MGTOW on Women in Combat -Girls Are Weak (2015) – femuscleblog
There persists a tendency to view women as biological inferiors. Even though women have advanced in multiple fields, their competence is questioned. While most rational people understand that arguments of mental inferiority are false...

There persists a tendency to view women as biological inferiors. Even though women have advanced in multiple fields, their competence is questioned. While most rational people understand that arguments of mental inferiority are false , the notion of physical inferiority is accepted as fact. Others use it as a justification to exclude women from certain professions. Xpallodoc makes that argument that women should not be in combat roles because women are physically weak. The video produced on this MGTOW channel not only displays a sex bias, but factual inaccuracy. Produced in 2015, it was only two years after the women in combat ban was lifted in the United States. The objections that came from the more conservative minded was that women lacked strength. Basic knowledge of history, exercise science, physiology, and anatomy demonstrate that it is possible for women to meet physical standards. During the video. Xpallodoc debates with a woman about the topic. She was correct that a woman who trains can attain strength either equal to or more than a man that does not. This does not negate the impact of sexual dimorphism on physical fitness capacity.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Navy SEALs have there own set of physical fitness standards. A soldier must pass basic training before advancing to a military occupational specialty (MOS). MGTOW or men going their own way websites, forums, and Youtube channels have expanded. This group is online based and has grudges against women. These men believe feminism and female empowerment have gone too far. Although they object to having women being a part of their lives, they are fixated on women’s actions. A combination of female rejection, poor relationships, misogyny , and the fact that society has left a large portion of men behind may explain the rise of MGTOW. Channels like Xpallodoc try to make it seem as if they have no bias against women, presenting what are fabrications.

Depending on what exercise a woman does it is physiologically possible for her to gain strength. Cardiovascular or treadmill based exercise will not drastically increase muscle size. Lifting weights does cause changes in women’s muscular strength. Women’s bodies experience muscular hypertrophy from long term weightlifting exercise. The degree depends on somatotype, endocrinology, genetics, sex, and diet. Exercise, diet, and nutrition are the most controllable, while biological based factors are not. A woman would need to consume enough calories and have high exercise intensity to see the effects of exercise stimuli. Women have the same muscles and they are not different in terms cytology. Body composition is effected by sex hormones . Men’s higher free testosterone production means less fat and a higher level of protein synthesis. At the bottom of the video description it reads:

” Girls think that if they work out they can be stronger than men. Wrong realistically speaking most women will always be weaker than men even if they work out a lot and the man sits on his ass.”

Metabolic rates do differ among the sexes. At rest men have a higher basal metabolic rate. Women when they add muscle can burn more fat and increase the physical strength of their bodies. They have to train harder considering they start off with less muscle mass. Women’s bodies are not weak, even though this a common perception.

The female soldier most likely get more exercise than the average American citizen. It would not be surprising if the female soldier would have more strength than a sedentary male.
On average men are stronger than women, but that does not mean women cannot be stronger than a man. To the right is a man of very low muscle mass to left is a trained woman. It is not difficult to determine who is stronger.
Women’s bodies can respond to strength training exercise.

This depends on the men and women you are comparing. The average man has more natural strength than the average woman. What was stated previously is that a woman who weight trains can gain either an equal amount or surpass an untrained man . Height and weight also are factors. A person with a much larger skeletal frame will be able to house more muscle. If more of a person’s body weight is type II muscle fiber then they will be able to generate more force. Xpallodoc then says to the woman interviewed do you think you could be as strong as the former Marine standing by. This comparison Xpallodoc makes is a ludicrous one, because it is obvious the woman does not train vigorously. Comparing a woman who does not train to a man of the highest physical fitness is not a rational analogy. Both men and women with same training regimen still show a difference in physical fitness capacity, but this does not mean women are too weak to do combat jobs. If women can gain strength and muscle, that proves they can handle physically demanding occupations. Men who are weak or at a lower fitness level are still drafted and part of armies. The real question is how much strength do you need in a combat job ? That depends on the requirements or qualifications of the MOS.

The modern military is technologically based, but there are jobs that are physically demanding. This is why fitness and good health are important to a fighting force.
Men and women differ in total physical fitness capacity. This does not mean women are not suitable for combat jobs if they train the correct way for them.
The woman on the left does not train meaning the strength gap with the trained man is immensely vast. The woman on the right gained strength through exercise, but did not close the strength gap completely.
Soldiers do not need to be professional athletes to make a successful army. If a draft occurs the majority of the recruits may not be fit enough for service.

If women are to be successful in combat jobs this requires maintaining good fitness. Considerations must be made for women prior to entry. Women should thus begin strength training or resistance exercise prior to basic training. Doing so will ensure lower injury rates and more women in the US Military.

The truth related to recruitment or drafts is that all men are not suitable. There may also come a time when there are not enough men able to fill all positions. It would make no sense to reject a woman who is qualified for a man who is unqualified. There are men who are either too out of shape or too weak to meet physical standards. The United States has a problem with obesity or weight related health issues. That would mean that the majority of the population would either have to go on a weight management program before basic training. The total US population is 328 million. There are age limits for the US Military. The draft age range is 18 to 25. If a large portion of the population is not fit, this goes beyond the question of women’s competence in combat. The number of quality soldiers would be lower.

The military seems more comfortable with an all male force, even if it means having men who are not qualified. There has not been evidence to suggest that the presence of women create disruption or degrade fighting ability of the US Military. It will not a longtime to overcome sex prejudice in the US Military.

Xpallodoc makes the claim their is a conspiracy of affirmative action. The reason women are entering combat positions is that they are no longer banned from them. Unlike other occupations in the US, this was a case of blatant discrimination. Women prior to 2013, were not even permitted to apply. Before that the ban was only instituted in 1994. There is no “religion of equality.” The change reflected a known fact. Women were fighting in dying in Iraq and Afghanistan even though the ban had not been lifted. From a perspective of being practical there was no reason to keep the ban in place. What the point of being patriotic if the country does not let you fight for the country ? The US Military is a volunteer force, so disparaging women as a whole demonstrates a disrespect for the institution as a whole. Similar arguments were used against Executive Order 9981. This banned discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and religion. The US Military was desegregated and racists made the claim it would degrade American fighting capability. This did not happen. African Americans had fought in every war since the American Revolutionary War. Women’s struggle for access to jobs and promotion took longer. It was not until 1970 that women were allowed to be promoted to command roles in non-combat units.

Women’s addition to fighting forces will not cause military collapse. A series of aggressive wars will. Billions of dollars are taken in US tax payer money to fund what amounts to a neocolonial empire for the sake of business interests. Not supporting discrimination or women wanting employment in the armed services is not a “religion of equality.” Affirmative action would not be needed if people did not have hatreds or prejudices. The US Military really does not have a strong affirmative action program . That explains why it is taking so long for sex integration. Despite these obstacles eventually barriers will be removed.

The false claim made by detractors is that the standards will lower to let women enter these jobs. Five years later this has not happened. The standards were made in relation to the tasks soldiers would be doing on the battlefield. This was called a gender neutral standard, because men and women would no longer be subject to sex specific fitness standards. Women were given certain standards in which they had to do less push-ups, pull-ups, or substitute them for a modified exercise. The flexed arm hang was used for women as a substitute for pull-ups. The problem with Marines is that they had lower fitness standards for women. If men and women are doing the same job, then their qualifications and requirements should be the same.

There are instances in which physical fitness standards have been lowered for women. Some fire departments have done this and the FBI has a different set of fitness requirements for women. What may seem like a positive policy is actually detrimental. The first problem is that it could endanger people. The second issue means that men would have to work more, to compensate for women’s lack of ability. That would only breed more resentment among male colleagues at their female counterparts. The biggest insult is that women who are capable would also be seen as incompetent by the profession. The argument for lowering standards really lacks cogency. The US Military has not lowered its standards or decreased in quality.

Advocates who support women in combat have to accept certain realities. The numbers of men and women in the US Military may never be equal. The obvious reason is the difference in physical fitness capacity among the sexes. The women with the highest amount of physical fitness will be able to enter the most demanding occupation, but this will be more difficult for average women. The standards will not be lowered to reach a numerical target. Then another consideration is more men are in the US Military to start off with. That means the shift or increase in women fighters will be a very gradual change.

Since 1978, women’s roles in the US Military have rapidly expanded. It was only a matter of time before combat was going to open to them.
Women having leadership roles is just as important as being active as combat soldiers. If there as few female generals or commanders then more work needs to be done.
Training can be of high quality, but battlefield situations are unpredictable. The problem with the US is that it thinks it can invade and bully any country without repercussions.

Personal choice is also a factor. There just may not be enough women who want to enter combat jobs, even if they are open to them. This phenomenon can be seen with STEM related fields, when strength is not a factor. This is a fact that people who want to challenge the pay gap refuse to acknowledge. If women are going to be part of combat, then they should be required to register with the selective service. That demonstrates there is true equality considering men and women share the same responsibility. The questions of integration must be addressed .

Women fighting in war is nothing new. This has occurred throughout history during various time periods. The Mino warriors fought in Dahomey against the French . Scythians had women fighters. The onna bugeisha participated in combat in Japan during the 1800s. During the American Civil War women disguised themselves as men to fight. Women took up arms to fight against the establishment of a fascist regime during The Spanish Civil war. Russia mobilized women in the air force and used then as snipers during World War II. Eritrean women fought for independence from Ethiopia. Women the combat ban was lifted in 2013, many exaggerated its impact as being detrimental. Women fighting in combat roles will not cause a decline or collapse in the US Military. The only thing it will do over time will increase the number of soldiers. This is not a social experiment as some conservative outlets have described in a conspiratorial manner.

The Mino warriors
Women fighting during the Spanish Civil War
Women in combat is nothing new. What is a major change is that more women could be active in warfare in the future.

Women were already finding themselves in combat situations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This was the reality and so policy merely caught up. What will cause America’s decline is a permanent state of warfare. The national security state has made it so that the US spends more on defense than anything else. Meanwhile infrastructure, social services, and economic prosperity fall into a state of disrepair. A neo-colonial empire is being run for the sake of corporate profit. Russia and China are not substantial threats, rather the US has become its own worse enemy. The military industrial complex will be its undoing, not the addition of female combat soldiers.

The biggest concern could be in cases that involve hand to hand combat. While technology such as tanks, drones, air planes, submarines, and artillery make strength less important, there are instances a soldier can be disarmed. The creation of weapons became an equalizer for many people. Muscles become worthless with guns present. However, there can be cases in which a soldier can become disarmed. Then unarmed combat becomes the line of defense and survival. Hand to hand combat simply means fighting between two or more people at short range. Sometimes it is used interchangeably with unarmed combat which can mean the absence of guns, but the presence melee weapons . Close-quarters combat refers to fighting between two or more armies in a short range space. Without weapons, brute strength would favor men. Greater upper body strength and higher punching power give men a physical advantage. That means women will have to learn good technique as demonstrated by judo, karate, or the numerous martial arts.

Assuming women get the same training in hand to hand combat, it should be fine. The peril is that women have less physical strength, which can be useful in a fight. This can somewhat be negated by skill. The point of martial arts is to master a fighting technique that can defend oneself and fight an enemy. Women should be given the most effective hand to hand combat training to ensure their ability to confront an enemy without weapons.

When detractors argue that opposing view ever provides facts, this is an absolute falsehood. Looking at weightlifting records demonstrate women are not weaklings . Clearly, there is a strength gap shown in the data of whatever sample one chooses to use. The point is that it demonstrates important information. Women’s bodies can build strength, however this does not make physical fitness capacity equal between the sexes. Women should train prior to attempting basic training so that they can adapt to vigorous physical demands. Also, the best method of building strength is through lifting and a method of progressive overload. The issue sometimes is not women’s physical capability; its poorly fitting gear. Women’s bodies are structured different in relation to biacromial and bi-iliac width. Armor, which is essential to soldiers must fit correctly. For a longtime women were given armor designed for a male body, which made it harder to maneuver. Gradually, this problem is being corrected with the emphasis on reducing overloading soldiers’ supply loads.

This is what women can accomplish through training, diet, and nutrition.
There can be overlap in terms of performance. Although small, this demonstrates that all women are not the same.
Soldiers both male and female face musculoskeletal injuries from overloaded gear. There have been attempts to lighten supply loads.
This is an example of newly designed armor to fit the female form.

Reaching a certain physical fitness level is harder for women, but it can be done. The key is a correct approach. This may not change the difference in failure rates. The higher the intense physical activity, the more arduous it becomes for women. Knowing this information about training, requirements, and military operation one can come to a conclusion. Xpallodoc is wrong. First the assumption is that women do not respond to exercise stimuli. Exercise physiology shows that women can build strength. Then seeing women as all the same. On average men are stronger, but that does not mean there are not strong women who can meet certain standards. The claim that women are weak as been used to keep women from jobs in construction, firefighting, and law enforcement. Seeing as women are entering physically demanding occupations, the claim lacks validity. Female combat soldiers will not endanger the security of the United States. Large power competition and engaging in endless wars poses a much larger threat. The sudden hostility directed at China and Russia could escalate into massive conflict. The US continues to fund armed groups for the sake of regime change. Women’s entry into combat only means the American war machine will get more aggressive. Xpallodoc does not understand the military or the geopolitics surrounding it.

For many women, getting motivated to weight train is easier than ever; after all, there are a wide range of health- and physique-related reasons to pick up the iron. Unfortunately, as women, we just don’t have the level of anabolic hormones in our body that men do, so building bourrinage is, and probably always will be, more challenging. This does not mean, however, that it’s ! It’s just going to take a strategic approach.

Here to share some of their best tried-and-true muscle-building tips are the fit beauties from NLA. Listen, learn, and grow !

The ' eat no more than absolutely necessary ' approach won’t suffice if you want to add bourrinage. In fact, figure pro and NLA-sponsored athlete Jessie Hilgenberg says eating enough is one of her top priorities, which is one reason why she leapt at the opportunity to show us what’s in her fridge.

' It’s all about eating to mazout your groupes de muscles, ' she says. ' A lot of us can’t get over that hurdle of gaining force, because we simply aren’t eating enough to support and maintain growth. '

She likes using the IIFYM ( if it fits your macros ) approach, as it allows her to figure out the best formula that fits her body. ' It breaks it down into how much protein, carbs, and fat you should be eating for your activity level, ' Hilgenberg explains, ' and often, it’s more than you think ! '

There’s nothing wrong with full-body workouts. Many women are able to build appreciable muscle by training every major force group a few times a week, especially when they first start. But if your total-body approach isn’t taking or has plateaued, it might be time to try a body-part split.

This is what finally worked for NLA athlete and bikini competitor Theresa Miller, which is why she advises hitting each main bourrinage group alone for maximum intensity. ' It’s important to come up with a good weekly training schedule that best suits you and your body type and goals, ' she says. ' I like to devote specific days to focus on certain bourrinage groups such as shoulders, back, and legs. '

There are many ways you can organize your split. For example :

2-4 workouts a week : Push/pull ( squats and pressing motions one day, pulling motions the next ) 2-4 workouts a week : Upper body; lower body3 workouts a week : Legs; push; pull4 workouts a week : Chest and triceps; back and biceps; legs; shoulders and abs

Here’s the catch : These workouts should still be hard ! Embrace the challenge, and find out what #legday is all about. It could be just the thing to take your results to the next level.

When you increase calories and protein, it can be tempting to up your cardio as well. After all, you don’t want to gain the wrong type of weight, right ? Jessie Hilgenberg says that mental trap might be just the thing that’s holding you back. ' You don’t need to spend hours doing cardio—especially when you’re looking to add force, ' she says.

It can help to think of it this way : Every calorie you burn on the treadmill is one that your body won’t use to build muscle. If you’re looking for a challenge to replace all that cardio, Hilgenberg advises hopping into the squat rack and pushing new limits rather than continuing to submit to your old ones.

For NLA athlete and bikini pro Amy Updike, results came when she started really adding weight to the bar. ' I try to lift the heaviest weight I can while still maintaining proper form and reaching the range of 8-12 reps per set, ' she explains. ' Heavier weight for me means the bourrinage has to grow in order to lift it. '

Don’t expect to get a lot stronger overnight, though. Slowly add weight to the bar, giving your body a chance to rise to the challenge. While you may not add weight to every lift in each workout you do, you should see a gradual upward trend. If it’s been six months and you are still using the same weights, consider this a clear sign that you need a change of approach.

When you’re doing endless reps with tiny light weights, you can get away with sloppy form. That changes once you commit to lifting heavier. Form needs to become a top priority !

' Don’t get sloppy, ' advises Miller. ' Always do slow, controlled movements when hitting each rep. This will help you feel the movement and the burn in the right places.

One great thing about that 8-12 rep range is that it is low enough to help you gain some strength, but high enough that you’ll feel that essentiel mind-muscle connection—the feeling that helps you ensure you’re working the right force fibers and getting the most from each exercise you do.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *