A Rebuttal to Krantzstone:
Krantzstone Item 1:
Women couldn’t fight because men wouldn’t let them, because of patriarchal notions that women must be protected and treated like dainty flowers.
Not really. Women are not usually conscripted like men since the pool of candidates is relatively unlikely to yield adequate quantities of competitive units. It is no different in how drafts usually do not include the elderly, the disabled (fighter aircraft are usually not designed for wheelchair access and don’t think that Douglas Bader isn’t more of a propaganda tool than realistically a good “example”), or children. While one can argue ad nauseam that a certain percentage of females could “make the grade”, realistically, it is an exercise that speciously ignores the huge (as in really huge) difference in yield ratio.
Why are they usually barred from active combat duty then, some ask? As hard as it is for “womyn strong!” types to accept, practically all women cannot even come close to competing with men in a close quarter combat scenario. Even stand-off units (say an artillery unit) is still in danger of being set upon and therefore reduced to hand-to-hand. There have been females in combat air-to-air roles but on the ground, it’s still a man’s war. Why not let them compete for the role. Sure. That’s happening, but don’t be surprised to see that very few will get into a front line unit based on sex agnostic evaluation.
“Treated like dainty flowers”? Don’t start putting words in people’s mouths now. But, while you are at it, most women absolutely want to be treated like princesses. Those that want to be just like one of guys? Well considering that practically every “equality minded” feminist advocate immediately goes to ad hominem, straw man arguments, etc… when confronted with a unassailable logical defense, it is unlikely they are look to gain knowledge or seek the truth. Their egos are easily bruised, and certainly far easier that the men they oppose (which, incidentally, is not a good attribute for a combat unit). So, you tell us, what is the evidence that most women, even the ones that “say” they don’t identify as a dainty flower, don’t act like they are special snowflakes?
Krantzstone Item 2:
And women have fought and died for their native countries on many occasions throughout history, that have even been recorded, as even a casual Google search would net you examples both historical and modern:
So? Fighting and dying for your country does not mean that women are anywhere equal to the capabilities of men in a combat role. All that says is that they were in combat.
Now if these cursory Google searches could show examples where a mainly female force dominated a mainly male force (all other aspects being roughly equal) then you might have a point. However, outside of movies and fiction, that challenge will be answered with a chorus of crickets (or a bunch of insults and name calling).
As far as desire, you only have to look as far as professions like plumbing. That’s a dirty, physical job, there is no glamour, and there isn’t any real impediment from women apprenticing for such a career. Joining the ranks is voluntary and the numbers show us that equal outcome just isn’t happening. That should be proof that, given the equal opportunity, women tend to avoid brute force, messy jobs. What was that? Housekeeping is messy too? Where are the guys there? Well, aside from the plethora of male janitors and sanitation workers, consider that plumbing makes way more and you can do the simple mental exercise and figure out where all those guys are. Argue all you want, but the numbers don’t lie.
Krantzstone Item 3:
American women in uniform have been serving in de facto combat roles in Afghanistan even though they are technically disallowed from the front lines (again, not laws women wrote but have been forced to adhere to), and most recently women soldiers have finally been allowed to serve in the special forces.
Aside from being a human delivery system for an IED, there isn’t really a role in a front line unit that you can’t find better fulfilled with a man.
The critical thing that “womyn strong” types forget is that while you can fill your ranks with women, the opponent is not going to “play along” and do the same. They will have it filled with the best units they can find, and that will be literally, all men. It’s combat. People wear armor and use weapons. Bare hand martial arts do not account for this. Even Ju-Jitsu, while designed for Samurai-to-Samurai combat will be trumped by an adversary that can really swing a trenching tool, or is just that much stronger and meaner. When it comes to hand-to-hand, it’s medieval. No one is going to offer “equality of outcome” on the battlefield.
That is why most armed forces have historically avoided all this political correctness when push comes to shove and just stuck to what worked.
Krantzstone Item 4:
Who was preventing women from military service? Men in the service of patriarchy.
Who wrote the laws preventing women from active combat duty? Patriarchal men.
Who decided women weren’t strong enough, capable enough, or that they would be distractions to male soldiers? Men with patriarchal views and values.
As before, the “patriarchy” also didn’t activate the middle-aged or teenagers until the situation got dire. When it got really desperate, they then reached for women too. So, does the “patriarchy” prevent women from military service? Not really, it all a matter of how desperate they become. If you are still thinking that they should allow it even before then, please have a look at a combat sport like MMA. It has rules, in that maiming or killing strikes are not allowed, but it roughly illustrates the point. Do you really think that, given all the men they can choose from, that a woman, regardless of size, will be a champion, if they allowed mixed-sex combat? Seriously, even the top female fighter wouldn’t last 1 minute with a mediocre male opponent.
Who decided women weren’t strong enough? Well, that would be all of us in that it is decided by millions of years of evolution that involves that inconvenient thing called “sexual dimorphism”. No “patriarchy” involved there (unless you think it some grand conspiracy by nature itself… and isn’t it “mother” nature). Hey, blame, “mom”. Even the strongest woman is hardly stronger than the average fit guy. Put him in the gym for a couple of months and he’s definitely going to be stronger. Oh, and combat isn’t about dead lifts. A lot of it is about reactive strength in close quarters.
Besides, what are you going to do? Offer up 1 female powerlifter against 1,000 men who are mostly as strong. It’s a numbers game, and that’s even allowing for the really rare super-strong woman. Re-read the comments above about MMA. All the “exception to the rule” arguments are nonsense. No nation is going to waste resources trying to adjust for sex-agnostic armed forces to accommodate for very few women that are only just making the grade (sure, they might write new laws and regulations, but that’s just window dressing). Fill the ranks of plumbing first… then come back and demand some attention to this.
Krantzstone Item 5:
You’re exactly the kind of willful ignoramus who has swallowed the MRA’s “groupthink, social engineering and manufactured hysteria” hook, line and sinker, and need to go back to school and learn some critical thinking, because your cognitive biases are showing.
No. If anyone is being deliberately ignorant, it would be you. Women are generally exempt from front line combat duties simply because it is a waste of time to process all the candidates that wouldn’t make the grade in a fair assessment selection process. It’s no different than why they don’t include 12 year olds or 60 year olds in a draft or allow them into the service (well, not at first).
What’s with the MRA label? The guys here probably see them as either a parody of “womynz rights” more than anything else. I’ve shown you how your specious arguments are all unfounded, so you are effectively unqualified to make any assessment of his acumen. Feel free to attempt a rebuttal, but pretending sexual dimorphism in humans isn’t a huge factor in why primary military selection excludes women from front line duties is a fallacious foundation.
Your selective cognition is showing.
Krantzstone Item 6:
You are a prime example of someone incapable of owning up to and taking responsibility for their own life’s choices and outcomes, instead choosing to blame anyone other than your own damned self for problems that you created. You exist for nothing but to blame women, and particularly feminist women, for issues actually created by patriarchy and perpetuated by cisgender men like you because you can’t see how you participate in your own oppression every single day.
This is just the usual ad hominem that SJW’s hurl out along with the name-calling as a “defense” (as in as a deflection and attempt to harm the opponent).
At any rate, just what is Gorf doing that has you arriving at that conclusion? Do you know about his personal life or has there been some direct connection to disagreeing with your narrative that means the critic must be in denial of their own responsibility? He mentioned manual labor, personal responsibility and short men as three things that many women demonstratively avoid. For that you assume that he is waiting for a woman to do some chores, admit fault and date him (because you assume he must be directly linked to these things)? What? If he mentioned the First World War… he was there? Please. Your non-sequitur illogic is shameful.
He’s actually brought up some valid points. Women generally avoid hard physical work. The constant whining of “Patriarchy” and “oppression” hasn’t changed how “equal opportunity” in STEM has not produced equal outcome (as in contributions by women to the sciences). If you think women are agnostic to how a man “measures’ up to the magic 6 foot bar you are ignoring how many women behave on dating sites. If anything, the “Patriarchy” is far more egalitarian than how women act when given a chance at authority… every single day.
Krantzstone Item 7:
You are the only person able to free yourself of the shackles which oppress you, and the best tool available to you to critically analyze and deconstruct your own oppression is, ironically, intersectional feminism, which explains in detail exactly how patriarchy oppresses _everyone_, including men, and how to fight it. You’re just too obsessed with hating feminist women to see it.
It is expected that a neo-feminist supporter would consider the free pass from having to risk one’s life and limb as “oppressive”. It is no different from those with the hubris to think that having to wear a bicycle helmet or seat belts is taking away “personal freedom”. It’s steeped in the same arrogance of some that feel their “feelings” of their sexual identity somehow alters the biological definition (like “if I believe and act like I have three arms, I am actually a three-armed human trapped in a two-armed body”).
The reality is that things like conscription laws are based on the actual distribution of abilities. Since sexual dimorphism dramatically skews the combat abilities of males and females, then realistic legislation reflects it. It’s not a minor difference. It’s huge. Sure. One can say, “Well what about the rare exception?” Well, you could argue the same thing for some guy in a wheelchair. Certainly with augmentation, he could function just as well as a guy with working legs. Perhaps we should make all battlefields wheelchair accessible? You might think that is just ridicule, but it is not. If we had to add that much enhancement to “even the playing field” then we should really stick to the more prudent plan of only getting those that don’t need it. Hence, conscription is for able-bodied men within a given age range. Opening that up to old men, kids and women is just being… well… inefficient. Only neo-feminists would complain about not having the personal choice to go get killed, even when given the “personal choice” to go into plumbing, you see very few women in overalls laying pipes.
Modern feminism isn’t about seeking “equality of opportunity”. It’s about “equality of outcome” disguised as egalitarianism. It’s about attempting to have the state legislate conditions such that others (mainly men) cannot exercise their natural advantage in the situations where they have a natural advantage. Calling the situation “oppression” is just the usual dramatics to create a sense of moral justification. You don’t see modern feminists being anywhere as vocal at tearing down social norms that are in their favor either.
Those with “victim” mentality are all about self-aggrandizing to rationalize their plight. It’s all about the “Oh the establishment is trying to keep us down because they are afraid of us” delusion. Any criticism of them is dismissed as more of the phantom “oppression”. The litmus test is in how neo-feminists recycle the same old lies (yes, LIES) to promote their victimhood. The 23% wage gap myth, the “rape” culture, “street harassment”, etc… all are extreme exaggerations at best. When the falsehoods are exposed, the “womyn strong” gang just resort to trolling. Their hostility is easy to see and proof that they are the ones who are seething with hate. No. People do not hate neo-feminists. People are disgusted with their immaturity, intolerance and self-righteousness. They hardly earn the respect to be “hated”.
Krantzstone Item 8:
For once, please use the internet to educate yourself instead of spewing your ignorance all over it
You advocate the promotion of intolerant and self-serving agendas like neo-feminism (and that includes whatever brand name you want to differentiate your sect as) and tell others they need to get educated?
Seriously, your whole premise is that women would be somehow “equal” in combat effectiveness if they were given the chance. That wholly ignores how sexual dimorphism puts them at a serious disadvantage in a hand-to-hand scenario. Some will try the argument that “modern” warfare is far removed from such primal methods, but it is naïve to think that combat doesn’t eventually spiral down to that. Stop spreading YOUR ignorance.