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.
Why don’t we just let women go on the frontlines, join submarine crews and go through special forces training and see what happens.
Touché.
That touché was for Graham.
Sounds good to me, Brandon.
Yeah, I think you’re right, I think it was Newt, but I’ll bet you a pair of Startrek pajamas that he’s watched female mud wrestling and enjoyed it. He’s soooo complicated, just like those super models in Vogue. They way they never smile and have deep thoughts, like Jack Handy.
Having a dirty vagina might help with bear fighting. I have no scientific proof though. The smell might just keep them away so you don’t have to fight them.
Australia has recently opened up front line positions to women 🙂 yay.
Yay for Jack Handy. “I’d rather be rich than stupid.”
The point about the IDF is also funny. Over the course of the thread, Demonspawn goes from claiming that Israel de-integrated their forces to saying “Looks like women are not allowed in all combat operations. Thank you for proving my own point.” Emphasis mine. Hurray for goalpost moving, also known as that thing creationists love to do. In the meantime:
http://idfspokesperson.com/2011/03/07/women-in-the-idf/
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Israel+beyond+politics/Integration_women_in_IDF-March_2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion
Why don’t we just let women go on the frontlines
Like the IDF, Australia
join submarine crews…
Like Australia, Norway
…and see what happens
Because if anything is Israel’s problem, it’s that their military is too weak.
David – you believe an eleven percent attrition rate is insignificant?
Oh, Brandon: don’t forget the USSR, which beat the Nazis with an integrated army. Wasn’t the Viet Cong also integrated? So far, integrated armies have a fantastic track record.
Looks like your question’s been answered.
Personally, I think everyone, rich poor women men white black jewish should be on the frontlines.
The protection thing is interesting, considering that Sparta used to encourage their soldiers to be lovers to encourage just that (as well as wanting to avoid looking like a coward/asshead in front of your lover).
@Voip: What question? I clearly made a statement that I support women doing the above jobs.
What about the BEARS?
You rang?
Sorry I’m late…I was sitting around with the Mrs. discussing how we can afford a vagina replacement for her.
What question? I clearly made a statement that I support women doing the above jobs.
This one:
Why don’t we just let women go on the frontlines, join submarine crews and go through special forces training and see what happens.
What happens is that Nazis get their asses handed to them.
And I’m sorry; I interpreted your statement as sarcasm, that you didn’t think women should be in combat. My mistake.
I was going to say this exact thing. No public support for war, whatever shall we do?
Dirty vaginas will kill our soldiers! Somehow! We’re still working on the details!
Yeah, because after a few weeks in a foxhole, a man’s junk is going to smell like a rose garden. Especially if he’s uncut.
@Voip: Nazi Germany didn’t just collapse because of the USSR’s effort. American, British and the French resistance played a large part to the collapse of the Nazi regime.
Also, the Red Army had only a few aviation regiments and a few woman sniper detachments. I am talking about if there are 100,000 infantry soldiers…you swap 50,000 of them for women,…then see what happens. Then we can compare apples to apples.
I am talking about if there are 100,000 infantry soldiers…you swap 50,000 of them for women,…then see what happens. Then we can compare apples to apples.
Okay! Sounds good! Let’s do it!
Sorry if I forgot to take my inferiority as a foregone conclusion.
Brandon; I think assuming the women go through the same training and have the same requirements to pass training as the men, you won’t see too much of a difference.
@Shora: Well that’s a completely different argument. Women don’t go through the same training requirements than men go through.
Well then, they should. It’s the only thing that would make sense.
Also, the Red Army had only a few aviation regiments and a few woman sniper detachments.
I’m sorry, but this is incorrect. Although the number of women in the Red Army during the Second World War did not approach 1/2 (except among army doctors, 43% of which were women), they still fought in sizable numbers in mixed-gender outfits. I don’t have exact figures myself, but Wikipedia says there were 500,000 of them by the end of the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II
See also
http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Women-Combat-History-Violence/dp/0521197341
Nazi Germany didn’t just collapse because of the USSR’s effort. American, British and the French resistance played a large part to the collapse of the Nazi regime.
A part, of course. A comparatively large part, not so much. The fighting on the Eastern Front dwarfs any of these efforts easily. Especially the tiny French resistance, the effects of which have, in my opinion, been blown out of proportion by French writers who want to downplay the extent of their country’s accommodation to Nazi Germany.
The second world war on the Eastern Front is the largest military confrontation in history. Nine million died on the Soviet side, 5 million on the Axis side.
In the West (I’m not counting the war with Japan) the US lost “109,820 killed or missing, 356,660 wounded, and 56,630 captured” and the British “30,280 killed or missing, 96,670 wounded, 14,700 captured,” according to The World War II Databook: The Essential Facts and Figures for all the combatants