So You Want To Be Equal- Amanda Green

So you want to be equal? – Amanda Green

Not that long ago, Ashton Carter, Secretary of Defense, made the decision that all jobs in the military should be open to both sexes. There would be no exceptions. In order to make job titles more inclusive, they would no longer be sexist in their names. In other words, you would no longer be a rifleman, for example. We were going to enter an age of a more something military – I’m not sure what really, but by golly, we were going there.

Don’t get me wrong. I firmly believe there are roles in the military that have been exclusively male that should be open to both sexes. However, I am also sure there are some that should not, at least not if it means the qualifications for that job have to be lowered just to let women take part. Let’s face it, there are differences – mentally and physically – between men and women and that has to be taken into account.

When you start changing the names of jobs and job descriptions simply because said name isn’t “inclusive”, that’s when you are bending over too far. If someone applying for the job of carrying a rifle into battle is upset because they will be called a rifleman instead of a riflewoman or rifleperson, well, they need to toughen up. This is the military you’re in, not some posh social club. There are edges to it that shouldn’t be softened, edges that will help keep you on your toes and will toughen you up for battle.

Yes, battle. As a military mother, my daily prayer is that my son never has to go into battle but I also accept that it is a very real possibility. More that than, I am proud that he made the decision to step up and take up arms to protect this country I love so much. I am even more proud of the fact he is considering making the military his career.

However, I also remember the discussion we had when it came time for him to register for a draft we don’t have but that might one day be resumed. Like so many of his generation, he had never seen anyone be drafted. He knew it had existed but he had never had to sit through the fear and excitement of waiting to find out if his number would be called. I remember the brothers of friends, as well as my male cousins, had made that wait years ago. I remember so many young men leaving the country, a country they supposedly loved, in order to avoid the draft. Some did so by fleeing to Canada. Others “went to school” overseas. But that isn’t the real point of this post, although it is a good place to start.

The feminists won a battle when SecDef ordered all jobs in the military to be open to everyone, no matter what their sex. Again, my biggest issue with this is that I don’t think we should lower the qualifications for any of the job simply to make sure women are included. If history has proven that a solider needs to be able to haul so many pounds of gear, than he – or she – should be able to do so, no matter who they are, what they are or what they believe. That requirement will help keep not only that particular soldier or Marine alive but also their squad mates. Unless and until technology changes so that the historic requirements are no longer valid, we need to stick to them. We might not be “at war” now but we are still putting boots on the ground in hostile territory. I guran-damn-tee you the day will come when it will be more than a few thousand boots. We will “go to war” down the road and shouldn’t we put the most qualified person in each position?

However, that is down the road. The here and now is what we need to look at. If SecDef is going to open all jobs to both sexes, that’s his decision. However, if you want to be completely fair, there is another step that needs to be taken. One I have yet to hear any avowed feminist demanding.

Women need to be required to register for the draft just as men are.

Let me say that again, if women want to be considered the equal to men in the military, they need to be required to register for the draft just as men are.

As I said, I haven’t heard the hue and cry for this to happen. Certainly not like I’ve heard the calls for the requirements to be a SEAL or Ranger to be dropped so women could graduate from those training classes. I haven’t heard it with any of the fervor I’ve heard the feminists applaud Carter’s decision to start renaming jobs to take the “man” out of the title or descriptions.

And that is part of my problem with those who keep telling us they want only equality between the sexes. They want to be able to get the same job as a male counter-part without having to actually meet the same requirements (not all the time but for the purposes of the military, in many situations). They want to be treated as equals but not. How many of those who have applauded Carter’s actions would do so if he signed off on our teen girls having to register like our teen boys do?

Or would this be a situation of being equal only on the feminists’ terms – we’ll be equal if we made the independent decision to enlist but we don’t want to be forced to join the military should a draft ever be reinstituted.

They want to talk the talk but not walk the walk, not completely. And that, my friends, pisses me off.

Yes, I am female and proud of it. Yes, I believe I should get the same pay for doing the same job a man with similar education and qualifications gets. But note the qualifiers there. We should have similar education and work backgrounds and be doing basically the same job to get the same pay. I should not expect to make as much as someone, male or female, who has more education that is applicable to the job and who has worked in that job or one similar for longer than I have. I especially should not expect it if he is doing a better job than I am.

I believe I should have the same opportunity to try for a job I’m qualified for as any man with the same or similar – or better – qualifications. I should be judged on my ability to do that job and not be given an extra point simply because of my gender. Why should an employer be forced to hire a less qualified employee simply because of that person’s gender?

I am more than glad that women have been making inroads in the military. But it bothers me to no end that our elite units are lowering their standards simply to make sure women can join them. Again, if tech has increased to off-set those lower standards without putting the other members of the unit in danger while out on a mission, that’s fine. But I haven’t seen anything that shows that.

Were I young enough to be considered for military service today, I would be out there asking why I wasn’t being allowed to register for the draft like my male counterparts. No, I’m not a Feminist but I am a feminist. If the boys I went to school with have to register for the draft, so should I. I love my country as much, and more in some instances, than they do. I am willing to do whatever is necessary to protect this country for its enemies. That means I should also be willing to step up and watch as my number is pulled in the draft as they would should the draft be reintituted.

Again, where are the calls for the registration to be extended to women? Oh, I know where it is, it is here, with those who know what the military is like. It isn’t with those who are patting themselves on the back for all the rest of it.

So here’s my response to you. Put your life and the lives of your daughters and sisters and nieces where your mouth is. Put it where the lives of your sons and brothers and nephews are. Stand up and demand of the SecDef, demand of their Representatives and Senators, demand of the presidential candidates that draft registration become “equal” and require males and females to step up and sign up and do their duty to this country of ours.

413 thoughts on “So You Want To Be Equal- Amanda Green

  1. It too am a feminist rather than a Feminist. I too believe that standards should be based on job requirements. I too believe the draft should be for both sexes. But I went one step further – I enlisted. Over ten years and counting in the USAR/INNG. You can believe that most military females weren’t consulted on the standards.

    1. Yep. Did twenty years in an AFSC where women could do the job in every way the same as a guy.

      My daughter did eight years as a Marine – and in a couple of rather ugly war zones. The Marines prepared her very much more thoroughly for a place where war was inclined to take an interest in her, much more than the Air Force ever prepared me. My job was so much more “in the rear with the gear” that I went about six years into it before I was ever required to learn how to qualify with a weapon.

      But one of her infantry refresher courses resulted in her getting a VA disability pension. Likely a male in the same training situation wouldn’t have suffered the same physical damage that my daughter suffered.

      Yeah – I’m a small-f feminist. Give women the same opportunities for the same education, the same employment opportunities, and meeting the same standards, getting the same pay for the same work and the same hours … I’m all there.

      Special treatment and slackening of the standards so that women can qualify without breaking a sweat or a fingernail? Oh, hell no.

    2. My daughter, Captain Jennifer Pournelle, now Dr, Jennifer Pournelle, author and theorist in origin of civilization and other such arcane matters, is perfectly aware that there are many military tasks for which men were more qualified; that did not mean that she should not be able to command them because of her sex.

      I found and find that a perfectly reasonable view.

      1. Except that the men in such units don’t respect officers who can’t even pretend to be able to do their jobs. These officers can’t viscerally understand the needs of the people under their command, and therefore gain little if any teust and respect. To the great detriment of the morale and functioning of the unit.

        This is not theoretical, but something seen, experienced, and proven, over and over. Troops can respect a broken down old warhorse as a leader, but not a useless college grad who can’t do the job, never has, never will.

        There are rare exceptions, of course, but rare exceptions are not a sound basis for military policy, no matter how much they may be treasured.

  2. People said woman being drafted was where things were heading way back when–and I honestly can’t say how far back. People poo-pooed the idea, just like they dismissed the idea that if the Equal Rights Amendment was passed men and women would be using the same bathrooms. We didn’t see the whole homosexual rights thing coming which is bringing that about.

    1. I was in the Army, in a combat service support unit, which back then made us eligible for female personnel, which we had. Several of my superiors (section sergeant, XO) were female and they were good to very good. We had some drama in the ranks, and some baby mamas too. This caused people to be rotated around from outside to work to inside work–one of the mechanics was the tool room clerk while she was pregnant, for example.

      On the other hand, we weren’t infantry. I couldn’t speak to that as my early thirty something man self would have had a rough time keeping up with an infantry company (I was in a support job). (Ask John Ringo or the Donovan.) The Marine Corps study that was done seems to be a strong indication that problems will result. (And high marks to the Marines for standing up to the pc crowd by trying to introduce some facts to the argument.) I was not very surprised either when that study was over ruled and ignored in order to make female integration policy.

      Fortunately, most women don’t want to be in the infantry or the artillery or armor because they are direct combat jobs with high physical demands and in the dirty, nasty outside.

      And kudos to the generals who pointed out the logical conclusions of the equality arguments by saying that women should register for the draft–not because I want my daughters to be drafted, but (to my hoping) it could give those individuals pushing this agenda pause to think about what they are doing.

      1. Fortunately, most women don’t want to be in the infantry or the artillery or armor because they are direct combat jobs with high physical demands and in the dirty, nasty outside.

        You are too kind with that fortunately. Feminists want the glory and honor that comes with combat jobs (which shows foolishness in and of itself IMHO) but they don’t want actual common combat jobs to do that. Sure, they want to be SEAL and Rangers but not on a mortar team or driving a regular tank. Those are just nasty, dirty, sweaty jobs that can get you killed and never get you on the network news.

        I’m waiting for women on fast attack submarines. Women on a 688 are going to cause no end of trouble (can’t speak to Seawolfs or Virginias because I don’t know their berthing arrangements). When 21 man converts to “women’s country” you’re going to have senior 3rd class and 2nd class PO men hot racking while some female seaman recruit has her own rack. That will not end well.

        1. Seawolf’s are just as bad WRT berthing arrangements. Frankly, they’re already having problems with women on the Ohio’s. Not too long ago there was a bunch of sailors who got in trouble because one of them filmed a female LT in the head and shared the video around. There needs to be a briefing for anyone who volunteers for subs that lets them know that they will be seen naked by pretty much everyone in the crew, and if they have a problem with that to enjoy the surface fleet.

            1. I was a surface sailor, I just work on them now. In fact I’m working on the SSN-21 at this moment.

              1. Ah…still in or working for one of the shipyards.

                Looking around it looks like the women are all going to Virginias which may have been designed with smalling berthing for that reason (similar to the Ohio’s staterooms) and it looks like it is officers only making it a tad easier.

                1. I work for the shipyard. I like getting paid for the extra hours I work. Word is that they’re going to be opening subs up to female enlisted soon, but I think that might depend on who wins in November.

          1. I think there’s a major difference between being seen naked by a fellow crew member as a consequence of necessary living conditions, and being furtively filmed, and “sharing the video around”. The crew who filmed the women – each and every time they showered – had lookouts, and the filming was done with electronics that are banned on the submarines. It wasn’t an accidentally glimpse, it was planned and organized voyeurism and invasion of privacy on fellow crew members, and went on until a submariner from another ship reported what he’d heard. I’ve been told submarine crews are some of the tightest communities in the military. The incidents on the Wyoming shamed that community.

        2. Women in the Navy cause problems because of the fact that they aren’t (and can’t) be treated equally. Unfortunately, since I wrote about this a few years ago, the links to the Navy Times have gone bad.

          The first link had, as I recall, numbers related to how women (often due to pregnancy) were filling shore billets, causing men to have multiple back-to-back sea duty assignment, never being able to spend significant time with their families, and not being able to punch some of the tickets they needed for advancement.

          Anecdotally, when I was stationed on Antigua in the late 1970s, one of our female ensigns received transfer orders to Adak (toward the western end of the Aleutians, and not, at the time, considered a desirable duty station). She got herself pregnant in order to avoid having to go there. I know that, because she admitted it to one of the other female ensigns, who let me know – I was their department head. I used to wonder who got an emergency transfer to fill that billet.

        3. I think the solution there is to have subs with all female crews.

          Most dangerous ship in the ocean when their cycles sync up. /omgsexist joke.

          1. Did you hear the joke that came out in the 1st Gulf War (1990) Women are great fighters: They love to fight and can hold water for 3 days.

          2. I’ve always thought polygamy was its own punishment because. And if you think it’s a joke, you know what, when my friends and I were younger we sync-ed over the COMPUTER (I don’t know what signs we were getting, but I swear) and it led to a very interesting week when Amanda, Kate and I were all hitting it at the same time.

            1. I’d guess light/dark cycles.
              My mom never had the problem when she was in college, because everyone else in her dorm wasn’t working nights. I didn’t have a cycle, but “Same shift” would sync up when “same office” didn’t.

      2. I have two sons who joined the Marines, both infantrymen. The oldest spent 10 years in and got out last summer because of the PC crap, and the fact that his body was getting worn out by the demands of being a squad leader. He tried to get into an admin/support position but was turned down because there were already too many white males in those positions. #3 son is still in, but he is seriously considering getting out because they have been forced to lower the standards for infantrymen. He teaches at SOI right now and has told me there are Marines of both sexes who would not be able to hack the old standards getting passed through. Unless this is changed in the next two years, he’s out when his enlistment runs out, and he was planning on the Marines being a career.

        I’ve also heard from friends whose sons were in the Army and they have gotten out for the same reason.

        1. The remarkable thing is not the guys who can’t hack the standards getting in; it is that the military is being forced to do stupid peacetime things in time of war. Pretty much every US military unit has done stupid recruiting in peacetime, from quite early on.

          And of course feminism is doing women no favors by putting them in that position.

          1. You could also look at it as having the military doing desperate wartime things in a time of relative peace. When you’re in a struggle for survival and need anyone that can fight, that’s when you start throwing the standards out the window. Looking at the historical places with female combat troops and you see different, truly desperate situations; the two biggest I can think of are the IDF and the Red Army circa middle-World War II. The Israelis are in the midst of a prolonged guerrilla insurgency, and as such there are no front lines; they need as many capable guns as they can get. The Soviets had been bled, when you’re resorting to arming political prisoners, restless minorities you’d normally be in a civil war with and even some PoWs that say they hate their former side more than yours (which, given the Soviet treatment of PoWs, is actually saying a lot), you’re probably well past the point where a few female combat troops would have a noticeable degradation on combat effectiveness. Even then, you find most of the females as volunteer fighter pilots, tank crews (which required smaller personnel), and sharpshooters, not wholesale draftee infantry.

            1. Just put [women of the IDF] in your search engine.

              There are definitely jobs in the service that women ought be able to perform as well as men. Drone pilots, for example, or even (as RAH noted in ST, actual pilots where their (generally) smaller size and greater ability to handle g-forces ought give an advantage, see: Hannah Reitsch or the Nachthexen (Night Witches.)

              1. Pure hearsay on my part, but supposedly women make much better drone operators because of their attention to detail – the line I heard was ‘because they’re used to doing make up’ – the longer explanation being that because women are naturally attuned to things like body language, physical details, etc, they’re actually better at being able to distinguish on details in the pixels of the drone camera, and better able to ID targets positively.

                1. My understanding is that women who have solid mental skills in 3D visualization, learn well under pressure, and have an aggressive streak make good fighter pilots, but the same can be said of males. I haven’t heard much from the remote-operated community, other than for a while there they had a bunch of pilots (gender unreported) telling theUSAF that they hadn’t go through all that effort to get through teh pilot training pipeline so they could sit all day in a CONEX in the US desert SW.

                  The days when upper body strength was a particular characteristic required of pilots are past – a pilot candidate’s brain configuration is the main driver now, and while there may be particular advantages by gender (birth, not preferential or reassigned) in how the various bell curves shake out, the particular mental characteristics are the main thing.

                2. the line I heard was ‘because they’re used to doing make up’


                  Hey, untapped recruit pool: theatrical makeup artists!

                  1. Have you *seen* some of the glorious works of art that makeup artists turn out? This is definitely an untapped pool.

                    And think about how makeup artists can change the appearance of people really, really well. That’s a lot of attention to facial features and appearance.

        2. Does #3 have anything to do with the MCT side? I ask because it would be odd to think of my son being instructed by your son right this minute…

          1. He teaches machine gun at SOI to other infantrymen. It is amusing to note that he did teach a couple of new infantrymen last year who were on a 5th grade basketball team he coached his last year in high school…..

              1. I’m afraid that won’t work. First names are for friends, outside of that, everything’s on a last name basis.

                  1. The only thing that would change the progs’ minds would be an actual invasion of the continental US.

                    1. If their town was sacked in the old fashioned medieval way by say Jihadis. They would change their minds. I don’t think anything short of that would work. In a case of defeat like that we’d have bigger problems than stupid proglodytes.

                    2. One hopes it would for most.

                      There was the famous leftist judge who announced in the courtroom that although he had just been mugged in the last week, he would not change his lenient sentencing. Someone shouted, “Mug him again!”

                    3. And there are such cases as the Georgetown student who declared

                      “Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as ‘thugs?’” asks Friedfeld. “It’s precisely this kind of ‘otherization’ that fuels the problem.”

                      Apparently the occasional mugging is just part of the price he felt it necessary to pay for his privilege:

                      “… we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.”

                      Of course, being a GU senior, this may have simply been a case of virtue signalling to impress the sophomore gals.

                    4. I though the continental United States had been invaded… by progressives. I’ve observed especially large concentrations in the Northeast and along the oh-so-appropriately-named Left Coast.

                    5. @RES – That signals, loud and clear: “I am a limp-wristed coward who will push my date out in front of me and tell her that her being raped is one of the consequences of being a white privileged woman, and am thoroughly incapable of doing things like protect you or stand up for you, in case you are mugged or otherwise assaulted.”

                      A proper lady of the modern age should be able to handle herself with grace and a fantastic aim, but it’s STILL nice to know the fellow you’re with has your back. Reading that bit of virtue-signaling made my skin crawl, honestly.

                    6. People do tend to change their minds drastically when something like the Jihadis come through.

                      For certain values of “change,” anyway. “Dead” is a “state of mind” after all.

                    7. @Shadow – with my spouse, the only difference will be who happens to be in front at the time.

                      Well, except the complaints (probably for months) that I’m always a hog and leaving her nothing.

                    8. We were discussing the zombie apocalypse in studio the other day.

                      The resident Sanderista threatened to jump in my bunker in event of invasion, since she had no gun of her own. When told “Not happening,” she replied, “Well, I know where to get guns.”

                      She had no answer to the assertion that it was better to have guns on hand than to try raiding the local sporting goods store like the thousands of others who won’t bother to prepare ahead of time.

                      There is no changing of the mind when they might have to admit that a non-liberal was right.

                1. I’ll ask him – he was telling us on the phone call he managed to make last week that he’d just finished MG (and FYI said he had a blast!)

                  And, Luke, there are the names on the uniforms. Unlikely there is another “Wooten” instructor, much less a “T.” Although he may only remember how many rockers…

                  (Thinking, I should have asked too whether Tom is at Geiger or Pendleton. Mine is at Pendleton since we’re west of the river.)

                    1. All right, I’ll ask when he calls again. (It will undoubtedly freak him out, heh…)

                      I just realized that now there is not a single household in my little cul-de-sac that does not have at least one Active, Reserve, or Retired military member. We have every Service represented here except the Coast Guard.

                    2. In our little scout troop, we have had Eagles in EVERY branch of the military, including special forces.

        3. I’ve heard the same from friends in the Marines as well as the Army. I’m no more happy about it than they are. Whether the level of complaint is higher or there is more of a problem, the worst complaints came from my friends in the Army about the lowering of standards for everyone.

        4. Unfortunately the more good people like your sons get out, the less resistance there’ll be to these changes, and the weaker our armed forces will become. 😦

      3. “it could give those individuals pushing this agenda pause to think about what they are doing.”

        No it won’t because they know exactly what they are doing. They are pandering to their base and have no concern whatsoever for the saftey or combat effectiveness of soldiers. After all, the universe is a friendly place especially for them.

          1. In the words of John Effing Kerry, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

            Which pretty much tells you all you need to know about their concern for the troops.

  3. Let me say that again, if women want to be considered the equal to men in the military, they need to be required to register for the draft just as men are.

    Feminists don’t want equality. They want males to be second class citizens who exist merely to fulfill their desires of whatever form and once their desires are sated men can FOAD as far as they are concerned.

    1. Bingo. Modern feminism is no longer a movement in favor of equality. It has become a movement in favor of female supremacy. Which is just as abhorrent a philosophy as male supremacy, white supremacy, black supremacy, Latino supremacy, or any other “one group is better than others” movement.

  4. Women need to be required to register for the draft just as men are.

    I noticed yesterday in the new headlines that there is talk of doing just this.

  5. Consider Lt. Col Kate Germano, who was a trainer at 4th Recruit Training Battalion at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina. She treated female recruits like men and even improved their efficiency as marines, yet was reassigned because the females thought she was a very toxic person.

    I would love to see a more inclusive military, but as they say, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and lowering standards for women will hold our military back. If women want to serve in frontline positions, then they must be able to do so at the same level as men. Because the enemy won’t go easy on them.

    1. The enemy won’t go easy on them, and in fact, if they’re captured, well, they’re going to be gang raped. No amount of screaming about their rights will work on that ugly reality.

      And *sputters* ‘toxic person’? What. A woman who treats all her recruits equally isn’t toxic. It’s the one who does the OPPOSITE and plays them all against each other that is toxic.

      1. It’s the same problem I have with other agencies, such as FDNY lowering standards to get more females as firefighters. Will female firefighters now only have to deal with smaller fires just because they are women? Or perhaps only carry down children, and if an adult needs help and a man is not there, then that adult is as good as dead?

        Lowering the standards for inclusion is a bad idea, and the only ones who support this are those who wouldn’t be doing these professions anyways. There was a report of a female firefighter who passed the same requirements as a male who complained about the treatment women are now getting in training, and she has been denied promotions as a result.

        1. Quite honestly I am of the observation that the worst enemies to other women aren’t mean, but other, less capable, shriller, rabidly jealous and toxic women.

          And there are men who have picked up the same methods of passive-aggressive bullshit, whining, backstabbing and manipulativeness that those backstabby women generally use to hobble or outright destroy those they perceive as their competition.

          And note, it’s always those who are not capable, who look to receive accolades outside of their ability and who are not content with their lot and yet are unable to make use of their strengths properly, that constantly destroy the balances between men and women, between societal agreements, norms, standards, expectations – not to fight against any kind of unfair standard, but for their own benefit. These people cannot create, they can only destroy.

            1. I like that he cites the stats and percentages. I’m of the same opinion pretty much; that they should NOT lower the standards.

              I think, besides for the reasons that Popp cites for the ‘why do you want your fellow sisters to die’, the feminists want that there be ‘less competition’ for them in the partner sphere. I think – from the way they keep pushing that men should conform to THEIR preferences as opposed to the preferences of the men involved, that they have this idea that if the more desirable women are ‘gone’, men won’t have a choice but to ‘choose the ‘real’ women.

              After all, their tactics of screech, mob, and mass whine don’t have traction after a while, and really it wouldn’t work in a combat situation…

              …actually can we ship off these whingy mobs into Iraq please, with their mouths as their only weapons and none of the trained people around? It’s a win win. They get the ability to pit their bitching against full automatic fire and bypass all those ‘unnecessary and unfair’ training requirements.

              1. I don’t know . . . doesn’t Iraq have enough misery without mobs of screechers descending on the markets and harassing innocent (or at least not provably guilty yet) bystanders? OTOH, the reception they get from the Yazidi and Kurdish women might be entertaining, in a “feeding ornamental carp to sharks” sort of way.

                    1. Actually, goldfish are one of the many carp families, so you both get what you want. 😎

                    2. Well, I also learned an Aussie slang for being on one’s period: sharkbait. Considering how they sound like they’re constantly having the worst, hormonal psychotic break menstruation periods all the time, I think the image of them as being fed to sharks is entirely appropos, desu ne?

  6. As with most things demanded by Proglodytes, they haven’t fully though through the implications. They see the bright shiny and grasp for it.

    One area where they are not willing to express their love of country: have babies and raise them well. That is a job no man can do and that is essential to the nation’s survival. But it is one the Feminists shirk. That’s fine – I am against the Draft in that realm, too. But then, I am not one demanding that our fighting men endanger themselves so that women can be more “fulfilled.”

    1. “As with most things demanded by Proglodytes, they haven’t fully though through the implications. They see the bright shiny and grasp for it.”

      And here’s me looking at the gritty underbelly, talking about the elephant in the room: Recently Iran captured US sailors, humiliated, and released them. Given Islam’s stance on women in general, anyone want to place bets on whether *female* sailors would have been in generally okay shape when/if they were released? Iranian men got medals for capturing US men; perhaps they would have gotten something else for capturing women?

      Western nations (including those that have incorporated large portions of Western values) would treat male & female sailors fairly similarly, but non-Western nations, especially those who screech “death to America” and prattle on about the corruption of the West?

      If we got out of Vietnam and Iraq due to body bags on the nightly news, it make take the torture & rape of female service personnel to get women out of combat roles in the military.

      1. One of the sailors on the boats was female. She was forced to wear a headscarf while she was being held, but other than that I haven’t heard of any additional mistreatment.

        1. This was also a peactime event designed to humilate the US not part of a war to overcome us. That would be very different.

          1. That would be for very low values of “peacetime.”

            In 1979 Iran perpetrated an act of war on the U.S.; and the fact that we’ve never treated it like one is contributing to our current problems in the region.

            1. Unkuh Jimmuh chose to believe their story that it was “student protesters” and not a government action.

              The TRX Proposal was to give the Iranian government 48 hours to do whatever it took to get our people out and ready for pickup at some designated point, or we would erase some town off the map. For every day they dawdled, send the bombers over again. And for every person they failed to deliver, turn ten cities into craters.

              Some people, you can’t just show them the stick. You have to hit them with it to make them believe you’ll use it.

              Instead, we paid ransom. And *that* has come back many times to bite us in the ass…

          2. True, but thinking that raping our female service members would humiliate us would be a gross, nay fatal, error.

            1. “a gross, nay fatal, error”

              Maybe. I don’t think the modern US is quite as indolent/patient/whatevs as various modern European states, but I still find it significant that various reactions to outrages in Europe have been less explosive than I would have expected. And in my lifetime the US reaction to some outrages against POWs and embassies and electronic intelligence ships hasn’t been all that explosive either.

              That said, a common pattern in history is that eventually outrages add up to such an expensive explosion that the mean average cost of each outrage, with the average running over all the outrages including the earlier ones that didn’t set off the explosion, is very high. So even if didn’t turn out to be individually a fatal error, it could be a gross error that contributes significantly to a later fatal outcome.

              One of my favorite history books is Macaulay’s History Of England (available on Project Gutenberg), which is among other things a lovingly crafted catalogue of royal misbehavior backed by misjudgment (as reported by someone who loathes the royal(s) in question) which ultimately set off the “Glorious Revolution”. It’s a long, long catalogue, and it doesn’t look much like a revolution until near the end, and even at the end some hard-to-foresee foreign events probably made a big contribution. And it’s not just a story of pressure building up, it’s full of interesting bits about how pliable people and factions sometimes were, and how weird and unpredictable people’s reactions sometimes were. (E.g., the immediate cause of a bloody political witchhunt spiraling out of control may be small compared to the unpredictably large size of the effect.)

                1. Top German Journalist Admits Live On Air National News Agenda Set By Government
                  National public service broadcaster Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF), which was recently forced into a humiliating apology for their silence on migrant violence and sex assault is being drawn into a fresh scandal after one of their former bureau chiefs admitted the company takes orders from the government on what it reports. He said journalists received instructions to write news that would be “to Ms. Merkel’s liking”.

                2. “anybody paying attention knows that our own government extensively manages the news”

                  I agree, I just don’t think that’s necessarily a stabilizing factor. In the very short term, of course it can an important stabilizing factor. But in the longer run, the process of liquidating the credibility of the old standardized licensed easy-to-control news and of government official statements can also add fuel to the fire. You can continue to tell your subjects “things are going well” but increasingly it is interpreted literally as “things might or might not be going well” plus the important subtexts “they are such weasels, who knows” and/or “they hold us in such contempt, who knows” and/or “their revealed agenda is so bizarre, who knows” and/or “they are so incompetent and out of touch, who knows”. And then once you’ve burned through those stocks of trust and goodwill, you’d better keep your spare sources of stability fully topped up 24/7/365 or it could be a very interesting day.

              1. I would be careful about drawing any conclusions from the reaction of Europe. We’ve already seen roving gangs assaulting migrants. I expect that the next round of elections is going to discomfit all the “right thinking” people.

        2. If she was abused, and anybody hears about it, her career is over– and her life is ruined beyond even the normal damage of that kind of assault.

            1. Because it would harm the narrative that women belong in front line combat units just as much as men.

              You know quite well how willing the progs are to destroy people to protect the narrative. Ask Gayla Zigo.

            2. I don’t know.

              I just know that if they say something won’t happen, and you have the bad luck to be someone that it DID happen to, then it’s your fault and you must be destroyed.

              Look at Clinton’s notorious long list of victims. Or how they treat black/female/homosexual conservatives.

              I know you’ve gotten it, by being friends with guys (or, since you’re “Hispanic,” now, whatever WASP stand-in they’re against right now) when that “isn’t possible.”

              It is stupid. Depresses me; I know that they can’t be going “I am going to believe this stupid thing,” so they must have a reason… but I can’t get it.

            3. I can see where she’s coming from, and frankly, given

              how the feminists reacted and a number of them went straight into victim blaming AND telling other women how to behave more like shroud-wearing Muslim women, it’s no surprise to me how the left’s own women would shriek and destroy any woman who didn’t dare submit to the rapes and just use it as their personal badge of victimhood to use against men in general, but not actually mention the details of which men raped them.

        3. I haven’t heard of any additional mistreatment.

          We wouldn’t, would we, given the current administration and MSM. They would be confident that “we, the people” would overreact and demand actions that they were not interested in taking were not in anybody’s interest “in the big picture.”

          Thankfully, they were held briefly enough that it is likely no “extra” humiliations were inflicted. Betcha she got groped up pretty good, however. I wonder whether their returning medical exams include reporting of bruises.

          1. CDR Salamander is well enough known that word would probably get to him quickly. He’s already gotten anonymous reports of all kinds of uncomfortable facts.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if this event was a collusion between Iran and the administration to help sell the Iran deal, a way of telling the American people how swell those Iranians are and we should just ignore the “death to America” propaganda they have to spew to keep their people happy. Abusing the sailors would be counterproductive to the administration’s aims and useless to the Iranian’s.

          2. “Thankfully, they were held briefly enough that it is likely no “extra” humiliations were inflicted. ”

            1. Did her presence contribute to the lack of resistance before boarding?

            2. Did her presence contribute to the commander deciding that he had better give a propaganda apology PDQ before she was shown some real Islamic hospitality?

            1. No, I think they were ordered to surrender and that betrayal led to the commander giving the “apology.”

          3. Can you say “Jessica Lynch”? Took years before the story of what happened to her trickled out. And to this day AFAK it has NEVER shown up in any major (DNC arm) media.

    2. It is amazing how the one job that only women can do, they denigrate. (I am a breeder; ask me how I know!)

      It’s almost like they actually hate women, and want to make women into men– and because women can’t be men, they’ll destroy men so the pseudo-men can be the best.

        1. I think today’s feminist leaders and their predecessors were miserable people and projected their problems onto the rest of the country.

      1. Good heavens, they declare that a certain surgery was a human right because it was essential to women’s equality. Imagine someone defending hair straightener and skin brightener as essential to racial equality.

        1. Based of what I’ve heard among internal black relations they are.

          Also, abortion, done incorrectly, makes women just like men: unable to bear children, hence it furthers equality. I wouldn’t be surprise to hear some feminist agree with that thinking.

          1. Perhaps, but would any politician or political activist get up on his hind legs and say so? Let alone require that your health insurance pay for them?

            1. Now I’m so tempted to read Obamacare regs fine details…I bet they could be pushed through somewhere.

              However, I doubt anyone would stand up and say it but that points more to a difference between the race civil rights crowd and feminists. Black pride was clearly a driver of the civil rights movement at least until the mid-60s. Feminine pride has no place in feminism…it’s more like they are ashamed of being women.

  7. There’s nothing wrong with women being allowed to try to fulfill the qualifications for being in any military role. However, what we’re seeing now is those qualifications being vitiated or even ignored so women can take roles they wouldn’t have qualified for under the previous values. In fact, many combat roles (I’m thinking particularly of infantry and artillery since those are what I’m most familiar with, but I suspect armor is similar) require–not are benefited by, but require–upper body strength that women just do not have. Reducing the qualifications for these roles so women “qualify” does nothing other than make our military less capable of fulfilling the requirement to defend the country. To my way of thinking, such reduction of qualifications is a form of treason.

    1. Most Navy shipboard jobs aren’t too upper body strength intense day to day.

      Then something catches on fire and everyone on board becomes a fireman which is an upper body strength intense job. As it fighting flooding and pretty much any on the scene damage control work.

      So that female crew member is fine until the excrement hits the air propeller and most of them are a missing person to help fix things.

      But we’ll be fine especially in this age of increased shipboard automation meaning smaller crews meaning smaller damage control parties to begin with.

      But hey, those women and men will die more often so some Women’s Studies graduate in an office in Washington can have good feels and that is all that matters.

      1. I agree that women are too integrated into the services today. Sometimes having a workplace be all male is more effective. Women shouldn’t be firemen because they lack the upper body strength on the job.

        1. #2 son is a fireman/paramedic and he’s pissed that the standards he had to qualify to are not applied equally to the females. One standard is the ability to carry a 150 lb body down 6 flights of stairs. The women can grab it by the heels and drag it down the same 6 flights. They also are not required to be able to control a 4″ fire hose

          1. Hmmm…I always had handling a 4″ fire hose as the basic requirement in women I date.

            Joking aside, most people have no clue how hard that is. I remember being handed a hose for the first time as a boot and was shocked at how much it could fight you.

            1. Well, y’know, the answer to that is simple. Use smaller hoses (big hoses is just a male privilege thing, anyway) and reduce water pressure. Getting water up more than two stories just causes all sorts of problems to structures and risks damage to surfaces.

            2. One of the things Bob had to do at the fire academy was crawl down a fire hose in full spray with no one at the end and get control of it. he’s a 200lb slab of solid muscle and it almost threw him over. One of the women in the academy (there were three) tried it and it did throw her over and the nozzle hit her in the butt. The other two refused to do it. All three women were made honor graduates, even though they COULD NOT do any of the physical requirements the men had to do.

                1. Yep, they did, but they still had to crawl out to the end and get control of a wild hose……

                    1. Bob told me there was one instance he was told about where a hose that was dropped by the guys holding it when a building collapsed and the other guys had to crawl out over it to get it under control again.

            3. Back when my dad was second in command for a volunteer fire department, they’d have a fire fighter’s booth at the fair where people got to try it out. It was one of the ways they figured out how stupid a potential volunteer would be when his pride was on the line. (My dad weighed something like 120 pounds at the time, and was able to mostly control the thing because he’d practiced a lot, but it would be a “hold this a second wile the other guy has to do something quick,” not fighting fire; guys twice his size would get flipped on their rumps because they tried to overpower it. Good team building exercise.)

          2. One standard is the ability to carry a 150 lb body down 6 flights of stairs. The women can grab it by the heels and drag it down the same 6 flights.


            So I should hope I never get trapped by a fire in this location and have to be rescued by the people who will use this method to get me out of the building?

            Did anyone suggest taking the people who found this test acceptable and dragging them by the heels down six flights of stairs.

            1. Stupid as it sounds, Gloria Steinem insisted, with a straight face, that it was better to drag them, since “there’s less smoke down there.”

            2. It pisses off everyone who hears about it, except for the politicians who force crap like this on the services.

          3. … grab it by the heels and drag it down the stairs.
            … grab it by the heels and drag it down the stairs.

            I’m assuming they figure they can blame the resultant head injuries on the fire.

      2. Not everyone at GQ is a firefighter. You need plotters, phone talkers, investigators (a role that women, being generally smaller, would have an advantage), etc. And I wouldn’t say that firefighting necessarily requires a great deal of upper-body strength. Those hoses aren’t that hard to control, especially with the standard 5-man fire team. Lower body endurance is probably the limiting criteria, at least is was for me (getting my 6’4″ frame down low to the deck was hard enough, the fact that it was crammed into an XL FFE liner in a Medium shell didn’t help).

        I’ve seen too many women doing whatever it takes to overcome their physical shortcomings in order to accomplish their job to be willing to make blanket statements about the suitability of women shipboard.

        1. True about who is what at GQ but there is less flexibility if you have the off going ERUL watch as hose team one unless it is Petty Officer Smithee in which case she’s on plot and it’s the ERLL watch.

          As far as upper body strength I don’t know…if you were on the hose team with the OBA that just got tiring although I guess that is endurance as much as upper body strength. However, I knew after a day at the school it was my shoulders killing me more than my legs (perhaps because you have 7″ on me so I wasn’t ducking down as much).

        2. Didn’t realize you were surface…I think this might be a place where sub/surface matters. There are a lot fewer spare bodies on a submarine. For example, a hose team is two people…five people: two nozzle men, two hose men, and a team leader are the fire fighting party (plus the XO who is generally on scene). Then again if memory serves we only used 2″ hoses.

          So if Petty Officer Smithee can’t cover her off going duty section’s assignment for her watch station (which is how emergency parties are arranged and it is separate from GQ) it puts a bigger crimp in things than you might think.

          This is why I’m really worried about the drive to reduce manning via automation. Realistically day to day opts in the engine room could get by with two mechanics in the spaces and a combined auxiliary electrician aft/reactor technician. When all hell breaks lose having a mechanic in all three spots plus a ERS is a huge help. If we man to regular operations it means in a big emergency (like, say, when the San Francisco hit a mountain off Guam at flank speed about ten years ago) it might be the difference is recovering the ship (from what I know that was ugly).

          1. I have noticed a tendency for (poor) managers to design systems for average load rather than peak. Jeepers, what could possibly go wrong with that philosophy, right?

            It’s like a MacDonalds’ drive-thru: if average traffic is twenty cars an hour, a reasonable excess capacity is to allow for twenty-five, or (if you’re being extra cautious) thirty. Forget about the ninety cars that go through between 0645 and 0745 or the two hundred fifty pulling in between 1100 and 1330, that will even out over the day.

            1. Yeah, I get computer systems designed like that. They hate it when I set up a performance test to duplicate that spike and things fall down go boom.

              1. Like the people who can’t understand why you would want a car able to go 100 mph when the speed limit virtually everywhere is 70.

            2. That design for average load is precisely why Rickover (and at least his two immediately successors) fought against automation. They knew it would lead to reduced manning and the manning they pushed, on submarines at least, was oriented towards things going tits up. Surface ships, with multiple auxiliary divisions, actual hull shops, and DC rated divisions have a lot more flexibility. Their welders and machine tool operators are people with that job every day not some mechanic sent through a 6-12 week “enough to survive when it all goes wrong school” (that said the single work I’m most proud of at sea was a weld over an eroded steam piping elbow).

      3. Part of the DC issue is people playing politics with the emergency assignments.

        On my ship, they tended to be assigned based on who owed whom a favor. I was put in a fire fighting team until someone higher up got pissed at how obviously stupid and dangerous it was to have someone way too small for the suit drilling in it, then they put me on first aid. (which I am good at, good enough that they ended up putting me in charge of training people for it when the inspection came; we did great)

        Picking the guys who do communications not on who can actually do the work, but who wants to sit in their office and not do anything during drills. etc.

      4. I’m poking at an outline where we have a fleet of Faerie. A little while back there was a disenchantment arms race, and the fleet shifted from being enchanted eggshells and acorn cups to being ships built of oak.

        the sailors shifted distinctly male but not exclusively. Most of the remaining women are ogre or troll descent (though there are a few swan maidens). It was pretty hard on the proportion of sailors of brownie descent or the like, too.

        1. I am intrigued. When is this hitting Amazon?
          (I know, I know, chanting “e-arc! e-arc! e-arc!” only works on trad-published works. Still, the use of ritual incantations is well documented in the literature….) 😀

          1. Chanting “e-arc! e-arc! e-arc!” will summon The Winged Avenger

            (season 5, episode 6) with potentially deadly result.

        2. Great vision of the before-and-after fleet 😀

          The people in my ongoing (not yet pubbed) space opera are humanoid but not human… birth ratio is about 5M : 1F. State military is 100% male, a good use for all those surplus males. There’s no *rule* against females joining up (and there are some in the irregulars), but they’d be like, “Why would I want to do that? Do I look stupid??”

      5. Back in the early days of women being assigned shipboard, I heard a story about a CO who performed a little test. Had the female officers hand select 4 female sailors, and he picked 4 males from a hat. Had Zebra set throughout the ship (All watertight doors and hatches shut and latched), and had the two teams of 4 don OBA’s, and they were directed to take a P-250 pump from point a to point b. It’s not that the team of 4 hand selected females took longer; it’s that they never made it to point b.

        The results were never put in writing. And the story goes he was told to never publish the experiment,, and other CO’s were ordered never to repeat it. Nothing in writing, of course. Could just be a sea story. But I don’t think so. Everyone on the waterfront knew of the experiment within a day of it being conducted. And no one was surprised about the results, or the fact it was never publicized.

    2. Reducing the qualifications for these roles so women “qualify” does nothing other than make our military less capable of fulfilling the requirement to defend the country. To my way of thinking, such reduction of qualifications is a form of treason.

      The direct loss of life, due to the restrictions in operating procedures and social experiments, and the indirect, due to the prolonging of the engagement that results, constituent a willful disregard for the lives of those in the service. And don’t tell me we’re doing it to reduce civilian casualties, they too are increased when the action is prolonged.

      If you are going to put troops at risk — if you are going to engage in a military action, it should be done to win.

    3. No sensible person wants to deny anyone the right to equal opportunity. But that’s not at all what the militant feminists want. They demand equality of outcome. The numbers must prove that we are all equal, and if the numbers don’t come out right then you must adjust the requirements to make it so.
      Firefighter is a perfect example. Most men cannot do that job, and a vanishingly small percentage of women can. It’s not only that a firefighter needs to haul heavy equipment in all sorts of conditions, but at some point in their service may very well be required to transport a team member overcome by heat or smoke to safety. Anyone who cannot carry or at least drag over 200 pounds of limp body and equipment over a considerable distance should not be a firefighter. Does not matter whether male or female, they are not qualified for the job. So, as others have also noted, to give certain rabid feminists their wish means to guarantee that people will be injured and likely killed for the privilege.

      1. I’m perfectly sensible, and I do.
        If one in a hundred women had the ability to be an infantryman, and the desire to do so (I’m being incredibly generous here) the costs would still far outweigh whatever contribution they could possibly make.
        (Tbat’s just the cost of retrofitting squadbays and other facilities. The real costs of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness are hard to put dollar prices on. But they’re high.)

          1. That would be sexist. The good units are the male units and men are not allowed anything that women can’t have. Remember, Curves fitness for women is wonderful. The New York Athletic Association was bad because it was men only.

            1. See, this is why I can’t be a Feminist.

              I can’t handle that much intellectual dissonance at this time of day. ^_^

  8. Hopefully 55 year olds in poor health, male or female, won’t have to register. If I was younger and healthier, I’d be willing to register for the draft.

    1. Trying to think when I could finally stop sending them COA cards. 40? 45?

      Age alone disqualifies both of us, Emily. (I would have walked in with my draft notice and been told “Go home, son.” in any case but extreme desperation.)

      1. You are never too old to answer the call.

        From the sacred musical:

        At the present time my forces consist entirely of Haslet’s Delaware Militia and Smallwood’s Marylanders, a total of five thousand troops to stand against twenty-five thousand of the enemy — and I begin to notice that many of them are lads under fifteen and old men none of whom could truly be called soldiers.

        I may be frustrated to hell with our politicians but I first heard at on CBS in 1976 and it has never left me (sometimes it’s odd to think a musical was a major influence on my life).

        1. Not just yours. It was introduced to me by a friend who was first reader on DST and sent back a note “He plays the violin” which led to a conversation. It was a major influence in HIS life, too.

          1. I think being 9 that summer was kind of a sweet spot thing. I was old enough to absorb the various celebrations of all we had done and see it as heroic but too young to catch any of the modern Zinnist type stuff (assuming their was some). So when I saw that musical the idea of those men as demigods (despite Franklin’s own comment in the film) was something that hit my impressionable mind just right. Even 40 years later knowing they were just men (wise men assembled for a just cause but wise man none the less) they still are mythical (and Franklin is the greatest American to ever live IMHO just barely edging out George Washington Carver).

            I’m sure living in Casper, Wyoming didn’t hurt either as much of the 60s still hadn’t reached us (nearly a decade later a HS history textbook calling the founders radicals caused an uproar in Casper).

        2. Samuel Whittemore.

          To quote from Wikipedia:

          Battles of Lexington and Concord

          On April 19, 1775, British forces were returning to Boston from the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the opening engagements of the war. On their march, they were continually shot at by colonial militiamen.

          Whittemore was in his fields when he spotted an approaching British relief brigade under Earl Percy, sent to assist the retreat. Whittemore loaded his musket and ambushed the British Grenadiers of the 47th Regiment of Foot from behind a nearby stone wall, killing one soldier. He then drew his dueling pistols and killed a grenadier and mortally wounded a second. By the time Whittemore had fired his third shot, a British detachment reached his position; Whittemore drew his sword and attacked. He was shot in the face, bayoneted numerous times, and left for dead in a pool of blood. He was found by colonial forces, alive, trying to load his musket to fight again. He was taken to Dr. Cotton Tufts of Medford, who perceived no hope for his survival. However, Whittemore lived another 18 years until dying of natural causes at the age of 96.”

          You’re never too old. I suspect that Mr. Whittemore was probably as dangerous at 96 as he was when he was at 78.

        3. Well, now that is true. My point was more that (unless it is to release some able-bodied person from a REMF position), you had better hope that I am never called. At that point, we would be down the creek and into the river, without a canoe, much less a paddle…

      2. i can’t answer you because they don’t ask me for a change of address…. I did my draft registration once, in basic, and then never had to file a subsequent COA.

          1. If you’re wondering what the rest of the story was, the profile i was issued before my medical discharge meant i couldn’t be drafted.

  9. “Women need to be required to register just as men are”. Actually, neither is required — the 13th Amendment clearly says so. Attempts to force anyone, male or female, to register for forced labor is an affront to the Constitution. No surprise that the current administration is pushing this notion, of course; the Constitution is just toilet paper to them, as it is to most politicians.

        1. (rude noise) The plain language of any part of the Constitution escapes them when they don’t like the result.

      1. Yes. Unfortunately, there are very few indeed in any of the three branches of government, specifically including the judicial branch, who have any respect for or knowledge of the Constitution.

        Time to dust off two of my favorite quotes on that subject:
        “In nothing did the founders of this country so demonstrate their essential naivete than in attempting to constrain government from all its favorite abuses, and entrusting the enforcement of those protections to judges; that is to say, men who had been lawyers; that is to say, men professionally trained in finding plausible excuses for dishonest and dishonorable acts.” — H. L. Mencken

        “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense; and their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure” — Thomas Jefferson

    1. RAH said – Glory Road I believe
      • “I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don’t think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say : Let the damned thing go down the drain!
      And if I’m mistaken, RAH should have said this!
      The SCUS is wrong, a draft is slavery, period.

      1. RAH, yes, Glory Road, no. IIRC, it was one of the essays in Universe (or maybe Expanded Universe).

  10. Actually, I’m for combat arms affirmative action. Given historically men are overrepresented in those who die for their country we need to put a disproportionate number of women on the front today to make up for that historical slight.

    As RES has pointed out it’s not like they planned to be mothers anyway so it shouldn’t hurt our ability to reproduce.

    1. Right as soon as the number of guys dying from pregnancy complications goes up– and “I found out she’s married the hard way” isn’t a complication.
      I know you’re joking, but I’ve seen this one pop up from people who are totally serious far too much. And that’s before the issue that it’s not them that will be dying, same way that the officers who wanted improved advancement aren’t the enlisted gals paying the price.

      1. I’m only half joking or maybe half-joking isn’t the right phrase…I’m not serious in my intent but I am trying to illustrate something about these feminist warrior types.

        For example, in your reference to child birth think about feminists on medical care.

        Right now we have a gendered crisis in medical care because women have less spent on them than men according to feminist. The advantage women have on life-span is irrelevant. If suddenly women lived shorter lives than men even though more was spent on their medical care life span would be the issue not spending.

        Pay equality is a huge deal but the fact that the gender workplace death ratio is 9:1 is irrelevant even though it drive the pay gap in part. If women got paid more the ratio at 5.001:4.999 in men’s favor (2 more women than men per 10,000 workplace deaths) then equal pay wouldn’t be the issue but equal death rates would.

        Combat jobs are the glamour jobs of the military so feminists want them because they’ve been denied the glamour. As a man I look at them and see “the jobs most likely to get me killed”. Once that is what this horse-by-product translates into expect feminists demand that women be removed from the combat arms due to disproportionate deaths.

        When the PUA/MRA types contend that feminism is one big poop test I look at no win feminist scenarios like this and wonder if they don’t have a point.

        1. Isn’t there some great, rhyming quote about how the best jokes have a lot of truth, and many will make really good points you could never even gesture towards otherwise?

          Our kids have discovered the hour of 5AM, so I R no so good with memorzes n’stuff, in no small part because they are as cranky as I am.


          The PUA/MRA/whatevertheycallthemselves this week and the toxic big-F feminists are two sides of the same coin.

          Got not problem describing both with the same rude, but accurate, names and refusing to grant one advantage because the other exists. They can both be bad, wrong, and possibly evil.

          To paraphrase Chesterton, a reactionary is usually right about what is wrong, but wrong about what is right.

  11. Has anyone read Col. Kratman’s novel The Amazon Legion? It’s set in his Carrera (A Desert Called Peace etc.) universe.

    1. I’ll bet that most of us have read it. You’ll recall that Carrera also had units for physically and mentally disabled people, so everyone could serve within the limits of his or her ability. That didn’t mean that they were judged differently than others, just that they were assigned to duties that they could perform adequately.

      1. And that the purpose of the amazon companies was not primarily to fight, although they did so with great courage, but to shame the men into enlisting.

        1. And Carrera ended up having to do a lot of workarounds so that they would actually be a functional military unit.
          And he also planned on using them as stay-behind guerrillas.

  12. As one who went through the draft in 1970, and managed to get in the Navy, I’m ALL in favor of FULL equality. This means women register for the draft, and they get ‘drafted’ for available military roles as needed, including infantry/artillery. If they can’t hack it, they get the appropriate discharge just like men do. And no, don’t lower the requirements. I forwarded the news clip to one of my former co-workers who is a virulent feminist that I’d had a similar conversation with about her daughter being drafted. I’d have loved to see her expression when it hit her inbox… 🙂

    I served with a number of females over the years, both as senior to me and subordinates working for me. I can categorically state 95% of them WANTED to serve, and did so without complaint.

  13. I was in the army when the WACs were converted to RA. Suddenly the same equipment that I had been carrying two of had two person lift stenciled on it. And god forbid you used the same language towards a female soldier that you did to the guy standing beside her. I saw way too many instances of guys getting all the hard dirty jobs while the delicate little flowers with the same MOS were given the easy jobs. The PT requirements were different as well. Now while i know that women’s bodies are not the same as men there were no places where women were required to do as well physically as men, none. yet they were given preference in almost all areas, including promotion. This may not have been official policy, it was de facto policy. And god forbid you piss a woman off. sexual harassment was the order of the day. A woman said you committed it? You were guilty. Good soldiers were screwed over and piss poor ones with tits were given anything they wanted. Yeah, equality.

    1. Yup. “Equality.”

      Does a base plate care whether the grunt humping it over hill and dale has one set of naughty bits or the other? Does the SAW, the ammo, the fifty-eleventy-dozen and one gizmos, gadgets, and fiddly things that needs to be hauled along give a wet fart? I very much doubt it.

      The word, “standard,” is impersonal. And it should remain so. It’s the *minimum* necessary qualification to do a job that frequently exceeds that “standard” by a wiiiiide margin. And the men who these women will be working alongside, who’ve not just met, but blew past that standard a long time ago. When the excrement hits the rotary impeller they will be doing, not just their own jobs, but those of them who, at best, “met the standard” and no more.

      That breeds resentment. And, men being men, they’ll kill themselves trying to make it work. Women will kill themselves trying to meet a standard that doesn’t care that they gave it their all- not just tried their best, not just did well, but gave it everything they had and more.

      That doesn’t even begin to address the social issues. And there *are* social issues wherever men and women work together.

      That said, I’m not against women in the military. I’d like to see a truly impersonal draft, and, like Old NFO, I don’t much mind if they want to give combat arms a go. If they can hack it, they can hack it. End of story. If not, not. *That* makes sense. The way we’re going about it now… *shakes head*

    2. You don’t even have to be military to get that kind of bullshit going on. I’ve been hearing from a few friends that a number of the guys automatically tense up when a new woman joins the group, because they don’t know if that one is going to be a hair-trigger landmine. There was this one particular flamingly entitled psychobitch who, I kid you not, picked a fight with a friend’s female CEO because that friend was too buried in work to notice the psychobitch’s flirting, and psychobitch was upset that the CEO had regular conversations with said friend because of work related stuff (and the ones that weren’t work related were tech related.) CEO happened to be a lovely Asian woman. The psychobitch (and a couple of others after her) tried to pressure the CEO into filing a sexual discrimination suit against the friend, because he was reverse raping them because he refused to accept their sexual advances, refused to be their boyfriend, and was depriving women of their choice of handsome, intelligent husband.

      CEO’s response was to give the psychobitch feminist (and later, the affirmative action hire) enough rope to hang them with, and fired them. My friend tells me that the CEO, who is in her mid-twenties, visibly aged having to deal with the sheer amount of retarded bullshit feminists and affirmative hires threw at her that she had to deal with and never, ever wants to work with Westerners again.

        1. The best part about that convo? I head-twitched at something being mocked on twitter – namely, ‘reverse rape’ and messaged the friend.
          Uh, warning for eyemurder due to fugly, fat feminist with problem glasses in photo with revealing underwear, with ‘beautiful’ written all over her. In a public space.

          His response: “Ooooh, so that’s what (name) was talking about.”
          Me: What happened now?! o_O
          *cue story*

                1. Actually, I have a rather snarky response that I read in a book somewhere regarding that sort of situation. It went something like this:

                  “Since she was paid to spread her legs, she had to acquire some skill in pleasing her partner. Unlike you.”

              1. Medieval law, been around for hundreds of years if not longer — the wife has a right to sex and can divorce the man if he doesn’t perform. Come to think of it, isn’t there something similar in Biblical law?

                1. I think so, considering that it may be a holdover from Jewish law… I remember reading that there was a provision for divorce for couples who are unable to have children, reasoning that they may simply not be compatible (and interestingly did not place the blame on either partner) and give them a chance to have children with other spouses.

                  1. Jewish law specifies sex as the wife’s right and the husband’s obligation, to the point where there are profession-based minima for how much sex he must provide before she can bring legal action (sailors and traveling merchants are the lowest, since they are expected to be out of town quite a bit, but a rabbi is near the top, since there really isn very little good reason for him not to be home each night).

                    1. That continued among the Puritans, at least the right of the wife, and there are cases of men in the stocks for not servicing their wives (which must have been humiliating).

                    2. I suspect the degree of humiliation is inversely proportionate to how beautiful (see illustration elsewhere this page) his wife might be.

                    3. I don’t know…being in the stocks for “not being able to rise to the occasion” would humiliate me even if we were talking about my first wife.

                    4. I’m thinking there are not a lot of young women looking at doing the Pesach cleansing of Chametz from the home just so they can get laid.

                    5. Yeah, but those same types of women flock to Islam then claim they’re empowered. Hence my bafflement.

                      Maybe the think that Islam’s ‘cooler’ or ‘more rebellious’ to convert to. Nobody cares much if you convert to Buddhism after all. Or even Hassidic Judaism. “Not extreme/tough enough, because Hassids don’t chop off heads.”

                2. The divorce justification isn’t there in the passage I’m thinking of, but the Bible does command Christian couples not to deny each other sex. In 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, it says, “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

                  In other places in the Bible, different commands are given to husbands and wives — but here, the commands are identical. Both are responsible to give the other one sex, and not to deny it to each other. Husband denying his wife sex for no good reason (i.e., no medical issues)? He’s sinning. Wife denying her husband sex for no good reason? She’s sinning. Reciprocal and equal treatment, here.

          1. Okay, first thing is that woman has a Truth In Labeling problem. Not even a Renaissance painter would consider that “beautiful.”

            Second, if you have to write “beautiful” on there, it isn’t.

            Third, by that logic a gay man who refused to sexually engage w/ women as being “wrong body type” is in a heap o’ trouble.

            Finally, in re: comment (below) about this being trolling: it is impossible to troll Proglodytes/Feminists by means of exaggeration or over-the-top parody; you just can’t get higher than they will eventually climb.

            1. Yeah, but when you think about their progression of illogic, putting the labels make sense because of their magic thinking of ‘labeling someone as (x) makes (x) true, evidence to the contrary be damned.’ Which in turn, explains why they’re so fixated on labels, and labeling everyone they don’t agree with/hate/want destroyed as ‘racist, sexist, bigoted, rapist, Nazi’ and so on.

              1. Biochemistry background here… follow:

                I’m going to invent a new term and call it Juvenile Schizophrenic Syndrome. Normal behavior in children (most kids have invisible friends and are OCD about needing labels for everything and everything under its label — ever watched a little kid sorting their toys?), but *normal* people outgrow it during puberty, along with all the other forms of magical thinking.

                Generally when the hormones hit, the brain matures. These people never got out of the final stages of childhood — and while we think nothing of it in a child, it’s quite evidently abnormal in an adult.

                And I don’t think it’s actually a social problem. I strongly suspect this is fundamentally an endocrine upset, and is so broadly distributed because of the vast increase of phytoestrogens in average diets: first via soy proteins (consider also that about 40 years ago, the first world largely switched from animal to vegetable fats, mostly soybean oil) and more recently via flaxseed meal (which gained common use in human food about 10 years ago), which has the most phytoestrogens of anything edible. Phytoestrogens are well established as causing hypothyroidism (mass dietary changes — low thyroid — weight gain — obesity epidemic — yep, there’s a connection here) and this in turn lowers sex hormones, which are necessary for proper brain maturity. Lower these levels even a little bit, and you get this whole cascade of symptoms, which I think have partly manifested as this confused juvenile behavior in nominal adults.

                And it probably won’t get better unless and until we return to a more natural diet, which does not include such intensive sources of phytoestrogens.

                –Flaxseed meal: 300,000 units/kg
                –Soybean meal: 100,000 units/kg.
                –food with next highest content: 25,000 units/kg.
                –red meat: 800 units/kg.

                Incidentally, flaxseed meal in dog food causes birth defects in male puppies.

                Research article:

                1. Huh. Actually, you stumbled on one of the things I have an academic side interest in, which, hilariously, cause some arguments between myself and some relatives. One of the things I’ve been constantly hounded about is my utter refusal to go on fad diets, including a refusal to budge on lowering my salt and sugar intake that would probably be the equivalent of trying to shove Mt. Everest on the strength of one’s own muscles. I’m not very good at arguing face to face any more because I’ve a tendency to lose track of what I’m saying and my progressive train of thought if someone interrupts or derails me (and it’s frankly, rather rude) but I’d pointed out on a few occasions that ‘recommended’ levels of salt and sugar intake are based off of people living in fairly temperate (read: not tropical, or desert-heat) climates, and you need sodium and glucose in your basic day to day functions – you know, moving muscles, sweating, brain functions, etc – based on how your body interacts with your environment as a consideration. I flat out refused to give up red meat, salt, sugar, etc, and eat in moderation, and I’m the one who doesn’t faint because of glucose or electrolyte crashes, and I’m also not stupid enough to wander out into the Australian (or Philippine) midday heat to roast the liquid out of my body. The ones who do are the same people who tell me that you don’t need salt or sugar, and that glucose has nothing to do with your functioning brain. Oi.

                  But having read what you wrote I actually agree with you. Most of the feminisation of the local populations as a whole seems to have started alongside the popularisation of vegetarianism and veganism, and the ‘mainstreaming’ of these (in my opinion) humanly destructive and egotistical dietary cults that were based off of ‘save the fluffycute animals’ and treehugging. (Sorry, but that’s how they come off to me. I’ve met a grand total of one reasonable vegatarian, and one vegan who wasn’t a flaming shitwit.) I see an animal, or bird, or fish, and wonder “How can I cook that and how will it taste?”

                  Happily, my husband agrees with me on the food thing, and says that if he has to take up certain diets (high protein ones, when he’s doing a lot of physical training) he’ll let me know in advance and is willing to cook his own food if it puts me out too much (Happily, it doesn’t.)

              1. Intellectual consistency is highly valued in Prog lairs, so long as you grasp it consists of “We’re right, you’re wrong.”

            2. Let me also contend: Personality and character can do wonders for a person’s perceived appearance. This person lacks, I suspect, many redeeming qualities of both, and possesses many deleterious ones, in addition to being…hrmmmmmm…larger than her body is built for.

        2. AND DAMNIT you know it’s bad when you cannot tell if this is satire or not. The related link type articles don’t help either. “Denying rape is ‘literally rape.'”

          From the comments:
          Wow, successful troll is successful. I’m pretty sure this guy got EVERYONE on the internet with this article. The hilarious part is, you really can’t be sure that it’s actually a troll article until you google the author’s name. That’s how out of control modern feminism has gotten.

          And since there’s real world examples omg it’s not satire anymore. ARRRRGH.

          Warning for extreme stupidity and entitlement.

          1. Uh.. er.. uh… that’s satire/parody/humor.. isn’t it? I sure hope it is. if it isn’t… I may need a sign to go with a particular shirt. Shirt: I DATE OUTSIDE MY SPECIES. Sign: [NOT THAT FAR OUTSIDE IT].

            1. It’s a satire piece, but that was the exact reasoning the feminist/s (yes, there was more than one) that tried to bitch about my friend not: 1)noticing their flirting 2)refusing to go out on a date with them 3)not interested in marriage.

              It’s depressing when the satire becomes reality.

          2. Definitely satire (and an early comment makes a good analysis, if the author’s name alone doesn’t give it away … Anne Gus, Angus, cattle, hint: this is bull), but lordy, the fact that so many of the comments thought it was serious goes to show how far ’round the bend the whole feminazi movement has gone.

            1. Yeah, someone in the first bunch of comments said it was satire, and all of the articles by this person are meant to be satire, but as I told Orvan, the reasons that were cited by the satire-feminist were ALL the reasons for reverse rape that the feminazis leveled at my friend.

              I really felt bad for his boss. She probably had never encountered this much concentrated stupid in her life. He says that she really aged.

  14. About thirty-five years ago this idiocy hit the Houston fire department. Unfortunately they hadn’t learned how to play the game and beat the Feminazis. The poor Fire Chief kept saying “The job requires strength, therefore we recruit men” when he needed to say “We’ll set up a test site. Any individual of any gender can come try out before applying for the job. The test will involve getting a 200 lb sack off the floor, through a window and down a forty foot ladder. There will be a time limit, and penalties for handling that would be extremely damaging to a live person instead of a sack. Because, you know, that could be you instead of a sack.”

    If the Army is going to fight job creep, they need to set up reasonable-for-that-job tests. And by reasonable, I mean that the particular test reflects the needs of that job, and that 90% or better than the men in the job now can pass it.

    And they need to do it quickly, and stand by the results. And fight to not lower the standards.

    1. Of course, I say “Beat the Feminazis” but I haven’t actually seen it happen yet. I’m afraid it’s going to take a large and bloody dose of reality for common sense to have any chance at all.

      1. Unfortunately, it’s seldom their blood shed or their imagined reality that’s damaged. They will still demand their feelz while others pay the butcher’s bill.

    2. See my earlier post about my fireman/paramedic son. There are different standards for female firemen, yet they get the same pay are preferred for promotions.

      Note I stated firemen…. 🙂

      1. This reminds me of a brief historical article from a few decades ago, about a railroad. Political correctness had infected either the reporter or editor, as a result of which the article referred to the engineer and firefighter on the steam locomotive.

        (Slightly tangential: In addition to PC, typos and wrong words are also getting worse. Yesterday I also encountered a headline on the CBS News website about a NFL players suffering from brian injuries, and a chapter in a historical work on airships where the Germans were described as dropping tens of thousands of tons of ordinance on England. Now we know where the British regulatory state really came from – surplus ordinances!)

        1. Yeah. Considering what firemen do on steam locomotives, and other really old solid fueled steam boilers, I guess the PC term would be firemakers, or mayhaps “arsonists”?

          1. I wonder* how they would react to the navy’s traditional name for them: the black gang.

            *I don’t actually wonder, I know how they would react.

        2. “Slightly tangential: In addition to PC, typos and wrong words are also getting worse.”

          That’s because you have people who were either taught that spelling is a tool of the patriarchy and / or English is not their first language, believing that the spell checker is all they need. I see it more and more in the technical writing field.

    3. “If the Army is going to fight job creep, they need to set up reasonable-for-that-job tests. And by reasonable, I mean that the particular test reflects the needs of that job, and that 90% or better than the men in the job now can pass it.”

      The Army tried that, oncet’ upon a time. Circa 1981, when I enlisted at the Spokane MEPS, there was a Universal Gym setup in the Army part of the MEPS. In order to qualify for a specific job, you had to be able to demonstrate the ability to do a certain number of military presses at specific weights. No can do? No get job.

      That lasted, oh, what, a year? DACOWITS came through like the Mongols, and that whole idea of strength testing applicants went right out the window. Which produced a bunch of mechanics that couldn’t load their own flippin’ tool boxes into the backs of their trucks. Among other things.

      Things like that are why I am now of the opinion that while women in the combat arms may be a doable thing, in theory and abstract, it is not possible for the US military to manage such a thing. The leadership is entirely too willing to roll over on their backs, expose their cute little bellies like a bunch of puppies, and kowtow to the extremists.

      Not gonna change until we get a bunch of people killed, lose a war, and finally nut up to exterminate these cretins. My guess is that we’re going to need every lamp post in the country to hang them from, and probably will be forced to double up on a bunch. My list is getting that long…

      1. I don’t think it would change even if there was a war where it caused a lot of needless casualties. Look, for example, at how their favorite “philosopher” Karl Marx has been demonstrated to have spawned a death cult that killed over 100 million people living under its control, and yet they still claim that communism can work, and hasn’t simply because it hasn’t been done “correctly” yet (with the implication that if they were the ones in control, it would succeed).

        1. Try a different argument:

          Me: Who are the most intelligent socialist leaders?
          Them: Lenin, Mao, etc.
          Me: Why doesn’t Communism work?
          Them: Communism has never been done right! We can do it right!
          Me: So, you’re saying you’re smarter than Lenin and Mao?

  15. I remember when the Equal Rights Amendment was being pushed in the 1970s. Somehow “equal” didn’t seem to include being drafted. And the draft was totally not an example of sexual discrimination…

  16. I’m thinking that if certain rules — such as direct combat experience as a requirement for senior command posts — were eliminated much of the pressure to open all roles to women would diminish. Of course, one can draw one’s own conclusions about the sort of person who would endanger her fellows in order to enhance her own promotion opportunities.

    1. Since 2004 I considered such people to be potential Democrat presidental nominees.

      That said there is a reason direct combat experience is required for senior command posts. It has nothing to do with holding women back and everything to do with the reason the head of Naval Reactors is pretty much always a former submarine captain and the captains of bird farms are pilot (and why pilots aspiring to command bird farms go to Naval Nuclear Propulsion School officer program somewhere around Lt. Commander or Commander).

        1. WMG course? My Google-Fu has failed so I think I’m missing a link in the chain (probably due to those damn shapeshifting squirrels).

                1. Ah, okay…I wasn’t following the train…I think I gave myself a concussion headbanging last night (or maybe in the pit).

                  Then again, maybe it was because I was, for 1/3 of the show, headbanging to a Portuguese metal band 🙂

    2. Of course, one can draw one’s own conclusions about the sort of person who would endanger her fellows in order to enhance her own promotion opportunities.

      “She ran ahead sir, and we got cut off from her. By the time we found her, it was too late.”

  17. I respectfully disagree. “If we’re opening all military jobs to women, then women should register for the draft” is like saying “If the cafeteria is serving s**t sandwiches for lunch, then everybody should eat one.” No, the proper solution is to stop serving s**t sandwiches.

    1. Well, yeah, logic; it’s that the progressives think soup sandwiches are logical and better for the country. Never mind actual results.

    2. While I certainly agree (I was anti-draft before I joined the service…I realized I was a softy on being anti-draft by the time I hit the fleet…if we need a draft to defend the country might as well stick a fork in it) draft registration isn’t going anywhere.

      As RAH said, “Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, “equality” is a disaster.”

      If those cupcakes want equality they should get it good and hard.

      1. I agree with eliminating Selective Service. If we really need it to fight a war, we shouldn’t be fighting that war. We could also save the entire budget of that department and cut federal hiring and student aid costs.

        I purely hate how Selective Service registration is tied up in everything else. Any man who has immigrated to this country after the cut-off age will know exactly what I mean, but for the rest of you, if you weren’t required to register because you weren’t here or from here, you repeatedly have to show letters stating so from Selective Service, every other time you turn around. Your Naturalization paper isn’t good enough.

          1. I was already registered when I was in Basic.

            I did have to reregister when I got out. Which was particularly stupid IMO since my IRR commitment lasted beyond the point when I would no longer have to be registered.

            1. As was I but they just had everyone do it again, not matter once. I did nine so I was past all legal requirements when I got out, though.

    3. forcing everyone to participate increase the number of people who have a stake in bringing it down.

  18. *quick check*

    GOODY! I get to be the one that posts the SILLIEST tweet of all time.

    Your eyes deceive you not. Posted by Ms Magazine, in all seriousness were the words:

    Instead of barring women from combat roles in the military, why not create a set of rules that keep everyone safer?

    1. The stupid, it burns:

      Are the should/shouldn’t and can/can’t questions the only way to frame the debate? Is there an antiwar voice comparable to that of labor 30 years ago on the issue of workplace standards?

      Because, of course, the risks of taking two trips with the UPS delivery is just the same as not having your gear in combat. We just need to legislate away the need for your helment, body armor, and extra ammo.

      It would be easy enough, for example, to argue that all soldiers under the age of 21 should, like women, be exempt from combat. Whereas the combat exception for women is based on physical qualifications, evidence that the still-developing minds and emotions of young adults—both men and women—make them especially vulnerable to the stresses and traumas of war provides a basis upon which to keep them away from combat. Such a policy would not only not deprive young recruits of the income, job-training opportunities and post-service benefits like education—that, for some advocates, justify military service—it would likely channel them into

      Again, being a progtard means not needing a clue about history.

      Setting an age standard for combat eligibility may be disputatious, but a standard of parental-status should be a no-brainer. Mothers and fathers with dependent-aged children should, of course, be welcomed into the military for whatever occupational, career and economic benefits they may anticipate. But the interests of their children, and the society ultimately responsible for those children, should be protected by legislation keeping parents out of harm’s way. One would presume that most parents, in the military or not, would support the law makers who advance such measures—a no-brainer.

      Legislation to that effect could easily be extended to cover all family members with dependents, be they young, old or disabled. Exemptions like that for the ”sole surviving son” that enabled farm families to keep a young breadwinner at home during World War I might provide a model for new legislation.

      Oh, I forgot, the military is just a big government jobs and training program.

      I haven’t heard anything so stupid since my former sister in law said she thought all the military did was sit around getting paid in case there was a war until her sister married me.

      1. Ugh, middle quote got chopped…at the end: it would likely channel them into military occupational specialties that transfer more readily to future civilian employment.

      2. One notes, of course, that non-parents can become parents rather readily and voluntarily — much of the time. Or should a new parent be court-martialed or forced to put the kid up for adoption?

        1. Of course not, that would be unfair. You just ease them nicely to non-combat arms. During the Love Boat days on the Yellowstone (the first mixed crewed ship) and other early mixed crew shps pregancy, which must have all been via the Holy Spirit as it seemed no one got busted for fratnerization, was a quick trip to shore duty or honorable dischage. Lots of guys from the era were still mad about it when I was a boot in the mid-80s.

          It might have changed later (no women on subs so I wouldn’t have been congnizant of it)…one of the surface fleet vets (Foxfier and I don’t know who else) probably knows how it was handled better than me.

          1. Now the mysterious pregnancies get shifted to a shore command, because the ship REALLY isn’t set up for that. They’re required to have someone who can take the baby at…I think it was six months? If they could swear that there was nobody who could take care of the baby, they got what was basically a medical discharge.

            A lot of people are still not charged with fraternization, because if they were things like the (female, married, minority) chaplain that slept with TWO different XOs (both minority, one wasn’t married, not sure about the other), that I know of would get brought up.

            Not long after I got out, I seem to remember they changed it so that you couldn’t pull the “I got a sea command, K I’ll get pregnant, and then I’ll miss 90% of my hitch and be back on the fun side of the sea/shore cycle” by making it so that if you got pregnant that assignment didn’t count for the rotation.
            Which really screws over those women who do their job honorably and get pregnant when they wouldn’t be going out if the ship deployed anyways.
            The old way screwed over everyone because by the time I got there, anybody who was removed from the ship for medical reasons simply didn’t get replaced. On paper, the billet was filled. Had a chief drop dead of a heart attack on the way to the ship, and man did that make for some issues.

            1. There was a woman who tried to avoid — Iraq I think — by claiming that her mother couldn’t look after the baby, as she had planned. As soon as the Army arrested her, the mother was perfectly capable of taking care of the baby for purposes of getting her away from the social workers.

              They gave her an honorable discharge.

              1. I’d guess the problem there is falsifying official documents. Everybody has to file a paper that explains who will take care of your dependents if you can’t.

                  1. Doesn’t change what would be the formal charge.

                    Sort of like how when you throw yourself down stairs to avoid duty, it’s listed as “damaging gov’t property.” (That property being YOU, specifically. Yes, we had that happen. A couple of times. At least one got a mental discharge because…well, he WAS mental.)

                    1. I remember hearing a story from an old sailor once about how he got brig time (may not be the correct term, IANAS) as a young man for falling asleep sunbathing on deck and getting badly burned. Seems his superiors were less than amused by the three days recovery time for the burning and dehydration, and so they threw the book at him with the .gov property charge. He never made that mistake again!

                    2. I haven’t heard about “damage of gov property” but I have heard about “rendering yourself unfit for duty”.

                      That covers a lot of area. 😈

                    3. Rural legend– being charged for a sunburn does happen all the time, although it’s not automatic.

                      The only guy I know where they didn’t even threaten it, it was a Marine who likewise fell asleep and got a second degree sunburn across his entire back.

                      He was black. VERY black. And there was apparently an argument at the hospital between the newer trained doctors and the people who’d actually been practicing on if he could get sunburnt or not. Before that day, he would have been arguing in support of the not possible folks.

                      Possibly part of why he wans’t charged is because he was sent to the hospital, he didn’t go there himself.

                    4. I came close to that. My first day at NAVFAC Antigua, a couple of my new co-workers took me to the beach. I had sunscreen on, but still managed to get second-degree burns across the tops of my thighs where my cutoffs ended.

                      Spent much of my first 12-hour shift the next day shivering from mild shock and hissing every time my trousers rubbed the blisters.

              1. How about we sterilize all the guys instead?

                Vasectomies are inexpensive, reversible, aren’t chemically altered, don’t have long term health problems, and nobody dies in a vasectomy.

                1. What annoyed me was the argument (presented elsewhere) that if a military woman tells a military man that she’s on Birth Control and then gets pregnant, that the man should be punished for getting her pregnant at the same time that the woman should be punished for becoming pregnant. [Frown]

                  1. Birth control (other than hysterectomies and vasectomies) has failure rates that (going off of how many people get DUIs at checkpoints vs how often they are in crashes) exceed the risk of accident in cases of drunk driving.

                    If they’re not supposed to be having sex with each other, they’re not supposed to be having sex with each other, and breaking the rules in a way that is so high-risk of being caught is extra stupid.

                    They’re not being punished for her becoming pregnant, they’re punished for having sex with each other– the pregnancy is just unignorable evidence. Sort of like someone getting alcohol poisoning while 6 months in to a 9 month deployment, he’s not punished for being poisoned but for drinking alcohol. The poisoning is just how he was caught.

                    1. Published birth control failure rates are twaddle. They neglect to sift those rates by age, as if a thirty-five-year-old woman and a seventeen-year-old woman are likely to a) have the same risk of pregnancy and b) are exercising comparable care in following routine instructions.

                      The failure rates are worse than we’re being told.

                    2. That’s before the issue of alcohol being KNOWN to screw with hormonal birth control.
                      (Saw the CDC’s supposed suggestion to not drink unless you’re on it; head banged much.)

                  2. Incidentally, another reason that the mandatory abortion/sterilize the women route is a horrible idea is that it makes it much easier for abuse of sex to happen. Just makes the evidence disappear.

            1. The expedition never got there. One of the men on it did, later, and was disbelieved for — some time.

      3. The thing that made me stare was the writer’s bio at the end, emphasis mine:

        Jerry Lembcke is associate professor of sociology emeritus at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. He is the author of The Spitting Image, CNN’s Tailwind Tale and Hanoi Jane. He has written most recently about the cultural and diagnostic narratives of PTSD. He is a Vietnam veteran.

        Archived, as well:

        Makes me wonder: ‘veteran on which side, given the article and the book?’

    2. I’ve always had this suspicion that the real goal was not to put women into combat roles but to make sure that the military was incapable of putting anyone in combat roles. This would seem to confirm that at least some people seem to think that’s laudable…

            1. Perhaps we could pay the Chinese People’s Republic (see, they’re a republic, just like us!) or our new friends in Iran to provide for our defense? Heck, the Chinese already have so much of our paper they should maybe want to protect their investment, right?

        1. “Then clearly if we just got rid of the armed forces, nobody would be killed and things wouldn’t be broken!”

          *ow* my head hurt even pretending that.

              1. Wow. The accuracy is enough to make me weep for humanity. And hate myself for having a tumblr account.

      1. Dead? Disabled? That’s an obsolete view of warfare. Nowadays we want to turn them into profit centers by “helping” them…

      2. Just explain to the progressives that our armed forces are helping make abortion freely available – in the firm of post-birth abortion of America’s enemies.

            1. Hahaha, I used to be banking helpdesk, but Aff (aka David, aka The Housemate) does computer/code/network/etc troubleshooting. I have a file somewhere of the stories I’m allowed to draw into the Fsck My Life comics. I’m the person who tells him whether or not there’s still liquor in the house.

              There are, apparently, people out there who don’t realize that AMD CPUs do not fit into Intel motherboards. Instead of going ‘oops,” and asking the company they bought the hardware from for an equivalent replacement that would work with the motherboard or a refund like a sensible person, nope, apparently removal of the pins is a perfectly …logical… way to ‘avoid the embarassment’ and when the cpu refuses to work, well, call and complain and demand a refund for something that has had the warranty voided for.

  19. “I remember so many young men leaving the country, a country they supposedly loved, in order to avoid the draft.”

    My opinion of these … people start at cowered and rapidly goes downhill from there. My father didn’t want to be drafted either – so he went into ROTC and joined the A.F.

    “a solider needs to be able to haul so many pounds of gear, than he – or she – should be able to do so, no matter who they are”

    That does not mean that the weight will be reduced, it means that everyone (male and female) should be able to carry the 70+ pounds of gear.

    “Women need to be required to register for the draft just as men are.”

    YES! I know a couple of women who actually did register in the early 90’s. Their reasoning was just that, if the men have to register, so should we. (No, I was not one of them, I had seen that the requirements were not the same, that they were biased in favor of the women. I started looking at Law Enforcement instead.)

    Giving someone preferential consideration because they are something besides a “white male” wrong. You do not get the best person, you get the best _fill in the blank_ person. This actually harms the company and the person. I speak from personal experience. I believe that I was given preferential consideration for a job because they needed to hire women. It turned out that I was ill suited for the job. The department did not benefit from my presence and I did not did not benefit from being in a job I should have never had. (Yeah, it hurts to say that)

    1. I hear ya. I used to dream of enlisting, or signing up for law enforcement. I had to shelve the dream because with my slender build and being only 4’8″ in height, I fall far short of the physical requirements.

      So I support my ADF serving husband as best as I can instead; and he goes to work/deploys knowing that there’s nothing to worry about at home.

  20. I am not in favor of having women in the combat arms because they require a level of upper-body strength which so few women have that it’s just not worth the hassle of integrating them.

    I *am* in favor of having a women’s combat auxiliary with gear and physical requirements designed for women (and to expect the same physical fitness of women as the infantry does for men.) They wouldn’t be equals of the male troops – let’s be realistic here – but they could hold positions, and there might come a time when we’d be very happy to have them in penny packets.

    ISIS has held this territory for five years, and we’re told 80% of the remaining population – all supposedly-devout Muslims – are in favor of *anyone* who can kick them out. But ISIS has its tentacles everywhere, so we’re going to have to do a house-to-house search. Because we want 80% of the population to *continue* to prefer us to ISIS, after the door-kickers have dealt with any active resistance, the women’s auxiliary will follow them to search the women and the women’s quarters.

    Or perhaps the woman’s auxiliary would follow in a second wave; it would depend on how many women we have available. Regardless, I’m quite certain that the second-line into house-to-house clearance are combat troops, and that they will not infrequently be ambushed while the frontline troops are inside houses.

    (And yes, catering to the conquered population this way is a luxury. It’s a luxury that we might want to have.)

  21. If women are to fill all positions in the armed forces then they need to be required to register for the draft just as men are. Israel does it, and don’t forget the Peshmerga who have effective women fighting units. I am against lowering standards. If it is physical (e.g. Strength) then give them extra physical trianing.

    1. It should also be noted that said units are almost entirely light infantry, and I mean light infantry, not what the First World calls light infantry, which is actually heavy infantry on foot.

    2. I thought Isreal had stopped doing women in combat arms.

      Also, doesn’t Israel have actual conscription (which isn’t quite the same as the draft).

      1. As I read about it, Israel found that deploying female combat troops improved enemy effectiveness (well, not so much effectiveness as willingness to fight until dead — imagine your typical [enemy combatant of Islamic orientation]’s willingness to surrender to a girl.)

        They do have universal* conscription; it was a big deal a few years back when Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli

        Tried to avoid military service on the grounds that “celebrities have other needs.”

        *Certain “extreme” religious sects are exempted from the mandatory two years of service. According to a story in the UK Independent,

        It is thought that about a third of the eligible population in Israel now avoid being called up for national service and that figure is expected to pass 50 per cent by 2025.

        Israeli supermodels in catwalk spat over draft-dodging
        Leonardo DiCaprio’s ex-girlfriend is accused by a fellow model of avoiding her national service
        By Danny Brierley Saturday 3 October 2009

              1. How can we forget the show that introduced the most Tom Lehrer songs since That Was The Week That Was?

                Who can turn a can
                Into a cane?

        1. Israel found that deploying female combat troops improved enemy effectiveness (well, not so much effectiveness as willingness to fight until dead — imagine your typical [enemy combatant of Islamic orientation]’s willingness to surrender to a girl.)

          I think it has less to do with surrendering, than being killed by a girl. If I’m not mistaken, that’s a one way ticket to Islamic hell.

          Which, given that Muslim women go to hell because they ‘deficient’ because of their periods…

          Hadith and Sira
          Bukhari (6:301) – “[Muhammad] said, ‘Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?’ They replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence.'”

          Bukhari (6:301) – continued – “[Muhammad said] ‘Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religion.'” Allah has made women deficient in the practice of their religion as well, by giving them menstrual cycles.

          Bukhari (2:29) – Women comprise the majority of Hell’s occupants. This is important because the only women in heaven mentioned explicitly by Muhammad are the virgins who serve the sexual desires of men. (A weak Hadith, Kanz al-`ummal, 22:10, even suggests that 99% of women go to Hell).

      2. I’m having trouble finding good information on it– imagine, Israel doesn’t have a big “HERE IS WHAT WE DO” website, it’s like that’s info that would be useful to people who want to hurt htem or something!– but it appears that they made a specific unit that’s named, roughly, Desert Lynx, where women can be in a combat unit.

        From what I can find, it seems like they’re the gals who deal with the females that might be suicide bombers or other terrorists–or they might just be religious and cultural conservatives that don’t like being checked by men.

        There’s also a book “Lochamot Betzahal” about how much damage it’s done to the women involved, and various “hide how different the standards are” tricks. It was officially denounced in the only article I could find, but it was by a guy who’d served and he did include actual facts…..

        1. The non-combat injuries mentioned (particularly lower-body stress fractures and back problems) are the exact same issues reported in American females attempting to pass the Ranger school and similar programs. I expect that this will force either lowered standards or a lot of $ being spent on medical discharges and rehab.

          1. There have been some upsides to women in our military– it’s fashionable to complain about how I was one of the last divisions to do Navy bootcamp wearing boots, for example, but that was stupid. Not the boots, but the injuries that were coming from wearing them in a way that we don’t do in the fleet. We’re simply not running three miles three days a week in cheap, unfitted boots with no support in them.

            And… well, that’s about it.
            I’m proud I served, and I think I did an honorable job of it, but practically speaking I don’t support it.
            The people who cheat just break it too much.

          2. That’s exactly the way I broke in ROTC. The stress fractures in my right fibula healed–took six months–the back, as discs don’t, did not, and is still an issue, and I was out before commissioning.
            So I identify strongly with military matters but I’m not part of the group that actually served–but yes, I took the Oath. Which is why I usually say very little on military topics: I know plenty enough to have opinions but I don’t feel I have the same right as someone who actually did serve.

      3. The official statistic is that 92% of all roles in the IDF are open to women. Mostly these are non-combat roles, which does not mean they are not important or even vital. The combat positions open to women are mostly in the Navy and Air Force.

        The jobs NOT open to women are all those based on the ability to run up hills carrying 80 pounds of gear and a long rifle.

        Women fought on the front lines in 1948, but that was a desparate, back-to-the-wall situation; after that women soldiers were shifted away from combat positions until the 1990s, when things started to swing back. When opening a new combat role to women they start gradually, with one or two motivated volunteers, and reconsider after a few years.

  22. One I have yet to hear any avowed feminist demanding.

    Women need to be required to register for the draft just as men are.

    They’ve been calling for that as far back as I remember– my man-hating feminist English teacher, the one that hate(d/s) the military, ranted about how it should happen, or the whole “everyone should be required to serve for X years” thing.

    The logic was that being in the military is so horrible that if women had to do it, they’d get rid of it.

    I know that she’d frequently talk about then-current congressional actions to “fix” it.

    A quick search suggests that Charles S. Robb, D-Arizona, had some idea about the need for men and women to register for SS at about that time.

    I’d guess the difference is on what the feminists think of military service in general; the ones I heard go on about it felt safe in identifying the military as a horrible evil no-good crazy maker machine.

    1. The National Organization of Women has been pushing the “women should be included in all draft registration” thing since 1980, according to their website.
      1980 NOW announces opposition to the draft, but states that if there is a draft, NOW supports the inclusion of women on the same basis as men.

        1. Most likely, yes; doesn’t change that they’ve been calling for it for longer than I’ve been alive.

          Not like it’s the first time where they use a argument about “equality” to try to destroy their target, quite openly even.

  23. To become a Seal one must pass the BUD/S six month course. A snapshot of what that involves can be seen here;
    Off the top of my head I’d speculate that perhaps 1 in 50,000 men could qualify and perhaps 1 in 500,000 women. Anyone who thinks they have what it takes to be a Seal ought to have the chance to prove it. irregardless of gender. But we’re talking humans at the extreme tail of the bell curve for both physical ability and determination. Any attempt to “adjust” the requirements to make some rabid feminists happy would be a travesty and wind up putting our male and female soldiers at greater risk.

  24. No, no, no. Equality of opportunity, NOT obligation. We want women to be able to play soldier and tie up training slots for whatever specialty thrills them, whether they can meet the physical requirements or not, whether they’re deployable or not. We DON’T want women to be subject to call-up just because the country decides it needs them and being assigned to whatever task fits the needs of the service.
    kind of like marriage. You know, people should have the opportunity to marry whatever they want, but they shouldn’t have the obligation to honor that commitment any longer than convenient.

  25. Anyone who thinks feminists care about military women need only consider how they championed Kelly Flynn without a tear for Gayla Zigo. Women in glamorous jobs are championed and women in workaday jobs can FOAD.

    1. Only if they can help with some portion of the narrative, like Tammy Duckworth, that corrupt POS who probably will be senator from Illinoisy in 2017. She’s a war hero you know

  26. I wish I were a writer; I would write about the Scouts, the mostly-female troops who are out front BEFORE the fighting starts (though they might start it) gathering intelligence, exterminating sentries, being the “death in the darkness” that the enemy fears far more than an outright battle, since you can SEE the enemy in such a daylight engagement. I would write about how they live in dark, wet and cold conditions to avoid detection, while providing vital information on troop locations, strength, armaments and so forth to the main army; how they deal with the inevitable problems in relationships, coordination with a mostly-male main army and challenges in health, happiness and personal hygiene when baths are far too rare and time for them even rarer.
    But then, unfortunately (or possibly fortunately) I’m not a writer, so feel free to steal the idea and make it bloom.

          1. Good idea are nothing — knowing what to do with them is the key. After all, Heinlein “stole” Citizen of the Galaxy from Kipling and Willy the Spearshaker swiped many of his plays from older tales.

            In fact, if you’re gonna swipe, swipe from the best. Just be sure you either do a good job filing odd serial numbers or call your effort a homage.

            1. Or get published by Tor, where one can write a mediocre piece of fanfic with just enough filed off to avoid a lawsuit from Paramount and have it result in a Hugo-winning novel.


  27. 1) If men are required by law to register for the draft, so should women. Equal rights, equal responsibilities. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS.
    2) I still have not come across any reasoned argument why we NEED a draft at all. The all-volunteer army has been a resounding success from all I have heard from the inside, and nobody wants to go back to draftees and all the problems they bring. Plus, we are now in the digital age. If we need people we’ll just go to the NSA archives 😉
    3) Amazingly, women (and men) who never work out or exercise have piss-poor upper body strength. I respectfully suggest that the true limitations of two X chromosomes has not been reached or evaluated. I VIVIDLY recall having to buldoze the PE teacher in junior high because I wanted to work out in the weight room vs. do “jazzercise”, which I loathed. Guess what, I’m stronger than average.
    4) When I am supreme overlord, there will be a sudden surprise fitness evaluation of all MOS in the military. No exceptions–if you serve in that capacity, clearly you are fit for it. A Gaussian distribution shall be generated of the physical capabilities, and the minimum for that MOS will be marked slightly to the left of the peak. This will be true for women and men. Anyone who wishes to change MOS must pass the fitness requirements to do so. Pay will be scaled to the risk and rarity of the fitness level. Strength qualifications will be based on absolute vs. relative strength, i.e. no pushup/situp where a 98 lb person can do pushups all day, but still can’t lift a 100lb rucksack. On the other hand, a little person who can bench a tank is totally in. Oh, and anyone who uses the term BMI except in the context of a joke will be summarily cashiered.
    5) The military will kindly cease and desist from doing their “studies” on women’s physical fitness with female soldiers who enlisted under their original qualification levels and with the CLEAR understanding there would be no combat roles for women. This is called “culling the sample” and is unsat in the scientific world. Why, pray tell, would a competent woman capable of and interested in fulfilling the 11B role in every particular SIGN UP with an organization that has made it clear she won’t be able to follow her interests and use her strengths? That’s a classic example of the “I’m looking for the keys I dropped in the dark alley out here where the light is better.”
    6) There are strong women out there. I’ve been to powerlifting meets. Not the Russian Ladies Swim team either. Just very, very fit. And before the “but there are men stronger”, sure. There are men stronger than other men, too. And we don’t make our army out of the One Strongest Guy, either. Look up the vital statistics of one Audie Murphy if you want a giggle. And he was awarded the Medal of Honor.
    7) Changing the names is beyond stupid. The map is not the territory. Calling an idiot an Entropy Augmentation Specialist doesn’t change much either.

    1. The Army has in fact done intensive training programs trying to get women up to the standard you would normally get in men after boot camp. Most women flunked.

      1. Again–this was after they enlisted, completely assured no combat roles. And this is a cultural issue. Girls are routinely dissuaded from strength training, so it isn’t surprising they start from a disadvantage. Much like the whole math brouhaha. If you don’t learn the basics early, you will always be catching up. I’ve been in the thick of both issues. It’s amazing how women’s math ability suddenly shows up when its the only way to get to a University 🙂 (The European system)

    2. Changing the names is beyond stupid. The map is not the territory. Calling an idiot an Entropy Augmentation Specialist doesn’t change much either.

      Okay, got to disagree here…the change makes it much funnier.

    3. Re. #3. When I first got to play in a weight room, I bulked up quite quickly. Apparently if I’d started young enough, and been serious about it, I could have been a competitive female power lifter. I’m on the statistical tail of the curve, but it can be done, and more women do need to lift weights or do other resistance exercises in order to fend off bone loss with age. (Now I just wish my triceps and biceps were a bit smaller, or sleeves cut a little bit more generously.)

      1. I knew a sculptress who was as tall as a hobbit but built like Gimli. Still not good with backpacks, even though she could heave steel and stone and had a strong back.

        I don’t know what the deal is with nurses lifting people. I don’t think it is the same as what firemen do.

          1. They three-person lifted ME, and I’m tiny; 136 pounds when I was going to be c-sectioned for Brandon, but that was immediately accompanied by “strewth, she weighs nothing!” I think the 3 person lift is done more as a safety standard and to help keep the back as straight as possible.

            Also I couldn’t climb up onto the operating table/bed thing. They decided against it when they saw how short I was.

      2. Hooray! Another female who seriously lifts weights. I’ve always enjoyed lifting – I was the girl in my high school PE class trying to maximize weight lift on weights day when everybody else was all, “Well, I just want to tone.”

        Now, I seriously lift because I have a husband who is twice my weight and, God forbid, should there be an emergency, it is on me to haul him out of our burning house. I don’t look lean and trim (I lack willpower when it comes to food), but that’s not really the point for me.

        And I hear you about sleeves – I’ve Hulk-ripped more than one shirt by accident.

    4. I see what you’re laying down, and I agree… Within limits.

      Regardless of training, there are a lot of biological constraints that you can’t train away. Wider hips, hormonal differences due to menses, higher body fat, and a bunch of other stuff that’s too numerous to mention in a casual post.

      I would speculate that you probably could make female troops into solid infantrymen. However, comma, I think you’d have to start them out at about the same point in their lives that you start making elite gymnasts, and put them through a training program that would make Nadia Comenici’s coach envious of your power over little girls.

      The problem, Sabrina, is that we’re not dealing with the ideal situation here, where there are loads of available, fit women to recruit for these jobs. We’re dealing with what we get coming into the recruiting station, and those girls are most assuredly not elite athletes. They didn’t lay down the bone density, the muscle strength, or any of the other features they’d need, and once they hit the age we can recruit them, there’s no overcoming that, at least not with current affordable medical technology. I can turn the average male couch potato into a reasonable facsimile of the guys who stormed D-Day beaches in a few months, at age 18. I’m not doing that with his sister, even if she played at a few sports in high school.

      You’re not dealing with ideals here; you’re dealing with what the manpower pipeline spits out at you, and you’re not going to get very many of these 95th percentile females you’re talking about. Those young ladies all have different options in life, and different desires–They don’t want to go play infantry. What you will be getting isn’t what you’d like to think you would, and because the system absolutely has to “make the numbers”, they’re going to let those grossly unfit for duty women through, even push them at you. Long-term effects? Do the math.

      You probably could make the average little girl into a good infantryman, starting her out around age nine, and working her ass off from there to age 18. She’s not going to look like your darling little girl when it’s all over with, and I don’t think she’s going to thank you, either, considering what you’ll have likely done to her health and long-term prospects for motherhood.

      There’s a twin study out there, comparing two female identical twins whose parents divorced. The dad (I think…) pushed “his” daughter into a gymnastics program that got her either really close, or into the Olympics. Her sister wasn’t pushed that way by her mom, and didn’t do that. The gymnast was about five feet tall at maturity, didn’t experience menses until she was 15, and looked like a little girl at age 21. Her sister? Five feet, six inches tall, menses at 13, and looked like her sister’s mom at 21. She had kids. Her sister never could, due to issues with her reproductive health.

      We could make female grunts. The question is, why? We’re a sexually dimorphic species. We could probably (in theory, anyway…) impregnate a male, and help him bring a child to term, too, but we’re not bothering with that, are we?

  28. I don’t understand why draft registration is even up for debate. I think it was the early 1980s (since I seem to recall being in high school, not yet 18) that SCOTUS ruled that only requiring men to register was constitutional because women were excluded from combat jobs. Since that’s no longer the case, excluding women from the draft is a violation of men’s 14th Amendment rights… right?

    As far as renaming job titles, has the Compersondant of the Marine Corps weighed in on this yet?

  29. I agree. Women should have to register for the draft. I’d make a terrible solider though. And the military probably doesn’t need librarians.

    1. And the military probably doesn’t need librarians.

      Well, one aspect of the draft is that the military tells you what job you’ll have.

      As far as not needing librarians, though, I suspect your skills might translate well to some jobs in military intelligence (insert oxymoron joke here).

      1. Yeah, there’s all those hardcovers to inflict blunt force trauma with.

        I speak from experience – I used a hardcover book’s upper spine-side corner, coupled with the turning of a subway car on the rails, to smash a pervert in the groin who thought it’d be nice to pretend he wasn’t grinding his crotch into my cheek. He couldn’t hide the cumstain on the pants fabric either and he fled. That pervert avoided the subway car if he ever saw me on it henceforth; to the point that he would step off if he saw me.

        This happened in France, and the guy was Pakistani looking.

  30. My son-in-law in a U.S. Army Staff Sargent recruiter in command of a recruitment station. He’s going to leave after over 10 years because of the new bullshit coming down. He can’t encourage folks to tell the truth. One of his recruiters got in serious trouble (as did he) because one of his enlistee’s lied about not being convicted of a felony (the enlistee was). When the enlistee was discharged, he told the Army the recruiter had told him to lie. So, the enlistee got off scot-free (instead of going to the brig for lying on his application) and out of the Army and the guy who recruited him was in trouble. Plus, the requirements are so stiff, that it’s nearly impossible to enlist someone. So, he’s currently working 10 hour shifts, 6 day’s a week so he can meet his quota.

    I was talking to my daughter yesterday, and she was telling me all this. Drill Sargents are barred from yelling, and waking anybody up, or ordering any punishment that was previously OK (like, in my case holding 9 pounds straight out in front of my until someone in the unit dropped theirs (at the end of basic, we went 20 minutes one time and never had to do it again)). Or, in my son-in-laws case having his Drill Sargent beat on the trash can at 3:00 AM so that everyone could go outside and get counted.

    He has said, he’d almost rather go back to Afghanistan than continue to be a recruiter because of the stupid shit he has to put up with.

    1. Recruiting has always, always sucked. I could tell you stories from when I was doing it back around 1990 that would likely sicken your stomach.

      The root problem is this: We’re not a serious society, and we don’t take these things at all seriously, either. Nobody really thinks we’re facing an existential threat, and because of that, nobody really gives a rip. It’s all a game, to all involved.

      Which is why there’s a huge military disaster, on the scale of Pearl Harbor or Kasserine Pass, somewhere in the near-term future for these United States. My guess is that it will likely either be the Persian Gulf, or the Chinese going after Guam/Okinawa.

      Complacency kills, and not taking these issues is evidence of complacency to the nth degree.

      1. Funnily enough, I don’t actually think the Chinese would conquer via war when they can buy up properties instead and be the ones who wage-enslave local populations *eyes Africa*

        All you need are some weak governments. Much easier, and less messy.

        1. … wage-enslave …

          Keep in mind that that term is a Marxist myth; there’s no such thing. There may be such a thing as paying your workers much less than you can afford because you can get away with it (e.g., you’ve got a monopoly on providing jobs and they don’t have other employers they could jump ship to). But “wage slavery” is a myth, unless you’re actually threatening people with violence for resigning. (In which case it’s real slavery). If you’re not coercing people to work for you, then they’re voluntarily choosing to work that job, because as crappy as its pay might be, it’s better for them than the alternative of unemployment.

          To talk about “wage slavery” is to buy into Marxist thinking. Say what you really mean, which is “jobs that pay crappy wages”, and avoid letting the Marxists influence your thinking.

          1. ^^; I was being sarcastic/joking with the ‘wage enslave’ hon. I know it’s a myth, cooked up by the Marxists, and intentionally used it as a bit of tongue-in-cheek because of the whole idea of Communist Chinese being some of the few capitalist employers that could give steady work in Africa, and, from what I recall reading some years back, were able to put up groceries and shops that would be occasionally attacked, ransacked and gutted by men angry at the ‘wealthy foreigners getting richer off of African earnings/sweat, blood and tears/work.’ Also mocking the mindset that sees that working for foreigners as ‘wage-enslavement’ because the Chinese are the only ones with businesses, thus employment, and then also are the only ones with shops from which they can buy goods for cheaper. It’s a bit of a strange/stupid mindset to me, to get angry at the people who employ you for also selling goods that allow you to stretch your funds further.

            1. I recall hearing one man’s tale of California in the Depression, when he signed on as a (IIRC) strawberry picker on a farm. They advanced his expense money for room and board and when payday came around he found he was in the hole and had to work another week to get still deeper into debt. Two Japanese-American women working there who had mastered the knack of coming out ahead eventually gave him the money to pay off his debt and leave.

              He said no matter about Pearl Harbor he was never able to completely work up a hatred of Japanese.

          2. I suspect the term as used here has a different sense. Growing up in West Byrdginia I learned of the Company Town, where a mining company provided rental housing for miners and their families, a credit line at the company store and various other amenities. The catch was that earnings and expenses tended to be calculated to keep a person always in debt and unable to leave.

            You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
            Another day older and deeper in debt
            Saint Peter, don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
            I owe my soul to the company store

            1. Company towns can be a very nasty thing, and I’m not really sure how to address them from a free market perspective. They’re not really coercion as such, just a natural monopoly. They’re generally in a hard-to-supply area, so it’s unlikely for competing businesses to arise to cater to the residents/workers. That sort of abusive treatment is unethical and immoral, but I haven’t seen a remedy that I’m happy with; giving gov’t the power to intervene in business relationships opens doors with ugly things behind them. *sigh* ‘Tis a fallen world indeed.

              1. The one thing I can think of that could work from a free-market perspective is exposure. These days with nearly-ubiquitous Internet access (even the poorest African countries have cell phones everywhere, with text message plans if nothing else), someone could get the word out that company XYZ pays their workers *this* much, but charges *this* much for room and board. The result of such exposure would hopefully be widespread condemnation of the company; faced with a public-relations nightmare, they would either have to change their practices or lose customers left and right.

                If that fails, the other thing that would probably happen is violence by the workers against the employers who are cheating them. Which is NOT a good solution, as that’s basically a description of labor unions.

                1. If that fails, the other thing that would probably happen is violence by the workers against the employers who are cheating them.

                  If you have a problem… if no one else can help… and if you can find them… maybe you can get the A-Team to shoot cabbages at the people running the show.

                  (sorry, the episode where they helped unionize a bunch of migrant farm workers popped into my head)

              2. Or any other perspective. The God That Failed had one account that observed that the USSR was just one big company town.

              3. The free-market solution is that someone hears about the situation and sends a peddler’s wagon over to undercut the company store rates. But—
                • The company can still overcharge for housing;
                • The company will start paying wages in scrip; and
                • Such companies will readily resort to violence to maintain their position.
                At which point you’ve got de facto slavery and the workers are justified in armed violent rebellion.

          3. It’s defensible in describing the “Company Store” style setup– just gets used to describe all wage earners, which is dumb.

  31. I think we’re all in agreement that America ought dispose of the Draft, and that drafting women would be a self-destructive way of exacting vengeance on the idiots pushing for an equality of unequal things. Before we get carried away it seems useful to visit this argument against drafting women, from Mark Antonio Wright at NRO’s gangblog, The Corner:

    The progressive Left’s argument has always been that only those women who are qualified and can meet the high physical standards of the combat arms will be placed in combat units. Implicit is the admission that only a small minority of women would meet those standards.

    This is, of course, only evidence of continued sloppy thinking on the Pentagon’s part — influenced by politically correct ideas about the “equality” of the sexes.

    Conscription is intended to raise manpower (no microagression intended) in bulk. If only a small minority of women could qualify for the combat arms in ideal circumstances, why should the military be forced to sift through the tens of thousands of likely unqualified females thrust upon them in the event of a national emergency — the only situation in which a draft would be instituted?

    Missouri senator Claire McCaskill, a supporter of the idea, opined during the hearing, “Part of me believes that asking women to register as we ask men to register would maybe possibly open up more recruits as women began to think about, well, the military is an option for me.”

    But the military, unlike almost every other path in life, is not about what is best for the individual. It’s not about creating “options” or “opportunities” for young Americans. It’s not about fairness or equality or college scholarships. It’s about what’s best for the nation, about defending the United States from its enemies by waging war and defeating them. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer Americans show evidence of grasping this basic point.

    Proponents of this proposal should be asked to answer a simple question: In what way would registering females for the draft unambiguously improve the national security of the United States?

    Emphasis in original.

          1. I am reliably informed that a majority of men can’t find those buttons without a flashlight, a map and vocal directions.

  32. Related:
    As Men Go, So Goes the Future
    By Andrew Klavan February 3, 2016
    In the wake of repeated and escalating Muslim attacks on women throughout Europe, Popular Danish columnist Iben Thranholm dares to state the obvious: the problem lies not only with the violent sexism of immigrant Muslim males but also with the weakness of the boys from home. In a column called “Europe’s Tragedy: Too Much Angela Merkel, Too Little Masculinity,” Miss Thranholm writes:

    Pundits and politicians assure the public that refugee males now storming the gates of Europe from the Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia will be required to learn that Western women are independent and sexually liberated. Such arguments, however, are obviously too weak to have any impact on the male cultures representative of certain refugee groups.

    To these individuals, strong European women are ‘easy’ and easy victims; they have respect only for strong men – and strong men aren’t exactly thick on the ground in Europe.

    Socialism — dulling the competitive capitalist edge that keeps men sharp and smart — has also drained the masculine life force.

    The result is not powerful, confident women striding in equality with their male partners. The result is fearful, tremulous feminists who hysterically fear rape culture on college campuses where it is not, and western leaders who don’t dare to see the rape culture inherent in invading Islam, where it is.


  33. This is somewhat parallel with something I thought this morning. I was driving to work and heard a woman on the radio saying: We nee to have more women experts in the media”, and I thought:
    No, we need to have the best experts in the media, no matter what gender they are.

  34. thoughts on females in the military
    Bonniefides – 12 years (E-4/E-7 Admin Co. FLNG) mid ’70’s – late 80’s

    The company was ~45% female and well integrated at any given time. That was because it was an administrative company. The sections were finance, postal, personnel records, PIO/PA, IG, JAG – all of which handled these functions for a BTN(~300personnel) during the year and for a BGD(~1200?personnel) at the annual training. Occasionally we would go up to Ft Stewart GA and handle the admin for the whole post
    During my time I was the NCOIC in Records, PIO/PA, Postal and IG.
    Most of the women were good troops – always a few exceptions – but certain company functions could not be accomplished by the females acting alone. Setting up our cantonment – 14GP med and 9GP small tents always tasked the company to the point that eventually I organized a “tent crew” who would go out and put up the tents before the rest of the company came out to the cantonment. Loading, unloading, and driving a deuce-and-a-half(old stick shift) also was mostly done by the guys – had to teach several females how to drive a jeep….
    Once in the field the females had their own separate latrine as well as separate sleeping area(a couple GP smalls) and a senior NCO in each for security. The company was mostly self-contained in that each section would visit other units during the day but always came back to the company area at night. Night moves could be a problem mostly because the guys had to do the load out. We solved that issue by using the females as perimeter security while loading and unloading.
    PT tests were fun. I remember once running backwards while encouraging one of our officers to make her time. Digging/setting up fighting positions was always fun.
    Female problems occasionally and I usually got them first just because… We usually had a female CO and most of the sections had female OIC’s. It was pretty much the only company set up that way. Only had a couple of real probs once or twice. One of the females was “mistreated” by a soldier from another unit and it was all I could do to keep her friends (and the whole company) from descending on his unit. One kept bringing her “friends” back to her room(when we were in barracks) which upset some of the others. A couple of females always seemed to have some sort of problem right around annual training time.
    ‘Course all of my time was before the SJW had taken over the country, and it was an NG unit, so it only got together once a month and for two weeks Annual Training.
    That said, I know the guys in the unit always worked harder because of the females in the unit. OTOH, we did have WOMEN in our unit… so our parties were usually the best around.

Comments are closed.