Posted by Tina
The Obama disaster machine to destroy America marches on. Today Ash Carter, the Secretary of Defense, announced that “all combat jobs will now be open to women”
“There will be no exemptions,” Mr. Carter told reporters at a press conference. “To succeed in our mission of national defense, we cannot afford to cut ourselves off from half the country’s talents and skills. We have to take full advantage of every individual who can meet our standards.”
I know the feminists have pushed this for years but I sense something else going on here. So I started looking at for information regarding recruiting and found a few interesting points of interest.
In May of 2014 a military publication. reported about its funding and recruiting practices. Budget cuts and the wind down of operatiins in Afghanistan meant that recruiters could afford to be more particular about who they chose to recruit:
The Army nationwide is on pace to hit its fiscal year 2014 goal of signing up 57,000 recruits for active duty.
That’s down from about 80,000 new recruits each year from fiscal 2005 through 2008. Only once, in 2005, did Army recruiters fail to hit their mark. …
…”It’s not that we have a zero defect mentality, because we don’t,” said Nathan Christensen, a Navy officer in public affairs for the Defense Department. “But it is true that the quality of military recruits right now is the highest it’s been in 40 years.”
Many potential recruits don’t know that. They’re out of luck when they show up at Hoard’s office with drug charges in their background, without a high school diploma or GED, or with more girth than the Army allows.
I read the article and thought about articles I’ve read over the past few years about how we’ve been failing boys and young men in our schools and culture. Women are more likely to go to college. Our prisons are filled with male criminals. Those that aren’t in prison are often without direction or sense of self worth. As the above article notes: ” a 2009 study by an organization of educators and retired military leaders estimated that 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 were ineligible to enlist.”
The reasons given for rejecting young recruits include: high school drop out, low math skills, criminal record, drug use, obesity, tattoos, piercings, illnesses, medications for things like ADD. This site reports that the military has been rejecting 80% of applicants.
It’s clear we may now have to build our military. Opening combat roles to women is one way to increase numbers without giving young men like those being rejected now an opportunity to serve. The lousy economy and sketchy job market offer very little to young men today. Now it seems even the military won’t offer the same alternative to turn to for hope of a future…and these young men that have been virtually abandoned by our changing culture and tossed to the back of the bus will now have to compete with the favored gender over the past several decades. They will have to compete for these jobs with women.
Call me old fashioned, I could give a rip. There is something upside down about a culture that reveres women and denigrates men. And that, in my experience, is exactly what we have been doing in America. It isn’t just that I think women don’t belong in the more dangerous combat roles, it’s that we have sent another message to young men that they are irrelevant in our society. The unintended consequences will continue to roll out in future.
Tina: “They will have to compete for these jobs with women.”
If a male applicant is less qualified than a female applicant, why the hell should he NOT have to compete with a woman for the job?
“It isn’t just that I think women don’t belong in the more dangerous combat roles, it’s that we have sent another message to young men that they are irrelevant in our society.”
If men were banned from combat positions, that would be telling men that they irrelevant in our society.
Men competing with women for the same jobs tells us that we are equal.
If some men (and women) can’t see the difference, that’s their problem.
“Now it seems even the military won’t offer the same alternative to turn to for hope of a future…and these young men that have been virtually abandoned by our changing culture and tossed to the back of the bus will now have to compete with the favored gender over the past several decades. They will have to compete for these jobs with women.
Call me old fashioned, I could give a rip. There is something upside down about a culture that reveres women and denigrates men.”
What you’re doing here is appropriating the language of equal rights proponents to argue against equality. This isn’t a new tactic; George Wallace used it.
You’ve shown no evidence of discrimination against men, only that men and women are now being treated equally in an area where men were previously held in higher regard. That’s literally the opposite of discrimination. Treating people equally is not an example of “revering women and denigrating men.” It’s an example of treating people equally.
Now, you may have some reasons to believe that men and women should not be treated equally in the armed forces. If that’s your case, make it. But to argue that men are being “tossed to the back of the bus” by having to compete with women is not just offensive, it is stupid.
Chris put the point in context. When a society has degraded the value of its male children and the natural tendencies of male children, in order to promote it’s females children and the softer more emotional sensitivities they have male children will be less likely to be prepared to compete.
Get your head out of the feminist rule book for a minute and give the idea some thought. I direct you to articles that point to my concerns:
The Atlantic, ”
How to Make School Better for Boys – Start by acknowledging that boys are languishing while girls are succeeding.”
The Washington Post, “‘Why Boys Fail’ in school”
leaderu.com, “The Feminization of American Schools”
Global Post, “The Effect on Men That Grow Up Without a Father Figure”
NY Times, “Children Are Better Off With a Father Than Without One”
PBS, “Fact Sheet: Outcomes for Young, Black Men”
Fatherhood.org, “There is a “Father Factor” in Our Nation’s Worst Social Problems”
NY Times, “Study Finds High Rate of Imprisonment Among Dropouts”
NPR, “School Dropout Rates Add To Fiscal Burden”
“Men competing with women for the same jobs tells us that we are equal.”
The illusion made real by symbolism. Terrific.
Chris you can do better…think!
I won’t deny that schools and governments are failing our young men. (The drug war is a big part of the problem, especially as it relates to minority men.) But that point has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we should allow women into combat positions. It’s a complete non-sequitur.
You may as well argue, “Women make up less than 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs, so let’s ban men from driving.” Seriously, that’s the level of connection between your premise and your conclusion here.
You cannot fight inequality with more inequality.
“The drug war is a big part of the problem, especially as it relates to minority men.”
Tolerance, glorification, and promotion of drug USE is the problem!
You don’t get the premise. You’re stuck in equality land. The point odf the article is summed up here: “we’ve been failing boys and young men in our schools and culture…Our prisons are filled with male criminals. Those that aren’t in prison are often without direction or sense of self worth. As the above article notes: ” a 2009 study by an organization of educators and retired military leaders estimated that 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 were ineligible to enlist.
If 75% of males aged 17-24 are ineligible we have a big problem in how males have been treated in our culture and institutions!
I don’t give a fig about equality because no matter how many rules you make, or break, equality in this world will remain an illusion beyond anyone’s grasp. The problem with meddling lefties is they always seek nirvana.
Women are not equally represented in business as CEO’s because generally, women don’t aspire to that position…most have other interests and priorities. If it hasn’t happened after 45-50 years of feminist propaganda and bullying it ain’t going to happen. And it’s not because women are victims of bigotry. It’s because in very basic terms men and women are different. Hats off to women with ambition who want to climb the ladder to the top. Most women are not interested and prefer “supporting roles.”
This move by our so-called leaders is symbolic…and it will be costly.
Tina: “You’re stuck in equality land.”
Most people call it “America,” but “Equality Land” has a nice ring to it.
“The point odf the article is summed up here: “we’ve been failing boys and young men in our schools and culture…Our prisons are filled with male criminals. Those that aren’t in prison are often without direction or sense of self worth. As the above article notes: ” a 2009 study by an organization of educators and retired military leaders estimated that 75 percent of Americans ages 17 to 24 were ineligible to enlist.”
If that’s the “point” of the article, why did you title it “Government to Open All Combat Jobs to Women,” and then in your first sentence claim that this policy is destroying America? What on earth does that have to do with the problems facing men?
“If 75% of males aged 17-24 are ineligible we have a big problem in how males have been treated in our culture and institutions!”
Possibly. But how will that problem be addressed by keeping women out of combat positions? You have yet to explain the connection.
“I don’t give a fig about equality”
Noted.
A rhetorical question—What would make a young woman want to give up the very best of what it is to be a woman for the very worst of what it is to be a man?
Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free.
Nicely said RHT447
I mean, I’m genuinely curious: how will keeping women out of combat positions improve men’s success in school, Tina?
Chris, I didn’t make a statement like that. You have once again have missed the point.
You play logic games, you nit pick, but you really do not think.
Hint, for the second time around:
“When a society has degraded the value of its male children and the natural tendencies of male children in order to promote it’s females children and the softer more emotional sensitivities they have, male children will be less likely to be prepared to compete.
Our culture has failed it’s male children with it’s progressive and feminist obsessions.
This is a discussion that only men should have. So, Tina, get back in the kitchen. My God! Next thing you’ll want is to own a business and making your own choices.
You know Pete, I shouldn’t be surprised. I fist stumbled upon this blog several years ago because some feminists had linked to a piece by a crazy preacher who used to post here about how allowing women to vote ruined America. Seriously, that was his actual premise. It was probably the most traffic this site’s ever gotten; lots of people showed up to voice their anger over the piece.
Tina never came out and agreed with it, but she defended the writer and the article and saved all of her criticism for those who rightfully called him out on his sexism. As far as I know neither of the bloggers, nor any of the regular commenters who were here at the time, ever condemned the piece.
Because, you see, it was written by a conservative, and conservatives can’t possibly be bigoted.
This blog only pays attention to real bigotry, like the bigotry against men caused by treating men and women equally.
Nice sarcasm Pete, funny even.
What do you think about boys being doped up on Ritalin as a management tool?
How about shaming little boys for making a finger gun on the playground or drawing a combat or cowboy character with a gun in his hand?
How about the thousands of characters in commercials, television, and movies that depict women as having all the brains and brawn and men as being useless, stumble bums and dolts?
How good is it for our culture that so many young men are unprepared to assume an adult role?
Don’t assume I’m the weak dependent little woman character in your head left over from the sixties feminist whine. I’m all for strong women. I prefer strong women that can appreciate strong men and don’t have to change the world through bullying to get what they want. That’s not strength; that’s feminine wiles applied with a club.
Those are all really good questions!
They also have nothing to do with your article’s main argument, which is that women should not be allowed in all combat roles.
The fact that men have some social disadvantages is not a valid reason to keep women out of combat roles.
Imagine a black civil rights protester in the 60s arguing “Black people have many social disadvantages, therefore whites should not be allowed to play basketball” and you’ll get a sense of how your argument actually sounds.
RHT447: “A rhetorical question—What would make a young woman want to give up the very best of what it is to be a woman for the very worst of what it is to be a man?”
I think you made a typo–what you meant to begin with was “A pointless, irrelevant, sexist, unpatriotic, misleading, and stupid question.” I don’t even know where to begin deconstructing all the false premises baked into this sexist word garbage:
1) Serving one’s country in combat is “The very worst of what it is to be a man?” Insulting, not just to women, not just to men, but to anyone who has ever served. Do you really believe this? That serving one’s country in battle isn’t noble, brave, patriotic, or heroic, but “the very worst of what it is to be a man?” Wow. I thought conservatives were supposed to be proud of our troops?
2) What exactly is meant by “giving up the very best of what it is to be a woman,” and who the hell are you to define what “the very best of what it is to be a woman” even is? Who died and made you the gender police?
I think a female soldier is about–and this is a charitable estimate–a bazillion times more qualified to decide what being a woman means for herself than you do, and how to be the best woman she can be. Your opinion on her womanhood, and what she should do with it, could not be less relevant.
3) What your question actually means, when you get rid of the stupid and inflammatory phrasing, is “Why would a woman want to serve her country in the frontlines of battle?” And the answer for that is obvious to any rational person: For the same damn reason a man would want to serve his country in the frontlines of battle. That you can’t see this is a failure of both common sense and empathy–you literally can’t imagine that a woman’s motives for serving her country would be the same as a man’s, as if women are some alien species, rather than human beings. We have a word for that: misogyny.
“Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free.”
And you somehow managed to top your asinine question with an even more asinine and meaningless statement:
1) Your comment might make sense if we were having a conversation about equality of outcomes. We’re clearly not–we’re talking about equality of opportunity.
2) Equality of opportunity is what our nation has been based on for over 200 years. Is it your argument that the United States has never been a free country?
3) The idea that allowing women to serve in combat positions somehow makes us less free is an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence. You’ve provided none; you simply acted as if the conclusion was obvious, when it doesn’t even make sense.
This has got to be a runner up for worst comment of the year–it’s based entirely on false premises, some of which you certainly don’t even believe; the conclusions don’t even follow from the terrible premises; it insults men, women, and soldiers; and it completely misrepresents our nation’s founding principles, all in the service of arguing against a policy which you haven’t even made a real argument against.
Certainly there have got to be some non-laughable arguments against women serving in combat. None have been presented in this discussion so far. Instead we’ve gotten “Women in combat is just like Jim Crow segregation” and “Equality is bad and actually a code word for oppression.”
Embarassing. Do better.
When we can show that women make combat units more effective, I’ll be the first to endorse this change. We can’t – so I won’t. This is pure liberal la-la land BS. Wait, lets make it easier than combat, when women play in the NFL, I will support this!
Jack: “When we can show that women make combat units more effective, I’ll be the first to endorse this change”
Now this is a valid argument. I wish the article had included more like this, instead of “Women in combat is discrimination against men, because equality is oppression.”
“Embarassing. Do better.”
The teacher plays the superiority card, nit picking all the way…and misspells the key word…now that’s embarrassing!
So many rules, Chris. Can’t think outside that box. Can’t imagine unintended consequences even when they are all around you!
Pathetic.
Tina: “The teacher plays the superiority card, nit picking all the way…and misspells the key word…now that’s embarrassing!”
You want to address any of my actual arguments explaining why RH’s comment was a logical vacuum, or are you just going to harp on a single spelling error? Because I held my tongue for years every time you wrote “gender rolls” as if we were discussing the products in a feminist bake sale…
“So many rules, Chris.”
Yes, logic has rules. Conclusions need to follow from premises. I’m sorry that’s inconvenient for you.
No I don’t want to address your logical points.
You have changed the subject and made this a pi$$ing contest rather than a conversation about what I see and wrote about as a problem in our culture.
I don’t mind that you disagree with me, but at least you could make an effort to speak to the issue rather than taking another opportunity to characterize me for holding opinions you’ve imagined from the feminist playbook: “Women in combat is discrimination against men, because equality is oppression.”
I don’t think like that and that was not the point. It was also not inferred, implied, or insinuated.
I was simply taking the opportunity of this announcement to bring up a problem this nation has with it’s treatment of boys and young men. I think it’s a discussion worth having and I think this announcement DOES send yet another message to boys that will have a detrimental effect.
These changes in our culture don’t happen because of an event or single change. they happen in an accumulative manner gradually over time and most of the time we are unaware of the things contributing to a future result.
Quotes of interest:
Women who never respected men in the first place:
Men weren’t really the enemy — they were fellow victims suffering from an outmoded masculine mystique that made them feel unnecessarily inadequate when there were no bears to kill. ~Betty Friedan
Men who never respected women in the first place:
Young wives are the leading asset of corporate power. They want the suburbs, a house, a settled life, and respectability. They want society to see that they have exchanged themselves for something of value. ~Ralph Nader
Let’s make little boys “soft”:
Instead of getting hard ourselves and trying to compete, women should try and give their best qualities to men — bring them softness, teach them how to cry. ~Joan Baez, “Sexism Seen but not Heard,” Los Angeles Times, 1974
We’ve begun to raise daughters more like sons… but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters. ~Gloria Steinem
And little girls “men”:
Give a woman a job and she grows balls. ~Jack Gelber
Woman Power…Let’s turn the tables, baby:
The world has never yet seen a truly great and virtuous nation because in the degradation of woman the very fountains of life are poisoned at their source. ~Lucretia Mott
Advertisers in general bear a large part of the responsibility for the deep feelings of inadequacy that drive women to psychiatrists, pills, or the bottle. ~Marya Mannes, But Will It Sell?, 1964
Women who are hostile to men and who whine and blame men for their “plight”:
During the feminist revolution, the battle lines were again simple. It was easy to tell the enemy, he was the one with the penis. This is no longer strictly true. Some men are okay now. We’re allowed to like them again. We still have to keep them in line, of course, but we no longer have to shoot them on sight. ~Cynthia Heimel, Sex Tips for Girls, 1983
The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, “It’s a girl.” ~Shirley Chisholm
Women’s chains have been forged by men, not by anatomy. ~Estelle R. Ramey
If all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves? ~Mary Astell
(Attitude is everything…if you see yourself as a slave you are one! And guess what? It’s nobody’s problem but your own.)
Feminist act as if men don’t have the same challenges to succeed. They act as if it’s a breeze for every man to get to the top and when he reaches the pillar the first thing he does is shut the lid on women. It’s a crock!
There is a legitimate question about this decision that has to do with the optimum way to defend the nation. But that was not the point of this article.
In my opinion, this decision will change our defense profile, whether you are willing to consider it or not, just as the decision to project women as smart and strong and men as stupid cretins in media, the classroom and in many of our homes has had an effect on boys and our culture overall.
Tina: “You have changed the subject”
Are you kidding? You started the article by talking about women in combat, and ended by talking about discrimination faced by men. Talk about changing the subject.
…”opinions you’ve imagined… ‘Women in combat is discrimination against men, because equality is oppression.’
I don’t think like that and that was not the point. It was also not inferred, implied, or insinuated.”
It absolutely was insinuated, when you wrote this:
“Now it seems even the military won’t offer the same alternative to turn to for hope of a future…and these young men that have been virtually abandoned by our changing culture and tossed to the back of the bus will now have to compete with the favored gender over the past several decades.”
I imagined nothing. “Tossed to the back of the bus” is a clear reference to discrimination; you won’t convince anyone with a brain that you meant it in any other way. You very clearly suggested that allowing women in combat contributes to this discrimination against men. That is equivalent to arguing that ‘Women in combat is discrimination against men, because equality is oppression.’
I know you don’t think you said that. That’s because you are in denial about the meanings of your own words. It’s the Ann Coulter “white majority” thing all over again; you refuse to see clear, logical implications of arguments when you don’t want to.
I understand your arguments better than you do, Tina.
“I think it’s a discussion worth having and I think this announcement DOES send yet another message to boys that will have a detrimental effect.”
The message sent to boys by allowing women in combat is that men and women are equal.
I see nothing “detrimental” in such a message.
You are right about some of the other toxic messages our culture sends to boys. But keeping women out of combat positions will do nothing–I repeat, nothing–to curtail those more toxic messages. You’re essentially arguing that we discriminate against one group to protect another, without even demonstrating that this discrimination even serves that purpose.
I used another analogy earlier, but this is a lot like the argument put forth by you and many other opponents of same-sex marriage, which goes something like “Every child deserves a mother and a father, therefore we shouldn’t let gays marry.” Even though the premise is true, the conclusion in no way follows; preventing gays from marrying does nothing to ensure that any child will grow up with a mother and a father. Nothing. Opponents of same-sex marriage were essentially arguing that we discriminate against gays to protect children, but provided no evidence that their solution helped solve or even alleviate the problem.
Just as you have provided no evidence that closing combat positions to women will solve or even alleviate the problems facing our young men.
“Feminist act as if men don’t have the same challenges to succeed.”
You’ve said in this article and your subsequent comments that men face challenges in society women do not. I don’t know why you can’t also acknowledge that women face challenges in society that men do not. Some of the challenges men and women face are the same; some are very different. You can’t possibly not know this.
“There is a legitimate question about this decision that has to do with the optimum way to defend the nation. But that was not the point of this article.”
Shame. Had you made that the point of your article, your article might have made some sense, even though I probably would have still disagreed with it. Instead you chose to make the point that we should discriminate against one group (women) in order to protect another (men). That never works, and it isn’t what America is about.
Meds for kids is a parent decision.
If a student disrupts learning they should be asked to stop.
Just as many (probably more) commercials/shows have depicted women as dolts. (Edith Bunker)
It’s not good for any country to have men and women unprepared for life’s challenges.
For obvious reasons I’m adamant that men should not be allowed to be gynecologists.
For obvious reasons women should not be astronauts or the President of the United States. (It’s fine if they try to lead other countries)
Pete: “For obvious reasons I’m adamant that men should not be allowed to be gynecologists.
For obvious reasons women should not be astronauts or the President of the United States. (It’s fine if they try to lead other countries)”
This part is sarcasm, right?
Combat is a heavy duty job. In general, the body structures of men are more fit for it, but women can be just as vicious killers as men. I’ll take a woman who knows how to operate an automatic rifle to cover my back any day over Chris who is a stellar example of left-wing self castration.
Even when we agree about the actual policy under discussion you have to be a jerk about it. Oh well.
Tina writes, “There is something upside down about a culture that reveres women and denigrates men. And that, in my experience, is exactly what we have been doing in America. It isn’t just that I think women don’t belong in the more dangerous combat roles, it’s that we have sent another message to young men that they are irrelevant in our society. The unintended consequences will continue to roll out in future.”
Chris has a problem with that.
This just about says it all:
“If 75% of males aged 17-24 are ineligible we have a big problem in how males have been treated in our culture and institutions!”
…
“Women are not equally represented in business as CEO’s because generally, women don’t aspire to that position…most have other interests and priorities…And it’s not because women are victims of bigotry. It’s because in very basic terms men and women are different.”
Got that everybody?
When there is evidence of unequal treatment of women, it’s because women are just different, not because of any social or cultural problems. It’s an individual problem, not a systemic one.
When men complain of unequal treatment, stop everything while we address this grave social injustice.
Tina: “just as the decision to project women as smart and strong and men as stupid cretins in media…”
I don’t see this. I mean, I do, but it’s so out of context that it’s essentially meaningless.
As a man, I have no dearth of positive role models in the media to look up to. Look no further than the superhero craze. Marvel Studios has released a total of eleven movies so far. Every single one has had a white male as the lead. We won’t get a female-led Marvel movie until 2019’s Captain Marvel, by which time there will have been 18 male-led superhero films. (The TV side has done much better; do yourself a favor and go watch Jessica Jones. Agent Carter was great too, and Agents of SHIELD has a surprisingly well-rounded female cast despite its many other flaws.) Wonder Woman will beat Captain Marvel to the screen, but that’s after a near-forty year absence from live-action interpretations, while Superman and Batman have gotten reboot after reboot after reboot, often overlapping with one version on TV and one on the big screen.
In fact, there hasn’t been a mainstream female-led superhero film since 2005’s Elektra, which followed closely on the heels of Catwoman, the only other mainstream superheroine film ever made.
This lack of role models is true in other genres as well–few of the top-grossing films of all time include a female lead, and most movies fail the “Bechdel Test,” which has such rigorous criteria as 1) containing at least two named female characters who 2) talk to each other about 3) something other than a man.
This isn’t surprising, since almost no major writers or directors are female. (Of course, we all know that this isn’t sexism; women just aren’t interested in the creative arts and entertainment! [/sarcasm])
Representation of women in media is, IMO, far worse than representation of men.
Which isn’t to say there isn’t a problem. Men are often portrayed as “stupid cretins,” ever-horny manchildren, and know-nothing dads who can’t take care of the kids. But this is a double-edged sword–ever notice how on sitcoms, these men are almost invariably married to or dating women who are much more attractive than them, and who have to clean up their messes? This sends a toxic message to men AND women; dudes, you’re bad at being a father but ladies, you have to do the work of BOTH parents to make up for it, and you have to stay with the dolt too.
But that’s far from the only types of portrayals of men we see onscreen; on any given weekend, if I want to see a man save the day, make smart decisions and generally be in charge of his own story, I’m going to have my options open. I’m not going to have trouble finding that. A woman looking for the same thing from a female character would have a much harder time.
Tina, why is it that when a woman complains of discrimination, you say “it’s no one’s problem but their own,” but when a man complains of discrimination, you see it as evidence that society has failed them?
I don’t say that just about women, I say it about everyone. We are all responsible for our experience in life…you could say we make it up. Words don’t make someone feel offended, they do in their response. They could just as easily tell the mean talker to bugger off. Sticks and Stones. Every kid learned that lesson early before the feminists decided that we all had to be “nice” like girls are (A joke if ever there was one).
Men aren’t complaining about discrimination.
I was asking our readers to consider the possibility that so many of our boys and young men are unprepared for life and in trouble because we have neglected them and denigrated what it is to be a male. This policy change marks one more way we say men are not really necessary or needed…a common feminist position
Tina: “I don’t say that just about women, I say it about everyone…
“so many of our boys and young men are unprepared for life and in trouble because we have neglected them and denigrated what it is to be a male.”
I find it amazing how you can deny the double standard you’re drawing, then repeat that same double standard without even noticing. How do you do this?
Again: when women are underrepresented in media, positions of power, etc. you say it’s a personal problem and we can make any societal changes to fix it. When men are underrepresented in colleges, or too many are not qualified to join the military, you say society is at fault.
How do you not notice that this is a double standard?
“This policy change marks one more way we say men are not really necessary or needed…”
No, it tells men they are equal to women. Really, that’s it.
Now there are some men out there who, whenever women get to do what they’ve always done, feel like they are being told they’re not needed. These men have low self-esteem. If your self-image is based off of keeping certain people lower than you, or away from the things you enjoy, then that is a personal problem you need to get over.
You are still arguing that we should keep women out of combat positions in order to preserve the delicate self-esteem of insecure men. That’s a horrendous argument. And it’s insulting to me as a man that you think we need to be protected in this way. Women in combat doesn’t make me feel less relevant or necessary in society as a man. I’d be embarrassed if it did. Men who do feel this way need to toughen up.
And Tina, I feel the need to point out that every single argument you’ve made here is similar to the arguments against allowing women in the workforce, allowing women to vote, etc. You actually used the words “men will have to compete with women for the same jobs” as if this were some kind of injustice for goodness sakes.
You are a business owner! It is ridiculous, and frankly embarassing, to watch you repeat arguments that, had they been taken seriously by your generation, would have kept you from where you are today.
You tell me often I don’t understand my own history. I have to say, you apparently don’t know yours, and watching you constantly denigrate feminists and the work others have done to get you where you are today–to see you mock the very notion of “equality”–is nothing short of tragic. I feel sorry for you.
Chris thinks he is quoting me: “men will have to compete with women for the same jobs”
He fails, once again, to capture the essence of what I said. I was talking about the many ways we have failed young boys and men. Fewer attend college, more drop out, more end up as criminals or aimless and unprepared for adulthood and adult responsibilities. The failure ensures these young men will have few job prospects. The military has been a last resort good solution for many of these man-boys. The change in this policy means that these men will now have to compete with women for these jobs.
Don’t try to stream your thoughts out of my mouth. It clutters up the blog and requires too much of my time correcting your ignorant assertions.
“You are a business owner! It is ridiculous, and frankly embarassing, (sic) to watch you repeat arguments that, had they been taken seriously by your generation, would have kept you from where you are today. ”
You can buy into this garbage all you want but to me it’s complete horse hockey. As I pointed out to you before my grandmother had her own business in the 1920’s. She was a single mom and did what she had to do to support her son…there wasn’t an armed band of men stopping her from doing so! When my mom decided to pursue a place in the workforce my father supported her and no one tried to prevent her from getting the job she wanted. When I was little the woman who lived next door held a PhD in Physics. No one prevented her from going to college, pursuing what she wanted to do, or holding the position she had at the University of California, Los Alamos. I could site countless examples of women succeeding before and after the so-called feminist movement that started in the seventies. He&&, the women wh fronted the movement were all college graduates!
The biggest contributors to the “progress” of women since the fifties were the modern conveniences those awful men invented to make life easier for the women in their lives and the birth control pill. “I want” and “gimmie”could be their by-words!
Feminism is built on resentment, bitterness, complaining and bullying. Is it any wonder that the result has had the unintended (questionable) consequence of a faltering and dysfunctional young male population?
“I find it amazing how you can deny the double standard you’re drawing..”
It’s because you’re only about 2 years old.
The evidence suggests we are failing young boys and men. I think you would agree, at least to some extent. it suggests we have been operating under a double standard or, worse, complete denial of the value of men and male traits in our society.
There is no double standard. There are men and there are women. We are people, not groups with designations and a national agenda thrown in for good measure. As people we have individual ideas, needs and ambitions. Men and women are also not carbon copied equals and with few exceptions women will be “less than” her counterpart in combat situations….and it will cost lives and put our fighting machine in greater jeopardy…all for a pipe dream social fantasy.
We have national security organizations which, I believe, should focus on building the most effective fighting machine possible. In my opinion putting men and women together in combat does not work to meet the highest standard.
Your agenda is furthering the lie, in my opinion, that men and women are interchangeable in all situations. It’s really nothing more than a game to you. An exercise in campus debate. You love it because you believe you can see clearly and have all the answers. I suggest you dont think at all. You are a programmed output machine for the feminist cause…big whoop!
We have more urgent priority needs at this time and our government is diddling in social experiments, pandering to the feminists in America for votes, and generally putting security and the men we count on to defeat evil enemies on the back burner as a low priority.
I have no interest in your feminist screeds or your evaluations of my position. You’re not interested in pursuing the subject I proposed because you think we have to choose sides and pick one over the other. In your world women must win OVER men, regardless the unintended consequences.
Tina: “The evidence suggests we are failing young boys and men. I think you would agree, at least to some extent. it suggests we have been operating under a double standard or, worse, complete denial of the value of men and male traits in our society.”
OK. I agree that in a lot of ways our society does do that. Allowing women into combat isn’t one of them, though. If a man feels less valuable because women are in combat, that’s a personal self-esteem issue.
“There are men and there are women. We are people, not groups with designations and a national agenda thrown in for good measure.”
The first sentence here completely contradicts the second. ‘Here are the firm designations of groups I am comfortable with…We are people, not groups with designations…’
Men and women are also not carbon copied equals and with few exceptions women will be “less than” her counterpart in combat situations…We have national security organizations which, I believe, should focus on building the most effective fighting machine possible. In my opinion putting men and women together in combat does not work to meet the highest standard.”
And again, had this been the argument put forth in your article, I’d have much less of a problem with it. Instead, your argument was that we shouldn’t allow women in combat because it will make men feel bad about themselves. (I know you don’t think that’s what your argument was, but you don’t have the power to change the meanings of words with your thoughts.) That remains a terrible argument, and it’s an argument you haven’t retracted–you’ve just tried to change it without me noticing, as if you expected me to respond to the argument you wish you had made instead of the one you did make. I’m sorry, but that’s not something I’m going to do.
“Your agenda is furthering the lie, in my opinion, that men and women are interchangeable in all situations.”
I never said that men and women are interchangeable in all situations. In fact I’ve said multiple times already that critics of the new policy have a point when they say men are generally stronger and more fit for combat than women. You are making another classic strawman argument. You do this because your understanding of the arguments of others is just as flawed as your understanding of your own.
“In your world women must win OVER men, regardless the unintended consequences.”
And this is just a flat-out lie that you made up.
I get Chris now. His idea of a hero is out of a comic book.
Superheroes are our modern Greek myths. They’re also our biggest media export right now. They tell us a lot about what we as a society value. The lack of women in their ranks, especially on the big screen, tells a lot about how our society values women.
Tina also wrote a piece against a woman’s right to vote a couple years back. No woman would ever say they are not intelligent enough to vote.
First of all why would anyone want to go into combat? But any person who is physically able and wants to…….Well there are women fighting on the other side so it is their life who cares? Any person male or female who is not physically and mentally able to complete a challenge should not be on that combat team.
I find the Men and Women who have no esteem generally pick on others, use hate and name calling to build up their own ego. They need to push others down to make themselves feel more powerful.
———————————————————
“War is just a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
1933 by General Smedley Butler, USMC
Dewey: “Tina also wrote a piece against a woman’s right to vote a couple years back.”
No, she didn’t. OneVike/Gate did. Tina merely defended it, though she never came out in agreement with the main argument. Please be fair and honest.
So this conversation got me interested in looking at some old anti-suffragette propaganda posters, for comparison.
This was the first result, and also the best:
http://www.thefeministwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2.png
Notice the imagery of the man being kicked out, and all the anti-male signs paired with the cackling suffragettes. Women gaining the right to vote caused men to fear that they were being oppressed; or, in Tina’s language, made to feel kicked “to the back of the bus,” that they are “not really necessary or needed” and “irrelevant to our society.” After all, if women can do what we do, then what is our purpose?
This is an inherently collectivist mindset; people should get their self-worth from their individual contributions, not from their gender, race, or other social group. I’ll never be in the military; they’d have no use for me. My contribution to society is not based on any specific gender role. I have to make my self-worth for myself. This helps me realize that one group gaining more rights than they had before does not make any one of us less valuable.
It’s a natural reaction, though; all animals are hardwired for hierarchies, and humans are no exception. When we see others moving up in the hierarchy, we percieve it as a threat, especially if we are at or near the top. The notion of “equality” doesn’t exist in the animal kingdom; that’s a product of more advanced human reason. Yet the fear centers of our brain are still very powerful, and it takes effort and critical thinking to overcome it.
Not everyone is up to this task. When Huckabee says that gay marriage is an “attack on Christians” or Coulter talks about how our future Hispanic overlords will not be as kind as we were, they’re advancing an inherently selfish worldview–they don’t realize that these struggles for equality aren’t about them, because they’ve been raised to think everything is about them. Just as the anti-suffragettes constantly tried to make the conversation about women’s suffrage all about how it would affect men.
And the same is true for the argument that we shouldn’t allow women in combat because it will send “another message” that “men aren’t needed in society.” This issue isn’t about men. It’s about women’s equality and opportunity. To say that we should prioritize men’s feelings of insecurity in this conversation is to overtly argue for male supremacy.
You are saying that men’s feelings of insecurity–which we’re perfectly capable of getting over ourselves, thank you very much–are more important than women’s equality of opportunity. Maybe that’s not what you think you’re saying. But that is the entire premise of your argument, whether you notice it or not.
And it’s exactly the same premise of that anti-women’s suffrage cartoon above.
Now maybe there are some good reasons to keep women away from the frontlines. Most women aren’t going to become as strong as the strongest men, the military may be pressured to lower standards, etc. etc. But you haven’t made any of these arguments; instead, you chose the oldest, weakest, and most sexist reason possible to deny women this opportunity–that it might make some men feel bad. That’s not a good reason. If it was, you wouldn’t be allowed to vote today, and you probably wouldn’t have the position in your company that you do.
More anti-suffragette cartoons here (yes, Pie, I’m linking to the Daily Mail. You’ll be thrilled):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236694/War-women-Propaganda-postcards-suffragette-era-fierce-battle-fought-American-women-vote–Obama-thank-job.html
It’s fascinating to me how little the arguments against feminism have changed; then as now, women’s rights activists were portrayed as simultaneously ugly, frigid harpies and sexually promiscuous Jezebels who hated men and wanted female supremacy. Women voting was seen as a tool to dominate men, which is obviously nonsensical, as they weren’t stopping men from voting. Just as today, women aren’t suggesting we ban men from combat.
Here we go again, explaining what the obvious just for Chris: The ONLY point you (Chris) need to know is that women in combat [do not] make a combat unit stronger, they make it weaker. This is a fact.
Drafting women is one thing, drafting them into combat roles is another. Only a tiny percentage of women are capable of combat roles, just as only a tiny percentage of women could even compete on a minor league baseball team with men. There is physiological differences between males and females that cause this, it has nothing to do with politics. Women also have a far higher injury/attrition rate in combat training making training them far less cost effective than males.
When we get down to calling up the 3rd or 4th string for combat roles, fine, women can go. Until then, we should go with our best in combat. Better results, less killed and wounded.
Chris do you have [ANY] military experience or are your opinions coming strictly from your politics? If you have zero experience and education on military matters and lack the knowledge to know the physical differences between male and female then you should have no opinion on this subject and you certainly shouldn’t be criticizing my opinion.
PS There are exceptional females than can handle the rigors of combat. I freely acknowledge this, but statistically they are simply too few in number to base a broad policy of inclusion for ALL females to be allowed to go into combat. If you don’t like this reality, don’t blame me I didn’t make em – I just trained em.
Jack, I wasn’t criticizing your argument or even responding to it; I even said earlier that yours was a valid point.
This article didn’t argue that we shouldn’t let women in combat because of physical differences between men and women. It argued that we shouldn’t let women in combat because doing so might make men feel bad about themselves. Regardless of your agreement with the policy, I hope you can see why this is a terrible argument for it. If we as a society actually considered this argument as valid then we wouldn’t allow women to vote or compete with men for any of the same jobs.
Chris, maybe I misunderstood what you said, “I know there are a lot of men who would never want to be drafted or deal with selective service. There are a lot of men who would also never want to do that. Neither of us should have to (the threat of forcing citizens to fight and die is a pretty big violation of rifts, and about as big government as can be), but if it is going to exist, it should apply to both genders. Equality! What a concept!” But, we’re not equal and that is because of physical differences, not political differences.
That was in a different article, Jack.
Stop It! The point of the article WAS NOT: “we shouldn’t let women in combat because doing so might make men feel bad about themselves.”
The point of the article is the growing evidence that we no longer value the contribution men make and its hurting our entire society. I touched on the military raising standards for new recruits for men that disqualify young men for whom the military might be the last hope they have. I touched on statistical information that shows we are NOT paying enough attention to boys and young men and we’ve done it while focusing on promoting and attending to the futures of young girls and women. I commented that this decision is just another way to send a message that men have no value.
“There is something upside down about a culture that reveres women and denigrates men.”
I DID NOT say we should not “let women in combat.”
In fact I did say: “Opening combat roles to women is one way to increase numbers without giving young men like those being rejected now an opportunity to serve. The lousy economy and sketchy job market offer very little to young men today. Now it seems even the military won’t offer the same alternative to turn to for hope of a future…and these young men that have been virtually abandoned by our changing culture and tossed to the back of the bus will now have to compete with the favored gender over the past several decades. They will have to compete for these jobs with women.”
Tina: “Stop It! The point of the article WAS NOT: “we shouldn’t let women in combat because doing so might make men feel bad about themselves.”
The point of the article is the growing evidence that we no longer value the contribution men make and its hurting our entire society. I touched on the military raising standards for new recruits for men that disqualify young men for whom the military might be the last hope they have. I touched on statistical information that shows we are NOT paying enough attention to boys and young men and we’ve done it while focusing on promoting and attending to the futures of young girls and women. I commented that this decision is just another way to send a message that men have no value.”
The two bolded statements above have the exact same meaning. You may not accept that fact, but that doesn’t make it any less of a fact.
“I DID NOT say we should not “let women in combat.””
Yes, you did.
And Chris the argument, “If we as a society actually considered this argument as valid then we wouldn’t allow women to vote or compete with men for any of the same jobs,” is a crock it’s an absolutist argument that says if we reject one idea we reject them all. You said yourself Jacks made “a valid point” in the discussion.
This is one reason feminists drive me crazy…they’re a rigid group, incapable of thinking critically. The cause comes before common sense.
A woman passing training exercises is one thing, especially since they often lower the standards, but quite another from meeting the enemy on the field of battle close up and personal. MOST women wouldn’t be up to the task. This is a dumb idea on more than one front…revering the contribution men make in our society is one of them in my opinion!
“And Chris the argument, “If we as a society actually considered this argument as valid then we wouldn’t allow women to vote or compete with men for any of the same jobs,” is a crock it’s an absolutist argument that says if we reject one idea we reject them all. You said yourself Jacks made “a valid point” in the discussion.”
Yes, his point was very different from the one you made in this article. He said we shouldn’t let women in all combat positions because women are generally not as physically strong as men. You said we shouldn’t let women in all combat positions because it sends a negative message to men. Those are two very different arguments. Yours is the one I was referring to in the sentence you quoted above.
It’s not an absolutist stance; quite the opposite. It’s a recognition that just because I may have a certain policy preference, that doesn’t justify every single possible argument used to achieve that policy preference. There are dumb pro-choice arguments and dumb gun control arguments; when I see them, I call them out as well.
To say that I’m the one in this conversation who can’t “think critically” or that I’m abandoning common sense is deeply ironic when you have continually refused to think critically about your bad arguments.
Blarg! Two of my responses above are listed as being posted by “Tina.” Not sure if that was my mistake or the site’s.
Chris I’m not sure how it happened that your comments ended up with my name on them either.
It’s unfortunate that you cannot consider the point I was trying to make as a separate item for discussion. As long as you insist on tying together the “rules of feminism” and the point of my article we continue to end up at the same place…”you said”…”that’s not what I was trying to say”…”but you said”…yeah within the context of the articles main point…MEN, NOT WOMEN!…but you did say that and that’s what I want to talk about”…”blow it out your buttress.”
Is it possible for you to set aside your hard core opinion for just a moment to address the effect this decision might have on young men?
Or is everything about women these days and possibly because you need to portray yourself as “feminist informed” and “intellectually elite” (snobbish)?
From my perspective you’re just spitting out a mantra like a trained monkey.
Tina: “Is it possible for you to set aside your hard core opinion for just a moment to address the effect this decision might have on young men?”
I think I’ve addressed this many times.
I specifically said that this decision should not make any man feel less valuable to society. It doesn’t make me feel any less valuable, and if it did, I’d be embarassed.
I haven’t seen any man here say this decision makes them feel “denigrated,” to use your term. I’ve seen a lot of you worrying about the effects of this decision on men, but the actual male participants here haven’t said anything like that. Pie and Jack have both focused on women being less fit for combat than men. RH said some weird stuff about how being a soldier is the worst thing a man can be, so I don’t even know what his actual argument is. But I don’t think any man needs you to stand up for them.
I also said it’s absurd to take a decision giving women more opportunity (however wrongheaded it may be) and focus on the effect it will have on men. You’re saying the feelings of men should take priority in this discussion, and that’s ridiculous. The focus should be on what is best for combat effectiveness.
I’ve said that there are lots of things we can do to boost men’s self-image, and send more positive messages to our young boys, but keeping women out of combat isn’t one of them.
I’ve said that lots of battles over women’s rights have seen critics prioritizing the feelings of men, and those critics have often used the (usually imagined) threat of female domination over men to stand in the way of women gaining equal rights. Whether or not women should be in all combat positions may be a very different question from whether or not women should vote, but “men might feel bad about it” shouldn’t be a consideration in either case.
So not only have I addressed your concern, I’ve done so quite thoroughly.
You, on the other hand, failed to rebut any of the above, because you spent the whole time denying the crux of your argument, which you finally copped to above–that in deciding whether or not to allow women in combat, we should prioritize the effects this decision has on young men. In addition, at no point did you provide any evidence that allowing women into all combat positions would have a negative effect on young men. I don’t see why I should buy into that assertion without proof–especially since, again, not even the conservative men here have expressed such a concern–and your argument reminds me of nothing so much as arguing that allowing blacks into the military would have a negative effect on white soldiers.
Again, none of this means that women should be allowed into all combat positions. But the specific argument you used in this article, and your subsequent comments, to justify keeping women out of these positions was, essentially, “Think of the negative effect it will have on boys if we tell them that women can do what they do!” which, again, was the argument used against women doing literally anything. I would not be surprised if this is an argument used to deny Saudi women the right to drive. To give credence to your argument, to take it seriously, would be to concede that men’s feelings are more important than women’s rights and opportunity. I cannot concede that, and I could not allow such an inherently terrible argument to stand unchallenged, even if I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusion (that men are generally more fit for combat). Bad arguments are bad arguments, and they should be called out, even if they’re made in service of a policy I agree with.
To buy into the argument that we should prioritize the feelings of men in the discussion over whether or not women should be allowed into all combat positions would be to buy into male supremacy. I don’t do that.
“Or is everything about women these days”
Whether or not to allow women into the military is obviously about women. That’s not “everything.” That’s literally the issue you chose to discuss here.
Whether or not women are qualified, physically speaking, for the jobs they are now being accepted for is the crux of the issue. How allowing women into combat affects men is not, and should not, be the issue, unless you believe men’s self-esteem is so fragile that our feelings must take priority over every other consideration, including equality of opportunity, fairness, and combat effectiveness.
I know you don’t actually believe that. So stop making arguments which are based on premises you don’t actually believe. Doing so makes the world dumber.