MRAs often complain bitterly that men have to register for the draft and women don’t. Ironically, many MRAs – sometimes the very same people – also think that women shouldn’t be allowed in the armed forces at all, or at the very least should be barred from direct combat.
One MRA who’s staunchly against women in combat is a Redditor calling himself Demonspawn. In a recent comment he sets forth “four huge reasons” why. The first is a doozy:
The vagina. You can’t keep it clean in battlefield conditions. Military regulations state that women on extended training exercises must have access to garrison or equivalent facilities for hygiene at least once every X number of days (usually 7). Why? Because otherwise you run a very high risk of a vaginal infection and can die from it. Those facilities cannot be guaranteed on the battlefield and therefore it is an even greater risk to women’s lives to use them as battlefield troops.
I’m surprised he forgot to mention the chronic problem of centipedes in the vagina.
The rest of his reasons are equally stupid, if not quite as amusing. Number two:
Public Relations. … Have you not read the articles when women soldiers die and it’s a big deal, while more dead male soldiers is just business as usual? Public support for war cannot be sustained in the face of massive female soldier casualties.
And three:
Men get themselves killed overprotecting women. This is the #1 reason Israel deintegrated their troops.
Yeah, it’s a terrible thing when soldiers try to protect one another.
His final reason returns us once again to the whole vagina thing:
Women tend to “get pregnant” when leaving for overseas trips… That destroys unit cohesion. Research the “pregnant navy” syndrome. One ship had over 40% of it’s female sailors suddenly become pregnant before an overseas trip.
I did a Google search for “pregnant navy.” In 2007, according to one article I found, roughly 11 percent of female soldiers had to be shifted to shore because they were pregnant; it’s usually less than that.
Women: trouble when their vaginas are infected, trouble when they’re clean. Why do we even let them leave the house?
Thanks to MuForceShoelace for posting the link to Demonspawn’s comment on the AgainstMensRights subreddit.
EDIT: I misread an article I originally cited about female crew members on a supply ship getting pregnant during the Gulf war. The percentage who got pregnant was 10%, not more than half. (In my defense, the article was badly worded.) I’ve removed the erroneous material.
@Bagelsan: My point being is that if an infantry unit goes out and they are carrying 20-30 pounds of armor, a 75 pound pack and carrying a weapon and a woman can’t carry that weight…then what is the alternative? We either remove her from the unit, have her carry less weight and make the men carry it or have her carry the weight and go into a fight without needed materials.
It is not uncommon to be carrying more than 100lbs, so what would you like to do when she is unable to carry that extra weight?
*have her carry less weight and go into a fight without needed materials.
Brandon, of course women should meet the physical standards for what they need to be able to do for their job. But not every member of the armed forces carries around 100+lbs; the idea was that therefore not everyone in the armed forces needs to meet that physical standard, just as not every member of the armed forces needs to meet the visual standards of a fighter pilot.
@Katz: Yes every member of the armed forces doesn’t carry 100+ pounds. But jobs in the “combat roles” category often do. And those jobs are the ones we are discussing. No one here is saying that women shouldn’t be in the Legal, Intelligence or Public Affairs MOS’s. We are mainly talking about combat roles: infantry, armor, artillery, special forces and a few others.
Ah, we may not all be on the same page. We’ve generally been discussing the physical fitness standards for all the armed forces.
Still, you’ve said that it’s OK for older men to have to meet lower fitness standards, so is it OK for older men to be unable to carry the necessary amount of equipment?
@Katz: Did you actually read my comment above? Just because I mentioned the different age brackets doesn’t mean I support it or advocate for them.
http://manboobz.com/2011/10/01/women-in-combat-who-put-sand-in-your-vaginas/comment-page-4/#comment-66517
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the feminists are arguing that women who are able to successfully take on the duties of combat shouldn’t be barred from doing so based on gender alone (as is currently the case). No one is arguing that someone who cannot do a certain job should be doing that job. You’re arguing with a strawfeminist, Brandon.
@Comrade: I am not arguing, I am stating my opinion.
…vehemently, and apparently to a strawfeminist. But okay, sure. :p
Branon,
I’m sick of you arguing with strawfeminists in this thread, and then looking at us all wide eyed and saying you weren’t arguing at all when we call you on it. Contribute to the discussion or gtfo.
@Shora: Ok mommy do you want me to do the dishes too?
Yes
@Shora: Oh youre a hoot
Brandon: Show me the person advocating that any person be allowed to do anything; independent of ability.
Really, I mean it. Because you are making a straw-man when you imply it.
Just as the APFT is a straw man. Because, as you admit, there is no correlation to the PT test and the requirements of the job. So why did you bring it up?
Yes, everyone is humping a ton of shit. I’ve been moving with 2/3rds my body weight draped about my person. I’ve hit the dirt, and lurched to my feet and run with it. I’ve done it in MOPP4. Guess what, the belts of 7.62 I was carrying weren’t for my M-16. They were for my 60-gunner. When I was humping the 60, someone else was carrying the extra belts.
When we got hit, guess what… the poor bastards who were carrying those belts had to see to it the 60-gunner was kept fed.
Because, as I so clearly recall being told, “there is no ‘I’ in Army.” A lot more damaging to unit performance, in my experience, is the dumbshit who refuses to admit an inability/injury/weakness, and tries to cover it up, so that they end up out of action, when it was preventable. Mortars get broken up into pieces when they have to be humped (and these days, they get moved on vehicles, barring being some poor bastard in the 7th, 10th, the 173rd, or the 82nd, and only the first two even have a METL that requires more than a few days without vehicles. The time the 82nd/173rd are without them is rare, since an actual combat drop against postionally stable forces, which doesn’t include an airfield hasn’t been done since 1944.
Is brute strength important? Sort of. Being able to move something large/heavy/awkward happens. It happens in any role the Army has. Endurance is more important. Common sense is more important too. I can say that, when the shit hits the fan what one can do, vs. what one thinks one can do; based on training experience, is incredible.
And push-ups never was the thing which gave one a clue as to who was going to rise to the occasion, and who was going to fail. It’s attitude, and esprit de corps, and a host of intangibles.
If I had to pick a sqd, to go outside the wire with; again, it would; just like the last time, include women; not because they are women, but because I know them. I saw them in action, and they didn’t fail the test. I trust them to keep me covered, bring me ammo when I need, not lose their heads, maintain comms, situational awareness and eyes on their sector.
Those are what I want when I’m dismounted. I’d put Zawacki on the turret, anytime. I’d let Kingsbury take point, and put Cohen on the radio. I’d let Atkinson hump the SAW.
Because I’ve seen them in action. I’ve humped with them. I know they can do it. You can say, “well they are exceptions.” To which I say, if they can do it, so can others. Just as I have a list of women I’d be willing (I can’t say glad) to go to combat with, I’ve got a list of men I wouldn’t, not in any way, shape or form.
And you seem to be agreeing, so what is it you aren’t happy about with our position?
@Pecunium: For the most part, I agree. But I am just stating my opinion. I am not getting all hot and bothered by this at all. In fact, I am pretty calm right now. If you want an argument we can go back to how absolutely pointless marriage is. 🙂
I brought up the PT tests because they are the current method of assessing soldiers going through basic training. While you and I have served, not everyone has. So I thought it was prudent to at least link to it so people could actually see what is required of new recruits. Just because I mention something doesn’t mean I am supporting or not supporting it.
As it stands now, that is the test we have. So I think it is only fair to have everybody do the same amount of push ups, situps and runs. However I am not opposed to the armed forces scrapping the PT test for something different (if it is more effective).
All of the things you mentioned are important: common sense, unit comradery, etc… They help keep the units morale high.
I brought up the PT tests because they are the current method of assessing soldiers going through basic training.
Yes, they are the current method of assessing soldiers’ overall fitness level. Not assessing whether they are qualified for a particular MOS.
So I ask again: why did you insist on a merit-based, one-standard-for-all system for gender, but quickly did an about-face when it comes to age?
Brandon: If you agree; that there is no reason to keep women out of combat arms, much less the military, what is your complaint?
That an irrelevant test exists? Because, as I pointed out, the PT test has damn-all to do with who gets what MOS; the MOSQ courses do that. If one can’t meet the standard, one doesn’t get the MOS.
So you’ve been making a big deal about something you don’t care about? Why?
I also wonder, with mythago, why you changed your tune on disparate standards (not once, but twice).
If you want to talk about marriage, we can talk about the real issue, which isn’t the merits of marriage; but the replicability of it, and the way you insult people who choose to get married.
@mythago: And you don’t think someones overall fitness level is is anyway relevant to being in the infantry? I would rather go into a war zone with a soldier that can do 100 pushups as opposed to a someone that ways 250lb and can’t do 2 pushups.
Again, I only mentioned the age based system and pointed out rough percentages that older soldiers have to do less against younger soldiers. My pointing that out is in no way my advocating to keep that current system in place. I would rather have a standard PT test across all ages and genders.
*weighs
@Brandon: Again, you’re not answering my question: When it was pointed out to you that the military norms on age as well as gender, you excused age-norming while continuing to criticize gender-norming. Why?
BTW, you didn’t mention the age-based system. Pecuniam and I brought that up in response to your ‘military coddles them broads’ argument. Suddenly, norming was OK! For age, anyway. When applied to gender it became ‘slack’. And now that nobody’s buying this some-norms-are-more-equal-than-others tactic, suddenly PT tests are bad all over and we should stop norming or probably replace them entirely.
I notice that your war-zone example suddenly brings up weight as a confounding factor. If that 250-pound soldier is 6’6″, that’s not really a problem, is it. And I’m thinking if they can carry all their gear, shoot their weapon with accuracy, and go for miles without running out of wind, I’m not going to be thinking “Yeah, but how many pushups can he do?”
mythago: As to slack: A female who is 5′ isn’t allowed to weigh more than 120 lbs. Oddly enough the measurements used to measure the acceptable amount of body fat are based on male points of deposition, so the women are more likely to be, “overweight” when they have muscle, then the men are.
mythago: As to slack: A female who is 5′ isn’t allowed to weigh more than 120 lbs. Oddly enough the measurements used to measure the acceptable amount of body fat are based on male points of deposition, so the women are more likely to be, “overweight” when they have muscle, then the men are.
Males are allowed to be 132 lbs at 5′. In theory men aren’t allowed to enlist at less than 5′, but waivers are available. A male who is less than 5′ is allowed to be the same weight as someone who is 5′, but women are allowed to be 4’9″. At 4’9′, they max out at 109 lbs (aged 17-21, as with all else, there is age norming for wieght).
I have an ex, who was 4’10. At 23 years of age, in good shape (ballet) she had trouble with the run, and was perennially in danger of being flagged for weight; because she was about 119.
Trust me when I tell you, she was, by no standard of objective measure, overweight, much less fat.
She also had trouble with the run, not so much because she didn’t have the wind, as the extra work required to get any distance. She has to take more steps to go the same distance, which is more work, and demands more aerobic energy.
Despite this she did two tours in Afghanistan. She’s a nurse, doing both treatment and research (I see, taking a quick look, that she’s got one paper published). She didn’t do the “Shake’n’bake” after she got her degree, but went the gamut of ROTC, with all the focus it has on infantry skills. I was one of two NCOs she invited to her commissioning, and I don’t think the Army got anything but a great deal out of it.
But she’s always had to be obsessive about her weight, and her running, to avoid the repercussions that come of not passing a PT test/making weight.
But the guys… yeah, being heavy is a problem, but the standards are different.
At 40 a 5’4″ inch man is allowed to weigh 160 lbs. Women are allowed to be 145. There is no allowance for bust size.
Not if that first person was one of the Jersey Shore dudes you wouldn’t…
‘Sides, I’d rather go into a war alongside fucking Miles Vorkosigan than practically anybody, and he couldn’t bench a dwarf hamster. 😀
@Pecunium: I don’t disagree with you; I just thought it was pretty silly that Brandon suddenly decided he needed to make this theoretical wimpy soldier overweight on top of everything else.
@mythago: I didn’t excuse it, I pointed out the possible rationale for age based tests. (e.g poorer heath). You keep thinking that I excused it when I didn’t.
I also posted a link to the PT requirements from military.com.
The point of the OP was about gender not age. Hence I focused more on gender than age. I clearly pointed out that I am perfectly fine with one test for all recruits regardless of age or gender.
The only acceptable group of soldiers that can be over 250lb’s is men over 40+ and 6’6″. So for that very small minority of people it is ok. Most men aren’t even close to 6’6″. Even still, the point was choosing a fit soldier over a borderline fit soldier. I would still take the fit soldier over a 40+ 250lb 6’6′ soldier.
Another point is that a soldier that can run 2 miles faster, do more pushups and situps and is generally fit overall has a better chance of not running out of wind on long marches.
Brandon’s concept of the ideal feminist soldier: chubby, physically weak, and demands that she gets a combat position so that male soldiers can carry her stuff for her.
…Did I miss anything?