In December of 2015 Defense Secretary Ashton Carter made the decision to integrate women into every area of military services. This has resulted in a variety of responses, including a bill by two representatives intended to force debate on Capital Hill over women’s role in the military. The bill, titled “Draft America’s Daughters,” would extend to women the requirement for Selective Service registration which currently mandates that men age 18-26 register for a potential draft.
Some have touted this as a step toward equality. Many, however, seem outraged at the idea of imposing mandatory military service on women during wartime, and in a more visceral way than folks are outraged when it is imposed on men.
The Blaze: I Will Not Allow My Daughter To Be A Victim Of Gender Equality
Blaze writer Matt Walsh, in his objection to imposing selective service registration on women, stated complaints which aren’t any less valid when applied to drafting men from the general population.
Yes, the Marine study Walsh mentioned found that on average, women lack in areas which would make them less capable soldiers, and a draft would not differentiate between weaker women and those who are strong, efficient, and tough. Well, guess what: Selective service does no different than that when drafting men.
There’s no algorithm added to the draft to weed out all men but the strongest, most efficient, and toughest. Oh, some men can be declared unfit for military service, but this generally entails an actual medical condition, not a lover’s loophole or poet’s prerogative. Standards for fitness for enrollment in the military often end up being relative to the military’s need for warm bodies. During a draft, they’re more likely to be relaxed. During the Vietnam war, young men who never in their lives could have been truly prepared for battle were sent overseas to die, some by a military that wouldn’t have accepted their enrollment had they volunteered a year prior.
This is not to say that forced military service is right; only that if women forced into it can be considered victims, the same applies to men.
When men are drafted, there’s no concern or consideration for whether their lifestyle has disposed them toward capable military service. They don’t get to decide they cannot handle the requirements of the job. They are expected to man up as they’re whipped into shape by a training regimen designed to fast track them from day one at boot camp to active duty. In fact, their lives depend on both their ability to do this, and the ability of their fellow draftees to do the same. Their superiors are not gentle or tactful about making that clear because failure to understand and act on that knowledge can be deadly. It’s anticipated that men faced with such a situation will rise to the occasion, not because all men are physically equal, but because that’s just what men do.
Though Walsh’s generalization may be unfair, he has one point: The women he describes as “egregiously unfit recruits culled from sorority houses and Justin Bieber concerts” certainly don’t appear to meet that standard. The question is, why? If he were merely describing women as weak, he wouldn’t have had to mention sororities or concerts. He’d have used a more physical description. After all, frat boys and fanboys would be among male draftees, and nobody thinks that should exempt men from the expectations involved in military service.
What Mr. Walsh was referring to is society’s indulgence of the whims and interests of women and girls. Between the lines of that paragraph is the unwritten admission that among the general female population there is a disproportionate number of entitled princesses whose lives have left them emotionally unequipped to handle the rigors of military training. More than that, many young American women are accustomed to never having to put anyone else’s interests before their own. They’re used to always being entitled to choose whether or not to meet a challenge, always entitled to recourse when affronted, to remedy when they’re hurt, and to refuse that to which they’re averse.
What happens when someone historically so entitled to focus on herself and her own interests gets force-fitted into a job that depends on toughness and teamwork? What happens, not just to her, but to her team? Who does it affect when she can’t or won’t do the whole job?
The military is a more strict example of an expectation of men that exists in other physically demanding professions. Men can be disqualified from taking certain high risk or labor-intensive jobs, such as firefighter jobs, for failing to meet physical criteria such as lifting and carrying capacity, speed at covering a distance, and the ability to endure sustained physical stress.
Thanks to feminism, the same is not necessarily true for women.
FDNY drops physical test requirement amid low female hiring rate
Feminists call it discrimination when a woman is not given a gender-based exemption from a standard that has been used to determine men’s eligibility for a job. Nothing is said about the many men who may have been disqualified from the position for failing to meet the same standard; it’s only a problem when women can’t get what they want.
Sometimes, it’s also a problem when they do.
FDNY recruit failed her way into $81,000 desk job
Firefighter who flunked physical injured 10 days into job
Choeurlyne Doirin-Holder received preferential treatment as part of an initiative to hire more women into the New York city fire department. She didn’t just get preferential consideration. She was exempted from physical requirements she could not meet, and given a desk job while attempting to train for and pass her specially nerfed physical after her previous failures.
Then, she suffered an on-the-job injury which indicates a failure to be mindful of her environment.
Fortunately for the New York public and her fellow firefighters, the special snowflake was not injured during an actual emergency. She lost her footing during a routine equipment check, and fractured her foot. Had such an injury occurred inside a burning structure while attempting to rescue residents, it could have had deadly consequences.
Some might think that the military is not at risk for incidents like this. Certainly, feminists would have less success at influencing military regulations than they have at influencing standards for civil service positions. There’s a huge difference between military administration and the administrations of other professions, right? Toughness is an integral part of the job, right?
The groundwork for change is already being laid. Prior to integration, fitness standards for men and women differed. Arguments are being made to keep it that way.
Gender equality? A double standard for women in the military
Pressure grows on Marines to consider lowering combat standards for women
Once again, standards which have affected men’s military careers for years have suddenly become a problem because they’re affecting women’s careers. No concern is being expressed over the men whose career prospects were determined by which standards they could meet. No group is proposing to re-enlist men disqualified from service because they could not lift or carry enough weight, run fast enough or far enough, or endure rough enough conditions. Only women merit such consideration, even when they’re striving to qualify for elite positions.
What does this say about the value of male soldiers, who are still subject and whose careers are still vulnerable to those standards? Are they less worthy of an effort to foster their careers than women are? Why is the double standard not considered discrimination against them? And if it’s not, how do proponents of it expect it to affect their morale, or their perception of their female colleagues?
This is also extremely dangerous, not just to the women being integrated into combat positions, but also to the men with whom they’ll be training and, if activated, fighting. Relaxed standards for women could not only leave them less capable of handling themselves in conflict, but also less capable of fulfilling their duties as part of their team. They could become their comrades’ worst vulnerability. If combat integration and an integrated draft are combined with unequal fitness standards, at the very least, male soldiers will be forced to pick up female soldiers’ slack. For instance, would female draftees unable to fulfill the more demanding roles in the military, be granted safer, easier jobs? If so, wouldn’t they be pushing men out of those jobs? And if, as opponents of including women in the draft argue, women are less capable, wouldn’t this be a significantly impacting factor on the outcome of a man’s experience of being drafted, making him more likely to be forced into a more dangerous, more physically demanding job? At worst, combining integration with lower standards for women will place them in combat positions with stronger, more qualified men. Those men will be forced to depend on support from, or even compelled to protect, less competent allies.
Under such a circumstance, a male draftee sent to the front lines would not only be a victim of forced service, but also a victim of forced reliance on a comrade in arms who won’t have his back. Why does a push by a minority among women merit thrusting unwilling men into this position?
Feminists and progressives are trying to have it both ways. The push to open all areas of the military to women is based on the assertion that women’s capability is equal to that of men; the claim that anything men can do, women can also do. However, the push for lower standards for women directly contradicts that, especially when the claim is made that equal physical standards discriminate against female soldiers. It’s an admission that men can do things women can’t.
The two assertions are not compatible. Either women are as physically capable as men, can meet the same physical standards, and should be equally subject to them, or they’re not, and the more risky and physically demanding areas of military service should be segregated. Subjecting men to a double standard is discrimination. To do so while demanding they serve with the beneficiaries of that double standard is worse; a slap in the face to men judged by those standards, and a continual risk to those who live up to them.
If you want to see more articles like this, please consider becoming Hannah Wallen’s patron. The Brigade runs on donations by readers like you.
- What’s Biden Hiding? | HBR Talk 335 - December 19, 2024
- Just Biden our time? | HBR Talk 334 - December 12, 2024
- What’s the deal, Joe? HBR Talk 333 - December 5, 2024
by 
I agree:
If you look at the way the YPG does it. The men will capture a village or what ever and then they’ll bring in the women to hold it while the men go off and attempt to capture another village or what ever. So a female draft can be justified if we use our women in roles that won’t lead to failure, but, I have absolutely NO FAITH in our government to do anything right. Our government’s only mission is to ensure that the military industrial military complex remains profitable. So I can’t support women being drafted, because they’ll do it wrong, I’m sure of it.
You have to understand – a man will sacrifice himself for a woman. They may not get killed, but a lot of our sons and fathers will die saving them from harm. The Israeli military learned this and stopped putting their women on the front line with the men.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/?page=all
Right or wrong, I have to say hell no, they won’t go, because it will get people killed.
The feminists are wrong, men and women are different. We have our different roles in this world, and all that we do is important. Difference is what makes the world turn. If we were all the same the world would be lopsided and the wheels would soon stop turning.
In other words, you support the double standards because reasons.
Either you support equality, or you support ‘sexism’. This is the only way to get the feminazis to stop being obtuse about gender.
I support equality, I don’t support sameness. We are different but equal.
Don’t care what the feminazis think. Drafting women into the military to do combat missions side by side with men – bad I idea, War itself is bad, but that will just make it worse.
You should care what the feminazis think: they’re the ones pushing for national policy now.
The only way we’re going to see any real progress is to let them push their insanity to it’s logical conclusionso the public can see what they’re really dealing with.
ok, I care about what feminazis think. What I meant to say is that I don’t give their opinion any validity.
I can see your point and I can see how this can be cool. But people’s lives are at stake here. When it comes to saving a life – all opinions and beliefs get scattered to the wind, the only thing that is important is saving a life. Its not just a physical life, it’s the soul of a person. War kills, even if they come back alive, some of them are dead anyways. The only time for war is to protect your city, your family. But never should we ever think is okay to send anyone, man, woman or child to fight a foreign war in a foreign land. But if there is a draft, let it be men, not woman. Only because the United States will screw that up and get people killed who could have possibly lived. That’s important. We want to save as many lives as we can.
Feminazis are ruining countless male lives as it is *outside* them military, what about them? How do we stop that with this culture of silence over male issues? This is the one thing feminazis can push that will spark a national debate they *cannot* control. It’s either this, or the MRM will take a decade to make any real progress.
Us men, we are not very good at defending our selfs against uncaring selfish women, I will admit that is true. We’re not real good at understanding what really hurts us. Some of the things you guys have brought up, I never even thought of. I appreciate what you guys do, I really do. I would like to believe that we could win over all hatred with love. But I know that there are some who will, against all caring and logic, continue to hate. But to prevent them from dictating government policy, we have to make our self bigger and stronger, and I think you’re doing a real good job at that, maybe you’re just not seeing it. Go to youtube and search feminism – I think you’ll be surprised.
Bigger and strong doesn’t pay the bills, nor bring in donations to setup shelters, help, and charities. Bigger and stronger just means ‘shut up and man up’.
The MRM needs public exposure. It’s gotten a lot more in the last two years than usual, but it needs more. This is one way to help that along.
“When it comes to saving a life – all opinions and beliefs get scattered to the wind, the only thing that is important is saving a life.”
Funny how that only becomes a concern when it’s female life that is threatened.
As I explained earlier, more men will die if they serve along with women in a war zone. Because most men will sacrifice them self to save a woman, its our nature. If you watch films on the YPG Kurdish female fighters, you’ll see that they are brave, willing to fight and do, and not afraid to give their life and I’m impressed by that, but they don’t fight alongside with men and the men do the most dangerous of fighting. The women are posted in areas that the men have already taken, they just hold it in place. I think that’s good. But we, the United States, we are not that smart. I’m concerned about the lives of both men and women. But yes, I will admit, as a man, I don’t want to see women die. But if that’s what they want, who am I to stop them. But I’m not going to let my government be stupid. When and if we ever go to war, and I hope we never do or never did, we’re going to do it the right way if I have anything to say about. I don’t want people to die needlessly. Doing it correctly means the difference between victory and loss. When it comes to making an example of feminazi, this is not the place to do it. If we were fighting a real enemy, actually protecting our homeland, we don’t want to loose.
“As I explained earlier, more men will die if they serve along with women in a war zone. Because most men will sacrifice them self to save a woman, its our nature.”
I have gone to war with women. There were women in the war zone. I am relying on experience; you are speculating.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/women-in-combat-some-marines-react/?_r=0
I’m not the only who has that opinion and I know that there was a decision made years ago not to allow woman to serve in direct combat with men for this very reason. It was years ago when I read it, still looking for it, but I know I read it.
That I know of in Iraq, women served as interpreters on house to house raids. There was direct combat coming into and overtaking Baghdad and I’m sure women weren’t involved in that.
I have not served in combat with women. But I have served with women in the Navy. Antarctica was considered sea duty. Everyone in the Navy is required to serve a certain amount of sea duty but women are not allowed on most ships, so many of them went to McMurdo Station, Antarctica. I made six deployments to Antarctica. I can tell you that it was frustrating for many men because women could not do the heavy lifting. The men would do all the heavy, hard work. However, when awards and promotions were distributed about, the women got equal promotions and awards while they could not perform their duty, the men would always have to help them.
I know that in combat, there are long marches packing heavy equipment in reaching the battlefield. I’m not sure women could endure that without help from male soldiers who intern would be less ready for battle.
“I support equality, I don’t support sameness.”
Funny how this concern of sameness never applies to male recruits.
“We are different but equal.”
You just said “separate but equal.” Fail.
War itself is bad,”
Then women need to stop calling for wars to make them feel safe. They need to stop handing out white feathers. And even when they do, I will not care more about the bad effects of war on women than on men. Women are not some kind of special, precious, sacred creatures.
“Though Walsh’s generalization may be unfair, he has one point: The women he describes as “egregiously unfit recruits culled from sorority houses and Justin Bieber concerts” certainly don’t appear to meet that standard”
Well they meet enough standards. They are almost certainly quite well-suited to Explosive Ordnance Disposal. They make very good truck drivers and have for several decades now. So no. The objection is invalid.
This is from a woman who served in combat: (I applaud her honesty)
http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/
It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.
Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men. Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies; it’s harder on women’s. And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times. No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight? Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat.
This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.)
When I deployed, we’d hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it). That’s your military readiness? Our enemies are laughing – “Thanks for giving us another vulnerability, USA!”
Then there are relationships. Whether it’s a consensual relationship, unwanted advances, or sexual assault, they all destroy unit cohesion. No one is talking about the physical and emotional stuff that goes along with men and women together. A good relationship can foment jealousy and the perception of favoritism. A relationship goes sour, and suddenly one loses faith in the very person who may need to drag one off the field of battle. A sexual assault happens, and a woman not only loses faith in her fellows, but may fear them. A vindictive man paints a woman as easy, and she loses the respect of her peers. A vindictive woman wants to destroy a man’s career with a false accusation (yes, folks, this happens too); and it’s poison to the unit. All this happens before the fighting even begins.
Yet another little-discussed issue is that some female military members are leaving their kids behind to advance their careers by deploying. I know of one divorced Marine who left her two sons, one of them autistic, with their grandparents while she deployed. She was wounded on base (not on the front lines) and is a purple heart recipient. What if she’d been killed, leaving behind her special needs child? Glory was more important than motherhood. Another case in my own unit was a married female who became angry when they wouldn’t let both her and her husband deploy at the same time. Career advancement was the greater concern.
I understand the will to fight. I joined the Marines in the hopes of deploying because I believe that fighting jihadists is right. And I care about the women and children in Islamic countries where they are denied their rights, subjugated, mutilated, and murdered with impunity; and where children are molested and raped with impunity (not to mention defending our own freedom against these hate-filled terrorists who want to destroy freedom-loving countries like America.) Joining the Marines was one of the best things I’ve ever done in my life, and I’m glad I got to deploy. It not only allowed me to witness the war, but to witness the problems with women in combat.
Women have many wonderful strengths, and there is certainly a lot of work for women to do in the military. But all the problems that come with men and women working together are compounded in the war zone, destroying the cohesion necessary to fight bloody, hellish war. We are at war; and if we want to win, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. And the top priority should be military readiness and WINNING wars, not political correctness and artificially imposed “equality” on the military.
Editor’s note: read Part 2 here.) http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-part-2/
“They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. ”
I agree. It’s also true of men. There are many ways to serve that don’t involve humping a ruck. You mention Iraq – one of the lessons learned, at least on the Army side, was that on house to house searches a female soldier with even a little basic Arabic could be much more effective than the men in gathering actionable information from the women of the house, who were often just not willing to talk to unrelated men.
Honestly, a big angry part of me wants to say: “Men have been used as cannon fodder for millennia, it’s time women got blown to bits!” while the male instinct to protect women says “No! Not the poor women!” and my rationality says “What *about* the ‘poor’ women? Surely they should be treated as being just as disposal as the men?”. My actual compassion, however, says that the draft should be considered a war crime and left to the history books as a historical reminder of the shit men have had to deal with throughout the ages.
Since time immemorial, women have made bullets for men to fire – and we are dumb enough to keep firing them. If standards truly become standards then most women will continue to do what they do best; making bullets.