M-16s were popular with female Viet Cong because they were so light and had such little kickback. I think the smaller M-4 is even lighter.

  78. Female pilots are well suited to better absorbing g-forces because of their small stature.

    Female pilots like Bruce Caitlyn Jenner would even be better as they do not have a womb which creates problems for female females.

  79. In general: * I think Steve referenced DU simply because Uranium is very heavy for its mass. * Flak jackets were absurdly heavy and bulky. There was a kind of flak diaper for the lower half. Never saw anyone wear it. * M-16’s are light but tended to jam, that’s why they put the forward assist in there. Basically the housing inside is pretty rinky dink and a little bit of sand or other fouling could cause a misfire. The M-14 was heavier, but I think a far superior rifle.

    I think it’s interesting that while we have been discussing likely feminine shortfalls physically, we haven’t been referencing the sexual aspect. I mean: it happens. I suppose the party line is that soldiers are disciplined, etc. but recall what happened when a West Point educated female Colonel went to Afghanistan to spend time with a West Point educated General (Petraeus.) No surprise, to me. And those are the “best and brightest.”

    I suppose one reason it isn’t being thought about is because the services are so Co-ed now and so are the range of sexual assault and sexual harassment complaints, as well as pregnancy medical discharges. But on the other hand, compared to other MOS, combat arms is extremely intimate.

    Keep in mind that the whole aim here is for women soldiers to put something on their service jacket for promotion purposes. Therefore, it’s not just going to be Pvt Benjamin sleeping with the platoon sergeant while the rest of the guys sulk in their tents. It’s going to be a woman commanding a platoon of guys, a company, a battalion, a regiment, etc. So how’s it going to work out when Captain Cougar has Private Johnson into her quarters for some late night PT? How’s that going to work?

    Well, we had a mixed gender reserve MP battalion that was sent to Abu Ghraib in 2003. How did that turn out?

    I frankly don’t understand it but as I said it doesn’t concern me directly. I do know that for young men and women the sex drive can dominate all of your behavior. And you won’t find many middle aged people in a rifle platoon.

  80. @Threecranes
    Steve,
    Not long ago you made a comment to the effect that whereas Plato had seen sharp divisions in the Nature of Things because his method was based on Idealizing reality, ours today is based on statistical inference and so we don't draw hard lines between things but see them instead as fuzzy around the edges and blending into one another. This troubled me then and I'll tell you why.

    Early 20th century physicists thought that, as one pumps coherent, harmonic energy into an atomic system, electrons would gain energy in a continuous smooth fashion. Instead they were perplexed to discover that the energy was absorbed (and given off) in discrete jumps, integral multiples of what came to be called Planck's constant. And further, the total configuration of electrons clustered about the nucleus, although distributed statistically, oscillated between states whose shape could be likened to standing waves. There was no in between. Also, adding an electron to an atom caused all of the other electrons to adjust, resulting in a new overall pattern. The resulting shapes resembled coherent wave patterns. So even though, statistically, the shape of the electron cloud may oscillate between two configurations, there was no smear between shapes, it is not a continuum.

    The requirements of uniform overall distribution of charges in a sense dictates the possible allowable configurations. Understanding the balanced, integrated whole is as important as tracking the behavior of each part.

    Now we come to the issue of social categories such as gender roles. A feminist friend with whom I argue tells me that there are no hard and fast lines between male and female traits. They are all arrayed along a continuum. And recently, a scientific paper was published that claimed that mental capacities of both men and women are similarly arrayed along a continuum and that we differ only individually in the proportional distribution of each of these within us.

    Now, my question. Are these traits really distributed continuously along an axis? Or are they not quantified (at the gene level) and does not the presence of one or more of them not cause the others to align in a standing-wave like coherent wholistic configuration that imposes order upon the parts?

    Those who argue for shaded edges assume that all these traits are distributed uniformly, a diminishing blur. But nature doesn't seem to work that way. And summing parts doesn't just create an agglomeration but rather alters overall configuration. And those configurations are coherent (internally self consistent where all parts relate to one another in a lawful manner). So reality is discrete and favors certain stable states and Plato was right--but then, so are you in arguing that Plato was wrong in insisting on hard and fast logical lines of demarcation and in pointing out that today we use statistics to help us get a handle on what's going on. Yet, although the state of any state can only be predicted with statistics, nevertheless, nature prefers coherent, discrete states of Being. And just so the genetic differences between men and women.

    My feminist friend is wrong. There is no smooth continuum along which traits between the sexes blend. And just as atomically, a small difference in quantity may result in dramatic differences in outcome, so too may small genetic ticks result in completely different configurations. Women are quantitatively fundamentally different from men (and therefore qualitatively) and nature didn't draw up their Form with the intention of having them fight on the front lines.

    I didn't word this well, and perhaps someone smarter than I am can do a better job of getting the point across but I hope this will be at least suggestive of the true relationship between the nature of things and our categories of understanding.

    Right.

    A useful concept is “bimodal distribution.” For example, this recent brain structure study says that there are 29 different features of the brain where sex differentiations are sometimes observed, but only a few percent of men and women have all 29 aligned with their sex’s tendency. But if you plotted it out, there would be a bimodal distribution with the great majority of men toward one end of the graph and the great majority of women toward the other end. So, male-female is an extremely good way to carve nature at the joints, to summarize information, but there are costs in terms of lost information in that much reductionism: some individual women are going to have more maleish brains than some individual men.

  81. I recently started re-watching HBO’s Generation Kill a mini series based on the book by Evan Wright of the same name. He embedded with the Marine Corps’ 1st Reconnaissance Battalion in the opening days of the 2nd Iraq war. In one amusing scene it shows the Marines relieving themselves into cardboard boxes (number two) right out in the open. In fact there is a running number two joke throughout the series. We can talk all day about relative strength etc. (see Razib Khan’s piece Why Men Should Never Hit Women) However it made me think about calls of nature and my own experiences in late teens and early twenties when I was with a group of men in the sticks for a long period of time or in coed setting camping/backpacking. After being with just men for a few days when it came to urination you were lucky if the other guy merely turned his back to you when he peed. In the coed setting you always had to walk away and get enough tree’s in between you and the rest of the group. I recently asked a good female friend of mine who frequently goes back country with all women if you still walk away for privacy or just pee. The answer still walk away and seek privacy. Hmmm I wonder if this component has been analyzed by the military?

  82. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Svigor

    I like the idea of Amazon regiments. For a start it could allow weapons to be developed suitable to the fair sex e.g. lighter rifles with lower calibre ammunition (didn’t the Japs use 0.25″ in The War?), lower calibre mortars, and so on.
     
    Don't forget chopping off the dominant-side breast to make aiming easier.

    They've already got the pink/purple guns and gun furniture, so we can check that off the list.

    Don’t forget chopping off the dominant-side breast to make aiming easier.

    I don’t see the dominant-side mammalian protuberance being a problem, except perhaps with bullpup-style rifles.

    They could always be trained to hold the rifle like the brothas do, or like the Arabs seem to do and hold it over the head and fire.

  83. @Yak-15
    There is one combat group that could use women soldiers - snipers. With higher levels of empathy to better find enemy positions and a smaller stature to hide from opposing forces, women snipers have proven deadly in the past. In this role they would also be able to carry less gear and their other physical shortcomings would be minimized.

    It's not ideal, but it is a solution that would be more acceptable than having female squad leaders. It may even prove wise. Female pilots are well suited to better absorbing g-forces because of their small stature. Furthermore, operating cargo planes/tankers/etc with their reduced accident rates has proven beneficial as well.

    >> snipers. With higher levels of empathy to better find enemy positions

    sniping is the same as hunting.

    Are females better hunters than men?

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    When the game is man and you have a long-ranges weapon having a disposition that enables you to better understand where another may choose to hide given their circumstances is an advantage. Women have tested higher in levels of empathy consistently across decades.

    If we must have combat women perhaps we can at least select a role that they wouldn't suck at. I would rather have a man out there and I am sure men would do better most of them time. But the Soviet WWII experience has taught us women can be proficient snipers. Or, at the least, more proficient than in other roles.
  84. There was no justification for anything other than unconditional surrender.

    I think we’ve already established one: motivating the assassination of Hitler or a coup against his regime.

    Any conditions that the Germans would have demanded would have involved Germany holding onto some territories from the multiple countries it had invaded.

    Kind of hard to prove when it was the Allies who were refusing to negotiate. There’s a hell of a lot of room between “unconditional surrender” and “the Germans holding onto some of the territory they took.”

    Wasn’t it too hot and humid and cumbersome, even for men? In Vietnam War footage and movies, you see a lot of GIs in sleeveless type tops and very little gear.

    IIRC, at the time it also had the disadvantage of not really working.

    And yes, the M4 is a good bit smaller and lighter than the original M16, which was, again IIRC, a weapon with an 18″ barrel and a heavier receiver (M4 has a 14.5″ barrel and a lighter receiver, again IIRC).

    M-16′s are light but tended to jam

    They were back then, but that was ironed out a long time ago. The M-16 is still in service in the Marine Corps, and it works fine.

    that’s why they put the forward assist in there.

    M4s have forward assists, too (the vast majority of AR uppers do, though you can buy them without because they’re largely obsolete these days, from what I gather). The impression I get is that they’re there because the AR platform doesn’t use a reciprocating charging mechanism, meaning, you can’t use it to slam the bolt home the way you can with an AK in certain kinds of malfunctions. I’m probably mangling that explanation.

    Basically the housing inside is pretty rinky dink and a little bit of sand or other fouling could cause a misfire. The M-14 was heavier, but I think a far superior rifle.

    Old guy talk. The M-14 didn’t get the bad rep because it wasn’t introduced during Vietnam, so the kinks were already worked out. Thing is way too heavy for most people to want to lug around. Plus the ammo is oversized, adding even more weight. And there’s probably a good reason why the vast majority of military assault rifles now have pistol grips.

  85. @BostonTea
    Anybody knows who created this graph? What do the numbers on the left scale mean?

    http://imgur.com/hNz2gpI

    >>>> What do the numbers on the left scale mean?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(statistics)

    In layman’s terms: making sure that you’re ==correctly== comparing the sweetness of an apple, to the sweetness of an orange.

    • Replies: @BostonTea
    Karl, I know it is called "normalization", but what are these numbers? These are percentages points, rates per 1000 people? 100 000 people? And who created it?
  86. There is one combat group that could use women soldiers – snipers. With higher levels of empathy to better find enemy positions and a smaller stature to hide from opposing forces, women snipers have proven deadly in the past. In this role they would also be able to carry less gear and their other physical shortcomings would be minimized.

    It’s not ideal, but it is a solution that would be more acceptable than having female squad leaders. It may even prove wise. Female pilots are well suited to better absorbing g-forces because of their small stature. Furthermore, operating cargo planes/tankers/etc with their reduced accident rates has proven beneficial as well.

    What is the link between higher levels of empathy and being better at finding enemy positions?

    Not really seeing the link between sniper and less gear, either. Snipers tend to be tasked to roles where they have to spend long periods of time on their own (with a spotter) in the back country. That means packing out all your own food, plus weapon, sidearm, ammo, ghillie suit, etc. I suppose that might average out to less weight carried vs. an infantry grunt, but it doesn’t really scream “less advantage to the physically strong,” either.

    Source on lower female pilot accident rates?

    There really doesn’t seem to be any combat role for which men are not far better suited than women.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Bradley Cooper added 40 pounds for his role in "American Sniper."
    , @reiner Tor
    IIRC the most successful use the Russians found for women was in the sniper role. They could stay motionless in the cold easier (higher body fat can be helpful) and were more patient to wait for the big kill. So they could be as good as the best males. See this example.
  87. Just looked up the M-14 specs according to Wikipedia. FFS, the thing weighs 10.7 pounds loaded, has an overall length of 44.3″, and a 22″ barrel. It’s a monster. M-16 is 8.7 lbs loaded, OAL of 39.5″, and a barrel length of 20″ (not 18″). M4 is 7.5 lbs loaded (and that’s with optics and rails, I think), OAL 29.75″ with stock retracted, with a 14.5″ barrel.

  88. @Svigor

    There is one combat group that could use women soldiers – snipers. With higher levels of empathy to better find enemy positions and a smaller stature to hide from opposing forces, women snipers have proven deadly in the past. In this role they would also be able to carry less gear and their other physical shortcomings would be minimized.

    It’s not ideal, but it is a solution that would be more acceptable than having female squad leaders. It may even prove wise. Female pilots are well suited to better absorbing g-forces because of their small stature. Furthermore, operating cargo planes/tankers/etc with their reduced accident rates has proven beneficial as well.
     
    What is the link between higher levels of empathy and being better at finding enemy positions?

    Not really seeing the link between sniper and less gear, either. Snipers tend to be tasked to roles where they have to spend long periods of time on their own (with a spotter) in the back country. That means packing out all your own food, plus weapon, sidearm, ammo, ghillie suit, etc. I suppose that might average out to less weight carried vs. an infantry grunt, but it doesn't really scream "less advantage to the physically strong," either.

    Source on lower female pilot accident rates?

    There really doesn't seem to be any combat role for which men are not far better suited than women.

    Bradley Cooper added 40 pounds for his role in “American Sniper.”

  89. @Karl
    >> snipers. With higher levels of empathy to better find enemy positions


    sniping is the same as hunting.

    Are females better hunters than men?

    When the game is man and you have a long-ranges weapon having a disposition that enables you to better understand where another may choose to hide given their circumstances is an advantage. Women have tested higher in levels of empathy consistently across decades.

    If we must have combat women perhaps we can at least select a role that they wouldn’t suck at. I would rather have a man out there and I am sure men would do better most of them time. But the Soviet WWII experience has taught us women can be proficient snipers. Or, at the least, more proficient than in other roles.

    • Replies: @inertial
    The most common role for women in the WWII era Soviet military was the medic. Not exactly a combat role, but medics were expected to go into the battlefield while the bullets were flying and drag away the wounded men on their own back.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Women are used in border observation posts in Israel. I think they are better at paying attention in boring, monotonous situations than men. Which probably helps when sniping.
    , @The most deplorable one

    When the game is man and you have a long-ranges weapon having a disposition that enables you to better understand where another may choose to hide given their circumstances is an advantage. Women have tested higher in levels of empathy consistently across decades.
     
    You seem to lack an understanding of the function of snipers.

    Yes, in Vietnam there was some anti-sniper action, but generally the function of snipers is to kill officers and reduce the enemy's men to leaderless rabble.

    Officers, if they are any good, generally don't hide during battle.

    Similarly, when snipers are after enemy political leaders, they usually don't have to figure out where the political leaders are hiding.
  90. @Karl
    >>>> What do the numbers on the left scale mean?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(statistics)


    In layman's terms: making sure that you're ==correctly== comparing the sweetness of an apple, to the sweetness of an orange.

    Karl, I know it is called “normalization”, but what are these numbers? These are percentages points, rates per 1000 people? 100 000 people? And who created it?

  91. @dearieme
    I like the idea of Amazon regiments. For a start it could allow weapons to be developed suitable to the fair sex e.g. lighter rifles with lower calibre ammunition (didn't the Japs use 0.25" in The War?), lower calibre mortars, and so on.

    (didn’t the Japs use 0.25″ in The War?)

    They did, but the thing was about four feet long and had a heavy wooden stock. Also a bayonet nearly as long as a cavalry saber.

  92. @Yak-15
    There is one combat group that could use women soldiers - snipers. With higher levels of empathy to better find enemy positions and a smaller stature to hide from opposing forces, women snipers have proven deadly in the past. In this role they would also be able to carry less gear and their other physical shortcomings would be minimized.

    It's not ideal, but it is a solution that would be more acceptable than having female squad leaders. It may even prove wise. Female pilots are well suited to better absorbing g-forces because of their small stature. Furthermore, operating cargo planes/tankers/etc with their reduced accident rates has proven beneficial as well.

    Much of the “deadly female sniper” idea came from World War II Soviet propaganda. On closer examination is appears to have been largely nonsense to help morale, not any sort of accurate battle account. Full Metal Jacket was make-believe; the real Battle of Hue pitted Marines against a North Vietnamese infantry division, not female insurgents.

    Snipers carry more, not less, gear than most infantry. This is because they need to sustain themselves in a hide site for a long period of time without moving much. They also carry heavier rifles, and often a secondary weapon (in case they need to shoot their way out of being discovered), plus their own long range radio. Shooting well is the least significant attribute of a good sniper.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    On closer examination is appears to have been largely nonsense to help morale, not any sort of accurate battle account.
     
    Where can I read up on that? I think I read in more serious sources (perhaps Glantz?) that female snipers were, relatively speaking, quite successful.
  93. I’m going back and forth about this. On one hand, it’s a terrible idea, obviously, that will be abandoned almost instantly — in practice, if not in theory — the next time American troops face heavy combat.

    On the other hand … it could be seen as an indication that our leaders don’t foresee the possibility of the U.S. getting involved in a major military confrontation any time soon — good news, given our record of late. I have no doubt the brass has quietly explained to the administration all the horrible ways gender integration could end up backfiring. Possibly, the administration is OK with this because they don’t foresee any situation where American troops will actually have to fight a real enemy any time in the near future. They aren’t going to have to answer for any of this, the thinking goes, so why not just toss a bone to the SJWs? Let some future administration deal with the fallout.

    This might explain why there haven’t been any resignations over this: The brass doesn’t expect to do any real fighting, either, so why not just go along to get along? The guys who’ll actually have to clean up the mess are probably just now entering Annapolis and West Point and Colorado Springs. Let their whiny generation deal with these headaches.

    Since our leaders may not actually expect the military to win wars (because they don’t expect to fight them), perhaps that’s why they’re comfortable turning the military into a giant playpen for testing progressive social theories. The progs are probably salivating at the prospect of trying out their loony ideas on a population that’s not allowed to complain or talk back.

    On the third hand, however: Telegraphing to potential adversaries that you’re giving up on this whole “fighting” thing because it’s too icky and male does not seem wise…

  94. @Yak-15
    There is one combat group that could use women soldiers - snipers. With higher levels of empathy to better find enemy positions and a smaller stature to hide from opposing forces, women snipers have proven deadly in the past. In this role they would also be able to carry less gear and their other physical shortcomings would be minimized.

    It's not ideal, but it is a solution that would be more acceptable than having female squad leaders. It may even prove wise. Female pilots are well suited to better absorbing g-forces because of their small stature. Furthermore, operating cargo planes/tankers/etc with their reduced accident rates has proven beneficial as well.

    Yak – not to demean the women who have served valiantly in the past, but when you have to start fielding women in such roles it means things are not going well and you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

  95. @Svigor

    There is one combat group that could use women soldiers – snipers. With higher levels of empathy to better find enemy positions and a smaller stature to hide from opposing forces, women snipers have proven deadly in the past. In this role they would also be able to carry less gear and their other physical shortcomings would be minimized.

    It’s not ideal, but it is a solution that would be more acceptable than having female squad leaders. It may even prove wise. Female pilots are well suited to better absorbing g-forces because of their small stature. Furthermore, operating cargo planes/tankers/etc with their reduced accident rates has proven beneficial as well.
     
    What is the link between higher levels of empathy and being better at finding enemy positions?

    Not really seeing the link between sniper and less gear, either. Snipers tend to be tasked to roles where they have to spend long periods of time on their own (with a spotter) in the back country. That means packing out all your own food, plus weapon, sidearm, ammo, ghillie suit, etc. I suppose that might average out to less weight carried vs. an infantry grunt, but it doesn't really scream "less advantage to the physically strong," either.

    Source on lower female pilot accident rates?

    There really doesn't seem to be any combat role for which men are not far better suited than women.

    IIRC the most successful use the Russians found for women was in the sniper role. They could stay motionless in the cold easier (higher body fat can be helpful) and were more patient to wait for the big kill. So they could be as good as the best males. See this example.

  96. @Drakejax
    Much of the "deadly female sniper" idea came from World War II Soviet propaganda. On closer examination is appears to have been largely nonsense to help morale, not any sort of accurate battle account. Full Metal Jacket was make-believe; the real Battle of Hue pitted Marines against a North Vietnamese infantry division, not female insurgents.

    Snipers carry more, not less, gear than most infantry. This is because they need to sustain themselves in a hide site for a long period of time without moving much. They also carry heavier rifles, and often a secondary weapon (in case they need to shoot their way out of being discovered), plus their own long range radio. Shooting well is the least significant attribute of a good sniper.

    On closer examination is appears to have been largely nonsense to help morale, not any sort of accurate battle account.

    Where can I read up on that? I think I read in more serious sources (perhaps Glantz?) that female snipers were, relatively speaking, quite successful.

    • Replies: @Drakejax
    Short answer, the only source for Soviet female snipers is wartime Soviet propaganda. Can't find anything on it from the German side.

    Longer answer, Glantz indeed has the best access to Soviet archives. His "Colossus Reborn" indicates that up to a million women served in a uniformed capacity during the war at one point or another (out of 35 million total) mostly in traditional roles and a few pilots. He has a footnote for a source that says about 100,000 women may have received "sniper" training (which might indicate marksmanship, not actual sniper, training). He has another footnote that yes there is anecdotal information on Soviet women in combat but he had yet to find conclusive archival information.
  97. I don’t think the US or Western European etc. leadership needs to be saved from itself.

    Hopefully the more insane ideas will get implemented (in the military and elsewhere), the earlier this whole thing will collapse under its own weight.

  98. @Anonymous
    Getting completely off topic, I just watched the finale of the "Hunger Games" series, and I am impressed. This is a much darker and more mature instalment than the previous films of the franchise. The nihilistic and despondent tone of the film is not the kind of stuff that suits the typical American viewer, who tends to like black-and-white morality and leading heroes who are charicatures of simple-minded heroism, and not actual people, with complex motivations and inclinations, and full of inner condlict and self-doubt. But I love it.

    The one thing is I didn't like much was the protrayal of Katniss Everdeen. She came across as excessively calloused and cynical, and a little bit too emotionally wise and hardened for a 17 year-old. Her concerns about the greater good, her tendency to postulate political repercussions in the distant future for her actions, her emotional fortitude in withstanding great personal losses and her overall gravitas and stoicism, are all more fitting to a 40 year-old than a 17 year-old adolescent. But then, kids these days are completely obsessed with adult characteristics, and the wisdom, self-awareness and inner strength that only comes after having lived a long time and experienced a lot - and even then it only comes to some-. and like to identify with characters their age that are actually proxies for their absent parents. This is probably because true adults are very rare these daya, and kids feel the absence strongly. I think the message kids are sending to adults by having as icons these teenage characters that are so self-aware, tough, contemplative and emotionally wise is

    "We don't want you to be like us. We want you to be grown ups. We expect you to be overall a lot more formidable than we are because you have been around for so much longer and had a lot more time to improve yourselves in every way. And that is what we need from adults: your guidance and protection. So why aren't you?"

    Donald Sutherland is a master at playing bastards, and he is the true star of the film. While Coriolanus Snow was already a sadist and a ruthless cold-blooded killer in the previous films, he now has become much worse and is one of the most evil characters ever depicted in fiction. He sadistically making it so that his enemies kill their own loved ones without knowing it and then making sure that they realize what they did for no other reason other than to cause them agony and suffering, the sadism with which he butchers children before their parents in cruel games and forces them to watch it, the way that he orchestrates terrorist strikes against his own people and makes it seem like the resistence did it just to increase the fighting spirit of the Capitol and it's loyal districts, and the way he poisons his own supporters when they do anything even slightly incompetent, he truly is an absolute monster. Truly a figure of horror. But as horrifyingly callous and vicious as he is, the leader of the resistence gets the better of him with his own despicable tactics in the end. A nice turn of events.

    The face off between the defeated Snow and Katniss in the end, when he points out that he did not kill her sister but that it was rather the leader of the resistence, who was i n fact an ambitious power tripper and almost as vile as Snow, when Snow gives Katniss a cynical smirk and saus:

    "You know that I am not above slicing and gassing little children...but I am not irrational or wasteful... Your sister's death was completely unnecessary. But, think about, now that Coin has won who is her bigget enemy...? Who can challenge her for the the position of leader of the new regime?"

    Is one of the best movie moments of the year. The tension, moral ambiguity, and display of all the incrdibly complex interests and motivations of everyone involved, is one of the best scenes of the year. The perplexity in Katniss's face as she realizes that she was played the whole time, and the laughter from Snow, a laughter that combines contempt, bemusement and a cynicism towarss human beings and their true nature. Sutherland deserves an Oscar for the many expressions and voice intonations he makes during this scene, as he explains to Katniss, with his demon cunning, how she was fooled the whole time, and how things are far lesss black-and-white they they appear.

    A great film. Four stars out of five.

    Have not seen any of the Hunger Games movies, but whenever I see a trailer on TV, I wonder why Jennifer Lawrence is outfitted with a longbow. Don’t they have compound bows in the future?

  99. @Another Canadian

    ...we would be conquered overnight by the first opportunistic army to come along.
     
    Don't worry, you'll learn to enjoy hockey. And poutine can be a tasty holiday treat!

    Another Canadian, Your Canadian army would blanch at the thought of marching into states that have no Tim Horton’s, so basically it would be a border skirmish. And ah yes, poutine an artery clogging biological weapon.

  100. @reiner Tor

    On closer examination is appears to have been largely nonsense to help morale, not any sort of accurate battle account.
     
    Where can I read up on that? I think I read in more serious sources (perhaps Glantz?) that female snipers were, relatively speaking, quite successful.

    Short answer, the only source for Soviet female snipers is wartime Soviet propaganda. Can’t find anything on it from the German side.

    Longer answer, Glantz indeed has the best access to Soviet archives. His “Colossus Reborn” indicates that up to a million women served in a uniformed capacity during the war at one point or another (out of 35 million total) mostly in traditional roles and a few pilots. He has a footnote for a source that says about 100,000 women may have received “sniper” training (which might indicate marksmanship, not actual sniper, training). He has another footnote that yes there is anecdotal information on Soviet women in combat but he had yet to find conclusive archival information.

  101. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    I can’t wait until we have Seal Team Hello Kitty!

  102. @Yak-15
    When the game is man and you have a long-ranges weapon having a disposition that enables you to better understand where another may choose to hide given their circumstances is an advantage. Women have tested higher in levels of empathy consistently across decades.

    If we must have combat women perhaps we can at least select a role that they wouldn't suck at. I would rather have a man out there and I am sure men would do better most of them time. But the Soviet WWII experience has taught us women can be proficient snipers. Or, at the least, more proficient than in other roles.

    The most common role for women in the WWII era Soviet military was the medic. Not exactly a combat role, but medics were expected to go into the battlefield while the bullets were flying and drag away the wounded men on their own back.

    • Replies: @Drakejax
    In addition to medics (which can mean anything from a front line medic to someone working in a rear area hospital) the WWII Soviets drafted women into all their signals units. This led to the practice of officers obtaining "field wives" from their radio operator ranks. Interestingly, the Israelis (who draft females) staff their brigade signals companies with young women, with apparently a similar "field wife" phenomena between the HQ officers and the supporting radio operators.
  103. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    When the game is man and you have a long-ranges weapon having a disposition that enables you to better understand where another may choose to hide given their circumstances is an advantage. Women have tested higher in levels of empathy consistently across decades.

    Yeah, great; now link empathy to better understanding where people may choose to hide. I say experience and g factor are what matters there, not empathy.

    IIRC the most successful use the Russians found for women was in the sniper role. They could stay motionless in the cold easier (higher body fat can be helpful) and were more patient to wait for the big kill. So they could be as good as the best males.

    I might have a better time buying it if it weren’t coming from the commies, as notorious a pack of leftist liars as ever there was. They’ve got that whole Leftist Delusion of Equality thing motivating them to lie.

    Patience is a virtue for snipers and hunters, no doubt, but it’s a learned skill, too. And men do almost all the hunting – hunters are the best recruiting pool for snipers. Even if women have a natural edge, it’s offset by their many deficiencies.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Commenter Drakejax just corrected me. Female snipers (especially highly successful female snipers) might have been more a feature of Soviet wartime propaganda than reality.
  104. @Trelane
    Women are well suited to combat. That's always been my experience.

    It depends on which side you are on. A commander choosing an attack point would do well to close on the units carrying the most women; info supplied by a fawning press eager for stories of Kardashians in battle.

  105. @Yak-15
    When the game is man and you have a long-ranges weapon having a disposition that enables you to better understand where another may choose to hide given their circumstances is an advantage. Women have tested higher in levels of empathy consistently across decades.

    If we must have combat women perhaps we can at least select a role that they wouldn't suck at. I would rather have a man out there and I am sure men would do better most of them time. But the Soviet WWII experience has taught us women can be proficient snipers. Or, at the least, more proficient than in other roles.

    Women are used in border observation posts in Israel. I think they are better at paying attention in boring, monotonous situations than men. Which probably helps when sniping.

  106. @inertial
    The most common role for women in the WWII era Soviet military was the medic. Not exactly a combat role, but medics were expected to go into the battlefield while the bullets were flying and drag away the wounded men on their own back.

    In addition to medics (which can mean anything from a front line medic to someone working in a rear area hospital) the WWII Soviets drafted women into all their signals units. This led to the practice of officers obtaining “field wives” from their radio operator ranks. Interestingly, the Israelis (who draft females) staff their brigade signals companies with young women, with apparently a similar “field wife” phenomena between the HQ officers and the supporting radio operators.

  107. @Anonymous

    When the game is man and you have a long-ranges weapon having a disposition that enables you to better understand where another may choose to hide given their circumstances is an advantage. Women have tested higher in levels of empathy consistently across decades.
     
    Yeah, great; now link empathy to better understanding where people may choose to hide. I say experience and g factor are what matters there, not empathy.

    IIRC the most successful use the Russians found for women was in the sniper role. They could stay motionless in the cold easier (higher body fat can be helpful) and were more patient to wait for the big kill. So they could be as good as the best males.
     
    I might have a better time buying it if it weren't coming from the commies, as notorious a pack of leftist liars as ever there was. They've got that whole Leftist Delusion of Equality thing motivating them to lie.

    Patience is a virtue for snipers and hunters, no doubt, but it's a learned skill, too. And men do almost all the hunting - hunters are the best recruiting pool for snipers. Even if women have a natural edge, it's offset by their many deficiencies.

    Commenter Drakejax just corrected me. Female snipers (especially highly successful female snipers) might have been more a feature of Soviet wartime propaganda than reality.

  108. The young Riot Grrl personal trainer at my gym heard my girlfriend and I talking about women and the Ranger test last night, and she chimed in that she thought she could do pretty well on it. I offered her a challenge; we’d each get on a treadmill set at a 15 degree incline and 3 mph and see who was the first to drop out. She laughed at me and said it was a deal. Her smile disappeared when I went over to the weight rack and grabbed two 30-pound dumbbells and handed them to her, then picked up 2 more for me. I said, “Full pack march, sweetie!”

    She almost made it to 7 minutes, with me mocking her the whole time about an overweight 57-year old guy, with only one meniscus and a rotator cuff hanging by a thread, kicking her ass, though I have to say that my shoulders were quite pleased that she dropped out when she did. She said it wasn’t a fair test, and she should been carrying 15 pounders. My girlfriend was flabbergasted at that, and asked if that would prove anything other than that she was half as qualified. Poor Riot Grrl had no answer to that, and stomped off almost in tears.

    That, more than anything else, is the problem: that they continue to deny reality even when their faces are rubbed in it.

  109. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Yak-15
    When the game is man and you have a long-ranges weapon having a disposition that enables you to better understand where another may choose to hide given their circumstances is an advantage. Women have tested higher in levels of empathy consistently across decades.

    If we must have combat women perhaps we can at least select a role that they wouldn't suck at. I would rather have a man out there and I am sure men would do better most of them time. But the Soviet WWII experience has taught us women can be proficient snipers. Or, at the least, more proficient than in other roles.

    When the game is man and you have a long-ranges weapon having a disposition that enables you to better understand where another may choose to hide given their circumstances is an advantage. Women have tested higher in levels of empathy consistently across decades.

    You seem to lack an understanding of the function of snipers.

    Yes, in Vietnam there was some anti-sniper action, but generally the function of snipers is to kill officers and reduce the enemy’s men to leaderless rabble.

    Officers, if they are any good, generally don’t hide during battle.

    Similarly, when snipers are after enemy political leaders, they usually don’t have to figure out where the political leaders are hiding.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS