Timmy elsewhereJanuary 13, 2015 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere29 CommentsAt the ASI. An outbreak of feminist waffle over in Germany. previousWe’ve discussed this here beforenextOh come on guys, seriously? 29 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” So Much for Subtlety January 13, 2015 at 9:29 am The problem is not that it is waffle. It is that having women in the Army displays an utter lack of a basic understanding of what Armies do. They have no business there. They cannot survive there except by dumbing down every single physical and mental standard until a child could pass them – at the risk of other soldiers’ lives. If you’re going to debase the Army into a form of community outreach with relatively short hair cuts, you may as well stop pretending you are a serious military at all. And so why not promote some typist to be a General? It is not as if the Germans give a damn about defending their country any more. If they did, they would not allow women to serve. Surreptitious Evil January 13, 2015 at 9:55 am SMFS picks up his Field Marshal’s baton and waves it furiously. Again. To the same level of inconsequential drivel that he usually manages when he speaks on defence. We don’t have that many women in our unit. Which isn’t that surprising as it a very female-lite area in civvie-strasse. However, one of them is the CO and another is a Lt Col. They achieved that on merit without “dumbing down every physical and mental standard.” In fact, they both do far more of the physical tests than I do. Mark T January 13, 2015 at 10:00 am It is interesting that the sisterhood demand quotas in boardrooms but not on construction sites.Or in steelworks or down mines. How about we impose male quotas in newsrooms and amongst commissioning editors? Something like 70% of ITN newsreaders are female, almost all of the ones under 50 are. Is this fair? So Much for Subtlety January 13, 2015 at 10:13 am Surreptitious Evil – “They achieved that on merit without “dumbing down every physical and mental standard.”” How do you know? “In fact, they both do far more of the physical tests than I do.” Indeed. One of the side effects of women in the military is feminisation of the men in the military. So when female soldiers in Panama cried because they were asked to drive a truck somewhere they might get shot at, so did the male soldiers in their unit. Just as British sailors, male and female, cried when taken prison by the Iranians. Mark T – “It is interesting that the sisterhood demand quotas in boardrooms but not on construction sites.Or in steelworks or down mines.” Don’t encourage them to put quotas on newsreaders. They are already demanding more old trouts. But I notice they are not demanding quotas on university places either. Even though they dumbed down the entire system to guarantee female students higher marks, there is no suggestion of moving back to a more rigorous system now female students are 60+% of the student body. Surreptitious Evil January 13, 2015 at 10:32 am How do you know? “In fact, they both do far more of the physical tests than I do.” Indeed. One of the side effects of women in the military is feminisation of the men in the military. You really are utterly ignorant, aren’t you? Would you believe that I have actually served with them for over 10 years and, in one case, been the 1RO for one of them? Not all male soldiers have been poster children for the Rambo movies. In fact, one of the better descriptions of military bravery is that you can’t get there until you are scared – bravery is doing what you know might kill or injure you. tl;dr for the next bit: it isn’t as hard or as damaging as the nay-sayers say. Anyway, when the Royal Navy did “Wrens at Sea” in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were a whole bunch of objections from hidebound traditionalists, experienced serving personnel (male and female) and the wives. Some of them involved all the changes needed to ships’ accommodation and facilities* (this from a Navy that has no problem providing different facilities for the CO, Senior Officers, other officers, officers under training, Chiefs, POs and Jack), the impact on fighting efficiency, that women weren’t up to the job and that there would be loads of illicit shagging**. Women, the WRNS having long been disbanded, serve at sea, even on submarines***. Tim makes the “time to gain experience” point more than adequately so I’m going to pass on that one. I have served, operationally, with women in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan and have had no different experience in competence or fitness^ with female compared to male soldiers. Currently, the British Army is looking to see if women should serve in combat arms. There will be issues – fewer women will be capable of passing infantry, especially light infantry, qualification courses. Probably far fewer problems with the Royal Armoured Corps. However, the US Army and Marine Corps have been worrying about this for ages and have managed to squeeze a few women through. But when they did a joint training course in Korea, with the Korean Army, and there was no “tyranny of expectations”, the two Korean women passed (the failure rate for the tests was over 80%.) * They did have to change the design of Ops Room seats to accommodate the wider arrses of WRNS. ** This one proved clearly true. There had always been an expectation that Jack would play around when in for’n parts. But he wouldn’t bring them home and the passage back would normally be long enough for the MO to correct anything else he was bringing back. However, if the girlfriend is on the ship with you … *** Briefly served at sea, dived, with a female officer. Not as part of any formal trial. ^ In my last tour of Iraq, the fittest person in the Brigade (in Army running with a large pack terms) was a fairly petite young woman. Admittedly, this is anecdata and she was a national level athlete (hockey player IIRC). So Much for Subtlety January 13, 2015 at 11:06 am Surreptitious Evil – “You really are utterly ignorant, aren’t you?” Soooo ….. you don’t know, they are just mates and so you want to believe it? That’s what you’re saying right? You were not actually sitting on their promotion Board? You have no special inside knowledge? You just want it to be true? “Not all male soldiers have been poster children for the Rambo movies. In fact, one of the better descriptions of military bravery is that you can’t get there until you are scared – bravery is doing what you know might kill or injure you.” No, but it would be nice if a soldier could throw a grenade further than it could kill her. It would be nice if she was capable of carrying another soldier out of danger if he is wounded. It would be nice if she could dig a fox hole. It would be nice if she could lift the fire fighting equipment in case of emergency. You know, little things. And bravery is the point. Women soldiers do not have a record of bravery. At least not in the US Army. Nor are they punished when they decline to do dangerous tasks. Every single war America has fought since Panama has had cases of female soldiers refusing orders, in tears, and not being punished for it. “have had no different experience in competence or fitness^ with female compared to male soldiers.” Because standards have been lowered to the point that women can pass them. “However, the US Army and Marine Corps have been worrying about this for ages and have managed to squeeze a few women through.” By a massive reduction in standards. “But when they did a joint training course in Korea, with the Korean Army, and there was no “tyranny of expectations”, the two Korean women passed (the failure rate for the tests was over 80%.)” Got a reference? I like the idea that the Koreans, one of the most deeply sexist societies on the planet, did not have a tyranny of expectations. “Admittedly, this is anecdata and she was a national level athlete (hockey player IIRC).” I expect that the British national hockey team would be beaten by any one of the top twenty male high school hockey teams. As has regularly happened in the US with, for instance, the national Volleyball team. So Much for Subtlety January 13, 2015 at 11:13 am Those Korean soldiers? They would be these two would they? http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20141028/NEWS/310280049/2-Korean-soldiers-first-women-earn-Expert-Infantryman-Badge Notice they say, twice, that they had a lot of help from the other soldiers which enabled them to pass. The women successfully tested for the EIB “not because of their expert skills, but because there were 21 soldiers from the 21st Infantry Division that competed with them, pushing and pulling each other, helping each other out,” Kwon, 21, said I find it hard to imagine Minzy there passing a physical test most men fail. JuliaM January 13, 2015 at 11:28 am Mark T: “It is interesting that the sisterhood demand quotas in boardrooms but not on construction sites.” It’s bin day today. Do you know my refuse collectors are 100% male? It’s an outrage, I tell you! We need a quota system! Steve January 13, 2015 at 12:22 pm What JuliaM said. Bastard Patriarchal bin men. The Germany army must introduce quotas to boost the number of female officers Nah. They *must* eat, sleep, and go to the toilet. More female officers is not a *must*, Germans arms have done well enough since Roman times without them. Lady soldiers are, in fact, and pace SE above, a frivolous progressive vanity project. Women are – and I love them dearly, and this is not a criticism – of limited utility in the armed forces. Generally good at the things they are suited for, if we accept that nature has placed certain limits on the things they are suited for in an organisation whose mission is to kill people and destroy things. Very broadly speaking, they can’t fight as well*, can’t carry as much, can’t take as much physical stress, and are highly likely to beg off of wars on account of being pregnant. *(yes, yes, Boudicca, the Amazons, and Wonder Woman… I know.) Women are therefore a liability when it comes to the messy, shitty business of fighting wars, which – rather than strutting around headquarters in immaculate uniforms, or doling out multiculturally sensitive aid parcels in a politically correct way -is the entire fucking point of having an army in the first place. But why does the idea of sending girls to fight our battles cause such unseemly tumescence among feminists? And why aren’t they similarly mad keen to get more women into other traditionally male jobs such as bin collection, coal mining, and sewer maintenance? Because feminists are fart-sniffing fanatical fuckwits and fantasists, that’s why. Their project to feminise the military isn’t about military effectiveness or even equal opportunities for confused girls who think they’re John Wayne. It’s about two things: 1) destroying a “patriarchal” institution And 2) trying to make incarnate feminist dogma about the malleability of “gender roles” Neither of these objectives is worth a thin streak of asparagus-scented piss, never mind worth fucking up the fighting ability of the armed forces over. Steve January 13, 2015 at 12:28 pm So Much for Subtlety – Just as British sailors, male and female, cried when taken prison by the Iranians. That was a shameful episode. The Persians didn’t even torture the miserable fuckers – just made them wear track suits and play board games. They should’ve been given the lash. bloke (not) in spain January 13, 2015 at 12:32 pm Ah whatever. I’d still take being shot at by the frauline as a welcome gesture of affection. Knowing how women’s minds work. It’s not really their physical capabilities you have to worry about. Steve January 13, 2015 at 12:38 pm bloke (not) in spain – my mother had an uncanny aim with hairbrushes and slippers. As soon as a bad word came out of my filthy mouth, a projectile travelling at roughly the speed of light would impact on the side of my head. It was like being slapped by God. Maybe we need a regiment of angry mums. Dunno about the enemy, but they terrify me. bloke (not) in spain January 13, 2015 at 1:32 pm I feel the same about the sweet little latina in my life, Steve. If she ever went to war I’d have deep concerns about the safety of the enemy. Tim Newman January 13, 2015 at 1:42 pm She is the only one in the history of the Bundeswehr. Does that include the Wehrmacht?! @SMFS: If you’re going to debase the Army into a form of community outreach with relatively short hair cuts, you may as well stop pretending you are a serious military at all. I think they did long ago, didn’t they? When did they last engage in anything dangerous? I think it was the Germans in Afghanistan who refused to fight at night. Most European armies exist mainly for disaster relief those days. Sebastian Weetabix January 13, 2015 at 3:05 pm Presumably if the ladies can serve in the infantry without mishap, despite all the ordnance and sharp pointy bayonets, we can look forward to mixed boxing? And remember, boxing has rules, unlike close-in infantry fighting, where there is no referee to step in and your opponent has more tools than just hands with which to kill you. Surreptitious Evil seems to be a proud member of the new feminised risk-averse armed forces, the ones that don’t win any wars. His female OC can pass as many fitness benchmark tests as she likes, but a big nasty strong man would still kill her, simply due to the degree of sexual dimorphism humanity displays. Of course there may be one or two big strong lezzers who can march 40 miles in 24 hours with 60kg kit without sleep, then dig a foxhole, then jump out of it and engage successfully in hand-to-hand combat, but I doubt it (I know I couldn’t, which is partly why I joined the RAF; much more civilised). And even if they do, the men would kill them. Easily. Which is why Margaret Attwood could write, perfectly correctly: “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.” It takes a peculiarly lefty form of idiocy to believe simultaneously that women need quotas to succeed and yet should also be in the infantry. Surreptitious Evil January 13, 2015 at 3:11 pm Surreptitious Evil seems to be a proud member of the new feminised risk-averse armed forces, the ones that don’t win any wars. Why do people seem to be conflating “in the military” with “in the infantry” or, in Seb W’s case “in the Pioneer Corps”? Sebastian Weetabix January 13, 2015 at 3:17 pm In the military is fine. Someone has to make the tea. But not the infantry. JeremyT January 13, 2015 at 3:37 pm Can any of the infantry types here explain what’s happening in the photo? It seems that either the men are buggering off or the flaxen-haired wench is taking out the rear echelon (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Steve January 13, 2015 at 3:52 pm Sebastian Weetabix – girls can do more than make a brew. Intelligence, admin, military police, signals, medical, and many other tasks can and have been performed well – even admirably – by women. What we shouldn’t do is expect them to fight, and it’s not just the infantry where that applies. What is the purpose of war? I don’t mean the Clausewitzian definition, but the real, visceral, primitive reason we two-legged hairless apes evolved the instinct to band together and kill each other. We do it – at least on some level – to defend our women. They are biologically more valuable than we are. Asking a 19 year old lass to risk having her limbs blown off or die in a cold watery grave in the name of equality is just grotesque. A healthy society would be encouraging her to become a loving mum instead. So much of the proggy feminist agenda reminds me of CS Lewis’ That Hideous Strength. We’re expected to kill off our natural, healthy instincts to protect women, or unborn children, in order to usher in the age of equality. Progressivism is a revolt against truth, beauty and freedom. Perhaps that’s why modern art is deliberately ugly and offensive. Well, fuck that. Andrew C January 13, 2015 at 4:00 pm In WWII the Russians had lots of front line women in tanks, anti-aircraft batteries and even their airforce where an all female unit night bomber unit gained enough notoriety among the Germans that they were given the nickname “night witches”. For sure women on avearge aren’t as strong as men but then most men are nowhere near as strong as elite soldiers. Guns and discipline help close the gap and I see no reason why well disciplined women capable of pulling a trigger wouldn’t make decent soldiers. Besides, as the Night Witches showed 70 years ago, a lot of modern warfare has nothing to do with brute strength. ken January 13, 2015 at 4:20 pm This is the same thing as the lunacy of Lenny Henry demanding a black head of the BBC. Just not that many late middle age black people who joined the BBC back in the 1980s. (which given the ethnic breakdown of the population at that time isnt terribly surprising). Reminds me of the plonker who said he could only find decent black roles in the US (13.2% Black) and that this indicated discrimination against blacks in the UK (3% Black). No, it’s just percentages. Not racism. If anything I’d guess that there are too few Asian roles in the UK(7% Asian). Steve January 13, 2015 at 4:31 pm Andrew C – Russia lost nearly 9 million men and women in its armed forces alone during WW2. That’s not an example we should wish to emulate. It wasn’t even one the Russians cared to repeat. If they’d invaded Western Europe during the Cold War, they wouldn’t have sent women to fight the Yanks, Brits, Krauts and Frogs. a lot of modern warfare has nothing to do with brute strength Physical strength and fitness is an essential ingredient for success in warfighting. If your troops can’t keep going despite being hurt and knackered, they’re done. I think the original Gulf War gave people a false picture that it’s all about pressing buttons to deploy whizz-bang weapons. It isn’t. Carrying a heavy load, being able to march for miles over rough terrain, and being robust enough to slog it out day after day without ending up with sprains or hairline fractures is a basic requirement for infantrymen. And that’s before they get to the really unpleasant stuff, like shitting outside, being shot at, or clearing out buildings full of people who want to kill you. Artillery involves lugging heavy kit and munitions. A weak sapper is useless. Even crewing a tank or IFV is not – physically speaking – a piece of piss. They don’t get to sit there and drink tea all day. In fact, there are very few jobs related to actually fighting a war where being weaker and having less stamina doesn’t put you and your mates at a disadvantage. Possibly a fatal one. Andrew C January 13, 2015 at 4:56 pm @Steve Bringing me back to my other point. Most men are far weaker than elite soldiers. Does that mean that only the strongest of men can make a decent soldier? Russian women DID play a part in defending their country in WWII. All your arguments against why they can’t flies in the face of the reality that they did. Taking Liudmyla Pavlychenko as one example, an army sniper credited with over 300 kills. It would be a fun imaginary conversation with you trying to explain to her why she couldn’t hack it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II Steve January 13, 2015 at 5:14 pm Andrew C – Most men are far weaker than elite soldiers. Does that mean that only the strongest of men can make a decent soldier? Most men are slower and less fit than Usain Bolt. Does that mean that, when we’re trying to find people for the UK athletic team, we should declare that “a lot of modern track events have nothing to do with athleticism”? And then pick guys in crutches? Nah. Russian women DID play a part in defending their country in WWII. Never said they didn’t. All your arguments against why they can’t Never said they can’t. If you want to argue with me, that’s fine. But don’t waste my time arguing against things I didn’t say. Sebastian Weetabix January 13, 2015 at 8:56 pm I’m just imagining an international rugby match: Trendy Progressives v. Un-PC Troglodytes. On the one hand, 50/50 male/female, an appropriate sprinkling of sexual oddities, the odd amputee, perhaps someone in a wheelchair. On the other, 15 big nasty elite blokes: fitter, faster, stronger, harder. My money is on the troglodytes, even if Germaine Greer is referee and Bea Campbell and Polly Toynbee are touch judges: #notfairbeastlypatriarchy. Just imagine if you then took away the refs and gave them all cudgels and bayonets – what jolly japes! The Israelis did experiment with women in front line units. They stopped, because it doesn’t work. And if dozy twats want to believe Stalinist propaganda from the Great Patriotic War about some Mrs Stakhanova shooting 10,000 hun before breakfast and eating their fascist gizzards… well, you fill your boots, and have a pat on the head and a lump of sugar, bless. “Only the strongest men making decent combat soldiers” – yes, that is so. That is why the military has challenging fitness standards and we do not put the halt, the lame, the blind, and the aged into front line combat units; it is why roughly 75% of applicants to the Royal Marines do not pass out from Lympstone. Warfare is not an equal opportunities employer, liberal retards. john malpas January 13, 2015 at 10:00 pm ‘Officer’s matresses’ was one term used in WW2 – I think in the Russian Front. So Much for Subtlety January 14, 2015 at 12:53 am Andrew C – “In WWII the Russians had lots of front line women in tanks, anti-aircraft batteries and even their airforce where an all female unit night bomber unit gained enough notoriety among the Germans that they were given the nickname “night witches”.” I am not sure they had a lot in tanks. But remember the Soviet Union was a. fighting with their backs to the wall and b. committed to lying about feminism. So take all these claims with a grain of salt. Notice that as soon as they could, despite their ideological commitment, they got rid of female soldiers. “For sure women on avearge aren’t as strong as men but then most men are nowhere near as strong as elite soldiers. Guns and discipline help close the gap and I see no reason why well disciplined women capable of pulling a trigger wouldn’t make decent soldiers.” Guns and discipline do not close the gap much. Women on average are not as strong as men. One study I saw claimed that if you had 100 random men and 100 random women and picked the 100 strongest, 93 of them would be men. What is more with training, men put on muscle mass much faster – so they are ahead and their lead only gets better and better. I don’t think men understand how weak women are. Again, as I have said before, in the year that a drugged up Marion Jones won two golds at the Olympics for the 100 and 200 metres race, her performance would have put her fourth in the New Jersey High School Boy T&F competition. Fourth. Most men don’t make decent soldiers. Look at the Arabs. Especially those from societies who don’t regard running away as shameful. Women do not regard running away, or refusing to perform, shameful. We do not punish them when they do it. There is no reason why Arabs wouldn’t make good soldiers either. But they don’t. “Besides, as the Night Witches showed 70 years ago, a lot of modern warfare has nothing to do with brute strength.” Very very little of modern warfare does not have to do with brute strength. In the abstract you might think you are right but when it comes down to it, things break, soldiers have to march carrying heavy packs long distances, shells have to be picked up etc etc. You need people at their physical peak still. Andrew C – “Bringing me back to my other point. Most men are far weaker than elite soldiers. Does that mean that only the strongest of men can make a decent soldier?” Most women are weaker than boys. The stronger the soldier the better. Also the physiology is all wrong. Women get things like stress fractures far more often than men. Their bodies are just not designed for this sort of thing. “Russian women DID play a part in defending their country in WWII. All your arguments against why they can’t flies in the face of the reality that they did.” The Soviets claimed they did. In reality their main function in the Soviet Army was as “campaign wives”. But I am all for women playing some role in defending the country. Making the tea for instance. Looking at photos. That sort of thing. “Taking Liudmyla Pavlychenko as one example, an army sniper credited with over 300 kills. It would be a fun imaginary conversation with you trying to explain to her why she couldn’t hack it.” Credited. So Much for Subtlety January 14, 2015 at 1:25 am Tim Newman – “I think it was the Germans in Afghanistan who refused to fight at night. Most European armies exist mainly for disaster relief those days.” The Germans turned out to be too fat to fight anyway. Sebastian Weetabix – “His female OC can pass as many fitness benchmark tests as she likes, but a big nasty strong man would still kill her, simply due to the degree of sexual dimorphism humanity displays.” It is not merely sexual dimorphism. It is also testosterone. Men fight. In a lot of cultures men like to fight. Women do not fight anywhere near as much. In the military they have found that women still do not like to fight. Female pilots will not press attacks when they need to. Female helicopter pilots will not fly into danger to lift men off. Remember that Jessica Lynch had a gun and did not fire off a single shot. The male response is usually to fight unless it is hopeless. The female response is usually to curl into a ball and wait for the bad men to go away. “Of course there may be one or two big strong lezzers who can march 40 miles in 24 hours with 60kg kit without sleep, then dig a foxhole, then jump out of it and engage successfully in hand-to-hand combat, but I doubt it” I doubt it too. There is a great article by Captain Katie Petronio that was originally published in the Marines Gazette I think. It may be gated: https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2013/03/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal She was a star athlete who was proud to serve. Who thought that all combat jobs ought to be open to women. And even though she was not in the infantry, she could not handle Afghanistan anyway: The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen. By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females. The feminists just ruined that woman’s life. They lied to her, they let her pretend she could be a soldier, they deprived her of the chance of a family. They ought to be in jail. “It takes a peculiarly lefty form of idiocy to believe simultaneously that women need quotas to succeed and yet should also be in the infantry.” That women are tough enough to engage in hand to hand combat with Pashtun tribesmen out to kill them, but the sight of someone using the title “Chairman” will reduce them to such a low point they can barely function. Let us hope that the enemy doesn’t learn our weakness and simply put up Pirelli calendars all over Afghanistan. Coz then the Army might cease to function (mind you, so would their’s. It would be hard for them to fight with one hand) Richard January 14, 2015 at 9:12 am SMFS said: “Men fight. In a lot of cultures men like to fight. Women do not fight anywhere near as much.” Even in Newcastle? Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.