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

Skip to comments.

When Women Fight, Civilization Loses
Townhall.com ^ | February 1, 2013 | Diane West

Posted on 02/01/2013 9:38:49 AM PST by Kaslin

And so it came, the coup de grace. The final "barrier" to "opportunities" for women in combat is no more. With a stroke of their pens, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey decreed that no battlefield mission or military role is off-limits to the female sex. The defense secretary and the general thus liberated mothers, daughters, sisters and wives to kill and be killed in the infantry, commando raids, even in Obama administration "overseas contingency operations." In so doing, they also slashed away at that last institutional protection for the space that separates men and women, where civilization once grew.

It (civilization) has been struggling there for decades, as social engineers and radical feminists -- all heirs to Marx -- have been cutting away at elemental human instinct, social grace, language and thought itself. This overhaul of manners and mores, the family structure and marriage -- even private aspects of the relationship between men and women -- has been successful to a point where the cultural argument against women in combat (women in the military being a lost cause) is rarely voiced, not even on the right. (I watched Fox News on women-in-combat announcement day, listening in vain for just one culture warrior.)

We are left to make only the utilitarian arguments -- body strength and speed, unit cohesion, even urinary tract infections and other hazards that front-line deployment pose to females. These are compellingly logical points, but they are unlikely to reverse an ideological juggernaut. When the secretary of defense says putting women in combat is about "making our military ... and America stronger" and no one says he's lying to further a Marxian ideal via social engineering, the cultural argument is lost, and the culture it comes from is bound and gagged, hostage to what we know as "political correctness."

I still see threads of the cultural argument in emails and some blog responses to the Pentagon's latest whack at creating "gender neutrality." It erupts like a reflex against the conditioning to deny differences defined, at their essence, by muscle mass and womb. Such conditioning erodes the male protective instinct -- which, surely, is what war is supposed to arise from -- and the female nurturing instinct, which surely is what a civilization depends on.

No more. Women with wombs and without manly muscle mass now count as Pentagon-approved "warriors," modern-day knights in Kevlar, soon to be humping 80-pound packs over mountain and desert.

Or maybe not. Didn't Gen. Dempsey indicate that dropping some of those old-fashioned strength and speed requirements might be in order? "If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it," Dempsey said last week, "the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?" Of course not! Why train Navy SEALs when Navy OTTERs will do as well?

And what about their children, when these front-line warriors bear them? And their pregnancies, when they decide it's better for their mission, for their country, to terminate them? Don't think Daddy Government, once again, won't be a steady provider to his womenfolk.

And why not? "It is women who pass on the culture," my daughters' pediatrician -- a font of human wisdom after six of his own kids and endless patients -- used to tell me, his voice rising over baby girls screaming. But what kind of "gender-neutral" culture will they pass on?

Rather, what kind of gender-neutral culture have women already passed on? After all, this penultimate shift at the Pentagon (will the NFL be next?) is just the tail end of something, not the beginning -- the rewiring of the human spirit. In other words, the whole movement in the name of "equal rights" has no more to do with women being legally able to apply for a credit card and other aspects of equality before the law than ordering women into combat is about making the military and America stronger.

No, it's about behavioral manipulation and transformation -- the Equal Rights Amendment by executive fiat. These changes have been a long time coming. In my lifetime, I have watched even post-1960s standards of femininity, for example, plunge to a point where female tendencies toward privacy, intimacy and modesty have given way to norms of clinical-style revelation and numbing brazenness -- and I'm talking about today's "nice" girls, the ones who soon will be considered eligible for Selective Service.

Yes, I know, only 15 percent of our all-volunteer military is female -- even after decades of active government courtship to woo women into the ranks and make "a force that looks like America" (not Obama's Cabinet), as Bill Clinton has put it. But don't think this "opportunity" for the few comes without strings to the many. As Army Col. Ellen Haring pointed out on "PBS NewsHour" last week, "With full rights come full responsibilities."

And then what? Will gender-neutral raw recruits soon be brawling outside the bar (with the man "beating the snot" out of the woman, as one Iraq veteran recently suggested to me in an email)? Will gender-neutral male soldiers be trained out of their protective instinct toward women? Do we want to live with the results?

One senior officer with multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan wrote this to me: "I would never want my mother, sisters, wife or daughter to have to experience the ravages of combat or, worse, become a prisoner of war. It goes against every fiber of my being."

Yesterday's man. For a better tomorrow, we need more like him.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: genmartindempsey; leonpanetta; usefulidiots; usmilitary; women; womenincombat

1 posted on 02/01/2013 9:38:53 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Lost" Israel:


2 posted on 02/01/2013 9:40:09 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Do you actually believe carrying a rifle across your back in a climate-controlled building is the same as infantry combat?


3 posted on 02/01/2013 9:41:34 AM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

4 posted on 02/01/2013 9:43:42 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Hot girls with guns.
Great pic!


5 posted on 02/01/2013 9:43:45 AM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

I’m not sure I’d want to mess with ‘em myself.


6 posted on 02/01/2013 9:44:40 AM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
One senior officer with multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan wrote this to me: "I would never want my mother, sisters, wife or daughter to have to experience the ravages of combat or, worse, become a prisoner of war. It goes against every fiber of my being."

He'll never make the general officer ranks in Obama's army.

7 posted on 02/01/2013 9:48:25 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: Future Snake Eater

Do you actually believe that any one of those women couldn’t kick your butt 7 ways til Sunday without blinking an eye?


8 posted on 02/01/2013 9:52:04 AM PST by mquinn (Obama's supporters: a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
Do you actually believe carrying a rifle across your back in a climate-controlled building is the same as infantry combat?

No, but it's all that stuff they did before they earned the privilege of carrying a rifle across their backs that I think is the same.

9 posted on 02/01/2013 9:57:22 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

You are right. Women in Israel do not serve in combat unit.


10 posted on 02/01/2013 10:07:54 AM PST by Mi-kha-el ((There is no Pravda in Izvestiya and no Izvestiya in Pravda.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Any country that sends women to fight and kill is inherently perverse, unnatural, and anti-human.


11 posted on 02/01/2013 10:16:25 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

No more rape charges.

If women are equal to men there is no way a man could rape one.


12 posted on 02/01/2013 10:18:32 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mquinn
Do you actually believe that any one of those women couldn’t kick your butt 7 ways til Sunday without blinking an eye?

I'm sure any one of them could kick my butt. Then again, I'm a grey-haired couch potato. That's not the issue. The issue is, could any of them survive more than 30 seconds in a hand-to-hand encounter against an in-shape combat-trained MAN in his 20's? I don't think so.

13 posted on 02/01/2013 10:27:41 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it," Dempsey said last week, "the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?"

The standard is based on what an acceptable number of applicants will pass, in order to fulfill service requirements. If the passing applicant set are all men, then it should not matter.

This is the logical extension of the "affirmative action" mentality that was applied to race "If not enough minorities pass the tests of literacy or mental ability, then the test itself is at fault".

14 posted on 02/01/2013 10:34:13 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mquinn
With all due respect for both you and their willingness to fight for their country. Yes, I do.

Could they shoot and kill me? Undoubtedly. Could they win in hand to hand or carry the same level of gear into a combat zone or heft another warfighter over their shoulder and carry them a mile to safety? I don't think that at all.

We can all cite examples of extraordinary woman who have fought and fought well but they were extraordinary.

In this case they are citizens of a country that is very small and surrounded by vicious enemies. I admire them greatly but arming woman and sending them into combat when there are able bodied men to fight is a rejection of reason and logic.

15 posted on 02/01/2013 10:36:34 AM PST by Anvilhead (In my lifetime we've gone from citizens to subjects.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Lots of sexual assaults but not all are rapes. A lot of the “rapes” are soldiers climbing into each others bunks voluntarily.

What is not stated in the reports are some of the assaults are not soldier on soldier. They throw in off post assaults as well as assaults by non US personnel.

Either way the statement you mentioned is claimed to be one of the reasons why the assault rates are thru the roof.


16 posted on 02/01/2013 10:43:50 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I actually date the loss of our civilization to when we allowed women the vote. Once ‘compassionate, caring’ women had the right to vote, we were doomed.

Particularly single women. Single women, as a whole, want to be married to Mr Government.


17 posted on 02/01/2013 10:52:38 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mquinn; Future Snake Eater

“Do you actually believe that any one of those women couldn’t kick your butt 7 ways til Sunday without blinking an eye?”

Not unless I wanted them to...and I’m in my 50s.


18 posted on 02/01/2013 10:56:23 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

In my lifetime, I have watched even post-1960s standards of femininity, for example, plunge to a point where female tendencies toward privacy, intimacy and modesty have given way to norms of clinical-style revelation and numbing brazenness....

&&&
Oh, yes, the progressives have been quite successful in their goal of destroying women’s sense of modesty. It is quite appalling.

And what makes is so very sad is that there are so many in the Gen-X and later groups who have no idea of what has been lost. I see it even here on a conservative site.


19 posted on 02/01/2013 11:19:53 AM PST by Bigg Red (Restore us, O God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved! -Ps80)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mquinn
Do you actually believe that any one of those women couldn’t kick your butt 7 ways til Sunday without blinking an eye?

Yes, I absolutely believe that. I'm six feet tall, 240 pounds. I bench over 300 pounds, squat over 400 pounds, and standing press over 200 pounds. I would break any one of them in half without breaking a sweat. Yet, despite all that, infantry combat was utterly exhausting and very, very demanding.

A uniform doesn't make you invincible. I've seen the dead bodies to prove my assertion. Women are not cut out for direct infantry combat, period.

20 posted on 02/01/2013 2:18:59 PM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
No, but it's all that stuff they did before they earned the privilege of carrying a rifle across their backs that I think is the same.

It's not the same. It can be a halfway decent approximation, but that's about it. And I know if I got hit, and all I had around me was a woman to carry me out, I'd die. I'm well over 300 pounds in full kit. No way in hell a woman is pulling me out of such a situation.

That's not unfair of me to say, it's just a fact.

21 posted on 02/01/2013 2:24:49 PM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mquinn

lol, are you drunk?


22 posted on 02/01/2013 2:26:00 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
And combat consists solely of infantry wearing 60 lbs of armor plate and 120 lb rucksacks.

It doesn't consist of armored tank and personnel carrier crew, bomb disposal, minefield clearing, air defense battery crew, tactical operations center specialist, etc.

And because a woman could never take you in hand to hand combat, women have no business being cops, either, right?

23 posted on 02/01/2013 5:43:46 PM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“I actually date the loss of our civilization to when we allowed women the vote. Once ‘compassionate, caring’ women had the right to vote, we were doomed. Particularly single women. Single women, as a whole, want to be married to Mr Government.”
Sadly, I agree with you. I have spoken the same to a few people who think I’m awful to come to such a conclusion. Also it’s important to say that I am a woman myself who in the first election I was old enough to vote in, cast my ballot very stupidly for Lyndon Johnson. I would never vote in such a way anymore, but there are too many women who are apparently unteachable.


24 posted on 02/01/2013 6:12:52 PM PST by Bravada (Wherever I Stand, I Stand With Israel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
It doesn't consist of armored tank and personnel carrier crew, bomb disposal, minefield clearing, air defense battery crew, tactical operations center specialist, etc.

With the exception of the first two, women hold all of those jobs. You know why? They're not combat roles.

And because a woman could never take you in hand to hand combat, women have no business being cops, either, right?

I think it's exceedingly dangerous. Remember this? If I really wanted to resist arrest, I'd have a hell of a lot more success against a female than a male. That being said, law enforcement isn't infantry combat either.

25 posted on 02/01/2013 6:36:32 PM PST by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
And because a woman could never take you in hand to hand combat, women have no business being cops, either, right?

No, because chicks can always use their sidearm to shoot and subdue the "suspect."

26 posted on 02/01/2013 6:41:15 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

>>>>And combat consists solely of infantry wearing 60 lbs of armor plate and 120 lb rucksacks.
It doesn’t consist of armored tank and personnel carrier crew, bomb disposal, minefield clearing, air defense battery crew, tactical operations center specialist, etc.

And because a woman could never take you in hand to hand combat, women have no business being cops, either, right?<<<<

A crew of disabled armored tank or minefield cleaners under attack are same infantry. And who need a tactical operation center “specialist” who never fought actual battle and for that reason are clueless about real tactics.
There are plenty of useless male “specialists” to screw things any further.

Some nations has a vast experience in building “diverse” armed forces. None of them continued to put women in combat.

In fact this women soldier idiocy is pretty in line with other diversity, affirmative action, political correctness, promotion of sodomy,censorship, regulations and wealth redistribution crap which federal government copies from earlier 1920s Soviets despite the fact it proved to be an epic failure.

They have ruined their society beyond repair in a decade at the time and had to build labor camps to make at least some productivity of their new entitled class along with millions other “public enemies”.
Is this an American future?


27 posted on 02/01/2013 7:53:51 PM PST by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
And because a woman could never take you in hand to hand combat, women have no business being cops, either, right?

It is obvious that you have drank the equity koolaid. IF women were as capable and proficient as men THEN this imposed 'progress' would have happened long ago NATURALLY -it would NOT have to have been imposed by big government. Clearly you like big government as long as it imposes your ideology upon society rather than the other way around. THIS imposition is the same as the homosexual sex imposition -you like that one?

This ACTION is feminizing the military. Of course those that are brainwashed to believe that there is no difference between men and women have no problem with this because they see nothing -they are blind useful idiots.

I have a wife and daughter -neither I would want sacrificed in combat -and you who are so eager to sacrifice mothers and daughters to the leftist regime -what are you sacrificing again?

28 posted on 02/02/2013 3:07:33 AM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
We both know what this is really about. It is about allowing women officers to command combat units so they can further their military careers.

Of the MOSs that are currently closed to women, not all of them will be opened. And hopefully the services don't dilute the physical requirements for those positions. The Marine Corps have said they will not lower physical standards, but the Army has said they will 'review' requirements. If a woman can pass the physical requirements, then she should be allowed to have that MOS if she desires.

29 posted on 02/02/2013 5:48:04 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
I have a wife and daughter -neither I would want sacrificed in combat

I have two sons that I would never want sacrificed in combat, either. It's a good thing that we have an all volunteer military so that your wife and daughter will never be asked to sacrifice themselves in combat unless they volunteer.

30 posted on 02/02/2013 5:51:55 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
It's a good thing that we have an all volunteer military so that your wife and daughter will never be asked to sacrifice themselves in combat unless they volunteer.

I guess I missed the "only voluntary" exclusion when the leftists finally impose a draft because not enough volunteer to serve in the affirmative action gender confused sex neutral experimental human rights world police force. I am sure that women now serving will have that option as well NOT.

Sorry Comrade -the brave world of collectivist equality that you embrace is an enemy of this Republic.

31 posted on 02/02/2013 7:57:55 AM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
Sorry Comrade -the brave world of collectivist equality that you embrace is an enemy of this Republic.

Women aren't even required to register for Selective Service because the NAGs (National Association of Gals, as Rush would say) have made sure that when they are fighting for equality, the equality of being drafted into military service is excepted.

So don't worry. When my fellow comrades finally compel infidels like you to fight our battles, the women won't be included because our feminist allies don't wish it.

32 posted on 02/02/2013 9:25:07 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
When my fellow comrades finally compel infidels like you to fight our battles, the women won't be included because our feminist allies don't wish it.

I already served voluntarily -thank God it was with patriots voluntarily making a sacrifice -not unprincipled metrosexual limp wrists that are more interested in kissing ass,making a paycheck and getting retirement than kicking ass and defeating the enemy.

An affirmative action military is NOT a way to defeat an enemy it is a way to weaken America. Obama thanks you and General Dempsey for your compliance and obedience. Your "Winning The Future" T-Shirt & signed 8x10 of Obama in drag will arrive in the mail soon.

33 posted on 02/02/2013 11:21:54 AM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

“There is a question about male Marines “feeling obligated to protect female Marines,” but
no queries to measure the opposite effect: men becoming increasingly resentful of women
if they are assigned to currently all-male infantry battalions. (Q 52) In 1992, military
sociologist Prof. Charles C. Moskos, PhD, who also served as a member of the
Presidential Commission, did a survey of military personnel that identified a significant
subset of men he called “egalitarian sexists.” Dr. Moskos informed the commission that these men said they favored women in combat because they resented feminists and wanted to punish women by forcing them into combat where they would be hurt and forced to go away.”

This is from a survey conducted on the Marines. Seems like men will not be rushing to protect their female comrades in arms after all.


34 posted on 02/02/2013 12:37:27 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

“In a later article, Moskos’ colleague Laura L. Miller provided more information about men she identified as “hostile proponents.” This group, which swells the numbers of survey respondents favoring women in combat, “...reason that the issue of women in the combat arms will not be put to rest until women have been given the opportunity to prove their incompetence.” “

CMR report. This is from a survey given to the Marines.


35 posted on 02/02/2013 12:39:50 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: USAF80

I agree -in my opinion, these ‘men’ are more than likely from the same group of selfish self centered men that objectify women -see women as things to be used.


36 posted on 02/02/2013 6:56:21 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Excellent point. However, the PC feminazis will find a way around that point with their usual non-logic.


37 posted on 02/03/2013 8:20:22 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Excellent point. However, the PC feminazis will find a way around that point with their usual non-logic.


38 posted on 02/03/2013 8:20:29 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | 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