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.
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.
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.”