Italian Paratrooper from the Folgore Brigade
While the official claim is that integrating women into combat roles is to provide the largest possible pool of capable forces to draw from, nearly no one takes this seriously. Most who support the move will fairly quickly change their argument and claim instead that this profoundly costly change is about the desire to provide opportunity for a handful of extraordinary women. This new argument is framed as:
If a woman is just as good as the men, why shouldn’t she be allowed to join the unit?
This is an effective argument because it plays on men’s empathy for women and our respect for true achievement. However, this still isn’t the real reason feminists are obsessed with putting women in combat roles. This is about something which is core to feminism, and it boils down to a high stakes version of the childish feminist boast:
Anything boys can do girls can do better.
Understand that this is nothing more than a boast, which is why feminists have so little interest in actually having women achieve the kinds of things we celebrate men for. When Charles Lindbergh was being celebrated for his incredible feat of creativity, skill, and risk taking, feminists were beside themselves. Here was a man who was being celebrated for masculine virtues; they needed a woman to pretend to do something similar so they could tamp down this troubling national celebration of masculinity. So feminists found a woman with a pilot’s license who wrote newspaper columns about flying and had her ride as a passenger on a transatlantic flight; then they threw her a heroes welcome as Lady Lindy, complete with a ticker tape parade and an invitation to the White House. Just as we see with putting women in the military, Earhart was all about style over substance:
She chose a leather jacket, but aware that other aviators would be judging her, she slept in it for three nights to give the jacket a “worn” look. To complete her image transformation, she also cropped her hair short in the style of other female flyers.
At the core the feminist obsession with the military is not an interest from a practical perspective, but for what the military symbolizes. A nation’s military is traditionally the ultimate symbol of the virtue of the nation’s manhood. Stories of fighting men exhibiting incredible bravery and self sacrifice are used to inspire all men to strive for excellence no matter what their path in life is. Feminists chafe at this idea because they can’t stand any celebration of men. The whole point of putting women in combat is to make sure we can never again say: Thanks to the men who sacrificed so much for us without feminists chiming in “and women too!” This is why no unit can be left untouched, even elite ones.
While the WWII Italian fighting man is often maligned in the US, the reality is many Italian men showed incredible bravery and dedication on the battlefield.
The heroic behavior of the Folgore Division during the Second battle of El Alamein in resisting the attacks of six British divisions (two armored and four infantry) inspired the respect and admiration of its enemy. Lacking effective anti-tank weapons, the Italian paratroopers managed to stop British tanks only with a few obsolete 47/32 guns and petrol bombs. On 11 November 1942, when the battle was over, the BBC transmitted the famous official bulletin: “The remnants of the Folgore division put up resistance beyond every limit of human possibility.”
The Folgore, having run out of water, withdrew from the El Alamein front at 2:00 a.m. on 3 November 1942, carrying their anti-tank weapons. At 2:35 p.m. on 6 November what was left of the division was captured by the British. They had exhausted their ammunition and destroyed their weapons, but refused to raise their hands in surrender or show the white flag.
These are the stories we tell young men to inspire them to greatness, and this is what feminists must blot out from our collective thinking. In order to do this they don’t need to have women who actually perform to the level of men, they only need to suit up women like the picture at the beginning of the article and show them as the new face of the Folgore Brigade.
In this sense the demoralization of the average fighting man isn’t an unintended consequence of introducing women. This is at its heart about demoralizing men, both the fighting men and the other men who are inspired by them. Likewise the lowered standards for women aren’t something which feminists see as a real problem, because this further demoralizes the men while allowing feminists to focus on style over substance. They aren’t looking to win actual battles, only a battle for the way the nation views manhood.
Since the goal is to erase the concept of masculine virtues, the new bargain the introduction of women into combat represents isn’t to have women join equally or even seriously in the fighting and dying. The new bargain is that men will continue to be the ones who fight and die, but they must not feel a sense of masculine pride in either doing this or having this obligation. In this sense they are doing to the military what they have done to other institutions. Husbands and fathers are still responsible to protect and provide for their families, they have just been taught not to see themselves as head of the household.
One thing to keep in mind is that previous generations of women valued and even guarded masculine virtues. We wouldn’t have to go back very far to find large numbers of women who would have been offended at the idea of trying to strip the nation’s men of masculine pride. They knew and admired the sacrifice their husbands and fathers had made on the battlefield and off, and they understood how vulgar it is for women to desire to take away the sense of pride in manhood. In fact, they took pride in the fact that these were their men, just as they took pride in their own roles as wives and mothers. Modern “traditional” women almost never object to the naked moves to stamp out masculine pride, they just want to make sure they get their due chivalry from men. However, there are still women even today who understand how unseemly this is. They aren’t the women demanding yet more chivalry from unknown men. They are the ones who know that no woman can really take away the masculine pride of their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons, and they thank God for this.
At the individual level the sense of masculine pride can’t be taken away. Men will continue to take risks and create new things. But since the attack on the national sense of manhood has been thoroughly successful more and more this will be separated from the culture at large. Manly pride doesn’t only exist on the battlefield; it exists wherever men are striving for excellence, where they are risking, building, and creating. But at a national and local cultural level masculine pride is being systematically snuffed out, and our larger culture will continue to show the effects of this loss. Those who want the results of masculine virtues will almost exclusively respond to this loss in the culture by shaming men. This might work some on the margins, but you won’t inspire men to be great with shame alone.
Italian paratrooper photo licensed as creative commons by the Italian Army.
There’s also an aspect of “control” over the military to this as well. That’s intertwined with the Progressive/Big Government aspects of much of our politics, but the Military is one of the few things they view as not being under their control. It’s hard to say where the Progressive aspects end and the Feminist aspects begin, but both are there.
And it’s going to mean bad things.
Men should respond by not joining the military. Boycott it. Lets see if the radical feminists really can do everything men can do better on the battlefield.
IMHO, women should only be on the frontlines in absolute emergencies (ex. Russia during WWII due to the Germans killing so many Russian men).
I’ve seen a large amount of shit fly back and forth on my facebook newsfeed the past two days. From what I’ve seen, I remain convinced that the average woman is completely clueless to how this affects men in terms of their sense of respect and honor. Meanwhile those pushing the agendas know it all too well.
Men should respond by not joining the military. Boycott it.
They’ll just bring back the draft.
I remain convinced that the average woman is completely clueless to how this affects men in terms of their sense of respect and honor.
I think women are counting on this. If men hold on to their self respect and honor through this cluster****, they will begin to treat these women as the women say they wish. Just like one of the boys. When that happens, it will not be pretty.
Let them join. And let them face the consequences when they’re caught by the enemy. Trust me ladies, you will wish you were dead over falling into the hands of enemy soldiers.
“Anything boys can do girls can do better.”
You, sir, have hit this target so dead center its actually scary.
I was born in 1971. My mother, angry at her own father for daring to be a man rasied me by PLAYING THIS VERY SONG TO ME amost every day of my young life.
Back in those days, the Army was just starting to run ad campaigns with a picture of a woman, in full battle rattle, camo painted face, with the “be all you can be” slogan on it.
I would find things like this ad RIPPED OUT OF THE MAGAZINE AND PLACED ON MY BED when I would get home from school. I was in the friggin 1st grade.
I am now 41, and swallowing the very painful red pill, in the Army,deliberately putting on my masculine frame evey day. The rest of my story is plain to see on this and SSMs place.
As I said, you hit the target. Right on.
@Stingray. “They’ll just bring back the draft”.
Cool, and us red pill guys will sit in prison by the thousands with smiles on. 🙂
stingray: “They’ll just bring back the draft. ”
The draft never went away it was simply taken behind the curtain. In the early years of Iraq/Afghanistan I had read that they were starting the process of activating the boards to start trolling the SS roles until they decided to just cheat the suckers they already had with “stop loss.”. The draft is NEVER that far away so TBH, I wouldn’t even worry about it. Men should FIRST insist on women being forced to sign up for Selective Service draft. As long as women aren’t, they are just playing patriot and should be mocked.
Once women are signing up for Selective Service, men should start boycotting military service and force the governments hand.
as the late/great S. Freud put it, it’s ‘penis envy’ instead of ‘jealousy’ –
~ The Long March of Penis Envy! ~
“The draft never went away it was simply taken behind the curtain. In the early years of Iraq/Afghanistan I had read that they were starting the process of activating the boards to start trolling the SS roles until they decided to just cheat the suckers they already had with “stop loss.”
I remember those years. I had been in for just a few months when 9-11 happened. I thought “no draft? Really?” This is effectively a draft because the government doesn’t uphold its end of the “all volunteer” force in these cases.
Cool, and us red pill guys will sit in prison by the thousands with smiles on.
I was hoping someone would say this. Thank you.
As long as women aren’t, they are just playing patriot and should be mocked.
They should be mocked anyway. Any woman who truly considers herself a patriot, if she wishes to help, will support men and will stay the hell away from the military.
Dalrock: “Since the goal is to erase the concept of masculine virtues, the new bargain the introduction of women into combat represents isn’t to have women join equally or even seriously in the fighting and dying. ”
A table very easily turned. It drives them crazy that men *STILL* have masculine virtues to fall back on because they are too weak to reach male levels of ability without special rules. Yes, men were forced to retain all the responsibilities of “head of household” while not being allowed to think or call themselves head of household. So what was the result? Males walked away. Households are disintegrating, yet men are polled as just as happy or happier than they have ever been and women are polled as more unhappy than ever. Women now intend to move this same process into the military. Okay. They will lose the same way they lost in the broken homes they built. Men will find a way around it. Logically, this will be either a massive drop in male enrollment or males simply walking away from women on the battle field as men did on the homefront.
Well, what is to be done?
Our official culture denigrates men, attacks their pride, and actively seeks to lower their status relative to that of women. The view of that culture is that male institutions must integrate and become “gender neutral”, while female institutions must be protected and nurtured.
I reject that. I say that men as a group are, in fact, quite awe-inspiring. I say that institutions work best when they are run by men, and, most likely, when they are exclusively male. But where is such a message in the culture? Who champions these truths? (Closest answer I can think of at the moment: Roosh.)
I sometimes toy with the idea of a “male strike”. It would be amusing if men, as a group, took a week off simultaneously. Then maybe the ladies could try. We’d quickly see who keeps society ticking along, and who, well, doesn’t. Many logistical problems, but it’s an interesting thought experiment to apply to any organization to which you belong.
@ Moonchild
I’m not quite so sure about that. I would wager that there would be a substantial gap between the treatment of “ladies” captured as POWs and men.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2
As somebody brought up yesterday, Jessica Lynch’s supposed abuse turned out to be nothing more than complete balderdash. Apparently the lady was well-treated and medically provided for; at the expensive of civilian men and women.
What’s more, we sent in a massive “rescue” operation to pull the little darling out. Meanwhile there are still good men rotting away in Vietnamese cells waiting for our government to even acknowledge they are still there.
Not that feminists want actual equality, but the biological male is by default incapable of giving it to her.
I can only see this ending in Gomer Pile fashion.
“Cool, and us red pill guys will sit in prison by the thousands with smiles on. ”
I hear the prisons are pretty nice these days. Would give me time to finally catch up on my reading list, hit the gym, and work on my drafting or writing skills.
It’s basically one of the central themes of Zero Dark Thirty, a movie that has managed to piss everyone off, but nevertheless has a strong feminist theme laced throughout to the effect that women are the brains and the doers and men are either in the way, or mindless brawn. SSM commented on it in the last thread. It dovetails well with the main theme of this post, I think.
Awesome post Dalrock!
[D: Thank you.]
“I think women are counting on this. If men hold on to their self respect and honor through this cluster****, they will begin to treat these women as the women say they wish. Just like one of the boys. When that happens, it will not be pretty.”
Stingray can you elaborate on this? I did not quite understand it.
i wish something like equal integration would take place in america in the one institution i love to hate…DMVs. they are nearly 100% women and slow as crap. need more men. i’m sure it would be much faster. less jaw-jacking.
and is it me or is nearly ever woman in the DMVs obese as crap?
I am (and have been) slightly troubled by Dalrock’s use of the word Jealousy rather than what I believe him to mean, namely Envy.
Here from Leviathan Ch VI is what Hobbes describes using the word Jealousy: ‘Love of one singularily, with desire to be singularily beloved. THE PASSION OF LOVE. The same, with the fear that the love is not mutuall, JEALOUSIE’. [capitalisation as in original edition]
Here in De Homine Ch XII is what Hobbes says about Envy. [in translation from original Latin] ‘Grief because another has been preferred to onself, when conjoined with suitable endeavours, is emulation; but when conjoined with the wish to have that preference withdrawn is envy’.
F Roger Devlin in his essay Home Economics consistantly uses the word Envy and avoids the word Jealousy.
Otherwise a powerful and timely essay.
@Opus
At the macro level feminists aren’t really interested in experiencing masculine pride, they are focused on making sure men can’t. If they were simply envious they would be seriously trying to match male achievements.
Edit: Looking at this definition I see that I do in fact have it wrong. I’ll update the title accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out.
Zero Dark Thirty, a movie that has … a strong feminist theme laced throughout to the effect that women are the brains and the doers and men are either in the way, or mindless brawn
An absolutely infuriating theme, given that it’s based on a CIA peddled storyline that is almost certainly false in the particulars, and contradicted by the history of well, everything, in general. (E.g., semiconductors, personal computers, rocketry, et bloody cetera).
Part of the problem is that when a woman goes on and one about how “stupid” men are, the culture applauds her. But if a man finds fault with women, or even a woman, he’s labelled as a “sexist”.
There’s a certain kind of woman who seems to run into an endless series of male nincompoops and female geniuses (**cough** aefoe **cough**). This seems statistically unlikely.
I’ve corrected the title based on Opus’ accurate criticism.
“I’ve corrected the title based on Opus’ accurate criticism.”
I kind of thought the same thing, but I loved the post so much I thought “we all get what he means.”
They may be out to erase the concept of masculine virtues in the military, but the battle has already been won in education where -indeed- the same masculine virtues like risk taking, building and creating are now looked down upon. Obey and don’t question. Don’t dare to excell. Education has been hijacked by the feminine imperative and has grown into something antithetical to those virtues mentioned earlier: the ones that build this civilisation.
I ask you, as a man, why would you invest your precious time and resources to participate in a system that is rigged against your very core? The next step for feminism would be to curb, by law, a man’s ability and right to start his own business.
Men in command should do their best to see that women get their wish to play soldier fulfilled. Send them to take the point and let natural selection do it’s magic. Better that a couple of hundred women die to make a point that will not be forgotten, than men be forever more forced to expose themselves to protect these political appointments.
frenchy says:
January 26, 2013 at 3:39 pm “and is it me or is nearly ever woman in the DMVs obese as crap?”
Your focus on the elephant behind the desk causes you to miss the elephant in the room: bureaucracies in western countries are used as employment programs for EXACTLY these types.
So, you will only ever see fat, slow, slovenly women in these jobs. In a free market, when, like me you stood in a line that didn’t move for ten minutes because the fat slow cow behind the counter couldn’t be bothered, you’d simply go someplace else. In a government “program,” all citizens are forced to endure fatty to ensure that freedom of choice does not cost her her job.
Mebus “The next step for feminism would be to curb, by law, a man’s ability and right to start his own business.”
In Dalrock’s previous entry on this topic, the question of where is the line that once crossed forces us to take action was posed. I said that it would be where these actions start impinging men’s ability to work, buy food and shelter and entertainment. Feminists would be unwise to go there.
A civilization that pisses all over those who build, maintain and defend it cannot long survive, and doesn’t deserve to.
“Your focus on the elephant behind the desk causes you to miss the elephant in the room: bureaucracies in western countries are used as employment programs for EXACTLY these types”
I am convinced after 11 years in the Army, that DOD civlians go to class entitled “how to tell soldiers ‘no’.”
The typical scenario is to go into some building that your supervisor tells you is the “place to do that.”
The “that” is not important. But as soon as the “person” behind the window sees you coming they start with the eye rolling. Then its on.
“You brought the wrong form” or “you filled it out wrong” or “we only do that on Thursdays from 1100-1107” or “__________________” until eternity.
These are the people whos ONLY JOB IT IS is to help soldiers, yet they relish in not doing their job. The end of an effectively running country begins with bureaucracy. You nailed that one.
@Stingray.
“They’ll just bring back the draft.”
They gave it up because of Vietnam, and it won’t work at all today. It’s okay if Hillbilly Hank from Nowhere, Georgia joins the military, but try to draft the middle-class and above and watch the shit fly.
Especially since we have a buffoon for President. And the U.S. is out of money and near the breaking point. Bring back the draft? Ain’t gonna happen.
The Karammazov Idea: “Not that feminists want actual equality, but the biological male is by default incapable of giving it to her.”
I guess they’ll beat it into us and likely to be successful, much to their dismay.
The reason feminists want women in combat positions is this and this only:
Women will finally be in a position to kill men in wholesale numbers, with weapons supplied by the state, and they will be paid to do so. These women will be given medals for killing men. Men will be required to award medals to women for killing other men. Women will go on TV with their medals and brag how good they are at killing men and how other women should stop shooting their sleeping husbands and enlist in the military. Killing your sleeping husband is just so 20th Century. Join the Army, get the gun the feminists took away from your civilian husband and use it to kill men in front of other men. Men from your own country will surround you to protect you while you exterminate other men in droves. And like the Muslims, if you come across a female enemy, you don’t have to shoot her. You can just go back to the compound and have a good cry because somewhere in the world a woman was put in grave danger while you were hired to kill the men on her side.
And then, when they return to the States, they’ll go on The Talk and all have a good laugh at all the men who were killed.
Okay? It ain’t rocket science.
@Zorro
If that were all it was, then the little horrors should have been happy with naval, air, and drone-console-jockey jobs. Infantry is a nasty, inefficient way to kill, and a good way to get yourself killed. (There is the inconvenient fact, of course, that it’s necessary to take and hold ground.)
So I don’t think that theory works as far as explaining the push for female infantry. (Just to say it is to laugh.)
Zoor, I agree but to get to those stories and TV talk shows the feminists are going to have to wade through a pretty deep pile of dead women.
If you are armed then this is relevant to you:
War is the government deciding who to fight
Revolution is you deciding whom to fight.
@GT66
Women will do the posing. But men will be the ones doing the actual fighting.
Actually that’s probably why they lifted the restriction on women:
@ Wudang,
These women are counting on men *manning up* or rather, manning down, to be able to accept them them in this place of men. A place that should be reserved for masculinity. Some men will do this, but others will not lose their self respect, dignity or their masculinity. They will not allow it. They also will not allow these women to be a danger to themselves nor to their brothers. Some men, will begin to treat these women just like one of the boys. They will treat these women just like they would another man who is putting their lives in serious danger.
Men will die as a result of women in combat. Some men will not allow this to happen. I predict some “accidents” will happen to some of these women as a result of wanting to save the lives of men.
As somebody brought up yesterday, Jessica Lynch’s supposed abuse turned out to be nothing more than complete balderdash. Apparently the lady was well-treated and medically provided for; at the expensive of civilian men and women.
At risk of sounding conspiracy theory-ish, there is another likely intended consequence of allowing women into frontline units – the ultimate false flag operation. The American public is souring on wars and overseas entanglements, so something is needed – something shocking – to work the American public into enough of an apeshit rage to support another full-scale involvement. The Maine incident, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin… and now female soldiers captured and brutally raped and tortured by those evil, evil, axis-of-evil Bad Guys(TM), even if it didn’t really happen and had to be manufactured like Jessica Lynch above. I can see the headlines now.
Any woman joining a frontline unit is a Very Useful Idiot.
I don’t think the primary objective (of giving women the opportunity to serve in combat situations) is to further diminish masculinity, though it will be an effect. It is a pure power grab. By serving in combat, these women will apparently have greater opportunities to move up to the top ranks faster with the accompanying pay raises and authority. Compared to a man, these women will not, in general, meet the same physical training requirements, will not have to achieve as much combat experience, and will essentially be fast tracked and “pencil whipped” to higher positions of authority while leaving (justifiably) resentful male soldiers in their wake, and ultimately weakening the fighting capability of our forces.
i’m already hearing grumbing from my FMF pals.
all my division Marine friends are laughing. IF SOI standards are lowered for women, there will be serious pushback, and guys will just get out. AND you’ll see over all combat effectiveness drastically decline.
at 5’4 and 135lbs, i STILL have a hard time pulling a fully yoked out Marine 50 yeards. and firemanning him is no easy task. i posted about how female officers were allowed into SOI, and 2 qual’d’ one dropped on the first day. the other lasted a week.
lzozozllzlllllzlzlzlzllzlzlzlzlolzz
hey dalrock nic epost da new narrativez is after you get buttcocked by a man yu chose to buttockc u out of wedlock, man up, join the marinezand kill menz:
lzoozlzlzozlzzlzlzolzlz
hey d gbfm has some good newz
the fiat dolalr is fiat dollar will fail
it’s paepr will be rendered zero
and da wisdomz of the GRET BOOKZ FOR MENZ will triumphz
and the KING shall RETURNZ
in da
RATUN OF DA KING!!!!
so everyoebeeby be happy
and keep da faith
and lauth
at d abutcheting ebenrneifiierz and rosocopurrutpers
lzozolzozollzl
Pingback: Traditional Christian leader shoots his brothers in the back. | The Woman and the Dragon
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gen-dempsey-if-women-can-t-meet-military-standard-pentagon-will-ask-does-it-really-have
Gen. Dempsey: If Women Can’t Meet Military Standard, Pentagon Will Ask ‘Does It Really Have to Be That High?’
He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?
If anyone had any lingering doubts if they were going to lower the standards for women, this should answer it.
@danny:
By numbers, there’s quite literally only a “handful” of women physically capable of what we consider front-line grunt duty. Even then, they’re going to need Testosterone cycles to keep up with the physical damage. Add in a much higher PTSD rate and much less durable bodies, and we’re pretty much sending them out to get their bodies broken. Even if it’s only something like Patrol duty.
All in the name of “Progess!”.
Like many other military fads, customs and traditions that have been practised in the past, this one will quickly be junked as soon as the bodies start to really pile up and battles continually lost. I recall watching a documentary on military history that the concept of “chivalry” in battle (ie – treat your enemies with respect and do not harm your enemy prisoners) was finally trashed at the battle of Agincourt. Turning to the east, the Chinese finally abandoned their resistance to western firearms (- concept of dishonour in using firearms, more honour in using knives and swords where you have to get up close to your enemies) after the Boxer rebellion. The Japanese concept of Bushido (that you had to fight to the better end even when you know the battle is already lost because there is no glory in survival in the face of defeat) was suspended during their bitter struggle with the forces of Geghis Khan. In the struggle between pure survival and “chivalry”, pure survival will win out every time.
@Sharrukin
Holy shit…….
@Dalrock
Yes. This march is not to continue assaulting men, but a parade celebrating our defeat. The schoolchildren of other, future, empires will snicker at this when they read of it in their history books.
Looking Glass, you are missing the point. It’s not about some imaginary horde of enlisted women who are begging to get under the tracks and wrench on things, or load up for a long foot patrol in the ‘Stan. This is going to enable academy grads who have XX chromosomes to be fast tracked into star positions. It’s about who gets to be in the next cohort of officers colonel and higher. And that is the real danger. Because history is full of countries that decided to allow army leadership to be awarded not on the basis of actual combat merit, but on the basis of political connections.
Dalrock mentioned the Italian division in Egypt circa 1942. I’ve read Rommel’s book on WWII multiple times in my life, and last time I realized the huge difference between the Italian enlisted fighting men, and the Fascist – approved leaders. Generals and lesser officers had to be approved of by the Fascist party, and woe to those Italian Army officers who did not toe the Mussolini line. Unlike officers in the USSR they were not shot, but they were bounced out of command. Individual units, such as Ariete division, often performed well, but overall Italian generalship was not good, because there were other priorities used for promotion than “leads effectively” in combat.
During the invasion of Panama to arrest Noriega, back in the 80’s, there was a little gunfight involving some of Noriega’s police and a US Military Police unit. The Lt. in charge was female. The feministas demanded for some time that she should get the CIB – because she’d been in “combat”, a rather short gunfight that many big city cops would not be afraid of. One problem – the CIB is for infantrymen, and the MP’s are not infantry. I believe that we are seeing some of that same childish, spiteful behavior. The women in question cannot accept limits. Their moxie must be rewarded, no matter what the cost.
I now tie all three paragraphs together: some small number of women in the miltary want’ the prestige that goes with certain actions, but they do not want to pay for it. They want this prestige in order to ticket-punch to higher rank. They will be preferred not because of skill, but because of Bingo-card games and blatant special treatment. History teaches where this leads.
I share GKChesterton’s lividness over this. It won’t just be a squad, or a platoon, of men getting killed , I very much fear. It will be some “general” 20 years from now who will look like Hillary Clinton does today, getting an entire army captured or destroyed.
@Looking Glass
The women will be able to overcome their physical(strength-wise) limitations by the exoskeletons developed by lockheed martin. See my comment above.
Bob Wallace is right. Vietnam caused such an uproar because the sons of everyday people where forced into the military and killed. When the mothers and women join against a government action then it is doomed to fail. The main reason there has been no massive protests against a war that has gone on for much longer and has been much more financially costly then Vietnam is
1) The death count is lower. There were 55,000 dead in Vietnam. The death count for Iraq was U.S. Troop Casualties – 4,487 US troops; 98% male. 91% non-officers; 82% active duty, 11% National Guard; 74% Caucasian, 9% African-American, 11% Latino (That is also the same demographic breakdown of the population of America.) . 19% killed by non-hostile causes. 54% of US casualties were under 25 years old. (That is sort of surprising to me since I had assumed the majority of men were under 25 based on my experience in the Marines. I guess the noncom E-6 and above ranks must have taken a lot of causalities) 72% were from the US Army. There have been 2000 war dead in Afghanistan. I don’t have the data breakdown on who was killed in Afghanistan.
2) There is no draft. For the vast majority of women in America, the sons of someone else are being maimed or killed.
3) The fight is against Islam. A woman was commenting on how now little girls could go to school and this wouldn’t have been possible without the war. I said “So American men should be killed so Afghan girls can go to school?” She looked at me like “How dare you ask that question?”
The nature of modern warfare is so much more different. There will never be another draft unless there is a war against a major country like China. The question now becomes as to whether or not selective service will mandate that women register.
In support of Dalrock’s thesis, Jezebel only has articles that detail shaming stuff like “The Most Batshit Reactions to Women in Combat” (This is a common Jezebel theme. The day after the election they had “The Most Batshit Reactions to Obama’s Victory” and anytime a pro-woman, anti-male thing occurs they like to post photos of men with “Waaaah” as the caption.), “Women Have Been in Combat All Along” (Yes, they have. You can see from the above statistics, nearly 2% of the Iraq dead were women, 111 and 60% were classified as “by violent means”, over 44 women. Man, what a tragedy) , “Nearly a Third of Fired Military Commanders Were Canned Because of Their Penises”. But nothing about what a grand victory for women now that they are able to share the real burdens of citizenship.
(Here is a tidbit, Any woman that served in the Iraq theater and received a purple heart is eligible to apply for a $500,000 one time grant from the US government to start a non-profit organization. I was working with a lesbian woman who had been wounded and had PTSD and she was starting an organization to help with others with PTSD. I think she was former nurse. All she needed was a Tax ID number gotten by registering her organization with the IRS and the state. I showed her how to get the Tax ID. And the $500K was automatic.)
I am not as down on this as most of you. I say let the bitches die in their war. Frankly I think it will save some men from taking bullets. So if you are a Taliban and you have a choice at who to snipe, or when to detonate an IED as a file of troops moves past, then you fucking wait until the short one with the big ass shows up. I am pretty sure the women would become prime targets, like the radio operator and platoon commander in Vietnam. The underlying intent of insurgency is to inflict damage that causes the largest political impact on the occupier until it gives up and goes home. To specifically target women would exactly accomplish that end. If woman can’t do the super hard stuff like Mechanized Infantry or straight up Marine Rifleman then they will be assigned to more stuff like riding in convoys or brought in after a town has been secured to assist in dealing with the women and for good PR “for the cause”. And insurgent tactics will shift to wait and exploit those targets of opportunity. Have advance spotters watch passing convoys, identify which trucks have a woman riding shotgun and attack that truck. Let the first attackers come into a town, let them take it and wait until the second wave comes in with the women, then let loose on the women.
And there could be a new “Three on a match” superstition about standing next to a woman is unlucky. (I pretty much already agree with that one) Its’ war. Somebody has to die. Better it is a woman than me.
Me, I am kind of like Mohammed Ali. He didn’t want to be a black man sent by white men to kill yellow men. I don’t want American men to be sent by a country that hates men, to fight a war against other men that fight against the encroachment of a system that teaches its women to hate men.
In the past, this sort of development would have caused me no end of rage. But now, I simply do not care in the least. If these women want to get their heads blown off or get captured and raped (real rape) by a tribe of mountain-men, so be it. As Larry Auster at View From the Right says, “It’s their country now”. Why any White Man would join the military of ANY Western country is beyond my ability to comprehend.
@ GT66,
you got me there. what you made me think of was…the post office!
both have the same problem. but i still wonder if it would be faster if it were all male even though it is another govt bureaucracy.
however, between UPS and USPS, i go to UPS. less wait, and they want my money.
@ Zorro,
“The reason feminists want women in combat positions is this and this only:
Women will finally be in a position to kill men in wholesale numbers, with weapons supplied by the state, and they will be paid to do so.”
you’ve missed the fact that this already goes on in the world to the tune of 42 million total deaths a year…it’s called abortion. Molech must be proud.
i agree with the one gent who said this is really about those few women who want those stars on their soldiers and those prestigious command billets. this is in no way about making the military more efficient.
@Leapofabeta
Re: federal prisons. I don’t think so:
Apart from that, however, I am mystified that in all the years I have been reading stories about women in the military, NOT ONE critic has ever pointed out the most obvious reason to keep them out: a society that puts large numbers of young, fertile females in harm’s way is one that is literally not going to survive. That alone settles the argument.
Now, it will be said this is not the case in Israel, and that is true, but Israel has an existential threat even greater and immediate, so the risk of women in the military and even in combat is less than that Israelis face every single day.
@AR:
I was talking to the physical aspects of front-line work. Women aren’t capable of it, which is why the idea itself is actually a joke.
And I really don’t doubt in the least it’s about having “Badges” then moving up the ranks quickly, in place of superior male officers. It’s always a problem, in peace-time, when pencil pushers work their way up the ranks. It’s really only going to get worse. A whole lot of young men will die for this stupidity. Of that, I think we all understand.
@infowarrior:
Batteries. Until we have something 1000x better than current tech, it’s really not happening.
@Mark Minter:
The turn on Vietnam had a lot more to do with perception changes. Quite a lot of that being the Tet Offensive’s criminal reporting by the US Media. (Tet was pretty much the worst military offensive in the post-WW2 era; but for Media reporting, it was an epic disaster for the North Vietnamese Army) The anti-war types worked the media personalities for several years. Once they turned, it had a downward effect on the popular support for the war. Which actually still had a solid majority of support into 1970. The loss of support really didn’t take hold until we were actually leaving. It’s one of those things that looks different in hindsight. (Being I was born quite a while after Vietnam, actually looking into it gives a very different view than those that lived through the era, as I don’t get the time-blending effect)
Oh, and the “effects” were less about the deaths and more about the 500k soldiers in theater and effects the draft had on those in the 18-25 age bracket. The potential for enlistment was definitely a far more motivating issue than the actual deaths.
One last point: Vietnam Vets are, still, better adjusted in all major sociological categories than their general cohort. The “terribly damaged” Vietnam Vet was always a mythical creation to assuage the guilty consciences of the anit-war types that sent 150k Vietnamese into exile and probably over 250k to their deaths. False empathy to assuage real shame. Quite a feat.
It won’t just be a squad, or a platoon, of men getting killed , I very much fear. It will be some “general” 20 years from now who will look like Hillary Clinton does today, getting an entire army captured or destroyed.
And if by that time said army consists largely of feminists and men without the brains to boycott serving with or under feminists, then I fail to see the downside.
@ BC
“And if by that time said army consists largely of feminists and men without the brains to boycott serving with or under feminists, then I fail to see the downside.”
Even if you think there is some justice in the deaths of those who are part of that expedition, you forget that such a defeat may have far more significant repercussions than just those deaths. Whatever object they were attempting to achieve they will have failed at. If it was to defend a vital interest, that interest will now be lost. Not to mention the equipment itself is valuable, and if lost to the wrong foe could present even more danger down the line.
Pingback: Wanna Hear a Three Word Joke? Brace Yourself: “Women in Combat” « Fear Nothing
Here is a link to the Derb’s take on this madness (he has an 18-year-old son who is heading off to Army Ranger School soon):
http://takimag.com/radioderb/follies_fallacies_and_frivolities_john_derbyshire#axzz2J9dvL500
The reality is America is screwed. I bet the Iranians are laughing their asses off about this development. I can only imagine what they are saying. My guess is they are not going to be worried about a ground invasion by the USA anymore.
Feminists.
I am now convinced they were boys born in girls bodies and simply haven’t come to terms with requiring surgery to fix the problem, so they attribute their ‘abnormality’ to their entire gender in a sever outlier assumption that gender is a construct and we are all equal in capability in all regards.
They refuse to see that we are equal in terms of worth and value, yet vastly different in terms of our natural strengths, capabilities and what we bring to the table in what we desire from the opposite sex.
I have proof of this.
David Futrelle is a woman trapped in a mans body. Although she has a pair of tits, (manboobz) she also has a penis, which she so loathes. Rather than chop off the penis and accept she is a woman, she lashes out against men for being men and tells them to conform to being like women instead.
Feminists should just butch up, stuff a cobb of corn up their vags and duct tape a fresh cucumber or Italian sausage to their crotch regions and consider themselves men and leave real feminine women alone.
Really… am i the only one who’s figured this out?
“They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain that, since women were not authorized to go to the frontline? Will we hear of Caesar’s female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli.”
Marc Lepine’s ‘manifesto’
“Fran Wilde, a former Mayor of Wellington, New Zealand, is a Feminist. In her mayoral election campaign, she even went so far as to hold a public meeting on what it would mean to turn Wellington into a Feminist city. On the morning after Anzac Day 1993, a public holiday which is meant to honour New Zealand’s war dead, she was reported in the Dominion newspaper as follows:
“‘Remembering men who died in war was important but it was EQUALLY (my emphasis) important to recognise the often-overlooked sacrifices and experiences of women,’ Wellington Mayor Fran Wilde said at yesterday’s Anzac Day Service of Commemoration at Wellington Cenotaph.”
Her use of the word “equally” is astonishing, because about 1000 New Zealand men were killed in the Second World War, about 3000 were wounded, and about 2,000 were taken prisoner. We can add to this number the thousands of men who were killed, wounded or captured in the Boer War, the First World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and various United Nations peacekeeping operations.
To Fran Wilde, what these thousands of men went through was “equally” balanced by a group of fifty nurses who went to serve in the Middle East in the First World War — plus one individual woman who set up canteens and clubs for troops, and worked to prevent venereal disease amongst the troops. The total number of these 51 women who were captured, wounded or killed is precisely zero. ”
sex, lies and feminism by Peter Zohrab
http://peterzohrab.tripod.com/10equali.html
so when it comes to starting war, it’s men who did it, but rosie the riveter’s few days work before she resumed her piano lessons was equally important or even more, considering how that one symbol from WW2 is still in use today.
@donalgraeme:
boo f*cking hoo
What vital interests? Nation building? Spreading ‘democracy’? Other meddling?
“Vital interests” is just vague code language for any number of trad-con bogeymen.
Define your terms and cut with the scaring/shaming language.
If – If – a feminized force gets its arse handed to it like that, not only will it serve as a good object lesson to the feminists and their supporters (not to mention thinning their ranks a bit), but it may even deter the country from other unnecessary meddling in the future.
Again, I fail to see the downside.
Let the women serve so the men don’t have to. If enough men decide the military is not for them, I dare the government to bring back the draft so the guys can give DC the finger. What is the worst that can happen…jail?
Look at it as another example of MGTOW.
@ BC
“What vital interests? Nation building? Spreading ‘democracy’? Other meddling?
“Vital interests” is just vague code language for any number of trad-con bogeymen.
Define your terms and cut with the scaring/shaming language.”
Given the juvenile nature of your response, I am hesitant to try again, but here goes:
We don’t know exactly what interest it is they could be called upon to protect. It could be a fool’s errand in some remote corner of the world. Or it could be to protect something of value to the United States. I can think of several. The Panama Canal comes to mind. There are several very important bases in the Pacific whose loss would imperil our control of that ocean. Possibly something in the Indian Ocean as well.
I can’t predict the future, so I can’t predict what interests might be at stake. What I do know is that it would be the height of folly to presuppose that nothing outside our borders would be worthwhile.
Furthermore, the notion that it would serve as an object lesson to the feminists is laughable. They are already clueless about the nature of reality; a major military defeat would hardly faze them.
“I don’t think the primary objective (of giving women the opportunity to serve in combat situations) is to further diminish masculinity, though it will be an effect. It is a pure power grab.”
Yes it is, but also look up my comment as to how “& women” has to be inserted everywhere.
The primary objective of feminism is not ‘equality’ but rather a confounding of the sexes, which can approximate ‘equality’ in the make-believe world of today. And this is from Mary Wollstonecraft’s mouth, the grandmomma of all the insanity:
“A wild wish has just flown from my heart to my head, and I will not stifle it, though it may excite a horse-laugh. I do earnestly wish to see the distinction of sex confounded in society … For this distinction … accounts for their [women] preferring the graceful before the heroic virtues.”
Feminists do wish to destroy masculinity, by aping men in every endeavor and then claiming vociferously that mascuilinity has no place in modern society. The amount of chutzpah required for such brandishments is staggering, but this has been the case everywhere.
If not for men keeping women from ‘knowledge’ women would have done everything men did and even better. So not only is there no regard for men, men also have to pay for the past wrongs!
And it’s feminism not hurting men, but patriarchy because men refuse to let go!
It’s not mere heads I win, tails you lose; it’s “you won because we didn’t get to play, and now you should lose because we are playing”.
@donalgraeme:
Oh noes, more shaming language and vague scare threats…
I guess I just need to Man Up.
LG-
plus the logistics of having to make extra showering areas and berthing. one of boys said one female at his FOB (forward operating base) caused logistical chaos with where she was going to sleep, shower, blah blah blah. so 49 other guys had to stay out of the shower whenever she was in there. you wanna drop a duece and she’s in there, dig a hole and get dust up your bung.
the she ended up pregnant 2 months before rotating out. many will go through 5-6 guys while deployed. which causes the already horned up guys to not focus on the damn mission because they’re trying to bang the desert princess who’s a soft 6.
YEEEEEAH PROGRESS.
this analysis is spot on and beautifully expressed, of course this move is about the continuing demeanment and extermination of masculinty (and thus of God, who invented and created masculinity, by breathing himself into men)
it’s good to see that many of you are seeing into the motives behind these apparently “innocent” manipulations, and exposing the sinister and pathological agendas that actually underlie these pathetic manouverings
Men fighting hard:
Women fighting hard:
Looking at the above photo of the smiling made-up Italian paratrooper I come to the realisation that a woman in uniform is the ultimate fitness-test. One wrong look and you are dead – literally. I was thus wondering where – and I knew it was operatically – I had seen this before. The answer was of course The Ring of The Niebelung, specifically the beginning of Act 3 of The Valkyrie – I can just see some future Bayreuth production with the nine Valkyries line up on stage dressed in the same manner as the Italian paratrooper, (‘Ho jo to ho’ {meaningless babble} is what they sing – but for the operatically challenged its the music from Apocalypse Now with the helicopters) in fact I am surprised that it has not already happened. As you all know, at the End of Act 3, Brunhilde, the top Valkyrie is put to sleep (for disobeying her father, Wotan) on a rock surrounded by Fire and covered from head to toe with a shield. There she remains, somnolent, until Act 3 of Siegfreid, when its eponymous hero, a man who has yet to learn the meaning of fear, breaks through the Fire, and on seeing the sleeping Brunhilde declaims ‘What Man is this?’. It seems that Wagner was, as usual, way ahead of the curve.
On a slightly different tack, I was intrigued that Dalrock should refer to the battle (there were two) of El Alamein in 1942. It was an Allied victory against the Axis powers, but at a time when America had yet to enter the War. I mention this as our Prime Minister, was recently pulled up short by a journalist – he really seems to have believed this – for asserting that in 1940 The British were the junior partners to The Americans in The Battle of Britain (as it is known). I trust Americans are as offended by this as I am outraged – and as I would be if BOH were to assert that America was Britains junior (or indeed any) partner in Vietnam. When an Eton and Oxford education can buy you such ignorance is it any wonder – and you can be sure that before long there will be British female front-line troops – stupidity seems to emenate from our political masters.
I realise that Vietnam is a touchy point for Amercians (especially seeing as it is now a holiday destination for the rich) and recently I have been watching a movie – The Quiet American [1958 version] – and looking at the comments thereto at Imdb. One American was suggesting that America (as he put it) saved Britain’s Ass in WW1 and WW2. Without in any way attempting to belittle the contribution made by the Americans in both conflicts, such an asserttion is simply absurd – as were some of his other anti-british rhetoric – rather as a if a German might suggest that Britain’s Ass was saved in 1815 by the Prussians from The French at Waterloo. We were grateful for Prussian assistance of course and it was as Wellington said ‘A damned near-run thing’ . I will no more accuse the Prussians of turning up late than I would the Americans.
For me, I’m ok with it. The military has been a mess for some time now, and this isn’t going to change it much. What I like about this is that it exposes one of the central contradictions of feminism. SInce women are just as tough as men and can fight just as well, how can there be something like VAWA? Are they as tough as we are , or are they perpetual victims needing special protection from physical threats? Pick one, because you can’t have both.
This effectively makes the gov. side weaker for the coming civil war. This should be viewed as a long term positive.
“Since the goal is to erase the concept of masculine virtues, the new bargain the introduction of women into combat represents isn’t to have women join equally or even seriously in the fighting and dying. The new bargain is that men will continue to be the ones who fight and die, but that they must not feel a sense of masculine pride in either doing this or having this obligation. In this sense they are doing to the military what they have done to other institutions. Husbands and fathers are still responsible to protect and provide for their families, they have just been taught not to see themselves as head of the household.”
This is communism.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
The only difference here is the value being distributed is social value rather than economic value.
In other words, cultural communism rather than economic communism.
Real war is a great purifier. Stupidity falls to the wayside, or your country is conquered.
“A wild wish has just flown from my heart to my head, and I will not stifle it, though it may excite a horse-laugh. I do earnestly wish to see the distinction of sex confounded in society … For this distinction … accounts for their [women] preferring the graceful before the heroic virtues.”
Graceful virtues are nearly extinct but I think they were motivated heavily by women’s vanity, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
I wrote on my blog theorizing how vanity keeps women out of trouble more successfully than anything else.
I think it would be pretty easy to keep women out of the military. We just require they shave their head.
asserting that in 1940 The British were the junior partners to The Americans in The Battle of Britain
Cameron said that? Lend-lease wasn’t even in existence yet, so there was not a speck of US involvement.
Sister Suffragette in Mary Poppins could not be bothered to take care of her own kids, that was what Mary Poppins was for. “Let us vote, we can handle the responsibility”
kzozlzozlzlzozlzloz
@Opus,
Without in any way attempting to belittle the contribution made by the Americans in both conflicts, such an asserttion is simply absurd – as were some of his other anti-british rhetoric – rather as a if a German might suggest that Britain’s Ass was saved in 1815 by the Prussians from The French at Waterloo. We were grateful for Prussian assistance of course and it was as Wellington said ‘A damned near-run thing’ .
That German-written book actually exists!
http://www.amazon.com/1815-Waterloo-Campaign-Greenhill-Paperbacks/dp/1853675784/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359304499&sr=1-7&keywords=peter+hofschroer
“In this masterly study of 1815, Peter Hofschroer challenges the accepted version of events at the battle of Waterloo. He demonstrates convincingly that Allied victory hinged on the contribution of German soldiers. In this masterly study of 1815, Peter Hofschroer challenges the accepted version of events at the battle of Waterloo. He demonstrates convincingly that Allied victory hinged on the contribution of German soldiers.”
That aside, there simply is no doubt that Britain could not have achieved meaningful victory in WW1 or WW2 without America. Sorry, but it is what it is.
My meta-point would be one of disagreement with those who assume that Feminists are the principal actors here. They are not, and they never were. Feminism was funded by the Rockefellers et al. for the purpose of increasing the labor pool and the tax base.
The military has been feminized — and more broadly, had its demographic composition diversified — as a proactive step by the Left going back possibly to Truman’s integration of the armed forces to ensure that the military is never used in a coup against them.
Opus
When I, as an American, walk around central London, I feel a sense of recognition and identity with nearly every place-name. When reading history, I always cheered in my mind when Alfred and his army beat Guthron and the Danes at the Battle of Eddington or later when the English won battles in the 100 years war or later still when they beat the Germans finally in 1918. Keep in mind, though, that as an American who knows a good deal about his various ancestors, I can tell you that this is not a matter of simple tribalism and ethnic identity arising out of the soil of Wessex or Kent. Indeed, it is more like the opposite.
Yet, there it is. I name my dogs things like Alfred and Winston and choose to own an English car.
In the first WW period, close to half of the population of America were immigrants from Germany. A good few of the other half were from the Celtic fringes and did not possess instincts immediately favorable towards London and the Empire.
Yet, when the time came, the whole disparate mass came in with the Brits without a second thought.
Regarding the 2nd WW period, I would put forward the notion that Americans had exactly the same feelings towards it all as you Brits: We really, really, did not want to have to do this again. The aftermath of the last time had been less than wonderful.
Anyway, I see the Anglo American thing much more as a glass half full than half empty.
@Tarl
I am aware that in German speaking countries they are taught that Waterloo was a German victory, and apparently the British were also there, but I was talking not so much of the Battle but the survival of Britain as a country: so I re-assert that America joining WW1 in 1917 and WW2 in 1942 made little difference to the survival of Britain as a free country. Being overrun politically by Germany was never a serious likelihood on either occasion and as far as I am aware Hitler was all in favour of Britain and its empire: he could not understand why we kept insisting on fighting; I tend to agree with him – at least had we not done so I would have had a few more relatives (as two-thirds of my relatives in uniform in WW2 were killed). What might have happened from 1917 on and from 1942 on had America not entered the Wars we will never know, and as I said, I am not suggesting that American help both militarily and in terms of equipment was not of enormous value insecuring victory, but unless there had been a draw, someone would have won; and one must not forget the Soviet Union who eventually gave the impression that they could have overrun all axis territory single-handed, so I am guessing we would have become victorious, and thus I have to disagree strongly with your final sentence – though, as I say that is not intended as a slight against the Americans. It is worth perhaps remembering that by 1945 Britain had some 2,000,000 men (and not women) in the military (apart from the Candadians, Indians, Australians etc etc).
@Farm Boy
Yes Cameron really did say that. It really leaves one speechless. He should surely stand up for the country he represents. He went on Letterman: I can forgive him not knowing his Arne from his Elgar but he had no idea what Magna Carta translates as into English, and then started apologising for The Empire: I wanted to vomit, though as you may have noticed from the previous thread I have personal reasons to feel strongly about this. This however is perhaps not the place to discuss such matters further.
Something I could not help notice was that the Marine Corp did most of the heavy fighting in Iraq in 2003, with the 7th Army doing more of backup and support role. The 4th Army didn’t even make it to the fighting since they were supposed to pass through Turkey and come in from the north. The Turks never allowed them to pass through. I’m wondering if one of the reasons why the Marine Corp did most of the heavy fighting is because they were the only force (e.g. still staffed by men only) that was still capable of heavy combat.
Afghanistan was fought entirely by special forces (SEALS, green berets, etc.) with the regular military playing mostly a support role there as well.
There is another element to this story that has yet to be picked up by the bloggers. The military is robotizing at a rate that would shock most civilians. Combat drones are being developed and deployed for land, sea, and air combat. The predator drone is only the beginning of this. Warbeiters (warbots) are being developed for land and sea battles as well. Most of these are controlled by operators siting in control rooms in places like Las Vegas. However, the next step is fully automated (e.g. autonomous) warbeiters that will operate on their own. The military of 2030 will be largely automated.
This may be one of the reason why the high command is more open to the role of women in the military than one would expect.
started apologising for The Empire:
The British Empire was one of the best things that happened to humanity.
@ Abelard Lindsey
I would often think to myself, “In a few decades this wont be an issue, because we’ll be using robots for war anyway.” But still, as it currently stands, women in combat is a dumb idea.
Now to celebrate the robots that will put an end to this silliness, a song:
@Opus,
I re-assert that America joining WW1 in 1917 and WW2 in 1942 made little difference to the survival of Britain as a free country.
I totally disagree, especially with respect to WW2. Without American support, there were only two possible outcomes: Nazi Germany on the English Channel or Stalin’s USSR on the English Channel as a permanent fact of political life. EIther one would have dramatic implications for Britain’s survival as a free country. Britain survived as a free country only because the US Army reached the Elbe, and remained in Europe after WW2.
Being overrun politically by Germany was never a serious likelihood on either occasion
It depends what you mean by this. Without American support, cutting a deal with the Kaiser or Hitler would have been obligatory. This would mean the ascendancy of a pro-German political party in Britain and political accommodation to Germany that would have made the appeasement of the late 1930s look like rabid confrontation.
as far as I am aware Hitler was all in favour of Britain and its empire
He favored it largely in the sense that destroying the British Empire would not benefit Germany, only America, the USSR, and Japan. He was willing to permit it to continue to exist only if Britain was politically subordinate to Germany. Hitler was willing to let Vichy France keep their empire but this did not mean he was “pro-French” or that Vichy France was a free country in any sense of the word.
I am guessing we would have become victorious, and thus I have to disagree strongly with your final sentence
That is where my word “meaningful” becomes important. What kind of victory could Britain have achieved in either war without America? Certainly it would not have been the total victories that were achieved in WW1 and WW2. And a “victory” in WW2 in which the Red Army liberated France would have been no victory at all for Britain, for all that Britain would supposedly have been on the winning side.
I say that is not intended as a slight against the Americans. It is worth perhaps remembering that by 1945 Britain had some 2,000,000 men (and not women) in the military (apart from the Candadians, Indians, Australians etc etc).
I don’t mean to slight the British either, I simply say that Britain could not have won without America. Britain just did not have the resources to achieve this.
@ Farmboy
“The British Empire was one of the best things that happened to humanity.’
The Irish and Scottish would disagree with you on that one. Even some English would disagree. Look up the Enclosure Acts and the Scottish Clearances. And the Great Hunger in Ireland.
Let’s prove womyn are equal. There are all male fighting units. There can be mixed units. How about a few all female fighting units as well. Even feminists would cringe at such an idea.
@Abelard Lindsey
This can’t be what it is about for two important reasons. The first is that all of the jobs in control rooms are already open to women, so this isn’t about those jobs. This is about front line combat troops, and all of that technology not only requires fewer troops, but it paradoxically increases the physical and psychological demands on them. Think of how we combined precision bombing with special forces embedded in with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. While it is laughable to put women in standard infantry roles, special forces roles are the ones women are least suited for. Yet we already see a move to more use of small specialized teams supported by force multiplying technology, and this trend will only continue. Feminists will insist that women are included in all elite infantry and special forces units because they need to make sure that men don’t “own” traditionally male roles. If there is a room full of women safely supporting (via technology) a small group of very tough men who are actually in harm’s way this is still the wrong narrative for feminists. As I keep stressing, this is all about the symbolism for feminists. They want to change the narrative. This is even true when the claim is that it is about allowing women to rise through the ranks. The narrative is all wrong if there aren’t women around the table when the officers meet, or if the women are of lower rank than the men present.
“The British Empire was one of the best things that happened to humanity.’
The Irish and Scottish would disagree with you on that one. Even some English would disagree. Look up the Enclosure Acts and the Scottish Clearances. And the Great Hunger in Ireland.
Pah. The Scots, at least, have nothing to complain about. They were senior partners in founding and maintaining the Empire. They enjoyed opportunities that they never could have had if they hadn’t been partners with the English. The list of Scottish generals, cabinet members, and financiers is a long one indeed.
As for the Irish, the English certainly did not cause the potato famine, and describing this as a type of genocidal holocaust is asinine.
As a Boer I also disagree with Farmboy’s statement. The British killed over 30000 of our women and children in Concentration Camps because they wanted the gold and diamonds so badly. I spit on Miller, Kitchener and Rhodes. May they burn in the deepest pit of hell.
That should be Milner, not Miller…
I am not going to argu – as we have a common enemy namely feminists and their white-knight supporters – but I will say, that most English would be only too happy if a moat were constructed separating England from both Wales and Scotland, and all will push until England is situate about fifty miles off the coast of America, which is where they think it is anyway, and not just off the coast of Europe (from which it is usually cut off by fog). It all began to go wrong sometime about 1760. At that time The Governors of the various colonies would arrange with the leading inhabitants as to taxation and adequate protection. Then some forward thinking people in London feeling that this was too haphazard an arrangement attempted to implement reforms, which going down badly, led to more reforms and so on, until Tea was deposited in Boston Harbour where it remains. Of course not all colonists were in favour of War and the Indians were on the side of the British and after Yorktown, more colonists left America than Frenchman left France after their revolution. How glorious it might otherwise have been – now if you will only pay that outstanding tax (with compound interest), I am sure I can arrange to be influential in London as to effect a reconciliation.
Two nations separated by a common language, a different view of history and a time gap which means that it is evening here.
Others have pointed out the goal of getting more women into the military brass. But more broadly, getting more women into the military in general is key to giving them more of an advantage in hiring in all areas of the government, and the supporting private sector. One of the best ways to set your resume apart in getting a government job, or a job at Lockheed Martin, is to be a veteran. This is advantage currently goes mostly to men. Feminists cannot openly try to get rid of the preference for obvious reasons, so they have to make the military more female friendly.
In Dalrock’s previous entry on this topic, the question of where is the line that once crossed forces us to take action was posed. I said that it would be where these actions start impinging men’s ability to work, buy food and shelter and entertainment. Feminists would be unwise to go there.
——————————————
We are already at that point. I have friends who have graduated college who are living in their parents basement who cannot afford to move out and the way the economy is arranged they may not be able to anytime soon.
@ Tarl,
“As for the Irish, the English certainly did not cause the potato famine, and describing this as a type of genocidal holocaust is asinine.”
Clearly a self-deluded Brit trying to ignore the truth. You a fan of Piers Morgan, by any chance? You do know that while the Irish were starving to death the British were shipping their food to England?
I could go on but you’re not interested in the truth. Although, it would be funny to see your head explode from the cognitive dissonance.
Robots still need to be maintained in the field. Even if the operators are sitting in an arcade some where in the contental US the actual machine has to be serviced and armed in the theater of operation.
The whole point is as Dalrock put it a way to destroy maculine unity. It is fine with me for I do believe the it is being done to make the military more like a force that can be used on the american people.
So basically, women want to pollute masculinity. So be it. After all, such an action will not be without cost to themselves. They want a race to the bottom. Let them win it.
Clearly a self-deluded Brit trying to ignore the truth. You a fan of Piers Morgan, by any chance? You do know that while the Irish were starving to death the British were shipping their food to England?
I could go on but you’re not interested in the truth. Although, it would be funny to see your head explode from the cognitive dissonance.
Nope. I’m a Yank. My opinion is entirely disinterested. I don’t have any emotional commitment to either point of view, as you clearly do (ya maudlin Mick).
The truth is that the British government, at that time, did not perceive any obligation to help anyone who was starving anywhere. They let English people starve in the streets of their own capital, just a few miles from Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament — that being the case, why would they care about people even further away?
The idea that popular hunger (or any other want) should compel government action is a late 20th century one that is completely irrelevant to the world of the 1840s. The idea that government refusal to help constitutes deliberate genocide is an even more inane modern conception, and even more irrelevant to the late 1840s. What’s even more pathetic is that self-proclaimed victimhood isn’t going to help the Irish today one little bit. They are White Oppressors and will get no slack from the liberal elites no matter how loudly they bleat about past injustice.
I just spend most of last night reading a collected set of works by a blogger called Solomon II. I had found the link on Roosh’s new Web site Return of Kings. Roosh’s site is a collective effort, like a magazine, from different writers and has a broader set of subjects than Game. To someone familiar with manosphere writing, Solomon II doesn’t say things you haven’t read before. He just says them better than most other writers. I don’t know who Solomon II is. His writing style is reminiscent of a younger Mentu from UMan. He does mention Austin a few times and Mentu did also. But every post (segment, essay, whatever) has “by Dalrock” after the title.
I warn you this link I am about to give you is very addictive and you will get hooked and stay at it for hours. I cannot give a manosphere reading any higher recommendation than I give this one.
But that is what we are here for, to share, and to collectively and selflessly, as men, help each other. And as quoted in this link:
“As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”
The Solomon Group
http://cdn.returnofkings.com/misc/The-Solomon-Group.pdf
@Bob
I’m Irish, Dutch, Scottish, and English.
I think you’re full of ****.
[D: This is far enough off topic that I ask that it be dropped now.]
@Tarl
I must come to your defence, as your interpretation of the Irish and the Scots is in my view correct. Certain people just enjoy being permanent victims, and truth need never get in the way of myth – though the Irish and the Scots are not the worst culprits. It is all of course based on envy (which of course is why 99% of the world hates America – and why 100% of feminists hate men – now I am back on topic). No matter what the English (or men) do, Scots and Irish (and Feminists) are never going to be satisfied, for they will always make ever louder and greater claims of the ‘we woz robbed’ variety. Tragically, England (like men, by which I mean white-knights) are choosing to wear their hair-shirt, in the hopeless belief that just one more concession and they will be exonerated of these imaginary crimes and their enemies be assuaged. Of course what happens is the very opposite and ere long (lets stick to Feminists) they will be back with further demands based on claims of oppression and inequality. Consider Homosexualists or as they were correctly called even as late as Schopenhauer, Pederasts: are they happy now that they are not prosecuted for engaging sexually with each other – something virtually unknown to history? No of course not. Firstly the age of sex is regarded as too high at 21 so bit by bit it is reduced. They then want equality: they wish to remove that stain, which is homosexuality. They can’t, any more than a woman can remove that physical and mental difference that is female, so laws are passed outlawing what is comically called ‘homophobia’ – as if disliking stinging nettles was seen as a matter of moral culpability. This is not sufficient however, and they still feel unhappy and thus require Civil Partnerships. Does that satisfy them? No of course not. Next they want to have children which is a physical impossibility so they go in for Adoptions, Sperm Banks etc. Is that sufficient? Not on you life it isn’t’. They require Marriage, and just as granting women the opportunity to be front line troops, is really an attack (as Dalrock says) on Masculinity and being male, so Gay Marriage is another attack on heterosexuality and (proper) marriage that is to say the lifetime sexual and economic union of a man and a woman with the general intention of raising a family. Gay Marriage is to Real Marriage as a Black Mass is to the usual Christian ceremony. In other words a travesty. Where is the harm you may ask. Well to begin with Registrars and Teachers are being threatened with dismissal for refusing to marry homosexuals and for failing to teach their school children charges of the acceptability and normality of Gay relationships and Gay marriage: forms have to be changed. Out goes Husband and Wife in much the same way call-centres never refer to anything other than ‘Partner’ – a subtle downgrading. Will it stop there. I doubt it, because being homosexual can no more be assuaged than can Aids or aging, and thus I predict there will be further moves (more than already existing) towards compulsory Pederasty. In the same way you may be sure females will not be satisfied with merely being front-line troops, they will want more; more special treatment on spurious claims to (for example) personal space. So it will go on, unitl either the whole system collapses, or Democracy is jettisoned.
I noticed exactly the same thing in Law. What harm one asked could there be in allowing women in to the legal profession – after all – if they can pass the exams than they are as good as any man. Firstly (so far as I can tell) the stringency of legal exams has been lessened. Then of course they need special facilities and special treatment, and special (imaginary ) space. Without resorting to jaw-dropping examples, far too many and far too often seem to lose sight of the rather basic fact that their purpose is to serve their client rather than indulge their own (frequently anti-male) agenda. What however is to be done with these women who now consider themselves too posh to reproduce. I have no idea.
Yep, Mark, many of us know Solomon II’s stuff from before he shut down his old blog. Lots of good posts there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/19/us-usa-military-inspection-idUSBRE90I02A20130119
A copy of ‘Maxim’? Lol….it is even worse than you think.
I think we should have all-female brigades just like the Tuskeegee Airmen and their all-black division.
No doubt the women would rise to excellence and high achievement as soon as white men quit standing in their way.
I saw the movie. That’s all I need to know. We’ll have female GIs saying “suck my dick” and we will all smile knowingly.
If women are allowed on the front lines bc they pass the required GI standard, there should be no problem whatsoever if there were all-female companies. Right?
Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness, 1899:
“It’s queer how out of touch with truth women are. They live in a world of their own, and there had never been anything like it, and never can be. It is too beautiful altogether, and if they were to set it up it would go to pieces before the first sunset. Some confounded fact we men have living contentedly with ever since the day of creation would start up and knock the whole thing over.”
I’m ready and waiting.
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) wrote:
You called? My ears were burning.
Great Katy Perry video. I love how, in typical female fashion, her motivation for serving — like everything in a woman’s superficial estimation — is heartbreak. It is perfectly revealing in a couple of unintentional ways. This is one reason entirely separate from a woman’s physical capacity why they have no business being anywhere near war.
Matt
@Lemuel of Masa
Your video is blocked by copyright.
I think that part of it the females propensity to “follow orders” and to take what little authority they have been given and abuse it to maximum effect. This is going to be essential for the type of tyranny they are preparing us to experience in the West.
and the KING shall RETURNZ
in da
RATUN OF DA KING!!!!
yah baby now you talking my lingo
Jesus returns, its glorious, the wicked are pants-wetting terrified, he sits on the throne of this ridiculous and sorryassed rebel-planet, and heal everybody up thats worth healing
you SHOULD be looking forward to it mr. books! i sure am
Another aspect of this is that active-duty military personnel register and vote Republican at about twice the rate of the general public. When Clinton won in 1992, one of his first acts (after the obligatory pro-abortion stuff) was to allow homosexuals into the military. Military people opposed it almost unanimously, of course, and there wasn’t exactly a groundswell for it in the general public. It was just a way to slap some of his staunchest opponents across the face and taunt them. This looks like much the same thing: soldiers don’t want it and most voters don’t particularly either, but they’ll go along with it now, so Obama can get away with saying, “Suck on this, losers!”
The British government did not ship the food out of Ireland. The British government did not own or control the food. Nor did government forces go to the farms and confiscate the food, as the Soviet government did during the Ukrainian terror famine. Food was exported because Irish farmers could get a better price for it overseas than they could by giving it away to their countrymen. Thus, if you want to blame anyone for “leaving the Irish to starve to death” it should be the Irish not the English.
They’ve already done that to some extent, with special loans and grants for women-owned businesses, scholarships for women, and the like. True, they haven’t specifically hit me with a “man tax” yet, but if they make it easier for my competitor to get accredited and make a profit because she’s a woman, then they’re curbing my ability to run a profitable business because I’m a man.
Dal, you’re probably already aware of my take on the red pill and the need for it in the military:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/soldiers/
If anyone has any doubt about the depths to which the Feminine Imperative will dig in order to make sure that the narrative is always focused on the feminine, read no further than this:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16540098-like-an-airborne-disease-concern-grows-about-military-suicides-spreading-within-families?lite
Even with overwhelming statistics indicating male suicide rates in the military, the Feminine Imperative will still seek to redefine and redirect the most heinous of tragedy back to itself as the more injured of victims.
When you read about the first female combat casualty after the lifting of this ban, expect the most overblown coverage and grandiose fanfare imaginable from the feminized media. Her one death will seem like holy martyrdom in comparison to millions of men who died before her. She will be venerated by the Feminine Imperative.
For what it’s worth the BBC never said: “The remnants of the Folgore division put up resistance beyond every limit of human possibility”. That was propaganda (like the Churchill quote about the same) spread in Mussolini’s newspapers after the Folgore defeat. In other words: ok, we lost but our enemies were impressed. But in reality they were not.
ray wrote:
Not so fast, sparky. “You SHOULD be” working out your salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12). Are you so sure you are blameless and sinless? To count yourself among the elect is a blasphemous usurpation of the One Who Judges. This is a transgression of old, known as presumption.
Better to stick with the humility of Saint Paul, who considered himself the worst transgressor of all:
Only a fool looks forward to Christ’s judgment, sure of his own innocence. “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 7:21). The smart ones know to tremble before the very thought of the throne of judgment, for “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7). If we “use every man after his desert … who should ‘scape whipping?” (Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2).
The psalmist asks, “Who considers the power of thy anger, and thy wrath according to the fear of thee? So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom” (90:11-12). Err on the side of caution, better to be scrupulous than presumptive. “O LORD, why dost thou make us err from thy ways and harden our heart, so that we fear thee not?” (Isa 63:17)
Matt
@AJ
Looking at the sourcing for that bit in wiki it doesn’t appear to lead anywhere, but I also haven’t been able to find a source which specifically debunks that claim. If you have one I would appreciate it. Are you suggesting that the entire story of them putting up an incredible fight and the British affording them unusual dignity upon capture is fabricated? Or are you asserting that the basic story is true but parts are embellished due to mistaking propaganda for history?
It is certainly curious – to say the least – that in the endless centuries that Wars have occured, that at no time did anyone (before last week) recognise the equivalence to men in combat of females: neither The Romans, nor The Greeks; The Persians or The Chinese; not to mention The Germans or The Incas or Azteks did so; and inexplicably even Napoleon failed to take females to Moscow in 1812 – clearly his tactical mistake. No one is suggesting that female nature (physical and mental) has recently altered, not even the proponents of this change (so far as I have heard). Perhaps it will be suggested that men (selfish as usual) wished to keep all the glory for themselves; yet when Death was as likely an outcome as Glory (Cannae, Lake Trasemane, the Teutonburg Forest, Stalingrad, The Somme – to name just a few fields of slaughter) and considering the usual shafting of men by other men that argument would seem rather implausible. I have to conclude that amongst the many paragraphs written this week on the subject, Dalrock’s essay comes closest to the truth.
“A macho attitude does not need to be present in order to have a successful defense. Patriotism needs to replace machismo. Women have played an important role in the military since the beginning.”
tammy jones
http://smu.edu/ecenter/discourse/target_gi_jane.htm
More tailhooking(paula coughlin’s fiasco is illuminating), less about fighting.
I am sure that not only the feminists are cheering this on but also the PLA and MVD.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16739587-exclusive-boy-scouts-close-to-ending-ban-on-gay-members-leaders?lite
Heheh,..nope, no imperative here. Move along citizen,..move along,..
@Rollo
From that link: “Two corporate CEOs on BSA’s national board, Randall Stephenson of AT&T and James Turley of Ernst & Young, have also said they would work to end the ban. Stephenson is next in line to be the BSA’s national chairman.”
Once again, the corporate elite is enabling the infusion of feminist ideals into an organization. Why am I not surprised?
I was just thinking: and I trust what I write is not too dull. Women always end up imitating men. There is a little Opera by J.S.Bach, known as The Coffee Cantata, wherein after a few trials and tribulations boy gets girl and her Father finally acquiesces in said girl drinking Coffee – this is the 1720s! There is also Donnna Diana by Reznicek, with a similar happy ending where the girl is seen at last to openly smoke Cigarettes (circa 1900) – and it is very noticable that the remaining smokers these days are women, and of course it kills them. I, once, in a hand-over at work where I stayed on in the next room for a few weeks (which is how I saw this) handed over to a woman of fairly gruesome appearance in her late thirties (though married). There was one guy, I recall who had the odd Cigarette (this was long before the office smoking-ban) but she went one better and endlessly smoked Cigars. Naturally she did not last long and was sacked after a short while. No female soldier is ever going to be as much as 0.0001 SMV points more attractive to a man because of what she does, any more than if she smokes – or drinks coffee, in fact she may even lower her SMV, as men do not tend to like butch women or cigarette smokers. Coffee neither adds or subtracts from SMV.
Dalrock OT but I mentioned you in a recent post..
http://likeinbooks.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/with-my-reputation-shattered-i-blog/
inexplicably even Napoleon failed to take females to Moscow in 1812
They could have kept the Grand Armee warm at night.
Three cheers for head shaving. And selective service. And that we bite the bullet all the way on this one. Anything less keeps the fantasy going.
They could have kept the Grand Armee warm at night.
And then after that, the Cossacks.
An international Update : … Boots on the ground in India, as social engineers take ground in the indian cities & start to devestate the patriarchial communities, as was the norm here
More proof corporations using dim witted women to hire in a feminist state, indian women just like western women, gullible & herdlike to the bitter beginning
Talking of women engineering their own extinction as a gender, by repressing normal biological & emphasising their basic primacy …
FYI Hiphop & commercial music ARE THE NUMBER ONE tools, used to subvert & bring in hyper-sexuality slutdom & whoredom
Hip hop & commercial music are specifically designed to reprogram & brainwash women on a nationwide scale
This is the effect of the worlds most advanced brainwashing techniques, to brainwash & mind control the indian population
This the ultimate softkill in action people …
Watch in outrage or horror … the choice is not yours …
Traditional indian women being destroyed & brainwashed into worshipping corporations, by your entertainment military & global spy satel agencies, brainwashing & indoctrination as you speak …
Remember the same is occurring on YOUR OWN CHILDREN : If you value your children WARN THEM about what awaits them …
The above is a STAGED EVENT, THIS is what modern warfare looks like
This is what a modern softkill operation looks like, on the indian people, as theyre culture & traditions get devestated, just like yours did …
“Coffee neither adds or subtracts from SMV.” Not in itself, but combine it with the Starbucks lifestyle and female consumption habits…
Dalrock: Thank you for an excellent post. My father was a member of the Italian Army’s Mountain troops, the Alpini, Division “Julia”. During the WW2 it was sent as part of Italy’s contribution to Hitler’s pre-emptive strike on the Soviet Union. He joined after the division was rebuilt after the war, and spent much of his life defending his fellow soldiers, who definitely were not cowards.
“Julia” was attached to the German Army under the command of General von Kleist. It was expected that they would be fighting in mountains – either the Urals or the Caucasus, for which they were trained. Instead, they fought on the plains and were the first troops attacked in Operation Neptune, the huge Russian counter attack that would envelope Stalingrad*. Many of these men had never seen a tank in their lives before, much less figured out how to disable one. They fought bravely but were completely decimated. Of the two thousand men from my father’s village who went, only seven returned.
Whatever you think of their politics, these were brave and honorable men.
*Speaking of Stalingrad, do women who want to play soldier know that Germans and Russians entering Stalingrad were ordered to fight waist-deep or even chest -deep in the sewers – in excrement? They were ordered. They did it. This is the sacrifice of men. Women “soldiers” would not do this in a million years.
This is about something which is core to feminism, and it boils down to a high stakes version of the childish feminist boast: “Anything boys can do girls can do better.”
————————
yes, the feminist perception of the military is a treehouse with the words ‘no gurlz alouwd’ scrawled on the door
but as for full integration in the military is it any surprise that this finally happens once tech (drones, missiles, and etc.) has reduced the role of infantryman to more or less that of cop with machine gun?
and to the extent that this is still not so the fems will cower in the bunker while the men take bullets for them
then when the smoke has cleared they’ll emerge, place foot on enemy dead, and pose for time magazine “hoooray our brave females! whooopeee!” reads the cover, yadda, yadda, you get the picture
yes, a moment of sad silence for all the commentors here who think that fems in front line combat means it’s their turn to get blown up for a change while we all get to stay in bed and eat bon bons
almost forgot
i hope it hasn’t escaped anyones notice the feminists insist on full military integration BUT, to this day, haven’t insisted the same in sports?
now you and i both know that they could integrate sports if they wanted to so why haven’t they?
surely it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that, on the battlefield, there’s no bleachers with an audience watching the female slow her team down while in sports there is?
One of the things I dislike about the redpill is how it can reveal that things you’ve been enjoying are actually agitprop. It suddenly hit me a couple of days ago:
The Honor Harrington sci-fi novels?
Yeah.
And yes, that’s relevant to the OP.
Eh, Weber’s series isn’t that much agitprop IMHO. You can count the number of women that take men on hand-to-hand and win on your hand. They’re also all heavy-worlders (used to higher gravity), genetically modified and highly trained. Then he also has the planet of Grayson, where men have 3 wives due to birth rates and heavy metal contamination. He’s blue/oblivious, like we all were.
@tweell –
Yeah, I didn’t mean to imply he’s doing it with malice aforethought. I think it’s more a case of this stuff being so insidious that it’s difficult not to go along with it unless you’re aware of it and intentionally resist.
Women in the military (spec ops and infantry included) is just one thing that popped out. The other is prolong, where women can have careers and be mothers afterwards because they’re fertile for 100+ years. And et cetera. Lots of feminist wish fulfillment.
It seems obvious from the political antics in the series that Weber’s not a flaming liberal (or he’s got a good leash on it, if he is). So I’m not saying he’s intentionally normalizing this stuff. Like you say, I think it’s more a case of obliviousness.
She must be a Ranger:
http://news.yahoo.com/florida-man-accused-fraud-name-change-act-love-224309320.html
The thing that still baffles me is why?
Why do women (should this actually be the case) envy masculinity? Is there simply a percentage of the population of each sex that is envious of the situation of the other?
The thing that still baffles me is why?
Why do women (should this actually be the case) envy masculinity?
It’s always been about power. The idea has been to provide women access to the male power centers — the public sphere, education and income, and now the military as well. The idea feminism has is that unless women have equal access to these power centers in all ways, women will be lesser than men in power. Of course, women have not ceded one iota of their own power centers (sex, children, etc.) — they’ve merely colonized and appropriated the male power centers –> which is why we see such a lop-sided situation in the society at large. Women have kept their own power citadel, and actually reinforced it substantially, while overrunning the male power citadel. That’s why we’re living in “Girl World” currently. Note also that it was largely men who are responsible for this — basically fathers of daughters, for the most part, who wanted power for their daughters.
So, it’s just about power? That seems too easy. With that perspective, we seem to be assuming that some women decided they didn’t like the female power options available and wanted male power options. This implies that either the female power options were not obvious or available to some women, or they were disliked by some women (the meritocracy was preferred by women?), or the female power options were felt to be insignificant compared to those for men.
If I’m going to go down this road of reasoning, I’m going to subscribe to option 3 there. I’m going to assume that women just assumed that their power options were meaningless. The problem with this line of reasoning is it basically demonstrates that most women were completely ignorant of their actual position within society at large. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of perception of historical capability to affect their own future among the female population. It literally smells like women simply started believing their own nonsense about their facade of weakness.
If we are going to assume that the usurption of masculine pride/power was simply about acquiring more power for women without regard for the social consequence, I have to assume that it was only possible through large numbers of women having eaten their own bullshit with regards to being powerless.
Yes, indeed.
The basis also is that the male power centers came with “harder” or more “objective” power, like money, political office, leadership positions in the public square and the academy, as compared with female power centers of hearth, home, family, sex and kids. Women (and their fathers) coveted the former “hard” power for themselves that they saw men having — they wanted a piece of the pie, as it were. They wanted that financial, direct political, public square leadership power and so on that they saw men having — they wanted that for themselves (and their fathers wanted it for them). The female power centers were seen as being insignificant in comparison to the male ones according to this analysis, because it focused primarily on the trappings of the male power centers, which women coveted for themselves. This the case for most of the apex feminists who were the leaders — not the radical lesbian man-haters, but people like Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem.
For the average woman the attraction is independence — that is, independence from being dependent on men financially, primarily. There is a sexual motivation behind that, clearly.
Then there are always the classic tomboys who chafed at the female role and power center and didn’t fit in with it — they were very much in favor of colonizing the male power space and role because it was where they felt they fit. This isn’t a huge segment of the population, of course, but it tends to be the segment that wants to be combat infantry, wants to play football with the boys and so on. These also formed a significant portion of the feminist leadership circle, too, and not a small number of these are also lesbian. Obviously a lesbian does not like a social system with gender roles, because she doesn’t want to be paired with a man.
Don’t know if you saw this –
{When the U.S. Marine Corps and army wanted advice about whether women should formally serve in combat units, one of those whose expertise they sought was Maj. Eleanor Taylor of the Royal Canadian Regiment. The 37-year-old Nova Scotian was uniquely qualified to speak to the senior American brass about this issue, which made front-page news across the world last Thursday when U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta announced a lifting of the ban on female service members in combat roles. Taylor was the only woman to lead a NATO combat unit in Afghanistan. She commanded an infantry company and attached units that frequently engaged in combat in 2010 while operating from a remote forward operating base in the notorious Taliban heartland to the west of Kandahar City.}
Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Female+Canadian+major+lauds+decision/7880822/story.html#ixzz2JQYCmIPm
I particulary like this excerpt –
{A combat engineer attached to the outgoing Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry company died a few days after Taylor arrived in Panjwaii. Four of her own troops suffered serious injuries soon after that. The major’s own “close call” came when a Taliban mortar hit the reinforced roof of her company’s command post, exploding about one metre away from her head.
“They (the Taliban) were good. They had us accurately bracketed,” she said, speaking like the career soldier that she is. “We got them later, did you know that?” she added, after remembering that I, too, had been close to that exploding mortar shell.}
And yes, they die too –
{Trooper Karine Blais, of the Quebec-based 12th Armoured Regiment, and Petawawa combat medic Master Corporal Kristal Giesebrecht, when she was attached to the Royal Canadian Regiment, also died during combat operations in Kandahar. Another woman, Captain Ashley Collette of the Royal Canadian Regiment, received the Medal of Military Valour – Canada’s third-highest military honour – for her leadership in Panjwaii in 2010. During “intense combat” that was considered “critical to defeating the enemy,” infanteer Collette was praised for her “fortitude under fire,” according to the citation read out when Gov. Gen. David Johnston presented the medal. Nor was Taylor the top-ranked female Canadian combat officer to serve in Kandahar. Lt.-Col. Jennie Carignan, who is now a colonel, was Task Force Kandahar’s senior combat engineer during 2009.}
Opus – {It is certainly curious – to say the least – that in the endless centuries that Wars have occured, that at no time did anyone (before last week) recognise the equivalence to men in combat of females}
Actually, {From the beginning of the 1970s, most Western armies began to admit women to serve active duty.[2] Only some of them permit women to fill active combat roles, these are: New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland. } – source here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military
Rollo – {When you read about the first female combat casualty after the lifting of this ban, expect the most overblown coverage and grandiose fanfare imaginable from the feminized media. Her one death will seem like holy martyrdom in comparison to millions of men who died before her. She will be venerated by the Feminine Imperative.}
could be true for America at first, but in Canada, every service personnal who has died in Afghanistan has had the same treatment. Honour guard leaving the country, honour guard upon touchdown in Trenton Ont., then the long drive on the Highway of Heroes to Toronto. We still celebrate our fallen, unlike yours, which are hidden from the citizens of your great country.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2008/11/11/7372241.html
http://thankasoldier.net/highway.html
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/01/30 « Free Northerner
I believe the military is only to be used in ways intended by the founding fathers of this country. Therefore I’m not a person who supports the military anymore. I’m a Left-Libertarian and identify with the views of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in military matters.
That being said: I think this is insane. Yes. Insane. Having women in the military for direct combat roles is insane. They will bring down their infantry teams. This will put lives in danger for the sake of feminist egalitarianism.
DeNihilist
I think that story was great women are now true full members of society. The time for misandry for the sake of the bitches feelings has past and now equality under the law rules. That major was talking like she wasn’t there at gun point she was there out of actual military neccesity. That says one thing the double standards for women in the form of misandry is no longer needed and never was needed.
I don’t get it with the chivary stuff about how crazy it is for women to be in combat arms jobs in the military. I’m all red pill on this and have no romantic delusions of sparing women from the hardships of reality. Women don’t the capacity to appreciate it any way never did. And besides that I never thought it made any sense to have military people that were not real military people in the first place. I always thought the combat exclusion stuff was stupid anyway even back in the 80’s and 90’s when I was in.
I was particularily interested in the discussion between Brendan and Jeremy just above, and – perhaps without realising it – Jeremy has revealed, in his puzzlement at women’s envy of men, that the very opposite is not the case: that men (with the possible exception, I suppose, of Transvestites) have absolutely no envy of women at all, and are thus (like Jeremy) unable to grasp intuitively why women should be so envious – and thus also angry at man. Their real anger however is surely directed at God (Darwin) for making them physically (and I regret to say also mentally) incapable of fulfilling the male role. Of course all women tend to see is the good part, – the grass always being greener – ignoring the fact that for nearly all men power is not theirs to command, and equally ignoring the strain and risk it takes to gain that power, and also how difficult it is to hold on to – have they never read Shakepeare’s History plays ‘let us sit upon the ground and talk upon the death of kings, how some have been slain in their beds’ etc. In much the same way that some women imagine that all men are sleeping with a different guy every day they also imagine that all men have power. Indeed in the days when I practised Divorce Law, more than once some female client would be telling me just how cunning and crafty and thus formidable her husband was. It was, I regret to say, always delusional – the other occasional fancy was that the man spent his days idly at work. I wasn’t there but frankly that seems unlikely, given that many men seem more prone to be workaholics.
So, one asks, if men are not envious of women, is it because women have such a terrible time, and thus no man would want to be like a woman? I think that unlikely, for it is very obvious to most men how privileged most women, espcecially when they are young and attractive, women are. Doors literally open for women and without the need to show much in the way of ability. No man wants that however: men want to compete and be valued for their achievments. What is particularily damaging about envy is its destructiveness, in that rather than seeking to build themselves up it always seeks to knock down. I rather like John Locke’s definition of Envy: ‘An uneasiness of mind, caused by consideration of a good we desire, obtained by one, we think should not have had it before us’. He might as well have been describing the emotional root of Feminism.
Opus, “So, one asks, if men are not envious of women, is it because women have such a terrible time, and thus no man would want to be like a woman?”
I see no need to engage in Marxist dialectic talks of division of power. Men are naturally more contented than women, as a general rule. We can generally accept our lot (beast of burden, generally speaking) with a certain amount of aplomb. Women, as a rule, always seem to feel a need to experience discontent about something, i.e. if it’s not one thing it’s another, like an itch they can’t scratch. This general discontent means that women will often carp, and given their social herd natures, will carp together, begin carping about the same thing, get bored (note not solve or address the issue, just deal with it until the emotional high is gone), then move on to something else. This constant, relentless discontent expressed in the female population at large, is more my idea of the Feminine Imperative. Subject to manipulation? Of course, females are like that, ask Roosh, Don Juan, Bill Clinton, etc.
So…I swear I’ve posted here twice and it looks like there is one response to my post…but I’m not seeing anything…
[D: I checked the filters and there wasn’t anything from you there. I do see this comment already approved upthread though.]
@DeNihilist,
Opus – {It is certainly curious – to say the least – that in the endless centuries that Wars have occured, that at no time did anyone (before last week) recognise the equivalence to men in combat of females}
Actually, {From the beginning of the 1970s, most Western armies began to admit women to serve active duty.[2] Only some of them permit women to fill active combat roles, these are: New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland.
It is not an accident that all those countries, with the exception of Israel, were not serious about war and did not think they would do any serious fighting. They admitted women to the military precisely because their militaries were not expected to engage in serious combat for important objectives, but primarily did feelgood peacekeeping-type activities.
I disagree Opus. There are men who are envious of female power. I’m not certain if this is a more recent phenomenon, but I tend to believe it is. There’s an entire sub-culture of men who fantasize about having the SMV of a young female as a female. The transvestites are only one sub-genre of this. There is no equivalent culture on the female side. The women who want to physically be men want it so that they may fit into the male power structure seamlessly. In fact when you compare spectrums of men who want to be like women to women who want to be like men (in the physical sense), the men who want to be like women outnumber the women who want to be like men at a pace of 5-to-1 or something close to it. The internet being what it is, it’s hard to say if these aspects of humanity existed to the degree they do now before this great communication medium brought people together. I suspect not, but I also suspect it wasn’t the internet that gave birth to them. I anticipate that if someone actually researched the topic thoroughly, you would find that male transvestites and associated sub-cultures were in a large way birthed by the rise of feminism.
I still am trying to grasp why women would historically feel powerless as compared to the men.
Paradoxically, I can actually grasp why a man might seek to fantasize himself as a female. It’s very simple, women can get laid whenever they want. That is a power all but the most rare of men will never have. Even those men who attain it have to deal with either being extremely famous (a horrible appendage to have on your life), or years of humiliation while they perfect their game (not pleasant). Women get this power essentially for free. If we were to engage in supposition, let us imagine a healthy man with a healthy male sex drive. Now while supposing this, lets presume this man is raised by a mother who humiliates him for being male (not hard to imagine, some mothers do this unconsciously), and has friends who are mostly female and quite the feminists. It doesn’t take much more imagination to imagine the women in his life explaining to him in very subtle terms how sexually powerless he is. To me, it’s believable that such a man with only a little mind-twisting would envy being a female and act out on that. In fact I believe that many men who are raised without a father guiding them into manhood and sufficient exposure to feminists get their perception of reality twisted badly enough to accomplish this. I also believe a great number of criminal men (rapists) come from this pool of men, but that’s another topic.
Conversely, I’ve also seen the effects of fathers who treat their daughters as if they will always be powerless and valueless in life. My grandfather had 6 daughters and 1 son. He adored my uncle, took him out and did “man things” often like fishing and hunting while demanding the daughters help keep the house up. My uncle never washed dishes as a child, or did his own laundry, the girls did that. It was clear who the favorite was, and the daughters (rightfully) resented dad and their brother for being denied a healthy relationship with their father. None of my aunts sought to become men, however many of them dominated their households. Three of them have divorced, two of those having made fairly bad decisions w.r.t. who they married (one got pregnant as a teenager).
I suspect this power struggle between the sexes began and feeds off of struggles in the home with parents playing favorites. I believe the angst it generates now threatens to destroy the family structure from which it originates. I do not believe it truly stems from society’s structure, or an envy of the larger picture but instead from the poor practices of individual parents within the family, the building block of society. I suspect this would all go away and society would calm down quite a bit if the family structure could be somehow renewed and parents of the world re-educated in how best to treat their children. But perhaps I’m now out-of-scope here…
@Jeremy
I certainly do not wish to be dogmatic – maybe I am mistaken, but on the question of men seeking female power, I just wonder whether what you mean is, men seeking female desirability. Women, will after all say that they have no power – they do, but ignore their real own base when when asserting their powerlessness. (Are you in danger of doing what female academics do with regard to Rape, – seeing that men force their way on to women, conclude that what the men seek is power over women rather than sex with women?). I certainly do not envy women for having the opportunity to incarcerate a person of the opposite sex on their say so because a man might have looked in their direction for a micro-second too long, even though the power therein is great. My feelings towards females are benign, such that I have to fight my nature to overcome the propensity to white-knight and make excuses for women. I would suggest the only power men seek is over nature (science – brute strength) and over other men – the pecking order leading from omega to alpha male. I might however envy (if that is the correct word) female ability to have sex or favours from the opposite sex at any time of their choosing, but I do not think with the exception of certain (delusional) PUAs that men see that as any more than a truly Utopian masturbatory fantasy; which if the examples of the famous is anything to go buy – say any of the four Beatles – is not in practise what they do. Some men of course have to only to walk into a room for women to literally and metaphorically rip their panties off. For a while that might be fun, but as such my envy would be of the men rather than the women.
You raise the intriguing question of whether the (supposed) rise in Transvestism is linked to the rise of Feminism. That seems to me highly probable. I imagine the same applies to homosexuality, BDSM, Foreign Brides and MGTOWs. I am merely surprised that we are not now in an era of Monastic growth. Can it be long delayed?
„Women’s liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influencial neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible. By defining relations between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength” – Ruth Wisse
It’s interesting to note how obsessed Western women have become with power and control. Just look at the words they use. I vaguely remember one of them commenting here that wives often don’t want to „cede power” to their husbands by giving in to their wishes to dress differently. What kind of lame-ass attitude is that, thinking of your marriage as a power struggle? „Cede power”? What is this, politics? They also discuss which party has the „upper hand” in a relationship. Huh? This is dumbed-down Marxist nonsense. A male-female relationship can only function if it’s based on reciprocity and cooperation. If it doesn’t function that way, it’s pointless.
Or think about contraception. Women call it „birth control”. They want the power to control exactly how many children they have and when. Many women even want to decide what kind of children they’ll have, by using the services of sperm banks. They also increasingly demand control over their own fertility and aging. They want to stay youthful and fertile even in their 40s and 50s. Plus they demand and get legal control over the men around them. And at the same time they even fail to keep their own weight in check.
Just consider what a buzzword „empowerment” has become. Now being „empowered” is supposedly the supreme virtue of women. Whatever they do, they must ensure that they are „empowered” by it, and they should supposedly stay aware and prevent getting „disempowered”. Who comes up with these lame-ass words? I recall one broad on HUS who said something like „we should improve relations between men and women while making sure that neither gender is disempowered”. Huh? What kind of nonsense is that? As if everyone in society could get „power”.
It’s all BS. All of it. These women are idiots. What sane man’d even want to put up with such pathetic control freaks?
Hey dalrock, what do you think of this article about men doing more masculine chores have higher frequency of sex?
dailycaller.com/2013/01/30/less-housework-means-more-sex-for-married-men-study-finds/
Don’t write off men just yet LOL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/dont-write-men-off-just-y_b_2575031.html
@Opus
I would suggest that female desireability *IS* female power. Without men desiring women, women would have no power over men. Thankfully this is not the case and men generally love women (myself included).
I would suggest that in order for any human being, be they male or female, to have a healthy state of mind they need some belief in their own power over the direction their life goes. They need to be able to at least believe they can meet their own basic needs, this includes the need for intimacy. When you take away this power, you get unnatural and unhealthy humans. Rape is never about sex, it about achieving (for a moment) sexual power over someone else. From this I suggest that people who commit rape have a poor or nonexistant sense of control over their own sex lives. I further suggest that this perception of zero control came from childhood experiences.
When women are sexually abused as children, they lose any sense of control over their own sex lives because they were violated by someone they trusted. Those women are forever scarred. The resulting adult women of these events are generally impossible to marry or form any intimate relationship with.
LIKEWISE, when men are taught nothing but shame about their sexuality as a child, or are taught they are inferior and incapable of healthy intimacy as a child (for whatever reason and by whatever method), they lose any sense of control over their own need for intimacy with another person. Those men are forever scarred, and the resulting adult men are either useless to society or criminals.
Note, that most of that is my own personal opinion on the matter. If you asked me to back it up with research, I would be hard-pressed to find journal articles.
I guess I don’t see in the rise of certain sexual fetishes evidence that men truly desire the power role of women. Transvestism is a sexual thing — quite a few of these guys are repressed gays or bi’s, or guys who are acting out based on porn-saturated libidos having directed them to places where they never would have gone 20 years ago. To crave female power isn’t just to crave being a sexy young thing who can make cocks hard, it’s to crave the power of the matriarch, the power of the hearth and home, the power of being the hand that rocks the cradle. I see no evidence of that in the culture as a whole, and certainly not from trannies. Trannies are a sex fetish and likely a paraphilia. They aren’t anything like the kind of general envy many women have felt, and still do feel, for the concrete expressions of male power in the formerly male spaces.
I also don’t think that the rise of feminism is mostly due to Daddy issues in the sense of fathers not paying attention to their daughters. Fathers today are doting on their daughters, and are mostly very supportive of feminism for them and are some of the biggest “you go grrrl!” cheerleaders on the planet. It’s about power.
Speaking of feminist fathers of girls (a quite lame and insufferable group of people, I should add), this comment from one of them is very telling:
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/04/the-engine-of-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-4556
“I was really quite naïve”, It never occurred to me”, “it seemed as though”, “Only later did I come to realize”, “t’s not as if we taught them to be disrespectful of men” etc. With important decisions getting made with so much ignorance, it’s no wonder we’re all in a huge mess.
OT: you may find this interesting:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/01/28/mens-and-womens-gender-ideologies-ideals-and-fallbacks/
This is all very interesting, but are we any closer as to why women seem to be so angry with men? Nature is parsimonious: It has a ‘just so’ approach to life, and women have just what they need to be females, and likewise do men to be males. If you spend your days bringing up a brood of small children, then whatever you need it is unlikely to be an excess of braun or exceptionally clear or sustained thinking and – no surprise – women do not possess either. We no longer live on the Savannah, and so those male abilities, are to some extent not required as they once were, and women (as TFH so pointedly keeps reminding us) no longer use their full reproductive capacities or anything like it, yet although men are not noticably unhappy, women seem increasingly bitter, and frankly deluded about themselves. It is all the fault of men, yet men have, looking at matters objectively provided women with everything they can reasonably require – at least in this life – yet they are unhappier and angrier than ever, and no matter how much the State, does to appease this anger, it only seems to become worse. Curiously, the appeasement of homo-sexuals seems to follow the same pattern.
When, however, it is pointed out to men, that women – with the assistance of other men – are shafting them, men just tend to shrug their shoulders, indeed even become apologetic for women. Perhaps there is ultimately no explanation other than that women are naturally envious, in much the same way that scorpions naturally sting. It’s their nature.
It’s true that the average man is more content than the average woman — I agree with Paul in that aspect. That, to me, stems from hypergamy vs the male sex drive, and the fundamental difference between optimizing and satisficing as strategies there. I still think that the envy has to do with power — women envied the specific kinds of power men had (and which some still have) which they did not, and wanted this for themselves. They probably did for a long, long time, but it was only technological advances that made this particular grievance realizable in practical terms (ie, the falling away of the importance of manual labor, the introduction of the pill, urban anonymous living etc.).
Paradoxically, I can actually grasp why a man might seek to fantasize himself as a female. It’s very simple, women can get laid whenever they want.
Women cannot get laid by an attractive, worthy man whenever they want. This is true even for hot women, because they set their sights on the most stratospherically high-status men. The “power” of a fat or ugly woman to get the attentions of a low-status male just by walking into a dive bar and hiking up her skirt is not something anyone should envy. Ugly men have a shot at hot women if the man has enough money and power; ugly women have no chance at high-status men no matter how much money and power she has. Which would you rather be?
Opus’ point at 1:31
An opening statement, or a summation. Works either way.
Solomon
It ends with
My bet: men will emerge different, and better — freer to live lives unchained from masculine expectations. But it may take some time. We’re all searching for balance, and we’re still very new at this.
Unchained from masculine expectations? How so?
Unchained from masculine expectations? How so?
By becoming SAHDs, of course — that’s the idea. The article acknowledges that doing things the real egalitarian way is a utopian ideal that is hard to achieve, and laments that the fallbacks are different. So they hope that the male fallback becomes SAHD. Of course, massive cuckolding will ensue, but I suppose the idea is that men should also accept that by being unchained from masculine expectations that they are actually the fathers of the children, instead of the child-carers for their wife’s children.
I know, it was rhetorical.
Are you kidding me? Are you suggesting best interests of the child could be swayed to the father because he is a faster diaper changer?
Unplug the IV
What she doesn’t get is that we don’t hate ourselves like women do, so therefore we aren’t trying to dodge traditional roles, we’re trying to preserve them.
She says “we’re all searching for balance and we’re very new at this.”
What a pretentious assumption. The real irony is, no one there can even see it.
Women are unhappy. We know because they keep telling us.
I have a theory: apex fallacy gone feral. Combined with envy, they see only the lives of the highest value men.
Add an overestimated smv, a date with the wall, and the fix is in.
Of that would never happen. Best interests will always be with mother, after all SAHD is just a barely adequate male care-giver, on the level of an employee.
What she doesn’t get is that we don’t hate ourselves like women do, so therefore we aren’t trying to dodge traditional roles, we’re trying to preserve them.
Of course, they never asked us. And they don’t presume to ask us now, either. They will instead coaxe, wheedle, pressure, “study and pontificate” and the like to try to get men to change the way we are and what we want, to make it so that we want to be male wives of high-powered women. Sure, there are some men who want that, but not many, and frankly there are even fewer women who want that in a husband. “What women want” is a superfriends marriage between two super-achieving superheroes, each awesomely powerful and equal. That’s a unicorn, but it’s “what (that kind of woman” wants”. The “fallback” can’t be “neo-traditional”, because these sorts of women “don’t want to give men that” (still think it isn’t about power guys? Really?). So the fallback will be SAHDs — and that won’t happen very much — which means that the real fallback will be a huge increase in the number of single mothers. That is already happening, and it will continue.
@Brendan
And perhaps it’s not. Perhaps I am overstating the case. I do, however, believe that the rise of many fetishes/sub-cultures coincides more with the normalization of poor parenting than the internet. I also believe that individual desire to become a man or become a woman when born the opposite springs more from something other than biology in most people who feel that way, I believe it comes from being shamed or abused as a child. I was extrapolating in my mind that the organization and concentration into a movement of the desire for the opposite power role came from abused women finding each other, much as this rise of men desiring to have the SMV of a female as a female rose from men shamed as children… though not in so many explicit words.
This is just the best I can come up with. You seem to want to say it’s about power, I can accept that, but that doesn’t tell me why the one side wanted the power role of the other. Simply saying it’s about power with no reason as to why implies that the power was inherently unequal, which I don’t subscribe to.
@Opus
Natural envy would imply a need for envy if we’re going to presume either a creator or natural selection. I can’t see a god deciding to say, “well women will just be envious of everything.” It wouldn’t serve any purpose. I’m also having trouble seeing how envy (or perhaps it’s better to generalize and say restlessness) would be helpful for the average female throughout history. I can’t subscribe to the idea of natural envy, though I have no evidence with which to disagree.
@Tarl
It’s not about me though. It’s about the boys who have been raised to believe nonsense shame about their sex. It’s about the girls who were abused by someone they trusted. Clear headed people with a reasonable grasp of their own sexual capability will choose to use the tools nature gave them, because that is the most efficient way to enjoy life. People who as a child felt shamed to have the parts they have literally feel like they’ve been forced to wear the wrong skin. This isn’t too hard to imagine. For instance, try to think back about the first time you wore clothing regularly. Most people cannot remember this, because 99.99% of the time it’s the first time they were made to feel ashamed and it’s a traumatic introduction to an emotion that children are not ready for. If you want to see how strongly that feeling is embedded into your psyche, try taking your clothes off in public… it’s not easy the first time (yes I have visited nude beaches, moving on…). Now imagine as that child you were shamed not about running around without pants, but you were shamed because you were what you were. That sort of memory is nearly impossible to extract and probably ten times as difficult to deal with. The people who choose to change their sex, or try to take on the SMV or bodies of the opposite gender (I think) have exactly this issue to deal with. I’m sure they would all disagree with me and call me names for thinking this because it’s not a biological explanation. I still think it’s a reasonable argument.
Wibbins,
Feminist fantasy. Housework does not make men more attractive.
It simply means the wife has more time to write blog posts, bemoaning her life.
Speaking of power struggles,the feminist ideology has even gotten between mother and son.
Freebird that has to be a facebook troll. The last sentence seems to give it away since as I understand it no feminist acknowledges any sensation loss from circumcision.
This is just the best I can come up with. You seem to want to say it’s about power, I can accept that, but that doesn’t tell me why the one side wanted the power role of the other. Simply saying it’s about power with no reason as to why implies that the power was inherently unequal, which I don’t subscribe to.
From my perspective, it’s not because the power was inherently unequal, but rather that the *kind* of power that men had was coveted — because it involved objective marks of public power like money, political power, public influence and so on. In part this was probably influenced in the West by the rise of individualism. If the ultimate public good is self-actualization of the individual, the kind of power held by women (hearth, home, children, sex — all relational to a significant degree) would be less “shiny” and attractive than the typical male power centers of education, money, economic and political power and so on. In a society which emphasizes these things as universal goods, it’s not surprising that a good number of women — then and now — sought to enable themselves to strive for them in the same way that men do. The term “disempowerment” normally refers to the disempowerment experienced by women in these previously male domains, and the desire to appropriate that power for themselves.
In other words, it wasn’t ever really about equalizing power. It was about grabbing and appropriating power that the other sex had which they wanted. To me that’s an obvious reason — greed, lust for power, covetousness –> some pretty common and base human motives there.
@Jeremy
Women’s natural envy is in the Bible
Genesis 3:16 (New Living Translation)
Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”
By the way, I am blogging again, and have something up on the “feminine imperative”. It’s been a while since I blogged regularly, so I am sure there will be some cobwebs for a while.
“we’re all searching for balance and we’re very new at this.”
Translation: never have so many women had so many ways to screw over so much civilisation.
Poolside beckons.
Brendan, How should I list you on the blogroll? Brendan? Novaseeker? Veritas Lounge?
Eh, probably Veritas Lounge, although I will be blogging as Novaseeker and commenting as Novaseeker I think again, now that I am blogging again.
[D: Done.]
@goodfoot
Ah, I stand corrected on Gods intentions then. Unfortunately to have any traction with the population at large, I’ll need a secular explanation in addition to God’s will. Understand it’s not that I find anyone’s beliefs to be invalid. I’m not religious myself but I respect individualized faith. it’s just that the arguments for feminism can’t be argued down with “but God says so,” regardless of how valid anyone feels them to be on their own.
Freebird
I would love to be a guest at that chicks wedding.
Tarl speaks the truth, but only half of it.
The “power” of a fat or ugly woman to get the attentions of a low-status male just by walking into a dive bar and hiking up her skirt is not something anyone should envy.
Men have the “power” to get laid whenever they want to also. Go to any low end bar on a friday or saturday, and you will see women leaving with toothless old drunks, ghetto type dudes with saggy jeans and stained t-shirts, who look like they just walked in off the street, etc. These men have nothing to offer (nothing to offer women, and nothing to offer an employer or other man either) yet they are banging.
The only problem is that the women they are banging are fat, slovenly, nasty, half are married and cheating, and half of those have hpv or the clap.
Women can get laid whenever they want, it’s just that they can’t get laid by Mr. Big or Brad Pitt whenever they want. If they need sex this instant, they’re more likely to be out blowing a wino behind a dumpster. Same with us.
Call it “power” if you want, but as Tarl so correctly pointed out, it’s more like low standards.
Tarl, good point. But with Afghanistan, these woman were actually put into harms way with the Canadian army. I watched a CBC doc on it, and though only a very small percentage of the grunts, the woman who had signed up for combat, were expected to do every dirty job that the men did. Three came home in a casket.
It was rather unusual that a string of technologies that all shifted power towards women arrived in a sequence. Sort of like flipping a coin and getting ‘heads’ four times in a row….
Yes it was a really weird confluence of history and tech. A religious man like myself sees something behind that, but in any case it was a remarkable confluence of simultaneous or directly sequenced developments that led to where we are now.
It may very well be that the tide is turning. We will see.
There is a German joke from WW2 about their ally that goes as thus:
Q: why do men in the italian army wear dresses?
A: So they can shit and run at the same time.
The American joke (or one of them) about the italians in WW2 goes as thus:
Would you like to buy a used italian army rifle? It has never been fired and dropped only once.
lol
@Novaseeker & TFH:
Oddly enough, most of the technology that brought about the Sexual Revolution (or at least allowed parts of western culture to go feral), actually dates from the 1910s or 20s. The basic, fundamental research was done nearly 100 years ago. We’re just dealing with refined versions of it.
This is mostly as a huge chunk of it is an off-shoot of the Public Health Revolution. Which, while supremely important, also let us find out some of the nastier little details about the ways humans will interact, on a mass scale.
Opus
“We no longer live on the Savannah, and so those male abilities, are to some extent not required as they once were, and women (as TFH so pointedly keeps reminding us) no longer use their full reproductive capacities or anything like it, yet although men are not noticably unhappy, women seem increasingly bitter, and frankly deluded about themselves. It is all the fault of men, yet men have, looking at matters objectively provided women with everything they can reasonably require – at least in this life – yet they are unhappier and angrier than ever,”
Well, this reminds of something I recall from a number of years ago, when some female pop icon (I think it was Madonna) got pregnant around the age of 40 or so, and was just going on and on about how great it was on all the various female talk shows. I seem to recall a certain amount of chatter about the irony of the Material Girl taking to becoming motherly, and hearing some doctor saying something along the lines of “well, duh, women’s anatomy is 80% geared to reproduction, they’re basically walking incubators, of course she’s happy/fulfilled now that she’s completing her biological purpose”. I don’t recall him getting much in the way of applause.
I tend to agree that it is quite likely that the body has various feedback mechanisms to naturally channel us into certain behaviours (i.e. reproduction is a highly desirable trait = sex is pleasurable), and that motherhood (the whole thing, from the initial act, to childbirth, nursing, etc.) likely contains a whole pile of biological and chemical positive feedback mechanisms. The fact that women are not even close to using “their full reproductive capacity” means that they are missing out on all this positive natural feedback. And I’m sure that when we’re not actualizing our essential natures, there’s probably some negative feedback, to boot. No menstrual cycle when preggers, for example, so if you have lots of kids, let’s just say six, that’s 4.5 years of no PMS vs. 0, 9 months or 1.5 years for most women today. And the fact that women have periods and men don’t is a big source of ‘boys have it better than girls’, I’ve heard that from females including my own daughter.
The fact that the male role, biologically speaking, is somewhat more limited means that we can actualize our role (i.e. spread the seed) regardless of the outcome, i.e. if there’re kids or not. Not that men don’t want kids, but biologically speaking we aren’t directly implicated, so our biological feedback ends with the post-coital cigar. Hence we are more naturally contented no matter what happens post-coitus, biologically speaking. Which is why “you can’t get laid” is shaming language to a man, not to a woman, and the reverse is true for “what, still childless?”
And, as to why women blame men, well, biologically speaking men were always necessary to help women fulfil their biological imperative, i.e. knock them up, and so men helped women achieve fulfilment. Since men were always the once helping women fulfil their biological imperative, it’s men’s fault that women aren’t feeling fulfilled, even though teh womenz themselves are going against their nature and choosing not to have children. It is of course illogical, but we’re talking about the female thought process here. I’m not haaaaaaaaapppy, and it’s you’re fault.
@Paul
I think that must be it. In giving women everything they could want and indeed say they want, women are not actually getting what they really need; is it any wonder they are unhappy. The western governments – shafted by their religious belief in ever greater Democracy – promise ever more directorships, academic-posts, and government-sinecures to females, but I am prepared to go out on a limb and predict that this will not assuage by so much as an iota, women’s unhappiness, indeed they will be even more unhaaaapy than before, and ever more envious of men.
It still leaves me puzzled however, as to why women seem to hate themselves so much, as well as their need to take it out on men. Lion’s don’t go round bemoaning the fact that they like to chase and eat gazzelles, nor do they blame the gazelles for being caught: women however destroy the childen in their womb but blame men for their being childless; deprive me of university places and employment and then blame men for their not being Captain’s of Industry, or Field Marshalls; sleep around then complain they are no longer regarded as chaste; divorce the husband of their choice (repeatedly) and then complain that men are no good. I am guessing that there must be an evo-psych explanation but what it can be I have no idea.
In the meanwhile women continually allege sexual provocation by men, yet in reality, men are so fed up with women, they actively avoid them – and all a woman needs to do is be pleasant, smile a little, not be too fat, and men will promise to devote their entire energies and income to the woman and any children she produces – some oppression that!
Just dropping in to comment…
While Dalrock might be accurate with regards to the political motivations of feminism, from what I’ve read the actual change itself is much more rational. There are already women serving important roles in front-line situations, especially in Muslim countries like Afghanistan where men cannot interact with the local women without backlash. This change will help strengthen those operations and help the military focus on getting the job done rather than what the women are or aren’t allowed to do.
Sure, in the greater context of feminist territory marking this move favors them. However it’s basically a gambit. The military wants the ban removed for practical reasons, feminists want the ban removed for political reasons. If the military wants what’s best for itself they have to give the feminists the political victory.
Ultimately I think most of the arguments about this are worse than the change itself and will only reinforce feminist attention-seeking.
Why yes,have the US military replace this bad Afghan husbands.
What right do they have to their own culture in their own land anyway?
Alpha male has larger gun!
(Altho mommy never forgets who killed her boys)
Lad
While Dalrock might be accurate with regards to the political motivations of feminism, from what I’ve read the actual change itself is much more rational.
Where did you read this?
There are already women serving important roles in front-line situations, especially in Muslim countries like Afghanistan where men cannot interact with the local women without backlash.
Those missions are almost totally different from the combat MOS’s. There is no physical requirement to be an interpreter, or to search women. There is no expectation that a woman in that role will have to carry a 500 round box of ammunition for the squad automatic weapon, a couple of mortar bombs for the platoon mortar, multiple 2 liter canteens (8 pounds per gallon), 300 rounds of ammuntion for her carbine and all this while wearing body armor and a pot on the head. Similar for artillery, similar for anything on tracks, and so forth.
Women are now supposed to be eligible to serve on subs, both attack boats and missile boats (boomers). A woman who becomes pregnant on either will have to start wearing an oxygen mask as soon as she knows, because the CO2 ratio on board is often not the same as above water. Boomer are supposed to get lost and stay lost for months – what does a pregnant woman on board do to that? Attack boats have what is called the “hot bunk” system – every bunk on board is occupied by a man sleeping at any given time, so three men share a bunk during the full round of watches. That has to be rebuilt to make it possible for even a single woman to serve on board.
This change will help strengthen those operations and help the military focus on getting the job done rather than what the women are or aren’t allowed to do.
It appears you have not much knowledge of the military, or what its job is, or what the limitations of women are. “The military” in this case is a handful of politicians in uniforms…
wow Matthew King (King), you are Chock Full o yourself
talk about your Long March of Envy!
good luck on that
The enemy can do something to female POW’s that couldn’t be done to the men. They can force them to produce enemy spawn. I wonder if anyone has ever considered that?
Pingback: Boy Scouts at the Event Horizon of PC « Retrophoebia
Pingback: Remaking the princess, evicting the prince. | Dalrock
Pingback: Intrasexual Competition and the Strong Independent Woman. | Dalrock
Pingback: If women can’t be manly Marines, then manly Marines must wear girly hats. | Dalrock
Pingback: Couponing in the Line of Duty | Retrophoebia
Funny the example of Amelia Earhart. She was a poseur way over her head and died as a result. It happened to a few women in the eighties and nineties that were promoted too fast and put in a fighter they could not handle. Just to serve the politically corrct expedient to have “the first female fighter pilot” or “fist female aviator” etc.
Don’t get me wrong there are plenty of female pilots, some very good ones, all the way back to the thirties. The point is that some females in 80s and 90s joined “manly” occupation for the wrong reason. Not love of aviation or engineering, but because they had a chip on their shoulder. Darwinisim handled that. Some were pushed ahead to platforms they could not handle for political reason and paid the price. The system gamed them.
I can see women in a lot of roles in the armed forces, but Infantry is not one of them. Just because a rifleman (or whatever each service cals them) is just a mule with a gun. You have to be strong, resiliant, tireless. Infantry is a bad place for women for the same reason professionnnal football is, or NHL hockey is. It’s even worse for elite outfits, the physical requirements are just crazy. That Italian chick looks fine, but if she’s really a paratroop… the Italians armed forces are in trouble or tha pic was heavily re-touched.
“Where a goat can go, a man can go. Where an man can go, he can drag a gun” Quote from some Brit artillery officer.
“The next step for feminism would be to curb, by law, a man’s ability and right to start his own business.”
There are such laws already in place: Tax credits for female owned businesses. And even more so for minority female owned businesses. The playing field is tilted.
This is another form of state enforced wealth transfer from men to women.
Israelis have noted issues with women in mixed combat units and they have probably the most experience to draw from. During the formation of the Israeli state, a significant number of women was in the militias, the precursor to the IDF (this is not entirely unusual in circumstances of guerrilla warfare when the stakes are extermination rather then defeat). In 48′ they were effectively barred from front-line duty and have served in supporting roles (military service for both sexes is mandatory, although women have an easier way out).
They’re trying to put them back in now, but the results are not so promising:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2014/06/new-study-by-idf-reserve-colonel-says.html
Of course Israel has an interest in trying it out – their enemies outnumber them very severely. However, it comes with a host of downsides. Despite the feminist “push” to open all services to women and a big proportion of women in the army at large, women compromise 3% of front-line combat roles.
The problem is that the treatment is not equal; they don’t suffer the consequences of their actions. When an incident ( http://israelmatzav.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/female-combat-soldier-hid-from-battle.html ) happened, instead of doing the normal thing – punishing the soldier for cowardice in combat – the institutions and media try to “protect the woman” and cover up the incident.
This is one of them main problems I see with feminism worldwide (I’m not from the US, so we don’t have such legal insanity issues like, eg. having to pay child support for children which are not your own). Equality without equal responsibility and equal duties is just a sham.
This is not even touching on the fact whether integrating women makes for a more effective combat force or not. Which should be the main consideration when we discuss military matters, because a less effective combat force means more body bags returning, and for countries which are not blessed by having a strong nuclear deterrent like US, Russia and a few others, the possibility of occupation. The price of being politically correct instead of truthful when the military is in question is too high.
Pingback: The women rebel. | Dalrock
Pingback: Army to ISIS, Russia, Etc: “Check yourself, we’re sending women to Ranger School!” | Retrophoebia
Pingback: Turning a blind eye. | Dalrock
Pingback: They can’t experience manly pride, so neither can men… | Dalrock
Pingback: Back In School and Wasting Time | Retrophoebia
Pingback: Feminist self loathing | Dalrock
Pingback: Weak men screwing Star Wars feminism up. | Dalrock
Pingback: She wanted to run with the bulls. | Dalrock
Pingback: Sunday Morning Cartoons | Dalrock
Pingback: Fragile femininity and our masculinity crisis. | Dalrock
Pingback: Every submarine, every SEAL team. | Dalrock
Pingback: Back In School and Wasting Time – Falling Outside the Normal Moral Constraints
Pingback: It tastes better that way. | Dalrock
Pingback: You can’t argue with the boy. | Dalrock
Pingback: The Ugliness of Male Submission | The 96th Thesis