Skip to comments.Wrong on Women Warriors (The new policy to place women in combat units is a mistake)
Posted on 01/24/2013 6:33:07 AM PST by SeekAndFind
We have apparently arrived at the Golden Age, free from strife and the threat of foreign enemies. Little else can explain so gratuitous a decision as to place women in combat units. The downsides to such a policy are legion and obvious; the only reason to pursue it is to placate feminisms insatiable and narcissistic drive for absolute official equality between the sexes.
Any claim that our fighting forces are not reaching their maximum potential because females are not included is absurd. The number of women who are the equal to reasonably well-developed men in upper-body strength and who have the same stamina and endurance is vanishingly small. Because the number of women who will meet the militarys already debased physical-fitness standard will not satisfy the feminists demand for representation, the fitness standard will inevitably be lowered across the board or for women alone, as we have seen in civilian uniformed forces.
Feminists routinely deny Eros except when it suits them to exploit their sexual power. Only someone deliberately blind to human reality could maintain that putting men and women in close quarters 24 hours a day will not produce a proliferation of sex, thus introducing all the irrational passions (and resulting favoritism) of physical attraction into an organization that should be exclusively devoted to the mission of combat preparedness. Reported sexual assaults will skyrocket, and of course it will only be the men who are at fault. Any consensual behavior leading up to the assault getting in bed with your fellow grunt drunk and taking off your clothes, for example will be ignored, since in the realm of sexual responsibility, women remain perpetual victims, at the mercy of all-powerful men. Expect a windfall to the gender-sensitivity-training industry, which will be called in both before and after the entry of women into combat units to eradicate endemic male sexism.
Even if Leon Panetta intends to keep female fighting units sex-segregated, that distinction wont last. Feminists will complain that female-only units stigmatize women.
Chivalry is one of the great civilizing forces, taming men and introducing social graces and nuance to what would otherwise be a brutish social world. It is already on life support, but sex-integrated combat units will provide the coup de grâce. If a woman is taken prisoner, will special efforts be made to rescue her to save her from the risk of rape? If so, the necessary equality among unit members will be destroyed. If, however, policy requires that she take her chances along with the male captives, we are requiring men to squelch any last remaining vestige of their impulse towards protection and appreciation of female difference.
I am not aware of any comparable crusade to create gender-integrated football teams. At least America knows whats really important.
Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
If a woman MEETS or EXCEEDS the required physical and mental standards needed to do the job for combat, why not let them?
CAVEAT: Don't LOWER the standards simply to accommodate women.
If men can be forced into a combat role after they have enlisted but women can only be called to combat when they volunteer, then we have an inherently unfair situation.
I think the logical thinkers have this one wrong. The left has long believed that women are driven by emotion and therefore will ignore the Constitution and will follow the orders of their father in Washington.
Remember “Soccer Moms” or do we have to go farther?
Very few women will even meet todays lowered standards. They will lower the bar as always. The service chiefs will make it work as they always say.
As your picture above shows, Israeli women have served in combat roles bravely for decades. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also allow women in combat roles.
The change is an acknowledgment that women on modern battlefields already are in the fight-152 women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan-and that military rules need to be updated to reflect realities of the current-day war zones. At the same time, the shift establishes a process that could take years to complete.
So is the next step letting boys who get cut from the varsity athletic team play on the girls team. That would be equality... yeah right.
This PC crap is getting far beyond annoying.
RE: If men can be forced into a combat role after they have enlisted but women can only be called to combat when they volunteer, then we have an inherently unfair situation.
I guess with this new policy change, WOMEN CAN AND SHOULD NOW BE CALLED FOR COMBAT ROLES AFTER THEY HAVE ENLISTED.
But again my caveat -— IF THEY MEET THE PHYSICAL and MENTAL STANDARDS.
Here’s my personal take on this ( agreeing with Rick Moran of the American Thinker ):
This change in policy won’t dramatically effect the military immediately. My guess is any expanded role for women in combat will be AT THE MARGINS and not directly impact our fighting capabilities.
Put them all in a few batalions of she-men and send ‘em out to deal with the crazy muzzies.
I don’t know about the rest in here, but I love women.
Tender,soft, caring,sexually provocative,feminine.
If I wanted a tattooed hard ass killer with a trash mouth I would turn queer.
That aint gonna happen.
We already gave females in combat situations that do not require the same physical standards that men do. My unit had female helicopter pilots and at least one female door gunner. Females should not be on combat patrols etc. OIF vet.
They don't use the same physical standards and they never will since it shows the foolishness of their position.
All women must register for the Selctive Service by age 18...just like the men.
I wouldn’t want to trust my six in combat to anyone who can’t do 10 pull ups. That leaves out 95% of women.
She Went to the Field: Women Soldiers of the Civil War tells the little-known, true stories of the brave women who boldly challenged gender boundaries during The War Between the States. Whether disguising themselves as male soldiers or participating in related military capacities as spies, nurses, and vivandieres, these heroic women deserve to be recognized both for their contributions to the war and to women's rights.
Argument=Not much use for pull ups in a combat situation.
Anecdotal story here: I am in my late ‘40’s but have worked out all my life. Lifting, running, heavy bag workout-you name it, I’ve tried it.
My 20 year old son was home on break. He is tall and broad-shouldered, but does not have time to work out.
He gives me one of those side bear-hugs-grabbing my right shoulder- and pulls me in. In an effort to show how much he loves me, he pulls tightly and I drop to the floor in excruciating pain. I still do not have complete movement of my shoulder, and he meant no harm. He didn’t even apply the full measure of his strenghth.
Although he instinctly knew that women break easier than men do, he saw it firsthand.
Things are a bit different in Israel.
They are fighting for their lives and the women there know what will happen to them if the Muslim hordes swoop in. They need to be able to defend themselves from the monsters surrounding them.
Hopefully America never reach’s that point.
Having seen the results of a son injured in Afghanistan; I think all these women who are considering combat should tour some of the hospitals where our wounded are being pieced back together, and sometimes missing parts.
We're not fighting wars like the early last century. That needs to be kept in mind. Further, it appears the rules of engagement are causing more trouble with regards to the effectiveness of the fighting forces when deployed than other factors.
A pull up is there best single indicator of upper body strength there is. No necessity to climb over things? lift things? nonsense.
It’s all a game to the libs. “Let your sister play too!”
Give ‘em time, folks, and they’ll institute a special Camp Follower Corps for these flukes. Strictly voluntary, of course. Well, at first.
They do make good spies, though :)
What will happen (think infantry):
Standards will be lowered.
Training will be made less strenuous.
Deployments will be more difficult as now separate quarters and latrines will be needed. Less will be accomplished.
The men will have to pull more of the weight for the women who can’t.
And it will ALL work. Maybe for years.
Until we get into a real ground war (think Korea or WII) and the technology will break (where the f*ck our the drones?) and then these units will break.
In the US, maybe the 101st Airborne Division will never again have to relieve Bastogne, maybe the 1st Marine Division will never again have to march out of the Chosin Reservoir...but maybe they will and it would be comforting to know that they could.
That is already the case. Just look at the Army PT standard card (pdf format) DA Form 705 and look at the difference between men and women. See pages 3 - 6 for the scoring charts.
Age group 42 - 46 doing 29 pushups, male fails with a score of 59. Female passes with a score of 89.
What cornfuses me is why have MEN, for years, concocted schemes to get out of the draft, combat, and war in general.
Even Klinger, in a dress, was trying to ‘hide’ behind his feminine side (if MEN had a feminine side during Korea) the countless number of men who, when grabbed by the Doctor and told to cough, attempted to grab the Dr in the like manner - so as to get a discharge (the other kind of discharge).
What ‘snake oil salesman’ sold women on the fact that it is a GOOD thing to have people on the other side of the ‘line’ whose only purpose in life is to end yours?
Very few ‘men’ actually want to be in that situation - face up to it when it happens but not really all that ‘happy’ about it.
To hear the reporters and those females interviewed for news programs, one would think the females had WON something other than the right to assume room temperature at an earlier age.
Of course, the best way to get virile young men to avoid the enlistment offices is to fill the ranks with ‘do funnys’ and ‘women’ etc...
Which may be the end goal anyway - It also appears that the Military Leadership will be nothing but ‘Perfumed Princes’ while the combatants will either be cashiered out or quit in disgrace of what ‘OUR’ Military has become.
Whether it is right or wrong is a topic for discussion.
That being said, Panetta does not have the legal authority to issue this order.
According to Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, only Congress has the authority...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Argument=that is the old military. We don't use swords & bayonets anymore (Prez words), Stuff is lighter(?)They are working on Super Soldier. A puny 95lb woman could handle a 155 howitzer shell with ease.
No need to throw grenades, archaic. We have lightweight 20mm, computer controlled, don't miss, programmable, rifle fired grenades.
You need to indicate when you are using sarcasm. Some people may actually believe that stuff.
The Caracal: Inside Israel’s Coed Battalion Unit
Lets look at the bright side.
Imagine that two young Marines of different genders have ‘bonded’ or ‘buddied up’ in a special way. Now put them in a foxhole and have the enemy scream insults at them and threaten the female with all sorts of sexual abuse and torture.
I think the male Marine will fight like a tiger to protect his “buddy”.
I just look at history. Everytime women are used in combat it doesn’t work—Soviets tried it, Israelis, Etc... It hasn’t worked in the past. Liberals think that today, people are different—some how better than those of the past and can make this work. Sorry, Feminists, we are not different and it will further reduce our ability to wage war. The women who will go into combat will be tossed away—Imagine a time when we LOSE a battle? Image women at Bataan? Not a good picture. And when LIBERALS re-impose the Draft—it will be men and women who will be pushed into uniform this time. But at least they will have free birth control!
Exactly! Free up more men to die. I have no problem with women in combat rolls as long as the unit in the field is all women: Don't want any 200# man relying on a women to drag him out if he needs help.
Because a country that sends women to do its fighting has become so perverse and unnatural that it's no longer worth fighting for.
Thanks for asking.
I’m just repeating the arguments. No need for the sarc tag. Some of the things are in development like Super Soldier (that’s not the real name but the concept is correct) It’s an exo-skeleton. This eliminates the “women are weak argument”. With a lower body exo you can march for days. With an upper body exo you can lift a lot.
There are robotic pack mules(no chit). This eliminates the “women can’t carry their packs argument”. These mules will follow their owner like a puppy. Another argument is that we have trucks to carry stuff.
The 20mm grenades are a reality except not fielded in quantities yet.
Here’s another word: QUOTA
They’ll be setting quotas for women in combat. All combat units must have X number of women.
The problem is nobody knows history anymore so the left can re-write it at their pleasure. They don’t teach it anymore they teach sociology and call it history.
Before my kids left public school for private I marveled on how shallow history topics were. It is amazing how they basically ignore the letters and writing of our founding fathers and dumb down the birth of our nation to a bunch of old white slave owners that got tired of paying taxes to a government. The civil was was only about slavery, period. No discussion of states rights and the conflict of a slowing economy in the north to the growing economy of the south nor the politics behind Lincoln namely the northern governors.
Officially named the Legged Squad Support System (LS3), the walking pack mule prototype was designed to show that a legged robot can unburden dismounted squad members by carrying their gear, autonomously following them through rugged terrain, and interpreting verbal and visual commands, according to the DARPA website.
If women are now to be in combat then all women who turn 18 better be registering for the draft. I expect someone will soon be filing a lawsuit to make women register just like men. I don’t think draft registration for young women will be very popular, but there are often unintended consequences for poorly thought out decisions like sending women into combat.
“Weak Link” by Brian Mitchell. . .
There are execptions to every rule and there are probably plenty of positions in combat units where women can play an important role, such as where gaining the confidance of local women or children is important. No experience of the Israeli Army, or any US unit, would indicate that women would make good fireteam leaders.
DARPA today has a long-term, $3 billion program to help make such a Metabolically Dominant Soldier. In other words, the military is studying how to use technology and biology to meld man and machine and transcend the limits of the human body. Described the project director, My measure of success is that the International Olympic Committee bans everything we do” The $3 billion program is definitely trying to achieve transhuman performance goals.
The wearable gear would enable running at 100 meter olympic sprinter speed for hours and the 7 foot vertical leap, the wall crawling, personal flight, invisibility, greatly enhanced strength, better body armor and carrying bigger and more powerful weapons.
Heather MacDonald greatly understates the situation, in the quote above. The yet more compelling argument is this. It is the Chivalric duty for young men to protect the women & children, which creates the concept that the measure of a Man is in at least a significant part defined by his acceptance of that duty. It is that sense of defined manhood that elicits the "above & beyond" concept, which brings out that something extra, which can turn the tide of battles & win wars.
It is also in that traditional sense of sexually defined roles that brings out the best in young women, even as its repudiation undermines the social fabric.
See Feminist Delusion, for an analysis of the absurdity of the Feminist denial of the importance of traditional sex roles. In the real world, there is nothing more important to the normal individual than his or her sex; after all the future of all advanced forms of life, is derived from clear sex roles.
Posted this on another thread; fits here too:
Actually, snipers is about the only field I would let women participate in. Many women have good aim. As to the rest, keep them out. This could be a fine example of be careful what you wish for as you may get it. All these women thinking they are feminazis screaming for equal rights on the front lines. Well, lets see how much they actually try to get those positions now that the choice of becoming battle hardened will be a reality. I suspect 90% or more of women in the services are actually secretly horrified at being presented with this option.
You arent going to see many volunteers, and amongst the ones that do, most will fail to pass the physical requirements for front line service. The whole thing is a big joke, as the ladies on the front line will all soon find out. Hah, the Obama regime has inadverdently called their bluff. Most of the ones that are itching to fight are the dykes anyhow. Well, lets see how the ladies feel after a goodly number of their kind get picked off in battle, or captured, tortured, and/or raped. Wont be so much fun then to be one of the boys, because theyre not.
Yeah,,, Jessica Lynch was a great warrior role-model... /sarc
Meeting the standards are not enough. You can kill off half of the male population and have little effect upon the babies born in the next generation. In order to accomplish genocide, you have to kill off the women. We need not volunteer to do this; we are doing an apt job aborting more babies every year than American has lost in all wars in our history combined.
I wrote this just after Operation Iraqi Freedom began nearly 10 years ago. It still applies:
“... it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield.”
“...the soldier explained that she had been afraid to shoot at the militants, saying: “I had no chance against them.” Brigade commander Col. Guy Biton told her that she had not behaved as expected of a combat soldier.”
Why is it always a photo of a chick holding a gun, anyone can hold a gun, or shoot one.
If you reach 90 reasonably healthy, don’t you think that you will be able to go to the range and shoot guns?
Anyone can shoot, a 70 year old man can still shoot like a 18 year old girl, but neither of them can get themselves, and their gear, into and out of the places where the shooting needs to be done.
As long as you drop them off, and pick them up, anyone can lay there and shoot, just as anyone can do reconnaissance, as long as you envision that as merely lying there and looking through binoculars. What makes soldiering something that not everyone can do, is everything before and after being at the spot where you want to shoot the bullet from, or push the button, or observe activity from.