Girl Power

Date
Canonical
7190
Archive
7190 [history]

The men of our species (I’m assuming you are human) are bigger, faster and stronger than the females and it is not even close. I speak “on average” here. There are small, frail men and big brawny women, but those are both outliers. Even wimpy men are bigger, faster and stronger than the typical woman. That’s why the best women’s college basketball team scrimmages against frat boys, rather than male athletes.

There was a presidential commission on the topic 25 years ago when the push for women in combat was first broached by the usual suspects. They published a report that you can buy if you’re interested. In that report, they concluded that the average female in her early adulthood is as physically capable as a typical late middle-aged man. They found that just 3.4% of female Army recruits could score at the mean for male recruits. After basic, that number fell to below one percent.

The above is a hate-crime, of course, and not intended to be taken literally. Let’s just say it is a theoretical construct in order to evaluate this story coming out of the Marine Corp this week.

Marine leaders have proposed a new physical fitness test that would still allow women to do the flexed-arm hang — but they’re not likely to earn a first-class score without pullups.

A new plan for the PFT would require most women to do between eight and 10 pullups to net a max score on that portion of the test.

The potential change is in response to a fitness review ordered by Commandant Gen. Robert Neller. Marine leaders found that “some current [fitness] standards are either not relevant, not challenging or not attainable,” according to a briefing obtained by Marine Corps Times. The plan was presented to Marine leaders last week.

Women would still be allowed to do the flexed-arm hang under a new proposal, but would be given little incentive to do so. Points for the flexed-arm hang would max out at 50, while one pullup would be worth 51 points.

In the PC age, the people in charge have to engage in all sorts of weird processes to work around the limitations placed on them by the lunatic cult in charge, but do so in a way that flatters the lunatics. In this case, the Marines have to have effective combat units, but do so in a way that permits them to pretend they are enthusiastic about having females in those units, even though that means degrading those combat units.

The lunatics insist that females are smaller, slower and weaker because of the patriarchy. Years of oppression by the pale penis people forced women into these “gender roles” that cause them to be smaller, weaker and slower than men. The solution is to get a bunch of people killed trying to prove this point and magically, our women will all look like Armenian males. It’s human sacrifice to please the gods, if there was such a thing as gods. Why this is good for anyone is never explained, but shut up.

This is not just a denial of observable reality. It is a denial of biology as a science. One of the big reasons humans rose to the top of the food chain is the division of labor. Most evolutionary biologists think one reason Neanderthals failed is there was no division of labor between the sexes. Having females specialize at things best for producing and rearing children, and men specialize in hunting and defense, was a huge edge for modern man, compared to previous smart monkeys.

Behavioral science also argues against women in combat. Men have evolved for combat. We’re literally built for it and not just physically, but cognitively. Our competition for mates is about denying the rival a chance to mate and the surest way of doing that is to kill him. Female competition for mates is about gaining the attention of males, not slaughtering the other females. Anyone who has been around children knows you have to train males to be civil; it comes natural for little girls.

Since we live in the age of hating the pale penis people, reality is no longer a limit to this sort of lunacy. Like the Air Force, the Marines will hunt around for a gal they can pretend is Audi Murphy so they can load her up with medals and display her as an example of their progressive enthusiasm. Everyone will pretend this is typical, even normal, in order to keep the religious police from hustling them off to a re-education camp.

This is the price we pay for allowing a cult to gain control of our country. The Stupid Tax is the price we pay for making every safe for the dumbest members of society. A few pennies are tacked onto shampoo bottles, for example, so that a warning can be placed on the outside telling the stupid not to drink shampoo. When the stupid person sues, the shampoo maker can say he did his best to warn the stupid about the dangers of drinking shampoo. Billions are siphoned from society to accommodate the stupid in this way.

What the military is facing is a Lunatic Tax. They can still drive off the dangerously stupid, but they have to accommodate the the whims of the  lunatics. That means re-engineering their combat units so they can have a sprinkling of girls in them. When the angry bull-dyke Senator visits, they can show her how enthusiastic they are for girls in combat. This also requires a catalog of euphemisms and esoteric rules to game the theocrats. Everyone in the military now speaks in tongues.

This will not end well.

To keep Z Man's voice alive for future generations, we’ve archived his writings from the original site at thezman.com. We’ve edited out ancillary links, advertisements, and donation requests to focus on his written content.

Comments (Historical)

The comments below were originally posted to thezman.com.

36 Comments

Kathleen #11395 April 20, 2016 6
I understood early on, at age 17, the difference in physical strength between males and females. I was on the girls cross-country team and preferred to run with the boys team for practice because the other girls were too slow. Some of these boys were roughly my size and I thought that during the meet (boys & girls teams usually ran the course at the same time) that I would easily beat some of them. Imagine my surprise when every single boy from my team crossed the finish line before me. I always trained hard, I wasn’t slow, and often placed during a race, but the boys were stronger and faster, simply because they were boys. There is girl power and there is boy power, but they are not the same, nor should they be. Women in infantry is just stupid and everyone except the feminists knows it.
Randarius Honeypickle #11398 April 20, 2016 2
in every sport the very best female athletes (i.e. world champion level) perform at about the level of a decent high school male athlete. this is backed up by objective statistics. there’s no substitute for T.
James LePore #11372 April 20, 2016 6
Among the many, many bad things that have happened on Obama’s orders, arguably the worst is the sissification of the military. Not the grunts, who do the fighting, but the brass. I am astonished at how many cultists there are among them, especially in high places. I am constantly hoping to see a story about a general or admiral who resigns rather than carry out “inclusiveness” orders that are a danger to the lives of his troops, but I never do see one. Without real warriors, we are defenseless.
thezman #11373 April 20, 2016 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8EITu5ZYo8 Frankly, I would have applauded if Casey had been marched out and shot after that appearance.
James LePore #11378 April 20, 2016 0
Sick.
Drake #11379 April 20, 2016 2
I would have volunteered for the squad.
Anon #11390 April 20, 2016 2
How about when they abused soldiers by forcing them to walk in women’s high heeled shoes?If they’d do that to enemy combatants, it would be called a war crime.I say: either force terrorists to do it in order to spread ‘awareness’ of gender-trans-bla-bla or fire whoever did it to American soldiers. Prison would work too, and make him wear high heels while at prison.
James LePore #11403 April 20, 2016 1
As Bob Grant used to say, it’s sick out there, and getting sicker.
Strelnikov #11388 April 20, 2016 2
Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing. -John Derbyshire, Conquest’s Laws
Chazz #11382 April 20, 2016 5
Envision the histrionics in Washington when infantry squad leader, 2nd Lt. Sissy Smith, is taken in by the boys from ISIS for group games.
Strelnikov #11386 April 20, 2016 0
Major rush to the fainting couches by the usual suspects on the Left, asking why she was “protected”.
Strelnikov #11387 April 20, 2016 2
Should read “was not”.
Wayne Parker #11401 April 20, 2016 6
It already happened with Jessica Lynch. Private Lynch got captured and was “tortured” (read, sexually assaulted/raped and brutalized) by her Iraqi captors. The rape part was kept out of the press because it would undermine support for the PC agenda that put her and other women in combat. Liberals think that modern warfare is so technologically driven that there will be few, if any prisoners, in future wars. That’s a pipe dream and we are going to see many, many more American females in combat roles who get captured and become sexual playthings for their captors.
Drake #11377 April 20, 2016 5
Fred Reed wrote up this lunacy a long time ago.http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.htmlI spent 6 years in the Marine Reserves including a Desert Shield / Storm deployment with an Infantry Battalion, and 4 more in the Army National Guard. I never met an enlisted female Marine or Soldier with the slightest desire to be in the Infantry. As the men were forming up for a long march to the field with 80 to 100 lb combat loads, the ladies (er, Woman Marines) would retire to the office or jump in a safety vehicle. Never once did one march with us – even without a pack. Carrying a full combat load on a march is pretty well impossible for a woman.Here’s the thing about PT standards – they are shortcuts. A true test of a Marine’s fitness would be a 25-mile march on relatively flat terrain in under 6 hours with 80 lbs of gear – followed immediately by a run through the short obstacle course and push-ups. That would be a decent simulation of the physical stress of moving to a battlefield and engaging in combat. We did that kind of stuff in Infantry School.But – that would take an entire day and kill a fair number of chariborne rangers. So we run, and sit-ups, and chin-ups instead.
thezman #11381 April 20, 2016 6
Technology is changing the role of the combat soldier, but that does not change basic biology. As long as we want humans going into to fight other humans up close and personal, there are physical requirements, as well as cognitive requirements. That last part gets forgotten. Lots of men can’t pull the trigger. But, on average, men are vastly more willing to kill than are women.
Wayne Parker #11391 April 20, 2016 2
Despite the advancements in technology, there is no getting around the severe physical fitness requirements needed for combat. Talk to anyone who served in Afghanistan about being helicoptered into a mountain zone then having to hike mile after mile with 60-80 pounds of combat gear.
thezman #11393 April 20, 2016 1
Yep. There’s no getting around it and it is not just combat roles. There will always be physical requirements for any work. I’m watching guys load their work truck as I type this. They are carrying gas bottles on their shoulder. That’s a requirement for their job. This should not be so hard.
Wayne Parker #11400 April 20, 2016 3
Agree but it is hard because of what you described above, an ideologically-driven but unrealistic belief that flies in the face of objective realities, i.e. men and women are fundamentally the same and anything that denies women the right to do the same job or role as a man must be discriminatory and therefore outlawed. As a law student, I heard all this nonsense in law school and still hear it from women at work, in the gym and elsewhere in society (I live in SF and so they lay on the PC drivel rather thick here). It’s a symptom of the ideological virus spreading throughout this country for the last 40 years that holds that in modern, secular society everyone must make everyone else feel like a full member of the group, no matter how objectively different an individual is from the norm that makes that group identifiable. Pointing out someone’s differences or deficiencies from the norm is characterized as “hate speech” or “micro-aggression,” and cannot be tolerated. Maintaining traditional behavioral standards and patterns of interaction, e.g. gender based bathrooms based on these obvious biological differences, is even more egregious. You’ll likely have noted that these efforts to play down the biological differences between men and women are very closely linked to arguments in favor of treating transgenders not by the gender assigned by nature at birth but by what they “self-identify” as, i.e. what their lunacy tells them they should be.
Drake #11434 April 21, 2016 0
Right now, the technological changes are driving ever heavier combat loads for the Infantry. I suspect it will get worse as the girl in the platoon can’t carry an extra ammo box or radio. Tom Kratman has written several articles about how are Soldiers and Marines are too weighted down – carrying far more than WWII GIs or Roman Legionnaires ever dreamed of. http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/06/23/politics/the-soldiers-load-the-immobility-of-a-nation/
Crispin #11397 April 20, 2016 0
“chariborne rangers” ROTFL I hereby notify you that I’m stealing that. It’s going right into my arsenal. Thanks!
Tim #11399 April 20, 2016 4
This insane policy is simply part of a mindset that our military is never really going to have to fight in a real war. The navy’s littoral combat ship, for example, is simply a foolish naval architects version of women in combat. What going to happen is we are going to get our asses kicked and hard. And the nasty thing about it is that the people responsible will never accept the blame, and given their control of the culture, never have to accept responsibility. That this is not going to end well is the understatement of the age. Tim
Buckaroo Banzai #11408 April 20, 2016 0
Littoral Combat Ships are colloquially known as “Little Crappy Ships” which cracks me up.
Wayne Parker #11458 April 22, 2016 0
The mindset in Washington DC (and often with the military itself) for the last 25 years, i.e. since the fall of the Soviet Union, is that our military will never have to take on an opposing military force that is capable of at least offering the kind of resistance the results in the probability of high casualties and extended conflict, never mind the real risk of defeating our military in unequivocal terms. The US has spent the last 17 years or so picking fights with nation-states or groups that cannot hope to defeat us except (at worst) in smaller engagements. If you even mention the risk of a shooting war with a nation-state with the means to offer meaningful resistance, e.g. Russia or China, you’ll see the US takes a very different tack in its policies than it might if they were dealing with a country like Iraq, Libya or Syria. Prime examples include the war in Ukraine, the Caucasus conflicts and China’s patently illegal seizure of islets in the South China Sea. In short, one hears a very different tune from the politicians and politicians-in-uniform inside the DC Beltway when they recognize they are dealing with counter parties that have the means and will to make life very hard for Americans. When very large casualties become a likelihood, then risk-gain calculations and behavior change.
Glenn #11371 April 20, 2016 4
This will not end well. But it will end. Remember, the best battle plan seldom survives the first encounter with the enemy
Zeroh Tollrants #11439 April 21, 2016 3
So women in combat now? Ok, then I am in favor for a draft all across the board & think we should institute a mandatory 2 yrs for both sexes in the military immediately after high school. My ancestors have served and died in every single war this country has had, and I have a son and 5 grandsons. Maybe it’s time for these feminists to actually have flesh and blood commitment in this country and it might mean an improvement in their horrific voting habits.
Wayne Parker #11392 April 20, 2016 3
I served six years (1990-1996) as an active USMC artillery officer, several of those years as a forward observer with a NGFS/forward observer team loaded down with all the gear the USMC infantry carried plus our heavy radios. When I went through “Bulldog” officer candidate training and then attended The Basic School in Quantico the following summer, in both instances there were WMs (women Marine officer candidates or commissioned junior officers) in our class or the class right ahead of us. On ALL the route marches where we carried 50-60 pounds of gear for treks of 9-25 miles, the WMs, organized in their own platoon, would diverge from our march route after about the first one-half mile. The males went in one direction at one marching speed, while the women went in another direction at another speed. We’d only see them again at the destination point where they were waiting because they’d marched less distance than we did that day. They also carried less combat gear and marched at a far slower rate of speed than we did (at Bulldog, humps are the primary tool for weeding out physically unfit officer candidates). The PFT standards for WMs were clearly set up to take into account biological realities while providing political cover so that women could serve in the Corps. I NEVER saw a WM do more than 3 pull-ups and the great majority only did the flexed arm hang, which was not an option for male Marines. That’s why the USMC and Army only put women in combat service support roles where the likelihood of them being in combat was believed to be minimal. Bottom line: the senior-most military leaders and politicians have been sacrificing combat readiness for decades now to placate feminists and liberal politicians despite the obvious fact that very few, if any, women can met the time-proven physical fitness standards for combat. Nature decided long ago that women and men are not the same and the attempts to lower combat fitness standards to accommodate women so that politicians far from the battlefield can claim some moral victory for feminism is going has already gotten soldiers, sailors and Marines killed. This latest news on the PFT, which by the way is no real test for combat fitness, is merely more evidence of the moral bankruptcy reigning in the ranks of the senior-most officers of the US military.
Anon #11389 April 20, 2016 2
I want America to have a leader who’ll point out the government should stop giving financial incentive for grievance mongering. It’s no different from insurance scams. Imagine if without any investigation, insurance money would be given to every single person who says “I’ve been injured”, would there be more or fewer scammers.We have to stop victim-culture. The culture of deliberately going out of your way to feel aggrieved.
Anon #11394 April 20, 2016 4
I’ll add that in the past, the genuinely aggrieved worked hard to overcome genuine difficulties whereas grievance-culture today says the way to get ahead is by focusing on your (often manufactured) grievance. There are countless professional grievance mongers (CAIR is a perfect example) and “outreach officers” whose jobs depend on this culture. How many outreach officers were there in the 50’s? Yet Poles, Irish, Jews, Italians somehow managed, often coming to America poor and without speaking English. If you can’t make it in America today, it isn’t because you’re the wrong color or a woman.
Strelnikov #11384 April 20, 2016 2
1) “our women will all look like Armenian males”. See, Kardashian, any.2) I worry about the constant portrayal in popular media of the physically superior female, capable of manhandling any male in sight. My worry is that girls raised on this myth will believe it,and get badly hurt or killed.
Dutch #11413 April 20, 2016 1
The physical differences are obvious and well understood, but what about the mental differences between men and women? A man, when challenged, will typically double down, against all odds or logic, because his manhood is at stake. Women typically fold when challenged, and will not double down.
Anon #11424 April 21, 2016 1
Since not every woman (or man) goes to the army, the army can filter out those who will not double down, so this isn’t a genuine argument against women in combat. I think the demoralizing effect of having women killed or captured/raped/executed in combat is a genuinely good argument.
james wilson #11383 April 20, 2016 1
What does it say about each individual woman who is now inserted into a marine combat unit? She, least of all, has any illusions of equality. What quality of person allows herself to fill this role? Female mma fighters have no illusions where they stand against men, pound for pound or otherwise, possibly excepting Rhonda Rousey before she got punched in the mouth for the first time and quit the sport. I have not heard more but the lunatics were knocking hard on the door of the submariners.
Strelnikov #11385 April 20, 2016 2
Before her crushing, Rousey responded to multiple mentions in the press that it was “unfair” that she was not “allowed” to fight men. To her credit, she said is was insane for any woman to even consider getting in the ring with the average MMA fighter. MSNBC/NYT/CBS/etc. thought it was great idea, but she did not.
james wilson #11396 April 20, 2016 4
Not in her defense, she was taunting Mayweather that he couldn’t deal with her in the ring. The most important single characteristic of a successful fighter is not how hard he hits, but how hard he can be hit, and for how long.
Friday morning links - Maggies Farm #11442 April 22, 2016 0
[…] Z-man on women in combat: […]
junior #11438 April 21, 2016 0
As a serving member of an army in which women do occupy combat arms roles, both as enlisted and officers, the issue should be about access. In other words if the person can do the job within the proscribed standards, then it shouldn’t matter too much which reproductive organs they possess. See Caracal Battalion IDF, R22eR and so on. As for load carriage:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455089/20150820-FOI06779_The_Soldiers_Load.pdf


Back to top