Jerry Boykin
We’re ignoring gender realites by letting women serve in combat
It was adopted in the wrong way because such a significant change in longstanding military personnel policy, with potentially serious implication for the effectiveness of the fighting force, should not be made without holding congressional hearings in advance to explore all the issues involved.
It was adopted for the wrong reasons because it was driven by political and social considerations. Some women have complained that their chances of career advancement within the military are hampered by their exclusion from ground combat positions, and the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on their behalf.
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
Ignoring reality is a virtue now a days.
Flange on January 25, 2013 at 4:29 PM
Which is the excuse they will use for repealing DADT and this. The DADT should have been fought all the way to SCOTUS who most certainly would have upheld both. It’s a volunteer force and no one is guaranteed the right to serve. If you don’t like the rules then don’t volunteer.
Rocks on January 25, 2013 at 4:30 PM
Ignoring realities of race, gender, and culture are what liberals do best.
MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM
I know one thing…I’d hate to face down a bunch of PMS driven women warriors if I was the enemy….
ProfShadow on January 25, 2013 at 4:36 PM
REALITY is so last century.
Pork-Chop on January 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Load some airburst morters with chocolate candy and they’ll fold. ;-}
MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 4:46 PM
Can’t have senseless violence on the battlefield….
apostic on January 25, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Realites. They preceded the Uhhhhhites.
BobMbx on January 25, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Imagine how useful a ….uh….. feminine napkin could be. Against Islamists, they’d just as effective as a grenade.
“Look out! Tampon!”
BobMbx on January 25, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Ironic that we consider women equal to men on the battlefield, but we still won’t let them compete with men at the Olympics, or in any other sport. Why is that? I suppose having a woman compete against a male athlete would be unfair because . . . say it . . . say it . . . c’mon you can do it . . . because men are physically superior? Why else are the Olympic events not co-ed? Funny how feminists never complain about that.
keep the change on January 25, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Just what combat will they be in after 2014. Out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan. Only going to Syria well after the war is over and to only dig up the mass graves as evidence in the crimes against humanity trial at the Hague.
Mali, Sudan, Iran, Falkland Islands, Sea of Japan islands, even Israel will not have American boots leading combat, all just leading from behind everywhere. There will never be a boot on the ground in combat that is not already there with and on the orders of Sec Def Hagel, Sec State Kerry and the current CiC for 1457 days.
tjexcite on January 25, 2013 at 5:54 PM
“Two hundred and fifty pound wounded male soldier quickly carried to safety by 125 pound female soldier.”
The headline that will never happen.
viking01 on January 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM
If you don’t ignore gender realities you’re sexist.
gekkobear on January 25, 2013 at 5:57 PM
Exactly. And while we’re at it, let’s have an end to this separate-but-equal bullshit that is Title IX athletics. There is absolutely no reason to have teams labeled by gender, which oppresses people who aren’t sure to which team they belong.
TexasDan on January 25, 2013 at 5:58 PM
These lib/progressives think that being in a convoy, getting shot at and shooting back or being on a patrol once in awhile or being an MP is the same as being in the infantry. It is not. Yes, there are no firm lines in a counter-insurgency but the next war probably won’t be a counter-insurgency, think North Korea maybe the Chinese, who ever. Being in an artillery outfit is no better or easier and in fact here of late the Marines even turned some arty units into provisional infantry. All Marines are riflemen and will get into the fight if necessary including the women, nobody disputes that. Many Marines enlist and end up in the Grunts not that they wanted that but it happens, will they do the same with women?. Being a Grunt is a nasty business, it’s hard and while there are some very tough women, those that could survive and excel as a Grunt are probably very few and far between. The Air Force and the Navy probably shrugged at this, only their Special Ops guys see anything like combat. Army and Marines is a different story. I suspect, especially in the Marines case, they said okay and in three years they say “sorry, didn’t work”. These women who trumpet that they need to do this so they can compete probably don’t realize as in the case of the Marines, you’ll have to complete the Infantry Officer Course (brutal) spend time as a 2nd Lt as a Platoon Commander, then move to a company XO as 1st Lt and finally a company comdr as a Capt. Several years of being a Grunt, I doubt it will happen unless they water down the standards.
major dad on January 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM