Janice Fiamengo continues her series on feminism and its fictions:
Why are women so poorly represented on the front lines? Because most women can’t do the job, don’t want to do the job, and in cases where they can do it, can’t do it as well as men… A recent American study has demonstrated a big disparity in women’s and men’s battlefield ability. The US Marine Corps examined over a year the impact of female integration on combat readiness and found conclusively that women cannot match male performance.
Male units were faster, more effective and able to evacuate casualties in less time. Overall, the study concluded, all-male squads performed better than mixed groups in 69% of the tasks evaluated. Women performed notably less well in their use of every individual weapons system, and in addition women had higher injury rates than men. So in terms of women’s own well-being as well as the overall effectiveness of the fighting force, its ability to kill enemies and save wounded comrades, the study showed that the presence of women in combat units has a negative impact.
Shhhh… gender is a social construct.
“the presence of women in combat units has a negative impact. ”
Well shoot me down and call me Sally! Who’d a thunk it?
Total gender integration of the military is a distinctly Sovietconcept. It’s gratifying to see 3rd wave feminism expose itself as the soviet throwback it is.
Did they discover anything in the study that they didn’t already know?
In other words, in combat men will die due to political correctness.
Bingo!
Somehow I think that this study proves the need for more laws of enforcement and the further reduction of standards. No doubt the current and potential enemies will reciprocate.
Didn’t Bruce Jenner just get nominated for a woman of the year honor because he is obviously better at being a woman? So courageous.
Another major study concluded that most bears sh*t in the woods
The Israelis also experimented with mixed-sex combat units pre-’80 (I think the early ’70s) hoping to double their potential recruiting base. It was a complete failure and the idea was dropped even though women are well-represented in rear echelon, non-combat, non-traditional jobs in Israel. (Obviously, to free up more men to serve in combat units.)
Besides the women being less physically capable (meaning the men had to do double-duty carrying heavy weapons and ammo), the men became overprotective of the women such as stopping doing what they were supposed to be doing when the women were injured or wounded.
I think the test period wasn’t long enough to see any problems with fraternization etc. that would also be a problem as is shown in the USN that has mixed-crew vessels.
A long comment from the Yale YouTube video but a brilliant one:
Lana Voreskova
+Cormac Mulhall “But that just comes down to who gets to decide what is legitimately expressing and opinion” No: It comes down to anybody having the right to express any opinion. That is what the right to free speech means. Someone makes fun of you because of your race or ethnicity? Yes I get that too. Most people are not so rude but some are. It is the price we pay for living in a free society and it is a small one. “As soon as you are uncomfortable, it is abuse. When they are uncomfortable it is them being cry babies who are scared of challenging ideas.” It is difficult to make me feel uncomfortable because I am a mature adult. Remarks about “stupid vodka swilling Russians” do not make me uncomfortable. They just make me think the person making them is an idiot. They have the right to be an idiot and I am not going to throw someone out of a class just for being an idiot. But as I said they do not have the right to threaten and bully and try to silence others and destroy their careers. So if some of these idiots begin chanting or trying to shout me or one of my students down, because they hear something they don’t like; then I will call security and have them removed and I will also not allow them in my lectures again. My other students have a right to an education, and that includes hearing opinions they don’t like. Most of them are mature enough to understand that. I can tolerate just about anything; but I cannot tolerate the shrieking PC thought-fascists who think they have the right to enforce their rules over what people can or cannot say. That is not free expression. That is totalitarianism. “Why do you get to decide that this woman would be abusing you, but she can’t decide when she is abused and by what?” I do not “get to decide.” Nor does she: This is not a subjective issue. It is quite clear. She had the right to express any opinion she wanted. She did not have the right to scream obscenities in his face and threaten his career. It is not complicated. She would have the right for example to say she did not approve of homosexuality. She would not have the right to follow a gay man down the street screaming “fu***ing Fa**ot” in his face and threatening to get him fired from his job. Like I said it is not complicated. “But when minorities say similar things about what they consider abusive they are dismissed as overly sensitive and just doesn’t like being uncomfortable.” Ehm? No they are not. Quite the opposite is true actually as illustrated by the video above. I work in a University in Ireland: Universities here were once bastions of free speech. They were hives of rigorous debate and scholarly examination of the facts above all. Students were bombarded with all kinds of views and opinions from all angles. Debates were furious and adversarial and nobody demanded any right to be comfortable; because that is what universities are for. That is what education is about. No topic should ever be taken off the table because it makes some immature simpleton feel uncomfortable. But today; any kind of controversial discussion is impossible. Professors and scholars are afraid to write or say anything that does not conform strictly within the stifling confines of what is appropriate according to the politically correct thought police. Guest speakers refuse to come because of protests against them and those that do are shouted down if they say anything that these PC half-wits don’t “feel comfortable” about. Books are removed from library shelves because they contain “inappropriate opinion.” They try to police everything from what you can say to what Halloween costume people can wear. You couldn’t make it up. Not even comedians will visit college campuses anymore. With their trigger warnings and their safe spaces; their witch-hunts against professors and fellow students: these clowns have turned universities from open places of education where all views and opinions are discussed freely no matter how offensive some people might find some of them, into stiflingly policed indoctrination centres, patrolled by hysterical half-witted drones who firmly believe they have the right to destroy anybody who says anything that they deem to be inappropriate. And the students graduate having leaned nothing but how not to think objectively. I suggest you look up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how it came into being. This student is clearly in breach of several of its clauses and her followers are trying to abolish it completely. Stalin must be laughing in his grave.
This issue is really about the preferential promotion route accorded
young smart army officers with good combat unit assignment outcomes.
The only realistic way to “make room” for women combat officers in this
field is to recreate some kind of additional Army Aviation fixed wing
artillery component by way of a “Warthog” successor made available in
large numbers.
From the comments:
“Social justice isn’t just an ideology; it’s a religion, and quite a vicious one. Heretics and apostates must be made to suffer. Nonbelievers must pay homage and acknowledge the superiority of social justice. If you point out how they don’t make sense, that’s harassment and justifies them trying to ruin you by any means necessary. If you fight back, you’ve just proved how evil you are. Listen and believe, or face the consequences.”
How did the NDP make out with their wingnuts? The fools at the Centre for Policy Alternatives suggested a total all in tax rate of 65% for incomes above $200,000.
The actual threat is the incremental velvet totalitarianism of our politically correct Frankfurt school crowd who seem to have made a comeback. The actual threat is allowing those who would shut down democracy for their own nefarious ends to silence critique of their views.
The actual threat is a compliant LIV voter and biased & unethical media that supports a false narrative of a middle class whom the neo SJWs will aid, rather than their previous client – the poor.
The poor can just get poorer to them; they obviously don’t care, being typical statists. But that’s where the true crisis and unrest lies.
The LIV shall soon find out that wanting change is a much more pleasurable thing that getting change. As young Canadians move up in the professional careers they shall see what the fuss of taxation is all about as they experience punishing rates of taxation, now clearly inevitable given an unanticipated $100b addition to our debt (on the low end imho).
Intellectual laziness and personal immaturity. Who knew some of the young would be so?
Just every other generation. Voting themselves future tax increases.
I remember the reserves back in the 1980s. All the teenage boys knew every weapon in the world, every aircraft, and armoured vehicle. They all knew how to do things with weapons that could get you 10 years in jail. Their heads were right into it. It was boys stuff through and through. The women weren’t part of that and almost none of them were physically capable of passing the course if they were male. They usual weren’t around for long. However, there were a few women who made very good soldiers and at the time women weren’t allowed in combat trades and that’s how they should have left it. They best personal weapon the army has is a fully functioning set of testicles and every combat soldier should have a pair.
Why can we not accept truth? Men are generally stronger than women and some of the work they do is and should be well paid for those skills, as we, as a society, need that strength and accompanying attitudes and aptitudes.
As a highly-educated woman, I have always hated feminism, in part, because it is based on the false belief that everyone is created equal. As well, I love men! We are not equal, and let us celebrate the enjoyable differences! Whereas equality under law is a good and viable concept, this should never mean that everyone is equally competent at everything nor should we have a RIGHT to be treated as such. We are not and never have have been equal. Hey folks, LIFE IS NOT FAIR! Every 5 year-old knows who in kindergarten can best draw pictures or catch a ball. With luck and good coaching, we all learn to maximize the skills that we have naturally inherited and/or practiced.
During my career, I met some very competent female RCMP officers who were trail blazers in their time (early ’80s), but they were ALL exceptional. One whom I remember was a 6′ large Quebec woman who had no problem policing in feisty bars in northern Quebec. Another was 5’4″, but had incredible strength, confidence and nerves of steel. Both used their superior language skills to diffuse situations, but also had seriously good physical skills that most women do not have to back-up their social interventions in their communities.
Wow – thank you for the introduction to her (Janice Fiamengo) YouTubes! 2 hours has just whizzed by very enjoyably.
Further to the Yale “controversy”, read this: https://web.archive.org/web/20151107010454/http://yaleherald.com/op-eds/hurt-at-home/
The fact that more than a few people support the likes of Ms. Paz is disturbing.
Gender equality is a social construct.
No seriously it is.
Women can not perform as well as men at almost everything, men and women are not equal, no more than a spoon and a knife are equal.
Try eating soup with a knife and try cutting steak with a spoon.
Both are equally useful or equally important but they are not equal.
Men and women are not equal.
Gender equality is a social construct.
I was bicycling and stopped to watch the fire department practicing rescues on whitewater rapids. A fully-equipped wet-suited male firefighter was about to release himself at the top of the narrow rapids and a female firefighter was downstream with a throw rope. She was looking away and appearing totally bored, the firefighter released himself and started to float downstream and she limply and weakly tossed the throw rope into the water without even looking at him, before he even got close to her the rope had floated down and was running along the shore, useless, the firefighter in the water just floated past downstream… as I bicycled away my first thoughts were “what a dozy stupid slob, she couldn’t care less and it shows, what a waste of time for that guy in the water, if I was her boss I’d chew her out.” But, on further reflection I figured out that it’s no big deal, they’re required to carry her dead weight on the team for political reasons…
In any occupation one gender succeeds or is better suited at it.
From berry-picking to nursing to welding to soldiering.
That includes politics.
And that is not to say that there aren’t great female soldiers or welders or male berry pickers (my uncle was legendary at it).
But it is to argue that gender quotas are repugnant and a violation of basic human rights regardless of how well-meant.
In any occupation one gender succeeds or is better suited at it.
From berry-picking to nursing to welding to soldiering.
That includes politics.
And that is not to say that there aren’t great female soldiers or welders or male berry pickers (my uncle was legendary at it).
But it is to argue that gender quotas are repugnant and a violation of basic human rights regardless of how well-meant.
Your comment is spot-on.
Also, I would like some steak. 🙂
People have failed to see value in anything. Either something is only one way or it’s not important. One sees women serve nobly in non-combat roles (nurses, radio operators, pilots, ect). Are their sacrifices less important? According to those who want power, yes.
The more women that get killed or maimed in combat the better.
But don’t worry – it ain’t going to happen. When the women in the British Arm in Afstan looked to be doing serious fighting, most got pregnant and had to be shipped home.
One of the better ones was a black girl who was good with a machine gun. She and probably everyone else in her unit were surprised when she went into labour during a fire fight. Had to be taken out of battle. She said she was not aware of her condition.
The problem is they want to someday make women senior generals and they require experience in combat positions. You can’t have a nurse lead troops into battle.
I remember 30 or so years ago telling someone that a woman was a Brigadier General. His reply – is she the General of Shopping? My reply – as a matter of fact ….
See also the recent story in the news from BC about women firefighters being mistreated and disparaged. Think about it. When your life depends upon the strength and ability of the person next to you, who do you want on your flank? A 5ft 9in 170lb woman or a 6ft 220lb man?
Long but brilliant is right. It is sad that North America is slowly but surely morphing into a modern day Stalinism. I guess people will just have to learn the hard way the dehumanizing effects of socialism, especially the soviet version.
There are many great comments about this topic above including from some new commenters.
Just to make clear my meaning: when the aforesaid black woman went into labour she was doing good stuff with her machine gun.
It took a study for them to figure that out?
Idiots.
Even Neanderthal man knew that. Hell even Homo Erectus knew that.
Man’s intellect is devolving under cultural Marxism.