Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Red Steel
This article mainly discusses the sex part of the problem. Leaving that, men are taught from their early life to help women because they are physically weaker than men and that is a fact. In battle, they will do the same thing - a woman will be the weak link in a group of men and they will protect/help her and that makes the unit weaker as a whole.

If I were a man and during battle was wounded, I want a man with that upper body strength to get me out of there - not a woman who doesn't have comparable upper body strength. One can say put a woman in battle, but those muscles inherent in a man's body are not in a female body and she is weaker by genetic makeup.

As a woman, if I were in battle, I want a strong man next to me, not a woman. Why is that? Because that man is stronger.

This is another liberal move make quickly by one man and now that's the way it is.

I believe gays and women in battle spells losing the battle. I also think regular guys won't be as prone to join the military due to this. How many men will think, “Join the military and have to fight in a fox hole with gays and women - no thanks.”

32 posted on 01/25/2013 8:06:28 AM PST by Marcella (Prepping can save your life today. Going Galt is freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Marcella; P-Marlowe; Lancey Howard; Girlene; jazusamo; bigheadfred; smoothsailing; 4woodenboats

You are correct, Marcella, that upper body strength will mean that a man can evacuate a wounded female, but that a wounded female cannot evacuate a wounded male. What this will eventually lead to is a bitterness and cynicism within the unit that will seriously degrade small unit morale.

The notion being advanced that some women can meet the standards set for the men is a red herring because the male standard has a minimum and a maxium as does the female standard. Essentially, the maximum female standard regarding upper body strength barely exceeds the minimum male standard, and with the youngest troops, those likely to be on the front lines and in small unit engagements, the maximum female score is exactly the same as the male minimum allowable score.

This is a significant difference, because the notion is that a soft, young, Nintendo, couch potato male is expected to vastly improve. He can get out of basic training with that low score, but the future intent is to move him much higher on the chart, and especially if he is going to a and infantry or other front line type small unit.

With this female that is exactly the same as the lowest male standard, she is considered to be the ultimate female at her age, incredibly in shape and the epitome of what an in-shape female is to be.

IOW, there isn’t much improvement that’s even considered possible

However, let’s consider urban warfare and consider female height versus male height. Are the females able to reach a high window for an alternate entry point, or are they always going to have to come in the door?

Consider as well that a female must IMMEDIATELY be removed from the front lines as a response to pregnancy with zero impact on her career. How many would time their ovulation just to get out of hell? I had an wise old female military surgeon tell me once....quite a few.

What is the replacement flow? How long does it take to get a replacement? How badly is a squad hurt if it loses 1,2, 3 people out of 10? Enormously. Who has your back then? Which squads now have to pull double, triple duty?

Enormous morale problems are on the horizon.


35 posted on 01/25/2013 11:50:31 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson