Five problems with a very obvious solution

Normally I rather enjoy's highly irreverent and thoroughly offbeat commentary on issues large and small. Recently, however, they published a list that purported to show how hard life is for women in the military, and I have to say that I got more than a little annoyed with it. The underlying assumption of the article was, of course, that it was right and proper for women to be serving in the military, even in combat.

This is complete and arrant nonsense.

With the greatest respect to women in this part of the 'Sphere who have served in the military (e.g. RedPillWifey, among others), war is the province of men, and that is precisely where it should stay. I have said this before, and I will say it again: women have absolutely no place in the military, whether ancient or modern. The most sensible modern militaries, such as Israel's, recognise further that women have exactly zero place serving in front-line combat roles and refuse to allow them to do so.

This is entirely right and proper; indeed, it is the only morally and empirically defensible choice.

When presented with this sort of argument (feminists call it "pigheadedness"), of course, the first reaction of almost any woman, feminist or otherwise, is the usual headsplosion followed by, "HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SAY THAT YOU MISOGYNIST PIG?!?!". This is about as rational as such a discussion ever gets. That is most unfortunate, because there happen to be very good reasons why violence and physical conflict are masculine realms of endeavour and should always remain that way.

The first and foremost reason is of course that women are, by far, physically weaker. It is difficult to understand just what a big gap there is between a man's strength and a woman's unless you've actually trained with women. I have. It sucks. Whether you are talking about lifting weights or doing martial arts, it should be quite obvious to anyone with eyes that women simply cannot keep up physically with men. This was borne out in the most recent attempts to increase female enrollment into the Marine Corps; most of the candidates for the physical fitness test failed it outright when measured against male standards of strength and fitness. (It is telling just how far the insidious rot of political correctness has crept into our institutions that the link, which goes to a Washington Post article, goes to great pains to explain that women are in fact capable of doing chin-ups; I would like to invite the idiots that wrote this article to attend my gym someday and watch the women there barely manage 5 "chin-ups" on a machine with serious weight assistance, while yours truly does 20 in a row with a full range of motion.)

The second, and far more important, reason has to do with evolutionary biology. It is a cold, hard truth of biology that men are in fact expendable. Think upon this for a moment and you will see why it is true. A single man can, in the space of a day, impregnate 10 women with not much more effort or exertion than you or I might put into a hard squats workout. He is capable of producing sperm from the day he hits puberty (if not before, actually) until well into his dotage. Every male ejaculation spits out literally millions of spermatozoa, only one of which is actually necessary to fertilise a woman, and he is capable of doing this quite easily several times an hour with appropriate... uh, encouragement. His ability to generate offspring is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited. In fact, the realities of male expendability are such that not all sperm are created equal; as documented in the seminal book Sperm Wars by Robin Baker, men actually produce several different kinds of sperm, including spermatozoa that serve to block the ability of other men's sperm to impregnate the target female.

By contrast, women are valuable- extremely so, in fact, when you think about it. The cost to a woman of bearing a child is incredibly high; simply feeding herself as well as her offspring while in the womb is an extremely energy-intensive task, and that's not even counting the cost in energy, time, and effort required to actually raise a child. A woman has a finite number of eggs, and she loses those over time quite rapidly relative to her lifespan. Her window of peak fertility is very short- perhaps 15 years between her teens and her early thirties, after which it drops precipitously, to a degree that modern women seem to have astonishing difficulty understanding. She is only capable of conceiving at certain intervals, and given the way that humans have evolved (to stand upright with relatively narrow hips and waists), childbirth is a painful and nasty business that involves considerable discomfort. (Well, so I'm told, anyway.)

Because of this, a woman that takes substantial risks with her life and therefore her genetic value to the species is an evolutionary dead end.

And when you understand these facts and look at things from this perspective, you immediately realise that any society that would put its direct genetic future at risk by not only allowing, but encouraging, women to serve in combat, is a society that has abandoned its moral compass.

The Cracked article points out that women face serious problems when serving in the military- yet every single one of these problems is a direct consequence of a truly appalling failure to recognise and understand that men and women are different, and will always be different:
  • Women are expected to commit sexual favours to gain the approval of their male superiors - And you expected something different from dropping a bunch of women into a high-testosterone environment where alpha male qualities are highly valued?
  • Women have to deal with ill-suited combat equipment - War has always been a male occupation. It always will be, since men are pretty much hard-wired for risk-taking and aggression. Why on Earth would an institution designed specifically as an outlet for male aggression work for a sex that is so ill-suited to it?
  • The military has no idea how to deal with women's medical issues - Yes, in rather the same way that a feminised society has no idea how to deal with suppressed male aggression other than by diagnosing it with drugs. As the old saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
  • Women wounded in combat are treated like men - Rather more to the point, what exactly were they doing in combat situations in the first place?
Even ancient societies with a far more deeply ingrained warrior culture than this one understood that women should fight only as an absolute last resort. The Spartans, for instance, not only allowed for the possibility that women would be called upon to fight, they expected it- but if and only if there were no men to defend Laconia. If indeed all of the Lacadaemonian men were slain in combat, and the enemies of the city were at the gates, then yes, the Spartan women would take up arms in its defence. But this was an absolute last resort, and even a culture as militaristic and regimented as Sparta's (which also institutionalised pederasty, by the way- they were kind of a weird bunch) understood that a woman's place was as far away from the front lines as possible. That is precisely why Greek warfare evolved into what it did- to keep war out there where it belonged.

When I see stories of women wounded in combat, of double amputees who heroically fought to keep their comrades alive, I do not doubt their heroism and I do not question their strength of character. Instead, I doubt the worth of a civilisation that insists on risking its genetic future in the fires of war; I question just how far gone a society has to be to throw away precious lives so carelessly. A society that puts its women directly in harm's way to become mangled and maimed in the name of God and King (or President, in your case, I suppose) is not a society worthy of honour.

And I wonder whether a society that cannot understand the need to protect its women from the hell of war is so sick as to deserve death.

As far as I can tell, the answer, so far, is a resounding "yes".


  1. Sparta actually didn't normalize or legalize paedophilia or pederasty. In the film '300', when Queen Gorgo said: 'Only Spartan women give birth to REAL men', she meant it.

    Greece wasn't accepting of homosexuality, as is popularly believed. They called them 'broad-assed', or 'pit-assed', and in lore the anus was associated with shame. So if someone practiced anal sex, they were shameful and therefore excluded from Greek society.

    1. Evidence?

      I do not necessarily disagree, by the way. From what I can see, the Spartans created a system of institutions designed specifically to create the finest citizen-soldiers in the world, dedicated solely to the defence of their homelands.

      Yet there can be, and have been, legitimate questions about exactly where Spartans drew the lines regarding homosexuality and pederasty. I have seen compelling arguments on both sides; contemporary material from Plutarch suggests that pederasty was insitutionalised, while Xenophon argues that this was not something to which the Spartans were well-suited. Modern historians such as Helena Schrader argue that there is no evidence at all to suggest that the Spartans practiced either homosexuality or pederasty.

      Greece wasn't accepting of homosexuality, as is popularly believed.

      Depends on what you mean by "accepting". Heracles, one of the most prominent figures in all of Greek mythology, was reputed to have numerous male lovers. And the tale of the Theban Sacred Band is well-known.

      It's worth noting that much of the evidence that we have for homophilia in Greek society comes from the accounts of a single writer- Plutarch. I would argue that this casts some doubts on the reliability of his accounts, but that's another question.

      Overall, I do not disagree with the argument that the Greeks were not all that tolerant of homosexuality. I simply think that they were far more tolerant of it than succeeding cultures and civilisations, including our own.


Post a comment

Contact the Didact:

Popular Posts