Skip to comments.Women In Combat: "Fairness" Vs. Biological Fact
Posted on 01/25/2013 4:49:30 AM PST by suspects
President Obama, in dogged pursuit of his liberal Nirvana, is free to lift the ban on women serving in combat positions.
He is, alas, unable to repeal the laws of nature, physics or gravity.
Ask a combat veteran you know how he would have felt knowing that, after being wounded in combat, the only person around to pick him up and carry him to safety was a 5-foot-3, 120-pound woman.
Ask any active duty serviceman how hed feel knowing that, as he lay on the ground bleeding, the only thing between him and a cave-hardened Tali-ban killer was a 20-year-old woman from the wilds of Wellesley.
Dont ask these men how they feel about women in positions of power, or about working side-by-side with the opposite sex. Every American male under the age of 50 grew up in a world with women in power: From the principals in our schools to the cops on our streets and the managers at our offices. The notion that America is a sexist nation, or that as Obama repeatedly asserts business owners have the desire or ability to pay women less for the same work, is a liberal fiction.
The stupidity and wrong-headedness of the Obama administrations women in combat decision has nothing to do with the proper social position of women and everything to do with indisputable, biological fact.
Facts reported by professor Kingsley Browne of Wayne State University, author of the book Co-ed Combat:
Inclusion of women in (combat) roles results in a segment of the force that is physically weaker, more prone to injury (both physical and psychological), less...
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
It’s so laughable but I really want to scream.
Common sense is truly dead.
OK Let’s move forward with this idea.
Same test to get into the military
Same aptitude, education, and physical ability.
Same training. Technical,emotional, and physical
Let’s see who comes out the other side.
They should require any woman wanting to become a ground grunt to watch “Band of Brothers,” “The Pacific” (particularly the Peleliu sequences), Hamburger Hill, and “They Were Soldiers,” and then ask her if she really thinks she can handle brutal, gory combat, in filthy conditions, of that intensity?
By all means put men and women in the same foxhole. Why should gays have all the fun?
The she is not important. It is the fighting machine that is important and anything that has an adverse effect on the unit efficiency should be removed.
I saw it years ago when we first had to bring women into heavy industry. The women individually were OK. It was the mixing of sexes on crews. Some men are conditioned to be helpful to women and take on part of their work load. Some men are just sexually aggressive, some aren’t, jealousy enters the picture, she is more attracted to one, many, many factors surface, and the mission suffers.
Check out the few countries that allow mixed front line units, like the Dutch, and you will find they are worthless as fighting units.
“you will find they are worthless as fighting units.”
Why does this surprise anyone, isn’t that one of BOs goals? To neuter our military?
Anything to weaken us, he’ll do it.
What a truly shameful day when we hide behind our women instead of protect them.
We are in the down fall that’s for sure.
Exactly and right on target. Anything to weaken the military, and then when the new mixed Obama Blend military fails to function he will call in UN troops.
From what I understand, he is not “free to lift the ban on women”. It’s supposed to go through congress.
the women will test okay on paper, but won’t be able to do the physical part
A friend, former Marine, and I just had this conversation over coffee.
It came up - would you rather have a woman in excellent shape or a raging queer worried about his hair doing the job.
We like the woman, given that choice.
This has a lot more to do with the left recruiting for the purpose of increasing numbers *in uniform* who will follow the dictates of Obama’s regime and the getting-to-be-fanatical dogma of his palace media.
For every woman who dares, and is motivated, to defend our Bill of Rights, Obama will try to defeat her by recruiting 2 or more women who can be led and ordered to fight against that woman.
Obama will claim, that if you are against women being in combat, then you are making war on women.
Obama will claim, that if you are against women being in combat, then your argument that women have the right to keep and bear Arms is “irrelevant,” as the left is so fond of saying.
Practically every move by Obama, is a courtroom parlor trick intended to sow the seeds of doubt among the jurors.
Obama does not believe that women should be in combat; rather, he believes the statistics from surveys conducted by the teams who gave him and the left, pre-election feedback, that allowed him/the left to sow doubt while also maintaining the turnout of women for Obama.
It is *all* about being *for Obama* and particularly, women being made to fear being without Obama, without NPR, without PBS.
At some point, Obama will have his palace media claiming that “Men want to take away your cell phones!”
Obama is going to increase the “rights” that women have *under Obama’s nationalizing socialism* and pose the Bill of Rights as a threat to them.
He’s out to buy souls, and he’s not paying for it.
As I said before, they should legislate no more boys/girls teams in any sports - from HS to Olympics. No more NWBA - from now on they play with the NBA.
As long as they don’t lower the standards in ANY way, then I say if a woman can do they job and wants to do the job, then let her.
Other than that this is a great idea!
um... the president is the commander in chief of the armed forced and can do pretty much anything he wants. Of course the next president can then undo those things just as easy.
I suppose their are a handful of mutant women out there who could do the job.
The military could hire Amazon women for the job!