Skip to comments.Should women be serving on the front lines in combat?
Posted on 04/02/2014 4:07:39 PM PDT by TheProducer
The Freedom Report podcast today takes on the issue of female marine officer candidates who can't pass the physical requirements to serve in combat roles. Although 3 enlisted female marines have reportedly passed the less rigorous infantry training course, no women have been able to make it through the stricter infantry officer course.
In a piece for the Washington Post, Second Lt. Sage Santangelo argues that the reason that female officers are not passing the test is because they are not being trained to the same standards as men. She believes that women are more than capable of doing the pullups required if the initial training programs were made to suit their biological difference in upper body strength. Santangelo claims to be able to do 16 pullups.
Female warriors have a long and fierce history in combat throughout history. One woman by the name of Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester won the Silver Star by leading a counterattack that killed 27 insurgents, three of them with her own rifle. And in the Israeli military in 2007, one woman saved the life of a fellow soldier by crafting a tourniquet out of her bra.
So should women be serving in combat? And should we be holding men and women to different standards?
All that and more on the Freedom Report podcast!
(Excerpt) Read more at thelibertarianrepublic.com ...
Absolutely. Sometimes you get what you ask for.
Sorry, I respectfully disagree. I'm not for sacrificing any of our sons for a social experiment.
Well, if that isn't the best justification I've ever heard for women in front-line combat positions, I don't know what is. That certainly overcomes all of my objections.
So should women be serving in combat?
Well its a good idea, maybe, on paper...butI think they would have a hard time carrying those trays with beer and sandwiches...
yeah women and children front and center, what an effing travesty, that is depraved
no. next question.
Moot point because they’re going there anyway. Might as well since we’re already in the midst of collapse.
my first impulse was to say NO!....but as I thought about the issue, I realized that if women are foregoing motherhood then women are just another human person, and they bleed like men.....
Damned straight they should be serving.
Serve me a beer. Get me a couple hamburgers.
Hey, massage my back and calves.
Considering that armed conflict was one of mankind’s earliest creations and has been practiced continuously by all cultures for millenia, and considering that it is the one endeavor where it is literally a case of victory or death, I would say the fact that armed combat is historically the exclusive province of men pretty much settles the issue. If women were effective in combat they would already be doing it and we wouldn’t be asking this stupid question.
Welcome to FR?
No. And while we’re at it any job like fireman or fireman where the physical requirements were ‘dumbed down’. In all cases if they can perform the original physical requirements I’m good with them be alowed to work those jobs.
They do not bleed like men
They do bleed though....
They can stop lead just the same.
Only if it is a matter of survival. Otherwise, it is the sign of degenerate, spent culture and polity that deserves to die.
The question we should be asking:
How would we feel if a hostile nation's military announced that it was now embracing the "fair" concept of including women "soldiers" in front-line battle, not to mention the maritime equivalent of making it a point to have women serving alongside men in their nation's submarines and navy ships?
Would we worry because that enemy was all the sundden a stronger opponent?
Or would be be celebrating at the prospect of only having to face a weakened force?
THAT is the only question we should be asking, because as sure as water is wet, "democratically" weaving girls/women into the human-natural all-male defense fabric, is military sabotage, intended or unintended.
I want GIRLS to REGISTER for the DRAFT at 18....just like the GUYS have to do!!! EQUALITY BABY!!!
All female companies
All homo companies
All straight white companies
All straight black companies
and the list goes on ad infinatum.
This social experiment with the armed forces has rendered them nearly impotent in their ability and motivation to defend this country and to win wars.
God help us all.
Welllllll lets have them start by defending a ship at say USS Mahan late Monday night at a Naval Station...say at night in Norfolk harbor and see how well they do. Give them a sidearm and have them stand post. If they can master weapon retention and closed quarter combat....
oh that’s right, she got disarmed and a MAN got killed defending her. Maybe have two women man the post with sidearms.....maybe three?
How can you tell its a woman anymore? May be transgender? Anyway if Gay guys can be there why not girls, and gay girls too.
Heck anyone that wants to fight for ObamaLand... be my guest.
Are women as physically strong as men? No.
Therefore they have no business being in combat.
My late father was in the Battle of the Bulge. He wasn’t injured(or worse), thank God, but if he had been, I would have hated to imagine him depending on some weak girl to carry him to relative safety.
In no uncertain terms: NO! NO WAY! NEVER!
simple answer is NO
Disparity of strength is not the primary issue, though it is a very important one.
The bigger problems are “distraction” and unit cohesiveness.
While most men are physically stronger than most women, men do come in a range of sizes & strengths. While at field radio operators school we learned that some of the radios we would be carrying weighed up to 96 lbs for the complete kit.
Looking around the classroom, I noticed that nearly everyone was my size, 5’ 8”, 155 lbs. I asked the instructor, “Hey, why don’t you get somebody BIG to carry these things?”
His reply? “Oh, you’re a smaller target!”
Strength disparities, distractions and unit cohesiveness are all major issues.
The biggest issue is the destruction of our society when we stoop so low as to send our wives, mothers & sisters into combat before we start running out of men.
On 20 November 1943, during the horrific fighting on Betio atoll during the battle of Tarawa, two Japanese tanks mounted a counterattack against the fragile Marine toehold on Red Beach 3. The Marines were huddled there at the base of a seawall in the face of withering fire from Admiral Keiji Shibasakis fanatical Japanese Naval Landing Force defenders who were slaughtering hundreds of their 2nd Marine Division comrades in Betio Lagoon during 76 hours of some of the most savage fighting in the history not only of the Marines, but the US armed forces.
Marine anti-tank gun crews were trying to figure out how to get their 912 lb 37MM M3 antitank guns over the 7 foot plus seawall. The battery commander ordered his 5 man crews to LIFT them over. Being Marines who always obeyed even seemingly impossible orders, they did EXACTLY that and promptly knocked out the tanks. They then engaged several enemy bunkers whose dual purpose guns were repeatedly knocking out the approaching landing craft and put them out of action. Finally they routed a local counter attack of 200 or so Japanese against the south shore of Red Beach 3 with canister shot, all of this at a critical and precarious point in the landing.
Whats that about upper body strength being not as important
in modern warfare anymore and that women are just as likely to be able to do the job of combat infantry?
I mean no disrespect to the female perssonnel of the US Armed Forces who have served and ARE serving their nation honorably and well. I respect them as fellow vets and comrades in arms. Policy decisions are above their level for the most part.
But as a matter of POLICY, I think that women should be excluded from the armed forces for the most part, with a few exceptions and COMPLETELY from combat and most combat support roles, particularly when the armed forces are a small percentage of the total population, as is the case now. The use of significant numbers of women should be reserved for large scale mobilization as was the case in WWII. The population base is more than twice as large now as then and there would be no problem securing a sufficient number of qualified men with appropriate incentives for such a relatively small armed forces.
The advantages for the armed forces, particularly the Army would be greater flexibility as to how personnel can be deployed in combat emergencies and other contingincies and a lesser logistical strain as involves clothing, barracks and housing, and innumerable other considerations that are exclusive to the maintenence of large numbers of women. I think morale and discipline would also be improved as well.
The courts have repeatedly ruled that the armed forces are exempted from many of the equal opportunity requirements of the civillian world, and for the very good and sufficient requirements that are unique to the armed forces. This contretemps is being propelled largely by the cultural marxist wing of gender equity feminism who wish for the placement of a leftist Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The resultant detriment of the ability of the armed forces to fight plays no consideration in their calculus, other than as an peripheral side benefit.
Screw all the hyperbole. What is Thelibertarian and why isnt the full article posted here?
Sure - since they are so capable and excellent soldiers, make a whole unit of women, and send them to a FOB in the Korengal Valley.
Amen, Brother FReeper.
Well, it seems like she’s safer in combat than she is hanging around Ft. Hood.
And I’ve come to the conclusion that women should be denied the vote!
I truly appreciate the cultural aspects of your argument as they have much import for the continuation of civillization and deserve all due consideration. But as a combat veteran my primary consideration in this matter is the enhancement of the armed forces to fight any enemies. Were someone to show me that this idiotic policy were to do so, than I would reluctantly yield to it. I KNOW that it does not from my first hand observation during my time in the National Guard.
I know that women have played a vital role during guerrilla, partisan warfare and sabatoge/espionage activity. But to deliberately employ them in ground combat units whose primary task is to close with, engage and destroy similar enemy units is the height of lunacy and madness given the effort required to identify the relative few who could qualify even if we ignore the potential detriments to morale and discipline.
This is sheer and utter madness akin to allowing open homosexuals to serve in the armed forces.
Should they? Of course not. Will they? Absolutely. Political correctness is far more important in today’s military than is military effectiveness.
Good i want a ham and swiss on rey bish
TheProducer is a blog troll, who’s sole contribution to FR is to have posted two of his blog links, with zero posts or comments.
70 years ago nearly 10% of the population of this country (mostly men) was in uniform. We were "scraping the bottom of the barrel", accepting men with bad eyes, bad ears, bad feet, and other conditions that were disqualifying a couple of years earlier.
Even in those conditions, we didn't send women to fight.
Any society that sends its women to fight before it sends the non-shaving boys and the cane-borne old men deserves to be destroyed.
...and then you get to the ability test to do real damage control...
The difference being that the Cuomo and Romney boys don’t want to serve, nor do the Sununu kids. Where did Rand Paul serve? Cruz? Ryan? One thing that can be said for McCain/Palin, is that they both brought up young MEN who were not afraid to go into front line units. None of this JAG nonsense so popular now with the Pataki/George P. Bush/Biden/Laxalt.
I think there are probably as many women capable of fighting as there are men incapable.
If the process for getting there is done without respect to genitalia, the answer should be self evident.
Combat load including weapon and ammo is still about 100 lbs I’m 67 now and couldn’t do what I did at 22 neither can women. The physical demands are too high
I am 76. Give me six months of training and I could kill most women with my bare hands. Imagine what a twenty year old Ivan or a twenty year old Won Chan could do. Each soldier is part of a team and when one dies or is put out of commission the survivors are placed at higher risk. Along with Sodomites women in combat is a disaster of the first magnitude. Who is going to want to serve in such a military, one that does not represent our finest, but our most degenerate and weakest. God Help Us!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.