Saturday, November 1, 2014

Women In The Infantry - Kurdish Edition - NSFW

                         NSFW.
If you're squeamish, skip this post. That's not a tease.



















Dear Combat Barbie, and G. I. Jane,
Lately, the Usual Suspects have been trying to tell you that you, too, can be an infantry grunt, because WOMYN-POWER!
They don't tell you about how you'll be smaller, slower, weaker, and break easier than 85+% of guys, or any number of other things that would make you run screaming from the recruiter's office.
And the people pushing this BS won't EVER be next to you in the foxhole; they'll be back in D.C., or safe drinking Starbucks over the WaPo at N.O.W. HQ.

But they'll show you fluff PR pics like this:

Unfortunately, this is not the infantry.

                                     
This is.



So maybe you'd like to see the brochures on clerical openings in Personnel Admin, Finance, Intelligence/Translator, and the Nursing Corps.

Or better yet, stay the hell out of the military altogether, so that you never have to worry about being in one of these pics, and neither do your parents, your friends, or your fellow service members.

You're REALLY not cut out for this shit, Cupcake.
But you WILL be cut up for it.

19 comments:

Robin Datta said...

Allahu Akbar

Anonymous said...

What are the REAL stats for women in the Israeli IDF? Are they supposed to carry their weight exactly as the guys are? What's their effectiveness? I don't know these things, so I'm asking honestly.

If they CAN do the same things and their combat effectiveness is the same, is it cultural (being under threat constantly for life can make a person tougher minded), or do we just not train women here as well for combat roles? Some women I know are bigger and stronger than some guys I know, so that's that 15% right there in any case that you allowed for, but why does Israel allow it, is my main question, and ARE the women as effective in combat roles?

Anonymous said...

Ah, got my own answers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-30/israeli-female-soldiers-shooting-infiltrators-offer-u-s-lessons.html

So some standards are lowered, the mindset is different, and it's a defense of homeland issue which is very different from here,and very few women actually serve in combat roles, so the two can't be equated. Got it.

Aesop said...

They are NO women stronger than all men, but 85% of women are weaker than ALL men.

If you want to only allow the women in who can perform to the minimum male standard on day one, we can talk.

The average woman enlistee currently, who can barely make the male minimum, performs to a physical standard of the minimum for 40-45 y.o. males.
None of them perform to the standard of 18 y.o. males.

They'll generally be too broken to serve beyond one tour, some of them permanently.

And as those two pics point out, the enemy doesn't gender-norm the performance curve.

Israel uses women because they're an entire country smaller than the population of the metropolis I live in, in territory that can mostly be cut in half by driving less than the distance from Disneyland to Dodger Stadium.

They take anybody they can get, because they have no options, and as much as possible, they don't put them in front-line combat, because it's a disaster.

Just like the above post shows.

Political correctness doesn't trump biology or physiology.

Anonymous said...

I recommend that you read Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad." There are several pages where he describes female antitank gun crews in action, who slowed down the German advance on the city in August-September 1942 and were almost all killed while holding the line. This is but one example of women in combat roles in the Red Army during WWII. There were also female sniper and fighter aces, and females were prevalent in the partisans. So to me, the question is not "Can women perform?", but "Is the culture and command climate conducive to ensuring that women are able to perform and made to perform?" Right now in the USA, the answer to the latter is a loud "no." Ours is, of course, much more of an entitlement culture, and from what I saw with my own eyes in the service, too many women are using the service primarily as a form of welfare. Also, our military is primarily an imperial/expeditionary force, and when you send a bunch of men and women into some desert for a year, things will happen and a very high proportion of the women will need to have their deployments cut short due to pregnancy, what with abortions not being available in Afghanistan and so forth. So the other question is, "Is it really worth the trouble?" I don't know of anyone who would answer "yes" to that with a straight face, yet we are moving in that direction due to the Democrat's attempt to make "women's issues" a centerpiece of their long-term political strategy. On the plus side, if it helps degrade our military, makes it less capable of interfering in foreign affairs and doing little other than spreading chaos as it has done since WWII, then I suppose I might be all for it.

Anonymous said...

Allegedly, "Rehana" killed over a 100 ISIS (which I suppose is possible if she were sniper detail or some such). If even one-one-hundreth of that is true, she did alright.

gamegetter II said...

"They are NO women stronger than all men, but 85% of women are weaker than ALL men."

"Political correctness doesn't trump biology or physiology"

Those two statements should settle the question,if not-add in the pregnancy rates on deployments-and it becomes crystal clear to anyone with more than 3 working brain cells that women have no place in combat roles-not in our current armed forces.

Guerrilla forces in South America have used women in "combat" effectively,FARC,Sendero Luminoso,all the way back to Che Guevera (sp?) and co.

In the current clusterfuck in the ME-women in combat will end up like the pics-with Achmed holding up their severed heads for more pics to use as propaganda.

Anonymous said...

The first two Anonymous posts were me and then me reading and figuring stuff out for myself. I've barely been paying attention to this because damnit JIm, I'm a 44 year old woman and apiarist, not an infantryman ;)

I've heard vague rumblings about the Israeli IDF when the subject does come up on occasion, so I figured I'd do a little reading for once on it and came to the same conclusion Aesop did - "Nope." Still going with "Nope". I do know an Army combat medic who's a woman, she knows her stuff and served her tours, but as for infantry, especially in THIS military .. nope.

Seems more an exercise in promoting an agenda than actually having forces that are ready for combat. After even further reading, I've had this confirmed by the USMC at least.

http://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/InterimCMRSpecRpt-100314.pdf

-T

Aesop said...

@ Anon 1:32
No one denies women can pull a trigger. But they can't do the rest of the job, and particularly in the infantry, that means marching with everyday loads that would kill a horse.

The Russians, with their backs up against the wall, were conscripting everything with legs just to survive.

How many women serve in the Russian anti-tank corps today?
Zero. Case closed.

Anonymous said...

I'm not for women in the military and as for me, they would pay me NOT to join, but, the Kurds are in a bad situation. A Kurdish woman has the choice of getting captured and sold off as a sex slave to a bunch of psychopaths or fighting to the death. If it was me, I'd choose to die fighting.

Maggie

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you don't know, but those words prompt a fairly vicious cerebral response in many of us. Some may even look at them as eliciting a targeting impulse.

Anonymous said...

There is a certain body of thought which maintains that half the shit a grunt has to hump is unnecessary garbage specifically piled up on him to make ineffective.

Rich Young said...

She was a member of the Kurdish Women's Brigade. She engaged a room full of baddies alone. As she was about to be overwhelmed she took herself and three isis POS out with a hand grenade. The got her head after death. RIP, warrior.

Rich

Aesop said...

It's a nice story, but told by whom with any actual knowledge?
I was unaware of any press presence embedded with ISIS.

Anonymous said...

Rich, I wish it was true. But so many of the "hero" stories are BS.

"Greg" said...

@anonymous 9:45pm "I've got plenty of experience, maybe even more than you" o.k. let's hear what your experience was - years? MOS?

heavy sarcasm = troll.

Really, why not at least pick some kind of screen name? I'm sure "hacktivists" would have no problem finding out your real name, address, etc?

Aesop said...

Obvious troll is obvious.
Also gone.

tweell said...

The Kurds are not feminists by any means. They are organized by tribe and as such do not want to lose their breeders. Kurd women going into battle means that their backs are up against the wall, that they expect to die so they might as well go out fighting.

It is barely possible that they are doing this for western propaganda reasons. but I don't think it's likely.

Aesop said...

Correct.
Only the US media is hyping it for propaganda reasons.