When chauvinism saves lives

Feminists have long argued, with no empirical or biological justification whatsoever, that women can and should serve in front-line combat positions alongside men. And for the last thirty years, against our better judgement and in the face of all common sense, men have slowly been ceding ground, grudgingly giving way to the onslaught of stupidity that these shrieking harpies keep throwing at us.

The end result is that some of the world's greatest and most powerful military forces are now reduced to mockeries of themselves- and the primal and basic urge that most men have to protect women has been turned completely on its head.

And now, it would appear that the British armed forces shall soon join the inglorious list of nations that will not only allow, but encourage, women to serve in the front lines:
Women could soon be fighting on the front line alongside men as a rule preventing it is set to be relaxed. 
Former defence secretary Philip Hammond launched a review into women in combat in May, which is being overseen by General Sir Nicholas Carter. 
When it is concluded, which could be this week, it may give women the chance to act in the same roles and men. 
Currently, women can be on the front line and very close to the enemy when serving as medics, intelligence specialists, artillery spotters, logisticians or signallers. 
However, they remain barred from all infantry battalions and Royal Marine Commando units – including Special Forces – and from tank regiments and other armoured units.


But the ban has not stopped women from being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan - where they face a risk from bombs even away from the front line. 
In total, eight women have been killed in combat in the conflicts - which is just over 1 per cent of the total deaths.


Now, in theory, women could be allowed to join the Special Forces, such as the SAS. But to do so they would be expected to pass the unit’s gruelling mental and physical selection process.



But some are concerned about the practical issues that allowing women into all-male infantry units would cause - including where they would be housed.

Colonel Richard Kemp, a former officer who led troops in Afghanistan, said he believes the review will almost certainly recommend a greater combat role for women - but he believes it is a 'bad idea' that will create divisiveness.

He told The Times: 'If anything, I think it will be damaging for the army because it will probably lead to a reduction in physical standards because they will want to be seen to make it work.' 
He added: 'I have not spoken to a single serving infantry soldier who is not horrified by it.'


Major Judith Webb, who retired from the Army in 1986, also opposes close combat roles for women.



We have to accept that we are different physiologically,’ she said. ‘We don’t have the same upper-body strength.’ [Didact: You don't say?!]
In case you're wondering who Colonel Sir Richard Kemp is, he was one of the British Army's most experienced, decorated, and skilled officers. And, for a Limey, he's got his head screwed on remarkably tightly, considering his well-known positive remarks about the Israeli Defence Force and its conduct in war.

So when someone like that, who served fourteen tours around the world during his service to his country, says that putting women in the front lines is a galactically stupid idea, well, the rest of us might want to shut up and listen.

I have repeatedly pointed out that putting women in the front lines is not only absurd, it is incredibly stupid. The evidence is glaringly obvious for all of us to see. Women are physically weaker than men- it's just a fact. They cannot last nearly as long out in the field. They are incapable of taking on the kinds of extreme physical duress that are needed in hardcore units like the Marines, or the special forces.

And there is absolutely no question that sooner or later, the very same physical standards that made units like the US Marine Corps and the British Royal Marines some of the most feared and respected in the world, will eventually be relaxed so that "diversity" and "tolerance" and a "vibrant" military can be put forward as political eye-candy for the purpose of winning votes, rather than winning actual wars.

And as if the physical aspect weren't bad enough, there's the biological aspect to consider as well.

Let's be clear about this: if you stick women into front-line combat units with men, a certain amount of "fraternisation" WILL occur. It's just human biology. The problem with this inconvenient reality is that "fraternisation" between officers, or between enlisted personnel, or- worst of all- between officers and enlisted, is a great way to shatter the cohesion and fighting spirit of a military unit. Jealousy is an incredibly powerful human emotion, and it takes hold and destroys bonds like ice that splits apart granite in winter.

On top of all of these perfectly good reasons to avoid putting women in front-line combat, there is also the fact that the West faces enemies that aren't exactly afraid of women.

Do you honestly believe that a bunch of hardcore Sunni nutbags- who think that the child-molesting, lying, warmongering, mass-murdering, adulterous, lecherous, and treacherous so-called "prophet" of Islam was just the greatest guy ever- would be the least bit intimidated when faced with a mob of howling banshees in BDUs with custom-sized rifles and combat bras? Do you really think that their culture's supposed "exalted respect" for women would cause them a single moment's hesitation in shooting the ugly ones and raping the rest until they begged for death?

Do you really think that women in combat could really intimidate the Chinese Army? Or the Russian? They'd laugh themselves silly when they saw an infantry platoon of women, or a tank unit full of girls- and then they'd paste their opposition, because that's what you do in war. They're not going to be standing around exchanging vodka and dumplings and talking about the weather, after all.

What feminists call "chauvinism" is really nothing more than the deeply rooted, primal male desire to protect a woman. It is an instinct that has been dinned into us through millions of years of dealing with the hard fact that men are expendable, but women are not. It is an instinct that has guided and helped the human race since time immemorial.

It is this very instinct that feminists, in their so-called "wisdom", seek to eradicate.

In so doing, they argue in the face of biology, of practicality, of reality itself, in a vain attempt to convince us that up is down and white is black. They try to pretend that women can and should be exposed to the hell of war, the brutality of Man's most evil impulses, and that the rest of us should be just fine and dandy with that.

This is insanity. It is the very definition of the word. It defies all logic, all sense, and all possible moral justification.

And in the end, it's going to get women- and the men that serve beside them- killed.

Think about it. How many stories have you heard about a man in the army risking his own life to save that of a fellow soldier? That is the strength of the bonds forged by war. It is natural and normal and we have seen it happen in every war that Man has ever fought.

Now imagine what would happen if a woman got into trouble on the battlefield. Think you that an entire platoon of honourable and decent men would hesitate for even a moment to march into the jaws of Hell itself to get her out? And in so doing, sacrifice their own lives, so that the woman may live?

Read what I wrote above about men being disposable, and women being precious. As I said, this is a carefully cultivated moral and genetic survival instinct. We can't go against it without flying in the face of thousands of years of wisdom and genetic heritage.

I'm sure it is very fashionable indeed to think that a woman can and should do everything that a man can- even when she can't. But fashionable opinion that gets good men killed is nothing more than crass stupidity, and should be summarily dismissed as such.

What feminists call "chauvinism" may ultimately end up saving the lives of good women, so that they may become good wives and good mothers. If that is what results from chauvinism, then I'll happily accept the label of "male chauvinist pig" any day of the week.

At least I believe in saving the lives of women. All I can say for feminists is that they seem to believe in getting not only women, but men, killed for the sake of their twisted ideology.

Comments

  1. The people who push for women to serve in infantry units really don't have any idea of how hard of a job that is. I often think they just want to be able to say that they could join, but don't really want to right now.

    Start with all the stuff you have to carry. Sure, in basic training you carry around a 40 pound ruck, but once you hit actual combat you're looking at close to 100 pounds and in some cases close to 150 pounds. I've rucked with 110 pounds before and after the second hour, it was just a massive grind. Those combat loads were grinding hardened soldiers into the dust, never mind women.

    Infantry means hand to hand combat. Sure there are times when you can pick people off from hundreds of yards away, but actual punch throwing, knife stabbing etc. combat is still very possible. Take a look at what the Marines had to go through in Falluja. In situations like that brute strength is one of the biggest advantages you can have. It's the same thing in martial arts. You may have the best technique in the world but it's not going to make a difference if I can pick you up and throw you across the room.

    Whenever I talk with a women who advocates for women in the infantry I offer the following suggestions:

    1. Mandatory injection or implant based birth control
    2. Form one all female unit (after all, if both sexes are equal this is not a problem)
    3. If not enough women volunteer then the numbers will be filled in by internal draft (eg. you will get reassigned to the infantry unit)
    4. After a standard training cycle, this unit is put into direct combat (just like all male units)
    5. The training cycle will complete even if it means lowering standards. Any standards lowered will be noted for posterity.
    6. Rescue of female POWs will be at the same effort level and priority as male POWs

    All of these have been universally rejected by those I've talked to. Interestingly enough, for #5 they often comment "but if you lower standards then they may not be ready". To which I answer "but what if nobody can pass the existing standard?". Confused silence...



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything you wrote is correct. The difference in physical strength between a man and a woman of the same height and weight is enormous- something on the order of 160% for men and women, if you go by most powerlifting strength standards. And that's not even accounting for the fact that men simply generally weigh more than women.

      When it comes to H2H combat, no question, strength plays a big part. I've mentioned before that I hate training with girls in martial arts classes, and it's for this exact reason- I don't get anything out of it when I can simply pick up the average woman and break her in two.

      On the subject of all-female units- Tom Kratman went into considerable detail on this subject in his book, The Amazon Legion. His conclusion basically was that you CAN create a unit of women that would fight like demons, but they'd end up taking pretty nasty casualties- worse than a male unit would.

      The argument for female front-line combat soldiers is ultimately illogical, confused, and deeply dangerous to women. If we are chauvinists for wanting to prevent them from getting themselves hurt or killed, well, so be it.

      Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts