Skip to comments.Women in combat a really, really bad idea
Posted on 12/11/2012 5:41:35 PM PST by ReformationFan
America's daughters should not be sent into combat. Period.
Part of the reason is philosophical: we want to live in a nation where we expect men to use their strength to protect the women in their world, not the other way round.
But there are immensely practical reasons as well. God simply did not design women to have the same size, upper body strength, or stamina as men. It's just plain stupid to ignore this biological fact of nature.
The Washington Post, for instance, recently ran a story on the "throwing gap" between men and women, which has stubbornly persisted for the half-century that brain-numbed researchers have been exploring it. Girls age 14-18 throw only 39% as far as boys.
Although the Post never makes this connection, this fact is no longer an idle curiosity when the issue at hand is not throwing rocks or baseballs but things that explode. Reports from the Marine training base at Parris Island indicate that only 45% of female Marines could throw a hand grenade far enough to keep from blowing themselves up. If you're in a foxhole with a woman about to toss one of those, you're not sure whether to treat her as friend or foe. It's one thing to fall on a grenade thrown by the enemy. It's quite another to have a grenade thrown by a friendly fall on you.
The Marines are trying to defy logic, common sense, biology, and the Laws of Nature and Nature's God by admitting women into its Infantry Officer Course. Only two of the 80 eligible female Marines volunteered for the course this year. One washed out on the first day, and the second had to drop out within two weeks for "medical reasons," most likely some muscular or skeletal injury.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Battle of Khe Sahn, some of the positions were over run by NVA. During the hand to hand, one Marine actually held onto and immobilize two NVA by hugging both close to their body as the second Marine shot them off by pushing the rifle barrel between the holding Marine (wearing flak jacket) and one NVA, angle the barrel toward the NVA and firing. Figure the NVA are similar to petite athletic American females in strength and statue. In the end, size and strength did matter.
I'm starting to think....give ‘em a dose of reality and equality at the same time...Come back in 3 yrs and tell me how it worked for ya....
Who cares? This isn’t America we all grew up in!
They have been BEGGING for equality for years. Let them prove themselves. It won’t last for very long.
Women in combat is a done deal. It is going to happen regardless of commonsense or experience, and like much of the bad policy we see forming in this country, it won’t stop until it ends in a train wreck.
This is a copy of a post of mine on FR from a few months back, so I hope you don’t mind my re-posting it.
I do need to clarify my views on this, because there are people who will disregard my objections as simple chauvinism.
I have worked for and with smart, talented, hardworking and dedicated women. Women who could think on their feet, make decisions and would inspire me to work my tail off for them.
But this has nothing at all to do with that. There are people, male and female, who insist that 18 year old men and women can work together as if there is no such thing as sexual interaction, that sex can be regulated away.
Secondly, men and women simply are not the same physically. They aren’t. Women, on average, cannot achieve the same level of physical output for the same duration that men can.
There is a reason that there is a separate category in marathons for men and women. Women cannot compete at the same level as men. In the Boston Marathon, the first woman finished nearly twenty minutes after the first man, and would have come in 28th place overall.
I find it interesting that they do not list the results for men and women together at the official site, and as far as I can tell, there is no option to do so, but I could simply be missing it. But year after year, you hear female athletes analyzing the results and saying that “...with more women running marathons, eventually women will compete at the same level as men...”
Really? They are living in a fantasy world, and they put things like this in newspapers. A lot of people fall for it hook, line and sinker. I am no marathoner, but I will say that when seconds, or fractions of seconds separate first and second place, twenty minutes is insurmountable, no matter how many women run in marathons or how the numbers increase each year. If they take steroids, they might close it up a bit.
And marathons are simply one example. In the military, look at the SEALS, Delta, and the Rangers. It is no coincidence there are no women, or at least women who could get there on the same path the men do. Those units are the top of a pyramid, and in the former selection process, only the top physical and mental performers could clear the bar. If true that the Rangers have begun accepting female candidates, they are finished as an elite unit in the niche they currently occupy. They may be better than a standard infantry unit, but they won’t be the same as the Rangers we have seen, and they certainly won’t have the same mission capability.
They will likely all get to wear nice Ranger berets, though, and wear the snappy Ranger tabs and badges that will label them as elite troops.
Lastly, logistical issues ranging from pregnancy to habitation may not seem like much to some people, but that is only going to be true if they DO treat men and women exactly the same in the field with respect to equipment and habitation. Apart from if that is a good idea or not, does anyone think that is going to happen?
Raise your hands if you think it will.
It WON’T happen, that is guaranteed. But you know what? Nobody will notice. In 5 years after women join the Rangers/SEALS/Delta, you will hear talking heads in and out of the military who will say things like:
NEWS ANCHOR/POLITICIAN/MILITARY COMMANDER: “When we integrated women and homosexuals into these units, people were saying it was going to be a disaster, that it would hurt mission capability, morale and such. We are more capable now than we have ever been, and have the moral buttress of diversity and equality. Remember how they said the same thing about the military when blacks were going to be integrated back in 1946? Same result here...the world didn’t end, and it won’t. It was the right thing to do, and we can all be proud of the diversity we now see.”
And you know what? There will be no dissenting opinion.
The next time this comes up is when we go head to head with an opponent who is going to make our elite units use every single ounce of capability to complete a mission, and it isn’t going to happen. We may find ourselves in a situation where we don’t control the air or the sea. Our avenues of supply have been cut off, and our units have to do with their brains and brawn and endurance to win. And we are going to lose, and lose badly.
We will lose badly, because our opponents won’t be stupid enough to do what we have done to our military.
For an analogy, think of what might have happened on Edson’s Ridge on Guadalcanal in 1942 if we had women integrated into those Marine units fighting the Japanese. That is your answer.
But hey. Nobody is going to read this thread or do anything about it. I am a dinosaur and don’t know any better, can’t change with the times...it is embarrassing for some to even read a post like this one. And if anyone even gave a rat’s patootie anymore, they might get angry and attack me personally.
But they won’t. This fight is over.
If women want to be in wars then they better not expect my sympathy when they’re captured and made into sex toys.
Have a scientific test. Create an Amazon Brigade - women only.
Monitor their success for a few battles, then re-evaluate this idea of Women In Combat.
While you’re at it, let’s extend the test to homosexuals in combat. Put them ALL in one brigade, the whole alphabet soup of them (LGBQRXYZ-whatever).
Who gives a sh*t. As another poster said, it ain't my country any longer.
Any workplace I have been, it ends up that the guys do the heavy lifting.
You are so clueless when it comes to this issue.
But things look a bit different and more personal at 30 feet than they do at 30,000 feet.
An 80 year old grandmother can put on a uniform and carry a gun, she can even pull the trigger, what is your point?
Not in combat at 30,000 feet going one on one with a target. As I said, you get hit you’re just as dead as if you were at 30 feet.
Well *sigh* I guess you’re right.
Integrating women and homosexuality into the military is an inside act of national sabotage. Intentional? Not sure ... we know what kinds of intentions the road to hell is paved with, in any case.
The decision to put women in combat aircraft was not a necessary one: It was an arbitrary, political decision.
Women were not forced to beat out men: They were affirmative-actioned in.
That is fact. And you know it.
It was not necessary, and — I submit — it did not make the US a more formidable fighting force. (Quite the contrary: It put a more gentle, feminine face on our military. Very dumb.)
I did not say women cannot fly. I am saying there is no need to put them in combat aircraft to fulfill a leftist agenda.
So lets see, my second combat tour we lost 21 KIA for the BN and my PLATOON alone lost 26 out of 45 WIA in ONE DAY in room to room, house to house combat.
My third time out we lost 12 KIA for the BN and I think the BN had another 30 or so WIA.
My fourth time out when things were winding down....another 2 KIA.
Tell yourself whatever you want to feel like Xena warrior princess, but what it isn't the same reality as ground combat.
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.