A few thoughts on women in combat from a dinosaur

posted at 8:31 am on January 26, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

All this week I’ve been witnessing some of the end zone dancing taking place among various groups regarding the recent decision to allow women to fully serve in combat roles alongside the men. There are many variations on the theme, of course, but the editorial board at the Gray Lady probably summed the general sentiment up fairly well.

The Pentagon’s decision to end its ban on women in combat is a triumph for equality and common sense. By opening infantry, artillery and other battlefield jobs to all qualified service members regardless of sex, the military is showing that categorical discrimination has no place in a society that honors fairness and equal opportunity.

Equality is great, isn’t it? Respect and unbiased treatment of everyone regardless of gender or any other metric you’d care to name is a principle which I believe most of us can agree upon. And I still maintain that both men and women should be given a fair and equal shot at any job which they can adequately perform. And yet, when it comes to the idea of American women serving in combat roles on the front lines during war, I am a hypocrite. A throwback. A dinosaur.

There are several jobs where women are absent or underrepresented, almost exclusively in professions where the demands are extremely physical in nature. And while I don’t agree with the delivery of the message, Allen West points out a few items of note.

“I have to tell you, if this is the case, then why do we have separate hockey leagues? Women should be out there playing ice hockey with the guys in the NHL. We should not have a WNBA. I can’t shoot a three-pointer, but there are ladies who could certainly take me to the hoop. Maybe they should be competing with Kobe Bryant.”

This is the interesting part, and it should be noted that the new Defense policy comes to bear on this. In the professions listed by West, I will agree that perhaps women should be offered the same chance to play. (Are they?) But even in sports such as golf, the best female athletes thus far have failed to defeat top tier male players. I can’t really explain why. But if they wish to compete they need to demonstrate that they can perform at the same level, and if they can, then they should.

It has already been noted that this policy may not result of a flood of women into combat positions because of the simple reality that so many of them will not be able to manage all of the requirements to make it through infantry training. But when it comes to the military, even if they can manage the tasks demanded, should they be allowed? For me, there is simply something different. Yes, it’s true that that the average woman will have trouble lifting a 220 pound male soldier in full battle gear and carry him to safety, as some have noted. But it’s probably also true that we could find some who can. So if they can manage all of the physical requirements, why should they not be given this opportunity?

Because. And I’m well aware that this is the worst possible answer. But there is just something about sending women into combat on the front lines which I’m simply not ready, willing or able to accept. Even if we have women who are physically prepared for every contingency on the battlefield, I don’t want them in those roles. There is something primal about war which I believe inhabits the souls of men across America. When we go to war, one of the driving reasons behind it is that we shall “defend our women.” The thought of putting them directly in harm’s way runs contrary to every instinct, and the perils which would surely await our women as POWs is too great to bear.

So I’m a dinosaur. I do not apologize. It’s just how I was built, and I’m saying this not only as a veteran myself, but a man coming from a family of men who served in uniform almost to the last one. I just don’t want women in the infantry or other direct combat roles. I’m not saying they aren’t capable in some cases. I’m just saying I don’t want them to do it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Don’t apologize for still having a conscience, a mind that is still in tune with reality, and a sense of proportion. You haven’t been brainwashed yet into the idea the this vague notion of “equality” is the highest imperative.

Screw the humanists. They’re just plain wrong. God made men and women different. Plain and simple.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 8:39 AM

It all comes down to “What makes the military stronger and more credible?”
Is the capability you are losing by not letting women try for infantry positions greater than the capability lost due to hygiene issues, unit cohesiveness and discipline, or pregnancies? Are you sure that politics won’t force a degradation of standards?
Well, we already know that they screwed up that calculation for overt sexual practices, purely for political reasons, so I have no confidence that they did this right, either.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2013 at 8:40 AM

The Pentagon’s decision to end its ban on women in combat is a triumph for equality and common sense. By opening infantry, artillery and other battlefield jobs to all qualified service members regardless of sex, the military is showing that categorical discrimination has no place in a society that honors fairness and equal opportunity.

I’m waiting for their editorial on why it’s good policy to have women hunting down and killing men, or, better yet, being hunted down and killed by men.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Sums up Amerika in 2013 nicely – we let our women do our fighting for us.

hobbit on January 26, 2013 at 8:41 AM

I think you’re all together correct, Jazz.

All women should be equal before the law, but there are certain fundamental things that no woman should have to bear, combat is one of them.

Call it chivalry, call it what you wish, but the horrors of war are bad enough for men, they are doubly so for women.

turfmann on January 26, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Screw the humanists. They’re just plain wrong. God made men and women different. Plain and simple.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 8:39 AM

You don’t really have to bring creationism into this: males and females are objectively different, and, while I’ve always thought that the intellectual differences are overestimated and overblown, the physical differences, particularly when you are trying to skim the top edge of the bell curve, are very real.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2013 at 8:43 AM

So if they can manage all of the physical requirements, why should they not be given this opportunity?

Because. And I’m well aware that this is the worst possible answer.

Then let me supplement yours with a few better ones:

1.) This will lead to increased incidence of sexual assault in the military

2.) This will disrupt military discipline as soldiers go native and engage in intercourse, focusing on their distracting primal desires rather than the mission

3.) This will lead to bigger troop rotation problems as pregnant soldiers have to be rotated out of combat.

4.) This will lead to problems of capture & rape / humiliation

5.) This will almost assuredly lead to political pressure (from the same aforementioned groups in your post) to lower military standards (at least when it comes to the women themselves) so that we achieve equal representation rather than equal performance.

6.) This will destroy camaraderie and attempts to inspire / motivate as soldiers have to make sure they don’t offend anyone (e.g. mocking another soldier for being a p*ssy is no longer going to be considered permissible, dirty jokes will be forbidden, etc).

It’s a remarkably bad idea, and it’s sad that we seem to be too cowardly to say so and to say why.

Stoic Patriot on January 26, 2013 at 8:46 AM

So, in other words, the Democrats have declared a literal war on women.

SAMinVA on January 26, 2013 at 8:47 AM

But if they wish to compete they need to demonstrate that they can perform at the same level, and if they can, then they should.

To be on the same level, then the bar must be lowered. After all, equality is more important than sending our very best to achieve victory. Winning isn’t everything.

Rovin on January 26, 2013 at 8:48 AM

All women should be equal before the law, but there are certain fundamental things that no woman should have to bear, combat is one of them.

Call it chivalry, call it what you wish, but the horrors of war are bad enough for men, they are doubly so for women.

turfmann on January 26, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Psychologically, I wouldn’t bet against there being women that can handle “the horrors of war” if they want to. But that really isn’t the issue here if they are self selecting.
The issue is how much are you hurting overall readiness by making the additional allowances logistical allowances this requires?
Particularly on the topic of pregnancy. Will they limit it to women that have had hysterectomies?

Count to 10 on January 26, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Not gonna say you are a neanderthal or anything Jazz, as most men (including me) I think kind of get a first visceral feeling that Hell no, women shouldn’t be on the front lines but let’s remember that the most valuable weapon in warfare is not the gun or the body.

It’s the mind.

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 8:50 AM

I spent some very lonely nights in fox holes….NUF SAID!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on January 26, 2013 at 8:51 AM

So long as the physical standards are maintained…and no special provisions are offered, given or expected, then, perhaps it may be time.

Combat is a great equalizer.

Do well, control your fear, let your training kick in, focus, you live.

Do poorly, expect the other guy to constantly cover for you, try to wing it, fail to do your part, you die….and so do a lot of others who were depending on you.

Is it time for combat roles to be opened for women?

They’ve already been in combat, for decades and decades.

But, opening up the combat arms for them, that’s a rose of a different color.

So long as standards are maintained, no special provisions offered nor given to somehow compensate, then it may well work out.

But, when we end up with one set of standards for men and one for women, that’s when we are merely being stupid.

Some female staff sergeant wishes to go through Ranger school? Fine. Have at it. Good luck. God speed. But should she fail to make the grade, cash out in mountain school at Merrill or let the swamp win down at Eglin…let’s not offer compensation, a do over or other such nonsense. Otherwise, when she ends up out in one of the Stans…with all the dirt, dust, dysentery and destruction all around, daily…gonna get a lot of good people killed…needlessly.

Same standards, across the board.

Nothing less.

But, when (and it will be when, not if) we start having the mortuary folks start processing remains…gonna hit this Nation right in the gut when it happens.

Are we really ready?

Or are we just trying to stretch the budget, try a little social science, or maybe garner a few more votes?

coldwarrior on January 26, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Or are we just trying to stretch the budget, try a little social science, or maybe garner a few more votes?

coldwarrior on January 26, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Really, it’s just that “discrimination” has become the only taboo thing left in the country — the only thing that people are made to feel ashamed of.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Leave it to liberals to see something that’s in balance, find or create a ‘problem’ with it, then proceed to screw up the works in the name of ‘fairness’.

We have women as command pilots on many aircraft including fighters, where they do risk being killed. I see no problem with that at all; women are just as capable there. We have come a long way, when in WWII woman pilots only ferried planes to forward bases in Europe and the Pacific. I’m sure a number are front-line medics, too, when years ago they were only nurses at stations behind the lines.

I draw the line at women, if in combat, are part of a tank crew. Again, basically equal capabilities between men and women.

But as not part of a regular infantry unit, for all the deprivation that is forced on the troops. It’s easy for liberals to engage in their little social experiments, because we haven’t seen a tough war since Vietnam. All our victories since 1973 have been easy ones–short quick wars against enemies who weren’t all that determined.

And before some troll tries its usual games: Battles against the Taliban and AQ are skirmishes. But what happens against an entrenched enemy that can match our firepower? If we go to war against North Korea, does anything think it won’t be a protracted one?

Liberals never think in the long-term in general, and hate details. If, God forbid, we end up in a protracted war, will the Left still feel good when a lot of women, too, come home in body bags?

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Count to 10 on January 26, 2013 at 8:43 AM

You see what good it did to argue on the basis of effectiveness, efficiency, unit cohesion, morale, etc. had on allowing open homosexuality in the armed forces?

When you allow the enemy to set the terms of the debate, you’ve already lost. They are framing it as an issue of “fairness” and “equality”, absurd distinctions in a matter such as this, but against that context, physical differences don’t mean much.

You have to understand what their intention is. It is NOT to have women in combat roles. It is to undermine all traditional assumptions of Western Civilization and replace them with Humanist assumptions. They want to fundamentally change the way we interpret reality.

I CANNOT leave “Creationism” ( your term, not mine) out of it. It is the context from which I view all of reality and holds consistent in all matters. I cannot compartmentalize my thinking in order to prevent offending some.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 8:57 AM

The number of women who can handle the physical requirements will be vanishingly low; so if you say they can join these units but only if they meet standards, this is going to be a nothing burger. Only if you lower the requirements will the numbers be significant. So really, this boils down to yet another bright shiny object to distract from the fact that economically and in foreign policy, energy policy etc., this administration is producing very little of any good.

KW64 on January 26, 2013 at 8:58 AM

And, as mentioned above…are we ready for female POW’s being displayed in front of the cameras? Or worse? Abused in horrible ways by enemies who do not have the sophisticated standards of gender appreciation as do the liberal educated superior readers of the NYT’s Sunday Edition?

coldwarrior on January 26, 2013 at 9:00 AM

If the standards aren’t reduced to some piddly, laughable level then why not let women compete for positions as combat fighters. American women have just as much stake in defending this nation as the men, at least give them a chance before denouncing it as a failure.

Bishop on January 26, 2013 at 9:00 AM

I am a veteran. I have seen the pointy end of the spear. I am not in favor of this, BUT, if women can pass the same tests as men for any of the combat arms positions, then they should be permitted to serve there.

My greatest fear is that this policy will get people killed. They will be killed and wounded needlessly because policy wanks at the 5-sided wind tunnel, and the yawking, gum-flapping leftist wombyn’s man-hating clubs will INSIST that standards be lowered to accommodate women. It’s how they always work. They scream and stamp their feet and use their shrill voices to demand “equality” but when they get it, they complain that the standards are too male-oriented, or somehow unfair, and thus those standards, put there to ensure that the folks applying are actually qualified for the job, get lowered and the suffering begins.

Compare what is happening with this issue to the repeal of DADT. The gay-lobby said that all they wanted was to be able to serve openly. We all warned about that, but the policy wonks and knee-pad wearing Joint Chiefs of Staff caved and agreed.

So now what has happened? Transexuals and transvestite want to be able to serve openly too. Cross-dressers are demanding acceptance. And yet, there has been no big uptick in non-straights applying to the recruiters. It just hasn’t happened.

It will be the same here. You don’t see any women veterans rushing to reenlist in a Combat Arms MOS. The ones celebrating this are already on the outside and not looking to get back in. Let’s see what happens a few years down the pike. Odds are that we’ll have seen standards lowered in order to help women make the cut and fill some REMF’s slanted quota sheet.

TKindred on January 26, 2013 at 9:01 AM

I shudder at the thought of a platoon of women suffering from PMS with fully automatic weapons…oh the humanity!!!

trs on January 26, 2013 at 9:02 AM

For men and women to be truly equal they must
have all the same bits so to speak .
Oh crap …. I probably gave them an idea ……

Lucano on January 26, 2013 at 9:05 AM

That dirtbag Gen. Dempsey is already talking about lowering the standards.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gen-dempsey-if-women-can-t-meet-military-standard-pentagon-will-ask-does-it-really-have

warren on January 26, 2013 at 9:05 AM

The 100th ranked male tennis player will beat the top ranked female tennis player every set they play. The only time a female player could even win 1 game could only occur if the male kept double faulting on his serves. Any college (and most good male high school) male basketball teams would defeat the top women’s NBA team.
Baseball, football, and just about any sport is dominated by males. The reason is obvious – size and strength. As a Viet Nam era Army vet I can say without any doubt this is another idiotic “progressive” experiment that can only make our armed forces less effective. There is equal opportunity for all areas of the military, but combat should be out of the question. There is an emotional element in play as well. Throughout history where have you ever seen a country with a military with women in combat positions been successful?

50sGuy on January 26, 2013 at 9:05 AM

I am a veteran. I have seen the pointy end of the spear. I am not in favor of this, BUT, if women can pass the same tests as men for any of the combat arms positions, then they should be permitted to serve there.

“I’m not in favor of this”

“They should be permitted there”

Make up your mind.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 9:07 AM

An excellent writeup, Jazz. And so very true.

tommy71 on January 26, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Everything you wrote is right-on, Jazz.

I would only add two words:
Menstruation & pregnancy.

itsnotaboutme on January 26, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Keep the same standards and I’m all for it.

Make different standards and it will be a disaster.

p0s3r on January 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM

This administration is producing very little of any good.

KW64 on January 26, 2013 at 8:58 AM

That’s the point.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM

That dirtbag Gen. Dempsey is already talking about lowering the standards.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gen-dempsey-if-women-can-t-meet-military-standard-pentagon-will-ask-does-it-really-have

warren on January 26, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Imagine if Patton had thought that way, mein Herr.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Throughout history where have you ever seen a country with a military with women in combat positions been successful?

50sGuy on January 26, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Israel: In 1985 the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) began putting women into combat positions and by 2009 women were serving in artillery units, rescue forces, and in anti-aircraft forces. While women must take part in compulsory military service, they are conscripted for only two years, versus three for men.

A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit “superior skills” in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from “a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.”

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Like most things, I like how C.S. Lewis put it :

Men and women are equal, but they are not interchangeable.

Weight of Glory on January 26, 2013 at 9:11 AM

If the standards aren’t reduced to some piddly, laughable level then why not let women compete for positions as combat fighters. American women have just as much stake in defending this nation as the men, at least give them a chance before denouncing it as a failure.

Bishop on January 26, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Because they are exempted from duty if they get pregnant.

Count to 10 on January 26, 2013 at 9:12 AM

I am not in favor even if females can pass their requirements. Put me in the same category as Jazz. I kind of hold on to the notion that as a society, we have evolved. With the 40 year anniversary of Roe V. Wade etc., I have to wonder..

Static21 on January 26, 2013 at 9:13 AM

“I’m not in favor of this”

“They should be permitted there”

Make up your mind.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Read my response. I am NOT in favor of this. However, IF they can pass the same standards as the men, then they SHOULD be permitted there. I wasn’t in favor of female aircrew either, but they passed the same tests, so what am I to do? I don’t have to like it. But fair is fair, and I’m only glad that I’m not having to make a decision about whether to stay in or not.

TKindred on January 26, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Israel: In 1985 the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) began putting women into combat positions and by 2009 women were serving in artillery units, rescue forces, and in anti-aircraft forces. While women must take part in compulsory military service, they are conscripted for only two years, versus three for men.

A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit “superior skills” in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from “a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.”

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Support roles are less of an issue — the US has had women in military roles as nurses since at least the Civil war.
Do any of these countries use them as infantry? How successfully?

Count to 10 on January 26, 2013 at 9:15 AM

…when it comes to the idea of American women serving in combat roles on the front lines during war, I am a hypocrite. A throwback. A dinosaur.

There must be some reason I thought of THIS immediately…

This is a tough one for me as well…I’ve been all for the repeal of DADT to allow gays to serve openly, or at least not have to actively hide their sexual orientation out of fear of discharge…or worse. The US military is the finest fighting force the world has…a few open gays in their ranks couldn’t change that. Gays have been serving in our military for 200 years, so not much was going to change in that respect anyway.

Women have been serving in the military for a long time as well…perhaps not officially permisable in active combat tho. I’m torn on this a little bit, and hope I’m not being a hypocrite like the Jazz Man if I’m not totally sold on the idea of women in combat.

I’d think if a woman can make it through boot the same way a man would have to, and do well in in every aspect of preparing a soldier for combat roles, then why not? There’s a lot of talk about women “disrupting” the status quo so to speak of unit cohesion. The same has been said about gays…and that hasn’t happened.

So I don’t know…but it would take a lot more than some chicks and a couple of gay dudes in any combat unit to diminish the top class effectiveness and troops of any branch of service in the United States military.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:15 AM

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:11 AM

Israel. Is. A. Massive. Exception. To. The. Rule.

It is physically impossible for us to be in the same scenario. We have counties with the square milage of their nation and an OCEAN standing between us and the jihadis.

MelonCollie on January 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:11 AM

The exception doesn’t prove the rule.

50sGuy on January 26, 2013 at 9:18 AM

If they were to keep the standards the same I could get on board but they won’t. Soon the lack of qualified recruits will make them lower the standards in the name of diversity. And I agree with those who think it might just keep some women from joining. We have plenty of our brave ladies in harms way now, I don’t see any reason to up the quota because of a quota.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM

This change in policy is a political one; one in which women will be in the position – with combat experience – to move up in rank more quickly and on par with men who have combat experience. Plain and simple.

At 51, there there is no woman who can kick my ass or not get hurt seriously in the attempt; and I’m an elementary school teacher!

Are there women at the top of the food chain who look fit and fierce? Certainly, but the average trained man would cause the most elite of trained women a lot of problems.

No matter the attempt, most women, if not all save a few, in a combat situation would be a handicap and cause for concern during a vicious fight.

Stop mincing words….women aren’t in professional hockey, football, baseball, boxing, etc., with men because they do not even have the strength and aggression to beat the average man…let alone when in a death struggle!

mcra99 on January 26, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Israel. Is. A. Massive. Exception. To. The. Rule.

It is physically impossible for us to be in the same scenario. We have counties with the square milage of their nation and an OCEAN standing between us and the jihadis.

MelonCollie on January 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM

The Israelis have to do it, whereas American liberals are simply being liberals. They’re never satisfied. If this works even just a little, expect the Left to start demanding quotas for a mix of genders down to the squad level.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Do any of these countries use them as infantry? How successfully?

Count to 10 on January 26, 2013 at 9:15 AM

I am not sure, just providing some additional info.

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:22 AM

The 100th ranked male tennis player will beat the top ranked female tennis player every set they play.

50sGuy on January 26, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Like Bobby Riggs beat Billie Jean King in 1973?

Oldnuke on January 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM

I’m just saying I don’t want them to do it.

When it comes down to it, conservative opposition is about this simple emotional fact “BUT WE DON’T WANT IT!”

libfreeordie on January 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Israel. Is. A. Massive. Exception. To. The. Rule.

It is physically impossible for us to be in the same scenario. We have counties with the square milage of their nation and an OCEAN standing between us and the jihadis.

MelonCollie on January 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM

I am not sure what you are getting at? What difference does the size of the two countries make?

Haven’t all US combat engagements in the last 100 years been off the homeland?

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Jet if you want to read what US Infantry does take some time and read House to House

http://www.amazon.com/House-An-Epic-Memoir-War/dp/1416596607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359210055&sr=8-1&keywords=house+to+house

Then tell me if you think women could keep up. Or watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZCnQMH7ynQ

warren on January 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Army + Sexual Diversity = Defeat. Yes, there are some womyn that can beat up a man, especially if they are trained to do just that. However, there many, many, more men, trained or not, that can whip the snot out of most women. I can just see a 125 pound woman dragging a 200 pound man out af a hole for medical attention. This is just librul shenanigans reduced to an absurdity. Since obama can’t get the republicans to fight his war on womyn, he wants to kill them himself.

Old Country Boy on January 26, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Like Bobby Riggs beat Billie Jean King in 1973?

Oldnuke on January 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Bobby Riggs was an old man at the time, not a ranked player. King was young and at the top of her game. I notice that you conveniently forgot about Margaret Court’s loss to the 55 year old Riggs.

50sGuy on January 26, 2013 at 9:32 AM

Quite frankly, it’s barbaric.

And also, honestly, the reason this decision was made now is to divide and conquer us. Obama has a lot on his plate. He doesn’t care so much about this.. but he’s got gun control on his agenda. And God knows what else… so just keep throwing out the controversial decisions and make every problem a nation crisis and that’s what we got. Chaos and perpetual crisis.

But who sends the women into combat? You know who does.. it’s the nations we mostly despise. Don’t bring up Israel. They are in a unique position. Totally surrounded and outnumbered.

If your house was totally surrounded and outnumbered you wife better be manning the AR-15 too.. but that’s a different story. That is not what this is.

It’s the barbarians and the losers who send the women and children into combat.
The reality is, like West stated, is it doesn’t work! Woman can’t do the job on their own! You can scream about discrimination and insensitivity from now until our nation collapses but reality is not going to bow down to your perverted view! I don’t care how many 110 lb. women on TV or in the movies deck some 220 lb guy it just doesn’t happen in the real world!

You will never see an all women fire company. You will never see an all women football team go up against an all male team. Why? Because that would expose the myth! Women need to be surrounded by men in these fields (fire/law enforcement/etc) because the men can cover for them.

I love a strong woman. My wife was in the martial arts and I’ve got several female friends in karate and judo and none of them would I want to be on the wrong side of. But that is not the same as sending them into combat.
It is the nations we despise that do that kind of thing. Countries near defeat who send the children and women into war. Nations like Iran who strap suicide vests on their women and send them to the front lines.

Men and women are different. You want to increase violence against women in our society? Treat them just like men. Condition men to truly see women as completely equal and you will see violence increase against women like never before!

You might be able to imagine a woman on the front lines throwing herself across the barbed wire but can you see the rest of her male company stepping on her body to get across that wire? Is that what we really what we want men to become accustomed to doing with no thought or hesitation? And we think it won’t effect the rest of society?

We have totally lost our moral foundation as a people. And a people without a foundation have no idea what they are standing on. If it feels good or sounds good it must be good. I wouldn’t build on that.. but that’s what we are doing. Ripping up the old and replacing it with what?

And besides that.. we are being played. Just one more thing to focus on and argue about while the man behind the curtain continues to shred our freedoms and tighten the noose around our necks.

JellyToast on January 26, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Guys, I can’t get over my feelings that we are being set up like a Christmas turkey for another 9/11.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 9:33 AM

I don’t think society has changed enough to treat the capture of female soldiers the same as the capture of male soldiers, or did everybody forget the no-expense-spared effort to free Jessica Lynch from the Iraqis because she was a woman?

Steve Eggleston on January 26, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Bobby Riggs was not competing professionally at the time; he was in his fifties and Billie Jean was 29 – top of her game.

Bobby Riggs could have beat her to death with his racquet though….just sayin’.

mcra99 on January 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM

warren on January 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM

I may just order that book House to House…I’ve been looking for a good book to pick up and read.

As for the vid…the Army Rangers are a special/elite force apart from general infantry. If a woman can make it through that, I wouldn’t want to be on her bad side. But I’m honestly not sure if special forces like the SEALS or Rangers would be considered under the new rules of women in combat.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:35 AM

I have seen a helmet cam video of my son yelling at a fellow Marine to fire his weapon during a firefight in Afghanistan. My son was the squad leader. The torrent of abusive language had its intended effect. The Marine got in the fight. My son was on his second tour. The Marine was is in his first firefight.
The was nothing said after. Its what is done on a regular basis. If that was a female my son would be in the brig.

Thicklugdonkey on January 26, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Army + Sexual Diversity = Defeat. Yes, there are some womyn that can beat up a man, especially if they are trained to do just that. However, there many, many, more men, trained or not, that can whip the snot out of most women. I can just see a 125 pound woman dragging a 200 pound man out af a hole for medical attention. This is just librul shenanigans reduced to an absurdity. Since obama can’t get the republicans to fight his war on womyn, he wants to kill them himself.

Old Country Boy on January 26, 2013 at 9:28 AM

I saw a full contact martial arts match between a 120lb woman and big hulking guy about 6’3″/240lbs. The woman claimed to be some 45th degree rainbow belt in chop-sockey. Claimed that her skill and speed would make her the equal of any man in a fight. The guy was a contestant in another match and agreed to do the match as an exhibition. It was sort of funny. The guy just shrugged off the woman’s best shots like they didn’t exist. It was almost like he was ignoring her. Then he sort of backhanded her, very casual and really not all that hard. She went down like a broken light bulb. When questioned later about the brevity of the match the woman made some lame excuse about not being balanced or centered or something. Really pathetic.

Oldnuke on January 26, 2013 at 9:38 AM

TKindred on January 26, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Then you ARE, by default, in favor of it.

I’d suggest you spend some time contemplating exactly WHY you’re not in favor of it.

It might be murky, needing to be dusted off and re-examined after a long period of disuse, l but my guess is down deep, you know EXACTLY why you’re not in favor of this. Nor should you be.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 9:39 AM

As some have noted there is no doubt the military WILL Lower their standards. This is truly bad news.

CW on January 26, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Meant to add:

A lot of similar things were said when women were allowed into West Point and the US Naval Academy over 30 years ago.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM

JellyToast on January 26, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Ring-a-ding-ding-ding!

Steve Eggleston on January 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Oldnuke on January 26, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Funny story, but a two word rebuttle:

Chris Cyborg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristiane_Santos

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Join the club:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Heh. Whatever.— as most of those countries don’t see combat in any real way and when they do they let us lead the way.

CW on January 26, 2013 at 9:42 AM

The was nothing said after. Its what is done on a regular basis. If that was a female my son would be in the brig.

Thicklugdonkey on January 26, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Good point. The concept of ‘equality’ among liberals is simply a cudgel. In actual practice, they themselves keep things unequal, crying ‘discrimination’ the instant the true definition of equality kicks them in the teeth.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 9:42 AM

You are all looking at this from a micro level, examining the policy on its own merits. That way they have already won. You need to look at it from a macro perspective.

This administration is pure evil.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Funny story, but a two word rebuttle:

Chris Cyborg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristiane_Santos

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Not really much of a rebuttal. You take your top 50 women fighters and I’ll take my top 50 Men fighters…. let’s roll.

CW on January 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Equal work for equal pay I say. If women are earning an am ount equal to the guys th
e only fair thing to do is have them die at an equal rate. While we are at it,m give the men an equal chance to get out of the war zone for pregnancy.

Bernfp on January 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I agree with the author. The prime aim should always be battle effectiveness, not PC motives. But we would be foolish to think that women are not in combat — http://airandspace.si.edu/events/eventDetail.cfm?eventID=133 — They have been in combat since WWII.

Dr. Dog on January 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM

At 51, there there is no woman who can kick my ass or not get hurt seriously in the attempt; and I’m an elementary school teacher!

mcra99 on January 26, 2013 at 9:21 AM

I know plenty of women who could kick your ass on a rifle range or in air to air combat or any number of other ways.

lexhamfox on January 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Meant to add:
A lot of similar things were said when women were allowed into West Point and the US Naval Academy over 30 years ago.
JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Yeah, and we’ve just had our first lesbian wedding at the chapel at West Point right after Obama was re-elected.

Some progress, huh?

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM

One thing I don’t understand tho…how does Panetta get to make this decision, and not go through an act of congress like allowing women in, as I said, the Naval Academy and West Point?

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Google : Ayn Rand: Address to graduating class of West Point 1974

Last few paragraphs especially.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Chris Cyborg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristiane_Santos

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Santos won via TKO at just sixteen seconds into the first round; however, on January 6, 2012, Santos tested positive for stanozolol, an anabolic steroid. As a result of the banned substance, the fight’s result has been changed to a no contest

Heh.

CW on January 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Yeah, and we’ve just had our first lesbian wedding at the chapel at West Point right after Obama was re-elected.

Some progress, huh?

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM

And…?

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM

mcra99 on January 26, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Gen Dempsey this generations Westmoreland. What other general could come up with the idea to disarm our troops at HQ’s and when it blows up his face try to blame the troops for it..

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/pentagon-says-us-troops-to-blame-for-friendly-fire-deaths-because-they-insulted-islam/

warren on January 26, 2013 at 9:48 AM

One thing I don’t understand tho…how does Panetta get to make this decision, and not go through an act of congress like allowing women in, as I said, the Naval Academy and West Point?

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM

The SecDef sets internal policy, standards, and requirements. As it should be.

Can you imagine letting Congress deal with this level of micro-management? We could be invaded by Martians from Venus in the meantime, and nothing would happen until they had their vote. *L*

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 9:48 AM

CW on January 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM

No doubt you are correct, but no questioning that if women decide to, they can get juiced up enough to be more than capable of handling themselves in any situation.

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:48 AM

One thing I don’t understand tho…how does Panetta get to make this decision, and not go through an act of congress like allowing women in, as I said, the Naval Academy and West Point?

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM

That’s another thing. We’re getting accustomed to one man making big decisions like this. We’re getting farther and farther away from these things being decided by acts of congress.

Besides, Panetta made this decision because Obama wanted him to.

JellyToast on January 26, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Who really cares? Since American’s Armed Forces will prolly be pointing guns at Conservatives and Liberty minded Americans eventually – maybe we WANT those forces to be in anemic state of decline?

Oh, and by the way … this DOES make a male-only draft impossible to bring back. When the draft comes – it’ll be for both high school football stars and their homecoming queens … have fun with that. You thought a male-only draft was distasteful? Try drafting someone’s daughter.

What women want …

While men are 2 dimensional and think primarily of sex – women, on the other hand are complex beyond words. Here’s what women want …

VERY FEW see themselves in combat. Very few have a desire to be in combat however,

NONE of them want to be excluded. It’s as if, a right to serve in combat makes them equal in their own minds even though most all of them NEVER intend to serve that way.

And let me tell you another thing women want … or DO NOT WANT.

They DO NOT want to be forced into combat roles involuntarily. If they do choose to serve in them – they want the right to change their mind and leave those units when their priorities in life change, or the going just gets too tough.

Oh and “Don’t look at my ass as I crawl through this trench!”

I’ll tell you that men are WORSE by a factor of 100 than women are. But women – are a collective bunch of idiots.

How many times has a woman said … “These times require women in leadership roles to bring the world together.” ??

Many.

How many times have you heard a woman say … “These times require some man to get in there and kick ass!!”

Never.

Yet there is prolly a time for both – but the latter is never uttered.

HondaV65 on January 26, 2013 at 9:49 AM

lexhamfox on January 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Wonderful, let’s just keep distorting the differences between men and women.

No wonder we’re getting so many homosexual young people these days.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 9:49 AM

It might be murky, needing to be dusted off and re-examined after a long period of disuse, l but my guess is down deep, you know EXACTLY why you’re not in favor of this. Nor should you be.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Probably for the same reason liberals don’t want Section 8 apartments built across the street from where their non-aborted children go to school. They darn well KNOW why, they’ll never admit it publicly.

MelonCollie on January 26, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Many good points all. However, the most important aspect is still missing from the discussion….in my opinion.

Are we not downsizing the military?

Are jobs not hard to find in this country?

This is not about women joining men.

This is about women replacing men.

To buy the current argument by the left, you’d have to assume that some women are better suited for combat than some men that are currently filling that role.

Browndog on January 26, 2013 at 9:54 AM

No doubt you are correct, but no questioning that if women decide to, they can get juiced up enough to be more than capable of handling themselves in any situation.

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:48 AM

As an amateur body builder – I’ve been around “juiced up” women all my life. When they’re on gear – they pretty much have the sex drive of a male.

Good luck with that in a coed environment.

HondaV65 on January 26, 2013 at 9:54 AM

More excellent points from Jazz.
-
I don’t remember where I read this or who made the comment but I am always remained of it when this subject comes up. It was something like
-
“Why would women trade the some of best things about being a woman for some of the worst things about being a man?”

diogenes on January 26, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Bobby Riggs was an old man at the time, not a ranked player. King was young and at the top of her game. I notice that you conveniently forgot about Margaret Court’s loss to the 55 year old Riggs.

50sGuy on January 26, 2013 at 9:32 AM

I didn’t really forget about Court’s loss and I was just sort of yanking your chain. I’m not a tennis fan but I remember that match because it was all the talk in the news at the time. I found it a little odd that you picked tennis as an example with that match out there because when I read your post that was the first thing that popped into my mind. I remember Riggs’s attitude before the match and how subdued he was after too. C’mon 55 isn’t That Old.

Bobby Riggs was not competing professionally at the time; he was in his fifties and Billie Jean was 29 – top of her game.

Bobby Riggs could have beat her to death with his racquet though….just sayin’.

mcra99 on January 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Maybe but after that match I don’t think he’d have tried it.

Oldnuke on January 26, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Women are weaker.
They get sick more often.
There will be “distractions” which will lead to pregnancies.
They will be captured & raped.
They will get post-traumatic stress disorder (shell shock, battle fatigue syndrome) far more often than men.
Why are we sending women to the front lines of battle?
To appease leftist political groups that have bought our President & most of Congress.
Re. “captured & raped,” yes, male GIs get captured & tortured. But many get captured & treated fairly well. Of those, the likelihood of mistreatment will escalate if their captives are female.
And with female POWs, the public will be moved in an anti-war direction in a way they would not have been if the captives were male. Emotions ought not dictate policy.

itsnotaboutme on January 26, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Because. And I’m well aware that this is the worst possible answer. But there is just something about sending women into combat on the front lines which I’m simply not ready, willing or able to accept.

I’d just as soon sanction two men having sex. Another losing battle.

The sports analogy is good. NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL. The anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote that in all societies, there are certain jobs and activities restricted to men. They were different in different societies, but they all had them. Feminists seem to relish breaking down this pattern.

Someone here put together two of Valerie Jarrett’s recent tweets, one saying everyone is against violence against woman, the other saying it’s about time women were allowed in combat. Hilarious!!

It seems very disruptive to me. And there’s a lot more to performance in combat than meeting some physical standards. Someone said as a grunt you’re basically treated like dirt. It IS like a wife being physically abused by her husband. Why is that image distasteful in one case, but acceptable in this case?

I worked in the office of a steelworking plant. Tough job working in the plant. Once in 10 years we employed a woman. She was a bodybuilder, and had her own shower/bathroom facilities constructed. She slept with a lot of the guys, but, that was OK. It wasn’t combat, it was just a physically demanding job. No issue of disrupting “unit cohesion”.

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Good luck with that in a coed environment.

HondaV65 on January 26, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Good point for sure. I just don’t buy 100% the physical superiority of male vs female. Maybe as a rule, but certainly not in every case.

Anyway, the argument is going to be mute in the next 15 years, as is evident by the DroneMaster (nee Obama).

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:59 AM

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:35 AM

It’s a very intense book.

I don’t think you could find 50 women in the Army today who could pass Basic Infantry with the men’s standards. Not that it matters since Gen Dempsey (may he fall off a reviewing stand and get trampeled to death by the a Army’s Marching Band) has said if not enough pass they should think about lowering the standards. Which doesn’t matter if you’re sitting a desk at the Pentagon but sucks if you’re a 200lbs guy in full combat gear and you’re relying on a 120 lbs woman to carry to cover if you’re wounded.

warren on January 26, 2013 at 10:02 AM

“Why would women trade the some of best things about being a woman for some of the worst things about being a man?”

diogenes on January 26, 2013 at 9:57 AM

They don’t want to … just as men can never keep their eyes off other women besides their wives … women want to be able to “pick and choose” the elements of life they want while rejecting the ones they don’t like.

In short – they like to have their cake – and eat it too!

Watch this … once women are in combat Congress will start complaining about the low numbers of women in those units. Make no mistake – simply allowing a few “he-women” to enter the trenches does nothing for equality – they’ll have to have proportional numbers.

So the Defense Department will have to start slamming women involuntarily into combat units. Those women will complain to Congress, and the fools in Congress will turn right around to the forces and say … “hey why are you forcing women into combat units?!”

Our government has flipped it’s wig. It’s said that the British played “The World Turned Upside Down” when Cornwalis surrendered at Yorktown.

Break out that song NOW … since it was fitting at the birth of this republic – it’s definitely fitting as the soundtrack for the end of the republic.

Squandered by fools.

HondaV65 on January 26, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Isn’t it women who want to make a political point in favor of women, or against men, who most likely would try out for a combat role, particularly lesbians or Sandra Fluke types? How would THAT affect unit cohesion? And why are women allowed to volunteer for combat duty, but men required once they get into the Army or Marines? That’s not equality. That’s extra special treatment.

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Can someone clarify:

Will this be a situation where women will have the CHOICE to serve on the front lines while men will be required?

CW on January 26, 2013 at 10:07 AM

If all women volunteers were, like men in the Army and Marines, forced to train and qualify for combat duty, then wouldn’t enlistment of women in the military drop like a rock? How would the liberals like that?

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Good point for sure. I just don’t buy 100% the physical superiority of male vs female. Maybe as a rule, but certainly not in every case.

can_con on January 26, 2013 at 9:59 AM

I think that’s the point here. In most cases women are weaker physically than men. There are exceptions as with any generalities. I’m old school though. When I was in there were no women on ships. Today there are. I don’t know how that’s working out and honestly I’m glad I don’t. I don’t think women belong on ships. Now they’re talking about putting them on submarines. Submarines? Really? If anybody thinks there will be any semblance of privacy for a woman on a submarine they’re delusional.

Oldnuke on January 26, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Oldnuke
C’mon 55 isn’t That Old

I agree, I’d give anything to be that young again! :)

50sGuy on January 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM

The policy that kept women out of combat conditions was based on many things, from the innate differences between men and women to their respective roles in society. These are all derived from the dreaded two parent household model that libs and fems abhor. Men are not just more physically capable, they are sadly more dispensable when you consider child rearing, nurturing, etc. But, if you reject these traditional roles they represent an evil institution that must be torn down. Congrats Lib Tards, now Jane can come home in a body bag or suffer PTSD just like Joe. Serving means sacrifice in the cause of freedom. How we achieve this noble goal by attacking intuitions and traditions only a committed leftists can understand. This is the same motivation for gay marriage, etc., destroy all institutions that you disagree with and vilify those who oppose you. Welcome to Barack’s Americka. Now go back and watch Starship Troopers.

skanter on January 26, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Isn’t it women who want to make a political point in favor of women, or against men, who most likely would try out for a combat role…?
Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 10:06 AM

I would say the opposite: It’s women living in ivory towers safe, comfortable, feeling all sorts of trendy and holier-than-thou, who want other women to try out for combat roles.

A female soldier might say, “Hey! I work hard to be excellent so I think I’ll put in for this.” But I think the choice would be to take a shot without much in the way of politics being a factor.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 10:12 AM

If anybody thinks there will be any semblance of privacy for a woman on a submarine they’re delusional.

Oldnuke on January 26, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Well, there could be Women’s Country as well as Officer’s Country. Anything less would be ‘ignoring the needs of women’.

You know how that’s going to go.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM

It has already been noted that this policy may not result of a flood of women into combat positions because of the simple reality that so many of them will not be able to manage all of the requirements to make it through infantry training.

LOL. If you think the requirements will not change you are blind to history. Equality is not defined by requirements. Requirements are defined by equality.

Dusty on January 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4