After reading the article, I’m going with “blunt reformer.”
* She demanded female recruits meet the same performance standards as men. I’m all in favor of that!
* She got sacked because she made girls uncomfortable. That’s all it takes these days.

After reading the article, I’m going with “blunt reformer.” * She demanded female recruits meet the same performance standards as men. I’m all in favor of that! * She got sacked because she made girls uncomfortable. That’s all it takes these days.

Equal pay and Equal rights for Equal results. No? That’s harassment AND misogyny! LOL.

Too often we forget that equality also afford’s the individual the ample opportunity to equally fail.

Instead of these little social experiments wasting taxpayers money, like sending women to “Ranger school” and watching them wash out miserably. Maybe the they should do exactly as this CO did and make it one standard across the board.

Hell.. they want to shrink their numbers by 40k this year.. might as well separate the chaff from the wheat and get your monies worth.

He is a blunt reformer. Right path and we’ll ahead of his time. There is no way to immediately know what the effects would of been with this one as it never got a chance to play out. But I think she was on track as being the latter Blunt Reformer.

military service is a privilege, not a right. The focus should be on what the military needs, not what political groups need. Higher standards for better soldiers, pilots, etc. You pass, you pass. You fail, you fail. And if men are required to register, so should everyone else be. It’s not uncommon.

On the other hand, you could argue that military service is neither a right nor a privilege but a duty.  On that basis, I actually think the feminists are right in the matter of military service.  Let women serve on the front line.  In fact, tell the c~~~s it’s their ‘duty’, so “man up already”.  Mary, Louise and Jayne can come home in bodybags too – how do like that on your cornflakes? Daddy’s little snowflake missing a leg or two.  Try having kids now, c~~~.

This is MGTOW, so let’s be consistent.  If MGTOW means anything, it’s rebellion against ‘the patriarchy’.  Patriarchy is the name feminists give it, but you could call it capitalists, corporatists, globalists, Jews, lizard-human hybrids, gynocrats, or whatever you like – these are all just alternate words for the same thing, which is a ‘ruling class’ in a hierarchical social system.  The analysis is essentially the same, it’s just the terminology that varies.

On the other hand, you could argue that military service is neither a right nor a privilege but a duty.  On that basis, I actually think the feminists are right in the matter of military service.  Let women serve on the front line.  In fact, tell the c~~~s it’s their ‘duty’, so “man up already”.  Mary, Louise and Jayne can come home in bodybags too – how do like that on your cornflakes? Daddy’s little snowflake missing a leg or two.  Try having kids now, c~~~.

The only issue with that is, if they’re not up to standard, their incompetence will get male soldiers killed and lead to a large amount monetary loss in destroyed or lost equipment… Not to mention lose wars…

The only issue with that is, if they’re not up to standard, their incompetence will get male soldiers killed and lead to a large amount monetary loss in destroyed or lost equipment… Not to mention lose wars…

People get killed in war anyway.  What’s new?  I don’t want to see male soldiers getting killed for this reason (or any reason) any more than you do, but admission to the military is primarily about duty rather than competence.  Virtually anyone can join the non-specialised branches, and I’m afraid I’ve never been impressed by this belief that people in the military can lay claim to some special bravery or competence.  The bulls~~~ doesn’t work on me.  I drank all the Kool-Aid early on, which inoculated me, and so I’m immune to it.

I see no reason why women couldn’t join any branch of the military (including special forces) and cope at a similar level to men.  I think the obstacles are cultural rather than physiological.  Just because women aren’t as strong as men on average, it doesn’t follow that men make better soldiers.  The tactics of an Army would just have to adapt to the type of personnel.  Women can fire a gun as well as men.  Woman can march, can they not?  They can tab across country.  They can learn foreign languages, survival techniques, undertake paramedical training, etc..  They can study artillery and learn signalling.  There’s no reason why a woman can’t be a soldier – and why should we stand in the way of the feminists?  They are ‘right’ after all.  Let’s give them what they want…and then sit back and see what happens.

When Mary, Jill and Jayne go out to the killing fields, I’ll be grabbing the popcorn and taking out a Sky subscription.  It’s real-life entertainment.  I’m not sure if I’ll be rooting for the Taliban or ISIS against our brave girls.  I’ve yet to decide.  But you go girl anyway!

For me, the bottom line is: If women want fuller citizenship, then they need to carry the burdens.  It’s time for feminists to get serious.  Most of them are from the metropolitan elite of Western societies and don’t get their hands dirty.  They’re OK with equality when it comes to comfortable office work and high bulls~~~ non-jobs like corporate PR, marketing, HR and other pointless wank.  But what about the dirty jobs?

If the price for this is more men getting killed or lost wars, that’s unfortunate – I don’t want it either – but it appears that’s the decision society has taken.  I only ‘agree’ with it in the sense that I want to see what happens when feminists get what they want – the results will be interesting.  I suspect they know this already and I think a lot of the ‘equality’ initiatives that go on in organisations like the military are really more about show than substance.