Women in the Military

[Jsbrads]

Do they belong there?

Are they as efficient as men at the work men do?

Are they psychologically prepared to do that work?

Is there a right of a citizen to fight for his country in the governmental army?

[ProRational]

Are there enough historical examples in our nation and in the current war to present a clear case? I know the United States Marine Corps just had the first woman pass OCS and is now in the 1st Marines. Their are several women in the history of WWII from other nations, but were their achievements over publicized? 

[barn]

Hi,

0. Military is for the last resort, the self-defense. It's aim (ideally) is to protect a group from outside coercion when all negotiation fails and threat is present.

A. There are women perfectly capable to shoulder smash a door down, though very few compared to men. Plus statistically women are better at tending the injured than causing physical harm (except unequal power distribution, see child beating, single mom's putting children at risk willfully)

B. Women as a whole make different choices in life compared to men and that's great. i.e.: no kids, no civilisation

C. White-knighting, 'save the eggs'... Women distract men rightfully (I mean, logically) reducing the effectiveness of such a mixed army force.

D. Women as a whole have a higher affinity to empathy... in doing so with an un-empathic enemy, what are the chances?

E. Having a right to 'fight for the country' doesn't mean also having a choice arbitrarily (without it's natural consequences) selecting the manner in which to go about it.

i. e. : I can choose to work for someone but can't tell the employer how much I will earn, what things will I be doing. (I will have to provide a proof of utility, justify my wish in a way that's a value to the employer. Otherwise 'strawberry'. )

F. Who tends to use manipulation more often as a choice of weapon? and Does an army's overall strength benefit or suffer from the presence of more manipulators?

G. Is men's or women's health care costs are higher? Does it benefit an army to become more expensive to maintain?

H. Who learns more skills related to the skillsets being applied in the army throughout earlier life experience / life-choices?

I. Are men or women represented in fields where there's a greater existence of competitiveness? Is competitiveness important to an army? Can competitiveness be a health-indicator of a responsive army?

...

just a few pointers

Barnsley

 

[M.2]

"When you fight with your neighbour over who has the more vases, why would you start lancing vases at him?"

[Dr. Dealgood]

Do women belong in the military? It depends.

It depends on whether you take the defense of your nation seriously or not and what your military is there for. Most Post WWII armies have stood idle and not fired a shot. The most active militaries, USA, Great Britain, Israel... are all Imperial states with force as the primary instrument of their foreign policies. Countries like Canada maintain the military in a skeletal state doing the minimal investment to not draw the ire of NATO or NORAD allies. Its purpose is more political than practical. 

So if its purpose is political then yes, females belong there as much as males. As long as your not doing any fighting its fine. On the other hand if you are almost constantly at war... the USA and Israel come to mind... then it is not ok. An Israeli officer once said "they take their military far too seriously to allow women in the combat arms". Remember Israel is a hopelessly gynocentric state...

Are they as efficient as men in the work they do? No. Not even close. In areas where you know they will fail, they fail remarkably. In areas where you think they could succeed... supply, admin, logistics, medical, etc. their mediocrity drags everyone else down. That and their constant complaining, barracks room politics, etc. There are always exceptions but as they are not held accountable or to the male standards they wreck what was an otherwise functioning male system.

Are they psychologically prepared to do that work? Sure. If the work is to just show up then mediocrity is an acceptable standard. Women are also psychologically prepared to not do work if they can get away with it. Females are not culturally indoctrinated into male notions of self-sacrifice and disposability. They have less loyalty to their units and the state. I remember hearing of a study that was never published in the Canadian army. (It would be old now, like me). Apparently women tend to get pregnant at a much higher rate before their units are deployed overseas. A women's psychology is to enhance her own well being, not sacrifice for her country. Its males who are taught that sacrifice for someone else is a path to respect. Women rarely buy into that nonsense.

Is there a 'right' of a citizen to fight in a governmental army? No. Absolutely not. The army isn't for everyone. Dunno how things are today but basic training weeded out a lot of guys from the military. This is a good thing for all concerned. Also note that modern warfare attacks civilians as much as combatants. Everyone is in the mix whether you are wearing a uniform or not.

There is however a male obligation to serve if your country calls on you to do so. The US Supreme Court weighed in on this in 1917. If the purpose of the draft is combat, then men are obliged to do it. Not women.

I'm wondering by the line of questions if the OP thinks this is a "fairness" issue. What has "fairness" got to do with anything?? Fairness is a principle that parents invoke to squabbling children to create peace. States are power brokers and they don't give a damn about the concept of 'fairness' except to the extent that it can be exploited for a political end. If you were to ask another question... "Should women be drafted?". My answer is "Hell Ya!! Only women should be drafted as men have sacrificed enough over the years. Time for women to pony up some lives for their countries." That would be "fairness".

However we know that this will never happen because society is never fair. Not to men. Society will never use the force they deploy against men, (a firing squad), to get women to sacrifice for it the way men do.

Julia Gillard's prime ministership is a perfect example of what happens when a gender bigot takes over the country. (Honorable mention to Justin Trudeau). The Australian army was deemed 'mysogynist' because it was all male. Apparently, any functioning male system needs to be destroyed because it is created and run by males. 'Maleness' is an accusation and evidence of guilt. Something all males should be ashamed of regardless of your station and what benefits you bring to society.

For further reading on this topic I can suggest: 'Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster'. Brian Mitchell.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/women-in-the-military-brian-mitchell/1110912979/2692156064043?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Core+Catch-All,+Low_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP79700&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6OKBtoPk1wIVQ7nACh1VrAN8EAQYASABEgLKj_D_BwE
 

[meetjoeblack]

I disagree with all the above posts. Yes. Women belong in the military and should be drafted accordingly God forbid WWIII.

I remember as a kid watching Titanic. The calls for "women and children first" ARE FUCKING OVER LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. This male disposability and cuckfest is over. If there was a war or a refugee issue like in Germany whereby, feminist politicians push to allow disgusting ideologies into their country only for 1200 women many of whom are under age were sexually attacked and gang banged in the street.

If I was in Germany, I would be taking out my lewie ville slugger, and ending lives @ any piece of shit attempt to harm my women (women I am dating or in relations with), friends, and family. Beyond that, I have no allegiance nor do I owe not one drop of blood to anybody especially women I have no associations with.

Women in the military is about as productive as women in the workplace. Gossip, victimhood, and skiing down cawk mountain. Its comical.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

11 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Do they belong there?

Lol no. I'm not going to bother gathering the data, but I'm sure you've heard Stefpai mention more than once how women are psychologically far more vulnerable and squishy than men for war as well as being physically far weaker in the upper body and generally frailer. 

11 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Are they as efficient as men at the work men do?

Lol no. So much no a migrant managed to single handedly beat up 4 female cops in Sweden. And he was by no means a boxer or martial artist; he just flung them. 

Worse than that their mere existence in the ranks destroys the team spirit of the men who are no longer brothers in arms but horny cocks seeking the only available female.

There is a reason why women, especially beautiful women, were historically forbidden from being near army bases even in peacetime. In fact in ancient China women were used as pawns for the explicit purpose of making vulnerable and discombobulated the enemy army's morale and spirit. Eventually women were killed on sight for being too close to a moving army...

11 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Are they psychologically prepared to do that work?

Lol no. Female soldiers are insanely suicidal. 

11 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Is there a right of a citizen to fight for his country in the governmental army?

If there must be a government then the soldiers must come from the citizenry. However there is another caveat: voting.

Because women, who ought not be drafted, can vote for men, who will be drafted, to fight for wars there is a very significant imbalance of power that essentially means emotional women can vote to have their countrymen killed off or killing off large numbers of foreigners. 

Therefore if there must be a government, either women must not be allowed to vote, neither men nor women should vote (i.e. no more democracy nor republic), or only landed men and men/women willing to fight in wars can vote.

And as I said above female soldiers suck. They such really hard. Add to the fact The Single Moms' Battalion isn't even a joke; modern women sign up for the military and disappear when actual combat begins all the time just to suck up more tax monies. 

Therefore either women in general should never ever be allowed to vote (because if they're willing to dictate who we fight than they are morally obligated to be the first to pick up a rifle and bayonet) or only very exceptional women should be allowed to vote (like ones that own large amounts of property). 

Of course as an AnCap and Monarchist I don't think voting should be a thing in general, and when there must be voting (like how there is in the Church for superior appointments or traditionally in the aristocracy for national policy) only those with skin in the game should vote. 

Of course again, this means I don't think women should ever be allowed to vote on national/foreign policy because they suck as fighters and even when they are individually good (unicorns) they inevitably screw up the men because biology is a b__ch and even hardened soldier boys become horny high schoolers when even an butch femme is in the ranks. 

[Dr. Dealgood]

I thought I'd give a more expansive answer to the OP question:

Is there a right of a citizen to fight for his country in the governmental army?

My answer remains "no". The term 'right to fight' is rhetorical. No one has such a right nor is it recognized as a natural or human right by anyone. To unpack the claim you need to unpack the claim's last 4 words... "in the governmental army". That is in the nation's institution for war fighting. The institution is an employer and what you are really saying is can an institution be forced to employ you because you want to participate in a conflict your country is currently engaged in.

Interesting claim as it is unique. Can Ford Motor Company be forced to hire you because you believe you are a great car maker? As a point of principle and practicality, employers pick their employees and not the other way around. The military is no different.

In the context of a gender debate, it reminds me of this story:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/the-heat-of-battle-will-be-the-ultimate-test-for-women-in-the-military-says-retired-commander/news-story/2a10b9248de7b6fc985ee150e9df96f4

As such the 'right to fight' claim is pure political sophistry. The actual statement is:

Should the military institution be forced to hire any citizen irrespective of their ability to do the job for which they are being hired?

The answer to that question then goes back to my previous post about what is the purpose of the military? Is it political?...ie: a welfare organization where any blind, wheelchair bound cripple can claim the 'right to fight' and get a job... or is it to fight wars?

It can be one or the other but it can't be both. In either case though it has nothing to do with the so-called 'right'. Also note that so-called 'right' could be applied to any job... Post Office, Foreign Affairs, Health and Welfare... Why do you make that claim only with the military??? Oh wait... it's male dominated, ergo sexist, ergo must be destroyed!

[ProRational]

As a last resort (or another example is to create fear among a Sufi extremist) in the Soviet Bloc countries there were many women who created high body counts for Fascists. One was a lady who fought the Nazi occupation of Ukraine, the  other is the YPJ both last resorts. The women who fought for Ukraine (argued her case not to become a nurse stating her marksmanship skills would be better suited to the war effort) against Nazi's and was instrumental in the U.S. signing War bonds to aid the Soviet Union before entry into the second world war. The YPJ are a group of Kurdish women who struck fear into daesh, due to the humiliation of being killed by a women as well as the very necessity for the Kurdish women's survival. They did not due to the sectarian violence have the luxury of being compassionate, nor did they have the luxury of raising children, because the children they had if the Kurdish fighters failed would have been killed along with the rest of the Kurds.

[Jsbrads]

Thank you for commenting.

this seems one of those subjects that is so clear to most, there was less of a lively debate than I expected. 

It would seem that we can have voting with an all men military as women who cannot be drafted care for men in general. Today the feminist ideologues being the singular exception in human history, there is even an example of a mother hating her own sons!?

[barn]

1 hour ago, Jsbrads said:

It would seem that we can have voting with an all men military as women who cannot be drafted care for men in general.

Definitely not. Especially if you have read my comments.

My proposal :

Forget all men military, focus on all-merit-based evaluation and let contractors in on the matter, let the free market decide.

i. e. (I can imagine an all-women intelligencia agency working as a subcontractor for the military... specialisation and flexibility.)

Barnsley

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

2 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Thank you for commenting.

this seems one of those subjects that is so clear to most, there was less of a lively debate than I expected. 

It would seem that we can have voting with an all men military as women who cannot be drafted care for men in general. Today the feminist ideologues being the singular exception in human history, there is even an example of a mother hating her own sons!?

Hey man the best cure to the gender imbalance of power (as far as this goes) is the abolition of voting! 

I'd trust a bunch of guys with skin in the game over a mob any day.

[Jsbrads]

Oh, then you didn’t know. Standards have been lowered in every public position where physical standards are required to allow women the opportunity to join. They still don’t meet those most of the time.

 

[barn]

Hi @Jsbrads

Thanks for the reminder(but I knew).

Perhaps the question of requirements, suitable applicants could be discussed, let's say, under a thread such as 'What makes a good soldier?' or something that's not about a subset of the military (i.e. women). Would you agree?

Barnsley

[Jsbrads]

You are welcome to start a new topic, but this thread seems to have room.

I would think the highest possible standards which will attain the personnel needed. Standards do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in the real world.

[meetjoeblack]

I think its fantastic. WWIII god forbid would be the beginning of women needing men again but, that time of women and children first is over. Its gone. While I wish things would return to trad, tradthots and NAWALTs do not exist. Its the sentiment that men wish and hold out for. The reality being, that if not for cratering SMV, for fertility, a lot of women wouldn't bother to put on the shtick. The front line is calling. Be my guest.

[Bro McCarthy]

Do women belong in the military? No, no, a thousand times no, for a thousand different reasons.

   Think of Guadalcanal. A month without a shower or change of clothes in the jungle environment. Women would have a 100% casualty rate without ever sighting an enemy