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 feminism’s 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 military’s 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 won’t 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 what’s really important.
— Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
“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.
William Flax
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 feminazi’s screaming for equal rights on the front lines. Well, let’s 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 aren’t 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, let’s see how the ladies feel after a goodly number of their kind get picked off in battle, or captured, tortured, and/or raped. Won’t be so much fun then to be “one of the boys”, because they’re 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:
http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2003/may01.html
http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/
“... 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.
Exactly, now tell her to grab 120 pounds of gear and go take that outpost at the 11,000 foot mark.
You would be amazed at how embarrassing it is to actually watch female soldiers trying to do stuff that involves strength.
Hey, they claim technology will make all those points moot. Super Soldier and robotic mules will close the gap. A women will have the strenght of 7 men and be able to run all day long with a full combat load. They spent 3 billion bucks on that program.
Technology doesn’t reduce the combat load, it just increases lethality and effectiveness but the poundage seems to stay the same, or increase.
They are talking exo-skeletons. They have working prototypes. Strap one on a woman and she can carry any load any where.
Performance enhancing drugs. Patches that will inject food, meds, etc. All types of futuristic stuff is on the drawing boards.
Look up Super Soldier.
Yeah, I’m well aware of all that, your posts are useless, and not well thought out.
I’m glad that the American lives that this decision will cost is so cutesy and humorous to you.
Grow up GI Jane, who hides behind photos while promoting anti-military politics.
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.