Why We Must Stop Giving Special Treatment To Women In The United States Military

Even though women are eligible for combat roles and have earned the Ranger Tab, the military still isn’t a level playing field for men and women. Military leaders who say that women can do whatever men can are just sucking up for promotions; it’s still clearly an unequal environment. I have a few suggestions to help them put their money where their politically-correct mouths are: go Full Metal Equality, with concrete actions for fair and effective results, and quit giving just lip service to a gender-neutral force.

Equality in the draft

Of course! Rostker Vs Goldberg, in 1981 made very clear that the only real barrier to full Selective Service participation was the exclusion of women from combat roles. With Ash Carter’s decision to put women into combat roles, it’s time to get women in the draft. Concomitant with this, of course, is having the same consequences that men face for not registering.

For men, not registering means not being eligible for federal student aid, state-funded student financial aid in many states, most federal employment, some state employment, security clearance for contractors, job training under the Workforce Investment Act, and U.S. citizenship for immigrant men. Further, failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Obviously, this should apply to women too.

Drafting-Women-Into-The-Military

Unfortunately, faced with the reality of consequences, some women now advocate getting rid of the draft. What, it was ok for men but not with the braver, newer, more-equal military?

Equality in standards

Absolutely. The military, all parties agree, should not lower standards for women. The only realistic way to do this is to abolish sex-specific training, clothing, and grooming standards. Bye-bye, discriminatory 42 and 19 push-ups, earrings, and haircut styles! There is only one standard in combat, and there should be one standard for training: whatever the position requires. An infantryperson is an infantryperson; a tanker is a tanker. Job-normed standards will prevent discrimination and ensure we have equality on the battlefield instead of situations like this:

How Not To Win Wars

Training also needs to be fully integrated. When I was at West Point long ago, women were prevented from gaining the benefits of all the physical training offered to men, like mandatory boxing classes. This is discriminatory when any women can now end up on the battlefield in a combat role. Classes like boxing and others designed to build fitness and the “warrior spirit” need to be open to and integrated with men and women, like both would face on the battlefield, and graded the same. Denying the value of this training to women is tantamount to saying that the Army doesn’t actually think they can compete with men; it’s the soft bigotry of low expectations. Don’t want that, do we?

Equality in advancement and careers

The Army does promotions with groups of officers and those enlisted through Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs). OERs have discrimination-inviting fields like “name” and text write-ups about accomplishments. Most promotion board members are men, but that doesn’t mean that they need to know who they’re evaluating. The “name” portion should be stricken, with the only identifying information on the form being just the Social Security Number. The last four digits of the number would suffice in place of the name and other identifying pronouns in the text write-ups of fields like “Comment on specific aspects of the performance…” or “Comment on potential for promotion.”

There’s also the Officer Record Brief (ORB) and Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), which have pictures and relevant record information. In the words of Dept. of the Army:

4. How it is used The ORB is used by personnel managers… to gain an initial impression of an officer’s qualifications and career history and as a “road map” to the Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) and other documents… Other individuals also use the ORB to form an image of the officer’s experience and qualifications…the ORB is one of the primary management tools used in determining where to assign officers.

That just screams “Use me to discriminate!” So get rid of the soldier’s picture on the form and name and any other gender or race-identifying text or clues like sex, spouses, and picture. People making career, assignment, and school determinations don’t need to know that stuff. They do need to know prior assignments and qualifications, and we’ve already agreed that sex is no longer a qualification for anything in the military. The best will rise to the top, male or female, and there will be no discrimination or preferences involved.

Lastly, the military needs to do branching under one sex-neutral system. For officers, some branches were closed to women, while men who didn’t get their first choices in branch assignments were force-slotted into less-desirable branches, which were often combat arms. Allowing men more access to the fast-promoting combat arms is clearly discriminatory. One system; no preferential treatment. That’s equality.

Equality in biology 

By making it through Ranger School, which is extended time in a dirty, nasty, exhausting environment, women did away with a whole passel of stereotypes about privacy and behavior. It’s time to go Starship Troopers and get rid of dual-sex housing and accommodations. Heinlein’s political system can come later, but what’s clearly not needed is a divisive, discriminatory housing and benefits policy.

However, since we know that sometimes boys will be boys and girls will be girls, we do have to deal with pregnancy. Major General Tony Cucolo was a bit ahead of his time in Iraq when he proposed UCMJ legal action and penalties for women who got pregnant and the men who helped out, but it’s time to revisit that.

Pregnancy is a force degrader, especially around deployment time. Studies, even before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars (for instance, “The Impact of Pregnancy on US Army Readiness”), show that the staffing gaps caused by pregnant women are big problems. It’s time to treat pregnancy for what it is in a combat environment—malingering. Malingering involves intentionally disabling oneself to avoid work, duty, or service.

In the age of consent, contraception, and abortifacients, that sounds like pregnancy; there is zero excuse for getting pregnant while deployed or getting pregnant after deployment is scheduled.  In addition to the legal punishment, further mandate contraception or abortion for female service members who get pregnant in or around combat, or after deployments are announced.

The Army needs to recognize this as an unequal condition. Women now get 12 weeks of maternity leave by regulation and are non-deployable for 6 months if they’re pregnant. Men can’t get pregnant and get months of paternity leave when they’re doing their combat jobs. In fact, men only get 14 days of paternity leave, and that’s not equal. If we’re going for equality, as feminists state, then women shouldn’t be able to play the “pregnancy” or “maternity” cards while in selfless service to their country and their fellow soldiers.

Summary

My proposal list above is short, but addresses the core concerns with the gender-neutral agenda voiced across military and civilian discourse: selective service, standards, careers, and combat effectiveness. It excises privilege, special access, and special benefits. We’d see the best and most capable rank-ordered into positions and training, regardless of sex or anything else. Anyone against the items on this list is obviously against equality and combat effectiveness, and if they’re against those, you should ask them why.

We know the answer. Feminists want all of the privileges and none of the responsibility for results. They want to inflict their notions on innocent people, heedless of the consequences. But if they want equality, the least we can do is make sure everyone gets it, good and hard, and put the ugly impacts of the feminist agenda for the military on full display.

Being in the military isn’t all about promotions and badges and free day-care. It’s about winning wars, and the shameful conduct of our nation’s military leaders—with the exception of the Marines leadership—in completely capitulating to feminist political correctness will cost lives and victories.

Read More: 5 Ways We Must Enforce Equality Between The Sexes

185 thoughts on “Why We Must Stop Giving Special Treatment To Women In The United States Military”

  1. The US military is being deliberately transformed into a bureaucratic money pit meant to enrich certain members of the elite while ushering in a Marxist “utopia” where men are demoted to second class citizens. The military is no longer an institution meant to defend the country, but one meant to have a hand in destroying it.

    1. Absolutely. George Washington said: “If we would avoid insult we must be able to repel it, if we would secure the peace it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.” We should have a military that repels insults and is ready for war. But instead we have a military that invites insults and is not ready for war. They go around securing oil contracts for international corporations and are not even intended to be a means of national defense, and they are filling its leadership with weaklings.

    2. The US military also once served as a huge threat to the globalist agenda. The inclusion of women in special forces positions, transgenders, and openly practicing homos was meant to weaken it from within, while also brainwashing new soldiers with politically correct propaganda. The agenda of the elites could never come to fruition until masculine men with principles were removed from powerful positions within the military. Now they’re much less likely to defect and use their training and weaponry against the corrupt bureaucrats calling the shots.

      1. When did the US military counter globalism? Just because today it has evolved to become an agent *for* globalism, I don’t see any evidence that it fought globalism in the past. If anything, it helped to destroy more conservative, traditional, anti-globalist peoples like the Russians, Persians, etc.

        1. It never actively fought globalism. It did present a threat to the globalists who are actively fighting to inhibit American freedoms at home when more conservative and masculine men had a foothold. There was a greater chance of rebellion than there is now. Soldiers are much less likely to defect and fight against assaults on civil liberties. Most Americans have zero experience with fighting or firearms, and therefore present less of a threat. The only chance for an organized rebellion against a repressive regime, especially when the military upgraded its gear, was to have several members defect. With the influx of politically correct propaganda and weakening within, this threat is neutralized.

    3. Exactly. Women that join the U.S. military hate America, just like women that want to become Catholic priests hate the Catholic Church, just like gays that want to get married hate marriage.
      When you want to join an institution because you think it has been oppressive and evil for the last thousand years and you think it should change, you by definition hate that institution and are declaring it your enemy.

        1. It is liberal logic. Conservatives and masculine people strike out and start their own vision. Women and liberals cling to established structures and authorities. Men and conservatives conquer their adversaries. Women and liberals join them, like, manipulate, cheat, steal, and scheme.

      1. Unfortunately, your unintentional use of their mandated language “gay” to describe homosexuality and effeminate behavior/lifestyles shows just how effective this program has been at brainwashing previously normal men. Just as they have undermined the concept of marriage, they also have subverted the language to sugarcoat the true nature of their lifestyles.

      2. sometime after the late 80’s…definitly when Anita Hill tried to destroy Clarence Thomas…a decade earlier she’d have been told to shut the hell up and fetch a coffee without pubic hairs in it.

    4. Well it would be the first major institution that ever stopped giving women special treatment. Good luck finding that unicorn…

    5. The US Military has become another social welfare project starting in the 90’s under Clinton (who also sold tech to our enemies). I would have recommended the military to any young man who was starting out in the 80’s –“It’s a great place to start” (not make a life long career out of) as it gave opportunities for many low income young men to become better men and advance long term. Now it’s a social engineering project doomed for failure with vag and fag parades and imbeciles running the circus. Plenty of leftists (Peace Study Advocates) have been openly talking about intentionally knee capping the military as part of their “Grand Vision” and the reprucussions of that have yet to be felt.

    6. Yup. There’s no way to justify a “defensive” mission for our military when they’ve got bases all over the globe. For what purpose? To rule it by force at the bidding of the global elite and world banksters.
      I love the Navy commercial with the map with F18’s flying around gigantic pins planted all over the globe. I also love how the pentagon reported about 2 TRILLION unaccounted dollars on 9/10. Any connection to 9/11? I’ll leave that to conspiracy theorists who say many secrets were buried in WTC7.
      US Marine Major Gen. Smedley Butler, 2x medal of honor winner called out the whole military industrial complex way back in 1935, “War is a Racket.” It’s a short book, easy read, and spells out how war was a tool of enrichment for everyone but the soldiers bleeding on the battlefield. He also predicted Japan’s response to US initiated hostilities in the S. Pacific, which we all know resulted in that fading memory of Pearl Harbor attack and WWII.
      The Rothschilds and their brood have had this war business figured out for over two centuries. And they love money more than humanity. We men are expendable milk cows to them. Throwing women into the mix just weakens what’s left of any fight in the military as we must now accommodate the very much weaker sex in every way. In the future, men will die and battles will be lost due to accommodation of women’s physical, social and political needs in combat.

  2. Navy veteran here. Sure was interesting how many female sailors would get knocked up right before a deployment so they didn’t have to go. Happened every single time.

    1. Ditto for soldiers. I explained to my squad every single time why I wouldn’t include the females in deployment plans. Males were always beyond pissed at the double standard while the females cried sexism. I merely pointed at the statistics and to this day I consider the decision to get rid of the women’s auxiliary and integrate them as one of the biggest mistakes DoD ever made.

      1. As an NCO I didn’t even include females in plans to raise funds for the unit by washing cars. Nor for PT.

        1. Maybe it’s a good idea to hire hot Latinas for a unit car wash. Good way to raise funds as well as “morale”, if you catch my drift….boing!

        2. We had a popular latina. She was a little too popular. She got raped at a club and for the next 2 years cried and hid and did nothing but the bare requirements for her job.

        3. Wonder why they didn’t just give her some sort of a medical discharge. Compassion perhaps? Or perhaps they were scared of bad PR.

        4. The US Army Study of ‘false rape claims’ showed that 28% of rape claims could be declared false even before a trial began because of incontrovertible evidence such as the alleged perp and victim being seen on camera in different locations etc.

        5. It was cited in a return of kings article, can’t find link now. There is a listing of false rape studies on Wikipedia. The definition used obviously varies between studies.

      2. A races ability to survive is dependant upon the number of 16 to 36 year old females it has and of course the 0-15 year olds it has in the pipeline.
        Women do have an record of participation in combat but generally only in emergency (German tribes did this when attacked by the Romans but it was certain death for them if defeated anyway) or in small numbers. The Shield Maidens of Viiking yore maybe went on raids but these were a tiny percentage of very capable women at the Linda Rousey level. It stands to reason that their weaker bodies, which are essentially for child bearing, be less exposed to the extreme danger of combat where they might die and the people loose their regenerative capacity.
        Some women sailed with naval ships and travelled with armies as a sort of support but not sure how common it was.
        Many ancient peoples, such as some Germanic tribes practised a kind of polygamy whereby if a man died, perhaps in combat, his brother would be obliged to marry his widow. This makes sense as the children would be genetically half his anyway while half the fallen brothers DNA survives in his brother. I think the Hebrews did something similar.
        Women in combat roles presents a very great danger of escalation. Once they become combatants or seen as combatants any sense that women should be spared or care taken in bombing a city abrogates.
        The cost of using public funding to fund someone’s pregnancy is also absurd.

        1. I think she’s some chick boxer, martial artist, or something.
          I don’t care enough to look it up….

      3. it’s already sexism to say that women should be represented 50.50 and treated equally….. that’s being sexist against men, since there’s no guarantee that every company and every military squad or government dept. can and should hire men and women 50.50.

      4. Frankly I say lower the standards and let in women, homos, disabled people, etc. Let everyone in. Citizens on Patrol! This will destroy the military and good riddance.
        No disrespect to any Vets but today the modern military institution is a massive drain on resources and another tool to oppress us with.

        “Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people’s] freedom and subversive of their quiet.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1775.

        1. How does the modern military oppress you, and what would have been your solution to deal with the communist menace for 4 decades, and now radical islam (small i)??

        2. I would have just let communism collapse, like it did. There is no Islamic menace. It’s just a story to scare small children so that they join the military when they grow up. Propaganda my man.

        3. Your naivete on these issues is surprising to me, Bob. You are really “out there.”
          Communism has not collapsed. I give you Cuba, China, and North Korea, the latter being quite a threat to the region. And there are other peeps throughout the world trying to revive that dangerous ideology
          Soviet communism only collapsed because Gorbachev allowed it, and the fact that economically they could not keep up with the west in their military spending, and were especially terrified of Reagan’s SDI plan (part bluff, but they didn’t know that), which they knew they couldn’t match technically or financially.
          If not for the strong US defensive military posture in western Europe, the USSR and Warsaw Pact nations would have gobbled up those free countries way before the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. The USSR and allies were very much equipped and organized in an offensive way, not defensive. Their plans and big military exercises like Zapad (means “West”) were obviously offensively/blitzkrieg-oriented. The US and western Europe were defensively postured. And don’t try to tell me otherwise as I was a late Cold War soldier, with time in Europe, and part of an original Rapid Deployment Force to repel a commie strike. Was also in South Korea on the DMZ (guard post Collier) staring across at that scary, Orwellian country, and knowing US military power was the only thing keeping them from moving south. They have a population of ~ 25 mil., but military special forces numbering about 100,000. Totally configured and trained for infiltrating and destabilizing the south. Typical Communist expansionism.
          And militant Islam as a threat is “propaganda????” Hmmmm… 9-11, Paris, Moscow, Beslan, Madrid, your own London, ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Talban, etc., etc. Yep, all fabricated by the CIA and MI5 I’m sure.
          Islam has been a threat to western/Christian civilization for centuries, and they need to be kept in check in their own regions by western military forces…BEFORE they can arrive and stage more and larger attacks in OUR countries.
          You never told me how the modern military “oppresses” you, bro.

        4. Be careful using words like “naivety”, they can so easily apply to the one making the accusation.
          How does the modern military oppress me? Review the quotation I posted by Jefferson and ask yourself, why would a founding father of the United States say such a thing? Was he “out there”? Or perhaps you don’t think it applies to the modern military? Naivety?
          Go compare those terrorist attacks to the continued bombings by the US in the Middle East for decades. No comparison really. You’re more likely to be shot by a cop than by a terrorist.
          Cuba dude?
          China is not communist. What happened to the USSR was an economic certainty. North Korea is running on empty. You may know scary borders but I know economics bro.

        5. ” You may know scary borders but I know economics bro”
          Here would be a better way to put it: “BlueEyedDevil, you know the military, and I know economics.”
          And not everything about the military role in geopolitics can be explained or pooh-poohed through the narrow lens of economics.
          I understand the mindset of the bad guys, and the last 65+ years has shown that many of them can’t be reasoned with, being a nice guy is futile, and treaties mean nothing. The commies were hell-bent on expansionism, are the radical islamists are currently hell-bent on expansionism through terror, and the one thing that gets their attention and keeps them semi-restrained is violence inflicted on them (or the threat of it) by the good guys.
          But I suppose “good guys” is a subjective term to some.
          And as far as you (or we) being oppressed, in western countries, by the modern military, you are going to have to give me some real evidence and examples, rather than a quote from Thomas Jefferson 240 years ago. No one I know here in America feels “oppressed” by the military, and I don’t see or hear any evidence of it when I visit jolly olde England.
          As two stubborn alphas, neither of us convince the other of anything on this subject. We will agree to disagree on the military issue, I suppose. But you’re an asset to ROK, imo. Keep on commenting. 😉

        6. I totally get what you are saying about an “evil mindset”. No amount of cogent economic arguments would have stopped Stalin. Blood, sweat and bullets from Adolf Hitler basically ended Stalin’s ambition of European domination. So no I wouldn’t “pooh-pooh” the military perspective. But likewise I wouldn’t “pooh-pooh” Jefferson’s many words on the subject simply because they were made 200 years ago. Logic is universal over time and space. If he was right then he is right now.
          Eisenhower had issues with the “military industrial complex” as well.
          I would also point out that there is no place for “feelings” in logic. Whether you “feel” OK has nothing to do with whether you are OK.
          One example? The Boston Lockdown. A horrific abuse of the Constitution. You might say that was the police but lets be honest, the police and the military have essentially merged. Or about Obama’s summary execution of American citizens with a drone strike? As for the rest of us, our money is taken from us and used to fund the military complex who turn their guns on us at will. And theoretically, all of us men can at any point be ordered to join the military. That is not freedom.
          Thank you for your kind words. And let me say, no matter my criticisms of a publically funded military, I have the utmost respect for any fighting man. I just prefer a voluntary and armed militia, as envisioned by Jefferson.

        7. It would be interesting to see what would actually happen if the military became something people didn’t join because they didn’t have any prospects in the real world. I live in the American Midwest, and just about every lower income person you meet has been, or has a family member who’s military. It threw the middle-class a curveball with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . They stopped joining to get free college. But the poor people still join because it’s better than starving. Oh yeah, and because most of our poor people are right-wing, and while they argue against the government, they’ll jump in to have it support them.

        8. Actually, you make some good points here. And for a Brit, you have a surprisingly good understanding of American history, presidents, etc.
          Sadly, probably better than most Americans.

      5. They just need to make Norplant mandatory at MEPS…if feminists complain “my body my choice” you just explain that may be but having signed a contract Uncle Sam now OWNS both her body AND her choice for the duration.

    2. The females I knew to get abortions also used their “trauma” to become depressed and lazy, an excuse to mope.

    3. Every Army unit I was acquainted with down range had to fish volunteers out of sister units to get up to strength for deployment because of the same issue (or the vags simply cried and wailed to get out of it).

      1. I did read about a female soldier getting out of the army because of whining, can’t remember if it was in the US but it was in the West. Basically desertion. But she got away =P

    4. Ditto for Women Marines. I swear our female supply Sgt. went raw WHILE Saddam was invading Kuwait in ’91. She was good and knocked up a few weeks later as we started getting ready to deploy.

    5. notice that there’s no call for more women in deep sea fishing, oil rig work, remote mining operations or container shipping…. well paid but dirty, lonely, dangerous jobs that only men do…… no call for more women building freeways or operating trains…. also quite well paid entry level jobs with good over time… ah but military is glamours and you get a fancy uniform, a rank and can win medals of honor…. as is being a CEO or on the board of directors… it’s all a shell game… pure BS…

    6. I was in the 82nd Airborne for about 9 years. Our manifests for jumps included standbys and if females were on the jump manifest the standbys were always jumping. Those females being in support units.
      “I’m on my period,”
      You have to jump a minimum of once every 3 months to retain status. You’d literally have to threaten them with the loss of pay to even get them to consider it. “It’s not my fault I can’t stay on status.” Was complete bullshit if you couldn’t find a bird at Ft. Bragg (Next to Pope AFB) you’re a liar. I was in an infantry unit and we jumped fucking constantly. No idea why the majority females even bother joining the military. Complete waste of time, money and resources.

      1. “I’m on my period,”
        “Oh sorry, didn’t know. we will invade the United States next week. Does Tuesday work or will you still have cramps?”

      2. Well said, brother. And kudos for doing 9 years infantry in the eighty deuce. Not easy. I was a gunslinger in the 101st, then other assignments in a maintenance MOS.
        Women in the military, except as administrative or post hospital personnel (i.e. traditional roles) were a joke, and more of a hindrance than a help. Moreso in the enlisted ranks. Some of the female officers in combat support units were actually fairly squared away.

        1. I’d love to hear your perspective on those new female rangers. I’m sure there’s some details missing from the story…

        2. First of all, if we were a sane country with sane political leaders that really cared about national defense, there would never be one single female allowed in any combat arms MOS (military occupational specialty). Much less in special operations, like Rangers. It would also be nice if we had some of our top brass with the backbone to say these social engineering ideas are absurd, will hinder readiness and cohesiveness, and then tell anyone from the President on down that they will have no part of it.
          Instead, today’s top military brass will bend over backwards to implement these crazy ideas, at any cost, to please their masters and enhance their own careers.
          I really don’t have any unique insight or thoughts on the women who were allowed to attend Ranger training. But I think it is known well-enough by now that the female candidates were given some months of special, additional training prior to the course. Training which was not afforded to any of the male candidates, and was simply a desperate attempt to get some women to pass so the liberal maggots pushing for this could feel good about themselves, and feel they helped make history.
          We all now know that a total of 3 women have passed the Ranger course. From the pics I saw and accounts I have read, even from anonymous instructors at the school, these chicks DID have to do everything the men did and do it just as well. Including passing the very difficult phase of leading patrols. They carried the same 100 lb rucksacks and everything. I have read nothing to indicate they were given any slack. So, these 3 women that passed are tough as fucking nails and can think on their feet, under a lot of stress, and accomplish the mission. So, bravo to them. And if they can pass that course, they would probably be surprisingly effective in combat.
          But these are not normal women by any means, and I don’t think this can of worms ever should have been opened. Such a tiny, tiny % of women in the military could ever do this, that it isn’t and never was even worth the effort or expense to implement this exercise. When I was in, even the relatively benign social experimentation of putting women into the “non-traditional” specialties like mechanics, missile crewmembers, combat communications, engineer specialties, etc., was an abysmal failure. The women didn’t like those jobs, couldn’t handle them, and invariably ended up in soft duty jobs in the unit (admin, supply, etc). And don’t get me started on the pregnancies, and injuries that kept them from doing PT, deploying, etc. The men of course had to do that much more to compensate for these missing “warriors.”

      3. That period is a major issue and likely to lead to serious disease and death if she is on an extended patrol. But what she’s really saying is “I’m an woman and I’m simply not physically capable of doing this job”.

    7. Holy cow. I had a black, female boss one time who was in the army under Bush Sr. While on ship heading to the first Iraq war, she comes up pregnant and gets out of it. Then she stayed in the Reserve and used her military stint to get a manager job at our company. Then when Bush Jr. goes back into Iraq her unit was getting called up. So she gets a disability thing at work where she could still come in and get paid, but it got her out of going back to war. And yeah, all she did was fight and cause problems and couldn’t run the coffee maker. At one point her whole crew was after HR to do something. But they could do anything to her because she was a black female.

    8. My cousin did that, then complained the guy barely paid enough to cover day care. Now, she has two kids with two different dads and is hunting for husband.

  3. Or we can skip all this pointless, complicated shit and stop allowing women in the army. The bottom line is that the best man is always going to be a better choice than the best woman, and so are the above average men. It’s not like there are endless lines of women in front of recruitment centers since women are allowed in the army anyway… Why change a whole system to accomodate a few qualified women and a lot of delusional feminists?

    1. If we stop allowing them in the Army we have to dually attack the structures that are allowing rampant sexism to go on in our society; banks and affirmative action. Women should not be treated as a separate class solely able to reap benefits of minorities who had to endure slavery to get. That is saying something when white women reap rewards from a system and white men are demonized in turn. Legally speaking, sugar babies, has been a supplant to absolve the banks from removing their stranglehold on colleges, and keeping rampant sexism flowing to allow more women into schools, all while allowing a branch of prostitution to go unencumbered. This will also take a huge dig at corporate America as more women are graduating with two degrees, stating how great they are for this, while existing with upwards debt of 100k or more. Because these dumb consumers bit the bullet, they are like vultures waiting for a happy sucker to come along to fund them for more adventure or absolve them of their debt.
      In a way, this one move of conscription decides the playing field and whether women will become the cattle they once viewed men as for pulling the nation.

      1. Indeed. Women want all of the upside of being equal without having to actually do the heavy lifting. They want access to join the military but don’t want to be part of Selective Services. Many want the same pay but only want to do certain jobs (no dirty work for women, only clean work in clean offices…in a safe environment).
        Women can talk the talk but can’t walk the walk. Anyone can see this gap in our society when someone utters the bullshit about equality. It’s more like selective equality….not real equality.

  4. The only women in the army should be the ones in the mobile brothel following each regiment.

        1. Fairly hideous what happened to these girls, some Australian, English and Dutch. I remember one Australin nurse saying she was lucky to get married but because of her forced prostitution she could never enjoy sex with her husband.

        2. Korean, chinese, Phillipino…+ 200,000 pending what source you accept. Many of them were ostracized if they lived to make it home and others simply committed suicide.

      1. And the nurses don’t even have to be military, just like the female ‘terps and MPs can be State Dept, or contractors.

    1. Comfort women indeed. Why not? After all, many of those females who join do use their vaginas to advance through the ranks anyways. Might as well.

    2. Then how about Joan of Arc? As a Frenchman, I hope you can clarify her role in the Hundred Years War.Was she a war hero or just an overated woman?

      1. She was a glorious exception. That happens. No need of feminism to have unicorns rising to the top.

        1. I agree. But notice that she had to adopt a masculine logic to be respected. That is why she cut her hair and used a male armor. All powerful women had to do this, from Joan of Arc to Isabel, the Catholic queen of Spain.

        2. Yep, they had to masculinize to be as fit as the guys. The only way a female can do as well as a male in physical training is by jacking herself with steroids or she had to have started with a very mannish build to begin with.

      2. Men will fight for women. I have a theory that by having women, dressed attractively, able to walk around freely in public spaces that this inspired men to improve their civilisation and make it safe.
        The girls have to be hot though. Unattractive women won’t do the job.
        Beauty inspires is what I’m saying.

      3. Here’s the part I never understood about the whole Joan story – she was fighting to make some miserable wimpy little shit the King of France.
        Henry V of England was a serious badass. The first thing he did upon landing in France was challenge the Dauphin to single combat to decide the succession. If God wanted that little wimp on the throne, all He needed to do was grant him the balls to accept the challenge and guide his sword.

        1. In essence the British aristocracy by then were descends of the Normans that had invaded Britain in 1066 from French ports anyway. They were only really coming home. It’s not like they were fighting for the blood of their fathers.

    3. In the Second World War they
      1 guided radar interceptions
      2 aimed and operated flak predictors
      3 often manned anti aircraft guns
      4 ferried aircraft often to front line units where danger of interception was high, quite dangerous at times.
      5 acted as nurses
      6 code breaking support and electronic intelligence
      7 administrative support
      8 manned factories
      9 flew transport aircraft
      10 several German women acted as test pilots in ww2, Hanna Reitsh being one. She volunteered for suicide missions, flew dangerous missions to Stalingrad and expanded the envelope of the Stuka.
      Not all women are up to it and certainly more men can do these jobs. Most important job was carrying the next generation in their belies in some cases with their men dead.
      The Russians used a lot of female pilots, mainly in light bombers.

      1. Exception, not the rule. The soviets and Germans didn’t have enough men after a 4 year meat grinder, hence women in the support roles and some combat. There were boys as young as 11 defending Berlin in the end.
        “The Russians used a lot of female pilots, mainly in light bombers.”
        “Night witches.” Total number of female pilots– 160 if I remember correctly. Were there other units?

        1. Several Russian female fighter pilots achieved high scores. Female crews in Pe 2 light bombers didn’t have the strength to pull up the elevator in takeoff so they developed a procedure for one woman to reach around the other to help pull the yoke. I recall one German “ace” claiming that you could tell if a female crew was on a Pe 2 because they wouldn’t deviate from their course or mission, they just flew straight on. Don’t know why.
          German girls flew as test and sometimes transport pilots.
          If they had of thrown their women into the meat grinder that was the eastern front they might have wiped themselves out.

        2. Americans had females pilots fly from factories to ports, but don’t think any went overseas. Not sure.
          I admit, I have read some literature about Germans engaging soviet women in uniform as they rolled up to Moscow in 41′, but they were reargaurd speedbumps. From what the rumors of soviet female snipers I heard alot, but from actual material it seems that it was more propaganda than actuals females participating. I recall reading about Vasily Zaytsev slapping up a woman who got some soldiers killed due to her “sniper capabilities” (eg. making a lot of noise and giving away their position).

        3. The reality is that the feminie ones who preferred to nurture and love a family of 4-5 that built western civilisation. They could have a powerful influence in creating comfortable, stable and safe communities for themselves and their children simply by lobbying.

      2. Still, that was out of the necessities of the total war. Never said women could not be involved in the war effort.
        It’s not the same thing as having them in an infantry platoon.

  5. “Why We Must Stop Allowing Women in the United States Military” is what the headline should read.

    1. I would settle for either headline honestly. If they are being held to the exact same standards as men and they can pass them, sure let them in. That being said, if they WERE held to the exact same standards, the amount of women to actually make it through would be negligible; a fraction of a fraction.

      1. Doesn’t matter if you hold them to the same standards. Women fuck up team dynamics. It’s millions of years of biology. That’s not getting eliminated by a few decades of brainwashing. In addition to the outrageous cost in logistical accommodations.

        1. This is true. Look at even the oldest stories from human history. For example, the Abrahamic creation story, which is like 10,000 years old, features a man and woman created in a paradise where there is no death or toil. Their only mission from their commander was to not eat a fruit. The woman fucked it up. The man then failed to put his woman in her place and fucked it up too.

        2. Especially when other women are present. Put them in one all female unit, like during basic training, and you see why most are unsuited. They turn a cohesive unit unto the equivalent of Mean Girls.

        3. God better create another Eve. I’m concerned about all the animals in the garden of Eden already.

        4. Cost…whats cost? The military nowadays has a guaranteed blank-check from the government. So the DOD will just request another 5 trillion from Congress…and they’ll get it. While America goes to hell in a hand basket.

    2. I wonder which headline would be more likely to come up during casual Google searched into the topic- his or yours? Keep in mind that part of the ROK strategy is to use Google to steer traffic toward ROK. There is one major philosophical topic that when you search Google for it, the #1 result is a ROK article. People doing academic philosophical research into the topic will be likely to give it a look. BAM, red pill dosage force fed to some college kid.

        1. My college is so liberal that people flip their shit and rant if you even mention ‘society’ or ‘culture’. Bible studies club recently got booted to the butt end of campus so that they could put a ‘safe space’ in the lounge where bible studies meets on weekdays. My college peers and directors think the bible is too offensive to even be on the same side of campus of a ‘safe space’. I have yet to find any female on my campus who even slightly agrees with my hatred of feminism and social justice.

        2. Better keep an eye out. I can see that new “safe space” becoming a new prayer center for Islam (or praying).

  6. The US military is deliberately being weakened. Recruiting women to the front line is the least of its problems.
    The biggest problem is that Russia is undergoing a massive rearmament. Their highly touted disarmament of nuclear forces was/is a grand deception, aided and abetted by US arms controllers. The top secret Russian military-industrial complex is in full production. You don’t get to hear about it because it is now quite separated from the visible economy.
    Russia is now manufacturing, on average, one new Topol-M (a 6th generation ballistic missile with active maneuvering capability to evade interception) per month – and hiding them in underground facilities. These weapons are incredibly powerful and can also be armed with a single massive H-bomb! An explosive force equal to over half a million tons of TNT. In 1995 and 1996 The Washington Times reported that these weapons were equipped with US-made IBM supercomputers exported with Clinton administration approval.
    Further, the Russians are building huge underground nuclear bunkers and weapons production facilities in the Ural Mountains. One of them is Yamantau Mountain, perhaps the largest nuclear-secure project in the world. The Yamantau Mountain complex is not far from Russia’s main nuclear weapons lab facility, Chelyabinsk-70. Besides Yamantau Mountain, there is the Yavinsky Mountain underground complex and the Sherapovo bunker site, south of Moscow.
    What’s Going On in The Yamantau Mountain Complex?
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_underground16.htm
    The U.S. intelligence sources believe the Russian government has pumped more than $6 billion into Yamantau alone, to construct a sprawling underground complex that spans some 400 square miles.
    “The only potential use for this site is post-nuclear war…”
    — Rep. Roscoe Bartlett
    The US intelligence knows all these facts and yet continues to actively cover for the Russians, on orders from the White House.
    Makes you wonder why?

    1. When the libs decide to take America’s guns, and then several States break away from the Union, and those several states don’t immediately adopt a LGBT Civil Rights bill, the libs will move to exterminate all those racist homophobic sexist rednecks—but Russia will be on the side of the several States. Maybe we can get the Mexican Cartels to help out too. And the Iranians.

      1. As much as I dislike the cartels, you’re on to something. After all, the Zetas were mostly former special forces, and those guys don’t tolerate shit. And judging by photos of slain narcogirlfriends that I’ve seen on fellow red pill site Bestgore, they definitely don’t take shit from women.

        1. I haven’t worked out the whole moral angle on the cartels yet, though.
          I think there is a moral angle to getting Iran’s help though, if Iran is willing to moderate their extremists a little bit, which I think they are.

        2. I trust the Iranians more than our “allies” the Saudis. That’s all I’m going to say.

        3. The narcos are completely amoral, if not downright evil. They actually erect satanic monuments around the cities they control because they believe it brings them power. They won’t hesitate to murder dozens of innocents if it helps a shipment get through. I’m all for something replacing the system we have now, but being controlled by the narcos would be a nightmare. I’d rather convert to Islam.

        4. With the exception of North Korea, I’ve found that whenever the powers that be claim that someone is our enemy, they are actually a natural ally, and vice versa (See: Turkey, Israel, Saudis, tons of shitty islands in the middle of nowhere, vs. Russia, Iran, Cuba, etc.)

        5. I like your point but care to explain Cuba? I spent 4 years living with them… I wouldn’t recommend it

        6. Sure. Cuba was a popular tourist destination and natural trading partner (sugar, tobacco, rum, etc.) for many years (not to mention all the casinos). Fulgencio Batista, the communist leader, was elected in 1940. He was unable to run for re-election, but instead seized power in a coup.
          Fidel Castro attempted to use the courts to challenge the illegal presidency of the communist Batista government; when that failed he lead an armed rebellion himself. America also opposed Batista and imposed trade restrictions and diplomatic pressure on him to relinquish power.
          Castro made overtures to the US (although he ended slave-like agreements where American interests profited off Cuban sugar while paying slave wages to the sugar cane pickers and exporting the product for sale abroad). America declined; Cuba, being an island nation and needing to trade, turned to the USSR and traded their sugar for oil (oh the horrors!)
          As Dwight Eisenhower stated “Here is a country that you would believe, on the basis of our history, would be one of our real friends…” It’s a natural friend and ally. It’s only the ridiculous “enemy of my enemy” nonsense–if you show any sort of friendliness to the USSR you must be evil– that has branded them as “bad.”
          The majority of the problems with Cuba today stem mainly from the embargo: they are an island nation, dependent on mainland supplies, and the largest economy that could logically supply them with certain products has waged economic and covert warfare on them and prevented basic goods to be traded there for over 50 years. And if Cuba is communist (that term gets thrown around quite loosely with little meaning) it is because the US made them that way–they fought a bloody revolution to overthrow the Communists for crying out loud!
          Nevertheless, they have been able to develop a literacy rate higher than the US, a strong health care industry, and they know how to deal with hurricanes (paging Michael “heck of a job” Brown).
          For the record, the US did the same thing with Vietnam.. originally Ho Chi Minh wanted to ally with the US, and worked with America for the OSS against the Japanese in WW2. He even authored the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence copied directly from T. Jefferson’s document. However, the US rebuked him, he turned to the Soviets, and therefore became an “enemy” that we must spend billions of dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and a still shattered military confidence in attempting to destroy.
          See: http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/did-the-u-s-lose-ho-chi-minh-to-communism/?_r=0 and http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_involvement_in_vietnam.htm
          And of course, the same thing happened with Saddam Hussein of Iraq… and the Taliban who were buddies of the Reagan administration who had them over to the White House for tea and crumpets–it’s really ridiculous and tragic. You can be certain it will happen again. Saudi Arabia? Iran? Israel? Who knows where, but it will happen.
          PS Awesome Avatar.. wish more people knew about Simho Hayha! Beast!

  7. Ranger Tab smoked 80 fags a day and had real foul breath. His breath was far worse than his bark.

  8. It’s time to go Starship Troopers and get rid of dual-sex housing and accommodations. Heinlein’s political system can come later, but what’s clearly not needed is a divisive, discriminatory housing and benefits policy.
    Please do not confuse the flaming pile of garbage that was Verhoeven’s shat-out movie with the greatest military science-fiction novel ever written.
    In the book, there was no mention of unisex barracks. The Mobile Infantry was all-male; it was the Navy that had female officers. And female quarters on mixed-sex ships were clearly separated from “the rough characters who shave” by “Bulkhead Thirty”.
    Good article otherwise, though.

  9. Never thought that women belonged in anything past Cook/Laundry/Nurse. Women cause issues among men (beta’s getting pissed cos they got Cblocked by an Alpha, etc) and then you got the whole getting knocked up deal with is double fucked cos the guy who bare backed that ride has to pay for the kid, but now another guy has to step up and fill in for the bitch.
    It’s only sexist if they don’t get their way and it’s equal when they get the run of the place.

    1. Plenty of women do those MOS already. Which brings another issue. You’re going to pay the female E-4 giving you your hotel key at the base inn about the same pay as the male E-4 training to diffuse IEDs in Iraq. To be fair, the male gets Combat Pay, Hazardous Duty Pay, among other benefits, but still.

  10. I won’t rewrite in full my anecdote about my female Airman (oops, I mean, Airperson.;-]) classmate getting knocked up and subsequently leaving the service. But it’s pretty obvious that when situations like this happen, it is quite detrimental, mostly because it becomes a financial burden. Consider how much each service spends on each member as soon as they ship for basic training. Airfare, food, vaccinations, uniforms, etc. Especially uniforms. And then there’s deployments. While it is no secret that the average service member looks forward to getting deployed, it must be a drag when you have a last minute deployment or TDY sprung on you because a female got pregnant and can’t deploy. Personally, in my unit, that never happened to my knowledge, as we didn’t have that many females. But I heard both USAF Services and medical squadrons dealt with this quite a bit.

  11. And God help you (He’s the only one who will) if one of these special snowflakes, superior or subordinate, decides she wants to jump your bones, and you don’t oblige. Most don’t bother with the legal system. They just make your life a living hell and wreck your career.
    Had a boss who was sleeping her way through her subordinates. Great way to run a disciplined, effective military organization, right? She was a pure psycho. I was the only one who passed, and she wrecked my career with lies and moving goalposts. Facts didn’t matter.
    I’ve followed her career like watching a train wreck. She almost got command and was in a position to make one-star admiral.
    Unless the next war lasts more than a year, we lose.

  12. I’ll go further: forced contraception for women in advance of and on deployments.
    Former combat arms officer myself, with a combat deployment. This new participation trophy for good feelings military will get people, many of them naive women, killed.
    You mention that a woman passed ranger school. My response is, “so?” Now prove she can function for a full tour as a ranger without being completely broken. When these fools were jizzing themselves over the first three women to pass Marine enlisted infantry school, I pointed out that this was an 85% failure rate, and one of those that passed was injured. Plus, to date, not a single female has lasted past the third day of the Marines’ Infantry Officer Course. These dipshits are overjoyed that three women hiked for 12 miles with a 60lb pack. Haha. OK, sweetheart, now do it with 100 lbs. Plus weapon. Plus ammunition. For 20 miles. At 29 Palms.

    1. This makes me think about the whole anti bullying craze going on. It dictates that you deal with bullies with nonviolence only simply by talking about “feelings”. And they want women to be able to participate in combat roles. Anyone see something wrong with this?
      As for Ranger School and other Special Forces and Marine courses, that shit looks hard. I actually commend the guys who tried and didn’t make it. Just trying to get in in itself is crazy, knowing the attrition rates for men is high.

    2. The females got a 2 week prep course and we’re able to repeat parts they failed , up to 3 times . But they still got the tab . Would not want to be deployed with them .

    3. It’s all political posturing. We’ll see how they do when the SHTF and the cameras are turned off.
      I always say when you lower the standards you end up weakening your fighting force. We’re seeing that play out, today, in all western societies so everyone can feel “included”.
      Speaking of those participation trophies…I don’t know how a kid could not feel like a real retard for getting one of these trophies (at least back when I was growing up). It meant that you could tie your shoes all by yourself (pretty much a fucking insult if you played sports).

    4. Even better to just have mandatory birth control shots for 1st term/enlistment females. Not only would you solve the deployment problem, but the MOS school attrition rate problem. Tons of females don’t even make it to the Fleet. I say its time that we squash that bullshit.

    1. I haven’t read the article, but a dead friend of mine who fought Soviet female troops on the Eastern front (yes, you guessed right) told me how ridiculously easy it was to take them down. He told me how the captured women tried to make themselves pretty to be set free.
      My battalion experienced a forest fire while in the army in the early 1990s. We had to extinguish the fire because there were huge areas too large for firefighters to handle by themselves. After 24 hours of blazing hell, ALL the female officers had to leave. One female lieutenant, I remember, was crying on the ground with blankets around her.
      During training we walked uphill for miles with heavy baggage (RPGs, AG3s, grenades in boxes and fully equipped). The drill was always the same. Some 800-900 meters up the first hill, an officer would start throwing gas grenades at us. We had to put on our gas masks making breathing even more difficult. The girls? (There were about 20 of them among 250 of us). They were unable to carry anything at that point with still approximately 20 miles left. And they were unable to wear their masks correctly due to lack of breath. So, as a “team” (which only goes one way), we men had to carry extra equipment.
      Also, I recommen that all those people who believe it’s sodandy to have them in the army for other than some excexchange of juices, to take a look at military historian Martin van Creveld’s book “the privileged sex” where he tells us of Russian female officers running away from duty at the break of the Chechnya war. All of them, comprising some 14% of the Russian officer staff at the time, accoeding to him.

      1. Women are dead weight in uniform and are better serving back in CONUS doing REMF desk jobs from my experience. Besides any woman who wants to volunteer is mental— most likely Daddy issues or a lesbian. If anyone recalls the name Jessica Lynch, she should be the poster child why women should not be let in the military. I quote her:
        “I did not shoot, not a round, nothing…I went down praying to my knees. And that’s the last I remember.”
        .. and, yes ladies, gang rape is what happens when taken into captivity (the US media seemed to ignore that part).

  13. When are they gonna realize that men and women are not biologically and mentally equal?
    Men are good and destruction. While women are good at beautifying.
    Women only want perks but lack the character to merit it.
    Man are the dispensable sex. Women already go through labor to birth one of us. That should be where humanity draws the line.
    But look, there’s a first for everything. Let them die in battle and hopefully they realize what their actual roles are.
    Fvcking idiots I tell you.

  14. We all know that women can’t be accountable for their actions. Much as a child can’t be accountable for their actions. So forcing women to eat their words and try to live up to the claims that society make of them (ranger school, kickass you go gurl), only endangers them, and us. No. You don’t fight this with equal conscription statutes. You simply grow a pair and say, “no ladies aloud”

    1. i like your accidental double meaning here – women, like children, should be seen and not heard
      no ladies aloud

  15. Where to start with problems with women in the military. . . anyone who’s ever served knows about this.
    Your observations are spot on and make perfect sense. Which is why none of them will ever happen. Of course, if making sense mattered at all in the first place, there would be no women in the military. They don’t belong there.

  16. I think just making females perform to the same physical standards as the guys, with the same consequences for FAILURE, will be more then enough to reverse the tide of feminism inflicting the military.
    After my 1st year of law school, I got selected for Marine Corps Officer Candidates School for a law contract, and went to Quantico, VA to train instead of going for an internship like my other classmates.
    Full disclosure, they sent me home halfway through with a fractured ankle and torn up ligaments that required surgery to re-attach. That said, I got to see FIRSTHAND how women did when expected to perform at the same level (not necessarily the same standards, though) as men. My observations are as follows:
    1. Injuries: At OCS, the injury rate for females is USUALLY over 70%, the key culprit being lesser injuries such as shin splints and stress fractures caused from the ruck marches, which increase in weight and distance each time. Females suffer severe injuries as well, but the only one that I personally saw was one female falling from the top of a rope she had to climb because she lost her grip. In comparison, guys only get sent home for injuries if they consist of broken bones, torn ligaments, or concussions. Note the differences in the severity of the injuries in question.
    2. Recovery time: Marine OCS is tough no matter who you are, in part because the curriculum intentionally sleep deprives every candidate, and offers virtually NO recovery time in between physical events (one day is not enough to recover from a ruck march). Even the stud females in the female platoon couldn’t recover the same way the guys could.
    3. Stress: The program I trained in was 10 weeks, and the environment is stressful to say the least. They can also drop you at any time for not doing well enough in comparison to everyone else in your platoon, or for arbitrary reasons depending on what week it is. Everyone is stressed, mentally, as a result, but I saw huge differences between the guys and girls. The guys were better at policing their own and correcting deficiencies in their platoons, the females not so much. I even saw one female break down completely and accuse one of her instructors of stealing her hygiene kit (no guy would ever do that for fear of getting punched in the throat).
    4. Physical performance: The females were expected to do the same things us guys were, but everything they did was scaled by 40% basically. From the pace that they had to run, the flexed arm hang, and lower weight for ruck marches. Even with that, I remember my platoon lapping the female platoon on both the ruck marches and during PT.
    To sum all of this up: drop a feminist into Marine OCS, and FORCE her to do all of this stuff at the same level as guys. They probably won’t change their views afterwards, but it’ll be clear to everyone how disingenuous they are if they keep promoting this stuff.

    1. This has been seen forcewide by most of us. However, given that Marine officer training as you described it is really demanding, this is really troubling. I have no children, yet I don’t know if I would want my prospective boys to join up should this continue.

      1. I was there right when sexual assault became an “issue”… and when Snowden leaked his information about the NSA.
        We had a whole day’s worth of power points for both. They treated it as if a new war was gonna break out.

    2. Good one. I believe that anyone with half a brain knows that women can’t physically compete with men. It’s why they lower the standards and it’s why we have different leagues when it comes to sports or fighting. Everyone knows that the men (a team or individual) will dominate a woman (or women’s team).
      That’s doesn’t make for a good show (or game) so we have to have these different leagues.
      Hold a woman accountable for being equal. Throw her ass in with men and see if she can hold her own. We all know the truth…and that is the problem.

    1. There are problems with integrated forces as well (men taking extra risk to white knight for female soldiers). The ideal solution is to figure out the size of military you need, fill up half with volunteer men and half with volunteer women. If the woman’s side can’t be filled with volunteers, start conscripting random women till it is full. Then you can make all girl units that will have equal representation in all combat zones. Rinse and repeat to replace casualties.

        1. “son, if you hit her in the face, people are gonna get mad, her friends are gonna get in her ear and talk bullshit – it’ll fuck everything up. what you want to do, is hit her with a liver shot – it’ll drop her clean, and no one will see bruises”

        2. Works every time for me-straight kidney shot and they go down like a sack of shit.

      1. This is feminism-he treated her as an equal and whipped her ass. Hilarity for all the family.

  17. I say we let women join professional sports teams and get rid of all women divisions if were equal.

  18. And they crop their hair or the men get to wear samurai hair-buns and Steven Segal ponytails.

  19. Women have it so easy, in literally all walks of life. This is ridiculous. For them, equality means being rewarded the same while doing less.

  20. Give these feminazis the equality they say they want want… force them to register for the Selective Service the same way we guys have to. Subject them to the same punishments we’d get if we didn’t register.
    Equal rights should always come with equal responsibilities.
    If we still lived in a sane world, there’d be one set of standards for each military job, and applicants would either make the cut or not make the cut. No one would get special “gimmes” for any reason under any circumstances.

  21. Imagine the day an 15 year old girl is lined up in front of a firing squad and shot for showing cowardice in the face of the enemy. This is what happened to young English boys who had enlisted underage by cheating their age declaration because suffragettes had handed out chicken feathers to them, in front of schools on occasion, to shame them into enlisting. It took only a moment of fear or hesitation sometimes.

    1. Nah, depending on if she looks like a Disney Channel teen bimbo, she’ll be sent to entertain officers.

  22. We need to stop giving women special in all things. From there so called minorites, gays, lazy dogfuckers and everyone who keeps making up excuses not to work and pull their weight in society..

  23. Whilst it’s fun to kick feminists in the teeth and offer them true equality when they obviously cannot handle it, this would seal your death warrant, American idiots.
    War breaks out with the East. America predictably wins, but at great cost on both sides to human life. 20 years later, America was unable to recover its population due to sending all its women to die in war. Russia and China and Iran carve north America up like a cake.
    Women in war is the final victory a civilization can achieve. Literally.

    1. It’s not going to happen on a large scale. Adding women to combat units will not increase our military readiness. It’s just another thing for women to whine about.

    1. Good read. Of course Denmark is different from the U.S. but it does remind me of the tough women I grew around, the same women who could hold a job and cuss people out, yet came home to take care of their homes.

  24. the military these times is an embarrassing, welfare-like job. Do you have a military discount? Oh, thank you for your service….it should be the other way around, thank you for working so I could get paid out the ass to be what is essentially an adult boy scout. No emphasis on job skill, just get lectured on helping idiots out who can’t get their shit straight, no rape, no drunkenness….dadadadada if you have your shit straight already, it is just sad to look around and endure it all. Combat fields are the real deal, but the public needs to realize 95% of the military is like an adult daycare. Shouldn’t even be around in peace time. I admire those who have a business to run, call their own shots, etc. Not much honor left in being military these days, when you boil it down.

  25. Do we honestly think that those women passed Ranger school on their own without help. I think not

  26. The only thing you will get with women in the military are a lot more ego driven sluts and whores. You can say whatever you want, but a woman is wired to save herself using whatever means she has, and there are a lot of thirsty men out there that would betray anyone for some trim.
    Not to mention that she likes fucking. A lot. Most of you dont know this because most of you are not bad boys. Neither am I, but I can observe. Putting her in the military is like putting a heroin addict in the evidence room after a large drug bust. She will fuck everything worth fucking (sorry beta faggots). I am not trying to say woman is depraved, keep in mind the military is a high stress envoronment, both during deployment and peacetime. Not to mention thst it is an unnatural environment for the emotional woman. She will cope woth this pain and stress with a tried and true method involving sex with multiple attractive partners.
    This is also, btw, why she should not be allowed onto a college campus. Im beginning to seriously question whether they should even be given secondary schooling. All girls schools will just turn them into a bunch of little lesbians so thats no solution.
    Here is the truth: women are a resource for men. Putting women in the military or in the workforce is like nationalizing any other resource. The five scheming bastards at the top are the ones who benefit, the rest of you fikthy swine can go die.

      1. hahaha – if we assume that the scale of the feminist rape-projection fantasy is inversely proportional to the amount of dick they can get (and it is), then this woman must have literally never had one inside her. she must be truly hideous.

      2. ” Intercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free? ”
        This just makes me want to jam my shlong in her mouth. I feel like these femcunts that spew such non-sense are the ones that receive no action (if you catch my drift). I bet you any money the author of that post is a 500 pound land-whale…someone should comment on her page and say: Not even a fire-hydrant can even hit that g-spot.

    1. God, this shit is so pathetic. I feel like I’m seeing this shit more and more everyday.

    2. This is indicative of males who have become indoctrinated and possibly feminized in our culture of misandry. I believe this is a strategy based on “I’m one of the good ones” false enlightenment used by substandard males to ingratiate themselves to women who revel in “specialness”. I call it the “Cuttlefish Strategy”.
      From Wikipedia: “Cuttlefish unable to win in a direct confrontation with a guard male have been observed employing several other tactics to acquire a mate. The most successful of these methods is camouflage; smaller (male) cuttlefish will use their camouflage abilities to disguise themselves as a female cuttlefish. Changing their body colour, concealing their extra arms (males have four pairs, females only have three), and even pretending to be holding an egg sack, disguised males are able to swim past the larger guard male and mate with the female”.

  27. There was a reason why women were not allowed to serve in the military…it weakens a nation. I know it’s hard to hear for many people harping “equality” but it is the truth. Many countries look at western nations and they are watching our demise.
    Women don’t belong in various roles (another being firefighting) because they are physically weaker versus men. Another reality but many want to discount it.
    The fact is that when we lower standards it puts lives in danger.

    1. Now that modern man-made technologies have mitigated female deficiencies, I actually believe in drastically lowering the standards for women to enter combat roles but there is method to my madness. To that end, the nation would require every female 18 to 40 to register for selective service. In the event of a conflict, women would then be conscripted to form first response all female battalions. Only women would be sent to combat zones where they could use their self proclaimed superior birthing induced tolerance to pain, women’s intuition, and superior gender intellect and fierceness to, in girl club theory, wreak girl power havoc upon our enemies. Men would then be regulated to support and mop up duties. This system should continue on until, in the spirit of equality, female combat deaths are on par with male combat deaths.

      1. Modern technology has actually made serving in the Infantry much more physically demanding than it was in WWII.
        In WWII you carried your rifle and ammo, a helmet, maybe a bedroll or blanket, some grenades, some food and water, an entrenching tool, and maybe a coat and extra uniform.
        Now they carry all that and all kinds of other crap such as:
        20 to 40 pounds of body armor (depends on which plates are inserted)
        a gas mask
        a chemical suit
        a radio and batteries
        In the Marines I did 30 – 40 mile marches with at least 100 lbs on me. Saw mortar men and machine gunners carrying more.
        http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/06/23/politics/the-soldiers-load-the-immobility-of-a-nation/

        1. I agree. I was actually being satirical. I often emphasize that the infrastructures and technologies created by men which mitigate female deficiencies are the true reason for the opportunities and comforts women enjoy in today’s society. Women can neither acknowledge nor appreciate that. Women blame men and society for their gender failings. Man power made girl power possible.

      2. You’ll never see that happen (although it sounds like a good plan). I’d love to see women step up to the plate in the name of equality but they are not cut out for it. They would get over run by a superior military force (all men) in no time.
        Women like to believe they are equal in combat but when the SHTF, men are better suited for it. Over time, I believe many of them would go AWOL, abandon the post, etc….

        1. I understand. As I stated to Bram (below), I was actually being satirical. What I facetiously propose would be the greatest fiasco ever perpetrated if somehow implemented.
          The truth is that very few women want to actually engage in combat. This is just another transitory cause for women to screech about in their never ending pursuit of collective victimhood. That’s their true power. They’ll move on to some other false flag gender injustice. Now that we are a war weary nation these aberrational women really only want combat designations for the sake of promotions in order to lord over men; not to actually fight for our nation.

        2. Some good points. I’ve always supported men in combat roles and promotions over women because combat is the norm for men. For women, it’s just another ‘men only’ space that women have invaded for (pick a reason….usually attention). They want to show how special they are…they can compete with men (not really). Again, I say, when the SHTF you’ll see women flee in great numbers. No men really want these women in their unit….too much drama, too much carrying their load.

    1. It’s a shame that we need studies to prove what should be patently obvious.
      I am an average weekend warrior athlete with a preference for basketball and tennis. I’ve never won a tennis tournament yet I have never played against a women who could challenge me or even bring out my competitiveness in any sport, and that includes women who were athletes in high school and college. I see this as more social than competition. I’m sure that is the experience of the majority of men.
      There will be a few exceptional and aberrational women who will excel in patriarchal constructs. While their numbers and contributions will be insignificant, they will be ballyhooed and celebrated by the girls’ club as indicative of the progress women have made under an “oppressive” patriarchy. In today’s culture of misandry, it has been deemed that the practice of protecting females from the rigors and brutality of war is sexist and discriminatory, but that’s just par for the course.

      1. Well said, it just underscores how feminism really fucked things up. Ayn Rand described women as having “hero worship”, towards men. You can say its nature, evolutionary psychology, evolution…but I think its best described simply as “who we are”. Because it is. Just like with the lion the female seeks a strong capable mate, ideally an alpha.
        “Patriarchal constructs” are NOT some fluke event caused by men cheating, as feminist theory would have you believe. No, its part of how men and women related to each other in a healthy natural way. Sports, the military, work…are all signals that women queue off of and the more admiration a male gets in these things the higher his value vis-a-vi his reproductive fitness. Ultimately, this is a mechanism imperative for a species health because it ensures proper breeding habits. Breeding is very important especially given the wide range in ability among humans – for instance, a shark has to swim, hunt, eat, evade and reproduce, and by way of its innate construction and programming so long as its basic design is not mutated it will fulfill its potential. Variation in ability among animals, although there, is much less measurable compared to humans therefore breeding for humans carries heavier consequences. Consider the IQ scale an 80 IQ is a very different person than someone with 140. Who would we rather breed?
        The troubles with feminism is that it rejects this mechanism outright because it misinterprets “hero worship” as submission to men. It further insults nature by turning the worship inwards substituting viable and good quality genes (carried by males) with anomalies, i.e. the very few women that can compete in these patriarchal constructs, that are, by definition, extremely scare and, moreover, even if obtained impossible to exploit since the host is female and females to females cannot reproduce. Not to mention that these anomalies may be able to compete but they don’t compete very well and aren’t exhibiting the outperformance high quality genes would via a male. In fact they barely make the minimum, yet are celebrated as a full alpha nonetheless?
        This is because the female anomaly is not meant for reproduction, perhaps casual lesbian sex, but its really designed to be a vicarious experience. “Look here this woman is a CEO…that means you can be one too”. Note how self centered this is. Then you have the progressive stack, which, by way of a truly artificial means and cheating has inverted how society honors excellence and ultimately reproductive value among the species. Losers, because they don’t have “privileges” are made into our heroes. The rational goes like this, she is not a CEO because she has a 80 IQ and suffers from ableism…you see had she had a higher IQ things would be different ergo able people have privileged and are at fault. That’s what the stack amounts too…whereas this person is just stupid. And the stack is becoming increasingly hostile and authoritarian. Losers via propaganda really do look like winners today. So, how that will impact and play out…who knows. But, if we just stopped messing around with who we really are it would stop.

        1. Thank you. You make thought provoking points.
          I once read an article in which a woman claimed female superiority was evidenced by the fact that women had achieved in two centuries what took men forty thousand years to achieve. Although an absolutely ludicrous notion, she forgot to mention that women’s achievements were brought about by taking advantage of the infrastructures, technologies, and opportunities created by men. Yet this was acceptable journalism.
          Of course, as you can attest, all feminist contentions are easy to disprove if feminists were willing to debate. Instead if their views are challenged, they forget their supposed superior empathy and compassion and verbally, and sometimes physically, attack. They typically respond in four ways: ad hominem, juvenile insults/ pejoratives, sophistry, and reiterations. They eschew logic. It can be very frustrating.
          I have never found a women who can state anything positive about men’s contributions to society without adding qualifiers or gender comparisons. For instance, they might say, “Men invented the airplane but they use them to drop bombs , plus women make better pilots”. They can’t just acknowledge that men invented the airplane in an appreciative manner. It causes women great consternation. Parity is not a right for those who did not contribute equally.

  28. I have tremendous respect for the United States Army. As a Portuguese, as a European, i do not forget the sacrifice of those who lay on the beaches of Normandy and in fact, one my objectives next year, is to go there and pay my respects.
    During the Cold War they were the one that protected the free World against communism and today, they are the only fighting force capable of fighting Islamic jihad with success.
    That is why i totally subscribe this post. The main aspect of this debate his this: one thing is what we think, feel or like, another thing is reality. And reality, biological and historical, shows that men are the warriors and women are the nurturers. That is what Nature intends to. That is how we evolved.
    We men, are stronger than women, and have a thing called testosterone that makes us stronger and more aggressive. I always like to give male lions as a example of this: they are the ones that protect the pride, to the death if needed, and are chosen by the females to do just that. They cannot allow to chose a week male or they cannot have offspring and safely care for them. Simple shit right? No. Not for the ones that are intoxicated by delusion and the false idea that women are equal to men. We are not equal and that was always our strength.
    Historically, that is not one army of women or where women have played a very important part, that have been successful. They simply do not exist. Can anyone imagine the Roman Legions, the most formidable fighting force ever to this day, with women at the front??? Are people insane? We just have to see the terrific details on Trajan’s Column, to see how brutal the fight was, how the men had to be powerful and ruthless in hand to hand combat.
    Can anyone imagine women sailing and handling the great galleons or carracks that allowed my nation to rule the seas for more than a century??? Having the strength needed to handle the cannons or to board a enemy vessel???
    From Alexanders army to the Royal Navy, from the Spartans phalanx to the Mongals, from Napolean Grand Armé to the Army of Northern Virginia, not one great military unit in History had women playing a decisive role.
    So, the conclusion seems obvious: this will weaken the US Army as a capable military force. In the end, it is just another consequence of cultural Marxism which aim is to destroy all the structures of Western Civilization. The next one in their agenda is the Army.

  29. Women always had it better than equality, and men had it better then too. Take that 77 cents for every dollar statistic… when our leaders say that needs to change they don’t mean raise women’s wages, they mean lower men’s.

    1. While Megyn Kelly didn’t mind asking her chauvinistic “if you insult some women you are insulting all women” question, I can’t help but notice that, as far as I know, no one has ever asked any candidate about the supposed gender wage gap.

  30. In World War II, the Russians were facing an existential crisis and brought out a million women to be infantry, tank crews, fighter pilots, and even officers in the fight against Hitler.
    They were all demobilized after the war and the Red Army has been almost entirely male since then. Soviet leaders knew that because of their communist policies in civilian life, women were invading all previously male-dominated social spaces. Having them in the military too would destroy what remained of their nation’s masculinity.
    The fact of the matter is that women only stand up to do valiant things when a) there’s absolutely no other choice and b) when someone gets them to do it. No peacetime standing army should forget this.

  31. “Being in the military isn’t all about promotions and badges and free day-care.”
    Heads up, that is exactly why women go into the military. It is why they demanded equal access to the military academies, too.

  32. I think the equal treatment/no separate standards is the way to go. Automatic separation from the military for both parties if they get pregnant unless one voluntarily separates. I would also remove the promotion Photo and all mentions of race along with the name.
    Something really smells funny about the two women who graduated Ranger School. They spent millions of dollars to find two women and it seems like all the students were West Point Cadets and everyone had to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Recent West Point Officers for the most part are very PC/SJW.

  33. As the author states, there are some real penalties that occur when a man between the ages of 18-26 does not register. Like being unable to obtain a drivers license or work for government agencies in some states. People whom failed to register are also not able to take out student loans or get a federal job.
    If the Military Draft ever becomes a real law, that women had to follow, I can guarantee that half the women in the country, between the ages of 18-26, at the time the law changes, will be rendered ineligible for all the above noted items and benefits, in short order, due to ignorance of the totality of situation and/or bad advice from parents that won’t know or understand the current status of the law.
    Here is an old topic posted on MetaFilter, outlining the consequences of not applying for Selective Service Registration:
    http://ask.metafilter.com/133491/Failed-to-register-for-Selective-Service-ruined-for-life
    http://www.brethren.org/news/2014/many-state-laws-link-drivers-licenses-to-draft-registration.html
    Again, since women have never needed to register and there is over 100 years worth of “word of mouth” supporting that idea, MANY women will be blindsided years later, after they realize that they needed to register, but did not, after the law changes.
    I can also explain why this push for “Front-line Females” is happening, at least within the USA, beside the obvious “political reasons” that are forcing “equality” in the form of “numbers of female bodies present in the Armed Services”.
    The USA may soon have its first female Commander-in-Chief, in the form of Hillary Clinton (and if not her, it will happen easily within the next three Presidential Administration cycles).
    Right now, the USA military is very combat veteran heavy. Meaning units all over the various branches have many people that have been in actual combat, which is very different than the military force that Bill Clinton led in his last term and the one that Bush led in his first.
    So, why is this relevant?
    What senior ranked, combat veteran, in their right mind, is going to agree with any order given or strategy issued by someone like Hilary Clinton? The answer is NONE. I can almost guarantee there will be a mass exodus of “experienced combat staff”, if, Hilary Clinton becomes Commander-in-Chief and this exodus will occur across all service branches.
    So, this begs the question, how will those “manpower loses” be replaced? By gung-ho women joining up of course. By opening up “front line duty” to women, the armed forces will be able to put “bodies in place” that will be able to make up for the loss of real “combat veterans” (aha, first females in Ranger School, anyone!). Granted these forces will be very inefficient and far less experienced, but they will be highly obedient, will follow procedure manuals to the letter and will willingly act as a force-wide CID on the behalf of the up-and-coming “Politically Driven Commanders” of tomorrow.
    So, even though, Bill Clinton and Obama had no military experience when they were in charge and “Bush II” had very little, if any, MARK MY WORDS, Hilary Clinton, acting as Commander-in-Chief, in retrospect, will make Bill Clinton look like Churchill, Obama like Franklin Roosevelt and Bush like Eisenhower.
    Think of it this way, would you want to take or give “life or death orders” issued from someone who WILLINGLY let their husband cheat on them and then stayed married to that cheater, simply for future political gains and the chance to eventually become the first female President?
    That is the LAST type of person that regular USA citizens can trust, in a position of power, that has the ability to order regular people to their deaths in war. Divorcing Bill would have given her a HUGE credibility boost, but it would have been at the cost of Political Power and her current chance at being the “First Female President”. Since she did not do that, it should be a clear indication of what her primary motive are.

  34. “With Ash Carter’s decision to put women into combat roles, it’s time to get women in the draft.”
    No. Women should not be soldiers at all.
    I can give like 50 reasons off the top of my head why not, practical, social, physical and psychological etc.
    It would be a disaster if women in the age they should be having children went off an died. It would be a Jews wet dream if this happened to the white race.
    We should just keep opposing all degeneracy like this.

    1. I’ve always been amazed that suddenly protecting women from the brutality of war has become sexist and discriminatory. The truth is that very few women want to actually engage in combat. This is just another transitory cause for women to screech about in their never ending pursuit of collective victimhood. That’s their true power. They’ll move on to some other false flag gender injustice. Now that we are a war weary nation these aberrational women really only want combat designations for the sake of promotions in order to lord over men; not to actually fight for our nation.

  35. This article is too politically correct. Women should be just outright banned from the military. Period.

  36. All along this women in the military shit has been based off of bullshit. I recommend checking out Gad Saad (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLH7qUqM0PLieCVaHA7RegA) a professor who’s work is centered on evolutionary psychology. He reminded me of the impact of “post modernism” and even reads its aloud in his videos to underscore how silly and meaningless this gibberish it. THIS is the shit that women in combat is ultimately based on, and when you hear the “prose” spoken its very very very revealing. Post-modernism is fucking horse shit! And it amounts to all the boiler plate crap that we’re inundated with constantly such as radical equality, equal outcomes or explaining everything through a narrow lens of racism, sexism, classism, phobia etc. My point – this is the foundation from which the recent policies of women and the military sprung from. And, as you trace this back you’ll find this all originated by people who 1) never served in the military 2) are openly hostile towards the military. Think about those radical 1960s activists that spat on returning Vietnam Vets calling them baby killers…many of them went on to become academics and kept their contempt for the man and the military in tact. Yep, these are the freaks behind women and all the other social experiments in the military.
    Its important to understand their prerogative too. To them men and women are just human labor units. And government is their solution. But, in a constitutional republic where government is small and checked its purpose is limited to things like collective defense, but, importantly, such a paradigm necessitates personal responsibility and that leads to a demand for the absolute best military possible, because its rational and the optimal use of resources. In the paradigm we live in now the government is a make-work program and, basically, an employer of last resort. Note: that in 2016 government employees out fucking earn the private sector! The military is no different. If for not our tradition of excellence and patriotism, the incentive to join is if you have no other options. Leftists feel that the rubric of social justice must apply, because, after all, how can any citizen (or person) be rightfully denied a welfare check based on sex or homosexuality etc. And from that vantage point…indeed, it is wrong. But, that is only appropriate if we’re talking about a welfare program. The fundamental flaw is that this is the military, which performs a vital service. The military absolutely should discriminate, period, otherwise there is no good reason to prevent anyone not just any sex or “orientation” but of any ability to be included in the Navy SEALs or Marine Recon. But, with each indoc, each Q course, each OCS class and even in boot…the military discriminates. We don’t want nor can we afford a socially justified military…we need and must have the best we can get from the pool of people willing to join. In reality, the military for some is a last resort, but, having served in a peacetime and war, there are plenty of able bodied and motivated men that will do the job.

  37. Soldiers and sailors think they are fighting for “the country” but they are merely military pawns of governments who are controlled by a handful of oligarchs and banksters . Their safety will always come second to government mandated feminism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *