ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Women not in combat

One aspect of the Amazonian warrior woman that is never considered by its SF/F proponents is the female ability to override any combat assignment at will:
Nearly 100 female British soldiers have been sent home from Afghanistan after finding out they were pregnant. Between January 2006 and December last year, 99 servicewomen on operations have been flown back to the UK under strict military rules that ban mothers-to-be from serving in a war zone.The women were flown back on flights usually reserved for injured troops, meaning the true figure could be higher if other female soldiers came home via routine flights.
That is 1.2 percent of all the women serving in the British Army.  The percentage of women serving in Afghanistan is even higher, though unknown. And keep in mind that only three women have been killed in Afghanistan. This should suffice to demonstrate the complete absurdity of women in combat.  Even if one assumes a 10:1 kill ratio in Afghanistan, it means an Amazonian warrior woman is more than three times likely to get pregnant than to kill a single enemy troop.

In battles between reasonably equivalent forces, such as the Eastern Front in WWII, the kill ratio is 2:1. So, for every enemy soldier killed by a female soldier, the superior army can assume that it will lose 16.5 of its troops to pregnancy.

Labels:

106 Comments:

Anonymous Salt February 15, 2014 9:06 AM  

Are the baby daddies Afghani? If they're "genuine" British and adding to the population, more women need be in the service. Britain's population might yet be saved.

Anonymous zen0 February 15, 2014 9:26 AM  

Why are pregnant warriors excluded from the war zone in the first place? So they can protect the fetus long enough to get home and have a proper abortion?

Anonymous J February 15, 2014 9:31 AM  

Putting women in combat reflects the fact that we have no plan to fight "reasonably equivalent" enemies.

Anonymous Idle Spectator February 15, 2014 9:42 AM  

Dahomey Amazons

During their membership they were not allowed to have children or be part of married life (though they were legally married to the king). Many of them were virgins. Smarter than the British. And following the man.

Some accounts note that each male soldier had a mino counterpart. Perfect. Follow the man.

Now THAT'S how you use female troops.

It is pretty sad the Africans were more evolved than feminists. Real talk!

Anonymous Anonymous February 15, 2014 9:57 AM  

Gulf War one had many soldierettes sent to bases in Germany when they discovered they were pregnant. When the war over so were their pregnancies.

Anonymous Donk February 15, 2014 9:59 AM  

it means an Amazonian warrior woman is more than three times likely to get pregnant than to kill a single enemy troop.

Not if they've been sterilized, because SciFi.

Anonymous allyn71 February 15, 2014 10:04 AM  

Give them Norplant implants with a dosage equivalent to their term of service. If they reenlist, give them another round. Well honey, you did sign up for this.

Have to watch them closely though, from Vox's analysis a bunch of them will be digging out the implants when orders start to show up.

Anonymous Idle Spectator February 15, 2014 10:10 AM  

It's the like the Bonnie and Clyde structure. In order to use the female troop you need that dyad working. "I worked on JFK's campaign because he was just so handsome!" That's some good female intuition.

I don't know why people want to see combat and get shot at so badly. It's like saying "I'm excited to have sunburn" or "I really want some pink eye."

Anonymous VD February 15, 2014 10:11 AM  

Have to watch them closely though, from Vox's analysis a bunch of them will be digging out the implants when orders start to show up.

Bingo.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 15, 2014 10:17 AM  

such as the Eastern Front in WWII, the kill ratio is 2:1.

in Deathride: Hitler vs Stalin ... the author claims that the traditional figures (as released by the Russians not long after the end of WWII was that they lost about 7M soldiers. The Germans had very good records and their numbers were around 2M giving a ratio of 3.5 to one.

However, the author then claims that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the real numbers became available and they were closer to 30M (although that included civilians.)

If that is the case, the the Germans were truly impressive despite going into that war with obsolete equipment and despite the T34 and despite the much vaunted contribution by Russian Heroines.

However, given the impressive Finnish showing ...

Anonymous The other skeptic February 15, 2014 10:19 AM  

"I worked on JFK's campaign because he was just so handsome!"

I surrendered to Mustafa because he was just so handsome and masculine.

Anonymous allyn71 February 15, 2014 10:21 AM  

"I don't know why people want to see combat and get shot at so badly. It's like saying "I'm excited to have sunburn" or "I really want some pink eye."" - Idle Spectator February 15, 2014 10:10 AM

That is the whole point. They don't want to serve in combat. They just want the promotion potential that comes with serving in frontline units. Right before the announcement that the could serve in frontline units, there were a ton of propaganda stories about how there was a glass ceiling for the sisterhood due to their lack of frontline experience.

There is that and of course the political aspects of women in the front lines to appease certain voter blocks.

Blogger LZsays February 15, 2014 10:37 AM  

Of course, the feminists also get to use the statistics skewed by rapid-onset pregnancy among female soldiers as Proof Of Discrimination against women in combat units.

Anonymous Anonymous February 15, 2014 10:40 AM  

Given that I had no legitimate business being there, in terms of defending my country, still, my combat time in Iraq was highly instructive. We had FOCUS! There were just a few things in that context you needed to think about:

1. Fuel in the guntruck?
2. Do we all have water?
3. Is our commo up: a) radio(s) operational; b) frequencies inputed?
4. Are the crew-served and personal weapons up?
5. Does the driver understand that the vehicle is a weapon too?
6. Is everybody's head "on a swivel", looking for threats, including IEDs and VBIEDs? No mere passengers!

That's it! Anything that distracts from the mission is eliminated, to include ridiculous, useless considerations of radical egalitarianism and social engineering; we're holding one another's lives in our hands! We don't have time and energy for BS! As soon as I started hearing this nonsense about women in combat (not to mention the whole DADT issue), I realized that if we had time to think about this kind of crap, we weren't engaged in anything of vital interest overseas. We need to get our butts home and tend to our own business!

My opinion hasn't changed and has only grown stronger!

Regards,
David Smith

Anonymous Idle Spectator February 15, 2014 10:41 AM  

I surrendered to Mustafa because he was just so handsome and masculine.

That's why you have her follow the man. You gotta pay attention here.

That is a bunch of lies though that Mustafa is handsome.

That is the whole point. They don't want to serve in combat. They just want the promotion potential that comes with serving in frontline units.

Some do. Until they realize they'll actually have to do something instead of just playing dress up. Just like women convincing themselves they want completely fucking boring engineering jobs because STEM NEEDS WOMENS.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 15, 2014 10:49 AM  

That is a bunch of lies though that Mustafa is handsome.

Ahhhh, but you forget. When the fear is coursing through their veins, any man who can make it go away is handsome.

Anonymous Ivan Poland February 15, 2014 10:49 AM  

If they go home with a case of the preggers are they still in the army? If so, if they get an abortion then they should be required to get back and fight because grrrrrl power. If getting the preggers is a ticket out of the army, then we see just how serious letting Katie Kaboom in was in the first place.

Blogger buzzardist February 15, 2014 11:00 AM  

One has to wonder how many of these women are getting pregnant by accident and how many are doing so expressly to avoid serving in a combat zone. Given all of the free birth control options available to women, I have to think that pregnancy is the female equivalent of "accidentally" shooting oneself in the foot.

Blogger Nate February 15, 2014 11:00 AM  

On the other hand if one is genuinely concerned about demographics this suggests a convenient solution.

Blogger El Borak February 15, 2014 11:08 AM  

the female ability to override any combat assignment at will...

It's never considered, merely presumed. Under modern feminist ideology, any woman has the right to override *anything* she doesn't like. Neither law nor biology can stand before HearMeRoar™. Because equality.

Anonymous Idle Spectator February 15, 2014 11:11 AM  

Ahhhh, but you forget. When the fear is coursing through their veins, any man who can make it go away is handsome.

Did you not watch the instruction video I provided? He was alive but very badly burned and then shot in the arm.

"though they were legally married to the king" => Like the JFK campaign thing
"Some accounts note that each male soldier had a mino counterpart." => Bonnie and Clyde dyad

You gotta pay attention to the analogy here.
I gave you the Idle Touch. Now, the healing may begin.

Blogger Glen Filthie February 15, 2014 11:24 AM  

You're thinking of it the wrong way Vox. These pregnant soldiers are putting buns in the oven to replace the ones that fell in combat! HAR HAR HAR!

Listen, boys - every woman and girl SHOULD be able to safely use a gun - even for self defense. Women DO have a place in combat: they should be the absolute LAST line of defense. When the front line falls, and us guys are all dead or out of commission - I would like to see the people responsible pay as big a price as possible to rape and pillage our wives and communities.

Anonymous J February 15, 2014 11:30 AM  

the author then claims that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the real numbers became available and they were closer to 30M (although that included civilians.)

That is obvious nonsense. The population of the USSR was 170M. If 30M were killed, and two or three people were wounded per person killed (the usual ratio), then either 90M or 120M people were killed or wounded in the USSR. The Germans did not even have that many people in their zone of occupation at their maximum expansion, so they would have had to kill or wound everyone under their control plus a considerable number of those not under their control, an obvious absurdity.

Blogger Nate February 15, 2014 11:45 AM  

" The population of the USSR was 170M. If 30M were killed, and two or three people were wounded per person killed (the usual ratio), then either 90M or 120M people were killed or wounded in the USSR."

The ratio of wounded to killed doesn't hold up if you include civilian deaths.

Anonymous Godfrey February 15, 2014 11:47 AM  

FANTASTIC! Women of the world UNITE! Make babies NOT war!

Bringing life into the world is a revolutionary act! The elites hate it.

Poor men and women STOP fighting and dying for the wealthy global elite. Come home now.

OpenID cailcorishev February 15, 2014 11:49 AM  

One has to wonder how many of these women are getting pregnant by accident and how many are doing so expressly to avoid serving in a combat zone.

The heterosexual women I've known who served in the military fell into two categories: frigid near-lesbians who kept to themselves, and girls who had a really, really, really good time enjoying all the male attention. In that situation, it's very easy for a girl who likes men to become the camp bike, basically. So it wouldn't surprise me if many are on accident.

Sure, there's birth control. But a million abortions a year testify to how effective that is even under normal civilian conditions. Send a girl overseas where she doesn't have the family and social structure (such as it is nowadays) to guide her; surround her with more horny, fit guys than she's ever seen before; and what are the odds that she'll remember to use birth control perfectly -- or demand it of every guy?

Anonymous The other skeptic February 15, 2014 11:50 AM  

Listen, boys - every woman and girl SHOULD be able to safely use a gun

This is my rifle, this is my gun ...
This is for killing, this is for fun ...

Yeah, women should know how to safely use a gun.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 15, 2014 12:04 PM  

That is obvious nonsense. The population of the USSR was 170M. If 30M were killed, and two or three people were wounded per person killed (the usual ratio), then either 90M or 120M people were killed or wounded in the USSR.

Perhaps you need to read and think.

1. I did mention that the number included civilians.

2. During the Siege of Stalingrad the Russians prevented the civilian population from leaving so that the soldiers would have more to fight for. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that there is little use distinguishing between civilian and military deaths and many civilians became combatants as well.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan February 15, 2014 12:07 PM  

Twas a Nor-planted girl name a' Summers,
Who dreamed of riding shotgun in hummers,
But then she got really scared,
So she laid down and prepared,
To spread em and take on all cummers.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 February 15, 2014 12:12 PM  

You'd think that the British military would require all women in combat zones to take birth control. I mean, if we are going to put women on the front lines to be raped by some hairy goat herder, we may as well ensure they don't get pregnant.

Blogger JDC February 15, 2014 12:20 PM  

Why are pregnant warriors excluded from the war zone in the first place? So they can protect the fetus long enough to get home and have a proper abortion?

We can always make this a liberal win. We can yoke Planned Parenthood's Valentines wish with the military's pregnancy issue,

"In a new video featuring Cecile Richards, the CEO of the Planned Parenthood abortion business, abortion is apparently what women want for Valentine’s Day. The following is a Vine video the abortion activist is promoting on Facebook and Twitter today."

Happy Valentine's/Female Veteran's day!

Anonymous Cryan Ryan February 15, 2014 12:43 PM  

ooops....

Meant to say "take on all comers".

Freudian slip.

Anonymous David February 15, 2014 12:44 PM  

In battles between reasonably equivalent forces, such as the Eastern Front in WWII, the kill ratio is 2:1. So, for every enemy soldier killed by a female soldier, the superior army can assume that it will lose 16.5 of its troops to pregnancy.

This is why the US keeps promoting women "equality" abroad, so the US military won't be at a disadvantage.

Anonymous dw February 15, 2014 12:51 PM  

Funny how these Strong Independent Women do what all women everywhere throughout human history have done to get out of facing reality: get pregnant.

Anonymous Godfrey February 15, 2014 12:54 PM  

Why would anyone want to risk his life for a corrupt bankrupt oppressive perverted empire? I can understand a sadist, pervert or psychopath being interested in joining, but why would any normal person join the military?

Blogger The Aardvark February 15, 2014 12:59 PM  

The WW2 mantra:

"If you're nervous in the Service, have a baby."

Blogger Bard February 15, 2014 1:12 PM  

I'm an active duty physician assistant in an infantry combat brigade at one of the "big two" bases. Let me tell you the unadulterated truth firsthand. Most female soldiers are so fat that they face chapter under the Army Weight Control Program. To avoid this, they often become pregnant so they can get out on a chapter 8 and keep their benefits or no longer meet the AWCP requirements due to being pregnant. My unit is deploying. There are two female PAs in our BDE (out of 7). One came up pregnant a week prior to deployment training and the other is getting medically boarded out for a variety of nonspecific issues. It is a fucking joke. Everyone knows it but no one can speak it. God help us if someone ever invades our country. Without air superiority, our only offense will be throwing psych meds at the enemy in an attempt to blind them by hitting them in the eyes, dumping our sleep meds into their water supply, or getting them hooked on narcotic pain meds.

Anonymous Elusive Wapiti February 15, 2014 1:19 PM  

As this was about women in the British Army, I did a quick bit of googling about American servicewomen and their pregnancy rates. Embarrassing (to the military brass) data like this is of course hard to come by, but what I've found suggests that 55 women were reportedly evacuated from Afghanistan in 2007 for pregnancy, out of a force of just over 30,000 US troops in country at that time. Given that women were 11% of US forces in country, that makes a 1.6% unintended pregnancy rate.

Clearly there is a lot of violating of General Order #1 going on, such that 1.6% of women serving in Afghanistan are knocked up and subsequently medevac'd despite ubiquitous availability of various and reliable prophylactics.

I also note that women in the military have have an unintended pregnancy rate 50% higher than their civilian peers. Interpret and apply that factoid at your discretion.

Anonymous 11B February 15, 2014 1:52 PM  

I'm an active duty physician assistant in an infantry combat brigade at one of the "big two" bases.

Bard, please continue to update us with your inside info. What you say is very interesting. Given your medical status, you probably have access to info that others can only speculate about.

Anonymous rs February 15, 2014 2:05 PM  

I have always assumed that attempting to draft women into military service would be a fiasco because most women would just get pregnant to avoid service. My sister-in-law became pregnant within six months of joining the Air Force.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 15, 2014 2:16 PM  

Vox, did it occur to you that giving birth in a socialized medicine NHS hospital may be more dangerous than being shot at by goat herders? These women are fearless...

Blogger JohnG February 15, 2014 2:44 PM  

I think the stats for Gulf War (1) are out there, as many as 20% of units were non-deployable because of pregnancies...(a unit is considered "destroyed" if it has sustained 30% or better losses in personnel or equipment) I'm pretty sure that the OEF/OIF stats would be about the same. When I was in Iraq in 04-05, I observed a female mechanic come out and take care of vehicles and generators from the place I took my smoke break...and as the year went on, first she was a SGT, then she was an SPC... and about the time I left, she was a PFC - kept getting caught screwing when that was a violation of General Order number 1. People screwed everywhere. Backs of trucks, HMMWVs, obviously in the hooches, even in the porta potties. So sure. Some combat arms unit lucky enough to have a female or two will likely not be able to take her into combat, she'll like be or get pregnant. Wish you guys could observe "Desert Queen" syndrome. It's hysterical what's considered 'f*ckable', and even more so when the ugly chicks act imperiously...

OpenID everybodyhatesscott February 15, 2014 2:44 PM  

Why would anyone want to risk his life for a corrupt bankrupt oppressive perverted empire? I can understand a sadist, pervert or psychopath being interested in joining, but why would any normal person join the military?

When you're 18, you don't really know that.

Blogger JohnG February 15, 2014 2:45 PM  

*clarification - as many as 20% of the personnel in a unit was non-deployable...

OpenID cailcorishev February 15, 2014 3:26 PM  

I've said this before, but imagine a medieval kid going off to fight for his lord, or a Roman lad joining the legions. What's the chance he had any idea whatsoever of the political ramifications or whether he was on the "right" side? He might not have even known whom he was fighting. Young guys like to fight and test themselves in battle. It never does have much to do with who is fighting whom; that's something people apply retroactively to "good" wars like WWII.

Anonymous Luke February 15, 2014 4:04 PM  

Re the USSR WIA/KIA ratios in WW2: In Guy Sajer's book "The Forgotten Soldier", he makes reference to how the Soviets had very little in the way of medical services. In fact, on at least one occasion, the only medics that helped Red Army WIAs were German. Taking this book as accurate and typical, that would mean that a much higher proportion of Red Army casualties ended up dead than would a Western army's.

Blogger Mike February 15, 2014 4:05 PM  

Considering with each passing day, the likelihood of the U.S. military being used against the civilian population, I can't really get too upset if they adopt policies which lower their combat effectiveness.

I say more womyn and LGBTEIEIO's in combat units.

Anonymous duh February 15, 2014 4:37 PM  

"
Have to watch them closely though, from Vox's analysis a bunch of them will be digging out the implants when orders start to show up."

Just make that equivalent to desertion and then charge them accordingly.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 15, 2014 7:05 PM  

Now that I have the details to hand, the author of Deathride claims:

1. In the seven months of 1941 4.3 million men were killed (emphasis not in the original),

2. In 1942, "the death toll was seven million"

3. In 1943, "the year of the great victories of Stalingrad and Kursk, it was nearly 7.5 million men" (men is in the original),

4. In 1944 "it was only 6.5 million deaths" and

5. "but in the final months of the war, the Red Army lost nearly three million men."

There can be little question of Russian civilian casualties in the final months of the war.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 15, 2014 7:07 PM  

Just make that equivalent to desertion and then charge them accordingly.

I doubt that anyone will be applying the penalty for desertion during war in an equal fashion.

Anonymous J February 15, 2014 7:35 PM  

Perhaps you need to read and think.

You might be reading, but you're not doing much thinking.

1. I did mention that the number included civilians.

So? It is still wildly implausible.

2. During the Siege of Stalingrad the Russians prevented the civilian population from leaving so that the soldiers would have more to fight for. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that there is little use distinguishing between civilian and military deaths and many civilians became combatants as well.

You're missing the point.

The Germans did not control the entire Soviet Union. At maximum, they controlled some 70 million Soviet citizens. If the Germans killed 30 million, then they injured another 60 to 90 million, and this means they either killed or injured literally every Soviet citizen who was ever under their control. This obviously didn't happen. Those Soviet numbers are wildly overinflated.

Anonymous J February 15, 2014 7:37 PM  

Those numbers for military dead are also ridiculous.

Blogger Cinco February 15, 2014 9:09 PM  

J, you may be forgetting that the number of civilian lives lost due to starvation and disease is included in the official numbers. Using only wound : KIA is going to lead you to inaccurate conclusions in this case. I also think thy overinflated the numbers, but for other reasons.

Anonymous Godfrey February 15, 2014 9:11 PM  

@everybodyhatesscott February 15, 2014 2:44 PM
"Why would anyone want to risk his life for a corrupt bankrupt oppressive perverted empire?"

"When you're 18, you don't really know that."


You're right. You set me straight. Sometimes I get emotional.

I have some good news. I convinced my young nephew not to join. Thank God I've done some good in a small way.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 15, 2014 10:15 PM  

"That is obvious nonsense."

You are assuming this, J, based on the high percentage of wounded to dead at, say, Babi Yar? You really ought to think and question a little before using cookie cutter judgment. For example, in an army which doesn't have much in the way of medical support, will that ratio still hold true? Of those that survive their wounds, how many will be thrown into combat again to be killed? How many wounds are fairly trivial, and can be handled by field medics? Where's your data to suggest that the wounded to killed ratio, even in armies with first rate medical support, applies to civilians?

Blogger Tom Kratman February 15, 2014 10:20 PM  

"Why would anyone want to risk his life for a corrupt bankrupt oppressive perverted empire? I can understand a sadist, pervert or psychopath being interested in joining, but why would any normal person join the military?"

Do you actually believe that, Godfrey? You would have my profound pity except that my contempt is rather stronger.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 15, 2014 10:24 PM  

"We had FOCUS!"

Yes, it's one of the more enjoyable things about war, how simplified everything becomes and how trivial peacetime concerns seem thereafter.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 15, 2014 10:32 PM  

"Just make that equivalent to desertion and then charge them accordingly."

It's not neccesary to do so, and wouldn't fly anyway. The Self Inflicted Wound provision of Art 115, UCMJ, Malingering, would cover it nicely though. A man (or woman) who gets a sunburn can be charged under that or under the related provision of Art. 134, but a woman who gets herself geknockered? Nope.

A friend of mine, he'd been a platoon leader for me when I was commanding the mech battalion HHC, was commanding a medical company in the 24th Infantry Division in Gulf War I. His company had been rendered combat ineffective by, IIRC, four females, all in critical hard to replace MOSs, who managed to avoid the war. In one case it wasn't entirely the girl's fault, her parents refused to take her kid off her hands so she couldn't go. Conversation, as reported to me, went like this: Her father: "Let me if I've got this straight; I take the kid and you take my little girl to a war? Not gonna happen, captain." Another came up with some female specific problem. One turned up pregnant but was probably not trying to avoid the war. The last pulled a train in the company dayroom to ensure she'd get pregnant. Even allowing for some non-planned unavailability, though, it illustrates a part of the problem with females in the armed forces.

Anonymous Diogenes February 15, 2014 10:46 PM  

cailcorishev wrote: **But a million abortions a year testify to how effective that is even under normal civilian conditions.**

Show documentation that at least half of all women who got abortions were actually using birth control, or retract.

Anonymous Roundtine February 15, 2014 11:33 PM  

My sister was an officer and she knew a woman under her command became pregnant to get out of theater. She wrote her up for a court martial. Higher ranking officers refused to follow through on it. It's all a big joke.

Anonymous Obvious February 16, 2014 12:12 AM  

Because lord knows that male service members never go mad or sad in order to get out of underways or deployments. It's all those pesky women and their goshdarn uteruses.

Anonymous Catan February 16, 2014 12:18 AM  

A bit more difficult to pull off a faked emotional breakdown than a genuine pregnancy, but incentives and risk vs reward are complex calculations we can't expect you to understand, Obvious.

Anonymous Luke February 16, 2014 12:34 AM  

Semi-OT: video on why we men put with women in the first place.
(Not quite SFW; shows a woman that's 9.5 IMO.)

http://tinyurl.com/m47vald

Anonymous Harsh February 16, 2014 1:13 AM  

Because lord knows that male service members never go mad or sad in order to get out of underways or deployments. It's all those pesky women and their goshdarn uteruses.

Obvious once again showing that his understanding of human psychology is about zero. Keep it up, big boy!

Blogger Tom Kratman February 16, 2014 1:56 AM  

The _obvious_ difference, Obvious, is that we have the will to make men go anyway, but lack the will to force women, and especially to force pregnant women, nor even to do anything to limit their ability to get pregnant whenever they want. I suppose the obvious realities of life are beyind you, yes? What similarity do you suppose it has that both may want, when only one can get away with it?

Anonymous George of the Jungle February 16, 2014 2:04 AM  

For both social and economic milieus...

Equality is theft.

Anonymous Diogenes February 16, 2014 3:49 AM  

And by the way, show me documentation that I wasn't the result of failed birth control or a botched abortion, or retract. Now. I demand it.

Anonymous Diogenes February 16, 2014 4:49 AM  

Tom Kratman wrote: **What similarity do you suppose it has that both may want, when only one can get away with it?**

I'd argue slightly with that. Right now we have a situation in which women (or other cute minorities of the day) can't be made to go away when they should. However, in the past, we had a situation in which everyone who wasn't a white male was made to 'go away' regardless of whether they should have been or not. The same element is missing in both cases, and the main problem is rather than simply fixing the latter error that existed in the past, the people who were the victims of it instead insisted on creating the opposite error, which probably makes them feel important in the short run, but will most likely ensure the return of the past error in the long run.

Anonymous Diogenes February 16, 2014 4:52 AM  

I've noticed here that women who actually have sex are referred to by certain posters here as 'sluts' and those who don't have sex are referred to as 'frigid near lesbians'. So some women have sex too much, some women have sex too little, no woman is just right. Sort of reminds me of the way the liberals approach guns. Some guns are too big, some guns are too small, no gun is just right. Goldilocks complex, anyone?

Anonymous VD February 16, 2014 5:09 AM  

I've noticed here that women who actually have sex are referred to by certain posters here as 'sluts' and those who don't have sex are referred to as 'frigid near lesbians'. So some women have sex too much, some women have sex too little, no woman is just right.

No, women who have sex with 15+ men are referred to as "sluts". It is science. CDC science, to be specific. Those who do not have sex are referred to as "virgins".

Blogger Tom Kratman February 16, 2014 6:08 AM  

Never heard of the 9th and 10 Cav, eh, Diogenes? Or the Regular Army's two black infantry regiments?

In any case, you really have lost me. The past can't be made up for, as I think you've said, nor, if we're serious about war, should we even try, so who gives a Flying Philadelphia Fuck who was made to go away in the past, when the question is who can effectively malinger and desert in the present and who cannot? And why?

Blogger Some dude February 16, 2014 6:39 AM  

@Tom Kratman

is that we have the will to make men go anyway, but lack the will to force women

That implies that the society at large does not wish to force women into combat because we are too caring, or too merciful, or not vicious enough. I think if we look at what we are actually putting women through, it's clear that we would happily throw them into the meat grinder if we saw it was effective or useful in the larger scheme of things. And by "larger scheme" I mean the balance sheet of some gray executive somewhere.

Look at how we as a society pressure women to give up the best years of their lives to slave away at mindless pointless jobs that are the opposite of what they would be most happy at, simply to double the tax base and give more revenues to Universities. In exchange for wrecking all these women, we compensate the "alpha" types of our societies (that is, the only men who have the balls and common sense to put a stop to it) by giving them access to 24/7 vaginas during this period. The betas are told to suck it up and work hard to produce wealth, but that they will get their turn to marry the dried up wombs of these "girls" when they are a ripe "mature" 32-35. The resulting 2.1 children, plus some additional immigration gives us enough of a replenishment to the population to keep the entire industry chugging along. As a bonus, many of these wrecked, emotionally unstable women, will assist the state in a forced asset transfer of her "husband" to various interested parties. The beauty of this is that we get to confiscate all the work and labor that the beta male invested his years by using the very prize that we offered him as incentive to work so hard (marriage).

And with new fertility treatments, we can even put off the family planning stage to 38-42, giving us 6 more productive years of work we can squeeze out of our cows for the sake of industry before we have to put them out to pasture. The betas will put up with it because they have been so thoroughly emasculated and broken in, that they can convince themselves that they are attracted to these wrinkled, dried up, saggy blotchy bodies even tho they regularly jack off to supple nubile 18 year old lesbian porn.

So, while I think what you said is true in result, I think the reason for it, is different. We simply haven't found a way to make it economically viable to put women in combat.

Yet.

OpenID cailcorishev February 16, 2014 8:02 AM  

Show documentation that at least half of all women who got abortions were actually using birth control, or retract.

You missed the point; I didn't say that any of them were. Someone asked why these women are getting pregnant when birth control is available, and I pointed out that birth control is available (for free) in the civilian world too, and there are still a million abortions. In other words, plenty of women who don't want babies don't bother to use birth control. And in the military, they have an extra incentive not to do so.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 16, 2014 9:50 AM  

No, that's not it. This is pure emotion, not reason. Emotionally we (Well, not necessarily _me_) want women to have all the oppourtunity there is, but to take no risks and pay no price for it. We cannot, most of us MEN, stand to see women cry. We want them to be happy? Why do you suppose we gave them the vote, let alone shoes? Because they could force us to? Ha.

It's not possible to credit sense, or calculation, in something totally devoid of either.

Anonymous The other skeptic February 16, 2014 10:46 AM  

Maybe if I had not said the Germans were impressive, J would not have been pissed.

Blogger Some dude February 16, 2014 11:01 AM  

@Tom

I think what you are describing is compassion, but it's a feral sort of compassion. It's a compassion that rules the man and not the other way around. The moment he feels the pain of compassion, instead of enduring it, and being informed by it, he gives into it and does whatever he has to, to stop the pain that he is enduring as a result of being aware of another human beings pain.

That isn't compassion being used to help one's brother, that's a compassion that's being used as a goad against the man who has it.

And so I think the result of a culture of men who have no conception of how to tame and endure their instincts of compassion is that those men who have no compassion, or very little of it, tend to do better and end up running the show. i.e. sociopaths.

Which is how I say we end up with an environment that is calculated and insane at the same time.

Anonymous J February 16, 2014 11:47 AM  

You are assuming this, J, based on the high percentage of wounded to dead at, say, Babi Yar? You really ought to think and question a little before using cookie cutter judgment. For example, in an army which doesn't have much in the way of medical support, will that ratio still hold true? Of those that survive their wounds, how many will be thrown into combat again to be killed? How many wounds are fairly trivial, and can be handled by field medics? Where's your data to suggest that the wounded to killed ratio, even in armies with first rate medical support, applies to civilians?

I am thinking and questioning. I find myself amazed that you are not thinking about, or questioning, these outlandish Russian numbers.

The Germans did not do a "Babi Yar" atrocity on the scale demanded by the 30 million dead number. That would have required them to shoot on the order of a third to a half of the Soviet civilians who were under their control. There is no evidence that they did that.

The USSBS gave figures of 375,000 German civilians killed and 625,000 wounded through Allied bombing - or 1.6 : 1 WIA : KIA. If you want to argue that the Russkies were more primitive and therefore the ratio would have been closer to 1:1, then the 30 million KIA number still means there were 30 million WIA, and thus the Germans killed or wounded literally everybody in the areas they occupied. If that doesn't strike you as problematic... in your own words, you really ought to think and question a little.

Anonymous J February 16, 2014 11:49 AM  

J, you may be forgetting that the number of civilian lives lost due to starvation and disease is included in the official numbers.

I think they included a lot of things in those numbers, including people who died natural deaths (and would have died anyway even without a war) and people who didn't get born because their parents died before they could reproduce. And then they plussed the numbers up on top of that.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 16, 2014 12:42 PM  

No, you are not thinking. And you're missing the point of the Babi Yar reference. There's simply no way to tell. How many wounded does mass starvation leave? Typhus? How many died at Leningrad to disease, cold, and lack of food? Can any who survived really be counted as wounded? Were there enough survivors to make up that tally of wounded if all of them were counted as wounded?

Hmmm...I don't think you're trying to misunderstand. Maybe I can explain it this way. Take a Soviet infantry battalion of about 700 men. In Action X, say, they have 100 KIA, 100 Died of Wounds, which is accounted for as died of wounds, not as KIA, 100 seriously wounded and evacuated, and 100 very lightly wounded, given band aids vodka and aspirin, and kept on hand. Yes, that's three wounded for one KIA, but in reality only one wounded worth mentioning for every two dead. That's just illustration. And, on the other side, there's my old mechanic, Hans Braun, once a tanker with 1st SS Panzer Division, LSSAH. Hans lived through the war, but had at least fifteen wounds significant enough to leave a noticable scar, including the ovals around his ears where his headphones had caught fire and burned. He had those fifteen - at least - wounds, but did not represent any necessary dead at all. IOW, people can be wounded more than once, may live through them, may die from them, but cannot be definitively said to anything from them. Bombing is not typhus. Bombing is not starvation. Bombing is not reprisal. Bombing cannot be said to match anything except bombing.

Now are the numbers high? Maybe, maybe not. My personal suspicion is that they are, but only by about 20% or so. A sixth of the Soviet population under occupation or evacuated killed or died to all causes? Yeah, I could see that. There was a town, for example, that changed hands some four times. When it was done the town basically didn't exist anymore, and it's population - the pop in the area, anyway - had dropped by about 95%, IIRC.

A simpler way to put it might be this. Even with us, the wounded to killed ratio isn't really numbers of wounded to numbers of killed, but numbers of wounds to numbers of killed, where men may be wounded more than once.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 16, 2014 12:43 PM  

I rather choke on the notion of "a feral sort of compassion."

Blogger Some dude February 16, 2014 6:28 PM  

@Tom

Feral - Full Definition of FERAL

1 of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild beast
2. a : not domesticated or cultivated : wild
b : having escaped from domestication and become wild

Any trait in a man that it is not domesticated or cultivated by his higher mind is wild, untamed. Even a traits as noble and good as compassion or even loyalty can be incredibly destructive if it isn't under the control of a mans reason. That's what I meant to get across.

Blogger Marissa February 16, 2014 7:15 PM  

I can't wait for the 2014 version of Catch 22 in which a female PFC struggles mightily to get impregnated in order to avoid her deployment.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 16, 2014 8:44 PM  

I also choke on the idea that much at all is ever under the control of man's reason. We are a rationalizing species, not a rational one.

Anonymous Diogenes February 17, 2014 2:08 AM  

Tom Kratman wrote: "In any case, you really have lost me. The past can't be made up for, as I think you've said, nor, if we're serious about war, should we even try, so who gives a Flying Philadelphia Fuck who was made to go away in the past, when the question is who can effectively malinger and desert in the present and who cannot? And why?"

First of all, I never said that the past could or should be 'made up for'. What I said was that there were errors made in the past against certain people (such as women and blacks). If I in fact advocated the past being 'made up for', then I would advocate the current situation, in which the opposite errors are being made (against whites and men). I do not advocate the current situation of the opposite error being made. What I would have preferred is simply that the past error be corrected, not be 'made up for' by making the opposite error, partly because the people in the past who either benefitted from or were victimized by the past errors are mostly dead, and partly because the current (opposite) errors both create a situation just as bad as the past errors, and likely will eventually invite a return to past errors. In other words, nobody (assuming an all volunteer army) should be allowed to malinger or desert regardless of what went on in the past.

'Making up' for past errors on the parts of large masses of people by engaging in the opposite error at a far future point seldom works. Thinking that it is, is rather like a farmer who drastically over-waters his crops one year, causing them to die of mold. So the next year, he decides he will 'make up' for it, by giving his crops no water at all. Guess what, he didn't get any harvest the first year, and he's not going to get any harvest the second year, either. Nor will returning to the first error in year 3 help matters much.

At any rate, I have an intense dislike for malingerers of either gender. Just yesterday, for example, about 5 minutes before I was ready to leave for the day (after working 12 hours straight), I was informed that I needed to drive 20 miles to a different branch of my company in order to do 3 more hours of work that was supposed to have been done by someone (male btw) who failed to show up at the proper time (3 hours prior to when they called me). I did the work, then told my boss that I would like an email from the person who failed to show up explaining in detail exactly why whatever it is they need to do INSTEAD of their job was of so much greater importance than what I need to do in ADDITION to my job. Such as taking care of 3 sick people, since out of my mother, my brother, and my boyfriend, I am the ONLY one who is not sick. Unfortunately the vicissitudes of life being what they are, I will probably not get my requested email with this idiot's explanation as to why he found it necessary to malinger.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 17, 2014 4:08 AM  

"The past can't be made up for, as I think you've said," hence, no disagrement on that score, nor was there in my previous post.

But the question for today remains, who can get away with malingering and who cannot? Women can. Men? Not so much, no. This, by the way, infuriates the better class of female soldiers even more than it does the men.

Blogger Some dude February 17, 2014 4:32 AM  

@Tom

That's because we also let our ego get out of control.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 17, 2014 6:55 AM  

Don't think so. Think that we're just like that, and that it's not a question of an ego getting out of control so much as it is of it never having been under control. Yes, a lot of our lack of reason is solipsistic, I will agree. But even were we not solipsists, I doubt we would be rational anyway.

Blogger Marissa February 17, 2014 12:38 PM  

What I said was that there were errors made in the past against certain people (such as women and blacks)

What errors were against women and blacks that were not committed ten-fold against white men forced to fight in this country's wars? The suffering and oppression of those poor women who weren't allowed to be drafted into the military to be blown to pieces by bullets and artillery...will no one make up for this travesty?! Why weren't they allowed to work for decades in mines and fields and steel factories? It's just so unfair.

If the white man is so horribly unfair to blacks and browns--why do they keep coming to our oppressive homelands? Why don't they go back to their paradises where no one will "erroneously" treat them?

Anonymous Diogenes February 17, 2014 2:32 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote: "But the question for today remains, who can get away with malingering and who cannot? Women can. Men? Not so much, no. This, by the way, infuriates the better class of female soldiers even more than it does the men."

Oh, I agree that women can get away in many cases with malingering more than men. Though in some cases, who is allowed to malinger is divided more along the lines of who butters up the boss best. Which isn't always necessarily a woman. I also agree about it infuriating the (better) women more than it does men, though in that situation there might be some compensation by the fact that the better woman may tell the malingerer off in no uncertain terms, and the malingerer will get so infuriated by her inability to cry 'sex discrimination' against the other woman that she will turn red and visibly blow up like the Pillsbury doughboy. It's actually rather amusing to watch, if I can't get work out of some of these idiots, I like to take it out of their hides.

Question: I would agree that pregnancy could fall under the category of 'self inflicted wounds'. However, would getting a venereal disease, on the part of a man fall under the same category?

Regarding the past not being able to be made up for, especially if it is the distant past, as I've said, I agree with that. If society has committed an error, the best thing to do is to simply stop the error. Making the opposite error will simply create new additional problems. That said, however, I would also point out that as much as some people might like it, you often cannot simply 'rescind' some of the consequences of past errors, as much as some people might want that to happen. For instance, if a child found it convenient when they were eight years old to repeatedly bully the science nerd in their school, such that the latter grows up so disfunctional that they end up working in a Walmart (or in jail), they don't get a do-over when they are 40 years old, have cancer, and the guy who would have had the brains to find the cure for cancer is now working in Walmart.

Anonymous Diogenes February 17, 2014 2:38 PM  

Tom Kratman: Not sure about this, but the situation that exists in Rhwanda may be a good example of not being able to rescind the consequences of past errors. If my understanding of what went on in that country is right, what happened was that the blacks who were native there were artificially divided into 2 groups (Hutu and Tutsi) by Dutch colonists. However, now the blacks have accepted that division and a bad situation exists in which these two artificially created groups are constantly fighting amongst one another. It probably would have been better for the Dutch colonists not to create the two groups, but at this point we don't get a do-over to rescind the consequences. Nor do I think (since making up for the past usually doesn't work) that favoring whatever group was on the bottom in the past would help, either.

Anonymous Diogenes February 17, 2014 2:48 PM  

Marissa wrote:
**What errors were against women and blacks that were not committed ten-fold against white men forced to fight in this country's wars? **
Your point is what? That if someone has his hand chopped off by Jeffrey Dahmer, then he has a right to cut off the fingers of a random person, or that if he saves me from dying in an accident, then he gets to cut off my fingers if it suits him?

If men have a problem with wars, then they need to take that matter up either with whoever they are fighting, or whoever forced them to fight.

** Why weren't they allowed to work for decades in mines and fields and steel factories? It's just so unfair.**

I hate to be the one to break this too you, but women have been working in fields, factories, etc for a very long time. Most of the time they weren't paid because the field belonged to their husband, or the factory was a dairy or loom that existed in their house. So apparently your complaint is not that women work, but that they work for themselves and get paid.


**If the white man is so horribly unfair to blacks and browns--why do they keep coming to our oppressive homelands? Why don't they go back to their paradises where no one will "erroneously" treat them**

What part of the definition of the word "past" as in PAST errors don't you grasp? The fact that we are making certain errors in the present in the unfair favor of some groups does not mean that we did not make unfair errors in the past against such groups.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter February 17, 2014 3:18 PM  

"If my understanding of what went on in that country is right, what happened was that the blacks who were native there were artificially divided into 2 groups (Hutu and Tutsi) by Dutch colonists. However, now the blacks have accepted that division and a bad situation exists in which these two artificially created groups are constantly fighting amongst one another."

That is one seriously fucked up understanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Tutsi_and_Hutu

Blogger Marissa February 17, 2014 4:18 PM  

I hate to be the one to break this too you, but women have been working in fields, factories, etc for a very long time. Most of the time they weren't paid because the field belonged to their husband, or the factory was a dairy or loom that existed in their house. So apparently your complaint is not that women work, but that they work for themselves and get paid.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but wives of husbands who both worked in fields or home-based "factories" were less productive than their men. Men are far stronger than women and far more productive at physical labor. Lemme know when Homestead Princess was hand-plowing more than her 2x strong husband.

does not mean that we did not make unfair errors in the past against such groups

Who's "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? My people didn't own slaves, so you can fuck off with your collective guilt pathology.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 17, 2014 11:12 PM  

"I would agree that pregnancy could fall under the category of 'self inflicted wounds'. However, would getting a venereal disease, on the part of a man fall under the same category?"

We used to treat it about that way. But then ugly reality overcame theory; the troops wouldn't get treated, and would end up infecting more - usually hookers - who would infect more troops. It is, by the way, though the courts have grown blind and deaf to it, perfecty legitimate to treat different kinds of people / classes of people differently. In any case, operationally, pregnancy is different from veneral disease.

Anonymous Diogenes February 18, 2014 7:03 AM  

Mariss wrote: **Lemme know when Homestead Princess was hand-plowing more than her 2x strong husband.**

So, basically your position is, that if a woman does half as much work as a man, what should happen is not that she should get half as much pay, but that she should get no pay at all?

I like that principle a lot. By that principle, if I go to the store, and a gallon of milk costs $3.00, then I should be able to get half a gallon of milk for free! Hey! Then I can go back to the store the next day and get another free half gallon and sell it on the street corner in Moscow!

**Who's "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? My people didn't own slaves, so you can fuck off with your collective guilt pathology.**

Enslaving various groups is not the only error that can be made against them. And might I suggest that if you can't comprehend the grammar of a post that is written for adults, that perhaps you should not read it?

Anonymous Diogenes February 18, 2014 7:20 AM  

Tom Kratman wrote: **We used to treat it about that way. But then ugly reality overcame theory; the troops wouldn't get treated, and would end up infecting more - usually hookers - who would infect more troops. It is, by the way, though the courts have grown blind and deaf to it, perfecty legitimate to treat different kinds of people / classes of people differently. In any case, operationally, pregnancy is different from veneral disease.**

Hmm. My solution would be that pregnancy still be classified as a self-inflicted wound, and that the army laws (is that the right word) be re-written such that self inflicted wounds, though not necessarily prosecuted, cannot be used as an excuse to get out of combat. This would probably reduce the number of women deliberately getting pregnant considerably.

Regarding pregnancy being operationally different from venereal disease, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I suppose it is different in all people. Some women are laid up in bed for months when pregnant, others are doing heavy work in the early stages of labor. And some venereal diseases can be debilitating if not treated.

Regarding the sunburn thing, I'd actually recommend new recruits being specifically warned against sunburn and issued very high SPF sunblock. If you get someone who has lived fairly far north and worked nights, they can get a pretty bad case of sun poisoning in only a few hours of daylight farther south, and not realise it until it's too late, and they are as red as a beet, throwing up, and in so much pain the next day that they can't even wear clothes.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 18, 2014 9:33 AM  

That won't stand politically. The country can just barely stomach having women in a combat zone, as long as the country is lied to about it, anyway, but will not tolerate endangering babies / pregnant women.

What I mean is that no woman ever made another woman pregnant, but men, using hookers (not always hookers, of course) as vectors, do frequently pass on VD to one another.

In any case, forget solutions, there are none the country will stand for, and absolutely none that the morally cowardly generals and admirals (Lord, forgive us our redundancies) will, in the main, fight for. The simple solution, not Norplant but mandatory Depo Provera, would be easy, and at least certain enough. Yeah there's always that 1% but so what? But restrict a woman's right to get preggers whenever she wants? Politically unthinkable!

Anonymous J February 18, 2014 12:54 PM  

you're missing the point of the Babi Yar reference.

At Babi Yar, there were not a lot of wounded relative to killed because the Germans shot them at point blank range. Is that the point? My point is that the Germans did not shoot everyone in the total Soviet area they occupied at point blank range - not even close - but this is what is required if we are to believe that there were 30M KIA and hardly any WIA.

I still don't know how many WIA you think is plausible relative to 30M KIA. You're quibbling about whether a guy wounded fifteen times counts as one WIA or fifteen WIA, but even if you count him as one WIA that is problematic.

Assume that there is one WIA per KIA - a conservative assumption - and that multiple wounds count as one WIA. You still have 30M WIA, which means that the Germans killed or wounded everybody in the areas they occupied. There is no reason to believe this is true.

How many wounded does mass starvation leave?

The entire zone the Germans occupied wasn't starving en masse either.

Take a Soviet infantry battalion of about 700 men. In Action X, say, they have 100 KIA, 100 Died of Wounds, which is accounted for as died of wounds, not as KIA, 100 seriously wounded and evacuated, and 100 very lightly wounded, given band aids vodka and aspirin, and kept on hand. Yes, that's three wounded for one KIA, but in reality only one wounded worth mentioning for every two dead.

I don't think the postwar statistics differentiate between KIA and "later died of wounds". I think they just recorded everyone killed during the war as dead, whether it was instant or later in the hospital. Therefore in your example, you'd have 200 dead and 200 wounded, a 1:1 ratio. And if we are to believe that 30M died, then we have 30M wounded, which is highly implausible as I have already said.

A sixth of the Soviet population under occupation or evacuated killed or died to all causes? Yeah, I could see that.

But that is not the claim. The Germans had to kill a LOT more than a sixth for the 30M number to be true. More like a half.

There was a town, for example, that changed hands some four times. When it was done the town basically didn't exist anymore, and it's population - the pop in the area, anyway - had dropped by about 95%, IIRC.

Every town wasn't fought over like that. And no doubt a lot of the population drop in that case was from people running away, not being killed.

Anonymous J February 18, 2014 12:59 PM  

Looked at another way, if the 1939 population of the USSR was 170M, and 25% of the population were males between the ages of 15 and 50, then you have 43M males of military age. We don't know how many of the supposed 30M dead were men, but let's assume they were mostly men -- 75% men for the sake of argument. So the Germans killed 22M men, and if we take the conservative notion of one WIA per KIA then they wounded 22M more men. In total, then, the Germans killed or wounded 44M men -- that is, every single male of military age in the USSR.

Not plausible.

Anonymous Diogenes February 18, 2014 4:00 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote: **That won't stand politically. The country can just barely stomach having women in a combat zone, as long as the country is lied to about it, anyway, but will not tolerate endangering babies / pregnant women.**

I grow very weary of people wanting things both ways. Such as wanting to do an action because it is convenient, then wanting the consequences of that action (if there are any) simply not to exist. Which is something seperate, btw, than either acting to prevent those consequences or taking action to deal with them later. So it seems to me, that first of all, either they want women in combat or they don't. And secondly, this country has already voted on putting unborn babies in 'danger', and the vote has been that they can be aborted. I won't argue about that issue, except to say that I am pro-choice, but you can't legitimately have a contradictory state where unborn babies are allowed to be in danger of being aborted, but not allowed to be in danger of being killed in other ways.

**What I mean is that no woman ever made another woman pregnant, but men, using hookers (not always hookers, of course) as vectors, do frequently pass on VD to one another.**

Ah, ok. Wasn't sure what you meant by operationally different.

**In any case, forget solutions, there are none the country will stand for, and absolutely none that the morally cowardly generals and admirals (Lord, forgive us our redundancies) will, in the main, fight for. The simple solution, not Norplant but mandatory Depo Provera, would be easy, and at least certain enough. Yeah there's always that 1% but so what? But restrict a woman's right to get preggers whenever she wants? Politically unthinkable! **

Which is more garbage. When you get a job, you give up certain rights to do whatever you want, whenever you want. You cannot simply go out drinking whenever you want, and show up drunk at a job. Nor can you sit in your office chair completely nude. Depending on your job, you may not even be able to go out of town for weeks at a time if you are expected to be 'on call'. I don't understand why pregnancy falls into a special category exempted from this.

Regarding the contraceptives, some people don't react well to them. However there are other ways of not getting pregnant including celibacy, condoms, and getting a bit 'creative' in your sex life. If someone isn't smart enough to be doing *something* that prevents most pregnancies, they probably aren't smart enough to be having sex. They also probably aren't smart enough to be in the army, or have any other regular job, but that's a seperate issue.

As for the morally cowardly people you talk about, the world is filled with those. At least for now. I have reasons to suspect that will change in the future. Running thing like a cutesified popularity contest is a luxury. When things get bad enough, competence and results will eventually become important.

Blogger Marissa February 18, 2014 5:56 PM  

So, basically your position is, that if a woman does half as much work as a man, what should happen is not that she should get half as much pay, but that she should get no pay at all?

Diogenes, watching you try to argue is like watching a moronic Roman girl waddle around with her wooden sword pretending at gladiatrix. The work women did was rewarded--with a roof over their head and a personal bodyguard. If you can't understand basic economics (judging by your astounding lack of reason as vomited throughout the comments section of this website) don't try to make cute and utterly specious pseudo-economic statements.

As for your additionally retarded attempt to insult my grammar understanding, your statement we did not make unfair errors in the past against such groups begs who the hell "we" is? Got an explanation, or more Marxist oppressor dialectic nonsense? You are the reason so many people here think the vast majority of women are stupid.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 18, 2014 6:11 PM  

And all politically undoable, Dio, at least at this time. You can bitch. I can bitch. We all can bitch. But the effective range of our bitching is zero meters.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 18, 2014 6:26 PM  

I keep pointing out to you, J, how you're not understanding and misusing the stats, and you keep countering with some variant on, "But if I cookie cutter them this way and manipulate them that, then I can be right." No. NONONONONO. X dead does not equal XY wounded. Just get it out of your head; you are using a stat and formula you do not understand. X dead might equal XY wounds, but Y, in this case, includes many men being wounded more than once. You simply cannot go from X dead to "everyone in the soviet union was wounded." IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. For a while this was my fucking JOB, okay? IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

Anonymous Diogenes February 19, 2014 3:33 AM  

Tom Kratman wrote: **And all politically undoable, Dio, at least at this time. You can bitch. I can bitch. We all can bitch. But the effective range of our bitching is zero meters. **

Nah. I'd say at least 3 meters. It's still amusing to get malingerers to physically blow up like the Pillsbury Doughboy. Even though it has little effect on their malingering habits.

Anonymous J February 19, 2014 1:05 PM  

Why don't you give me your stats then?

How many wounded do YOU think there were if there were 30M KIA?

I already told you I don't care about the guys wounded more than once -- count them as one wounded guy if you prefer.

Then tell me why your total KIA and WIA estimate makes sense relative to what we believe was the prewar population of the USSR.

Blogger Tom Kratman February 20, 2014 6:07 AM  

Wouldn't begin to. However, I will say that about 3.3 million Soviet POW died in German hands, mostly of neglect. How many wounded does that represent?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts