We're quaking in our boots

The resident crazy cat lady of the Daily Mail is back with what I can only assume is an article indicating the first signs of dementia:
Do women have the killer instinct? Should we be allowed to fight in combat on the front line? [Didact: NO.]
A new report says women should be allowed to go into battle on the ground alongside their male counterparts. 
A Channel 4 news item on the topic on Friday evening centred on the fact the equipment women would need to carry on their backs would be too heavy for us poor dears to cope with. They should film a segment outside Tesco this afternoon. 
Newscaster Cathy Newman had in the studio a former officer, Major Judith Webb, who is against women being able to kill other human beings on the front line, and who said ‘there is nothing wrong with being equal but different’ and that a woman would not be able to carry an injured man to safety. 
In favour of female armed combat was Brigadier Nicky Moffat. I was struck by how immaculate and smart they were; when Cathy Newman interjected, ‘Some women are pretty butch though’ I was shocked by her rudeness – how much more appealing were these two former officers than the average female office worker or politician, bra straps showing, hair akimbo, intent only on gossiping and drinking latte. 
I was surprised that what I thought was the inevitable argument against women being put at risk – ie, the fact we can be mothers – didn’t raise its head during the TV debate. 
I remember the furore in 1995 when a mountaineer, Alison Hargreaves, died on K2, and she was universally condemned for being so selfish, given she had two children. But surely we know by now that fathers are just as important to their kids. 
My feeling is that of course women should be able to fight in combat. Men need to be scared of us. [Didact: You really think that hardened mountain fighters like the Taliban or the Pesh Merga are going to be impressed by a bunch of literal Nancies in kevlar body armour and combat bras?]
A ruling allowing women on the front line might have a trickle down effect, empowering those of us in the civilian workplace to stand up for ourselves, demand equal pay, and an equal shot at promotion. 
Also in the news last week was the fact that Jennifer Lawrence, surely the main draw to any film she is in, and an Oscar winner, earned much less than her male co-stars. This revelation alone made me want to unsheath my bayonet. What century are we in? 
But of course we are always going to get the fuzzy end of the lollipop, even up against the least talented of men (I was once on a ship in the Thames along with 400 Navy personnel, and trust me, the men were weeds, the women Amazons). 
We are always going to be paid less, be disrespected, sidelined.

Want some examples? How about the fact that only a decade ago, on a Left-wing broadsheet that employs workers’ champion Polly Toynbee, I was paid just £100 a week to write a column; I paid my cleaner more, and she was also the recipient of my beauty freebies, which meant she had the most radiant skin in all of Dalston. 
But of course I accepted that £100, because I felt grateful. I didn’t value my own talent. [Didact: Must... resist... no... cheap... shots...]
Which is why, instead of reading some feminist bible that is all about whether or not we should wax, we should be reading the small print of our employment contracts, and planning our retirement. 
Women are certainly tough enough to kill, and with their bare hands. I think the proviso is we have to care about the issues we are fighting for. 
In a grain market in Ethiopia, I was all set to fight 400 men, who wouldn’t even take the load off their mules’s backs to let them rest in 40-degree heat. I had to be restrained by the NGO worker. [Didact: This is her idea of an example of female toughness???]
Working on a daily evening tabloid a decade ago, I complained about the fact I’d been at my desk since 4.30am, and had to wait until after the editor came out of a restaurant that night before I could go home; she wanted ‘options’. 
It was a job that made the invasion of Iraq seem like a walk in the park. The male deputy said to me, ‘Oh, don’t be so pathetic.’ 
Would he have said that to, ooh, I don’t know, Giles Coren? 
We need to be much, much tougher. Complain more. Stand our ground. 
So, come on girls. Grab those machine guns. Let’s blow these suckers out of the water!
This sort of thing is nauseating to read. It's perfectly clear that the author has absolutely no bloody clue about what it takes to make a real fighting force work in field conditions.

If you go by measurable strength standards, a man and a woman of equivalent weight and equivalent experience with strength training will have a strength disparity on the order of 60%. That's right- an untrained man weighing 148lbs will be able to bench press, squat, and deadlift half again as much weight as a woman of the same weight.

However, even factoring in his height, a man weighing 148lbs is not a particularly intimidating physical specimen- whereas a woman weighing that much is already a bit on the "chunky" side of things (again, height is a factor). So the right comparison is really between the "average" woman, weighing roughly 140lbs, and the "average" man, weighing at least 20lbs more.

And if we go by those standards, men aren't 60% stronger. They're nearly 100% stronger.

Nearly twice as strong. Nearly twice as capable of carrying heavy loads. Nearly twice as much endurance, physical stamina, and lift capability.

The differences in physical strength alone are so great, in fact, that of all of the women who tried to pass the basic physical requirements of the US Marine Corps- semper fi!- almost all of them failed.

Don't believe me? Ask Popp- unlike me, he's actually been in combat. Three times.


How many women do you know that will be able to carry 65lbs worth of kit on 12-mile forced marches? I don't know any. I'm not sure I could do it, and I squat 315lbs or more for fun.

The facts about strength alone would immediately destroy this dingbat's bloviating about putting women in front-line combat. But then this moron decided to make the utterly laughable argument that we men need to be "scared" of women.

Ladies, we're not scared of fighting women, because we know what that would look like. It'd look like the world's biggest cat-fight. That's not scary, it's just really irritating to watch.

And can you imagine the faces of enemies like the Russian or Chinese Army- or, hell, even inner city black and Latino mobs, when that time comes- when they see that they're being attacked by a gaggle of screaming banshees carrying scaled-down versions of full assault rifles without the same range, stopping power, or ammunition capacity?

The more civilised such enemies would laugh hysterically until they'd soiled themselves- and would then suck it up and deliver a metaphorical ass-pounding.

The less civilised such enemies would be rather more of a problem. After all, the capture and rape of female soldiers is a matter of real concern. That "metaphorical ass-pounding" would almost surely be more real and less metaphorical, particularly when we're talking about urban pacification in inner-city hellholes, or when fighting in the mountains against Grade-A certified misogynist nutbags like the Taliban.

Meanwhile, military organisations around the world that haven't subscribed to this equalitarian lunacy will welcome the day that women are given the opportunity to serve in front-line combat. Why? Because they will be facing a weaker, less resilient, less physically capable enemy that can be more easily outflanked, outmaneouvred and outlasted.

And let us not forget the psychological reality of women in combat either. It is well known and well documented that fighting men will go to tremendous lengths to save each other in war. Countless stories of heroism have been told and countless more have never seen the light of day, of men who risked their physical safety without a second thought to save a wounded comrade from death.

Imagine now what will happen when women are thrown into the equation. If women from a mixed-gender unit were captured, it is highly likely that the men would risk everything, up to and including the objectives of their mission, to save them. The reality of war is that men are expendable- we're cannon fodder, we always have been and we always will be. Women, however, are precious- they provide the next generation of cannon fodder.

Is that what these idiot feminists really want? Do they really want to risk more lives in war? Do they really want more men to die trying to save women who were put into the line of fire by a society so morally corrupt and so deluded by the babbling plague of feminist madness? Do they truly want more of their own to be risked in the fires of war?

A sane society would long ago have done the right thing and resolutely refused to bend its rules so much as a millimetre to allow women to serve in the front lines. Certain occupations will always be the domain of men, as they should and must be- they are simply too dangerous, too physically demanding, and too difficult for anyone else to do them.

Indeed, why is it that we always hear feminists calling for more women to be sent to die on the front lines- but we never, ever hear from feminists about how unfair it is that more than 75% of school teachers are women? After all, if you think about it, whether you're teaching or slogging in the dirt as a grunt, you're kind of doing the same things, right?

The pay is lousy, right? (Umm... actually, teachers get really good salaries thanks to the teacher's unions as they advance in seniority...)

The hours aren't great, right? (Er, wait, actually teachers get a LOT of time off...)

The benefits are that great either, right? (Uh... that's not true either...)

The working conditions are equally terrible, right? (Well... aside from the small matter of working in a job that puts you at risk of getting your ass shot off when you're a grunt- although I'm given to understand that in certain inner city schools with large black student populations, this is also a daily reality for teachers.)

So really, if you think about it, teaching isn't that different from being a grunt. Except, of course, for the fact that it's completely and totally different. And because teaching requires very different tolerances for risk and physical activity than being a ground-pounder, women overwhelmingly prefer the physical ease and safety of the first over the second, while men make the exact opposite choice.

In the end, the argument in favour of sticking women in front-line combat is not about equality. It is about needlessly risking human lives in the pursuit of an idiotic and deadly ideology that will get good people killed in the name of being "fashionable". Those who espouse such insanity should, by rights, be treated exactly as the idiots that they are.

I truly hope that Ms. Jones was joking when she wrote what she did. If she wasn't, then she absolutely deserves to be hauled out of bed in the middle of the night, given a 70lb rucksack- with body armour- and told to hike for the next 12 miles. Let's see how long she lasts before collapsing from exhaustion. I'm guessing less than 3 miles.

Comments

  1. Draft all of the WNBA. All the top of the top female volleyball players (some of those chicks are HUGE), all female boxers, kickboxers, mixed martial arts, tough soccer women, etc., et al...

    Give them a full branch of the armed forces, two years to train with the best of the best, then put them on the front lines.

    Sheesh. I'm tired of hearing these harpies. Let them give it a whirl. Maybe they'll shut up. Or at least being truly scared bloodless might articulate something of gratitude into them.

    I'm terrified of war, as a sane human should be. I'm no coward. But courage need not be stupid. It sure is useless coupled with envy, isn't it?



    ReplyDelete

  2. Start with the assumption that women are equal to men. Therefore an all female unit is equivalent to an all male unit. Therefore a mixed unit is not required.

    Set up an all female command structure and give them two standard training cycles to build up, at a minimum, a company sized force that WILL be deployed to a direct combat role at the end of the two cycles. If, by deployment time, they are unable to field at least a platoon, the entire experiment is automatically deemed a failure. The commanding officers will be permitted a window ahead of the start of the first cycle to drum up volunteers. If not enough volunteers are found, then females will be drafted from other MOS starting with the highest PT scores and working down until the unit is filled.

    The commanding officer will also have to work up a reserve force to provide replacements should the need arise.

    Don't forget to include weekly pep talks from Important Feminists (who, of course, wouldn't dare to volunteer).

    Now video tape the entire thing from beginning to end. They can edit for TV if they want, but all the raw footage should be kept for public viewing.

    My guess is that the marches would prove to be the biggest cause of drop outs, injuries etc.

    Also, I think you're being rather optimistic that Ms. Jones would be able to make it over 2 miles with that kind of load. Putting aside that she would need help to even put the pack on, I highly doubt her back and legs would hold out that long. Rucking is an exercise all its own and involves way more muscle groups than anyone thinks.

    Additionally, there is a very fine line between "this is heavy, but I can handle it" and "OMG this is really damn heavy". We're talking less than 10 pounds in my experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm actually sorely tempted to use a Trojan Horse tactic whereby guys like me publicly declare our support for women in front-line combat roles- but if and only if the units are all-female shock-infantry platoons deployed immediately to combat in Iraq or Syria or Sudan.

      Their complete and utter destruction at the hands of male fighters with no hangups about committing wartime atrocities on women might just finally put paid to this ridiculous notion that women should be allowed to fight wars.

      Delete
  3. I do think women should be allowed in front-line combat. Assuming that war is a numbers game, all female units would provide much-needed additional cannon-fodder.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts