It seems that drafting women has come up among the GOP candidates for some reason. So, I’ll give my take on it.
First, women are far too valuable to waste on military activity, with the possible exception of a truly existential threat (such as both the Russians and Germans each faced from the other in WW2). Doug Wilson gets the right of it:
Once you have signed off on the nation/state conscripting your daughters to go serve in combat roles, whatever it was you thought you were conserving — thus allowing you to call yourself a conservative — has had a fork stuck in it and is done. Nothing really to conserve any more.
A nation that conscripts its daughters for its defense is a nation that no longer deserves a defense. We may have to fight later as a practical matter, but this is a matter of rudimentary allegiance.
In a civilized society, anybody proposing sending women to war would be sent to a penal battalion himself to die honourably for the motherland.
On the other hand though, Wilson is right. Our society is no longer civilized and no longer worth defending or supporting. There is nothing to conserve and we should stop acting like there’s anything left.
Most “military age” women voluntarily render themselves infertile, so it’s not like we’re taking them away child creation and rearing. They’ve willingly and enthusiastically removed their own civilizational value and made themselves as expendable as men. There’s no civilizational reason to protect expendable self-sterilized young women.
Rationally we should be drafting women. Women claim to be men’s equals, and equals don’t get defended. Equals have to carry their own weight, and in this case carrying their own weight means being drafted and sent to die in case of war. If we’re going to do this liberalism, we should do it right. Allowing women into the military but not drafting them is one of those unprincipled exceptions that Zippy likes to talk about. If women are allowed in the military like men, then they should drafted like men.
(And no, to unseeing tradcons, this is not men cowering behind women, women enthusiastically pursue equality).
On Wilson’s biblical argument, the case Wilson makes does not support the idea that women at war is objectively sinful, just imprudent. So, I will talk in practical terms, not moral ones.
As for the combat effectiveness, it is obvious to anybody who’s not ideologically blinded that women will lower the military’s combat effectiveness and that’s a positive thing (I hesitate to use the word good). America’s hard military effectiveness doesn’t matter. America has had few just wars, hasn’t had a truly defensive war in a long time, possibly ever (the Pacific front of WW2 and the confederate defence in the War of the States may have been defensive, although, the US did provoke Japan and the CSA was not the USA) and has never fought a necessary war at all as far as I can recall at the moment. There’s certainly not going to be a defensive foreign war any time soon, and definitely not an existential one.
As for foreign conquests, America also has the gear and numbers to utterly destroy any possible foreign enemy that it gets serious on. The only reason America loses wars is because America (purposely?) tries to fail. A loss of combat effectiveness simply doesn’t matter against foreign enemies.
On the other hand, the happening could occur in the next couple of decades, and where the military falls during this times will matter a lot. The red tribe (ie. the tribe I support and the one not wholly given to degeneracy) has the absolute advantage when it comes to capacity for violence, but if the military falls on the side of the blue tribe, things could get rough. So, a less effective military helps neutralize a potential threat to the red tribe.
As for the purpose of women in the military being to destroy masculine virtue and manly pride, that’s also a positive. The military is the enemy. It is a part of USG and is controlled at the top by the same people destroying the rest of our civilization. Even worse, it is an enemy filled with good people who should be the allies of us and civilization. Because of its association with masculine virtue and red tribe values, the red tribe disproportionately volunteers to support the institution controlled by those who hate them. As well, it is the most trusted institution in the US, acting as a bulwark of trust for the otherwise (rightfully) mistrusted fedgov.
We need to disillusion young white men of their allegiance to the military. White men shouldn’t be fighting the wars of those who hate them. The more we can destroy the (undeserved) trust the military has among young white men and the less we white men think they can get manly pride from joining up, the fewer white men will volunteer to die in a on the other side of the world while forcing liberalism, sodomy, corporate rape, and democracy upon foreigners.
The same argument holds for lowering military standards. It is a foregone conclusion that military standards will be lowered so that women look equal on paper. This is not something to fear, it is a positive as it will further lower combat effectiveness and eat at trust in the military.
Finally, and more morbidly, having CNN and the NYT showing hundreds of body bags from whatever foreign sandpit we’ll lodge ourselves in next beside the pictures of formerly cute (now dead) young women may end up being a wake-up call for the country (or not, it’s hard to tell where our depravity ends). A little bit of accelerationism in this area could lead to awakening.
So, it’s horrific (but not objectively sinful) that we’re wasting valuable women in the military, but those women were wasting their value themselves, so corporately and civilizationally we’re not really losing anything. If we’re going to let them into the military, we should follow through on the base principles and draft them. The practical effects of this will be positive for those concerned with eventual restoration.
> America also has the gear and numbers to utterly destroy any possible foreign enemy that it gets serious on.
Maybe. But developments like the Air Force’s burning desire to scrap the tried, true, effective, capable A-10s and replace them with expensive, irretrievably-broken hangar queens like the F-35 (a desire held in check only by a few kew members of Congress) shows that the long-term prognosis for America’s gear superiority ain’t all that hot either.
Which is a good thing. I know full well who the next enemy that the U.S. military is likely to be used in earnest against is, which means that I want its combat ranks to be filled with trannies and single moms, and its vaunted Air Force to be made up of gold-plated shitboxes that can’t shoot straight.
I’m largely in agreement (particularly about the military being our enemy), with one exception:
Women won’t be sent into combat if they don’t want to be, draft or no draft. The rules in this country mean exactly what’s convenient for progs, no more and no less. And very few women will want to be in combat. The ones who do will mostly get pregnant in a hell of a hurry.
I say the more women in combat the better, but I’m not optimistic.
I think Australia is already there, judging by the make up of its army on the official website:
http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/13-14/profiles/
Note Mona Shindy, the female Muslim radical, in charge of the Guided Missile Frigate Systems
Imagine a draft where women are exempt if they are married or mothers. It might help resolve the genocide situation. It might also make women more attractive in the long run when the ones who can’t get married or pregnant get shipped off.
You cant waste something that is already ruined. They will try the preg thing to get out but that will either destroy morale and group cohesiveness or the military will force birth control.
1812 was the only defensive war i can think of…
Since there is a high probability of the military being used on the us citizens in the next two decades this is a good thing.
First, women are far too valuable to waste on military activity.
Aka the standard “men are disposable, while women are valuable” “lifeboats on the titanic” reasoning.
Well…that’s one perspective i guess…here’s another for your consideration:
Men, not women, are the more valuable sex
Rollo also in this post discusses the issue a bit
http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/29/a-new-hope/
“Dwelling on male disposability is exactly what a social order founded on the feminine imperative and a blue pill paradigm want men to do. Men self-perpetuating this mindset only reinforces feminine social primacy.
The Feminine Imperative WANTS you to be hopeless in your worth as a man, and hopeful that you can ‘get lucky’ enough to serve well enough and qualify for a woman’s intimacy – and find blue pill contentment in doing so.”
“The military is the enemy.”
It isn’t our enemy, in fact a military coup would have been the most likely and effective way to circumvent the Collapse. The Elites are gutting our military in order to erase the existence of our country as an independent nation, not to enslave us. They created Homeland Security for that.
We cannot defend our country from the globalists without a functional military. Still not a good idea to join up, though. Giving the Elites that much control over oneself isn’t the way to push back.
F.N.,
I tend to agree that U.S.G. is too enormous, and it could best be called decadent. No doubt this obscenity has a correlation with female cage fighters, which has escaped side-show and entered some degree of “national” popularity.
Not really sure that beauty is more valuable than the traits belonging to masculinity, though perhaps your use of it is very subtle and slightly ironic and so that indeed gives me something to consider after reading through this article once. Thanks for another interesting read, my friend.
Best regards,
A.J.P.
If women want to be treated equally, then they should be drafted. If they want equality, I am more that willing to give it to them good and hard. But in a sane society, women shouldn’t and wouldn’t want to be in the military. But we don’t live in a sane society.
They most certainly can be ‘drafted’ into a modern Public Service program a la Rosie the Riveter Corps. Men fight, women are assigned factory and service jobs (incl childcare services for other working women) .
But first, it must be established that in the event of a Draft, the first wave is to be selected from the constituents and family members of those voting for war. If it is important enough for my family to sacrifice, then the must lead by example, and if the district/state truly seeks war, they can begin by showing the rest of us that the fight is necessary.
If a Draft is necessary, then it is likely all states and most jurisdictions would participate anyway. But it proves that if these legislators had real skin in the game, they would seek peaceful solutions first.
Off topic: http://theshitlordhub.blogspot.co.uk/ (Shitlord Hub) Free Northerner is aggregated there as well.
“A nation that conscripts its daughters for its defense is a nation that no longer deserves a defense.”
Agreed, and I know some historical novices are captivated by ‘shield maidens’ unaware the idea of such women is based on a couple of graves alone. Women in combat roles is degenerate.