New-Wave feminism isn’t any better for military women than it is for non-military women

suffragette-votes-for-womenFirst wave feminism, which got women the vote, was a wonderful and necessary thing for a healthy society.  Second wave feminism, which got women equal pay for equal work, and which gave them equal access to work that did  not dependent on attributes unique to the male sex, was a wonderful and necessary thing for a healthy society.  Since then, though, it’s all been downhill, with “New-Wave” feminism engendering all sorts of trends that are damaging for women as individuals and for society as a whole.

The new wave of feminism says that women are wasting themselves looking for a stable married life with a partner who will work with them to raise the next generation of children.  Instead, women are being encouraged to have promiscuous “hook-up” sex, which leaves them physically and emotionally vulnerable.  At the same time, they’re being encouraged to delay their child-rearing years so that, when they finally want children, many of them discover that they can’t have them or can only have them at great expense, while most of them discover that taking care of small children when you’re almost 40 is a lot tougher than doing the same in your mid-20s.  (For more on this, see Camille Paglia’s spot-on essay about putting sex back in sex education.)

slutwalk5The new wave of feminism says that men are evil and oppressive rapists and that they need to be tightly controlled.  This is a fun-house mirror image of the equally  horrific sharia doctrine that says that men are too weak to resist women’s enticements and that women therefore need to be tightly controlled.  This isn’t just a playful “war of the sexes;” it’s a war of attrition between the sexes that envisions, not marriage and children and partnerships, but a zero sum game, with one side reduced to sexual slavery.

The new wave of feminism says that women, despite being able to “roar” (see both Helen Reddy and Katy Perry) are in fact perpetual victims.  Evil men stand ready to beat them, rape them, take their jobs, steal their education, demean them and otherwise commit horrible punishments upon them unless the government intervenes on women’s behalf.

The new wave of feminism says babies are disposable.  They interfere with the whole “free love” and “career” dynamic.  Abortion, rather than being a last resort when the women’s situation is untenable, becomes a first resort to get rid of an inconvenience.

It turns out that the new wave of feminism may not be so good for women in the military either.  An organization called “Center for Military Readiness,” which bills itself as a non-partisan entity focused solely on the best policies for America’s military, has put out a position paper saying that the Obama administration’s decision to force women onto the front line in combat zones isn’t just bad for the military, its bad for women too.  Here are just a few of its observations:

Women marines pull-ups1. Military Women Do Not Want To Serve in the Combat Arms

A recent survey of Army personnel thoroughly discredited the idea that most uniformed women actually want to serve in land combat fighting teams that currently are all-male.


2. Three Pull-Up Test Not Suitable for Female Boot Camp Trainees

Pentagon civilians and military leaders keep claiming that sufficient numbers of women will meet “gender-neutral” standards before they serve in the combat arms. Now comes reality, revealed at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island, SC.


3. Equal Success Eludes Women at Officer and Enlisted Infantry Training

In 2012, General Amos announced a multi-phased program to assess the feasibility of women serving in the combat arms. The process is supposed to be careful and “measured,” but the Marines have not produced any metrics or empirical evidence that women are or can be trained to be interchangeable with men in “tip of the spear” combat teams that attack the enemy. In fact, most indicators are to the contrary.

And so it goes, with page after page of evidence showing that women don’t want to be in combat, that women cannot meet current combat-readiness standards, and that women are injured when they try to reach those standards. That last resonates with me. Women have very different bone, muscle, tendon, and ligament configurations. Even the strongest woman you know isn’t going to have all the muscles protecting her neck that a heavily muscled man can amass. Her joints are going to be looser too, which is great for carrying and delivering babies, but lousy for hauling heavy packs and engaging in intense physical combat.

This biological reality explains why CrossFit, a Northern California fitness training company (and therefore almost certainly reliably Progressive in outlet) is refusing to let a male to female transgender person compete as a woman in an upcoming fitness competition.  Chloie Jonsson may have effected a cosmetic change so that her exterior self aligns with her interior belief about herself (and there’s nothing wrong with that), but there is no procedure that changes Jonsson’s lifelong development as a male, with dense bones, heavy muscles, and strong tendons and ligaments:

CrossFit’s general counsel, Dale Saran, would not comment on the suit, which seeks $2.5 million in damages. Saran directed The AP to a CrossFit online discussion board, where he posted that Jonsson had not supplied medical documents to back up her assertion that she was a woman.

“The fundamental, ineluctable fact is that a male competitor who has a sex reassignment procedure still has a genetic makeup that confers a physical and physiological advantage over women,” Saran wrote in a letter to McCoy that’s linked to the discussion board.


But back to the the CMR report. You really should read the whole thing.  It’s based on hard-data, rather than academic theory, and, as is always the case when there’s a showdown between real world facts and Progressive theory, the facts win every time.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    You’d pretty much have to be gung ho or a fanatic to be a woman, single or married, wanting to serve on the front lines in combat.
    As I mentioned before, most of the Democrat poison in the military-women complex category is for the express purpose of generating political officers, such as women who want to advance faster in their careers than their peers. This will allow them to herd the sheep along, using women political officers to tell the women what to do and when to do it. Just like unions use blacks and tin pot puppets to control the black community. Just like police use black and white “professional” cops to quiet down the inside “whistle blowers” on police corruption. To have an efficient slave plantation system, one needs overseers. And the best overseers are the slaves that want to get one rank above the slaves, but not more than the Masters.

  • Ymarsakar

    Wars aren’t fought by facts though. Keep that in mind.

  • Matt_SE

    “Chloie Jonsson may have effected a cosmetic change so that her exterior self aligns with her interior belief about herself (and there’s nothing wrong with that)”
    Uh, you forgot to add the /sarc tag.

  • JohnC

    Males are born to be begetters, females are born to be bearers.
    Our bodies are designed for our specific roles.
    No amount of surgery, cosmetics or hormones can change that fact.

  • jj

    These characterizations are always vaguely amusing.  If men are oppresive rapists – and bigger, stronger, faster, etc., etc., – and need to be controlled, the question becomes: how ya planning on doing that, ladies?  Whips, chains, cattle prods and guns?  Better outnumber us pretty good, too.
    As with the United States: If we were one-tenth the bad guys the rest of the pissants around the world accuse us of being, would any of you be left to comment?  

  • Ymarsakar

    One of the things a First or Second wave feminist leader said after she looked back on her organization was that it was no longer hers and no longer something she could control. For it had been taken over by humanity hating maniacs and fanatics (i.e. Communists and human criminals).

    • Ymarsakar

      That pretty much sounds like the average American nincompoop now. They wake up and America is now “transformed”.
      That’s what happens when you look at the Ideal and forget that human applications are at the bottom, not the top.

  • Call me Lennie

    I once encountered, in a gym, a woman with a large frame who had served as a firefighter on a aircraft carrier during the Gulf War.  I have no doubt she got this job as part of some PC feminist push to get women into more combat support jobs.  As such, she was granted a lower standard when it came to the amount of weight she needed to carry on her body
    Only problem, when actual military ops occurred, she was forced to “pull her weight”  (the actual combat standard).  Sadly, the work load inevitably overtaxed her body’s structure  and caused a permanent irreparable injury to some fundamental, mid-body support structure.  I can’t remember what it was (wasn’t spinal) but this woman was definitely ‘effed up.  She moved around like a frail old woman
    She complained that her superior officer violated some (absurd PC) regulation by forcing her to do the same work load as the men, as if a reg like that has any application in wartime.  Amazingly, what she couldn’t grasp was that the reg itself is what did her in.  I didn’t disabuse her of that idea because I could see she was already suffering plenty

    • Ymarsakar

      They suffer more for being on the wrong track than being told the truth.
      The fact that patriots are too weak to get in the face of the tools to tell them what is really going on, while Leftists will bring a gun to a knife fight, kill rape legions of their enemies, and get in your face to destroy your beliefs, is why the Left has power and patriots are stuck whining.