Skip to comments.Addressing Women In Combat Tokenism
Posted on 04/23/2011 4:12:11 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
In Australia, a debate is raging. Should women fight alongside manly men on the frontlines?
The left-leaning APP reports: Prime Minister Julia Gillard has voiced strong support for women taking on military combat roles to allow them to fight and if necessary die for their country.
As well, the APP uncritically reports: Australia lagged behind Canada and perhaps New Zealand.
But thats a Labor talking point not a fact. Who fears Canada? Who fears New Zealand? In military terms, these allegedly progressive countries cant even defend themselves.
Also, in recent token-related history the Air Force Times (U.S.) reports: Air Force women made history two weeks ago when they flew the first all-female combat sortie in Afghanistan.
Still: Some airmen cried foul, calling it a stunt by the Air Force to flaunt its progressiveness during Womens History Month. Others praised the milestone, pointing out the service has had female fighter pilots for nearly 20 years.
Lets just say they were helped along.
Late last year too, the Guardian, UK, reported that mixed-gender teams in close combat roles carry far reaching and grave consequences. After the history-making Ministry of Defence review: Officials made clear that the concern was male soldiers paying more perhaps too much attention to a wounded female soldier than others at a risk to his own life.
Moreover, the hard science of biology has been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Queerly, every single study which shows a clear difference of 20% to 40% in stamina, carrying of loads, oxygen consumption and other parameters which are necessary for prolonged warfare has disappeared or been made to disappear from public view noted Dr. Gabi Avital.
(Excerpt) Read more at weekendlibertarian.blogspot.com ...
Wait until we have to fight a REAL war. Think Tobruk, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Okinawa.
When the PC unreality filter falls away, it will be quite a shock.
Tokenism is definitely a good term for it. Whenever a female in the military gets into a leadership position, she’s never gracious about the privilege. We have to hear the usual litany of crap about breaking barriers, representing all women, and “she can do the job just as good as any dude there”. Total crap, 99.999% of them wouldn’t be there without lower standards, being tutored every step of the way, and their commander being ordered outright to appoint x-number of women to high-profile positions.
Yup, can’t have intelligent debate or facts, it’s all about making the Pat Schroeder-types happy or they’ll stop funding the military altogether. They could give a fat crap about defending the country or freedom, it’s just a square to be filled on a resume to them.
Result - we lose...
Until they roll out the armored battlesuits, ala Ironman, this is still going to be an issue.
Troop Morale is important. If two of your squad are wounded and one is a woman, screaming with her internal organs hanging out, and one is the gay soldier with the park bathroom lifestyle, and probably infected with HIV, how do you think a soldiers morale is going to to hold up?
Folks, you want to demoralize a populace sending their children to war, and invite atrocity? Make it a point to capture a female soldier and commit all types of unspeakable acts on her on the Internet. These Muslim Fundamentalists relish the thought of that...
Result - we lose...
Women in front-line combat, and on submarines and carriers, along with adding a joker by recognizing homosexuals as some new classification (rescinding DADT), is deliberate sabotage of our military.
I'm a woman, and I would like to grab by the ear and lead out of the room every female who thinks she can or that she should stand with men in combat unless she's damned well invited.
Don't get me wrong, women make good warriors, but their battlefields lie elsewhere. In Western-style vanity, women now want to insult the dignity and value of their champions and material protectors (ladies, just who do you think protects us, the ONLY ONES who protect us from such barbarity as is visited upon women in Islamic and other primitive societies? Who enforces the "civilized" code Western culture has always extended toward women? I'll tell you: MEN, and ONLY men). Women wanting to force their fantasy of standing beside them in material battle is pure vanity.
Enabling it is deliberate sabotage of our military.
Julia Gillard? enuf said... WFE.
They don't need to.
Due to geography, the USA will never allow any other country to invade Canada, and Canada has no possibility of building a military that could defend it against an attack from the USA. So what possible real purpose does a Canadian military serve?
NZ is an island nation, in case people haven't noticed. Any country that wished to attack it would have to traverse many thousands of miles of ocean. Besides the obvious logistical issues involving sufficient transport, for such an attack to succeed it has to assume no naval force would interfere. Since the US Navy has utter control of almost all of the world's seaways, and would not allow another country to attack NZ, what is the practical reason for NZ to invest a lot of money in their military?
These arguments may well become invalid if the USA collapses, but at present I think they're fully valid.
I agree. NZ & Canada like to sponge of Americas historically male-dominated military. But that cant last forever. Theyll have to pull their weight especially with budget cuts.
Right during real wars PC goes out the window and everyone turns to the real men.
Yeah that Patricia Nell Scott Schroeder sounds like a real Nell. She seems to have it in for men big time. I bet her daddy didnt buy her a pony for her twelfth birthday and the patriarchy has paid ever since.
Good point - Im over self-praising feminists patting themselves on the back when they could be baking cakes for men.Chocolate is more digestible.
Moreover, the hard science of biology has been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
But Obambi loves Julia Gillard she must be good! Are you calling her stoopid?
The ones who survive, or are not captured. Think Singapore, Bataan etc.
NZ could be taken by a single Chinese Ro-Ro ship in a Trojan Horse invasion.
Historical illiterates think the only methods of invasion are D-day landings, or immivasion.
Read up on how the Nazis invaded Norway, with soldiers pouring out of innocent cargo ships at midnight.
You think China, with 70 million “extra” men, is as incapable of studying history as you? Or do you think they don’t have the ship capacity to do a “breakout” of these types of stealth invasions, at the same time?
I’ve seen claims such a ship could transport 6000 troops and their equipment. Not sure if that’s true or not. Let’s assume it is.
The Germans made no attempt to invade and conquer Norway from their cargo Trojan Horse ships. These were used only to take vital points using the element of surprise to help clear the way for the real invasion coming on board naval ships. Much the same way as paratroops were used.
Let’s compare Norway and NZ, shall we?
Distances: Germany to Norway - perhaps 450 miles, route largely protected against enemy ships. China to NZ: perhaps 6000 miles, 15x the distance, mostly open ocean totally open to interception by enemy subs, surface ships, planes, missiles.
Invasion force: Norway - about 25,000 initially, quickly reinforced in quantity. According to you, 6000 would suffice for NZ.
Area to be conquered: Norway - 320k sq. kilometers, NZ 270k. NZ has much more actually usable land as compared to the mountains of Norway.
Population: roughly the same, 4M something.
Garrison to maintain conquest: Germany held Norway with about 300,000 troops.
So, presumably China would invade and conquer NZ, then be able to occupy and control is successfully with 1 soldier per 4 or 5 square kilometers. How’s that likely to work? How do they maintain even such a minimal force with supplies and reinforcements? Why would China want to invaded NZ?
Could China launch such an attack? Probably. Doesn’t mean it would work, though.
These were used “only” to take vital points using the element of surprise to help clear the way for the real invasion coming on board naval ships. Much the same way as paratroops were used.
Oh, that’s all??
Thanks for making my point.
Which is it? One ship or hundreds?
One ro-ro ship could carry enough APCs to take and hold North Island while follow on ships full of occupational troops arrived.
China has 70 million “extra” males and they wouldn’t care if 90% of their one-time troops ships were sunk en route to the Philippines, Borneo, New Zealand etc etc.
I hereby grant you the right to believe what you will.
And I will do the same.
Fair point and I noticed the Red Chinese are still in Tibet.