Women in Combat: Study Recommends Ending Military's Last Male Bastion

Politics Daily ^ | David Wood

[PLMerite]

I remember reading years ago that the best neck for a fighter pilot was short and thick which allowed him to pull more g’s in a dogfight. Now they say that the best neck is long and slender which favors females.

So, did the nature of combat change or was it politics ?

[Night Hides Not]

The problem I see with women in combat is that their fellow male soldiers would have the innate sense of need to protect the woman. It would be a distraction. Now, this propensity could be trained out of these young men, but would you REALLY want to “train out” their sense of protection of women and physically weaker people?

Only allow divorced men into the unit...they're likely to have trained out their sense of protection of women,

Off, OFF damned sarcasm!!!

[Joe Brower]

"It's not just the obvious physical, it's mental as well. Women are simply not suited to such stress as well as men."

Just another bit of our now daily trek through our Orwellian world. Better watch your back -- "In a age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

Men and women are very different from some very powerful reasons. Nature says so. People can rant and rave against reality all they want, but in the end... reality wins. Always.

[dixiechick2000]

“This country is too stupid to last much longer as a superpower.”

It’s a sad thing to say, but you are right, if they keep up this PC nonsense. It’s one thing to have a PC workforce, it’s quite another to have a PC military.

“Have we all forgotten Iwo Jima, the Battle of the Bulge, Chosin Resevoir, Hue City, Mogadishu, Fallujah?”

Many of us haven’t...at least those of us who are old enough to have been taught these lessons in school, or who have family members/friends who have fought in the last 5/6 conflicts. But, I bet you won’t find many of those in today’s DC area, except for the Pentagon. Those in the Pentagon who are for this nonsense are the ones who trouble me.

BTW, I’ve wondered about why there have been so many female sailors who were pregnant when they hit home port. “There’s an app for that”...i.e. birth control. I understand close quarters and “tensions”, but you’d think they would use birth control if they really wanted to make the Navy a career.

[dixiechick2000]

“So, did the nature of combat change or was it politics ?”

I don’t know...

However, I do know that my husband is 6’2”, has a long neck, and flew close air support in Viet Nam. ;o)

[Travis McGee]

Pregnancy is a way to get out of sea duty. And out of the barracks ashore, and into “family” housing.

[Travis McGee]

The USSR spent 75 years with all of the means available to a totalitarian state to try to “train out” normal human economic reflexes. It didn’t work and the USSR collapsed.

I would posit that it would be much harder to “train out” normal human sexual reflexes. Especially without the 100% control of a totalitarian state pushing the agenda. It won’t work and it will lead to societal collapse at the extreme, and military failure and defeat at the least if we are involved in a REAL war again. (Defined as Iwo Jima, Normandy, etc.)

[Travis McGee]

See 107.

[Travis McGee]

We will pay the price when we are forced to fight a REAL war again.

Not these brushfire skirmishes against half-armed peasants, where we own the sky.

[dixiechick2000]

“Pregnancy is a way to get out of sea duty. And out of the barracks ashore, and into “family” housing.”

That’s what I was thinking. Thank you for confirming it.

So...when the defense budget is cut, I don’t think this is one area that will be cut. Do you?

[Travis McGee]

Beats me.

[DuncanWaring]

It won’t work and it will lead to societal collapse at the extreme, and military failure and defeat at the least if we are involved in a REAL war again.

At the risk of being repetitious:

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man --
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began --
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire --
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

[Morpheus2009]

You know, they could throw the women killed in combat under the bus, like they did the quite likely homosexual ambassador named Chris Stevens.

[Morpheus2009]

You know, they could throw the women killed in combat under the bus, like they did the quite likely homosexual ambassador named Chris Stevens.

[Morpheus2009]

You know, they could throw the women killed in combat under the bus, like they did the quite likely homosexual ambassador named Chris Stevens.

[Morpheus2009]

Well, I think you are talking about Israel, who did have women in frontline combat until it came to figure that the Arab men warriors were raised in morale realizing they could kill an all the more unholy enemy, and also kill the more valuable factor in their enemy’s capacity to breed. Not only that, if you are the enemy, you will fight for your life, even if the attacker or the sniper is a woman, you simply won’t care. Fourth, the male soldiers lost their reasoning and tactical effectiveness because the Arabs did exactly as you suggested: demoralized the military and general combat by torturing in gruesome depraved ways and recording it. Nowadays, women do serve in the IDF in support positions such as security, vehicle or aircraft piloting or fixed sniper, where they can be supplied and backed up with support from others generally at all times. Going into the enemy territory is a vastly different matter.

I agree with the poster who said, use women in combat if that involves defending your own homeland from and enemy, and under the condition that you are incredibly depleted of able-bodied men to fight. Because it’s really a last leg in fighting a war, not a first. But honestly, the military coming to this seems like a consequence of invading other countries as opposed to fighting to really defend against our own, as well as the fact that we don’t seem to really be focused on winning, either.

[Morpheus2009]

No way.

I am certainly glad as a man that I have enough common sense in my head to respect a woman for her differences, and recognize that there’s even vulnerability for myself that is asymmetrical due to those differences.

Women are the limiting factor in population growth, men are not. A smaller load of female deaths would be more devastating to a population then an equivalent number of male deaths, I think I don’t have to explain why...

Regarding combat duty, I wouldn’t be fine unless everyone, man, woman, or whatever else had a universal standard to reach up to, to show that you are up to what it takes to handle real combat situations. Would that be an incredibly small fraction of women? Yes, it would, but I would rather have that than the current PT standards for women entering full, frontline combat.
Then there’s the issue that if it’s a few extremely elite few out of the woman population, does that really justify adding just a few who would qualify under fair testing? I honestly don’t think so.

If anything, however, I doubt my own wife will be volunteering anytime soon. And I guess I will have to teach any daughters and sons I have growing up potentially some pretty discouraging truths about serving in the military.