Women in the military

It was summed up by Fred Reed, ex navy brat and war correspondent:

The problem is not that we have women in the military. There are women in the services who have jobs they can do, who do them well, and who are dedicated to the military. They, and the men around them, know who they are.

Rather the problem is:

(1) feminization of military values,
(2) recruitment of low-grade women with no commitment to the armed services, and
(3) unwillingness to discipline them.

From a helicopter instructor pilot:

Ask any man in the military today what the first thing he does before he opens his mouth and without fail you will hear “I look over my shoulder to see if there are any females in the area.” Please don’t use my name because I too am always looking over my shoulder.


One Petty Officer told me that his relief on watch was three hours late. His Chief asked him not to write it in his report because then the person would have to be put on report, and since it was a black female, the Chief would have his butt reamed by the C.O. for not being more considerate …

The issue is discipline and troop morale:

“Ma’am, could you tell me the definition of this term in aviation.” Her reply “Who gives a shit?” The same female student was caught reading a novel when she was supposed to be studying for her checkride. “You’re damn right I was reading a novel, I’d have been bored to death otherwise” She busted several checkrides but she is out there occupying a seat today.


Now, what do these physical differences mean for society outside of the military? Almost nothing. A woman doesn’t need strength to be a surgeon, professor, senator, journalist, or CEO. But weak women will get men killed in war. I’ve seen wars. I’ve been on casualty wards. So have a lot of men. For us, war isn’t abstract, and getting men killed to appease feminists isn’t cute.


My last tour was during Desert Storm. During convoy “rest stops”, any males found to be on the curb side of the vehicles were punished under Art. 15, UCMJ, for “spying on the ladies” while the “ladies” were relieving themselves. Now a vehicle must be checked during stops: oil, tire air pressure, trailer hitches, etc. How can one do it when they are limited to the road-side only?

Upon arriving at our Saudi Arabia / Iraq border containment area tents were erected. Of course you know who was detailed to erect the female tents! Then there was the issue of latrines, you’ve seen them with the cut off 55 gal. barrels to catch the dung. Guess who was not detailed to the s- -t burning detail? Right again.


As an Attack Helicopter Pilot, [in training] I was told that falling out of a run at the Warrant Officer Entry Course was grounds to be set back. I saw men sent back. I saw women fall out constantly, but were kept. During a briefing from Perscom, the Lieutenant Colonel told us that any woman in that room could raise their hand and he would put them in AH-64 [Apache: a sophisticated anti-tank helicopter] training. He told the men in the room that there was not enough money to train them. Later I served with a woman who had raised her hand. She was now pregnant and wanted nothing more to do with the Army.


Each is supposed to have a “child care” plan provided as part of their mobility record. However, upon questioning, those few I talked to revealed that they had no such plan. Call-ups frequently result in the minority (and some white single mothers) women suddenly “discovering” their mobility child care plan won’t work for some reason (in fact, it never existed and I even suspect some of planning it that way). We find out that we lose 10-15% of each unit being called up. In war, a 15% combat loss is considered devastating.

So let’s leave off those men and read a woman’s testimony:

I joined Civil Air Patrol at the age of 16. Growing up, I had heard about the military a lot and I was raised with an emphasis on character more than anything else. I really wanted to serve my country and ultimately, I wanted an outlet for that country. I wanted to do something which was needed … which would actually help people.

However, my time with CAP merely served to confirm what I had been taught about feminism and what I had observed elsewhere. I had gone in, not with feminism on my mind but quickly discovered it was alive and well there. Girls weren’t just given the opportunity to succeed, it became apparent to me very quickly that it was important and good that women achieve.

They didn’t really care about the guys so much. A male and a female could be promoted to the same rank and the female is the one who’d get the attention … because she was a girl, because it was novel, because she was supposed to, because it was cool, because it was politically correct, because it furthered the feminist agenda.

And this bothered me because it was humiliating to the guys and also because it was humiliating to me. I thought how badly would I have to fail before it was recognized that I was failing. Now, for the record, I was a very good cadet – I loved my job and … I was promoted through the cadet officer ranks very quickly. I enjoyed learning and taking my tests and doing my job.

[I thought it was objective] but then I started looking at promotions [to see how objective they were]. I looked at the physical fitness tests. Our PT tests follow the air force’s grading system, so it involved push-ups, sit-ups, sit-and-reach, a shuttle run and then also a timed mile run.

So when I was a 2nd lieutenant, I was chosen to be the primary representative for my squadron at the Cadet Advisory Council, which is kinda like the Congress of CAP.

It wasn’t the fact that the male and female tests were different which shocked me – anyone with any common sense is going to realize that males are going to almost always outperform females physically. Thus the standards were different and I didn’t tackle that specifically. It wasn’t the difference which bothered me.

It was the enormous gap [in] requirements.

The requirements changed according to your age, the promotion you were going for and your gender and I was looking at one particular phase for one particular promotion – a male had to run the mile in just over seven minutes and a female of the same age had to run it in ten something.

Now first of all – I can walk a mile in ten something minutes but secondly, those sorts of differences aren’t just taking male and female differences into account – it’s giving the females an enormous edge on the males. Let me put it another way – there isn’t s a female in CAP or even outside who couldn’t run or walk the mile in ten something minutes but there were plenty of males who were failing the seven something standard, not because the males were more out of shape either – that’s the other thing. There were plenty of overweight females who were passing and being promoted.

She complained and this happened:

So, at the next CAC meeting, I asked them to table that issue – female PT standards – that’s how it read on the agenda. I presented all the evidence and was met by a typical comeback – that females are anatomically different and thus they need more of an edge in order to be promoted.

Of course, it can be argued that if the males need a certain standard in order to do this job, shouldn’t the females also be at this standard?

Look at it, I said. We’re promoting plenty of incompetent and physically out of shape females and denying promotion to plenty of males who would easily pass the female standard and would almost pass their own standards.

I got absolutely pummelled from all sides. There were very few who supported me – a few guys saw what I was saying but didn’t really speak up. There was one female in particular and she’s now at the Airforce Academy – she’s the one who used the “females are anatomically different” excuse.

I said yeah, I understand but look – I mean, seriously, a three minute difference on a mile, if you are a runner, you’d know is enormous.

It’s astonishing.

I was told this is based on Airforce PT Standards slash Presidential Fitness Challenge.

And I made the argument that that’s nice but if the PFC causes us to unfairly give an advantage to females and to disadvantage males, we need to take another look at it.

And finally they tried flattering me and saying not all women are as physically fit as you and that was perhaps the first time that I felt the fires of indignation absolutely welling up inside of me, as I saw these people chuckling to themselves and passing it off as “well, you’re just physically fit”.

And that really irritated me because they were using every trick in the book to excuse this Female Supremacy Doctrine. For all the evidence I brought out, for all the logic, for all the facts, all the statistics – none of it mattered to them … and they pitched it out of the window and pitched me off the agenda without a single supporting document except perhaps the PFC and told me never to bring it up again.

And she gets to the bottom line:

That incident really opened my eyes to the evils of feminism and suddenly I started to see things I really hadn’t seen before. Any time I scooped up an award, I was immediately told I was a poster child, that I had it all, that I was the model cadet and I couldn’t help but feel a lot of it was because I was a female because I knew guys were succeeding just as much as I was.

The other thing about CAP was leadership and women were pushed so much more than the guys in my opinion; I cannot tell you the number of times I saw incidents where women were pushed forward and guys held back. It wasn’t enough for women to be doing their part – they had to be out in the lead, running the show and there were all too many guys who were completely fine with that.

A lot of the flak I cop from feminists is that I’m old-fashioned, that I haven’t got a personality of my own, that I neither want nor am capable of living a life outside the home and that ultimately my opnion is rooted in me being naive and in what I was taught.

I have witnessed discrimination from guys who should have passed me over and didn’t … because the system or agenda was holding them back.

This raises the question of the lowering of standards across the service. Which god do we serve – combat efficiency or gender equality.

America has clearly made her choice.

How bad is it in the UK?

My long novel in three parts had, as a major theme, the idea of men and women as combat pairs, even down to the weapons they would use to complement one another. It involved a vicious Big Brother type enemy and them as fugitives [I know, I know, I’m not asking you to read it].

I envisaged they’d be real partnerships in life and therefore would know each other’s every mood and state, perhaps becoming very efficient combat groups. It was an attempt to put a PCist idea into a possible, realistic scenario.

Unfortunately, in the light of the above, it was just a novel.

Seriously, this PCism has to stop. It’s reached the stage of insanity, where life and death situations riding on it have contributed to the collapse of morale and for what – so girls can play big boy’s games and say, “See, I can do anything you can do.”


Notice where the weapon is pointed

Appendix: EWAF report [UK] May 2002

The standards in 2002 were equalized for women and men and as a result, of the 2367 women who applied that year, they found the conclusions unclear and that anomalies abounded, so they could not draw any clear conclusions.

They did estimate that only a small percentage of the women would have met the physical standards [Special Forces not included].

22 comments for “Women in the military

  1. March 19, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    I’m a bit disappointed. I was hoping for a gallery of cute Israeli girl soldiers.

    • March 19, 2012 at 3:20 pm

      My wife has gone to bed so I can say this:

      Me too. :mrgreen:

  2. john in cheshire
    March 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Positive discrimination for men in teaching posts might help undo some of the damage that womenisation has caused in all walks of life.

    • March 20, 2012 at 5:32 am

      It might help a bit, but it’s not a solution when they are unable to insist on discipline.

  3. March 19, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    Basically I’m all for chivalry, which recognizes differences and men tend to look out to protect women.

    OK, another paradigm has women absolutely equal. If they are, that’s fine. If they require no special provision for maternity, can run all day and keep up with the men 100%, don’t get any special consideration whatever, that’s fine. That’s what equality means.

    What is so utterly wrong is when they are clearly not equal and require “special pleading”, yet everyone wants to pretend they are. It’s “pretend” equality because they want to play with the boys so much or at least compete with them. It’s like when your kid is wrestling with you and you let him win – he thinks he’s actually won.

    The thing is – everyone knows this, everyone abets it, especially the lefties and everyone pretends all is well. It’s not well, it’s anything but well. As that officer said above:

    Weak women will get men killed in war. I’ve seen wars. I’ve been on casualty wards. So have a lot of men. For us, war isn’t abstract, and getting men killed to appease feminists isn’t cute.

    I’ve been in the opposite situation. Where I work on Saturday, the woman rules because it’s the type of thing she does so much better. I’m Ok but can’t really compete at her level. As far as I’m concerned, that’s fine – horses for courses.

    It’s just that the other way round, it’s never horses for courses and that’s where the government comes in to enforce what is clearly unsustainable.

    This post is on the military where people really do get killed but education and that Missouri Dam are cases where, although people weren’t actually killed, a hell of a lot of damage was done.

    It’s got our of control. Who is strong enough to say to the ladies, politely yet firmly, “No. It’s simply not on, we’re not playing games here.” It’s almost as though men have become wimps.

    • March 19, 2012 at 3:46 pm

      If they can do the job who cares what a person keeps in their underpants, but FFS you can’t go adjusting what the needs of the job are to suit the chromosomes of half the potential candidates. This seems to be what the British military, and probably others, are doing instead of doing the rational thing of opening all jobs to everyone, male and female alike, but having only one set of entry criteria applying to both genders and accepting that only physically exceptional women will make the grade for certain roles. Yes, that means that virtually no women will get in the SAS, but since they wouldn’t have me just because I’m a man that’s not actually any kind of gender discrimination.

      P.S. A slight tangent, although it’s police rather than military and the colossal error made is hardly the result of her gender I’d bet the woman in this photo (which is apparently genuine despite lots of claims that is was Pshopped) probably wishes she’d stayed at home baking cakes or something that day. If it had been me I’d have wanted to leave the planet.

      • March 19, 2012 at 4:43 pm

        Second link doesn’t seem to work, AE.

        What was pointed out by those serving officers was that it goes beyond egalitarianism and gets into rules about who can sit where, who can say what to her and then there is the menstruation, rape and pregnancy question.

        That girl who hung herself, her parents say, had been raped twice. In a combat zone, as anyone who’s been on exercises knows, there is no effing time for such crap. That’s before it gets to the distraction factor.

        Add the PCism mentioned by the GI Jane above and it’s a simple no-no.

        Then, on top of that, there is the logistical problem of providing two sets of equipment for the one lot of people and they say that austerity is causing cutbacks?

        Then comes women’s attitudes to things. Someone who reads a book when she should be training and can’t be touched for it is a total impossibility in a combat zone.

        So sorry but lovely egalitarian gestures like “open it up to all comers” is way too simplistic in this situation.

        I most certainly do not hate women but I do know what they’re like in various scenarios. If your kid had a loaded gun and you took it off him, does that mean you hate him?


        The publication of the findings of a new study
        done by the Israel Defense Forces Medical
        Corps, at the initiative of the commander of
        the ground forces, that determined that the
        physical demands posed by most combat tasks in
        the army are too tough for female soldiers, is
        also a sensitive issue for them.

        The women have not shown they can cope, when tested and yet they’re up in arms about the very report based on the results. In other words, they’re so desperate to be seen as equal, that they challenge the very results of their tests. That’s exactly what I meant about women’s minds. You can get away with that in society but not where a life depends on it. It’s this air of unreality which is so dangerous about a woman on issues like this.

        They scornfully dismiss the notion that they are
        unable to go on long marches, find it hard to
        lift tank shells, are too short, are too weak
        and do not eat enough, as well, of course, as
        the conclusions of that study: the objection to
        the possibility that in the future, girls will
        be able to be integrated into additional roles
        in the IDF.

        They can scornfully dismiss it all they like – quantitative results are quantitative results. WTF are they trying to do to themselves? Here’s a typical response:

        “It seems disgusting to me that they want to
        close combat roles to girls,” says Liron Mazor
        from Bat Yam angrily. “Why doesn’t the state
        believe in the ability of girls? I’m in the
        field every day. So it’s true that girls have
        certain physical problems, but all of them are

        Being in the field every day is not exactly a quantitative assessment, Liron. It’s not the state questioning you, it’s your own forces’ assessments. The state itself is saying women are equal and can do anything, that the 12% of combat duties still closed to women must be opened up to them. So the state is your friend, if letting you commit suicide is considered friendly.

        Here’s why your colleagues are not impressed:

        In the language of the study, women have “a very
        low likelihood of surviving” in a role such as
        infantry fighter, operator of heavy machinery
        in the Engineering Corps, tank crew member or
        fighter in a commando or special force.

        There it is. That’s the reality. Now, the only problem is your mind in understanding that.

        • March 20, 2012 at 3:17 am

          “So sorry but lovely egalitarian gestures like “open it up to all comers” is way too simplistic in this situation.”

          Really? It seems to be absolutely in line with what you were saying, i.e. let nothing other than the needs of the job dictate the requirements. It’s not egalitarian at all, merely pragmatic. The needs of the job come first, last and at every stage in between, so the requirements for applicants are absolutely fixed in stone. End of.

          The important implication of that is that women will effectively be all but excluded from many roles once allowances are no longer made for gender and meeting those requirements will be beyond almost all of them. I doubt you’ll find many femmies accusing me of egalitarianism there, though if allowing people who are almost certain to fail to waste their time having a crack only to be weeded out at the earliest stages is egalitarianism then okay, I’m being egalitarian. We already do this anyway…

          “Hi, I’ve come in to apply to be a fighter pilot.”
          “Okay. Here’s the application form and a pen.”
          “Right in front of you.”
          “Er… nope?”
          “Can I ask you, how’s your vision?”
          “I’m 6/12 in one eye and blind in the other.”
          “Ah, well there’s quite a strict vision requirement, and you don’t even come close, you see.”
          “Hey, that was insensitive.”
          “Sorry, poor choice of words. But fighter pilots need good vision and we can’t change it.”
          “Can’t I fly at night when it doesn’t matter?”
          “Not really, no.”

          What’s the problem with applying the same approach to every single job in the military? Can you carry 75kg around all day and cover a marathon distance? No? Then sorry, you’re not in. Is it because you have breasts? No, it’s because you can’t carry 75kg around all day and cover a marathon distance. You get 100% male personnel, or so close that there’s no practical difference, in all the parts of the military that women are generally not suited for, and the femmies get told that there is absolutely no gender exclusion at all, just criteria that are dictated by whatever the job is. Ovaries should be no bar, but being shorter than your own rifle bloody should be.

          If your kid had a loaded gun and you took it off him, does that mean you hate him?

          Depends. Does he know what he’s doing with it and do I believe he’s handling it safely? If so then why should I take it off him? If not then why would I let him have it to begin with? 😉

          • March 20, 2012 at 6:09 am

            AE, let me quote something first which puts it in perspective:


            This is not a new issue. In the debate on ERA in the States, in testimony before House Armed Services Committee, March 5, 1980, Mary Lawlor represented WAC Veterans for Freedom. As a World War II veteran, Lawlor claimed first hand knowledge of the problems of women in combat. She claimed that “even if we [men and women] were equal, we would still be different.”

            More importantly, she backed up Schlafly’s belief that bringing women into the military was not primarily a national defense issue. “I believe the question of women in combat has been raised by feminists who have never served in uniform and never will … I believe their motives are not to improve national defense, but to satisfy other interests.”

            Lawlor ended her statements to congress by quoting Alexis de Tocqueville on the dangers of gender mixing, “nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”

            This is precisely what we’re seeing now – emasculated men and manly women and that is what is being reported from the coalface. There comes a point when sheer evidence shows ideological constructs to be false.

            In civilian society, this can be a jolly debate in a women’s studies group. In the military, it’s a question of life and death in combat roles.


            There was no operational need to have women in the frontline forces at all. The job’s been done perfectly well in the past by men, with women filling roles more suited to them, e.g. driving, sniping, things requiring the soft touch, e.g. Anna Chapman.

            It’s also well to bear in mind that the mindset of a soldier is different to the civvy in that the former is there to defend the land, the women and the kids. This has come out in so many of the reported tales from the military, not just in the U.S. but from Russia and Australia. In fact, anywhere there is a redblooded male who’s a fighter.

            It’s been reported over and over that the men were stressed out by combat fatalities and injuries to their womenfolk and that is the overrriding consideration – it trumps the PC reasoning put up by “let’s be fairists” that “wouldn’t it be lovely to have equality and women in the forces”.

            In that EWAF paper at the end of the post, you’ll see that 1% of women can make the cut [and this was confirmed in other reportage I saw], when that cut was the same as the men’s, not to mention the destabilizing effect of women in a positive way [libido – just look at MW’s and others’ comments, inc mine]”.

            Not to mention the pregnancy [loss of up to 15% of troops] and rape issue [very real in the armed forces – eight cases right now in the U.S. plus that girl who hanged herself], along with a different mindset and approach to the killing [quantitatively reported, not qualitatively], not to mention reasons for joining in the first place, which vary wildly among females but not males, along with the doubling up of logistical and infrastructural costs, let alone the PC danger of saying the wrong thing or not being able to sit here or go there, having to keep eyes away because you’ll be hauled over the coals etc.

            Plus the difficulty in disciplining girls over boys – girls are much tougher nuts to crack because she just sits down and refuses to cooperate when the guy can get balled out and punished by another man. So this erodes discipline badly and getting political for a second, it’s intended to – this whole thing, in the police for example, which Julia referred to – and in all walks of life, softens up the country and makes it unable to defend itself when the enemy does come.

            So it’s not the lovely egalitarian playing field – there is a lot of baggage involved with women and even if she can be one of the 1%, she still has all that to carry. For a start, everywhere they go, the troops, two sets of latrines need setting up and there is the routemarch problem – it only needs one woman to cause that.

            Women do think differently too and there are enough posts on this blog and not just by me to show that. I love the girls but that’s completely different to having to cover for them and also look after myself. It was summed up well by:


            Rep. Trent Franks, of the Armed Services Committee since he became a Member of the House in 2003:

            In the words of Kate O’Beirne, a member of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces — which, by the way, recommended not sending women into combat — “good men protect women.”

            Importantly, enlisted women don’t want these change to occur either. Polls have consistently shown that only about 10 percent of enlisted females support changing the rules so that women can be involuntarily placed into combat. And only 25 percent support even making combat options voluntary for women. These facts, perhaps more than anything else, clarify the nature of this debate. This is not a fight for some denied “right” that enlisted women are demanding but an attempt by radical leftists to implement their extreme ideas on the backs of our military.

            None of [these things] downplay women’s irreplaceable contributions to our military. Are female soldiers just as brave, just as noble, just as patriotic and just as self-sacrificing as their male counterparts? Without question. And women frequently serve essential roles, offering strategic advantages that would not otherwise exist.


            Civilian men who like to think of themselves as enlgihtened also mix it in, in a deadly way, with chivalry. Therefore, if I have a go at this PCism, males will spring to the defence of women against the wicked misogynist, when it was not misogyny in the least – it was pointing out the problems with a policy.

            You say that if they can do the job ….. ah yes, there’s the rub. Continuing to insist on equal opportunity here, for quota reasons, whilst they’ve clearly shown they’re not equal, men are being denied money for training because it’s being wasted on these other political correctnesses. You read the story above where the women were asked who wanted to learn the Apache and the men were told there wasn’t enough money.

            At a time of severe cutbacks, this is wasted money which could have been used to give the edge to our troops and therefore to their safety. And for what? To assuage conscience in men’s case and to indulge an unsustainable egalitarian fantasy in some women’s.

            It’s madness. Equality of opportunity sounds fine on paper but would you let your five year old son compete for a place with the men? And what if your fifteen year old passed the minimum physically? Does that make him an asset in combat?

            Does it matter if it’s a woman or a man? Sure as hell does because the armed forces are not there for a Sunday picnic. To use an analogy – the Geelong FC, the premiers. They’re blooding new players this year, giving them game time, trying to get them involved.

            Result – when the young guys were of sufficient number, they lost. When the stars came back in, they won. Didn’t matter in the pre-season games when a club experiments but in combat, there’s no experiment. There’s the defence of the realm and the protection of every soldier to consider. When I was a subaltern, the overriding 2nd consideration, at the same time as gaining the target, was the preservation of the members of the platoon – called man management, as you know.

            Anything at all compromising that had to be eliminated. Women have been shown, in all the above, to compromise combat effectiveness in mixed groups and even if there were only a hint of this, a mere whiff, rather than the data there is, that would be sufficient reason not to allow them onboard.

            Significant then that we are using thousands of words here but the British forces do have a policy of certain roles not for women – they still have it now. With the brass trying to please their masters [for funding and the new ideology], you’d think they’d push for women to go into these roles. No they don’t – they recognize reality when lives are on the line.

            There’s no place for women in the places the feminists have brainwashed them to demand to be and the reasons for them being there are wrong – to break the last male barrier etc. Men are soft on it because no man wants to be seen doing what I am doing now, speaking out plus women are much easier on th eye than your ugly mate. Hell, I’m the last one to complain about being surrounded by women.

            Not where my life is concerned though. It kills the men, it kills the girls too who simply can’t do what they’ve convinced themselves they can. The IDF is a perfect case.

            • March 20, 2012 at 10:45 am

              Again I have to say that your position and mine appear to be fundamentally very similar in terms of outcome. Perhaps I’m coming over all consequentialist on this but to me there appears to be no substantive difference between saying no girls in this or that job and saying that while theoretically open to anyone the criteria are such that the only females with half a chance are former East German shot putters. A difference that makes no difference is no difference, but there is the bonus of being able honestly to tell the femmies that a truly equal opportunities policy is now in effect so they can rack off and whine about something else.

              They won’t of course, but they’ll have a hard time moaning that there isn’t equal opportunity when clearly there is. To get their way they’d have to change their demands from equality to special treatment (which is in effect what they have now), which would be exposing themselves for the right-on ideologues they are and shooting themselves in the foot. Frankly I can’t think of a better way to fuck up the equality-at-all-costs brigade than to give them what they think they want in such a way that it does the opposite of what they want it do. Come on, you can’t tell me that you wouldn’t enjoy being able to say to the Germaines “Here you go, real equality. Sorry about all the girls who no longer qualify, but hey, it’s exactly what you asked for. It’s not us discriminating here, it’s the fact that warfare tends to favour men. If you’re still unhappy take it up with the universe.”

              The real problem is achieving the kind of political climate in which the needs of the military are made paramount and the idea of gender specific criteria are thrown away, because it will inevitably mean fewer women in areas where numbers have gradually been increasing. If that’s so I’d sleep just fine with it – and I don’t doubt that you would too. But it’s a political nettle that few in power seems interested in grasping at the moment, at least not openly. The ADF has recently scrapped the last gender exclusions (actually I’m not sure about the SAS – that might still be off limits) and they claim they’re doing what I suggest and recruiting solely to the needs of each given position and that any female will need to meet the same criteria as the blokes. I’d say it’s almost ideal… if I actually believed them. Hopefully I’ll turn out to be wrong and the ADF will form natural segregation along gender lines where appropriate. That might not suit purists who’d prefer to rule women out of certain areas anymore than it’d suit the femmies who want 50% women everywhere, but realistically returning those areas that have been opened to women back to men only restrictions just ain’t going to happen, no matter what arguments are made in favour of it. What I suggest is very nearly the same and is likely to be vastly easier (though still bloody hard) to achieve.

              • March 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm

                The real problem is achieving the kind of political climate in which the needs of the military are made paramount and the idea of gender specific criteria are thrown away, because it will inevitably mean fewer women in areas where numbers have gradually been increasing. If that’s so I’d sleep just fine with it – and I don’t doubt that you would too.

                Yep, agreed.

      • March 20, 2012 at 5:36 am

        Not just the military – don’t forget the police.

        • March 20, 2012 at 6:41 am

          julia, I should have thought you were exactly the type who could mix it with the men, part of the 1% mentioned in the EWAF report. So why do you work in London on civvy street, rather than as infantry in Afghanistan? Yours are the qualities the forces need.

          • March 20, 2012 at 11:41 am

            If you’d ever seen my shooting skills on the PS3, you wouldn’t ask that question… 😉

            Plus, in a ‘professional’ army, I’m not needed. Come a draft, though, I’d serve. Not sure as what!

  4. Voice of Reason
    March 19, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    When politics interferes with a job that has to be done, the outcomes must suffer.

  5. March 19, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    Two more aspects:

    According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and aggression after seeing a woman wounded. Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers, lessening the IDF’s ability to interrogate prisoners. [Wiki]

    This may have been based on but was certainly preceded by the Russian experience in the Great Patriotic War. The USSR withdrew women from combat roles following that, not because of any lack of resolve or even lack of success in certain theatres but because of the devastating effect on men.

    Men are hardwired for aggressive protection of a woman and there’s nothing a female can say about that – she’s female. She can not wish it to be so, she can say that how men feel shouldn’t affect her own career progression but the fact is that men were demoralized by female casualties, when the very thing they were doing was defending their womenfolk back home.

    The army was dispassionate on this. They looked at the value of having the women there and the impaired efficiency of the men and had to make some hard decisions.


    The second thing is:

    Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, [who] has been watching the feminization of military-personnel policy for decades. In an article for the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, she explains that “gender-integrated basic training is based on the unrealistic assumption that men and women are interchangeable in all military roles. The concept tries to circumvent or disguise physical differences with gender-normed training standards that reward equal effort rather than equal results.”

    And those differences, in quantitative terms?

    The Navy has male trainees do a minimum of 42 push-ups for a minimum score; women must do 17. Men (ages 20 to 24) must swim 500 yards in 12 minutes, 15 seconds; women (ages 20 to 24) get 14 minutes to accomplish the same.

  6. Edgar
    March 20, 2012 at 3:09 am

    “I most certainly do not hate women but I do know what they’re like in various scenarios. If your kid had a loaded gun and you took it off him, does that mean you hate him?” Well, James, I think that one statement establishes your cuntitude to a level beyond doubt.

    • March 20, 2012 at 5:37 am


    • March 20, 2012 at 6:44 am

      I think subsequent data [above, from last night and this morning] explains that in more detail. Is it “cuntitude” to want the most battle efficiency and to keep our troops alive? Would you not do everything you could to keep the women and the male troops alive?

      The interesting thing is that I’m being mainly attacked by males here in a hazy, vague notion of chivalry but the women know I’m not agin them per se, quite the opposite – they should just play to their strengths, that’s all. In combat, women could bear 30-60% of the load as men. Fine – so why not let them drive the vehicles, snipe, do things where they can excel and then let men excel in their area? Working in the same army, often alongside when it’s not critical but apart when it is?

      • March 20, 2012 at 11:43 am

        Because that’s common sense and the ideologues won’t suffer it. Their notion of equality is a bastardised concept.

  7. Able
    March 20, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    I agree with both, but suspect the only way it is achievable (common sense that is) is by AE’s route.

    I think any attempt to recruit and describe professional roles will be fought tooth and nail by the feminists though. Why? Because there are so many roles which would be almost exclusively male (as they have been traditionally for decades), just as there would be female dominated roles (which are apparently even now quite acceptable for some strange reason).

    It would force an acknowledgement by them that the traditional divide was there for a reason, and not because of some fanciful misogynistic one at that.

    The military (what we have left of one) will be the battleground which decides whether culturally we have any basic common sense left (I’m not particularly confidant at that).

    Oh and feminists, why is it that 100% of Imams are male in ‘equal’ Britain? (could it be for the same reason that vegetarian ‘activists’ only ever target little old rich ladies in fur coats, but studiously ignore the big bikers in leather?)

  8. Hexe Froschbein
    March 23, 2012 at 1:26 am

    The following was written last year in the German magazine ‘Marineforum’ which is the official publication of the German navy officers, and it caused a _serious_ stink.

    I used google translate and fixed the worst mistakes, so it’s just about readable.

    Utilisation of women in combat units

    By Erik Lehnert

    The suspension of the conscription as at 1 July 2011, adopted by the Bundestag, is only the latest step in a long “transformation process” that would make the armed forces especially effective and less expensive. Prefaced was of these process with end of the Cold war and of the thus affiliated assumption that Germany was surrounded long term from friends and could therefore dispense with an strong Army for the country’s defense. The increasing integration of Germany in abroad inserts, within the framework of the UNO or of NATO, led to, that the Bundeswehr should stepwise fulfill the requirements of a fast Reaction Force. The split in the armed forces in the main defense forces and emergency responders in the 90’s was a first step in this direction. At the same the continued border downsizing of the Bundeswehr led to, that the principle of weir righteousness was too not more fulfill, what tipped the receivables after one end of conscription new buoyancy. For conflict also saw the gradual reduction of military service time.

    Added to, came that the Bundeswehr had to open since 2001 all activity ranges for women, who wanted voluntarily afford weir service. Since then is the army the experimentation field of a equality ideology, with all the consequences that themselves result from it. Among those not least belongs of the death of the cadet on the sail school ship Gorch Fock in November 2010.

    While themselves media and the then-celled Defence zu Guttenberg on the commandante and the allegedly untenable conditions overthrew on the ship, there were some singular word messages, like the by Hildegard Stausberg in the world, the laid the finger into the actual wound: »When of all affirmative answer to the emancipation and of the implementation of sexes righteousness I ask myself seriously at whether the last events on the Gorch Fock not a signal should be for it, to rethink the diktat of a sexual equality, that seems long since drifting into direction absolute egalitarianism. Did it our female self awareness really demolition, if it continues to were a couple of courses preparatory alone remained men reserved? Model operations at the Gorch Fock must be under investigated thoroughly, but please results-openly. Among the consequences could then belong also, reacting a 1.59 meters small woman on the high lake not longer send you into the rigging. Must not A other decision exclude one does not: Perhaps belong even not women on sailing training ships – perhaps we can us on other, prove ourselves rather contemporary actuation fields better «.

    The Basic Law was maxed out

    At its founding of the Bundeswehr in the year 1955 women were excluded from service in the Bundeswehr generally. The Basic Law firmly laid, that women »were allowed on no account render service with of the weapon afford« (Article 12a). This remained the situation only something, than there were too few male Applicants for the raceway of the Sanitätskommission officers. On 19 To open up February 1975 decided the Federal Government under Helmut Schmidt, approbated female doctors and pharmacist interior the an opportunity to serve in the Bundeswehr. This purpose, only had to the soldiers Law and the weir Disciplinary of Procedure shall be changed so that on 1 October 1975 the first five female medical officers were able compete their service. Since medical officers are Non combatants, was able Articles shall remain 12a unchanged valid. The next official step took place under Defense Minister Rupert Scholz, when it was decided, aim of providing women all careers for them in medical and military-music service, so that on 1 June 1989 competed the first 50 officer contender interior their service. In January 1991 then took place also the opening of the sub officer’s-and team careers for them in medical and military-music service for women. Already on 1 April 1994, our Defense Minister Volker Rühe with Verena von Weymarn the first woman to General doctor and thus convey for the first female a general in Germany at all. Thus the frame, the pretended, the Basic Law was fully exhausted,. It gave however Miss moods in of the troupe, because the female relatives not of the Sanitätskommission troupe were able be divided as of pliable service. The thereby guided weapons served not only for self defense, but also to protect the military installations. That meant weapons service, of the women was continue to prohibited. Too of these situation was joined the desire of a young woman, Tanja Kreil, the wanted afford voluntarily service in the repair troupe, injured after of foreseeable rejection the equality basic sentence saw and trod seeking judicial remedies.

    On 11 In January 2000 ruled of the ECJ, that claimant submits that the utter exclusion of women dated weapons service against the equality basic sentence. This decision meant that the army had to open within a year all the uses for female soldiers. In the area of ​​replenishment troupe it should be relatively unproblematic. In the martial troops it other hand is an serious problem.

    Although of the great technological progress many deprivations and
    Exertions, the soldiers had to endure via centuries, has facilitated, of the combat mission remains always still an extraordinary physical and psychic challenge. The Nature has equipped women and men in this regard differently. Thereupon in particular of the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has pointed, whose book »women and war« by 1998 is still more always valid. Significantly, this book, unlike other publications Creveld, not perceived as a serious contribution to participating. At best, concedes one, that he of descriptive the actual status lack of equal authority to fit the But if one should rather regarded than »children disease in which world-historical upheaval« (Ariane Barth in the mirror), the meant the uptake of women into the armed forces. Otherwise it was called generously, IN QUESTION it themselves at the book only around a »worth reading, original and anecdotal rich culture history with many surprising insights« (Wolfgang Sofsky writes in the FAZ). As a argumentation help against the feminisation of army »women and War was« nowhere regarded.

    Yet show all the scientific insights of last ten years, that human behavior back goes very much more strongly on biochemical factors, than before assumed. Testosterone influenced alia, the differing sexes development partially already before the birth. Investigations in infants and Klein children have revealed, that girls themselves more for people, boys are more interested for things. The latter tend more frequently to a game behavior in which competition and physical deployment are demanded. It a correlation between testosterone and behavior consists insofar behave, than girls assume with high testosterone values ​​masculine behavior pattern and feminine boys with low testosterone value itself. With glance on the fact, that martial and war a certain measure requires at aggression, the most women are equipped in this respects conceivable unfavorable.

    Furthermore yielded current investigations (2010) of the Department of Anesthesiology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, that has the far more higher stress susceptibility of women hormonal causes. A biological predisposition through a far more more sensitive »Stressignalisierungssystem« means, that women of sustainable be impaired of stressors than men. These differences in the basic equipment of the sexes sit down continued in some other important areas. The training of combat troops to simulate battles in order to enable the soldiers to stand up to fight under conditions and to defeat their opponents. Here, women have measurable disadvantages in reference on force and endurance, Wound-/ injury danger and deployment ability, actions resulting different from above all the biological and sociological prerequisites.

    Feminization of the armed forces »inhumane«

    Will Despite of these limitations on the part of politics and of certain
    Lobby groups expects, that adapt military institutions themselves, without rear Sight Time plans, combat performance and About life numbers. The likelihood of women during a mission are killed or wounded, is assessed as a result of the different features of the sexes and from observing the training deficits far higher than that of men. The more favorable the conditions on the battlefield are, the stronger with higher losses expected in women. In the U.S., the long experience of women in the armed forces in 1992 met the “Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services,” and hear expert opinions on the use of women in the military. The result was: «From 133» identifiable Facts, that is to say, Determination factors fulfill to the use prerequisites for soldiers in combat mission, women only two. The Committee decided
    8:2 against the use of women in combat units. The conceptions of the proponents of an integrative concept for women in combat units prove to themselves, at into account the here depicted biological realities, as inconsistent, if not as a inhumane. Although it generally than irresponsible, if not even as criminal applies, send to sixteen years-old adolescents or sixty year-old men into the fight, since these more physically the requirements of the battle field nor of not or not longer able to cope are, they regard it as progressive, women on without rear point of view their deploy obvious disadvantages in combat.

    Under sociological face points themselves yields a similar picture: The U.S.-American summed up Center for Military Read Iness the results of the numerous investigations, concentrate the themselves on the influence of the mixed training, together follows:

    – Less discipline, less cohesion, more distraction from training content involved.
    – Deliberate and unintentional and misconduct due to a emotionally-prone climate, for what recruits and trainers are equally ill-prepared.
    – Increased injury rates and sick-messages lead to Non fulfillment of fundamental training objectives.
    – Deviations of of the core training time due of between human distractions and the necessity, a further week for the so-called »sensitization Training« to be set, order to control the relationships between the sexes.
    – Acceptance in of the general quality and discipline of the »Gender Integrated Basic« Training; a deficiency of confidence in the abilities of the comrades; the necessity for the introduction of Nachausbildung, order to compensate the training defects of the basic training.
    – Trainees soldiers frequently are missing those knowledge and skills that is required for which more advanced training.

    In sum, the sociological impact of a “feminization have” the armed forces to follow. Force women to male comrades in fact their own physical limitations on by lowering the standards and requirements set for change. And actually touch on some of these receivables the food Essential of the military organization. A former female female soldier, army officer and presently lecturer on Queens College in Cambridge demanded, in March 2005 a end of the ban sexual relationships between officers and another service degrees of. The existing rules in question are overtaken and unrealistic in the at the rising number of women military. Anita Blair, chairwoman of the investigation Committee at the U.S.-Congress, become topic of training and with »Gender« hand in hand continuous questions shared, the worry around the »feminization« already 1994, when they together sentiments by saying: »As a consequence of my work in the investigation Committee, I came to of the conviction, that it many proponents larger female influence in the Armed forces not about the conquest of the military goes, but about the overcoming of masculinity. You intend, the most masculine quint eat essential of our institutions to make more feminine. «

    Concepts of “gender mainstreaming” and “gender norming” play because of its place in social debates in an increasing role in Western armed forces. Discussions on the allocation of “gender advisers” during training and in service will be held in European parliaments. By contrast stands the simple insight, that the requirements of the War II remain dangerous and lie beyond the physical abilities of most women. To send women into the fight means, insofar a preventable increase of the probability of losses in their own ranks, in particular but employed at the women. The compensatory measures to integration of women in fight-and combat support units are aimed allegedly from the fact, prejudices and useless dismantle »barriers«. In practice, they have impacted merely negatively on standards and martial willingness. Westliche dispute forces risking versing the loss of her competitive advantage. The only alternative about that failure are development, is that personal ability and merit be the exclusive qualification criteria again. The chances are small, from this position to political pressure “above” or socially influential social engineers to impose, if even the death of two cadets on the Gorch Fock is not a thematization of the differences between men and women and their impact on the use in military leads.

    In the whole debate around the Gorch Fock came the sexes question before only on the edge, formed but that actual center of the excitement. Even sooner, in times purely of male officer contender, has it, very rare (in 50 years four), given misfortune cases on the Gorch Fock, yet the sparked never from outrage or stronger irritations. That the differently today is has, various causes. Has The most important are the current interpretation of the soldier of one as the profession like any other also as well as the bad conscience of a public, which women in their final decades forced upon this activity as emancipation duty quasi. Under prescinding from the reality the young women was tricked into thinking that her Gender was only a construction and it only needed of the overcoming of this prejudice, order it equal emulate the men in all interests. To that extent are the two female cadets who fell to their death on the Gorch Fock (2008, 2010) victims of an ideology, the from supposedly good intention the consequences of such »Equal authorization has concealed«. Under this unworldly ideology but not only the individual women have suffer to, but also the Bundeswehr total of, the loses through the »civilizing« after and after their ability to wage war. Probably only first the hardships of the safety-political operational reality, worst if necessary, military disasters, will lead to rethink.

    Dr. Erik Lehnert is Managing Director of the Institute for State policy

    Source: http://www.pi-news.net/2011/07/ist-dieser-gorch-fock-artikel-wirklich-sexistisch/

Comments are closed.