Combat puts women at a unique risk
Now, hold the image of your 18-year-old daughter, neighbor, sister or girlfriend as you follow these facts, which somehow have been ignored in the advancement of a fallacy. The fallacy is that because men and women are equal under the law, they are equal in all endeavors and should have all access to the same opportunities. This is true except when the opportunity requires certain characteristics. Fact: Females have only half the upper-body strength as males — no small point in the field.
Further to the fallacy is the operating assumption that military service is just another job. The rules of civil society do not apply to the military, which is a top-down organization in which the rules are created to maximize efficiency in killing enemies. It is not just another job that can be managed with the human resources department’s Manual on Diversity and Sensitivity. …
The threat to unit cohesion should require no elaboration. But let’s leave that obvious point to pedants and cross into enemy territory where somebody’s 18-year-old daughter has been captured. No one wants to imagine a son in these circumstances either, obviously, but women face special tortures. And, no, the rape of men has never held comparable appeal.









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
It’s not about the risk, KaPa, it’s about the benefits.
ted c on January 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM
I’m pretty sure all of the civilized politicians you support beg to differ. What are you complaining about?
Seth Halpern on January 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM
One of the benefits would be decreased exposure to KaPa.
Blake on January 27, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Just wait for the screams when women start getting slammed into combat duty because there aren’t enough of them on the front lines.
Ask a woman these questions …
1. Do you think combat should be open to women?
Ans: NO
2. Would you yourself volunteer for combat duty?
Ans: NO
3. Do you think that women should be forced to serve in combat, as males are?
Ans: NO
Eh, whatever. You know – since the American armed forces are prolly going to be shooting at Conservatives and Liberty minded Americans one day – maybe we want them to be weak.
HondaV65 on January 27, 2013 at 10:21 AM
And the careerism. Don’t forget the careerism.
JeffWeimer on January 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM
Only the liberals in the military.
Gays and single women.
astonerii on January 27, 2013 at 10:24 AM
But let’s not forget – under this plan women can pick and choose. If they DON’T want to go into combat, they can choose not to.
How is that equal?
Waiting for some intrepid reporter to get an opinion from Code Pink about women in combat.
Wander on January 27, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Ah, this is Kathleen Parker’s requisite “Let me make sense at least once during the year” column.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Who’s going to carry her 85lb backpack after half a mile?
rdbrewer on January 27, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Are women now going to be required to register for Selective Service? If they’re not going to face the possibility of being drafted, then the equality argument is one-sided and invalid.
RadClown on January 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM
She is correct, but left out another important aspect of the damage to unit cohesion. If you put 18 year old females in units with 18 year old males, the 18 year old males will become aggressive towards each other. This will break down unit cohesion and degrade unit performance. The very factors that make 18 year old males such good soldiers dictate that and training is not going to fix it.
MikeA on January 27, 2013 at 11:10 AM
It’s always about the wimmin.
The unique risk is put on the men, not the women.
Dusty on January 27, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Unit cohesion. Clearly? Women are different than men.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. – 1 Timothy 2:12
As the Bible clearly declares, women are the lesser than of men. They are not equal and need to remain in the kitchen, barefoot and poor.
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved … A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:4-5,8
Women come from men. They could never carry an 85 backpack like a man could. That’s offensive, because they’re weak. Let’s leave the misogyny to the Word of Our Lord, Amen.
ZachV on January 27, 2013 at 12:17 PM
Also,
4. Ordered into combat, do you think the military should allow you to withdraw from action?
A: I’m pregnant.
Dusty on January 27, 2013 at 12:20 PM
[ZachV on January 27, 2013 at 12:17 PM]
The fact that the Bible confers opinions you may disagree with has no bearing on arguments that can be made just as easily absent those Biblical opinions.
Or are you just throwing up strawmen to cover for the fact you are just anti-science and reality.
Dusty on January 27, 2013 at 12:26 PM
Mmm, reality dictates that women are weaker than men. Never mind entrepreneurial girls who pull their weight or could kick my butt. It’s all about the reality of XX verses XY and our immediate condescending treatment of that fact.
Make sure to treat your wife as she derserves Dusty:
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives - 1 Peter 3:1
ZachV on January 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM
[ZachV on January 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM]
I see you’re enamored by anecdote and personal preference rather than science and reality. And war is about inequality and winning, not equality and who cares what the outcome is, it’s the process that’s important.
Dusty on January 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM