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.
Here are a bunch of very physically fit people:
http://ninamatsumoto.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/athletic-body-diversity-reference-for-artists/
I doubt that all of them would perform exactly the same on the fitness test, but I wouldn’t say that they were all unfit to fight either. People’s bodies can be functional and diverse, and a test that allows some diversity in bodies is for the best.
Here’s a different story, about a guy I didn’t get to see in a combat zone.
He has a bad knee. He asked his 1SG to exempt him from PT on the day of our pre-deployment physical, because if he ran, it would swell, and he’d be kept stateside.
The 1SG refused. He was flagged as non-deployable, permanently.
Was he a liability in combat? Maybe. But we weren’t in infantry unit. We weren’t expected to spend hours at a time humping (that turned out to be less true than we expected. In Bosnia, actually, we were the only unit’s allowed to go into town and dismount. In Iraq we spent a lot of time out of the vehicles, pulling our own security in small elements (basically a squad, and four guys in the building doing meets. We has soft-sided humvees; in 2003/4. Things changed right after we left), so the knee wasn’t something we were really worried about.
We also could have kept him out of the more weight bearing/running aspects of things.
And… it’s not that his knee didn’t work, it’s that working it meant the next day he’d be out of action.
I can tell you this, given my druthers I’d have taken him over the 1SG, because he had something the 1SG didn’t (and manged to avoid): combat experience. He’d done two tours in Viet-Nam, and it was leftover damage from his first purple heart that was causing the knee problems. We were forced to leave a wealth of information, both on interrogation, and combat, behind.
Because it’s not really about physical fitness, certainly not about arbitrary mechanisms. It’s about who contributes to the mission. The 1SG didn’t, this guy did.
We had to take the sad-sack, not the old warhorse.
@Bagelsan: umm…no. I expect women that want to do direct combat jobs to perform to the same standards as the men. Actually all MOS’s…but the OP was talking about women in combat specifically.
1) Most women in the armed forces aren’t chubby…you know that whole fitness training thing?
2) If the men are required to carry 100lb’s worth of equipment…I expect the women to do the same. No more, no less.
3) On average, women are physically weaker than men. There are always exceptions to the rule though.
4) Most of those people in those photos look like they are in shape and would have no problems passing the PT test or have any difficulty serving in a combat role.
and put Cohen on the radio
Interesting choice.
That’s because he’s crazy enough to forget that he can barely bench a dwarf hamster. Or ignore the fact, whichever you prefer.
Brandon: 3) On average, women are physically weaker than men. There are always exceptions to the rule though.
And right now, the women (by means of the mechanism you were earlier defending) aren’t even allowed to try for it.
The only thing a guy has to do to be given the chance, is 13 push-ups. There are very few recruiters (perhaps none) who will tell a prospect who insists on going 11 series, that he will wash out at Benning/Sill.
Doesn’t matter in the slightest if he’s 98 lbs, soaking wet, and has the co-ordination of a dead frog hooked to a battery, he gets to try.
Why? Because he has external plumbing.
So even the, “exceptions (whom, I suspect) are a lot more common than you give them credit for are denied the chance.
And I don’t think it’s because there will be some huge rush of women who try, and fail. I think there is a large contingent who are afraid the women will try, and succeed.
Recall the way the US Army changed the purpose, but not the curriculum of Ranger School… because as a “small unit leadership course” they would have had to let women in. All they’d need to do is meet the entry requirements, just like the women have to do for Air Assault, and Jump School: Speaking of, my unit sent a dozen troops [nine males, three females] to the Air Assault course, only two of them came back with wings. Nine males and one female failed. Care to guess what it was that washed them out? The wall-climbing. The guys couldn’t do it.
All of them passed the PT test required to enter; the females on the, “slack standard”, the males on the one you seem to prefer.
But the guys weren’t able to meet the course standard for getting over a wall, unassisted, and the women could.
So yeah, when you go on about how the women aren’t really able to hack it,and imply the ban isn’t all that unreasonable, I’m not convinced.
I didn’t excuse it, I pointed out the possible rationale for age based tests. (e.g poorer heath).
How is that not excusing it? Why would you bring it up if you weren’t giving it as an explanation?
@Pencunim: Yes and that is why I think women should be able to enter into combat roles as long as they follow the same standards as the men.
As I have said earlier, making claims that women can or can’t be in combat roles is pure speculation. I say open it up, let them do it and see what happens. Only then will we be able to know if it is a good or bad decision.
I don’t really know if they can hack it. It might be a huge success or a total bomb. We have to give women the chance so we can see.
@Katz: Some bureaucrat or committee made it so that women couldn’t enter into combat roles.I just gave one example of a reason as to why they would deny women. Making an observation about something doesn’t equal me excusing it.
At this stage of the game I don’t know who brought what up first nor do I really have the time to rummage through a bunch of comments. If you are referering to the link I posted a while back, it was to show the percentage differences between men and women in the same age group. I have said multiple times that I think a unified PT test for everyone is the way to go.
Except the longer and more grueling you make a race, the better women fare compared to men. http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/WomenMarathon.doc (this is even considering that recent studies have found that training methods typically used are not benefitting women in the same ways, carbohydrate loading typically increases men’s performance but not women’s). The most likely extrapolation from the data is that if you in fact are discussing a harsh 15 day march, women should fare as well or better than men, as they pretty consistently increase relative performance the longer the race becomes.
Male marathon winners are not typically of very large build either. Men with very large, heavy upper bodies fare well at push ups, but do not in any way dominate long races.
At this stage of the game I don’t know who brought what up first nor do I really have the time to rummage through a bunch of comments.
That’s a cop out. You were the first person to suggest that there was a “mechanism” which was keeping women out of combat roles. The implication was that the Army had decided they couldn’t do it. Any number of people had already said they saw no reason to keep women from them.
You were the one who said they weren’t as physically able, and you are the one who keeps changing the terms of debate as one, after another, of your claims is shown to be less than solid.
First you were on about (ignoring the ignorance you displayed about the Eastern Front, and the War in Europe, vis a vis tactice, and equipment), how women don’t have to be as fit as men, because the PT tests aren’t the same, and so that shows they are less suited to combat arms MOSs
When it was pointed out what was actually going on (norming a test of general fitness, as opposed to the standards of the MOS Qualifying Schools), you said that, “fitness is fitness”.
When the age based differentials were pointed out, showing that older men aren’t disqualified for being less able, according to the standard you set, you said, “well that’s to deal with the effects of age,” without accepting that the gender-norming is possibly the same as age-norming.
The reason (as it has been in the past) you feel people are disagreeing with you, is that you seem completely deaf to the tone, and implications of your unstated premise.
You say you don’t care if women are in Combat Arms… “If they can hang” and then you do a lot of bobbing and weaving to explain why you don’t think they can hang; all of which is irrelevant to the issue. Should women be allowed in combat zones (which is the OP’s argument)?
You seem willing to grant that there may be a place for them but you aren’t willing to say that they are entitled to be full-citizens, able to do any job they want. We are willing to accept that some won’t pass muster. You are intent on saying only a small few could ever possibly do it.
And that last is the point of disagreement. We (or at least I) think anyone who joins should be allowed to try for any MOS they are able to meet the minimum requirements to begin training. For Infantry that’s a 50 point pass on each event out of Basic Training, and a meeting some pretty trivial GT/ST scores.
You are arguing for an exclusionary standard, based on a test which is immaterial to the actual requirements of the job.
That’s what we disagree with.
Brandon: reading for comprehension, you should try it.
Ah, the old ‘I’m not making a point, just an observation.’ So Brandon, once you’re done neutrally observing, what’s your point?
Brandon seems to have been so very very sure that we would shoot him down on the premise that he’s just twisted himself up trying to continue to disagree after discovering that we all agree. Yes, women should be held to the same physical standards, yes maybe some of them are stupid, but no, women shouldn’t be disallowed service (which by all accounts they are already giving) based on their genitals. C’mon, Brandon, it’s not that hard to say, “Oops, maybe I was wrong on this one.”
Reading comprehension doesn’t do exactly what Brandon wants when he wants it to, therefore it is not important in Brandon’s world.
I’m confused as to why Brandon is so insistent that while some women who meet the physical standards necessary for active combat duty exist, they’re almost as rare as unicorns.
Scanning over the stuff Pecunium has written, I currently come pretty close to meeting the standards he’s outlining, and I wouldn’t consider myself to be at anywhere near peak fitness. Running is where I’d have the most trouble, because I dislike running and have mild asthma. But the strength tests? I could do most of those now, as a not all that active 38 year old. In my early twenties it would have been a piece of cake. And I’m not some sort of remarkable physical specimen – I am a former competitive swimmer and gymnast, but I was never at a truly elite level in either, and I’m only 5ft2. Even now, many years after I stopped working out at an intense level, I have no problem lifting men who outweigh me by 100 pounds (which is always a fun party trick).
It’s true that some women are physical weaklings, but that’s true for some men too. It’s true that men tend to have better upper body strength than women, but it’s also true that women tend to shine in endurance competitions. So it’s great that Brandon is saying “well OK let’s allow the women to try”, but it’s a bit weird that he seems so sure that if women do try most of them will fail.
Also I have to wonder how mental endurance factors into all of this. Pecunium was alluding to some of it, I think – it’s all very well to be a perfect physical specimen, but that doesn’t do you much good if you panic in a crisis situation, give up easily, or suck at working as part of a team.
RE Pecunium’s comment about weight standards and women – actually, that’s something that had never occured to me before. If a woman has large breasts it can easily tip her over from one weight category to another without her actually being any fatter than a woman of the same height with smaller breasts. Is there any realistic way that the Army could take that into account?
Is there any realistic way that the Army could take that into account?
I think there are BMI-ish measurements that use other numbers like waist and neck girth, which would help measure actual “fatness” more closely than just BMI does.
@Pencunim:
“That’s a cop out. You were the first person to suggest that there was a “mechanism” which was keeping women out of combat roles. ”
No…I have other shit to do and my life doesn’t revolve around this site. As we speak I am about to walk out the door to work as soon as I finish this quick comment.
My main issue with the whole gender/age norming issue is the percentages from men to women. If you have a male and female 18 year old recruit, they have to do the same amount of situps, yet they get around +3 minutes on the run and have to do 50-60% less pushups.
@Cassandra:
“It’s true that some women are physical weaklings, but that’s true for some men too. It’s true that men tend to have better upper body strength than women, but it’s also true that women tend to shine in endurance competitions. So it’s great that Brandon is saying “well OK let’s allow the women to try”, but it’s a bit weird that he seems so sure that if women do try most of them will fail. ”
No, most women compared to men are physically weaker and most men compared to women are physically stronger. Women that are stronger than men are the exception. And that exception doesn’t happen all that much. Even now after I haven’t been in the service for a while and haven’t been working out as much as I should…I bet I could still take down and disable most if not all the female soldiers.
It’s not that men can’t lose against women…it’s the percentages. More men are able to overcome, physically hurt, knock unconscious and basically physically dominate women. If a female soldier is going up against a male soldier fighting hand to hand…she will most likely be the one that dies.
I don’t really know how well women will do in combat arms. If they are let in, we will see the effects of women in those roles. Until that time, we really don’t know how women will do when placed on a battlefield, integrating with all male units and a host of other issues that are unforeseen.
If women are let in and it works well with a few minor issues, then great.
Brandon: It’s a cop out because you didn’t have to say anything. You chose to make it an issue that, “it’s too much time to look back and see what I said.”
And it’s a habit. You spout a lot of stuff, backpedal when people challenge you, change your arguments and then say, “I have a life, I can’t possibly keep up, scanning back three pages to see what I said, so I can be accurate, is too much trouble. So you can all just take my (new) word for it.”
Your problem with the issue of age/gender norming is that it’s not excluding women. You were perfectly willing to say, “Men get older and can’t do as much as they could when they were younger.”
You admit the actual criteria for an MOS has nothing to do with the PT Test, but you aren’t willing to accept that a test of general fitness needs to take into account the broad-based differences in those exercises which aren’t relevant to the task required.
That’s being sexist.
It’s not that men can’t lose against women…it’s the percentages. More men are able to overcome, physically hurt, knock unconscious and basically physically dominate women. If a female soldier is going up against a male soldier fighting hand to hand…she will most likely be the one that dies.
Nonsense.
Don much combatives against women? Not some random woman you ran into, but someone who actually has training?
The 24ID has open competition in combatives, Women place, regularly. They have even won the event. So this, again, fails to stand up to the evidence.
I don’t really know how well women will do in combat arms. If they are let in, we will see the effects of women in those roles. Until that time, we really don’t know how women will do when placed on a battlefield, integrating with all male units and a host of other issues that are unforeseen.
Again, you are “willing” but only if the standards are built so as to exclude women, under the pretense of being fair. The issue of integration with all-male units? Solved. In case you were unaware, the army did that (apart from combat arms) in 1973. It’s not perfect (mostly because there is is a lot of residual sexism; which I think the restriction of willing women from the combat arms helps to maintain).
The present war, guess what… they have women in combat. They are getting shot, and everything. They are shooting back and killing people too.
You keep giving with one hand (they should be given a fair shot), but taking away with the other (they have to be able to do non-relevant physical skills; to the same level as the men, and, the, “If it works well, with a few minor issues, then great).
And the stuff you are adding, conviently, would make it impossible. Because the first is rigged to keep all but a very few out (thus “proving” women can’t do it), and the second lets a small group of assholes get their skivvies in a bunch and cause more than, “a few minor issues”.
With the issue of “overwieght” the Army uses a calculation to determine body fat; measuring neck/waist/hips.
It’s not great, and the points measured are more accurate on men than they are on women.
@Pecunium: I agree that the PT test doesn’t have anything to do with an MOS (not combat related). Physical fitness really has no bearing if all you are doing for the Army is shuffling papers around an office. However it is the basic starting point for physical fitness for soldiers. When I had to do the PT test again a month into my four month OSUT, I pretty much blew past the passing scores. Most of the soon to be scouts were doing their 2 miles in 10-12 minutes, Most even did upwards of 80 situps and pushups. In fact our whole troop did at least 15% more on each criteria.
So it’s not even like the male requirements are that hard to pass. Every single one of the soldiers in my troop did a minimum of 15% more, some even went as high as 40%.
Built to exclude women? Nonsense. If I was building the standards to exclude women, I would make it so they had to do double of what every male soldier was required to do. All I am saying is they should be held to the same standards as the men. We can start with age brackets or we can remove those as well and make all soldiers and have one PT standard across the board.
The PT test isn’t “rigged”. Tons of soldiers meet and beat it every day. And the ones that don’t get recirculated back into another unit still training so they can do more training so they will pass it next time.
All I am saying is they should be held to the same standards as the men.
Well of course that’s what you’re saying now, since you got caught out bullshitting. First you pretended that women get a free ride in the armed forces; then when it was pointed out (repeatedly) that PT tests are age- as well as gender-adjusted, you made the irrelevant observation that middle aged people have ‘weaker bones’ (what that has to do with sit-ups, i have no goddamn idea); then you said that was okay because it was “norming” for age but “slack” for females; you pointed to a chart supposedly showing that females get it easy because they do fewer pushups, while somehow managing to miss the fact that the same chart showed females do exactly the name number of sit-ups and did not get a “50%” gap on the two-mile run….
And only when pressed to explain why norming + a vagina = “slack”, and being utterly unable to come up with anything that sounded nonsexist, you started saying that PT tests should be universal and anyway you’ve got a headache, darling, you can’t possibly remember what you said.
The reason Pecuniam and I are giving you crap about this is because you’re pretending you didn’t just show your ass. That is, it’s pretty obvious that you were just repeating the same, tired old bullshit about how the feeeee-males get treated special and can’t do their goldanged jobs like the menz. You just don’t have the brass to actually stick with it, and now you’re pretending that was like ages ago so let’s pretend it never happened.
Brandon: This is exactly what you did in the marriage thread. You made an argument, then you changed it, then you said you were misrepresented (when quoted) then you said you were too busy to go back and check what you said (never mind the direct quotations).
You are doing the same thing here. You said the PT difference was important, it showed that women can’t do the same things men can.
Now you say it’s not important, but you also say women should have to do the same PT test as men do.
So which is it? Do they meet the actual MOSQ standards, or do they have to do something pointless, because that’s, “fair”?
Me, I say they meet the MOSQ standards and they are good to go. PT tests are immaterial to how well they can lay fire, maintain comms, etc.
I know women who did heavy vehicle repair. They could pull a track from an M1, knock the roadwheels off, replace them, and reseat the track (having checked it for weak sections) as easy as kiss my hand.
I’ll bet they could do anything a 19D could do. They could probably manage being a gun bunny on a 105, or a loader on a tank.
Hell, we’ve got someone here who was crew on a tank (in a different nation’s army). It’s not higher math, women can do it. Women have done it. There is no reason to think they can’t.
And the PT test doesn’t mean a damned thing in terms of being able to do the job.
TL;DR version: Sometimes the point of cross-examination is not to get the witness to tell the truth. Sometimes the point is to make it clear that he won’t.
Crap: I meant to say, “It’s not higher math, anyone can do it.”
I didn’t mean to imply that women can’t do higher math.
“TL;DR version: Sometimes the point of cross-examination is not to get the witness to tell the truth. Sometimes the point is to make it clear that he won’t.”
It’s remarkable how often that’s the case.
(Points at feminism and death thread)