Potty War: Let’s Pretend

Wednesday, June 8, AD 2016

lysenko

 

David Solway at PJ Media gets to the heart of not only Potty War but what ails the West in general:  a pernicious, wholly political, game of let’s pretend:

 

It is as if the Soviet pseudo-scientist Trofim Lysenko has risen from the grave and, by a mordant historical irony, infected not the burgeoning Russian empire but a weak and decadent West that has succumbed to a sterile and perilous sort of intellectual vernalization—a term glibly misused by Lysenko to describe the process, mistakenly thought heritable, of forcing winter cereals to behave like spring cereals. As plant biologist Richard Amasino writes, Lysenko’s belief that vernalized transformations could be inherited “fit the Marxist ideology that…a Marxist society could produce heritable changes in attitude, and, thus, if the proper environment was provided, future generations would consist of improved citizens. Lysenko’s efforts,” he continues, “to obtain or fabricate results that supported a political ideology…had disastrous consequences for Russian genetics.” Where the speculative and the real are in flagrant contradiction, the results are almost always catastrophic.

The West is now busy at work across the entire field of social, cultural and political life promoting its own version of Lysenkoism, a misconceived exercise of supposedly vernalizing reality by transforming fact into fantasy and truth into lie for the purpose of creating the perfect society and the redeemed human being, transferable across the generations. Its assumptions about the world are guided not by common sense or genuine science but by the precepts of ideology and political desire.

Examples abound of the ubiquitous tendency to replace ontology with myth, the determinate with the fluid and the objective with the delusionary. A modest inventory of such noxious miscontruals would include:

  • Biological sexual differentiation must yield to voluntary gender identity.
  • A cooling climate is obviously warming.
  • The demonstrable failure of socialism wherever it has been tried is proof that it has not been properly implemented.
  • Democratic Israel is an apartheid state.
  • Islam with its record of unstinting bloodshed is a religion of peace.
  • Illegal immigrants are undocumented workers.
  • Terrorism is workplace violence.
  • A child in the womb is a mass of insensible protoplasm.
  • The killing of the old and the ill is merciful, even when the recipient of such tender concern is not consulted.
  • There is no such thing as truth, an axiom regarded as true.
  • Green energy is a social and economic good irrespective of crony profiteering, exorbitant cost, wildlife devastation, and unworkability in its present state.
  • Storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, tsunamis and mortality itself are natural phenomena, but Nature, which cares nothing for human life, is nonetheless sacred, vulnerable and at the mercy of human indifference.
  • Women are disadvantaged in the workforce, academia and society at large despite the fact that high-end hiring practices, legal judgments, custody protocols and university appointments, as well as student enrollment, wholly favor women to the detriment of men.
  • An enemy is a friend.
  • Criminality is innocence.
  • Losing is winning.
  • Prosperity is avarice.
  • Redistributing wealth, i.e., robbing the affluent and productive, is a form of compassion and basic justice.
  • Those who claim victim status are always credible.
  • Accumulating debt is an economic stimulus.
  • Big government is a boon to mankind.
  • War is passé (so 19th century).
  • Diplomacy and talk—the higher Twitter—will prevail over barbarism.
  • The most gynocentric society ever created is a rape culture.
  • Palestine is a historically legitimate nation.
  • Uniformity of thought and action equals cultural diversity.
  • An exploded lie merely confirms what it lies about (e.g., Rigoberta Menchu).
  • Morality is relative.
  • Merit is an unearned distinction.

Or in other words, what is, is not, and what is not, is.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Potty War: Let’s Pretend

  • George Orwell was a prophet.

  • Native Americans are native to America?

  • Excellent post!

  • How to beat Hillary who portrays herself as the first woman candidate for President but is little more and a lot less. Following upon Obama’s ridiculous transgender gambit, have Sanders or Trump simply self-identify as a woman. There it is. No need to vote for Hillary.

  • “Those who claim victim status are always credible”.
    .
    — Except if giving credence to the claim inconveniences the left. For
    example, Bill Clinton has had claims of sexual assault made against him
    since his college days. Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broadderick
    and Gennifer Flowers etc. etc. have all claimed to be the victims of his
    sexual aggression. The left’s response has always been to circle the wagons
    around Bill and attack the women’s reputations. Ted Kennedy was also
    a beneficiary of the left’s selective willingness to listen to the claims of victims
    of sexual assault.

  • #NEVERHILLARY
    .
    Universal deceit. Blacks, gays, illegals, muslims, transgenders, et al must always come first – you have no right. Their rights trump all of your rights. Anyone who disagrees is a racist and must be punished.
    .
    The aristocracy (Hillary, Obama, et al) call speaking the Truth, “hate speech.”
    .
    George Orwell: “in times of universal deceit (‘political correctness)’, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act (‘hate speech’).”
    .

  • Cardinal Sarah said ‘God or Nothing’. To be without God is to be without reason and thus nothing. The above litany of irrational formulations are perfect examples. Until the world returns to God we will continue to descend into chaos, into nothingness. And the reason the descent has accelerated is because the Catholic Church has appropriated the wisdom of the secular world and lost conscientiousness of it’s God given mission. With Pope Francis this “achievement” is now even being celebrated. Conclusion: Only divine intervention will be effective now.

  • While this post covers many more topics than the public restroom debate, on that matter, I propose that a far more simple solution than “let people who are transgender use either restroom” (which is how the changes have been phrased in everything I’ve seen on the matter). Simply declare all public restrooms gender neutral (Put me on the “we should at least not do nothing” side, for the dangers of physical attack that individuals who are transgender face are very real. And to say “well they should not display their difference then” is to justify violence. To say “they deserved it”).

    This might seem like its basically the same thing. However, there is a crucial difference. This way does not get into the discussion of gender identity/what we are born as vs. consider ourselves at all.

    As far as “propriety”? End the use of urinals. What is more, it is not like we don’t have gender neutral restrooms anyway. That is essentially what all of our restrooms at home are. And the lines are already allowed to be blurred. Parents will take little kids into restroom of their own gender.

    Essentially, there is something for everyone.

  • @7789

    “And to say, well they should not display their difference then, is to justify violence. To say, they deserved it.”

    I do not condone violence towards mentally challenged individuals.

    I also do not believe in creating dangerous environments for child molesters to prey on the innocent.

    The influence of one Muslim President to recommend that public schools allow confused children to use either bathroom OR the school system face financial blowback from Federal government assistance is criminal. As the governor of Texas said;”President Obama can keep his thirty pieces of silver.”

    What’s worse?
    If a transgender person is attacked in their respective bathroom or a teenage girl is raped because a paedophile legally is allowed into a woman’s bathroom?

    The safety of both is important, however Obama has placed the innocent children in danger so a very small segment of society can feel better about themselves. A segment that refuses to accept their natural gender and in essence, demands society to accept and provide money to change their plumbing.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/05/30/sex-change-now-courtesy-of-the-american-taxpayer/

    Please read the DR’s comment pertaining to his field of psychiatry and the “madness” in caving into the sex change craze. He is right.
    They are to help them with their mental illness, not advance it and call it good medicine to spend $20,000 to buy a vagina and think all will be right from now on.

    Obama’s decision has hindered the mentality ill. He has placed wolves inside the chicken coop. The blurring of Obama’s recommendations will be focused clearly and plainly when assaults increase in restrooms. When young girls are raped and terrorized because a mentally ill individual would feel better to use a bathroom of his/her choosing, then will you understand the great injustice this Muslim has created by opening all doors to predators.

  • 1. “mentally ill” There is a WORLD of difference between being transgender and being schizophrenic, various forms of autism, needing special education or in home care, etc.

    2. the stats tend to suggest the whole of some sort of explosion of violence idea is a myth,

    3. Make all restrooms gender neutral and eliminate the use of urinals, and the above hypothetical isn’t a problem anyway. The “danger” is no greater than anywhere else in public.

  • “1. “mentally ill” There is a WORLD of difference between being transgender and being schizophrenic, various forms of autism, needing special education or in home care, etc.”

    Thinking you should be the opposite sex is on par with thinking you should be a dog or a tree. It is clearly a mental illness and so would be recognized if not for the politics surrounding this matter.

    “2. the stats tend to suggest the whole of some sort of explosion of violence idea is a myth.”

    Wrong.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5-times-transgender-men-abused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo

    “3. Make all restrooms gender neutral and eliminate the use of urinals, and the above hypothetical isn’t a problem anyway. The “danger” is no greater than anywhere else in public.”

    Here is a thought. Males use male restrooms and females use female restrooms. A miniscule number of mentally ill people should not be allowed to alter an arrangement that serves well the vast majority of the population. Catering to the fantasies of the mentally ill does them no good.

  • Donald.
    Your link provides 5 cases.
    How many more since that article?
    5, 25?

    The common sense that prevailed years ago is now an uncommon occurrence. The “leftovers” are infesting the populace. Political correctness is the name of this virus.

    As always…. prayers and courage.

    Courage to always stand up for Truth when popular fashion has been promoted to remove Truth from the minds and hearts of men and women. Paganism will perish.

  • 1. i contend they are no where close to being the same. What is more, being transgender does not impact the quality of ones perception of the world around them or ability to follow the rules of society.

    2. a few cases does not make an epidemic.

  • J.S. Person 1 stated; “2. A few cases does not make an epidemic.”

    If you are speaking of the 5 cases presented then I would consider the frustration you might feel if one of the “cases” involved your mom, wife or daughter. You might not feel that an epidemic is at hand, however you may well feel the angst of a parent who lives under absurd rules that place your loved one in harm’s way.

    Abortion wasn’t considered an epidemic in 1973. Nearly sixty million deaths since then might just qualify legalized abortion as an epidemic of great proportion.

    btw…..do you have any adolescent daughters?

  • “1. I contend they are no where close to being the same. What is more, being transgender does not impact the quality of ones perception of the world around them or ability to follow the rules of society.”

    It involves the same refusal to face reality and an embracing of a complete fantasy instead. The mentally ill people called transgenders, at least the activists among them, not only refuse to follow the rules of society they seek to alter the rules to cater to their madness.

    “2. a few cases does not make an epidemic.”

    Oh come off it! What do you think is going to happen when you give license to men to go into female restrooms by claiming to be transgender? This isn’t rocket science.

  • make all restrooms gender neutral rather than keeping the binary and letting people choose, and there is no greater danger than there is anywhere else.

  • “make all restrooms gender neutral rather than keeping the binary and letting people choose, and there is no greater danger than there is anywhere else.”

    No need to do that if we simply do not cater to a small fragment of the population that is mentally ill. Additionally the idea that we should go through the expense of modifying the public bathrooms throughout the nation to accomodate people who disbelieve their DNA is loony tunes.

  • There may be very few cases of sexual confusion but there will likely be numerous cases of abuse of women and girls in restrooms, even shower rooms by dangerous or depraved persons who will take advantage of the utter nonsense coming from the current President. A sane citizenry would question the sanity of this man.

  • while one would have to go through expense to remove old urinals, in situations where this might be too much for a time, one doesnt actually have to go through much expense. more or less just declare bathrooms gender neutral.

  • “while one would have to go through expense to remove old urinals, in situations where this might be too much for a time, one doesnt actually have to go through much expense. more or less just declare bathrooms gender neutral.”

    Well getting rid of urinals would certainly inconvenience all males in the country and add vastly to lines at male public rest rooms. Additionally that does not solve the problem of multi-stall restrooms which both males and females under your plan would be using together. This is completely nuts.

  • Its the near future. There are public restrooms without urinals. All that is in these restrooms are sinks and stalls.

    What is so nuts about this future?

  • “There are public restrooms without urinals.”

    In almost all male public restrooms I have been in there are urinals. It is nuts to go through all this simply to cater to a small group of mentally ill people.

  • So now we have to change billions of dollars of plumbing to satisfy a handful of disordered people who are confused about their own “plumbing”. That is crazy.

  • William P.Walsh.

    The future!

    I dare not guess what the future progressive will come up with 20 years down the road.
    Ok….one guess. By then the liberal thinking..yes thinking..(going out on a limb since thought seems to be sewage material for many,) will be how to accommodate the animal he or she is wed to.
    After all..the pony Sally married will have “rights” to choose to go to the mall with her if she wishes. Then comes the restroom use.
    Re-plumb for Billy the pony, Sally’s mate.
    Absurd?

    Just look around.

    “Lets make all public bathrooms gender neutral.”

    Here’s one better.

    A porta potty will be available for all transgender individuals everywhere around the country, for their exclusive use. We will save the taxpayer millions from having to change public restrooms, and give the transgender community a private room…all to themselves.

    No risks from paedophile’s going into the wrong public restrooms to harm our children.
    Surely Obama could compromise, and leave the boys room for boys, and likewise for the girl folk.

  • Transgender as a political issue. Found on the internet:

    FYI-FTR: The transgender school bathroom issue as a cultural Marxist divide, polarize and ruin wedge issue.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-the-transgender-school-bathroom-issue-as-a-cultural-marxist-divide-polarise-and-ruinwedge/

  • First, tell Obama, The Man Who Would be King, that he is not. And then remind him that where Title IX says “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded” , it does not mean on the basis of a mental disorder, that sex is scientifically simply sex and not some subjective distortion of reality. And then let us consider the abolition of the US Department of Education as an unnecessary and rather toxic formula concocted by our second worst President James E. Carter. Finally, never – never – never – Hillary.

  • Reagan June 1982, “Tear down this wall.”
    .
    Obama June 2016, “Tear down this stall.”
    .
    Mr. Dowd, Truth. All this socio-psycho garbage is meant to destroy our faith, our families, and our way of life. The liberals are circling for the kill. Resist as best you can.
    .
    PS: The magnificence of Hillary’s (and Trump Derangement Syndrome/establishment GOP) “dream economy” is Venezuela, where they do their food shopping in dumpsters. Be prepared.

  • Michael Dowd.

    Good link at uncommon descent.
    Spot on.

  • Somebody wrote; “Hell is the impossibility of reason.” Charlie Sheen’s character in Platoon.

    To me…this obscure quote fits perfectly with the subject matter.

Let’s Pretend and the Gods of the Copybook Headings

Monday, July 6, AD 2015

Well, the Greeks rejected austerity measures in a referendum yesterday 61% to 39%.  This should mean that Greece leaves the Eurozone but I doubt it.  My guess is that the powers that be in the EU, afraid that the whole Euro edifice will crash, along with their phony baloney jobs, will craft together some sort of last minute mini-bailout to keep the Greeks in the Eurozone for a bit longer, making the ultimate collapse of the Eurozone that much more devastating.  What all of this portends of course is the end of an era that is much larger than what happens to a minor Mediterranean economy, or even of the European economy.  We are saying farewell to the era of Let’s Pretend.

Let’s Pretend began back in the ’60’s of the last century when it became a common belief among the intelligentsia of the West that the usual rules, what Kipling called the Gods of the Copybook Headings, that had governed human affairs since the dawn of Man no longer applied.  We are clearly in the end game of this rubbish on stilts as reality keeps intruding.  Summoning money out of thin air eventually comes to a crashing end, welfare states eventually collapse under their own weight, free sex burdens society with kids growing up fatherless and with adults that never grow up at all, imposing a common currency on nations with separate economies, banking systems and disparate cultures is delusional, and the list of collective flights from reality could go at great length.

 

In this end game we have the proponents of our Let’s Pretend Culture assuring us that sex is merely a made up distinction and that marriage includes joining men to men and women to women.  Rather than ushering in a brave new world, this is a dying gasp of an exhausted project of reality denial.  Of course we are not the first generation to engage in such a project.  The lamentable chronicle of human folly and crime is replete with examples of societies collectively taking leave of their senses for a time.  However, reality always wins in the end, and the return of reality is usually attended with the shedding of many human tears and the shedding of much human blood.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Let’s Pretend and the Gods of the Copybook Headings

  • Meanwhile, over to the East, the Putin bear is planning how he can make a bold move to take advantage of the most weakened western world since Marx and Lenin. Perhaps, he’ll wait until the UN climate change makes their move for power.

  • Your sentiments ring so true. I hope reality comes soon on a global scale. I’m utterly frightened of the world that my children will face, raising their children.

    Unfortunately for Greece, they got what they have deserved for so long.

    Their economy is a direct result of the peoples decision to vote in a Conmunist government. They don’t know how to manage money. This and the “slack” work ethic of the current working generation produces a complete disastrous outcome.

    And they STILL want handouts instead of a slap of reality ie. the logical and sensible tightening of the belt.

    The powers that be (whoever they claim to be) are complete morons.

  • “They don’t know how to manage money…”

    Ezabelle, I would argue that Marxists (by whatever name) very well know how to manage money and economies, but they seek different outcomes from it. You assume they seek to improve the economic life of its citizens (thereby allowing independence) when in fact they seek to bring everyone down that they might easily be controlled.
    Visit any marine boot camp and you’ll see the process of humbling and thus dependency upon (loyalty to) the government. (Those few who seek to control the masses)
    The key is that there can be no other choice allowed the people–hence, control of communications, indoctrination, and the destruction of western ideals and God’s Church which sets us free.

  • Meanwhile, over to the East, the Putin bear is planning how he can make a bold move to take advantage of the most weakened western world since Marx and Lenin.

    Marx died in 1883 and Lenin in 1924. Somehow I suspect the occidental world of 1942 which had seen a dozen years of economic depression and much of which was under occupation by the Axis powers, was weaker than it is today. (And, while we’re at it, Soviet Russia in 1979 was a more vigorous and threatening power than post-Soviet Russia is today).

  • I would argue that Marxists (by whatever name) very well know how to manage money and economies, but they seek different outcomes from it. You assume they seek to improve the economic life of its citizens (thereby allowing independence) when in fact they seek to bring everyone down that they might easily be controlled.

    Don, see Paul Hollander on this point. There was an implosion in morale among the Soviet managerial stratum when, ca. 1985, it suddenly was possible the disconnected problems in the economy that they knew about themselves. The notion abroad for many decades (in fragments of the occident and in the East Bloc) was that central planning was the way to run an economy for maximum output and broad distribution of benefits. I can show you textbooks and magazine literature that I was reading as late as 1985 singing the praises of ‘indicative planning’ (something different that the comprehensive bureaucratic authoritarian state and society you saw in Soviet Russia, to be sure); at the time, chatter about ‘industrial policy’ was all the rage among a certain sort of journalist-wonk (e.g. Robert Kuttner), among others. Characters like Boris Yeltsin visit the United States and see what’s available in an ordinary American supermarket (without lines out the door a block long) and the jig’s up.

  • “I can show you textbooks and magazine literature that I was reading as late as 1985 singing the praises of ‘indicative planning’ (something different that the comprehensive bureaucratic authoritarian state and society you saw in Soviet Russia, to be sure); at the time, chatter about ‘industrial policy’ was all the rage among a certain sort of journalist-wonk (e.g. Robert Kuttner), among others.”

    This from John Kenneth Galbraith in 1984:

    “Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast to the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower.”

  • I recall that a major issue in the USSR circa 1980 was that the managerial class came to understand that none of the metrics it was using to ‘plan’ the economy could be trusted. The need for secrecy and the widespread corruption resulted in informational anarchy. After the collapse the CIA was shocked to find that it’s estimates were too low: it turned out that the Soviet military-industrial complex occupied two-thirds of the total economy! The leadership was dancing in a hall of mirrors of its own making, and they simply could not effectively respond to the Reagan-Thatcher-Wojtyla challenge.

    In a sense the same thing happens in countries like Argentina and Greece with their economic manipulations. In this case it is the value of the currency that is the metric being polluted. The leadership fools itself into believing the value is what they say it is.

  • Whatever any Greek government does will be merely rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
    The Greek birth-rate went into free-fall in the 1980 and the country now has a Total Fertility Rate of 1.34 children per woman. Given that the median age is 43.5 years, there are simply not enough women of child-bearing age to reverse the impending decline of the population.
    No economic nostrums will enable Greece, to cope with a rapidly growing population of dependent elderly. Like Japan, by the end of the century, their language will be spoken exclusively in hell.
    IEven Germany, despite its present prosperity, has a median age of 46.1 and a TFR of 1.38. That may enable them to die out more comfortably and, in the meantime, to purchase some amusements to reduce their boredom and anxiety as their nation sins into the grave.

  • I inteded to write “as their nation sinks into the grave.”

  • After the collapse the CIA was shocked to find that it’s estimates were too low: it turned out that the Soviet military-industrial complex occupied two-thirds of the total economy!

    Can you provide a reference for that? The CIA estimate was revised in 1976 at which time it was calculated that about a quarter of their output was devoted to military uses, rather than one-eighth, which was the previous estimate. Keep in mind, that under conditions of comprehensive national mobilization, a mean about 1/3 of American output was devoted to military uses during the period running from 1940-46. It’s indicative of how vigorous the government was at the time that it was reduced from over 40% to 6.7% in less than two years (1945-47), and the country weathered a severe recession to boot. The federal government ran budget surpluses in FY 1946/47, 1947/48, and 1949/50. (There was a recession in 1949, so there was a deficit in 1948/49). We aren’t the people we used to be.

  • This from John Kenneth Galbraith in 1984: “Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast to the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower.”

    If Mrs. McClarey has some time on her hands, you might ask her to produce a Kenneth Galbraith bibliography, omitting everything but refereed research papers in academic journals and working papers with similar content. You could add some monographs if they were historical works incorporating original research. That bibliography will be very, very short, his longevity notwithstanding. The man was an op-ed monster.

  • Gosh yes! 🙂 We all reject austerity don’t we?!
    Is the die cast? What can really be done to alleviate the austerity that is actually in our future- not as part of a grand plan, but actual hunger and drop in so called standards of living none the less.

  • And thank you for Kipling- pretty much unknown to me before TAC– and for Bill Whittle commentary

  • Alas, I am too young to be able to count on being dead before the inevitable Mother of All
    Market Corrections happens. The Chinese stock market has lost almost $3 trillion in
    value in the past two weeks, and keeps dropping. With Greece’s woes, the crash of the
    Eurozone is that much closer– and as intertwined as our economy is with the rest of the
    world, no one with any sense could think that we’ll escape unscathed here in the USA,
    where we’ve doubled our national debt in the past 6 years, and our financial industry
    is wildly, unsustainably over leveraged.
    .
    I’d be a bit less pessimistic if it weren’t for the thought that the oncoming crisis will be
    handled by the corrupt, feckless, malignant crop we currently have in Washington.

  • Russia may be weaker, but we are even more so–having lost all will to oppose evil and become quasi-socialists ourselves.
    It is wise to remember about the Putinized Russia, that it is the weak and wounded Tiger that becomes the man eater, and while the more noisy rattler makes loud noises warning you of danger, the silent cottonmouth or copperhead bites before you become aware of the danger.
    Russia, weak or otherwise, controls the life-blood fuel of Europe and has many times already intimidated her when they get advantage. They’ll not ignore the EU’s economic crisis and fail to see the best opportunity in many a year to make a move….while we wage war on CO2.

  • Alas, I am too young to be able to count on being dead before the inevitable Mother of All Market Corrections happens. The Chinese stock market has lost almost $3 trillion in
    value in the past two weeks, and keeps dropping. With Greece’s woes, the crash of the
    Eurozone is that much closer– and as intertwined as our economy is with the rest of the
    world, no one with any sense could think that we’ll escape unscathed here in the USA,


    China has been nursing bubbles in asset prices for years. Nothing surprising and nothing all that troubling unless their traders are up to their eyeballs in margin. The American stock market is only mildly over-valued. Greece accounts for only 2% of the Eurozone’s production and what has been happening is very well telegraphed. The real problem might be if there is a panic re Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian debt. There hasn’t been much change in the CDS spreads on the Spanish and Italian debt of late, just some flux. There has been some increase in the spreads on Portuguese debt, though the spreads are not any higher than they were last year.

  • Russia may be weaker, but we are even more so–having lost all will to oppose evil and become quasi-socialists ourselves. It is wise to remember about the Putinized Russia, that it is the weak and wounded Tiger that becomes the man eater, and while the more noisy rattler makes loud noises warning you of danger, the silent cottonmouth or copperhead bites before you become aware of the danger. Russia, weak or otherwise, controls the life-blood fuel of Europe and has many times already intimidated her when they get advantage. They’ll not ignore the EU’s economic crisis and fail to see the best opportunity in many a year to make a move….while we wage war on CO2.

    We have a bad elite, typified by the vapid and unscrupulous man who sits in the Oval Office. Some manifestations of that may improve in a year and a half. The notion that ‘we are even weaker’ I cannot credit. We have enormous productive capacity we did not have in 1941 and our economy and military dwarf in size that of every other country in the world bar China. Putin is engaged in a game of harassing countries on the Russian border. This is an expense and an irritant for the Ukraine. Donetsk is a long way from Warsaw, however. As for what Russia ‘controls’. Russia’s the most important component of the international export market in fuels, accounting for 12% of the total. They are also dependent on fuel exports for 70% of their foreign exchange. I tend to be skeptical they’re going to be running a general embargo on the rest of Europe.

  • In the long run this is probably good. Greece will be forced to put it’s house in order, kicking and screaming for sure. But the short run will be painful.

    ==========================

    Don

    On different note for your Kipling series, some recently put up a good video of the “Mary Gloster.”

    http://eclecticmeanderings.blogspot.com/

  • I do not believe the left are in a “let’s pretend” mode. That would be indicative of a modicum of innocence/virtue.
    .
    .
    I believe that from day one, say 1913 in the USA, the left’s modus has been let’s fabricate problems, tear it down, and replace it with what we control. It’s about power. It’s not about reform or change.
    .
    And, I believe the closest the left comes to analyzing the consequences of any ill-conceived experiment is a fleeting thought that “We will have control. How bad things be?”
    .
    Scratch a leftist and you find a totalitarian. As Gibbon wrote regarding Augustus, they are intent on reducing every one to an equal level of powerlessness, poverty and desperation so that they can readily control all.
    .
    When in the course of human events . . .

  • “Can you provide a reference for that? (After the collapse the CIA was shocked to find that it’s estimates were too low: it turned out that the Soviet military-industrial complex occupied two-thirds of the total economy!)

    Art, my recollection is that I saw that in a U.S. Naval Institute publication, probably a Proceedings issue.

  • “…as their nation sins into the grave.”
    MPS, it makes perfect sense that way too.

  • .
    “Scratch a leftist and you find a totalitarian. As Gibbon wrote regarding Augustus, they are intent on reducing every one to an equal level of powerlessness, poverty and desperation so that they can readily control all.”

    Absolutely correct–CONTROL is what it is all about–and DAMN the consequences to anyone.

  • TomD wrote, “…as their nation sins into the grave.”
    MPS, it makes perfect sense that way too.”
    Doesn’t it just?

  • Barbara Gordon wrote, “Absolutely correct–CONTROL is what it is all about–and DAMN the consequences to anyone.”

    Does no one read Carl Schmitt anymore?

    Schmitt, a Catholic conservative, argues that every realm of human endeavour is structured by an irreducible duality. Morality is concerned with good and evil, aesthetics with the beautiful and the ugly, and economics with the profitable and the unprofitable. In politics, the core distinction is between friend and enemy. That is what makes politics different from everything else.

    The political comes into being when groups are placed in a relation of enmity, where each comes to perceive the other as an irreconcilable adversary to be fought and, if possible, defeated. “Every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms itself into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively, according to friends and enemy.” “The political is the most intense and extreme antagonism,” Schmitt wrote. War is the most violent form that politics takes , but, even short of war, politics still requires that you treat your opposition as antagonistic to everything in which you believe.

    Of course, he denies the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting positions; for Schmitt there is no such neutrality, since any rule – even an ostensibly fair one –represents the victory of one political faction over another and is merely the temporarily stabilised result of past conflicts.

  • “Every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms itself into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively, according to friends and enemy.”

    That’s a non-falsifiable proposition, MPS.

  • I recognize that “friend and enemy” duality– it’s a rephrasing of the Tribalism theory of human interaction. All for those inside of the group(classically, tribe- your relatives), nothing of value for those outside.

    It’s an observation on human nature, one that Christianity calls on us to overcome. (by expanding to all people, but that’s still overcoming)

  • Foxfier

    of course, Schmitt insists that Internal order can only be successdfully imposed as the necessary means of pursuing external conflicts. For him, a world government is impossible, for humanity has no enemy.

  • Schmitt insists that Internal order can only be successdfully imposed as the necessary means of pursuing external conflicts.

    So, imaginative construction replaces actual political sociology.

  • Art Deco wrote, “So, imaginative construction replaces actual political sociology.”

    As a jurist and political theorist, Schmitt is primarily concerned with the analysis of political concepts, their logical implications and their coherence.

    Every political community is based on a constitutive distinction between insiders and outsiders or friends and enemies. A democratic political community, as much as any other, must therefore rest on some marker of identity and difference that can ground an exclusive form of political equality which will only apply to insiders. His insistence that the political equality that constitutes a political community cannot be based on the non-exclusive equality of all human beings as moral persons, is analytical, not empirical.

  • As a jurist and political theorist, Schmitt is primarily concerned with the analysis of political concepts, their logical implications and their coherence.

    So what? The theoretical is insufficient. It is merely a prelude to the sociological and the historical.

    Every political community is based on a constitutive distinction between insiders and outsiders or friends and enemies.

    Please note the following: your first pairing is not coterminous with your second pairing; elegant assertion is not the same thing as demonstration, whether Carl Schmitt does it or you do.

  • Was not Schmitt excommunicated and effectively an atheist from his mid-twenties on? And while I dislike, generally, to exclude thinkers due to their associations- what wisdom could come from a man like Schmitt who helped to protect, justify and nurture the Nazis? Few read Schmitt, at least directly, anymore because he was barred from the academic world at his refusal to go through de-Nazification. Perhaps it is better for our us that this is so.

  • Hmmmmm asks, “[W]hat wisdom could come from a man like Schmitt who helped to protect, justify and nurture the Nazis?”

    What led Schmitt to collaborate with the Nazis from March 1933 to December 1936 was, above all, concern with order Along with many German conservatives, Schmitt saw the choice as either Hitler or chaos. But, political thought should not be evaluated on the basis of the authors’ personal political judgements.

    Acute theoretical analysis is perfectly compatible with poor practical judgment.

Amazons Attack!

Thursday, January 24, AD 2013

 

 

Back in my misspent youth in the Seventies I served some time in the Green Machine.  (I like to think that I greatly contributed to the defense of the nation by leaving the Army.)  While I was learning the mysteries of how to manuever squads, the other officer cadets and I would train with female officer cadets.  Most of them found the fairly arduous training very exhausting.  A few of them were as capable as the least physically in shape of the men.  (I would have been in that category.)  This was only basic training and not the type of training that would go on at an infantry branch school for the Lieutenants assigned to that branch.  Women of course back in those days could not be assigned to the Combat Arms branches of the Army, and I do not recall one woman complaining about that.

However, now Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, on his way out the door, has announced a policy to allow women to serve in the Combat Arms.  Since my service was a peace time comedy of errors, and I have an XY chromosome combination, I will defer to the observations of Captain Katie Petronio, USMC, made last year:

As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.

I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?

As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Amazons Attack!

  • We have lost all respect for women. We went from standing when they entered the room and opening doors for them, to putting them on the front lines?

    Donald your last paragraph summed it up nicely, “Let’s Pretend” mode is in full swing!

  • Why on Earth would the top brass listen to someone with actual expertise and experience when they can listen to a committee with a cool name like “DACOWITS”?

  • I should think of something insightful to say on the subject, but what really struck me is that you don’t often see a split-screen shot where the Fox News gal is the second-cutest.

  • As a former infantry medic I can tell you this woman is spot on. The physical rigors of infantry operations take a toll on men, and this results in accelerated joint degeneration. Knees, backs, feet, anything that bears a load takes a hit. My brother ended up with back problems from his deployment to Iraq due to wearing body armor. I injured my feet from running in boots with heavy loads during training.

    As part of my insurance work, I need to assess people’s employability after an injury, and this includes assessing prior employment within a certain number of years. I’ve had a few who had served in the military prior to a work injury, and that had to be assessed. Combat arms are always classified as very heavy, and involve lifting and carrying over a hundred pounds at times, and doing that in awkward, non-ergonomic positions. Women do not have the same bone structure as men do, and this can increase the likelihood of an acute injury, or a chronic degenerative problem that comes about over time. Once you begin down that road of joint degeneration, its natural course it to continue to worsen over time. When people are young, they aren’t aware of this possibility. They feel great and think they will live forever in perfect health. So they take out loans that their bodies must end up repaying over time. They find out when they are older what chronic pain is.

    I would hardly call this sort of thing compassionate to women.

  • It is not about compassion for women. It is about further transformation of society into the egalitarian utopia. Gays in the military was also part of the process. What next?

  • What next?

    A military disaster (heaven forbid) to knock us to our senses?

  • “What next?”
    Their bringing back Mr. Ed the talking Horse
    and Mr. Lumpit the talking fish. It’s going to be a “dandy” of a good Corps.

  • A military disaster (heaven forbid) to knock us to our senses?

    No, that never works–it just means that things didn’t go far enough.

    What happens next is the female officers that wanted this get their “combat command” box checked, a bunch of enlisted women are put in positions they’re not suited for, lots of folks get killed, and the activists demand more for their ideas. Why not, they’re not paying the blood price.

  • At least it should strike terror into the enemy, if Kipling is to be believed:

    “When you’re lying half-dead on Afganistan’s plains
    And the women come out to cut up what remains
    Just roll on your rifle and blow out your brains…”

  • Hmmm…this is an interesting issue to say the least!

    I don’t find Donald’s anecdotal evidence very helpful. It reduces the differences between man and woman to purely physical terms, or at least overemphasizes this approach. Yes, men and women are physically different, a difference that makes men far more capable of enduring the strain of combat. Most woman are not physically capable of undergoing the same type of physical exertion, at least not without a serious toll being taken on their bodies. Most women, like the young lady interviewed by Fox, should not be participating in combat.

    But what about the exceptions? What if there was a woman who was just as physically suited as her male counterparts to participate in and endure the bodily toll of combat? I’m not saying that it’s a certainty that there exists a female physically capable of enduring combat situations, but I think it’s a hypothetical that is most certainly plausible. So on what grounds would she not be able to fight on the “front-lines?” The type of argument used by Captain Petronino and, at least in this post, Donald would fail, because it solely addresses the physical limitations of MOST women. If those limitations are ever exceeded, then what case is left to be made?

    While I still maintain that women, on average, are physically ill-disposed to participate in combat, I don’t think that’s the primary issue we should be exploring. We should be talking about nature, and whether there is something inherent in the nature of woman that would seem to indicate their place is not on the battlefield (on a related note…what do ya’ll think about stay-at-home-dads?).

    Honestly, this dichotomy reminds me of a disturbing trend I’ve seen in pro-life argumentation against abortion. Namely, that abortion is bad not primarily because it’s morally wrong, but because it’s not good POLICY. This is an essay that elevated this concern: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/01/7630/

    The author’s point basically boils down to “proponents said abortion would reduce out-of-wedlock births, would reduce the crime rate, and reduce child abuse BUT IT HASN’T and therefore it’s bad policy.” But what if it HAD done all these things? And yes, I know there is something said about sin manifesting itself in a physical form, but it doesn’t always, at least no in an obvious or quantifiable way. My point is basically that these types of arguments are nice as supporting acts, but should never minimize the primacy of the “main show,” namely arguments focusing on the “nature” of things.

  • Here’s an article that, I believe, approaches this issue from a better place:

    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/01/battles-are-ugly-when-women-fight

  • “It reduces the differences between man and woman to purely physical terms, or at least overemphasizes this approach.”

    This post was not meant to explore all the differences between mean and women JL. Having been happily married for over three decades, the father of a daughter and having a female secretary who has been my right hand for 27 years, I think I might have an inkling of all of those differences. It was meant to be a practical look at the drawbacks of this proposal in practical terms even for an uber physically fit woman like Captain Petronio. She would have been precisely the type of exceptional woman thought worthy to be in Combat Arms. Her testimony, riveting in detail, helps demolish the argument for the exceptional. As Foxfier, a female veteran of the Navy points out, this proposal will not be limited to the exceptionally fit like Captain Petronio. There will be immense pressure by the civilian leadership to put a lot of women in Combat Arms to demonstrate that the policy is a success. Physical qualifications will be ignored and a lot of women, especially enlisted women, will find themselves in situations where their inability, through absolutely no fault of their own, to keep up physically with their male colleagues will cost lives, quite probably a great many lives. To people who serve in the military that is what will count the most in regard to this new policy.

  • Not all comments have been about physical issues. As I noted, this was one more effort to engineer our society to an idealized state of equality. Something your link further suggests:

    “Long ago, we made equality our end, and this is the inevitable next stop on our long march. If that requires the sacrifice of our sisters and daughters, say the egalitarians, then so be it.”

  • “It is an army bred for a single purpose: to destroy the world of Men.”

  • “Not all comments have been about physical issues. As I noted, this was one more effort to engineer our society to an idealized state of equality.”

    I agree Phillip, I was simply pointing out that this post overemphasized physical differences in its argumentation.

    “She would have been precisely the type of exceptional woman thought worthy to be in Combat Arms. Her testimony, riveting in detail, helps demolish the argument for the exceptional.”

    No, I don’t think it does. She is one of what, less than 10,000 active women in the Corps? Sure she had some of the highest marks with regards to physical fitness amongst her female peers, but the sample size is still incredibly small when one considers there are over 3 billion women in the world.

    And yes, the Corps is obviously extremely self-selecting in the sense that people in peak physical condition enlist or become officers. This is probably especially true of the women who serve. But arguing that no woman is physically capable of enduring a combat environment because Capt. Petronino was not is obviously fallacious.

    She is not some definitive “uberfrau,” the exemplar of physical prowess amongst her sex. And, in fact, she stands at only 5 feet 3 inches! I doubt many MEN could undergo the bodily toll of combat with a frame like that. Clearly, the link between “fitness” and “combat capability” is not a clear corollary, just as high SAT scores do not necessarily translate into academic success.

    I repeat, arguing that ALL women are not suited for combat because they are not physically capable of withstanding the conditions without a seriously detrimental toll on their bodies is foolish, and will be “demolished” if/when any woman ever shows herself TO be capable, which is a certainly plausible scenario to entertain.

    And yes, not limiting combat assignments to those women who are physically capable of enduring them is idiotic…but the same would be true of giving these assignments to MEN who weren’t physically cut-out for it, would it not?

  • JL, regardless of whether there are some women who might be able to handle the rigors of infantry life, the fact is that most will not. When I was in, I did an inordinate amount of heavy lifting for females. One lieutenant was physically incapable of even carrying her own duffel bag. I got off a plane from Korea once and had to carry my gear and hers.

  • I remember when I was at a Rights and Responsibilities Workshop during my Navy days. The subject of women in combat came up. This was over twenty years ago, mind you. Anyway, a Lt. CDR in our group, an electronics officer spoke up and said some of the best technicians he ever worked with were women. But in combat he wouldn’t want anyone of them around because they would be prime targets for the enemy. The demoralization effect it would have on the men would be insurmountable. He was absolutely correct.

    For similar reasons, I am also against women on NAvy ships. Ever since the Navy started allowing women to serve on auxilary ships like destroyer and submarine tenders, it has been an unmitigated dsisaster. Now, they are on combatant ships. And it’s an even bigger problem.

    Where are all the republicans expressing outrage about this and the overall gutting of our military by Obama? Another example of GOP weakness in the face of Democrap agression.

  • “JL, regardless of whether there are some women who might be able to handle the rigors of infantry life, the fact is that most will not.”

    And….so what? Doesn’t that simply mean that those women who are not physically capable of handling the rigors of infantry life should not be deployed in such a capacity? And isn’t the same true of men who aren’t physically capable? Again, I think any argument against putting women into combat is on extremely shaky ground if it is primarily based on appeals to physical differences.

    “When I was in, I did an inordinate amount of heavy lifting for females. One lieutenant was physically incapable of even carrying her own duffel bag. I got off a plane from Korea once and had to carry my gear and hers.”

    OK, this anecdote is helpful in allowing others to understand how your experiences have shaped your views on the issue, but, like Donald’s account, it really isn’t helpful to the overall discussion. The women you served with were not physically capable of undergoing demanding conditions, but I’m not sure why that leads to an argument like “MOST women are physically incapable of being in combat without severe bodily consequences and, therefore, ALL women should be barred from combat assignments.” Arguments against putting any of our wives, sisters, and daughters on the field of battle should be primarily concerned with the differences in the NATURE of men and women.

    And no one has said anything about stay-at-home-dads yet…

  • Sorry JL, but you are flat out wrong here. Women in the military have lower physical fitness standards than men. They’re not going to change this. There are no special physical fitness standards to be an infantryman vs. an office clerk. At any point, that office clerk can be propelled into the role of an infantry soldier, and so the physical standards are the same for all specialties, with the exception of certain elite units like the Rangers. But for infantry, armor, etc., its the same standard as for the guy changing bedpans in a hospital. Ergo, women, who have a lower physical fitness standard in the Army to begin with, will meet a lower physical standard than the men in an infantry unit. I don’t think you’ve actually served, or if you did you must have forgotten a lot. It’s simply not true that women will have to meet a higher fitness standard. It’s already the case that they have a lower physical fitness standard.

    By the way, it wasn’t only one incident that formed my opinion. It was my overall experience. When I was in combat medic training we had to carry stretchers with an actual soldier through an obstacle course which included trenches, barbed wire, walls, logs, and an assortment of barriers. Women had real difficulty with this, and the men had to take up a lot of the slack. These were female soldiers who had undergone many weeks of hard physical training to build up strength, and who would not even be at the school had they not met the physical standards in place **** for women****. Again, it’s nothing against women soldiers, but they are not physically identical to men and it’s asking for trouble to integrate them into combat arms. It doesn’t sound to me like you served with an infantry unit like I did. It’s clear you’re not familiar with how it works.

    That said, you are correct that there are a lot of other arguments that can be made regarding women serving in combat arms.

  • One factor that hasn’t been mentioned is the fact that women are more liable to be subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of the enemy in the event of capture.

    http://www.wnd.com/2003/11/21645/

  • “Women in the military have lower physical fitness standards than men. They’re not going to change this. There are no special physical fitness standards to be an infantryman vs. an office clerk. At any point, that office clerk can be propelled into the role of an infantry soldier, and so the physical standards are the same for all specialties, with the exception of certain elite units like the Rangers. But for infantry, armor, etc., its the same standard as for the guy changing bedpans in a hospital. Ergo, women, who have a lower physical fitness standard in the Army to begin with, will meet a lower physical standard than the men in an infantry unit.”

    I guess I’m not getting too caught up on what the official standards are. As far as I know, men have one standard, women have a different one. People want to merge them into “one standard,” which I think is problematic.

    But here’s the crux of the matter: If there was a women who was just as physically capable as a man who served in the infantry, on what grounds would you bar her from combat duty?

    “It doesn’t sound to me like you served with an infantry unit like I did. It’s clear you’re not familiar with how it works.”

    Nope, I didn’t. But then again, most bishops have never been pregnant. My lack of information is just that, a lack of information, not some unavoidable blemish on my opinions because I haven’t undergone the experience.

  • This would also seem to indicate that you’re wrong:

    “Military officials who briefed reporters on background said occupations such as infantry and artillery have exacting physical requirements and appropriate standards will be maintained.”

    Looks like standards differ for assignments.

    source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/24/women-in-combat-briefing/1861887/

  • One obvious problem is pregnancy. Given that women in combat roles would be in their prime, childbearing years, this can be quite an issue. The Navy is currently dealing with this with one year shore assignments. The problem is, what will be the impact on combat units.

    http://hamptonroads.com/node/343431

  • JL:

    You are speaking from ignorance. They said they won’t lower their standards. I’m sure that’s true. The standards have been in place for a long time, and they are different for men and for women. Given that they are already lower for women, there’s no need for them to lower the standards a second time. It’s already been done. Having served with an infantry unit, I can tell you first hand that all they need to do is pass the APFT to serve with an infantry unit, or any combat arms unit except certain elite units. You can find the actual standards here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test

    An 18 year old male must do 42 pushups. A female of the same age must do 19. In fact, the minimum passing score for a male is considered a “max” for a female who would score 100% on the test for getting the least amount a guy would get. It’s very nearly the same situation with the 2 mile run. They may be trumpeting that “standards won’t be lowered” but that doesn’t mean squat because standards have been in place for years and they aren’t going to change. They have been different for men and women for a very long time, but you won’t see them acknowledging that fact to the media because that would make the public question it. The vast majority of Americans have never served in the military and won’t know to question it. If you pass the APFT, you’re good to go.

    But don’t take my word for it. Go here:

    http://army.com/forum/infantry-requirements

    and see what a recruiter says about infantry requirements. Basically he states there are no special requirements, and you need to maintain a 60% (60 points) to stay in, which anyone in the military must maintain anyway. And it takes a lower level of performance to get a 60% for a female than for a male.

    The spokespeople are playing word games with the press when they say standards won’t be lowered. Technically, that’s correct. But….

  • “Be all you can be” Equality is not the same as sameness. The equality DACOWITS wants is sameness.

  • JL:

    Sorry, I didn’t scroll up far enough to see you other post. Regarding your question about what would happen if a woman met the same physical requirements as a man, as practical matter that’s not going to happen. They go off of percentages. Now assuming you do have some Amazon woman who consumed steroids from the breast milk of her East German Olympic team weightlifter mother, and who can meet the male standards for an infantry unit… no, let’s go even further and say she meets the physical standards for one of the Ranger battalions and successfully goes through all of the various schools that lead to that assignment. At that point, one can assume that unicorns do exist. It’s an absurd assumption. But let’s go with it anyway. That event is going to be so rare that it’s going to be outside the experience of nearly everyone serving in the military. And at the point, the same people calling for women to serve in the military are going to make sure that standards are lower for women in the name of “equality”. To ensure the outcome they prefer, they will absolutely gerrymander the requirements to get women into combat positions by hook or by crook. This will be bad for morale. Men will resent it, except those who know how to play political games. The NCO corps will become nothing more than a bunch of “yes” men rather than independent thinkers who can solve problems on their feet in stressful situations. We will destroy the military by driving away honest, capable soldiers. The only ones left will be the opportunists.

  • In addition to the issue of disparity in terms of physical abilities is the factor the importance of the development of fraternal bonds amongst soldiers in an infantry unit. You inject sexual attaction into that environment, which will naturally follow with the mixing of the sexes, you have a serious problem in its own right.

  • Alphatron. I wouldn’t say I’m “speaking from ignorance,” I’m just simply repeating what professional journalists have said military officials told them.

    I’m going to try to address your points one at a time:
    -I know women and men have different standards.
    -Well, it seems like what the recruiter on the forum is saying contradicts what army officials have explicitly stated. One says there are elevated standards for infantry, the other says there are not. Both seem to have the requisite authority for me to take them at their word, so I’m not going to argue against either of them.
    -I will point out that, since women have been banned from combat, when people say “anyone who meets the requirements to get into the Army can be assigned to the infantry,” it’s possible that they aren’t referring to women at all since they can’t possibly serve in the infantry. So yes, any man who met the requisite standards could be called up to the infantry, but if they were going to allow women to enter the infantry, they probably would revise women’s standards, possibly creating explicit “not infantry approved” and “infantry approved” designations. I am just speculating, but it seems absurd to me to think that women being allowed to serve in combat capacities would mean that any women who meets the general standards for women would be allowed into the infantry.

    “Regarding your question about what would happen if a woman met the same physical requirements as a man, as practical matter that’s not going to happen. They go off of percentages. ”

    I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this. How is it “not going to happen?” If a man in the infantry has a certain score, and a women equals or bests it, how can she be barred from combat duty on the basis that she isn’t physically capable?

    “no, let’s go even further and say she meets the physical standards for one of the Ranger battalions and successfully goes through all of the various schools that lead to that assignment. At that point, one can assume that unicorns do exist. It’s an absurd assumption. ”

    Yah…I’m not really sure why you take my fairly plausible scenario (a single woman having scores comparable to any man serving in the infantry) and made it something ridiculous, which I haven’t even remotely suggested. It’d an absurd assumption because you made it.

    I’m not really sure I follow the rest of what you’re saying. It doesn’t really address my question, which I’ll word differently this time: if an individual woman achieved scores on these standards tests that were equal to or better than at least one man currently cleared for infantry duty, on what grounds could you bar her from the infantry? The “physically incapable” argument obviously wouldn’t work in such a scenario, because she’s just proved that she IS physically capable (unless the standards aren’t really a good indication of this, in which case they should be revised).

  • Alphatron. I wouldn’t say I’m “speaking from ignorance,” I’m just simply repeating what professional journalists have said military officials told them.

    Those same “professionals” think that identifying the spot a shoulder strap is attached to as a bayonet spot is a minor mistake, and using a picture of an AK-47 for a military style AR is no mistake at all.

    Women, even those who meet the same physical standards– which, as linked, are not special— do not respond the same to physical “stress.”
    Medics have pointed out the massively higher rate of injuries, and a Marine officer even wrote a piece for the Marine Corps Gazette.

    Somehow, didn’t get much attention from those “professional journalists.”

  • It has to do with the way it is scored. A person needs a certain score to be in the infantry. Men and women are scored differently. The minimum qualifying physical fitness performance for a man gives a woman a maximum score. The physical performance that would give a woman a minimum score of 60 would give a man a failing score, and he would be drummed out of the military entirely if he did not bring it up within a specified period of time.

    So when the media says they won’t lower the requirements for women, they are correct. A woman will still require a sixty percent score, just like a man will. But a woman will need to do far less to obtain that sixty percent score.

  • The navy had fail, probation, then various levels of “passing,” then “excellent”– it was a point of pride for me that I always got at least a mid-level “pass” for my PFT if I were a male, but so many women couldn’t pass even the low level stuff that they put in a thing where your score could be averaged as long as you didn’t flat out fail in any specific. (From memory, it was largely because the middle aged women couldn’t do sit ups as well.)

  • Hey!

    They can form women’s infantry battalions like the WNBA and women’s soccer, swimming, tennis, track and field, etc.

    In a violent world, peace is maintained by the disciplined valor of a nation’s armed forces.

    Will intergating women into ground combat units advance unit cohesion, discipline, and efficency (at destroying things and killing people)?

    Anybody around here old enough to remember a small Navy avaiators’ embarrassment called “Tail Hook”?

    Or, imagine a daughter of manslaughtering Ares, as it were, bursting into tears, and blubbering, “What difference does it make?”

    I’m glad the warden doesn’t read this.

  • In a democracy, who is a citizen?

    Under the Ancien Régime, the defence of the country was the task of the nobility, and the sword was everywhere the badge of the gentleman. In return, they enjoyed special privileges and a preponderant share in the government of the nation.

    The Republic declared that the nation is the community of all those who are not exempt from taxation, military service and other public duties, and, second, it includes all those, and only those, who are willing and capable of sharing in the service of the country. This was the logical basis of universal (male) suffrage.

    Accordingly, in France, until 1945, women, who were not liable to conscription, did not enjoy the vote and were ineligible for public office. This was logical.

    If women, as a class, are denied the right, or relieved of the responsibility, of defending the nation under arms, in what sense are they truly citizens? If men and women enjoy citizenship on different terms, how is the republic one and indivisible?

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour –
    bad logic, unless you plan to remove the citizenship of anyone who can’t qualify for combat. That would be the old and the disabled, as well as the XX chromosomed.

    France in the 40s is not the place I’d cite as an overwhelming logical argument against how bad of an idea it is to kill of the only people who can make new soldiers. A task, incidentally, which tend to kill more each year than enemy action, and all in the female category.

  • Even women oppose it.

    *waves hand wildly in the air*

    I’ve actually run into more bitter “manosphere” types that support it than women who do– and vanishing few military types that weren’t activists before they got in, or aren’t chasing stars.

  • When the French Foreign Legion in the 19th century came across female warriors in Africa they were reluctant to engage them at close quarters. As professional soldiers the idea of bayonetting a woman was repugnant. I have no doubt that our latter-day Amazons would have no compunction about sticking a bayonet in someone else, but what happens if an enemy soldier, suddenly coming face to face with a woman, hesitates, as well he might? Answer: he’s dead.

    No civilized society should even consider putting women in the front line, and those who advocate it do not understand the psychology of combat. The citizen-soldiers of the First World War, when they were pulled out of line, found that in the rest areas they encountered women, children, animals; this helped them forget for a time the horrors of the trenches. They were able to reconnect with their own humanity.

    Esprit de corps, unit cohesion, the idea of not letting your mates down – this keeps infantry soldiers going in combat. Introduce women into the equation and fighting just becomes a squalid business, devoid of the last remnants of honour and chivalry.

  • “Esprit de corps, unit cohesion, the idea of not letting your mates down – this keeps infantry soldiers going in combat. Introduce women into the equation and fighting just becomes a squalid business, devoid of the last remnants of honour and chivalry.”

    Good common sense John. It is frightening how uncommon common sense is becoming.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour:

    Regarding the obligations commensurate with citizenship, I would submit that the bearing and raising of children certainly qualifies. Motherhood imposes obligations that certainly affect the nation.

  • I swear I’m going to strangle the next person I hear whining about it not being fair. The military is not your high school Glee club, it doesn’t matter if it’s fair or not. What matters is defending our country, if putting women on the front lines is detrimental to that (and it has been proven so time and again) I don’t care if the woman in question passed BUDS with flying colors and is the best soldier in the unit, if she lowers unit effiecency she shouldn’t be there. If that affects her chances at promotion, well… that’s not fair, but again, the military shouldn’t be concerned about what’s ‘fair’.

  • Unfortunately the once esteemed virtues of manliness and womanliness are being sacrificed on the altar of the false god of equality. Like same-sex ‘marriage’ it reveals the moral bakruptcy of present-day western society.