The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Track & Battlefield
🔊 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

Screenshot 2018-11-22 18.45.23

Did you ever notice how much of respectable discourse today consists of telling you to stop asking questions and just take the conventional wisdom on faith? For example:

It’s time to stop questioning whether women should be in combat units.

A relevant question I asked way back in my 1997 article “Track & Battlefield” is: what % of women in the military can realistically live up to the strength demands of combat (e.g., carrying enough ammunition) without juicing on steroids and/or Human Growth Hormone? For example, does the petite lady in this photo look like she could hump enough ammo or carry a wounded comrade without some biochemical enhancement?

A lot of of today’s conventional wisdom about women in combat goes back to a mistaken cliche of the 1980s about how the converging Olympic results of that East Germany-dominated era showed that women were going to catch up to men real soon now. But once PED testing was slightly improved after the 1988 Olympic fiasco, the gender gap in running widened.

So, do elites want to encourage women soldiers to take artificial male hormones to help their careers? Or is that just another one of those things we should “stop questioning”?

 
Hide 246 CommentsLeave a Comment
246 Comments to "Track & Battlefield"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Make the US military 50% women.

    At least it will lower the chance of more wars.

  2. American Womanhood: Tough enough to be combat troops but not tough enough to handle on-line bullying.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @TheBoom
    , @Anonymous
    , @BenKenobi
  3. There’s only one physical requirement for the Swedish military that’s actually specified in the article: being able to run 2 km in full battle gear in under 10:15.

    I have to say, if a woman can do that, she’s quite fit, assuming the battle gear comprises some heavy stuff. I wonder if that’s why this standard is the only one specified, i.e. it looks pretty good.

    The article doesn’t say how much female Swedish soldiers are expected to carry above and beyond their own gear, just that it’s the same standard as for men. Even with chemical enhancement, women are so much weaker than men that the standards for dealing with weight/carrying must be low.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    , @An Aussie
    , @NickG
  4. Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow citizens. We in the USA have much to be thankful for.

    To paraphrase Cecil Rhodes, “To be born an America is to have won first place in the lottery of life”.

    God bless America.

  5. @Anon

    The % of women in the US military has been increasing since they starting letting them join 100 or so years ago. How’s that less war thing working out?

    The only sane direction the US military can take is to allow current female personnel to complete their terms of enlistment and then disallow them reenlistment. Women do not belong in the military.

    • Replies: @Gapeseed
  6. My grandfather used to say that wars should be fought by naked old men. makes sense if you think about it. During WWII Russia had thousands of women in combat roles, including fighter pilots. I guess it’s all in when you are actually defending your homeland.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @anon
    , @Reg Cæsar
  7. Ibound1 says:

    The armed forces of the West don’t even try to stop an actual invasion of our home territories. The army is not used for our defense and won’t be used for our defense. Fill it up with women. So what? It’s all a waste of money anyway.

  8. Tiny Duck says:

    Most of them he girls outlive me at the gym

    Black Men support women and don’t make fun of the hem. No wonder Boack guys are considered the most attractive men

    • Replies: @Corn
  9. Daniel H says:

    From the Times article: “Recently I visited Sweden to talk with conscripts in mechanized infantry, artillery and army ranger units. I learned that the performance of women in those units was not at issue.”

    How would the Swedish military know that performance was not an issue? The Swedes haven’t fought a war in two hundred years.

    But we do have this data point: A video clip entitled “3 Swedish police officers (all women) unable to detain lone refugee.”

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    , @Fredrik
    , @istevefan
  10. A lot of of today’s conventional wisdom about women in combat goes back to a mistaken cliche of the 1980s…

    There’s very little wisdom, conventional or otherwise, in today’s political thought.

    It’s pretty much just: “That makes me mad or sad and everybody on Twitter is upset about it and you’re racist and sexist and besides I saw a 100 lb. woman beat up 5 guys in a movie so shut up or we’ll scream at you and get you fired.”

    Who, whom.

  11. prosa123 says:

    There are three main arguments against the use of women in combat. I have similar reactions to two of these arguments and an extremely different reaction to the third argument.

    Argument 1: Women by and large lack the physical strength to participate in combat. My reaction: I’ve never been in the military, so I just don’t know, I’m willing to listen to both sides.

    Argument 2: The participation of women will lessen the cohesion that a combat unit needs. My reaction: see Argument 1.

    Argument 3: Women’s lives are too precious to be risked in combat (and, by extension, men are expendable). My reaction: if you raise this argument in my presence, it will take absolutely every iota of self-control I have not to physically assault you.

  12. Weirdo says:

    Teresa Fazio, former marine, supposedly wrote this article.

    Our warlettes of late against hopelessly out-weaponed oppposition, with immediatlely established air superiority and the ability to call in missile strikes against enemy positions that prove irritable, has led to mucho overconfidence imo.

    So much of the USAs collective psyche is based on our perception that we can never be invaded or defeated militarily. The White House was once burned down by the British in the War of 1812. If we ever find ourself in a really desperate struggle, we might regret some of these “reforms”.

    • Replies: @Corn
    , @Lurker
  13. TheBoom says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    How can women be warriors when they are traumatized by manspreading? All the enemy would need to do is spread their knees and the female”warriors” would need to flee to a safe space.

  14. Arclight says:

    In an existential war, anything goes – WWII Russia, Israel today, etc. But for a professional expeditionary force it’s totally nuts to have women involved in front-line ground combat units. Aside from the issues associated with what happens to women who are captured and/or fraternization with their comrades, with few exceptions the average man with training will always be stronger and faster than even an elite female, and they are more prone to stress-related injuries.

    Perhaps what we need is to gather together a cadre of fierce feminists who insist women can hack it and put them through boot camp and then check back in and see what they think when it’s all over.

  15. Rosie says:
    @Buffalo Joe

    I guess it’s all in when you are actually defending your homeland.

    Yes, indeed, but of course women in combat should be a last resort in desperate times not a commonplace.

  16. Brobert says:
    @prosa123

    You’re right, in the name of fairness, women should be sent on the front lines to suffer combat causalities equally. A nation doing that would suffer no deleterious effects and its future prospects would be just a good as that of nation that stupidly considers uteri less expandable than sperms.

  17. Rosie says:
    @prosa123

    Argument 3: Women’s lives are too precious to be risked in combat (and, by extension, men are expendable).

    I don’t think your reasoning here is sound.

    • Replies: @Bill H
    , @CK
  18. Diversity has become one of those all right or all wrong buzzwords like discrimination. Clear thinking is required here. Discrimination is merely the recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. During the 60′s as the word became overused, the necessary modifier(s) were dropped. Racial discrimination was deemed wrong even as the discrimination between goodthink and badthink became implicit. From a Google search for the word discrimination:

    1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
    “victims of racial discrimination”
    2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
    “discrimination between right and wrong”

    It is interesting how the more general definition is placed second and the loaded definition is placed first. It is almost as if the Google dictionariers are discriminating against a politically neutral, more general definition.

    Diversity seems to have lost a prefix that gave it some meaning. Biodiversity is a necessary component of healthy biosystems. Forests need earthworms and bacteria in the soil. The animal kingdom benefits from predators, prey and scavengers. Without biodiversity, systems get out of balance and can fail.

    Human populations fit into this scheme by becoming one compnent of an ecosystem. By comparison, a population of caribou is kept from overgrazing the tundra by wolves that prey on the weaker members of the herd. As long as there is enough genetic diversity in the herd to prevent congenital diseases from decimating the herd, the herd is healthy, and the predation by wolves keeps the herd adapted to its environment. Even though it may appear to lack diversity, it has the amount it needs, and it is the similarity between individual members of the herd that makes the herd healthy.

    Humans adapted to livingn in colder climates with indoor plumbing will be healthy as a group so long as there are a sufficient number of similar individuals to preclude genetic disease.

    Just as you do not improve a population of caribou by introducing warm weather adapted genes into the group, you do not improve a population of civilized people by introducing primitive genes.

    Diversity is a positive trait only when appropriate. Random, meaningless diversity is harmful. If the population of humans has evolved where there is specialization, such as male warriors and female nuturers, then for some decision maker to decide to impose diversity for the sake of the word is quite stupid.

  19. MNL says:

    I just find it odd how, when it comes to life on college campus, we hear how women are particularly vulnerable and need safe spaces and special protection from unwanted (sexual) assault. However, when it comes to life on the military battlefield, we hear (from what I think are the same voices) that women are just as capable as men of defending themselves from unwanted (enemy) assault. It all seems entirely contradictory. Women are capable of handling shrapnel but not a groping hand? Do such advocates of both points of view ever notice the dissonance? I do and it makes my brain hurt.

    In any event, I suspect that advocates for let-women-be-warriors will wilt the moment the public sees that it’s women’s bodies instead of men’s lying dead, face-down in the sand of Buna Beach.

    • Replies: @sabril
    , @Moses
    , @Buffalo Joe
  20. L Woods says:

    Talk about “physical standards” is a boomercon cop out. The inclusion of women in non-support function is ruinous to esprit de corps and organizational dynamism and prestige, their ability to ruck notwithstanding. Their sordid and disruptive behavior moreover is an embarrassment to the armed forces and the nation (such as it is).

    • Agree: Intelligent Dasein
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @LondonBob
  21. Tim says:

    Women in the military has been a disaster that we have been hiding for years. The medical costs alone for a female service member are through the roof. Huge demographics of our young people understand that the military is just a sweet home for unwed mothers.

    They get full medical for free, they almost all have cushy office jobs, they can get fat and no one will counsel them on it, and when they have to deploy, they get pregnant.

    You go up to any nineteen year old Joe on Ardennes Avenue and ask him where the medical clinic is, and he won’t have a clue. But you ask a female private and she’ll direct you there, tell you the best NCO to go to, and tell you want to say.

    I admit that in an office environment many women are excellent and highly motivated. But you out in the field, they run around like ducks hit in the head.

    • Replies: @SonOfStrom
  22. Lowe says:

    The girl is thinking wistfully about all the soldiers who’re going to bone her.

    Sluts have the right to sneak into combat units, Steve. How else will they be bedded by dozens of men willing to take other’s lives? Men’s prisons aren’t on the table.

  23. black sea says:

    It’s just another way to say shut up, “stop questioning” and start obeying.

    Elites don’t care about what happens to women in the military, because elite women don’t join the military, and members of the military (male or female) are regarded by the elites as, at best, useful dimwits who can be made to do the dirty but necessary work of empire building.

    High ranking military personnel can also be made to made to mouth platitudes like “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” simply by pulling the string at the back of their fatigues.

    As a further benefit, proles tend to support the military, and are therefore more likely to go along with whatever the military adopts as the latest and most advanced expression of the new social order, thus making the military a useful tool for social engineering.

    Whether or not the presence of women in combat units degrades the effectiveness of these units is a question so far down the list of concerns that it hardly matters, and military leaders are so effectively cowed or careerist that they’re the last people to ask such questions in any public forum.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    , @South Texas Guy
  24. L Woods says:
    @black sea

    They’re more concerned with coup-proofing the armed forces by dissolving their social capital (and prosecuting their ideological zealotry) than with any external threat. Women aren’t going to turn on the power structure.

  25. istevefan says:

    Here is a blast from the past from the 2003 Iraq invasion. Kirsten Scharnberg of the Chicago Tribune reported on her experiences as an embedded reporter with the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division. The article can be found here. Some excerpts follow.

    I had made a pact with myself that no matter how tired I was or how physically strenuous a mission became, I would never let one of the soldiers lug my rucksack or equipment for me. I wanted them to see me as completely capable of pulling my own weight, as a traveling companion who was not a liability but an equal. One night, hating myself, I broke that rule.

    It was pitch black and we were taking constant mortar fire at a checkpoint just outside Najaf, the holy Shiite city in central Iraq. I had my rucksack, which weighed well over 70 pounds, my computer and satellite phone, my gas mask container, several bottles of water and some food.

    I had been bumming rides with military vehicles for a little over a day to get up to the embattled city, and both my computer and phone were out of power, so I had added to my load a battery taken from a blown-out car, hoping that, with some alligator clips and a power inverter, I could charge my equipment.

    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.

  26. Apparently you never heard of the Mino of Dahomey. The Phillipina Guerillas of World War II. The female VietCong. The female warriors of the ancient Germans and Celts.

    But of course you never heard of anything. And your big argument is “carrying ammunition.”

    Stupid. That’s what men are for. Women are for doing the fighting.

    • Troll: Dan Hayes, Lowe
    • Replies: @bomag
    , @Unzerker
    , @Anonymous
  27. Why don’t discussions like this ever bring up the utter cowardice of American soldiers, fifty percent of whom never shot their weapon, just ducking way down in their foxhole and praying. Do you actually know any men?

  28. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    This is exactly it.

    Being out in the field for weeks on end, functioning on 2 hours sleep per night, half-starving, constantly tired, cold, wet, shitting in bags, caked in your own filth, under constant threat of sudden death (if lucky) or capture followed by years of torture (if unlucky) –> Bring it on!!!

    Get patted on the butt by male supervisor in cushy air-conditioned office job –> Unsafe workplace, lifelong trauma, not OK!!!

    Being a NYT writer requires a degree of logic chopping that would make the average Talmudist blush.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  29. Sweden, which sent troops to support the American-led war in Afghanistan, first integrated women into combat jobs in 1989 and began a gender-neutral draft last year.

    “Gender-neutral”? Whatever happened to neutral neutral?

    Oh… the EU killed that.

    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/se-neutrality.htm

  30. BenKenobi says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    “Depths of Misogyny: A modest proposal requiring all submarines to have two front doors”

    • Replies: @Bubba
  31. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:

    Two Norwegian researchers, Nina Hellum and Ulla-Britt Lilleaas, have found that having male and female troops live together has a “degenderizing” effect that makes soldiers act more like siblings, reducing harassment.

    Yeah, because siblings never harass each other. And in what way are siblings “degenderized”? Whether you’re a brother or sister, and whether you’re dealing with a brother or sister, is highly relevant to how siblings behave with each other. You’re not some sort of “degenderized” sibling.

  32. @prosa123

    I would modify your Argument 3 to read as follows:

    Women are one of the principal components of the homeland that the men are supposed to be defending. Therefore, putting them up at the front lines is almost already a defeat in itself. It’s more of a desperation move, like firing the ramrod. You can do it if you have to, but you need to be aware that this is your last damn shot.

    That’s an argument I happen to agree with.

  33. Hmmm which produces more lethal force in the long term:

    A). A single woman’s physical might

    B). A married woman giving birth to and successfully raising X well adjusted males who are each taught to fly f-18s?

    • Replies: @bomag
  34. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @Arclight

    In an existential war, anything goes – WWII Russia, Israel today, etc.

    I would add that an existential war is the only war you should ever fight. Anything else is not self defense and is therefore war crime. In a war for my existence I am fighting above all else for the safety of my wife and child. My wife goes into combat after I am dead.

    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    , @megabar
  35. Anonymous[287] • Disclaimer says:
    @prosa123

    Your answer to 1 and 2 shows that you’re stupid, and your answer to 3 shows that you’re crazy.

  36. @prosa123

    Viable eggs are way, way more scarce than viable sperm.

    • Replies: @CK
  37. From my blog:

    Sep 19, 2015 – Football and Infantry

    There has been lots of news about the Obama administration’s effort to open all military jobs to women. Everyone familiar with infantry operations knows this is a bad idea, and not just because women are smaller and weaker. Half of American men can’t do infantry jobs either.

    The best example is a similar question: Can women play pro football? The answer is yes. What if an NFL owner demanded that women consist of at least 25% of his team, with at least three women on the field at all times. That is feasible, but the team would lose all its games, and all its male players would be furious. It is worse in combat because limbs and lives are lost. Luckily, our military has only played Pop Warner level opponents since this “women in combat” effort began.

    Not only infantry are affected, but many other military jobs. When the USS Cole was hit with a bomb in 2000, the women crew cried and did nothing while several men abandoned their post to check on their loved one. Sailors will tell you that women cannot lug heavy things up ladders and cannot perform many other needed tasks. Moreover, even crew with “desk” jobs have other jobs aboard ship: battle stations, firefighting teams, or “all hands on deck” for whatever task is needed.

    To make matters worse, the Obama folks doubled the extra time off for pregnancy to 18 weeks! Keep in mind that women are also allowed at least three months of “light duty” when they are pregnant, so are not expected to do anything difficult. Who does their work during this time? If the Obama folks meet their goal of at least 25% of ship crews with women, at least 10% of the crew will not be available to deploy due to pregnancy issues.

    Women who want a large family should join the Navy and get assigned to a ship. Once they get pregnant, they can’t deploy, so are left behind with some odd make work job ashore, like handing out towels at the gym. When the ship returns they have a medical excuse for “light duty” so they only have to show up for work but are expected to do nothing. The baby arrives so they get 18 weeks off for maternity leave and another four weeks for annual leave. When that ends, many military women show up for just four hours of loitering around on “light duty” since they just had a child and then “must” go home for the day because its time to breastfeed. After a year of their not available status, its time to resume full-time duties, but they get pregnant again and start the cycle again.

    Officers cannot openly discuss these problems because they will be attacked as anti-women and anti-family. They must give these absent sailors good performance reviews because they’ve done nothing wrong, because they’ve done nothing. Meanwhile, hard-working crewmen tire of the 12-hour days needed to cover for the absence of others, and many great ones leave when their enlistment ends, or have their reenlistment denied because of the women quota that includes members of a ship crew who rarely did any work and missed the last two deployments. Women are suitable for about half of military jobs, but certainly not infantry or even ship crews.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
  38. anon[355] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buffalo Joe

    By 1945 11% of all soldiers in the red army were female.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    , @Buffalo Joe
  39. This is about rubbing the proles faces in diversity good and hard and degrading a cohesive response to globohomo.

    • Agree: Daniel H
  40. Bubba says:
    @istevefan

    I’d like a “reporter” to ask ex-POW Jessica Lynch what she honestly thinks about sending women in to combat too.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
  41. Bill H says: • Website
    @Rosie

    There actually is no reasoning, sound or unsound, in the statement, “If you say that in my presence I will hurt you.” That statement is bullying and is completely irrational.

  42. El Dato says:
    @Anon

    At least it will lower the chance of more wars.

    Explain!

    How wars start:

    > Gaggle of behind the scenes players & “core” politicians get together and decide
    > Narrative is constructed in the press.
    > Relentless Hitlerization in the NYT, WaPo and other Reichmedia.
    > Movie appear where the bad guy gets it.
    > Sanctions, Proclamations, UN dragooning. Tubes are found, vague photos appear etc.
    > Desire for Peace is proclaimed while it’s clear that something will happen.
    > Something happens.
    > ???
    > Gaggle of behind the scenes players profit mightily from taxpayer largesse, State becomes bigger. Some people dead. There is difference whether they had ovaries.

  43. Teresa Fazio =

    A size to fear.
    Fate is a zero.
    East of Zaïre. (Which is where she belongs.)

    What this woman doesn’t bring up is Rostker v Goldberg, where the Supreme Court said the only remaining constitutional defense of a male-only draft is the inadmissability of women to combat. She’d cast this away to advance her career (and that of others like her), while throwing the rest of her sex (born after 1993) under the jeep.

    America could be the third country, after Norway and Sweden, to draft women on equal terms with men. But N0rway and Sweden took very opposite paths to this situation.

    Norway is the rare country where the military draft is held in high esteem. Feminists there knew this, and led the movement to include women equally. Mad, yes, but gutsy.

    Sweden discontinued their active draft in 2010 (the same year as Germany), but put a clause in the law that said should it return, it would also apply to women. Starting this year, it did. That was a cowardly, backdoor move.

    We are following the latter course. Registration of women was buried under six hundred amendments in the Senate defense bill two years ago, and it passed with 85 votes. Thus, it could again.

    The House refused to put this in their own bill. But now the House has changed hands.

    What comes next? If such a bill passes, Trump should not just veto it, but roll it up and burn it on TV.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @wren
  44. @istevefan

    the holy Shiite city

    Holy Shiite! A whole city?

  45. Whiskey says: • Website

    Women are not interested in humping a Browning 50 caliber machine gun through the mud. Nor will the be assigned to do so.

    Instead women are demanding they be installed as leaders while never, EVER, doing the demanding work that the the modern infantry, artillery, etc. does as a matter of course.

    Alexander commanded the respect of his troops as he ate the same food they did, was first in line in battle, stood watch as they did, endured the same hardships and misery.

    Dropping in a bunch of power lesbians to be the commanding officers of the military is a recipe for either massive military defeat — power lesbians are good at being the biggest bull dyke lesbians on the planet, actually coming up with plans based on combat experience to kill the enemy while taking minimal casualties is another matter — or open military revolts by troops with zero respect or confidence in said bull dyke lesbian leaders.

    I can say off topic that someone on the TV writing staff of TV’s Supergirl is definitely reading Steve, this topic of women commanding mostly White male troops has come up in that show. It is a very weird show too, in that the main villain essentially quotes Steve’s columns, but is “wrong” because he’s a White man and all the respectable people don’t like him.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  46. syonredux says:
    @prosa123

    Argument 3: Women’s lives are too precious to be risked in combat (and, by extension, men are expendable). My reaction: if you raise this argument in my presence, it will take absolutely every iota of self-control I have not to physically assault you.

    Sperm is cheap; ova are expensive.

    • Replies: @prosa123
  47. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Arclight

    Pardon me, but why do you believe that Israel today is at “existential war” comparable to WWII Russia?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    , @Anonymous
  48. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Arclight

    The Israeli situation has been discussed by the blogger Israeli Water Engineer: women serve in only a limited selection of “combat” roles (pilots, border guards) where there is a relatively low risk of death or capture. There are no women in the front-line infantry units, special operations etc. Look at the list of Israeli war dead from any recent engagement: almost exclusively male, despite both genders being subject to conscription.

    Women in the infantry should only be considered in some kind of Doomsday scenario. For the “gung-ho” females there are roles in front-line espionage and counter-intelligence activities, far more useful work (and more dangerous!) than that of the average grunt.

  49. anon[147] • Disclaimer says:

    No one is thinking of large numbers of infantry fighting a war of attrition. Those wars are ‘rotting in the fields’. No one wants to fight these things.

    The current idea is that special forces will do all the serious fighting so the regular forces can be a works program or social experiment.

    Plus a couple of semi elite divisions.

    But if anyone seriously expected a politically correct infantry to fight, they never would have gone along.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
  50. anon[190] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: in the Atlantic: “Another big project has found that only half of [psychology] studies can be repeated. And this time, the usual explanations fall flat.”

    Also:

    …as in previous big projects, online bettors were surprisingly good at predicting beforehand which studies would ultimately replicate. Somehow, they could intuit which studies were reliable.

    But other intuitions were less accurate. In 12 cases, the scientists behind the original studies suggested traits that the replicators should account for. [...] In almost every case, those suggested traits proved to be irrelevant.

    “Somehow”! I’m going to guess it’s because online bettors don’t have their heads up their arse, whereas psychology professors…

    • Replies: @anon
  51. anon[190] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Addendum: note the use of “intuit/intuition” rather than, say, “judge/judgement”. Those online bettors were apparently relying on their spidey senses tingling.

  52. I’m at the point where I think its going to take a Teutonoborg Forest level disaster for the military to even start talking about righting itself.

    Anything less than that is just going to mean diversity wasn’t tried hard enough to the powers that be.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
  53. @prosa123

    To quote the end of a Bob and Tom song, ” Shut up, homo”.

  54. @obwandiyag

    That info was made up to support a certain training doctrine.

  55. @Anonymous

    Insert favorite West Virginian joke here….

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  56. Icelandic women have been shown to have greater grip strength than Indian men. So while I could envision a Valkyrie Division of Icelandic women, I’m not sure about female soldiers in the rest of the world.

  57. jim jones says:

    Women are weaker than men but they also have worse spatial perception:

  58. Women can do well at defensive combat. They can do well at jobs that don’t require a lot of upper body strength, like piloting modern aircraft. They are NOT good at things that require sustained use of upper body strength, like combat infantry.

  59. Rosie says:
    @L Woods

    Talk about “physical standards” is a boomercon cop out. The inclusion of women in non-support function is ruinous to esprit de corps and organizational dynamism and prestige, their ability to ruck notwithstanding. Their sordid and disruptive behavior moreover is an embarrassment to the armed forces and the nation (such as it is).

    You see, if you don’t go out of your way to state your case in the very most obnoxious possible way, most calculated to allow alienate and offend, it’s a “cop out.” Take note. This is the attitude and approach of a profoundly juvenile, unserious mentality, where the point of politics is to show how ideologically pure and correct you are.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @L Woods
  60. @black sea

    “military leaders are so effectively cowed or careerist that they’re the last people to ask such questions in any public forum.”

    I’ve thought about this, and the best I can come up with is “Why should I fall on my sword for saying the obvious? I’m up for full colonel or another general’s star.”

    Same thing with the Ft. Hood shooter. Lots of red flags, but it was well known you’d better keep your mouth shut if you want to continue on with your career. Not that you’d be kicked out, just that the rank you currently had would be the highest you ever got to.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Simply Simon
    , @Sean
  61. In Herbert’s Dune series, God Emperor Leto II Atreides uses an all-female army, the Fish Speakers, to garrison his empire.
    Leto believed that male dominated military forces were essentially predatory and would turn against the civilian population in the absence of an external enemy, whereas a female one would tame and calm. He also needed a reliable religious organization and he found women better suited for this role.

    With the American Empire foreseeing no serious challenge to its global hegemony, it makes sense to sacrifice some military effectiveness to improve the behavior of the troops and relations with imperial subjects. Say what you want about female soldiers, but they are less likely to rape and murder japanese schoolgirls.
    1995 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident
    2012 – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-21583785
    2017 – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42192571

  62. Rosie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    What this woman doesn’t bring up is Rostker v Goldberg, where the Supreme Court said the only remaining constitutional defense of a male-only draft is the inadmissability of women to combat. She’d cast this away to advance her career (and that of others like her), while throwing the rest of her sex (born after 1993) under the jeep.

    https://www.wnd.com/2014/01/radical-feminist-phyllis-schlafly-was-right/

  63. Anonymous[264] • Disclaimer says:
    @L Woods

    Sometimes the crazy conspiracy theory is actually the simplest and likeliest explanation.

    The people running the U.S. are more afraid of “their” army than of any foreign invader.

  64. @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    I forgot to mention that the Fish Speakers were improved through careful breeding over many generations.

    • Replies: @sabril
  65. Tyrion 2 says:
    @istevefan

    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

    Women like that exist, but the benefit to the army from the handful of extra potential recruits is miniscule even as the negatives of having to deal with another sex in trying circumstances are very substantial.

    Worse, it has already led to a decrease in standards and, in reality, it is just a policy so feminists can feel tough by proxy, which is mad.

    • Replies: @black sea
  66. sabril says:
    @MNL

    That’s the main theme of feminism, i.e. they jump back and forth between “women are the same as men and must be treated equally” and “women are different from men and must be given special treatment” depending on which principle is more convenient and advantageous at the moment.

    What it comes down to is that women are children and like almost all children, they have contradictory desires and expect those contradictory desires to be satisfied.

    • Agree: bomag, Stan d Mute, L Woods
  67. sabril says:
    @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    I’m pretty sure that the Dune series is fiction.

    In reality, an all-female military force would be a disaster. Women just don’t have the emotional and intellectual makeup to organize and maintain large, effective institutions. They also tend to freak out when under pressure and look for a man to bail them out.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
  68. @Arclight

    “Perhaps what we need is to gather together a cadre of fierce feminists who insist women can hack it and put them through boot camp and then check back in and see what they think when it’s all over.”

    Sounds like a reality TV show.

    • Replies: @TelfoedJohn
    , @Forbes
    , @pyrrhus
  69. @anon

    By 1945 11% of all soldiers in the red army were female.

    Hardly surprising, since by 1945, the number of Soviet men who had died in WWII in the USSR greatly exceeded the number of women who had died. The Soviets had no choice but to use women.

    According to Wikipedia

    Male war dead
    Andreev, Darski and Karkova (ADK) put total losses at 26.6 million. The authors did not dispute Krivoshev’s report of 8.7 million military dead. Their demographic study estimated the total war dead of 26.6 million included 20.0 million males and 6.6 million females. In mid-1941 the USSR hosted 8.3 million more females; by 1946 this gap had grown to 22.8 million, an increase of 13.5 million.

  70. @Arclight

    “Perhaps what we need is to gather together a cadre of fierce feminists who insist women can hack it and put them through boot camp and then check back in and see what they think when it’s all over.”

    Sounds like a reality TV show.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  71. @anonymous

    Yes, Israel is in “existential war” just like the UK was when the IRA were blowing things up and firing missiles at Downing Street. /sarc

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  72. @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    An appeal to the example of a purely fictional force is very apt for this discussion, with the delusions of competence being expressed by the supporters of women in combat.

    Speaking of delusions, “With the American Empire foreseeing no serious challenge to its global hegemony” is a real doozy.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/11/global-superpower-no-more.html

  73. @Bubba

    And Jessica Lynch was supposedly in a non-combat, transportation unit, if I remember correctly.

    • Replies: @Forbes
  74. Anonymous[218] • Disclaimer says:

    Because they want the military forces of the western w0rld to be administered by the same type of people who currently run Womyn’s Studies and HR departments.

    During the 2015 crisis, I had some faint hope that a farsighted general(or even colonel) employed by the emaciated remains of one of Europe’s armies would stage a military coup, declare his country’s borders were closed to invaders and open fire on anyone who dared test him. I imagine the people who want to destroy Europe are aware of the same faint possibility and want to make 100% sure it never happens.

    Of course, this leaves open the possibility of Pronoun Jihad in 2100, but compared to the actual Jihad sure to be in full swing at that point, it should prove a pleasant diversion.

  75. Bill B. says:
    @Daniel H

    Yes – if you want to know how women will be in combat look at how they perform in European police forces. Outgunned physically they tend to back away; they offer only weak support to their male colleagues; they do not have the same f*ck-you-I’m-not-standing-for-this attitude.

    Female police officers are a liability when thugs, especially vibrant ones, pick on the male officer to humiliate him in front of the female. They will often only fend off the women to concentrate on the male knowing that she offers a lesser threat.

    Here a male/female police patrol in London last week. At about 40″ the female is immobile watching her male colleague being beaten. Although she has been push/forced to the ground she does not appear hurt or dazed; she is simply not up for the fight.

    • Replies: @Moses
  76. LondonBob says:
    @L Woods

    True. Women just don’t have that fundamental male desire to gang together and fight for something, that’s why men obsess about war, team sports and street gangs.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  77. @LondonBob

    Oliver Stone narrated a documentary about the Vietnam War to go along with his movie “Platoon.” He talked about how during the Vietnam War they drafted 19 year olds. He observed that WWII showed you could win a war with older soldiers. But it’s harder to get 28-year-old draftees to love being in a platoon the way 19 year olds love being in a platoon, a gang, a fraternity, a sports team, a rock band, or whatever.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
  78. @Oleaginous Outrager

    At least I acknowledge that Herbert was a fiction writer while you take Vox Day seriously.

    • Replies: @rob
  79. Realist says:

    Four of the five navigators on the ill fated Norwegian war ship were women.

  80. bomag says:
    @istevefan

    The average car battery weights 40 pounds. I say she should have broken out the pencil and paper.

    • Agree: Dtbb
  81. bomag says:
    @obwandiyag

    You left out the bodyguards of Moanmore Kwedaffi.

    Yes, we’ve heard of all those because they are outliers. We are concerned here with modal man.

  82. bomag says:
    @William of Occam

    Napoleon is said to have quipped that the women of France are the ones that will replace his battlefield losses with one night of fornication.

  83. Anon[319] • Disclaimer says:

    My employer just hired a 38-year old black female retired Navy veteran for a fluff fake job. She’s actually quite competent and pleasant. She joined the Navy right out of high school at age 18 and served 20 years, retiring on a $40K annual pension (+ the monthly “stipend” they all get now for sore back + lifetime TriCare health insurance). During her 20 years, she worked Navy office jobs, never was on a ship, and never left the US. She also managed to land sailor husband no.1 after basic training and have three kids with him. When that marriage ended, she married sailor husband no. 2 and had three kids with him. Two marriages and six births while on active duty. Each birth entitled her to about two months medical leave.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  84. Those like her are typically the ones who get knocked up on their first deployment, so they are useful in some way.

  85. @Steve Sailer

    There’s been a couple of shows like that, with the women ending up bickering among each other while the men get on with things: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3cswfp/in_one_season_of_the_dutch_version_of_survivor/

  86. @LondonBob

    Try Sarah Hall’s “The Carhullan Army” where a band of armed and butt-kicking feminists defend their commune in the Lake District from The Forces Of Patriarchy (you’ll have noticed how the modern UK is becoming more patriarchal). Talk about fantasy fiction.

    She could have written a more realistic novel about a bunch of out, proud lesbians living in a commune in Bradford or Bethnal Green, but of course no publisher would touch it.

  87. black sea says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Similarly, there are a some 50 year-old men in good enough condition to function effectively as combat soldiers for a couple of enlistments, but the military doesn’t allow 50 year-olds to sign up as raw recruits.

    At some point, the idea of allowing everyone full opportunity to realize their ambition within a bureaucratic structure — university, military, corporate — just doesn’t make sense because so few people will turn out to be extreme outliers.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    , @Tyrion 2
  88. @Anonymous

    You are talking about people who likely grew up without much sibling interaction.

  89. Unzerker says:
    @obwandiyag

    “The female warriors of the ancient Germans and Celts.”

    Never ever happened.

    The Germanic tribes were famous for having females scream at their men and the enemies. Those females traveled with their male warriors in the baggage train. They never fought.
    Boudica was the widow of a Celtic king who headed a failed uprising against the Romans. She never fought herself and suffered a humiliating defeat against a much smaller Roman army.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  90. prosa123 says:
    @syonredux

    While it’s pointless to try to argue with the autistics and Incels who populate this site, I’ll just point out that we’re not some isolated tribe always on the edge of survival. Losing 10% or even more of the young female population in combat would have minimal effects on the nation’s survival. Within a generation or two we’d be back up to normal.

    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    , @Forbes
    , @obwandiyag
  91. Tyrion 2 says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    I don’t know why he wrote “today” as the Israelis no longer put women in close combat roles anyway. That was for 1948, when everyone was on the front lines whether they intended to be or not. In which case, it is preferable to be armed and trained!

    • Replies: @E e
  92. Unzerker says:
    @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    Say what you want about female soldiers, but they are less likely to rape and murder japanese schoolgirls.

    Excluding blacks from the military would have the same effect in these cases.

  93. CK says:
    @Rosie

    It is the same reasoning that claims that an ovum is more valuable than a sperm.
    A child requires only one of each to come to life.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  94. prosa123 says:

    For the autistics and Incels on this site who think women aren’t physically strong enough for combat duties, I really would like to know what these ladies would think of that:

  95. CK says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    One each, any more is wasted at that moment.
    Women start with about 450 eggs make no more and only use at most 10. By the time a women reaches menopause, the remaining eggs have had 35 years of abuse from everything from cosmic rays to poison fad diets to cocaine baths.
    Men start with no sperm, eventually make several million a day all of which die if unused, and make a disposable several million more the next week. Only one of each is necessary and sufficient.
    Consider a scenario. You are part of the last ten people alive. 9 men 1 woman. How many graves and how soon? Same scenario but it is 9 women and 1 man. How long till you recreate a functioning society?

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
  96. We have clearly forgotten what real war looks like. Ask any WWI or WWII combat vet whether broads could have survived, let alone succeeded, in those theaters. Or ask any Vietnam vet the same about broads in the swamps of SE Asia. Trench foot? Try trench **** (censored).

    A monster of a man, such as Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson is disqualified if he has flat feet. Think on that.

    Sorry Nation, can’t defend you today, yeast infection! Let’s have a rain check on that war thingy.

  97. Anonymous[183] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    It’s nine miles wide surrounded by avowedly genocidal enemies?

  98. @istevefan

    IIRC, the top 10% of Army women have the same upper body strength as the -average- man. They are also more likely to be injured because they lack the big T.

    But the elites don’t give any more of a rats ass about women soldiers than they do men. They are just mouthing the received wisdom.

  99. @Jim Don Bob

    To paraphrase Cecil Rhodes, “To be born an America is to have won first place in the lottery of life”.

    God bless America.

    Born White American and male in the 70s in the USA? — no blessing for those babes.

    The odds of leaving the hospital Whole with God-given and fully evolved genitals? around one in ten.

    Among the highest rates in the world for involuntary neonatal genital diminishment.

    No blessing that.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  100. Anonymous[183] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag

    You could also add the Kurdish female unit who recently fought against ISIS (funny that you didn’t…). However all of those have something in common – they are fighting close to home for their home.

  101. Moses says:
    @Anon

    At least it will lower the chance of more wars.

    I think you mean “At least it will lower the chance of willing more wars.”

    You may not like war. But war likes you.

  102. Moses says:
    @prosa123

    Totally. The freak woman on ‘roids who can press shows that all women (‘roids or no) are strong and should be humping ammo 20 clicks.

    Totally.

  103. @prosa123

    Here’s an answer. The whole thing is great, but if you want just skip forward to Courtney’s comments..

  104. Moses says:
    @Bill B.

    Enough of this PC crap.

    Women have no business being cops on the beat. No business at all.

  105. Moses says:
    @Arclight

    Women have a funny habit of getting knocked up before getting deployed to a danger zone. Weird.

  106. Moses says:
    @MNL

    I just find it odd how, when it comes to life on college campus, we hear how women are particularly vulnerable and need safe spaces and special protection from unwanted (sexual) assault. However, when it comes to life on the military battlefield, we hear (from what I think are the same voices) that women are just as capable as men of defending themselves from unwanted (enemy) assault. It all seems entirely contradictory.

    Orwell called it “Doublethink.” The power of the Democr-…erm I mean Big Brother’s Party depended on it.

    Logic got nuttin’ to do with it.

    dou·ble·think
    /ˈdəbəlˌTHiNGk/Submit
    noun
    the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.

  107. theMann says:

    Just another day in the life of the gender equal military:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-22/gender-politics-and-sinking-knm-helge-ingstad

    Anybody that you have to explain to them why it is a bad idea to have women in military units is going to be, how shall I phrase it, impervious to your reasoning.

    Oh well, when things go sufficiently economically sideways in our country, and that process is likely already starting, the BS purveyors are going to be the first to go……. something to look forward to in the coming chaos.

  108. I happen to be reading Hannes Wessels’ “A Handful of Hard Men: The SAS and the Battle for Rhodesia” at the moment. He makes a few references to (African) women in combat; apparently it was not that uncommon in e.g. the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army. Here’s one relevant passage from a description of a SAS airborne attack on a ZIPRA base in Zambia in the late 70s:

    “The number of women involved in the action came as a surprise as did the steadfastness of the resistance of some of them. “I think I saved Colin Willis’s life at Mkushi,” remembers Mike West. “He stepped around a large broken-off branch while we were in a sweep line through the base. I was about five metres behind him due to some broken ground. I spotted movement in that huge branch still covered with leaves and approached carefully. I pulled the branch to one side and sure enough a female gook was positioning herself with an SKS aiming towards him. I jerked the weapon out her hands and shot her twice in her head with her own weapon.”

    No idea why he didn’t shoot her with his own weapon; maybe he just wanted to emphasize that grip strength matters;-)

  109. @prosa123

    You have to be joking.

    Most of the weights on those bars are 10 pound bumper plates, and I’d bet most of those women in the video are using male synthetic testosterone.

    Look, the primary argument for disallowing women in combat role is the clear and obvious fact that 95% of women are physically less capable than the average 18 year old male. But this is only one factor.

    Homogeneous groups function better than heterogeneous ones do. Insert a women into any combat support unit, such as supply, transportation, maintenance, admin, etc, and you create an less efficient environment. Men now have to watch what they say, now you have men competing over the female’s attention, now you have (potentially) a female using her wares to acquire specially duties or privileges (any men who work in an office environment see much of this already), and the next thing you know is you have a pregnant female who is now excused from more strenuous duties, firewatch rotations, field exercises, and ultimately, deployment. Women who get several months off for maternity leave are still eligible for promotion based on time in service/time in grade.

    Frankly, it is emasculating for a women to be in direct command of a group of especially military men, combat or otherwise; it is as unnatural as a fish riding a bicycle.

    In some ways, the military is seen by feminists as just another form of a boy’s club. They want access to it, not because they really want to see combat or be physically challenged, but because it has been decided that men cannot and will not be allowed to have clubs of their own, absent of females.

    • Agree: L Woods, Autochthon
  110. FPD72 says:
    @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    Of the two soldiers sentenced to the stockade for their mistreatment of prisoners at Anu Ghraib, one was a woman. The general who oversaw American prisons in Iraq and who was busted down to colonel for her role in prison mistreatment was a woman.

    How confident are you in the superior behavior of women? The court martialed woman at Abu Ghraib was sexually humiliating prisoners. Remember, it doesn’t require a penis to commit rape; any blunt object will do.

  111. @prosa123

    lol, did you think those plates were 45s or something?

  112. Humbles says:
    @prosa123

    Did you notice the tiny weights they were slinging around? Typical. I’ve seen extremely fit, elite female lifters occasionally manage to put up as much weight as an average, moderately athletic college aged male, but it’s rare. The weight room is one place where the strength disparities of male and female cannot be avoided.

    One reason why long distance running has become the primary measure of “fitness” in the US armed forces for the last 40 years is because it’s the one niche of human performance where we can convince ourselves that males and females have similar physical performance endowments.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  113. L Woods says:
    @Redneck farmer

    Wrong. Women have poor spatial sense and make lousy aviators. They’ve been lavishing enormous favoritism on them for decades to shoehorn them into the ranks of the rated Air Force, and they’re still only something like 4% of its ranks. Please don’t spread pernicious myths, thanks.

  114. L Woods says:
    @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    Google the 2018 national defense strategy. Also, these crimes are typically perpetrated by the usual (racial) subjects, as I’m sure you know.

  115. Corn says:
    @Tiny Duck

    Step up your trolling game bro.

    You’ve been phoning it in lately.

  116. Corn says:
    @Weirdo

    I agree. I think if we ever (knock on wood it never happens) find ourselves in a war with WW2 or Civil War level casualty rates, and the tv starts showing tens of thousands of Jessica Lynches coming home with maimed faces or missing limbs there will be much less enthusiasm for women in combat.

  117. L Woods says:
    @black sea

    They only apply this principle to their pet demographics, as I think it goes without saying. The military will exclude hopeful entrants on the basis of trivial medical conditions and distant psychological “histories” (a single high school counciling session or an ADD “diagnosis” in the first grade is considered grounds for permanent disqualification). Only the Worthy Diverse, being not mere means but the end, are above such petty calculations.

  118. @Redneck farmer

    Insert favorite West Virginian joke here….

    Ok. The WV Supreme Court is trying to decide if after a couple divorces, are they still brother and sister,

  119. Lowe says:
    @Redneck farmer

    Women do not do well at those other things either.

  120. L Woods says:
    @Rosie

    Your “offense” at reality is not my concern. In any case, allowing the left to restrict the terms of debate to “physical standards” effectively handicaps the right’s ability to make its case, as excluding women on the basis of physical differences alone is indeed rather weak grist. Worse, it concedes their placement in other, non-physical roles where they also don’t belong (ie, nuclear submarine crews). So yes, the moral cowardice displayed by nice old white guy conservatives has consequences.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Rosie
  121. Lowe says:
    @prosa123

    Doing CrossFit doesn’t make a woman the same as a man, or fit for combat, sorry.

    The video also shows children doing CrossFit exercises. Perhaps they too are fit for combat, in your view.

  122. Anon[223] • Disclaimer says:

    This is a case where you need to be clear about whether “women” includes trannies. Irate autogynephillic trannies would be very effective on the front lines.

  123. @MNL

    MNL, my simple take is, that if you are in combat, or policing a city, you expect the real possibility of physical harm. When I sent my daughters to college, neither I nor they expect, or accept, some one violating then physically….”the groping hand” as you say.

  124. @istevefan

    istevefan, “..a rare one who could.” Take the discussion out of combat and find the “rare woman” that could compete with men in sports. Same field, same equipment, and this from the father of four girls.

  125. Bubba says:
    @BenKenobi

    LOL! Between Harry and you this is definitely the iSteve thread of the day – thanks for making this Black Friday hilarious!

  126. Tyrion 2 says:
    @black sea

    Exactly. If people want self-actualization let them seek it in something that won’t lead to unnecessary deaths.

  127. @Buffalo Joe

    My grandfather used to say that wars should be fought by naked old men…

    What unmitigated Gaul!

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
  128. @anon

    anon, thank you for your reply and research.

  129. Tyrion 2 says:
    @prosa123

    You dumb. You no idea bout type of fitness demands made by close combat. I speak simple ‘cos this you language. Chick do squat with medium weight. Well done girl. Irrelevant. Bore off.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
  130. @Steve Sailer

    Steve, My mother signed her baby brother into the Navy at 16 years of age in WWII. She did it to keep him from running away to join the Marines. He wound up in a Naval Assault Unit and saw heavy combat in North Africa and Anzio Beach. A 16 year old or a 19 year old have less life experience and a gung ho swagger. My uncle returned from WWII looking older than his two brothers, my father and my father’s two brothers, who all served in WWII.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  131. @sabril

    What’s interesting to me is that so many of the men in the military are such jarheads, and yet they can, apparently, be trained to do highly sophisticated activities. My son is at a heavily military school and he has utter contempt for the brainless beer swillers playing video games and pretending to study on the GI bill or ROTC. I suppose that explains the high dropout rate.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  132. Forbes says:
    @istevefan

    A significant part of Kirsten Schanberg’s uselessness or inability to perform as a front-line soldier is/was her judgment and decision-making process.

    She’s accompanying airborne infantry soldiers, who carry everything they need to survive. She’s got a 70 lb rucksack–and decides to carry a ~45 lb car battery so as to Jerry-rig a re-charging of her computer and satellite phone.

    Apparently, entering a war zone in Iraq accompanying combat troops didn’t cause her to think through her resource needs regarding charging/re-charging portable devices–and to prioritize her needs regarding how much weight she could carry.

    Only in hindsight does she reflect on the (judgment) danger and risk to the soldier who offered and carried the auto battery.

    And it’s not as if she came upon the only blown-up car in Iraq that would have a battery that could be salvaged for her use–or some other on-the-spot remedy after hiking the 4 miles to Najaf.

    The tendency to impulse by most women should disqualify them from front-line combat.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
  133. @Reg Cæsar

    Reg, I wish grandpa had passed that mighty lance down to me.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  134. Hibernian says:
    @Redneck farmer

    One problem with the aircraft, at least fighter aircraft, is G-forces.

    Also, politically correct pressure to pass marginal women pilots, with tragic results:

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

  135. @L Woods

    This is a good point, and one I hadn’t thought about.

    IMO Our Betters probably see this as more of a secondary, knock-on benefit of further pushing Teh Poz, but it certainly is a boon to them in this way as well.

  136. @Tyrion 2

    I guarantee you most women in the military do NOT have those bodies. Heck, very few of the women I do Crossfit with have those abs.

    We visited the USS Constitution, anchored in Boston, this year and it was being staffed with mostly female naval personnel. They were all overweight (and very nice). I’m over 50 and in better shape than they were.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Reg Cæsar
  137. Hibernian says:
    @prosa123

    We’re a Nation on the edge of survival.

  138. Lurker says:
    @Weirdo

    The US, or rather white Americans are involved in a desperate struggle. They can’t even get the military, male or female, to defend their own border.

    • Replies: @Prodigal son
  139. densa says:
    @L Woods

    I agree. The main point of trangenderizing the military, and now making it majority minority, is to neutralize any future role it could play in resisting globalization.

  140. Lurker says:
    @prosa123

    Feeble shit tier libtard trolling.

    • Replies: @Sean
  141. @Lowe

    My perception is that this current agitation for women in combat roles is actually the, “second wave” of such pushes, the first being a mid-90s, First PC Wave push best exemplified by the film GI Jane.

    Perhaps it’s just the nostalgia of passing time, but, again, my perception was that first round was a not-so-serious, “Us Girls Are Just As Cool As You Smelly Boys”-type of thing, whereas the current one is much more serious, and somewhat more cynical.

    It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the %s of the women who are themselves pushing for this who are:

    (A) Hardcore, butch lesbians who revel in participation in traditionally male physical activity (e.g. triathlons, powerlifting, etc.);

    (B) Earnestly patriotic young women who fee they have a duty to shoulder the burden of combat to protect their nation;

    (C) Military careerist types who know without combat experience they can’t move up the ranks;

    (D) Combat Groupies

    Of course there is significant crossover among these categories, but in descending order of probability I would guess: A, C, B, D

    Then again, I seem to remember an article (maybe this one:

    https://www.google.com/amp/security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/22/wanted-more-women-in-military-roles/amp/ )

    that made it seem the current spate was ginned-up by (C)- types who had otherwise hit their ceiling in the ranks.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Rosie
  142. Tyrion 2 says:
    @stillCARealist

    I knew one woman like that. Great lady and national champion, literally.

    I put everything into not losing to her. I didn’t, just, but then I’m no national champion.

  143. Forbes says:
    @South Texas Guy

    I think that was part of the problem. Her unit was combat support, considered non-combat, but was very much in the line of fire. The logistics tail to the infantry spear was the soft underbelly vulnerable to exploitation by enemy attacks on the rear.

    A likely foreseen risk taken in the rapid dash to Baghdad to decapitate the regime, and collapse the remaining hierarchy into a capitulation.

    Yet, IIRC, her unit got lost/took a wrong turn-off that led them into harms way.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
  144. @Tim

    And the real cost only comes years later, when they’re out of service and applying for Veterans benefits.

    At least when they’re in the service and going to medical there’s an economy of scale that can somewhat absorb the additional burden their increased need for medical service requires. Now it’s rare to see a women separating from service and claiming benefits who hasn’t had at least a half-dozen medical procedures on everything from her feet to her shoulders, with reams of mental health counseling to boot.

  145. Sean says:
    @Lurker

    Some of the ladies there look natural, but the lead one does not (though I have seen some untrained black women with sixpack abs) . Anyway the real argument is women are going to be less keen in a risk situation. Women can endure suffering as well as any man, but they are not brave in attack and don’t enjoy killing. They can be a gunner in an attack helicopter, but expecting them to close with the enemy in house clearing ect is a non-starter. Capable American men will cease to join a females in combat army.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/military-women-not-cure-disease/

    Military Women Are Not the Cure, They Are the Disease BY MARTIN VAN CREVELD

    Such a system, in other words, can only lead to one of two things or, perhaps, to both. First, there will be another increase in the number of injured, in some cases even crippled, women hobbling about. And of course in claims for compensation of the kind which, even now, amounts to fully four percent of Israel’s entire defense budget. Second, there is going to be a big rise in “sexual harassment” claims; a problem which, as I pointed out in my recent book Pussycats, is currently wrecking not only Israel’s armed forces but those of all other Western ones as well.

    More women in the forces are not the cure. They are the disease, or at least part of it. Feminization will inevitably lead, by all signs has already led, to the creation of a vicious cycle. By definition, the more women enter any professional field, institution, or branch of service the fewer men will remain in it. The fewer men remain, the more its prestige and the economic rewards it can command will be compromised. The more its prestige and economic rewards it can command are compromised, the fewer men it will be attract.

    This process has been documented many, many times. Often by female researchers who worry, with good reason, about the impact their own growing presence may have on the rewards they can expect in their chosen fields. The best-known cases are those of secretaries (once upon a time, practically all secretaries were male), bank-tellers, pharmacists, book-editors, bakers, psychologists, and “wealth managers.” The ongoing decline in the ability of the humanities to attract students also seems to be linked with the fact that the percentage of female faculty members is them is exceptionally high.

    And which IDF combat units do not suffer from a shortage of men? You guessed it: The two elite, entirely male, infantry brigades, Golani and the paratroopers.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    , @Simply Simon
  146. Forbes says:
    @Steve Sailer

    gather together a cadre of fierce feminists who insist women can hack it and put them through boot camp

    And then organize 120 of them into an infantry combat company. Surely there’s a handful of female sergeants and lieutenants, and a captain to run a real life experiment as a cohesive unit.

    Or is it the case that readiness and effectiveness must be hidden under cover of male soldiers…

  147. @Lowe

    Currently. But someday prison will be desegregated. Someday prisoners will get the vote. Someday society will resemble hell.

  148. Forbes says:
    @prosa123

    While it’s pointless to try to argue with the autistics and Incels who populate this site

    I imagine the feeling is mutual. Try making an actual argument (facts & assumptions–>conclusion) –not merely a restatement or assertion of your opinions.

  149. @Buffalo Joe

    Reg, I wish grandpa had passed that mighty lance down to me.

    Nah. That lance in Buffalo would have the same implications as those Soviet missiles in Cuba. Justin might pull a JFK on us.

    JPJT at work:

    Tories accuse Trudeau of bribing media with tax breaks

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
  150. @prosa123

    For the autistics and Incels on this site who think women aren’t physically strong enough for combat duties, I really would like to know what these ladies would think of that:

    I wonder what they’d think of your unmanly ruse to get them to take your place when the draft comes ’round again.

  151. @stillCARealist

    We visited the USS Constitution, anchored in Boston, this year and it was being staffed with mostly female naval personnel

    When my unit sailed into the yards in East Boston for maintenance, the Constitution was the only commissioned ship in the harbor older than ours. I understand it now serves as an artificial reef somewhere. (Our pre-WW2 vessel, that is, not the Constitution!)

  152. Travis says:
    @Anon

    today just 16% of the US military are females and 7% of the marine corp are women.

    Would be near impossible to get women to equal 33% of our military, unless we sharply reduce our military force and restrict male enrollment.

  153. @Redneck farmer

    They can do well at jobs that don’t require a lot of upper body strength, like piloting modern aircraft

    Piloting modern aircraft requires more than upper body strength. In fact it requires very little upper body strength. It does requires a lot of situational awareness (aka “the clue bird”) and decisiveness.

    That said, women are generally not very good at flying aircraft, and where they’ve been forced on USAF and USN units, they’ve performed poorly. The faster the aircraft and the more coordination required with other aircraft (e.g. air-to-air combat, air-to-ground strike operations) the worse they do.

    • Replies: @Simply Simon
    , @Anonymous
  154. @L Woods

    They’re more concerned with coup-proofing the armed forces by dissolving their social capital (and prosecuting their ideological zealotry) than with any external threat. Women aren’t going to turn on the power structure.

    Nails it. Excellent comment.

    The idea here–just as with “nation of immigrants” or “diversity”–is to balkanize; break up any coherent, organic feeling of fellowship, comradeship, anything that could offer resistance. Nation wrecking. Miltary wrecking.

    Everyone is just an atom drifting aimlessly in the imperial sea. Ergo no possible threat to the imperial elite.

  155. GU says:
    @prosa123

    I took up the sport of Olympic weightlifting as a hobby at age 31. After training 3 days a week on average for a few years, I’m stronger than virtually every woman in the United States. There are probably 10, but no more than 20 women in the whole country who can snatch and clean & jerk more than me. Half of those women are gigantic fat blobs who wouldn’t make it a mile into a ruck march. The other half are genetic freaks who may or may not be on anabolic steroids. My point is that, as 195 lb. office worker who trains in sport as a hobby, I am stronger than almost every professional female American weightlifter.

    The video you posted is more like Crossfit workouts. Three points. First, I have trained around elite crossfitters, and they are damned impressive, but they’re also elite genetically and on roids. Second, this year at the CrossFit games, they had the women max out their squat, press, and deadlift. Not a single woman beat my total—again, I am a middle-aged white collar professional. Third, most 20-Year old men would find the workout these chicks did in your video easy, because the weights were so light.

    Men are simply *way* stronger than women on average. The bell curves barely overlap.

    • Replies: @Precious
  156. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @L Woods

    The defense budget is close to 3 quarters of a trillion dollars. The military could easily pump female soldiers full of synthetic hormones and turn them into freaks that meet the “physical standards”. And as technology improves, it’s only going to get easier. The question is, do we want a military of hermaphroditic orcs? You’re absolutely right that the “physical standards” issue is a red herring.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  157. Anon[157] • Disclaimer says:

    How would women soldiers handle an ambush in the jungle, like the one starting at 4 minutes in this video:

    • Agree: jim jones
  158. L Woods says:
    @stillCARealist

    Very few jobs in the military are as sophisticated (or interesting) as their titles and descriptions may suggest. Notable exceptions are aviation, navy nukes, and special ops.

  159. Precious says:

    The solution for women in combat is drones. When we fight wars by remote control, one that doesn’t require fast gaming reflexes, but something as basically simple as flipping a light switch, than women can be the warriors they always envied men for being. She can defeat the forces of evil and liberate the oppressed people of Whats-its-name-i-stan while safe and secure in an underground bunker in Wyoming.

    • Agree: Kylie
  160. Bill P says:

    Military units are analogous to sports teams. So you can think of the military as thousands of teams competing against thousands of enemy teams.

    In the large majority of these competitions, male teams outperform female or mixed teams. The USMC has already conducted tests that confirm this. We shouldn’t even need to test it because it’s so obvious, but we have.

    The implications are sobering. If even ten percent of our “teams” were mixed sex or female and we went against a roughly equal sized, all-male force, our chance of losing would go up dramatically. It would be kind of like making one team in a World Cup soccer match play with ten men and one woman. The weak link would be relentlessly exploited, and it might be better even to go in one man short.

    Maybe progressives don’t think we will ever need to actually fight, and they see the military as a giant institution that they could capture and use for their ideological purposes, kind of like academia. I suspect that’s the case. But the military does matter if the US wants to keep its place as the world’s foremost power, which is what makes progressive lifestyles and politics possible.

    Ultimately I doubt people are really serious about this. I saw all the county SWAT/tactical people assembled for training the other day where I was working. Out of about 30 officers, 28 were young, strong, extremely fit white males (very well-behaved and polite as well). Two were females who stuck out like sore thumbs. Fit young women, but they aren’t going to be leading any charges. What the women probably do is scoop up and comfort kids who have just been through some traumatic event. It’s a necessary job, and they are technically “SWAT” officers, but they are not seriously expected to fight.

    If a few women serve a similar purpose in the US armed forces, it’s not much of an issue.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
  161. The young lady appears to be an air lady or airwoman, whatever they are called nowadays If she is in the Air Force she will not have to carry anything that weighs over ten pounds. Everyone knows or should know the Air Force is for wimps so having a large number of females does not affect combat capability.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
  162. @Jim Don Bob

    Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow citizens.

    And let it be know that Friday wasn’t always black:

  163. @SonOfStrom

    (B) Earnestly patriotic young women who fee they have a duty to shoulder the burden of combat to protect their nation;

    These would be mostly enlisted women, often the children of veterans. A big split in support for women in combat is between enlisted women, who are mostly in for one tour, and officers, who are in for life.

  164. L Woods says:
    @Sean

    As mike suggested, this is likely a feature not a bug. The feminist zealots in the power structure simply can’t stand the very existence of a (white) male ‘boys club,’ and will stop at nothing to destroy it wherever the costs and risks.

    • Replies: @Sean
  165. @Anonymous

    The defense budget is close to 3 quarters of a trillion dollars. The military could easily pump female soldiers full of synthetic hormones and turn them into freaks that meet the “physical standards”.

    Wouldn’t it be cheaper to build a few Trojan Godzillas?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  166. @obwandiyag

    I don’t know how you arrived at the 50% figure but I do know the crews on WWII B-17s and other bombers had no foxholes to hide in. Per capita the Air Force had a higher casualty rate than the infantry.

  167. @Forbes

    Also the very salient fact she didn’t perform weapons maintenance, it jammed, and she surrendered after throwing her rifle in the dirt.

    This vs. The made for TV narrative where the Iraqis had to rip the bayonet between her teeth after losing a battalion of men.

  168. Fredrik says:
    @Daniel H

    Nobody would admit it’s an issue. Their male colleagues no doubt think things but they would never say it openly.

    There are a few things to remember.

    1. Not many people are conscripted so the ones in these units are typically motivated. The girls/women more than the men. You can expect the females to be quite fit in the Swedish military. At least if they are in combat units. There’s also very few combat units if one would be honest. We’re not talking about a massive amount of people here.

    2. The real issue is the girls/women’s relationships with instructors and/or officers. This has been a topic for many years. I remember when I was in the military. There were 2 girls there. One was hideous but the other one was relatively attractive. How many days do you think it took until she was scooped up by an instructor? It never, apparently, occured to anyone in charge that these types of relationships should be highly regulated.

  169. @South Texas Guy

    Speaking of the Ft Hood shooter, Major Hasan, with all the overwhelming evidence against him he should have been immediately court-martialed and executed. The shootings took place ten years ago but he is still residing in a military prison at Fort Leavenworth Kansas. It is probable he will die a natural death before facing a firing squad. Oh I forgot, the shootings were workplace violence, not a terrorist act.

  170. @William Badwhite

    ‘”Situational awareness” is a good habit to develop whether you are piloting an aircraft, driving a car or walking down a dark street in Baltimore.

  171. Gosh, they could start by requiring women to register with the Selective Service. When is that going to happen?

  172. MarkinPNW says:
    @anon

    There is supposedly a story from Russia in WW2 of exactly that; the wife going into combat after the husband was killed. As the story goes, a war widow tried to put down her life savings of 50,000 rubles to buy a T-34 tank to take revenge against the Germans for her husband’s death. At first she was turned down, but then someone decided it would make a good propaganda story, so they accepted her money, enlisted her into the Red Army as a tank driver-mechanic, and let her put her name on the tank assigned to her crew as “her” tank. Her crew managed to destroy 3 or 4 German tanks before she and her tank were lost in combat. And yes, it was an existential war for survival, ultimately won by the Russians.

  173. “The Hallmark Channel is SiFi for women” lol

  174. So, do elites want to encourage women soldiers to take artificial male hormones to help their careers? Or is that just another one of those things we should “stop questioning”?

    Steve, i don’t think this is really an issue.

    Women will get a pass. (Complaining–or even noticing–by men in any sort of public way would be career ending.) Female physical fitness/capability will not be an issue, so there’s not much incentive to juice being forced on women.

    Basically these women “soldiers” are just another obstacle that the men in the field have to work around and overcome–like the bureaucracy or the enemy.

  175. Rosie says:
    @L Woods

    Your “offense” at reality is not my concern.

    It’s not reality that offends me; it’s your attitude.

    Worse, it concedes their placement in other, non-physical roles where they also don’t belong (ie, nuclear submarine crews.)

    Then state your case, without being a jackass. If you are not articulate enough to manage that, then go to some low-brow website where you can’t embarrass this movement.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  176. pyrrhus says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    The percentage of women who can meet the physical demands for infantry or any kind of special forces is exactly zero…The majority of the women now allowed in the Marines can’t do 3 pull-ups…so the standard was lowered drastically.

  177. Anonymous[135] • Disclaimer says:
    @Redneck farmer

    They can do well at jobs that don’t require a lot of upper body strength, like piloting modern aircraft.

    No, combat pilots are subjected to very high acceleration forces and must be physically strong to overcome them.

    And this is just in normal flight. In an emergency – when the plane is out of control – physical strength becomes even more important.

  178. pyrrhus says:
    @Redneck farmer

    No. Women have slower reaction times than men, so they certainly don’t belong in combat aircraft or any role that requires fast thinking…They also don’t belong in navigation, as several Navy ship collisions demonstrate.

  179. pyrrhus says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Sounds like a rout to me…Women don’t like to fight, and don’t do it well.

  180. pyrrhus says:
    @Simply Simon

    Wrong. Women cause dissension, have slow reaction times, and avoid danger at all costs…They frequently find excuses not to deploy, as the Brits have found out.

  181. Rosie says:
    @SonOfStrom

    Perhaps it’s just the nostalgia of passing time, but, again, my perception was that first round was a not-so-serious, “Us Girls Are Just As Cool As You Smelly Boys”-type of thing, whereas the current one is much more serious, and somewhat more cynical.

    It seems to me that what’s going on is something like a bait and switch. Earlier attempts at forcing women on the military seemed to concede that men are much stronger than women, generally speaking, but asked for “equal opportunity” for those women who could meet standards applicable to all. Now, the claim is that if women can’t meet the standards, the standards have to change.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
  182. @Sean

    More and more women are being elected to the House and Senate and other elective offices throughout the US. Are men giving up running for these offices and if so what is the future impact?

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Ibound1
  183. @Reg Cæsar

    Reg, I meant the lance between his legs….never mind.

  184. Sean says:
    @Simply Simon

    On the Democrats? Not good. Hillary Clinton did not understand that.

  185. megabar says:
    @anon

    > I would add that an existential war is the only war you should ever fight.

    While I agree that we’re far too willing to meddle these days, in my opinion this goes too far the other way.

    Imagine a hypothetical aggressive nation, complete with a strongman dictator. Should we sit idly by while this nation tramples its neighbors and extends its reach, gaining strength that might one day lead it pose a serious threat to the US? Maybe. But maybe not.

    Sometimes a stitch in time really does save nine. Should we “stabilize regions” or “nation-build?” No. Should we use the military to incapacitate minor threats before they become real threats? Perhaps.

    Of course, the devil’s in the details. To truly apply this principle correctly, you need to either be able to see the future or be a mind-reader.

  186. wren says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Like the US Navy recently, the Norwegians seem to have forgotten how to navigate for some reason.

    Funny, or sad?

    http://freewestmedia.com/2018/11/14/gender-politics-and-knm-helge-ingstad/

  187. An Aussie says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    2km. That is one mighty small battlefield.

  188. @Lurker

    True, our military is currently worthless to the people of the United States . If our military is unwilling to protect our borders we may as well have a majority female military , would be no worse than the status quo and may well keep us from fighting so many pointless wars in Asia and Africa. Hopefully the feminists running the military today have resulted in less Americans joining and wasting their potential. Hard to understand why any American men would want to join our armed forces today.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  189. @istevefan

    The thing that gets me is this reporter truly believed she was up to being one of the guys until reality slapped her in the face. This isn’t an isolated incident. My last editor, a woman who worked out five days a week, wrote a couple of editorials along the line of ‘women can do anything a man can do.’ (I do have to say, fireworks between us aside, she was a pretty fair boss.)

    At the same time, during any of our frequent butting of heads, she never once asked me to step outside in the parking lot to settle it. She knew that I’d beat the crap out of her, but in terms of women serving in combat roles, something she knew nothing about, of course women were the equal of men.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  190. Ibound1 says:
    @Simply Simon

    According to Creveld a tipping point will be reached and men will quit seeing politics as a prestige profession. Women will seek entry but high achieving men will not. I do see this happening in law and in certain areas of medicine (family practice) now. Finance is sure to follow. According to Creveld the presence of a large amount of women (not the exceptional small number) in any profession dooms it to be abandoned by high achieving men. That is fine as long as the competition does the same. But in war, if the competition does not do the same, the repercussions will be dramatic and disastrous.

  191. Sean says:
    @South Texas Guy

    You would not get to Captain unless you praise diversity in the modern army.

    In fairness a female DoD cop did confront and shoot at Hassan during Foort Hood and was herself hit twice, which is more than many, many well trained policemen have been willing to try against an active shooter.

  192. Bel Riose says:
    @Rosie

    He did state his case, clearly and articulately, and he was not a jackass.

    You, on the other hand, are both a jackass and inarticulate.

    And you certainly don’t speak for “this movement.”

    You are, however, an embarrassment.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  193. Rosie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Wouldn’t it be cheaper to build a few Trojan Godzillas?

    I don’t know about that, but doping women to make them fit for combat duty would be an admission that women are not fit for combat duty without doping, so I can’t imagine they’d do that. But then I suppose here in clown world, one can’t make assumptions. I figure claiming that you are whatever gender you want to be on the one hand, but then claiming you have to have to have an operation to “transition” from one to the other, doesn’t make much logical sense either.

  194. Rosie says:
    @Bel Riose

    He did state his case, clearly and articulately, and he was not a jackass.

    You, on the other hand, are both a jackass and inarticulate.

    And you certainly don’t speak for “this movement.”

    You are, however, an embarrassment.

    Here is L. Woods’ idea of stating his case:

    Their sordid and disruptive behavior moreover is an embarrassment to the armed forces and the nation (such as it is).

    Notice the complete and total lack of any substantiated factual information in this typical post of his. Indeed, one can’t even agree or disagree with this statement. It’s all about L. Woods’ feelings. Just the usual inane vitriol against women.

    • Replies: @Bel Riose
  195. Not just physical. W have poor visuo-spatial skills, pressure & tactical flexibility. Evidence – golf, snooker, darts… No reason for sports to be separated by sex other than to obscure how bad W are. There isn’t any popular demand for dumpy fugbuckets in baggy mannish outfits; but MSM is Cabal imposing PC agenda rather than following market demands.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  196. @South Texas Guy

    This reporter lady who spent a couple of months embedded in Iraq in 2003 is really tough: she grew up working on her family’s farm in Iowa, she runs marathons, she’s probably close to the 99th percentile for women in physical strength and fitness. So her report is particularly interesting.

  197. istevefan says:
    @Daniel H

    Sweden is not a serious county. Though I am concerned about the UK, they do have a professional military. From May of this year here is a story where a British Army corporal was yelling at a female recruit and reduced her to tears. I think he was reprimanded.

    I read the story and watched the video. The corporal was basically doing an imitation of R. Lee Ermy in Full Metal Jacket. I went through worse at Ft. Benning during Infantry training. If this girl cannot hack the corporal chewing her out, how is she supposed to perform under real stress?

  198. istevefan says:

    One of my disappointments with Trump, besides immigration and the wall, is that I thought he would revoke the silly policies of the previous administration with regards to women in the infantry and other combat units. I figured when he brought in Mattis and Kelly that would be a sign that the silly experimenting would have to go.

    Why is it that anything a democrat administration starts never seems to be able to be removed? Whether it is something like the Department of Education, the 1965 Immigration Act, DACA, women in the infantry, obamacare, etc., whatever they implement just seems to stick around. Yes, I understand in each of those cases there are different mechanisms required to revoke them. In some cases you need a GOP legislature to revoke it which we have had, but they never did. And in some cases a judge will block you as in DACA.

    But I am getting tired of seeing the democrats implementing some BS policy and then the world treating it like it is now established precedent which must forever remain. I felt for sure the concept of women in the infantry would go. Did the Trump admin even try?

    Did the military brass even try to revoke it? Funny that it seems there was more blowback and public comments by top brass and former brass concerning Trump’s order to deploy to the Mexican border than there was over the women in the infantry issue or the trannies in the military issue.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  199. istevefan says:
    @Steve Sailer

    One thing to keep in mind is that the US military is pretty unique in its requirements for ground combatants because we operate under the assumption that we will fight as an expeditionary force. That is a requirement that most military forces do not have since they are purely for defense of the homeland.

    If you are an expeditionary force you must carry a lot of your gear with you. You must pack about 3 days of food and supplies at a time in your ruck. That creates a problem of too much weight. US forces experienced that many times. In Vietnam guys would overheat carrying all that gear while the VC could go light because all their stuff was stashed in caches throughout the countryside, or they could get help from friendly villagers. So US soldiers had a hard time going through the jungle and many started to dump part of their load. I think this was portrayed by Charlie Sheen in the film Platoon.

    So long as we are going to be an expeditionary force, there will be a requirement that ground troops carry a lot of equipment and weight. Of course the advantage of being an expeditionary force is that you fight on someone else’s land so all the property damage occurs in someone else’s country.

  200. Precious says:
    @GU

    There are probably 10, but no more than 20 women in the whole country who can snatch and clean & jerk more than me… half are genetic freaks who may or may not be on anabolic steroids.

    And for those 5-10 women who are stronger than you by the blessing of genetics, is it more efficient for them to be fighting in the military at a level many young men can equal or surpass, or is it more efficient for those women to have 2-4 children and pass on those superior physical genes to the next generation?

    • Replies: @GU
  201. Bel Riose says:
    @Rosie

    Oh good grief.

    Rosie: let’s settle our differences in a mud-wrestling duel.

    Consider yourself challenged.

    That way you can yourself engage in sordid and disruptive behavior; I will lower myself to that standard (for once); we can test the whole “women in combat” concept (and I am far from a power lifter, so for all I know, we will be evenly matched); and we can finally, once and for all, settle our ongoing feud.

    One rule, though: Loser has to leave this site forever.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  202. L Woods says:
    @Prodigal son

    Somebody has to reverse the gramscian march bro.

  203. Rosie says:
    @Bel Riose

    That way you can yourself engage in sordid and disruptive behavior; I will lower myself to that standard (for once); we can test the whole “women in combat” concept (and I am far from a power lifter, so for all I know, we will be evenly matched); and we can finally, once and for all, settle our ongoing feud.

    Do you actually think I am a partisan of the idea of women in combat?

  204. GU says:
    @Precious

    The latter, I assume.

    • Agree: Precious
  205. Rosie says:
    @istevefan

    Why is it that anything a democrat administration starts never seems to be able to be removed?

    I think it probably has something to do with fear of the media. The Left can reverse conservative policies without being demonized as reactionary. With razor thin margins of victory the norm nowadays, I can’t blame Trump for ignoring this issue for the time being. None of it really matters anyway. Why should we care about the efficiency or morale of a military establishment that we have been told in no uncertain terms is not there to protect us but rather to secure the imperial interests of the hostile regime in Washington?

    None of this is to say I disagree in principle. I just think Trump should focus on the promises that got him elected on trade and immigration.

  206. “For example, does the petite lady in this photo look like she could hump enough ammo or carry a wounded comrade without some biochemical enhancement?”

    I’m sorry, I had to re-read that sentence. Never should read sentences like this one after 2-3 IPA’s.

    But for goodness sakes, Steve, ‘hump enough ammo’ does have a San Fernando Valley-esque (“Porn Valley”) ring to it. Apparently some women simply just can’t get enough Ammo.

  207. @Steve Sailer

    I agree with you that the farm girl reporter is an interesting case, but only because she still had to make that mental leap of faith that she (along with my ex female boss and others) would be on par physically with the men, when common sense was telling them otherwise.

    I grew up in a semi rural environment and have known a bunch of girls/women used to throwing hay bales, lifting feed sacks, etc. While many would openly proclaim they’re working just as hard as you were (the truth), very, very few, if any, would take it to an nth degree line of thought of “I can do anything you can do.” I was enlisted in the military and none of the females in my company would even think that way because everyone knows better and it would just make them look stupid to even claim it.

    Lots of people like to regard most modern military jobs as being push button affairs, but the fact is (unless things have changed since the 90s) 90-plus percent of them involve picking up something heavy and moving it.

  208. @Carlton Meyer

    Where did you get the idea that any woman could play pro football? Or D1? or D2?

    Size, speed, strength, and durability are all inescapable necessities. Any sacrificial ewe put on the football field to prove a point would not only be unable to compete athletically, but would sustain career-ending damage in the first live scrimmage.

    The day a woman plays linebacker in the NFL is the day that women should be accepted into combat arms units.

  209. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Whiskey

    Instead women are demanding they be installed as leaders while never, EVER, doing the demanding work that the the modern infantry, artillery, etc. does as a matter of course.

    But isn’t that what women have done in every field to which they’ve demanded admission? They don’t expect to do actual work. They expect to be executives.

    • Disagree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Rosie
  210. MBlanc46 says:
    @Anon

    There will never be another major war. Feminists would demand that women be drafted. No one—men or women—would allow that. So, no draft. Therefore, no war.

  211. @Jack Hanson

    I really had hoped that Mattis would fix this $#!t when he got named as SecDef.

  212. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @William Badwhite

    That said, women are generally not very good at flying aircraft, and where they’ve been forced on USAF and USN units, they’ve performed poorly.

    Most flight instructors would rather teach females than males to fly, it’s a lot easier job. They generally do okay at the actual flying of the airplane and generally acquire decent stick and rudder skills in about the same proportion as men, but often a little quicker.

    In competitive flying such as aerobatics and soaring, there are usually men’s and women’s divisions and the difference is there, with the men doing better, but the spread isn’t that huge normally.

    There are valid reasons for not wanting women in combat, aerial or otherwise, but the basic job of flying the airplane isn’t especially one of them.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    , @William Badwhite
  213. @Bill P

    In many departments, negotiators are considered to be part of the SWAT unit and deploy as “SWAT” for training and callouts. That is typically where the females are to be found. Interestingly enough, the negotiators do not go through the same physical selection process (distance run, O-course, timed calisthenics, rappelling) that the snipers and entry team do. Nor do they have to qualify with firearms at the same level as snipers and entry. But they’re still SWAT!

    Go figure.

  214. NickG says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    There’s only one physical requirement for the Swedish military that’s actually specified in the article: being able to run 2 km in full battle gear in under 10:15.

    That’s 11.7 kph/ 7.3 mph. If ‘battle gear’ includes boots, basic field webbing with kit and assault rifle, few women could do it. I suspect it just means boots and combat clothing.

    One of the British Royal Marine Commando tests is a 9 mile speed march. That’s 9 miles in 90 mins in ‘fighting order’ in step as a body of men. That pans out at 10 mins a mile/ 6 miles per hour/ 9.7 kph wearing boots and combat gear, carrying a 9.5 lbs assault rifle and wearing webbing containing basic field equipment, spare magazines etc weighing another 22 lbs. It’s reasonably tough but quite doable for any fit young man who’s trained up for it. Few women could do it though, even fit ones, the weight would make it too much. Many would sustain injuries training for it.

  215. @Buffalo Joe

    You never know how that will turn out. My father’s brother was in some kind of engineering training academic program after enlisting in the Army, thinking he’d won the lottery, then was sent to fill up an infantry unit in Europe and spent all kinds of time on the front lines. So be it.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
  216. @Humbles

    You have got to be goddam kidding me.

    2:15:25 = Paula Radcliffe
    2:02:57 = Dennis Kimetto

    Among elite runners, that’s the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing it, and the difference hold all the way down the ranks to Joe and Jane Average. Even in amateur races with no purse, the fastest woman typically finishes sometime after the fastest fifty or so men.

    Don’t make statements about things you obviously don’t know anything about; it makes you seem silly.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
  217. @Autochthon

    By the way: the reason short runs (three miles isn’t hardly “distance running” by any measure) are now a primary measure of physical fitness in the military is because such short runs are exactly the kind most commonly needs in military situations to address some exigency or other, and a good measure of of someone’s cardiopulmonary system to boot (surprise!: cardiologists also use such short runs to very accurately measure fitness, but what do they know?).

    The other measures of physical fitness used by the military are sit-ups, push-ups, and pull-ups, which of course measure core strength and upper-body strength. The required push-ups and pull-ups are of course dramatically less for females, who lack upper-body strength because instead they have breasts they ought to be at home nursing children with anyway….

  218. rob says:
    @SIMPLEPseudonymicHandle

    Get your own SCREENname. That one’s taken.

  219. @SteveRogers42

    I see the Air Force has proudly granted the first “beard waiver” to a Mohammadan airman. And the photo of the female marines wearing the new uniforms designed to look like a male marine’s shows a line of hideous, mystery-meat females I wouldn’t touch with Tiny Duck’s equipment, if I may turn a phrase to make an old sailor’s cant less offensive.

    Man, every time I follow such a hyperlink I remember why I don’t follow any news about the military anymore. It’s too depressing.

  220. Dube says:

    It’s been a while, so I guess there’s no longer any bayonet training, eh? And of course, where on these modern sticks do you “fix bayonets?” And why? But would even the most determined of the women warriors like to prove themselves adept at plunging the blade in and ripping the guts upwards?

    As to the “why,” it used to be the case that units would run out of ammunition without hope of resupply. I recall that “Pete” McCloskey, as company commander, led two bayonet charges in Korea. (No, I wasn’t there.)

    But it seems there’s more to combat than strenuous exertion.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
  221. Bill B. says:
    @Forbes

    OK. But to be fair news reporters tend to be obsessed with being able to file their stories back to their newspaper or agency. If a tree that falls (unheard) in the forest does it make a sound etc..

    A key part of the humour in Waugh’s Scoop revolves around the eccentricities of communication by cable in 1930′s Abyssinia (thinly fictionalized in the novel).

    After luncheon Bannister telephoned. “We’ve had a cable about you from London.”
    “Good God, why?”
    “The Beast have been worrying the F.O. Apparently they think you’ve been murdered. Why don’t you
    send them some news?”
    “I don’t know any.”
    “Well for heaven’s sake invent some.”

  222. Bill B. says:
    @Coemgen

    A couple of decades ago I visited a friend in Nicosia, Cyprus and got talking to some of the Scandinavian troops – Swedish IIRC – who were part of the UN peace keeping force (the dividing line with the Turks runs through the capital).

    They were extremely pleasant to talk to and very sensible about the local political situation and so on.

    Half of them (out of the about eight I met) were women who would have not a snowball in hell’s chance of passing those army fitness tests. They were jolly in a bulky fish-market sales woman way but overweight and not strong-looking.

    I think a key issue here may be that women – or some women – are capable of training up to pass some form of watered down fitness entrance test but then fall back quickly to the average. I have never served in the military.

  223. Sean says:

    Due to the shape of their pelvis, women’s knees are connected to their hip at a different angle and they are very vulnerable to lower body injuries so infantry training has to be altered in order to not have the majority of them hurt before they are qualified.

    A bayonet charge is a 19th century (now very rarely, if ever, used) shock tactic intended to get the enemy to run away. Bayonet training is primarily for installing a certain mental attitude. The only person I know who fought in Korea (a big man who must have towered over his opponent) actually bayoneted a North Korean in the approved manner during a commie attack on their trenches and found the fellow screamed and sprayed blood but was impaled and did not fall down. His sergeant shouted ” shoot him you stupid bastard”.

    Even a 30mm cannon fire wound does not kill some men outright, or prevent them fighting on or pulling a trigger, so trying to kill with a blade is likely to be an addition to the numerous examples of people who suffered non survivable wounds but lived long enough to return the favour.

    Women can kill OK as gunner in an Apache helicopter, or flying a drone from a comfy chair and never forget all these SEALs ect operate with the cover of helicopter and ground attack jet A10s ect and totally depend on them. The reason SEALs ect are uber-glamorous is not because they kill, but because they risk death or life changing injuries in order to close with the enemy (ie kill them). Skin in the game. Women will not take those risks.

    The SEAL who shot bin Laden said in his book about how a team member had not killed anyone and from what he wrote there was a feeling that that was suspected of being risk shy behaviour.

    https://popularmilitary.com/female-soldier-who-was-attached-to-delta-force-were-not-trying-to-prove-this-feminist-point/

  224. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:

    Russian women snipers apparently did rather well in World War II.

    My favorite sport in the very European Winter Olympics is the sport where sexy women cross country ski then stop for a riffle target contest.

    If I was ever in the field of war and was confronted by these sexy Russian and other European women soldiers on skis with rifles – I would surrender and “submit” to being interrogated.

    I would also gladly collaborate and

    “Get in bed with the Russians”.

  225. L Woods says:
    @Anonymous

    You very obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

  226. @Steve Sailer

    How about someone should address the elephant in the room, namely, how good are women’s accuracy in firing a gun (e.g. snipers) and killing during battle compared to men? For that matter, what are the chances that the top 99 percentile of women could become a Navy SEAL, one of the toughest most demanding special elite forces in the entire Armed Services today? This is assuming of course that the requirements aren’t dumbed down and/or PC’ed so that they have a legitimate change of passing the requirements and becoming a Navy SEAL?

    By the way, there is still no major monument to Christopher Kyle in DC or in TX as of yet. One of America’s most decorated war heroes ever, and no major monument to his memory. I would like to believe that its not simply because Kyle was a white man, but common sense tells me that if he were an African-American, a woman, gay, or Hispanic, there’d be at least three major monuments to Christopher Kyle. I certainly would’ve expected the South to have corrected that oversight by now, especially as historically they have put up numerous monuments to their war heroes of old.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
  227. @CK

    Same emphasis: uteruses are way more valuable than testicles.

  228. @Anonymous

    There are valid reasons for not wanting women in combat, aerial or otherwise, but the basic job of flying the airplane isn’t especially one of them.

    Other than the fact women have been demonstrably bad at the “basic job of flying the airplane”, your point would be a good one.

  229. @Anon

    Your point being? And the relevance of her being black?

  230. @Suburban_elk_15

    Here’s hoping you fix this for future Elk.

  231. @CK

    What’s the relative difference between what sperm donors are paid per sperm cell and egg donors are paid per egg cell? My guess is each egg cell costs about $1000. That would make a sperm donor very wealthy, no?

  232. @Neil Templeton

    Neil, thank you for the reply, but I thought you threw my Italian ass overboard.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  233. @Unzerker

    Yeah, I can read Wikipedia, too.

    Brilliant. And wrong.

  234. @prosa123

    Really excellent comment. They really are.

  235. Women are stronger than you.

  236. E e says:
    @Tyrion 2

    I once met a young woman who had officially done her time in the Israeli army. She’d never even learned to fire a gun, and apparently this isn’t unusual for female conscripts. She wasn’t religious, either.

  237. @Buffalo Joe

    My heart is worn and can’t maintain a grudge anymore. Besides, didn’t the Italians bring us Dion and the Belmonts? Can’t be all bad.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.