Posted on 08/11/2007 12:26:02 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
During a recent Democratic debate, both Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama indicated that all female U.S. citizens should register for the Selective Service. Neither candidate was as ridiculous as former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who said, when it comes to men and women being drafted, "What's the difference?" But the radical and dangerous implications of the front-runners' policies are not that far from Gravel's query.
The attitude the Democrats have on this issue has already caused harm to the military. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, has been watching the feminization of military-personnel policy for decades. In an article for The Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, she explains that "gender-integrated basic training is based on the unrealistic assumption that men and women are interchangeable in all military roles. The concept tries to circumvent or disguise physical differences with gender-normed training standards that reward equal effort rather than equal results."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Vive la differénce!
militarily... take a hike!!
I would like to offer my services as a sub-contracter for 1%.
I’m not sure how much stupider our culture can get.
this is one aspect of the hispanicanization of the US that might actually help
during all my time in latin america, they never suffered such tomfoolery down there
they knew damn well the differnces tween men and women and celebrated it
and most women reveled in being feminine....
“””The Navy has male trainees do a minimum of 42 push-ups for a minimum score; women must do 17. Men (ages 20 to 24) must swim 500 yards in 12 minutes, 15 seconds; women (ages 20 to 24) get 14 minutes to accomplish the same.”””
I am told that when a female in the Marine uniform stands before me, that she is a full, 100% Marine.
If the female with her uninspiring girly abilities is a Marine, then what is the male, a super, super, super duper, Marine?
They mean to turn the US military into a Peace Corps that ocassionally fires shots at runaway vultures in third world countries who happen to want to recruit children to use guns.
The rest of the time these touts want the US military to ship nothing but food to Islamofascists so the Islamofascists can dedicate their GNPs to nuclear weaponry , and forming an AXIS of Islamofascist states.
Women have their place in the military, but its not in combat nor in any service that requires great upper body strength.
If a woman wants to be in combat, put the physical bar where it should be, and let her reach it. Some will make it, but not many. I mean : WHY HASN"T CHELSEA CLINTON ENLISTED LIKE DUNCAN HUNTER'S SON HAS, and is now serving in Iraq. Put your bunny where your mouth is Hillery?
O'BAMA, our black Irishman, why hasn't your wifey served in the US military, she wears the pants in your family?
What a couple of political morons.
US Army covers up an ‘embarrassment’ (Pregnancies)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160184/posts
Pregnant troops leave the war; Central Command not counting
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1154297/posts
Thanks for posting that. This is one example of where Republicans are becoming a leftwing party ideologically just like Democrats.
I’ll never believe healthy countries get their women up front fighting for them. A limited number of women specialized roles sure that is one thing.
I’ve been in the military for over 26 years. A few years ago, I got into a “discussion” with my mother in law about the double standards for physical fitness in the military. She told me it absolutely was not true and that women were held to the same standard. So, she MUST be right. ;)
I'd like to offer my services as your agent agent for 15% to negotiate a better deal than the 1% you're at right now ;-)
— a rule that would have spared the life of supply clerk Lori Piestewa, a 24-year-old single mother of two (now 5 and 6). Piestewa’s brother told a reporter that Lori felt that “she wasn’t going to be anywhere near any type of dangerous situation.”
The rule would also save the lives of men who are killed when these woman fail in clashes with the enemy. ANYONE male or female is doomed to failure when standards are lowered to let them join.
Also, Piestewa, God bless her, may have been a little slow or even stupid if she EVER doubted that someone in her support role wouldn’t or couldn’t meet the enemy.
But why we are still talking about this is beyond me. The lies is produced, EVERYONE involved salutes it and serves it and mouthes it. When the predictable morale results in the predictable failure (Piestewa’s unit)the lies are mouthed and saluted a little more and the whole thing is swept aside and life goes on.
If our military people don’t have a problem with dying for a PC lie (and they don’t seem to, nor do police) we won’t have a real problem unless or until we engage an enemy with the resources, brains and balls to fight traditionally.
At that point we will run out of support units and the best trained, best equipped, deadliest combat troops in modern history will be pretty much on their own.
this is why robots will solvw all ills
just cold wired steel no social engineering experiments just miles of code
“Intellectually..... equivalent...
militarily... take a hike!!”
Not quite equivalent. There are intellectual differences that tend to steer career choices. There are no gender barriers to keep women out of extremely specialized intellectual things like thermodynamics or theoretical physics but you won’t find women there.
Not that women can’t do it. They just don’t seem to like that sort of thing.
It has been proposed that differences on brain physiology is at the root why there are more male super genius individuals and more male idiots than women. The bell curve in women is taller with fewer at the extremes.
Among other things, combat is an athletic event. As with other athletic events such as football, all other things being equal, the team with the most strong and most fast athletes will win. By placing women in combat units, a competitive disadvantage would be created. As an example, when operating in the field, munitions and supplies carried by women would have to be adjusted down to accommodate for most women’s lesser strength. So, this means that men would have to carry more, or the mission would have to be shortened. I will not complicate this discussion with the psychological aspects of men and women being comingaled out if the field on extended missions - I’ll save that for another day.
That is the nutshell. The problem is, you will be vilified if you make the factually true statement: "There are physical things the average woman cannot do that the average man can."
Nobody doubts that there are women out there who can perform at the same level a man does...just not on the average. If you take the average male, pull him off the street, evaluate, motivate and train him, you may be able to get him to carry 80lbs of gear on a 20 mile march through mountainous terrain. On average, his musculature will be able to handle it and his bone structure will be able to handle it.
The same statement cannot be made for the average woman. Sure, you can get women nearer to the top of the pyramid who can perform at the same level as the body of average men. But that requires an entirely different process to produce that.
It is the type of fact that is painful to liberals who desire equal outcomes in all endeavors, be they mental, physical or economic.
Not everyone is capable of the same achievement level in any arena, be it mental, physical or economic. Libs hate to hear that. They KNOW it and understand it, but like to pretend it is not valid because it is more valuable to them that way.
Praise God we don't have to be homosexual to enjoy the finer points of life ;-)
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.