Women in the Military

One of the strongest objections to allowing women to serve in every branch of the military was not regarding their competence, but of the fact that mixed-sex crews serving in close proximity will inevitably result in liaisons which breach codes of conduct and damage operational effectiveness. Last year we had this story:

A Royal Navy nuclear submarine commander who took part in cruise missile strikes during the Libya campaign has been removed from his vessel amid claims of an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate.

Cdr Stuart Armstrong was taken off his Vanguard class submarine and relieved of his duties as a precaution while naval chiefs investigate the allegations.

Naval sources said the investigation had been launched amid suspicions Cdr Armstrong’s relationship with an unnamed female officer was “closer than it should have been”.

Just as it is highly inappropriate for a department manager to start shagging members of his or her staff, it is equally the case in the military chain of command, if not more so:

Navy rules forbid any relationships between sailors in the same chain of command for fear it would lead to favouritism and undermine orders.

Relationships outside the chain of command are allowed, but there is a strict “no touching” rule during deployments.

Sources said the rules were considered particularly critical on submarine missions where sailors work in cramped conditions underwater for months at a time.

It seems as thought the Royal Navy put in place robust guidelines which the submarine commander broke, and he got fired for it. This is fair enough, but it is also inevitable: if you put servicemen on ships or submarines with servicewomen then relationships will develop, and often this will involve officers who in theory should know better. The Tailhook Scandal in the US involved numerous allegations of navy and marine officers assaulting and harassing servicewomen. A popular theory is that many of the allegations arose from women who were spoken for fearing their partners were about to find out what they got up to on deployment, so claimed coercion. The Tailhook Scandal rocked the US Navy and brought about sweeping changes in the culture, which mischievous types cite as the reason US Navy ships now seem to be crashing with alarming regularity.

Today, via Kevin Michael Grace on Twitter, I came across this story:

One of the first women to enter the Marine Corps infantry is being discharged from the service after admitting to having an intimate relationship with a subordinate — a fellow Marine she eventually married.

On their own, the legal charges against Cpl. Remedios Cruz, 26, are not uncommon in military investigations of American troops. But they highlight the struggle the Marine Corps has had in integrating women into jobs that were only open to men before 2015.

It is not inevitable that every woman who enters the military will enter into an inappropriate relationship. However, if enough women enter the military it is inevitable that inappropriate relationships will occur. No amount of training, hounding, threatening, and cajoling is going to stop men and women in close proximity from having sex; those who take the issue seriously, such as conservative Muslims, do so by maintaining segregation, because it’s the only thing that works. It’s up to the government to decide whether the drawbacks of having women mixed with men in the military outweigh the benefits, but they ought not to deny that drawbacks exist.

“The biggest mistakes I’ve made in the infantry were from my personal relationships,” Corporal Cruz said in an interview. “I really want to move on.”

As part of a deal to avoid going to trial, Corporal Cruz pleaded guilty to fraternization in July and decided to put the Marine Corps behind her. She is awaiting her final separation from the Marines.

It’s rather difficult to see how admitting Cruz to the US Marines has been a benefit to the organisation, who didn’t want her in that role in the first place:

Corporal Cruz, of Fleischmanns, N.Y., joined the Marines as a supply clerk in 2013 and completed infantry training in 2014. Two years later, she requested to transfer to an infantry unit after then-Secretary of Defense Ash Carter ordered that women be allowed in all previously restricted combat roles. The Marine Corps vehemently opposed the change.

So it was a political decision foisted on them by an administration more interested in social engineering than governance. This probably doesn’t help, either:

She was accused of three charges — fraternization, adultery and accessory to larceny — in separate investigations that would have been sent to court-martial in June.

I suspect we’re going to see a lot more of this sort of thing, and as the numbers increase there will be calls for the rules to be changed so that such conduct is no longer prohibited. As I’ve said before (1, 2), modern militaries serve a different purpose than that which they claim.

Share

45 thoughts on “Women in the Military

  1. I’ve heard (from strangers on the internet claiming to be military vets) that female soldiers/sailors have an alarming tendency to become pregnant just before their tour of duty in some third-world hellhole.

    Just sayin’.

  2. In the progress of syphilisation
    From anthropoid ape down to man
    It is generally held that the Navy
    Has buggered whatever it can.

    And this is where your hypothesis breaks down. Members of the armed forces traditionally do not have to be of opposite sexes to engage in sexual relations.

  3. Yes Michael. Those homo battalions in ancient Greece.

    No use complaining Tim. This is a one way street. A huge proportion of civilians met their spouse at work. But soon they’ll ban office romances too.

  4. “It’s up to the government to decide whether the drawbacks of having women mixed with men in the military outweigh the benefits”

    And that depends on what we have a military for. This was a real issue when the military were there in order to kill or terrify aggressive foreign powers to protect national interests. But now the purpose seems to be more like demonstrating on a public-funded stage that equality is of paramount value. Liaisons between personnel are therefore fine, providing we employ another tier of minders and regulations to ensure that nobody gets coerced or feels remorseful about giving consent.

  5. “. . . but of the fact that mixed-sex crews serving in close proximity will inevitably result in liaisons which breach codes of conduct and damage operational effectiveness.”

    If we’re going with this, this is also basically saying homosexuals are a problem too. There’s always been a reason why some group formerly excluded from service should never be allowed to serve and the arguments against have – so far anyway, I’m in the camp that the whole ‘gender-fluid’ crap could be a major screwup – not panned out.

    The only real argument (in my opinion) against women serving is that it encourages ‘feminist’ campaigners to demand that standards are changed in order to achieve gender parity. There are tons of women that could serve just fine in the infantry (for example) , but ratio of men to women that can meet current standards is so much higher that you’d have to put a whole hand and a pretty decent amount of bodyweight on the scales to tip them towards ‘equality’.

    The *reality* of military service (at least in my experience in the US Navy) is that these relationships aren’t common enough to impair efficiency.

    Mostly because everyone who is caught in an inappropriate relationship gets his/her arse handed to them career-wise.

    Its not that they don’t happen or are not common – its that the penalties are such that they’re kept on the downlow and not allowed to interfere with duties. We’ve already established customs and standards to contain this and some shagging outside deployment isn’t the danger to good order and discipline people have assumed it would be.

  6. “Matthew McConnagay on September 14, 2018 at 6:34 am said:

    I’ve heard (from strangers on the internet claiming to be military vets) that female soldiers/sailors have an alarming tendency to become pregnant just before their tour of duty in some third-world hellhole.

    Just sayin’.”

    21 years in the USN – had maybe 2-3 women get pregnant just before deployment. Yeah, I’ve heard the same things as you, but its anecdotal. Does it happen – yes it does. Is it common – these women aren’t that crazy.

  7. Get the women out. Punish and break the leftists who got them in.

    Any females who have cost us money must receive extra punishment and financial loss on top of losing their job/pension. The departure of an expensively trained, experienced and otherwise competent Sub Captain ( their operational experience cost us a lot of money) because he got carried away by easily triggered emotions is a disgrace. As well as a huge waste of money.

    Purge the military all around. Including treacherous , shit-useless CM -controlled brass.

  8. “As I’ve said before (1, 2), modern militaries serve a different purpose than that which they claim.”

    A modern military is primarily a state bureaucracy, it will be subjected to exactly the same direction of travel as the social welfare dept, at least until it is slapped into action by serious military action and the grown ups are desperately drafted in. The Marine Corps has been notable for resisting this trend to a high degree, but it’s futile in the end.

  9. Agammamon
    ” There are tons of women that could serve just fine in the infantry (for example)”

    Of all the places in the military women can effectively serve, infantry isn’t one of them. Even exceptional ones are, at best, average, and they very simply are not robust. The injury rate for females in front line service is shocking, and they don’t recover to full fitness either.

  10. Slightly off topic – but I note recent articles demonstrating that there is some alignment between transgenderism, polyamory and mental health problems. I hadn’t clocked that transgender folk show a worryingly high suicide rate:
    https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/09/12/data-shows-suicide-rate-transgender-students-breathtakingly-high/
    All those people making lame excuses for what is basically being fucked up – they end up dead. But society celebrates them!
    Men and women are different. Vive la difference.

  11. I would like our military to kill our enemies as efficiently and quickly as possible but then I’m an old fashioned kind of chap.

  12. If we’re going with this, this is also basically saying homosexuals are a problem too.

    Not really, for three reasons:

    1. Homosexuals have always served, so we have historical performances to look at.

    2. There are not sufficient numbers of homosexuals for this to be a problem of the same order of magnitude as inappropriate relationships between women and men.

    3. The relationships between homosexual men and men and women are different.

    4. The inappropriate relationship thing was one of several arguments put forward for why women ought not to serve. For homosexual men, it was just that they were gay.

    There’s always been a reason why some group formerly excluded from service should never be allowed to serve and the arguments against have … not panned out.

    Hmmm. I’d say it’s rather early to see if allowing women into front line units is a good idea or not. Give it another 50 years and we’ll know for sure. I expect within 10 years we’ll see a class action lawsuit against the UK MOD or US DOD for the number of injuries women pick up while trying to get them through the more robust infantry courses (as per David Moore’s point).

    The *reality* of military service (at least in my experience in the US Navy) is that these relationships aren’t common enough to impair efficiency.

    Fair enough: I don’t have a problem with women serving, but more with the problem that they have a right to serve in every branch of every service, e.g. US Marine infantry. I’ll certainly not argue with you that women can’t perform in the US Navy.

  13. Regarding the Royal Navy story, someones gotten their facts wrong as Vanguard’s are nuclear missile subs, so it is unlikely one of them was launching strikes against Libya (unless the media forgot to mention we’d nuked the place)

  14. Andy, it’s a journalist (see Gell-Mann Amnesia effect)—be grateful he didn’t identify the bloke as a ‘Royal Army’ officer flying a Dreadnought. (The article states he was on a different sub, ‘HMS Triumphant’, at the time. Surprise! There is no ‘HMS Triumphant’—he was on HMS Triumph, so sayeth the MOD.)

    Do we have 50 years, Tim? As Douglas Murray writes:

    [B]y the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.

    (Murray, Douglas. The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. 1.)

    According to the ONS, ‘[o]ver a quarter (28.2%) of live births in 2016 were to mothers born outside the UK, the highest level on record’. Almost 16% were born to single mothers and 32% to unwed couples. As I’ve observed before, ‘Mohammed’, in its various spellings, has been the most popular boy’s name in England & Wales since 2009. In 2013, the DM reported that ‘84 schools have NO white British pupils at all… double the number of five years ago’.

    Time is running out.

  15. “fraternization, adultery and accessory to larceny “
    ??
    One of these things is not like the others.

  16. Everything I’ve read on the topic of women in the military (injuries in training, physical inferiority, not pulling their weight) indicates that trying to recruit competent servicewomen (at their best only average by male standards) is like trying to recruit a world-class basketball team from Chinese—it’s possible but one must expend considerable time and effort for little return.

    A further officer from the same submarine was reported removed due to relations ‘with a different female subordinate’. So now the commander and his second-in-command have been removed from duty—how many decades and money have been spent on training them, for it to be wasted (at least temporarily) just because of unnecessarily placing temptation before them?

    What special quality do servicewomen bring to the mix to justify all the effort, so much of it wasted? Are we so short of recruits that we must take whatever comes along? Are the enemy at the gates of our capital so that we must throw everything into the furnace, and damage our nation’s reproductive future for the sake of our nation’s present? (If the latter is the case, should we not be recruiting a new Home Guard—and is there any military duty a 20 year old female can do that a 60 year old male cannot do at least as well? (Figure 1 graph from an analysis of German marathon runners show 60 year old males running faster than 20 year old females.) Get the eldsters on board the subs!)

    As Tim contends, Western militaries are no longer for defence.
    And trying to differentiate between our rulers being rank imbeciles or deliberately malicious is almost a waste of time as the objective result is the same.

  17. There are a number of issues flying around, but to stick to the relevant ones (about the armed forces being there to deal extreme violence to the Queyne’s Enemies on command):-

    Numbers. The glory days where there were queues of fit, strong, clever, robustly heterosexual young men outside recruiting offices begging for the chance to join up are long gone, if indeed they ever existed. For two decades the demographics have been hostile (identified as long ago as Project MARILYN – Manning And Recruiting In the Lean Years of the Nineties) and the attraction of a Service career has dwindled. Add to that the number of potential candidates disqualified by criminal records, illiteracy, drug abuse, lack of fitness, et cetera and the Forces are very short of input.

    50% of the population happened to be born female, and self-declared “gay/bi/gender-fluid” runs at about 10%-15% in the recruiting cohort: so if you apply those rules, you immediately screen out two-thirds of all potential applicants even before you get into “criminal, thick as pigshit, or habitual druggie”.

    Why does this matter? For the Navy in particular, manpower is critical. As a friend commanding a Type 23 summed it up, “we don’t have enough people, so we worked the ones we had left harder, so they got threaders, so they left, leaving even fewer people.” It was critical enough that the previous First Sea Lord laid down his career for the good of the Service, in a frank and open discussion with the then-PM which saw the Navy reduce its tasking in order to ease the pressure on personnel and reduce the catastrophic Premature Voluntary Redundancy rates.

    Why is this relevant to letting girls and gays into the Navy or afloat? Because they’re there already, doing an acceptably good job, and we can’t afford to lose a quarter of the Fleet’s manpower overnight: nor is there a coherent plan of “after we get rid of the benders and the lumpy jumpers, how do we replace them?”

    Cohesion and shagging: yes, it’s an issue if not controlled. Sex has always been a problem even when the boinking happens offship (when AB Nuckfuts discovers the girlfriend he’s been rogering during the week, has also been entertaining AB Wimdit at weekends, and drunken fisticuffs ensure), and you do get relationships aboard. The Service Test does actually work well, though, and the dire tales of endless orgies aboard and the collapse of the Andrew have still not come to pass after twenty years: misbehaviour that causes problems is stamped on hard and well reported pour encourager les autres

    Competence and ability: this is, rightly, the most contentious subject, but it’s one that has worked out pretty well. As you get more extreme in the physical demands of a role, the proportion of any group able to meet it drops, and you hit the issue where “opening this up to women” stops being cost-effective; so few can make the grade that there’s no net gain.

    Within that, though, “competent warm body” beats the bejesus out of “gapped billet” when doing firefighting and leak stopping, and one lesson found from the DC&FF school at Excellent is that for every occasion that a team training through the Sea Survival Course needs to rearrange slightly to get LH Mongo holding the shoring timber instead of the five-foot-nothing female, there’s as many where LH Mongo is a spectator while said female impersonates a gymnastic pearl diver to get softwood wedges into the leaks behind the cabinet (a particularly fiendish test of flexibility and dexterity, learned the hard way in 1982)

    Key point is to build and maintain confidence that while everyone in the team may have differing levels of stamina, upper-body strength, dexterity et al, everyone present is (a) meeting the required standard and (b) a net contributor. This is being achieved pretty well at the moment.

    Tim N’s point about injury is valid to a certain extent, but in the cases where it’s been successful (most notably a few years back with RAF female trainees winning damages for training injuries) it’s been because instructors ignored the standards defined to do things “the old way, like proper airmen”. (Shortening the pace length for foot drill is hardly a catastrophic issue… but someone obviously took umbrage to it) Military service is difficult; of the seven of us in my syndicate at BRNC, five were “walking wounded” carrying assorted injuries by the end. (We all passed, though – teamwork, it’s for winners…)

    Also, problems with injury etc. are not just gender issues: the RN no longer has Ship’s Divers, because the rate of injury and death was unacceptably high, and the branch basically refused to improve equipment or drills. Too much “we’re the experts and we’ve always done it this way” leading to entirely avoidable peacetime incidents…

    Finally, there’s no simple solution. An early Northern Ireland lesson was that elite SF/intelligence units needed a mix of genders and ages, because “group of young and very fit men with no women in sight” stood out rather noticeably in the 1970s, hence why a trawl for female and older candidates able to pass muster for 14 Intelligence Commando and the like went out. Too much of “women in the military” obsesses about light infantry soldiers (a category of very limited utility outside niche roles) carrying 70kg loads while stabbing the enemy in the face with gun knives as the totality of HM Forces. And any proposal to exclude groups, needs to include the planning for “…and here is how you make up the shortfall”.

    Or for the tl/dr version – one view from inside the British military is that in general we’re getting it about right, and we’re making changes by increments (experimenting with women in combat infantry, armour etc. roles) rather than slamming open floodgates.

  18. Allowing women in the armed forces is just an indication of how unserious those who deal with military matters are. They lack the strength, endurance, fitness and recovery attributes of men and they will simply never have them. Every women in the military is a liability and will forever be so even before we look at their corrosive effect on discipline and standards. And homos too. While they might have always snuck in, they were removed the instant they were discovered.

  19. Jason, your post is a good example of liberals ‘solving’ a non-existent problem, creating a worse problem and then offering more ‘solutions’ to the problem they created in the first place.
    HMG recruited people who should not have been recruited in the first place; and when people point out that it might have been a mistake, you complain there will be gaps if we get rid of those wrongly recruited?

    The recruitment of diversity-hires is part of the reason for the armed forces becoming less attractive to the traditional recruiting pool of white working class males. Look at recent army recruitment adverts: one about how it’s okay to cry, two about how it’s okay to be a Muslim (to the point of a patrol stopping and even ignoring radio communications to allow their Muslim member to pray), it’s okay to be a woman (‘Men at work would often talk over me … now I lead a team of 30 women and men.’ She can’t handle male office workers talking over her but now she’s a commando—yeah, right), and it’s okay to be gay. How will any of that appeal to the average working class lad on a council estate?

    Then there is the incessant cuts in numbers—every reduction in numbers is a message that the armed forces are not a career and they will chuck you out just when you’re finding your feet and beginning to enjoy yourself. And it’s been going on for decades—kicking competent personnel out just before they satisfy pension requirements.

    Diversity-hires are costing lives (USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. McCain), and they will cost more in a real shooting match—better to have gaps than corpses. Our armed forces don’t need to be in half the places they are; we can withdraw, get back to basics, fix our country; once we have accomplished that, we can start looking outward again.

  20. Jason Lynch

    “Military service is difficult; of the seven of us in my syndicate at BRNC, five were “walking wounded” carrying assorted injuries by the end. (We all passed, though – teamwork, it’s for winners…)”

    Now this is one of the significant problems with women (generally), esp in infantry roles, when they get injured, they stop. As simple as that, and recovery for anything serious is slow and often career
    ending.

  21. The army has always had problems finding high-quality recruits; this isn’t a problem that started in the ’90s and needs some radical new solution to deal with.

    “People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling — all stuff — no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children — some for minor offences — and many more for drink.” (The Duke of Wellington)

  22. “Are we so short of recruits that we must take whatever comes along?”

    Apparently we are. I saw a thing the other day where US special forces simply don’t have a big enough recruiting pool anymore because the kids these days are so fat. And the Australian military had big problems recruiting during the mining boom, which affected the way they advertised. (If you’re got half an hour spare, Aussie sitcom The Hollowmen tackled the issue.)

    “…self-declared “gay/bi/gender-fluid” runs at about 10%-15% in the recruiting cohort…”

    That’s weird, because they run about 2-3% in the general population. Either you’re wrong, or officialdom is inflating the numbers, or the navy is proving extremely attractive to gays for some reason.

    “The only real argument (in my opinion) against women serving is that it encourages ‘feminist’ campaigners to demand that standards are changed in order to achieve gender parity.”

    Now this raises some interesting questions:

    1. Given the political strength of feminism right now, such “encouragement” is unavoidable. Are female recruits worth it, therefore, if they’ll be accompanied by an irresistible call to lower the standards? And could the problem be solved by holding the line at “no women”, or “no women in position x”, and waiting until feminism burns itself out? Then women can be recruited freely without fear of lowering standards.

    2. Alternatively: is it feminism that leads to the calls for the lowering of standards, or is that simply a natural outgrowth of allowing women into the forces? If there were no such thing as feminism, but we made an effort to recruit women, would we end up in the same boat? And is that boat one of the ones that crashed because women were in charge?

  23. In his book We Were Warriors, Jonny Mercer spends a lot of time talking about on his 3rd tour of Afghan. They were at the shitiest end of the shitiest stick.He does mention women too often but he does make the point that when the balloon goes up their training kicks in in the same way as the men’s.

    BTW, I defy anyone to read than book and not have at least 1 set of tears and to come away not wishing to assassinate Brown, Blair and the rest of the political establishment. Not for sending them there, but for not supporting them when they were there and, more importantly, when they returned.

  24. On the general subject of women joining the workforce I was listening to Eric Weinstein* recently and he made an interesting point (I think it was his wife’s).

    I paraphrase: Women weren’t interested in equality of work up to around the mid ’70s when suddenly it changed. Their theory is that up to that point men had been getting killed in mass wars and had hard, manual, dangerous and boring jobs. Even office jobs tended to be tedious – think spreadsheets on real paper and having to make changes. Women knew they had a good deal, especially once health care provided the pill and let them survive child birth. Obviously some women wanted to get in to the work force.

    They speculate that the end of Vietnam coincided with jobs starting to get more interesting, intellectually stimulating and office based. This piqued their interest and from there we saw a big uptick in feminism and a desire for equal opportunities.

    *If you don’t know who he is, he’s a left wing polymath, hedge fund manager (partner of right-wing Peter Theil) and all round good guy. You can find him on the Intellectual Dark Web and I recommend finding either Joe Rogan or Dave Rubin interviewing him either on YouTube of podcasts, in fact both are worth the time.

  25. BiND, there are any number of articles by military and other people of renown describing how women are not up to the standard of their male counterparts. I can’t link them all as my post will be rejected by the spam protection but here’s a few titles to search on:
    van Creveld, Martin. “The Great Illusion: Women in the Military.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2000, vol.29, no.2, 429–42.
    Springer, Barbara A. (Col US Army) & Amy E. Ross (Maj US Army). “Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military Women.” Borden Institute Monograph Series, 2011.
    Gregor, William J. “Why Can’t Anything Be Done? Measuring Physical Readiness of Women for Military Occupations.” Paper presented at the 2011 International Biennial Conference of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.
    Drummond, Katie. “Female Lieutenants Flunk Marine Corps’ Fierce Infantry Training.” Forbes, 16 Oct 2012.
    Smith, Ryan. “The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat.” Wall Street Journal, 23 Jan 2013, A15.
    Petronio, Katie (Capt USMC). “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol.97, no.3, Feb 2013.
    Serrano Lauren F. (Capt USMC). “Why Women Do Not Belong in the U.S. Infantry.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol.98, no.9, Sep 2014.
    Narula, Svati Kirsten. “The US Marines tested all-male squads against mixed-gender ones, and the results were pretty bleak.” Quartz, 10 Sep 2015. (Article highlights findings of summary report found here; full report is: Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity. “Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force Experimental Assessment Report.” August 2015.)

    Look up the tale of Kara Hultgreen, the first female USN fighter pilot: fatally crashed her F-14 mere months after qualifying. Very sadly, she was out of her depth and should never have passed. PC ignoring of reality just wasted time, money and effort, lost the USN a very expensive fighter, and got Kara needlessly killed. See: “Double Standards in Naval Aviation.” CMR Report, No.9, June 1995.

    Reference my last, another factor likely discouraging working class males from enlisting that I should have mentioned is the hounding and prosecution of soldiers and ex-soldiers for actions that 70 years ago would have been policy, and 50 years ago would at least have quietly swept under the rug. Instead “““our””” government even harasses ex-soldiers in their 70s decades after the incidents in question—HMG behaves like a puppet government of a victorious Taliban and IRA helping them to revenge themselves on their defeated enemy.

    Spot on, Mr X: mankind (or ‘peoplekind’ if you’re Justine Trudeau) have been braining each other since we first crawled out of the oceans; and England then Britain have become pretty good at this warring and killing lark—we have a few upsets but generally manage to be first over the finish line (only really failed in 1066 and 1783). As you say, these problems aren’t new, and we should be very wary of messing with a winning formula.

  26. ScotchedEarth,

    I don’t deny women in the military have made some serious mistakes and been an embarrassment. My own experience in the late ’80s as an Army SSgt (FoS) on an RAF station was to have an excellent female Capt as my boss, she was as good as any male Sandhurst trained officer I’d seen up to that point. She was replaced with what I can only describe as a dimwit who obviously was chosen to fill a quota. I found out later that I was the only one who didn’t know she was having an affair with a Cpl from the detachment next door. My wife didn’t tell me because she knew I would have shopped her, she was right.

    I also saw my fair share of male officers in quite senior positions who I can only conclude were there because of family connections and were a danger to the troops.

    My own view is that there are some women who could cope in any situation, just looking at the bell curves tells us that and I don’t think they should be denied the opportunity. The problem comes with quotas.

    The problem isn’t women in the roles, its women being told that they can all do it, they can’t and politicians need to accept that and the military allowed to be ruthless in selection. Its the same problem James Damore faced, nobody wanted to look at the evidence only the feelz.

  27. The daughter of a friend enlisted in the US Navy, completed Nuclear Power School, and is now a reactor operator on an aircraft carrier. She wouldn’t last five minutes in the infantry, but she can do her assigned job as well as any man could. There are many military jobs (perhaps most) where physical strength is not a requirement, and there is no reason to exclude women from them.

  28. Let me rewrite your closing sentence, ZT:
    There are many military jobs (perhaps most) where physical strength is not a requirement, and there is no reason to exclude the elderly from them.
    There are many military jobs (perhaps most) where physical strength is not a requirement, and there is no reason to exclude the disabled from them.
    There are many military jobs (perhaps most) where physical strength is not a requirement, and there is no reason to exclude midgets from them.
    Makes as much sense as what you wrote.

    But you fail to take into account those times when the s*** hits the fan (e.g. Tet Offensive) and the rear areas become the front line and every available man (/woman/genderfluid otherkin)—every REMF that can carry a rifle—is thrown into battle in a desperate bid to keep the enemy at bay. (Jessica Lynch not being infantry didn’t prevent her finding herself in the thick of it.)

    You fail to take into account that not every war will be a brushfire war fought thousands of miles away where winning, stalemating or losing makes hardly any difference (except to share price). Washington certainly looks like they’re trying to kick off WW3 and maybe they’ll get their wish.

    And no, ZT, and with respect BiND, there is every reason to exclude women from the military. The enemy is not at the gates and there is no need for us to throw every available person who can carry a weapon—women, elderly, kids—into the cauldron, harming our nation’s reproductive future for the sake of our nation’s present. Women do not bring sufficient value to the military to justify the immense effort and changes needed to accommodate them. Meanwhile, native Europeans are being bred out of existence because our society tells women to spend their best reproductive years in an office cubicle or the military, promotes transgenderism and homosexuality, while simultaneously importing a fecund alien population.

    And BiND, I never met an officer who I did not regard as an utter waste of rations (tbf, a few famous ones seem okay—Sir Michael Rose, Lord Dannatt, Col. Tim Collins, etc.). But our officer class being poor is no justification for women serving—it means we should be looking at what has gone wrong with Sandhurst. (Maybe ending the purchase of commissions was not such a smart move after all—are 20th and 21st Century officers really that much better than the officers we had in the 18th and 19th Century, men such as Marlborough, Wolfe and Wellington?)

  29. @ScorchedEarth “But you fail to take into account those times when the s*** hits the fan (e.g. Tet Offensive) and the rear areas become the front line”
    There isn’t any ‘front line’ on an aircraft carrier. Keep women out of the infantry? Sure, they can’t handle it. But about 90% of all military personnel will never be in direct contact with an enemy. It’s foolish, (and in today’s world impossible), to eliminate half of the pool of available recruits who can meet the military’s requirements.

    Anyway, the days of Kinder, Küche, Kirche are long gone, like it or not.

  30. “There are many military jobs (perhaps most) where physical strength is not a requirement, and there is no reason to exclude the elderly from them.’”

    Last year I took a reservist who was still serving sailing: He was mid ’70s and just recovering from cancer. He had a specialist job and the Army didn’t want him to retire.

    ‘There are many military jobs (perhaps most) where physical strength is not a requirement, and there is no reason to exclude the disabled from them.’

    In ’76 when I was in Cyprus we had a one armed SSgt, he passed all his weapon’s tests (His personal weapon as an SMG) and other annual military tests. The SAS goes out of its was to find roles for its operators who have been injured in combat.

    ‘There are many military jobs (perhaps most) where physical strength is not a requirement, and there is no reason to exclude midgets from them.’

    Hmm, never came across a midget, probably because they never get a chance to serve, doesn’t mean there aren’t some roles that they could do.

    As James Damore pointed out (I’m going to make a leap in faith and assume you support him?) there is a great deal of variance in male and females, often with men being at the extremes of whatever your measuring especially strength and aggression. That doesn’t mean that women at the top end of their variance can’t be equal to men towards the top end of theirs.

    All I’m arguing is that women at the top end of the variance should be given the opportunity and shouldn’t be denied because the armed forces reduce the bar to let in those who failed. I certainly would want to see a 50/50 split in the interests of equality.

  31. No front line on an aircraft-carrier, ZT? When those Kh-32s and DF-26s start hitting, you’ll find the front line has arrived at a speed of around 3,000 mph. 37 were killed and 21 wounded when an Iranian aircraft hit the USS Stark with two Exocets (one warhead failing to detonate) in 1987, and that was with a warhead a third of the size of the Kh-32’s.

    ZT: ‘Anyway, the days of Kinder, Küche, Kirche are long gone, like it or not.’ Your prescription is to run up the white flag and not even try? No wonder Western Civilisation is on the way out.
    And yet even as you counsel surrender, you allude to a phenomenon that, for all its many faults, was succeeding in transforming a society and reversing Weimar decadence (that the NSDAP was rife with degenerates is a separate issue); if Onkel Adi hadn’t insisted on chimping out and invading everybody, ‘Kinder, Küche, Kirche’ could have been restored—just as extreme Islam is successfully reversing decades of increasing Westernisation of the Muslim world.

    As I have written before on this site, nature is marvellously resilient but not optimally so. The broken limb will heal itself but crookedly, leaving its owner crippled. All of this feminist/SJW nonsense promoted by virtue-signalling white knight betas will end as ethnic Westerners are not breeding and the Muslims are, and so they will take over with their crippled civilisation. Our descendants could have gone to Mars; instead, we will be gone, like tears in rain.

  32. Yes, yes, BiND, and Nelson had one eye and one arm—does that mean we should henceforth insist on being diffy an arm and an eye as entrance requirements?
    The point, BiND, is that this isn’t Moscow 1941.
    The enemy is not at the gates.
    We are not so strapped for manpower and we are not facing such a crisis that we need to throw everything capable of pulling a trigger at the enemy.
    I’m sure we can wheel a disabled (‘handicapable!’) person into a firing position and give it an ATGW and he/she/xe’ll be able to do something with it before inevitable death—but what’s the point? Where’s the necessity for that level of desperation?
    I’m sure we can help some doddering eldster into a firing position and give him an SA80 and he/she/xe’ll be able to do something with it before inevitable death—but what’s the point? Where’s the necessity for that level of desperation?
    The. Enemy. Is. Not. At. The. Gates.

    You provide an example of a mid-70s bloke still capable of performing military duties—so why don’t we get more people like him in instead of bints? Where’s his ‘You go, geezer!’ cheerleading squad?

    Again: ‘Women do not bring sufficient value to the military to justify the immense effort and changes needed to accommodate them. Meanwhile, native Europeans are being bred out of existence because our society tells women to spend their best reproductive years in an office cubicle or the military, promotes transgenderism and homosexuality, while simultaneously importing a fecund alien population.’
    All you are doing, BiND, is promoting the West’s ethnic and cultural suicide.

  33. “It’s foolish, (and in today’s world impossible), to eliminate half of the pool of available recruits who can meet the military’s requirements.”

    Or stop invading places we have no need to invade. If Western armed forces were struggling to find the recruits from the usual sections of society (young males) then perhaps they should have cut their coat according to their cloth – reduced the size of the Armed Forces and made them entirely defensive rather than able to be projected around the world into whatever hell hole the politicians suddenly want to invade.

    The US Armed forces need but a fraction of their current strength to defend the USA, how about just doing that?

  34. “I’m sure we can wheel a disabled (‘handicapable!’) person into a firing position and give it an ATGW and he/she/xe’ll be able to do something with it before inevitable death—but what’s the point? Where’s the necessity for that level of desperation?” [My emphasis]

    OK, your obviously not open for open discussion, so I’ll leave it at that.

  35. Quit being a prima donna, BiND—flouncing off in a huff like Owen Jones (also, learn how to HTML: ‘My emphasis’—what emphasis?). If you want to GTF then GTF but don’t announce it, ffs.
    Viewing source, I see you attempted unsuccessfully to emphasise my appellation of ‘it’ (as in ‘give it an ATGW’)—you fling your toys out of the pram for that? It was deliberate, Jemima: I originally went with ‘give him/her/xem an ATGW’ but as it was followed by ‘and he/she/xe’ll be’ I decided for reasons of style I would replace ‘him/her/xem’ with ‘it’. I’m just taking the mickey out of you LGBT’ers and your obsession with pronouns.

    And going back to your example of the one-armed Staffie: there is a world of difference between the armed forces finding employment for members injured in service (that is part of the bargain between Society and its warriors) and going out of one’s way to recruit disabled people. Nelson got his injuries in service—we didn’t advertise for one-eyed, one-armed Johnnies and give them slots instead of able-bodied personnel.

  36. I spend some of my spare time as a safety driver for Sailability and for Help for Heroes sailors when they’re in the area training. If you think it’s funny referring to disabled people as “it” helps support your arguments fill your boots, I’m sure you’ll find it a winner with some.

    I usually go out of my way to get viewpoints I disagree with and have no problem with discussions of ideas, however I have little time for people who act like those Brits on holiday who think that all they need to do is talk slower and louder and the idiot waiter will understand them. I’m that waiter and I’m going off because I hold you in contempt not because I don’t understand you.

    PS My HTML tag worked successfully in Brave, get yourself a decent browser.

  37. I thought you were going to GTF, Jemima? But you had to come back—what a surprise. World’s Saddest Internet Argument Technique No. 6: ‘Hotel California Guest. They keep checking out but they never leave.

    To list some of the points that the white knights are avoiding:

    (1) There is hardly an argument for recruiting women that is not equally valid for recruiting elderly, disabled, midgets and children. And most, if not all, of those groups can do the jobs that women can do at least as well.

    (2) Of course one can find accounts of elderly, disabled, midgets and children acting valiantly and capably when circumstances demand. And I have no doubt that if Jerry invaded in 1940 our Home Guard would have given a good account of themselves and there would have been astonishingly heroic sacrifices made by all quarters (I’m sure some wheelchair-bound WW1 veterans would have wheeled themselves to their windows with shotguns in hand along with elderly Boer War widows clambering on to their slate roofs with ancient rifles, all determined to follow Winston’s advice to take one with them; and public school masters leading their underage CCF charges into doomed battle). I thank a merciful God that we were not so tested and were not compelled to make that level of sacrifice.
    But it’s not 1940 and there are no Jerry Panzers driving up Pall Mall. How many times do I have to state it? The enemy is not at the gates. Maybe sing it, to the tune of ‘We’re Off to See the Wizard’:
    The enemy is not at the ga-aaates,
    The enemy is not at the gates.
    The enemy, enemy, enemy, enemy, enemy is not at the gates…

    So we don’t have to throw every person that can pull a trigger at the enemy as… he… is… not… at… the… gates.
    We are not facing such a crisis that we have to recruit a Volkssturm of elderly, women and children.

    (3) Jane Lynch, the armed forces diversity facilitator above, did mention one actual added value that women can bring to the table (the only one to do so), describing army intelligence units in NI with female members looking less squaddie-ish and consequently more effective. However, that is one theatre in one conflict. That same happily diverse unit is not going to be so effective in Helmand.
    Our ancestors were not stupid, despite their lack of iPhones, and were well aware that there are circumstances where there is advantage in recruiting outsiders; e.g. Haig’s bringing in railwayman Eric Geddes to sort out the railways supplying the Western Front. And in WW2 we recruited women with European language skills to the SOE and dropped them into occupied Europe, where they performed bravely and well. But we didn’t then decide that this was to be the template for all future military and intelligence operations.
    Apart from exceptional circumstances, the very best servicewomen are only as good as the average male, who can be trained with less injuries, fuss, and without turning our armed forces upside down. Women do not bring sufficient value to the military to justify the immense effort and restructuring that large-scale recruitment of women demands.

    (4) The West is facing natal collapse and while Europe has suffered demographic disaster before (the 14th Century’s Black Death killing 60% of Europe’s population), it was not in competition with a fecund alien population in its midst. The very last thing Society should be doing is discouraging yet more women from breeding by encouraging them to enlist, particularly as they bring no value but only endless problems.

  38. “We are not so strapped for manpower”

    We are? As for the elderly (in military terms), yes, we are recruiting them. Not in to regular service (exempting some specialist roles – I’ve been in a basic training establishment with a surgeon with a specific and needed speciality going through over 40) but certainly in to the reserves.

    Disabled? Depends how far you want to take it but we have combat supporting positions based out of nice offices filled with Civil Servants which have to be “disabled-friendly”. If the potential service person has necessary skills*? (Although this has caused issues with some feeder units being unable to support the .) Oh, and I’m never going to make theatre entry standards again. Not exactly disabled as aging and extensively medicated 🙁 .

    Midgets? Back in ancient history, I was regularly described as “the right size of officer for submarines”. My usual answer when asked how tall I was, usually by some disbelieving senior, was “not tall enough to get in to the Met … As a policewoman!”

    Children? It’s illegal. We have enough fuss from the nutters about junior entry** (and I joined under 18. Rare as an officer and, at the time, only allowed by the RN. They managed to loose all sorts of interesting paperwork that, a few years later, somewhat complicated my early service career.)

    particularly as they bring no value

    I disagree. My next deployment, the team leader is female. The current CO is female (the m2f CO was posted on, in the normal course of things.)

    * And is willing to accept the inevitable career limitations (as many are – they know they are specialists.)
    ** The booties used to call this “girls time.” I hope they haven’t been bullied in to not now doing so.

  39. 37 were killed and 21 wounded when an Iranian aircraft hit the USS Stark with two Exocets
    Iraqi, not Iranian.

  40. “The booties used to call this “girls time.” I hope they haven’t been bullied in to not now doing so.”

    I wouldn’t bet on it

  41. Just on the issue of naval damage control… the two serious incidents we’ve had in the last twenty years, were HMS Nottingham confirming Wolf Rock’s location the hard way in 2002, and the flooding aboard HMS Endurance in 2008.

    In both cases, the situation was severe enough that the ship could easily have been lost (Nottingham in particular was flooded badly enough that the specialists at D Ships and SCL had to tweak their computer models… the theory said she should have rolled over, extreme and well-directed efforts by her crew kept her afloat).

    In both cases they had mixed crews; the various lessons that emerged didn’t appear to include “get rid of the girlies, they weren’t useful”. And no, it wasn’t politically directed – I worked with Gavin Pritchard (CO Endurance) several times, and Richard Farrington (CO Nottingham) was my boss for several years; and neither compromised on operational effectiveness (it was the training and readiness of the crews that was identified in both cases as containing the situation and saving the ships)

    We can now await the armchair experts explaining why their theories trump mere experience and reality…

  42. Anyway, the days of Kinder, Küche, Kirche are long gone, like it or not.

    I’m not so sure. It might well be that a society which abandons Kinder, Küche, Kirche doesn’t survive very long, overtaken or conquered by societies which subscribe fully to the idea.

  43. We can now await the armchair experts explaining why their theories trump mere experience and reality…
    Jane, are you seriously suggesting that the United States Marine Corps are mere ‘armchair experts’? (‘Integrated units, compared with all-male units, showed degradations in the time to complete tasks, move under load, and achieve timely effects on target …the cumulative differences can lead to substantial effects on the unit, and the unit’s ability to accomplish the mission … we found that females are more likely to incur occupational injuries, resulting in reduced readiness compared to their male counterparts.’)
    Are you seriously suggesting that USMC infantryman and Iraq War veteran Ryan Smith is a mere ‘armchair expert’? (‘The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.’)
    Are you seriously suggesting that USMC Captain Lauren F. Serrano is a mere ‘armchair expert’? (‘[T]he incorporation of women takes time away from training, jeopardizes readiness, and puts undue strains and requirements on the unit.’)
    Are you seriously suggesting that USMC Captain Katie Petronio is a mere ‘armchair expert’? (‘[T]his potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force.’)
    Argumentum ad hominem: the hallmark of the dishonest debater.

    (And Surreptitious Evil: the plural of anecdotes is not data.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *