Categories
disgusting women I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny MRA reddit sex vaginas

Women in combat: Who put sand in your vaginas?

Good soldier? Not with that vagina she ain't!

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

323 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

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.

Pecunium
9 years ago

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.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@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.

katz
9 years ago

and put Cohen on the radio

Interesting choice.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

‘Sides, I’d rather go into a war alongside fucking Miles Vorkosigan than practically anybody, and he couldn’t bench a dwarf hamster

That’s because he’s crazy enough to forget that he can barely bench a dwarf hamster. Or ignore the fact, whichever you prefer.

Pecunium
9 years ago

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.

katz
9 years ago

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?

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@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.

darksidecat
9 years ago

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.

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.

Pecunium
9 years ago

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.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

Brandon: reading for comprehension, you should try it.

comrade svilova
comrade svilova
9 years ago

Ah, the old ‘I’m not making a point, just an observation.’ So Brandon, once you’re done neutrally observing, what’s your point?

amandajane5
9 years ago

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.”

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

Brandon: reading for comprehension, you should try it.

Reading comprehension doesn’t do exactly what Brandon wants when he wants it to, therefore it is not important in Brandon’s world.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

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?

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

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.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@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.

Pecunium
9 years ago

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”.

Pecunium
9 years ago

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.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@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.

mythago
9 years ago

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.

Pecunium
9 years ago

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.

mythago
9 years ago

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.

Pecunium
9 years ago

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.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

“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)

magdelyn
9 years ago

the term we used was “sand in your clit.” not vagina. just saying.

katz
9 years ago

Well, that makes it all make sense then.

Pecunium
9 years ago

katz: Totally, because getting sand in one’s foreskin, totes not distracting. And sand all over your balls, downright fun.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@mythago: Bullshitting? My stance has been the same for years.

1) Women do get slack when it comes to pushups compared to men. Older men also get slack against younger men.

2) I am well aware of the PT requirements based on age. This article was about gender, not age. Hence I focused more on the gender aspect.

3) I didn’t say gender norming was slack and age norming was “A OK”. I pointed out the possible rationale that bureaucrats decided on why older men have to do less work than younger men. (e.g weaker bones, poorer health). That doesn’t make it is my rationale for doing so.

4) I actually pointed out that women do roughly the same situps. Also, I said women get an extra 3 minutes on the 2 mile run. The only part where women have to do 50+% less is in pushups.

5) I am against “norming” in general. Regardless of if you have a vagina or penis or whatever.

@Pecunium:My stance is this:

If the PT test exists, all soldiers should be required to do the same one. No norming of any kind. However, if the armed forces decides on a more efficient method of testing and screening recruits, I am all for it just as long as everyone gets held to the same standard.

If a DS says to a male solder “You have 45 seconds to double time your ass over to that wall and lay covering fire on that target” I don’t expect the DS to say “You have 1 minute and 15 seconds…” to a female soldier.

The PT test might be “pointless” but if the men have to go through a pointless exercise, then I think it is only fair to hold women to that same pointless standard.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: The PT test is relevant, to general fitness.

As a test of general fitness it is normed.

You want to do away with the norming.

That would make the test unfair (because of physiological differences in male/female anatomy). This is why I say you are willing to rig it against women, under the rubric of fairness.

No one has said that, in the task list for any MOS women should be given a lower standard. I pointed out that in some MOSs (e.g. all the medical MOSs) women are held to a higher standard than is required for the job they will actually be allowed to hold, because all the indoor MOS (like respiratory therapist, and radiologist) are additional to the Combat Medic MOS.

So women aren’t being cut any slack.

You just refuse to accept that there are actual differences, which need to be accounted for if women are to be given the same basic opportunity to join.

The PT test is pointless, when it comes to the actual ability to do the job. When normed it is perfectly useful as a rough assessment of the soldiers physical fitness (which is what the regulation says it is for).

What you are arguing for is a higher standard for women.

If the average male (aged 17-21) can do 35 push-ups, and the Army demands he do 42, that’s a standard which is above the average, but in the realm of reasonable given the general demands of the service.

If the average female can do 13 push-ups, then demanding 19 is also reasonable (and, as a percentage still a slightly higher standard).

To insists that she do 42, is an unreasonable demand. It would allow the average male to enter the Army, and require that any female who wanted to enlist has to be an exception to the norm. An outlier.

That isn’t fair. It’s a form of apartheid. It says, only if you are woman who is capable of being a serious athlete can you join the army, while saying, “If you are an average man, we’ll take you.”

To add insult to that injury you are telling those women they are barely the equals of the men.

To increase the injury they are denied the chance to enter the specialties which are required for access to the top slots in the profession (esp. if they are officers).

This is what you call, “fair”.

It’s not.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

the term we used was “sand in your clit.”

That makes even less sense. Rudimentary anatomy, you do not has it.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“That makes even less sense. Rudimentary anatomy, you do not has it.”

I guess technically you could get it under your clit hood (NSFW!), but I can’t say that’s ever happened to me, not even at the beach.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

Molly Ren: I thought of that just as I hit post. But unless you’re committed to being naked in a really sandy area, I’m not seeing how it could be much of a problem. (I spent most of my life close to water and beaches and have never had this happen. Ever.)

Pecunium
9 years ago

Brandon: This is purely a point of technique. I’m trying, with this one, to show you some of the problems you have in making your case for things. I am not, in this comment making any arguments about the question we’ve been talking about, it just happens to be the handy example.

3) I didn’t say gender norming was slack and age norming was “A OK”. I pointed out the possible rationale that bureaucrats decided on why older men have to do less work than younger men. (e.g weaker bones, poorer health). That doesn’t make it is my rationale for doing so.

What you did was defend the one position, while not admitting any parallel to the other.

You didn’t, initially, say: Everyone, no matter what age, no matter what gender, should do the same PT test.

You gave reasons for the older men being allowed a lower standard.

You could have said, then and there, what your standards would be. That you didn’t is a form of silence, and silence = assent. When you added the explanation it moves to being a minor apologia.

If you look at this instance, you will see that the positions of myself, mythago, etc. haven’t changed. We pretty much put it all out in the first instance. When new arguments were added, we answered them, by showing that they didn’t actually address the point we made in the beginning.

It’s that sort of methodological error which leads to you getting reactions you don’t seem to expect. If you think a policy is stupid, unfair, poorly thought out, etc., you would be better served (and more likely to get less firm; and perhaps less oppositional) reactions if you didn’t assume people could read your mind. All we have is your words.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

Brandon:

As we speak I am about to walk out the door to work as soon as I finish this quick comment.

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.

…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.

Hmm, I hope that boner went down before you got to work. XD

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

Bagelsan, have you ever seen that truly horrible game called Battle Raper? I feel like it was made for Brandon.

Pecunium
9 years ago

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.

I missed that. He’s behind the times; all soldiers are required to take/practice combatives (ie. hand to hand fighting, using a system which is based on brazilian ju-jitsu, with some krav-maga; which is new since he was in. I’ve been in combatives, level one training (the most basic) where a two minute open grapple had myself and the female soldier I was fighting travel a wide zig-zag of more than fifty yards across an open field; wrestling the entire time. We were both bruised and strained when we were done. Then we went back for more training. A non trivial number of level two, and a significant number of level three sessions end in the loser blacking out.

Except in combat arms units, all combatives training is mixed gender. As I said earlier, the 24th Infantry Division has division wide (and therefore open to females) competitions. Women have won them, beating the best competitors from the infantry battalions in the division.

So I don’t really think Brandon is as likely to take down and disable most of the female soldiers, and I guarantee he can’t take down all of them (not least because some of them are in training in other martial arts). A lot of them have been in combat zones, a non-trivial number have been in firefights. All of them know they could end up in those areas, and they train for it.

Moewicus
Moewicus
9 years ago

TL;DR: Brandon’s arrogant statement about how he could probably take down current soldiers even though he hasn’t been working out is full of hot air.

But I guess we knew that already.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@Moewicus: Can you substantiate that claim at all? No you can’t.

I have been in a few fights in my younger days. Even men taking full blown swings at my head weren’t all that painful.

While I don’t particularly like fighting, I am pretty sure even women punching or kicking me would be easily laughed at. Most of them just don’t have the strength to inflict any kind of meaningful pain on me or take me off my feet.

Just imagine a 5’6″ 130lb woman going up against a Patriots linebacker and you will get the idea of it.

It would take one exceptional woman to be able to win in a hand-to hand fight with me.

@Cassandra: I have never laid an unwanted hand on a woman and I have no plans on it. Hurting a woman doesn’t say very much about someones character.

@Pencunim: Taking martial arts doesn’t automatically make you a better fighter. I took co-ed ju-jitsu and every woman was unable to even keep me in holds without me breaking free easily. And this were women who have been training for years. The women in the class couldn’t even trip me nor could they force me into a vulnerable position. They were basically fighting a brick wall. They put more strain and damage on themselves then they inflicted on me. And just to make sure I didn’t end up hurting them, I held back and used only enough force to defeat whatever they were doing (holds, grapples, throws).

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

Shorter Brandon: *continues jerking it*

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

I totally believe that whole brick wall thing. It’s what I feel I’ve banged my head against after reading his weasel words.

Rutee Katreya
9 years ago

Cool Story Bro.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

Tonight on Man Boobz: Brandon, unable to stomach the idea that he might not be as articulate as he thinks he is, boasts about beating up entire platoons of women fighters.

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

Aren’t you guys just adorable

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
9 years ago

Nah, what’s adorable is you writing Marty Stu fanfic about yourself on manboobz.

kristinmh
kristinmh
9 years ago

Oh, FFS, Brandon, if we all told you how impressed we were, would you stop trying to get the last word and let this thread die a natural death?

You are very manly, have large muscles, and I have no doubt you can beat up every female body builder in the world. Simultaneously, while tied up and fighting the effects of the Hong Kong Cocktail. Will that do?

Brandon
Brandon
9 years ago

@kristinmh:

1) Not really.

2) No

Bostonian
Bostonian
9 years ago

I need more details on the fanfiction. Also, he needs to post a picture, like TAB, to convince us of his utter rightness.

kristinmh
kristinmh
9 years ago

Crap. Well, sorry, folks, I tried.

Bostonian
Bostonian
9 years ago

Actually, a movie of the event would do.