Skip to comments.Sen. Scott Brown pushes to allow women to serve on front-lines in military combat
Posted on 02/22/2012 9:44:14 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
click here to read article
Jesus ,I’m glad someone understands politics.
Half the time it is not what is real in politics it is what is said and where you say it.
Scott Brown has to run against a woman in the most liberal state in the country that makes Nancy Pelosi look like Barry Goldwater.
He has to take this issue away from Lez Warren or if he opposes it Warren and the Boston Globe will trounce him on the issue In Ma. where he has to win reelection with Obama on the same ballot in Ma.
Give the guy a break will ya.
One of my husband’s Company Commanders was a very strong, physically fit, bike riding, clean living, West Point graduating female. Her MOS was Military Intelligence. She was very intelligent, as well. The poster child for all the people who want women pushed closer to combat.(My husband is a Combat Engineer, but when he was a Drill Sgt, his CO was a woman.)
We often discuss females in combat. We met while I was forward deployed with an Armor unit during Desert Storm. Lots of women have been forward deployed.
My husband’s very competent, very physically strong CO, though competent and stronger than many women in America, was still not as strong as our 15 year old son is. I hate to break it to the rest of the adults here that think somewhere in America a bunch of women are evolving into some kind of roboFemaleSoldier...but it’s not happening. Tomboy? Ok, I was a tomboy,but I wasn’t ever as strong as the men around me. We had a female in our unit nicknamed “Big Mama.” She was a big mama, I mean muscular. She had broad shoulders and was physically fit. She was one of the first and only women to play on a male football team in her home state of Maine, and showed us the pics. Big Mama is still serving honorably in our Military, and has deployed many times.
But Big Mama, with all her muscles and football playing toughness, is not as strong as a man. Men who go outside the wire in a war wear so much gear, for hours at a time. Some male Soldiers can’t take it, and get “fired” from their job. Then another, tougher Soldier gets put into the slot and burns his body up doing hours of physically exhausting, dangerous work. That again, 99.9% of women cannot do.
If you have a female family member that serves, please don’t get indignant and try to say she is doing what a man does. She might be doing her job very well, as many women do in our Military. But women with Combat Arms units, even if capable, are usually intimately involved with many men. Our last duty station, a brand new female PFC got involved with an older Soldier, who got her pregnant and dumped her. She tried to kill herself while pregnant. One or two women, working among hundreds of men? Could that work ANYWHERE in the world? Yet in the high stake, high stress combat units, it’s gonna work?
Scott Brown is a RINO idiot, but he’s lightyears better than Elizabeth Warren, the Shining Path guerilla.
I live in MA. I know. She makes Odumbo look conservative.
Look this is just foolishness. Yes some women could drag a guy off the battlefield. But the fact is that very large percentages of women in the military right now couldn't drag a 100 pound pack off the battlefield. Men and women are physically different, from upper body strength to size to aerobic capacity. Vive le difference'!
Most Massachusetts men have Scott Browns picture in their wallet.
Very good post. My wife is an Army vet and so am I. A long time ago. She laughs at the notion of her or our daughters serving as infantry because she knows that what I did and can still do at 60 physically is well beyond what she could manage as a young soldier in tip top shape. She served honorably and did what she could do but understands, as Scott Brown does not, that doing what one can do does not mean one can do everything.
A great point that's simply too obvious to ignore.
If it's all about equality, then why is it that women are held to a different physical standard then men? When I went through USNA, there were different physical and academic standards for men. The disparity in the physical standards was the most obvious: a lower wall on the O-course for women, for example, or the passing times for the Halsey Hack - a time that would give a man a "D" would be an "A" for a woman, etc. Even the academic standards were different, though these weren't as apparent . . . but they'd struggle to keep a woman whose academic performance was sub-par a lot harder than they would for a man whose performance was sub-par. Saw it happen.
That said, there were women there who could abide by the male standards in terms of physicality: these were the, um, manly women who threw shot on the track team, say.
That said (2), even if a woman was capable of the same performance as a man, you take normal, red-blooded young men and women and put them together in tight quarters and intimate settings, and nature will take its course. You have to be prepared for the consequences of that.
Cut it out.
No. Your gut feelings are as they should be.
There is a nature of man and nature of woman. Men have adapted to roles as well as women—to create the most effective way to live together and have “flourishing” offspring. That design is under attack as all Natural Law Theory by Marxism—that wants to abolish all biological ties. This means redesign the natures of women and men.
To put women in combat teaches them the opposite of what their natures were designed for—the nurturing and care for human beings. This training removes their natural instincts—in a Marxist way—redesigns females to go against nature.
Same with putting males and females together in battle—to destroy man’s natural protectiveness of the weaker sex—woman. That natural desire to protect and care for—to give the woman the ability to nurture their offspring—is essential to normal, healthy development of children. They need the emotional love of a mother for years so they are able to trust and love.
Destroy the Natural Family—the Marxists main goal with destroying Christianity because that religion is the best for strong families and unity.
They remove mothers and fathers from babies and those children grow up to fill prisons and gangs and commit suicide, etc. That is the type of people Marxists want—useful idiots that are dependent because of lack of love they have no self-esteem—no desire for individualism and the abilty for long term healthy attachments—which only comes from a secure childhood with both a loving father and mother. All psychology shows the damage to children who have no loving mother in the home—or who has been removed in early development-—it is severe mental instability and they will grow up not to trust and be loyal. They become what they learn.
Women put into battle is reeducation camp—to learn to kill and destroy their concept of men as protectors. It is part of redesigning man by atheists. I was a Tom boy and never wanted to go to battle—although I played with guns, etc as a child. I wanted to have babies and a man who would be a great role model for my children—one who would cherish me staying home and caring for out offspring-—the way God designed.
Does that mean all women should want that-—no—but the idea that there is no difference between men and women is a lie—and Natural Laws are supposed to be the basis of all our Just Laws-—there is no egalitarianism in the Constitution—that is Stalin’s ideology. That idea to disregard Nature is anathema to the Founders and the intent of our Judicial system.
Where a genuine requirement to run 100 meters, pick up a 180 lb man and carry him back 100 meters in 60 seconds exists, those requirements should remain.
However, nature has conferred different strengths and weaknesses to men and woman. Both sexes are able to do some tasks naturally better than others. Feminists won't admit this but it's a fact.
The military probably already has considerable information pertaining natural abilities of men and women. Where raw strength and endurance is not a requirement, the best teams may be obtained by including men and women. Fraternization is always a concern in such situations and the most practical mixed sex teams may be those where at the end of a mission, everyone can go to their separate quarters.
In situations such as flying frontseat and backseat in a combat aircraft... especially helicopters, the generally better ability of a woman to multi-task than a man may make male-female pilot tandems a better mix. The male has natural aggression, risk taking, orientation and an ability to focus while the female of the pair is better equipped by nature to simultaneously monitor instruments, communications and maintain situational awareness.
Even with fighter aircraft, my understanding is women are generally better able to withstand g-forces than men which again, may give a male-female pair an edge.
Great post. Thanks for showing the link to Marxism in the continuing disaster of election of Scott Brown as a republican.
Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still evil. Both parties are fronting Marxism at an astonishing rate.
Got a link? The only study I have seen shows female performance in high g environment is 15% lower than males with significantly higher risk of neck injury due to bone and muscle structure differences.
Thanks-—I’ve been studying Marxism and Natural Law Theory and just read Mark Levin’s new book.
We are post-Constitutional now like Mark says-—with Marxism being forced on us at such increasing speed, it is not funny.
We have to educate people to the ideas that these people are peddling and challenge them. They just will name call, of course, because their ideology is nonsense and destructive to man.
We need to get kids out of the public school system-—all a Marxist brainwashing machine. It is destroying the logic and reason of children—to condition them to think good is evil and evil is good and be good little useful idiots.
No I don't and I don't remember exactly where i heard that. Thanks for calling me out on it.
(In all the years the Navy has put women on ships [about 30], the suits and admirals have yet to figure out why a certain number of females in the crews get pregnant during the cruise. Yup, and the majority of the pregnancies weren't caused by pre-deployment sex. USS EISENHOWER (CVN-69) didn't get the name of “The Love Boat” without a significant number of reasons. This is only one ship of many and Navy officialdom doesn't see a problem? Duuhh.)
Are his daughters bruisers? Otherwise, he’s signing their death warrent. The globalists want to awaken the draft. Women who are women will die pretty quickly.
I’d rather have his picture than Sharon Angles.
Don’t forget about the USS Acadia. Spent time on that boat . . . lots of shenanigans going on below decks . . .
“Id rather have his picture than Sharon Angles.”
I’m sure you would.
I rest my case.
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.