I remember that American female soldier who was held hostage in Iraq... the media of course left out the fact she wasn't a combatant but a driver delivering supplies. Then they made up a story about her fighting heroically... she debunked this claim herself and said she never fired her rifle 😅
Her name is Jessica Lynch it is a name that should be remembered because she is a very honest woman that refused to tell the lie the government crafted for her.
Jessica Lynch was never even really “held hostage” after capture she was almost immediately dropped at a hospital. The Military were told were to go pick her up. The “Raid” to get her was a farce.
One stand-up comic suggested that the military meet the challenge of turning women into killing machines with, "See the enemy over there? They say you look FAT in those uniforms!!"
How can they impose an **a priori** standard of 25% (in the U.S. they are pushing 30% by 2030 in police departments) when there is ZERO evidence that women have either the natural desire or the aptitude for combat or even non-combat roles in the military? I used to worry more about women in combat but I think that situation tends to remedy itself by their absolute inability to meet the rigors of combat. Now I worry more about those quotas being met by pushing women into higher ranks in leadership. That will destroy the military even faster.
Twelve of the largest US states recognize June 12 as 'Women Veterans Day'. Even though traditional Veterans Day encompasses ALL veterans, male and female, it has been decided that women veterans deserve their own special day, reserved exclusively for women. Estimated number of men killed in all US wars: 1,354,000 Estimated number of women killed in all US wars: 169 But women get their own Veterans Day. Can you imagine the outrage if traditional Veterans Day was dedicated only to men?
I don't believe that anything like 169 women have been killed in combat. In fact I don't know of a single female _soldier_ who was killed in combat (I'm not saying there are none). When people list the number of men, they are referring to _soldiers_ killed in _combat._
@@dougrogers327 True. But feminism is quite fickle and hypocritical about every issue so it's not surprising. When women occupy less than one percent of any stat, it's seen as "both a male and female issue!!" they'll whine. When men occupy only a slightly less percentage than women (spousal abuse for example), they'll whine "but it's mostly women!"
@@bricaaron3978 I don't blame you for being suspicious of even this ridiculously small number, but for the record, I didn't say 'in combat'. From what I researched this includes women killed by IEDs or scud missiles in Iraq, women who died in military plane crashes, 16 nurses killed during the Vietnam war (as compared to 55,000 men), and so on (WW I, WW II, Korea...). And of course, the numbers you read depend on the source, where anything pro-women inflates them. Whatever the precise number, whether it's 50 or 250, it's still microscopic compared to male deaths. Yet they get their own Veterans Day. It's disgusting.
We saw how women performed in tanks in Israel. They were very succesful! So, if one needs women in army, one need to match personal skill and abilities with role and level of risks.
@@abupinhusWOW...You mean women that were in a tank that is impervious to small arms and mostly impervious to RPG fire? They weren't dealing with other tanks or artillery or a well trained adversary. They claim 50 foot soldiers between 4 Merkavas and an APC in a 17 hour fight. So basically just another day that ends in "Y" for male tank crews.
@@JoeBLOWFHB I do not know how would you behave in such situation. I know, that i am not much to these women. Two tanks killed over 100 terrorist. In small country like Israel, they need to use women in army. It is not done to provide equality. May be they will not react as fast as mens teams, we hope not find it.
In the last few years there have a number of fatal collisions involving US Navy ships. In each case the ultimate cause was poor decision-making by under-qualified female staff. In one case two female officers had quarreled, and were giving each other the silent treatment, which caused critical information not to be relayed. The failure-analysis findings should have been front page news, but got zero traction in the media. For obvious reasons.
In the early 90s I got chatting with a female captain in the Australian army, and asked how the women stacked up against the men in combat situations. She laughed in my face, saying no way could the women compare in strength, speed, and endurance, and would rarely be risked on the front line. They did much better as pilots and other technology operators.
That overshooting the runway happens with non-diversity hires too. The rates may or may not be different. I don't know. But "it happened" can easily be countered with "it happens with all types of hires." Which is accurate.
@@russ254 yes. If we can point to specific statistics that say "it happens less with this group than that group," that is a meaningful and useful bit of data.
In WW2 women pilots routinely flew bombers and fighters over to Great Britain freeing men up for front line duty. They even engaged German fighter patrols before the D-Day invasion and the Allies had complete air supremacy.
Hmmm... if the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decides it's wrong to NOT have 50% female military... Sounds like a legal basis to start drafting however many women it needs to meet the 50% quota... and make it a FIFTY % quota, not simply 20-25%. I think History proves that they would FIX that problem *very* quickly... so fast it would make your head spin.
@@allen_p Far fewer if they're used right. Why put your best at risk when you can softened a target with a little cannon fodder? Welcome to equality and equity.
You only need look at the trans debate. If women can't compete against biological men on the sports field, how will they compete against them on the battlefield? Men and women are not equal, they are different and those differences cause inherent inequalities.
Women should make a choice: 1. They are equal in rights and responsibilities to men, meaning that they are eligible for active combat. This means that they are assigned to defense and patrol where strength isn't as much a factor. But they have to serve. 2. They are not equal, meaning that they cannot serve in dangerous capacities, but they cannot have equal political power. Women who cannot serve are not morally capable of controlling men who do have to serve. Straddling the fence or demanding more rights for less responsibilities is suboptimal for any civilization.
People seem to think the military is just about handing lots of people guns and getting them to sit in trenches. It costs money to train soldiers, to ship them to a foreign battlefield, and keep them supplied in action. For your money you want to get the best, most capable soldiers you can get. People understand this about sports teams. You have your budget and you get the best team possible. If you draft someone less capable, you do worse on the field for your money. So the idea that you'd do things differently when lives, and possibly your entire country, might depend on it is absolutely insane. I really don't think people at the guardian know anything about war. They think since a woman can shoot a gun as well as a man... well it doesn't matter who's holding the gun. Stand behind a wall and shoot at things. They don't think about 12 mile marches carrying 100lbs, or dragging men out of trenches, or running to cover while under fire. And yes I am aware that there are women who, under extraordinary circumstances, acquitted themselves well in war. But that doesn't mean it should be a general policy. An army is like the sport's team of your nation, where losing games will cost the lives of your citizens. It costs a lot of money to keep it active and functional, and for the money spend you want the best team you can support. That eliminates a lot of people from consideration.
This is not about winning/losing wars. This is about winning and losing in politics. And people focus on who shoots a RIFLE well. One of the smallest tools in a military. Who carries a 13kg machine gun and 24kg in ammo and 12-20kg in armour and 3-5 liters of water? Not to mention mortars, artillery shells, tank tracks, stacking and organising supply depots.
@@signalnine2601 an "effective military" has always been essential to the survival of the State. I think there are not enough existential threats to keep Leadership limited in what they will tamper with. And leadership is swallowing, and regurgitating, lies from political movements. Lies such as "differences between sexes are a social construct and don't exist in real life."
@@woodsghost9088 it is true that when a country has to suddenly fight to survive, bullshit goes out the window real quick. it's one of the reason why liberal arts has gone so batshit insane. unlike math and science, they dont have to touch base with reality.
A very well written and sound argument. Canada's military is discouraging the best from joining because top tier candidates only want to risk their lives fighting next to equally competent soldiers, not carrying a team of DEI hires.
Every single program has had to lower standards to meet female requirements. Watching the Isreali Colonel in charge of their program brought to tears over the permanent injuries his girls had suffered changed my whole opinion on the matter. Of course the feminist politicians did not care about the 30+ years of data, the injuries or the repetitively lowered standards. Of course now they're having to lower standards for all us blob males too. Must be time for the first Terminators?
No standards have to be lowered for males. I know from experience that an overweight man who goes into the military does not stay overweight for long. That even applies to the National Guard.
@@bricaaron3978Not on the spot but check the history of requirement changes. Different services have had a lot of changes both up and down depending especially now with bad recruiting numbers. In my family group I've got kids that did Marine boot, Army and AF basic (all US). More disappointing is the services can't even take their phones away for basic so mommy doesn't worry.
Right now there are two major conflicts going on , one in Ukraine another in the Middle East. In all sides, the combatants are overwhelmingly male, with a few women playing support roles behind the front lines, nothing more. That tells you all you need to know about the role of women in the military.
To show you how warped the feminist perspective on military sacrifice is, Hilary Clinton said this on the topic men and women and war. “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” Yes, Hilary, and young men lose their lives before they had chance to live. How can one compare death to grief experienced by women when surviving fathers, uncles, sons, and brothers also experience grief. Where is the alleged female superior empathy and concern for others men hear so much about? Janice is right about women’s unsuitability for direct combat roles. The US still has male only conscription, which is not based on male physical superiority but it is based on male disposability. If conscription is the law, women should be subject to it. There are a great many jobs in the military than women can perform. My doctor when I was a teen during the Viet Nam was conscripted because the military needed doctors. Male nurses were drafted too. Female nurses were not.
*"The US still has male only conscription, which is not based on male physical superiority but it is based on male disposability."* It's based upon both, of course.
@@patrickmoran687 if Hillary was really about "equality," she'd have made mandatory selective service registration for females part of her "equality" policy platform. She'd not have called Trump a draft dodger without admitting that she would have been one too, had she not had female privilege.
@@bricaaron3978 Good thing the SCOTUS ruled a male only draft is unconstitutional! How about no draft! If it's truly a just war people wouldn't need to be forced into service (a form of slavery) but would volunteer much like at the founding of this nation!
The Canadian Military exists to protect people like you, prof. Fiamengo, we live to serve and protect. We're good at it, because we invest in ourself-combat-weapon, making me have a particular appreciation for your mention of "moral cawardness". Most women I know are quite selfish, borderlining on narcicist, most soldiers I know are selfless, trust their leaders and will complete the mission, no matter what. Insisting on recruiting the most promising individuals, with all required necessary objective evaluation of their features required for the job, and the character needed by proper combat weapons, should be left to the military, not over-ambitious lawyer-politicians with questionnable political philosophy skills... maybe this is the root of the problem: so called leaders with no real political skills nor significant moral compass allowing for such KGB and CCP agenda to occur in our country.
Interesting fact about being in the military, I familiar as a retired combat arms service member, it is a violent & dangerous profession. All I was concerned about was the competence of my colleagues. Not their gender, ethnicity or sexuality. Just will they contribute to our team staying alive & completing the mission. Nothing. Else. Mattered.
It makes more sense when you see the Canadian military as a socialist employment program, not a fighting force. These a jobs and salaries for people who would otherwise be unemployed, the "fighting force" aspect is merely a justification for the existence of the socialist program.
That's the situation in America as well. The Leftist sees it as unfair that women don't have the opportunity to gain the free college tuition, free healthcare, and other tangible and intangible perks that come from the military. It extends to government jobs in general. The Left loves making new government/Big Union jobs. Hence, a similar situation with police departments.
Because Power is gained or lost when we promote based on "Merit" rather than "Identity." Every political decision has winners and losers. And some people want to change which people are winning or losing.
For the record Fiamengo, I've recently and I'm middle aged, started training, and I eschew body building. Isometrics baby trains strength all the stuff they tell you to do today is how to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. But yeah we're not equal I would think women want to be treated like women. They definitely don't want to be treated like men. I could elaborate but I think the stark contrast speaks for itself. I love your approach. I am shocked someone teaching in Ottawa can say these things and we need more people to stand up and speak the truth like you.
For combat force it has to be about merit base approach. If a rare woman is capable she should be considered. Afghanistan war pushed the selection of women in the fighting force and the reason was about projecting trust amongst the female and children of the Afghan population.
*"If a rare woman is capable she should be considered."* She should not, sir. It's not just an issue of competence, it's the very fact that a woman is not a man. I don't think it takes much honest thought to understand why having females cohabitating with males is unacceptable, and ten times more so when it means camping out for weeks at a time in the middle of nowhere. And on top of the issue of pregnancy and r.a.p.e, women experience menstrual cycles and do not behave the same during those periods. They require special hygeine that men don't require. This is not complicated. There is a reason women have never been soldiers in the entire 100,000-year existence of mankind.
You are a perfect example of male/female inequality. I have heard few, if any, men put forward this sane point of view with such clarity ( if that's the right way to put it). Vive la difference, as I'm sure your fellow French Canadians would say.
they do not put forward the same view in public for fear of being called a misogynist loosing their job and having their life destroyed., but privately most men and young boys feel this way about feminism.
@@slugsandsnails4587 for sure, speaking against feminism is seen as hatred towards women Because IQ of 100 is average, lots of people have hard time distinguishing those
@richardager1861 We didn't "lose" anything. We mistook a few mildly talented performance artists on TH-cam as our saviors, instead of publicly challenging the transparently slanderous depictions of men that Woke Warriors have been poisoning our cultural atmosphere with
It's laughable how women blame men for women not volunteering for military service and expect men to fix it. To be fair there are roles in which women perform as well as or better than men. They've made better radar operators from the beginning. Pretty much anything that requires maintaining attention for long periods of time and doesn't require physical strength.
Nice to see you're still around & still active. I haven't spent much time around the manosphere for years now, then your channel popped up on my notifications. I knew others would eventually pick up what we were putting down and they are. It's interesting now to see students protesting Israel, many likely feminists, get 'the treatment' from 'the Cathedral'. Maybe a bit of 'the Synagogue' too. Things are getting way too interesting.
When the chips are down a top gear clicks in… I have experienced it in the middle of the Sahara desert on a few Himalayan peaks… In the Canadian bush… I have seen it in other men as well… It’s like a prolonged, adrenaline rush, combined with this extra surge of energy and strength… I rather think a boxer feels it always in the ring… I think some women have this extra gear… But I am very sure that men have this far more than women… And in battle conditions, that gear is needed to defeat the enemy…
I served in Afghanistan as a civilian contractor. I met many women who serve. The difference I found is that, unlike feminists the women who were there never tried to use their gender as an excuse to not do the job.
I did two years in Afghanistan and I saw women use every tool gender, medical, and sex to make their lives easier at the expense of men. When simply transferring duffels from commercial to military aircraft it took three or four women to keep up with one man. After 100 duffels those women were long gone.
@@jimturpin6503 I don't doubt for a moment that it happened. When I was in the reserves I saw a lot of the same stuff you did. However, I didn't have anyone asking me for special treatment.. but as an old, married guy perhaps I had a reputation. I do recall having a discussion with a female officer telling her "I can run faster scared than you can mad." She replied with, " I have a pistol." "A browning HP35, the pope wounder. I can get out of effective range before you can get it loaded." Probably...
@@Guildofarcanelore In a situation like that she would know that soldiers around are thinking I need him and I don't need her. Those "calculations" are not army, but are introduced when you try to make unequal things equal by decree.
How does making more women soldiers do anything to advance the goal of having an army? Maybe a better question is why are Canadians fighting in places like Afghanistan?
Because we are a member of NATO just to mention that association to start with. When the US got attacked in 2001/9/11, Canada has the obligation to help our Southern neighbor. « One for All and all for one ». And when Canada was asked, by Bush, to join the Iraq 🇮🇶 war, Canada refused to participate because the Irakiens didn’t attacked the US. We are prosper and safe and as a country because of all our friends around the globe. Cheers!!
There is plenty of equality when their military career is over. Are these journalists passing the hat to get their sisters some pro-bono therapy hours or did they just want to complain?
My son is a infantry sergeant in the Canadian Forces. He is a big, tough bas&$^d who comes from a family with many strong women in senior leadership positions. I say this to make it clear that he doesn't have an issue with strong women leaders. What he does have is an issue with lowered physical fitness requirements for women combat soldiers and having to pretend that women typically are great in front line, combat positions. He's done enough training and has deployed to Kuwait/Iraq and NATO countries to recognize that virtually no woman in the CF could drag his wounded backside out of a burning LAV, or drag him from behind building under attack. They also can't carry the same load when out on missions. WIshing women were as physically capable as their male counterparts is pure fantasy . . . it's dumb and dangerous. The reality is that there's a huge physical difference between men and women. Let's not pretend it is otherwise. Just because the PM appointed a women to the Chief of the Defense staff, doesn't mean women in NCM combat positions is a good thing. It just perpetuates the myth the women and men are physically on par with each other.
It's really tragic what happened to the Canadian military. In WW1 and WW2 it was tough, reliable and well led. Canadian troops performed extremely well, especially under its own leadership as opposed to being under British command.
I remember that American female soldier who was held hostage in Iraq... the media of course left out the fact she wasn't a combatant but a driver delivering supplies. Then they made up a story about her fighting heroically... she debunked this claim herself and said she never fired her rifle 😅
Her name is Jessica Lynch it is a name that should be remembered because she is a very honest woman that refused to tell the lie the government crafted for her.
“I’m a Soldier too.”
Are you referring to Jess Lynch or Shoshana Johnson?
Jessica Lynch was never even really “held hostage” after capture she was almost immediately dropped at a hospital. The Military were told were to go pick her up. The “Raid” to get her was a farce.
I felt bad for Lynch. She pretty much just did her job and all the BS was from other people rather than her.
One stand-up comic suggested that the military meet the challenge of turning women into killing machines with, "See the enemy over there? They say you look FAT in those uniforms!!"
Even that wouldn’t work. They’d turn on you for using fat shaming language
Half of them might.... The other half would plop down crying and tear through a pint of Ben & Jerry's.
Many of them are already killing machines viz abortions - at point blank range
How can they impose an **a priori** standard of 25% (in the U.S. they are pushing 30% by 2030 in police departments) when there is ZERO evidence that women have either the natural desire or the aptitude for combat or even non-combat roles in the military? I used to worry more about women in combat but I think that situation tends to remedy itself by their absolute inability to meet the rigors of combat. Now I worry more about those quotas being met by pushing women into higher ranks in leadership. That will destroy the military even faster.
Twelve of the largest US states recognize June 12 as 'Women Veterans Day'. Even though traditional Veterans Day encompasses ALL veterans, male and female, it has been decided that women veterans deserve their own special day, reserved exclusively for women.
Estimated number of men killed in all US wars: 1,354,000
Estimated number of women killed in all US wars: 169
But women get their own Veterans Day. Can you imagine the outrage if traditional Veterans Day was dedicated only to men?
I don't believe that anything like 169 women have been killed in combat. In fact I don't know of a single female _soldier_ who was killed in combat (I'm not saying there are none).
When people list the number of men, they are referring to _soldiers_ killed in _combat._
@@dougrogers327 True. But feminism is quite fickle and hypocritical about every issue so it's not surprising. When women occupy less than one percent of any stat, it's seen as "both a male and female issue!!" they'll whine. When men occupy only a slightly less percentage than women (spousal abuse for example), they'll whine "but it's mostly women!"
@@bricaaron3978 I don't blame you for being suspicious of even this ridiculously small number, but for the record, I didn't say 'in combat'. From what I researched this includes women killed by IEDs or scud missiles in Iraq, women who died in military plane crashes, 16 nurses killed during the Vietnam war (as compared to 55,000 men), and so on (WW I, WW II, Korea...). And of course, the numbers you read depend on the source, where anything pro-women inflates them. Whatever the precise number, whether it's 50 or 250, it's still microscopic compared to male deaths. Yet they get their own Veterans Day. It's disgusting.
@@dougrogers327 *"...but for the record, I didn't say 'in combat'.'*
I know that you didn't. I didn't mean to imply that you did.
Many IDF women suffered injuries during training. Standards had to be lowered.
We saw how women performed in tanks in Israel. They were very succesful! So, if one needs women in army, one need to match personal skill and abilities with role and level of risks.
@@abupinhus sure make it all automatic with coffee and sweets and they'll be just fine
@@abupinhus possibly remote controlled from their sofas, with the option of switching it off when too frightening
@@abupinhusWOW...You mean women that were in a tank that is impervious to small arms and mostly impervious to RPG fire?
They weren't dealing with other tanks or artillery or a well trained adversary. They claim 50 foot soldiers between 4 Merkavas and an APC in a 17 hour fight. So basically just another day that ends in "Y" for male tank crews.
@@JoeBLOWFHB I do not know how would you behave in such situation. I know, that i am not much to these women. Two tanks killed over 100 terrorist.
In small country like Israel, they need to use women in army. It is not done to provide equality.
May be they will not react as fast as mens teams, we hope not find it.
In the last few years there have a number of fatal collisions involving US Navy ships. In each case the ultimate cause was poor decision-making by under-qualified female staff. In one case two female officers had quarreled, and were giving each other the silent treatment, which caused critical information not to be relayed. The failure-analysis findings should have been front page news, but got zero traction in the media. For obvious reasons.
In the early 90s I got chatting with a female captain in the Australian army, and asked how the women stacked up against the men in combat situations. She laughed in my face, saying no way could the women compare in strength, speed, and endurance, and would rarely be risked on the front line. They did much better as pilots and other technology operators.
Better as pilots? have you seen of the video of the navy plane crewed by diversity overrunning the runway and going for a swim.
That overshooting the runway happens with non-diversity hires too.
The rates may or may not be different. I don't know. But "it happened" can easily be countered with "it happens with all types of hires." Which is accurate.
“it happens less” is more important
@@russ254 yes. If we can point to specific statistics that say "it happens less with this group than that group," that is a meaningful and useful bit of data.
In WW2 women pilots routinely flew bombers and fighters over to Great Britain freeing men up for front line duty. They even engaged German fighter patrols before the D-Day invasion and the Allies had complete air supremacy.
A military draft of women would solve the gender enrollment gap real quick.
Hmmm... if the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decides it's wrong to NOT have 50% female military...
Sounds like a legal basis to start drafting however many women it needs to meet the 50% quota... and make it a FIFTY % quota, not simply 20-25%.
I think History proves that they would FIX that problem *very* quickly... so fast it would make your head spin.
@@allen_p make all women battalions and battle groups
Force is the only way to fill quotas.
@@allen_p True.
@@allen_p Far fewer if they're used right. Why put your best at risk when you can softened a target with a little cannon fodder? Welcome to equality and equity.
You only need look at the trans debate. If women can't compete against biological men on the sports field, how will they compete against them on the battlefield?
Men and women are not equal, they are different and those differences cause inherent inequalities.
Women should make a choice:
1. They are equal in rights and responsibilities to men, meaning that they are eligible for active combat. This means that they are assigned to defense and patrol where strength isn't as much a factor. But they have to serve.
2. They are not equal, meaning that they cannot serve in dangerous capacities, but they cannot have equal political power. Women who cannot serve are not morally capable of controlling men who do have to serve.
Straddling the fence or demanding more rights for less responsibilities is suboptimal for any civilization.
I feel suboptimal could easily be exchanged for outright destructive to society! IMHO otherwise agree!
We won't be letting women forget anything anymore. That's over
There are enough videos of women Marines boxing men Marines. Guess who always wins every time?
People seem to think the military is just about handing lots of people guns and getting them to sit in trenches. It costs money to train soldiers, to ship them to a foreign battlefield, and keep them supplied in action. For your money you want to get the best, most capable soldiers you can get.
People understand this about sports teams. You have your budget and you get the best team possible. If you draft someone less capable, you do worse on the field for your money. So the idea that you'd do things differently when lives, and possibly your entire country, might depend on it is absolutely insane.
I really don't think people at the guardian know anything about war. They think since a woman can shoot a gun as well as a man... well it doesn't matter who's holding the gun. Stand behind a wall and shoot at things. They don't think about 12 mile marches carrying 100lbs, or dragging men out of trenches, or running to cover while under fire.
And yes I am aware that there are women who, under extraordinary circumstances, acquitted themselves well in war. But that doesn't mean it should be a general policy. An army is like the sport's team of your nation, where losing games will cost the lives of your citizens. It costs a lot of money to keep it active and functional, and for the money spend you want the best team you can support. That eliminates a lot of people from consideration.
This is not about winning/losing wars. This is about winning and losing in politics.
And people focus on who shoots a RIFLE well. One of the smallest tools in a military.
Who carries a 13kg machine gun and 24kg in ammo and 12-20kg in armour and 3-5 liters of water?
Not to mention mortars, artillery shells, tank tracks, stacking and organising supply depots.
@@woodsghost9088 I think the military should be about the capacity to win wars, and nothing else.
That it's become political is amazing to me.
@@signalnine2601 an "effective military" has always been essential to the survival of the State.
I think there are not enough existential threats to keep Leadership limited in what they will tamper with.
And leadership is swallowing, and regurgitating, lies from political movements. Lies such as "differences between sexes are a social construct and don't exist in real life."
@@woodsghost9088 it is true that when a country has to suddenly fight to survive, bullshit goes out the window real quick.
it's one of the reason why liberal arts has gone so batshit insane. unlike math and science, they dont have to touch base with reality.
A very well written and sound argument. Canada's military is discouraging the best from joining because top tier candidates only want to risk their lives fighting next to equally competent soldiers, not carrying a team of DEI hires.
The matter is of life and death in the military. That consideration speaks for itself.
A woman on your team puts your team at risk.
@@darbyheavey406 Why? I have to do the same fitness test as the dudes. ;)
Unless you're a REMF!
Every single program has had to lower standards to meet female requirements. Watching the Isreali Colonel in charge of their program brought to tears over the permanent injuries his girls had suffered changed my whole opinion on the matter. Of course the feminist politicians did not care about the 30+ years of data, the injuries or the repetitively lowered standards.
Of course now they're having to lower standards for all us blob males too. Must be time for the first Terminators?
You mean Warhammer 40,000 Terminators?
No standards have to be lowered for males. I know from experience that an overweight man who goes into the military does not stay overweight for long. That even applies to the National Guard.
@@bricaaron3978Not on the spot but check the history of requirement changes. Different services have had a lot of changes both up and down depending especially now with bad recruiting numbers. In my family group I've got kids that did Marine boot, Army and AF basic (all US). More disappointing is the services can't even take their phones away for basic so mommy doesn't worry.
Right now there are two major conflicts going on , one in Ukraine another in the Middle East. In all sides, the combatants are overwhelmingly male, with a few women playing support roles behind the front lines, nothing more. That tells you all you need to know about the role of women in the military.
*"That tells you all you need to know about the role of women in the military."*
Well, that and you know, thousands of years of history.
Huh... a few women. There are women snipers... lol... so much for your theory.
@@s66458--- Any woman in the military did not meet the same standards as men. What is _your_ theory, I wonder?
@@s66458--- So one woman sniper for every ten thousand men in the battlefield disproves my "theory". Right...
@@bricaaron3978 Yes, we do, actually. I have to pass the same standards of fitness. What is my theory? I live it every day.
Your closing statements were brilliant and that is so true. Thank you!
To show you how warped the feminist perspective on military sacrifice is, Hilary Clinton said this on the topic men and women and war. “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.” Yes, Hilary, and young men lose their lives before they had chance to live. How can one compare death to grief experienced by women when surviving fathers, uncles, sons, and brothers also experience grief. Where is the alleged female superior empathy and concern for others men hear so much about? Janice is right about women’s unsuitability for direct combat roles.
The US still has male only conscription, which is not based on male physical superiority but it is based on male disposability. If conscription is the law, women should be subject to it. There are a great many jobs in the military than women can perform. My doctor when I was a teen during the Viet Nam was conscripted because the military needed doctors. Male nurses were drafted too. Female nurses were not.
*"The US still has male only conscription, which is not based on male physical superiority but it is based on male disposability."*
It's based upon both, of course.
@@patrickmoran687 if Hillary was really about "equality," she'd have made mandatory selective service registration for females part of her "equality" policy platform. She'd not have called Trump a draft dodger without admitting that she would have been one too, had she not had female privilege.
@@bricaaron3978 Good thing the SCOTUS ruled a male only draft is unconstitutional! How about no draft! If it's truly a just war people wouldn't need to be forced into service (a form of slavery) but would volunteer much like at the founding of this nation!
The Canadian Military exists to protect people like you, prof. Fiamengo, we live to serve and protect. We're good at it, because we invest in ourself-combat-weapon, making me have a particular appreciation for your mention of "moral cawardness".
Most women I know are quite selfish, borderlining on narcicist, most soldiers I know are selfless, trust their leaders and will complete the mission, no matter what.
Insisting on recruiting the most promising individuals, with all required necessary objective evaluation of their features required for the job, and the character needed by proper combat weapons, should be left to the military, not over-ambitious lawyer-politicians with questionnable political philosophy skills... maybe this is the root of the problem: so called leaders with no real political skills nor significant moral compass allowing for such KGB and CCP agenda to occur in our country.
Interesting fact about being in the military, I familiar as a retired combat arms service member, it is a violent & dangerous profession. All I was concerned about was the competence of my colleagues. Not their gender, ethnicity or sexuality. Just will they contribute to our team staying alive & completing the mission. Nothing. Else. Mattered.
your pronunciation is very clear. I am Turkish and I can understand you easily.
It makes more sense when you see the Canadian military as a socialist employment program, not a fighting force. These a jobs and salaries for people who would otherwise be unemployed, the "fighting force" aspect is merely a justification for the existence of the socialist program.
That's the situation in America as well. The Leftist sees it as unfair that women don't have the opportunity to gain the free college tuition, free healthcare, and other tangible and intangible perks that come from the military. It extends to government jobs in general. The Left loves making new government/Big Union jobs. Hence, a similar situation with police departments.
I gave up a lucrative private sector job to serve my country. Lots more like me than you might think.
I just listened to your podcast with Tammy Peterson, and I just want to say that your empathy meant more to me than you probably realize. Thank you.
Hear Hear!!! 👍👍👍
Janice, I love you and your dry delivery. Truly. Thank you.
Everything seems so complicated. Why can we not just prioritize merit?
Because, when the goal is equity, merit is the enemy.
Because Power is gained or lost when we promote based on "Merit" rather than "Identity."
Every political decision has winners and losers. And some people want to change which people are winning or losing.
@@woodsghost9088 status quo? oh no, no. DISRUPTION.
To many hurt fee fees!
love your work janice keep it up!
Women see equality as equal in outcome, men equality of opportunity. The is alot of what politics is the balance between those two.
Thank you.!😊
For the record Fiamengo, I've recently and I'm middle aged, started training, and I eschew body building. Isometrics baby trains strength all the stuff they tell you to do today is how to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. But yeah we're not equal I would think women want to be treated like women. They definitely don't want to be treated like men. I could elaborate but I think the stark contrast speaks for itself. I love your approach. I am shocked someone teaching in Ottawa can say these things and we need more people to stand up and speak the truth like you.
odd, but totally female how they generalise men to the ends of the earth, then scream about being generalised in terms of strength and aptitude
For combat force it has to be about merit base approach. If a rare woman is capable she should be considered. Afghanistan war pushed the selection of women in the fighting force and the reason was about projecting trust amongst the female and children of the Afghan population.
*"If a rare woman is capable she should be considered."*
She should not, sir. It's not just an issue of competence, it's the very fact that a woman is not a man.
I don't think it takes much honest thought to understand why having females cohabitating with males is unacceptable, and ten times more so when it means camping out for weeks at a time in the middle of nowhere. And on top of the issue of pregnancy and r.a.p.e, women experience menstrual cycles and do not behave the same during those periods. They require special hygeine that men don't require.
This is not complicated. There is a reason women have never been soldiers in the entire 100,000-year existence of mankind.
Women not being as good as Men has never stopped them from taking jobs away from hard working Men before, why not in Combat also?
It is time for the ladies to step up and serve. Drizzle Drizzle
Hand drizzle drizzle a white feather.
@@suebotchie4167
Equal rights = equal lefts
Serve equally if you want equal political power.
Drizzle drizzle.
If there's one thing the war in Ukraine has proven to a t, artillery barrages don't care about your feelings or your chromosomes!
It's always been about women wanting more while wanting to do less. Oh and to seem morally Superior in the process..
So you didn't make it into the CAF?
Bless you. Hope the government doesn't target you next.
Lest we forget
i was unsubscribed from this channel? resubscribed again.
You are a perfect example of male/female inequality.
I have heard few, if any, men put forward this sane point of view with such clarity ( if that's the right way to put it).
Vive la difference, as I'm sure your fellow French Canadians would say.
they do not put forward the same view in public for fear of being called a misogynist loosing their job and having their life destroyed., but privately most men and young boys feel this way about feminism.
@@slugsandsnails4587 for sure, speaking against feminism is seen as hatred towards women
Because IQ of 100 is average, lots of people have hard time distinguishing those
Google the barbarically forgotten Asa Baber. He(And many others)were saying all of this back in The 90s
@@pukeachu Men have lost their voice (not just Asa, but they have stopped speaking up)
@richardager1861 We didn't "lose" anything. We mistook a few mildly talented performance artists on TH-cam as our saviors, instead of publicly challenging the transparently slanderous depictions of men that Woke Warriors have been poisoning our cultural atmosphere with
It's laughable how women blame men for women not volunteering for military service and expect men to fix it.
To be fair there are roles in which women perform as well as or better than men. They've made better radar operators from the beginning. Pretty much anything that requires maintaining attention for long periods of time and doesn't require physical strength.
from 2015 - damn were did the time go...
Nice to see you're still around & still active. I haven't spent much time around the manosphere for years now, then your channel popped up on my notifications. I knew others would eventually pick up what we were putting down and they are. It's interesting now to see students protesting Israel, many likely feminists, get 'the treatment' from 'the Cathedral'. Maybe a bit of 'the Synagogue' too. Things are getting way too interesting.
this is not manosphere. Manosphere is egocentric nonsense. Avoid categorizing the truth that makes it less truth and more truthyness.
@YTisEvil so it is not just a clever name you REALLY are EVIL.
This is just a republishing of an old video.
@@markaurelius61 Republishing is activity.
@@paulwalsh2458 Yes. I am still glad to see it
"The pink hair and the pink berets are all you need to know about today's "woke" military." -- MR
I thought it was a _raspberry_ beret... The kind you find in a second-hand store.
Where are the pink berets? Mine is black. lol.
Yep.
thnx
I suggest the author of the article lead the way for women and do a stint in a combat arms unit to show the ladies how it's done.
Nicola Goddard went to HS in my town.
When the chips are down a top gear clicks in… I have experienced it in the middle of the Sahara desert on a few Himalayan peaks… In the Canadian bush… I have seen it in other men as well… It’s like a prolonged, adrenaline rush, combined with this extra surge of energy and strength… I rather think a boxer feels it always in the ring… I think some women have this extra gear… But I am very sure that men have this far more than women… And in battle conditions, that gear is needed to defeat the enemy…
I cannot think of a job less suitable for women than combat troops.
Support Janice on Substack
I served in Afghanistan as a civilian contractor.
I met many women who serve.
The difference I found is that, unlike feminists the women who were there never tried to use their gender as an excuse to not do the job.
I did two years in Afghanistan and I saw women use every tool gender, medical, and sex to make their lives easier at the expense of men. When simply transferring duffels from commercial to military aircraft it took three or four women to keep up with one man. After 100 duffels those women were long gone.
@@jimturpin6503 I don't doubt for a moment that it happened. When I was in the reserves I saw a lot of the same stuff you did. However, I didn't have anyone asking me for special treatment.. but as an old, married guy perhaps I had a reputation.
I do recall having a discussion with a female officer telling her "I can run faster scared than you can mad."
She replied with, " I have a pistol."
"A browning HP35, the pope wounder. I can get out of effective range before you can get it loaded."
Probably...
@@Guildofarcanelore In a situation like that she would know that soldiers around are thinking I need him and I don't need her. Those "calculations" are not army, but are introduced when you try to make unequal things equal by decree.
What would have happened in WW2 if all the men in the allied forces were swapped out for women. I'd really like to know.
How does making more women soldiers do anything to advance the goal of having an army? Maybe a better question is why are Canadians fighting in places like Afghanistan?
Because we are a member of NATO just to mention that association to start with. When the US got attacked in 2001/9/11, Canada has the obligation to help our Southern neighbor. « One for All and all for one ». And when Canada was asked, by Bush, to join the Iraq 🇮🇶 war, Canada refused to participate because the Irakiens didn’t attacked the US. We are prosper and safe and as a country because of all our friends around the globe. Cheers!!
There is plenty of equality when their military career is over. Are these journalists passing the hat to get their sisters some pro-bono therapy hours or did they just want to complain?
Dude that's so funny no body was looking for the joke. Brutal.
My son is a infantry sergeant in the Canadian Forces. He is a big, tough bas&$^d who comes from a family with many strong women in senior leadership positions. I say this to make it clear that he doesn't have an issue with strong women leaders. What he does have is an issue with lowered physical fitness requirements for women combat soldiers and having to pretend that women typically are great in front line, combat positions. He's done enough training and has deployed to Kuwait/Iraq and NATO countries to recognize that virtually no woman in the CF could drag his wounded backside out of a burning LAV, or drag him from behind building under attack. They also can't carry the same load when out on missions. WIshing women were as physically capable as their male counterparts is pure fantasy . . . it's dumb and dangerous. The reality is that there's a huge physical difference between men and women. Let's not pretend it is otherwise. Just because the PM appointed a women to the Chief of the Defense staff, doesn't mean women in NCM combat positions is a good thing. It just perpetuates the myth the women and men are physically on par with each other.
The woman who wrote the snide article...
DRAFT HER.
(Yeah, I know Canada doesn't have the draft anymore... and this video is actually 8+ years old.)
Haven’t aged a day!
Draft women, that'll get em to "join up".
2:53 That's still less absurd that continuing to pretend that Canada has much of a military to begin with
It's really tragic what happened to the Canadian military. In WW1 and WW2 it was tough, reliable and well led. Canadian troops performed extremely well, especially under its own leadership as opposed to being under British command.
Janice bears a passing resemblance to Gloria Steinem. Ironic.
That doesn't apply to her mindset.
What? Janice is pretty, reasonable, and not delusional. Gloria Steinem looks unappealing and makes little sense in most of her cardinal arguments.
Being a feminist makes a women unappealing and undesirable.
ts bronx
I want to avoid any “perfect sexbot” jokes.
So I will not comment.
Disregard John Gormley, he is a useless agitator.
IDF all female tank crew brought it to Hamas in a big way
Brilliant video Janice! You are a voice of sanity.