In this edition we have a scarcely believable article where it's argued that women are more suited to combat roles than men. As you can imagine an article of this magnitude and academic sophistication was written by General Patton himself. Oh no sorry not General Patton, a clinical moron that can't make a basic argument. You actually have to wonder whether the following is satire as it's that badly written.
__________________________________________________________________________
https://medusamagazine.com/are-military-combat-roles-really-best-suited-to-men
__________________________________________________________________________
It's just the introduction and already I can't take his article seriously. Firstly because of how poor the standard of literacy is, but also as they seriously just equated fictional superheroes and the armed forces on the front line. Funnily enough there's quite a big difference between punching a stunt actor in the face in a controlled environment and defending the country by putting your own body on the line in an environment where both sides are trying to kill the opposition. I seem to recall Simba becoming 'The Lion King' in a fictional film, so does that mean he deserves a coronation in real life? Somehow I don't think you quite understand the magnitude of this issue. This isn't just a matter you can impose your narrative upon, it's a matter of national security, so this better be a fucking clear argument with insightful points backed up by a mountain of evidence. There's a saying in science that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and I would say that claiming the whole military system throughout history is inherently wrong is a pretty big claim. Somehow I doubt someone who clearly struggles with basic English is capable of producing extraordinary evidence, but let's give her a chance.
I would just to love to be in your fantasy realm. How you can simply brush aside this 'strength argument' as if that's not of importance in labour intensive and physically draining combat is astonishing. You know why the military do all those drills aimed at strength and conditioning? No it's not sexism, it's because strength and conditioning are fucking vital in a combat role. And remember that thing called sexual dimorphism that you refuted? Well it turns out that's the reason why there are strength differences between sexes. I shouldn't even need to source this common knowledge. How dare you just try and brush over an argument that doesn't agree with your narrative. I thought this was a serious opinion piece meant to solicit debate, not a piece of one sided propaganda.
Not surprisingly the actual core argument this point hinges on is complete bollocks. I'm incredibly curious as to how this 'fog of war' is just a male disadvantage. Do you by any chance have a single fucking source you could provide? Amazing how you can make this huge sweeping claim as conventional studies claim evidence for this condition is anecdotal at best. You however back this claim up with the seemingly random and unqualified point about the female brain being different. It's funny as this highly debated hypothesis surrounding the idea of a female brain is commonly criticised by feminists. Sexual dimorphism means there are going to be differences in hormonal activity between male and female brains, but where's the evidence that females can process more audio and visual information? More importantly how does processing more audio and visual information lead to a clearer mind? Funnily enough you don't need a degree in psychology to be able to source a single study, or for that matter make up complete bullshit. The only evidence produced in this paragraph is a common stereotype, which is a fucking insult to this allegedly scientific argument. Somehow I imagine there's a stark difference between finding your keys down the back of the sofa and putting your life on the line for your country. Maybe, and this really is a longshot, recruiters in the army might look at quantifiable traits such as physical performance when recruiting soldiers for the front lines. But no, I'm sure it's this hidden system of sexism holding women back from roles in the armed forces and not just pragmatism.
Where's the evidence that women are natural leaders? There certainly isn't any scientific evidence that women are more analytically minded, as the inverse is actually true. Conversely I couldn't even find your alleged study, which is actually a survey, and being as you decided not to source anything I did some quick research and found you're a fucking liar. This CNN report states that in actual fact it's just 19% of intelligence officers that are women. That's a bit of a gap between the 72% you just pulled out your ass. How fucking dare you blatantly lie to try and manipulate me into blindly following your agenda. You can't argue you your point so you just make up statistics. Fucking pathetic. And anyway, you still haven't explained how this is even relevant to why women are better in front line roles. STOP SPEWING OUT UNRELATED RHETORIC AND PULLING STATISTICS OUT YOUR ASS.
You can't just keep making the argument 'we all know'. It's great if you know all this crap, but how about providing some explanation for the slower ones like myself. This is an opinion piece, so you should be trying to persuade me, not flatter your own ego. There's just no excuse for this pitiful rally cry. I repeat, this is supposed to be an opinion piece, and not a piece of propaganda. In any case Joseph Goebbels would be turning in his grave is he read this, and only an article as dreadful as this could make me have sympathy for the head of the Nazi propaganda machine.
You say that we must hold people that see a gender distinction in combat roles accountable as perpetrators of sexism. Surely by your logic we should also be taking a hard look at women as well, most notably the 'Order of the White Feather' during World War One, where many women shamed men that didn't enlist by publicly humiliating them. Funnily enough this sensible suggestion is not referenced in this baffling conclusion, where it's simply stated that women are just better than men. Remember guys, feminism is about equality. I'm not quite sure how you can conclude this when you've explored two basic points in pathetic detail. Surely you don't need me to tell you that this is an unbelievable generalisation. It is certainly in no way factual, and not the first time in this article that the conclusions made are complete horseshit. Anyway, IT STILL DOESN'T EVEN ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION.
What fantastic discourse we have here. It's a case of highlighting how males may not be all that great in combat roles but completely ignoring the strengths that have served humanity pretty fucking well for millennia. At the end of the day this is just some nonsense on the internet, but are we really likely to see a radical shift that will eventually lead to a female dominance in combat roles? I highly doubt that, and this writer should be asking why that is instead of simply spewing unrelated rhetoric. The real crime in this argument is how this social justice and equality bullshit is shoehorned into matters of national security, with piss poor arguments being backed up with nothing but lies and anecdotes. This article is so badly researched that there isn't even any misleading sources for me to cross examine. The argument here is so weak that they've had to make up statistics to back up points. Maybe this wouldn't be so infuriating if it wasn't for how irresponsible this whole post is. You are literally putting people's lives, and potentially the fate of whole nations at stake by spurting your unqualified idiocy. Sometimes it's okay to stop and think before you post shit like this on the internet, as if you don't the result is possibly the most academically devoid pile of shit I've ever seen.
On the plus side this website is a goldmine for shit, and I'm pretty sure you can expect another of their articles to be featured in this segment relatively soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment