Sunday, June 19, 2005

A Crying Shame: The Feminized Military

“To me, the very fact that this issue is being discussed and this meeting is being held simply shows that you really don’t take the military seriously. For you, the military is not a question of life and death… So you can afford to make all kinds of experiments, which we cannot… The very fact that you have this debate may itself be construed as proof that it’s not serious. It’s a game. It’s a joke.”
- Israeli Military Historian Martin Van Creveld, on the issue of women in the military

That’s what it was -- a pathetic joke. I was sitting at my lunch table looking at the cover of Time, which sported a photograph of three graduates of West Point’s “Class of 9/11.” There they stood in their immaculate gray cadet uniforms: two men -- and one woman. The hilt of her ceremonial sword peaked out from under her arm.

I had borrowed the magazine from a friend across the table -- my interest was peaked when I heard someone describe one of the West Pointers covered in Time’s story as a “loser.” What could earn a West Point cadet such a reaction?

I flipped through the story to find the section on their cover girl. She talked about how she stood next to a female friend of hers (who had planned to leave the academy) and took the “Commitment Day Oath” that marks the two-year point: “We were bawling, but we made it through.” That’s it -- there is crying at West Point. Our cadet used this friend of hers as “a shoulder to cry on” -- literally.

The military has been forced into pretending to take female soldiers seriously, and Time magazine is one of the believers -- it seems that the editors completely miss the tragic comedy inherent in lines from their article like, “One girl wrote how [the instructing officer] made her cry but in time you made her a better leader.”

In a 1974 congressional hearing on the issue of women in the military academies, Secretary of the Army Howard H. Callaway worried that “admitting women to West Point will irrevocably change the Academy” and that “the Spartan atmosphere…would surely be diluted.” Air Force Academy Superintendent Lieutenant General Albert P. Clark predicted that the academies would “find it necessary to create a modified program to accommodate the female cadet, or, God forbid, to water down the entire program.”

Both ominous predictions have come true.

The fact that women are not suited for and are barred from combat, but are nevertheless admitted to our military academies, is the basic logical flaw that has destroyed the academies’ once powerful reputations as serious schools for war. Their primary mission has switched from preparing men for combat to preparing people for careers in the military. They have switched from judging by performance to judging by effort.

The corruption of these military institutions was signed into law by President Ford on October 7, 1975. Public Law 94-106:

“(1) female individuals shall be eligible for appointment and admission to the service academy concerned…beginning in calendar year 1976, and (2) the academic and other relevant standards required for appointment, admission, training, graduation, and commissioning of female individuals shall be the same as those required for male individuals, except for those minimum essential adjustments in such standards required because of physiological differences between male and female individuals.”

Right off the bat there were “minimum essential adjustments.” The legislators and the military knew from the beginning that women would not be capable of meeting the accepted standards. They also surely knew that it doesn’t matter how hard you try to kill someone -- it’s whether he ends up dead that counts.

What did these “minimum essential adjustments” turn out to be? Start by visiting West Point’s admissions website and checking out the physical standards. The Candidate Fitness Assessment is broken into six events, each of which is graded out of a possible score of 100 points. Here are some selections: A perfect score on the pull-ups test for a man is 18 reps. For a woman it is 7 reps (though a woman can be admitted without being able to do any pull-ups -- females have the option of hanging from the bar with arms flexed instead). A perfect score on pushups requires a man to do 75, a woman to do 50. A perfect score on the mile-run is 5:20 for a man and 6:00 for a woman (although many suppose men to be superior only in upper-body strength). A perfect score on the one-armed basketball throw from the kneeling position will require a distance of 102 feet for a man, and 66 feet for a woman.

These corrupt double-standard physical requirements now extend through every branch of the regular military. In the Marine Corps, for example, a male Marine has to do a minimum of 3 dead-hand pull-ups; a female Marine has to hang from the bar with arms flexed for 16 seconds. But this look at the fitness tests only scratches the surface.

Problems started with the first integrated classes in 1976. The first thing West Pointers noticed was that women were injured more often in field training -- five times as often as men in the first year, fourteen times as often in the next.

As Brian Mitchell points out in his excellent book Women in the Military (1998) women at West Point lagged far behind the men even when they were healthy:

“On their first timed two-mile run, 85 percent of female plebes at West Point received a score of D or lower according to the male standard. When 61 percent failed a complete physical test, compared to 4.8 percent of male plebes, separate standards were devised for the women. Similar adjustments were made to other standards. At Annapolis, a two-foot stepping stool was added to an indoor obstacle course to enable women to surmount an eight-foot wall. At West Point, women carried M16 rifles for rifle-runs and bayonet drills, while men continued to carry much heavier M14s. On parade, West Point women were initially allowed to brace the M14 on their knee when drawing back the bolt for inspection. Later, the bolt springs were shortened to reduce tension, making the bolt easier to draw.”

Wrestling and boxing were replaced with martial arts and self-defense. Women’s low peer-ratings were compensated for at the Air Force Academy by higher officer ratings, and at Annapolis by discontinuing the peer-rating system. In the first year of integration, West Point’s full combat-gear 2.5-mile Enduro run made use of a double standard to allow women to “earn” the Recondo patch even if they could not complete the run. In the second year women were held to the same standards as men and failed spectacularly. In the third year, the Enduro run was dropped. Upperclassmen at the Air Force Academy were ordered to use “positive motivation” for the females, and to continue picking on the men (it was customary for upperclassmen to toughen up new recruits). Where it had once been traditional to make it easy for men who where weak in commitment to leave the academies, women were actively encouraged to stay. At Annapolis, a female midshipmen was allowed to graduate and receive her commission despite having refused to complete the mandatory 34-foot jump into water, simulating abandon ship, because of her fear of heights. As Stephanie Gutmann wrote in The Kinder, Gentler Military (2000) women in Army basic training often begin to cry when they have to descend from a rappelling tower, and some women are so panic-stricken that they cannot rappel at all.

In perhaps the most reckless display of feminism, women are allowed to serve on shipboard even though a 1981 Navy study showed that they are not capable of handling heavy fire equipment, carrying stretchers, or advancing hose lines. Needless to say, such incompetence puts the lives of men and the safety of the ship at risk. It is an immoral thing to allow.

Integration was billed as a tremendous success while men behind the scenes worked overtime to prevent its failure from coming to light. As Mitchell reports, for example, “West Point’s ‘Institutional Plans to Overcome Sexism’ called for tighter controls on the gathering of data related to integration to ‘avoid research activities which have sexist consequences.’” If the facts proved integration to be a mess, the feminist response was to stop collecting facts.

Several studies were commissioned to prove that women could serve in the military, but their conclusions were often contradicted by the evidence. A 1977 field test (REF WAC 77) monitored integrated NATO operations in Germany. 29 percent of females failed to report for “personal reasons.” Once again, as Mitchell reports, women needed help lifting their equipment and complained about the absence of shower facilities; some refused to leave their tents at night “for fear of the dark.” REF WAC 77 concluded that there was no evidence that women worsened performance of their units.

The 1981 Women In The Army policy review group (WITA) broke ranks. This was largely because of the date: The Carter administration had put tremendous pressure on the military and its research commissions to move towards quotas of women in the military; the Regan administration was not actively for or against women in the military (except in combat) and did not keep WITA from reporting what they found. WITA devised a system of Direct Combat Probability Coding (DCPC) designed to locate dangerous positions in the services and close them to women. They also studied the often overlooked issue of strength required in non-combat positions. (On one occasion, WITA members went to Aberdeen and saw women who were being certified as ammunition handlers moving large crates of ammo with apparent ease. Later they discovered that the women were being tested with empty crates because they could not carry loaded ones.) WITA developed a strength test called MEPSCAT which they recommended for all enlistees to determine what jobs they were strong enough to serve in -- a seemingly commonsense requirement. WITA’s report was attacked by the civilian feminist lobby, and suppressed. The feminists never found anything wrong with WITA’s methods or the information they gathered -- they simply attacked the conclusion on principal. Despite the fact that the report had been validated by an independent research group, WITA was officially discredited through the complaints of civilian activist groups. DCPC and MEPSCAT were ignored. As a result, women continue to serve in positions where they are not capable of doing their required jobs because they are not strong enough. (Women mechanics, for example, have trouble changing tires and carrying their own tool boxes, and often have to have men do part of the job for them).

It is not easy to pull women into the military, because the vast majority of women do not want to become professional soldiers. This is obvious on a very basic level -- little girls do not like playing army. Women enlistees “are much more likely to list practical, selfish reasons for joining the services, such as education, travel, and money.” Men are more likely to join out of patriotism, and are drawn to the romantic warrior ideal that women simply (obviously) do not identify with. As a result, recruiting women to fill quotas has proved to be tremendously costly (in money and quality). The Army has had to lower recruiting standards for women, and turn away qualified men, in order to fill the required percentages.

As a taxpayer, you are also paying for wasted pseudo-combat training for women, and for the fact that women leave the service at a much higher rate than men. You are paying for smaller equipment that women can wear, and longer wrenches that women can turn. You are paying for more comfortable helicopter seats (women complained of back pain); you spent $70,000 to plaster the Pentagon’s Military Women’s Corridor with feminist propaganda. You are paying literally hundreds of millions of dollars to recruit people who don‘t want the job and can’t do it. Worst of all, you are paying in your decreased national security. Every time a female officer with no combat experience becomes a general, we lose one male general officer -- and you pay for that. When, on average, 20% of woman sailors on shipboard become pregnant and have to be flown back to land, leaving the ship undermanned, you pay for that. When combat units are supplied by companies with women who cannot lift their own equipment, you pay for that. And our soldiers (the ones who fight) pay for it.

What about fairness? What about fairness for the fighting military? What about national security for the American people? The military is being pulled down by radical ideologues. This is why there has been such a great expansion in the use of Special Ops forces and elite units like the Army Rangers -- which allow no women. If the military academies want to be taken seriously again, it will be a long fight back to where they once were. Take out your handkerchiefs.


At 5:36 PM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

THE MOON: A Propaganda Hoax

In 1995, the American Historical Association, in an attempt to stifle revisionist scholarship, marked the 50th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism with a resolution calling on scholars to "initiate plans now to study the significance of the Holocaust." This, however, was not enough of a blow to free academic discourse for the enemies of truth. The president of the AHA, William Leuchtenburg, was asked why the resolution did not go so far as to explicitly recognize the Holocaust as a fact of history. He answered that for a group of historians to say that there had been a Holocaust was tantamount to "an organization of astronomers saying there is a moon."

While, on the surface, this appears as nothing more than a shameless attempt to trivialize and thereby discredit the work of revisionists, it nonetheless got me to thinking: why did this historian single out the moon? Why would a scholar, so familiar with academic standards of evidence, use such language to imply that the existence of the moon, unlike any other issue, was a given and not subject to proof? What, in other words, was he trying to hide?

It was then that I embarked on my research, which has led me to this day when I can confidently make the following assertion: The Moon does not exist. As I realize this revelation may appear shocking to the average reader, allow me to repeat it:

The Moon does not exist!

This is no lie. Until recently, I, too, believed in the traditional, establishment view of the moon. But any thinking person, untainted by the biases imposed on us by the controlled media, will have no choice but to reach the conclusion I did once faced with the facts described in this account.


The authorities expect you to simply take at their word the absurd and unfounded story that there is a large mass orbiting the earth. Obviously we are expected to be mere sheep, going along with whatever the Thought Police would tell us. However, when one looks at THE FACTS, in an atmosphere free from bias and academic repression, one sees a very different story.

False claims retracted!

Throughout history, hundreds of absurd fables have been circulated regarding the moon. Most of these have since been discarded. For example, people used to speak about there being "a man in the moon", or about moon being made out of cheese (as recently as last year, I saw an animated film that was still promoting this latter absurdity). We rarely hear such things spoken of anymore. These fables, once asserted as true by the proponents of the moon hoax, were quietly discarded once proven absurd by revisionists. What does this tell us about the equally absurd assertions that are still being made about the moon? How can we believe anything that the Astronomically Correct establishment tells us, when they have been so obviously shown themselves prone to such intellectual dishonesty in the past? The fact that the story has exhibited such enormous variability over the years should automatically be a cause for doubt.

No one speaks anymore of Richard A. Locke, a newspaper reporter who wrote a fantastic but wholly fabricated account of discoveries on the moon falsely attributed to the English astronomer Sir John Herschel. Locke reported that Herschel, using a telescope 24 feet in diameter (!), saw fabulous bat-like creatures, living in elaborate cities on the lunar surface. No less a newspaper than the New York Sun printed these reports on its front page as its most important news story! The whole moon hoax is based on such fanciful tales. That’s why I doubt most of it.

Mathematical impossibilities

Another impossibility that has always been an embarrassment to the scientific establishment is the obvious fact that an object as heavy as the moon, caught in the earth’s gravity, would inevitably come crashing down upon us at immense speeds. Responses to this argument from the Lunarists have always been weak, and always couched in that scientific newspeak designed to confuse the sincere questioner without actually saying anything.

The establishment most often cites the work of Isaac Newton in support of its story. Newton is well known for coming up with entirely theoretical notions such as the Law of Universal Gravitation, and his more famous Laws of Motion which serve to gloss over the more obvious inconsistencies in the moon story. What he is less known for is his "extra-curricular" pursuits, which he kept quite secret during his lifetime but which have since been uncovered. Newton was a dominating figure in the Royal Society, a fellowship riddled with members of the various secret societies whose goal to dominate the world has already been outlined. Newton himself possessed copies of Rosicrucian manifestos, and, as is evident in his notes, had studied them thoroughly. Many of his biographers suspect that he shared the religious beliefs of many of his colleagues. It does not take a genius to conclude that these beliefs may have influenced his scientific reasoning.

This is, of course, the reason why revisionists are excluded from academic institutions. The majority of scientists and professors of most universities are members of organizations such as these, as are most of the scientists who work for NASA. Those that are not realize that their livelihood depends on towing the establishment line, and therefore only a few have had the courage to speak out.

However, eminent scientists, working in defiance of the establishment, have proven conclusively, using the most scrupulous methods, that if an object such as the moon really existed, it could not remain fixed in the sky for very long. Proactive arguments in support of this finding return to a closer examination of the original mathematical formula generally referenced when rallying to solidify the moon’s improbable existence:

F = GMm/r2

Where F = gravitational attraction
G = the gravitational constant
M = mass of one body
m = mass of the second body
r = distance between the two bodies

Established by Newton himself, this numerical gem is based completely on the assumption that the moon travels in concentric circles around our planet. F (the gravitational attraction holding the moon to its "true" path) requires that r (the distance between the two celestial bodies) remains constant. Should the distance, r, decrease at any given moment, the gravitational force will increase in strength. When this event occurs the moon will be pulled towards this planet. According to Newton’s theory that a body set in motion remains in motion, such an incident would initiate a logical series of events with a singular chaotic result: propagated drawing of satellite to planet until the two massive bodies collide.

However, even the most fanatical Lunarists no longer cling to the absurd notion that objects in the solar system travel in concentric circles. These so-called "scientists" have changed their story so many times, who knows what to believe anymore? The currently fashionable dogma is that the route followed by celestial bodies is not circular but a concave oval with the origin point at the centre (in the case of the earth, the sun; in the case of the moon, the earth) followed by a spiraling series of pathways. Thus, the moon is not maintaining a constant distance from our planet. Our orbiting satellite is forever oscillating towards us, drawing near then distant, in a continuous cycle. Each successive approach brings this massive wonder closer to our midst.

In other words, the moon does indeed alter its distance from the earth. So why is it not widespread knowledge that the end – mathematically predicated BY NEWTON’S OWN FORMULA - has been anticipated and is drawing near? Due to some irrational explanation the moon has managed to defy those very laws of physics that were originally developed to justify its existence.

The authorities expect us to believe a story that is prima facie absurd, and has been proven absurd by simple mathematical calculations. Yet they do not give us a single piece of reliable forensic evidence, nor an argument put forward by any expert free from institutional pressure.

A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed.

Can you prove that the moon exists?

At 5:57 AM, Blogger R said...

I don't understand why you're so adamantly against having women in the military, treating women as a whole group. Surely there must be some way to make the physical fitness tests more fair. And certainly there are many, many, many women who are more qualified than a lot of men in this country to serve. To discriminate against women as a whole is not only unfair, it's dumb. Would you want John Doe, feeble and idiotic, to serve over Jane Smith, strong and smart, just because he is a man?

And also - half your argument is about the service academies. What about all the people who don't make it in or just decide to enter the National Guard or Army? Essentially, who cares about whom we let into the academies? It's not like if you don't get in, you can't find another way to get into the service.

At 3:29 PM, Blogger Republican Dan said...

The reason I spoke about the academies at such length was to demonstrate how the presence of women has destroyed these once sacred institutions.
The military is not about being fair. No one has a "right" to serve, and there is no shortage of capable men. I do not see how you can continue to argue your position in face of the mountain of proof that shows that allowing women into the military has been a disaster. Find me some evidence to the contrary, disprove the evidence that I use, and then talk to me about where women should serve. If you do begin the process of using real information instead blathering about things you know nothing about, you may eventually become a credible person.

At 6:31 PM, Blogger R said...

Well, to be honest, I wouldn't waste my time looking for such statistics. Why, you ask? Because who honestly cares...the rules won't change, and yours is a moot point. But I do know that there can never be "no shortage of capable men." Again, I assure you that there are many capable women stronger than you, me, and thousands upon thousands of men. I can assure you of that. I can give you real life examples if you so desire.

At 11:03 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

Whoa, so you do actually respond to commenters Dan, but I guess they are the ones that you feel you can easily defeat.

-Mr. Alec

PS I am out for the next couple weeks, so don't think my absence is me giving up, its merely some relaxation time.

At 12:53 AM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

Overt sexism destroys any argument. Most logical fallicies tend to do that.

The syllogism is "People who act womanly don't make good soldiers." This is a stupid argument, because men have major personality flaws that make them bad soldiers--like raping and murdering people. Given that there's no strict superiority either way with the sexes, you're left with a big logical mess. So you pretty much need scientific studies. The studies Dan cites don't find much of a difference, despite all his efforts to conclude the contrary from them.

So what are you left with? A substanceless argument. It boils down to "Because they're WOMEN, they can't fight."

The technical term for Dan's syllogism is 'argumentum ad hominem'. When you have an ad homenim, all the studies and facts in the world won't fix it, because there's no scientific claim being made! You should know what this means, but in case you don't, it's Latin for 'Dan will never get laid'.

And all the facts in the world won't fix that. The ad homenim, I mean.

At 4:58 AM, Blogger Sailorette said...

I think you are at least partly right.

I am a second class petty officer in the US Navy, and of the fifty or so females in the military I am most familiar with, about five should be here. I don't include myself on that list because, frankly, I am not detached enough to tell. Those five "should" be in the Navy because they do their jobs, do them well, and do no harm to the Navy's image. The rest are by-and-large either lazy or unsuited to their jobs.
(I work with electronics. I know one girl who weighs less than a hundred pounds and is an Ordie-- she's supposed to lift 300 lb bombs with one other person. That isn't going to happen.)

The military has been turned into a test tube for every notion that folks feel like putting out, and I am ashamed of those shipmates that turn it into welfare-in-a-floating-can.

At the very least, females in the military should be based on what each female can do, and also figure in how her presence will effect the group. (The Ordie that I mentioned above does almost no physical labor-- but her male shipmates bust their @##es.)

At 5:22 PM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 5:25 PM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

I'd assume a Petty Officer 2nd class is qualified to be in the Navy, though I don't quite get how navy promotions work. But it's interesting that we have an NCO talking about this now.

Dan claims, in this and several other posts, that women shouldn't be in the military at all. They're too weak to be good soldiers, and--more importantly--they're not manly enough to make combat decisions! Only men, says Dan, are capable of reliably being heroes and acting properly under pressure.

As a female officer, you're a threat to his disgusting schizotypal vision of what a noble regiment the U.S. armed forces should be. I think that, when he hits West Point, he's in for a rude awakening...

(It really peeves me when I see a total nutball blow his stack on some rant, and then someone comes along and says, "Well, he's right in these two paragraphs.")

At 7:10 PM, Blogger Matthew said...

Hey commander dunce, have you ever been in the military? Your name sure alludes to that. It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. You just blindly follow your PC ways without ever taking common sense into mind. I spent 5 years in the military and can most certainly say the petty officer is correct. 90% of women do not belong in the military. It has in fact become a PC experiment that continues to hurt the effectiveness of our military.

Many of the female recruits the military gets are overweight drama queens that have no other options in life. Not only that, but many turn out to be nothing more than legal prostitutes that hinder the operational capabilities of our armed forces. I spent 14 months in Iraq and saw just how worthless some of them can be.

There are some great female soldiers out there. I met a few when I was in the Army, but they were few and far between. There were some female soldiers that were great at their job, but their physical abilities greatly hindered them. Most of the good female soldiers actually feel the way the petty officer feels. A good portion of the female soldiers I saw regularly used their gender as a special pass card to get out of work or in order to get special privileges.

If you really want equality for all women commander dunce, then let’s give it to them. Lets train female infantry soldiers and tankers and artillery men (oops I mean people). Let’s see the average female soldier hump an 85 pound ruck 15 miles. Let’s see the average female soldier change a tread on an M1A2. Let’s see the average female soldier load a 100 pound shell into an artillery piece. Not going to happen. Then when they start to get blown up and shot to pieces on a battlefield, we can see how the public reacts. There are probably good reasons why since the beginning of human history, man has fought wars. I do not think the average female soldier could pull my wounded 195 pound body out of a foxhole and carry me to safety.

Women should be allowed in the military, but like the petty officer said, the military needs to use common sense and put them in positions they can handle. The military needs to better screen the female (and male for that matter) recruits that it gets. Stick to the medical and admin positions.

At 6:25 AM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 6:46 AM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 6:47 AM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

Can you READ? I didn't disagree with you. In fact I implicitly agreed with most of the stuff you're posting.

I don't know what flummoxed line of thought inspired your post. I'm going to guess that you misequivocated lines like "combat decisions" to refer to being a solider. Officers don't make combat decisions, I guess. Right?

Let me clarify: DAN HAS STATED THAT WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE OFFICERS. Quote: "...Women should not be allowed to serve in the military" (The Gentleman's Last Stand). Not commissioned, not enlisted, not NCO, not anything.


(Edit: Old post said 'enlisted' twice.)

At 11:59 AM, Blogger allen said...

Oooh, look. Caps. Someone must be really upset.

Maybe that "schizotypal vision" is shared by "the masses" who aren't of a sufficiently elevated conciousness to treat "women as a whole group". That can happen and, boy howdy, is it annoying.

Dr. Allen prescribes a Che t-shirt - preferably black -, barely-contained rage at the stupidity of almost everyone around you for not being sufficently insightful to nod at each golden drop of wisdom that descends as the gentle rain attendent with your every utterance, flitting - in coach! - to demonstrations on daddy's Visa to protest the priviliged class and then selling out but feeling guilty about it.

I can't comment on the efficacy of the treatment but it is popular.

At 2:54 PM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 3:05 PM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

Ha ha... I state that I agree with you, and you still viciously insult me. This says a lot about you. I'll let you figure out what it says, because it's obvious to everyone else.

At 3:34 PM, Blogger Matthew said...

If you think women should only be allowed to serve in the medical and administrative fields, then yes we do agree.

I do not think we agree.

At 7:42 PM, Blogger Sailorette said...

Commander Mike--

I am an NCO, not an Officer; I work for a living.

BTW, advancement in the Navy is based off of written exams, evaluations of your supervisor (the legal prostitutes that someone mentioned tend to get the highest evals) and how well you did on previous tests. I am very good at taking tests, so it would be entirely possible for me to be utterly unfit for military service and still make first class. I know this because I've *seen* it.

At 2:14 PM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

One, That comment was directed at Allen. He's really not a person worth more than a comment.

Two, It's easy to confuse 'officer' and 'NCO', esp. when youre talking about a Petty Officer. Blah. It's interesting that the Navy is so bureaucratic about promotions, and I suppose I shouldnt be surprised losers can get promoted to unreasonable positions, since it happens all the time in business. Take Michael Eisner.

Three, I saw a news teaser on my local news: "Why aren't there more gay men in the police?" It had a few charts and bar graphs, complete with rainbow-colored bars for the gays, and suggested there was a discrimination problem. (Lesbians were not mentioned.) I live in Oakland, CA, so this kind of stuff happens all the time.

There seems to be an underlying problem (though I can't be sure) that, whenever someone implements a non-discrimination policy, it's immediately followed by a nutcase mainstream who think that "equal oppurtunity" means "quotas and reverse sex/racism".

I'm all for women in combat positions, provided that they're capable of handling such a position. Unfortunately efforts to screen out ineligible women (of which there would be many) would be immediately blasted as sexism. This has, judging from what I hear, already happened a lot of places in the army, and it ain't exactly Gerald Ford's fault.

So I think allowing qualified women in combat positions is probably not a good idea. That is, it is a good idea in theory, but it just wouldn't work. Such a program would fall victim to reverse sexism and then collapse, or worse, not collapse.

I'm not saying that we shouldnt fight discrimination "for practical reasons", just that there's higher priorities here. I think the military should work toward becoming thouroughly non-sexist, but that includes holding men and women to the *same* standards, not different ones.

Finally, I maintain that Dan's allegations are absurd, even if he "has a point" in a paragraph or two.

At 3:52 PM, Blogger Republican Dan said...

Let me just sum up my stance as briefly as possible:
I am not opposed to women serving in administrative or medical positions in the military, or positions for which they are physically qualified and not in danger of being captured or killed. I am in favor of closing the military academies to women, as the academies should be schools for combat.

At 6:26 PM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

Addendum: I am aware, despite my repeated use of the subjunctive, that women are allowed in some combat-ish positions, but not other ones. I'm a little in the dark as to how exactly it's divided, though.

Also, I might change my mind about my stance. Feminism and flip-flopping 4 lyfe, heck yes.

Dan, this is a change from your earlier stated position.

At 8:06 PM, Blogger Sailorette said...

I would like to point out that females in combat would be at a higher risk than their male counterparts, for the same reason wars have involved the raping of the enemies' women as far back as we have records.

At 3:34 PM, Blogger Janelle said...

I read this in conjunction with your post 'The Gentlemans Last Stand' and thought you deserved some applause. I am the oldest and only girl of four children. I have grown up in a home where my father takes care of things like washing the cars, taking out the trash, cleaning the garage and doing lawn work. My brothers are now at an age where they help him. This doesn't mean that my mother and I are left to do all the housework. We all help clean the bathrooms, do laundry, and wash dishes (my brother also often prepares dinner and makes a delicious spaghetti). The men in my family just see it as a sign of respect to the women of the household that they don't do the often smelly and laborous in the sun work that a household requires.

I wish that feminists would realize that saying that women shouldn't be in the combative military academies and the like doesn't mean that they being treated like children or second hand citizens. Instead it is honoring and respecting women. Not letting them have to go through the rougth and tumble of a soilders life. It amuses me how the PC and feminist left (and the left in general) makes a big deal about how we shouldn't be sending our soilders to Iraq and their un-nesscary deaths, but they cry when told how women shouldn't be going. You'd think they be happy.

The political correctness for gender equality has affected even me. This past school year I had several problems with two boys in my PE class. On different occassions they not only trespassed on my personal space, but also treated me in a very disrespectful manner. I wasn't the only one either. After numerous run ins with the two hooligans I told my teacher. I was met with this respone, "Boys will be Boys." The teacher wasn't a tough football coach, instead she is the ladies softball coach who didn't seem to understand why their behaviour was unacceptable.

In the last month of school one of their comments sent me over the edge to go and file a second complaint. What had they said? Surely I must of taken it the wrong way? Oh he was just flirting! I am sorry, but when somebody says "Why don't you take off your shirt?", shouldn't that qualify as sexual harassment. I quietly went to the teacher, she said to go to the Student Resource Center if I wanted to complain. So I did. But only a handful of students and teachers could understand why I did. One girl told me that 'he was just teasing, but if he made you uncomfortable then that's wrong'. What's wrong is that now most girls think that that type of behaviour is only wrong when it makes you feel uncomfortable. Out of the several people that found out by word of mouth, only two guys agreed with me, one teacher and three girls. And in my PE class, I was looked at as a whiny drama queen, a girl who couldn't laugh.

The gentleman is a dying race.

At 7:36 PM, Blogger Matthew said...

I really enjoyed what you had to say Janelle.

I have heard many women (including my mother and grandmother) talk about how the feminist movements today have actually done more harm than good for women.

Interesting how we have had two different women say they agree with Dan. Only the liberal men with no knowledge of what it is like to be a woman today have come out against it.

At 1:29 PM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

I don't think any of you actually know what you're talking about.

Specifically, Janelle, you're whining about chauvanism, and blaming the feminists for it. Excuse me, but how does this work? Men are pigs, and its feminism's fault?

Or is your thesis that feminism forced you into co-ed P.E. class?

Do you plan to vote? Do you plan to go to college? What kind of job do you want to get? If it was a "man's job" before the age of feminism, you'd be out of luck. Do you want to wait to get married? Do you want a say in when you'll have kids, and how many to have? Who do you think won you the right to decide what to do with your life?

Do you want to complain about sexual harrassment in P.E. class? TOO BAD! It was us "whiny liberals" that fought long and hard to give you that right.

You are NOT "honoring and respecting" women by denying them equal oppurtunity. This includes the military. When you say, "I know you THINK you want to fight in the army, but you actually don't, and so I won't let you"... that's not respect! You don't get to decide what *other people* want to do!

Try stating your views aloud within a thirty-mile radius of where I live (Oakland, CA), and you'll get a lynch mob after you. The lynch mob will have fair and equal representations of both sexes.

(By the way, high schools never listen to kids. Ever. Get your parents to call them, and they'll bend over backwards.)

At 10:13 AM, Blogger allen said...

Commander Mike wrote:

One, That comment was directed at Allen. He's really not a person worth more than a comment.

Oh look, Commander Mike, suddenly appreciating the limitations of the medium, has decided to direct his comments appropriately. I do get such a thrill when seeing these "teachable" moments.

Excuse me, but how does this work? Men are pigs, and its feminism's fault?

No, men are pigs and feminism, in the mindless pursuit of chimerical egalitarianism, has forced women into the company of men under circumstances that even momentary reflection will inform you will result in those women being the object of unwelcomed advances by those men.

Do you plan to vote? Do you plan to go to college?

Because if you do, Janelle, Commander Mike would like you to believe that you owe it all to leftwing feminists who've provided you with the opportunity spend long periods of time in uncomfortable, boring places, eating less-then-appetizing foods while all the time courting the danger of being shot dead. But hey, it's a career path that's now open to you! Kind of like UPS with different color uniforms. And the possibility of being shot dead.

It was us "whiny liberals" that fought long and hard to give you that right.

And the thanks are showing up at the polls. Every woman who harbors memories of being a fourteen-year old girl having to take a PE class with a gaggle of hormone-addled fourteen-year old boys is sure to be interested in an opportunity to display her gratitude.

By the way, high schools never listen to kids. Ever. Get your parents to call them, and they'll bend over backwards.

Oh sure, there's hardly a poor parent in a lousy part of town who doesn't want their kids to graduate from high school illiterate, innumerate and with a pretty clear idea about their value in society. The high school officials snap to attention every time those parents walk into the room.

At 1:18 PM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

You, sir, are worthless. I've learned not to waste time on you.

To everyone else: Upon reflecting on what I posted last night, I realize I had said some... odd things. Unfortunately, that little trash-can delete post icon is gone, so they're going to have to stay up.

None of the great feminist thinkers would claim that men and women are "equal" in all abilities and skills. The bastardized PC movement is something else.

Since the fifties, it's become socially acceptable for women to initiate divorce, get high-paying corporate jobs, take careers in science, engineering and math. It's become OK for women to state their views and expect the general public to take them seriously. And the public used to, in general, blame the victim in cases of harrassment and abuse--not so anymore.

There are those who would say, "Well, feminism's not responsible for that." Who's responsible then? Chauvanists? Apathetic members of the public who didn't care either way?

This might seem like an odd thing to say, since equal oppurtunity is almost a given now, but it wasn't so in the fifties... and you can bet your buttons that the situation wasn't changed by non-feminists...

At 5:14 AM, Blogger allen said...

Commander Mike wrote:

You, sir, are worthless.

Coming from the guy who's calling card is long, off-topic, unexplained and unattributed cut-and-pastes, you can imagine how highly I value your opinion of me

I've learned not to waste time on you.

Don't you just hate it that you have to make clear the object of your disdain by referring to them? Another limitation of the medium.

None of the great feminist thinkers would claim that men and women are "equal" in all abilities and skills.

Actually, that's the exact reason why we have firepersons who can't stand up to the recoil of a firehose, carry an average inert human body and require discriminatory tests to get the job they can't do. Many of those feminist thinkers, great and otherwise, couldn't be bothered with such inconsequential considerations as the obvious differences between men and women in the pursuit of their political goals.

There are those who would say, "Well, feminism's not responsible for that." Who's responsible then? Chauvanists? Apathetic members of the public who didn't care either way?

Oddly enough, yes. It wasn't the fierce warriors in the Amazon Army that managed to change public attitudes. Remember, they didn't show up until the sixties and seventies and were rather more concerned with displaying their vast disdain - a common obsession of the left - for the icons of past. Of course a case could be made for them being late to the party since single greatest accomplishment in pursuit of woman's rights, sufferage, was a done deal decades earlier. So what was left other then to burn bras and sneer at the unwashed, uneducated and tasteless?

Turns out there was still important work to be done like the establishment of mandated discrimination so women could have access to jobs for which few are suited. So now we have women cops who are simultaneously more violent then male cops but also more likely to be injured on the job.

On behalf of the apathetic public let me issue a great, big "Thanks".

At 1:35 AM, Blogger martin van creveld said...

This is Martin van Creveld--the real one--not a pseudonym.

I'd like to let all you guys there know I have changed my position on this.

Throughout recorded and even pre-recorded history, men have fought and died so that women would live. While women have seldom been entirely immune to the horrors of war, often the number of men killed exceeded that of women by an order of magintude. This was even true at Sebrenica, the massacre whose tenth anniversary was celebrated last week.

Now that women, thanks to feminism,have gained equality, there is no reason why this situation should persist. In other words, why shouldn't more women die so men may live?

While there are women in the millitary, they are very far from doing their fair share. Proof? Whereas about 14 precent of U.S military personnel are female, women form only 2 percent of U.S casualties there.

Needless to say, we are NEVER going to see a situation where women carry their fair share.

At 5:15 PM, Blogger jon said...

medical school personal statement surfing tonight I saw your blog. I liked it and wondered how you did that? Anyway, its a cool medical school personal statement site...


At 6:47 AM, Blogger TLA Increase Your Page Rank said...

Ich suche Bikes

At 7:04 AM, Blogger Admin said...

Wow, what a great site. I will bookmark this site and return often. It's nice to see sites like this.

Please visit my website and let me know what you think. Secret Confession

At 11:07 PM, Blogger Swingin80 said...

Cool blog you have. I have a personal money related site. Check it out if you get a chance. The URL is personal money

At 11:28 PM, Blogger bench said...

iron supplement is a great resource for this type of thing iron supplement

At 1:31 AM, Blogger Erik Mann said...

Hi - You have a great blog. I have a webpage about ball busting self defense I'd like you to visit. Here's the link

At 2:53 AM, Blogger Bill Adams said...

Veteran's Day is November 11th and I hope that EVERY American will be flying the flag in honor of our troops fighting in Iraq and around the world to preserve our freedoms!

I can even tell you where to get one for free! Visit right now and they'll send you a FREE American Flag. These flags were $19.99, but now they are FREE. You pay just for shipping/handling and they'll ship one to your door. (Actually - I've ordered more than 20 from them to give to my neighbors, as gifts, etc!)

Get your free flag now: **FREE AMERICAN FLAG**

Semper Fi!

Bill Adams

At 2:36 AM, Blogger mwcart said...

Great blog you have. Just wanted to let you know that I've found a great place for Reward Card">Reward Card & Airline Reward Credit Card
. Keep up the great blog. Best wishes.

At 8:01 PM, Blogger Am said...

Just a comment -

I agree that there is no place in the police or the military for people who can't physically do their jobs.

Physical fitness standards are there for a reason. We have them in order to ensure that our soldiers and police are strong enough to do their jobs safely and efficiently. If you lower the physical fitness standards for women soldiers, then the very presence of these unfit women will put other soldiers and the public at risk.

Personally, I cringe when I read about each new set of "relaxed" standards meant to lure lazy women into the military or police. I've just learned that the US Marine Corps don't even make their women recruits do pull-ups - apparently pull-ups are "too hard" for these women. To me, that seems pretty clear evidence that the majority of these women recruits are NOT suited to being Marines. Why? Well, pullups aren't actually that hard. I am a 24 year old woman who works at a desk and goes to the gym occasionally, and I can do three dead-hang pull-ups easily. Aren't Marines meant to be one of America's elite fighting forces? What use is a Marine who is too weak to do pullups?

Your mention of women who cry when forced to abseil also really worries me. Where on earth do they get these women from? I know lots of women who love to abseil (it's not exactly that scarey), as well as women who love to rock climb, bungy jump and parachute. It seems fairly obvious to me that if abseiling scares an army recruit, then they are not exactly ideal army material.

I don't think women's lesser physical strength is a good enough reason to arbitrarily ban women from any military or police organisation. Instead, why can't we hold women to the exact same physical criteria as men? It might result in less women getting in to the army or police force (in fact it would probably result in no women being accepted into particular combat regiments), but those that got in would be able to do their jobs well.

Lowering standards to allow weak women into the police force or army is a slap in the face to the few strong, fit, brave women who actually deserve to serve.

At 7:45 AM, Blogger satxxkenn said...

Cool blog - Check out my site if you need help finding a good low interest credit card. Credit Cards

At 10:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

women shouldnt be allowed to rule over men-is the basic foundation of all succesfull civilization in this planet.if u want to break this foundation u will collapse soon.ur more intelligent enemies wo donot disregard this godly foundation will win and overpower you.only way to save western world from collapse remove women from every institution she has authority over men.women are weak not only physically but also mentally.they have less brain power than men.god created women for men not the other way did jesuits destroy protestantism-be feminizing protestants,thats by allowing women hold authority positions.

At 1:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

black mold exposureblack mold symptoms of exposurewrought iron garden gatesiron garden gates find them herefine thin hair hairstylessearch hair styles for fine thin hairnight vision binocularsbuy night vision binocularslipitor reactionslipitor allergic reactionsluxury beach resort in the philippines

afordable beach resorts in the philippineshomeopathy for big with great mineral makeup bargainsmineral makeup wholesalersprodam iphone Apple prodam iphone prahacect iphone manualmanual for P 168 iphonefero 52 binocularsnight vision Fero 52 binocularsThe best night vision binoculars here

night vision binoculars bargainsfree photo albums computer programsfree software to make photo albumsfree tax formsprintable tax forms for free craftmatic air bedcraftmatic air bed adjustable info hereboyd air bedboyd night air bed lowest pricefind air beds in wisconsinbest air beds in wisconsincloud air beds

best cloud inflatable air bedssealy air beds portableportables air bedsrv luggage racksaluminum made rv luggage racksair bed raisedbest form raised air bedsaircraft support equipmentsbest support equipments for aircraftsbed air informercialsbest informercials bed airmattress sized air beds

bestair bed mattress antique doorknobsantique doorknob identification tipsdvd player troubleshootingtroubleshooting with the dvd playerflat panel television lcd vs plasmaflat panel lcd television versus plasma pic the bestThe causes of economic recessionwhat are the causes of economic recessionadjustable bed air foam The best bed air foam

hoof prints antique equestrian printsantique hoof prints equestrian printsBuy air bedadjustablebuy the best adjustable air bedsair beds canadian storesCanadian stores for air beds

migraine causemigraine treatments floridaflorida headache clinicdrying dessicantair drying dessicantdessicant air dryerpediatric asthmaasthma specialistasthma children specialistcarpet cleaning dallas txcarpet cleaners dallascarpet cleaning dallas

vero beach vacationvero beach vacationsbeach vacation homes veroms beach vacationsms beach vacationms beach condosmaui beach vacationmaui beach vacationsmaui beach clubbeach vacationsyour beach vacationscheap beach vacations

bob hairstylebob haircutsbob layeredpob hairstylebobbedclassic bobCare for Curly HairTips for Curly Haircurly hair12r 22.5 best pricetires truck bustires 12r 22.5

washington new housenew house houstonnew house san antonionew house venturanew houston house houston house txstains removal dyestains removal clothesstains removalteeth whiteningteeth whiteningbright teeth


Post a Comment

<< Home