Neanderthal Sexist Military Type Argues that Women are Actually Different from Men

And she should know.  Turns out she thinks the job of the Marines is to kill people and break things, not serve as lab rats for dimwits in our Ruling Class to experiment on.  Somebody could get killed out there while our genius Ruling Class is playing with its human toys.

  • Stu

    Her views are typical of many women I served with during my career. Even with my very open opposition to women in any combat role, I always recognized that the women who were often under my command were there for a desire to serve their country. And some of those women, in their roles, excelled. And they excelled to the point that in a few instances I ranked them #1 when evaluation time came around. But even with their very positive contributions, the presence of women in such environments brought more negatives than positives. It was, overall, a net loss in readiness and efficiency. That’s not a negative comment about women. But rather a recognition that men and women and built differently.

    With my female “peers”, I was and remain up front in my opinion on this matter. There was no question that they knew how I felt because the topic came up often and I’ve never been quiet about my views on anything especially when the PC groupthink needs a countering voice. I also treated them like professionals AND like “ladies.” Perhaps a bit counter-intuitive, but I was often the person they came to in order to discuss hardships and challenges that any other officer faces. Nearest I could figure is that by being very open in my opinions and manner in which I treated them (not as “one of the guys” but as a women who is NOT my wife) they knew I would be sincere and honest in my advice. I was also “safe” in that I wouldn’t make advances on them. It was during those conversations when many of them would confide in me that the military is a “man’s place” but they had already signed up for it and needed to complete their duty.

    Modernism seems to demand that equality means that the feminine is valued only when it emulates the masculine.

    • kmk

      Excellent last sentence, Stu–nailed it!!!!
      kmk

      • kmk

        PS, Stu, were you stationed at Fort Campbell in the early ’90′s?

  • Katie in FL

    “Modernism seems to demand that equality means that the feminine is valued only when it emulates the masculine.”
    Bingo.

    • Katheryn

      If I weren’t too busy being oppressed by my meaningless vocation of wife and mother, I would write a doctoral thesis on the subject of feminism and its emasculating effects….

  • Blog Goliard

    Feminism has many facets, many branches. All of the secular and ideological varieties have at least one show-stopping contradiction at their heart.

    With the academic, left-liberal, social-engineering varieties, that contradiction is the following:

    1) Men and women are exactly the same; anyone who insists they are different is anti-equality and therefore a bad person. (I tried writing “sexist”, but using that word too many times in the same comment seems to trigger the spam filter.)

    1a) Each and every difference between women and men–if it cannot be spun as a good thing–is to be denied or minimized or declared irrelevant to women’s fitness to a particular task (e.g. not all women have less upper-body strength than men, and the military’s standards are unreasonably high anyhow, and the only way to prove we’re not sexist is to engineer equal outcomes to the fitness tests). Anyone who would allow such differences to produce a male-favoring gender imbalance in any thing whatsoever is anti-equality and therefore a bad person.

    2) Women are different from men; anyone who expects them to be the same is operating from patriarchal assumptions and therefore a bad person.

    2a) Each and every difference between women and men–if it can be spun as a good thing–serves as an illustration of why women are better (e.g. women are more empathetic and less confrontational, so we need as many female judges and legislators as possible). Anyone who doubts that these differences are universal, or finds them oversold, or detects a possible downside to them, is a misogynist and therefore a bad person.

    3) There are no contradictions to be found when combining points 1, 1a, 2, and 2a above; anyone who insists otherwise is trying to impose a form of logic that was specifically constructed to perpetuate the patriarchy, and is therefore a bad person.

    • Stu

      I never knew I was so “bad.”

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      I remember in the early 90s, John Stossel did an evening special suggesting that men and women really were different. I remember Gloria Steinem and Patricia Ireland lambasting Stossel for jeopardizing everything feminists had been fighting for by suggesting such a thing.

    • Margaret

      anyone who insists otherwise is trying to impose a form of logic that was specifically constructed to perpetuate the patriarchy, and is therefore a bad person.

      I have been on the receiving end of this, at MIT no less. The female students staffing the Pro-Life both were accused of being “logo-centric” by some women’s studies student or another. (Yes, even MIT has women’s studies.)

      • kmk

        It is very fabulous that MIT has a pro-life group! Way to go!!!!

        • Margaret

          Pro-life at MIT, and we had the cheek to discuss scientific matters like fetal development, which only further demonstrated our false consciousness and unwitting slavery to the patriarchal logo-centric mindset. Or something.

  • http://yardsaleofthemind.wordpress.com/ Joseph Moore

    Mark, I think you’ve gotten the Neanderthal position wrong, and their feelings are probably hurt. It’s our massively-browed, chin-free ancestors who are (or were, until we wiped them out – man, it’s like Dances with Wolves!) progressive in their thinking. With their much less pronounced sexual dimorphism (Neader-gals were built more like smallish linebackers and much closer in size to Neander-guys) it’s possible they didn’t suffer from the heinous discrimination we Sapiens-Sapiens inflict on each other – Neander-gals probably went out and got killed trying to take down mastodons just like the Neander-guys, so this whole women on the front lines thing would have seemed moot to them.

    Of course, this might have contributed to their comparatively poor culture – all that cool cave painting and elaborate burial ritual stuff that marks what we call ‘people’ seems be the work of us modern-types with our 40% larger and stronger males. Neanderthal ‘art’ looks pretty weak in comparison. A size difference in sexual dimorphism, biologically speaking, strongly tend to denote different roles – not better or worse, but different. Similarly-sized Neander-gals and Neander-guys were able to share equally in the work of not creating a culture to speak of.

    But let’s at least acknowledge that our Neanderthal sisters and brothers were way, way ahead of their time in putting their women in harms way, which is no doubt why our patriarchal oppressor Cro-Magnon ancestors committed genocide on them (not that we have any proof they did, but in theory it’s *perfect*!). Not having a culture to speak of is an acceptable price, especially if the culture you’d not be having prominently features Lady Gaga and reality TV.

    • S. Murphy

      This is good!
      (Where’s the *like* button?)

  • David Norris

    You know, Mark, being against “social experiments” in our military was exactly the language the racists used when they opposed integration of the armed forces. Just a thought you’d like to know!

    • Mark Shea

      Annnnnd you’re done here.

      • kara

        So boring troll is now boring *and* banned?

        • Mark Shea

          Don’t need jerks in my life.

          • kara

            Good. First nice thing that’s happened all day.

      • http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/ Zippy

        <irony>I’m just desperately trying to understand how it is that you aren’t just exactly like a racist, Mark. I haven’t actually called you a racist or anything. I just can’t understand how you aren’t one.
        </irony>

      • Katheryn

        Awww, don’t ban him! He’s ever so much fun.

    • Mark Shea

      You know, being atheist was exactly the language the commies used when they slaughtered millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of innocent people. Just thought you’d like to know!

  • Kenneth

    Is the fact that one woman suffered injuries and fatigue under combat conditions conclusive evidence that no woman can handle the job ever at any point going forward? Are young women coming up into and through the military ready to accept the premise that she is the strongest and fittest and most physically capable female our species has ever produced, and therefore their combat ambitions are utterly futile? Are they content to accept the conclusion, in advance, that any qualification for combat they might attain could only happen as the result of some politically-correct gimme program that puts a thumb on the scale?

    It seems we’ve been down this road before of pre-judging entire classes of people and concluding that they’re simply not up to spec for the military. Not so very long ago, it was “obvious” that black men were unsuited to front-line infantry roles outside of segregated units. They were “known” not to have the mental agility to make good pilots, until the “ruling class experiment” of Tuskegee. For some time after that, they were “known” not to make good command material. Asians weren’t figured to be good infantrymen, or trustworthy for anything but stoop labor. Besides, they were little guys. How could they bear up under the job of real men in real combat? Out of some experimental thinking (and desperation), the ruling class fielded the 442nd in WW II. The Germans dearly wished we hadn’t done that.

    We learned the hard way in Vietnam that size and strength are not the only deciding factors in combat ability. Most of those guys were smaller than a lot of our women solidiers, and the Vietcong women weren’t much bigger than our middle schoolers. A lot of them did die, of course, but that’s also why they beat us. They understood that war is a deadly business, not an extreme sport that can be made injury-free by limiting your army to its most elite male atheletes

    • Stu

      Differences in melanin present in the skin are not the same as rather signficant demonstrable physical difference.

      As to Vietnam, they “beat us” because we didn’t choose to actually win. The objective was the issue.

      • Kenneth

        People used to believe that racial differences were much, much deeper than skin color. That was orthodox science for a long time and conventional societal wisdom until the day before yesterday, in historic time scale. There are actual physical, average differences that have nothing to do with racialist theory, of course. The issue then becomes whether an individual has what it takes for combat or any other classification. That’s why we test them as individuals, rather than playing probabilities. We could, for instance, accept men on no other basis than the fact that their fathers were good combat soldiers. We might, statistically, get a better crop of men than the pool of men off the street. But we still think its a good idea to check them out as individuals. We can assume that many, perhaps most women will not be suited to forward infantry roles. Statistically, it’s a safe bet, but it also throws away a lot of good talent that is worth seeking and developing, and it is unfair to the women who are willing, and quite possibly able to make the grade.

        • Stu

          Just because people believed and were wrong about racial difference doesn’t make gender differences false.

          Having women in combat roles, even the ones they opened up long ago, is not as simple as saying that any given woman can replace any given man. The physical issues are obvious and very real. But even beyond that the social issues are very real as well. I’ve been in units that are all male and then when females were introduced. There is a very real change. The Band of Brothers quickly becomes a group of would-be suitors.

          In war, I want to have a focused bunch of aggressive men, not the cast of Star Trek.

          • Kenneth

            Arguments about “unit cohesion” vs outsiders have no merit at all. That was exactly the argument employed against racial integration, and more recently, against gay soldiers. “That will hurt readiness because the boys won’t get along.” The boys need to suck it up and learn some professionalism and how to do their jobs, and command needs to create a culture which rewards that and accepts nothing less. There’s a lot of young guys in the military, but it’s not the high school cafeteria anymore and they need to learn that sooner or later. Sooner would be better when lives and national security are on the line.

            • Stu

              So because it was used for racial integration, it is automatically wrong now (or even for homosexuals)?

              A lot of big talk coming from a guy who hasn’t been there. I think you have watched too many war movies in your life and have no grasp of reality. In fact, if you got up in front of a bunch of young men and attempted to lead them with such talk, you would fail miserably. Leading men in arms is part authoritarian, part father, part spiritual leader and part referee. It’s a mix and you have no experience in that realm. And to boot, you need to understand the men you are leading and remember what it was like to be in their shoes at that age. This is often forgotten by old men. You put one women in the mix of a testosterone charged environment and no matter how attractive she is (or isn’t) it doesn’t take long before at least one guy is attracted to her. Yes, that affects unit cohesion. I can assure you that sex is rampant in war zones now and on ship. RAMPANT. And your little “pep talk” about being professional will not change that.

              Heck, the number one reason for senior officers being dismissed is sexual impropriety with fellow service members. And you expect the kids to live up to a higher standard?

              We were a better fighting force when it was all men. Only the technology hides that fact now.

    • Blog Goliard

      We have indeed been down this road before, from firefighting to West Point. Not the race road you’re trying to divert us to (what is it with people on the left and race obsession anyway?), but the gender-equality road.

      Every single time, the number of women who were able to meet the existing physical standards proved to be very very small. And every single time, this problem was dealt with by dramatically reducing the physical standards…at least for women.

      • Kenneth

        We’re resorting to small thinking on this issue, as we so often do as a country now. We’re being presented with a false choice: Either we admit all women on progressive equality doctrine and bogus standards that get people killed OR we write off the small population of able women because it’s just too dangerous and costly to open that door even a crack. That’s not the sort of thinking that wins wars or moves nations forward or even keeps them viable in this new century.

        I know this sounds like crazy talk and blue-sky fantasy, but how would it be if we viewed the military as a place to earn once post, and then give people the opportunity to earn it on their own merits and nothing else? We could take the position that women ought not to be placed in combat roles to fill some quota or social justice agenda, NOR to be barred from them because of the physiological fact that they will be under-represented there under realistic standards. That doesn’t seem like it should be an uncrackable technical problem. If it is, we ought to spare ourselves the agony of what’s ahead and seek terms from the Iranians, Chinese and North Koreans.

        • Blog Goliard

          “We’re being presented with a false choice: Either we admit all women on progressive equality doctrine and bogus standards that get people killed OR we write off the small population of able women because it’s just too dangerous and costly to open that door even a crack. ”

          It’s not a false choice. It’s reality. Experience has repeatedly taught us, in multiple fields of endeavor, over decades, that those are the only two options in front of us in our particular society at this particular point in time.

          Imagining another option, because there really *ought* to be another option (I wish there were too; though I also think there are plenty of other compelling reasons to keep women as far away from the battlefield as is practicable), does not make it a real, viable choice.

          • Kenneth

            You’re saying that A) You’re objectively certain there isn’t another option and B) You wish there were and C) You’re heavily invested in not seeing or employing such an alternative if it did come to light.

            • Blog Goliard

              A) Given the overwhelming weight of experiential evidence on one side, and the mere wishing it were otherwise on the other side, yes.

              B & C) Yes, I very much wish that it was possible, broadly speaking, for our society to treat men and women more equally, in more walks of life, with less sexism (including the female-chauvinist sexism that is now ascendant), without gender-norming or other watering down of standards, and while retaining a profound respect for the givenness and unique and profound qualities of both the masculine and the feminine.

              No, I would not be at all interested in using any such general improvements in that direction towards the specific task of putting more women on the battlefield as infantry, as the crusade to accomplish this is in my view completely mad.

      • Kenneth

        Lowered standards isn’t a problem unique to women in the military. There is a long history, into present times, of gaming the admission requirements to mate demand with supply. When our last wars of empire were in full force, they started waiving requirements for guys who were previously considered too fat to make effective soldiers (and who probably were, in fact). They also got pretty fast and loose with waivers for guys with criminal histories. That was running 12 percent or something at one point. Not all of these were for petty crimes, by a long shot. These things would seem to argue for expanding the pool of good recruits, even by a relatively small amount, of able-bodied women, and then to quit lowering the bar for everyone.

    • enness

      *In general*, knowing nothing else, would you prefer to have a man or woman hauling you out of the line of fire if you got injured? Be honest, you don’t have to worry about offending me.
      Sometimes it’s the exceptions that prove the rule.

      “People used to believe that racial differences were much, much deeper than skin color.”
      Are you suggesting it was not possible for anybody to see that as wrong and stupid at that time? I am sure you know better.

      “they started waiving requirements for guys who were previously considered too fat to make effective soldiers”
      You can go from being fat to thin a lot more easily than you can go from being a woman to a man — which brings me to another gender difference which women have been known to find particularly annoying: we tend to have a harder time losing fat.
      http://exercise.about.com/od/weightlossfaqs/f/menandwomen.htm

  • Stu

    “That’s not the sort of thinking that wins wars or moves nations forward or even keeps them viable in this new century.”
    —————-
    Really? What do you know about winning wars or leading men in combat?

    • Kenneth

      Not a damn thing about leading men in combat, or even being led there. But the history of nations, and warfare, demonstrates beyond a doubt that victors never get that way by small thinking and can’t-do attitudes. The founding of our nation, and WW II, the Manhattan Project, the moon landings, eradication of polio, any worthwhile direction you care to look in our history, we prevailed by taking on the problems that looked too absurd to try. We succeeded when, and only when, we dared step beyond the chalk line of the social, economic and technical common wisdom we had drawn for ourselves at the time.

      • Blog Goliard

        Madmen also take on the problems that look too absurd to try.

        In the last century alone, around a hundred million people were killed as a result of such projects.

      • Stu

        What military conflicts have been involved in since WWII that would have gone better if would have simply had more women in the combat ranks?

        • Kenneth

          The question of whether wars would have “gone better” depends on many factors such as political will and realistic definitions of victory. To the extent that outcomes are dictated by troops on the ground, they would have gone better if we had recruited and accepted the best our nation had to offer without regard to race or gender. Would women infantry troops have tipped the outcome of history in Korea, Vietnam or the Middle East? Very doubtful. Their numbers may have ranked in the thousands, or hundreds, or dozens over that time. I just don’t see how any nation or military would want to aim to have anything less than the best fighting force they could have.

          • Stu

            Yes, I don’t see how any nation or military would want to aim to have anything less than the best fighting force they could have. And again, I don’t know of any situation in battle where the commander would say, “if only we had more women in the ranks!”

            • Kenneth

              In 1942, you would not have known of any situation where a commander would say “if only we had more Japanese guys in the ranks.” In fact, they weren’t even trusted to live at large in ordinary civilian society. The 442nd became the most highly decorated infantry regiment the U.S. Army ever fielded.

              No one in that time period thought Native Americans had much of anything to contribute to the world, let alone the military. They were dismissed as dirty, backward people who had to be broken of their language and customs. Cryptography was a high mathematical art for white folks and university men. We took Iwo Jima when we did in no small part because someone gave the Navajo the chance to show what they could do. We got the Manhattan Project done because Germany decided Jews had nothing worthwhile to contribute to science or society.

              We don’t know what women could contribute to combat because we’ve refused to look. Maybe, somewhere among them, is the best sniper the military ever had, or the best tank gunner or some of the best combat engineers we’ve ever had. Maybe that women’s intuition business would get some IEDs spotted in time to save lives. Maybe we cast that net and nothing much worthwhile turns up. The historical record of casting wide nets for talent is promising enough that we’d be fools not to try.

              We have women in combat now, but we’re just not honest enough to admit that. I’m not just talking about truck drivers who get ambushed. We had, and maybe still have for all I know, “Female Engagement Teams” in Afghanistan, in hot areas/”front line” roles. It turns out Islamic women in extremely conservative societies don’t much talk to foreign men. They can talk to women, and sometimes have intelligence that saves lives. So we’ve already decided that women are good enough to be in combat roles where lives are on the line, just not good enough to own the job description.

              • Stu

                You continued attempts to equate real and demonstrated differences in gender with superficial characteristics such as skin color is the flaw in your understanding this.

                I know all about the women on the “engagement teams” and such. I also have close male friends who have to escort these female teams around and it simply isn’t worth the cost.

                You are way out of your expertise here. Does that disqualify you from the conversation? No. But you really should reflect on the fact that you are talking out of your…on much of this.

          • enness

            You know, we had entirely black units in the Civil War. It didn’t bring them ‘equality.’ Arguably, people saw them as expendable and didn’t much care if they got killed.

            “No one in that time period thought Native Americans had much of anything to contribute to the world, let alone the military. They were dismissed as dirty, backward people who had to be broken of their language and customs. Cryptography was a high mathematical art for white folks and university men. We took Iwo Jima when we did in no small part because someone gave the Navajo the chance to show what they could do. We got the Manhattan Project done because Germany decided Jews had nothing worthwhile to contribute to science or society.”

            You are speaking of intellectual contributions. That’s fine. But the argument is not that women are stupid or untrustworthy — it’s that they are physiologically different, generally speaking.

  • kmk

    Hi, Kenneth,
    It seems to me that, aside from the actual physical disqualifiers (and if the tests are objective, then no women will qualify, unless they alter their bodies so they do not menstruate. That is absolutely a hindrance to unit capabilities, just as someone who has asthma or recurring hives or any number of issues do not get in to elite units. Notice what that assumes, though: that there is something wrong with the natural function and purpose of a woman’s body. Pregnancy would not be so great for unit readiness, either! So this move is another step toward a culture of death), as Catholics, it is extremely difficult to square this move (send the women in to be killers and defend the menfolk) with “male and female He created them.” There are two genders here, not classes of people. “Classes” really means secular power, wealth, etc.–and throughout the centuries that balance changes (in any continent 1000 years ago, skin color didn’t mean as much as tribal affiliation, for example). Calling men and women different classes is an artificial construct.

    The question is, what does it mean to be a man, or a woman? Are there roles of defender/nurturer, especially in the natural building block of all societies, the FAMILY? It is an ideal, a goal, of course. There has never been nor in this life will there ever be a perfect, just society. The battle of the sexes began in the Garden, and will continue till Gabriel blows his trumpet. But I see the list of progress you have—founding of our country, Manhattan Project, eradication of polio, etc. These didn’t alter fundamental truths about who we are, how we got here, what ought we to do, and where are we going after death. I am speaking as a Catholic Christian, and not a pragmatic American. I love the USA and have indeed served to defend her, but my trust is not placed in her!
    ———————————————
    On another note, I guess one could look at this in the same light as artificial contraception and abortion. Who do these actions benefit the most? Men, of course! Women traditionally have the gifts of negotiating compromise, putting themselves in the others’ shoes, etc. Not saying that women haven’t done or incited great evil things, murder, culture of death type of things, but, down through the ages, men have generally been calling the shots about when and where societies and nations have go into combat. What a perfect progression, send our women in to fight for us–although practically you’d want them to bear more children, right–in the long run, that’s how wars are won–whoever has more boots on the ground, that’s the winning side. (Go, Amish! : ) ) Death, death, death, let’s have more.
    Lord have mercy on us, and our sons and daughters.

    • Kenneth

      The menstruation issue is easily solved, assuming it is the crippling readiness problem you suppose it is. Female astronauts have been dealing with that for a long time with hormonal contraception. Whether all of them used it, I don’t know, but so far as I know, nobody has been conceived on space missions, and it don’t get much “close quarters” than that!

      • kmk

        I guess with mission control turning cameras on night and day, I guess not!

        So again, women are asked to break or cripple the natural functions of their bodies to fit into a man’s world. Please check your facts regarding hormonal contraception, too.

      • enness

        Easily! By accepting a greater risk of blood clots and cancer! Easily! Ha!

  • Carbon Monoxide

    At the risk of being banned…Since I can’t see a good reason for any of the post WWII conflicts, maybe when the American public starts seeing its daughters coming home in body bags in large numbers they will have less stomach to let the Dear Leader de jure send them to these hell-holes to die for corporate America.

    • enness

      Why would that get you banned here? You might win a prize.

  • kara

    Gotta love the male civilian who knows better than the female officer who has been in/around combat situations. “Nothing says “gender equality” than asserting “I know the strengths of women better han this clearly weak-minded woman. Becasue I am a reasonable man and she is not.” Yay, feminism!

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    Kenneth, your outlook on life appears to me to be that whatever people want, they should get. Period.

    I find that a bit sad.

    Strong personal reaction. It’s been my own experience that whenever a society begins to believe that and behave that way the result is catastrophe, personal and social.

    • Kenneth

      My outlook is that whatever people want, they should have the opportunity to fairly and without manipulation, earn for themselves. Your outlook appears to be that only those judged worthy and likely to succeed should even have the chance to earn things for themselves. I don’t merely find it sad. I find it tragic.

      The entire premise of this country has been that a person has the right to go as far as their ambition and talents will take them, not arbitrarily limited to caste or family name or ethnicity or anything else. Equality of opportunity to try (and fail), not equality of outcome. If that’s not the case anymore, then there is absolutely nothing worth fighting for. The men and women fighting and dying are doing so for nothing more than the economic benefit and prestige of the royal and noble classes and to maintain a caste system where everyone’s station in life is circumscribed by who and what they were at birth.

  • http://Www.SaintLouisAcupuncture.com Dr. Eric

    I’ve been reading these comments and commented before. But have you ever seen a man fight a woman? Better yet, have anyone of you participated in a man vs woman fight, or even a sparring match?

    I am a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu student. In our adult classes there are women who want to learn to defend themselves. If you don’t know what Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is, think UFC cage fighting without the knees, elbows, punches and kicks. It’s as close as you can get to a cage fight without drawing blood. One of our students who outranked me (she started before I did) was a Division One college basketball player. She was fast, had single digit body fat and I outweighed her by at least fifty pounds. She lost every time (she tapped out) because I could over power her and use my weight as an advantage. (Don’t hate me because I made her tap, I never tried to hurt her, just put her at a mechanical disadvantage. And, this is what she signed up to learn, how to deal with a male attacker.)

    Another student who is currently training is ranked lower than me, but she outweighs me by at least fifty pounds. I’m stronger, faster, and have better technique than she does. I also can beat her easily even though she outweighs me.

    And, as I wrote before, the student who is an Illinois State trooper literally threw me off of him when I had him pinned by sitting on his chest. He out weighs me by 80 pounds or so and has a 400+ pound bench press. A woman doesn’t stand a chance in combat especially if it goes to close quarters or hand to hand.

    • Stu

      I have had the same experience in martial arts. On sparring nights, many of the young female black belts would come on the floor with a notion that because they have “training” that they were going to show a lowly white belt like me a thing or two.

      It was over before we started and they lost every time. Not even close.

      Takeaway: Charlie’s Angel movies are fiction.

      • The Next to Last Samurai

        Hear, hear! Every feminist who insists the girls can whup the guys should have to spend at least five classes training with men in a combat art.

    • enness

      A friend of mine reports that guys on his high school (!!) wrestling team were able to best female Olympians. You’d think that would be a more fair fight, but apparently not.

  • Chris M

    Yeah, pretty much every vet I know (male and female) thinks this is the worst idea since Greedo shooting first. Since it’s their asses on the line, I’ll take their opinion over the combox know it alls and some bureaucratic committee in DC.

    • kmk

      Amen! (I don’t know who Greedo is, though…)

      • S. Murphy

        Seriously? Star Wars, the original movie from 1977, AKA Episode IV. The bug-eyed green guy who threatens Han Solo in the cantina.

  • http://martinkelly.blogspot.com/ Martin

    Greedo didn’t shoot first. In fact, Greedo didn’t shoot at all.

  • Ed the Roman

    Widely overlooked (by numerous commenters) is that strength correlates very strongly (hah) with hand and foot speed. You may have better technique and reflexes than I do. But if I can accelerate my hands and feet quicker, and to a higher end speed (because I’m stronger):

    I may block you in time anyway, even with a slow start.

    When I hit you it will be harder, and your blocks may not be effective. And since this is *war* we’re talking about, disengaging means “you lose”.

    • S. Murphy

      Stength corresponds very closely with speed under full combat load, too; or even while carrying 5-gallon fuel or water jugs, or 30-40# ammo cans.
      And yeah, in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, we may have men and women spar together at ground-fighting or body-sparring; but we generally don’t have them do pugil sticks together.

      • http://Www.SaintLouisAcupuncture.com Dr. Eric

        That was my next question. Do they let the men fight the women in Basic with those giant Q-Tips?

        I see the answer is no.

  • S. Murphy

    I’d really like to know how those countries that are ‘ahead’ of us in this respect actually use their female infantry troops.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X