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

Skip to comments.

[UK] Equality between the sexes in every aspect of life? It just doesn’t work. Get over it
Catholic Herald [UK] ^ | 4/11/2014 | FRANCIS PHILLIPS

Posted on 04/11/2014 2:41:17 AM PDT by markomalley

Returning from Mass yesterday morning I turned on Radio 4 in the car. It was Women’s Hour and there was the presenter, Dame Jenni Murray, calmly discussing with other women the question of whether women should be allowed to serve in the front line in the forces or not. The question is topical because General Sir Peter Wall, head of the British army, stated earlier this week that the army should look “more normal to society”. He explained: “This isn’t just about getting more females into the 30% of roles that are combat trades but getting more of them into the army per se.” It seems he wants “every woman in the country to know the service is open to them and we need to make sure we get that message across.”

Is he crazy or am I crazy? Until now British women have been excluded from close-combat roles, which are, as Haroon Siddique describes it in the Guardian article referred to above, “officially designed as “roles that are primarily intended and designed with the purpose of requiring individuals on the ground to close with and kill the enemy.” In other words, hand to hand fighting in which you are trying to butcher your enemy face to face. Is this what the public at large, let alone women themselves, really want? Has Sir Peter Wall been so brainwashed by political correctness that he cannot see that hand to hand killing strikes at the very heart of what women are supposed to represent?

You don’t have to be a Christian – or indeed a Catholic, with a devotion to Our Lady and what she signifies in terms of maternal gentleness and graciousness – to know that men and women are different; that men have traditionally played a protective role towards women and, if the situation demands it, engaged in the ghastly business of warfare in order to protect their country, their hearth and their home. Killing people face to face doesn’t come naturally to men; they have to be trained to do it because occasionally, given our fallen state, war is a grim necessity. But it has always been accepted – until now – that although women can play excellent supportive roles as technicians, engineers, drivers, doctors, nurses or whatever (which demonstrate their courage and intelligence in other ways and which are in no way demeaning), it is inappropriate for them to actually fight alongside men. Apart from anything else it has been argued that seeing a wounded woman or a woman being brutally bested by an armed assailant, a man would naturally rush to her defence in a way that he wouldn’t instinctively do for a male comrade.

Yet Sir Peter Wall has no problem with this, even though an MOD review as late as 2010 stated that although “women were physically and psychologically capable of the job”, the effects of “gender-mixing” on team cohesion were unknown and could have “far-reaching and grave consequences.” I’ll say. Indeed, if it hasn’t happened before, how can it be known that women are “psychologically capable of the job”, let alone physically capable?
Significantly, the Woman’s Hour item focused on the possible physical problems that would arise: women, being built differently and with less muscle-power (I suppose one is still allowed to say this) might not be up to the arduous physical demands of long marches in appalling conditions while carrying heavy packs, let alone the extreme physical challenge of actual close combat. No-one asked, “Is it right that women should be licensed to kill alongside men?” It is often said that women are psychologically the stronger sex and this may well be true. But this is not stated in the context of the raw aggression needed to bayonet another human being; it is made in the context of the enormous demands over a long period of raising young children.

After his eagerness to follow the modern requirement of “equality” in everything, Sir Peter seemed to hedge his bets a bit when he added, “There will always be people who say the close battle is no place for female soldiers.” But he is not among them, apparently.

Laura Perrins, a mother of two young children and a barrister, has written a rightly sarcastic riposte to Wall: “Congratulations sisters. Soon you may get the right to kill another human being just the same as a man…If you are a woman, why waste your time being an army doctor or –God forbid – a nurse when you can be in there where the action is, bayoneting and throat slitting with the rest of them. This is what the suffragettes would have wanted! It should be noted that women soldiers already “serve on the front line with the artillery as medics, engineers, intelligence officers and fighter pilots…” But this is not good enough – they need to be in combat units also.”

Equality between the sexes in every aspect of life? It just doesn’t work. Get over it.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 04/11/2014 2:41:17 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Most women don’t want to be in the literal line of fire.
Shall we conscript them, give them guns and get them shot at in the name of fairness?
Talk about a literal war on women.


2 posted on 04/11/2014 3:02:48 AM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Apart from anything else it has been argued that seeing a wounded woman or a woman being brutally bested by an armed assailant, a man would naturally rush to her defence in a way that he wouldn’t instinctively do for a male comrade.

I disagree that a man wouldn't instinctively come to another man's defense. Many Medals of Honor have been awarded to men who did exactly that.

I think that, psychologically, women are just as capable of handling combat as men. After all, women already work in areas that bring them very close to combat; in the capacity of doctors and nurses, they routinely deal with combat-caused injuries and psychological problems.

However, there is still the issue that women are simply not as big or strong as men. I do not think there are many women who could lug around 100 pounds of clothing and equipment for hours on end. We won't see women in combat for the same reason we don't see many women in heavy construction or other physically demanding jobs: most women just aren't very strong.

3 posted on 04/11/2014 3:28:43 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I think I disagree with you. The fact that women are not as strong as men seems irrelevant to me. What about combat roles that don't involve strength, endurance, etc? Should we then open those types of combat roles up to women?

I think we should just admit that men and women are not equal. Both sexes should be treated equally under the law under ordinary circumstances, but we should allow ourselves to have occasional exceptions such as combat roles.

4 posted on 04/11/2014 3:51:02 AM PDT by j. earl carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: j. earl carter

Excuse my ignorance, sir, but what combat roles—and we are excluding support jobs here, as outlined in the article— don’t involve strength and endurance?


5 posted on 04/11/2014 4:03:59 AM PDT by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
I have no idea if there are any combat roles that don't involve strength and endurance right now, and I definitely don't know about the future. My point is that I don't think this should be the reason for excluding women from combat.

The reason we should exclude women from combat is because men and women are not equal. As a society, we have decided that men and women should be treated equally under the law. I'm just saying that society should reserve the right to make exceptions to this law, with combat being a good example.

6 posted on 04/11/2014 4:20:18 AM PDT by j. earl carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum; j. earl carter
Excuse my ignorance, sir, but what combat roles—and we are excluding support jobs here, as outlined in the article— don’t involve strength and endurance?

Indeed. Please explain.

When I think of combat roles, I think of infantry and heavy machinery. Maybe a woman could drive a heavy armored vehicle, but could she change a heavy armored vehicle tire or do other field repairs if it breaks down?

7 posted on 04/11/2014 4:25:10 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

“Most women don’t want to be in the literal line of fire.
Shall we conscript them, give them guns and get them shot at in the name of fairness?”

At least the men will be more than happy in a combat situation and say, “Ladies first!”.


8 posted on 04/11/2014 4:56:33 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

No, any real man will place himself between the females & incoming fire. That alone will interfere with combat effectiveness, as the Israelis found out back in 1948.


9 posted on 04/11/2014 5:03:18 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("In the modern world, Muslims are living fossils.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Yes, I know, but if women want to be men they gotta take point and be the cannon fodder for the guys.


10 posted on 04/11/2014 5:04:29 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Now you know the reason why the one percenters are gung ho to put women in the military at all levels.


11 posted on 04/11/2014 5:11:11 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
the army should look “more normal to society”

The only visual characteristics of an army should be: fearsomeness... uniformity... and/or invisibility/concealment.

No other traits need apply (other than exceptionally attractive dress uniforms for rare social engagements). The liberal psycho-babble of "looking like society" is simply a ruse to make the military weaker, more confused, less coordinated, and less effective.

12 posted on 04/11/2014 5:25:11 AM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............

You’re missing the point.

The GOAL is to vastly increase gummint power over as many people and parts of society as they possibly can.
The rest is just details.


13 posted on 04/11/2014 5:27:05 AM PDT by Flintlock ( islam is a LIE, mohammed was a CRIMINAL, sharia is POISON.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Apart from anything else it has been argued that seeing a wounded woman or a woman being brutally bested by an armed assailant, a man would naturally rush to her defence in a way that he wouldn’t instinctively do for a male comrade.

The author has clearly never served.

14 posted on 04/11/2014 5:29:37 AM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I disagree that a man wouldn't instinctively come to another man's defense.

That wasn't the question.

It appears you don't want to address the question either, as you quickly changed the subject.

You clearly don't understand men.

15 posted on 04/11/2014 7:36:22 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Let me offer another view as someone who has seen young men and women in the formative years of their lives as an elementary and high school teacher.

It’s true enough that looking at a group isn’t the same as looking at an individual, so summary judgments about women and men are sure to contain exceptions. I’ve taught some young men who would not be able to handle the physical effort needed for combat, and there have been a couple of young women who would do all right in the same situation. Generally, though, I’d have to say the writer is correct, and since I’m seeing the two sexes in their early years, it’s very clear that I’m looking at differences that are biological, not cultural.

At this point I can see my grandmother smacking her forehead and saying in that beautiful New York Brooklynese Jewish lilt, “For this you went to college?”

I’m constantly surrounded by the “culture is everything” crowd in academia, which I scrupulously ignore and undermine at every turn. Of course males and females are different. I see it every day in its most basic unmasked form. In order to maintain discipline in my class, I have to respond to boys and girls differently, or there is chaos, and no learning takes place.

Best of all, using Alinskyite methods for my own purposes, I regularly mock those claiming that men and women are alike except for culture and the way they were raised. It’s always good for a cheap laugh. As Alinsky would say, you can’t defend yourself against being mocked. And if they want to fire me, I have tenure.


16 posted on 04/11/2014 10:56:05 AM PDT by redpoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I think that, psychologically, women are just as capable of handling combat as men. After all, women already work in areas that bring them very close to combat; in the capacity of doctors and nurses, they routinely deal with combat-caused injuries and psychological problems.

Working in a hospital, is hardly combat, they don't have anything in common at all.

17 posted on 04/11/2014 11:14:08 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

okay....then they’re also fine with being drafted into this role too right? ...same process and responsibilities, without exception, to men right?

I know I’d be really p*ssed if I was injured and couldn’t get assistance (carried) because I’m surrounded by many women who aren’t physically strong enough. Men have rights too, these women don’t even consider the impact on men. This is war, not some social utopia.


18 posted on 04/11/2014 11:14:39 AM PDT by fuzzylogic (welfare state = sharing consequences of poor moral choices among everybody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

If you kill 100s of thousands of your child bearing females in war, where do your future generations, and future military come from?


19 posted on 04/11/2014 11:17:19 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Now you are catching on.

The total US fertility rate is less than replacement levels of 2.1 (as of 2011 it is about 1.89). You have women too busy working to have children, women have unlimited abortion, pets have become substitute children, plus having women in the military doesn’t help matters.


20 posted on 04/11/2014 8:03:23 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (Pubbies = national collectivists; Dems = international collectivists; We need a second party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Unless you are a very old man who has been saying this since your youth, You are the one catching on, I never had to learn what I have always known.


21 posted on 04/11/2014 8:11:38 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
It appears you don't want to address the question either, as you quickly changed the subject.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how you think I changed the subject, or what question I supposedly avoided answering by doing so. Please explain?

22 posted on 04/12/2014 6:12:57 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: redpoll
I’ve taught some young men who would not be able to handle the physical effort needed for combat, and there have been a couple of young women who would do all right in the same situation. Generally, though, I’d have to say the writer is correct, and since I’m seeing the two sexes in their early years, it’s very clear that I’m looking at differences that are biological, not cultural.

I think you're describing a typical bell curve there. If the quality being graphed is "fitness for combat" (given a numerical score based on combining individual parameters), disproportionately more men will end up on the right side of the curve (the fit side), while women will populate the left (unfit) side. Men and women will be found in the middle area where the two peaks overlap.

23 posted on 04/12/2014 6:19:57 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Working in a hospital, is hardly combat, they don't have anything in common at all.

Combat hospitals and many other support functions are located in combat zones. Women are there, and subject to the same dangers as men.

24 posted on 04/12/2014 6:21:59 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
You clearly don't understand men.

Oops, I missed this in my other reply (which you probably haven't seen yet).

Of course I don't understand men. That is because men have alien brains which are resistant to all attempts at understanding. DUH!

25 posted on 04/12/2014 6:25:46 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Re-read your post #3. Very little of it addresses the question of men instinctively coming to the aid of women.

Just for the record, men are hardwired to protect the helpless, the women and children. Nothing alien about that, nor can much be done to change that instinctive reaction.


26 posted on 04/12/2014 2:17:55 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

That is completely silly and inaccurate.

It is why I can name all the American military women who died as a result of the enemy, in Vietnam, and their rank, off the top of my head.

Lt. Sharon Lane, hit in the neck with a piece of mortar shrapnel in a commando attack on a hospital.


27 posted on 04/12/2014 3:15:51 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
Re-read your post #3. Very little of it addresses the question of men instinctively coming to the aid of women.

Because I wasn't talking about that. I was commenting to someone who said that men will instinctively help women, but not other men. I do not think that is true at all. I think that men will help another person in need, regardless of the person's gender.

28 posted on 04/12/2014 3:51:00 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The gym on post is named after a female pilot who lost her life in Afghanistan. I have provided assistance to the family of a young 22 year old mother who died from an enemy attack in Afghanistan. Just Google “women who died in combat”—women have died in every war. In Afghanistan and Iraq, over 130 women have died in combat.


29 posted on 04/12/2014 3:57:34 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

It will be women and children first, which why women in combat put all of our troops at greater risk (even women) than if it stays at all men.


30 posted on 04/12/2014 3:59:09 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
It will be women and children first, which why women in combat put all of our troops at greater risk (even women) than if it stays at all men.

I just don't see a lot of women going into combat, even without restrictions. Unless they are forced into combat roles, they will likely avoid them, for the same reasons women avoid physically demanding jobs like construction. We tend to be small and do not have the muscle mass that men do.

31 posted on 04/12/2014 4:05:55 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

You obviously have common sense. Not all people do, including women who think they should be in the military.


32 posted on 04/12/2014 6:06:14 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I think that, psychologically, women are just as capable of handling combat as men. After all, women already work in areas that bring them very close to combat; in the capacity of doctors and nurses, they routinely deal with combat-caused injuries and psychological problems.

Working in a hospital, is hardly combat, they don't have anything in common at all.

Now you reveal that you were pushing a political agenda when you started with your sill claim.

33 posted on 04/12/2014 7:28:12 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

By the way, I named the only female American military to die from enemy actin, in Vietnam.

The left has an anti-American, anti-military agenda, in pushing females onto the military.


34 posted on 04/12/2014 7:30:45 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


35 posted on 04/12/2014 7:35:16 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Working in a hospital, is hardly combat, they don't have anything in common at all.

Now you reveal that you were pushing a political agenda when you started with your sill claim.

I fail to understand how a simple statement of fact constitutes "pushing a political agenda." The fact is that 143 women have died on deployment during the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, many of them as a direct consequence of enemy action. Women *do* work in combat zones and have always been present in and near combat zones.

As I said before, there is no reason to think that women are less able than men to withstand the psychological pressures of combat. However, we tend to be small and not very muscular; we would have difficulty with the physical aspects of combat roles.

36 posted on 04/12/2014 11:04:10 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

How you switched from our discussion on your silly hospital claim to suddenly now about female military personnel in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, is interesting to see.

If you wanted to push liberal politics about females in the military, why didn’t you just say so?

If you don’t then why change the subject?


37 posted on 04/12/2014 11:17:23 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
How you switched from our discussion on your silly hospital claim to suddenly now about female military personnel in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, is interesting to see.

Let's revisit my "silly hospital claim": Combat hospitals and many other support functions are located in combat zones. Women are there, and subject to the same dangers as men.

I do not see where I have changed any subject, nor do I understand how statements of fact constitute pushing any kind of agenda. The fact is, women do deploy, and when they deploy, they are subject to the same dangers as men. Today's military does not operate the same way as the Vietnam era military.

38 posted on 04/13/2014 5:45:40 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I think that, psychologically, women are just as capable of handling combat as men. After all, women already work in areas that bring them very close to combat; in the capacity of doctors and nurses, they routinely deal with combat-caused injuries and psychological problems.

===================================== To: exDemMom
I think that, psychologically, women are just as capable of handling combat as men. After all, women already work in areas that bring them very close to combat; in the capacity of doctors and nurses, they routinely deal with combat-caused injuries and psychological problems.

Working in a hospital, is hardly combat, they don't have anything in common at all.

17 posted on 4/11/2014 11:14:08 AM by ansel12

39 posted on 04/13/2014 8:59:21 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Working in a hospital, is hardly combat, they don't have anything in common at all.

You realize that I am not talking about a facility like Walter Reed, don't you? I'm talking about the field hospitals, set up where they are subjected to IEDs, suicide bombers, etc. The only "protection" those facilities have are the red crosses painted on the walls. While medical personnel are not fighters, they do get killed in the line of duty, including from enemy action.

This is *not* the Vietnam era any more.

40 posted on 04/13/2014 9:47:25 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"After all, women already work in areas that bring them very close to combat; in the capacity of doctors and nurses, they routinely deal with combat-caused injuries and psychological problems."

I have never met a nurse or doctor in the military who thought that they were fighting and living the life, and experiencing the war, as combat troops.

They are where the men injured in combat go to get treated, fed, and cleaned up, and taken care of.

41 posted on 04/13/2014 10:00:37 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I have never met a nurse or doctor in the military who thought that they were fighting and living the life, and experiencing the war, as combat troops.

They are where the men injured in combat go to get treated, fed, and cleaned up, and taken care of.

Please go back and read carefully what I wrote. I did not ever say that medical personnel are fighting. What I said is that women are already in combat zones, using field hospitals as one example (because I am familiar with them), but certainly not the only example. This is in support of my observation that there appears to be no evidence that women would handle combat psychologically any different than men. No better, no worse. Physically is a different matter.

FYI, those doctors and nurses treating those combat casualties are under a lot of psychological stress. They feel personally responsible for every patient who doesn't make it. That, too, is a combat stress.

42 posted on 04/13/2014 12:08:20 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Who knows what you are arguing about, you seem to just want to argue no matter how much you have to keep moving and changing the subject.

Post 17 was accurate and a reasonable post, but man has it set you off on a wide ranging search for some kind of argument, from Vietnam to female casualties.

To: exDemMom
“”I think that, psychologically, women are just as capable of handling combat as men. After all, women already work in areas that bring them very close to combat; in the capacity of doctors and nurses, they routinely deal with combat-caused injuries and psychological problems.””

Working in a hospital, is hardly combat, they don’t have anything in common at all.

17 posted on 4/11/2014 11:14:08 AM by ansel12


43 posted on 04/13/2014 12:55:59 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I really don’t know what your issue is, or why you keep trying to read things I did not say into my posts.

You clearly do not know anything about the operating environment in today’s combat zones, or about the stressers that exist throughout those zones.

You also obviously want to argue about something. I saw you doing the same thing in another thread, where at least two people were calling you out on it.

No offense, but perhaps you should go get a full physical evaluation and find out what is going on there.


44 posted on 04/14/2014 4:06:09 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I made my post in post 17, it doesn't look complicated to me.

I think you made a silly comparison.

So does this 'nurse'. He thinks doing and living the combat is a better test of female psychological ability to deal with it, than seeing the result of it back at the hospital is.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

45 posted on 04/14/2014 10:23:48 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Fine, have it your way. Merely being in danger of getting killed at any moment is not psychologically stressful, and medical personnel are never disturbed when they have to patch broken and mangled bodies back to some semblance of their former conditions. Nope, none of that stuff matters. Only those who actually shoot at the enemy are subject to any kind of stress.

Clearly, you have no clue about the modern operational environment. We aren’t in Vietnam any more.


46 posted on 04/15/2014 3:06:33 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | 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