On Women (and Shemales) in the Military
Back in 1979, the Army conducted the Female Artillery Study. Thirteen hand-picked women, much larger than a male crew, after a considerable program of physical conditioning and technical training, successfully layed, loaded, and fired the 105mm cannon. However, note that the guns were positioned by men; the ammunition was offloaded and broken down by men (have I mentioned that one should never get into a fistfight with artillerymen? They are very freaking strong), in fact, all of the really hard work was done by men. And for the lightest guns we had. Yet this was a “success” purporting to prove that women could serve the big guns. What do you call that but “dishonesty”? —Tom Kratman
You know, some of—some of it is relatively straightforward work where we’re making good progress designing body armor that fits women properly; tailoring combat uniforms for women; creating maternity flight suits; updating—updating requirements for their hairstyles….And that they can completely, fairly engage in promotion and compete all across the board, including on the—on age and gender neutrality and the physical fitness test. —installed figurehead Joe Biden
Well by golly, here’s a politically sensitive subject I haven’t discussed yet on this here blog. But it’s a relatively juicy one, and has become a more prominent issue since America’s addled, corrupt, installed “president” began making insanely, radically politically correct decrees—I mean, eh, executive orders—including one or two that touch upon this subject, so I may as well go for it. The big question is, are female soldiers as effective as male ones? Or wait, maybe this is the big question: is a sexually “diverse” military (shemales and all) as effective as a masculinity-oriented one? The answer, as should not be too surprising for anyone capable of objective empirical thought, is usually “nope.”
The primary inspiration for this post is an article I read maybe two years ago, and then again just a few days ago to refresh my memory, entitled “The Amazon’s Right Breast,” by Tom Kratman. The book in which I found it, Baen’s Free Nonfiction 2011, can be downloaded free of charge here. Kratman was formerly an infantry captain in the US Army, and so he can speak from personal experience on the subject of women in the military.
So it is good that I am relying on his experiences, because I personally have never been in the military. The closest I have come to this sort of issue was as a fisheries biologist and foreign fisheries observer long ago. In that case it was an issue of female fisheries biologists representing the US government aboard foreign fishing vessels operating in US territorial waters (all of which require by law an American biologist present and observing said operations). I was told by reliable sources (like, female fisheries biologists) that most of these female observers had sex with at least one member of the crew, some of them with several. I used to refer to V___ P___ syndrome—I won’t give her full name—in “honor” of a certain remarkably unattractive female biologist who used to choose Russian ships and then be the darling of horny Russian sailors who couldn’t understand the inane logorrhea that incessantly streamed from her lips. (I can’t really blame these women though: in my youth I would not have hesitated to be the only man on board a ship full of sexually frustrated Japanese women, and to be paid for it besides.) There was also a case in which I co-worked with a swaggering little feminist on a study of molting king crabs in the Bering Sea: with her it took three people—her and two male crew members—to do a job that a single male could have done easily. (She couldn’t pull totes full of crabs across the deck but insisted on holding the main rope for pulling it, so two guys had to hold onto the sides and help her pull it.) But let us return to women, and possibly shemales, in the military.
It should be borne in mind that, first and foremost, the purpose of military forces is to fight…or else to be so formidable and scary that no enemy dares to fight them. The primary purpose, or even the secondary purpose, of a military should NOT be liberality, political correctness, or “wokeness,” especially if that political correctness or wokeness reduces the military’s capacity to slay its enemies, or just to scare the bejeezus out of them. Also it should be under zero obligation to offer equal opportunities to people not best qualified to be fighters. Some pacifistic feminists are actually in favor of women serving in the armed forces because they feel it will cause the military to be less able or willing to wage war, and make it “more humane, less masculine, and less warlike.” (With regard to feminist opinions on the military, Kratman also states that, “in the course of my researches it became pretty damned obvious that feminists had less than nothing credible to say on the subject. Indeed, their thoughts represented a net diminution of human understanding.”)
So bearing this in mind, there is the fairly obvious biological observation that men are physically more evolved for fighting and aggression than are women. That is a big reason why they are considerably larger on average, have more developed muscles, a larger heart relative to body size, greater lung capacity likewise, broader shoulders and longer arms (also good for hunting with spears), greater tolerance of pain and faster blood clotting, and also more aggression-conditioning testosterone. Nowadays this aspect of physical evolution for fighting may be less important than in the days of swords and spears, since a great deal of fighting may now consist of manipulating figures on a computer screen, but there is still the real possibility of hand to hand combat; and even an average man has at least 40% greater upper body strength (plus greater reach, etc.) than a female athlete. Men can run faster too—lots of male high school athletes can run faster than record-breaking female Olympian runners. And almost all combat positions, including artillery, require man-level physical strength.
Kratman sensibly includes the greater strength factor as the first of a longish list of reasons why a sexually “diverse” military is generally a bad idea. That list, quoted from the article, is as follows.
1. Physical strength.
2. Women are too rational to be manipulated and led the way young men are.
3. Things that currently work to motivate young men will no longer do so in the presence of women.
4. Pregnancy.
5. Children, with the woman having custody. (And there’s a fine example of the truly heroic levels of dishonesty within DoD. Yes, there are many, many single male parents. Few of them have custody, so in few cases does it matter to the military. Women are also single parents, and usually have custody. This is a not insignificant problem within DoD. Right, that means there is no comparison between the two, though the PC clowns at DoD will try to equate them. Lying sacks of shit!)
6. Fraternization, favoritism, and de facto prostitution, with resultant demoralization, not only of men, but of less sexually desirable women.
7. Malingering. (Yes, too many military women do malinger. Men would, too, if they could get away with it. Women are allowed to, especially via pregnancy. Men, usually, are not, and, of course, never for pregnancy. It is men that allow women to malinger, and male physical labor that covers it up.)
8. Field sanitation. (Yes, women have a little problem there that men do not.)
9. Lack of certain training opportunities for women.
10. Lack of experienced female combat leaders.
11. The baleful influence of the EO [Equal Opportunity] Fascisti.
12. Sexual harassment / complaints. (Have I mentioned yet that I was once privileged – if that’s quite the word – to hear half a dozen Air Force females comparing notes on how to set their male bosses up for this, so as to make life easier for themselves? Did I mention that the Air Force did a study which determined that about two-thirds of sexual harassment and, IIRC, rape complaints within USAF were purely and completely spurious? The study appears to have slipped down the memory hole. Yet it was done.)
13. Special arms and equipment required by, or useful to, women.
14. Straight males can’t be trusted to train them.
15. Unwillingness of men from some cultures (Islamic, notably) to either give way before or surrender to women. “Oh, that’s their problem.” Ummm...no; and someone who claims it is only demonstrating their own ignorance. When it drives up our casualties and gives the enemy a moral shot in the arm, it’s our problem. It might not be a problem for the ignorant PC clowns who won’t be out there soaking up unnecessary casualties, but it will be for the PBIs, male and female, who are.
16. Woman as the bottleneck in the production of the next generation’s machine gun fodder.
17. The tendency, historically demonstrated, for men to forget the mission and charge to the rescue if their female comrades are at risk.
18. Rape of captured women.
19. Greater difficulty in committing combat forces if they include women. (Yes, some feminists think that’s a good thing. See, e.g., Professor Maria Lepowsky’s testimony before the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, circa 1992.)
20. Hard wired differences that may – we just don’t know – make women unsuitable for combat to the extent that they are typical women.
…unquote.
With number 20 it appears that he comes full circle, because that would evidently include psychological effects conditioned by testosterone. Even if lack of it does not make women unsuitable for combat, it presumably would make them less suitable, since turning males into fighters is one of the primary purposes of the hormone.
Even so, history has shown that lack of testosterone does not totally disqualify a person from being effective, or even outstanding, on a battlefield. The Byzantine palace eunuch Narses proved to be a competent general, for example, when the forces he commanded defeated the Ostrogoths in Italy back in the sixth century. There have been a few other great eunuch generals also, at least one of them also named Narses. But even eunuchs castrated as prepubescent children have lasting effects of prenatal testosterone, both physically and psychologically. As for female military geniuses, I cannot think of any, although there may have been some semi-mythical female barbarian leaders long ago. According to Kratman again, feminist writers clutch at any myth of female military heroism, but:
[He] discovered a number of interesting things. Chief among these, unsurprisingly, is that feminists writing on the subject were worse than clueless. They couldn’t even grasp what they didn’t know. Got a less than credible myth on women in combat? Nay, sister; that myth – since it supports the agenda – is now Pravda.
It is interesting that the author goes into the greatest detail on two points in the list above, numbers 1 and 6. The first has been touched upon, but the sixth perhaps got the most attention of all in Kratman’s article. Soldiers, male ones I mean, tend to be more masculine (“high T”) than the average guy, and another symptom of testosterone in one’s blood is to make one horny. Furthermore this can be aggravated by the relative lack of females to mate with on military bases and in combat zones. Hence the instinctive female position of capitalizing on male lust to get their way comes into play. One example the author gave in his article is female soldiers offering sexual favors (like blowjobs) to commanding officers in exchange for good evaluations, or special privileges—this in addition to simply whining and complaining to get them in a way that would never be tolerated coming from a male soldier. And as Kratman points out briefly at number 6 on his list, this can be unfair not only to other men in the unit but to relatively unattractive females also. It leads to resentment, which reduces the vital and invaluable cohesion of a military unit. But, as Kratman asserts more than once, not only does Eros mock Mars, Eros makes Mars his bitch.
 |
| this one appears to be a real soldier (censored for your comfort) |
He does try to be fair though. He points out that women can certainly be as brave as men, and that they can perform certain tasks at least as well as men can. They can make good snipers for example, and also it is relatively well known in the military that female instructors can shame men into trying harder in a way that male instructors cannot. He points out that all-female units have fought effectively—mainly in Soviet Russian and Vietnamese army units, so of course Communist ones. (The Israelis famously have plenty of female soldiers, although they are mostly restricted to non-combat assignments, like instructors and border guards.) Also he has met one, and only one, female commissioned officer that he considered to be truly excellent, and better than most male ones he had known. So his main argument is not that women can’t fight or serve in the military at all, but that integrating women with men in the military causes way more problems than it supposedly solves along Social Justice lines. He mentions a male-and-female Russian tank crew that heroically held off a Nazi German advance into Russia, but the crew consisted of two political commissars and their wives, so they were already settled with their individual mates, and they were probably leftist fanatics besides. One reason why female snipers can work out so well is because they are loners, relatively speaking, and aren’t fomenting sexual desire and resentment in a barracks.
As a Buddhist, and also as a man who has always had a soft spot and protective instincts for the female half of my species, I am completely fine with them being exempted from having to fight and kill. On the other hand, I certainly think they should be able to serve in the military if they can pass the same physical tests that men do, under possibly segregated circumstances. And I also think women should certainly have the right to bear arms as American civilians, as a gun makes a woman as close to being as deadly as a man as she can get. As an old saying goes, God made people, and Smith & Wesson made them equal.
I conclude with one last pithy quote from Kratman’s article, regarding women in combat.
They have to be able to perform in war. It’s not enough that they be able to put on a thin show in peace that the PC crowd can manipulate to try to “prove” a point. War is the place where pious platitudes fall flat. Battle is where legislators and judges have no real positive power. The enemy, however, gets a vote.
Oh I almost forgot: military shemales. Not only are they prone to mental illness and suicidal tendencies, and not only will they cost the American taxpayer countless millions of dollars for their mutilation surgeries, hormone therapies, and psychological treatments, but they are a freaking laughingstock to our foreign rivals, and will simply breed contempt in the heart of a masculine, aggressive enemy that hates us and wants us dead.
“Fast forward about ten years. For my many, oh, many, sins, though an infantry officer, I am serving as a logistics weenie, pending taking over a rifle company. I am in charge of the Port Support Package, in Alexandria, Egypt, during that same Bright Star I’ve already mentioned. The Women’s Army Corps is gone; gender integration reigns. This is my first experience of women soldiers, at any real proximity, and I am not impressed.
I am about to let my troops – none of whom were really mine except for the exercise – take a richly deserved day off in this, Party Central of the Islamic world. Naturally, being somewhat educated about the Islamic world, I fall them in for an inspection of their go-to-town clothes. Everything is fine, until I get to the two women in the group. I get to them, standing side by side. I look up. I look down. I look up and over; I look down. I count, Yup, four jugs, four nipples. Then I look up again and order, “Both of you, go put on bras.”
And they, in a way remarkably similar to that WAC on Fort Campbell with her first sergeant, proceed to attempt to argue the subject with me. The conversation, which quickly becomes entirely one way, goes like this:
“Shut the fuck up and listen. This is a Moslem city. You will start a riot if you go out in public like that. But that doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that I am a fucking captain, you are fucking privates, and you will fucking well do what I fucking well say and go put on your fucking bras.”
That worked, of course, but it shouldn’t have been necessary.
Note that the two girls came back, to apologize, a couple of days later, after another American female was sexually assaulted in an elevator. The apology, while certainly sincere, was misdirected. They felt they’d been rude, as if to an equal, and unwise. The idea that their wrong was in being ill-disciplined was, as far as I could tell, completely alien to them.”
Ven. Paññobhāsa:
ReplyDeleteAdepta Sororitas for the women and Adeptus Astartes for the men. Mental health counseling (aka The Buddha's Teaching) for the shemales. Actually, everybody gets The Buddha's Teaching.
NO SISSIES ALLOWED IN THE IMPERIUM OF MAN!
Women are more apt to follow illegal orders which is why the tyrants want them in the military. There was not too long ago a tweet on an Army channel of a whaman saying "I follow Army Values; the mission comes first" as she force vaccinated someone in the accompanying picture. That's why they want them in the army. Easier to brainwash into the mission always comes first, drop your humanity.
ReplyDeleteSo they sell machine guns with vagina attachments now? Where can I get one? You can answer this question on your next q & a vid if you prefer.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are you trying to say about people from the Midwest, or the South?
ReplyDeleteAny grown man can snap any female in half instantly on the battlefield. Any man fighting in the trenches is at a disadvantage with a woman by his side. If he goes down, a 150 lb woman cannot even help a 250 lb man to safety. Have you ever watched a cop show and seen how the female cops get tossed around like rag dolls by male criminals before they escape, because the woman cannot even control a single man-arm to get a handcuff on?
Who is raising the children of these women while they are away in the military, or perpetually traveling, or when their mother gets shot and killed or disabled on the job? More destruction of the American family.
"Equity" in the workforce does nothing but hurt women and families, and the men they have to work alongside that have to pick up the slack for their lack of physical strength and stamina. This is why despite all of the regressive yowling of feminists, you never see them taking on jobs as ditch diggers, sewer workers, linemen, or any of the other dirtiest and laborious jobs in America.
Why do you think all women are created equal?
ReplyDeleteDo you think small and feeble men shouldn't be allowed on the battlefield? Do you think the military should consist only of men at least 6 feet high and weighting 200 pounds or more? What do you think should be the criteria for accepting someone in the military or giving him (or her) a fighting chance, literally?
Furthermore, do you think, God forbid, that if a real and powerful enemy attacks your own neighborhood with tanks and aircrafts and other heavy vehicles you would be so "picky" as to whom should be given guns and who should fight on the battlefield? Or would you let EVERYONE who has the guts and the morale to fight in that war actually fight it?
Yeah, we all know-battlefield is too dangerous. The military should send only the best people to the battlefield. Let the lions fight and the sheep stay at home and all that kind of heroic and all-too-good rhetoric. You spoke of the REAL battlefield, did you not? Well, if you are in a REAL war situation and the enemy is literally at the gates crawling through your crops, destroying your towns, nuking your cities or raping your women would really be that PICKY? Would you gather up all the surviving MEN and tell them:
Sorry, gentlemen, we can't have anyone under 6 feet or 200 lb in the military, we have our standards here, please, go home and watch in despair as the enemy destroys your lives. Thank you for your attention!
Or, would you rather give a rusty gun to every able bodied PERSON, not just men, group them as they can, no matter the physical characteristics as long as they can work TOGETHER and march them straight onto the battlefield relying on their zeal and courage? Now what sounds the more REALISTIC thing to do? Or, will you now tell me that short and skinny men, I mean not stronger than women, can't fight under ANY circumstance?
P.S.. What do I have against certain geographical regions of America? Well, nothing really against the states per se, but something about the CULTURE of certain strata of society worries me. To me it looks like certain people are grown used to NOT USING their brains properly and relying upon cheap cliches and brute strength alone to resolve conflicts even when the other side has pretty good arguments, too. And as a result people get too dumb to actually think for themselves and use their freedom. Consequentially, they end up loosing it precisely when they think they are defending it. That's what i have up against them. How's that for an answer?
No mention of 80 year olds who want to fight? Ageist!
ReplyDeleteRemember that the military is not of unlimited size, so only the best and most qualified should be chosen. If the country is overrun then everybody can fight to defend their homes and country, so long as the lefties haven't totally disarmed everyone by then.
Wasn't there an expression going something like: "You are as old as you feel like it?" :)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, do you really think a woman, a short man, or something like this can't integrate into a military unit? That you can't find a job for him or her and they should be excluded from service altogether?Or, do you think you just should give weapons to a bunch of brutes, scare them off into following orders and everything will be fine as long as they get their fair deal of exercise and use the best equipment possible? Is war such a "simple math" for you?
For as far as I know war is described as chaos, ponder, uncertainty, fear, they don't call it the FOG of war for no reason. But yet, the self-assured and all-too-confident commanders always ASSUME they know BEST, do they? If we just could train our troops better, if we just could provide overwhelming firepower, if we could just permeate everything with our superior intelligence, if we just go, get those BEST of soldiers out there they will slaughter everyone we deem as an "enemy". Am I right? Can we just break every operation, every battlefield, every troop movement, even every heartbeat of any soldier into nice little steps, PLAN everything to its most minute detail and we will win every battle up ahead? Is this thinking what you are thinking, too? Just get those best of best, put them into a nice little PLAN and carry out all orders until you actually conquer not only the enemy, but reality itself, don't you?
As a spiritual person I honestly thought you would know this is most definitely how reality does NOT operate! You should know reality is chaotic, empty of reason, unpredictable and most of all-a beast of and out of ITself. In such circumstances what you believe in, what you are most afraid of, what you perceive rather than what really is out there and most of all-WHO you are are much much more important than all the stuff you have been fed up into beforehand. Or, may be you disagree? Will you think we can understand, break into tiny pieces, study, plan and ultimately-CONTROL everything, or, we should just LET GO of all our expectations, get into the flow, open our chakras and just BE what we are? Be as SPIRITS, not as well trained robots who can't think outside the drill? What do you think the FOG of war would favor-drilled to perfection killing machines who will THINK they can analyse, assess, discern and act according to ANY situation, or FREE SPIRITS who would just let go of all of their anticipations and try to be as ONE with the fog all around of them? As a Buddhist can you understand what I refer, too?
Sheesh this is amazing. For the sake of brevity I will simply answer your last question.
ReplyDelete"What do you think the FOG of war would favor-drilled to perfection killing machines who will THINK they can analyse, assess, discern and act according to ANY situation, or FREE SPIRITS who would just let go of all of their anticipations and try to be as ONE with the fog all around of them?"
What I think is that the elite drilled to perfection warriors, in the best physical and mental condition, obeying orders without question, and led by a competent commander, would SLAUGHTER LIKE SHEEP the army of "Free Spirits" and women and weaklings and old people that you evidently favor. Your idealistic ideology has left empirical reality far behind. Read some military history and see who and what wins decisive battles and wars. I highly recommend "Strategy: the Indirect Approach" by B. H. Liddell-Hart.
Even an uncompromising pacifist like Mahatma Gandhi volunteered in WWI, although he sensibly volunteered as a stretcher-bearer, not as a fighter. And this blog post is primarily concerned with the effectiveness of women (and shemales) in combat units.
So, back to the topic-women, old men, even children, whatever on the battlefield and the all-encompassing standards, drills, practices and of course-physical fitness. Well, if you are fit and IN FLOW with the Spirit I see no problem with it. However, and the big however comes here-does your fitness makes you SURRENDER to the fog of war? Or, just the opposite-you will resist it as long as you breathe and try to analyse, comfort, partition and ultimately-conquer it? Do you think it's the right thing to do? Or even possible? You ask me how stupid am I for assessing people for who they want to be instead of who they are??? Well, if you are in a really really shitty situation do you think you would rather rely on your muscles or on your SOUL? Do you thin one automatically translates into the other? Do you really think they are equivocal? Or, is there a tiny room for error? Or not so tiny? Is it possible to improve and outdo yourself if you truly truly BELIEVE in what you are doing? Or your prayers are for the church only? You ask what do I have against certain guys from certain parts of the world? Or against people who think they can control everything? Well, isn't it obvious? The more you think you are the one in control the less room you leave for God, the more narcissistic, overconfident and most of all-yes, stupid, you become until reality serves you a surprise you can't erase. They don't call it a fog for no reason. And when the fog clouds everything what matters the most isn't what you have on the outside but on the INside. And the two are not always matching. That is what I was trying to tell you all along but it seems you are unwilling to even listen.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't the left of physical strength in and of itself. I know very well a stronger taller fitter guy is "in all probability" far better guy than a thin woman, or an old man, or a teenager, or whatever, however what I do NOT KNOW about the strong tall guy is can he keep it under pressure, and furthermore how much would the guy actually wanna fight instead of just leave it all, screw up the job and get home as fast as possible. Do you understand what I mean? It's not muscles by themselves that do the job-it is your WILL to fight that moves the muscles up. And as they say:
When there is a will, there is a way.
Even if you lack in one department that all permeating WILL will (pun intended) point out a way for you to get through and compensate in another department. And what most of the so called "strong guys" don't understand is that this will, it does NOT directly translate into physical strength, prowess, marksmanship or whatever DIRECTLY physically measurable. It's hidden in a sort. However, what it endue is exactly that difference between victory and defeat that makes people, and armies, great. It's always in the MIND, inside, in the Soul that matters, not what is visible, but what is not. And when you concentrate on the visible you become entrapped by the invisible.
How many of the wars America has lost for the past few decades have been fought against actual technologically and tactically superior armies? Was the Vietnam war lost by the soldiers or by the politicians, e.g. by the people at hoe who ruined on the INSIDE, not the outside. Did the Iraqis, the taliban, Al Qaeda or whoever had superior weapon or training that the US military? Yet, can you say the war on terror is a success? Then, WHERE is the victory? ON the outside or on the inside? Who has defeated the US military repeatedly throughout recent history?
I dare say small but highly zealous group of literal fanatics who care not so much about the training or the equipment but are superior in their motivation and zeal than the soldiers. Again the MIND, not the muscles. And yes, they do win victories purely by motivation and zeal, whenever they actually have it. Even now in the cultural war, is the enemy physically or even numerically superior? Are they huge intimidating force which could just come and take over everything? Or are they a bunch of highly ZEALOUS crackhead which do have the SOUL to oppose the institutions of literally the most powerful country on Earth, intimidate and shame into submission otherwise unbreakable men and turn around centuries of history and culture to their CRAZY cause? You ask about the weaklings in the military? Well, here is your answer-as long as one can cultivate the SPIRIT to fight he or she CAN fight. Spirit fills us all and spirit, and above all its manifestation in FAITH, not elaborate planning, mindless drills, superior weaponry or even rock hard biceps will win you war, a REAL war. For as strong as you are when the fog falls only those who can accept it, anticipate it, swim through it and ultimately-ALLY themselves with it, rather than run away trying to control everything are the ones going to win. And even if they lack in strength or speed or range or whatever they will manage to compensate in another department. If you are really in line with Spirit you will know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteAnd these people happen to be the craziest, most zealous, insatiable, stubborn fanatics out there. If some of them are women, so be it, if they are shorter guys, too, I will not be talking about age or race or whatever else. Just give the people a fighting chance and pick up the best. That is how reality works. People who rely on strength alone use to loose their shit when things doesn't go according to their plan and that happens way too often in war. On the other hand, people who just drive forward on zeal and motivation can, and do, find their way to victory even against intimidating and physically superior opponents. For as it said:
If you want to master every enemy, master yourself first.
Why do you think reality favors perfection?
ReplyDeleteThe idea of a free spirit is precisely that-to be FREE of the BOUNDS perfectionists would impose upon him, or her. If there is anything constant in life, it's change, and when change happens it brings CHAOS rather than order with itself. And when chaos reigns those exact killing "machines" sustained by ORDER(s), rather than chaos are surely, may be slowly, but yet surely, grinded to a halt, then confusion, then despair, and ultimately-defeat by the very forces of REALITY you so eagerly summon. Or, shall you disagree?
Now, as far as women, old people, shemales, or whatever are concerned, the purpose isn't to create a military comprised SOLELY out of such "kinds" of warriors but to create an environment where each and everyone can contribute to the general strength of the unit as far as e or she can. Do you understand this? And before you start complaining how dumb it's to include everyone in the military and how much much better segregation is i would welcome you to actually UNDERSTAND THE FACT EVERYONE SHOULD CONTRIBUTE ACCORDING TO THE POSITION ONE IS IN, not according to some abstract notion of perfection, machism, combat "effectiveness" or whatever you call it. Hell yeah, I would even give you credit for Gandhi example above-he clearly contributed as far as his abilities allowed him to. Now imagine if everyone could find his or her place like it? Imagine if everyone could become what he or she is most fit to be. Now do you understand the definition of being IN THE FLOW in something. No only the military, but any society who could allow its people to be in the flow in as many areas s possible is gonna overreach itself and become more than anticipated. And then, you ask how can women win battles?
Well, don't you already see the answer?
Make up a FLEXIBLE system of people who know how to WORK TOGETHER instead of merely obeying orders, give them the means and the FREEdom to follow the direction they feel they are supposed to let everybody follow their instincts, after they master them to perfection first, of course. This is how you face a well drilled and perfectly organized military machine. And, yes, by the way when it comes to intuition and the ability to keep "in the flow" of events women are superior to men. So, the "best"military will go according to plans and instructions following orders to the minute detail. Furthermore, they will make the strategical mistake of trying to PLAN for everything in advance even more-they will be CERTAIN they can entrap the enemy in their "brilliant" strategy and use their superiority to dictate the rules. Am I right?
What if the enemy just DISOBEYS? What if it just REFUSES to comply no matter the losses or the casualties? What if the women, the olds, the weaklings, whatever just say NO and don't play by your rules? What of your perfect plans then? What happens when the situation spontaneously changes not to your liking. Would you prefer following your "brilliant" orders then? What if those free Spirits, and yes, the SPIRIT part comes first, don't fall down for your traps and "strategy" and decide to take up the initiative themselves? What happens when you can't execute those perfect plans of yours and you are forced to submit to the conditions dictated by the other side? What happens when you get gaps inside your perfect structure and your plans fail to bear fruit? Do you still keep into the same old manners and decide to enforce those orders of yours thinking obedience guarantees victory? Do you regard your "competent" commander as "competent" enough to actually asses a rapidly changing situation correctly enough? You ask why would anyone need a woman on the battlefield? You ask who is stupid enough to entrust anything on a woman? You ask many questions one can argue are sexist?
ReplyDeleteWell, here it comes-what you really need in a unit in a real life or death situation under pressure when things fuck up and when it looks like orders are useless, when nothing goes according to plan-and yes such shit happens no matter the level of drilling you are accustomed to or the "perfection" of your organization-so, when everything fucks up you need that one person who stands up brings the unit together, elevates the courage and most important-gets into the FLOW of the battle in order to bring the rest in BALANCE with what is happening around them not because of the orders, the instructions manual, the "strategy"or whatever, but because this person just KNOWS how to keep it up under pressure and regard with disregard everything happening around him or HER.
Yep, here is your answer-contrary to all that crap you had been fed up since child about women and aggression and women and the military when the REAL shit hits the fan a woman, and i mean a REAL woman placed in a shitty situation will act in the most womanly way possible-as a pillar of her household, that being her unit, as a keeper of the lives of her family-that being her unit, and of course-as a MOTHER, her children being her unit. Have you seen MOTHERS FIGHT in Nature?
I know you are into documentaries, right? Well, then do you know how a mother DEFENDS HER CHILDREN? That is a woman on a battlefield when her unit is in danger. Integrate her that much into her unit and see what happens. And do you know why you need such "debauchery" as fighting mothers. Cause of the FOG. cause women are far far more sensitive to changing environments than men are. And it works both ways-on defense a military which has women well integrated into their units will have them using their intuition and care to more quickly find out defects and weak spots in the enemies attack formations than men do, on the offensive women can serve as pillars to keep the organization of the unit intact when the lines get overstrtetched and to observe defects in the reaction of the enemy-defects which could be exploited later. Women are far far better at handling chaos than men are. As you well know men tend to follow orders and to get well positioned into hierarchical structures. Well, women can cooperate and coordinate more easily under dynamic environments with no clear orders, objectives or even command structure. If you want to introduce chaos on a battlefield-let a woman lead, if you want to take advantage of the said chaos-give her priority, too, if you want to reap the fruits of the fog, rather than fear it-once again women up and front. This is what women CAN do.
But CAN do only IF given THE CHANCE.
Do you understand me now? Chaotic, unruly and heavily treacherous battlefields are a natural environment for women, and it just so happens most battlefields are of this sort. It's very very difficult to have an environment where you could have it all planned and anticipated and have all the variables on the battlefield calculated beforehand. And, yeah, I know you will say that with intelligence and perseverance a MAN can handle it, except, no ,he can not!
ReplyDeleteThere will eventually come a moment, especially if a battle gets large enough to take a life on its own when all your expectations, all your planning , all your instructions, all your ORDER(s) will fall apart and get into the risk of dissolving. Well, that is women's time! When everything gets chaotic and you can't clearly see objectives, orders or formations any more I would dare say a woman CAN keep her place much much better than a man, but only IF she is GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY to show her skills. Have you seen women when their families, households or surroundings re under threat. I would dare say they do much better job at staying put and focused under multitasking than men do. Men usually get carried out by instincts or get panicked when they can't see a clear objective, while women have the internal instinct of protecting the household/family/inner group from the hostile environment/other families/outer group and they can make up their minds, show bravery, take initiative and handle under chaos much better than men. Confuse a man and throw him into battle and there are good chances he will end up at the worst place at the worst time, cause, yes, testosterone and oh that AGGRESSION. Yes, aggression is good when you are focused on the objective and keep up the plan, but what when you can't clearly see that objective and the plan falls apart? Do you think you can DISCERN a trap from an opportunity with all that testosterone and adrenaline pumping up your bloodstream. I dare say NO. A woman will do a better job than you in that respect. Now, multiply that by all the shit that can happen in a real world battlefield and you will get why testosterone crazed beasts running around aren't always the best idea. Or may be you won't, cause testosterone, and yes, the idea you are ALWAYS superior. Or, are you?
There is time and space for everything in real life and the one who can keep up with his, and yes-HERS, surroundings is also the one who will get the victory, eventually. You can't plan everything in advance. Period. You can't know what is unknown before you know it. Period. You can't always charge madly and hope for a victory every time. Period. And yes, women TEND to have better intuition and project stronger personal ties than men do, IF given THE CHANCE to actually interact with others like normal human beings and being in a familiar environment for long enough to actually develop the bonds necessary to care for the people around her. Now, transfer that into a chaotic military environment and you will see where is HER place at the battlefield. Right besides and hands in hand with her men.
And the last thing I mean is the crap about the woman always being in charge. No, the women are NOT good at leading the charge, however, they can be irreplaceable when exploiting the breakthroughs or keeping the line. Anywhere, where chaos is of use and men need a pillar to look forward, too. That is the role of a woman. To be short-women are the best bearers of flags IF given THE CHANCE to do so and every unit needs a flag bearer. You look to her to know where your place is, you look to her for comfort and support when shit goes haywire, you look to her when moving, and yes I know-the prime target of any sensible enemy id the one who bears your flag, so this is why you as a MAN are there to PROTECT HER, but yet, she AS A WOMAN is there to dare take that bullet when the entire units needs to do it, when the shit is neck deep and when she HER FAMILY (and her family is her unit) is required to do so. And then, yes, AS A MAN you are obliged to protect the one bearing your flag, aren't you? And before you start rambling about dangers and physical fitness can I just ask you the question: WHAT is the ROLE of the one bearing he flag of a unit? To actually fight and kill as many as possible, OR, to be there whenever he or SHE has to be, provide courage and motivation to his or HER comrades and yes put himself or HERSELF in danger when the mission requires it. And one more question: DOES the flag bearer has to be the commanding officer???
ReplyDeleteHere is the answer to your women on the battlefield question!
P.S.. Before you go on the testosterone and horny men rant can I ask you: Would you fuck your mother? Or your sister? Or your cousin (may be if you are from certain parts of the USA :)? Now imagine a woman is embedded in a unit long enough to actually get in contact with EVERYONE in said unit and she has the TIME to get through that-oh, I'm horny and i want to procreate phase with everyone in the unit. Imagine she is emotionally intelligent (something women tend to be better at) and trustworthy enough to show care and affection to all the men in the unit and yes, imagine she isn't just a whore trying to get pregnant or go up in the hierarchy. Imagine her comrades get so used to her they stop thinking of her as piece of meat but as the heart and soul of the unit and yes, imagine she actually accepts this role and starts FEELING their feels and CARE for their emotions. Now imagine the unit gets sent into some real shit situation and the MEN don't know who to look after-who do you think will have stronger TIES to the people when they need the comfort-a man or a woman? I mean the comfort of a RELATIONSHIP, not the comfort of physical sex, as a spiritual person tell me which one is more important on an actual battlefield??? Also imagine their unit get trapped into an ambush or something and you need someone making split second decisions for everyone-do you think a woman, and I mean a woman actually CARING for her people will make an inadequate choices and risk her FAMILY getting killed or she will stick to the others, use her intuition and get her men out. I will argue for the second. IF a woman is acting like a real woman and not like some kind of a whore or something she will KNOW when to appeal to the men's feelings and when to shut up. I see you don't have much experience with women being a Buddhist monk yourself, but a REAL woman knows her shit-if she is really there for the people and deeply cares about them, not being a career whore trying to look hot in an uniform and hit on the commanders. Just give her the chance to grow TIES with the people around her and she will find a way to put everyone into their proper places, if he really cares about them. That is what women are naturally predisposed to do. But it's narrow minded men who are used to looking at them as mere house decorations and baby machines who don't even give them the chance to show what they are good at. No, women aren't supposed to be frontline troopers charging ahead high on testosterone, but they can do far better than house decoration around a bunch of kids as well. The most proper role for women on a REAL battlefield is as support personal, pillars of their units and when necessary-to provide cover fire for their men when needed, medics, too. That may not be the most "heroic" role imaginable but it's enough to help her unit survive and triumph in a shitty situation, and as far as men are concerned-NOT ALL MEN can be good frontline shock troopers, too. If necessary she CAN storm forward just like i necessary you could turn every radio guy, truck driver or even medic into a frontline trooper. Is that enough for a viable military career for you? Do you think men will look at her as a piece of meat when their lives are on the line and she keeps going forward? Do you really think men are that horny?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, if there is a real whore in military uniform trying to get the attention of the guys so she can use them for "favors" what do you think a well-placed woman will do to her? Do you think a woman who takes her unit as her family and her comrades as her sons and brothers will let any piece of such shit place herself near HER men? Do you think the pillar of the soul of a unit will let some piece of shit whore distract and use her men, her FAMILY as she wants them to? Or, she will vehemently attack any such whore an put them in their places, by means of violence, if necessary,? I hope that answers your quarries.
To the Anon OP, yes, small and feeble men SHOULD also be placed in other non combat positions, just like feeble women. And yes, so should the elderly and children be removed and restricted from combat.
ReplyDeleteRefer to venerable Pannobhasa's quote: "There is no equity among the 31 planes of existence." And such is nature and natural law.
Besides, the only real war against the US has already been won, and it has nothing to do with faux combat theater. America has already been taken over from the inside out by banks, corporations, big tech, corrupt politicians, globalists, propagandist media, and foreign investors. Ground combat is a dinosaur; a relic of our past.
Soon you will be sitting on the plantation paying rent to your Chinese landlord in the new feudal state, arguing about equality of women in combat on the internet. See the forest for the trees...These race and gender issues are only a distraction.
Ich denke auch alleich, mein Kamerad :)
ReplyDelete