Let us send our daughters to die in battle for the sake of gender neutrality!

There are three different types of ideas: good ideas, bad ideas, and ideas so horrifically stupid that they will be mocked and scorned by our descendants for centuries to come.

Modern left-wingers typically trade in the second sort of idea, while occasionally conjuring up something that unquestionably falls into the third category.

Speaking of which, there’s this.

After discovering that half of the female Marines can’t meet the minimum physical fitness requirements, usually failing to do three pull-ups, the Corps has decided to delay the standards. This is all part of the process of “equalizing” physical requirements so as to integrate women into combat roles.

Here we have a horrible idea, stacked on top of a bewilderingly idiotic idea, poured over a collection of reckless, ideologically-fueled, irrational, liberal feminist ideas. Basically, an insane idea had sexual relations with a moronic idea and the two gave birth to this idea.

In other words, I disagree.

Let me be more specific: I disagree with the notion that women need to be “integrated” into combat roles.

I disagree with the fools who like to pretend we’re living in a Charlie’s Angels movie, where ladies can shout “girl power” and then kick butt and take names with the best of ’em.

I disagree with the bureaucrats who think the military should be an instrument for social experimentation.

I disagree with anyone who claims that the battlefield is a place for “equality.”

I disagree that there is any tactical or strategic advantage to getting more women involved in combat.

I disagree that the military should place feminist ideology over tactical and strategic concerns.

I disagree with the pencil pushers and politicians ignoring the combat troop who has rightly worried about a scenario where he is wounded and needs to be carried out of a firefight, but the woman fighting next to him is completely physically incapable of doing so.

I disagree that we should get people killed just so that pushy liberals can feel like they’ve won some sort of bizarre moral victory.

I disagree with the notion that military fitness requirements are “barriers” to “gender equality” and ought to be adjusted because of it.

I disagree with the “gender equality” fable entirely.

I disagree with the strategy of achieving “equality” by treating different groups unequally.

I disagree with every single thought process and ideological dogma that goes into creating a scenario where the home of the Few and the Proud is transformed into a place for the Many and the Physically Incapable.

When the DC elite declared their plan to move women into combat positions, supporters of the move tried to assuage the concerns of rational Americans by insisting that physical requirements for combat roles would NOT be altered or adjusted for the sake of women. But rational Americans — being, well, rational — knew from the get-go that this was a lie. Women are not men. Men are uniquely equipped for the physical and mental rigors of combat. Women are not. This fact, while scientific and undeniable, seems quite insulting to the legions of childish Utopianists who’ve been hypnotized by Disney movies and college professors into believing that women can “do anything men can do.” Anything. And, in order to please these types, military brass will cave and kowtow, eventually rigging the fitness tests so as to achieve a paradise where our daughters and wives can charge into combat and be mercilessly slaughtered.

And the rational Americans were right. Again.

Diversity has become the military’s top priority. Google the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. In fact, you don’t need to read it. It’s sad enough that our military has a thing called a “diversity commission.” I grew up thinking that our military’s top concern at all times must be: “are we ready and able to kill the enemy if called upon?” But, apparently, it’s more like: “are we ready and able to impress Gloria Steinem with our female enlistment statistics?”

Here’s a funny thought: if women can fight in combat roles, then all-male conscription must assuredly be unconstitutional. So, when the Supreme Court strikes it down, and the draft is reinstated, will the liberal feminists of America jump for joy as their daughters are forcibly recruited and sent off to die in some godforsaken desert halfway around the world? If you want to be like men, will you die like them?

Maybe you would. But we are a shameful, cowardly country if we would send our daughters off to war for no reason other than to obey our New-Age Gender Creeds.

There are other aspects that go beyond the physical toll of battle. I’ve never been to war, but I understand (in the abstract, anyway) how the horrors of it can weigh on a man. In a world where we must pretend that women are as physically strong as men, I suppose there’s no hope that we’ll acknowledge the more difficult reality: that men are more psychologically equipped to deal with the lasting mental burden of combat. No human being is designed to deal with the carnage of war, but men at least have a better chance of carrying it and processing it. Research has shown that women are more vulnerable to developing PTSD than men — a fact that should come as no surprise to anyone with even the most basic understanding of the inherent emotional and psychological differences between the sexes.

And, somewhere in my disgust at this whole thing, I must admit that I am also personally fed up with what it all represents: the cheapening of masculinity.

No man would claim that they can do everything a woman can do. Or, I should say, not very many men would make that claim. It is a generally accepted truth that women possess unique capabilities. Women are invaluable and indispensable. Who would deny this? Not I, that’s for certain.

But what about the unique capabilities of men? Are we completely replaceable in every facet of society? Is that the new philosophy? And what about all of the things men have built, and achieved, and won, and died for, just so that we can live in a country where you’re allowed to be a crazed gender revolutionary? Women could have done all of that?

Ridiculous.

You know, maybe it would be wise to raise our daughters to have an appreciation for manhood. Maybe we should stop filling her head with this “you can do everything a man can do” garbage. Maybe she isn’t benefitted by this lie. Maybe it will only make her bitter and arrogant. Maybe it will cause her to see men as worthless, with the only characteristics particular to them being negative stereotypes about leaving the toilet seat up and drinking too much beer.

Maybe we should tell her that it is men who fight the wars, and men who are best equipped for the task. This is not because of “discrimination” or “glass ceilings,” it’s because men are men, and women are not. Women need men. GASP. What a scandalous notion. But I say it again: women need men.

Of course, in turn, I have absolutely no trouble admitting that men need women. I need my wife. The world needs my daughter.

Just not on the battlefield.

************

Find me on Facebook.

Twitter: @MattWalshRadio

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

908 Responses to Let us send our daughters to die in battle for the sake of gender neutrality!

  1. Nicola says:

    I could not agree more.

  2. Chelsea says:

    Amen! What a nice refreshing voice!

  3. Cory says:

    We are in the process of rewriting our policies about who can serve in combat.

    I’m not sure what exactly the new policy will end up as after all the dust settles, but it had better be something along the lines of, “As long as you can do the job, we don’t care who or what you are.”, or else we are going to be in a world of hurt.

    It appears it will instead be: “In a multicultural world, we strive to have our military reflect the rich diversity of beliefs and abilities and thus will modify our standards until all can feel accepted and included.”

    Government is in the justice business. Its job is to remove force and fraud from our society, whether the source is “foreign or domestic”. We have given them guns to do this job. Thus, it is very important that they not be in the discrimination business.

    Government discriminates when it has different rules for different groups. Justice is supposed to be color, sex, income level, and personal preference blind.

    However, the government can’t be standards blind. It must figure out the essential abilities that a person must possess in order to be hired into the justice business.

    If a person meets those standards, they should be hired, again no matter who or what they are.

    They should NEVER be hired in order to create some “proper” balance in the number or mix of who’s and what’s.

    If the government can’t show there is something about women that makes them uniquely incapable of participating in killing and maiming, they should be allowed in.

    We expect our soldiers to be professionals. They must be able to look beyond irrelevant differences in doing their jobs, but they must never be asked to serve with unqualified soldiers just to satisfy some political agenda.

    “Do you love liberty and personal responsibility?”
    “Are you willing and ABLE to fight for it?”
    “Welcome to the club.”

    It should be as simple as that.

    • Love your comment Corey! Women can and do make wonderful contributions to the military, not because of their gender but rather because that they are talented individuals. Unfortunately I think that Matt falls into some of the same pitfalls that many in gender equality discussions do: the false notion that men and women have gender-specific traits that inherently set them apart and will always do. Chromosomes aside, this isn’t true. There are men who are great caregivers to their children, and there are women who can bench-press more than most. Our qualities and talents aren’t tied to our sex. Don’t lower standards so that more women can get in, rather give women the opportunity to meet the same standards as their male counterparts.

      Women aren’t out to replace men or make ourselves more important. Seriously, we’re all just people, people!

      • Very Far From Home says:

        As a result of the steps currently being taken, the point that missing is – eventually it WILL be mandated that women go into combat. Just wrap your mind around that a little.

      • Joe says:

        I carried 140 lbs of gear as a machine gunner in Afghanistan. I have yet to meet a woman who can do what I have done, and I’ve trained with professional female boxers and kickboxers. According to science, there absolutely are gender specific traits that set them apart. Women do not have the same bodies as men. While I agree that a woman who can do everything a man does should be able to do the job, I haven’t met one. Yes there have been females attached to special forces teams as a lisason to female Afghan women, but that isn’t the same as being one of the specialists on a fire team. It also does not mean that those women couldve done every type of mission with those men, including deep recon missions with +100 lb packs.

      • Freelancer says:

        Retired military person. I have had the good fortune of serving with numerous extremely capable women. Unfortunately, those capable ones were less than 5% of all the females with whom I served. The vast majority had no business in uniform, because they were either physically or emotionally incapable, technically incompetent, or mentally unstable.

        And in every one of those cases, a standard was lowered so that they could get through. You said it, don’t lower standards. BUT THEY DO EXACTLY THAT, and it is a primary point of Matt’s essay. When given the opportunity to meet the same standards, most cannot, and therefore should not be allowed to continue, yet for PC’s sake the standards are either discarded or adjusted, to the detriment of everyone who must bear the burdens they cannot.

      • Rachel says:

        I’m certain that is not what Matt was saying. On the contrary, I think he values women’s individuality more than most men I know. He appreciates women’s many qualities just not on the battlefield. No matter what we women like to think, there’re certain things women just cannot do better than men JUST BECAUSE WE’RE WOMEN and vise versa.

      • Isaac says:

        Stephanie, nobody is saying that exceptions to general rules don’t exist. But this post isn’t about that. It’s about relaxing standards so that women who AREN’T exceptions to the rule are still allowed in combat.

        Exceptions don’t disprove a general rule, and it is a general rule that men and women are biologically and psychologically different. Sure, exceptions exist going both ways, but the rule is still there.

        The point of the article is that women who CAN do the job (the exceptions) should be the ONLY ones allowed to. Just as it is for the men.

  4. TonyR says:

    Reblogged this on Daily Browse and commented:
    Matt don’t hold back, tell me what you really think.

  5. LilyL2182 says:

    I love how directly from the title Matt reveals what will follow is a mysogynistic piece of garbage.

    Let’s send our sons to die in battle to disprove gender neutrality! Let’s see, who can we attack next…North Korea has been a problem! Time for a land invasion just so we can prove how tough men are!

    They delayed the standards because they didn’t want to lose female recruits. You ever thought that maybe that’s because they value them? And even for a women, a pull up (or 3) isn’t that hard. You’re starting with women who already meet the weight requirement (meaning you don’t start with anyone significantly overweight) and if you can’t get most of them to do a pull-up after months of training, something’s going wrong with the training.

    And as to Matt’s question, “Women could have done all of that?” YEP.

    • celtickcc says:

      The gist of your rebuttal is that because Matt wants to save his wife and daughter, and other women, from the horrors and dangers of deadly combat he must be a woman hater; I get it, that makes perfect sense.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        You’re right. He must be a man hater because apparently he doesn’t give a shit about saving men from the horrors of battle. Please go look up the word “paternalism.”

        • Kevin Moritz says:

          Ah, so according to LilyL2182, it’s hypocritical to have ANYONE to send into battle.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          When exactly did I say that? Oh that’s right I didn’t.

        • celtickcc says:

          So if I understand your comment correctly, you are concerned about the larger issue of warfare itself and I would have to agree; it is a horror that no one should be subjected to. Unfortunately, it is a reality that has existed from the beginning of time and is not likely to go away within our lifetimes.

      • Smarol says:

        This is ridiculous. Your wife and daughter can make their own choices. They are human beings with rights and minds of their own as well as you. Get used to it.
        Oh right, and just so you know there are swordswomen/martial artists who did AMAZING things in history. At what point did we start to underestimate women?

        …..
        one more thing. This day and age we rarely ever do hand to hand combat because of ranged weapons. Pull ups is hardly an accurate test of marksmanship. And when it comes down to it, you don’t need brute strength to put a man on the floor. I have taken a self defense class and tried out the moves on the father who is an extremely fit military guy and threw him on the floor multiple times, and according to him, he wasn’t going easy on me.

        • Dan Daly says:

          Ms/Mr (?) Smarol: who were these “swords women/martial artists”? Full disclosure: I don’t believe you because I am an avid student of military history and I have no idea what you’re talking about. Joan of Arc, Boudicca, et al, were leaders, not fighters.

          And here we go again with the “pull-ups are useless” BS [haha, do you see what I’m dealing with here, Ms Lily???]. Pull-ups aren’t about simply testing your ability to grapple with someone and choke them out/stomp on their skull: they are a test of your upper body strength. Carrying a heavy weapon, pulling yourself over a wall or up a rope, pulling open a 200lbs armored door on a rolled vehicle, carrying a wounded 200+lbs casualty, etc, etc, etc. So, yes, pull-ups as a measurement of upper body strength are extremely pertinent to evaluating someone’s ability to perform well on the battlefield. Also, great story about throwing your extremely fit dad around. I’m a black belt in MCMAP, and that is hilarious.

        • Paul says:

          A self-defense class seriously “a” implying 1 self-defense class. Try 10 years of training 6 plus hours per week and competing in both hard contact sparing and forms competition. Learning empty hand stand-up, long range, close range and ground combat. Learning long and short stick weapons. Not waiving them in the air actually hitting targets, some large some very small. Edge weapons from long sword to a spike the size of a 10 nail. These one day one-hit wonder classes get all participants killed and no martial art practitioner / trainer with dignity and respect for their system or themselves would teach such garbage.

          Pull-ups are essential for a strong functional body capable of handling emergency situations (i.e. war). How about pulling a friend up who slipped and is about to fall on a trail hike.

        • celtickcc says:

          Sounds like you are a good candidate for the military. The armed forces needs good folks with your particular skill sets.

    • John Buckley says:

      You’ve never been in combat. You’re an idiot. Volunteer for some merc work in a war zone in Latin America, Southeast Asia (the Golden Triangle would be good), or Southwest Asia. Then come talk. As much as you try to claim black is white, it’s not. The rest of us have eyes, it’s really black, and we see folks like you as idiots.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        Wait, where did Matt serve again?

        • Giacomo Knox says:

          Hi Lily, I SERVED. Marine Corps 87-92. On Parris Island (Marine Corps recruit training depot, East Coast), each obstacle had this unique feature called “The WM (women Marine) Ladder) because generally women lacked the upper body strength to negotiate a rope climb. Mind you, this was back in the 1980s. Flash forward 30 years later with the admission of women into combat roles for whatever reasoning there might be, why do you suppose the strength standards for being a combat-ready Marine are being delayed or watered down AGAIN, for the sake of women?

          And yes, I’ve served in combat – Desert Storm. I pulled 5 men out of an overturned vehicle, requiring every ounce of body strength I had at the time. Before then while on a training mission in Virginia, I had to “hump” a 72 lbs grenade launcher for 5 miles, carrying as well my normal ALICE pack (about 40 lbs) and my M16A2. That’s about 120 lbs of gear and equipment, without a rest stop. Anyone who can’t repeat a feat like that, MALE OR FEMALE should not be a Marine. Period. And I could give two craps about anyone’s sense of entitlement or fallacious equality arguments.

        • Matt may not have served… but do you notice that virtually all the ones who have AGREE WITH HIM?

        • LilyL2182 says:

          It’s not his conclusion I take issue with it’s his thought process.

        • Rachel says:

          I’m sorry Lily… But you’re pathetic. Your so called ‘open mindness’ has made you very closed-minded and you’re not even aware of it.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          I never called my self open minded. And yep, I agree. I’m totally closed minded to blatent misogyny and sexism.

    • Dan Daly says:

      “You ever thought that maybe that’s because they value them?” No, it’s because the administration has told the military that they must integrate women into infantry and combat arms MOS’s by 2016 and the Marine Corps’ attempts to create a “gender neutral standard” by making females do the bare minimum a male must do resulted in half of them failing so they dropped the new, gender neutral standard (which still scores females higher than males for doing less) because it is too tough. Facts.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        You’re right. They totally care about the 3 pull ups more than any other qualification.

        • Nicole1892 says:

          yes, they do care about pull ups because they SHOULD seeing as strength is literally the most important JOB REQUIREMENT for this job. You can’t say that barring someone from a job where they cannot meet the single most important job requirement is discrimination. That’s like someone failing a math test and not getting hired as a math teacher and calling it unfair. Take a class on human resources.

          I consider myself a feminist and I think that lowering the physical standards to for a Marine combat role to make it easier for women is completely ridiculous. Not only is it unsafe (don’t we want the most physically capable people protecting us in combat?) but it also does absolutely nothing for gender equality. If we as women want to be treated completely equal to men, then we should be held to the same standards as they are. This isn’t discrimination, its science. GENERALLY speaking, on average, women tend to be not as strong as men, yet there are exceptions, and women who CAN meet these same physical standards as men are not barred from combat roles. Sorry, that is a fact of life. There are plenty of ways men are biologically incapable of doing things women can, like child birth, obviously.

          I don’t mean to sound rude but women like you don’t help our cause. You give the cause a bad name.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Nicole, you should go read up on what the Marines actually did an why, instead of just reading Matt’s take on it.

        • motherperson says:

          I totally agree, but this is not only about women. The test to get into the police in my area is staggered by race minorities can score lower. I think a lot stems from this I think equal means we all meet the same standard, if it has to be lowered for ANY group then it stops being equal.

    • Dan Daly says:

      Also, where did Mr Walsh advocate going to war or anything like that? These “chicken hawk” straw man arguments you and Mr Powell keep regurgitating are just really weird and out of place… Anyway, once again we’re talking about the return on investment for integrating women into the infantry. It will take more training (time, money, and resources) to train up women to the minimum standards as it takes to train the same number of men. You don’t care about that fact and think we should give women special treatment (i.e. More training for females than their counterparts in order to get the majority of them up to the bare minimum physical requirements that we have for males), so we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        I never said Matt advocated going to war. I was parodying his stupid title.

        Women don’t necesarily need more training. They need different training. For example, it might work to train men by having them do pull ups until they work up to higher numbers. But since most women can’t do a pull up in the first place, it’s useless do just have them practice pull ups by just hanging there never making it.

        • Dan Daly says:

          Don’t have them “just hang there never making it”. Nice. I’m sure that’s exactly what they did for 13 weeks. More lessons female Marines need to learn from female civilians… (Pssst… The teams who run the Marine Corps recruit depots probably know more about physical fitness, sports medicine, and changing civilians into basically trained Marines than you do. It’s a possibility to consider). Agree to disagree? Adios.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          You’re right. All I know is based on being a woman trying to do pull ups.

        • DrEvil007 says:

          Lily, to paraphrase Shakespeare, It is better to not post on the comments section and be thought a fool than post comments and remove all doubts. You have removed all doubts. Combat takes raw physical capacity which women lack, period, end of discussion. Ideology, philosophy, sophisticated comment changes nothing about combat which is brutal, ugly and physical where the meanest toughest sob has the best chance of surviving. Women simply do not have the physical capacity, the PT tests are used to judge whether an individual has the capacity to function up to the physical demands associated with combat. Changing those standards, criticizing those tests is all well and good as those are barely shadows of what is required in combat. Women have no place in combat and anyone not blinded by their ideology realize that.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          What’s most funny to me (in a way that kinda makes me sad for the world) about the responses to my comments is how many ridiculous assumptions keep getting made about my views. I’ve commented on a bunch of stuff, but I’ve had two main points:

          1) Matt is a sexist idiot.
          2) Most of the reasons given to keep women out of combat are dumb.

          Did I ever once say we should lower standards for those we put in combat? Did I ever once say that we should put women in combat at all?

          I didn’t. Thanks. But go ahead and make up what it is you think I believe and then rebut that.

        • Dan Daly says:

          Ms Lily: you have said repeatedly you don’t see the value in testing upper body strength with pull-ups. You are OK with women having to do less pull-ups than men (please correct me if I’m wrong on that one). You are OK with spending more training time to focus on building upper body strength in women recruits than we spend doing the same for men. You have previously questioned the efficacy of what is in a typical combat load (i.e. couldn’t we lower the weight?).

          If I/we have been misreading you this entire time, then I apologize for my foolishness, however, every time someone raises a point (i.e. pull-ups are a good way to evaluate upper body strength, we shouldn’t spend more time training women than men, we need to maintain the currently high standards, etc) you cavalierly dismiss it as antiquated, useless, or irrelevant to how or why women should be evaluated and make suggestions that they should have more time, they should change the training, etc. That is why I personally thought you wanted to lower the standards for women being integrated into the infantry and I assumed (incorrectly, evidently…) that you wanted women in the infantry.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          “Ms Lily: you have said repeatedly you don’t see the value in testing upper body strength with pull-ups.” Nope. I didn’t say that.

          “You are OK with women having to do less pull-ups than men.” I didn’t say that and yes, you are wrong. I do have a problem with arbitrary standards applied to anyone.

          “You are OK with spending more training time to focus on building upper body strength in women recruits than we spend doing the same for men.” Uh…yes I am. What’s wrong with that? We should focus on helping soldiers to improve their weaks spots. For most women that probably includes upper body strength. Btw, many recruits, men included, are held back, retrained, and given another opportunity to meet standards. This isn’t something new.

          “You have previously questioned the efficacy of what is in a typical combat load.” The combat load example was one I just made up on the spot and in retrospect not the best example. Please actually read what I wrote which that is that I dont know what needs to be a combat load, but we shouldn’t hold women to an arbitrary standard just because that’s been the standard in the past. I may have never been in the military, but I have worked for the government in law enforcement and I have loads or experience with bureaucracy. This experience tells me that a standard is as likely to be made by 3 people sitting a conference room than as to be based on actual requirements. I have even been one of those 3 people making up the standard. The is a crapload or guessing involved. Where the heck did the pack load list come from? Why 3 pull ups? Those are the questions we should be asking.

          I think if you are going to exclude an entire gender from something, you have to have a damn good reason. I can think of one pretty damn good reason, and it’s basically the reason Israel has used to exclude women from about 3% of military assignments.

    • D'Aaron Stewart says:

      I’m a Sergeant in the army and I’m an infantry man i have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t care weather they let women into combat roles or not but what i do care about are a lowering of the standards which they have already announced. I know for a fact that there are men who cant meet the male standard in pt but they are a minority and I know for a fact that there are women that can meet the male standard but they are a minority. If they are required to meet the same standard that i have had to meet for the last 61/2 years i will welcome them into the infantry. But another important point is the ability to lift their comrade into a fireman’s carry and move out at a slow trot. I have had to do it before and in all of my gear and equipment i weigh almost 220 pounds that’s a 50 pound increase for me and carrying another grown man that weighs as much or more then you is a real test of your ability. I don’t doubt their ability to shot or be as aggressive as their male counter parts but their ability to carry a three day fighting load. Vest with plates 20 lbs helmet 8lbs ammo for a rifle man 30 lbs ruck sack with the bare essentials 45 lbs and this is not counting squad equipment that will have to be taken out or what a machine gunners load which just his ammo load is 60 lbs by its self . If they ca come up to what the male standard currently is and perform there then they earned their right to be in the infantry. But if they lower the standard so they can get them into the infantry that means it was handed to them and they wont gain the respect of their peers because they got a hand out and it will cheapen what they accomplish

      • Lisa K Gray says:

        Thanks for your service AND your comments! Whoever cannot meet the requirements should not be serving our country in that capacity.

    • clovverr says:

      >Let’s send our sons to die in battle to disprove gender neutrality!

      What the fuck are you talking about? No one is trying to disprove anything. And in this case, there is no gender neutrality – not in the draft. Is that surprising to you? Is it like a cold bucket of water being splashed over your face? It’s so obvious that there is no neutrality in the draft and no one has said there is because only men are forced to sign up for it.

      If we take into account what you actually say there, we can also say “Let’s send our daughters to die in battle to prove gender neutrality! Time for a land invasion just so we can prove how tough men are!” By the way, that last sentence was disgusting. When men are forced to go to war because of the draft, no one is trying to prove how fucking tough they are – we’re in a state of emergency because all of our troops, all 800 + military bases the US has all over the Goddamn world cannot fight against another country, which is extremely terrifying. So it would never be to prove how tough they are, it would be a last resort to save our asses. The fact that you think it’s all about showing how tough men are is fucking hilarious.

      >They delayed the standards because they didn’t want to lose female recruits.

      Right, so that makes it excusable? “We don’t want to lose female recruits, even though they can’t pass a test that is the same for males, so we’re going to add them in anyway and possibly risk one of your lucky lives in the event that you’re injured on the battlefield and she can’t do anything to held you”. Yes, okay, what an amazing fucking excuse. Who gives a shit if they lose those recruits? I mean, yeah, it’s a big deal, but if they can’t pass a test that men are also obligated to pass, THEY SHOULDN’T FUCKING BE THERE. Your feelings do not count when you’re fighting out there. This isn’t some fucking tumblr feminazi bullshit convention.

      >And as to Matt’s question, “Women could have done all of that?” YEP.

      So why the fuck didn’t they? WHY? Why did women not do it? Because if they could have, they would have. But they didn’t. And even if they did, it would’ve happened a hell of a lot long after the men invented it.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        I try not to respond to people who miss clear sarcasm, but I really want to answer this part:

        “So why the fuck didn’t they? WHY? Why did women not do it? Because if they could have, they would have. But they didn’t. And even if they did, it would’ve happened a hell of a lot long after the men invented it.”

        There’s this little thing you may have heard of called oppression. Why didn’t a woman do “all of the things men have built, and achieved, and won, and died for.” You really think the world would be that different of a place without men in it? I can’t think of one single thing that men have accomplished that could not have been accomplished by women.

        Oh wait I just thought of something. Without men’s contributions, we probably wouldn’t have quite the same array of male masturbatory toys.

        • Christina says:

          Did you seriously just post these two things right after one another: “Without men’s contributions, we probably wouldn’t have quite the same array of male masturbatory toys.” and “My point was simply that Matt is a sexist idiot.”

          Do you hear yourself? You in effect just said that men have nothing new to bring to the table except bad things. And women are just pure men – men without the desire to objectify women. And then you call Matt sexist for looking at reality and scoffing at those who ignore it. And yes – even in that “revelation that Matt didn’t get the story right” Ellen proved he did. In her quote it states, very clearly, that women are ALREADY held to a different standard – but were unable to meet the MINIMUM of their LOWERED standard.

          So what if a few women are able to meet the minimum requirement of the higher standard? She is AT BEST only as good as the WEAKEST men in that group and will never be the BEST in the group. You are consigning a woman to always be “bottom of the class” – why? Women can contribute to the military in other ways – in ways that enable them to shine and flourish.

          I spent many years trying to “prove” I was physically just as capable as men – and only ended up hurting myself in the process. Then I realized, my worth is not dependent on being better than a man at being a man. My worth is in being a woman – and a woman will always be better than a man…at being a woman. And no – that doesn’t just mean having babies – I’m single professional who’s work can best be described as a computer programmer and I’m really good.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          “You in effect just said that men have nothing new to bring to the table except bad things. And women are just pure men – men without the desire to objectify women.”

          I didn’t actually say either of these things. I don’t think toys are a ‘bad thing.’ Let me be clear, I don’t think women are some flawless group. Reverse the gender in my statement about masturbatory toys and I still stand by it. Men and women and women, despite all The differences, are still pretty damn similar.

          I don’t want to relegate women to the bottom of the class. I don’t want women excluded from trying for stupid reasons.

        • Melissa says:

          So the point is that Lily is the sexist idiot! But that is ok because you are a woman being sexist against a man!

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Please point out the part where I was being sexist.

        • Christina says:

          Last response – does this sound sexist to you?

          “You really think the world would be that different of a place without women in it? I can’t think of one single thing that women have accomplished that could not have been accomplished by men.

          Oh wait I just thought of something. Without women’s contributions, we probably wouldn’t have quite the same array of excuses for weaklings and silly emotional movies.”

        • Erin says:

          ” You really think the world would be that different of a place without men in it? I can’t think of one single thing that men have accomplished that could not have been accomplished by women.”

          You cannot be serious. Not one single thing (except creating sex toys for men, that is)?? How about CO-CREATING THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY? We kinda need men in order for the human race to continue existing. As far as I can tell, females cannot breed with themselves. There is a reason biology requires two different genders.

          You are sexist. Yes, one actually can be sexist towards males. Think about it: if sexism only applies to women, then it isn’t very “equal,” is it?? And I am female myself, just so that is clear.

        • Ellen says:

          Christina:
          “And then you call Matt sexist for looking at reality and scoffing at those who ignore it. And yes – even in that “revelation that Matt didn’t get the story right” Ellen proved he did. In her quote it states, very clearly, that women are ALREADY held to a different standard – but were unable to meet the MINIMUM of their LOWERED standard.”

          No I didn’t. Where do you think I said that? The 3 pull-up minimum was not a LOWERED standard. Not is it a DIFFERENT standard. That’s the standard for both men and women.

          Matt DIDN’T get the story right. He saw that the 3 pull-up minimum requirement was being delayed, and then went off on a rant about how we won’t be holding women to the same standards as men in infantry positions. That’s just dead wrong. Firstly, the 3 pull-up minimum being delayed (or, temporarily canceled, if you’d prefer) is NOT the same as lowering the standard. The goal is to re-examine how to train women so that they can meet the standard. Secondly, the 3 pull-up standard doesn’t even get you into the infantry positions. There’s a whole different test for that. These positions aren’t opening until 2016, but there are already women who have made it through training, while being held to the same standards as men.

        • Christina says:

          Quote: “with the number of pull-ups needed for a perfect score differing between men [20] and women [8]”

          How is that NOT a different standard? That sounds like:
          3 = C (men or women) – You pass! Welcome to the bottom of the class.
          8 = A (women) – wow, you go girl – Here is a promotion!
          8 = C+ (men) – still slacking huh?
          12 = B (men) – you’re getting there
          17 = B+ (men) – you have hope
          20 = A (men) – wow, you go dude – Here is a promotion!

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Christina, you read you much into my comment that just wasn’t there. As I said before, switch the genders on my toy example and I still agree with it. Seriously, the only thing one gender knows that the other doesn’t is how our respective parts feel. And yes, women could have accomplished all that men have. I believe that’s true. I never said women were better than men, not once. Nor do I think it.

    • Vader says:

      “Here we have a horrible idea, stacked on top of a bewilderingly idiotic idea, poured over a collection of reckless, ideologically-fueled, irrational, liberal feminist ideas. Basically, an insane idea had sexual relations with a moronic idea and the two gave birth to this idea.”

      Absolutely correct, as well as amusing.

      And it only adds to the amusement to have someone come here and loudly and indignantly announce that the shoe fits.

    • Anon says:

      Lily – you forgot to mention where YOU served? I’m a woman vet – and I’m voting for DAN all the way here!

      • LilyL2182 says:

        I didn’t. And I don’t know anything about war and combat. My point was simply that Matt is a sexist idiot. Having dealt with many of those in my lifetime, I am quite the expert.

        • Ladies and Gentlemen, we have proof that this is about feminism, not about what is best for the defense of this country. “I don’t know anything about war and combat. My point was simply that Matt is a sexist idiot. Having dealt with many of those in my lifetime, I am quite the expert.”, But knowledge of war and combat is kind of necessary to be making judgments about war and combat, which is why people like Matt and I listen to people who have, and the vast majority of them don’t agree with you. This has been proven in many surveys of military personnel. In other words, your opinion is based on your antennae being attuned to looking for sexism, NOT looking for the FACTS about the military.

          This perspective may, in fact, be sexist. But it is also RIGHT. It can be both, because the truth can and does hurt feelings at times.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Yes. This is about feminism. If you want to exclude a group from something based upon gender, you better have damn good reason. Those reasons actually do exist. Matt, and many commenters here, seem oblivious to them. Instead we get a long rant about “cheapening masculinity” and there being no “tactical or strategic advantage” to having women in combat wrapped up with condescending comparisions to Charlie’s Angels and mocking the mantra of ‘girl power,’ a link to a crap article about an extremely small study about how men and women respond to stress to support his claim that men are better equipped psychologically to go to war. And all this premised with a title about our poor daughters being sent off to die for gender neutrality as if any feminist has proposed such a thing. Yeah, you bet your ass this is about feminism.

        • Dan Daly says:

          I posted this further down as well. Read for yourself what the VA has to say about women and PTSD.

          http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/women-trauma-ptsd.asp

        • Erin says:

          Lily… you totally don’t get it. At all.

    • TS says:

      I’m curious; if a woman were to attempt to enlist but fail to meet the standards, is she permanently barred from trying for the combat position? I would assume, if she really wanted to serve, and she was potentially physically capable of meeting the requirements, that she would spend her time improving herself until she could meet them, and then re-apply. I also assume that that’s the same situation that a man would face, given the same circumstances.

      Am I wrong? If not, why do the standards need to be changed at all? Meet them, or come back later when you do. Pretty much the same for any job that has specific requirements.

    • You ASSUME that large numbers of women can do these things with the right training. But if the UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS is incapable of providing this training WHO CAN? Maybe the Pentagon needs to call on the female Sgt. Slaughter, Jillian Michaels of THE BIGGEST LOSER. Yeah, that will do it.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        As a matter of fact, I know the perfect person. I’ve had the same personal trainer for more than a decade. I love him so much, probably due to the fact that he has 2 daughters (both extraordinary athletes and now colleges coaches) so he has tons of interest/expertise in women’s specific training needs….and for women who want to be strong and capable, not for women who want to look good in their skinny jeans. It’s funny when this thing about the 3 pull ups came out a couple of days ago, we even chatted about how the training is failing women. The UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS is far for perfect. Suggesting they are the best at training women is asinine.

        • Tim Mason says:

          You are probably right, the U.S. Marines may not be the best at training women. But that was sort of the point. They ARE the best at training Marines, which is kind of their thing. If doing three pull-ups is what is required (I’m guessing that this is the bare minimum?…three seems quite low) to pass the ‘test’, then why are we talking about changing or ‘adjusting’ that level? Because your ‘personal trainer’ knows more about training for combat than the Marines? Seriously?? Sure, maybe he knows better how to make a women be the best she can be, maybe he can get her to dead lift twice her weight, or bench press a Buick, but does he know how to train a Marine?…because that’s what we’re talking about. On a combat unit, every member has to be able to perform EVERY job the unit is tasked to do, because it[‘s likely that, at some point, one or more members of that unit will be unable to perform their assigned tasks. Nature of the beast. That means that, without exception EVERY member has to be able to perform at some seemingly arbitrary minimum level. The fact that you and your personal trainer don’t see then need or reason for such is irrelevant. It’s not done to hurt anybody’s feelings, nor is it done to hold anyone back. It’s done because there is a real need for a minimal level of performance. Anyone who wants to be part of our combat forces should be able to attain that minimal level. Period. If not, not combat for you. Don’t feel bad, you’re still serving your country and doing important things.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Look, I wasn’t saying my trainer knows everything about being a Marine. But he does know pretty much everything about creating physically strong women. It took the Marines a pretty long time to learn to train men like they do now. The training for women needs to catch up.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Also, as a side note, there are tons of solutions to this and not all of them require vast resources. Heck, probably the easiest thing would just be to require women to do 1-2 pull ups before being able to enlist. The Marines already have program to help potential recruits lose weight and get in shape.

          Now that I say that, I just thought of something funny. I hear all this stuff about how women should have to meet the ‘same standards’ as men and the constant mantra of ‘No lowering of standards.’ When I propose reevaluating standards, people jump all over me saying, ” The standard is based on needs!’

          So the funny thing I just thought of? The one area women are held to a higher standard: weight. That’s right, the max weights for women are lower than men.

          Before anyone starts a reply to me about muscle mass, the only point I’m making here is that some standards are not based upon ‘needs.’ A fat man benefits just as much from the extra weight allowance as a muscular one. And a musclar woman still needs to meet the weight mark.

    • Jason says:

      They don’t value female recruits in combat roles, they’re being forced to by politicians. Pull ups are hard for most people, not just women. The main thing holding most men back from pull-ups is their weight and not upper body strength. I can’t really say the same thing about women. I’d be willing to bet that it’s upper body strength that’s holding most of them back. I’m also willing to bet that they have a pretty nice training regimen in place for the females trying to take that test. Believe me, I’ve been in the military for 5 years.. There’s some General somewhere catching so much political hell over this subject that the people at the bottom training these women are definitely trying to get the job done ASAP. Your feminism is showing when you claim that women could have done everything men did. Remove men from the planet and keep the same genetic traits of women constant from 1800 to present time and tell me how much shit from this world wouldn’t be here. Don’t come at me with “Male masturbation toys” like you did with someone else on here, that’s nonsense and we all know it. It’s all speculation at this point because I obviously can’t prove this theory… but honestly, do you REALLY think we would be here today in this world without men?

      • LilyL2182 says:

        “Your feminism is showing”

        Aw thanks. I’m blushing. 😉

        • Joel says:

          From the nature of your posts it seems your entire identity is founded upon your idea of “feminism”. Therefore, that’s really all that’s showing. And it’s stupid.

    • Hawko says:

      I could win the women’s 100, 200, and 400m sprint at the Olympics, and my bro runs 800 in 1:53, and 3:58 in the 1500m. I don’t train for jumps but I would still meet qualifying standards in those events as well, and one I my friends jumps 2,23m in high jump.
      Men will never have children, but we are generally athletically superior. If women actually want gender equality so badly that standards should be changed for women to enter the armed forces, then let’s end gender discrimination at the Olympics. Please have common sense…

      • Hawko says:

        Sorry, this was supposed to be posted where it was said that women can do everything men can do… Women can still be excellent snipers or pilots, but men are stronger and faster, especially when carrying combat gear

        • Boilermaker says:

          The sniper argument is pointless anyways. Being a sniper is not like the movies. It means carrying all your gear to survive a week, be able to shoot, and then be able to leave the area as fast as possible once you have made your shot. Sure a woman can shoot a rifle as accurately as any male, but can she get to and from the fight with all the mission essential gear as well as a man?

    • MeaCulpa says:

      Lily, I applaud the fact that you recognize how horrific war is. Having been to war and lost friends and engaged the enemy, I wish and pray this on no son or daughter of mine. What I can tell you however, is that having served in a special operations unit, I had special capabilities females who while not an actual door kicker/trigger puller were integral parts of the unit. I could not have operated in a muslim country effectively without them. FACT. What I can also tell you, and what these women would have told you is gender equality is great. Gender neutrality which is getting slammed down our throats in the military is utter tripe. Now given what I read I am going to make the assumption you have never deployed to a combat zone (this is not a personal attack just an inquiry into your personal experience). Assuming you’ve never done close quarter battle, rucked 150lbs around for a couple days, or been in a multi day firefight what I can tell you is this; due to our genetics, our mental makeup, and the fact that if you take a man and woman who work out equal amounts are equal height and weight, that man will be stronger than that woman. Not a bad thing, just a fact observable in many species across nature lions, gorillas, orangoutangs etc. My point is this, the very best guys in the very top tier of the military operations, are going to be the strongest, fastest, and smartest guys out there. You take the best women out there and compare them to the best men in the military, they simply physically don’t stack up (this is why men’s olympic times from swimming, to track, to weight lifting are faster and heavier). This is not a bad thing and I think women can serve in some immensely critical roles. Now this brings me to another point, when you are running around with 100+lbs on your back it stresses out all your systems, things like your lats, biceps, and core (i have a point I promise). You stop and set up to take a shot, all these muscles are quivering and if you aren’t conditioned correctly (pullups) you have a shitty shooting platform, and you may not be able to engage and destroy the enemy. Also dragging friends out of the line of fire, dragging yourself and your equipment across the ground all require a strength on the modern battlefield that is just more suited for men. That being said I think there are women who can do it, but why sort out the .00001% of the female population who can do it? I don’t think this is misogynistic but simply practical.

      Also Lily in response to a later post of yours, if your going to pick on the marines they have been in the business of war for over 270 years. They have a hell of a lot of experience turning young people into warriors, and often those standards exist for a very real reason. Now I see you are very hung up on how girls have trouble with pullups, and you said “But since most women can’t do a pull up in the first place, it’s useless do just have them practice pull ups by just hanging there never making it.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmYz2B4ur5Q That is a video of a female doing 12 pullups. Yes it is harder for women to do pullups, no doubt, but the fact is they can do them and if they want to come serve with men, in front line combat units, then they had better be up to snuff. Because if I’m running alongside someone, and they need to hurt someone, or carry my wounded self out of a building they had better be up to snuff and give me the best chance possible of going home to me and my family. Sorry that got a bit ranty towards the end.

    • Isaac says:

      Lily, what article did YOU read?

      The women who CAN’T DO 3 PULL-UPS are the only ones who should be disallowed in combat. That’s the entire point of the blog post. It is an argument in FAVOR of EQUAL treatment, and against SPECIAL treatment.

      Also you do not have a firm grasp on the meaning of the word “misogyny.”

  6. Marianne Sopoci says:

    Thank you! Free usually always comes with a price.

  7. The idea that the US even has a military is questionable. The commander in chief is the biggest liar to ever enter the white house, much less be the resident. He has systematically fired all the commanding generals of every branch of the military. He has reneged on his campaign promise to take all of our troops IMMEDIATELY out of the middle east, in fact, he continues to spread the military thinner by opening up operations in other locales, while failing to exit the ones promised to exit immediately. In the mean time, they lower the standards and allow the combat readiness of our military to wither away to unprepared. The media fuels this. Most women are not as strong or as fast as the male counterparts. This has also manifested itself in law enforcement, where weak officers (both male and female) are disarmed by much stronger opponents, and the results are the criminal is now armed, usually the officer is deceased. I’m sorry, but there are certain careers that you shouldn’t have if you don’t meet up to the minimum standards. The NFL doesn’t have to lower their standards and hire some weakling because they want to make the team. Why should the military? If you don’t meet the criteria, (and some women definitely do), they you shouldn’t be granted an exception.

  8. Michelle says:

    Thank you so much! I greatly appreciate your willingness to speak the truth even though it may not be what everyone wants to hear. I fully agree with you, and I look forward to reading more!

  9. Matt – Based on my military experience I have to respectfully disagree on a few points:
    1. Women in combat is not a new or “progressive” idea. Women have served in combat for hundreds of years, and yes in front-line roles. They just haven’t done it in the US Military. This is because we’re a fairly young country and we haven’t been forced to (e.g. we’re not in danger of being invaded by Mexico or Canada).
    2. Women in combat have been effective in every instance and capacity in which they’ve been used.
    3. The women I’ve served with have been as professional and competent as the men. Which is to say, you get some really great performers, but at the same time neither gender has cornered the market on dirt bags as far as I can tell.

    That said, I agree with your central point – lowering standards to placate the diversity bullies and self-titled radical feminists has never resulted in good things for the troops on the ground. Either the women in question don’t belong there, or the way physical standards are measured were flawed to begin with.

    I also agree that many of the people advocating the relaxing of standards or changing the training in the name of “inclusiveness” are clueless and are going to get people killed in the next war (a good example is the froth-specked tirade from Lilyl2182 earlier in the thread). It’s curious to me that advocating everyone meet the same physical standard – one that is crafted to maximize probability of you returning home alive – somehow makes you a misogynist.

    Good people can disagree, and time will tell, but here’s the bottom line: If you truly believe these standards exist because the military is a male-controlled, misogynistic, sexist boys club, the solution is simple. Write to your elected representatives and demand everyone be required to register for the draft. I don’t see to many self-proclaimed “radical feminists” advocating that, curiously enough.

    • Dave says:

      “It’s curious to me that advocating everyone meet the same physical standard – one that is crafted to maximize probability of you returning home alive – somehow makes you a misogynist.”

      One of the best arguments in this entire discussion, if not THE best. Brilliant!

    • Ellen says:

      Well then, I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that the standards will not be lowered for women! Matt was wrong. He mislead you. Do some research for yourself. Don’t take my word for it, but basically, the PFT doesn’t even determine if women will be in combat positions. There’s a separate test for that, which is the same for men and women. Also, as noted previously, the pull-up requirement has been delayed, not cancelled. The combat positions aren’t even opening up until 2016.

      Now, are you going to be mad at me for pointing it out, or Matt for misleading you in the first place? Hopefully neither.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        I love you Ellen. I wish I could this a million likes. What the Marines did seemed to make a heck of a lot of sense to me. Matt is using it as an excuse to go on this huge He-man rant.

        • Ellen says:

          And all his blind followers are just eating it up.

        • Not really mad at anybody. Like I said, good people can disagree. Your statement is correct but irrelevant. And Matt didn’t mislead me – a few deployments did.

          Let me clarify my last post and then I’ll address your technical arguments. I’m all for gender equality. Make the military 50% female. If you don’t get enough volunteers, start up the draft. Can’t get more equal opportunity then that. The physical aspect is at best a minor issue. The notion that “women are not suited for combat” is a stupid idea, because NOBODY is suited for combat. Combat is horrible. It sucks. I’m not sure you really understand what you’re advocating. I’ve got college money saved so no son OR daughter has to do what I did. Maybe if the military was half women the idiots in Washington would think twice… no probably not. Anyway, on to the specifics of the physical testing at issue….

          First, on the PFT – we’re talking about THREE PULL-UPS. Half the female Marines tested couldn’t pass it – that’s why the requirement was pushed back (and lets not lawyer this – delayed means cancelled for at least another year). The half that COULD pass are shaking their heads in disgust right now, you can rest assured of that. They get to be lumped in with the non-hackers simply because they’re women. I’m sure they’re thanking their lucky stars progressives came along to keep the expectations low.

          Second, the PFA is not the issue. There is a very real push to lower the (separate and more stringent) standards to enter combat duty. Niki Tsongas (D-MA) said in a House Armed Services Committee back in July, “To put in place a training regimen that is ill-suited to maximizing the success of women is not really the outcome any of us want to see,” and the leadership of each service has since gone on record stating intent to “re-look” at the standards for combat service. This was a response to the 100% failure rate when Marines started letting women into IOC. Basically, it’s not going to stay the same for long. It is a very real and stupid thing that’s happening.

          What disturbs me in all this is I was brought up in the military to believe you don’t punish a good performer for performing. Progressives believe it’s more important that everyone gets a trophy.

        • Ellen says:

          Aaron:

          “I’m all for gender equality. Make the military 50% female.” – that’s not gender equality. Equality is allowing anyone to try out, and holding them to the same standards.

          “I’m not sure you really understand what you’re advocating. I’ve got college money saved so no son OR daughter has to do what I did.” – Firstly, I am truly greatful for your service to our country. Thank-you. But please don’t misunderstand me – the LAST thing I want my sons to do is join the military. Wanting the military to allow both men and women to try out for any position is a completely different topic than wanting my kids to serve.

          “First, on the PFT – we’re talking about THREE PULL-UPS.” – Yeah, I know. I think that is pretty pathetic myself.

          “and lets not lawyer this – delayed means cancelled for at least another year” – I wasn’t trying to lawyer anything. What is the difference between a temporary cancellation and a delay?

          “the leadership of each service has since gone on record stating intent to “re-look” at the standards for combat service. This was a response to the 100% failure rate when Marines started letting women into IOC. Basically, it’s not going to stay the same for long.” – I definitely understand your concern of what MIGHT happen. They could re-evaluate the standards for infantry positions and feel pressure to lower them to allow more women to get in, instead of making them whatever they need to be to ensure quality units. The fact that they were inspired to re-evaluate the standards (which they have done before) due to women failing the IOC is concerning, but is not evidence that standards will be changed for the wrong reasons. So as far as I can see, Matt is still really wrong. Standards have not been lowered for women in infantry, and there is no evidence that that’s what’s going to happen. Now, if he posts a (non-sexist) rant if that were to happen in the future, I’d be on here agreeing with him that we shouldn’t compromise the military’s quality in the name of “equality”.

          “Progressives believe it’s more important that everyone gets a trophy.” – I’m getting REALLY tired of being told what I think.

        • Ellen: Well said. On the 1-year delay here’s what I think is happening. Don’t ask me to back it up, it’s just a hunch. The services often get directives on issues like this that they don’t like or that they simply can’t make work. Often the brass will go on record in support (they are after all a career-minded bunch), but they’ll “need time to study impacts, finalize implementation plans, etc.” What they’re really doing is stalling and hoping some seats change in the 2014 elections. I’m not saying it’s right, just that I’ve seen it happen. They’re good at that.

          I just want to make one more (unrelated) remark, then I’ll shut up. Somebody or other earlier in the thread brought up DADT repeal for some reason, I guess inferring that the military people are anti-gay bigots along with being woman haters or something, and therefore had to be *forced* by Congress and President Obama to do the right thing. NOBODY in the military advocated DADT. That was Bill Clinton. It was his idea, his Executive order to DoD. Full stop. Lots of military people at the time knew it was BS and said so. Liberals blaming the military for a bad idea a liberal came up with. Unbelievable. Okay rant over. Have a great week.

      • Dan Daly says:

        Ms Ellen: you recommend others do some research. Below is a link to an excellent article along with two interviews with the author, a CNN video and audio with “Leatherneck Magazine” (the enlisted Marine Corps professional publication). The author is exactly the woman you and Ms Lily are talking about: a female captain of Marines, physically strong and capable, combat experience/leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. After her experiences she has reached the conclusion that the Marine Corps should not integrate women into the infantry. I highly recommend it to anyone who is actually interested in developing a full site picture of the debate. Mr Anthonsen: I would hope you read it as well.

        http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

        • LilyL2182 says:

          What in the heck does that link have anything to do with the PFT and the delay in the pull ups standard?

        • Dan Daly says:

          I am now and have been talking about integrating women into the combat arms MOS’s generally and the infantry and special forces operators MOS’s specifically since I began posting on this thread. I guess you don’t realize it, but the pull-ups story is part of the bigger picture. In order to begin integrating females into those MOS’s, each service began working to create a gender neutral physical standard that both men and women can be evaluated by. The Marine Corps tried doing that (ahead of every other service) and the result is that half the females failed to meet the bare minimum – so it was delayed. The story I posted is about the big picture which is that integrating women into the already mentioned MOS’s is a bad idea. You’re wrapped up around the axel on pull-ups (which you don’t think females should have to do, or at least get special treatment and not be judged by the same standards as males). Does that make sense? You: pull-ups. Me: bigger picture. Did you even read the article?

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Dan. Your tiny picture looks like this:

          Men = able
          Women = not able

          It’s much more complex than that.

    • LilyL2182 says:

      Where exactly in the blog did Matt advocate that everyone meet the same physical standard?

    • Dan Daly says:

      Mr Anthonson: your’s is one of two respectable positions I have read in opposition to my own opinion that we should not integrate women into combat arms roles generally and the infantry specifically, so “THANK YOU” for providing a cogent and informed argument to the table for discussion. To address your points then raise my own:

      1) I agree and disagree. As a matter of fact, yes, it happens. As a matter of policy, on the industrial scale in which the US Army/Marine Corps induct young recruits via cookie-cutter into combat arms and military MOS’s: no, America will be the first country. Israel has a specialized co-ed combat battalion (which is now 70% female) and Canada has only 2% of its combat arms MOS spots filled by females, so both the scale and real numbers in which we do this will be an historic novelty.
      2) Agreed, but we’re defining combat properly here which is the “being shot at”, not “served in or alongside the infantry”. If it were the latter I was disagree and give examples.
      3) Absolutely agreed.

      The question, of course, is not whether females should serve “in combat” – as many of the misinformed individuals pushing for these changes constantly point out: they already are serving in combat! The question is this: is it cost-effective to attempt to train females into the combat arms and infantry MOS’s knowing in advance that

      1) Given the same amount of time to train as males, there will be a substantially higher wash-out rate for females. This means a much larger portion of the same amount of resources will be wasted if spent on females rather than on males and
      2) The same people pushing for integrating females into the infantry are the same ones who want to lower the standards. The ones shouting the loudest on your side of this debate are also clamoring for changes to the standards. Whether you like it or not, as long as females are integrating into the infantry at a much lower rate than males, calls for changes to the standards WILL NOT END. So please support your position with both eyes open knowing that you’re wedded in this cause to individuals who are self-admittedly prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
      3) As small numbers of female infantrymen make it out to the OPFOR, this will radically alter the all-male culture of the infantry battalion. I don’t know if people realize that, but out in the field or in combat, there is zero privacy. You shower with a bottle in front of everyone, strip down and change in front of everyone, use the head in front of everyone, etc. This small handful of females will necessarily get preferential treatment on a COP or FOB by getting their own quarters, further isolating them from the males in the unit. How do you address that?

      Anyway, those are my three biggest concerns and I have had no one provide any convincing arguments that they won’t be a problem without a solution. I’m glad to hear that you consider the standard of excellence to be more important than notional equality, so I hope you think about the Pandora’s Box you’re pushing to have opened. “Lawsuits! Lawsuits as far as the eye can see!!!” I mean, have we been losing a bunch of battles lately? The point of the military is impose our nation’s will on the enemy by killing them until they do not wish to fight any longer. From what I can see we’re very, very good at that. And I remember being told once: before you attempt to change a policy or standard operating procedure, ask yourself “will this make us more lethal? Will this increase our survivability?” If the answer to both is “no” then you need to seriously stop and reconsider what you’re doing.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        1) Your ‘cost effective’ argument is just ridiculous. It’s dumb to exclude half the candidates you have in your resource pool. The way you describe it makes it sound like the Navy SEALs and Army Rangers have open tryouts where anyone can just show up and try it out for 3 months. That’s not the way it works. You have to meet a whole bunch of qualifications before you even become a candidate. And something like 80% of men who are candidates fail already. Those men just go back to being regular soldiers or sailors. I wouldn’t say the training is wasted on them.

        2) Changing standards isn’t always bad. Of course people are going to ask the military to reevaluate standards that were based on all men. Also I think it’s interesting that insist those who insist “Everyone must meet the same standard!” never seem to include the weight requirements, whichever actually have lower maxes for women than men.

        3) Oh I’m so sorry the future of your fraternity with be changed. Boo hoo for you. As for women getting preferential treatment, just don’t give it to them. Simple as that.

        And what in the heck are you talking about with “lawsuits! Lawsuits!”?

        “will this make us more lethal? Will this increase our survivability?” Maybe. It’s very telling you assume the answer is no.

  10. Becky says:

    Could not be better said, thank you!

  11. Mike says:

    I really wish you could make this blog post into a liquid and serve it to all the policy makers in DC. Now that would be a happy hour if there ever was one.

  12. Neil says:

    Here here.

  13. Larry Nutter says:

    If women are as physically capable as men, then we need to streamline the Olympic games to have combined games where men and women compete together. Look at the times on track and field events. Women do not come close to men in any track and field event. The Olympics would be entirely men in every event that benefits from longer limbs, strength and speed. The FBI Academy requires pull ups from male trainees;however, females lay on the floor and have to pull themselves up about 18.” In today’s military combat roles men have to carry over 100 pounds in body armor,armaments and other gear. Soldiers and Marines are coming back from the Mid-East with ruined ankles, knees and backs from carrying over 100 pounds on a combat patrol. Someone thinks women are going to be able to do this?

    • Rachel says:

      Women/men and PTSD. Are we talking in equal combat situations or life situations. Because I would think women who choose to enlist and then are choose go to to the front line is a self selection if women well equipped to handle war. Me, not so much, GI Jane, yes. Many many men coming back from war are impacted by PTSD. It’s a silent but crushing problem. Culturally, women are more open to therapy, they might just have a different type of “right stuff”. As for sending “our daughters”, that statement infantilized women. They are not ours, they are free to choose their own path. Let’s educate ALL soldiers about war before sending them out.
      Eg, men should be advised to freeze their sperm before going to war, as they run the serious risk of never being able to procreate after being hit by an ied. War is awful, really, perhaps our lawmakers should do a better jobof keeping everyone home!

      • Dan Daly says:

        Ms Rachel: studies have shown that women in the military suffer from PTSD at a much higher rate than do men. Also, GI Jane is a movie, not a documentary.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          What study are you referring to? It does not exist.

        • Dan Daly says:

          From the VA’s website:

          “This fact sheet reviews research on women’s experiences of trauma and PTSD, with a focus on differences between women and men. In general, findings indicate that trauma exposure is quite common for many women, and although women experience fewer traumatic events compared with men, women are more likely to develop chronic PTSD than men. Findings reveal a number of differences in the expression and course of PTSD for women and men, and there is some preliminary evidence to indicate that women are more likely to seek treatment, and women may respond somewhat better to treatment compared with men.”

          http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/women-trauma-ptsd.asp

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Did you actually read that link? Because it says women are more likely to get PTSD probably because of the types of trauma they suffer and they are more likely to blame themselves. And that they respond better to treatment. So no, I’m still saying that’s not a good reason to exclude all women.

        • Dan Daly says:

          Me: “studies have shown that women in the military suffer from PTSD at a much higher rate than do men.”
          You: “What study are you referring to? It does not exist.”
          VA study: “In general, findings indicate that trauma exposure is quite common for many women, and although women experience fewer traumatic events compared with men, women are more likely to develop chronic PTSD than men.”

        • LilyL2182 says:

          How you call it “VA study” when in fact it’s not research at all. It’s a summary of other studies and research. I’d really like to see the actual data.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          And one more thing, you and Matt are so hung up on PTSD. PTSD rates do not tell us who is the most psychologically the most fit for combat.

  14. hidenise7 says:

    Matt wrote, “will the liberal feminists of America jump for joy as their daughters are forcibly recruited and sent off to die in some godforsaken desert?”

    Excellent point from a literary perspective.

    However, factually it’s lacking just a trifle. The radical-est feminists who really don’t need a man AT ALL don’t have any children. They truly don’t get it.

  15. Steve says:

    Down here in New Zealand during the last Pacific shindig we had battalions of marines stationed on our shores training hard in the hills and bush to ready them for jungle warfare and learning how to land those awkward craft on rocky shores. They were tough men who became tougher and hardened. Dread the thought of the Barbie dolls of America trying to haul all that equipment about steep ravines and then breaking a nail. The mind boggles. Mind you. I have seen on TV the size of some of the female police officers in the USA, rather large and possibly powerful enough to haul all that gear, but lying down to avoid the rain of bullets would not reduce their height significantly to avoid being hit. I could see quite a few casualties with wounds to the rear end. But on the other hand, who better to charge a machine gun nest than one with a decent dose of PMT?

  16. Andrea says:

    Matt,
    I am married, and we have 3 children. So, I hope it’s okay to say, “I love you!” More specifically, I love the ideas you represent and the voice (words) you use to say them.

    I remember being 16, and conspiring with my girl friend about how we will get rid of all the men in this world. Back then, I could do 13 push-ups and believed I could do anything a man could do. I believed I never needed a man. Funny, though, because I also swam and played water polo but couldn’t out-swim the fast boys, and would get schooled by strong polo players.

    Today, I can’t do a single pull-up. Something about bearing and birthing children, which I suppose no man could do. I should mention that I’m 5-5, 150lbs, and my husband is 6-7, 250lbs. I don’t know why, but every time I challenge him to a race or arm-wrestling match, he smirks and rolls his eyes at me. And, sadly, when we married and moved into our house, I just couldn’t carry him over the threshold. His feet remained planted on the floor. It was ridiculous.

    As for the emasculation of men by women – shameful. One day women will wonder what happened to all the strong men. Okay, maybe not. Perhaps women will be content simply to be comrades with their fellow asexual beings. It sounds like a party.

    • sr says:

      hahahahaha sorry had to get that out of the way. I could not agree with you AND Matt more!!!! Having been married 26 years – I LOVE BEING A WOMAN! – and I love knowing I am protected by a man. And that he knows I can protect myself. Mentally and physically. – and as for the party you spoke of, I might add one thing, TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN SEND ME NO INVITES ME AND MY MAN WILL BE ON A PRIVATE ISLAND, sincerely This WOMAN!!!!!

      Oh and just a piece of advice, for all the other commenters, they say when a child is acting in such a way as to be disruptive. If, you are to ignore said actions you will not enforce those actions. ie: the young lady with all the ill equipped comments. Of course that thought process also came along about the same time as the rest of this ideology and we see where that has lead us, Ok next, in the old west and ancient days they also did other things to children that threw fits like said individual.

      And with that I will say, have a nice day to all and Thank a Veteran, or active serviceman without them YOU WOULD BE TOLD WHAT AND WHEN TO SPEAK!!!!

  17. ThatEarthenCup says:

    The following is something I posted one of my FaceBook friends comment sections when he hyperlinked to this blog post. I am curious as to how readers may respond to my thoughts below, because he evaded my counterarguments.

    “Firstly, let’s not discuss the author’s mud smearing, generalization, moral bastardizations, and name-calling of left-wingers. I can assure you, we liberals have much more reason and evidence to call right-wingers names, but the rational
    among us (and the rational among right-wingers!) refuse to do so because we understand that name-calling does little to forward a discussion of great importance.
    However, as name-calling was a major component of the first few lines of this blogger’s discussion, it was impossible to read it in its entirety without an awareness of just how low he was willing to stoop to make his wildly sexist
    argument. If you think me inconsiderate, if you think me willing to send my female compatriots to die in war without adequate preparation, please continue.
    This article was really entertaining for me, because with regard to most of the politically inflammatory stuff you have posted in the past, Brett, I (surprisingly) agree with the main thesis of this article: “If a woman cannot pass the
    minimum physical fitness requirements of the military, then we should rethink/appropriately address that woman’s role in the military.” Obviously, this means to not put her on the front line if this is the case, and yes, this makes sense.
    Few would disagree. Notice that I did not phrase it as follows: “If women cannot pass the minimum physical fitness requirements of the military, then we should rethink/appropriately address the role of women in the military.” The
    phrasing, meaning, and tone is quite different – importantly so. I wouldn’t supply the alternative writing, but the rest of the piece is essentially supporting the latter phrasing. Especially when the author presents gender-equality as a
    “bizarre moral victory” for bunch of out of touch ideologs. Really? He should take a look at the 1% and the American Legislative Exchange Council. If you’re confused, read on. If you’re not, read on anyway.
    One immediately must roll his or her eyes upon completion of the piece, if not having already and justifiably done so throughout its duration. The harmless, humanitarian thesis mentioned above – with consideration for both mankind and
    womankind alike – quickly morphs into a condemnation and a diatribe against all feminism. Which is pretty stupid, if you are at all versed in modern gender relations research – which I am sure you are because you posted this brazenly
    sexist article, not speaking out of your ass but out of careful, critical thought!
    Feminism, as I am sure you know (because you researched it before posting this, right?), is about /equality/ between the genders, not about womankind being greater than or gaining dominance over mankind. Which essentially makes this
    entire piece a textbook logical fallacy. “Half of woman cannot pass the physical requirements of the military, so feminism and those fucking libs are all ideologs and don’t know what the hell is happening on the ground and we need to stop
    diversity to maintain the integrity of our great nation.” Which is a (particularly convenient and wonderful!) way of saying that feminism isn’t worth it, nor are any of the other diversity measure the military has taken into account (gay
    soldiers aren’t worth it either, right? I know that he was just WAITING to post about gay soldiers and how they’re a bad idea in another post. I’d love to hear your opinion on this). But enough about opening statements and first
    impressions! Here are seven of my favorite selections throughout this particular masterwork – and let me tell you, it was hard to narrow them down!
    1) This needed to be broken down into a couple of parts, so forgive me. “Here’s a funny thought: if women can fight in combat roles, then all-male conscription must assuredly be unconstitutional.” False: all-male conscription does not
    preclude female participation, it simply states that all men must be conscripted. Another way of saying it is that female participation in combat roles and all-male conscription are not mutually exclusive. And trust me, if they were, then
    this would have been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court a LONG TIME ago. Look at the political climate today, as the educated young man you are – do you think, were this a legitimate argument and not subject to poor logical
    construction, the Constitution would not already have been amended? “Unconstitutional” is thrown around all the time today for issues with much more litigative clout than this stupid argument. Let’s not waste time, but let’s continue:
    “So, when the Supreme Court strikes it down” – which it won’t – “and the draft is reinstated” – which is by no means a part of that legislation (he could’ve phrased this better, like “…and /were the draft to be/ reinstated”) – “will the
    liberal feminists of America jump for joy as their daughters are forcibly recruited and sent off to die in some godforsaken desert halfway around the world?” Would ANY PARENT DO THIS? OF COURSE NOT! And I need not say, I hope, that this
    is yet ANOTHER form of pandering to the emotional part of this debate, doing nothing to advance the conversation! This argument style is INSULTING to any trying to make a legitimate argument! UGH but LET’S CONTINUE AGAIN: “If you want to
    be like men, will you die like them?…Maybe you would.” – yes, if they elect to be in the military, GOD FORBID they have the ability to have the same love for their country – perhaps even more, if you look at point 5 below (because
    apparently women in conventionally male roles means not only that masculinity is being cheapened but also that men are using their capability to fight wars as some kind of disgusting psychological life vest; have faith in yourselves!
    Masculinity is not fighting wars, for god’s sake! It is a host of other things that do not involve murdering people or using guns. Jesus.) …and then it continues! “But we are a shameful, cowardly country if we would send our daughters off
    to war for no reason other than to obey our New-Age Gender Creeds.” This is criminally paternalistic and disturbingly parochial. Look those words up if you don’t know what they mean – the definitions take care of my argument, I would
    hope. More than that, though, this statement is a gross oversimplification of the issue at hand.
    2) “Women are not men. Men are uniquely equipped for the physical and mental rigors of combat. Women are not.” …mmm, the science major in me is reeling. This is factually incorrect and he purports it as TRUE! Same ridiculous nature as
    with the climate change debate. A SMALL component of the issue is that “combat” is ruthlessly subjective. Please see the link below to clarify.
    [ http://goo.gl/RsjT4i – drone strikes from a women’s perspective. So, she’s more predisposed to psychological disorders. We should prevent her from serving her country, right? Because she might break down? Then we should immediately
    disembowel all oil companies – they “might” be causing anthropogenic climate change, and that harms the world. what a wonderful argument, and what a wonderful way to operate in litigation! “Might” is the BEST argument of which I have ever
    heard!!! ]
    “This fact, while scientific and undeniable” – well, no, not undeniable. Science and research /suggests/ explanations – there is nothing surefire – and the science, unlike with climate change, is unsettled – “seems quite insulting to the
    legions of childish Utopianists who’ve been hypnotized by Disney movies and college professors into believing that women can “do anything men can do.”” – another oversimplification, but how kind of you! You’re caring for their well-being,
    assuming, of course, that they can’t care for themselves and that they’re getting involved with something they certainly do not understand – “Anything.” – WOW – “And, in order to please these types, military brass will cave and kowtow,
    eventually rigging the fitness tests so as to achieve a paradise where our daughters and wives can charge into combat and be mercilessly slaughtered.” A poor application of the “slippery slope” brand of VERY sketchy logic, and an
    oversimplification at that. Oversimplification, by the by, is /really/ detrimental to an argument, and this entire piece addresses no complexity, relying almost solely on misinterpretations of science. And simply bad research. “But where
    is there bad research?” you ask. Well, there’s this: “Research [hyperlinked, of course, to an article that does NOT, in fact, state what the author would like it to!] has shown…” – again, look at the article. There are stats but the
    science is still developing and there are major questions and longitudinal issues at hand – “…that women are more vulnerable to developing PTSD than men” – go on… “…a fact that should come as no surprise…” – wtf, first off – “…to anyone
    with even the most basic understanding of the inherent emotional and psychological differences between the sexes.” WHAT! HOLY CRAP! And he’s even presenting this as widely accepted fact! Perhaps in Saudi Arabia! China, to a certain
    extent! India! But NOT the States! Holy crap! Here’s some MORE unsurprisingly bad research:
    3) “But, apparently, it’s more like: “are we ready and able to impress Gloria Steinem with our female enlistment statistics?”” Well, no. Had any prior research been done, we would have learned that Gloria Steinem was and is an anti-war
    activist, so…no, you wouldn’t have impressed her. She supports equality, as she has mentioned this (in passing) as one of the indicators by which we may measure gender equality. This is, of course, an aside. But it is an important one,
    because there is a myriad of pro-war feminists (Congresswomen Tammy Duckworth of the prosthetic legs, anyone?), which simply means that this blogger did nothing in terms of getting familiar with the other side of the argument before
    denouncing it. The Congresswoman would have been a much better – and more accessible and pertinent – example of a feminist. Don’t even get me started about Heather MacDonald. The there’s this one:
    4) Ahhhhh, and then, the crown jewel of the piece: a final, absolutist admission, almost as though the author, in his great ignorance, thought that everyone would, at this point, have unfailingly agreed with him. Perhaps he had one too
    many glasses of wine. Whatever the reason, I laughed out loud when I read his confession: “…I am also personally fed up with what it all represents: the cheapening of masculinity.” Oh. My. God. Give me a break. if this is even a single
    component of masculinity – the ability, the prowess, the privilege, the attempt, the threat, the notion – to KILL somebody, EVEN IF IN DEFENSE OF YOUR COUNTRY – then holy fuckin shit. I’d rather not be a part of mankind if this is
    supposed to be a part of my masculinity. Being a part of the army is not about killing people, it is about defending your country. And if the author’s argument thus far has essentially amounted to “women are ill-equipped to handle the
    tragedies and challenges of war, including the repercussions, so we should prevent them from doing so to maintain some semblance of our integrity and masculinity” – then I would rather die.
    5) And THEN, even BETTER, THIS!!!!: “Women could have done all of that? Ridiculous.” WOW. WOW. WOW. Let’s ignore ALL of history and the PHYSICAL AND DELIBERATIVE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN, THE PURPOSEFUL PREVENTION OF THEIR ABILITY TO CONTROL
    THIER FATE through cultural and institutional means, pandering to the God delusion and the ability of the Church to manipulate and control humanity for so many centuries, to be able to convince humankind that they would go to hell and had
    committed original sin, etc etc etc. This is, in and of itself, its own rant and blog post. WOW. Flabbergasting. Anyway.
    6) “You know, maybe it would be wise to raise our daughters to have an appreciation for manhood. Maybe we should stop filling her head with this “you can do everything a man can do” garbage. Maybe she isn’t benefitted by this lie. Maybe
    it will only make her bitter and arrogant. Maybe it will cause her to see men as worthless, with the only characteristics particular to them being negative stereotypes about leaving the toilet seat up and drinking too much beer.” This
    quote ALSO garbage! Hooray, and surprise. To continue… “An appreciation for manhood”? Really? Womenkind is already raised to get on her knees for mankind. It lies in the very fabric of existence, and you don’t even see it. If you’re
    curious, I can provide NUMEROUS sources, but there’s enough evidence that I’m not going to expand on it here. I’m a radical, though. Maybe we should change how we act – and pressure our male brethren to do so, as well – because as long as
    any man continues to perpetrate and prolong this stereotype, IT WILL EXIST, and womankind will have just as much right to generalize about the idiocies of mankind as we do about the so-called “inabilities” of them! Except they’ll have
    legitimate research and we won’t. Unfortunately for the author of this article, by oversimplifying so much in the article, he validates it as a means to argue, and therefore the “men are pigs” argument has clout, among other unreasonable
    generalizations. “The science isn’t settled on climate change.” “Gay men are always checking out straight men because they’re sex crazed or something.” “Women are weak [in any sense of the phrase].” I don’t blame any single woman for
    saying that after reading an article like this. But then there’s this:
    7) “Maybe we should tell her that it is men who fight the wars, and men who are best equipped for the task. This is not because of “discrimination” or “glass ceilings,” it’s because men are men, and women are not.” Therefore, this cannot
    – and will not, if we have anything to do with it, goddammit! – change. For Masculinity! Hoo-rah! Further: “Women need men. GASP. What a scandalous notion. But I say it again: women need men.” And I could end my case here, but…I won’t,
    because I get to laugh in a line or so, and because this notion is so hilarious that the author is willing to repeat it to reassure himself of its truth. “But I say it again: women need men.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Holy shit. In what reality
    does this person live?
    Dubious, dubious, dubious. Poorly researched, logically invalid. Data employed was mercilessly cherry-picked. Please post something of quality next time, because this pandering does nothing to advance the national discourse over this
    issue. Gender equality /shouldn’t/ increase polarization, but this blog post, rampant with misinformation and questionable argumentative structure, rampant with its pandering to a single moral component of the debate – “let’s not send our
    daughters to war because they’re /OBVIOUSLY/ unequipped and /OBVIOUSLY/ inferior and therefore GOING TO DIE” – most certainly does. This entire piece is sexism wrapped up in “you’ll do the Big Boys a better service by being Rosie the
    Riveter” wrapped up in “this is for your own good”. Disgusting. If this is how “rational Americans” think, then I shall willfully intern myself in a treatment center, for my powers of logic are therefore nothing compared to egregious
    ignorance.”

    • AmandaM says:

      Wow. Extremely well done. Thanks for putting the time into doing that. I feel exactly the same. I have found the majority of Matt’s blogs to be unresearched, illogical and misogynistic at the best of times.

      • Jill J says:

        why read it then?

        • ThatEarthenCup says:

          Because it’s important to know how the other side is operating.

          The main point of any blog, of course, is to /begin/ discussion, not end it. If we cannot begin to understand where each other stand, how can we begin to understand how to convince or persuade or let the “other side” know of how /we/ feel?! How can we find common ground?!

          The challenges lie in when the “other side” (I put it in quotations because I find many time that people actually have very much the same values but go about approaching them in different ways) refuses to engage in the discussion when they appear to have lost. I put my argument, my response, out there – Matt Walsh has yet to respond in [logical] kind. I have yet to receive a response from the friend on whose FaceBook I posted already. There are no counter arguments, yet people continue to hold these views.

          How do we solve this challenge? THIS is the issue at hand, not facts! The facts presented in this article have ALREADY been obliterated! Why is there no response?!

    • LilyL2182 says:

      You are my favorite.

    • Boilermaker says:

      Have you ever served in the Infantry, Special Operations, or any other combat focused job?

      • ThatEarthenCup says:

        No, I haven’t. But I think I know where you’re going. So before I launch into a counterargument, Boilermaker, I’ll give you a chance…why do you ask if I’ve been in the military?

        • Boilermaker says:

          Because sometimes real world experience in an area adds a lot of perspective on issues. I have served in those areas, so I have first hand knowledge. I wouldn’t comment on issues that I am not familiar with.

    • Max E. says:

      Fantastic post. Personally, reading the original post was a blend of bewilderment, anger, and entertainment. You’ve done a great job at showing why.

  18. jenna says:

    oh boy, somebody’s very angry.

  19. eruanna317 says:

    Question for you, Matt, that I’ll admit has little to do with the bulk of your blog. Mainly it’s the end I’m interested in. You say, “I have absolutely no trouble admitting that men need women. I need my wife. The world needs my daughter. Just not on the battlefield.” I’d be interested to hear more specifically what you do feel men need women for, or the world in general needs your daughter or your wife for. Or me, since I’m female. You’ve spent a blog post discussing something you don’t feel we’re fit for; I think it’s only fair to ask that you dedicate another to things you think we are.

    I know that based on the tone of previous comments, this may come across as me being snarky or sarcastic. I’ll admit, I was tempted to be. While I’m not a radical by any means, I do disagree with certain points in your blog. (I also feel that you use unnecessarily inflammatory language. But perhaps that’s just me.) Anyway, I’m asking the above, and requesting this other blog post, not as a means of harassing you or calling you out, but because I’m genuinely curious. I find it stretches my mind sometimes to consider things from another’s point of view, even if it’s one I may not ultimately agree with.

    • LilyL2182 says:

      Go find Matt’s post about how a mother should spend as much time as possible raising children, and how anything else is less than ideal.

      • StandingUp says:

        “The woman who rocks the cradle rules the world”…. If more of us women truly saw the power we hold in being the nurtures and rearers of our children and spent as much time as possible raising children in the ways of truth our world wouldn’t be so messed up!

        • LilyL2182 says:

          The phrase is the HAND that rocks the cradle. Not “the woman.” It’s pretty interesting to me you made that change.

        • chococatania says:

          I love this! I agree with you. What is wrong with nurturing children, raising our young? It is so important. We can make peace, every day, in our homes. Though this is a small and simple thing, the impact is huge. Imagine a world where children were raised in homes where they knew their mothers and fathers loved them. Imagine a world that had intact families–with children growing up confident and valued. That is the way to get real peace in this world.

          My role as a mother isn’t really flashy. I don’t get money from the hours of work I put into it. Everything that I do is a sacrifice–emotionally, physically, spiritually, and more. It is tempting to want to do something that seems more worthwhile…but that’s the thing, What I’m doing as a mother is the most worthwhile thing I’ll do in my entire life.

          Why are so many people so insistent on marginalizing motherhood? And why is it so often women who do so???

  20. True Story says:

    You go, Matt!!

    • ThatEarthenCup says:

      Could you explain why? I want to know on what part of his argument to agree with you.

  21. Boilermaker says:

    Lily, there is absolutely no need for women in combat roles in our current situation. In the event that WWIII would break out and we needed every person possible, sure. The fact that you dismiss inherent biological differences makes any argument you may make void. Have you ever taken A+P 101? Study just the hormonal differences and you can find your answers there. There is a reason women cannot play in the NFL, its not because of politics….it is simply women cannot handle the physical requirements. In the military we use the term “tactical athlete.” It means being able to run 5 miles under 40 minutes, carrying a rucksack weighing 55lbs (without water) 12 miles in under 3 hours. Doing 6 pull ups, climbing a 30 ft rope three times in a row. That is the baseline, how many women can you find that can do that? One, two or three? So then you are assuming the the military needs to accommodate for less than .01% of the population of women? Please tell how adding women to the infantry or special operations (combat focused) increases the proficiency of these units. Can make a case that women make these units more lethal?

    • LilyL2182 says:

      Not sure why this comment was directed at me, but here goes:

      “there is absolutely no need for women in combat roles in our current situation.”

      The “we have no need for women” argument is the epitome of sexism. Your next sentence might as well be “We need them more in the home barefoot and pregnant.”

      We have absolutely no need for a female president. We have absolutely no need for female cops and firefighters and lawyers. We have no need for women to vote. We don’t actually NEED any of those things.

      We don’t actually need men in combat either. We could fight everything via helicopters and fighter planes and drones.

      Let me ask you this question: Why is it men are automatically included and exempt from having to explain their value?

      • Boilermaker says:

        I directed my comment towards you because I have read many of your responses. Thank you very much for changing my words into your own, that is certainly higher logic there. The military as a whole is downsizing, which it should be, so as the military becomes more selective the standards begin to rise. For example when I joined it was still possible to have a felony conviction and join the military. Thankfully those dark days are behind us. So as the armed forces become more selective and increase standards, the need to fill combat roles lessens. Thus my reasoning that now of all times there is even a lesser “need” to integrate women into combat focused roles.

        I am not talking about politics, law enforcement, or emergency services. Those entities are incredibly different than military forces. If a woman ran for president and exemplified the values I uphold, I would have no problem voting for her.

        “We don’t actually need men in combat either. We could fight everything via helicopters and fighter planes and drones.” I assume by this comment that your profession is not related to history or the history of combat. Because if you did, then you would know that at the time the United States entered WWII there was the assumption that air power could eliminate the Nazis and there was no need for ground troops. This assumption failed miserably and ten of thousands of airmen died in that failed campaign over Europe. Air assets cannot hold territory and deny enemy forces freedom of movement on the battlefield. But thank you for enlightening a military veteran and a student of military history.

        Reality is not sexism, get that straight. History is not sexism. Biology is not sexism. Whether you believe in creation or evolution, there are distinct differences between males and females. Females have physical traits that enable them to perform tasks males cannot. Males cannot bond with their children the way females can. A psychology study was conducted about dying soldiers, and one theme stood out among the others. When soldiers are on the verge of death, their last words are almost always about their mothers or wives. That maternal bond women have with their children is drastically stronger than the paternal bond. Males have higher testosterone levels which enable a more aggressive behavior and allow a higher tolerance to violence.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        So with down sizing our military can be more selective…and what we really need in the military are penises apparently.

        The reality of our military capacity is not the same as WW2. We can just fly over and destroy the whole of Afghanistan if we want to. Even if that’s not true, change my second sentence to “We could fight everything with women.”

        Also your comments about men bonding with their Holstein is just sad. I’m sad for you if you really believe them.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          ‘Holstein’ should be ‘children.’ That was a weird autocorrect.

        • Melissa says:

          I would be ok with a woman President just as long as it wasn’t you!

        • Boilermaker says:

          “So with down sizing our military can be more selective…and what we really need in the military are penises apparently”
          Ok, so please tell me how adding women to combat forces increases their capabilities? These all male units function fine as they are, why change something that isn’t broken?
          “The reality of our military capacity is not the same as WW2. We can just fly over and destroy the whole of Afghanistan if we want to. Even if that’s not true, change my second sentence to “We could fight everything with women.”
          Not really, the air attacks against the Taliban and Al Qaeda were not effective until ground units were there to actually identify targets and guide the weapons in. That was in 2011. I could go on and on if you would like (Like I said I am a student of military history)
          “Also your comments about men bonding with their Holstein is just sad. I’m sad for you if you really believe them.”
          No it is not sad, because there isn’t anything as strong as mother’s bond with their child. Father’s can have very very tight bonds with their children, but it is not the same as a mother’s. Find me a study that concludes otherwise.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          “Ok, so please tell me how adding women to combat forces increases their capabilities? These all male units function fine as they are, why change something that isn’t broken?”
          So typical. You want women to justify their inclusion. That’s not the way it works buddy. If you want to legitimately discriminate, you explain why women should be excluded. Excluding a gender without a valid reason is a broken system. You so eloquently described why men are needed on the ground. Well all those are the same reasons women are needed.

          “Not really, the air attacks against the Taliban and Al Qaeda were not effective until ground units were there to actually identify targets and guide the weapons in. That was in 2011. I could go on and on if you would like (Like I said I am a student of military history)”
          Yes, but we could nuke the place and be done with it. Or we could just send women. Or we could not send anyone to Afghanistan at all. Point is, we don’t -need- men there at all.

          “No it is not sad, because there isn’t anything as strong as mother’s bond with their child. Father’s can have very very tight bonds with their children, but it is not the same as a mother’s. Find me a study that concludes otherwise.”
          As the wife to a stay-at-home father, I want to slap you in the face. I don’t need a study to conclude that a man’s bond with his child can be every bit as strong as a woman’s. I read your message to my husband and I’ll relate his words: You must suck as a man. For all Matt’s talk about ‘cheapening masculinity,’ the one stereotype about men that really needs to go is that men play 2nd fiddle in their children’s lives.

        • Boilermaker says:

          I have given plenty of reasons why women should be excluded, its on you to read what I actually write. Guess what?!!! I don’t think we should be here in Afghanistan, but that is not my call. I am not arguing with you about the legitimacy of our military being here. But if I am going to be here, I want to have the best with me. If the female best can only pass the male minimum and not be able to compete with the male best, then yes they should be excluded. On the US swim team does the best female swimmer get be on the men’s relay team? No, because even the weakest swimmer on the male team can still swim faster than the fastest swimmer on the female team.
          Slap me all you want, but the father child bond is not that same as the mother child bond. You could call me a terrible father all you want, that is your right. My wife is actually in a field that earns more than mine. Maybe at some point in time I may end up being the one that stays home, its not likely because my wife wants to make her children her priority. That is her decision, not mine. Like I said before, how can you refute the evidence that when a soldier dies on the battlefield they almost always cry out for their mother and never their father? I have a strong relationship with both of my parents and both were present growing up. But my relationship is different with the two.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Yes you give reasons. Reasons like “”Most will fail” makes no sense as a reason to categorically exclude all. Most men will fail at being Army Rangers, yet the
          Rangers still exist. Your “I would be uncomfortable” argument is somehow not a reason to exclude you, but a reason to exclude the hypothetical woman serving with you. And of course “UTIs” which lemme break this to you, isn’t an area that exclusively affects women or something that affects all women. Your answers are so typical. And yes, most men cry for their mothers because most men were primarily raised by mom. What does that have to do the ability to form bond with children?

  22. Michele says:

    The women’s lib movement has destroyed society on many levels. We now live in a world where you can no longer survive on one income. Women must work, even if we aren’t liberationists. What if we do want to stay home and raise our children ourselves so we can make sure it is done right. Where are the rights for that? Because it has pushed the economy into upheaval, our rights are gone.

    • ThatEarthenCup says:

      This is thesis material…I’ve yet to be able to put my jaw back where it should be; it dropped so hard

    • mck05002 says:

      I can understand where you are coming from, being a SAHM myself. But your reasoning behind families being unable to survive on a single income actually has very little to do with the women’s lib movement. The Federal Reserve is actually the real culprit in the financial state we find ourselves. Their devaluation of the dollar over the past 100 years, coupled with the QE1-QE4 have led to increased inflation and the current economic situation we find ourselves in. It really has almost nothing to do with the women’s lib movement and everything to do with who we’ve entrusted our monetary policy to.

  23. Katherine says:

    I Totally agree. As I was reading this, I was thinking about when I did Army ROTC in college (I am female, 5’2″ and roughly 130lbs). Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE was bigger than me except maybe a few of the other girls. First semester, many of the guys in my squad were around average height, so say if we were in a combat situation and they were injured and needed help, I MIGHT be able to pull them out. Second semester, there were maybe two or three guys out of seven who were average height- everyone else was a giant. There’s no way I would have been able to help anyone in that squad.
    This article makes some great points- I’m all for gender equality, but when it comes at the risk of putting other people’s lives in danger, it’s just stupid.

    • LilyL2182 says:

      The carrying other soldiers argument intrigues me. I worked as a lifeguard in college (on an beach in California where some major surfing contests are held) and while this is such a different experience than combat (no one was shooting at me) I have actually carried 200+ pound men. Sure part of it was in the water which is easier obviously, but there is a technique practically all lifeguards use to do it and it makes it much easier (basically you lean the person against you and drag them). We also had the additional concern of simultaneously carrying and stabilizing the head and neck, as vertebrae and spinal cord injuries are not infrequent in the ocean and honestly it wasn’t all that difficult to do! It’s not like you have to curl them. I am 5’11 and was about 160 then, but even the 5’1 tiny thing we had could do it for a short distance. The argument sort of makes sense to me (and it’s not one of the blatantly sexist ones that keep being repeated) but at the same time I just keep thinking what we were always taught as lifeguards: there will always be a job that is too big for one person! It’s a team effort. Even the toughest Navy SEAL can’t handle every situation that might happen. Sure, women generally can’t carry as heavy of a load. I just don’t think that’s a good enough reason to exclude women altogether, to not even give them a chance to try out.

      • Boilermaker says:

        Take that 200+ lb male; add on his weapon, full combat load of ammunition, his body armor, helmet, and his other mission essential gear and that takes his weight over 300 lbs. Carry that male 100m or more wearing the exact same stuff and then you will know what it is like.

        That is only one part of the argument. Another part is completely different. Extensive studies have been conducted on how long females can operate in a field environment before health issues become problematic. The consensus is 72 hours, thus females are required by military regulation to shower every 72 hours, while males are denied the same privilege. The studies were conducted by medical personnel, not military officers. Do you advocate women being injected with enough hormones to completely eradicate natural female functions?

      • Melissa says:

        Lily,

        You said “Sure part of it was in the water which is easier obviously, but there is a technique practically all lifeguards use to do it and it makes it much easier (basically you lean the person against you and drag them). ”

        How in the heck is that the same as carrying an injured soldier with all his his gear and your gear and avoiding enemy fire? I’m not military, but I’m certain that one does not “DRAG” an injured solider!

        Your posts are just a string of logical fallacies!! Seriously, girlfriend, you need a lot of help with logical thinking skills!

      • LilyL2182 says:

        “Take that 200+ lb male; add on his weapon, full combat load of ammunition, his body armor, helmet, and his other mission essential gear and that takes his weight over 300 lbs. Carry that male 100m or more wearing the exact same stuff and then you will know what it is like.”

        The ‘most women couldn’t do it’ argument just isn’t a good one. Most men couldn’t do that either.

        Despite my lack of military experience, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that wounded soldiers to indeed get dragged.

        • Melissa says:

          Well, if I had to bet, I would bet on the man every time. And I am pretty sure if most women in this country had to pick between a man protecting them in time of war versus a woman, most women would pick a MAN! Gasp!!!!!

        • LilyL2182 says:

          The ‘who would you pick?’ line is so ridiculous. I choose Superman! Depends on which man and which woman if you are getting.

        • Matt is man hater. Roadside bombs only killed service men far as I know. Happy Matt? Feel sorry for those moms only have sons (I’m one of those moms).

        • Boilermaker says:

          You are right, most men can’t do that. We train for that and we take the men that can. So what makes you think anyone other than a freakishly strong woman can do that? Why should the military accommodate for the .001% that might be able?

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Why should the military exclude the .001%?

        • Boilermaker says:

          What company or organization makes an effort to accommodate for .001%? You do realize there is more here than just the physical strength aspect right?

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Actually, my organization, the same one that includes the military is “the federal government.” And it does accommodate the .001%. Do you speak Mixtec or Konjobal or Kikuyu? You will be accommodated. Happens daily in my job.

      • martha says:

        Lily,
        I strongly agree with any comment you make about Matt being sexist. I was utterly repulsed by the tone of his post. The snark about Charlie’s Angels, Girl Power, the expression “our daughters,” and remarking that we need to teach girls to respect masculinity. Good lord – ncredibly disgusting and arrogant.He would benefit a great deal from counseling. I would not even begin to make assertions about how the military should go about testing/integrating women, etc., and respect what many of those with a military background have said. I do think some of the seemingly sexist comments from these posters are largely ignorant and not misogynistic. I hate to see your focus on Matt’s sexist bullshit get mired in trying to refute what many others have much more experience in. I hope that makes sense. Clearly, women should not be excluded from the miltary. It is all still fairly new territory, and there will be many bumps along the way as the men have to adjust. Last thing – “feminist” has become such a loaded, dirty word, and I hate that. I move that we define ourselves as humanists, because, honestly, I think that is what we are really for: humans being respected and given equal consideration.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          You are so right Martha. About everything.

        • Boilermaker says:

          So martha, why do most of the military men that have decided to comment on here agree with Matt? Sure there is a strong tone in his message, but at the end, most of the military agrees that integrating women into combat roles isn’t practical. This isn’t a case of being sexist, it is a case of a disillusioned sense of entitlement. To me a feminist is a woman who is convicted by ideals that takes pride in being a female. Whether that is being a mother or a career focused women. Face it, women are going to college at a higher rate then men are today. In short time women will make just as much money as men do. But life isn’t all about money. My sister was a nanny for wealthy urban families, the mothers were absent because their careers were more important than their children. Being a mother is a job in itself, placing your own children behind your career is a disgrace. A feminist can take pride in being a mother….that is the epitome of a strong woman! A feminist can take pride in excelling in her career by not including her gender into her work, her work should speak for itself!

        • LilyL2182 says:

          “the mothers were absent because their careers were more important than their children. Being a mother is a job in itself, placing your own children behind your career is a disgrace.”

          Jesus Christ could you get even more sexist? I suppose all the families your sister worked for had doting fathers and never-present mothers.

        • Boilermaker says:

          How is bad parenting being sexist? When both parents want full time jobs to make as much money as possible, so that way they can pay off someone to raise their kids for them? What is the point of having children if you neither of the parents are willing to actually raise them? You even said it, that your husband stays at home. Even though we disagree on the topic at hand, I think we both agree that at least one parent should stay at home to raise a child in the early developmental years.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Nope. Totally disagree with that last part. And it’s sexist because you criticize the mothers and are silent as to the absentee fathers.

  24. StandingUp says:

    Thank you Matt!!!! I stand with you on everything you’ve said! What scares me the most is what this could mean in the future…. If we are talking about “equal rights” what will it mean if there is to be a draft? That is scary! Our daughters…our sisters… we women who DO NOT WANT part in War, now being forced to take part….. What we are seeing now are the beginning steps of what no one wants to see in the future!

  25. The focus of the “gender equality” crowd, I notice, is on the relatively small amount of time of actual combat. And yeah, if that is the only thing we need to worry about, they might have a point. From the moment the battle starts to the moment the battle ends, you might find a significant number of women who do what is needed.

    But I have bad news for Lily, Wes, and all the others pushing for women in combat, come heck or high water: this ain’t STAR TREK. Soldiers don’t just materialize on the battlefield in time for the battle, to be beamed out immediately upon victory, retreat, or injury. They have to get out into field, frequently on foot, carrying huge amounts of materiel on their backs (no anti-gravs!), and then the enemy doesn’t always oblige and show up to fight immediately. Soldiers have to wait out in the field, sometimes for weeks at a time! And after battle, they frequently have to stay and do more. Women cause problems with all of that, for reasons involving physical strength, stamina, and hygiene. That last one is a biggie. And not just concerning their monthly cycles — although those do constitute a danger in the field because it’s a whole heck of lot easier for the enemy to detect a unit with even a single woman at that time of the month — but also women are susceptible to illnesses in these situations that men aren’t.

    I once was like you. I used to think that women should be allowed right up on the front lines. I was brainwashed by Hollywood and by the TOTALLY specious example of the IDF, who are in a TOTALLY different situation than our soldiers (we deploy all over the world, the IDF deploys within easy commutes not just to their major bases, but to their homes; it’s apples and oranges). Then I discussed it with my brother, a Sergeant First Class (then, now Master Sergeant) medic and medical trainer and administrator. He taught me a lot that I had no way of knowing, as someone with no experience in the military (and precious little with women). I would (and have) take his opinion over that of a bunch of feminists who have never served and a smattering who did serve but whose opinions are, by far, in the minority.

    • LilyL2182 says:

      ” it’s a whole heck of lot easier for the enemy to detect a unit with even a single woman at that time of the month”

      Where in heck are you getting your information from?

      “women are susceptible to illnesses in these situations that men aren’t”

      Such as???

      • Boilermaker says:

        Urinary tract infections, female soldiers get them all the time in the field due to poor sanitation….males don’t.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Solution: cranberry supplements.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Also, I’ve never had a UTI in my life. And I’ve been pretty dirty. Of course medical conditions interfere with service. This true of men and women. Men do get UTIs. So im all for it: exclude those who has a problem with recurrent UTIs.

        • Boilermaker says:

          That is great that you haven’t, but that is you. I am speaking on behalf of actual data gathered from years of male and female soldiers being in a field environment. The only military male I have ever known to get a UTI in the field was from a foley catheter. So then you are now saying even if a woman can pass the pull ups, but she gets frequent UTIs then she should be exclude? So now you are narrowing down the field even more?

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Yeah, I’m narrow the field to those capable. That seems to be what makes sense.

        • Boilermaker says:

          Yep, you just solved the riddle right there. You take the people best equipped for the job, and most organizations have several filters they put in place to further screen for the best. NFL isn’t looking to fill its ranks with women, NHL doesn’t want to add women, the Army doesn’t want to add women to combat ranks. The difference here is that the first two are not run by the government and the latter is. The NFL and NHL get to pick who they want, but the military has to take what the government tells them to take.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Thank you for those perfect examples. Neither the NFL not the NHL have rules to exclude women. AHMAZING isn’t it?

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Also please google “Manon Rhéaume.”

      • Melissa says:

        Well I see there is no point in arguing any logic with you! Yes, the solution is cranberry juice people!!!!!

      • I said where I got my information from. If you’re incapable or unwilling to read what I write, why should I bother repeating myself?

  26. Melissa says:

    I agree that standards should not be lowered for women, but what I completely disagree with is Matt stating men are more psychologically stable than women. That is complete and utter BS.

    To quote Matt, “In a world where we must pretend that women are as physically strong as men, I suppose there’s no hope that we’ll acknowledge the more difficult reality: that men are more psychologically equipped to deal with the lasting mental burden of combat. No human being is designed to deal with the carnage of war, but men at least have a better chance of carrying it and processing it.” I reiterate: Bullshit. Does Matt have some valid points? Yes. Could he put it a little more delicately in order to not sound like a douchebag? Yes.

    • Boilermaker says:

      It is a blog, an opinion piece, not a printed news source. Agree or not Matt’s blog is merely his opinion. Take or leave it.

      • Melissa says:

        And that’s exactly what I did…Left my opinion! “Take it or leave it”

        • Boilermaker says:

          Actually calling someone a “douchebag” for stating something that has actually been researched extensively, is not “leaving your opinion” it is attacking someone’s opinion. If you cannot grasp the proven fact that overall women are twice as likely to develop PTSD then I guess calling someone’s material “bullshit” is acceptable. I am not a psychologist, but I have taken basic A+P courses that clearly break down how certain levels of hormones in the human body cause certain types of behavior. Hormones effect more than just physical performance, their emotional and mental effects are incredible as well.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Really? Can you point me to some of this ‘extensive research’ on who is more psychologically equipped to deal with the lasting mental burden of combat?

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Hmmm ….that’s an article about PTSD. Not answering my question.

        • Boilermaker says:

          Ok Lily, the article answers everything you want to know. Conclusive studies have shown that women are more reactive to fear. Whether that be from sexual assault, violence, war, women are more likely to respond more dramatically then men. That also means that women are less likely to be willing to go back into similar environments. On the flip side I serve with several soldiers that are on their fourth and fifth combat deployment and many of them have been exposed to extreme fighting yet can bounce back and do it over and over again. It is simply stunning that you cannot fathom that biological evidence, physiological data, and psychological research all point to the fact that men make better warriors. And if you have to fight you want the best warriors. You have never once provided me with a shred of evidence that proves otherwise. I suggest you let go of this, or come over here to Afghanistan and get a dose of reality.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          You make a whole slew of conclusions based upon not that much info. I can fathom the info you suppose to exist in the world, it just doesn’t.

  27. Hahahahahaha! At the risk of being very in-PC… Loved this! While there may be a time and place, in some circumstance, for women on the battlefield… Why fight the obvious? NOT THAT WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE TRAINED, to some degree I won’t pretend I know. The last thing we want is a defenseless person just for the sake of following a recognition of gender differences. NOT THAT MEN SHOULD NOT LEARN TENDERNESS, GENTLENESS, AND HOUSEWORK. Their wives and children do need to feel cared for, after all, and somehow those traits go a long way toward helping a relationship run smoothly. But if a woman is clearly better at one thing, and a man is clearly more naturally equipped for another, why are we insisting they lay down the gifts they’re given?

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  28. Timespike says:

    I am of two minds on this. Every point you made is valid…
    …but look at the IDF. The Israelis have been using women in combat for a long time and they’ve served with honor and distinction.

    Furthermore, there are certainly women who want to fight; a friend of mine served in Iraq back in the mid 2000s working convoy security, and he told stories about a couple of the women who rode with his unit doing some absolutely heroic (and a more than a little bit scary) stuff when the convoy came under fire. And of course we’ve had women as pilots for quite some time. Women have been in combat for a good long while, just not as infantry.

    It’s a thorny issue.

  29. Patty Ramsey says:

    Matt, thanks so much for putting into words what so many of us believe. As the mother of 8 daughters and 4 sons, I couldn’t agree more. We have shamed ourselves as a nation when old men in DC are willing to start wars and then send our daughters off to fight them. I agree that once women have the “right” to go to battle, it will next become their forced duty to go to battle. As more and more men become emasculated in our society, they will be willing to let the women fight their battles for them. And I am not comforted by the fact that physical standards, whether they be for firefighters or soldiers, have been downgraded to give women the false impression they are somehow as physically capable as men. If my son needed to be carried off the battle field and the women around him can’t help him, I will not feel empowered as a woman that females have somehow been elevated by allowing them to serve when they don’t have the capabilities.

  30. magiik1122 says:

    I don’t currently know where the argument has gone in the comments. There’s just too much to read. I do, however, have a few points to make. Hopefully, I can word these better than those who share my view.
    1) Matt, while he’s able to write and seems to know quite a lot, comes off as sexist. He’s not, but if you only read this blog in snippets (namely, the last part), you see a guy claiming that women are inferior. That’s what a lot of people seem to be doing, paying no attention to any of the rest of the blog post. Because of this, it seems to me that people are reading it incorrectly. Some seem to think it is about how men are better, others see it as how women should not be allowed to serve in the military. It isn’t. It’s main point is that standards and requirements should not be lowered just so that females can get into the military with equal numbers as males.
    2) Equality is false. Te way people think of it is looking at the most general form of humanity. 2=2, right? Human=Human. This is the way most people that are hardcore for equality seem to see it. The equation is true, but it does no justice to anyone. A little more specific, draw an eight and a nine. Random numbers, but let’s say one equals male and one equals female. Does 8=9? No. They are not equal, just like male and female are not equal. But, this being math, it lets on that one is better than the other. So this is not perfect either.
    Now, how about a circle and a square? Do these equal each other? No. They are too different.
    I’m not saying that men and women are strictly defined by certain guidelines of what they can and can’t do. I myself am an unfit, teenage male who probably could manage one pull-up on a good day. I know girls that could do better than me.
    3) Standards should not be lowered specifically for anyone or any group. If someone is not qualified for a job, they should not be hired. Isn’t that the case with the stereotypical boss’s son that got hired because of his parent’s position? The one that knows nothing about the job or company, can’t do what he was hired for, and greatly enjoys his immense job security? Would you hire that guy normally? I’m assuming you be smart enough not to. That’s kind of what this is like. Things are being tweaked so that women don’t have to do as much to get in.
    And, before you say it, the basic requirements are basic for a reason. If they were for a specific section of the military, they would be requirements for that section, no?
    I’ll rephrase it one more time. There is a job opening at a warehouse. The job requires a lot of heavy lifting. Do you hire the man who can do it, or do you tweak the test so that you can hire the one who couldn’t?
    4) Back to equality being false. No one is equal. Not even twins. I know identical twins. One is in a program where he does highly-skilled lab work daily, like removing DNA from cells. The other is in all on-level classes.
    Face it. There are things some people can do that others can’t. Instead of changing the rules so that the can’t’s can try doing it, focus on a different area that you can do and others can’t.

    • A very thoughtful and well-reasoned response. You’re certainly wise beyond your years. I think you can see from the preceding comments in this thread that any talk of fact-based, objective performance standards quickly devolves into the politics of trying to convince the irrational that water is wet and grass is green.

      A smart feminist would put forward arguments such as the following:
      – Women can withstand g-forces better than men, and are better suited as jet pilots in terms of size, senses, response time, ability to process many information inputs simultaneously, etc. Women are just, well, better than men at this. Therefore we should recruit more female pilots.
      – There’s a body of evidence that women have sharper senses in certain situations, notably in distinguishing colors and smells. Russians used women as snipers in WWII with great success. This is a combat advantage the military can use in a variety of roles.
      – Women are more attuned to cultural and emotional cues. They make better interrogators than men. I had a chance one time to watch a female CID agent (The Army’s version of NCIS) tear some guy a new one. It was impressive.

      There are many more good arguments for women in combat, speaking to the strengths where women consistently outperform men. There’s a lot more to winning a war then pull-ups and fireman’s carries. Unfortunately, some of the previous comments aren’t coming from smart feminists – they’re coming from the hate-spewing “all men are oppressors” crowd. And by reading them you can learn some good lessons:

      1. They’re not the sharpest tools in the shed.
      2. They are insecure
      3. They overcompensate in all they do
      4. They’re not really for equality – they’re for enforcing their world view.
      5. When they cannot find sexism, they will invent it.

      A 1-year delay will not compensate for millions of years of evolution. It will be interesting to see at the end of this whether the USMC remains honorable and fact-based or bends to placate the socio-political fascists.

  31. Linzi says:

    I love this !!!!

  32. Rhett says:

    And David was physically incapable of fightung Goliath. Good thing battle can be won by more than brawn.

  33. Reblogged this on lessons in mercy and commented:
    I’m really lovin’ this guy. Wish I was smart enough to get all that Truth down in one blog post. Think men & women are created equal? Just send Hubby to the fast-food drive-thru and have him order (correctly) for at least three kids. 😉
    Embrace God’s beautiful design and purpose.

  34. Kristin says:

    I could not agree more. Both genders have something great to contribute to this world, but we don’t have to blur the lines for a blanketed “equality”. That doesn’t exist. Yes, there are women that are capable and driven enough for combat, but on a broad scale, I don’t think it is reasonable to assume all women want to fulfill such a role. I just don’t believe, that collectively, that is the strength of a woman.

  35. Pingback: No, Women Don’t Need to Be In Combat | Daily Pundit

  36. Bramble says:

    Molly Pitcher.

  37. Pingback: Gender equality, or stupidity? - GT40s.com

  38. David says:

    Being a Marine who did my 4 years of active duty with a 13 month deployment, I have a great pride in the Corps. However, I noticed that they were leaning toward this liberal view of “equality” which turned me off of making the Marine Corps my career. What good is being a part of the “few and proud” when they let anyone in and, even worse, let under-qualified personnel into combat units? I did research on my own, and anatomically speaking, a woman’s body is meant to carry weight in the front of her body alone, while men can carry it all over. I had women in my training and 3 of them got stress fractures in their legs from carrying heavy loads over long distances. Now on top of that, what happens when you are a woman who is left on a FOB? FOBs don’t have the luxury of a chow hall or washrooms… I have gone 30 days without a shower, what happens when a woman needs to do that or even more? Did they ever think about hygiene? You all can do your own research like I did and see first hand that this equality movement is far from equal. Now is there woman who can do it? Yes. But does that mean ALL women can do it? Far from it.

  39. Semper Fidelis says:

    Found a picture of LilyL2182:

  40. JSantorelli says:

    This is an issue Matt where I have to respectfully disagree with you for the same reason I agree with you on it. Let me explain. I, probably like you, am tired of those petulant teenage-minded women called feminists dominating the political theater with their vagina politics and rants. The simple fact is the only one’s capable of taking feminism out to the curb is women. For too long many women have sat idly by as feminists claiming to speak for them ran the show. Where is the special interest group that stands up for to support women who want traditional roles? Or the women who would ask why we “need” 2 incomes these days where as in decades past 1 salary was enough? Where are the women that remind their daughters to respect men and they would like to be respected? All I hear out of the mouths of women these days is how horrible men are and how bad we are at everything. Fine! I say let them run the world into the ground for all I care because to be honest we need a clean slate to start from!

    Put the women on the front lines and make them register for Selective Service while you are at it. Make sure every card sent to a woman says “you can do everything a man can just as good if not better.” Sign it “A Feminist!” Maybe THEN women will stop taking men for granted and playing political roulette.

    • C T says:

      I’m a woman who has tried to educate a couple of self-proclaimed feminists about the problems with today’s feminist movement, but they are basically deaf on the subject. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, they insist that–except for genitalia–men and women are the same and have only been culturally conditioned to be different. They demean and disadvantage the ONLY unique contribution of womenkind (childbearing and nurturing of young children) to humanity for reasons that too often look like they just don’t want to do those jobs personally. They talk as though “equal” must mean “same” even though that is manifestly absurd in a world where no two people are exactly the same. They criticize men roundly for certain kinds of misbehavior while acclaiming women who do those same things as “strong” and “empowered” and expect their husbands, brothers, and sons to quietly take their unpleasantness. They exhibit a lack of logical reasoning and inability to see the realistic consequences of applying their rhetoric (exhibit A being all those inane “slutwalks” which act as if there’s something oppressive about police counseling women on how to be a “hard target” to criminals). And if a woman disagrees with them, the woman is dismissed as merely indoctrinated by culture; for all their talk of the evil of marginalization of women, feminists are the first to marginalize women who don’t share their opinions.
      Feminists do not speak for all of us women. But they’re so excessively unpleasant (I’m looking at you, LilyL2182) that they tend to dominate the conversation sometimes with their incessant ranting and refusal to use logic or accept demonstrated facts.

      • JSantorelli says:

        @CT: Then I suggest you find some like minded women, which shouldn’t be too hard given that only 30% of US women claim to be feminists, and scream louder than them. It seems to me that these days the men in Washington are spineless imps that jump through hoops for the loudest screaming women so you may actually have a chance. Report back when you have some results. Talk is cheap.

  41. Janik says:

    I don’t want to see anyone, man or woman, die in combat.

  42. Emma says:

    I’m a feminist. By definition, I “believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes”. It is because of feminism that women are allowed to vote. It is because of feminism women are now allowed to have an education.

    I don’t agree that standards should be lowered for more women to enter into the military. The standards should be the same for men as for women. The reason we don’t see as many women in the military as men is because, in general, most women do not gravitate in the direction of the military. Those few that do gravitate in that direction and are failing an easy 3 pull-up test should reconsider going into the military.

    Please stop putting down feminism. The people who want to lower military requirements for the sake of increasing female participation are doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with feminism.

    • Isaac says:

      Excellent point. Although you can’t really blame Matt for “putting down feminism.” The meaning of the word, as understood by most of our culture, has been altered, and not by people like Matt.

      Women today commonly don’t even want to be identified as feminists because the word has been co-opted to mean something other than “equality for the sexes”. I applaud you for reminding everyone of the original (almost archaic at this point) meaning.

  43. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/08 | Free Northerner

  44. Isaac says:

    What often goes unnoticed in these debates about modern “feminist” issues…the positions taken by modern, Leftist neo-feminists almost always DEGRADES feminity. When did it become feminist to applaud masculinity at the expense of the feminine?

    The earliest American “feminists” of the suffrage movement were mostly evangelical and religious. They celebrated womanhood, motherhood, and feminine qualities. They were strongly opposed to the things that actually hurt women (spousal abuse, sexual objectification of women, drunkenness, etc.) They also came across as much more strong and self-respecting than whatever passes for “feminism” today.

    When a cadre of “butch” feminists tells young women that they aren’t “feminist” if they want to cook, or raise kids, or wear dresses, then feminism has a problem. When “feminists” tell you that you need to imitate all of the WORST qualities of maleness (sexual promiscuity, lust for power/prestige, crudeness) then feminism has lost its way. When women are losing the qualities that make them uniquely female, and imitating male behaviors as much as possible, and this is called “feminism” then feminism is basically dead.

    The suffrages preached that women weren’t dames, or dolls, or tomatoes. They didn’t try to “out-crass” the guys. They wanted to be celebrated and recognized for what they were. They didn’t want to necessarily compose of 50% of the workforce- they wanted motherhood to be celebrated in culture as much as working in an office is celebrated. That IS feminism.

    Now you have disgraces like Nicki Minaj arguing with other female celebrities over who is the “biggest b****” in music, because that’s apparently a badge of honor now. The Pussycat Dolls have a contest in which women compete to “be a Pussycat Doll” and this is touted as female empowerment. Women have to throw themselves at men because that’s what all the other women are doing, because “feminism” has taught women that the way to equality is to be just like men. Women have no sexual bargaining power, no “feminine mystique,” because the modern, phony feminists killed it.

    When was the last time modern “feminists” really took a stand against misogyny in music? They can’t, because “feminism” just means “liberalism” now, and the music industry is one of social liberalism’s greatest cheerleaders. These aren’t feminists, these are party-line towing cowards.
    How many “feminists” are decrying the selective abortion of females? They don’t even want you to know that’s happening! Because abortion is part of the liberal platform, and the so-called “feminists” can’t even advocate for helpless girls- they have to be good social Leftists, after all.

    Bill Maher degrades women in the most offensive, dehumanizing manner possible? “Feminists” are powerless to say anything, because they’ve made their deal with the devil, and Maher is untouchable. This is how you get liberal women like Whoopi Goldberg defending child-rapist Roman Polanski and saying that it wasn’t really “RAPE rape” because Polanski is an artsy liberal filmmaker.

    None of these clowns are feminists. There’s more feminism in church than there is with the lot of em.

    • LilyL2182 says:

      Best Bill Maher rebuttable I ever saw was from a high school girl. I forget why, but he had several high schoolers on his show talking about something. Every time this one girl made a point, he would respond with something like, “Oh that’s cute.” So she started doing it back to him, calling him “sweetheart” and “honey” with the most dismissive tone ever LOLs. I love that girl.

      Though most feminists I know a absolutely despise Roman Polanski and the whole “rape rape” thing. See the book “Real Rape” by Susan Estrich.

  45. Pingback: House of Eratosthenes

Comments are closed.