At the time that Heinlein was writing, there was some plausibility to the idea that women might be slightly better pilots than men. You had people like Wally Funk and Hanna Reitsch. What we know now is that far from suggesting untapped potential, what they really were was two standard deviation exceptional examples, who had made it as far as they did because they were so much better than average that they rose to the top.
Again... the Mercury Thirteen experiment was a thing eight months before the book hit shelves.
The experiment was flawed, but it was still a thing that happened; it's reasonable to assume that Heinlein knew about it and was influenced by its (flawed) outcome.
In April 1959, some of the doctors who had worked with NASA to select the Mercury Seven ran an experiment. They selected a group of 25 women with over a thousand hours of flying experience, and put them through the same tests. Thirteen passed. This was done quietly (though it wasn't a secret project) but given Heinlein's background and connections it's very likely he'd heard of it and knew the results.
What we know now is that the pool of women who had a thousand hours of flying in 1959 was already going to be the best of the best, peak health and ability. Whereas the male candidates for Mercury were, as the movie said, "The best... that we can get."
Morgoth recently put out a review of the movie, which is obviously not the book, and he pointed out that it is the neocon vision of liberal utopia. It's as if the globalists homogenized the world into 90s American culture.
There has to be actual ridicule of the ideas to be satire. Instead it shows a mostly working system where a couple of retarded moves are made (which exists in any system) but they still completely succeed in the end.
The movie gives no evidence of the "asteroid was a false flag, we are the invaders!" plot people love to claim. So it shows a couple of jingoistic cut ins and then just expects you to fill in the blanks with "THIS IS AMERICA/NAZIS ITS THE MOST TERRIFYING THING."
And on the flip side, its filled with dozens of heroic moments that every man craves to live up to and even while cutting the most badass parts of the book (like the power armor that has influenced nearly every sci-fi military since) still fails to make them look any worse than a generic military movie.
It's notable that the pilot chick dodges the asteroid and no one tries to raise the alarm. False flag is out, but intentionally allowing an attack to happen for propaganda is still valid. 1/6? 9/11? Pearl Harbor?
Because the asteroid sheers the comms tower off the ship as they avoid it. It's gimmicky as a plot device but it's still sensible why they don't warn anyone.
Edit: further to that, when this happens it's only Carmen and the guy pilot on the bridge at the time because of shifts. Carmen even mentions how much she dislikes what is essentially a night shift on an expected milk run. So when they suddenly find themselves confronted by an out of place gravity well/shadow they don't have much time to do anything except not get crushed like a drinks can.
Yeah but if my memory of the timeline is still right, they were already on full invasion of the bugs. Usually those events they needed those as the element to start the war, not just randomly to motivate.
While its certainly an idea, it has almost no evidence in its favor. None against it either mind you, but if we have to fill in huge gaps ourselves to make the "satire" work then its a failure of satire.
There is still the possibility that Paul Verhoeven intended it seriously with subtle critiques of liberalism, but saying so out loud would kill his socioeconomic status.
Too late, we need women exclusive military for the next 200 years. We also need women casualties to reflect the death/population ratio of men during the past 250 years. Social justice sucks when its against you sweetheart.
Get 12 guys from different walks of life and put them through the same shit. Most of them come out friends. Get 12 different women and you end up with 12 mortal enemies.
If you talk to drills, at lot of them will say they want female companies for the first half of training, but would much rather have male companies for the second half.
Basically, because women are more social, they come together as a team much faster than males, but as time goes on, petty conflicts, back stabbing, and other shit destroy their unit cohesion.
I used to work with a woman's athletic team. They hated when one woman was the leader or in the spotlight. As soon as one woman started getting attention the rest of them would just start talking over her. When one woman gained some social ground, the rest would make up bullshit or call her names just to bring her down. These were all grown women. Nothing was a bigger red pill than working with all women.
Shouldn't that be something that would get you thrown out of the military? I mean, if they keep wanting to push that it's her body and all, she should keep her body in a condition to stay at the job she's been assigned.
You get full support straight out of tax dollars for all the necessary care you need, and if you cannot fulfill your duties while raising a child (such as not having a father, or having another military father) you can easily get discharged which means you get out of most of the commitment.
Its more complicated than that, but the gist generally is she at least gets full military benefits without any of the costs for a huge chunk of time.
Wont chang anything unless being drafted requires sterilization. Otherwise 100% will be pregnant when it comes time to deploy or do any remotely challenging job.
Again, it's about picking and choosing which ones. Same as it more or less is for the men (as there is such a thing for exemptions for guys with very important jobs that pretty much only they can do. My grandfather was one of these, but was also a self-admitted coward who said he'd have made a shitty soldier anyway; he served better where he was, managing parts at Chrysler.) Of course, why the Group Ws get rejected is kind of beyond me, they seem like the ones you'd WANT to send away - you know, the mother killers, father rapers, and litterbugs.
If we are picking and choosing which ones based on logic and best fit we will send nearly no women to begin with. The very few women who make the cut (without lowering the standards massively just to bump up numbers like we do now) are not worth the cost they bring to unit cohesion, medical requirements, and HR related everything.
I'm not pro-draft for reasons you listed, but at least drafting men has some logical reason even if there is just as much logic against it. Drafting women is a meaningless gesture on top of the already meaningless gesture of letting women be "soldiers."
I'm not generally for the draft for women (I'm against selective service in the first place), but if I were a GOP senator I would totally call the Democrats' bluff and vote yes if they put that in as a poison pill. In a case like that, they literally asked for it.
I say do it. They're the ones who benefit from the rotten social hierarchy in this country, so they can fight to the death to defend it. I sure as shit wouldn't fight for a country that doesn't value me because of my race and sex.
Service Guarantees Citizenship
Women losing the rights of citizenship...interesting.
I've said it before.
At the time that Heinlein was writing, there was some plausibility to the idea that women might be slightly better pilots than men. You had people like Wally Funk and Hanna Reitsch. What we know now is that far from suggesting untapped potential, what they really were was two standard deviation exceptional examples, who had made it as far as they did because they were so much better than average that they rose to the top.
But they didn't know that at the time.
There hadn't been much effort to bother investigating the outer limits of performance in piloting between sexes prior to the Mercury Thirteen.
Heinlein dealt in speculative fiction. in 1959, it was plausible.
It was false, but it was plausible.
Again... the Mercury Thirteen experiment was a thing eight months before the book hit shelves.
The experiment was flawed, but it was still a thing that happened; it's reasonable to assume that Heinlein knew about it and was influenced by its (flawed) outcome.
Thanks for pointing this out, I was unaware of this.
Starship Troopers came out in December 1959.
In April 1959, some of the doctors who had worked with NASA to select the Mercury Seven ran an experiment. They selected a group of 25 women with over a thousand hours of flying experience, and put them through the same tests. Thirteen passed. This was done quietly (though it wasn't a secret project) but given Heinlein's background and connections it's very likely he'd heard of it and knew the results.
What we know now is that the pool of women who had a thousand hours of flying in 1959 was already going to be the best of the best, peak health and ability. Whereas the male candidates for Mercury were, as the movie said, "The best... that we can get."
Morgoth recently put out a review of the movie, which is obviously not the book, and he pointed out that it is the neocon vision of liberal utopia. It's as if the globalists homogenized the world into 90s American culture.
The movie is a satire of the book. The book is trying to present some interesting ideas on how citizenship should be tied to responsibility.
Sometimes I wonder if things would be better if voting was restricted to people who pay income tax.
The movie is an attempt of satire of the book.
There has to be actual ridicule of the ideas to be satire. Instead it shows a mostly working system where a couple of retarded moves are made (which exists in any system) but they still completely succeed in the end.
The movie gives no evidence of the "asteroid was a false flag, we are the invaders!" plot people love to claim. So it shows a couple of jingoistic cut ins and then just expects you to fill in the blanks with "THIS IS AMERICA/NAZIS ITS THE MOST TERRIFYING THING."
And on the flip side, its filled with dozens of heroic moments that every man craves to live up to and even while cutting the most badass parts of the book (like the power armor that has influenced nearly every sci-fi military since) still fails to make them look any worse than a generic military movie.
It's notable that the pilot chick dodges the asteroid and no one tries to raise the alarm. False flag is out, but intentionally allowing an attack to happen for propaganda is still valid. 1/6? 9/11? Pearl Harbor?
Because the asteroid sheers the comms tower off the ship as they avoid it. It's gimmicky as a plot device but it's still sensible why they don't warn anyone.
Edit: further to that, when this happens it's only Carmen and the guy pilot on the bridge at the time because of shifts. Carmen even mentions how much she dislikes what is essentially a night shift on an expected milk run. So when they suddenly find themselves confronted by an out of place gravity well/shadow they don't have much time to do anything except not get crushed like a drinks can.
Yeah but if my memory of the timeline is still right, they were already on full invasion of the bugs. Usually those events they needed those as the element to start the war, not just randomly to motivate.
While its certainly an idea, it has almost no evidence in its favor. None against it either mind you, but if we have to fill in huge gaps ourselves to make the "satire" work then its a failure of satire.
There is still the possibility that Paul Verhoeven intended it seriously with subtle critiques of liberalism, but saying so out loud would kill his socioeconomic status.
Too late, we need women exclusive military for the next 200 years. We also need women casualties to reflect the death/population ratio of men during the past 250 years. Social justice sucks when its against you sweetheart.
Good idea but they would murder each other in boot camp
So what you are saying is this plan has no downside
Get 12 guys from different walks of life and put them through the same shit. Most of them come out friends. Get 12 different women and you end up with 12 mortal enemies.
If you talk to drills, at lot of them will say they want female companies for the first half of training, but would much rather have male companies for the second half.
Basically, because women are more social, they come together as a team much faster than males, but as time goes on, petty conflicts, back stabbing, and other shit destroy their unit cohesion.
I used to work with a woman's athletic team. They hated when one woman was the leader or in the spotlight. As soon as one woman started getting attention the rest of them would just start talking over her. When one woman gained some social ground, the rest would make up bullshit or call her names just to bring her down. These were all grown women. Nothing was a bigger red pill than working with all women.
Groupsink/Crabs in a bucket
I'd wager they find some magical way to all end up pregnant and get out of duty.
You know, like military women already do constantly.
Shouldn't that be something that would get you thrown out of the military? I mean, if they keep wanting to push that it's her body and all, she should keep her body in a condition to stay at the job she's been assigned.
Ha, you funny.
You get full support straight out of tax dollars for all the necessary care you need, and if you cannot fulfill your duties while raising a child (such as not having a father, or having another military father) you can easily get discharged which means you get out of most of the commitment.
Its more complicated than that, but the gist generally is she at least gets full military benefits without any of the costs for a huge chunk of time.
Mechanisms like these that allow for broken families need to end, as this is doing more societal damage than good.
Like women owning property?
Are you talking about commercial or residential?
Wont chang anything unless being drafted requires sterilization. Otherwise 100% will be pregnant when it comes time to deploy or do any remotely challenging job.
Will solve the declining birthrate problem atleast.
Abortion is legal.
as soon as they abort , send them back to the battlefield. Then they wont abort
Yep that's literally what they do now.
If we are sending women to war, we are already demographically fucked.
Again, it's about picking and choosing which ones. Same as it more or less is for the men (as there is such a thing for exemptions for guys with very important jobs that pretty much only they can do. My grandfather was one of these, but was also a self-admitted coward who said he'd have made a shitty soldier anyway; he served better where he was, managing parts at Chrysler.) Of course, why the Group Ws get rejected is kind of beyond me, they seem like the ones you'd WANT to send away - you know, the mother killers, father rapers, and litterbugs.
If we are picking and choosing which ones based on logic and best fit we will send nearly no women to begin with. The very few women who make the cut (without lowering the standards massively just to bump up numbers like we do now) are not worth the cost they bring to unit cohesion, medical requirements, and HR related everything.
I'm not pro-draft for reasons you listed, but at least drafting men has some logical reason even if there is just as much logic against it. Drafting women is a meaningless gesture on top of the already meaningless gesture of letting women be "soldiers."
I think they might be doing away with that practice in some cases. You've heard about the new flight suits for the pregnant?
That's not so they can fly while pregnant. That's so they can wear glorified pajamas while doing nothing on the ground.
Oh, OK, I misunderstood then. Thanks for the correction!
Considering they've got pregnancy flight suits now that might not stop them from getting drafted. lmao
I'm not generally for the draft for women (I'm against selective service in the first place), but if I were a GOP senator I would totally call the Democrats' bluff and vote yes if they put that in as a poison pill. In a case like that, they literally asked for it.
That is a beautiful quote -
I say do it. They're the ones who benefit from the rotten social hierarchy in this country, so they can fight to the death to defend it. I sure as shit wouldn't fight for a country that doesn't value me because of my race and sex.
Draft feminists and trannies only, but dont give them any actual training.
Meatshields have their use.
Chickenshit bitch.