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.
@Voip: You have succeeded in making yourself look like an academic snob. Congrats.
@Bagelsan: They aren’t “suddenly getting placed”. You keep thinking that the branch of service decides your fate when you enlist which is not correct. You sign a contract saying you are enlisting into the Army/Navy/etc… on the condition that you will be training for a particular job. If the military doesn’t follow through on the contract, you can be discharged if you want. My uncle did exactly that when he signed up for the Air Force and they didn’t have openings for his job.
My point is if the military opens up all MOS’s to women and the woman decides to do that job, then she should be held to the same exact standards as the men. No one is forcing someone to do a job they didn’t sign a contract for (the draft being the exception)
Also, you would be able to enlist into the Army since the minimum height requirement would be 4 feet 8 inches for women. Also short men have an advantage during combat, they can get into places bigger soldiers can’t. (aka tunnel rats). So while you might discount yourself, I wouldn’t.
@ Brandon: Citation needed. I have a distinct feeling that you’re forgotten the partisan forces that were significanty populated with women.
@Bagelsan: I have a distinct urge to rewrite “Rooster” by Alice in Chains right now. Got my douche ‘gainst Vagina Death….
You’d think that by now I’d be able to address her as Bagel-kun.
Also, I’m a card carrying feminazi bitch of long standing and I’d be totally fine with the military allowing women to serve in any capacity, but only provided that they meet the physical requirements, so let’s just put the “you ladies want unfair treatment!” trope to bed, shall we?
Brandon, it was only after you made yourself look like a pedantic internet snob by bringing in Japan apropos of nothing previous to the discussion and then clarifying that yes, children, there was a western front and an eastern front. I’d say Voip reminding you of who you’re talking to is appropriate.
@Cassandra: Well that would most likely require 1) Women holding themselves to the physical standards the men follow or 2) the physical standards lowered to accommodate women.
@ Brandon – I’m not at all sure why you’re assuming that I’m not OK with option 2.
I mean option 1. Sorry, took my glasses off for a second there.
@Moe: You can’t really look at one front in a vacuum. Soviets placed most if not all of their troops on the eastern front while the Americans were split between the Western front and the pacific theater. Thus I see it as comparing apples and oranges.
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.
Well, I think you interpret this the wrong way. The “complaining” may be just a move to try to prove that feminism is incoherent. As feminism is often defined as a movement that tries to achieve equality between men and women, feminists should be against the draft or conscription of males (or for the female draft). Of course they might think so, but they nearly never actively fought for equal treatment regarding the draft or conscription.
I think it’s like when someone is strongly against the legalization of marijuana he has to answer questions like “All you arguments apply to alcohol as well. Why don’t you want alcohol to be banned, too?”. So in this case it would be: “If you want equality, why don’t you care about the draft?”
@Cassandra: I am not assuming anything. Those are basically the two options women have when it comes to combat roles. We either lower the bar to make it easier for women (which is what we do now) or hold women to the same standards the men follow.
In my personal opinion, the job is the job and we should only have one standard and not two.
@ Brandon – That’s really only true if you define “combat roles” very narrowly. And even then it wouldn’t include all women, just a substantial percentage of them. Which I’m fine with, if that’s how things end up playing out.
You say that as if you’re expecting us to disagree with you
For the love of god, brandyn, we are agreeing with you!
@Shora: I don’t really care if you agree or disagree. I am just stating my opinion on women’s role in the military. I say open everything up, allow women to enlist into those jobs and hold them to exactly the same standards that men are held to. That is pretty much it.
But Shora, it would be so much more fun for Brandon if we disagreed! How is he supposed to get indignant about how hypocritical ladies are if we don’t take unreasonable positions?
Like I said earlier; your tone says you disagree, but you’re words say otherwise. You are, in short, arguing with us when we’re like “Yea, bro. That makes sense.”
It’s vexing
@Shora: You are inferring a tone when none exists.
Vexing? I think it’s hilarious. He’s so convinced that it’s impossible for us to be reasonable that he is literally unable to see when even by his standards we are in fact being completely reasonable.
@Cassandra: I see your position as reasonable and I am not trying to make it into something that it isnt. However, I was informing Bagelsan of standard military recruitment since she was incorrect. I think I have enough information regarding it since I actually went through the process when I enlisted into the Army.
Ah, the good ole rubber and glue defense, eh?
“I’m not misunderstanding you, you’re misunderstanding me.” A classic.
Let’s also not forget that many women are already in combat positons, regardless of the fact that they’re in designated “non combat” roles. The best strategic targets are supply lines and medical facilities. I worked as “security” for a medical facility in a “protective force operation” and saw more combat than my cousin, who was in a designated combat role.
@Shora: What the hell are you talking about? I clearly stated my position, you agree…end of story.
But it…. wasn’t the end of the story.
Bagelsan said she thought that there was a way that the military sorted people into jobs they were qualified for, although she wasn’t sure what it was.
Agreement would have been: “Actually you’re right! Here’s how that happens!
Arguing for no good reason, which is what you did, would be: “You don’t know what you’re talking about!” Followed by a not-so-subtle implication that women expect special treatment.
And then you realized you were acting like an ass, and like a cat falling off a windowsill, acted like you were being perfectly reasonable the whole time.
inb4 some variant of “You’re reading to much into things”
@Shora: Saying that the military just assigns you a job without any input from you doesn’t make Bagelsan right…it makes her wrong. Hence I explained it so she now knows how the recruitment process happens.
I made no implication that women expect special treatment…they do get special treatment though. Women are held to a lower standard when it comes to physical training.
If correcting something that was incorrect makes me an ass…then so be it.
Are you trying to tell me that the various insurgents and terrorists running around never in fact agreed to not attack female military personnel in the Middle East? SAY IT AIN’T SO. ;p
What was I incorrect about? That the military has standards? That the military does not actually cater to the whims of every applicant just because she has a vagina? That the military has positions other than ones where you have to run around with a hundred pounds of equipment on your back, and that some of those might be a really great fit for women, while some of even the run-around-hauling-all-the-things positions would be a great fit for other women? I don’t think I was exactly over-reaching my knowledge base when I speculated that these things were all true. :p