Military Should Women Be Able To Serve In the Military?

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The adoption of a Statocratic system does seem incongruent with any of the principles of Western Democracy that America was founded upon. There's probably a reason that there's a strong correlation throughout history of militarism based systems of government leading to various forms of authoritarianism and despotism. Joining the military, including now, requires a significant amount of indoctrination upon a group of people who in a volunteer service are probably a distinct subset of society already. And not just patriots are the ones who enlist either.

This indoctrination can now be put in the hands of military officers, of whom the most successful ones tend to be egoists (if you look throughout history, many famous military commanders with notable exceptions tend to be rather egotistical from Alexander and Julius Caesar right down through Frederick and Napoleon down to MacArthur and DeGaulle. And both political and military leadership tend to focus on egotistical leaders and one step from egoism is megalomania.

And once you get a megalomaniac in charge of the military (whether it happens in a year or a decade or a generation it'll eventually happen) and therefore the government, without any other checks and balances beyond your military government to check the power of aforementioned military government then your Statocratic system is probably fucked and you've basically slid into some sort of authoritarian oligarchy or other form of dictatorship. OR.... if the foundational values are somewhat strong, maybe some sort of Civil War which... isn't much of an improvement beyond say... hotly contested elections IMHO.

As a microcosm example we can look to the School of Americas. Ever since it's founding in the 1960's and despite a curriculum that apparently emphasized military doctrine and counterinsurgency warfare in conjunction respect to civil authority and human rights and civil affairs and emphasizing Western civic values, there's been a habit of graduates of the School of Americas having this peculiar habit of going back to their home countries and brutally suppressing and overthrowing local regimes because one of the things they drew from their American military education is that they might as well overthrow the old system because now they know better then everyone else in spite of getting the adjunct education in human rights and civil affairs.

Sadly all of the eggs they broke often didn't result in the creation of delicious omelets.

Plus with all of the talk in the past half century about the military industrial complex, of the Deep State, centralization of Federal Law Enforcement and Authority, and regime change wars having come to prominence, it seems very odd that while Americans have a very strong reverence for the military, that people, especially now, would be advocating for some sort of military/veterans only can vote (and thus for all practical purposes) and hold government offices. Especially as a tactic meant to remove a Womans right to vote in order to apparently prevent "feminism" from entering the national discourse.

There are other issues as well, such as military service excluding people with various impairments ranging from things as mild as seeing a Psychologist as a child or having Asthma, conscientious objectors, and the fact that unlike say back in the era of Landed Infantry there's probably not much of a need for a ten million person sized force or even national militia system and hasn't been for anywhere from thirty to seventy years (Cold War or World War Two beyond that that) makes the idea seem incredibly myopic.

in that case I go back to my previous statement. I can tell you who's going to be considered the peasants. Anyone who is not the ruling class. "What need is there of a protest all is going as our rulling elites have designed we just got to get rid of Bad orange man. " Again sarcasm

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The problem is that, "Military service should be required for citizenship" and "Military service should maintain elite standards" are inherently contradictory positions, and they both become extremely messy unless you first overturn longstanding court precedents where good faith feminist arguments that women *should* be drafted and serve equally were summarily shot down on the basis that, "Military service is not a right, therefore equality does not apply in any way, shape or form."

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

well one it depends on how you define feminism which is important, it's more or less come in waves. A lot of the current wave femenism only really came back in full force with modern education and the normalization of social media. getting rid of people's abilities to say who they like isn't magically going to fix that it's just going to mute it.

"The other feminism waves were based"

Ah this old myth. The first "wave" of feminist was a radical movement responsible for terrorist attacks and had very little to do with people deciding to give women rights, the the second "wave" of feminism was outright, unabashedly, openly communist.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

"The other feminism waves were based"

Ah this old myth. The first "wave" of feminist was a radical movement responsible for terrorist attacks and had very little to do with people deciding to give women rights, the the second "wave" of feminism was outright, unabashedly, openly communist.

What terrorist attacks are you talking about? The first-wave feminist movement was primarily a political movement by middle-class white women.

 

[Deleted member]

The first thing women voters did was try to force conservative christian morality on society. So the left began to corrupt women in response to that and actually pay attention to women when previously it had been mainly focused on intellectuals and working men. If we didn’t have a leftist-corrupted society to begin with, women would be the most reliable conservative voters. The “Distaff vote” for Bonapartism terrified liberals in the 19th century and was one of the main reasons for opposition to woman suffrage. Conservative women, especially of the aristocracy, were critical in the actual passage of woman suffrage in many countries.

 

[Xilizhra]

The first thing women voters did was try to force conservative christian morality on society. So the left began to corrupt women in response to that and actually pay attention to women when previously it had been mainly focused on intellectuals and working men. If we didn’t have a leftist-corrupted society to begin with, women would be the most reliable conservative voters. The “Distaff vote” for Bonapartism terrified liberals in the 19th century and was one of the main reasons for opposition to woman suffrage. Conservative women, especially of the aristocracy, were critical in the actual passage of woman suffrage in many countries.

This has not changed, I suspect. Rather, the socially liberal-centrist zeitgeist is now seen as more moral, and perhaps even more conservative, than rightist reaction. I also think that you ascribe too much to our powers of corruption; the American right has committed so many unforced errors in its social policy that I think disgust more than leftist passion is the main driver.

 

[GoldRanger]

Yes, but it should be based purely on merit.

My basic training + NCO course was mixed male/female, which is not common in the IDF. Women had different, much more lenient rules. It's been many years, but as I recall when doing push-ups they were only required that their arms bend to 90 degrees, while the males were required to bring their chest almost to the floor (a closed fist's distance, I think). And during the obstacle course training and tests they had a small bench they were allowed to use to go over the wall, while the men had to go over it from the ground.

and when training in navigation we were paired up man and woman, with the man always being the one who carried the hefty 6 kilo radio on the back. At least on one occasion I was paired up with a skinny girl that was like 145 cm (that's like 4' 9'' to you Yanks), to my eyes she had borderline dwarfism honestly, although I don't know for sure... so there's exactly zero chance she could have navigated the hilly desert terrain for hours on end carrying that radio in addition to an M-16, ammo, helmet and all that other crap we lugged around.

In my case our course wasn't aimed at frontline combat duty so that was less of an issue, but she and the other girls there ended up with the same qualifications as the males despite physically doing less, right?

If this was for combat duty, that would have been a terrible idea. If there's a particularly strong female that can keep up with the males that's one thing, but those girls in my course and basic weren't like that, so if we were going to serve in real life combat situation, they would have ended up being a burden on the team, not being able to navigate terrain (Hamas doesn't care whether your soldier can't jump over that fence and into cover because the soldier sucks or because it's a female, he/she'd be a target either way) etc. So THAT approach, IMO, sucks.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Yes, but it should be based purely on merit.

My basic training + NCO course was mixed male/female, which is not common in the IDF. Women had different, much more lenient rules. It's been many years, but as I recall when doing push-ups they were only required that their arms bend to 90 degrees, while the males were required to bring their chest almost to the floor (a closed fist's distance, I think). And during the obstacle course training and tests they had a small bench they were allowed to use to go over the wall, while the men had to go over it from the ground.

and when training in navigation we were paired up man and woman, with the man always being the one who carried the hefty 6 kilo radio on the back. At least on one occasion I was paired up with a skinny girl that was like 145 cm (that's like 4' 9'' to you Yanks), to my eyes she had borderline dwarfism honestly, although I don't know for sure... so there's exactly zero chance she could have navigated the hilly desert terrain for hours on end carrying that radio in addition to an M-16, ammo, helmet and all that other crap we lugged around.

In my case our course wasn't aimed at frontline combat duty so that was less of an issue, but she and the other girls there ended up with the same qualifications as the males despite physically doing less, right?

If this was for combat duty, that would have been a terrible idea. If there's a particularly strong female that can keep up with the males that's one thing, but those girls in my course and basic weren't like that, so if we were going to serve in real life combat situation, they would have ended up being a burden on the team, not being able to navigate terrain (Hamas doesn't care whether your soldier can't jump over that fence and into cover because the soldier sucks or because it's a female, he/she'd be a target either way) etc. So THAT approach, IMO, sucks.

Even "particularly strong females" take permanent joint injuries at a rate an order of magnitude higher than the men. Their ability to perform short-term is not the only problem. You're just taking fantastically exceptional women physically, true patriots no less, and crippling them.

 

[Zachowon]

I mean one of my NCOs she is very freaking fit and makes a lot of males seem weak. She was also working with SF most of her career.

If one can fit in and do what needs to be done and stay in shape they do great.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Even "particularly strong females" take permanent joint injuries at a rate an order of magnitude higher than the men. Their ability to perform short-term is not the only problem. You're just taking fantastically exceptional women physically, true patriots no less, and crippling them.

not to make myself sound like a MRA incel, but why is it ok to cripple a man, but not a woman besides something something religion? Why not put all the effort that is used to train people, into creating infantry drones? Ie remote controlled terminators.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Even "particularly strong females" take permanent joint injuries at a rate an order of magnitude higher than the men. Their ability to perform short-term is not the only problem. You're just taking fantastically exceptional women physically, true patriots no less, and crippling them.

When patriots of whatever gender are willing to make sacrifices for their nation, who are you to tell them they're not allowed to? Especially since it's not as if men can actually withstand this without harm.

 

[Zachowon]

not to make myself sound like a MRA incel, but why is it ok to cripple a man, but not a woman besides something something religion? Why not put all the effort that is used to train people, into creating infantry drones? Ie remote controlled terminators.

Because there are things called Jammers. Guess what Jammers don't work on?

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

not to make myself sound like a MRA incel, but why is it ok to cripple a man, but not a woman

Is asking someone to take a 90% chance of loss the same as asking someone to take a 10% chance of loss?

When patriots of whatever gender are willing to make sacrifices for their nation, who are you to tell them they're not allowed to?

This argument equally applies to taking the crippled, the insane, and those with terminal illnesses.

Especially since it's not as if men can actually withstand this without harm.

Yet their chances are enormously better. It's like putting an asthmatic in a position to be exposed to lung damage when you have thousands of candidates with better odds of coming out without permanent injury just standing around.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Is asking someone to take a 90% chance of loss the same as asking someone to take a 10% chance of loss?

to rebuttable, my 2nd point. Would it not be better to invest in something that has a less than 1% risk vs something that has 10% risk. The fact of the matter is it's going to get to the point where Flesh infantry is just for show they'll be spending most of the time doing mundane stuff on the home front while the real soldiers (IE the drone pilots) Fight in what is essentially battleship and missile command on steroids. So why not give the illusion that every able bodied man woman and even child is ready to take up arms at a moments notice? Aren't we the culture that is so gun hoe about the right to bear arms?

more to the point, The fact of the matter is man's functions that are normally found in nature ARE GOING to be replaced by machines at some point. We are already seeing that in war and manufacturing and sooner than later we are going to see it in support and reproduction. Artificial insemination and test tube babies aren't the wild rantings of a mad man's science fiction. We'll either need to find new purposes in life, or we are going to face extinction regardless of whether a new machine race/species rises up or not.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

to rebuttable, my 2nd point.

Your second point is an unrelated non-sequitur, "robot military only" is not only not the topic of discussion, but also currently infeasible in a way that having an all male infantry force is not. You are talking about orders of magnitude difference in scale of restructuring and cost. It's like saying "Why dont we just have a quadrillion billion dollar military" in response to someone suggesting a new type of standard issue boot-lace.

So why not give the illusion that every able bodied man woman and even child is ready to take up arms at a moments notice? Aren't we the culture that is so gun hoe about the right to bear arms?

"Ready" and "doing" are two different things, I cant believe I'm having to explain this.

more to the point, The fact of the matter is man's functions that are normally found in nature ARE GOING to be replaced by machines at some point. We are already seeing that in war and manufacturing and sooner than later we are going to see it in support and reproduction. Artificial insemination and test tube babies aren't the wild rantings of a mad man's science fiction. We'll either need to find new purposes in life, or we are going to face extinction regardless of whether a new machine race/species rises up or not.

Unless people just, yknow, choose not to participate? You don't have to make your children in a lab, and if you do, then you're dealing with much larger problems than "something something cloning makes me sad".

 

[ShieldWife]

🙄

So if women aren’t as good in the military as men, then shouldn’t have men either! Egalitarianism takes us to absurd places.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Your second point is an unrelated non-sequitur, "robot military only" is not only not the topic of discussion, but also currently infeasible in a way that having an all male infantry force is not. You are talking about orders of magnitude difference in scale of restructuring and cost. It's like saying "Why don't we just have a quadrillion billion dollar military" in response to someone suggesting a new type of standard issue boot-lace.

I give it 50 years max and that's assuming they don't develop drones that deliver nukes first. and since when has budget mattered when it comes to military spending in the last 70 years or so?

Unless people just, yknow, choose not to participate? You don't have to make your children in a lab, and if you do, then you're dealing with much larger problems than "something something cloning makes me sad".

that has neither stopped the domination of the car, or nuclear bombs or even the computer. aside from a niech part of society, who fits horseshoes anymore or builds carriages?

So if women aren’t as good in the military as men, then shouldn’t have men either! Egalitarianism takes us to absurd places.

actually this is one of those rare cases where this is less about egalitarianism and more about that I think humanity is going to drive itself into obsoletion and I don't mean in a tumblr "Gender Neutral way." I mean in the sense that everything that defines a human according to nature is inevitably going to be done better faster and more efficient by machines. Which depending on your world view may or may not be a fate worse than death. So you either carve your purpose in life with your blood sweat and tears, or you vanish forgotten as if you never existed.

 

[ShieldWife]

Right then, I suppose we should strip the vote from the entire working class because they have historically voted for left wing/socialist parties? Do you see how daft that sounds all of a sudden? Reactionary politics are just as blanket retarded as revolutionary politics, and what feeds both is a broken education system and/or economy. If you want feminism gone, get them out of the schools so they can't poison the mind of another generation. Removing the franchise would just throw fuel on their fire.

Also, I find it somewhat disturbing that people are ultimately shrieking "they don't vote the way I like, so they shouldn't have the vote." Horseshoe theory in action I suppose.

Is voting a right? It sure isn’t in the US Constitution and wasn’t historically for most Western nations. Mostly these nations, including the USA, were set up or evolved to be Democratic Republics, not pure a democracies.

Is it acceptable for 51% of the population to vote the other 49% into slavery or even have them exterminated? Why, they won the vote right? Is that 51% to have an all powerful voice when most are ignorant and apathetic, only learning about politics being spoon fed to them through a handful of media companies? Can one party just flood a nation with hostile foreigners and promise them a share of the nation’s money for their vote? That is the “democracy” that we have now, which is an utter mockery of the ideals of democracy, which is that the people’s voices be heard in government.

I would not sacrifice Western Civilization on the alter of Democracy, especially when it’s been so subverted in virtually every way.

Feminism can’t be pushed out of education, the far left owns education now and forever, from pre-K to post-doc, it is wholly theirs. Which is why I favor alternatives.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

I give it 50 years max

Right, like I said, orders of magnitude off what we're talking about.

that's assuming they don't develop drones that deliver nukes first.

You can drop a nuke off a Drone right now.

and since when has budget mattered when it comes to military spending in the last 70 years or so?

Every single second.

that has neither stopped the domination of the car, or nuclear bombs or even the computer.

People in broad terms have no vital existential reason to not drive a car or to shoe horses.

actually this is one of those rare cases where this is less about egalitarianism and more about that I think humanity is going to drive itself into obsoletion and I don't mean in a tumblr "Gender Neutral way." I mean in the sense that everything that defines a human according to nature is inevitably going to be done better faster and more efficient by machines. Which depending on your world view may or may not be a fate worse than death.

If your only barometer of the development of technology and the logistics to support it is science fiction, sure.

 

[ShieldWife]

You do know that currently nuclear weapons aren’t carried to their destination in an infantryman’s backpack?