Feminization of the Military

[DilbertParticipant 281]

This is what happens when feminism corrupts the military.  It degrades your capabilities/effectiveness, confuses your objective, and needlessly puts their lives at risk.

As a Ranger buddy of mine once said, the army’s chief purpose is to kill people and destroy things.  Especially since the end of the Cold War, the US has had an overwhelming advantage over any other military in the world that it engages.  We should/could have handily won every contest since WW II.

War *should* be conducted with such overwhelming force and intensity that it thoroughly defeats/demoralizes/punishes the enemy, and truly serves as a deterrent to other potential bad actors.  But it has become just another tool in the politician’s box to use to suit his agenda.

 

It is for very good reasons the Devil chose to tempt Eve not Adam...

[narwhalParticipant]

I’m not seeing the connection to feminism.  As the article stated, the tolerance for civilian casualties is very low theses days, hence the hesitancy to make a decision.  I see three reasons for that, all tied into modern technology.  The first reason being that modern tech allows keeping civilian casualties low with accurate bombing.  Without accurate bombing, civilian casualties would be expected from the beginning, and there would be much less hesitancy.  The 2nd reason is that modern media can highlight and track civilian casualties due to modern tech, and inform the public on all sides of where mistakes were made.  The third, which you could tie to feminism I suppose, is that the world is much more sensitive to casualties, whether it be from civilians or combatants, then we used to be.

Ok. Then do it.

[chirParticipant]

No, I don’t think so.  More like limp dicked politicians who are worried more about public opinion and their next election, rather than the number of flag draped coffins their waffling will produce.

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

[DilbertParticipant 281]

narwhal wrote:

I’m not seeing the connection to feminism….the tolerance for civilian casualties is very low … the world is much more sensitive … then we used to be.

I think part of my response you have already provided.  Modern “tolerance” and “sensitivity” are feminine traits.  Neither of these terms belong on a battlefield to begin with.  Leaders, politicians, and even the media “used to be” less feminized and understood this.  Take a close look at how armies operated during WW II and then read media reports of the time.  The collateral civilian deaths caused by our bombing of German cities was seen totally different back then.

And besides, nowadays tolerance and sensitivity are standards that are usually selectively applied based on the agenda, especially by the media.  Nobody seems to be making a ruckus that ISIS doesn’t fight with anything close to tolerance and sensitivity.

There is a male version of tolerance and sensitivity that is based in the reality of the situation, which is that ISIS needs their ass kicked hard then crushed into oblivion for the sake of a bigger cause.  I am very sensitive to the huge pain and suffering they have brought anywhere they go.

 

It is for very good reasons the Devil chose to tempt Eve not Adam...

[Schaefe89Participant 163]

Welcome to liberal America where feelings are more important than results.

[narwhalParticipant]

What do you mean, no one cares that we ISIS is not tolerant and sensitive?  You could make the argument that there lack of tolerance and sensitivity is the very reason we are fighting them to begin with.  Would we be involved if the fought against Syria/Iraq military only?   Would we be involved if they had not beheaded Americans?  We aren’t friends with Syria, so I don’t know that we would even care if it were not for civilian casualties (and the threat of terrorism).

I do believe that the US should approach ISIS looking at the big picture.  It makes no sense to eliminate ISIS if we take out the civilians we are supposably protecting at the same time.  We do need to use our tech advantage to take a moral high ground.  However, I do think we need to apply logical cost benefit analysis.  If we believe taking out a target, killing 10 civilians in the process can safe the lives of 100 civilians, then we need to do it.  This is what we did when we dropped the bombs on Japan, and this is what we should do now.

To me the link to feminism is kinda weak.  Calling it out as feminism is a distraction, there’s not really a need to point out the reason for the problem.  You only need to point out the logic of the situation and point out the most humane thing to do, what saves lives, is to take decisive action.

Ok. Then do it.

[treelville..miamiParticipant 893]

The article doesn’t say anything about women.

However, I get it. I’ve seen first hand what women have done to the military, they’ve made a mockery of the training, the code. The rules don’t apply to them they don’t make the drill times, not even close while men are required to meet drill times “no exceptions”, they cry during obstacle and shooting courses. Heck during boot camp they just mosey on through the training while men are pushed to near death exhaustion, definitely a huge double standard in treatment. Also after deployment they’ll get pregnant on purpose just to get sent home or get a cushy desk job and lets not even talk about all the rape allegations. Also all these bitches claiming to be combat veterans, as if! Thats stolen valor, women aren’t even allowed in the combat zones yet, they’re safely implanted in the rear with the gear. Its become a manginas army, and Putin is probably laughing his ass off as our women continue to s~~~ on their own country.

 

"The wounds of honor are self inflicted"

[Solid SnakeParticipant 255]

Its not neccessarily a bad thing the Coalition forces aren’t engaging in a ground war or getting more involved, its ISIS’ wet dream to have us go in and send in troops, it would boost their numbers hugely as all sorts of f~~~ed up wannabe jihadi’s jump at the chance to kill some westerners and join ISIS from all over the world.

At the moment we’re not giving them what they want, and thats a good thing IMO.

These f~~~ers won’t be a walk in the park, professional outfit with combat experience, lots of $$$ and community support behind them, this is the Middle East’s problem, their f~~~ing neighbours can help out instead of us Coalition forces putting our boys on the line and paying out tons of $$$ which none of us can afford in these times.

We’ll assist from the outskirts and in other ways.

Unfortunately this is the sort of s~~~ that happens when you remove dictators from the Middle East, they aren’t ready for democracy and freedom, at least those crazy f~~~s kept everything in check, now they’re gone its gotten worse, created a power vacuum these c~~~s have filled.

[DilbertParticipant 281]

treelville..miami wrote:

The article doesn’t say anything about women. However, I get it. I’ve seen first hand what women have done to the military, they’ve made a mockery of the training, the code. The rules don’t apply to them they don’t make the drill times, not even close while men are required to meet drill times “no exceptions”, they cry during obstacle and shooting courses. Heck during boot camp they just mosey on through the training while men are pushed to near death exhaustion, definitely a huge double standard in treatment. Also after deployment they’ll get pregnant on purpose just to get sent home or get a cushy desk job and lets not even talk about all the rape allegations. Also all these bitches claiming to be combat veterans, as if! Thats stolen valor, women aren’t even allowed in the combat zones yet, they’re safely implanted in the rear with the gear. Its become a manginas army, and Putin is probably laughing his ass off as our women continue to s~~~ on their own country.

You’re right, there wasn’t a direct connection to feminism in the article, I guess that now my eyes are fully open I’m seeing it’s insidious influence everywhere.  And how accepted and normal it has become.  The examples you list above have their roots in the effects of feminine influence.  That kind of crap would never have happened when my dad was a sailor.

One key for me is when I look at something or some situation and I think to myself that from a man’s perspective this doesn’t make sense.

It is for very good reasons the Devil chose to tempt Eve not Adam...

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

Dilbert wrote:

This is what happens when feminism corrupts the military. It degrades your capabilities/effectiveness, confuses your objective, and needlessly puts their lives at risk. As a Ranger buddy of mine once said, the army’s chief purpose is to kill people and destroy things. Especially since the end of the Cold War, the US has had an overwhelming advantage over any other military in the world that it engages. We should/could have handily won every contest since WW II. War *should* be conducted with such overwhelming force and intensity that it thoroughly defeats/demoralizes/punishes the enemy, and truly serves as a deterrent to other potential bad actors. But it has become just another tool in the politician’s box to use to suit his agenda.

A large chunk of trying to defeat ISIS/ISIL is to be able to cause the nations where ISIS is trying to gain ground, to reject them, and not fight for them.  You do civilian casualties, and you cause more to join ISIS.  This is a new world of battle.  You can’t just drop bombs to win.  You have to win the political ground game.  Americas also won’t tolerate sending in a large military force, particularly after Iraq.

The USA is playing around with Vietnam here, when dealing with ISIS.  The dangers of ISIS/ISIL is you can’t fight it normally.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[Author]

Posts