Warrior Culture and Women in Ranger School

January 28th, 2013   Submitted by Roman Skaskiw

rangersI dream about the military almost every other night, about Afghanistan more often than Iraq, sometimes about training. The dreams are usually tense, but not disturbing. I think my training prepared me for combat. Amazingly, the most troubling dream involves my returning to Ranger School. A bureaucratic error requires me to go again. It’s recurred more times than I can count.

Ranger School was effective because it was so God-damned hard — a 40% graduation rate when I attended. I’ve never stopped being proud of having earned the Ranger Tab, not when Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel convinced me our foreign policy was misguided, nor when the Constitution convinced me the state threatened my liberty far more than any external enemies. Even after Rothbard and Hoppe and the impossibility of a monopoly on violence, I remained proud.

The warrior ethic has likely been a virtue ever since primordial men banded together to bring down game too difficult or dangerous for lone hunters. Libertarians shouldn’t discard it because of its co-opting by the state.

Perhaps state stewardship of warrior culture makes it a lost cause and its scrutiny a moot point. Fair enough. If so, then chalk this up to sheer sentimentalism:

  • Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the other day that the combat arms are going co-ed for egalitarian reasons.
  • Basic Training for new soldiers has be co-ed since 1994 when President Clinton re-instituted the short-lived Carter Administration policy.
  • The results were bad. Co-ed environments resulted in less discipline and less unit cohesion.
  • Men compete for women even when rationally, they have no conscious desire to pursue a relationship. Sensitivity training always looks ridiculous to men being trained to fear nothing. Soldiers have a very short time preference, especially in combat.
  • For such a monstrous bureaucracy, I’ve always found the US Army surprisingly good at articulating its weaknesses. A more detailed account of the burdens of co-ed Basic Training is available in the Center for Military Readiness’s universally ignored “Summary of Relevant Findings and Recommendations – Army Gender-Integrated Basic Training (GIBT) – 1993-2002.
  • Combat units, like the infantry, performed some bureaucratic jiu jitsu to free themselves from the curse of co-ed Basic Training.  They agitated, not for gender segregation (that would be politically incorrect), but for segregation by specialty.  It just so happened that combat specialties were male-only.[While I do not have specific knowledge of the intent of the reform, this perspective expresses conventional wisdom among my fellow infantry officers.]  One Station Unit Training was born.

Now imagine the burdens of a co-ed environment not in Basic Training, but in Ranger School where it’s common for students to be pushed to the point of hallucination. I was. I also went through in the winter. We huddled together for warmth every chance we had. Ranger School strips you to the bare minimums of combat effectiveness: water, a little food, clean weapons, ammunition, leadership. On patrol, Ranger students piss where they happen to be standing/kneeling/lying. When the patrol moves, they move.

Ranger students are starving, exhausted, hallucinating, often freezing, and worst of all, desperate. They function on instincts and barely so. Will these exhausted, starving, hallucinating, angry, desperate warriors be held responsible when a female form is pressed against them for warmth, or when a woman performs personal hygiene inside the perimeter? Of course not. No amount of sensitivity training would mitigate this. It will only pretend to do so while standards decline.

As is often the case in government enterprises, effectiveness is sacrificed for egalitarianism. Standards will be upheld more by bureaucratic norms (to assure fairness) and less by the judgement of Ranger instructors, who will weigh their careers against the obligation to tug and twist when they sense a weak link.

Notice, I’ve said nothing about women’s ability to complete the course. I’m sure there are a few who are willing and able. The question of their participation returns to the question of the military’s purpose.

Speaking from the old fashioned perspective that the military’s purpose is combat effectiveness, then admitting women into the most hallowed training grounds of warriors patently ridiculous. Co-ed Ranger School will not be Ranger School.

Sadly, the preponderance of the evidence seems to suggest a slew of priorities ahead of combat effectiveness. The military is primarily:

  • a tool for propaganda
  • a confirmation of masculinity for politicians and their neo-conservative cheer leaders
  • a cash cow for military industries
  • an expansive welfare system

and most relevantly,

  • a playground for egalitarians and social engineers of all stripes

In America’s military and beyond it, I see a culture committed to its own destruction. Having recognized the true purpose of the military, I say — integrate away! Perhaps empathy bellies will help.

65 Responses to “Warrior Culture and Women in Ranger School”

  1. Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

    Yeah, this used to be an interesting debate when I was still a minarchist.

    Assuming that women in the combat roles IS detrimental to combat effectiveness, then I agree with you that anything that helps throw a wrench in the gears of the state is a good thing.

    Although I’m not convinced that women couldn’t play an integral parts in combat roles.

    What I’d really like to see is a free-market defense agency, or agencies, and see if and/or how they employ women.

    If women are marketable in armed forces, then those companies that do not employ them are missing out on labor value. And those that do will win out in the market place.

  2. PeteNo Gravatar says:

    When you eliminate half of your fighting force do you really expect to win??

    Women are much more susceptible to the seduction of power, my bet is that there are thousands of women out there that would love to live out their twisted power fantasies on people other than the ones that harmed them,…if only they were given the chance,….

    Perhaps voluntary segregation would bring consensus, as could the absence of willing instructors,…but good luck with either of those in a place so historically hierarchial,…

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      Historicly all combat asoldiers in nearly every army have all been men and one side won the war, thus the answer to your question is: yes. If a woman can do the job then fine but has it occured to yo that there is a reason why every player in the NFL is a man? If you were in a burning building overcome by smoke would you want a female firefighter who is 5′ 5″ and weighs 95 lbs try to carry you out of the building or a male firefighter who is 6′ and weighs 200lbs? Yes ther are female firefigters but men are generally physically stronger than women are. This is why all NFL players are men and why women generally have not been combat soldiers. An enemy on the balttlefield is not going to go easy on your side because your side is politically correct.

      $

      • bNo Gravatar says:

        Again with the NFL comparison? Of course the guy would win. You’re only using brutal force. how is that fair? Why not speed, reflexes, flexibility, intelligence?

  3. TylerNo Gravatar says:

    Yeah, I have such a hard time with the idea of women in combat MOS’s… I’m also a vet, 19D Cav Scout. While I’m now a small L libertarian, I do relate to you in the sense that I’m still extremely proud of my having been through some tough soldier training and experiences. I’m not sexist and I don’t care for war anymore, I believe in the NAP. I just have such a hard time with the idea, for many reasons you stated above and for thinking about the camaraderie of the men. I know during some of the toughest times we experienced in FTX’s or during trainings, it was the men being able to cheer each other up by talking about women and how much they missed them or whatnot. That won’t happen with women around.

    No matter how one cuts it, it always seems to end up sounding fairly sexist when one talks about women in combat. There’s no way around it.

    I don’t think it’s a good idea. We’ll see what happens.

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      What’s holding you up from being a market anarchist?

      • TylerNo Gravatar says:

        What do you mean?

        I’m not sure I understand the difference. I don’t believe in corporatism or fascism or any of that kind of stuff… I’m a voluntarist / small L libertarian / anarchist, whatever you want to call it.

        I believe in the right to self ownership and the NAP, those two things lead logic and reason to dictate that property rights fall under self ownership and defense of property falls under the NAP through self defense.

        All other market interaction should be completely laissez faire, voluntary, mutual contracts and agreements, etc.

        • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

          Okay, gotcha! I misunderstood and thought you were saying you were a minarchist.

          • TylerNo Gravatar says:

            Ah, nope. I believe it’ll take a minarchist approach to eventually attain total liberty. Getting gov’t smaller and smaller through political activism and action until we can then “drown it in the bathtub” as the adage goes.

            My goal is total freedom and liberty for humankind. I will work diligently toward this goal my entire life.

  4. PatNo Gravatar says:

    Woman here. Totally agree. The only thing this will accomplish is more PTSD in women than there already is — who will have to go home someday and raise children. I feel sorry for those kids.

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      I wonder if people who support women in combat believe that when that cruise ship sank off the coast of Italy if women should have be allowed to leave the ship bwfore male passengers were allowed to leave the ship. You see if they truly beleave women should be treated the same then why give women preference when a ship is sinking?
      $

      • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

        That’s an interesting observation.

        I just can’t help but to think of a ton of scenarios where women would actually fair better than men in certain combat situations.

        I think women make great spies, assassins, etc.

        I think the days are long gone that women are segregated from men. Will women one day share bathrooms with men? Showers? It already happens in Germany. I’ve experienced it first hand. Does it bother me? Not at all.

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          Uh, of course women have an advantage in espinoge and have been spies throughout history. They have traded sex for information. I don’t think women in most places are going to be willing to share bathrooms. Perhaps because a lot of East German women look like men that is not a big deal in Germany. Women want to be segregated from men in certain situations.

          $

          http://youtu.be/2UnB-9tIZAo

  5. PeteNo Gravatar says:

    I’m led to the question of why we accept that wars will continue and that soldiers will be necessary.

    Dec 21 was the dawn of the new age, we now live in a world where the sheep can be separated from the wolves by simply asking, ‘Are you willing to use violence to attain your goals.’

    If they answer yes, well, do you want to live in a world with people that accept the old world,….or will you illuminate them??

    • Thanks for the comment, Pete.

      For the record, I don’t accept the idea that wars will be necessary in the future, but here’s a great conversation starter for libertarians, especially An-Caps:

      Violence is the origin of property rights. The physically or martially strong pay an opportunity when they adopt what is commonly considered the libertarian ethic — the Hoppe-Rothbard-Mises-Locke idea of self-ownership and homesteading as the foundation of property rights, absolute ones at that.

      The natural rights argument, though important, is a distraction from the fact that property rights have to be won by violence and threat of violence.

      • TylerNo Gravatar says:

        I don’t understand how violence is necessary to acquire property.

        Did you commit violence when you bought your iPod at the Apple store? No.

        Can one purchase potatoes from a local farm, through whatever type of currency (labor, FRNs, barter, precious metals, etc.) they wish? Yes. Is violence needed to do so? No.

        Why does a free market with property rights (which I view as only logical due to self ownership) not allow for marketplace and voluntary interaction sans violence?

        • Tyler, this is an area I’ve only recently become interested in, largely through the influence of my friend, Curt Doolittle who run Captialism V3. Brilliant guy.

          Whether you argue that property is an extension of our biology (Hoppe) or a natural law (Rothbard/Locke), I think you have to acknowledge that property is not respected in the world as we think it should be. In fairly recently history, the state of property rights was even worse.

          No, violence is not necessary to acquire property. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not violence is necessary to establish a cultural / ethical norm which respects property to the extent that libertarians want it respected.

          Can property exist without the willingness and ability to defend it?

      • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

        The non-acceptance of property rights has resulted in violence. If everyone respected the property rights of everyone else there would be no theft and violence would not be used to acquire property.

        $

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      Dawn of a new age? Really? Are you serious? Wars will continue as will crime.I just checked my 2012 calendar and it says nothing about Dec. 21 being the start of a new age btw.

      $

      ” War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”

      – JFK

      • FrankNo Gravatar says:

        Get rid of fractional reserve banking and there will be a lot fewer wars as all wars are bankers wars. They profit,you bleed and die!
        Read Smedley Butler’s War Is A Racket. Putting your mothers into combat isn’t just stupid it’s a prescription for disaster. As USMC Major General Smedley Butler(2 Congressional Medals of Honor) said;”Every American,soldier,sailor airman and Marine is a thug and a bully boy for the corporations and banks. Sad but true! Now the women get a chance to die for higher profits!

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          In theory war was less likely prior to WWI. However, if there is no central bank to print central bank notes a state might invade another country in order to steal that country’s resourses because they can’t print central bank notes in order to purchase the goods. Wars were fought prior to the creation of central banks. Ancient tribes that traded goods for goods without money fought wars.

          $

          • FrankNo Gravatar says:

            Fractional Reserve bankers use paper to get real stuff like land and gold. When the suckers get wise they send the military in to collect. Fractional reserve banking increases the frequency and intensity of wars. Anybody who tries to drop the dollar as the reserve currency gets dead real fast like ole Sadaam and Qadaffi. Which is why Iran’s on the shit list. China and Russia are going off the dollar too. If the U.S. tangles with them there wont be much left of us here in the states.

            • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

              I think you missed my point. I can sum it up as follows: people who want to wage war will find a reason to. A central bank is not necessary to wage war. Wars were fought prior to the creation of central banks.

              $

  6. I’ve always (including during my Marine Corps infantry days) found the arguments against [gays in the military] [women in combat MOSes] dissonant:

    “We spend days, weeks, months, years inculcating iron discipline and complete devotion to duty into this elite fighting force … but if there are [gays in the military] [women in combat MOSes], these disciplined, devoted, elite troops will suddenly and inexplicably find themselves transformed into complete moral reprobates, incapable of keeping their genitalia disengaged from other genitalia for more than a few minutes, cowering human mounds of jello at the thought of being watched in the shower, or both.”

    Of course these days I no longer support the existence of the state in general or its military component in particular … but Jesus, it’s just sort of embarrassing to see someone arguing from the standpoint that a vagina or two in the ranks will instantly turn Ranger candidates into an undisciplined mob.

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      I have not heard anyone claiming that women in combat will create an undisciplined mob. I think the best argument is that women lack the physical strength that men generally have. This is why for example there are no women in the NFL. Sure there are women football leagues but men are generally better athletes than women. The same is true for combat soldiers. Men are stronger. A female Forest Gump would have been less likely to save fellow soldiers by lifting them on her shoulder and carrying them off the battlefield the way Gump did. Political correctness does not make for a good army. An enemy isn’t going to be lack because there are soldiers who are not the best combat soldiers.

      $

      • “the best argument is that women lack the physical strength that men generally have”

        And that “best argument” is collectivist horseshit. Some women lack the physical strength that some men have.

        If what you say is true, however, the problem solves itself — simply set the physical strength requirements by MOS and don’t take anyone who can’t meet them. If no women can meet them, then no women will work in that MOS.

        “This is why for example there are no women in the NFL.”

        An interesting assertion. Care to offer any evidence for it?

  7. Rev. JamesNo Gravatar says:

    The fastest way to eliminate an unwanted group of people is to kill off the women. One man can “service” any number of women – but a woman can only be pregnant, serially. One at a time.

    Who, but the poor, flock to the recruiter’s office? Generally speaking, poor people come from minority populations. Kill off the poor women, and you kill off the minorities.

    Problem solved.

  8. PeteNo Gravatar says:

    So, HR, not interested in a brave new world,..???

    This simple device that I have given you will lead you to a world where you can know in a short time, with certainty who is who, will you you not pick up this easy to remember trick and help end the tyranny of the evil??

    Rev, you are correct, and if they can stop people from reading books there will be no need to burn them,…..

    If your property causes you to treat others rudely then your property has made an ass of you,…are you content with that??

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      I’m interested in freedom. I don’t believe that I am in the dawn of a “new age”.

      $

      • PeteNo Gravatar says:

        Well, you should,…don’t you want one??,…freedom begins in your hands and is not to be trusted when someone else holds your’s in theirs,,….in fact, that is the essence of the struggle,…to get our freedom back in our own hands and to restrain those that would use violence to control us,….do this, don’t do that, blockin’ up my mind,….we don’t need no education,…hop on the magic carpet,…live, don’t debate,….freakin’ idle chatter,….said the man living as a hobo in mexico,….

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          Whether or not I want to live in a new age is irrelevent to whether are not we are living in a new age. Wishing for something doesn’t make it true. What realy makes one free is wealth. Even if one has political freedom (freedom from politics) one is not completely free unless they are financially free.

          $

          • PeteNo Gravatar says:

            Wealth does not make you free, HR, in fact, it’s the fear of losing their wealth that is making all the problems,…this is why they use guns to control those of us that would take their gravy train away,….HR, we have to work, somebody has to clean the toilets in the arena after the parties, but we don’t have to have money, or wealth as you state it,…in fact, as long as everybody goes to work tomorrow to replace what we take from the warehouses today, the folks making big screens make big screens, the truckers keep on trucking, and the farmers keep on farming, except now they go to the store and get what they want, without money,….this is the world of tomorrow, this is the new paradigm, and as you said, it only takes the consensus to make it real,….will you not join me,….perhaps you would like to read the man who proved not only that this possible, but that it is actively suppressed,…..Kropotkin’s Conquest of Bread illustrated the futility of fiat currencies and the economies based on them 150 years ago, that this was left out of your high falutin’ education was not an accident,….unless you sought out this knowledge it was not possible for you to know,….well,….now you know,…..

            • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

              Wealth gives one more options in how to live one’s life. Thus wealth is freedom. NMost people today are in a sense more free that people were in the past. This is because people today have more options because of the wealth that has been created. Twenty Five years ago for example I did not have the freedom to post this message to the internet. Wealth results in freedom. One hundred years ago nobody has the freedom to travel by plane from one continent to another. Someone(s) over the course of the past 100 years created the wealth that has given us the freedom today to travel by plane from one continent to another.

          • PeteNo Gravatar says:

            Oh yeah,…if you live off of your ‘wealth’, without working, you are a parasite on those of us that do work,…does your wealth also justify being an ass??

            If I work for you, and I do 100 dollars of work and you give me fifty, then you have sucked up half of my work, not all bad, but do you really want a Fendi bag for the battle ax at the price of my health?? I mean the karma ramifications of this alone precludes your’s truly from such a situation,…

            Is it really a good idea to fool me into accepting your fancy colored bits of paper in trade for my life, so that you can buy some Porsche sunglasses?? When with the proper organization we all get some Gucci shoes and all we work is 5 or 6 hours a day for 30 years,….

            I mean, really, have you been so blinded by their lies so much that you can ignore the fact that the stores overflow with goods that most can’t afford,…why do I have to work for 17 hours a day in mexico for 12 dollars,….so you can exist as high and mighty in the world,..???

            Really dude, you should read a little deeper into the rabbit hole, you have much wool to pull from your eyes,…

            • PeteNo Gravatar says:

              So, it is not wealth that was created, but things, planes, pilots, engines,…all the result of work done by someone that was disgruntled by his pay,….not the prescription I would prescribe, better someone who loves airplanes sooo much that he comes to work when he doesn’t have to do so to eat,….these are the people you get doing surgeries, not the folks willing to suffer the abuse necessary to become a doctor today,…to do nasty things to folks in the name of science,….for money,….

              Money that was created from nothing, money that is not a plus, but a minus, every dollar in existence is a debt owed to the rothschilds and the world’s banking elite, except when they create the money from thin air they don’t create the interest, so the only way to pay your debt is to make someone else default on his,…lovely system, huh,…are you aware of this aspect of this panacea you are trumpeting??? Get your debt notes here, live from the misery of others,….ohhh,…more success,….ah easier loans,…..more misery for others so that I can have some cristal,…….and my whore some more coke,…..really, HR, are you not aware,….??

              Mutual Banking is the term you should look for, there are many other options,…

  9. Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

    I personally hate mililtarism with a passion. Nevertheless, having women in the military, especially in active combat is wrongheaded. Its not that women can’t be effective soldiers. Anyone can pull a trigger. No the real problem is a society wide psychological one. To be a good soldier requires a nasty attitudeof aggression and a willingness to kill. Do we want the mothers of our children developing these attidudes? Aggression is natural to men with our far higher levels of testosterone. Women are traditionally nurturing and loving. Lets keep it that way. Viva la difference!

    • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

      Nicely said. There is more to being an effective soldier than pulling a trigger.

      $

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        True enough, but I think the problem of women developing into far less loving and nurturing beings to be able to get promotions in the military is a self-defeating stategy for any society. You also see this in female cops who are always trying to “outbad the dudes”.

        • HReardenNo Gravatar says:

          Rand was opposed to a woman being POTUS. Should a woman be the CIC?

          $

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Not sure what either are. Though I thought Rand was in general correct in her thinking, I do not think her infallible. I think most women are better off as mothers and wives, but that traditional family is not the only way people can relate as family. Non-monogamous extended family is one alternatilve of many. I just think modern feminists are stupid when they discount biological imperatives.

  10. GloriaNo Gravatar says:

    Just imagine if you replaced “female” with “gay” or “black” and see how ridiculous this argument is.

    Do gay male soldiers manage to get through Ranger School without, say, raping or doing something else inappropriate with a fellow soldier? If so, I don’t see why female soldiers – and men – would be any different.

    Maybe the Army just needs men who can control themselves while starving, exhausted, hallucinating, often freezing, and desperate. Wouldn’t they, in fact, make better soldiers than those who can’t? Do we hold soldiers responsible for their conduct when they encounter a woman under any circumstances in another country, even if they haven’t seen one for months? Absolutely.

    It seems to me that the problem here is not women being “allowed” to hold the same job as men, it’s the men who somehow can’t do their job with a woman around.

    • I am addressing the world the way it is, not the way any utopian egalitarian wants it to be. From the old fashioned (though dubious) perspective that the military’s purpose is to provide for the national defense by effectiveness on the battle field, isn’t effectiveness more important than egalitarianism?

      Imagine if I replaced “female” with “gay” or “black.” This is not an argument. Why not replace the word with “old” or “cripple”?

      Why doesn’t the military accept old people or cripples? Certainly there are old people who are remarkably fit. And if cripples can climb Mt. Everest, don’t you think many of them can handle the rigors of the Army?

      How would you address the findings which condemned integration of genders in Basic Training?

      You can read about it here: http://www.cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/Army-GIBT_Findi ng052003.pdf

      I suspect I know what your conclusion would be: Men need to change.

  11. bNo Gravatar says:

    Women have served in combats for decades just not officially. They have killed and died defending this country. I say is about damn time.

  12. AveryNo Gravatar says:

    I have a ranger tab, and I also worked at the RTB when I was in the Army. I was injured and I worked in the S-3 at brigade for awhile. I always argued with the guys that there is no good reason for women not to go to ranger school. Do not lower the standards, there should be no relative, or handicapped ranger. The men that cannot be professional do not need to be ranger qualified. Arbitrary rules against an attribute class has caused many problems in our history, and we should disregard them.

  13. JamesNo Gravatar says:

    In the military everyone dresses the same and they call everyone by their last names instead of their first names. There are anti-fraternization laws in the UCMJ. All of this is for one reason. Can you guess what that reason is? So they will be expendable. Individuals can have no value, or as little value as possible. But if you love someone, or really have the hots for someone, you value that person way more than anyone else. If you are loving them the way you should, you value them more than anyone else on the planet. And that can be a very big problem. Love and attraction doesn’t have to be requited, either. We all know someone we are really attracted to, but don’t act on it, and even if we were only children at the time, we’ve all loved someone that didn’t even know it.

    Combat veterans will inevitably say the worst part of combat is seeing their buddies get hurt or die, how much worse would it be if they LOVED them? When I was a sailor I was taught that if people were trapped in a compartment that flooding, and I couldn’t get them out without jeopardizing the ship, I was to seal them off. And make no mistake about it, I would have. But if one of my loved ones was in that compartment, I would jeopardize the ship, and everyone on the ship if I thought I had a chance of saving them.

    Consider the EP3 incident with China back during the first few months of Bush’s first term. The EP3 was flying off the coast of China, spying on them, when they scrambled a fighter and the fighter pilot rammed the EP3, almost knocking it out of the sky. The pilot (I refuse to call him an Naval Aviator) must have really knew how to fly, because he kept in air. Then he called mayday, and landed the EP3 on the very air base the fighter was scrambled from, with all 20 of the air crew safely on board.

    Civilians say he was a hero, and the Navy did give him the DFC, but that was a cover-up. He was not a hero. He did the absolute worst thing he could possibly do. He gave the Chinese a top secret spy plane PLUS an entire aircrew with top secret clearances that knew everything about it. There were SPIES onboard, possibly even spies from allied countries, and he gave them to the Chinese military, and they were interrogated by them. That aircraft should be on the bottom of the Pacific RIGHT NOW, even if the remains of twenty people were still on board.

    So, why did he do it? Maybe he was simply a cowardand didn’t want to die, but I suspect it was more than that. He was at least fraternizing with them, and valued them more than the mission and national security. But there is also the possibility that he was having an intimate relationship with someone on board. While it’s true, love can lead to amazing acts of bravery, it is much more likely to lead to fear and a weaker will to fight.

  14. MAMNo Gravatar says:

    Here’s what you do. Quit being bitches and trying to be “fair” whatever the fuck that means and treat people equally. Those whether they have vaginas or not that make the cut get the patch those that can’t don’t.

    I’ve never understood what was so hard about this. While I’ve never been in the military I’ve trained with some of the best MMA fighters in the world at Jackson’s MMA in Albuquerque. The point is this while I was training there I watch Holly Holmes make a grown man collapse in a corner and cry.

    If anything it’s a cultural thing. The West has the idea that women need to sit at home cook clean and have babies, and the men need to go out and be all macho. It’s pretty pathetic. Besides getting laid is good for morale! I know I’m happier after a good romp anyway.

    • MMA is an individual sport. I’m a big fan, by the way. It’s cool that you coach at Jackson’s. But I think coaches of team sports know more about gender and team-building. I once heard a professional soccer coach who had coached both men and way say that with men’s teams you solve problems, with women’s teams you talk about problems.

      Your cut and dry, these-are-the-standards, approach has been tried in Basic Training, and it seems to have failed miserably.

      And no, one guy getting laid is not good for morale of a unit. It can be a disaster in military units. Instead of bonding, the men begin to compete for the woman, as we’re genetically programmed to do.

      The question remains: are the genders being integrated for fairness or for combat effectiveness? If it’s for combat effectiveness, where’s the evidence that integration helps? There seems to be a lot of evidence to the contrary.

    • ps — good luck to your fighters this weekend. I actually met Condit when he visited Afghanistan. I was returning through Bagram from mid-tour leave when he, Michael Bisping, BJ Penn, and Urijah Faber showed up doing some visit-the-troops events.

      • MAMNo Gravatar says:

        The only thing that matters in the field is combat effectiveness. Fairness is an illusion, it doesn’t exist. Fairness is a concept created to make the weak equal to the strong it’s a rather pathetic notion.

        I’m not convinced that women can’t be effective in combat, because like I said I’ve seen women make men cry with hand to hand skills. I’ve seen women who can shoot ridiculously good. I’ve seen women who are skilled trackers, hunters and good in the woods. I’ve seen women who are excellent medical personal both in the hospitals and the ambulance.

        The point is that even if mixing genders lowers combat effectiveness, something I’m not completely convinced about, then create apartheid units. Women can obviously master the skills, and they can be strong enough.

        If your worried that a woman might not be able to handle carrying a grown man, then if the units are apartheid she won’t have to she’ll just have to carry other women.

        And to be clear I didn’t coach the pros at Jackson’s I just trained with them and that was years ago. I did help coach the kids though.

  15. MAMNo Gravatar says:

    As far as team efforts go I have experience fighting fire. I volunteered at the local fire department when I was a teenager. And there were several women on the department and they were fairly useless, but I don’t think that reflects on the entire gender…

  16. Old-school general on women in combat. He’s right.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy–whDNNKk

  17. Bill HicksNo Gravatar says:

    Anyone dumb enough to want to be in the military should be allowed in.

  18. Bill HicksNo Gravatar says:

    As far as can tell from reading that article, you merely made a case for self-defense (because there are other “bad” guys out there). I do not see how military and institution follow from it. Warriors do not create property per se – they can defend it and they can steal it. Oh well, it also costs money for a store to transport cash to the bank – does not mean that they should stop using cash. Wealth creation stems from free energy that is Sun that is then transformed by plants, animals and finally human farmers, and so on. Yes, males have evolved fists that can give a punch and faces that can take a punch. Clearly Darwin was aware of the prisoner’s dilemma and security dilemma when he designed this world. For markets to function, you do need property protection and for that you do need a few tough guys with weapons of various degree.

    A central’s planner’s off-the top solution would be a standing army.

    We do not know exactly what the Market would produce, although a few anarchists have theorized and came up with interesting ideas. Yes, Moleneux’s crusade against violence is too much. Having a daughter that may work, but a son would definitely be much more thankful to a father who taught him to like to compete & kick ass.

    • I guess I’m coming to view property not as a binary; not as a holy, “nature or nature’s God” gift from above, but as a gradient of social norms.

      Too much libertarianism is trying to imagine property on Crusoe’s Island instead of trying to enforce property in a world of aggressors. Property is what you can force people to respect as property. Nothing else.

  19. Bill HicksNo Gravatar says:

    So libertarians and anacaps have two large camps – those who argue their position from the moral perspective (which GK would not take seriously) and “from the cause”, that it is a better and more efficient and less violent system, therefore let’s do it. I think those in the first camp are dreamers and those in the second are onto something.

    “Property is what you can force people to respect as property. Nothing else.”

    Well, you, or someone who is insuring / protecting you. Gun culture like farming is not for everyone; some would rather pay for a service, not much different from renters insurance. Most people are not violent. During WW2 only some 15% of the soldiers were actually shooting to kill; others just fired in the air.

    While most humans are capable of violence, most violence occurs because people have an incentive to do so. A market solution would have to align incentives properly. Insurance agencies would be important. Discipline of constant dealings would come into play. National defense is trickier to tackle (an army is a danger to the populous as well), hence some propose a small professional standing army that survives on donations and is outnumbered by a large number of gun-trained civilians who can take on its own army, but in the event of an external war can manage those same civilians.

    The death of fiat currencies would expose war for a negative sum game that it is.

  20. AnonymousNo Gravatar says:

    Warrior Peaceful Cooperator

    Which would the anarchist choose?

    Death to the aggressor or appeasement of those that aggress?

  21. Let me try putting it another way: So long as the market demands a state, the market will provide a state, and no amount of complaining and moralizing in the world will eliminate demand for a state.

    The non-aggression principle (ie “don’t fight back while we rob you”) only exacerbates the demand for a state.

    Here: http://i.imgur.com/J5gGdHf.jpg

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      “Let me try putting it another way: So long as the market demands a state, the market will provide a state, and no amount of complaining and moralizing in the world will eliminate demand for a state.”

      I agree with that statement wholeheartedly, but I disagree completely with the next statement:

      “The non-aggression principle (ie “don’t fight back while we rob you”) only exacerbates the demand for a state.”

      I think you grossly misunderstand the non-aggression principle, as do many other anarchists. Please consider reading this article:

      http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/06/12/police-compared-for eign-military/

      In it he writes:

      “If we are to accept the words of Cop Block and Will Grigg, then we can only respond to the Axis Powers after they have actually used violence against us personally. The fact that they are a foreign military with no legitimate authority to harm us, does not mean we can preemptively use violence to stop their advancement. Being able to identify them as enemy soldiers is not enough, because only individuals can be held responsible for the aggressions they commit directly against the person defending themselves.

      One of two things is true. Either you can kill police, just for being police. Or, you cannot kill soldiers of the Axis Powers until they break into your home and kidnap/murder/rape your family.

      If that’s your definition of the “non-aggression principle” then you just don’t understand use of force. Use of force is justified in dealing with a threat, and whatever level of force is necessary to repel that threat is justified. If the Axis Powers invaded tomorrow, myself and others would be making improvised explosive devices to deal with them. We would ambush them, fight dirty, and commit every otherwise repulsive act of violence to stop their advancement. Not just anarchists either. People who voted for Barack Obama would be doing the same thing. Jeb Bush supporters, would be doing the same thing. Everybody would recognize the foreign threat, and many Americans would respond to it with deadly force.

      If you’re actually committed to the non aggression principle, then police are subject to the exact same rules of engagement as a foreign military. In fact, they are even less worthy of mercy.”

      I take issue with a little bit of his wording, but the idea is sound. If a known murderer or a rapist or thief is seen eating eating lunch, he can be apprehended. You don’t have to wait until he’s in the act to get him. It is not a violation of the non-aggression principle to catch a known bad guy who has commit crimes and likely will continue to commit crimes. To say otherwise implies a total misunderstanding of the non-aggression principle.

      Edit: There is a big difference between pacifism and non-aggression. Voluntaryists beclown themselves when they conflate the two.

      • Seth,

        I think this article is a good discussion of how the non-aggression principle is misapplied, but I happen to think that the principle itself is wrong for two reasons:

        1. It distorts reality, allowing libertarians to believe the comforting lie that all we have to do is restore the “natural” state of non-aggression. This line of thinking absolves people of the responsibility to defend themselves. It turns them into free riders on the sacrifice of others. Nature is very violent. And violence itself, rather than being a violation of property is in fact the source of property.

        2. NAP is the ethics of a ghetto, which was, historically, a state within a state. NAP may be sufficient for relations between states, but it’s insufficient for the creation of a high trust society. Civilization is more fragile than libertarians realize. The market alone is not enough. NAP is the belief that you can get away with disrespecting all social norms short of physical violence.

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.