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

Skip to comments.

Military and Society Threatened by Women in Combat
http://townhall.com ^ | January 25, 2013 | Mark Davis

Posted on 01/25/2013 7:15:27 AM PST by NKP_Vet

The first line of attack in political battles is language. Getting people to phrase things your way is the first step to getting them to think your way.

In the foggy mess of the debate over women in combat, you will see media references to a “ban” being “lifted.”

Bans are bad. Lifting bans is good. Therein lies the bias strangling this issue in the dominant media culture.

Am I “banned” from the women’s restrooms at work? No, I’m just not supposed to be in there, so that word doesn’t come up. The left has commandeered combat as a rhetorical battlefield, where excluding women is as vile as denying them the right to vote.

Just as allowing gays in the military has become a litmus test for human decency, the argument for women in combat focuses on their self-interest before the nation’s.

We see the same examples of noble service, as if they outweigh the arguments against. We hear scolding references to opponents stuck in some bygone era, steeped in bigotry. We hear no evidence of how this helps us win wars, which is the military’s actual job.

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
"As a female vet, I liked to think of myself as pretty tough. However, I am not foolish enough to think that I can, as a combatant hold my own. Can I kill? Yep. Can I run a tank if necessary? Yes. But not carrying the same weight as my male peers is not only a distraction, it dumbs down the mission and puts everyone at risk. What if I got captured? The likelihood of rape and other abuses would go without saying. Are my risks any different than an every day one? You bet they are. And my male peers put themselves at risk to protect me. In every situation I would expect nothing less, but this is beyond the pal".
1 posted on 01/25/2013 7:15:31 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

wait til our wives\moms\daughters start coming through Dover...


2 posted on 01/25/2013 7:18:25 AM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

The feminazis need the slaughtered body of a female combatant to build a cult around, especially one who wasn’t raped . . . Jessica Lynch didn’t help when she told of being raped repeatedly by her capturers . . . they couldn’t build an industry around that . . . they need evidence of a female being mowed down or killed so they can start flapping their jaws.

The libtards want to be as ruthless to women soldiers as they are to the unborn and newly born. And the more dead women’s bodies brought through Dover, the better for their agenda.

They’re a bunch of worthless, sick bastards.


3 posted on 01/25/2013 7:25:14 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Just as allowing gays in the military has become a litmus test for human decency...

Oh, really? Since when is an appetite for sexual perversion a standard for human decency, and since when is the litmus test for our military centered around that...oh, wait...it's the "new normal".

4 posted on 01/25/2013 7:25:49 AM PST by TADSLOS ( "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."-George Mason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
not carrying the same weight as my male peers is not only a distraction, it dumbs down the mission and puts everyone at risk

that is one of the primary reasons why obozo ordered it.

5 posted on 01/25/2013 7:26:53 AM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Military and Society Threatened by Women in Combat


Since the job of the military is to protect our borders, I can see why they would feel that way.

I’m 59 and have not hit the gym in four years. I honestly believe you could put pretty much any female body builder in front of me and, if necessary, I could break her arm off in arm wrestling.

Women simply do not have the muscle and bone mass of men - generally speaking. Not to mention the constitution for grabbing a quick sandwich while your hands are covered in the dry blood of the guy you gutted a couple hours ago.


6 posted on 01/25/2013 7:30:29 AM PST by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I’ll never forget the video shot of a female soldier running from a helicopter landing with her male partners while she was holding her helmet on her head with one hand.

Can you imagine her jumping into a fox hole with your son, while holding her hand on her helmet, probably with him holding her rifle so she doesn’t drop it.

Or hows’ ‘bout the so-called female office in the Grenada invasion who was so upset at the noise and commotion around her that she sat in her jeep while she cried?

Dover will be quite busy, and the feminists will applaud.

Well, they have the homosexuals in the showers and in the bunks next to your sons now with NO restrictions, so much so that they can parade in D.C. while hugging and kissing each other, and now they can have the little honeys being subject to combat and the resultant slaughter.

Good God Almighty . . . what has America turned into?


7 posted on 01/25/2013 7:33:33 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I can see how the military could be threatened, but how is society threatened by this?


8 posted on 01/25/2013 7:35:41 AM PST by stuartcr ("I upraded my moral compass to a GPS, to keep up with the times.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Simple really, how willing will we as a society be to sending our wives, mothers and daughters off to die in a war? And how about drafting them against their will to send them off to die? The Israels tried this in 1948 and it was a horrible experience for them. They banned women from combat in 1950 as a result.
9 posted on 01/25/2013 7:41:17 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

..and in other news. They have just released a plan to deal with the sexual assault epidemic in the services.

They are trying to fix a problem that the politicians created in the first place.

Every one in senior leadership is begging the troops for answers. Why is this happening? What can we do to fix it? Why do you let your buddy get assaulted?

Sad but true. Just ask any servicemember.


10 posted on 01/25/2013 7:44:12 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

“But, but...We just wanted a LITTLE bit of feminism. This goes too far!”

/slippery slope


11 posted on 01/25/2013 7:46:52 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Sometimes you need to think before posting.

That’s like askng “If the levees around New Orleans are threatened, how is New Orleans threatened?”.

If the defenders of society are threatened, society is threatened.


12 posted on 01/25/2013 7:47:17 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Amen!


13 posted on 01/25/2013 8:05:56 AM PST by cotton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

We are worse then Barbarians. Their warriors tried to protect their women and children.


14 posted on 01/25/2013 8:11:54 AM PST by Kozak (The Republic is dead. I do not owe what we have any loyalty, wealth or sympathy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

It’s the dumbest thing to happen in the military in the last 200 years. Letting sodomites openly prance around was second.

A woman absolutely is not suited for infantry units or any of the special forces. I would go as far to say that they should also get get the hell out of any combat aircraft.
The chopper crashes,the female is captured, and the first thing that happens to her is she is gang-raped, over and over. Women have business in combat situations. This could have only happened in Obama bizzaro land. And no republican has came out against it. As usual they all kiss Obama’s ass and say “bless their hearts if that’s what they want to do”. Makes me sick to my damn stomach. How far can this country sink as a society. Elections have consequences and I want to thank the sorry, worthless ass republican voters who stayed at home and elected this worthless socialist bastard for another four years.


15 posted on 01/25/2013 8:12:12 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Liberals hate the military. It’s because they hate their country. They know that it’s not politically feasable right now to eliminate the military entirely, so they castrate it and turn it into an ineffective force.


16 posted on 01/25/2013 8:22:07 AM PST by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

We’re doing it now aren’t we? Drafting anyone would be different.


17 posted on 01/25/2013 8:54:05 AM PST by stuartcr ("I upraded my moral compass to a GPS, to keep up with the times.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

No currently women are bared from (ground) combat roles. Women sometimes find themselves in combat but that is rare and not by design.


18 posted on 01/25/2013 9:03:17 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
"I can see how the military could be threatened, but how is society threatened by this?"

When we lose the next war, thanks to the dilution of military capabilities/fragmentation of unit cohesion, we will have to learn Chinese to serve our new masters.

19 posted on 01/25/2013 9:12:21 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

The only reason the federal courst have stated that women are not included in the draft registration, is that they are prohibited by law from combat jobs. The court ruled that there is no issue in not drafting them for a job that law prohibited them from filling.

So now, that all combat jobs can be filled by women, not only CAN they be drafted, it will be REQUIRED that they are.

And i intend to make sure my daughter can evade the draft into the sodomite lead military that is a tool for Obama. Only a psychopath would want the median daughter to be exposed to the nightmare of infantry combat. It’s utterly depraved.

All so a few lesbians can get higher ranks.


20 posted on 01/25/2013 9:15:56 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Just ask yourself this: You are a General and get to choose one of two armies to fight. The first enemy army that you could choose to oppose had an all male army, or you could instead choose to fight the second enemy army that was mixed fag, women and men. Which army would you choose to fight?


21 posted on 01/25/2013 9:20:48 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

I wasn’t looking at the threat to society the same as you. I was thinking more like our society falling apart due to some moral reason/threat, not physically being threatened.


22 posted on 01/25/2013 9:22:36 AM PST by stuartcr ("I upraded my moral compass to a GPS, to keep up with the times.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Could there be a reason 'liberals' want to weaken our soldiers in combat?

Or a reason why they would destroy our reserve currency status by abusing the ability to print money? Or compromise the deterrent effectiveness of having stockpiles of nuclear weapons by unilaterally disarming?

Yes, there are reasons...

23 posted on 01/25/2013 9:26:42 AM PST by GOPJ ( Do murder laws control murders?..freeper Red Badger Let's try Criminal control - Fr:MadMax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

“but how is society threatened by this?”

Taking the essential element of civilization, the young women,, the critical nucleus of it’s young families, and sending them at that innocent age into the mind shattering experience of infantry combat. Yeah,, sounds like a great way to build a better society. And when a draft kicks in, they will do what it takes to avoid the draft, thats get knocked up FAST.
So we will create a generation of very young single moms.

But yeah,, lets take our daughters, fill them with dread, force them to do something against the essential nature of the majority of them who grew up singing in the choir and watching romantic movies at slumber parties. Lets give them them the ultimate nightmare, and call it a right.

Yeah, can’t see how that could EVER harm society.

Only sci-fi movie fans think women will be as effective as a man in combat anyway.


24 posted on 01/25/2013 9:31:27 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr; sickoflibs
This is a two step process; first dems put women in combat - then they bring back the draft. The slaughter of the daughters of traditional Americans will be a turn on for liberal elites. They see our pain and humiliation as a form of entertainment.

Tell me one ‘principle’ liberal elites fight for ... there are none beyond their own power and glorification. Hell, these people are giving fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. If that's not evil, nothing is...

25 posted on 01/25/2013 9:33:46 AM PST by GOPJ ( Do murder laws control murders?..freeper Red Badger Let's try Criminal control - Fr:MadMax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Because when they should be keeping the flame of civility alive, and making a society worth living in, starting families, giving mind shattered veterans some hope of normalcy to return to, they will instead be filling the male role of combat.
They will be stripped of their true role which is deeply critical to us all.
It’s immoral.

Ask any old guy who was in combat, how important it was to find a sane woman when they came home.
It’s immoral, and it’s like the old Harley ad, “if you have to ask, i probably can’t explain it to you”.


26 posted on 01/25/2013 9:39:10 AM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I fail to see how putting females on the front line of a battlefield could somehow change the dynamics of war to our favor.

“We are five days away from fundamentally changing America...” were the words spoken by Obama in 2008. Those desperately seeking the hope and change he promised gave little thought to what those words truly meant.

What we are seeing happen to our military is all part of that bastards corrupt and treasonist plan for America, his dream...... his America.

I love women, I’ve been married to one for over 40 years. ;>)

Anyone wanting to see just how tough, relentless, deadly and focussed for battle a woman can be.... divorce one. But, we don’t NEED them on the battle field.


27 posted on 01/25/2013 9:49:34 AM PST by Gator113 (Leave my guns alone and REGISTER THE DAMN LIBERALS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I don’t see how this is good for women. It may be good for a few ambitious female officers who want to move up the ranks and be on the Joint Chiefs. Any captured female soldier is going to be raped. It’s a gimme. Yes, male soldiers can be raped, too, especially if you got homosexuals in the ranks. It’s ironic that a few months ago democrats were outraged by the supposedly republican war on women. For weeks the only word coming out of the jackass’s mouth was rape, rape, rape, and how terrible the Republicans were for being so insensitive. Phony, sick, jackass perverts.


28 posted on 01/25/2013 10:13:26 AM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
I can see how the military could be threatened, but how is society threatened by this?

Putting aside how it destroys the human balance and society, have you forgotten what happens if America loses a major war?

Have you come to think that wars are like a sporting event between the respective "military" forces and then they both return to their respective homes with society still intact?

If America loses a major war, then we become whatever the conquerors remake us into.

29 posted on 01/25/2013 10:43:29 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: virgil

Another way to look at this is Obama wants to cripple the military even further. Enlistment is already sufffering over queers openly serving. Now that a young 18 year old girl knows that she stands the chance of being in the infantry, and expected to perform exactly like a man twice her size, look for not too many females to enlist. Women are women. Most like to be treated like women. They are nurturers, they are not wired to be in the killing fields. It’s hard enough for a man to get used to shooting at someone and someone shooting at him. Real combat is hell on earth. It’s scary. It changes you for the rest of your life. It has destroyed many fine men and I am not talking about the one that were killed. It’s not fun. Then you have the dykes. Dykes will make up the majority of the female force. I am beginning to think that was the plan from the beginning. Destroy the fighting capability of the military, then we are all speaking Chinese in the next 20 or so years.


30 posted on 01/25/2013 10:54:46 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Of course I haven’t come to think that.

I don’t think we would lose a war whether there are females in combat or not.


31 posted on 01/25/2013 11:08:00 AM PST by stuartcr ("I upraded my moral compass to a GPS, to keep up with the times.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

They’re already talking about lowering standards. It’s a race to the bottom now. Instead of the best fighting force, it will be the fighting force of the lowest common denominator. That’s collectivism in a nutshell. Teamwork is important in the military and a group is no stronger than it’s weakest link. Yes it will demoralize our troops and make our military weaker.


32 posted on 01/25/2013 11:10:32 AM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
I don’t think we would lose a war whether there are females in combat or not.

Good Lord, I don't think that military issues are a strong area for you.

33 posted on 01/25/2013 11:57:54 AM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

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