Women in the army

Feminist ideology and the effect it has had upon society
About this forum
This is an example of one thread - Feminism - which has recently been turned into its own subforum. Thus we are currently breaking that very interesting, but very long, thread into sub-discussions where appropriate. This will leave the original thread with a lot of views while the new threads will apparently have fewer. They'll begin to catch up though.

Women in the army

Postby Andreas » 05 Jan 2013, 19:17

A noteworthy moment of common sense and what one could call "recognition of reality," even in the liberal San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Infa ... 169527.php

Women in the U.S. army, and who are happy to be serving in the army, with few exceptions do not want to serve in infantry units.
Posts: 195
Joined: 04 Sep 2012, 22:31

Re: Women in the army

Postby Caleb » 07 Jan 2013, 06:24

An issue, with regard to female soldiers, that rarely seems to come up is that of rape of captured soldiers. I think it might be an issue anywhere, but especially in Muslim countries, that along with any other ways they might be tortured or mistreated, serial rape would certainly be very high on the list. One such case would probably completely reverse any decision to allow women in combat roles, though I hope it wouldn't have to come to that to make people see sense.
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: Women in the army

Postby Connor » 11 Feb 2013, 07:05

I've noticed that some forum members are familiar with Jared Taylor, who is well-known mostly for his "Race Realist" positions. Most of his writings are critiques of modern idols such as Diversity and Multiculturalism.

Apparently, he's also a "Gender Realist."

I would invite everyone to read this article in which Jared Taylor excoriates the American military's recent decision to allow female soldiers in combat. I find almost every paragraph of this article to be quotable, so I'll just allow people to read the link rather than excerpt it here.

My thought was that this article could be a springboard for a new forum discussion. Is there a place for women on the battlefield? I have no personal experience in the military (or in combat, for that matter) so I don't claim to have expert knowledge in this area. I find Taylor's skeptical attitude to be rather convincing though.

Then there's the related question: is the front-line of the military really a good place to try out sweeping social experiments? My instincts would tell me otherwise.
Posts: 113
Joined: 30 Aug 2012, 03:54
Location: New York, NY, USA

Re: Women in the army

Postby Gavin » 11 Feb 2013, 10:27

I agree with Jared Taylor's realism on this issue. Those arguments are convincing enough for me to say that women should not be in any combat role in the army.

I would emphasise, further, men's instinctive protectiveness of women (under attack from feminism today) and their wish not to see them in harm's way. This is completely at odds with having a woman as a member of your platoon or as an IED defuser. It is bad enough, no doubt, seeing your friend killed, in a sense worse having a woman die in front of you. If this is "sexism" I don't care; it is merely natural, and I think, admirable in men, much as feminists wish to destroy it.

Mr Taylor mentions the testosterone - of course women cannot carry the same gear as men, as they are also not as inclined (or able, psychologically) to kill. (Feminists are quick to tell us, after all, how relatively few killers are female.) This is because (surprise, surprise) is it more in women's nature to nurture.

I'd keep women, even the butch, macho lesbian types, well away from combat roles, because it will just lead to the kind of confusion and weakening that Mr Taylor describes.
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Women in the army

Postby Elliott » 11 Feb 2013, 13:59

Perhaps somebody can help me with my ignorance of army protocol. Taylor says this of Jessica Lynch:

Men take crazy risks to make sure women are not captured and to rescue them if they are. Remember Jessica Lynch, the 100-pound supply clerk who got into a traffic accident during the Iraq invasion and was taken prisoner? The Army told colossal lies about her Rambo-style knife fight with Iraqis—she went down on her knees to pray and never fired a shot—and then went to absurd lengths to get her back. There was a diversionary battle to draw off Iraqi troops, and a joint team of Delta Force, Army Rangers, Navy Seals, and Air Force Pararescue Jumpers—with much better things to do—snatched her from a hospital that turned out to be unguarded.

Am I right in thinking that, if the "lost" soldier had been a man, they wouldn't have tried to rescue him?
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Women in the army

Postby Gavin » 16 Mar 2013, 10:39

I thought I'd put myself through GI Jane just to see Scott's most feminist film of all. There's a line in it at the beginning where the female senator behind it all is asked "What do you say to people who say women are not as strong as men and can't face the rigours of combat". Her witticism in reply is "How strong do you have to be to pull a trigger?" - as if that were all that is involved!

I was just reading on the British Army site too about women in the army. There are smiling faces looking out at us as if this is any other career choice. One woman speaks of how she took two years paid leave to have children:

"I’ve been on operations as well. Leaving my family behind was tough...”

Tougher for the children, especially if the mother does not survive a tour of duty.

"... but it was still an amazing experience.”

"An amazing experience", sure, but I think when it comes down to it our army is about mud, sweat and blood. Unpleasant though it is. It's about loading ammo, aircraft carriers, lugging 40Lb backpacks, handling rifles, sharing bunks, waiting for five hours in the blistering heat trying to get a clear shot, camaraderie, joking about the women back home in times of extreme pressure, watching friends get blown apart and trying to keep rational. Shooting people with a rifle or even stabbing them with a knife if required: it's potentially and ultimately the last resort, not pleasant at all.

Further, it's about not being taken in by the child walking towards you with an IED strapped to them. This brings me to perhaps the only point where women might have an edge on men (though I don't think it anywhere near outweighs the above). Men, because of their natural protectiveness of women, can be reluctant to shoot the woman with the grenade whom cowardly Islamists will sometimes advance in front of them. Would a woman find this easier to do? Actually I doubt it. Any woman in the city knows than women can be malicious (often to each other), but they're not known to be killers as often as men. Further, these men have to actually kill without malice, as it were, without it being personal - they just have to kill the enemy, and I think most women would find that more challenging.

Further issues are detailed here.

What of the butch lesbians? "I'm a big strong woman, I've always liked fighting and I never want to have children". I would still doubt they're the same as men and would keep them out. They might change, it confuses things. We often make majority rules for the greater good, for simplicity. Perhaps people should not always be treated as individuals. This is a tricky one, but I still go with women not being allowed in the army, or at least in combat facing roles.

This brings us to another controversial point: gay men in the army. I think this may be okay. Gay men are usually more sensitive and I don't think many would actually want to go into the army, but it would probably be okay. Your average marine would probably be well able to defend himself against unwanted amorous advances. If the gay person did not go on about being gay all the time (as they shouldn't in civilian society either) then they'd probably just be one of the lads, and insults to gays need not be a part of army banter. But I think we mustn't lose sight of the fact that combat units are essential groups of hard, well trained individuals who are physically strong, face extreme situations together and need to be prepared to kill people.
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Women in the army

Postby Paul » 10 Aug 2013, 23:46

A good piece I think.

Ted and Sally
Ted Here, Sally There
July 22, 2013

I was in a gymnasium the other day, the sort in which you find perhaps twenty exercise machines lined up, each dedicated to toning but not really strengthening a part of the body. Although the place was empty except for me, a recorded female voice said over and over, “Change stations!” followed at intervals by something like, “All right! Ready, by the numbers…One! Two!....” etc. It annoyed me. I weary of constant instruction.

It caused me to reflect on the differences between the attitudes of men and women to gymnasiums, in which I have spent considerable time over the years. Women want aerobics and a very light workout, preferably as a social hour with someone calling cadence. I thought of that horror recommended by a (female) grade-school teacher to replace competitive sports - “a cooperative group activity led by a caring adult.”

By contrast, men do not go to gyms to have a group bonding experience, but to lift serious weight in reflective solitude. They seek strength, not tone, and do not want to listen to chirpy orders. In short, the sexes do not belong in the same establishments.

This led me to think of the National Press Club in Washington, of which I was a member many years ago. It was then for men only--a masculine place, there being over the bar a Maja Nude oil painting of a voluptuous woman. Men could hoist a brew, enjoy male company, and tell war stories.

Then it opened its doors to women. Shortly thereafter a young woman reporter accosted me and said approximately, “Oooh, we’re going to have South America night on Thursday and come in Spanish costumes and have piñatas and it’ll be soooo fun!” Oooooh! I resigned the next day if memory serves. So did a good many other men. There was nothing evil about South American Night. It just wasn´t what men did.

The club had to open up to women as these were coming to be a major part of journalism and the club was where important sources came to give talks. It is one thing to exclude a sex from a social club, quite another from a professional organization. But the invasion made plain that men and women have different modes of socializing. I noticed that if a group of men were talking and a woman entered the group, both atmosphere and behavior changed. I presume the same is true when a man joins a group of women.
I thought the solution would have been to have a pub somewhere on the premises for men only, a similar place for women only, and the rest of the club mixed. There was no hope of this. Whereas men would be perfectly happy for women to have a place of their own, women would never take a similar attitude toward men.

Sexual integration has graver effects. There is much wringing of teeth and gnashing of hands nowadays because boys are “struggling” in school. The problem could be solved in about ten minutes by having separate schools for boys, grade school through high school, with male teachers only and a death penalty for even uttering the word “Ritalin.” Let boys run, jump, wrestle, compete. Grade them on substance, which boys understand (How much algebra do you know?) not on diligence (Did you paste pretty pictures neatly in your unutterably boring, make-work project about diversity?)

Reward performance, not patience, and excellence, not being docile and cooperative and good in groups. Offer advanced courses that appeal to smart boys—calculus, for example—and grade on math learned, not homework done on time. Problem solved. It should gratify women, who don´t want boys in the schools anyway.

It is important to recognize that integration of the sexes is directly responsible for the slide by boys. Today’s schools are run by women for girls. Fine. Girls should be in schools run for girls. Boys should not. Female teachers want decorum and good behavior (not strong points for boys), dislike competitiveness, rambunctiousness and cutting up in class. Boys will engage in these unless heavily, and now chemically, restrained. Thus the drive to keep boys doped up.

Men as teachers can handle boys without having them led from class in handcuffs and subjected to psychotherapy because they drew a soldier with a rifle. Women cannot.

Resegregation is equally desirable at the level of the university. Today young men drop out, barely get through, or don’t go in the first place because of integration of the sexes. (The book to read is Men on Strike by Helen Smith)

On reaching campus a male student finds himself in a world of hostile feminism. He is told that he is a rapist, subjected to tedious indoctrination about sexual assault, and exposed to silly Take Back the Night nonsense by hysterical adolescent females.

The school will likely strike him as academically appalling. Outside of the hard sciences, virtually all courses will be heavy on victimization propaganda. In addition there will be whole departments dedicated to juvenile narcissistic self-pity: Women‘s Studies, Black Studies, Lesbian Chicana Transvestite Studies, Queer Studies, all of which could be subsumed under an overarching Department of Moron Studies. Not being stupid, and not being intellectual ungulates, young men quickly see that they are not going to learn anything since this is no longer the purpose of a university. They drop out.

Put them in a male-only university, with a male-only professoriate, and teach them history, the sciences, literature, mathematics, philosophy, and languages. Let them engage in athletics as they choose. Emphasize reasoning over propaganda. Problem solved.

Finally, there is the military. Women do fine in supply, administration, intelligence, and medicine. Integrating them into front-line units has proved an unending problem. The physical weakness of women (described by Catherine Aspy, who graduated from Harvard and enlisted in the Army) is only the beginning.There has been, and is, a constant stream of sexual assaults, these being inevitable in what after all is a brutal business. Further, when a woman enters a smoothly functioning squad of thirteen men, they become twelve guys competing for her sexual favors. So much for unit cohesion.

The answer I would like to see is separate combat units for men and women, in the manner of separate sports teams. This would allow women equal opportunities to engage in infantry combat, which is only fair, while avoiding the disadvantages of mixed units. (The book to read if you are interested in a highly insightful account of the question is The Kinder Gentler Military by Stephanie Gutmann.)

Resegregation by sex, which wouold be both cheap and easy, is probably vital to the future of the United States. The bright little boys now being pushed under become, especially after the male IQ spurt in adolescense, the phenomenally intelligent young men who found Intel, Google, Dell Computer, Microsoft and, perhaps less crucially, Facebook.

I do not mean to disparage the contributions of Victims´ Studies to technological advance and industrial excellence, and indeed their record cannot be questioned, but men too have contributed around the edges, and perhaps should not be stifled by education both unsuited and hostile to them.

(Read the original and many more such essays by Fred Reed HERE.) (Also, more on Ladies in Combat HERE and HERE.)

Writen at http://ex-army.blogspot.co.uk/
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Women in the army

Postby Yessica » 16 Dec 2013, 21:16

Paul, I do not understand this:
Reward performance, not patience, and excellence, not being docile and cooperative and good in groups. Offer advanced courses that appeal to smart boys—calculus, for example—and grade on math learned, not homework done on time.

It sounds like the ideal soldier should be impatient, insubordinate, uncooperative, unable to work in a team and never on time.

I cannot think of any job other than "rockstar" where those traits would be a blessing.

By the way: The first female defence minister has been appointed in Germany: Ursula von der Leyen. I heard that she is one of few German defence ministers who never served in the army.

She was the family minister and minister for social issues before. I like von der Leyen as a politician and she will of course have advisors. So I am not saying that it must be a bad choice.
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Women in the army

Postby Nathan » 16 Dec 2013, 21:32

Yessica, I think that section you quoted refers to schoolboys, not soldiers.
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Women in the army

Postby Yessica » 16 Dec 2013, 21:36

Nathan wrote:Yessica, I think that section you quoted refers to schoolboys, not soldiers.

To the school boys who will grow to be soldiers if I got the author right. I thought that he was saying that the qualities the soldier needs should be encouraged in the school boy, but I might have gotten him wrong.

edit: After reading it again I think that I have been wrong. He is talking about all school boys here. The questions remains: Schools should prepare students for life. In which jobs woulds that traits been assets? Rockstar? Artist? I cannot think of many.
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Women in the army

Postby Michael » 17 Dec 2013, 17:07

As with the dropping of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the US Army I feel that the integration of women into frontline combat units is a mark of how safe we feel as a society. In times where we consider our societies to be under mortal threat (Second World War, Cold War) the civilian world doesn't attempt to use the military to push progressive social experimentation - that's what universities are for.

I really hope we never find ourselves in another global war (this pseudo 'war on terrorism' doesn't count) but if we ever did I think we would drop these experiments pretty fast.
Posts: 304
Joined: 01 Aug 2011, 21:28
Location: Canada

Re: Women in the army

Postby Jonathan » 17 Dec 2013, 18:27

I think Fred Reed got a little carried away on some points in that post. If young boys do not learn the self-discipline required to sit for four hours straight in the library practicing integrals, they're never going to amount to much as a scientist.

There are also the social consequences of effectively isolating boys and young men from girls until they are 21, which is the practical effect of having boys' schools and all-male universities.

I think much of what he wants to achieve might be gotten with simpler expedients: Divide classes by ability, and re-introduce proper discipline. It's not quite true that a female teacher can't discipline a class without sending the boy to a psychologist for drawing a gun. It might be true now for 90% of the female teachers, but it certainly wasn't true a hundred years ago. Get back to the old ideas of discipline and education, and many of these problems will disappear.
Posts: 411
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: Women in the army

Postby Yessica » 17 Dec 2013, 20:29

Michael wrote:I really hope we never find ourselves in another global war (this pseudo 'war on terrorism' doesn't count) but if we ever did I think we would drop these experiments pretty fast.

I see religious extremism as a greater thread than communism was, because communists did not / do not believe in an after-life. That means they valued their lifes more and that to my mind is one of the reasons why the nuclear bomb was never used... in fact many people in the communists countries did not even believe in communism... but that's another story.

Now what about terrorists who think they are going to heaven for cleansing the world of infidels. What if they come across nuclear or biological weapons?

I am not sure what my opinion on the war on terror is. It is something I thought about a lot... but I am not sure if it is right or wrong. I feel not smart enough to come up with an answer for that question.

Why do you think that it is not a real war? As far as I know Canada has suffered one of the highest death counts per capita in the Afghanistan War.
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Women in the army

Postby Paul » 21 Dec 2013, 22:00


Yes, the traits mentioned in the article, in the context they were written, referred to schoolboys and are (or were) general traits of boyhood not specifically tolerated or nurtured (a better word is understood or managed) as a means to a military calling. That's how I read it anyway. The general traits of boyhood define masculinity (at least most of it) for life - or should do, whether the adult male enters the military or not, and in fact almost overwhelmingly not (modern militaries are small in comparison to the amount of males available).

But you seem to think that these traits of boyhood (and maleness overall) are unworthy or un-needed in anything other than rock stardom? I will agree that in and of themselves they are not and agree with Jonathan's caution in thinking that these traits should be actively over-encouraged or in believing that their opposites don't also apply.

But I don't think the article says that either or rather, one would be expected to pick through it to see how given situations apply in what is after all, a grave situation. As with everything it isn't meant to be taken as a 100% literal plan of action, as if there were no exceptions to the rule, no allowances (but only after ground has been regained I say) to be given or, as Jonathan also said, that every single female presence in a male school is to be viewed negatively..

Like a lot of other heartfelt articles in blog-land the author may privately concede that he hasn't given any quarter or allowed a shred of counter-opinion, but it is a somewhat desperate cry of anguish and rage in what are desperate circumstances. The mass-drugging of hundreds of thousands of schoolboys, by many accounts, is an abomination redolent of Soviet Russia, or, if I may say so, your old country (so we were led to believe). I will go so far as to say that stories emanating from America these days, via the internet and concerning their education system, are so horrific that it is surely the worst place on Earth (almost) to have a child? It's a bold statement but go check out some of the stories. The US has, in my view, fallen! Some time ago too. At least it's not that bad in Britain - yet! Or not as far as I know. Schoolboys aren't marched out of British classrooms in handcuffs and given psychotherapy because they drew a soldier with a gun!

That's ironic to me because, as every school-class used to have a brilliant and naturally-talented artist or two, my class' particular star pupil in art actually once brilliantly composed a scene from a battlefield where the viewing perspective was from just behind the left shoulder of a soldier who was aiming a rifle into the middle ground of the composition. The soldier dominated the foreground and was the focal point of the piece. He (the artist) composed the piece in pastels and chalk on black artist's paper and it won a school prize and was hung on a display within the precincts for months or even a couple of years. Quite brilliant it was and composed entirely from his head, not copied from anything.

That was in England back then though. I wonder what would happen today? Surely not? I think we might say that we in Britain now have a 'nanny state' (that outlaws everything 'for our own good'), a term that's often used in fact, whereas America has a kind of 'big elder brother state' .......... with a gun! That's how I see it. Of course, our Nanny can be quite a spiteful and peevish old crone, who has especial and cunning torments all of her own devising.

But anyway, those traits we mention are essential in boys. They're natural - or they wouldn't be there in the first place. But they have to be managed, steered, allowed in perspective. That's where male teachers (but not exclusively as Jonathan also says*) come into it ........ though are there any of those (type of) males left in teaching now? Somehow I doubt it.

*I was taught from aged 11 in an all-boys school but we did have about 10% female staff in the school I would say. An elderly female teacher got me through English O Level in the latter two years. I had a favoured female history teacher in Year 3. We wouldn't have dared to misbehave in either of those classes or with any female teacher anywhere on the grounds. They were formidable ladies, but also very skilled and kindly in their own way.

The sports field is mentioned in the article (as was initially, the gym). Most boys want to play sport and if they do, in a competitive environment. It's an outlet for energy and yes, hostility - testosterone-fuelled. Sport is also a surrogate for war itself. It's the best we have come up with and whilst it hasn't prevented war entirely it has allowed us to play at it constantly. In the obvious event that we aren't likely to shake off these tendencies anytime soon I would say that sport is to be permitted, even encouraged, in perspective to its worth.

Boys have to be 'allowed to run' now and then and to make a deal of noise on regular occasions. They may even need to kick down a few stable doors, being the rising colts they are. It's surely foolhardy to ignore the possibility that this will happen with many boys and pretend to be horrified, assume that a new and deadly phenomenon has emerged and decide to deal with it by totalitarian legal measures and psychotherapy. It doesn't mean these boys will be the brutal monsters, or are inherently underclass or unintelligent or anything else derogatory. They're just as likely to be heroes, military or otherwise.

It's a huge subject with so many nuances and complexities. For all the phenomena that our way of life has been subjected to and for all that has been wrought upon our cultures, I would say (and it has been referred to in this way on other threads) that Feminism has been the biggest and most damaging influence of them all. It may be a birthchild of Marxism in general but it has surely been the most prodigious and productive of the litter. In almost every way in which we run our societies, it has gained an influence and turned things upside down.

It's a shame that such a thing has happened. On paper it sounded a laudable idea. Equal rights and no more wars. Great. Unfortunately as we know, the outcome has been somewhat different and the future looks even bleaker.
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Women in the army

Postby Yessica » 19 Jan 2014, 10:08

Yessica wrote:By the way: The first female defence minister has been appointed in Germany: Ursula von der Leyen. I heard that she is one of few German defence ministers who never served in the army.

She was the family minister and minister for social issues before. I like von der Leyen as a politician and she will of course have advisors. So I am not saying that it must be a bad choice.


One of the first things she did was to announce she wanted soldiers to have a better family-work-balance and she is about to introduce more / better childcare.

That is... unusual and I am not a fan of that... because I think while high quality childcare is important it should not be the main programme of a defence minister.

She also wants less relocations of soldiers because they put a strain on military marriages. While that is definetly true that is an unusual way of looking at the army... or any other workplace and some might say that this is typical for a woman.

Again I am not a fan of that.
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11


Return to Feminism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


Login Form

Who is online

In total there are 5 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.