I consider myself lucky that I never had to deal with the integration of females into infantry units. It happened a few years after I came back to the civilian world, but it was certainly a topic of conversation while I was in. There wasn’t a man among us who thought it was a good idea. The physical capabilities of a woman are dramatically inferior to that of a man’s, but you’ll always hear about those stellar female PT stars, and all of those brave women who had their hands held and guided though Ranger School.
Of course, nobody wants to admit the whole thing seems absurd at face value. I’d chuckle when thinking about my sister putting on a uniform and trying to lift a simulated casualty and transport them out of a kill box, but soldiers certainly wouldn’t think it was funny if it were real. If the condition of the female imperial soldiers occupying Washington, D.C. during the inauguration are any indication, then female soldiers would be slaughtered on the battlefield. No amount of political grandstanding is going to change that, but that’s certainly not going to stop the offended, quivering jowls of Master Gunnery Sergeant Scott Stalker from making an attempt.
For those who are unaware, Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson has been taking direct shots at the current administration and its management and response to China’s growing naval power. In a recent segment, Carlson lambasted the Biden administration for touting maternity flight suits as improvements to U.S. military force readiness. Yes, you read that correctly. Pregnant women fighting wars are not a detriment, as logic would have you believe, but are, in fact, force multipliers. As Stalker explains it, the time that women take away from their units during maternity leave actually helps them become more proficient in war.
Stalker’s blatant appeal to authority at the beginning of his video is only the beginning of a long line of logical fallacies. His claim, that the women coming back from maternity leave have had enough recuperation time, not only completely misses the mark, but is laughable on its face. He insists that women make the U.S. military a “more lethal, and ready, and fit force. Ready to fight the wars of today. Ready to fight the wars of tomorrow.” That’s a direct quote. You really can’t make this up. We’re going to see just how wrong Stalker is as we move forward.
First and foremost, we have basic biology. For the same reasons why sane, moral people have a problem with the gender-disabled cracking open the skulls of actual women in mixed martial arts, we need to acknowledge that there is a dramatic difference in physical ability between males and females. There’s a massive overall disparity in strength, speed, endurance, size, and agility that every reader here understands when turning on any athletic competition. For a better example and a real side-by-side comparison, do an internet search for Australian handball player Hannah Mouncey. Granted, there’s some topic overlap there, but it should really give the reader a clear visual representation of the kind of absurd comments the Master Gunnery Sergeant is making.
Unfortunately for Stalker, and for his entire argument of physical equality, even the Department of Defense admits the differences in the physical fitness tests that service members are given. For those of you unaware, the testing standards for male and female service members are adjusted to account for the diminished physical capabilities of female service members. Times and amounts are adjusted across the board to account for the physical differences, yet we still have to put of with the obvious lie of equality in outcome. We need to believe that your standard 110-240lbs American woman, with a 60-lbs combat load, can move a man who weighs 220lbs before donning his rucksack. It’s simply not happening.
Next, we can address the reality of female service members and their units. Nope, it’s not just about the pregnancy, although that’s still certainly a part of it. As a former service member, I’ve certainly met my fair share of friends from different branches, both in and out of the service. One of the great constants across the service branches is the woman’s ability to get pregnant immediately before a deployment. Without fail. There hasn’t been a single time that I’ve been deployed where there wasn’t more than a few women popping up pregnant in the adjacent units deploying with us. I’ve taken wagers, and won money on it. Granted, it’s not entirely the topic at hand, but the effects on the unit, whether the woman has intentionally become pregnant or not, are the same. They are down a person that the unit had been training with for the coming deployment. That doesn’t even take any military experience to understand, so I don’t see why Stalker felt the need to attack Tucker Carlson for pointing out observable facts.
The most disappointing part of Master Gunnery Sergeant Scott Stalker’s wild-eyed address wasn’t the last third of his message, where he was struggling and stuttering though his own nonsense. It’s not even his address. It’s his professional résumé. This is a man with extensive professional training in specialty schools and touts twenty-eight years of service in the United States Marine Corps. This man not only thinks that maternity flight suits make our nations military stronger, but completely misses why that makes both him and the imperial military a laughing stock.
In my last article, I talked about about how we need to starve the machine. I talked about how Southerners need to look after our own interests and health, and that certainly starts with the health of our families. Scott Stalker sees your pregnant wives, daughters, and sisters as powerful additions to the field of war. We all know they don’t belong there.
Let’s keep mothers out of harm’s way. Permanently.
Deo Vindice
-By AQ
O I’m a good old rebel, now that’s just what I am. For this “fair land of freedom” I do not care at all. I’m glad I fit against it, I only wish we’d won, And I don’t want no pardon for anything I done.
Good write-up. And a topic that, under the current upside-down, bassackwards world we’re all relegated to inhabiting, cannot get too much attention in my view. It’s also my strong view that women do not belong in the military at all, aside from the combat issue and all its related problems. The biggest reason for which I say this is that allowing women in in any capacity, and in any numbers cannot but eventually lead to where we are now with all this nonsensical talk of “combat opportunities for women,” all this sheer dumbassery about pregnant women making the military stronger and blah blah. I hate to have to say this about a senior Marine Corps officer, but the guy is damn idiot, pure and simple. Either that, or he is simply lying out his hindparts for his own selfish reasons. Either way, his argument is sub-moronic at best.
When I was in the AF, I worked with and around about eight women on a regular basis, and a lot more of them on a not so regular basis. As such, I came to understand rather quickly what they were all about overall in their roles in the military. With exception of only two of them (who were southerners, btw – two more hailed from southern states, but were not southrons, or of southron lineage), they were all there for purely selfish reasons; and on top of that they literally hated historic America and had precisely zero patriotic impulses therefore.
Women don’t join the military for patriotic reasons; they join for selfish reasons – in short, they join for the free ride the military offers them. Lots of them make no bones about it either, although the smarter set will tell you they joined because they ‘love their country’; that the free ride motivations (free education, free healcare, etc) were just a bonus.
I’ve written about this a million times, and like virtually everything else I write about, I tire of writing about it eventually. So I’m glad there is someone else out there who is willing to take up the mantle. Bottom line: it isn’t just that women in combat is a bad idea, it is simply a bad idea for women to be in the military at all, for the reason(s) I’ve just stated, and more. When Kipling wrote about “The Female of the Species,” he was talking about the greater propensity for emotion-driven, vengeance-seeking females to ruthlessness, not of their physical prowess, which of course is far inferior to their male counterparts, as you wrote.
Women don’t belong in war, period.
Women have no business in the military. Except for nursing. Otherwise waste of time and money and it turns most of them into whores.
Sgt Snorkel is certainly a Company Man – I always thought the Marines were over rated. Watch a documentary or two on the training of French Foreign Legions recruits receive (and the Legion emphatically does not even consider female membership) and compare that with the “Gyrenes”. A Jobs program.
I was a marine. 0351. 8th Marines. It was low budget army. Not sure what they’re turning the corps into but it’s not for the better
If you think about the basic logistics of it, everything also doubles in price and weight because you have to provide double the amount of barracks and latrines for gender segregation and carry twice the amount of tents / shelters as well, then twice the amount of apparel and then finally in the United Kingdoms case, buy them tampons for free. They’ll have to design the next combat rifle to be specifically easier to use for women and in turn probably less powerful, sturdy and effective. Even in a theoretical scenario where women were the same as men, the majority of troops would still be having sex all the time in turn getting pregnant and spreading sexual diseases.
I wonder if there is a typo in the part where it says “your standard 110-240 pound American woman” in regards to lifting a 220 pound male soldier during a combat situation. I would hope that 240 pounds has not yet become a “standard” weight for women yet, unless they are 6’5 or taller. Did the author perhaps mean 110-140 pounds?
“But but Russian women snipers!”