The Death of Annie Dryden

Link. It's long, but the pertinent bits that I'm going to comment on are here:

In a phone conversation with a female NCIS investigator, he learned that on the day before Annie died, she had been spending downtime with other Marines and a group of U.S. Navy sailors when one sailor snarled, "Marines ain't shit" at them.

Enraged, Annie rushed the sailor. "I'm going to show you what a Marine is!" she shouted, and proceeded to knock the much larger rival to the ground.

According to the investigator's account, the sailor then jumped back to his feet, grabbed Annie, and body-slammed her. Her head whip-lashed onto concrete.

The scuffle was broken up by witnesses, and Annie retreated without seeking medical attention. But within a few hours, she complained to commanding officers and fellow Marines of a headache. The next day, she was dead.

As this incident indicates, no, women aren't as capable as men. Pound-for-pound, women are weaker than men. They have a higher percentage of body fat. They are slower and shorter, and they less stamina.

While I'm sure a feminist is going to tell me that it doesn't matter because women have to meet the same standards as men: no, they don't. The requirements, as of 2008, are vastly different, and I doubt they've changed much in the past three years.

The death of Annie Dryden is the end result of women who buy into the G.I. Jane line: you're strong, empowered, and you can kick any man's ass. Unless, of course, that man knocks you flat on your ass and you die the next day.

The article also goes on to mention the high incident rates of sexual assault/rape in the military. Though that is not the fault of women, it reinforces my belief that the military is not a place for women. When it comes down to it, I have to ask myself: should women die for their country? No, they shouldn't. A man protects his home and his wife; he must sacrifice for her, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Now, hopefully, this isn't considered too hateful or misleading of a thread title, but this is precisely why women don't belong in the armed forces. What seems like ages ago, I considered myself a feminist, believing the inherent equality between men and women. "Of course women should be able to serve in the armed forces," I told myself. "They're just as capable as men."

As this incident indicates, no, women aren't as capable as men. Pound-for-pound, women are weaker than men. They have a higher percentage of body fat. They are slower and shorter, and they less stamina.

While I'm sure a feminist is going to tell me that it doesn't matter because women have to meet the same standards as men: no, they don't. The requirements, as of 2008, are vastly different, and I doubt they've changed much in the past three years.

The death of Annie Dryden is the end result of women who buy into the G.I. Jane line: you're strong, empowered, and you can kick any man's ass. Unless, of course, that man knocks you flat on your ass and you die the next day.

The article also goes on to mention the high incident rates of sexual assault/rape in the military. Though that is not the fault of women, it reinforces my belief that the military is not a place for women. When it comes down to it, I have to ask myself: should women die for their country? No, they shouldn't. A man protects his home and his wife; he must sacrifice for her, not the other way around.

For years, I've had a similar beef everytime I see a woman in the movies or TV knock a man down with one sock to the jaw, (groin shots seem rare these days, as if the woman "doesn't have to do that" anymore). Even for your average joe, it's not that easy. Everytime I see a woman doing it, I say to my wife, if your average jane thinks that's realistic, she's in for a rude awakening.

This was quickly typed, so there may be some fine points that could've been better explained. Essentially: women do have their place in the arenas of combat, just not every single place where the man is.

I argee!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
While I'm sure a feminist is going to tell me that it doesn't matter because women have to meet the same standards as men: no, they don't. The requirements, as of 2008, are vastly different, and I doubt they've changed much in the past three years.

This is literally the only problem with women in the armed forces and it has nothing to do with women. If you let in underqualified men they'll be underqualified, too.

In any event using this death as an example of how women are "weak" is wonderful proof that you know nothing at all about physiology or fighting. About what I would expected from you really.

Originally posted by Mindship
For years, I've had a similar beef everytime I see a woman in the movies or TV knock a man down with one sock to the jaw, (groin shots seem rare these days, as if the woman "doesn't have to do that" anymore). Even for your average joe, it's not that easy. Everytime I see a woman doing it, I say to my wife, if your average jane thinks that's realistic, she's in for a rude awakening.

If you really think most men are going to be fine after getting punched in the face by an adult who doesn't have muscular dystrophy or a serious video game addiction you're in for a rude awakening in the first time you get punched in the face.

Also, wow, your wife must have quite the tolerance for condescending bullshit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really think most men are going to be fine after getting punched in the face by an adult who doesn't have muscular dystrophy or a serious video game addiction you're in for a rude awakening in the first time you get punched in the face.

Also, wow, your wife must have quite the tolerance for condescending bullshit.

Originally posted by Mindship
Not punched in the face (it doesn't take much to damage a nose); I said punched (socked) in the jaw, ie, knuckle against bone. Unless your hand is used to hitting something hard, your hand is gonna hurt, at best. And given that the average woman's hand is smaller/finer-boned than the average man's, it's not realistic to portray a woman walking up to a man, punching him square in the jaw and then walk away all la-de-da. As I also said, even for a man to do this to another man is not an injury-free feat (again, untrained participants).

When you watch a movie where a man punches a someone in the face do you go seek out male friends/relative and explain how they'll get hurt if they punch someone in the jaw or do you assume only your wife is so stupid she can't tell fiction from reality?

These are action movies. People punch through concrete walls during fights and get nothing but bloody knuckles. None of the stars, men or women, are ever being protrayed in a remotely realistic way.

Talking about how the "average" person would fare is insane. Only talking about how the average woman would fare is insane and condescending.

Or lets put it in a different context. Batman's car in the Nolan movies is basically a tank. The average real car is nothing like a tank, it cannot survive having a truck fall on it. Is it "unrealistic" for Batman's car to act like a tank? No, because in the movie its armored and has some kind of super engine inside.

Similarly a woman in a movie may be a MMA fighter. The average real world woman is not a MMA fighter. Is it "unrealistic" for the female MMA fighter in the movie to act like she's incredibly strong and trained in fighting? No. Are you an ******* to tell you wife different every time you see a movie? Absolutely.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is literally the only problem with women in the armed forces and it has nothing to do with women. If you let in underqualified men they'll be underqualified, too.

In any event using this death as an example of how women are "weak" is wonderful proof that you know nothing at all about physiology or fighting. About what I would expected from you really.

If you really think most men are going to be fine after getting punched in the face by an adult who doesn't have muscular dystrophy or a serious video game addiction you're in for a rude awakening in the first time you get punched in the face.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When you watch a movie where a man punches a someone in the face do you go seek out male friends/relative and explain how they'll get hurt if they punch someone in the jaw or do you assume only your wife is so stupid she can't tell fiction from reality?

These are action movies. People punch through concrete walls during fights and get nothing but bloody knuckles. None of the stars, men or women, are ever being protrayed in a remotely realistic way.

Talking about how the "average" person would fare is insane. Only talking about how the average woman would fare is insane and condescending.

Or lets put it in a different context. Batman's car in the Nolan movies is basically a tank. The average real car is nothing like a tank, it cannot survive having a truck fall on it. Is it "unrealistic" for Batman's car to act like a tank? No, because in the movie its armored and has some kind of super engine inside.

Similarly a woman in a movie may be a MMA fighter. The average real world woman is not a MMA fighter. Is it "unrealistic" for the female MMA fighter in the movie to act like she's incredibly strong and trained in fighting? No. Are you an ******* to tell you wife different every time you see a movie? Absolutely.

My point was, very simply, that (all else being equal) if a woman thinks she can take on a man as well as another man can, she's kidding herself.

Originally posted by Mindship
My point was, very simply, that (all else being equal) if a woman thinks she can take on a man as well as another man can, she's kidding herself.

And my point is: that's a stupid thing to believe.

If you have a man and a woman and the only thing that differs is sex (ie "all else being equal) then by definition they're both exactly as strong and skilled. Only morons think the man has an advantage.

If two people get into a fight knowing who's a woman and who's a man is only useful information if you know absolutely nothing else. A woman who is stronger and more skilled than the man she's up against will win exactly like a man who is stronger and more skill than his opponent.

Obviously men are likely to be stronger but if they're not being a man doesn't give them any magic powers.

I'll put this in simple explicit terms to help you: Generalities tell you nothing about individuals. The average roll on two dice is seven but when you go around insisting that every roll comes up as seven people are right to treat you like a moron.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Women have about two-thirds the strength of men. Deal with it.

Then you should have no difficulty outlifting a female Olympian given that she's only two-thirds your strength . . .

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What's hilarious is that this is exactly what happened in the article. Dryden tried to play with the big boys and knocked some Navy guy on his ass. He got up, dusted himself off, and returned the favor. Twenty-four hours later, she was dead.

He got knocked on his ass.
She got her head smashed against concrete.

Also how many closed head injuries have you taken that you think being knocked on your as is "exactly the same" as being punched in the face?

Then you should have no difficulty outlifting a female Olympian given that she's only two-thirds your strength . . .

She got her head smashed against concrete.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you have a man and a woman and the only thing that differs is sex (ie "all else being equal) then by definition they're both exactly as strong and skilled.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A woman who is stronger and more skilled than the man she's up against will win exactly like a man who is stronger and more skill than his opponent.

Obviously men are likely to be stronger...

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Are you retarded that you would compare an edge case to the general female population?

When were we talking about the general population of women? Talking about the "general female population" gives you no useful information about particular women. And since just about everything that happens involves particular people not massive groups it's pretty irrelevant.

No one is suggesting we put all of Americas women in the armed forces only that if a woman is qualified she should be able to (though I agree the lowered standards for women in various professions is harmful and a result of short idiotic advocacy by women's rights groups). The fact that most women don't qualify is a moronic argument to make when most men don't qualify either.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes, you are, because you're a liberal, and you're incapable of generalizing even a little bit unless you're talking about Republicans/white Christians.

I'm not really a liberal (very pro-gun, for instance) I'm just viciously opposed to the shit-stain that is American Libertarianism (I advocate rounding them up into camps and torturing them to death, infants who might have been infected will simply have their heads crushed). You seem to be its greatest success.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really think most men are going to be fine after getting punched in the face by an adult who doesn't have muscular dystrophy or a serious video game addiction you're in for a rude awakening in the first time you get punched in the face.

Also, wow, your wife must have quite the tolerance for condescending bullshit.

Well, I can present a nice anecdote for you: a "bar trick" (never took place in a bar or involved alcohol) I used to do was let people punch me in the face for a fee. I have never been knocked out and it was hilarious to see people try. And Mindship is also right about the damage done to the hands throwing the punches: one dude busted his knuckles open on my temple.

But the girls could not punch worth a sh*t. I don't recommend you try it but you would be hard pressed to find a female capable of knocking you out with one punch to the face.

What Mindship says is correct: even for the average male, it can be difficult to knock out another person (depends on the glassiness of their jaw). It is not realistic to show Angelina Jolie*, with her almost anorexic form, taking on full grown, ex-Russian special forces, males in groups and knocking them out with simple punches. She just doesn't have the muscle to pull that off. This is what Mindship was referring to. And, no, the average person believes lots of stupid sh*t including that skinny women can punch hard enough to knock out a highly trained soldier. However, telling his wife just once is probably enough. 😄

*Salt

More on topic.....

This is why I like my local fire department: they require the same performance from both males and females. If you can't climb up the ladder with a full hose load on your shoulders in the required time, you fail. The test is blind to your gender. And he two gals that passed that test (and work for the Fire Department) put most American males to shame in both strength and endurance. 🙂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then you should have no difficulty outlifting a female Olympian given that she's only two-thirds your strength . .

You're correct...but for most of them, not all. 🙂

What now? estahuh

Ah, the sorry state of the male progressive: ever justifying his policies, ever contorting reality to fit his egalitarian ideas.

You seem to be its greatest success.

YouTube video

The ability to survive a TBI without medical treatment has nothing to do with gender.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Libertarianism is a cancer, an ideology devoted to feckless capitalism and raw consumerism, an ideology devoid of loyalty to anything but material wealth. It is no wonder that the maiden of this shameful path was a Jewess. It just so happens that I find libertarians marginally more tolerable than neoconservatives and neo-Marxists.

I see absolutely no difference between your ideology and Libertarianism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What Mindship says is correct: even for the average male, it can be difficult to knock out another person (depends on the glassiness of their jaw).

Which is why I asked if he sought out male friends to inform them of this fact. Otherwise it just seems like he things his wife is stupid, which would be rather condescending.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is not realistic to show Angelina Jolie*, with her almost anorexic form, taking on full grown, ex-Russian special forces, males in groups and knocking them out with simple punches.

Was anything in Salt realistic? The reviews I heard suggested that Jolie and Depp weren't portraying humans.*

I completely fail to understand this sudden obsession with how women perform in action movies.

It is not realistic to show Jason Statham get hit in the skull by a lead pipe wielded by a eight foot tall man and just walk it off, but I don't see that creating an uproar anywhere. Action movies make only the barest of allusions toward reality in the first place. To focus on how well women are following the laws of physics is, as I have said repeatedly, really really stupid.

*Badum-tish

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is why I like my local fire department: they require the same performance from both males and females. If you can't climb up the ladder with a full hose load on your shoulders in the required time, you fail. The test is blind to your gender. And he two gals that passed that test (and work for the Fire Department) put most American males to shame in both strength and endurance. 🙂

Yeah, that's the perfect system for firefighters/cops/soldiers. Its a shame we don't have similarly objective tests we can use for most professions.

I see absolutely no difference between your ideology and Libertarianism.

I think the point is that women, by default, are weaker than men. Women would have to go out of there way preparation wise to beat an average man, where as a man with no special training will beat a woman with no special training just by being a man. This isn't sexist, it's just how it is.

So if you are betting on a fight, and all you know about the fighters are that one is a man and one is a woman, the simple fact is that it's safer to bet on the man.

I don't think this simple fact should keep them out of the armed forces. But like the fireman example presented by dadudemon, I think they should have to be at least as physically adept as the men.