Yep, that pretty much sums up feminism in all its glory:
Ironically, feminism has always been about the masculinization of women coupled with the simultaneous feminization of men. How does a girl acting like a boy serve the cause of feminism? Because secretly it is about the coveting of power by feminists. They do not want to celebrate femininity; rather, they want to deprive men of their perceived power by taking it for themselves. Society is a lot worse off because of that.
The same is true about sexual attitudes. Instead of women serving as a counter-balance to the sometimes boorish behavior of men, feminism encourages women to act in just as boorish a manner, if not more so.
I left the following comment in response to this discussion at This Ain’t Hell: Legislation to allow women in combat specialties
Just another case of the ‘progressive’ mindset vs the conservative mindset. Conservatives are about equality of opportunity and focusing on excellence of results. ‘Progressives’ are about equality of results and excellence of ‘diversity’. Even then, conservatives and ‘progressives’ define results differently. While conservatives’ idea of results RE: the military is based on specific tasks military members must complete successfully, the idea of results for ‘progressives’ RE: the military is based on ‘diversity’.
The conservative, logical mindset will look at the tasks to be completed and then set standards to get the people best suited to complete those tasks. Anyone will have the opportunity to prove they can achieve the standards. But only those who achieve the standards will be chosen. If the pool of people chosen are all white men, all black/hispanic/asian men, all white women, all black/hispanic/asian women, etc, matters not to the conservative, logical mindset. What matters is that everyone chosen meets the standards and will complete the tasks successfully.
The ‘progressive’, emotional mindset will ignore the tasks to be completed and look only at what pool of people they want chosen. If they see that the standards set to successfully complete the tasks are preventing their ‘diverse’ pool of chosen people, they will change the standards to help their ‘diversity’ agenda. If this change in standards negatively affects the successful completion of the tasks, it matters not to the ‘progressive’, emotional mindset. What matters is that those attempting to complete the tasks are properly ‘diverse’.
Anyone or any company or organization who/which focuses on ‘diversity’ instead of excellence should be avoided. Period.
But, how about we take the emotional ‘diversity’ illogic of feminists and ‘progressives’ to its logical end. Someone mentioned that this crap started when these riTARDs started ignoring results-based success and started looking at ‘diversity’-based ‘success’. For example, they looked at the NFL and started bitching that there were not enough Black QBs or Black coaches, etc. So, they started the ‘Rooney Rule’ to force teams to interview Black coaches.
Well, as far as I can tell, the demographics of NFL players skews to Black athletes. And I believe those demographics do not match up with the demographics of the US population at all. Thus, we need a quota system in the NFL. No NFL team will be allowed to have its roster any different than the demographics of the US population overall. If the percentage of Blacks in the overall population is 20%, then no more than 20% of any roster shall be made up of Blacks. We can extend this ‘diversity’ agenda to the NBA, MLB and NHL as well. All major sports will be forced to adhere to this policy. This will also mean that more Mexicans and Asians will need to be on each major sports league’s teams. Afterall, we cannot have any ethnic background improperly represented.
Also, this will need to extend to colleges as well. Thus, only 20% of atheletic scholarships shall be given to Blacks in any sport. And more athletic scholarships given to Mexicans and Asians, etc. (Think this is wrong or unfair? Well, it is absolutely NO different than changing/lowering academic standards to give more scholarships to minorities who would otherwise not get them. So if we need to make academic scholarships more ‘fair’ and ‘diverse’, it follows that we need to do the same with athletic scholarships, right?)
But wait, I’m not done. As we’re learning from the feminists and the LGBTs, women are absolutely, positively NO different than men. A woman can do anything a man can do. She can play sports, she can be a father to a child and she can do anything a male member of the military can do. Now, since we don’t set up our military to be “The US Military” and “The Female US Military” (yes, I know, we actually DO set it up that way, since no female military member in any branch of the military actually has to achieve the same standards as their male counterparts, by default creating ‘female Marines’, ‘female soldiers’, etc), then there is absolutely no reason for the existence of the WNBA, the LPGA and female tennis leagues. Also, women’s softball shall be eliminated. Women can throw overhand just as well as men, so there is no reason to have a separate league for them where they throw underhand.
Thus, just as the US Military is being forced (and has been forced throughout history) — in the name of ‘diversity’ and equality — to open its organization to women, regardless of how that will affect the effectiveness of the organization, all other organizations shall be forced to do the same.
NFL — What’s that you say? A 100-lb female DE can’t compete with a 350lb male offensive lineman, thus no high school or college or NFL team will give her a shot? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of football so that women can compete better.
MLB — What’s that you say? Women can’t throw overhand as far as men can, which is why women’s softball mounds are set up closer to the batter and they are allowed to throw underhand? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of baseball so that women can compete better.
NBA — What’s that you say? A 5’5″ female guard can’t get her jump shot off over a 6’5″ male guard? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of basketball so that women can compete better.
PGA — What’s that you say? There are not enough females who are as good at golf as men, so there wouldn’t be an even number of men and women competing each week in the tournaments? No problem! We’ll just create a quota rule where each tournament has to be 50-50 men and women.
NHL — What’s that you say? A 100-lb female getting hit into the boards by a 250-lb male would get herself mauled? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of hockey so that women can compete better.
Think about that for a minute. Anyone proposing that we make those changes for our major sports would be ridiculed as the idiotic, dumbass riTARD that s/he is. YET, this is exactly what is being proposed for our US military, an organization which conducts MUCH MORE SERIOUS tasks than simply throwing balls around or hitting balls with sticks.
When it comes to a game, no one makes the absolutely majorly f-ing idiotic suggestion that women be treated the same as men. But when it comes to our national defense, all of a sudden, it’s somehow less riTARDed an idea?
WTF is wrong with people. Seriously, what the bloody f’ing f’ck is wrong with people.
Anyone suggesting that women be allowed in the military with lesser standards, let alone in combat MOS with lesser standards, should be treated the same way as we would anyone suggesting that women be allowed in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL with lesser standards. Yet, we’re actually treating this as a serious, intellectual idea. Un-freaking-real.
What an absolute joke our society has become.
Some great points made in the comments:
Frankly Opinionated Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 8:25 am
Let’s take this from the basics:
Men in the military are not permitted to grow their hair long. I believe this is for good reason. I was told that it was because of the hygiene, and the fact that hair can get in the way or get caught in weaponry. I agree.
Women are not made to cut theirs “high and tight”, but in combat MOS’, wouldn’t those same factors apply.
Not too long ago, a lady commented here, about the once a month hygiene difficulties of a women, and on how much more difficult it is for them at that time. Great point.
Men must meet a certain standard in Physical ability. Because it is what is needed to perform the job. If women in the same MOS’ are held to a lesser standard, how could we expect them to perform the same job, (handling, mounting/dismounting a “Ma Duece” perhaps), as timely and well as a man?
And back to my time in service, (right after we replaced the musket), we had women in the Army, in the Air Force, in the Navy, and in the Marines. They were WAC’s, WAF’s, Wave’s, n BAM’s. They performed a necessary job, did it well, made rank, stayed in til retirement.
Women don’t have a “right” to be in a MAN’s slot, anymore than a Man has a “right” to a promotion that he did not earn.
May 21st, 2011 at 9:14 am
“The Vietnamese are trying to take our seat!”
She is such a piece of shit.
Anyway, here’s the point: “Sanchez’s amendment would implement a recommendation made earlier this year by the Military Leadership Diversity Committee, a group of current and retired officers, noncommissioned officers and civilians, which determined that combat exclusion laws hurt advancement opportunities for women.”
So the point here is that the rules are standing in the way of their advancement opportunities. My initial reaction is that we already have affirmative action that gives women and minorities special treatment in advancement at the expense of white guys like me. Women can shoot up through the ranks without putting in half the effort as men. It’s disgusting. Talk about incompotent people being placed in positions of power.
But that’s not even the most important thing to consider. Combat effectiveness should ALWAYS be the focus. What’s best for our ass-kicking power is more important than what’s best for some whiney woman’s career.
By the way, affirmative action hasn’t been very beneficial to my career either. Not that Sanchez cares. She wants “equality” not equality.
Doc Bailey Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 10:00 am
Medics are technically a non-combat MOS, but we do NOT let them anywhere NEAR the line. Officially. Sometimes they sneak in as “attachments” but brother let me tell you, dealing with women in the chain of command adds a whole new dynamic. Whatever drama you had before suddenly becomes a soap opera, and a lot of female officers are passive aggressive in the extreme. I’ve seen female NCOs go nuts over minor things and Female officers are if anything worse, because the Army almost TELLS them to be passive aggressive. I understand shit details tend to go to those you don’t like, but still. . . it gets ridiculous if you don’t have a 1SG willing to tell them off.
Its not PC, but I’m going to say this as honestly as I can. Units with women in them are 10 times harder to deal with than all male ones.
But that doesn’t even touch on the physical reasons to include weight carrying capacity (their hips are NOT designed to carry loads the same way as men) Stamina and speed, (just why IS the 2 mile run standards so much lower?) the idea that a mostly male unit would “protect” the females, and lets not forget my favorite: women are psychologically predisposed to “nurture”, the battlefield is a bit of a jump in the opposite direction, so no one really knows if more extreme cases of PTSD might result.
This is just another Dem political stunt, like DADT repeal and women on Subs. It makes no sense to the people tasked with implementing the policy (timing and even in most cases the NEED for such) and we’re just supposed to salute, say Hoah and carry on like the GOOD little mindless robots we are.
May 21st, 2011 at 10:59 am
Bottom line: Men and women are different. They are not interchangeable parts. Treating different things differently is not discrimination.
May 21st, 2011 at 11:01 am
I agree that this is a stunt. It worked exceptionally well with Repealing DADT, with so-called gay conservative groups imploding with their support of the repeal.
Women in combat MOS is not about the individual woman, or the chosen ones who will be given rank and position. This is about Democrats having lost the Feminist Mojo to conservatives such as Governor Palin and Rep. Bachmann. The meme goes: if woman can do anything, then woman can do anything.
Being an artillerist, I’ve served with women assigned to brigade-level HQ and higher; and in our support battalions. In a peacetime Army, they were professional. In wartime and on operational deployments to Bosnia? Most were professional.
This measure is also an insult to women who serve, and have served. They made the rank by going to the schools, walking the trail, taking good assignments and bad. Now? Now soldiers won’t know if their female leader is competent, or a quota requirement.
Before I’m willing to consider women in combat MOS, IMO DOD needs to get to the bottom, if you’ll pardon the pun, of all of these sexual assaults going on. There’ve been so many reports of rape, and countering accusations of accusing joe of rape in order for the female to avoid UCMJ, that no one knows what is true. But, the VA is reporting more women veterans as survivors (to one degree or another) of sexual assault.
There’s been no study of how to best integrate women into combat MOS – there’s been the political position with a veneer of statistics, but no serious, scientifically-based study.
Real-world, no-kidding issues are not, and will not be addressed. To do so may reveal truth. This amendment is not about truth, and it is not about women. It is about reclaiming the mantle of Feminist from conservatives.
May 21st, 2011 at 12:52 pm
This infantryman is steadfastly against opening combat MOS’ to women. I have seen a very few women who might make average grunts on the line, and none who would be extremely impressive. The only female that made it past Zero day in my Air Assault class had a very impressive time on the road march, but that doesn’t mean she’d be able to keep up with us carrying a standard light infantry load. Let’s go through my limited military experience and interactions with females:
101st: About 45 days without a real shower or bath after entering Iraq. We had an Air Force unit sharing our tent complex in Kuwait that had a few females; we were all distracted by them and our PL one night found a porta-john occupied by one of them and a man one night. Not even two weeks into the deployment and they were already working hard. First four or five months we had no cots, power, or running water. After over a month of slit trenches and baby wipes we built a shower and outhouse and burned shit until around September 2003. Just before a parade through Clarksville when we got home a female Sergeant was recognized by one of the Afghanistan vets as part of a group whoring themselves out back in 2002. Go to Air Assault a 10 or so days after getting back home and watch 30 or so females wash out of the obstacle course.
TOG: A bit more interaction with females. MP company commander relieved (and Tomb Badge revoked) for having sex with enlisted Soldiers after pictures spread around. very few females on the field during ceremonies (of course, but even 289th MP Company had few when they were on the field). Went to PLDC, most of the females were at least proficient but one sandbagged the entire course. The instructors threatened to kick a few of the louder 11Bs out for continually pointing out the malingering nature of the female. I guess it’s better to send three or four good NCOs home to protect one POS.
Recruiting: Yay! A co-ed assignment. Work with two females directly, both are good at what they do and strive to participate in PT. Other females in the company? Not so much. PT days find them sitting down watching us. Despite the females I work with being squared away they still have their nuances–one time getting into an argument and refusing to talk or even work together for a few days.
I’ve seen that at work myself. Call me racist, misogynistic or whatever, but it seems that minorities (including women) are often promoted over white males in the Army (especially on the enlisted side). I’ve bitched about it before but I still find it odd that a non-deployable infantry unit could be so top-heavy in minority senior NCOs. My company had at most four blacks E-2 through E-6 (out of some 128 or so). Yet we had two E-7s, a 1SG and both CSMs. Our NCOPD one day had the author of “100 Sergeants Major of Color” as the guest speaker. I wonder how he felt about his profile of Staff Sergeant Stoney Crump (feels good to outrank that guy). On the flip side my unit in the 101st had very few minorities at all levels.
AW1 Tim Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 3:24 pm
For those want women in combat jobs, ask yourself this: Why aren’t women playing in the NFL? It has NOTHING to do with intelligence, marksmanship or communication skills. It has everything to do with physical requirements, and brute-force ability.
Hormones also play a VERY big part of that. I am so tired of all this craptacular social-engineering experiments being conducted by assmaggots who have never been involved in the military.
The crap will get people killed, and when it happens, those responsible for this legislation ought to be charged with murder and put to death. Publicly.
May 21st, 2011 at 8:02 pm
I demand that our legislative body and executive branch prepare legislation that will effectively boycott the Olympic Games, both summer and winter, until the gender-specific events are eliminated. Participants should not be held back from achieving greatness by some arbitrary rule like gender-classification.
On the “study” that was perpetrated by this gender group, they mention that women are underrepresented in the senior ranks. Well, give me the number of women who stay in to serve in the senior ranks? Do women stay in the military as long as men? And this study concludes that women are hurt because they are not allowed to serve in Combat units, yet Service Support and Support units outnumber Combat units, 8-10 to 1. The tooth to tail ration favors the advancement of women. And plenty of them are in “combat” for women to receive the same “experience” as men. The majority of General/Flag Officer billets aren’t even “combat” related. There is no reason why a woman can’t be promoted to take over US Cyber Command or TRANSCOM.
May 21st, 2011 at 8:38 pm
I had 6 women come into my airborne unit and within 6 months 4 were pregnant. Can’t see how this enhanced the operational readiness of my unit in the slightest
May 22nd, 2011 at 2:14 am
If you guys think having a woman that’s less than lack luster in infantry, armor or artillery try having several in an MP unit. Neither one carried their weight, our squad always had to mount their 60’s & load them in the gun trucks. All they had to do was woman(man)the 60’s and they bitched about that…the rest of us did ingress & egress.
Twas a damn good thing when Uncle Sugar Army gave us 6 of the V-100’s….they could hide inside them and not be a pain in our butts. Neither could shoot a .30, .38, 12gauge or M-16 worth a shit….Yet, they consistently passed weapons qual’s….go f’ng figure.
Doc Bailey Says:
May 22nd, 2011 at 3:31 am
I would like to point out that MOST women I talk to do not want to be ANYWHERE NEAR combat. Being on the FOB can be scary enough, and rolling up and down Predators or God Forbid Irish, sometimes felt like a fools errand, sure to get you wounded or killed. By my reckoning there are no “million dollar” wounds anymore, you get hit you’re probably losing something.
So I’ve got to ask a serious question here, and I’m asking mostly the women mind you; When did it become wrong for a man to want to protect a woman? Call me a chauvinist, but I’d really rather not have to treat women that get torn to pieces. I don’t want to treat guys that get torn up like that, but women getting hurt like that somehow seems. . . wrong. Is that really a wrong opinion to have?
No, it is not a wrong opinion at all.
And I will even take that one further. Forget the desire of men to protect women. Let’s just talk about simple science. Women are special in that they are the only ones who can give birth to our next generation. Losing 100 men in war is nothing compared to losing 100 women in war. That loss of 100 women means there are 100 less available to continue the next generation.
A society should treat its women special, because they are special. But our society has already proven that it does not consider life sacred and special by its acceptance and promotion of the mass murder of babies through the evil of abortion. So it should come as no surprise that no one even thinks to believe women should be kept out of the military — or at least kept out of deployment and combat — due to them being sacred life givers.
(Of course, considering it seems that half our female population now believes in the mass murder of babies through abortion as some sort of “right”, I guess we can stop considering women as special life givers, as they now seem quite happy with taking life.)
From a comment left on a blog I was reading recently:
#33 cajun2, I have never
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 02/04/2011 – 3:17pm.
I have never understood how anyone has ever bought into the lie that the Left is pro-women.
The Left constantly pushes for legalizing prostitution — Men using women as sex objects.
The Left worships pornography — The vast majority of porn watchers are men. Porn shows women being used by men.
The Left loves abortions — Great way for men never to have to take responsability for infidelity, pedophilia, etc. Girls are aborted at a much higher rate than boy babies.
The Left has embraced Islam — Islam hates women.
The Left constantly embraces shows, like Glee, which [trivialize] women and portray women as mere sexual objects for the pleasure of others.
So, can anyone please tell me how Left wingers care about women? Since the feminist revolution of the 1960s, women have lost more than they have gain[ed]!
Good comments in response to this post at Blackfive: The Face of Our Ally, as Made by Our Enemy
I agree, our guys are at the top of the “save and protect” list. That’s why so many families have been so infuriated about the ROE, even knowing all the factors and advantages of “courageous restraint.” If it’s us or them, I pick us, even if “them” is an Afghan civilian just working for Taliban money. Even if it means collateral, horrible damage. I pick us, and I don’t think “saving the women” is a reason to fight and put our guys in harm’s way. (Even as a woman.)
That said, we’ve been making this argument about Afghan women for a decade, and the liberal press has dutifully ignored the issue. Why, after ten years, does a major publication all of sudden do a story on subjugation of Afghan women? Where have the liberal feminists been all this time, while their sisters have lived in misery and fear? I’ll tell you where, undermining, mocking and disappearing the very strength and power it takes to free them. Cutting off at the knees the force and the “macho neanderthals” necessary to make that freedom happen. Liberal feminism? Epic Fail. That’s what that cover says. It also says something lib feminists are too dumb to consider: gratitude. Gratitude toward the very western ideals, thought and power — and men –that make their good, free lives possible.
There’s a tendency with the group currently in power to idealize and worship third world cultures and ways as if they’re somehow more noble than ours. Yet, would they choose to subject themselves to those things they praise in such politically correct terms? No.
Egalitarianism for women in the west is possible because we have civilized and reasonable men. Afghan women are dealing with a whole different animal, and even the U.S. military achieving it’s goals there won’t liberate them. They’ll probably have to resort to arms and deadly force. The women, I mean. I say we give all the Afghan women combat training, arm them to the teeth, and then go home. No, we don’t justify our presence over there on the idea of saving Afghan women.
July 30, 2010 at 09:47 AM
One more thing. There was no end to the media bashing on Gen. Mattis’ comment about Taliban slapping their women around, and how that meant they had no manhood left. They couldn’t stop saying what a caveman Mattis was. (No comment on the Afghan men who preside over the punishment of their women.) It’s probably too much to hope for that this article serves as a reality check for that view, but given that, it’s still what’s in America’s interests that should drive our presence there, and nothing else. Frankly, I’m inclined to let the whole lot of them jump in the lake.
July 30, 2010 at 10:05 AM
My, my, would you look at this: More Social Engineering In The Military
I presume the Navy and its sailors will make this work but my question is why is this an issue? Are there not enough sailors volunteering for sub duty? Is the quality not high enough? I’m guessing silly things like what’s good for the force aren’t driving this change but rather a desire for that most important of all military assets… diversity. […]
Are there dedicated woman who could serve on subs? Sure. Is it unfair that those women are denied the opportunity to serve because of larger issues? I guess. Thing is, unless I missed a memo, life isn’t fair. We don’t have a Navy and multi-billion dollar ships to ensure fairness of opportunity for men or women. The only purpose of a warship is to be ready to go in harm’s way. There aren’t a lot of extra bodies on ships, especially subs (which deploy for months at a time). Where are these extra crew members coming from in such a highly specialized talent pool when what everyone knows is going to happen, actually happens?
And then there are living space issues and consideration and on and on and on. […]
My biggest concern is that as our combat commitment in Iraq winds down, fighting in Afghanistan ramps up, naval shipbuilding is in shambles, the JSF program continues to slide and we enter the 10th year of trying to replace 40+ year old aerial refueling tankers, all we seem to talk about is social issues. The public only can pay attention to so many issues at once, gays in the military and women on subs shouldn’t be getting all the attention.
But I thought the social conservatives were wrong to be focused on defending against the social transformation of this country by social liberals and the GLBT agenda? I thought we were supposed to bag our concerns about abortion and the GLBT agenda, because those were meaningless compared to fiscal issues. Social issues were just stupid and irrelevant issues that have no bearing on the overall big picture with the nation.
Now all of a sudden, the GLBT and social liberal agenda is a concern? Well, imagine that.
As I said previously, social issues are the core and foundation of our society, culture and nation. We can overcome fiscal issues (as we have many, many times throughout our nation’s history), but we can NOT overcome the destruction of our social core and foundation.
The public only can pay attention to so many issues at once, gays in the military and women on subs shouldn’t be getting all the attention.
Hmm, it’s almost like it’s on purpose or something.
Posted by: Iskandar at February 23, 2010 07:57 PM
Exactly! The radicals in charge know that we can’t — or rather we are not willing to — stop everything they try to do, so they throw a whole bunch of radical shit out there and count on us to say “shit, we can’t (are not willing to) stop all this, let’s just give them X, Y & Z and focus on stopping A, B & C”. And voila!, they end up getting most of their radical shit through.
This is ON.PURPOSE. This is their PLAN. This is BY.DESIGN. Wake.the.f—.up.
Like I’ve always said, it’s all about sowing chaos in our nation. That is the intention behind every single policy The Precedent pursues. How much more proof do people need? Women on subs? WTF?
Posted by: progressoverpeace at February 23, 2010 08:22 PM
This is a terrible idea. As a former submariner (four years, seven strategic deterrent patrols) onboard an SSBN, I know that this will be a problem logistically. We had women onboard for two days a couple of times. During that time, our crew was inconvenienced in major ways. We had one watchstanders’ head near the control room (secured for female use) and had two heads in the missile compartment (one secured during the morning for female use). Also mentioned earlier was the fact that women who get pregnant are not deployable; that is absolutely true. Also, there are heavy items onboard submarines that women can have difficulty carrying by themselves (OBAs, submersible pumps, heavy-duty hoses). A submarine is a fighting vessel, not a social experimentation lab. This just makes me angry.
Posted by: Eric at February 23, 2010 08:34 PM
I completely agree. That said, one could say the exact same thing for the military as a whole, not just submarines. The US military is a fighting force, not a social experimentation lab. Yet, people are okay with repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Well, all those who were all in favor of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should also be all in favor of women on submarines then. Because the same social issues apply in both cases. If you are in favor of one, you should be in favor of the other.
Commence rant! Commence rant! Rant at will!
1. Do we really need diversity, Admiral Mullen? I mean, this word, I do not think it has the value attached to it that you think it does. Is it possible that we sacrifice operational readiness and combat effectiveness in the pursuit of this nebulous ideal?
2. Submariners whose wisdom teeth have not come in hot straight and normal get them pulled. I know, because while mine were not in yet, and my panoramic dental x-ray clearly showed they were not causing any problems, I still ended up having all four them yanked out. Why? No dentists on subs. No room to accommodate one if we wanted to. Any health problems resulting from a bad wisdom tooth could compromise the mission of the sub just to medevac me. Better to pull them now than send me to sea and hope for the best.
My point? Women have unique health problems, pregnancy being one of the most obvious, and submarines don’t have doctors on board (we have a Corpsmen), nor can we just call for a helo to come and take someone to another ship/shore station when we are off on a mission or deterrence patrol (Stealth is our only defense, and we are only stealthy if we are submerged).
Of course he has to bring up the pregnancy trope! It isn’t like 12% of female crew members are getting pregnant or anything in any given year… (This is a number that has been tossed around based on average pregnancies for all enlisted Navy females ship and shore based. Actual numbers for ship based females are unknown to the public – the Navy is extremely reluctant to talk about this subject for some reason…) Now 12% of all female crew members may not sound like a lot, and in absolute numbers, they are not. What we must consider is that every warm body that doesn’t go on a six month WestPAC or a strategic deterrence patrol is a warm body whose place must be taken by someone. Often that someone is not available, and so said pregnant warm body’s job must be covered for by the rest of her division. Want to know what that’s like? Go to work for six hours. Go home for six hours. Go back to work for six hours. Go home for six hours. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Every day. FOR SIX MONTHS. If you are flight deck crew on a carrier, it’s already eighteen on and six off, seven days a week, so instead you’ll just have to work even harder…
On a submarine, the typical crew is between 120 and 150, depending on class and manning levels for that boat. With 20% of the crew female, a 12% attrition rate comes out to 3 women going home or staying home on the low end, or 4 women on the high end. The boat can survive this kind of attrition. But it comes at a cost. For every woman left behind, that is a man who cannot go to specialized training courses he needs to do his job and advance his career. That is a man who cannot take leave to visit his family because the boat can only spare so many of its crew at any given time. That is a serious fucking morale and retention problem. Why do they have to leave?
Other than that’s the official regs, and putting aside the wisdom of allowing pregnant women to participate in lethal combat, radiation limits for pregnant women are very very low. 50 millirem for the duration of the pregnancy. A female who stands a watch near the reactor, or who serves as an ELT drawing off primary coolant (water from the reactor) for analysis, or who sleeps or stands watch in proximity to nuclear weapons could conceivably run afoul of these limits. This means she must either be removed from the boat, or shunted to a watch away from these areas. If there isn’t another female who can replace her, a man must do it.
This may well cause morale problems, especially if the pregnancy precludes her from going to sea – there just isn’t a lot of excess crew standing around to take up her slack, and let me tell you, just in case you didn’t already figure it out, six hours on six hours off for weeks on end gets old real fucking quick.
3. For many of the divisions on a submarine, the job entails brute force. Yep, that sexist pig is playing the “girls are wimpy” card. Pig. Meanwhile, back in the real world, pipes and valves and air compressors and other machinery are heavy.
Let me repeat that, with added emphasis. PIPES, VALVES, AIR COMPRESSORS, HEAT EXCHANGERS, TORPEDOES, CAPTOR MINES, CRUISE MISSILES, BOXES OF TDU WEIGHTS, CYLINDERS OF FREON, PIPING RISICS, SEAWATER PUMPS, AND OTHER SUBMARINE PARAPHERNALIA ARE FUCKING HEAVY. YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MASSIVE THESE THINGS ARE UNTIL YOU’VE TRIED LIFTING/MOVING THEM UP TWENTY FOOT VERTICAL LADDERS AND THROUGH WATERTIGHT DOORS THE SIZE OF A MIDRANGE TELEVISION SET. WITHOUT HURTING YOURSELF, THE EQUIPMENT, OR THE SUBMARINE, WHILE DOING IT.
Posted by: J. Wilde at February 23, 2010 08:35 PM
Completely agreed with these two comments:
a society in decline…
to argue this point while facing the (obvious) cold hard facts of combat effectiveness versus gender interaction, equality of sexes and other social engineering pap is yet one more sign of a society in decline… when did we lose so much respect for each other (vis-a-vis men vs. women)? The block-headed, cold hearted, caveman facts of life are simple; given equal size and training a male will always win a physical contest against a female. Males have a built in mechanical advantage… physics is never wrong.
I hereby issue a challenge to my more “enlightened” and “intelligent” brothers and sisters;
Name one society (not fictitious, rumored or unsubstantiated) that had a statistically significant percentage of their regular combat forces who were female… and survived for any significant period of time.
True respect is in showing deference when deference is due or warranted. There’s a reason why we (men / women / homo sapiens) are at the top of the food chain and it’s not because of political correctness.
(walking away, shaking head in disgust…)
Posted by: JAM2 at February 23, 2010 11:13 PM
395 Preach it; what you’re saying is dead on target — women are by and large not as physically capable as men and should therefore not be placed into positions in the military where there is a heavy physical component (I’d add that you can “whip” male recruits into shape quicker as well, so women up for a draft makes no sense, unless you want to up the casualty rate and lower combat effectiveness). There is no shame in admitting your limitations and having the sense to not go where you simply can’t do the job, so I don’t know why this is such a big issue.
And yeah, I think that women should be able to at least make the minimum requirements in pt that the men do — if you want to be a member of the team, you should at least be able to play according to the rest of the team’s standards; maybe not be the fastest or the strongest, but at least make the minimum requirements for the rest of the team. It was bs that they put different standards according to gender imho.
Posted by: unknown jane at February 23, 2010 11:32 PM
This is also well-stated:
It’s a hard thing to answer but in my not completely ignorant opinion — no, it is not insulting to know one’s limitations. Have I met women who could serve right alongside men in any area? Yes; there was a sargeant who could out man just about any man on the face of the planet…but those sorts of women are not the norm imho. Most women cannot handle the intense physically hardship of combat — it isn’t a case of being able to do it for one day or three days, try week after week (and you better factor in a lot of sleep deprivation which from my experience women do not handle as well as men). Very few women can hack it — and if one woman gets to do it, then it opens it up for everyone else (and you can’t really ascertain who will be one of the few that can really hack it until you do it — even the crucible doesn’t really stand in for actual combat duties — so you’re not going to know until you’re out in the field and that is too fucking late). I would have loved to have been a combat marine; my daughters would love to have gotten the shot at being Rangers — but we loved/love our country enough and loved our Corps/Army enough to know that putting us there would have reduced combat effectiveness; sometimes you have to shelve your own personal wants and accept what’s for the greater good, and winning wars for the U.S. is the greater good.
As for technical jobs — yeah, females can handle them, but sea duty, especially submarine duty is really not the place for co-ed. Just because there are rules against the hanky panky doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, and especially in the close quarters of a ship or sub, well, it isn’t conducive to people keeping their minds totally on the job at hand. Which leads us right back to the pregnancy *and prostitution and std thing — how is that conducive to military effectiveness? It’s crazy; we shouldn’t have to set aside money and man hours to deal with that bull crap — either the women already in start getting some more discipline or, hell, I don’t know. Pisses me off.
Posted by: unknown jane at February 23, 2010 10:18 PM
This comment speaks for itself:
And here is why I’m retiring. Its the only honorable thing to do. None of this; the DADT, the women in combat, or any other nifty thing that these folks come up with is the answer to the unasked question; how can we make the military more effective? There is no “right” to serve. Whether or not you are in the service or not has little to do with whether you “want” to be there. The only thing that matters is if you can do the things the services think are relevant to the MOS/AFSC you’re applying for.
Until we started the social engineering. When I went through MEPS, I had to lift a certain amount over my head. The women didn’t. Funny thing, the F-4 didn’t care whether you were a man/woman, the tire that needed changing, or the J-79 still weighed the same. If you were a female, that just meant that whats normally a one person job became two; which cuts your organization in half. And yes, in the 22 years I’ve been in, I’ve seen MOST women (not all) use their sex to their advantage; not getting in trouble for low performance (pilot training x2) lying and stealing (in OTS, we had two women in our flight; one, a good person, washed back for low test scores, bucked up, and eventually did OK. The other was caught stealing, lying about it, and trying to pin the blame on a subordinate. We were told the cadre was not allowed to boot her, as it would look like the flight was biased. The “field” would weed them out. So she went on to her job as a nuke missile launch officer: sleep well) and even getting promoted. Try to figure out statistically what percentage of females SHOULD be execs, or executive secretaries. And then look at how many are. You dont think women are specially treated? Check on the promotion dates of the Vice CC of AFMC. The “woman” general left, and all of the sudden, another one shows up. Check out the last two promotion dates, MG in June 09, LtG in Dec 09. That damn glass ceiling.
Couple that with the fact that sexual assault is now a “lingering glance” and that many women do indeed get pregnant before operations (anecdotally, one of my first flight instructors had two kids in an operational unit in the 5 years that I was there. That means she didn’t fly for more than half the time I was there. Then she transferred to the reserves.) But the sorties, and the missions didn’t abate. That means that others picked up her slack.
Tell you what. I’ll meet all you advocates of the “rights” coalition halfway. If women are necessary to the functioning of the military, then clearly, the law that says that only males must register for the draft is obsolete. When ALL women are denied federal grants, college loans and subject to jail for NOT registering with selective service, and given as much choice in MOS as every other person (including the no-choice combat option) then by all means.
I’ve been in since 1987. I’ve been a crew chief, nuke weapons officer and pilot. I’m told I’m on the fast track.
But I cant do it. Our leaders care more about their careers than the truth. 52% elected a man who hates the military. A few years before that, another who “loathed” the military was handed the reins for 8 years. I’ve been involved in operations since desert storm, desert fox, OIF, and OEF. I’ve left my family over and over. I’ve been shot at a few times, and mortar’d and rocketed a few more. Im sure not as much as the internet hard cases, but enough. I have a wonderful daughter and son, and have been married to the same girl for 22 years.
Im no longer going to offer myself to unappreciative flock. No longer going to be put at risk by a populace who would call me a sexist for insisting on one standard (no, in the USAF woman don’t have to do the same physical fitness test as I do).
No, I’m not bitter at women; or gays; or anyone.
I’m sad. It will break my heart to turn in my wings, and my maintenance badge.
But its the honorable thing to do.
Posted by: MIkeB at February 23, 2010 11:43 PM