Comments by "Evan" (@MrEvanfriend) on "Do I Hate Women?" video.

+ Riceball01 Anyone who has no problem with women in combat arms has clearly never been in combat arms himself. It's not only the matter of physical strength (most women could not physically do any of the roles in a basic infantry fireteam), but it's also a matter of conditions and culture. Privacy isn't exactly a thing in the field, which would cause far more problems in coed units than it does in all male units. In Iraq, I lived in a hooch with about half a platoon's worth of guys. Let's say a 42 man platoon has a single female. What are they going to do, put the 38 guys (minus platoon Sgt and Lt) in one room and give the lone woman her own? This is a great way to create resentment. Same with any other facilities, like the rare times we had showers. Then there's also the way we interact with one another. It's obviously a dynamic that only works in an all male environment. Much of not most of the culture of a Marine infantry unit would be grossly inappropriate with women involved, and I would argue that our culture helps create as good a fighting force as has ever existed, and should not be tampered with. The way men ought to treat women and the way a fighting unit treats each other are mutually exclusive.
8
Riceball01 This is an amazingly bad analogy. A black man is no less capable than a white man is at any of the basic tasks required of an infantryman. He can carry the same load, run as fast, etc. He has the same testosterone levels, and is capable of the same amount of aggression. His being there causes no sexual tension of any type, and creates none of the privacy issues a woman would. He gets no special treatment because he's black. No massive cultural shift is required to accommodate him. None of the above can be said of a woman. Sex is only similar to race in that it is an immutable characteristic.
7
Riceball01 You're comparing an arbitrary reason for segregation (race) to one based on actual characteristics (sex). Anyone who thought blacks would make inferior soldiers could have easily looked at the Zulus and learned otherwise. Sex is not the same as race. It is a foolish and indefensible position to claim it is. A woman cannot carry the load that a man can. A 140lb woman is relatively large, and significantly weaker than a 140lb man, who will generally be the smallest and weakest guy in his platoon. You're deliberately choosing to ignore eons of relations between men and women to categorically state that women could be integrated into what has been an all male culture for the entirety of its existence based on...nothing. You have not made a single argument for your position based on anything other than pure conjecture, and most of it involves ignoring any and all a priori knowledge of any of the issues involved. You even admit that introducing women into combat units would take "major adjustment". This in and of itself is reason not to do so. The culture in combat units works wonderfully, and to drastically change that culture so as to include people who are physically incapable of performing the basic tasks those units are required to do is insane.
7
ChaoticButterfly The Kurdish units you're talking about are all female, I've never heard of female Spetsnaz units and would like to see some documentation on that one, Chinese special forces aren't exactly good, and I've never heard of the other things you've mentioned. That being said, a soldier is something that one becomes. People are men or women because they were conceived as such. Your argument there holds no water. And what about corporal punishment? It's technically not allowed, but it certainly exists (or at least did 10 years ago when I was in). You cool with a senior hitting a female boot when she fucks up? Of course, you made no argument against the issues that a lack of privacy in the field causes in coed units. Basically everyone who was in my company has seen me take a dump. That's just how it happens. You don't think that it would somehow be the same if a woman had to drop trou in front of 150-odd horny, undersexed men, do you?
6
Riceball01 What you're talking about is introducing change that even you admit would hurt morale and readiness, and to what end? To have a watered down unit with members incapable of meeting the floor-level strength and aggression expected? A unit that teaches men to treat women the way grunts treat each other? It's detrimental any way you look at it. The only upside is the vague political notion of "equality". The very real and very obvious multitude of downsides on every level far outweigh this theoretical upside. Combat units exist to fight and win. There's a reason that war has been exclusively the domain of men for all of history. Why change this? It isn't "progress", it's idiotic social experimentation for its own sake.
6
ChaoticButterfly The Celts and Vikings did not have women fighting, and the idea of "shieldmaidens" is pure fantasy detached from any actual historical evidence, either archeological or written. Try actually researching your "points" before making them. As for samurai, women would take up arms in defense of the home (just like any women anywhere throughout history). This is not the same as being an actual warrior on campaign, something you seem to have trouble understanding. Yes, there are exceptional women in the world. The key word being exceptional. You don't make policy based on exceptions, and exceptional people, male or female, can find success in any number of fields. Putting a single woman into the one job where she is least suited, and where her presence is a problem, isn't taking advantage of her talents, it's making her into a problem. I've heard of that woman, whose name I don't remember, who dressed as a man to fight in the Revolution. If I remember, it all ended poorly. Then there's the more modern record...women like Jessica Lynch, who disgraced herself and the US Army with her cowardice and unpreparedness. Good men died rescuing her. Then there's these "lionesses" in Afghanistan, the female engagement teams who go out and talk to local women. They're an utter waste of resources for no gain. You're taking admin clerks, giving them an infantry escort that could be better used on a real mission, and sending them to talk to...people who have zero agency, thereby gaining nothing useful and annoying their fathers and husbands, who are the ones we're theoretically trying to win over. Your analogy about Rome is incoherent. If the Celtic women had fought, it would have been mentioned by people like Caesar, who fought the Celts. It's notably absent. Furthermore, the Celts were conquered as Rome was ascending, not declining. And then there's the whole thing about not having women in combat makes them "weak". Um, no. Women not being men doesn't make them weak. It makes them women. A society that fails to understand the difference between men and women is a weakened one; as is a society that has women - people who are biologically unsuited for the task - in combat. You seem hung up on the fact that some women can be as strong as a man. Noted. That isn't relevant. A woman's body is less durable than that of a man of equal strength. She has less testosterone, and thus cannot have the propensity for aggression and violence that a man has. And the very fact that she's a woman in an all-male culture creates massive problems with unit cohesion, morale, logistics, and literally everything else that matters to a combat unit.
6
Kami Nana No, they won't. They don't have the muscle mass or density of men, or the capacity to develop it.
4
Ian M Finally, someone else who actually served in a combat unit and isn't just shouting nonsense based in "social justice" instead of fact.
4
ChaoticButterfly Because her presence would be detrimental to the unit, and her body, hormonal makeup, etc, are not designed for the task.
4
ChaoticButterfly Yes, women have testosterone. At very low levels compared to men. Even of she can make it through the training, her body is not nearly as robust as that of a man. She can carry about half of what a man can without serious risk of injury. She lacks the potential to achieve the upper body strength, speed, and stamina. This is a massive problem in and of itself. More disqualifying than the physical issues are the social ones. Your absurd notions aside, a woman can never be "one of the guys". The idea of a "sister in arms" is frankly laughable, as anyone who has actually served in a combat unit would tell you. The culture of an infantry unit is very testosterone driven and aggressive, and a woman in the mix would throw it all off. As I have previously said, there is no advantage to be gained, and massive disadvantages, to attempting to integrate women into combat units. Letting feminists feel good about themselves isn't worth the harm to military readiness, morale, and unit cohesion. I'm saying this as a former Marine rifleman, and unlike all you "social justice" types, I actually know what I'm talking about.
4
ChaoticButterfly If you're for "fairness", tell me, how is it fair to force a combat unit to accept someone who will drag the unit down because she is biologically unsuited to her job? Someone who can't physically perform with the rest of the unit, and whose very presence is a distraction? Should men sacrifice their lives to your version of "fairness"? Your anecdotal nonsense is entirely pointless. I've known tough girls too, but none who would make an adequate infantryman. As for warrior cultures accepting women AS PART OF THE WARRIOR BAND, who, besides maybe the Scythians? The Chinese emperor who made an "army" of his concubines as a demonstration of discipline? They never fought. The Japanese? No. A woman picking up a spear to defend her home is one thing, a woman going on campaign is something else, and didn't happen. The Vikings? Settlers aren't raiders. Joan of Arc? She dressed up in armor and carried a banner, she didn't actually fight. There is a reason that female warriors are such an anomaly throughout history. You wanna talk about Rome? How is maintaining a fighting force consisting solely of those best qualified to fight anything like the decline of the Roman empire? Bad analogy there.
4
Kami Nana UFC isn't war. These UFC women fight each other, with trainers and medical staff present, for brief, timed matches that they train specifically for. In combat, you're fighting men, for prolonged periods without all that specific attention, while doing sustained strenuous physical activity and carrying heavy loads of weapons, armor, and equipment. UFC is a sport. Combat is deadly real.
4
Kami Nana What they'd be in actual combat is useless, for all the reasons I've mentioned above. A woman shouldn't carry more than 25% of her body weight, because she's virtually guaranteed to hurt herself if she does. This has nothing to do with how conditioned she is, this is based on things like skeletal structure and bone density. An average infantryman carries 60-80lbs of gear. Just because women's UFC is a thing doesn't mean that women in combat is anything other than an atrocious idea that would be beneficial to nobody but the enemy.
4
***** No, I'm basically saying that women cannot be effective combat soldiers, for all of the above listed reasons. There are very narrow and limited exceptions to this (namely female Soviet snipers in WWII), but as a general rule, women have no place on the battlefield.
3
Oliver Eddy Strength is only ONE of the reasons why women are unfit for combat. Not even the biggest one.
3
ShieldWife To be fair, Rome defeated the Celts not because of the individual strength of the Roman legionary vs the Celtic warrior. The Roman army was well trained, disciplined, and used far superior tactics compared to the Celtic combat style of individual warriors not fighting in any cohesive manner. The rest of what you said is all true though.
2
Even in modern armies, women are horribly unsuited for combat. It's not just a matter of shooting a rifle (though a Marine Corps study said that men were about 50% better at that as well). A modern soldier carries quite a bit of armor, weapons, ammunition, and other equipment. Something like 60-80lbs. That shit gets heavy. A man can generally carry up to half of his body weight in gear for an extended period without hurting himself. For women, it's 25% of body weight, any more than that and they become increasingly likely to suffer injuries. Furthermore, the very basic issue that makes men far better suited to combat - testosterone - remains. Women are simply not capable of the levels of strength and aggression, two very necessary attributes for a successful soldier, that men are. Sure, the majority of modern armies consist of support roles, and sure, women make fine administrators and logisticians. I don't think anyone contests that (though there is the effect of women integrated into units that is troublesome even there - prostitution, STDs, pregnancies, real and imagined sexual assaults, and the general discord that comes from having a very small female minority amongst a large number of young, undersexed men), but support troops are not combat troops, and the dichotomy there is very real. A woman who might be excellent at making sure I get paid, probably far better at it than I could ever be, would not be able to keep up kicking down doors. Case in point: When the Obama administration made its disastrous attempt to integrate women into combat units, 36 women went to the Marine Corps' School of Infantry at Camp Lejeune. Three passed. I had not previously heard of ANYONE failing SOI.
1