|
Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Tuesday, November 11. 2025Tuesday morning links, with thanks to US Veterans In Which An Atheist Becomes Sputteringly Angry Over Theist’s Argument - Correctly Sydney Sweeney, Inc. Her viral response to the famous jeans ad captures the Can AI run air traffic control? Qantas releases first images of Airbus aircraft set to fly non-stop from Sydney to New York and London Inside Trump’s Crypto Cash Machine It's True That Nobody Wants to Fix Obamacare Well, Bye: Hamas Says Fighters Holed Up in Rafah Will Not Surrender Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Obama care was designed to fail so that it could be replaced with a mandated single payer plan. It was the socialist nose under the tent. It is too big to fail. It must be "fixed" by the federal government. Fixed will mean endless growing subsidies until it consumes most of tax based funding. It will destroy the single best health care system left in the world and result in long waits, denied care and euthanasia. BUT it's redeeming quality, just like welfare, is that it will make a majority of the people dependent on government and eager voters for the left/socialists/communists. And that was always the intent of Obama care.
Olympics To Ban 'Trans' Athletes After It 'Discovers' That Males Have Physical Advantages
So does this mean we can stop pretending that women should be in the military? Except for nurses I do not think women in the military contribute to it's effectiveness. Yes there are some military jobs where strength and fighting are not necessary BUT in the event of war every military member can and will become a combat soldier. At the very least we should bring back the fitness and strength standards of the 1960's and anyone, male or female that passes will be treated exactly the same, i.e. no special treatment, no light duty jobs. JustMe: "At the very least we should bring back the fitness and strength standards of the 1960's and anyone, male or female that passes will be treated exactly the same, i.e. no special treatment, no light duty jobs."
Pavilchenko Wikipedia:: After seeing that she (Pavlichenko) had completed multiple training courses, she was finally accepted into the army as a sniper and assigned to the Red Army's 25th Rifle Division. Nice of you to agree for once, Zach-GPT. Right. Somebody makes a generalization which is generally true. You come up with one example that does not fit the stereotype and think you've actually made a point. You haven't, and only a dullard would think you have.
Not that a point can't be made, you just haven't done it. James: Somebody makes a generalization which is generally true.
The position wasn't a generalization but an absolute: "Except for nurses I do not think women in the military contribute to it's effectiveness." One example is sufficient to contradict an absolute claim. In WWII, the Soviets had nearly a million women in the military, nearly half in combat roles. They were known by the Germans as tenacious fighters. For earlier historical examples, Rani of Jhansi or Artemisia I of Caria. While Zheng Yi Sao was a freebooter not a military commander, she was arguably the greatest pirate of all time. She commanded over a thousand ships, rivaling the size of the Imperial naval forces. She personally engaged in combat; firing cannons, leading boarding parties, conducting nighttime raids, and fighting hand-to-hand with sword and pistol. She retired undefeated.
#2.1.2.1.1
Zachriel
on
2025-11-16 09:12
(Reply)
And that doesn't include the contributions of women in non-combat, non-medical roles, such as Grace Hopper, whose computer skills were essential to military readiness.
#2.1.2.1.2
Zachriel
on
2025-11-16 09:18
(Reply)
Only an overliteralist would regard that as an absolute - which you are when it is convenient. The original had qualifiers. James point stands. You are choosing isolated examples. If you had an argument against the general point, you would have used it, but you didn't. You switched to more comfortable ground.
The artificial restriction by race is a separate topic that you are using to cloud the physical issue.
#2.1.2.1.3
Assistant Village Idiot
on
2025-11-16 12:40
(Reply)
Pavlichenko punched well above her weight militarily. Person for person, German forces were among the most effective in the world, yet Pavlichenko punched out 300 enemy combatants, including a large number of officers, winning 36 sniper duels. Having responded to "Except for nurses I do not think women in the military contribute to it's effectiveness," let us respond to your other point.
JustMe: At the very least we should bring back the fitness and strength standards of the 1960's and anyone, male or female that passes will be treated exactly the same, i.e. no special treatment, no light duty jobs. The fitness standard in the Soviet Union in 1941, just like most modern militaries, was tiered by age and gender. Nor did the standards overly depend on raw strength but stressed functional, multi-domain fitness, the goal being combat readiness. Nearly a million women served in the Soviet armed forces during WWII. Clearly, any fitness standard that excluded Pavlichenko would have weakened military effectiveness. And I am willing to let it prove that you are right. Simple decision would test that theory. Create all female units. They fight just like all male units do and we will see if they can pull their weight or are they just a weight pulling down male soldiers. Who could object! It is perfect. If they win I and all others doubters will forever shut up and all female units will become 50% of our military (by draft if necessary). If they lose the good news is they didn't take "real" soldiers with them and all feminists and DEI turds forever shut up. Seems fair. Who knows it could be so successful that we eliminate men from our military and fight the next war on "girl power". You go girls!!
JustMe: Create all female units.
That is not the correct test. The correct test is to compare units made up of the best available people to units which are artificially restricted to recruiting from a subset of available people. Clearly, Pavlichenko should not have been excluded just because of her gender. Her military value was greater than 300 fascists—a fact you keep ignoring. Little known story: America used to restrict people from all sorts of jobs, including combat roles, because of the color of their skin. This reduced efficiency and effectiveness by not tapping the best available talent, while reducing competitiveness in the white population. |
Tracked: Nov 16, 09:28
Tracked: Nov 16, 10:10