Women Should Not Be in Combat Positions

I normally stay away from “current event” politics. My interests are properly and primarily aligned to long term political and legal philosophy development and influence.

Translation : arguing trivial bullshit takes away from real, long term goals, to permanently fix “governments” instituted among men — which are currently and largely illegal institutions that violate your unalienable rights on a daily, if not minute-by-minute basis.

The real trouble is at home, not in far off desert sand unconstitutional wars of aggression funded by all sorts of illegal activity — from illegal legal tender laws, illegal violently enforced taxation, the complete, total, and absolute abandonment of the rule of law, NDAA, Patriot Act, secret prisons, torture, murder, the open assassination of American citizens, illegal drone strikes, illegal drone surveillance … pick your flavor of the Orwellian Police State, there’s plenty to go around.

With that said, I do have some interest in this topic : females in combat. I have an interest in this topic because it pertains to physical health interests of mine, as well as, in a distant way, male/female human relationships.

My first conclusion is that women should probably avoid joining the military in the first place. There hasn’t been a declared war since WWII, which means there has not been a legal war since the 1940s. This means it is physically impossible to be a current member of the federal military and maintain your oath to the US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, by direct extension.

You cannot be in the military and swear oath to such entities at the same time. This has been true since the super majority of people reading this were even born. If this is all news to you, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Perhaps it’s time you woke the fuck up, and started serving your country, instead of it’s general government.

The distinction I just made is vitally important. If you did not pick up on it, please re-read the preceding statement carefully.

My second conclusion is as the title states so clearly : women should not be in combat positions. Combat for women should be absolutely avoided unless and until this federal union of independent sovereign states we call “America” is under literal and immediate invasion by a foreign nation, Red Dawn style (original or re-make, take your pick).

Until then, when an enemy is quite possible invading your city, it is a horrible idea to allow women into combat roles (when at such point, it would be the equivalent, or close relative of self-defense).

While Fox News and other neo-conservative-quasi-fascist talking suits have done a fantastic job of making asses of themselves and of the following points, I will make them all the same (much more clearly and competently, as if that were a difficult job in this case).

Physical Inferiority

Here is a simple list of fundamental physical inferiority points for women, as they pertain to a highly physical, and extremely demanding job like in your face combat with a fucking gun and a shit ton of weight loaded on your body.

As far as I am aware, none of these are controversial. These can all be found and verified within minutes by searching the internet. Some are glaringly obvious. Some points will be slightly redundant, but have value in an alternative wording.

Please take specific note : these are *points* other people are not talking about, because they are fundamental points resistant to or are completely unaffected by a particular woman’s level of fitness, training, genetic heritage, size, shape, diet, growth-drug usage, etc.

These are effectively the “starting points” for female human beings :

  • less effective hormone profile for skeletal muscle hypertrophy and metabolic fitness
    • (less effective adaptation to physically demanding stimulus)
  • males have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with ~56% greater lung volume per body mass.
  • males have larger hearts, higher hemoglobin, and greater oxygen-carrying capacity.
  • females have a weaker ability to regulate core body temperature
  • female skin is thinner
  • males have greater blood volume
    • (more reslient to blood loss)
  • males have denser, stronger bones, and connective tissues
  • male pelvis is more optimized for walking/running
  • females are more prone to patella dislocation
  • females are more prone to MPFL tears/damage
  • females are more prone to ACL tears/damage
  • males have higher circulating clotting factors
  • males heal faster, have higher pain tolerance

Remember, this is a small list. It is by no means complete. And of even more importance, out of the 3.5 billion women on this earth, and in regards to the short list of above points, it does not matter who you are.

These are not subject to an individual’s _____________ fill in the blank.

Contrary to what the culture has lead you to believe, a woman being of similar height, shape, size, and muscle mass, does not make her the physical equal of a corresponding male.

 

When a woman physically trains in the military, or elsewhere, skin on her body does not suddenly become thicker (unless by callus). Her bones and connective tissue do not suddenly equate to the level of an untrained man’s.

Some of these things can be mitigated (to varying degrees) through training or other stimuli, but not completely. And of yet greater importance, again, you are crawling out of a dug out hole. You are fighting an uphill battle, from the very start, at all times, forever, and across the entire spectrum of human females.

The fact that you have to mitigate a large array of physically inferior aspects of your body, indicates you should not be participating in specific extremely-physically-demanding positions in war.

This is not law enforcement.

This is not fire-fighting.

It is completely irrelevant if you can do as many push ups as an active-duty Navy SEAL. Because even when you do, you are still physically inferior. The (acute) physical feats do not correlate to fundamental physical equality.

Such a female would still be more prone to injury, less physically robust and resilient to damage, heal slower, clot less effectively, and physical adaptations would dissipate more quickly during an untrained stretch of time (such as when, you know, you’re fucking stuck somewhere without help).

No Intent to Injure

Unlike most misogynists masquerading as feminists, I actually love women. I adore them. Your entire gender makes my world and my life a fantastic, exciting, joyful place to live.

That said, there is no intent to injure in this article. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

The positions taken in this article are directly derived from basic observations and measurements of the physical differences between the male and female human gender. “You are physically inferior for combat” is not an insult, and cannot be legitimately taken as an insult.

It is a fact. Deal with it, accept it. It is absurd to bitch and moan about, the same way it is absurd for men to bitch and moan about their “inherent” inability to breast feed, or bear children.

It’s a fact of existence, and complaining about it is nothing short of ridiculous. For this role, you are physically inferior, and fundamentally physically inferior individuals (an entire gender), get other people killed.

It is a tradition in these United States for women not to perform in combat. This tradition is not good because it is a tradition. It is good because it incidentally respects reality. It is a tradition worth maintaining (like liberty, the right to own a gun, to speak freely, to not fear your government, etc).

 

I will update this post very soon with additional points (and a simple rebuttal to the counter-physical points women will sound off without missing a beat).

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at TheDreamLounge.net and Declarationism.com.

32 Responses to Women Should Not Be in Combat Positions

  1. Martina January 30, 2013 at 10:40 am #

    Hey Anthony,
    I agree with what you`ve written. Not only women are weaker in terms of their physicality, but their brains are evolutionarily designed to work in a different way compared to the men`s. They just think and feel differently.
    After the WWI the generation of men who fought in the war was called The Lost Generation because of the enormous loss of dreams, values and ideals… I can`t even imagine how this generation would be called if there were women actively participating the war.
    We, human beings as species should respect that we are, in some aspects, part of the nature and we shouldn`t underestimate the evolutionary heritage. From this point of view women are supposed to give birth and take care of their beloved rather than to fight and kill.
    I mean I am a girl/a woman. I am not sitting at home and waiting what happens. I have dreams and goals in my life that I want to achieve, but they are more congruent with my feminine essence. I don`t need to join the army to prove that I am equal to men. I think that these efforts kill the good vibes between the two sexes.
    Greetings from the Czech Republic,
    Martina

    • Kari January 31, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

      I love your reply, Martina. You seem lovely. Greeting from Hawaii:) Kari

    • chester May 3, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

      may i add that the experiences from the israeli military is that when a women is wounded in a mixed gender combat unit, men will instinctively become aggressively protective of the women wounded, and it can effect there judgement to an extent that they do not properly operate and respond. also it was found by the israeli army that middle eastern men will not surrender to women, as i suppose as a matter of honour, because they feel women are inferior. this lessens the effect of the military force, because it increases the force and length of the resistance of the opposition. also the interrogation techniques that can be used when a women interrogates a male prisoner of war, like in guantanamo bay, should be regulated by the geneva convention, cos that’s just not good cricket.

  2. Orthodox Hindu Atheist January 30, 2013 at 7:52 pm #

    The African male is superior to all males in the above listed criteria of physicality. Other men can sometimes come close, rarely equal to, but never surpass. Still other men than African descended men are fighting in combat.

    “males heal faster, have higher pain tolerance”

    Healing faster I don’t know but women in general have higher threshold to pain.

    American women are going into combat now that ground level combat is being completely phased out of war fare.

    This is the age of drone missiles.

    I’m still astounded that humans have not yet evolved to work out their issues through intellectual exchange and verbal negotiations.

    We are still incredibly primitive.

    • MC February 1, 2013 at 2:46 am #

      @Dream

      I personally have thought of joining the military myself for the past while now, but illegal wars and unnecessary foreign intervention has kept me from doing it. I don’t think it’s a good time to be a soldier.

      @Orthodox Hindu

      “The African male is superior to all males in the above listed criteria of physicality. Other men can sometimes come close, rarely equal to, but never surpass. Still other men than African descended men are fighting in combat.”

      I believe Africans are still somewhat new to the exposure of modern agriculture. That’s changing with each generation, and I believe those individuals who opt for a paleo/primal diet will be more physically capable and have offspring more physically capable then those who don’t.

      Low calorie diets, high grain diets, low meat especially red meat diets, are probably the biggest contributors to a lot of what is seen as racial differences in physical capability. The Asian countries have been exposed to such dietary conditions for the longest. That’s why the average height, lung capacity, etc. suffers.

      Of course there are some exceptions in those countries. We’re all originated from Africa though. Developed places like America are also dealing with things like fluoride, high fructose corn syrup, and BPA, so even more things to watch out for.

    • TebowFan March 15, 2013 at 2:02 pm #

      We(as in the U.S.) would love to talk it out.
      The Muslim extremists on the other hand don’t care about talking.
      They want to kill, and all the talking in the world won’t help.

      • Anthony Dream Johnson March 15, 2013 at 8:17 pm #

        Tebow fan? Isn’t that the virgin guy? Oh god …

        As for killing, your comment doesn’t state why lots of Muslim people want to kill Americans. I’m guessing you’ve never once stopped in your life to think about why that may be, like most other dipshit neo-conservatives.

        Well, time to stop and think.

  3. Kari January 31, 2013 at 1:18 pm #

    Hi Anthony,
    I liked reading this post and I completely agree with you. I agree on all those points, and I would add the menstrual cycle to it and the difference in the emotional state of most females. I know there are certain times of the month that I can’t even leave the house, let alone be expected to stand guard somewhere for days or perform massive physical feats while losing blood and having to replenish iron, etc. Sorry if that was too graphic, but it’s a truth. Women are precious and capable of great compassion and, at times, this could interfere with combat. I hate all violence but I know it may still be necessary at times. I really love being a woman and I am proud of all my strengths and I love men too and really admire all of their strengths, especially physical, as long as they don’t abuse them. Thank you for being a realist and I can tell that you adore and respect women. Thank You, Kari

    • Ronnie Libra February 5, 2013 at 3:05 pm #

      Let me piggyback off this statement with a thought from Sun Tzu. Damned if I can find the quote online but basically what he says, Emotionally women aren’t designed for combat.

      Even if he could train women to fight just as well as men, when they got into battle they would become so emotionally invested that once the battle was over they would have to rest 2 weeks just to get the women back in good a good fighting state. They would wear themselves out emotionally after one battle, where as men will keep driving on.

      • kristentsetsi February 10, 2013 at 6:39 am #

        Yes, a man from the BC era undoubtedly has valid views on the emotional characteristics of women. Something more realistic, and of this century, can be found here:

        Men and women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 experienced very similar levels of combat-related stress and post-deployment mental health impacts during the first year following return from deployment, researchers reported in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology®, published by APA.

        “Contrary to popular belief, women who go to war respond to combat trauma much like their male counterparts,” said lead author Dawne Vogt, PhD, of the Veterans Administration National Center for PTSD and Boston University School of Medicine. “And with the unpredictable guerilla tactics of modern warfare, barring women from ground combat is less meaningful.”

        • MC February 10, 2013 at 7:55 am #

          @kristentsetsi

          “Men and women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 experienced very similar levels of combat-related stress and post-deployment mental health impacts during the first year following return from deployment, researchers reported in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology®, published by APA.”

          If by “researchers” they mean people who told soldiers to take a survey, then sure.

          ““Contrary to popular belief, women who go to war respond to combat trauma much like their male counterparts,” said lead author Dawne Vogt, PhD, of the Veterans Administration National Center for PTSD and Boston University School of Medicine. “And with the unpredictable guerilla tactics of modern warfare, barring women from ground combat is less meaningful.””

          If they choose to actually do science instead of pushing their agenda, they’d test the hormones, namely testosterone and oxytocin, before and after.

          “Yes, a man from the BC era undoubtedly has valid views on the emotional characteristics of women.”

          At least he’s intelligent enough to know there’s a difference. Something some people just have too much trouble admitting in our modern age.

        • Ronnie Libra February 10, 2013 at 1:08 pm #

          Ya, well If I were going into battle I probably would rather have Sun Tzu on my team more than some silly doctor who’s siting women who have NOT EVEN BEEN IN FIELD COMBAT as valid sources for her study.

          I think women are watching too many Mooooveees these days. Just because it’s on fictitious tv shows and movies doesn’t mean women are going to jump around and do ninja kicks and flips like Laura Croft or Trinity or the Vampire chick. That’s computer graphics and their enemies are fake. ;) Just an Fyi.

          PS – I was in the Army and have friends dealing with the VA and how shitty the VA can be. So please don’t throw around silly VA references to me. Cheers!

          • Ronnie Libra February 10, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

            Let me piggyback to this as well. So Called Studies, as the MC just pointed out, are many times, these days, agenda based.

            As a matter of fact, quack scientists and PHDs everywhere can create a study and get the EXACT result in those studies that they would like to get. It just happens to be psuedo-official at that point.

            You think if some silly women’s activist scientist (or group) wants to have a study to prove that women are just as capable as men to fight in combat that she’s going to let that study fail and prove otherwise?

            These people are less interested in real scientific evidence than they are in pushing their agenda.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson February 10, 2013 at 6:29 pm #

          What the hell is the BC era? Do you mean PC? politically correct?

          Regardless of what it is, it is a very stupid comment to make about me.

  4. Matt February 3, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

    I don’t see the whole point of excluding a person based on their label.

    Rather, develop standards of physical fitness that ALL applicants must meet. Maybe 1 -10,000 women will be outliers who can get past those standards. That’s fine, why are you excluding that 1 in 10,000 by making blanket ban against all women?

    • Anthony Dream Johnson February 4, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

      Because I reject the basic premise that accomplishing physical feats correlates to equal physical standing.

      As I stated in the post, a woman the exact same observable height, size, shape, and skeletal muscle mass as you, or me, is not our physical equal.

      This is a text-book case of judging a book by it’s cover, and not measuring anything of greater physical depth inside.

      • Matt February 4, 2013 at 2:58 pm #

        I reject that premise as well. However, I also reject a premise that the baseline for physical standing should be “The same as a man”.

        Rather, the baseline should be looking at what a combat situation actually demands, and creating standards based on that (such as how long you can withstand cold, run from an enemy, push your body under stressful conditions, etc.). I see no reason that we should outright disqualify women, rather simply require them to meet these criteria.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson February 5, 2013 at 3:35 pm #

          Matt, I think the point you are not realizing I am making is that there is a fundamental, qualitative, physical difference between men and women.

          Notice I said physical, not “level of fitness”, or anything of that nature.

          This difference can be modified, mitigated, and minimized. At present, technology does not exist to eliminate it. This does not bar women from the military – it bars them from specific positions in the military, that they are not physically suited for (and at no point, can become completely suited for).

          An interesting point to make here is the cultural and overall obsession/misconception that “the military” has a lot to do with and/or is similar to : intense physical and metabolic fitness and conditioning, law enforcement, and fighting fires.

          I alluded to this in my original post I believe. These 3 things have *nothing to do* with any branch of the military. They do not even belong in the discussion.

          Going along the standards point you made, here is one of many standards : maintaining consciousness in spite of physical trauma. Men not only tolerate more pain, but have greater bone densities as well. This makes them more resilient to head injuries that have the potential to entirely knock them unconscious.

          Losing consciousness in war brings a high probability of death. To yourself, and the individuals around you that depend on you as you depend on them.

          Your argument will state that a woman can train to meet a certain standard in this regard (as if the military were performing DXA scans on every solider). My point is this is irrelevant. Not only is a woman’s starting point for these criteria substantially lower, her capacity to mitigate the gap is limited. Worst of all, her peak thresh hold (for pain tolerance and bone density), is fundamentally limited by her gender.

          No matter how (slowly) her body adapts to bridge this gap, if it even does, it will never approach the levels a trained male can achieve, and consistently does (higher than her maximum).

          The same argument can now also be made for patella dislocations, MPFL, and ACL tears. No matter her training, no matter what criteria any woman meets, her chances for these incapacitating injuries remains higher than a corresponding males, and even a male with less training, skeletal muscle mass, neural efficiency, and so on.

          Their gender disqualifies them from combat positions, period.

  5. Katelynn February 4, 2013 at 2:46 pm #

    Though in the age of air raids and drones I think physical strength is much less relevant, I agree that on average less women will be up to the physical task of ground combat than men. However, everything you have listed is a set of averages, which means that though the majority of men will definitely rank higher on the level of physical adequacy in those areas, some women will still out perform some men. I agree with Matt’s comment. Set physical standards. More men are going to pass than women, but if a woman passes and is told she still cannot do the job she has qualified for, that’s discrimination, not science.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson February 5, 2013 at 3:38 pm #

      Please see the comment I just left for Matt. (It is not about meeting certain standards, it is about a large, fundamental physical difference, that can only begin to be mitigated by improved physical conditioning).

    • Anthony Dream Johnson February 5, 2013 at 3:45 pm #

      Everything I listed was not intended to communicate “averages”.

      What I listed referred primarily to : lower starting points, lower rates of adaptability, lower maximum thresholds.

      This is across the entire female gender, independent of race, age, etc.

  6. Aiston February 6, 2013 at 8:25 pm #

    The bigger issue is why war at all? Especially in our “post-enlightenment” age. What are we? Cave dwellers?

    That being said, if all US citizens are indeed equal under the law, women as well as men should have to register for draft. Either get rid of draft altogether (my personal preference) OR make us ALL equal under our laws.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson February 7, 2013 at 3:02 pm #

      I despise military slavery (“the draft”), more than almost anything on earth. It is egregiously illegal, immoral, anti-life, anti-man, unconstitutional, absurd, disgusting, primitive, anti-american, and evil.

      With that said, while it’s strange that woman are not subject to “selective service”, I’m glad 50% of the population is immune to swelling the ranks of an illegal standing army.

      You are not being treated equally, and for once, that is a good thing. (You are lawfully immune from illegal actions).

      • kristentsetsi February 10, 2013 at 6:43 am #

        On a post documenting my registry with the Selective Service, I quote a friend whose position regarding the draft I tend to agree with:

        “If a government has an obligation to defend its citizens (and presumably defense from outside threats falls under that obligation), then doesn’t a draft fall under that obligation, at least for the case of an existential threat? If the government cannot guarantee the continued existence of the society in the face of an outside threat, then it can’t guarantee any of the other rights of its citizens either. The “state” is ALL of us, collectively. If the state has an obligation to it’s citizens, then WE have that obligation. We are the state.”

        Until no one has to register, women should have to register if they want to be treated equally/given equal opportunity in the military.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson February 10, 2013 at 6:41 pm #

          Your friend is spouting a big load of anti-conceptual, contradictory horse shit. Do you, or your friend even understand what “a draft” is?

          It’s violently enforced military slavery. The penalty for refusing is death. Don’t believe me? Ask yourself what happens when a person refuses a future draft, and then refuses to be locked in a cage.

          The answer is : a law enforcement officer will inevitably shoot them in the face as the given situation escalates. This is not a fairy tale. Even if you succeed in temporarily defending yourself against said, illegally acting officer, more will arrive and gun you down.

          This is in the land of the free.

          Now the complete bullshit excuse your friend gives for this open murder of an innocent person is a contradictory load of shit that has nothing to do with anything – undefinable gobbldy gook with no connection to reality, if you will.

          The state has no obligation to “defend its citizens”. It’s obligation is strictly, explicitly, and only, to protect the rights of it’s citizens. A violently enforced “draft” is a gross, open, immediate, and direct violation of said rights.

          Let me make this clear : you, nor anyone else on earth, nor any combination of said persons, has the right to enslave another human being, for any reason, any purpose, or any excuse imaginable. This includes military slavery (in all circumstances, including imminent invasion by a foreign nation).

          All of the babbling nonsense your friend spouted off about “the state”, and “collectively”, and “all of us”, are squirming intellectual grasps to make the impossible possible; to make a contradiction exist in reality.

          Your friend should be ashamed of him/herself, and so should you for agreeing with such absurd nonsense.

          People are better off dying to defend their country, than submitting to serve the government of said country.

  7. kristentsetsi February 7, 2013 at 11:14 am #

    There’s not a lot of hand-to-hand combat these days. It’s not like Braveheart. People use guns, grenades, computers, and sniper rifles. Women would make exceptional snipers (we’re better shots than men).

    • Anthony Dream Johnson February 7, 2013 at 3:10 pm #

      And yet, if the “highly improbable” event of tripping over your own feet on the way to your post happens, you have a fundamentally and impossible-to-eliminate higher probability of dislocating a kneecap, and tearing your MPFL, than a male of equal, or even lesser training and physical conditioning.

      This injury, especially the first time, is incapacitating. It has nothing to do with how much of a “bad ass” you are – the affected quadriceps will completely cease to function. Your ability to walk, for days at the very least, will be completely eliminated.

      This is the kind of shit that gets people’s head blown off, and yet, it would be called “a freak accident”.

      And yet to anyone with a brain, it would be entirely predictable for this to happen with greater frequency, to females.

      You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.

    • MC February 9, 2013 at 2:51 pm #

      Shooting a target at practice is not the same as shooting a target during war. The target doesn’t stay still, and you’re carrying anywhere from 95-135 lbs of gear on your person. It’s not so predictable.

      The American sniper Chris Kyle who just recently got killed, was shot on two seperate occassions in Iraq and also had 6 explosions go off near him while deployed as a sniper. Would a woman have survived those gun wounds, or dealt with the explosive impact of IEDs just as well?

      I’m not so sure. Would she be able to keep up while carrying heavy equipment? Probably not, but it’s not a weight lifting competition.

      Most people are nothing amazing when firing a gun, women included, but war is not a shooting competition either.

      This shouldn’t be “I can kill and get my head blown off for an undeclared war too!” If you’re talking about the effectiveness of your army, you have to take in all factors. Even if a girl is a better shot because she’s able to hit the exact middle of a circle, while the man hit slightly outside the middle, does that make the girl a better soldier? No. That’s just one aspect of a soldier.

      And in both cases they likely killed their target, so shooting better only means something if the other person absolutely sucks at shooting.

  8. kristentsetsi February 7, 2013 at 11:19 am #

    [note: repost, because of the messed up identity link in the last one. Long story.] There’s not a lot of hand-to-hand combat these days. It’s not like Braveheart. People use guns, grenades, computers, and sniper rifles. Women would make exceptional snipers (we’re better shots than men).

  9. Aiston February 17, 2013 at 4:21 pm #

    To build official legal policy around groups as a whole is collectivist thinking at its most developed. Rather than create policies around such, such as females not being allowed in combat as we have had up until now, it is better to have standards and those INDIVIDUALS that meet those standards can enter combat.

    (though ideally there would be no combat or wars at all)

    • Anthony Dream Johnson February 17, 2013 at 8:45 pm #

      It’s not a collectivist notion, and like others, you are still *completely* missing the point. Standards is a process of addition. Add up and tally these criteria per individual, and if they meet X limit, they are accepted.

      My position is based on subtraction. If there are any fundamental and serious negatives to a large group of people, you need to consider excluding them from combat. The entire female gender is the only group I am aware of that fits this category.

      Read these words carefully : women are categorically inferior for combat.

Make your mark