Male lives to be endangered to protect the lady's modesty?

Captaincastle · 2013-07-23T14:09:38+00:00

I don't know where you got modesty from, but the idea that they're going to lower the standards for special forces (even across the board) is distressing.

burntoast101 · 2013-07-23T14:09:52+00:00

My favorite part was when it mentioned that the military will have to "justify" keeping high physical standards for the special forces.

BalllsackTBaghard · 2013-07-23T15:07:22+00:00

Further proof that feminism is all about lowering the standards for women across the board.

Soldiers will die because of this.

silly_vasily · 2013-07-23T15:53:46+00:00

I am in the Canadian forces in the infantry. we have girls and all but most guys are pissed because these girls get better treatment, easier entry exams, same salary. but the problem is that on certain leadership courses girls are not allowed to fail for physical issues ( so they get to carry less or a male soldier has to take the load). these girls use sex to get great postings and then wonder why guys treat them like shit. the number of time i had to leave behind pieces of personal equipment to carry stuff that the girls could not is too dam high. but soon the Canadian forces will introduce a non-sexist physical entry exam.

snoopyzanus · 2013-07-23T16:35:55+00:00

That didn't take long, did it. My post from when they were trumpeting that only women who could pass the male standards would get in:

The heads of U.S. Special Operations Command said women will be welcomed into America’s elite combat units as long as they can meet the same physical standards as men.

This sounds fair, doesn't it? How could anyone object to that?

This would be great if it really happens.

If history is any indicator though, what will actually happen is that the claim that women will be held to the same physical standards will merely be the Trojan Horse that gets the gates opened and the horse brought inside, only for demands for lowered standards and special accommodations to be made soon after, under the pretense that the current standards are "outdated" (or whatever rationale can be spun best).

Now what's being said:

Part of the two-year study will examine ground combat standards and recommend whether they should be changed to give women better chances.

ArmyGen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that if a service wants to keep a job as a male-only occupation because of its high physical demands, the service will have to show why those tests should not be lowered to accommodate women.

So now the elite services have to justify why they should only admit the elite. Funny how this wasn't a problem when only men were applying; when weaker men with less stamina failed the tests.

101110010148 · 2013-07-23T14:56:43+00:00

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/feminist-scavenger-hunt/

The feminist fantasy always runs the same way. A tough no nonsense woman tries to break in to an all male sphere. To prove herself she must first pass, no, exceed the ridiculous and unnecessarily high standards which men diabolically erected hundreds or even thousands of years ago in preparation for this very day. At first the 1 dimensional macho characters all mock and deride her. But eventually they come to learn that she is every bit as tough as the guys are, in addition to her extra abilities which she has by virtue of being a woman. Ultimately they can’t help but respect her determination and ability, and dare I say it, girl power. She’s “opened the door”, and now women eagerly flood into the previously all male sphere! Roll credits.

I’ll stop typing for a bit so the feminists in the audience can savor the moment… Smoke em if you got em.

Everyone back? Here’s the problem; most of the time it simply doesn’t work that way. At least, not for a long time it hasn’t. And quite often it is the feminists themselves who screw it up. They sell you GI Jane, where Demi Moore shaves her head and knocks out one armed pushups like they are going out of style. But that is just the picture on the package. What’s inside the box is something totally different. And women and men fall for it every time. The thing is the feminists don’t really care if they deliver as promised. In fact, so long as they can make the package with an impressive picture they don’t care if anything is inside it. So they sell you a woman aviation pioneer, just as good as the guys. What they deliver is a woman who is almost all attitude, and very little skill. Then they lose interest as soon as they can check the box and say “See, women do that too!”

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/the-long-march-of-envy/

At the core the feminist obsession with the military is not an interest from a practical perspective, but for what the military symbolizes. A nation’s military is traditionally the ultimate symbol of the virtue of the nation’s manhood. Stories of fighting men exhibiting incredible bravery and self sacrifice are used to inspire all men to strive for excellence no matter what their path in life is. Feminists chafe at this idea because they can’t stand any celebration of men. The whole point of putting women in combat is to make sure we can never again say: Thanks to the men who sacrificed so much for us without feminists chiming in “and women too!” This is why no unit can be left untouched, even elite ones.

... Since the goal is to erase the concept of masculine virtues, the new bargain the introduction of women into combat represents isn’t to have women join equally or even seriously in the fighting and dying. The new bargain is that men will continue to be the ones who fight and die, but they must not feel a sense of masculine pride in either doing this or having this obligation. In this sense they are doing to the military what they have done to other institutions. Husbands and fathers are still responsible to protect and provide for their families, they have just been taught not to see themselves as head of the household.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2013-07-23T16:03:20+00:00

The Pentagon staged a press briefing last week to announce a two-year study to refine combat physical standards and find the best way to install women in the male bastion of infantry, armor and special operations.

I see two options: 1) develop powered armor sufficient that physical strength doesn't matter anymore and we can eliminate/reduce physical standards for all soldiers (I guess reaction speed and intelligence would be the only important factors) or 2) institute a massive artificial selection program selecting for height, strength, and physical stamina in women to counter the previous couple million years of natural selection that led to men possessing those qualities beyond women. In may take a while so probably work on the scifi armor first with the breeding plan as a backup.

I'm in reasonably good shape for a guy (not great but above average). And I'd probably wash out of lecture on what green berets have to go through.

It's not like this is something 90% of guys can do and maybe 40% of women can. There is an overlap in physical abilities between men and women around the middle of the spectrum. But these are the people at the extremes where women just don't make it.

I'm all for letting them try but the standards should be the same. And if few women try out and none make it . . . well too bad. These forces don't exist to boost anyone's self esteem or prove some feminist theory correct.

vikinick · 2013-07-23T17:59:46+00:00

So, wait, they're going to make it easier to get into the special forces (the elite of the elite) so that women could get into it easier? I'm all for letting women into the military at each level, but only if they have the same requirements as men. Any other way just risks people's lives.

On a separate note: I know a guy who was in the navy and he says that, usually, the few weeks before a deployment, 50-60% of the women "miraculously" get pregnant and cannot go on deployment.

2013-07-23T16:29:27+00:00

I can't help but think that lowering standards so women can get in will only create a stigma for those women that do manage to get in based on those lowered standards. If a woman can meet the current standards placed on males, I think she'll have earned the respect of her colleagues because she would have gone through what they did.

It might sound shitty, but I think it makes sense. These guys are in it because they earned that merit. Making it easier for anyone (this can include weaker men) demeans that merit.

nigglereddit · 2013-07-23T16:02:59+00:00

In the UK it's widely acknowledged that there are already women in special forces groups.

They're not in units like the Special Air Service for the simple reason that passing the selection course is too difficult - but that's not a problem because it's far too hard for most men too, in fact two of them died trying last week.

But SAS and their support groups are not the only special forces elements in the military. There are highly secretive units like SRR, the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. Little is know about them but the soldiers I know pretty much all think that there are women in them, just as there are women in the special intelligence groups both as officers and assets.

avantvernacular · 2013-07-23T16:56:29+00:00

Male lives to be endangered to protect women has been the prime directive of warfare since humans learned how to put a pointed rock at the end of a stick.

Rolten · 2013-07-23T18:10:15+00:00

I can't even wrap my head around this kind of logic.

The standards of being able to carry a certain load are imposed since eventually, when in combat or performing operations, you will have to be able to carry that load. If a person can't do this, then they are endangering themselves and others, no matter what their sex is.

This is the reason why most men won't become special ops, and this is the reason why almost no women will become special ops.

Women will just have to accept that they are weaker than men.

2013-07-23T19:04:37+00:00

Infantry here, but how will women in Armor deal with taking a shit off of the edge of a tank while a male team member provides overwatch? I know just ask the enemy to look away.

2013-07-23T19:13:59+00:00

I don't even understand the issue here. Give women the chance to try to join, but make them meet the same standards as the men. If most don't measure up, big fucking deal. We'll have the best prepared men and women serving, and people who don't make the cut don't get to serve. It's that simple.

ILoveHate · 2013-07-23T20:55:31+00:00

If they're going to do all of this, I just wish they kept women in their own section. Like have women only military patrols, groups, etc. Not only do the women not meet the same requirements as the men, but the men are more likely to do stupid things trying to protect said women.

McFeely_Smackup · 2013-07-23T23:33:30+00:00

I served under a very capable and qualified female Commander in the US Army. She was a strong and intelligent leader, and consistently failed physical fitness tests with standards set so low for her gender and age that it should have been impossible to fail.

She saw it as her mission in the service to promote as many female soldiers as possible to "more accurately represent the Army demographic". So she promoted female soldiers with barely any time in service as soon as possible, waiving requirements, seeing that they got training that counted for promotion FIRST, and had failure after failure with them. She was putting unqualified soldiers into leadership positions that they weren't prepared for...and then treating it like a personal insult when they failed.

It was like watching a slow motion train wreck that took place over a couple years. She'd get a woman a good promotion...who'd then get pregnant and leave the service. She'd promote a female over FAR more qualified men, and then call it sexist when that woman was unable to gain the respect of the people under her.

She was eventually forced to retire under a "reduction in force" order, but everyone knew it was because her superiors had no confidence in her.

2013-07-24T00:23:54+00:00

Well lets be fair. if we lower the requirements for women, it's only equal to lower it for men. In 20 years or so I can be a navy seal just because I'm fat enough to float.

dontsuckbeawesome · 2013-07-24T12:55:11+00:00

ArmyGen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that if a service wants to keep a job as a male-only occupation because of its high physical demands, the service will have to show why those tests should not be lowered to accommodate women.

Fuck. that. shit.

SteveHanJobs · 2013-07-23T16:46:28+00:00

It sounds like they are coming to their senses, from the sound of this.

BalllsackTBaghard · 2013-07-23T18:41:36+00:00

I would like to see how happy feminists are if their armies get steamrolled by China after lowering the standards. It would actually be glorious.

Title	Male lives to be endangered to protect the lady's modesty?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	48
Comments	78
Date	July 23, 2013 1:55 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ivtvc/male_lives_to_be_endangered_to_protect_the_ladys/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/male-lives-to-be-endangered-to-protect-the-ladys.1168126 https://theredarchive.com/post/1168126

Comments