Posted on 02/09/2016 5:19:02 AM PST by Kaslin
Conservatives didn't understand why George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney questions about birth control during one of the debates back in 2012. It seemed like a bizarre question since it was a non-issue at the time, but it turned out to be foreshadowing of the Democrat strategy to make birth control a central part of the election.
We may have seen the same thing in the New Hampshire debate as liberal moderator Martha Raddatz asked Republican candidates if they thought young women should be forced to sign up for the draft. Surprisingly, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all blundered right into her trap and agreed that we should take the radical step of forcing young women to sign up for a potential draft.
If one of those candidates ends up as our nominee, he would deserve the brutal wave of attack ads Democrats should launch at him for taking such a thoughtless position. He would also deserve to bleed female support – and maybe male support, too. When you start telling fathers that you want to take their baby girls and force them into a situation where violent armed men are going to try to kill them, don't be surprised when their protective instincts naturally kick in and they decide you're not someone that they want in the White House.
The rationale for potentially drafting women is Defense Secretary Ash Carter's foolish statement about putting women in combat, "(A)s long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They'll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat."
Sadly, even many of the people in charge of our troops seem to have forgotten that the first purpose of our military is to kill people, destroy things and win wars. Instead, they're focused on turning our military into a politically correct social experiment despite the fact that will accomplish nothing other than getting more of our soldiers killed.
Because women are shorter, lighter and don't have the same level of muscle mass as men, only small percentages of women are capable of meeting the minimum qualifications for most combat positions. If the military was being honest instead of tilting the scales for public relations reasons, it would also admit that there may not be a woman on the planet who can truly meet the almost super human qualifications for elite military units like the SEALs or Rangers.
Additionally, while we should certainly appreciate women who serve our country, it doesn't change the fact that the more women you put into combat, the worse our military will perform. That's just what you'd expect and as the Marine Corps found out when it put women to the test, that's exactly what happens.
One measure showed that the musculoskeletal injury rate for women was 40.5%, compared with 18.8% for men.
...All-male units performed better than mixed-gender units on 93 of 134 tasks, or 69%; gender-integrated units performed better than all-male units on two tasks, which were not identified.
All-male infantry squads were faster in each tactical movement, with differences more pronounced when "crew-served" weapons such as machine guns had to be carried in addition to the standard assault load.
All-male infantry rifleman squads were more accurate shots, with notable differences in all weapons except the M4 rifle.
Men in the provisional infantry platoon who had not attended the infantry course were more accurate marksmen than women who had, hitting 44% of targets with the M4 rifle versus 28% among women trained at the infantry school.
All-male squads were notably better as a group when tackling obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example: "When negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top."
Keep in mind that we're talking about women who want to be there and are probably much better athletes than the average female. Some of them are undoubtedly fine soldiers and all of them deserve to be lauded for choosing to serve, but that doesn't change the fact that most of them are apparently liabilities for their units. Furthermore, those women would be head and shoulders better than 18 year old draftees. So, who in his right mind thinks that in a time of national crisis so severe that we'd need a draft that we should force our military to sort through millions of 5' 2", 120 pound girls who've never been in a fight so we can say that it's "fair?" Incidentally, that's what this whole dumb idea is about: "fair." It's a way to shove it in feminists' faces - "Oh, you really want to be equal? Then why don't you try combat! Ha ha ha!"
Can't we set the "get evenism" and political correctness that says "men and women are exactly alike" aside and just note the obvious truth about differences between our genders? Have we gotten so mired in this faux feminism," "You go, girl" culture that we can't even admit that men are generally much better suited to kill other men than women?
It is a tragedy that so many of our young men have given life and limb fighting for our country. It would be even worse if we had another emergency so severe that we'd need to draft unwilling young men to fight. However, if we ever stoop to drafting women and forcing them to fight our battles, it would be one of the most foolish and shameful moments in our nation's history.
Just those that vote for Hillary would work for me...: )
Have you ever seen the obstacle course the females run in basic compared to the one the males run? And that’s for females who want to be there.
TED Cruz did say it is the height of Political correctness and is against it
The author forgets that liberals do not live in reality but inside their own Utopian world between their ears. Facts / truth do not matter to them.
Letting women serve in combat arms is the ultimate height of stupidity.
If women were forced to sign up for the draft, it would be a logical result of saying women are eligible for all combat roles. What it would do is cause women to stop and actually think about it. If they do, I’d wager that most women would say that combat roles for women is not a good idea.
Maybe the men hating feminazis would then shut up. They want “equal” treatment, I say give them equal treatment. What is the difference anyway? I would rather have females than some of the male fairies in there now.
There ain’t gonna be no draft. It takes an act of congress. The rats can float the idea all they want(Charlie Rangle). The subject raises eye brows among the young and that’s intentional. Some one needs to call them out on it.
It might be the only way to end the stupidity of forcing the military to open combat positions for women.
\Agreed.
I get so fed up of hearing how if women can do the job then they should join.
First most women cannot march with over 50 pound 30 miles over rough terrain in 8 hours.
Secondly even if they could people seem to forget that unit cohesiveness gets destroyed.
We had a woman with us and half the guys were flirting with her and she was flirting back.
Some said they would carry some of her equi9pement while others said she should carry it all seeing as it is hers.
Add the factor of men now can’t make certain jokes , say certain things in front of her , because she will take offence .
How about if she feels victimized.
The reality is that it is about getting the job done,being treated the very same, and unit cohesiveness .
The fact that the women went to ranger school and failed only to be given another chance to get special treatment which the Army denies , but have lost the records for her YEA RIGHT!. Shows us women should not be in a combat unit.
Anyone here knows in a combat unit of they have served it is different than being out as a civilian. The way of life, sense of humor etc.
Women in combat units is another way to change the military and destroy it.
Agreed.
I get so fed up of hearing how if women can do the job then they should join.
First most women cannot march with over 50 pound 30 miles over rough terrain in 8 hours.
Secondly even if they could people seem to forget that unit cohesiveness gets destroyed.
We had a woman with us and half the guys were flirting with her and she was flirting back.
Some said they would carry some of her equi9pement while others said she should carry it all seeing as it is hers.
Add the factor of men now can’t make certain jokes , say certain things in front of her , because she will take offence .
How about if she feels victimized.
The reality is that it is about getting the job done,being treated the very same, and unit cohesiveness .
The fact that the women went to ranger school and failed only to be given another chance to get special treatment which the Army denies , but have lost the records for her YEA RIGHT!. Shows us women should not be in a combat unit.
Anyone here knows in a combat unit of they have served it is different than being out as a civilian. The way of life, sense of humor etc.
I’m really sick of hearing of all the idiots pushing women into combat roles. Nobody I have ever known who actually experienced combat would even consider it. I am a combat veteran and I am absolutely against it.
1. Very few if any women have the real killer instinct men have as a gift of their testosterone.
2. Women are a lethal distraction to combat unit. Attraction will happen and that will drastically erode unit cohesion and any semblance of combat efficiency. Sergeant A will have the hots for PFC B who in turn has only eyes for Lance Corporal C. Imagine the disasters when the two on Listening Post are having sex rather than listening. Idiocy.
Sending our daughters into an environment they aren’t suited for and never designed to fulfill is great fun for liberals and enemy agents but bad news for our country.
I wouldn’t even make it through the first day in basic training, perhaps not even the first few hours.
Correct. Do the girls want equal protection of the law? Let them have it. Why should 18 year old males have to sign up and 18 year old females not? It’s plainly discrimination on the basis of sex, is it not? Why should the girls get a free ride?
Combat billets are less than 15% (closer to 10, IIRC) of the total of military forces. The rest are support positions.
The only reason women have not been eligible for the draft is they have been excluded from combat positions, the courts ruled on this. Now that our military has been “transformed” by the current admin, this is no longer the case.
If the draft is challenged for being discriminatory in that is is based solely on sex, it will be quickly changed to a universal draft, sex will not be a factor.
Feminists are getting what they want, I hope they choke on it.
It is registering for selective service, not signing up for the draft. Since feminists want all the privileges but none of the duties, this law must be changed so it applies to all.
If we keep using the same tactics we will keep losing this cultural war.
If they want women in combat roles then they get everything that goes along with that.
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.