Skip to comments.Book Review: "Women in Combat; Feminism Goes to War"
Posted on 01/04/2020 3:38:37 PM PST by BruceDeitrickPrice
Some time ago, I had been asked to look over the final, pre-publication draft of a book, written by a friend of one of my West Point classmates whose father just happens to be a Medal of Honor recipient. More on that later. I made note of some things and informed the author. Below is my review of the final, published book.
The book, Women in Combat; Feminism Goes to War, is written by Mark C. Atkins, a self-described, failed Marine (I checked; He has an Honorable Discharge) does what few folks today have courage to do, call out the current feminization of our military for what it is. This book is a natural extension to the feminist effort described by Bruce Deitrick Price; K-12: The War on Boys and Men, now being used to weaken our military.
Mr Atkins gets out of the blocks quickly and right in your facewith his choice of a title: Women in Combat: Feminism goes to War. With this title alone, he is sure to become a target of the feminist left.
In Part One of his book, Atkins sets the stage, starting with the feminist agenda, differences between men and women, finishing the first part of his book by stating that the concepts of freedom and equality, are false justification for women in combat.
In Part Two of the book, He introduces what he clearly considers the crux of the issue, namely human nature and its most important product, the natural-rational-family. In his words:
We humans possess a healthy-nature, and this nature inclines us to produce instinctively and forever the natural-rational-family. Inasmuch as any ideal can be reduced to a formula, I posit as sovereign truth and offer no evidence beyond what common sense observation can provide, that the ideal family, born of our healthy-nature, consists of: A masculine man and a feminine woman united for life, in mutual respect, in a sexually exclusive union, the man leading, the woman following, the woman providing them and their offspring a home, the man protecting and providing for them and their home, both committed to the well-being and development of their children, both emotionally and physically affectionate towards each other and their children.
This family is most likely to produce the well being and survival of children and by extension the people. This family is the greenhouse that is most likely to produce the young man or woman that will withstand the vagaries of life, and make, support, and protect what is good, passing on the strengths of the people to the next generation. It is least likely to produce the young man or woman that is laden with baggage or dysfunctions.
That this ideal is rarely achieved does not justify our chucking it out the window. It is in fact broadly achieved by many, and many more over the course of a lifetime will make progress towards it. Indeed, the strength of any given people is a product of the degree to which its constituent families are able to embrace the ideal of the natural-rational-family. The further removed a peoples families are from this ideal, the weaker the people. Atkins then goes on to blast feminism for the damage it has done to the American family and offers a dire warning. He writes
Feminism has pounded the square peg into the round hole, damaged both, and declared victory. Not satisfied with having wrecked the American family and thus American culture with its bad ideas, Feminism is now wrecking the United States military. Later, Mr Atkins goes on to describes feminisms objectives and methodologiesthose culminating in a horrible end:
In order to sustain Sexual Liberation as a practical reality, Feminism has encouraged women to do that which is most contrary to their nature, i.e., to destroy their own offspring.
In Chapters 11-20, Mr. Atkins walks us through the physical and psychological differences between men and women while comparing them to the attributes desirable for a Soldier in close combat. He elaborates on just how the attributes of men are far superior to women for close combat, even in todays technological era. He further expands this by detailing how having women in close combat formations, can actually be a significant detriment.
I enjoyed this book, likely because Mr. Atkins is saying what I, and the vast majority of Americans, believed not all that long ago. He writes well, and throws in just enough humor to keep the book from being a finger-wagging lecture. The greatest strength of this book is that it is organized well and leads the reader through a logical progression to the authors conclusion.
Now for the other shoe. Lack of citations for the fundamental assertions in the book detract from its credibility. Yes. Everybody knows that, on average, female upper body strength is less than that of males. Everybody knows that males are more aggressive than females. Everybody knows that strength and aggressiveness are critical attributes in close combat. However, unless its an opinion piece, the author needs some citations for these basic assertions. Fortunately, there is easily found and credible research out there to support all of the fundamental assertions upon which Mr. Atkins bases his argument.
What might have helped (Monday morning quarterback here) is to have brought one or two distinguished senior officers with combat experience along as co-authors. I had mentioned this to Atkins earlier, but it was too late to do so. It also would have been unethical to ask a senior military personage to rubber stamp an already written manuscript as his own.
To his great credit, Mr. Atkins did the next best thing by sending copies of his book to a number of senior officers with extensive combat experience who agree with his positions and who have given glowing reviews inside the cover. Best of all, the forward to this great book was written by Major General (Retired) Patrick Henry Brady, Medivac Pilot in Vietnam and recipient of the Medal of Honor.
This is a book worth reading for those who wish to get to the root of the problem which, according to Atkins, is a mass rejection of a common sense understanding of basic human nature. It lays out a logical path that can only end up in one place. As Atkins states
Just as home is what it is because it is an extension of womans nature, combat is what it is because it is an extension of mans nature. He does not need to alter his nature to enter this arena. She must. You can find Women in Combat, on Amazon
---Mike Ford, a retired Infantry Officer, writes on Military, Foreign Affairs and occasionally dabbles in Political and Economic matters.
I’ve always distained the notion that women should be in our military (aside from nurses, etc.) And I’ve been attacked by daddies whose daughters are serving as well as the usual women-haters who will show up here shortly. Women have no business being either soldiers or dentists,lol. We have many good qualities but neither of those professions suit us.
It’s been out for a couple of months now, but no reviews yet on Amazon.
God bless you for saying so.
Everybody knows that males are more aggressive than females.”
Black women at McDonald’s at 1 AM with not enough ketchup? Sheeeit!
In the review, the critic says the author needs to provide sources for his assertions on comparative upper body strength and aggressiveness.
I assume aggressiveness due to the naturally produced steroid in men called testosterone makes them more aggressive overall.
Here is a great article from a woman who was a Marine, and it is very unsparing in its analysis of women in combat, and is by far one of the best articles on the subject I have ever read:
As for upper body strength, this has been studied repeatedly. I created this graph to illustrate the point.
The graph above compares average male physical capability and body structure as compared to average women. The red hatched area is the the area where the negatives from a PHYSICAL perspective (This ignores and does not include logistical and morale based issues completely) of allowing females into combat units are displayed, and the negatives clearly outweigh the positives.
All the assumptions above the graph after the word "NOTE:" are medically studied and accepted from mainstream medical sources. It starts with the basic premise that the strongest woman is 25% weaker than the strongest man (at best, some say the difference is closer to 30-35%) and goes from there. There are two other assumptions I have made: the curve with the average male strength is broader than the overlapping curve with the average female strength, because I believe that across the male gender, physical strength is innately more broadly distributed by nature than it is with females, simply due to the production of testosterone in our bodies.
Here is the money quote from her article:
"...Meanwhile, the argument to maintain the combat exclusion makes itself easily in every aspect...including women in combat units is bad for combat, bad for women, bad for men, bad for children, and bad for the country. The argument for the combat exclusion is provable all the time, every time. Political correctness has no chance against Nature. Her victories are staring us in the face at all times. The men just keep being able to lift more and to run faster, harder, and longer with more weight on their backs while suffering fewer injuries. They just keep never getting pregnant. The combat units have needs that women cannot meet. Women have needs that life in a combat unit cannot accommodate without accepting significant disadvantage and much greater expense. Where 99 percent of men can do the heavy-lifting tasks typical of gunners, but 85 percent of women cannot, there is no gap women need to fill..."
That pretty much sums it up.
Sadly, because this movement to award women greater roles in the military (even with a ominous lack of capability coupled with the intenentional disregard of what it will eventually bring) like the liberal cancers it shares all qualities with, is not going away. Because military readiness and capability is being sacrificed on the altar of an Orwellian concept that men and women can do the same tasks with no exceptions. This altar will run red with the blood of both men and women, and we are going to suffer lives needlessly ended, battles lost, and a national humiliation the likes of which we haven't seen.
It won't happen now, and it won't happen during some years of the peacetime military. But when we get to a point we are fighting an enemy who is going to be evenly matched with us, we are going to lose, because they cannot be stupid enough to follow the path we have. And when it happens, the people who will scream the loudest in protest, are going to be the successors to the people who made this all happen, since they will likely be kicking back somewhere, comfortable in their Monday morning armchairs, talking about how it wasn't the emasculation of the military combat units that caused this, it was that we didn't spend enough time, money, and effort to make it work.
Thanks for the tip to your friend’s book. I think you were right to alert your friend to the need for citations for his claims, otherwise it may be dismissed as just preaching to the choir.
The issue of greater bone mass in men is also important, in that may injuries suffered by women in training (as described in the linked article) are due to a combination of lower muscle mass providing stability and bringing on fatigue faster, and lower bone mass.
All when carrying a heavy load conspire to cause women to suffer non-combat injuries at an astonishingly higher rate than men do.
My time in was spent in close personal company of Ragers,SF and long range recon. As fast and as strong as I was I knew then that I would be a liability and slow down everyone.
It is physically impossible to function at the same mission ready status as those guys. When the Iranians capured the boat with our sailors and a woman, I know why the men submitted.
Imagine captors raping a woman to death in front of you. That is reality. Creates a weak link in the team. Why would I put their lives at risk for my own vain glory?
Harder to do, get married, birth children and stay married.
Why not dentistry?
“Everybody knows that males are more aggressive than females.
Clausewitz wrote about the effects of friction on combat units.
He thought the key to victory was to reduce or eliminate friction in combat units.
I can think of nothing more certain to INCREASE friction in combat units than to put women and homosexuals into them.
There are a lot of excuses for having women and homosexuals in combat units, but they are just excuses.
Our technology is so advanced over our potential adversaries, that this friction is perhaps overpowered.
That is, it might be overpowered at the grand scale.
At the individual level, men will needlessly die because of it.
If we do get into a large war, then our technology may not be able to overcome this friction everywhere that we are fighting.
This could lead to serious losses.
Pray that our technology remains advanced enough to overcome this mandated friction in our combat units.
I am just now retiring after 20 years combined Army and Navy.
There are many things women can do in the military. I spent my career doing various aspects of medical research, along with a few other odd assignments.
I have never been to a combat zone.
Its not just the strength factor, its the conditions a soldier has to fight in. The infantry and armored divisions that survived D-Day in Normandy were continually in combat for almost a year straight. During which time they lived and slept in foxholes mostly, bombed out rubble and any place they could find to lay their head, never sleeping in a bed.
In the case of units like the 101st Airborne at Bastogne, in very cold foxholes! and for weeks on end. Battles are desperate live or die affairs, ones personal comfort counts for nothing. Extreme heat in the deserts and jungles, extreme cold in arctic regions.
Ask ourselves, is this where a feminine woman should be? Its bad enough for a man, and he has to become almost like an animal. Its insane, I tell you.
On 20 November 1943, during the horrific fighting on Betio atoll during the battle of Tarawa, two Japanese tanks mounted a counterattack against the fragile Marine toehold on Red Beach 3. The Marines were huddled there at the base of a seawall in the face of withering fire from the rikusentai of Admiral Keiji Shibasaki fanatical Japanese Naval Landing Force defenders who were slaughtering hundreds of their 2nd Marine Division comrades in Betio Lagoon during 76 hours of some of the most savage fighting in the history not only of the Marines, but the US armed forces.
Marine anti-tank gun crews were trying to figure out how to get their 912 lb 37mm M3 antitank guns over the 7 foot plus seawall, which was rooted in uneven and sandy soil. The battery commander ordered his 5 man crews to LIFT them over. Being Marines who always obeyed even seemingly impossible orders, they did EXACTLY that and promptly knocked out the tanks. They then engaged several enemy bunkers whose dual purpose guns were repeatedly knocking out the approaching landing craft and put them out of action. Finally they routed a local counter attack of 200 or so Japanese against the south shore of Red Beach 3 with canister shot, all of this at a critical and precarious point in the landing.
Familiarize your self with the case of Merrils Marauders in WWII in the China Burma India Theatre. From Feb-May of 1944, the men of Galahad Force were subjected to the most grueling long term commitment probably of ANY US combat unit in history. They were tasked with a long range deep penetration operation behind Japanese lines. At the end of it, almost every man was wracked by dysentery, malaria, scrub typhus, cholera, and any number of debilitating diseases that sapped their strength to far below whatever it was when they began the operation. Their mission had been extended and lengthened several times, and their debilitated condition was not deemed sufficient to allow them relief.
I fear we are losing the institutional memory of having faced enemies that are capable of defeating us on the battlefield. We have not faced such an enemy since the summer/winter of 1950 on the Korean Peninsula. The names of Task Force Smith, the 1st Battles of Taejon and Seoul, the Pusan perimeter the ambush of the 2nd Infantry Division at Kunu-Ri and the 80 mile withdrawal from the Chosen Resovoir seem but distant memories. The cultural marxists now in charge of the Obama administration are indulging in the sort of social experimentation SURE to result in defeat or serious setback against an enemy capable of projecting the sort of battle field power that would lead to the battlefield reverses that the US Armed Forces suffered at Kasserine Pass, the Hurtegen Forest, the Rapido River the US Strategic Bombing Campaign, the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, (Savo Island) or the Rangers at Cisterna in Italy. Only a feckless nation that is oblivious about facing an enemy capable of inflicting these sorts of battle field defeats would contemplate such a disastrous notion.
I mean no disrespect to the female personnel of the US Armed Forces who have served and ARE serving their nation honorably and well. I respect them as fellow vets and comrades in arms. Policy decisions are above their level for the most part.
But as a matter of POLICY, I think that women should be excluded from the armed forces for the most part, with a few exceptions and COMPLETELY from combat and most combat support roles, particularly when the armed forces are a small percentage of the total population, as is the case now. The use of significant numbers of women should be reserved for large scale mobilization as was the case in WWII. The population base is more than twice as large now as then and there would be no problem securing a sufficient number of qualified men with appropriate incentives for such a relatively small armed forces.
The advantages for the armed forces, particularly the Army would be greater flexibility as to how personnel can be deployed in combat emergencies and other contingencies and a lesser logistical strain as involves clothing, barracks and housing, and innumerable other considerations that are exclusive to the maintenance of large numbers of women. I think morale and discipline would also be improved as well.
The courts have repeatedly ruled that the armed forces are exempted from many of the equal opportunity requirements of the civilian world, and for the very good and sufficient requirements that are unique to the armed forces. This contretemps is being propelled largely by the cultural marxist wing of gender equity feminism who wish for the placement of a leftist Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The resultant detriment of the ability of the armed forces to fight plays no consideration in their calculus, other than as an peripheral side benefit.
I know that women have played a vital role during guerrilla, partisan warfare and sabotage/espionage activity. But to deliberately employ them in ground combat units whose primary task is to close with, engage and destroy similar enemy units is the height of lunacy and madness given the effort required to identify the relative few who could qualify even if we ignore the potential detriments to morale and discipline.
This is sheer and utter madness akin to allowing open homosexuals to serve in the armed forces. Oh has that happened too???
Women are capable of performing well in many jobs within the modern military. But, there are physical, mental, and political limitations that must be applied and that have been deliberately ignored by our political leadership. A few points:
Women must be treated as soldiers, not as girls. Today, they are treated as girls.
Physical and psychological performance and limitations must be realistically measured and applied for both sexes according to an impartial standard, and not by political fantasies.
We have yet to consider the affect on the national will to fight when women are tortured, degraded, raped, and paraded naked on You Tube or some other media outlet. Women POWs have already been raped and tortured, but their treatment was not revealed to the public. Pubic opinion might turn around overnight to such an event, causing our politicians to tuck their tails and run away.
Back in the 1980s I was assigned as an NCOIC in charge of a night navigation course when I was a military police platoon sergeant in the Illinois National Guard. It was a relatively simple dead reckoning course consisting of following a series of azimuths for a specified distance, retrieving a specified object at each destination, and returning with them. The battalion commander had ordered every field grade officer to complete the course. One newly commissioned female second LT., was a military police platoon leader in our 19-77 TOE military police Company. Amongst this units duties was the task of rear area security in the light infantry role. We were expected to tackle SPETSNATZ airborne and airmobile units attacking rear area communications and Headquarters units. She refused to take the course. When I asked her why she she did not want to take the course, she told me that she was afraid of the dark. I repeatedly asked her to complete the course and she repeatedly refused to do so. I marked her sheet as a failure to complete the course.
Later the officer in charge of the course called me aside and requested that I give the errant butter bar a passing grade. I refused to do so, citing the fact that this woman was expected to be able to lead her troops into combat, EVEN AT NIGHT. The officer blew his stack and threatened me with disciplinary action for refusing to obey his order. I told him that if he wanted to pass her, that was up to him but I would not do so. He subsequently calmed down and apologized to me explaining that he was under terrific pressure to pass all of the newly acquired women through all the training whether they qualified or not. I sympathized with him because he was actually a pretty good officer, and I was already aware of the background political machinations behind the integration of women into our outfit. I understand that the second lieutenant in question was assigned another administrative position within the battalion.
Often this is not even a matter of being qualified for the task. It is a matter of being properly ranked with regard to the intersectionality chart. One of our service academy heads under Obama feared the loss of “diversity” after Maj Nidal Hassan’s massacre at Ft. Hood.
Correction, The Battalion commander had ordered all COMPANY grade officers to complete the course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.