«

»

GI Jane

Last week, the Administration lifted the ban on women in combat. Of course, in modern warfare, there really aren’t a lot of non-combat roles. Despite the ban, 150 women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and 800 wounded while performing “non-combat” duties. Indeed, part of the pressure for this change was so that women who have already been in combat would get the appropriate benefits and pay.

But that’s a little different from having women assigned to combat roles where the intention is to engage the enemy. We may want to be careful in certain theaters (e.g., the Middle East) where women prisoners may be subject to even greater abuse than male ones. Of far more concern is this:

At a briefing Thursday morning, Pentagon officials repeatedly stressed that there will be “gender-neutral standards” for combat positions. This could make it difficult for women to qualify in roles that specifically require upper-body strength.

For example, to work in a tank, women will have to demonstrate the ability to repeatedly load 55-pound tank shells, just as men are required to do.

Infantry troops routinely carry backpacks with 60 or 70 pounds of gear, or even more. The most common injury in Afghanistan is caused by roadside bombs. This raises the question of whether a female combat soldier would be able to carry a 200-pound male colleague who has been wounded.

NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman recently reported on the first two women allowed into the Marines’ grueling 12-week Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, Va. Both women were in outstanding physical condition, yet both dropped out early in the training.

This is the rub: if we’re going to do this, the standards for roles in the military have to be set based on the role even if that means that few, if any, women qualify for those roles (or, by contrast, if women come to dominate certain roles). The Pentagon is making all the right noises now. However, I fear that, for all the resolve being shown now, those standards will be allowed to slip if women are not getting into combat roles in the numbers that various political agitators expect.

105 comments

No ping yet

  1. AlexInCT says:

    I wish this was done to improve the military’s capabilities, but I am not stupid enough to buy that nonsense. My bet is that the people that pushed hardest for this had ulterior motives, and if it hurts the military it is just a bonus. I have very little problem with women in the military, and these are mostly the PC bullshit that comes with women in the military, and not the women perse, but I draw the line at combat units.

    Western nations have already been pussified to the point where a few casualties gets our panties in a bunch. Can you imagine when the pictures show women in that carnage? Yeah, we are not going to be sending our troops to do much fighting. The other side must be extatic.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      
  2. TheContrarian says:

    Alex’s first sentence touches on my disagreement with this.

    My concern is that we are doing this for the wrong reasons. Where is there an argument about how this will make the military better? Where is there a study showing how this will make safer both our troops and society at large?

    I have seen a good deal of evidence that having women along side men indeed can be a distraction. You get more fraternization and sexual harassment, for one. That’s not to blame the women, of course, but it can’t be denied that their presence makes it possible. The changes in living conditions, the separate facilities, and the PC bullshit that comes from integrating women into a male space – all of these things have costs.

    I think women should have to register for the draft just men do as I think there are roles for them in the military. Combat is not one of them.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Kimpost says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13

      
  4. Hal_10000 says:

    Contrarian and Alex, I agree with you somewhat. I think the big reason for this is falling recruitment levels and soldiers getting shredded by deployment after deployment after deployment. This is better than doing what they did about five years ago — lower the standards for enlistment.

    The thing is that our soldiers have always dealt with these changes better than we hope. This will certainly change the culture and there are bound to be problems. But, in the end, they will continue to make us proud.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. balthazar says:

    Wow Kim, way to totally miss the point.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

      
  6. Fangbeer says:

    I humbly submit for review the novel idea that men and woman are different.

    Men and woman are different physically, chemically, and psychologically. In some circumstances these differences are strengths. In some instances these differences are weaknesses. In total, the sum of the strengths and weaknesses of men and women are equal, but that does not mean we perform equally in all circumstances. I fully believe that we are all equal, and at the same time that we are all completely diverse and different. We are better suited for different skills, and that’s okay.

    The definition of equality that idealists promote is the illogical premise present in “politically correct” equality. The inherent hypocrisy of “politically correct” equality is the idea that people require assistance to become equal. It is in effect a negative view that all are not equal, and the machinations of “politically correctness” is required to make them appear so.

    I think that on the battlefield (especially) this is a dangerous view that leads to dangerous situations. On the battlefield the only consideration should be the capability of the person to carry out the task required. Unfortunately, I have every confidence that the pervasive ideology of politically correctness will invade that decision making process, and accommodations will be made to compensate for perceived sex based weaknesses. That’s no good.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Kimpost says:

    The point being what, exactly? If there are military jobs that require physical attributes, set the standards and see how many women, if any, make them (then use that same meter on older service men as well). That’s not discrimination.

    However, talking about women’s effect on men’s moral, is discriminatory. Men feeling a need for either fucking women literally or with their minds is condescending bullshit. As if we couldn’t control our dicks or urges. Men worrying too much (about the adorable little things), is too. Ripping the dog tag from a dead female soldier is the same as doing it from a male. If it isn’t then men will learn and adapt. They are professionals, aren’t they?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Fangbeer says:

    Kimpost,

    Do you believe that a soldier would take an undue risk for a woman that the soldier wouldn’t take for a man? For whatever, reason, be it a stereotypical reason, a biological reason, or an emotional reason. Is it possible or even likely?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  9. pfluffy says:

    Do you believe that a soldier would take an undue risk for a woman that the soldier wouldn’t take for a man? For whatever, reason, be it a stereotypical reason, a biological reason, or an emotional reason. Is it possible or even likely?

    I do think it likely that a soldier would go over and above for a woman, but I also think the their training ensures that they would do so for a man as well. It is only with the choice between a man or a woman that the conflict would happen and he would choose the woman. Does that matter if only one of them could be saved? I don’t have an answer, I am just asking the question.

    Men and woman are different physically, chemically, and psychologically.

    There are physical differences that can’t be denied. Chemically and psychologically, it really depends on the individual. I know men that are very emotional and women that are very cold and unemotional. I don’t picture emos doing well in battle no matter the gender. Does combat attract emos and drama queens? Again, just asking.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  10. balthazar says:

    If they actually stick to the gender neutral requirements, then we wont be seeing many women as 0311.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  11. pfluffy says:

    If they actually stick to the gender neutral requirements, then we wont be seeing many women as 0311.

    I agree, Balthazar. To get my first job in IT back in the 80′s I had to agree that I would have to lift up to 50 pounds. In actuality, of course, there were often guys around to assist, but I did have to lift laser printers and the old, heavy IBM computers frequently. I can say without question that hoisting mortar shells into a cannon and wearing a 70-pound backpack would be impossible for me.

    That, and I prefer not to get my ass shot off.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  12. Kimpost says:

    Do you believe that a soldier would take an undue risk for a woman that the soldier wouldn’t take for a man? For whatever, reason, be it a stereotypical reason, a biological reason, or an emotional reason. Is it possible or even likely?

    Possible, but so would a myriad of other reasons, like friendship or family. They’ll cope with another one. In time it’ll pass.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9

      
  14. Fangbeer says:

    Possible, but so would a myriad of other reasons, like friendship or family. They’ll cope with another one. In time it’ll pass.

    I think the key word in my question was “undue.”

    On average a soldier on extended foot patrol can be expected to carry 87 to 127 pounds worth of equipment needed to survive on the battle field.

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/02/ap-report-soldiers-carry-too-much-weight-021411

    The weight they are expected to carry is obviously already a medical concern. Do you think men would feel more compelled to carry the extra weight required to support a female’s presence on the battle field?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  15. Fangbeer says:

    http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=rob_orr

    This is what I’m getting at, by the way.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  16. balthazar says:

    Treat them all as professionals (don’t assume men will be affected by having a woman alongside) and set some requirements (not involving whether you have a penis or not), and let it happen

    Well unfortunatly for women, having a penis(and testicles) ia actually is what makes men more suited for combat. Stronger, faster, etc.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  17. balthazar says:

    So CM, I read that whole article, and it makes me lean to not allowing women to serve in front line capacity at all. Especially with how prone to physical issues they seem to be from just “normal” front line loads. Front line units will be understrength even more due to the high incidences of injury if that study is accurate.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  18. balthazar says:

    Humm yes edit does not seem to work, that CM should be Fang.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  19. AlexInCT says:

    Contrarian and Alex, I agree with you somewhat. I think the big reason for this is falling recruitment levels and soldiers getting shredded by deployment after deployment after deployment. This is better than doing what they did about five years ago — lower the standards for enlistment.

    I wish this where the reason Hal. However, based on how the segment that agitated the hardest to push for this change has viewed, and more importantly, treated the military, I suspect the goal here was to undermine its capabilities. The problems these haphazard changes cause will allow them to then keep the military from fighting because of those poor women. These people only see the military as a glorified peace corps anyway. They believe that a weak US military is a good thing for the world too. That is until their ass is in danger, then they want these troops they harangue and make fun of to save their ass.

    Nah, this move is more of the same bullshit that the politicians of one particular political party hope will allow them to have their media buddies show pictures of dead women when the occupant in the WH isn’t one of them and thus undermine any kind of military action done by the “not my guy”.

    The military’s purpose isn’t social experimentation. It is to break shit and kill people that you need killed. This move makes that duty of military forces orders of magnitude harder to comply with. The biggest mistake we made was to sanitize warfare and make the military PC. We will pay for that sooner than later with the lives of our troops. But the fucking socio-engineers don’t give a flying fuck about that. Anyone that joins the military is an idiot acording to them anyway. Enlightened people believe in marx’s nonsense and endless prattle that solves nothing.

    Fuck, I hate stupid people, and nothing is dumber than a fucking leftard playing God.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  20. Fangbeer says:

    The military’s purpose isn’t social experimentation. It is to break shit and kill people that you need killed.

    I’m sure this is just hyperbole, but I don’t agree with it at all. The purpose of the military is to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution. Have they always been used toward that goal? It’s debatable.

    That being said, I support a woman’s right to serve to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution in any way they are effective at doing so. It’s when compensations are made to make any real or perceived weaknesses “equal” that I have an issue.

    Like for example, when faced with the decision to allow a woman to carry less on the front line, thus forcing someone else to carry more vs forcing a woman to carry more then she is able. Either the woman is at excessive risk, or the woman causes someone else to be at risk. These are not issues that the military can address on a case by case basis. It has to come up with a policy that addresses a very real battle worthiness weakness in woman vs men.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  21. balthazar says:

    I’m sure this is just hyperbole, but I don’t agree with it at all. The purpose of the military is to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution. Have they always been used toward that goal? It’s debatable.

    No, it isnt debatable, if you pussyfoot around you get debacles like Vietnam Afghanistan and Iraq. We made the best of a bad situation in these cases, but they are still debacles.

    The military’s job is literally, break the opponents ability to wage war, thats best done by killing their soldiers.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  22. balthazar says:

    Like for example, when faced with the decision to allow a woman to carry less on the front line, thus forcing someone else to carry more vs forcing a woman to carry more then she is able.

    That isnt a viable option, either they are able to do what everyone else can do in the unit, or they are moved to another billet, if there are no other billets they can fill, they basically get a medical discharge.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  23. CM says:

    Humm yes edit does not seem to work, that CM should be Fang.

    I realised it wasn’t for me when it didn’t include “Go Fuck Yourself, Your A Dumb Sack Of Shit” at the end.

    Most of the queries here seem to be answered in the initially linked piece. Nobody will need to carry any gear as women who can’t carry gear won’t qualify for that position.

    Also:

    The years of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan have blurred, if not erased, the traditional notions of combat versus noncombat positions. Battle fronts are fluid, and the concept of a defined front line is virtually meaningless.

    So women are serving in many of these positions anyway.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  24. balthazar says:

    So women are serving in many of these positions anyway.

    Except they really arnt. At best they are providing perimeter security when called for sentry duty, or if theres an ambush somewhere NEAR the front. Those “photos” of women in “combat zones” tell you what, if it was a real combat zone, those picures wouldnt be taked from the angles they are at and they wouldnt be so clean.

    An actual operation? The closest they get is POSSIBLY flying by it in a plane at over 1000 feet.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  25. balthazar says:

    I realised it wasn’t for me when it didn’t include “Go Fuck Yourself, Your A Dumb Sack Of Shit” at the end.

    That is all you normally deserve, you useless sack of shit.

    Happy?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  26. Miguelito says:

    I say keep all the requirements the same, but also, all women have to sign up for the draft… er “selective service” just like men do. They should go hand in hand. I’m betting you add in the latter and a lot of women who support the “equality” today will suddenly change their minds.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  27. Miguelito says:

    To get my first job in IT back in the 80′s I had to agree that I would have to lift up to 50 pounds. In actuality, of course, there were often guys around to assist, but I did have to lift laser printers and the old, heavy IBM computers frequently. I can say without question that hoisting mortar shells into a cannon and wearing a 70-pound backpack would be impossible for me.

    My dad worked for the phone company for about 20 years. At one point (in the 80′s) a lot of women complained to the union that they weren’t represented enough in the higher ranks and it took working the field to get the promotions to those ranks. So they waived the need to be able to lift and use the heavy ladders required to get up the poles to let more women work in the field. The result was that usually a woman would have to call out a 2nd van so that the man could do the ladder, wait for the woman to do the work, then put the ladder back on the van.

    Changing regs to make things “equal” like that is just stupid.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  28. HARLEY says:

    I say keep all the requirements the same, but also, all women have to sign up for the draft… er “selective service” just like men do. They should go hand in hand. I’m betting you add in the latter and a lot of women who support the “equality” today will suddenly change their minds.

    THIS.]
    While i have no doubt that Some woman can meet the requirements, and have the physical stamina and bloody mindness to be a front line troop. not many would be willing to fill out that berth…

    IF the woman, or man cant meet the requirements of a 11Bravo, then they have no business in that role. hell they have no business in the military.
    Now its been decided that woman can serve on front line position, we need to be ready for the dirty details that will bring…
    oh yeah Selective service for the chicks too, i jsut cant wait to see teh young dumb teenybopper, realize that she has been drafted and is gonna be required to get her hands dirty and bloody….

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

      
  29. CM says:

    Except they really arnt. At best they are providing perimeter security when called for sentry duty, or if theres an ambush somewhere NEAR the front. Those “photos” of women in “combat zones” tell you what, if it was a real combat zone, those picures wouldnt be taked from the angles they are at and they wouldnt be so clean.

    An actual operation? The closest they get is POSSIBLY flying by it in a plane at over 1000 feet.

    Define “a real combat zone” though? Isn’t the point that it’s pretty hard to tell these days?

    That is all you normally deserve, you useless sack of shit.

    Happy?

    Egg Static. Your awesome.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  30. TheContrarian says:

    A few things:

    I think it is incredibly naive to believe that the only relevant difference between men and women is average physical strength, and thus so long as we keep high standards, women in combat is just fine. Differences between men and women run much deeper. War isn’t only about lifting heavy things. It’s also about courage under fire, fearlessness, the ability to unfeelingly snipe the brains out of dozens of human beings if called to do so. Are there women capable of falling on a grenade just to protect the dozen other men around her? Sure, but they’re not very common and hard to test identify.

    You can thank evolution for it too. Men are hardwired to prioritize protection of females. It’s why we out-competed the Neanderthals. As women are the limiting factor on reproduction, societies that prioritized their protection thrived, and thus the related traits were passed on. Thinking that men fighting alongside women in a combat zone are going to able to just switch off millions of years of genetic programming is laughable. Of course it will affect them.

    These arguments, like “just expect them to be professionals!” and “it’s insulting to men because it suggests that men are just controlled by their dicks!” miss the point. Sure, most soldiers can and will deal, but what gain is there in making them? In exchange for, at best, a handful of (hopefully) mentally and physically tough females on the battlefield, you corrupt much of the natural camaraderie upon which men rely.

    When women enter male spaces they bring with them demands for culture changes. Already the Air Force is cracking down on sexy calendars with subjective rules about “inappropriate” media. As harassment claims mount men are going to have to rethink telling an off-color joke, or sharing their honest feelings about an issue. They won’t be able to bond in the same way. Men at war were motivated by being separated from women – by remembering and even idealizing those waiting for them back home. Now we ask these men to maintain a bland dental hygienist office atmosphere while training to do violence on our behalf.

    We dismiss these changes in military culture at our own peril. It’s not just an issue of physical standards. It’s about injecting sanitized PC mainstream culture into an environment where gender politics create life or death issues. It’s about the very real consequences of putting women in the path of an enemy who is not affiliated with any nation and cares nothing for the Geneva conventions. This move is far more expensive than we realize and I don’t see how it makes safer. Quite the contrary.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

      
  31. AlexInCT says:

    We dismiss these changes in military culture at our own peril. It’s not just an issue of physical standards. It’s about injecting sanitized PC mainstream culture into an environment where gender politics create life or death issues.

    The socio-engineers see a more ineffective military as a bonus. After all, only stupid and evil people join the military, because of that evil killing thing, and the military is only to be tollerated when one of them is in charge. The goal is to turn the military into a glorified and armed version of the salvation army, and make sure nobody but their guys can ever use the military effectively. And with a complacent media that all but serves as the propaganda arm of their party, no longer jus hiding news that hurts them, but telling their lies for them with gusto, they think they are almost there. We are all going to pay for these people and their stupidity and evil.

    When women enter male spaces they bring with them demands for culture changes. Already the Air Force is cracking down on sexy calendars with subjective rules about “inappropriate” media. As harassment claims mount men are going to have to rethink telling an off-color joke, or sharing their honest feelings about an issue. They won’t be able to bond in the same way. Men at war were motivated by being separated from women – by remembering and even idealizing those waiting for them back home. Now we ask these men to maintain a bland dental hygienist office atmosphere while training to do violence on our behalf.

    This is a double bonus for the socio-engineers. They not only emasculate the military, but undermine one of the last places men could be men. When you remove the ability to vent steam and the psychology that encourages agression, you seriously harm the soldiers’ ability to be prepared mentally for the travesty of war. No wonder so many now have PTSD from simply serving near combat areas.

    And remember that the sole and primary reason (according to them, that is) the leftards are pressuring for this change is because they hate the fact there are not enough women generals, ands since combat experience matters, there never will be any. I hate to steriotype, but I hope we find out our enemies want to take away women’s ability to own more than a couple of pairs of shoes and their free contraceptives, cause that will make these women commanders want to nuke the enemy finally.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  32. Kimpost says:

    Hehehe

    When women enter male spaces they bring with them demands for culture changes. Already the Air Force is cracking down on sexy calendars with subjective rules about “inappropriate” media. As harassment claims mount men are going to have to rethink telling an off-color joke, or sharing their honest feelings about an issue. They won’t be able to bond in the same way. Men at war were motivated by being separated from women – by remembering and even idealizing those waiting for them back home. Now we ask these men to maintain a bland dental hygienist office atmosphere while training to do violence on our behalf.

    We dismiss these changes in military culture at our own peril. It’s not just an issue of physical standards. It’s about injecting sanitized PC mainstream culture into an environment where gender politics create life or death issues. It’s about the very real consequences of putting women in the path of an enemy who is not affiliated with any nation and cares nothing for the Geneva conventions. This move is far more expensive than we realize and I don’t see how it makes safer. Quite the contrary.

    Translation: Men will no longer be able to be sexist (and racist?) bastards, as they are genetically programmed to be, which will harm moral and have serious effects on men’s ability to bond properly (i.e. farting, talking pussy, binge-drinking). The same of course, could be said about the severe mistake of allowing homosexuals to serve. Their culture is undoubtedly bad for moral especially since gay men can’t kill people. All they really wanna do is dance (with somebody).

    Above post by TheContrarian should be printed, saved and put on display. “Yes, ladies and gentlemen, some men really held those positions as late as in 2013″. *audience laughs*

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      
  33. TheContrarian says:

    Translation: Men will no longer be able to be sexist (and racist?) bastards, as they are genetically programmed to be, which will harm moral and have serious effects on men’s ability to bond properly (i.e. farting, talking pussy, binge-drinking). The same of course, could be said about the severe mistake of allowing homosexuals to serve. Their culture is undoubtedly bad for moral especially since gay men can’t kill people. All they really wanna do is dance (with somebody).

    Above post by TheContrarian should be printed, saved and put on display. “Yes, ladies and gentlemen, some men really held those positions as late as in 2013″. *audience laughs*

    The above post should be printed, saved, and put on display in freshman rhetoric classes as a classic example of straw man and ad hominem argumentation. *students learn*

    The more common counter to my argument about culture is generally to bring up the fact that the military used to be segregated. When people say “the military is not the place for progressive cultural ideals”, people counter “Well, people said the same thing about blacks serving along side whites!” Well, as a black guy, I can say that, if it were demonstrably shown that integration harms the military, I would oppose it.

    I feel the same way about gays. I have no problem with letting them serve openly so long as it doesn’t undermine soldiers’ ability to do their jobs. If evidence suggests that it does cause harm, then DADT is a fair compromise. Remember, we’re asking these people to fight and die to protect us. We should prioritize their safety above any demand that they embrace some cultural ideal of diversity.

    I sense a lot of projection in the comment about “farting” (?) and binge drinking. It doesn’t change the reality of men and women’s different sensibilities. I’ve witnessed male communities, from programmers to gamers to atheists, all suffer from females demanding the culture change to suit them. Forums where people could freely rant about experiences and ideas in whatever language they chose now are moderated into “safe spaces” where inoffensiveness is valued above free speech. Men don’t do this to women’s spaces, from the hairdresser to the faculty lounge (spent a good amount of time in both).

    There are lots of great communities shared by both men and women, however there is a real need for men / women-only spaces as well. They enable a certain sort of bonding not possible elsewhere and I would argue that this is useful in the military. Insulting the idea of male community with stereotypes doesn’t make you more evolved and is a common tactic of pussy-chasing white knights.

    Hot! Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

      
  34. AlexInCT says:

    Remember, we’re asking these people to fight and die to protect us. We should prioritize their safety above any demand that they embrace some cultural ideal of diversity.

    No leftist feels this way iconoclast. The grand majority of them believes that these idiots in the military deserve to die because they where stupid enough to join up in the first place. The military is evil. Remember the left all agiggle and happy when people where telling soldiers to kill their commanders and brothers in arms because they where following orders from someone the left was mentally disturbed about? I do. Most will give you platitudes about how they value our troops but hate the military. Some will tell you how they really feel. Heck, even leftists that served, will fuck over the military. Remember Murtha falsely accusing Marines of crimes without anything but a wish for it to be true because it would help them to undermine Boosh?

    Insulting the idea of male community with stereotypes doesn’t make you more evolved and is a common tactic of pussy-chasing white knights.

    You where far more diplomatic in your explenation of this cunty behavior than I would have been sir.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

      
  35. CM says:

    It really is just about ending discriminatory practices (like allowing gay people to marry). If that changes the culture (by reducing the number of sexist comments), so be it. Tough-shit. Ending discriminiation isn’t even remotely about “injecting sanitized PC mainstream culture”. It should be celebrated by anyone who doesn’t agree with discrimination.
    I’m sure when women and blacks were given the vote there were people arguing that it was just a case of “injecting sanitized PC mainstream culture”. “What would blacks or women know about politics and voting anyway? They’re only liable to harm the outcome of elections”.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      
  36. balthazar says:

    It really is just about ending discriminatory practices (like allowing gay people to marry). If that changes the culture (by reducing the number of sexist comments), so be it. Tough-shit. Ending discriminiation isn’t even remotely about “injecting sanitized PC mainstream culture”. It should be celebrated by anyone who doesn’t agree with discrimination.

    Ahh the tried and true, “If you dont agree with me its because your a racist.” bullshit.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

      
  37. CM says:

    Ahh the tried and true, “If you dont agree with me its because your a racist.” bullshit.

    As Kimpost points out, there aren’t really any solid arguments that aren’t effectively sexism. If women want to put themselves in harms way for their country, and to further their careers, and they meet the requirements of the job, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to? The only argument here seems to be in order to protect a boys-only club (I’m discounting Alex’s nonsense about wanting to destroy the military as it’s so ludicrious is doesn’t even deserve a response).

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      
  38. AlexInCT says:

    The only argument here seems to be in order to protect a boys-only club (I’m discounting Alex’s nonsense about wanting to destroy the military as it’s so ludicrious is doesn’t even deserve a response).

    Q.E.D.

    CM proves my point, repeatedly made, that to the left the military is a boys only club, populated by a bunch of fools, instead of people that go into harms way for fucking idiot politicians that stay home safe, and thus deserving of not being straddled with insane requirements that reduce their efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to accomplish their mission.

    No arguing with idiots like this about how insane it is to turn the people charged with war into a bunch of incompetent pansies, because they think your beliefs and the fact you want this killing machine to be good at what it is supposed to do to be the problem. en your philosophy of life is predicated on isms and victimhood, you are going to keep at it even if in the process you sign your own death warrant.

    Fuck I hate the stupid shit liberals believe in.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  39. CM says:

    CM proves my point, repeatedly made, that to the left the military is a boys only club, populated by a bunch of fools,

    Not even in the slightest. You really do work hard to go out of the way to try and make everything fit don’t you. That’s just weird behaviour.

    instead of people that go into harms way for fucking idiot politicians that stay home safe, and thus deserving of not being straddled with insane requirements that reduce their efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to accomplish their mission.

    You mean “men that go into harms way”. Not “people”, as that would imply females.
    Where has it been demonstrated that women in combat roles (who obviously must meet the requirements for that role) will undermine the “efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to accomplish their mission”?

    No arguing with idiots

    We certainly agree on that one.

    about how insane it is to turn the people charged with war into a bunch of incompetent pansies,

    Where has it been demonstrated that this will happen? I mean outside the confines of your brain?

    because they think your beliefs and the fact you want this killing machine to be good at what it is supposed to do to be the problem.

    This is the problem – where has it been demonstrated that combat units won’t be as effective at carrying out their missions?

    en your philosophy of life is predicated on isms and victimhood, you are going to keep at it even if in the process you sign your own death warrant.

    Ah ok, so anti-discriminatory change now equates to ‘victim-hood’. That’s sensational.
    I think you’re living in the wrong century Alex. Dickensian England would have suited you perfectly.

    Fuck I hate the stupid shit liberals believe in.

    Nah you love it. Otherwise you wouldn’t make so much of it up in order to justify your own beliefs (and Alex Facts).

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  40. pfluffy says:

    CM proves my point, repeatedly made, that to the left the military is a boys only club, populated by a bunch of fools, instead of people that go into harms way for fucking idiot politicians that stay home safe, and thus deserving of not being straddled with insane requirements that reduce their efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to accomplish their mission.

    But, the military is NOT a boys-only club. About 14% of the military is women.

    http://www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/Project%20Documents/MilitaryHOMEFRONT/Reports/2010_Demographics_Report.pdf

    I think that CM was responding to TheContrarian’s notion that grunts would have to remove sexy calendars and quit telling off-color jokes. While I am a huge fan of off-color jokes, some people aren’t. This would include both men and women, and I wonder how many men secretly wish they didn’t have to be exposed to it.

    As for me, I appreciate the sacrifices that the men and women of the military endure to keep us safe. Most of them are good people and will act professionally in performing their duties. Combat is a dangerous situation any way you slice it. I am confident that our soldiers won’t act like prisoners in lockup when a woman walks in the room. I am equally confident that the mere presence of tampons won’t create a harsh environment for the men.

    There are two legitimate concerns that I have. One is capture by an enemy. An enemy could potentially exploit the capture of women in pretty strange ways. I imagine that this is already a risk, though.

    The other is fraternization (dating) between men and women soldiers. This is an absolute no-no and I am less confident of human nature here. It WILL happen despite “policy”. Again, I assume that this has already cropped up as a problem given that women make up 14% of the military.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  41. CM says:

    I think that CM was responding to TheContrarian’s notion that grunts would have to remove sexy calendars and quit telling off-color jokes. While I am a huge fan of off-color jokes, some people aren’t. This would include both men and women, and I wonder how many men secretly wish they didn’t have to be exposed to it.

    Exactly. I don’t agree that it’s a boys-only club, and that it must be kept that way to work properly.

    Most of them are good people and will act professionally in performing their duties. Combat is a dangerous situation any way you slice it. I am confident that our soldiers won’t act like prisoners in lockup when a woman walks in the room. I am equally confident that the mere presence of tampons won’t create a harsh environment for the men.

    Which is why the military leadership supported the end of DADT in the end – it was adequately demonstrated to them that the fears (many of which were invented and propagated for reasons other than what they pretended to be about) weren’t founded. Contrary to what Alex tries to suggest, it’s the attitude that men won’t be able to handle it which shows that he (and others like him) think they’re just a “bunch of fools”.

    There are two legitimate concerns that I have. One is capture by an enemy. An enemy could potentially exploit the capture of women in pretty strange ways. I imagine that this is already a risk, though.

    If women choose to put themselves in that situation, knowing the risks, then I don’t see it as a significant issue. Aren’t leftists the ones constantly mocked about their over-the-top concern for “women and children”?

    The other is fraternization (dating) between men and women soldiers. This is an absolute no-no and I am less confident of human nature here. It WILL happen despite “policy”. Again, I assume that this has already cropped up as a problem given that women make up 14% of the military.

    Legitimate concern but why not leave it up to personal responsibilty? If the rules and penalties are clear then, again, people will be doing it at their own risk.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  42. pfluffy says:

    Legitimate concern but why not leave it up to personal responsibilty? If the rules and penalties are clear then, again, people will be doing it at their own risk.

    A case can be made about capture being shit happens, but fraternization can affect a whole platoon (or company, or whatever). Jealousies, etc. could affect morale and discipline.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  43. CM says:

    A case can be made about capture being shit happens, but fraternization can affect a whole platoon (or company, or whatever). Jealousies, etc. could affect morale and discipline.

    Then adjust the penalties and enforcement.
    Again, I think we have to assume that the vast majority will be able to act professionally (rather than as “a bunch of fools”). If they can’t, act on it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  44. CM says:

    New Zealand has no restrictions on roles for women in its defence force. They are able to serve in the Special Air Service, infantry, armour and artillery. This came into effect in 2001 by subordinate legislation. Though, no woman has ever made it into the Special Air Service.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat

    So allowing women to serve in combat roles doesn’t mean a flood of women actually serving in combat roles. Or indeed many at all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  45. pfluffy says:

    Again, I think we have to assume that the vast majority will be able to act professionally (rather than as “a bunch of fools”). If they can’t, act on it.

    This is where I get a bit more cautious. If I were in a co-ed platoon, I would not want to be at risk of a meltdown by two star-crossed lovers gone horribly wrong. I do think that it would isolated, but it is not risk-free. Risks like this need to be assessed and mitigated because the consequences can be high.

    If someone has any data on it, I would be happy to read further. Perhaps I am off-base.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  46. pfluffy says:

    So allowing women to serve in combat roles doesn’t mean a flood of women actually serving in combat roles. Or indeed many at all.

    Yea, I wonder how much of a problem this will actually be once the numbers come in. I watched the show on Navy Seal training and I am skeptical that many women will ever make it. With 14% of the military being women and the washout rate of the program being in the 80% range, that just doesn’t leave many women. That is even before you consider the differences between men and women.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  47. Section8 says:

    Hold on a sec. OK, so a bunch of young men in a group acting like young men, which is going to consist of occasional farting, off colored jokes, and calendars is now horrible? I don’t fucking think so. Maybe guys in Sweden and NZ sit around doing needlepoint and talk about the latest inventory from Fabrics Depot, but it’s not like that here, and if you don’t like it that’s your problem not ours. Feel free to look down on us who gives a shit.

    As far as joining, if a woman wants to join that that’s fine. Personally I think that’s her choice, however, don’t expect anyone to change due to YOU. Equal is equal. That’s how guys behave when they get together and that’s that. Adapt or don’t join. Don’t join then bitch about it. Also, no spending extra money on making things “female compatible”. Equal is equal so there should be no problem joining with the way things are now. If a bunch of changes have to be made, then there’s a difference between women and men.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  48. pfluffy says:

    Section8, I think you may have misread something.

    occasional farting, off colored jokes, and calendars is now horrible

    You would be amazed, I’m sure, of just how many American men don’t like it. I certainly wouldn’t call it “horrible”, but it is not the behavior of all men. You also might be surprised to learn that not too many women sit around doing needlepoint and discuss fabrics all the time.

    As for expenditures to accommodate women, I can’t imagine that there would be much difference. What kinds of changes are you thinking that would cost much money?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  49. Section8 says:

    You would be amazed, I’m sure, of just how many American men don’t like it.

    Feel free to amaze me with stats of late teen to mid twenties men regarding the issue. I was that age once.

    You also might be surprised to learn that not too many women sit around doing needlepoint and discuss fabrics all the time.

    Not at all. I haven’t seen a woman do needlepoint since I saw my grandma do it when I was a kid. I just don’t know what they do overseas. It was a random guess. I’m sure they all act prim and proper 24/7 though.

    As for expenditures to accommodate women, I can’t imagine that there would be much difference. What kinds of changes are you thinking that would cost much money?

    Don’t know. Just don’t believe any changes should be necessary. It could range from kickback of the weapon to shape of weapons, to the crap you have to haul around.

    Again though, I really don’t have any issue with this change, as long as someone who is equal is not demanding changes because what they join isn’t compatible with who they are. Equal is equal.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  50. Section8 says:

    To clarify: By crap you have to haul around, I was referring to crap to get the job done not personal effects.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  51. CM says:

    Hold on a sec. OK, so a bunch of young men in a group acting like young men, which is going to consist of occasional farting, off colored jokes, and calendars is now horrible? I don’t fucking think so. Maybe guys in Sweden and NZ sit around doing needlepoint and talk about the latest inventory from Fabrics Depot, but it’s not like that here, and if you don’t like it that’s your problem not ours. Feel free to look down on us who gives a shit.

    I just don’t know what they do overseas.

    Weird. Why would it be any different?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  52. CM says:

    To clarify: By crap you have to haul around, I was referring to crap to get the job done not personal effects.

    Again, if they can’t haul around crap (or adequately reach other difficult standards), they won’t make it. You don’t have to reduce the standards to eliminate discriminatory practices. Standards will naturally make it far more difficult for some women to qualify for certain roles.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  53. pfluffy says:

    Again though, I really don’t have any issue with this change, as long as someone who is equal is not demanding changes because what they join isn’t compatible with who they are. Equal is equal.

    There are enough women currently serving to say that there probably won’t be many changes that haven’t already been made.

    As for the juvenilia, I am not sure why that is included as a necessary part of military life. I love a good off-color joke and I am not offended by nudity/swearing, but I do reject the idea that they are akin to combat gear.

    And I agree absolutely that everyone needs to be able to haul their gear and personal effects around. By the time a woman gets to “combat”, she should know good and well what she can and can’t haul and if she doesn’t that is a failure in training.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  54. pfluffy says:

    Hehe, I couldn’t resist:

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  55. CM says:

    As for the juvenilia, I am not sure why that is included as a necessary part of military life. I love a good off-color joke and I am not offended by nudity/swearing, but I do reject the idea that they are akin to combat gear.

    Same applies in all workplaces. The culture is generally determined by the make-up of who is there….sure, sometimes it’s going to be quite different if it’s all-male, just as it would be if it was all-female. Normal people just adapt their behaviour accordingly. Isn’t that part of being an adult and living in the real world?

    Has there been any country which has reserved itself because it found women in combat roles lead to the potential problems mentioned in this thread? I can’t find any.

    Of course there are distinct advantages of women serving in combat roles that haven’t been mentioned here too e.g. performing culturally sensitive searches, and acquiring intelligence from children and women (especially where males are not permitted to talk to women who are not in their family or are not married to them).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  56. Tool says:

    Tough-shit

    If my family member or friend gets killed during a deployment because the military “did the right thing” and a female who wasn’t suited for her job, was pushed in to “change military culture,” that doesn’t mean shit to me. Saying “tough shit” shows you could care less about American Soldiers, only some abstract ideal of equality.

    Exactly. I don’t agree that it’s a boys-only club, and that it must be kept that way to work properly.

    Please CM, enlighten us all with your extensive experience as an infantryman that served in combat overseas.

    As Kimpost points out, there aren’t really any solid arguments that aren’t effectively sexis

    Actually, yes mainly, if integrating women into combat units doesn’t prove to increase their combat effectiveness, then it should be dismissed out of hand. The military isn’t a place to “do things because they are right.” The only concern of a military especially one in combat, is to win conflicts while minimizing casualties. I am astounded that you are blind to the fact that in war winning combat is all that matters. Period. We are fighting a goddamn war and if you think it is ok for soldiers to die because the military placing women in combat roles is “right” then you are fucking obtuse. You cite “distinct advantages” to women serving in combat, I’ll cite several disadvantages right now.

    1. Women are generally smaller and weaker than most men, especially in upper body strength and therefore more likely to be overpowered and killed during brutal hand to hand combat (i know its hard to believe but it actually does come to that frequently in war). Look at the army PFT standards, is their any coincidence they are noticeably lower for females? How the hell does “doing the right thing” matter if a soldiers are depending on a female she is overpowered and killed?

    2. Despite what you and Kimpost mistakenly believe about US military members, fraternization is a pervasive and negative influence on the cohesion of many combat support units. Don’t believe me, phone a US Soldier/Marine/Airman etc. Fraternization happens, quite frequently, regardless of penalties, regulations, and laws and everybody in the military is aware of it. A huge portion of enlisted soldiers and marines are 18-21 years old, which somehow must escape your notice. You put 18 year old boys and girls together in the woods for weeks at a time, sharing sleeping bags and foxholes (an absolute necessity at times in the world of infantrymen) i’ll let you figure out what will happen.

    Seriously, all of this discussion about clubs and male space is irrelevant, it misses the bigger point. If integrating women into combat units increases combat effectiveness and makes our infantry units more likely to win firefights, great it should be done. However, if women can’t carry a 70 pound field pack, a 20 pound machine gun then still overpower and kill a man after not sleeping 24 hours, why is this topic even being brought up? Can some women accomplish this feat, probably but damn few, and when only 1 to 3 % of infantry units are women, standards will drop, just like PFT standards are dropped for females. People like you CM, who know nothing about war and care even less about soldiers will ensure the standards drop because its “the right thing to do” and more women need to serve in those units.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  57. Mississippi Yankee says:

    After 55 comments I’m shocked that someone hasn’t mentioned a modern combat ready army that’s actually tried this scheme. And found out, the hard way, it was a horrible idea.

    Israel has a full 2 gender draft. Men and woman serve side by side everyday, in every way EXCEPT on the front lines. Period.

    It didn’t use to be that way, in the 50′s and 60′s and early 70′s every Israeli fought every day just to stay alive but the Yom Kippur war changes all that. When there were actual battle lines, front lines, if you will, Israel learned that the will certainly was strong but the body, overall, was just a little less. And it cost lives ultimately.

    Don’t get me wrong, the women of the IDF are probably the best trained and most capable fighters on the planet but both history and circumstances have shown they are best utilized as a close secondary fall-back force. That’s not to say they wouldn’t step up if the need arose. As I said the IDF is an amazing, well oiled fighting machine.

    Both Kimpost and CM would have you believe they hold the moral high ground in this “every body is equal” debate yet Kim has gone “Now, back to my nudie magazines”. And CM talks pr0n often, here, with me! These are the type of guys that would condone, and maybe applaud, a company of diesel dykes but would never want their center-fold du-jour to break a nail. But they attempt to hold the rest of us to a different standard.
    Some things never change.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  58. ilovecress says:

    So here’s the counter point to your argument tool – what if there is a soldier who could carry a 70 pound pack and a 20 pound gun and could break a guys neck after 48 hours straight awake. One who could have saved your friend or family member if they were there. But this person wasn’t there, because they had tits.

    My view is if a person is good enough, they can be selected to serve where they are good enough to serve, regardless of gender. But equally if they aren’t good enough they should be refused, regardless of gender. If a woman gets refused, then it should be because she can’t carry that 70 pound pack, not because she’s a woman, and we assume she can’t carry it. I’d wager that not many women would make the grade, but that’s fine. As long as they aren’t banned de-facto. I’d even allow squad/team cohesiveness to factor into things, although I do think that might be a lawyers field day….

    In the RAF women are allowed as pilots – but the dimensions you have to be are so narrow that not many people make it out of cranwell as a pilot, simply based on length of forearm, or width of hips. And width of hips is a real problem for women applicants, as you might imagine. But at my selection 1girl got through in our group (of only 4 out of about 100) and when we started flying it was obvious she was awesome.

    (This was 15 years ago though… It may have changed since then)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  59. Tool says:

    So here’s the counter point to your argument tool – what if there is a soldier who could carry a 70 pound pack and a 20 pound gun and could break a guys neck after 48 hours straight awake. One who could have saved your friend or family member if they were there. But this person wasn’t there, because they had tits.

    No female soldier I have ever met possessed the physical attributes to accomplish the aforementioned task. I am sure they are out there, but again they are few and far between just based on physiology, since most females weigh less than 150 pounds. Moreover, the infantry physical standards as they are, hold men to these tasks (see ranger school) for good reason. My main concern is, when less than 3 % of combat units are female because of the stringent physical standards which tax even athletic young men, standards will be dropped. It is inevitable based on physiology, and anyone who debates me can view the physical standards of every single military branch. Standards are always lower for females because if females were held to male standards, there would be very few females in the military. Creating “gender neutral standards” means lowering standards so sizeable numbers of females can participate in combat units. If you think politicians will be ok with “mixed” infantry units being 98% male based on extremely demanding apft standards, you are being naive.

    In the RAF women are allowed as pilots – but the dimensions you have to be are so narrow that not many people make it out of cranwell as a pilot, simply based on length of forearm, or width of hips. And width of hips is a real problem for women applicants, as you might imagine. But at my selection 1girl got through in our group (of only 4 out of about 100) and when we started flying it was obvious she was awesome.

    Odd, Britain does not currently allow women to join the infantry or become paras, I suspect for good reason. It is one thing to kill from a distance, it is another entirely to bayonet somebody to death. Look at British historical precedent Cress. During the Falklands war 3 para had to march for days over frozen terrain, then engage dug in Argentinians in a horrific and brutal hand to hand engagement. Do you seriously think 3 Para would have performed those tasks more effectively (which i maintain is the only concern in this debate) if females were mixed in the unit? Those are the types of situations infantrymen are often engaged in. If females degrade combat effectiveness at all, soldiers will undoubtedly die because of it. I cannot believe people like Kimpost and CM are so willing to possibly sacrifice lives for some abstract ideal of gender equality.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  60. ilovecress says:

    My point is that selection criteria should sort that out. 150 pound females won’t make it because they’re 150 pounds, not because they’re females. If anyone who degrades combat effectiveness at all is assigned to any unit – then they shouldn’t be there, and gender shouldn’t come into it.

    If the brass can handle it, I’m fine with it. If standards fall to accommodate it, then I’m dead against it. My guess is that while women are technically allowed, its in the same way midgets are -as long as they’re 6’2′m and 230lb.

    Although I admit my viewpoint comes from the rather more gentile world of 3 years as a teenager in RAF training, but us RAFfers could be Bally well boisterous, what ho!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  61. TheContrarian says:

    Utilitarianism has its limits.

    Are there women who can kill a man with their bare hands after going without sleep for two days? Sure. There are probably also psychotics, arsonists, and fourteen year-olds who can do this. It doesn’t mean we should invite these groups to sign up.

    There are tradeoffs. For that small fraction of elite killer women, you invite a great many negatives. This is the cost benefit analysis we should be doing. What does the military gain, and what is the cost? “Ending discrimination” is not a rational justification as the military is SUPPOSED to discriminate. Military life isn’t meant to mimic peaceful, democratic civilian life.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  62. CM says:

    My point is that selection criteria should sort that out. 150 pound females won’t make it because they’re 150 pounds, not because they’re females. If anyone who degrades combat effectiveness at all is assigned to any unit – then they shouldn’t be there, and gender shouldn’t come into it.

    This point has been made again and again but it doesn’t seem to register. Apparently we just hate the military (in addition to the rich, and businesses, and Jesus).

    Please CM, enlighten us all with your extensive experience as an infantryman that served in combat overseas.

    I was responded to an accusation of what I thought. Try actually reading what was written.

    People like you CM, who know nothing about war and care even less about soldiers….

    You should hear how much I hate Jews and Gypsys.

    Both Kimpost and CM would have you believe they hold the moral high ground in this “every body is equal” debate yet Kim has gone “Now, back to my nudie magazines”. And CM talks pr0n often, here, with me! These are the type of guys that would condone, and maybe applaud, a company of diesel dykes but would never want their center-fold du-jour to break a nail. But they attempt to hold the rest of us to a different standard.
    Some things never change.

    Applying logic to an argument and being consistent isn’t even remotely relevant to pretending to hold some sort of moral high ground. Not sure what point you’re trying to make about porn and finding some naked women attractive. How does that factor into this at all? Why can’t I be for women deciding and being able to work in combat AND for women deciding and being to work in porn?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      
  63. CM says:

    There are tradeoffs. For that small fraction of elite killer women, you invite a great many negatives. This is the cost benefit analysis we should be doing. What does the military gain, and what is the cost?

    You honestly don’t think the military has consider it at all? They’re just that stupid?

    “Ending discrimination” is not a rational justification as the military is SUPPOSED to discriminate.

    Most jobs discriminate in some way. People with serious learning disabilities are not often chosen to fly 747s. But not all discrimination is equal – most jobs discriminate on the basis of ability, not gender, or age, or sexual orientation, or race. In the same way, the standards set for combat roles will discriminate against those who can’t meet those standards (don’t have the ability).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  64. Poosh says:

    This is a disgrace. A decent honourable man, the EXACT men you want on the battlefield – health MEN – cannot help but be traumatized with the sigh of women in harm’s way. This is what separates the real men from liberal men. (I don’t want to paint all liberal men with the same brush, plenty of liberal men don’t want women on the battlefield).

    The entire point of our/your military is, ultimately, is to PROTECT women and children. Throwing women into the fight from day one undermines this and is morally repulsive.

    If a man just shrugs at seeing women being killed in the same manner he grits through his friends being killed, I don’t want him by my side: he has loose wires in his head.

    This is purely a piece of “equality” bullshit which undermines the foundation. This is entirely about the fucked up minds and lack of morality that comes with these liberals scum: and they are scum, make no mistake. It allows them to pretend to be pious and feminist, whilst in reality putting every societies most precious resource in harm’s way.

    If we’re sending women into the fight, that means we’re in Russia WW2 territory. That means we have NO choice. That means: our backs are against the wall. That means we’re really fighting to SURVIVE. That means TOTAL WAR.

    That doesn’t, for a second, mean women cannot, when the meat meets the metal, cannot make war like a man can. We don’t have to look very far in history to see how incredible women soldiers can be. But that’s not the point.

    There are plenty of good arguments as to why women shouldn’t be on the frontlines. But the best argument is a simple, all encompassing, moral one: it is the duty of all males in a society to lay down their lives to protect their women and children. If you’re sending women out INSTEAD of men, then you’ve lost your morality and you’ve lost sight of what it means to be an objective human being.

    Liberals aren’t moral people, they don’t think like the rest, they don’t think like moral human beings, it should be no surprise that they are happy to demand women be in the fight, for faux reasons of “equality” or “social justice” or whatever lie they are putting out there. The real reason is they think liberalism = morality. They want to be moral, though they have no concept of what morality is, so they bandwagon onto whatever popular “moral” liberal pop-issue is of the day and say “yeah!”. So women must die just as much as men, to make liberals feel “good” and all-mighty about themselves.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  65. Fangbeer says:

    It really is just about ending discriminatory practices

    No. It’s not. Liberals employ discriminatory practices in every facet of their policies. Liberals are the kings and queens of discrimination because they feel it’s required for social engineering.

    It’s about ending discriminatory practices that liberals don’t like. What that typically means is its a type of discrimination that makes them feel an emotion that they don’t like to feel, so they make a law to react to those feelings. Generally no regard at all is paid to the consequences of that law, so when it all falls to shit they blame conservatives and then make another law.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      
  66. Dave D says:

    Fangbeer is on a roll!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  67. Kimpost says:

    Holy shit, Poosh. Just when I thought that things were about to settle, you brought things right back to the stone age. Incredibly funny. How do you embed pics here? A picture from 300 is needed here.

    http://www.atlanticrow2013.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/3003.jpeg

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  68. Fangbeer says:

    Perhaps you can explain to me the oxymoron of civilized war, Kimpost.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  69. CM says:

    This is what separates the real men from liberal men. (I don’t want to paint all liberal men with the same brush, plenty of liberal men don’t want women on the battlefield).

    So which is it? Make your mind up.

    The entire point of our/your military is, ultimately, is to PROTECT women and children. Throwing women into the fight from day one undermines this and is morally repulsive.

    How about on Day 38?
    You obviously have quite different ideas about the role of the military, but even if you are right, and as outlined earlier, women can play a unique role in communicating with other women (who might not communicate with men for cultural/religious reasons).

    If a man just shrugs at seeing women being killed in the same manner he grits through his friends being killed, I don’t want him by my side: he has loose wires in his head.

    Shrugging is the same as “gritting”? WTF? This makes no sense.
    It’s a matter of being professional. Not all women want to be chained up in the kitchen because it’s the most moral place they can be.

    This is purely a piece of “equality” bullshit which undermines the foundation.

    The foundation of what? How?

    This is entirely about the fucked up minds and lack of morality that comes with these liberals scum: and they are scum, make no mistake.

    Here we go. In the absence of an actual argument……
    And yet again it’s not the liberals arguing from an emotion.

    It allows them to pretend to be pious and feminist, whilst in reality putting every societies most precious resource in harm’s way.

    Nothing to do with being pious or feminist. That’s just another replacement for an argument.

    If we’re sending women into the fight, that means we’re in Russia WW2 territory. That means we have NO choice. That means: our backs are against the wall. That means we’re really fighting to SURVIVE. That means TOTAL WAR.

    Not even remotely. “Sending” implies the women have no choice.

    There are plenty of good arguments as to why women shouldn’t be on the frontlines. But the best argument is a simple, all encompassing, moral one: it is the duty of all males in a society to lay down their lives to protect their women and children. If you’re sending women out INSTEAD of men, then you’ve lost your morality and you’ve lost sight of what it means to be an objective human being.

    I think you’re living in the wrong century. We’ve moved on a little from this. People are a little more into ending discriminatory practices than quaint notions of poor widdle girls who only know about puppies and knitting patterns. That’s why women are allowed to vote now too (not sure if you caught up on that change).

    Liberals aren’t moral people

    Liberals aren’t moral people, they don’t think like the rest, they don’t think like moral human beings,

    LOL
    And yet you’re probably expecting people to take your post seriously?

    it should be no surprise that they are happy to demand women be in the fight,

    Wrong. Try reading the thread rather than flying into knee-jerk reactionary nonsense.

    for faux reasons of “equality” or “social justice” or whatever lie they are putting out there.

    Ending discrimination. You know, the thing that right-wingers tell us they’re really really into, to ensure a level-playing field. One of the virtues of the free market etc etc.

    The real reason is they think liberalism = morality. They want to be moral, though they have no concept of what morality is,

    I found the exit from the cave, sorry you were unable to do so.

    so they bandwagon onto whatever popular “moral” liberal pop-issue is of the day and say “yeah!”. So women must die just as much as men, to make liberals feel “good” and all-mighty about themselves.

    Women die?! WTF? When did this start happening??! On the humanity!

    If I didn’t know you better Poosh, I would have assumed that was just a parody post.

    No. It’s not. Liberals employ discriminatory practices in every facet of their policies. Liberals are the kings and queens of discrimination because they feel it’s required for social engineering.

    Can you provide some examples. Say five to start with (it’s in “every facet” so five should be a minimum.

    It’s about ending discriminatory practices that liberals don’t like. What that typically means is its a type of discrimination that makes them feel an emotion that they don’t like to feel, so they make a law to react to those feelings.

    You mean like the feeling that it wouldn’t be nice for women to die in combat, so we shouldn’t let them do it? Or like how we wouldn’t want a gay guy to try to sex with us, so we better not let on the field of battle either?

    Generally no regard at all is paid to the consequences of that law, so when it all falls to shit they blame conservatives and then make another law.

    Again, can you provide some examples of those consequences?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      
  70. Fangbeer says:

    Can you provide some examples. Say five to start with (it’s in “every facet” so five should be a minimum.

    Healthcare:
    Men do not have an equal right to determine the medical treatment of their offspring.
    “No preexisting conditions” excludes vice activities like smoking, drinking, eating…

    Education:
    Minorities are offered special grants that are not available to everyone.
    Standards are lowered, (and or) curriculum are modified based on racial / gender based ability curves.

    Law enforcement:
    Suspects have a right to be searched by someone of the same gender.
    Prisons are gender selective

    Construction:
    Government contracts are awarded with preferential treatment to WBE, DBE and MBE businesses.

    Welfare:
    Minority only loans are available for housing, business enterprises,

    You mean like the feeling that it wouldn’t be nice for women to die in combat, so we shouldn’t let them do it? Or like how we wouldn’t want a gay guy to try to sex with us, so we better not let on the field of battle either?

    Please quote the post in which I or any other conservative in this thread said anything about gay guys having sex with us on the battle field. You might want to review the section of your post that discusses the absence of an actual argument.

    Again, can you provide some examples of those consequences?

    Well, we can look at 60 years of liberal policy aimed at welfare to minority citizens and see what that has done to their economic status.

    Or we can look at 60 years of liberal policy to improve education and see what that has done to improve our workforce.

    Or we can look at 60 years of liberal policy to improve the economy, and see what that has done to manufacture and industry.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      
  71. CM says:

    First up, thanks.

    Men do not have an equal right to determine the medical treatment of their offspring.

    You’ll have to be more specific.

    “No preexisting conditions” excludes vice activities like smoking, drinking, eating…

    Which liberal policy says this? Is this in Obamacare?
    Are you sure this is the type of discrimination we are actually talking about? People can’t smoke on aeroplanes anymore – but I don’t hear people complaining about, or considering it to be, discrimination.

    Minorities are offered special grants that are not available to everyone.

    That doesn’t mean others are excluded from attending though. It’s something additional. It doesn’t with-hold or remove any rights.

    Standards are lowered, (and or) curriculum are modified based on racial / gender based ability curves.

    If there are only a certain number of places, and some are reserved for minorities, then yes that’s discrimination. However it’s known as positive-discrimination for a reason. And it doesn’t mean that whites or men can’t apply and be accepted (unlike the situation where women simplycouldn’t go into combat ready roles)

    Suspects have a right to be searched by someone of the same gender.

    Prisons are gender selective

    Again, how are those examples discrimination? How does anyone lose out because of their gender??

    Government contracts are awarded with preferential treatment to WBE, DBE and MBE businesses.

    I don’t know what those acronyms stand for. But that would seem to be a standard, not discrimination. Does it result in exclusion based on race/gender etc?

    Minority only loans are available for housing, business enterprises,

    Again, this would be positive-discrimination. (So yes, it IS discrimination, you are right).

    Please quote the post in which I or any other conservative in this thread said anything about gay guys having sex with us on the battle field.

    It was an analogy. Some people like to pretend they aren’t arguing based on their personal feelings, and emotion.

    Well, we can look at 60 years of liberal policy aimed at welfare to minority citizens and see what that has done to their economic status.

    Or we can look at 60 years of liberal policy to improve education and see what that has done to improve our workforce.

    Only if you can demonstrate what would have happened in its absence. Otherwise you’re just employing a narrative.

    Or we can look at 60 years of liberal policy to improve the economy, and see what that has done to manufacture and industry.

    I think the stats show that the economy has done markedly better under Democratic Presidents. Yes, I realise that correlation doesn’t mean causation and there is far more to it than that.
    Manufacturing and industry were at their prime when tax rates were far higher (and income inequality was far far less).

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      
  72. balthazar says:

    ^^^^
    Troll is as troll does.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  73. CM says:

    I love irony.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  74. Fangbeer says:

    The topic of the discussion was that liberals don’t want to get rid of all discrimination, they only want to get rid of the discrimination that they don’t like. Your responses do not address the fact that the policies mentioned require discrimination as a basis for their function. You can’t dole out financial aid to minorities without being discriminatory, for example. Of course, the point you’re sidestepping is that the justification for the discrimination is that the discrimination supplies a rationalized benefit.

    Since it’s not bad discrimination it’s okay…

    It was an analogy. Some people like to pretend they aren’t arguing based on their personal feelings, and emotion.

    It was a strawman. The argument against woman in combat positions does not contain anything analogous to gay men having sex on the battlefield. My main point has always been that this allowance will result in policy decisions that will reduce our capabilities based on a desire to create female inclusive standards.

    I think the stats show that the economy has done markedly better under Democratic Presidents. Yes, I realise that correlation doesn’t mean causation and there is far more to it than that.

    The party affiliation of the sitting president has nothing to do with the policy, or its effectiveness. Take the head start program and its abysmal cost / benefit ratio as an example.

    Manufacturing and industry were at their prime when tax rates were far higher (and income inequality was far far less).

    Go ahead and explain in economic terms why you think this sentence makes any sense at all. You think that business is more effective when government takes more of its money away?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  75. balthazar says:

    I love irony.

    Since you are a stereotypical bigot, Ill just say, “I’m American, whats irony”

    Now gfy.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  76. balthazar says:

    Go ahead and explain in economic terms why you think this sentence makes any sense at all. You think that business is more effective when government takes more of its money away?

    Things like deductions, loopholes etc mean nothing to CM.

    Neither does the fact that the worst years for debts are when Dems are in charge of Congress, only to be superseded by when they have the Pres AND congress.

    But we cant fault him, he doesnt know how the budgetary process works in the US, just like Harry Reid.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  77. CM says:

    The topic of the discussion was that liberals don’t want to get rid of all discrimination, they only want to get rid of the discrimination that they don’t like. Your responses do not address the fact that the policies mentioned require discrimination as a basis for their function. You can’t dole out financial aid to minorities without being discriminatory, for example. Of course, the point you’re sidestepping is that the justification for the discrimination is that the discrimination supplies a rationalized benefit.

    I already pointed out that discrimination occurs in most jobs anyway. And yeah, in life in general. Targetting and standards are, by default, discriminatory.
    But not all discrimination is equal. I don’t see how your examples are the same as society deciding to be paternalistically sexist and decide that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles, as if they can’t be trusted to decide for themselves.

    Since it’s not bad discrimination it’s okay…

    As I say, it depends on how you define “discrimination”. What you mean by it. And how it works.

    It was a strawman. The argument against woman in combat positions does not contain anything analogous to gay men having sex on the battlefield.

    It does when it stems from feelings and emotion.

    My main point has always been that this allowance will result in policy decisions that will reduce our capabilities based on a desire to create female inclusive standards.

    Can you provide some examples? Why are you so sure that this will happen?

    The party affiliation of the sitting president has nothing to do with the policy, or its effectiveness. Take the head start program and its abysmal cost / benefit ratio as an example.

    Wouldn’t that be education rather than the economy? Anyway, as I say, you’re attempting to claim something as fact when you have no way of proving it because you can’t show what would have happened otherwise.

    Go ahead and explain in economic terms why you think this sentence makes any sense at all.

    Manufacturing and industry relies heavily on domestic demand. An economy operates better with less income inequality because people in the bottom 90% have more money to buy stuff. The alternative is debt-financed consumption that caused the bubble in the first place. It’s not a zero-sum game. Wealthy Americans would do better with smaller shares of a rapidly-growing economy than with the large shares they now possess of an economy that’s barely moving.

    You think that business is more effective when government takes more of its money away?

    No. But I think the economy is far healthier when there is less income inequality. I don’t understand how anyone thinks the economy will improve in a healthy and sustainable way if the lower 90% continue to take drops in real wages and the top 1% continue to increase their wages (The top 1 percent of earners’ real wages grew 8.2 percent from 2009 to 2011, yet the real annual wages of Americans in the bottom 90 percent have continued to decline in the recovery, eroding by 1.2 percent between 2009 and 2011). The only way the growth can occur is through unsustainable private debt. Which isn’t healthy at all.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      
  78. Fangbeer says:

    I already pointed out that discrimination occurs in most jobs anyway. And yeah, in life in general. Targetting and standards are, by default, discriminatory.
    But not all discrimination is equal. I don’t see how your examples are the same as society deciding to be paternalistically sexist and decide that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles, as if they can’t be trusted to decide for themselves.

    Ahh, the typical mental back flips and rationalizations used to avoid saying, “yeah, you’re right.”

    1. The “it happens anyway” argument is called two wrongs fallacy. You can’t point to something wrong and claim that your wrong is similar so it must be okay.

    2. Yes, standards are discriminatory. Liberals are all about regulations and regulations are discriminatory. That’s my point. Thank you for agreeing.

    3. Not all discrimination is equal, Yeah, the ones that liberals define as “good” get to remain and the ones defines as “bad” get turned into sledge hammers that liberals wield against bigoted conservatives. Again, this is my point. Do you not realize you agree with me?

    4. Yeah, you don’t see it because you’ve rationalized some different standard of good vs bad discrimination. Again, that’s my point.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

      
  79. Fangbeer says:

    Wouldn’t that be education rather than the economy?

    Ha. And this is why liberals get advanced degrees in ancient Egyptian theology and wonder why they can’t find a job. What do you think the education system is for?

    Anyway, I have a home to get to, and children to feed. More later.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  80. CM says:

    Ahh, the typical mental back flips and rationalizations used to avoid saying, “yeah, you’re right.”

    Well no, I don’t think what you’re saying is accurate. But we also need to define what we’re talking about.

    The topic of the discussion was that liberals don’t want to get rid of all discrimination, they only want to get rid of the discrimination that they don’t like.

    In this case it seems to be conservatives (who usually pride themselves on being against discrimination) deciding they want to hang on to the dicrimination that stops women serving in combat roles.
    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: everyone wants to get rid of the discrimination that they don’t like.

    1. The “it happens anyway” argument is called two wrongs fallacy. You can’t point to something wrong and claim that your wrong is similar so it must be okay.

    I don’t think that’s what I was doing. I was pointing out that, IMO, those examples are different to saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in combat roles because they are women.

    2. Yes, standards are discriminatory. Liberals are all about regulations and regulations are discriminatory. That’s my point. Thank you for agreeing.

    I think that’s far far too simplistic (if true in this case liberals should be FOR the regulation that says women can’t serve in combat roles). Some regulations are designed to stop discrimination.
    I don’t agree because you’re suggesting this a liberals thing. I’m not disagreeing that discrimination occurs everywhere. Clearly it does (if you want to have a very broad definition of discrimination that is).

    3. Not all discrimination is equal, Yeah, the ones that liberals define as “good” get to remain and the ones defines as “bad” get turned into sledge hammers that liberals wield against bigoted conservatives. Again, this is my point. Do you not realize you agree with me?

    I explained what I meant when I said it wasn’t equal.
    Not my fault that sometimes conservatives get called out on their prejudices.

    4. Yeah, you don’t see it because you’ve rationalized some different standard of good vs bad discrimination. Again, that’s my point.

    We all do, not just liberals. And that rationalisation can be reasonable and logical. Bringing it back to the topic at hand, I’ve yet to see a reasonable rationalisation for maintaining the ban. I’ve already said that I think the women should have to meet the standards required to do the job properly.
    In general I think the onus should on those seeking to continue to discriminate to prove their case.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  81. CM says:

    Ha. And this is why liberals get advanced degrees in ancient Egyptian theology and wonder why they can’t find a job. What do you think the education system is for?

    To ready kids for the world. I certainly don’t think it’s all about getting a job afterwards. And no, I don’t have any such degree. Mine got me a job right away (there were plenty at the time) and I’ve been gainfully employed ever since.
    I’m aware of what Head Start is, but little more than that. I wouldn’t be able to comment on it’s effectiveness or not. I’ll have a look though.

    Anyway, I have a home to get to, and children to feed. More later.

    Cool. I appreciate your posts. Thanks.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  82. Poosh says:

    No. It’s not. Liberals employ discriminatory practices in every facet of their policies. Liberals are the kings and queens of discrimination because they feel it’s required for social engineering.

    BLAM. Right there. Right there.
    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  83. CM says:

    Poosh’s entire piece is arguing FOR social engineering on morality grounds. Poosh, how is keeping women from serving alongside men in combat roles not social engineering?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

      
  84. Poosh says:

    Does CM get more stupid with time?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  85. CM says:

    What would you know about time? You’re still talking around me like a child.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  86. Poosh says:

    did someone just fart?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  87. CM says:

    For someone who likes to talk all tough (with your “this is a disgrace” footstomping) you’re one hell of a coward.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      
  88. Tool says:

    I was responded to an accusation of what I thought. Try actually reading what was written.

    Odd, I quoted what you wrote. Which was,

    Exactly. I don’t agree that it’s a boys-only club, and that it must be kept that way to work properly.

    You lack even rudimentary knowledge regarding the u.s. military, your points about fraternization make that abundantly clear. My statement was pointing out your glaring ignorance regarding the u.s. military as a whole.

    You should hear how much I hate Jews and Gypsys.

    Naturally, you don’t actually refute or apologize for saying “tough shit” if it means dead soldiers. Also Remarks like this, lack any humor at all and exemplify why most of this blog finds your discourse overly defensive and borderline insulting.

    Go ahead though, please ignore what i’ve written and formulate some defensive post telling me to “read it again,” “study it harder,” or “get it.” I am looking forward to it, because i know you won’t actually debate the substance of my post.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  89. Poosh says:

    Yeah CM, I don’t think anyone actually thinks it’s “cowardly” to ignore your stupidity and not get drawn into pointless circles of CM-Stupidity. Maybe a few new-visitors might fall for it but it’s pretty clear to those who have made the mistake of “debating” you. I think you know this, no? I mean, you know, I’m just gonna cut off here….

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  90. Tool says:

    This point has been made again and again but it doesn’t seem to register. Apparently we just hate the military (in addition to the rich, and businesses, and Jesus).

    No what doesn’t seem to register to you, is that standards for any recruit will be lower per the “gender neutral policy”. If women are going to be held to the current high standard, why would the army need to completely revamp its physical requirements for the infantry? The answer is obvious, women cannot be held to the male standard and thus, “gender neutral” lowers the standards for men and women. You seem to violently dispute this fact, but every single branch of the U.S. military has lower standards for females. Again if you had any knowledge at all about the U.S. military you would know this. The reason being that if females were held to male standards there would be very few female members of the military.

    Here

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/23/panetta-women-combat-pentagon/1859221/

    Directly from the above mentioned article i linked to

    Each service will be charged with developing policies to integrate women into every military job. For instance, the defense official said, it’s likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral.

    The army already has stringent physical standards for infantry soldiers. These new standards (which will need to be lower to accommodate women per policy) translate not only into weaker female soldiers but weaker male soldiers becoming infantry. If you want to delude yourself to believe otherwise, again go talk to an army infantry officer about the current set of physical standards. Ask that officer if the “gender neutral standards” will be just as high. Physical standards will be lowered, inferior recruits, both men and women will become infantry soldiers, and combat effectiveness will decrease.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  91. CM says:

    Odd, I quoted what you wrote.

    Yeah but you clearly didn’t understand it. I was responding to an incorrect assumption.

    Naturally, you don’t actually refute or apologize for saying “tough shit” if it means dead soldiers.

    Where did I say “tough shit”? What is your specific scenario that results in dead soliders here?

    Also Remarks like this, lack any humor at all and exemplify why most of this blog finds your discourse overly defensive and borderline insulting.

    That WAS humour (obviously). I use humour all the time.
    I don’t believe you speak for most of this blog.
    I’m less insulting than others (look at what balthazar and Poosh have said in this thread alone) who you have no problem with, so that’s clearly nonsense.

    Go ahead though, please ignore what i’ve written and formulate some defensive post telling me to “read it again,” “study it harder,” or “get it.” I am looking forward to it, because i know you won’t actually debate the substance of my post.

    The substance has been covered. You clearly misunderstood my boys-only club comment, and have now apparently hunkered down and seem intent on continuing to do so. No idea why you think that’s a good idea.

    Yeah CM, I don’t think anyone actually thinks it’s “cowardly”

    It is, unless you’re a child. It’s one or the other. You do that thing where you pretend to respond to someone else. Like a child.

    You seem to violently dispute this fact,

    Nonsense, I said women should have to meet the standards required for the tasks.

    Physical standards will be lowered, inferior recruits, both men and women will become infantry soldiers, and combat effectiveness will decrease.

    Where did I say that I would agree with that, or that it would be a good idea. I only said the opposite, from the start.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  92. CM says:

    One of the main areas of examination will be physical requirements.

    “Soldiers don’t want to see (that) degraded,” Cone said.

    Cone said each requirements for each position will be examined, such as information on how much infantry soldiers are required to lift and carry and for how long. Once that information is complete, Cone said scientists will develop physical tests to validate those requirements.

    He added that TRADOC is also examining armies in countries such as Iraq and Canada, where women already serve in combat roles.

    In comments made shortly after the change was announced, Dempsey echoed Cone’s statements about fairness and training.

    “Some fear that this decision will lower standards in our military. That is simply not the case. The services will carefully examine current standards to ensure we have them right, taking into consideration lessons learned from a decade of war and changes in equipment, tactics and technology. We will study each closed occupational field or unit to determine where women are able to serve,” he said.

    “Let me be clear: The standards will be gender-neutral — the same for men and women. The burden of proof used to be ‘why should a woman serve in a particular specialty?’” Dempsey added. “Now, it’s ‘why shouldn’t a woman serve in a particular specialty?’”

    http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/army_leaders_vow_gender-neutra.html

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  93. CM says:

    “The department’s goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most-capable people, regardless of gender,” Mr. Panetta said.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2013/0129/Why-combat-role-for-US-women-could-reverberate-worldwide

    That’s what conservatives/libertarians argue all the time. I don’t see why this should be any different.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  94. ilovecress says:

    The entire point of our/your military is, ultimately, is to PROTECT women and children. Throwing women into the fight from day one undermines this and is morally repulsive.

    Nope. The entire point of the military in the US is to defend the constitution. In the uk it’s to defend the queen (as in what she represents)

    If a man just shrugs at seeing women being killed in the same manner he grits through his friends being killed, I don’t want him by my side: he has loose wires in his head.

    Again, no. A lot of the way the military works is specifically designed to desensitise you, in order to make you a more effective part of your unit. In fact the people I want by my side are the people trained not to fall to pieces. Not to put the mission in jeopardy simply because a woman is there. In fact probably the only people you would want are those that are so highly trained, and so focused that the gender of a squadmate doesn’t affect their effectiveness. Highly trained soldiers. And liberals, apparently.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  95. CM says:

    Too late, he’s done his cowardly drive-by.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  96. AlexInCT says:

    So here’s the counter point to your argument tool – what if there is a soldier who could carry a 70 pound pack and a 20 pound gun and could break a guys neck after 48 hours straight awake. One who could have saved your friend or family member if they were there. But this person wasn’t there, because they had tits.

    Why are you bringing up mother-in-laws during such a serious conversation Cress? :)

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  97. AlexInCT says:
    There are tradeoffs. For that small fraction of elite killer women, you invite a great many negatives. This is the cost benefit analysis we should be doing. What does the military gain, and what is the cost?

    You honestly don’t think the military has consider it at all? They’re just that stupid?

    Actually, I am sure the military brought this up, repeatedly, only to have PC leftists smash them for daring to do so. Not doing what the fucking politicians that want to use the military as a social experimentation tool instead of what it is for is career ending, and unfortunately anyone in the chain of command that points that or some of the other idiotic things the leftards want out, pays for it. Ask Gen. Mathis.

    The military, and especially the US military is not an organization that is supposed to reflect society at large, be fair to everyone, be PC, or be used as a bludgeon to force changes in perception and attitude of the population at large. The people that use the military for their socio-engineering crusades should at least have the decency to admit that what they are doing will degrade capability, readiness, and effectiveness, cost more lives, and in general pussify a force that is supposed to be hardcore. Instead they pretend they are doing t to better the military and end the boys club.

    It is a fucking insult to the people that are hurt or killed, and to their loved ones that are forced to deal with the consequences, when the PC policies and idiotic ROEs put more of our military personnel’s lives at risk. But as I already pointed out: do not let the leftists fool you. They actually like the consequences of the crap they force on the military, even if they only will admit it when they think they can get away with it. Its not coincidental that they call the military a boys club or say they believe anyone that joins up is a fucking moron because smart people wouldn’t join a baby killing evil organization, anyway.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  98. Poosh says:

    CM, for the 100th time, because you’re not the brightest light on the Christmas tree, I’m not engaging you. Like many. Because it’s pointless. You have no ability to read what people write and it’s a waste of my time and everybody else’s. And you writing “he’s being a coward” isn’t not going to fool many, especially the people who have endured your nonsense.

    Nope. The entire point of the military in the US is to defend the constitution. In the uk it’s to defend the queen (as in what she represents)

    No, that’s the State’s claim. And that might be be the legal term or what is codified in this or that. Soldiers do not fight to defend a constitution or a monarch (these days). What matters is why the soldiers fight, not what the State says is the reason. In advanced modern western countries, soldiers (and indeed women) fight to protect their PEOPLE. A constitution or monarch (both arbitrary) is irrelevant if it does not serve the purposes of the PEOPLE i.e human beings and what makes them a human being. A US soldier is told the military is there to defend the constitution: irrelevant – what if the Founding Fathers were Muslim and the constitution was Sharia Law? US soldiers, for example, only “defend the constitution” in that it SUITS THEIR PURPOSES. If the constitution does not fulfill that criteria then it is wholly irrelevant – and even if it does fulfill it, the constitution is not the primary cause or driving force of why soldiers fight.

    Why do soldiers fight, in an advanced western country? To protect and safe guard THE PEOPLE. Everything stems from that instinct. All claims to liberty stem from that instinct. The monarch or constitution, despite what might be on the books, are not relevant to why soldiers fight – unless they are related to helping protect the people, in which case the constitution/monarch cannot be the purpose of the military, can it? As that comes after the initial demand.

    Just because the purpose of government is to serve the people as codified in your constitution (et al), does not mean the government actually serve the people, does it? So when soldiers “serve their country” or “protect their constitution” they are really defending their people. And, as is my contention, the protection of women and children is a ‘moral’ intuition that has been cultivated by the species. So when men instinctively want to protect women, they do so because they are wired that way, and because it has been appropriate to the species. Culture can subvert or bury this instinct (not to assume all men have this instinct, it is genetic after all), so, for example, you get Imperial Japan in WW2 committing the most horrific rejections of this ‘instinctual morality’ because Japanese culture subverted and re-mouldered the wiring, so to speak: unnaturally. Whereas the drive to protect women and children is entirely inherited and passed on genetically, like a fear of the dark, and serves an evolutionary purpose which likewise can be rationally formulated (I’ll assume you can, using your own reason, work out why women and children are more important than men, for a species whose only objective purpose, it seems, is to replicate).

    A western military, in modern times when we have expunged the most offensive and inhuman social constructs, protects the people – it doesn’t matter what your Constitution says or what the Monarch declares. It’s the purpose and ultimate logic behind why a human-being does these things. So no. A military, as a formality, might be there to “protect the constitution” but that’s not really what is going on at all. Any personal loyalty a soldier might have, outside culture manipulation, to the American Constitution, would be only BECAUSE the American Constitution fulfills what he sees as the purpose of the military: to protect his people, and even ultimately, to protect human life.

    In other words …. did America troops personally die invading Normandy to protect the US Constitution? .. don’t think so. It is indeed true that a military is there to enforce the polices etc. of the state. But that is not the same as why modern western soldiers offer their lives for their countries. The don’t die because they believe in the divine magical right of a Constitution or Monarch. They offer them because they believe the State will protect and serve their interests, and is not survival the absolute primary interest all humans have? Is there anything else that is tangible and not a construct of your mind or culture? Immediate survival and then survival as a breed/species: taking away any cultural or metaphysical/moral creations.

    So on paper, yes, the Military’s “purpose” is to enforce the will of the State (constitution or monarch, it matters not). But that does not reflect nor correlate to the purpose of actual soldiers and what they consider their true function to be (in modern times, for the west). It is not a question of formalised (codified?) purpose but living function. For soldiers in modern times, in the west, within our free societies, whatever western nation – that they might protect a constitution or monarch is merely the consequence of what they believe their function to be.

    What I said note:

    The entire point of our/your military is, ultimately, is to PROTECT women and children.

    The purpose of the military is not ULTIMATELY to carry out the state’s will by decree.

    Premise 1: the ultimate purpose of a military is to protect the people (note: the purpose of what we consider a legitimate constitution or monarch also serves the people).

    Premise 2: the essential and basic necessity of protection before all other considerations, must be to allow the people to initially survive and then to reproduce

    Premise 3: The notion of survival without any strong emphasis on reproducing, is nonsensical. A people cannot survive in any meaningful way if they do not replicate themselves.

    Premise 4: In terms of replication, survival, women and children are of greater relevance, and men are secondary due to the requirements of keeping a population maintained and expanded. Men are expendable.

    Therefore: It is irrational and against the purpose of the military, in times of reasonable security, to allow women to die on the battlefield, when there are plenty of men to die in their stead.

    And if this is a moral argument (which would be one based in reality and the objective analysis of what humans actually are and do and have done for millions of years) then it does not matter if 1 woman is at risk or a million. The moral principle is violated all the same.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  99. Poosh says:

    Again, no. A lot of the way the military works is specifically designed to desensitise you, in order to make you a more effective part of your unit. In fact the people I want by my side are the people trained not to fall to pieces.

    This is entirely wrong though I can understand why it seems correct at a first glance. It is entirely fantasy. “So again no”.

    What you seem to be saying is you want soldiers to be emotionless killing machines? That’s the implication (as a liberal that might well be want you think soldiers are, come to think of it).

    The military desensitises you to the extent that you can function in the moment, on the battlefield, and that you function at the critical moment. It is NOT to turn you into some cruel, mindless, psychopath. Which is what someone who isn’t affected by death is. It prepares you and helps you to endure it, so you can get the job done, You have to be unaffected by horror in the moment, and you have to be mentally prepared for prolonged periods of time enduring this. That is different from changing someone to become unaffected by the horror, which is entirely what you have written I have to say.

    Soldiers, plenty of them, never get back from wars the same person. They are changed forever, and traumatised by what they see and the deaths they have witnesses: even having to kill enemy soldiers. That is entirely HUMAN and RIGHT. Having to do horrible things, seeing horrible things done SHOULD affect you. The desensitisation of soldiers to such things does not mean they are not affected or traumatised by seeing their brothers killed. Having to hear your friend being shot to death over the radio, screaming, IS GOING TO FUCK YOU UP. No way around it. The training comes in to help you deal with it, absorb it, get on with things, keep your mind on the mission.

    Soldiers are not mindless battle droids. They fucking cry and break down for a few hours when it hits them that their mate is gone forever. It’s human. We dont’ want soldiers who are psychotic soldiers unaffected by bloodshed: we want them to be HUMANS who can deal with the horror enough to get the mission done. We want them to grit through it BECAUSE IT’S HARD. And I’m sure one can find the statistics showing how many soldiers return from duty in desperate need of mental help and counseling: they got the job done, they didn’t fall apart, the desensitisation worked.

    Do you ACTUALLY want real desensitised soldiers, as you seem to think soldiers as being, around? I’ll throw Abu-Ghraib out there, for you. Probably a clear reference point for you.

    Being affected by war and death does not mean you put your comrades lives in jeopardy or mean you’re falling to pieces: it makes you human. You don’t want someone who is not affected war. You want someone who you know still has his moral compass.

    So when you see a brother shot dead next to you, in the moment, you get on with it, you’ve prepared for it and been trained for it. But it still gets to you. How could it not? When you lose your friends moral is ALWAYS affected, because our fellow soldiers are not beans on a counter, every loss is felt: western soldiers aren’t cannon-fodder for Allah or Historical Materialism. Now throw women in the mix and you’re tripling the horror and probably tripling the need for even more desensitisation. Real men cannot abide the thought of women suffering, and to ask them to endure and have to be “desensitised ” even more to things even more horrific then whatthey have to endure already, ALL so you can get off on your liberal jollys and say “wooo, equality! No to sexism! Look at me, i’m a feminist! Progressivism! Yay! Wonkette blog!” is entirely inappropriate.
    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  100. ilovecress says:

    In advanced modern western countries, soldiers (and indeed women) fight to protect their PEOPLE. A constitution or monarch (both arbitrary) is irrelevant if it does not serve the purposes of the PEOPLE i.e human beings and what makes them a human being.

    Again, someone who has served in the US back me up – the Oath is to the constitution. And to those people who served, did you view your oath as a technicality? Did you make the oath in front of God because it suited your purposes? Or did you, like me, did you take your oath really fucking seriously?

    Put it this way, if the people rose up and tried to overthrow the Government (cough Arab Spring,) which side do you think the Military would be on? The side of the State, or the side of the Government.

    I’ll give you a hint – it’s the reason for the second amendment.

    This is entirely wrong though I can understand why it seems correct at a first glance. It is entirely fantasy.

    What you seem to be saying is you want soldiers to be emotionless killing machines? That’s the implication (as a liberal that might well be want you think soldiers are, come to think of it).

    Listen, I know its fun to panic about Liberal agendas and all, but seriously – who is being the softy emotional one here. Your whole premise here is that women getting killed on the battlefield will upset our boys. As if women aren’t already getting killed on the battlefield. My point is that the soldiers will deal with it, the way they’ve always dealt with it. At least that’s what the brass are saying.

    Do you ACTUALLY want real desensitised soldiers, as you seem to think soldiers as being, around? I’ll throw Abu-Ghraib out there, for you. Probably a clear reference point for you.

    Yep, I actually do. And without going into Abu Ghraib – this is the exact reason that I don’t subscribe to the bad apple theory. Soldiers are conditioned to be able to do some fucked up things when they need to – and are bound by rules to make sure that all conduct is ‘becoming’.

    Seriously, which one of us is the pinko liberal Poosh? I’m talking about the strength of military discipline and defending the second amendment – and your argument is that we’ll make soldiers sad.

    Fang makes some great points, and I’m not actually a huge fan of this move. But I’m even less a fan of drive-by opportunist bullshit.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  101. ilovecress says:

    **The side of the State, or the side of the PEOPLE.**

    damn you edit function.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  102. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Put it this way, if the people rose up and tried to overthrow the Government (cough Arab Spring,) which side do you think the Military would be on? The side of the State, or the side of the Government.

    This is the oath of all enlisted members in the US military service:
    Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
    “I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    And the there’s this:
    Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization[1] that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) disobey any orders that they are given if they believe they violate the Constitution of the United States.[2]

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  103. Poosh says:

    Seriously, which one of us is the pinko liberal Poosh? I’m talking about the strength of military discipline and defending the second amendment – and your argument is that we’ll make soldiers sad.

    I’m really not interested if you’re going to belittle the mental health and trauma soldiers are subject to, as “feeling sad”.

    Yep, I actually do. And without going into Abu Ghraib – this is the exact reason that I don’t subscribe to the bad apple theory. Soldiers are conditioned to be able to do some fucked up things when they need to – and are bound by rules to make sure that all conduct is ‘becoming’.

    So I think we’ve established that you think the American military essentially turn soldiers into monsters, and that they somehow “need” to be. This is just nonsense.

    Again, someone who has served in the US back me up – the Oath is to the constitution.

    I honestly have no idea why you said this. Perhaps you should reread what I read. Again, IF one takes a constitution seriously, WHY would one do that?

    And to those people who served, did you view your oath as a technicality? Did you make the oath in front of God because it suited your purposes?

    AGAIN. Is this a joke? Are you CM-ing? You are making a lot of weird strawmen so I’m just gonna leave it.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  104. ilovecress says:

    So I think we’ve established that you think the American military essentially turn soldiers into monsters, and that they somehow “need” to be. This is just nonsense.

    Not just American and monsters is the wrong word. But, yes, military people spend a huge amount of time and energy honing themselves not just physically, but mentally to be able to be as effective as possible. Do you think that the most highly effective military in the world doesn’t do any work to prepare their soldiers to deal more effectively with the horrors of war?

    Check out Grossman’s : ‘On Killing’

    But yes, I think we can all agree that post service care is something that no nation does really very well.

    I honestly have no idea why you said this. Perhaps you should reread what I read. Again, IF one takes a constitution seriously, WHY would one do that?

    Not sure what this sentence even means.

    You said “What matters is why the soldiers fight, not what the State says is the reason.” and I am saying that is entirely wrong. The point of the oath is that you pledge your service to The Queen/The Constitution – specifically forsaking whatever their own personal moral code may be.

    A platoon or squadron of individual soldiers, each with their own decisions won’t work. I know this because it’s part of the psych evaluations for Cranwell. I imagine there’s similar things in other militaries around the world.

    You said “soldiers (and indeed women) fight to protect their PEOPLE.” and I’m saying that isn’t right either. Because – if the threat is domestic, then what? ‘Their people’ are on both sides.

    The oath is very specific and it is very specific for a reason.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  105. CM says:

    Cress, your argument makes MUCH more sense. Prepare to be ignored from now on (and for him to pretend it’s about something else). Poosh, your ‘argument’ reminds me of Sanger’s paternalisitic racism. “We’re doing this for your own good”. Only Sanger had the benefit of being a product of her time. Not sure what your excuse is.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      

Comments have been disabled.