‘Attack of the Gender Warriors’

Posted on February 22, 2016 by KG

Excerpt: ‘..US studies in the 1990s showed that women failed most, or close to all, combat tests. In body strength, youthful female combat recruits averaged at the grade of average 50-year-old men. Women had 20% less aerobic power, 40% less muscle strength, and nearly 50% less lifting strength. They route marched 26% slower. Injuries knocked them out at twice the male rate. Their bones broke more easily. Their non-deployable rate was three times higher. Even given lower entry standards for combat readiness, most women still flunked – in one case, 63% of the female group, compared with 1% of men. More recent studies by the Marine Corps found that male-only infantry units shoot more accurately, carry greater burdens and move more quickly through some tactical maneuvers….’ Link

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to ‘Attack of the Gender Warriors’

Ronbo says:

February 22, 2016 at 23:48

I remember as an old Cold War warrior NCO in Germany helping female U.S. Army office types get to their feet when suited up it the TA-50 combat kit during the combat alerts, when everyone in our unit was required to “stand to arms” in drills.

Yes, the little darlings had trouble just moving with 50 extra pounds of steel helmet, flak jacket, pack, ammunition, rations, gas mask, field pants, combat boots, field jacket and M-16 assault rifle- but I will say they looked cute – like little green five foot mushrooms who we taught to say in Russian, “I surrender!”
Bo Chandler says:

February 22, 2016 at 23:51

I wonder how much money was directed at these studies to determine the bloody obvious, then to be ignored regardless.
- Darin says:
  
  February 23, 2016 at 05:32
  
  The whole idea is a budget buster,which is partly the point.The other is about demoralizing the male troops.Call it what it is,making the tip of the Spear blunt.
mexicano says:

February 23, 2016 at 03:49

My personal favourite is the research carried out by the USMC which showed only very few women can throw a hand grenade far enough to avoid being killed (or killing her comrades) in the subsequent explosion
C-CS says:

February 23, 2016 at 04:54

You know that I believe that a few of us women are ‘More Than Equal” (-:

but -I’ve always stated that a 130 lb. woman cannot carry the weight of 80-100 lb. battle gear–simple ‘math’ (-:

I can see them in a cock pit – killing the enemy from above
C-CS
- KG says:
  
  February 23, 2016 at 05:58
  
  “I can see them in a cock pit – killing the enemy from above”
  Absolutely.
- Ronbo says:
  
  February 23, 2016 at 06:11
  
  I agree, Carol, women pilots, clerks, Military Intelligence and combat support types do okay – as long as they are in the rear of the frontline, or in the air over it – but my Cold War experience in Germany with women soldiers in the field in full TA-50 gear with machine guns and rifles only serve to slow everyone down and put the entire command in danger.
  
  …First squad is walking uphill like over burdened mules in the snow bound German maneuver area near Hanover during the harsh winter of 1974. PFC Marla Downer tells her squad sergeant she has to “take a dump.” The squad halts and forms a circle of males with rifles pointed outward around the partial nude woman who has to take off most of her TA-50 to do her business.
  
  “Sarge! Tell Specialist Jones to stop laughing at me! I can’t poop while a guy is laughing at me!”
  
  In an injured voice SP4 Jones says, “I’m not laughing at Marla, Sarge! It’s that guy over there in a Russian uniform with an AK 47 pointed at us who is laughing!”
  
  True story…Fake Russian with a fake AK 47.
- dondiego says:
  
  February 23, 2016 at 21:56
  
  Bad, bad idea. I even told the young lady I then asked to call me a cab from the petrol station about this (there was a local RAAF base article with a girl & two boys on the newspapers front page) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen
  
  *Note: I phrased it nicely- sorta “You girls are far too valuable to be worrying about this sort of thing…”
  - C-CS says:
    
    February 25, 2016 at 05:30
    
    don’t know where you are going w/ the link- but- know this- male pilots crash air planes (jets) too!
    C-CS
    - KG says:
      
      February 25, 2016 at 05:39
      
      Yes indeedy! But we do it with panache, Carol.
      (more practice, you see…)
      - Darin says:
        
        February 25, 2016 at 08:05
        
        “don’t know where you are going w/ the link- but- know this- male pilots crash air planes (jets) too!”
        
        Yes indeed,but this case was part of a larger one that the Pentagon covered up.She wasn’t the only female carrier pilot that was killed.There were IIRC a total of 6 or 7 in a short period that died or were permanently disabled in crashes,because the Navy rushed them into carrier roles to soon.
        What I was told by a male pilot is that carrier pilots at the time IIRC, that the normal training period and regime was shortened considerably in a push to meet quota.As a result these women were pushed forward with less flight hours under their belts than their male counterparts.The result was a needless,massive cost of life and money.More lives sacrificed on the ideological altar of false equality.
MikeH, says:

February 23, 2016 at 06:58

I don’t know guys, I’ve seen quite a few males who were less (way less) than suited for combat roles. But then, not everyone is born of the warrior class. And those who are not, are best utilized in support positions… like ahead of the squad tripping on ambushes, mines and other assorted unpleasantness.
- KG says:
  
  February 23, 2016 at 09:19
- Bo Chandler says:
  
  February 23, 2016 at 21:43
  
  Fantastic.
Alan says:

February 23, 2016 at 08:14

On the subject of female strength, I can relate this: I have a background in weight lifting, weight training and strength related sports. Also as an instructor. Over many
years I conclude that the average female has about 70% of the leg strength of the average male, slightly less than 60% of the upper body strength prior to undertaking a weight training regimen. After a period of time with properly targeted training techniques, females do get a lot stronger, even narrowing the margins against the average non training males. However males undertaking a weight training program maintain the original margins in strength over weight trained females.
- KG says:
  
  February 23, 2016 at 09:21
  
  Which makes perfect sense – men and women are designed (or is that “designed”?) for different roles.
  Denying that reality is simply foolish.
Brown says:

February 23, 2016 at 10:50

What could be claimed by progressives to be sexisssst lies appear to be biological truths. Who would have thought.
Darin says:

February 23, 2016 at 17:35

Article over at Taki’s Mag on the same subject-“Smashing through the Glass Coffin”

When it comes to sexual equity in the workplace, the biggest “gender gap” of all is the fact that men suffer around 92% of all job-related fatalities.

http://takimag.com/article/smashing_through_the_glass_coffin_jim_goad/print#ixzz40xjxPM9D
- KG says:
  
  February 23, 2016 at 17:56
  
  Shhhhhhh……don’t mention the deaths. Besides, wimmin are very, very seldom found climbing power poles in an arctic storm or working as rescue divers and so forth.
  Nope. What they want is the managerial arse-sitting jobs where they can boss their betters around and incompetence carries no penalties.
  - Darin says:
    
    February 23, 2016 at 18:27
    
    Someone said recently that everyone wants equality….until you start treating them as equals.
    - KG says:
      
      February 23, 2016 at 18:28
      
      Because some animals will always want to be more equal than others….
  - ms. nightshade - Masesha Shannon says:
    
    February 24, 2016 at 01:39
    
    I get that this is all from a ‘radical egalitarian’ perspective. But since I stumbled in here from lafayetteangel’s blog, I feel I need to at least have my say. I want to defend myself as a woman in this. And I’m definitely not a feminazi. However, I think it’s important, despite the long swing of the pendulum, to remind people about grand sweeping generalizations. Those kill otherwise sound arguments. And to say “What they want” is to basically sit on their asses and boss people around apparently, and sadly, seems to include me. But you’re wrong about me. I may not want to die in a dangerous profession, but I also don’t want to sit around and boss others around. I’ve done jobs that endangered my bones, my body and my life. I’ve had my loved ones take care of me when I’m in bed, broken. And I *am* strong, athletic and relatively tough. And I have a healthy dose of love that makes me take good care of the people around me. We’re not *all* work-place bitches out to best our burly men. You know? Some of us love and appreciate the work we don’t have to do. Some of us just want to do our best and be appreciated for what we contribute. So *they*… no. That’s a sweeping generalization I have a difficult time swallowing. And thanks for the post and the article link. Very interesting reading!
    - Darin says:
      
      February 24, 2016 at 03:04
      
      No need to defend women,no one is attacking.The sweeping generalization by the second and third wave is what we are objecting to.The idea that because Barbie can wear Ken’s clothes it means they are interchangeable.
      
      Office workers are pretty much interchangeable,not so much Dockworkers,construction workers and the like.If you’re one of the .05% that CAN make it in those fields,then my hat is off to you,but if not maybe it’s best you leave combat infantry and sat diving to us?
      
      In a nutshell where the anger from men is rooted is with those that lie and toss women into the meatgrinder for the sole purpose of pushing an ideology.I have seen the effects of affirmative action hires of both females and minorities for the sole purpose of filling some artificial quota imposed on an employer.It’s not pretty and many times it destroys the lives of those being pushed to the coal face by some progressive apparatchik.
    - Bo Chandler says:
      
      February 24, 2016 at 03:09
      
      Attention everyone. I’m only going to say this once. From now on whenever you make generalisations about women, or white people, or human beings, all of which Masesha Shannon(tm) is, your generalisation must be accompanied with an explanation that it may or may not include or preclude Maesha Shannon(tm).
      
      Alternately you a free to never make any generalisations about white people, or women, or human beings.
      
      End of transmission.
      - ms. nightshade - Masesha Shannon says:
        
        February 24, 2016 at 03:19
        
        Darin, thank you for a well thought out rebut. I appreciate that. I agree with what you’re saying. I jsut sometimes feel that it’s important to say we’re not all assholes. My bad bringing my feelings into the bigger picture.
        
        Bo, why be a dick? Was I that offensive and out of line. You’re the reason I don’t usually say what’s on my mind. You’re the reason I’ll leave here and never come back. Have a good one buddy.
        
        KG says:
        
        February 24, 2016 at 05:17
        
        Ms Shannon, perhaps you underestimate the level of anger towards women in general a very large number of men are now feeling.
        Some of us are not now prepared to give women the benefit of the doubt and the default position now is one of distrust and reserved hostility until we get to know someone better. It’s certainly my attitude and women in general certainly earned it.
        There are women who visit this blog who are held in very high esteem here, just as there are women in our own lives who are regarded that way. They earned it.
        But..the difference – the new world women in general have created – means that women now no longer enjoy the presumption and the protection of being the gentler sex.
        Women can have true masculine men and the chivalry that goes with it or they can have metrosexual doormats. It seems that women in general have chosen the latter when convenient while bemoaning the lack of the former when they’re found to be necessary.
        So don’t be surprised when one of the pack bites.
        That said, you’re most welcome to visit and add your 2c worth. I enjoyed your comment and the replies to it.
mara says:

February 24, 2016 at 08:07

Well said KG.
- KG says:
  
  February 24, 2016 at 11:07
  
  Thank you ma’am.