Drafting Women To The Army?

Women Army BIG_1

Trigger warning: If any liberals happen to stumble in here and read this, I warn you, you will be offended and call me every name in the book. I’m coming against your sacred cows here and you’ll be convinced that I’m a male chauvinist pig and a Neanderthal to boot.

Under President Obama, the US military has change drastically. Originally established to protect our country from foreign enemies, the current liberal administration has been working overtime to change the role of the five branches of the military from war fighting and defense, to becoming a combination social experiment and an official Peace Corps.

Of course, this goes hand-in-hand with Obama’s lack of guts, at least when it comes to dealing with our enemies. He seems to have plenty of moxie when it comes to berating his political enemies and the American public in general.

But when it comes to confronting our enemies, his most common move is to bow down to them. Then he comes back home and brags about the “great victory” he’s had.

But we’re not talking about Obama’s lack of guts today, we’re talking about what he’s doing to the military. Specifically, what he’s doing about making it a social experiment.

It seems that every liberal idea is being pushed on our military forces, at the same time that they are being denied the funds and resources they need to train for and complete their basic mission of protecting the country.

A large part of this has been in forcing the military to give preference to illegal aliens, Muslims and transgenders.

Another group which has gained a huge favorable standing in the military is women. Since the time of World War II, the military has slowly been allowing women a larger and larger role in the military, kicking and screaming in protest all the way. Recently, the last barrier was breached by women’s libbers, in the name of equality. Now, women are allowed to occupy all military positions, including all combat positions.

While that may be the law and it may be military regulation, I’m not convinced that it’s a good idea. There are two basic problems with women in a the military in general and combat units in particular.

The first is the risk of abuse for the women themselves. Placing women in a traditionally all-male environment opens them up to attack. While I can’t and won’t condone rape, men who are trained for aggressiveness, as is necessary for combat operations, may not treat women the way they deserve to be treated.

Video first seen on Greg Hengler.

The other problem is even more fundamental, if that’s possible. That is that by and large women are not as physically strong as men.

In my opinion, while there are exceptions to this, by and large women don’t have the muscle mass that men do, not even women who are weight lifters.

This affects their ability to complete their role in combat positions. As those positions were created with men in mind, everything about them, from the weight of the backpacks soldiers carry to the size of the weapons they use, is based on male anatomy.

It will take years before the need for equipment designed for women is fully realized, that equipment is developed and it is issued to those who need it.

In the mean time, many physical standards have been lowered to allow women to compete in what has previously been an all-male world. I don’t have the specifics, and they vary by branch of service and military occupational specialty (MOS), but in many cases, the standards by which women are graded is different than those for their male counterparts. Since they have less physical strength, they aren’t being expected to do as much.

While that may sound “fair” and “non-discriminatory” to those on the left, it’s actually giving favoritism to women. But then, most of the measures the left undertakes to make things “fair” actually give preferential treatment to whichever group they say is being discriminated against.

In tests run by the military, units which contain women have failed to perform at the same levels as those which are all-male. What this means is that in the name of being “fair” to women in the military and allowing them into the combat arms, the military is putting every man who serves with those women, as well as the women themselves, at greater risk.

How is that fair?

As per usual in the liberal world, “fair” means taking something away from one person, to give it to another. But in this case, the something that they are taking away could very well be someone’s life. That will never be admitted and it will never be stated in any official report, but if a combat unit is less effective with women in it, then it only stands to reason that said unit will see a greater number of casualties.

What’s Next?

But now, the insanity is going a step further. In a recent vote on an amendment to the Defense Policy Bill, a House Committee narrowly passed a measure to require that women register for the draft.

While there are still a number of steps for this bill to pass, before it becomes law, this step is the first critical one along that road. If the bill that it is connected to continues moving forward successfully, as it must, we may well see women registering for the draft in the near future.

Before I go any farther, let me say that the military draft has not been in operation since 1973. Since then, our country’s military ranks have been filled by volunteers. But registration for the draft was restarted under President Carter’s administration.

So requiring women to register for the draft doesn’t mean that they will be drafted anytime in the near future. But if there’s one thing true about the government, it’s that if anything can be turned to bad, it will be. If the draft is expanded to include women, then there will come a day when women are drafted against their free will, just as men have been in the past.

Regardless of what liberals, feminists and all the other activists who are pushing for this say, there are many basic differences between men and women; more so than what plumbing fixtures we use in the bathroom. Amongst these differences is that women aren’t born with the aggressive violent nature that men are.

When women attack, I guess their first weapon of choice is words, not fists, knives or guns. While women will take up arms in the defense of their children, it is against their nature to take up arms for other means. Yet according to the left, there is no difference between men and women. I guess they need to go back and take high school biology over again. They obviously didn’t pass it the first time.

Yes, there are women who can function in the combat arms. I have no doubt of that. Some women have more of the masculine traits than others do. That’s objective reality. But that doesn’t mean that all women can do so. There are men who have trouble functioning in war, what makes anyone think that women will be able to do so?

Conclusion

Women's-Land-Army-1917While there are many jobs in the military which women can perform quite well, that doesn’t mean that they can perform well in combat; and even if some can, that doesn’t mean that all can.

Nor does a peacetime test truly determine how well women will operate in combat.

Once again, some women would function well, but I seriously doubt that the majority of women would. Drafting women into the military to fill the ranks of the infantry could be disastrous.

I can’t imagine my wife or my daughters in uniform, let alone in a combat unit. While all three know how to shoot and my wife even has a concealed carry license, that doesn’t make her a soldier. If she ever had to draw her gun to protect herself, I’m quite sure she’d be terrified. Hopefully the sight of her with the gun in her hand will cause the bad guys to run off, because I’m not sure she would remember to pull the trigger.

But there’s a much deeper problem with women in the combat arms. Historically, men have gone off to war, while women have kept the home fires burning. There’s a reason for that; that’s because women are more naturally geared towards nurturing children than men are. Men go to war, because they have been given that aggressive/violent nature in order to protect their families.

So if women go off to war, who’s going to take care of the children? Even if they put regulations in place, preventing both parents from being shipped off to war, what’s to say that a national emergency won’t force some future president to countermand that regulation?

Should that happen, we might see a future generation of Americans who largely grow up as orphans. Enough studies have been done, which show the importance of both parents to a child’s upbringing, that we can be sure that such an event would be devastating to the country at large. Even if we were to win such a war, we would lose so much, as to quite possibly negate the effect of that win.

AAA2

This article has been written by Bill White for Survivopedia.

References:

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/26/weapon_system_revive/

https://www.military1.com/military-career/article/1544692014-marine-experiment-shows-women-perform-worse-than-men-in-combat/

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2016/04/26/army-combat-boot-not-female-friendly-lawmakers-say/83548194/


Print page
Written by

Bill White is the author of Conquering the Coming Collapse, and a former Army officer, manufacturing engineer and business manager. More recently, he left the business world to work as a cross-cultural missionary on the Mexico border. Bill has been a survivalist since the 1970s, when the nation was in the latter days of the Cold War. He had determined to head into the Colorado Rockies, should Washington ever decide to push the button. While those days have passed, the knowledge Bill gained during that time hasn’t. He now works to educate others on the risks that exist in our society and how to prepare to meet them. You can send Bill a message at editor [at] survivopedia.com.

Latest comments
  • you can not tell a lie enough times and it will become true, women and men will never be equal, god created them each with different capabilities. women in combat will always increase causalities

    (11)
    (2)
  • My daughter served in the Marine Corp and in basic training was one of 5 out of 140 to make the Obstacle Course the first go around which most of the guys do not do well on either. She also ran a number of operations that required the "Gentlemen" to report to her, and they were darn glad to have her and many had seen combat. The officers found out the hard way she managed and commanded better than they did, the Gunny knew all along. Maybe your comments should read the picking system should be better constructed in that a lot of the Gentlemen are no more qualified for combat, yet you send them.

    (8)
    (1)
    • You are correct, the picking system should be better. But please, you must understand your daughter is in the very minority of women in combat. Sure, I have no doubt women could play a role in the combat command, but then again only if they can't safely take up the grunt role in combat. Otherwise they should never be allowed in combat command. If a woman can in every way shape and form, pass all the PT required, by all means they should be allowed in combat positions. But in no way should the PT requirements be any different for men or women. Bill is right, it's only common sense. Most women don't have the physical strength to safely do the job. And please don't try and tell me that most of the men don't do as well as 5 of 140 being able to pass the final PT test.

      (0)
      (0)
  • In the 2008 campaign, BHO set as a goal, a military like internal security force as strong as the U.S. military. He rearranged the federal law enforcement agencies so they were under one master. His government has coopted a huge percentage of state and local LE through agreements to subject themselves to federal instructions in exchange for surplus military equipment (including vehicles). The TSA, ICE, Border Patrol, Homeland Security, FEMA and other groups ave been enhanced and expanded. They have been lavishly equipped and supplied. (More than a billion rounds of ammo set off the civilian (and LE) ammo shortage a couple of years ago.

    What is the need for this new federal armed force? Posse Comitatus and the military's folkways, traditions and loyalty to the Constitution (in contrast to the people momentarily in charge). Is it any surprise that the folkways and traditions of the military be under attack-- to weaken their traditional understandings of duty? Is it any wonder that generals and admirals imbued by tradition and committed to their oaths be put on the sidelines? Is it any wonder that standards are being lowered and moral busting regulations are being put in place?

    There was a time when a significant percentage of Americans served at least for a while in some branch of the military. For some, it was the draft. For many, it was a path out of poverty. Even when it was not intended to be a social program, the military broke through the racial barriers for a lot of people and created a multi racial, multi-ethnic society, even if it existed only on base. Now, smaller and smaller numbers get in. Few get to stay in until retirement. Those who try are deployed so many times, so frequently, that their odds of coming back to a medical disability discharge are tremendous. (I have a nephew who is a Special Forces reservist who has been deployed at least 8 times in the last 15 years. He got fired from his job as a cop on one of his return trips largely because he was gone more than he was on the streets. They didn't say that. Their excuse was something like "He has not progressed through the department's mandatory inservice and continuing education in a timely manner and thus is not fulfilling his job requirements.")

    The point is that our military has been stretched to the breaking point. The experienced line officers and NCOs are not around for twenty plus years as there is "no path to retirement" (except by being maimed). At the same time, the Civilian Armed Force is expanding at exponential speed. They have little tradition and their allegiance is to a generous pay check.

    Doesn't all this make you feel secure?

    (18)
    (2)
  • I would like to put in my 2cents worth . I personally have no problem with women in the military ! If they can do the job ! If they can go through the same basic training the mail gender has to go through let them in . BUT no special treatment .If they can't get through the same basic training then they have to go home no ands ,if's or but's . No special introduction to military life . Everyone male or female gets the same treatment NO EXCEPTIONS ....

    (10)
    (0)
  • I think women SHOULD be drafted if the Selective Service is reintroduced.

    Women can fill most MOS's in each of the services. But ... they SHOULD NOT BE GRUNTS. This would be a threat to unit effectiveness and discipline.

    Woman CAN serve effectively in all suport functions (e.g, logistics, transport, maintenance, intelligence, etc), but would still be in harms way to a certain degree - but with less risk of capture (my major concern).

    They could even serve in combat rolls such as in armor, fighter pilot, transport pilot ... because they are just as good as guys in these fields. Risk of capture is low because you either make it or you are toast.

    Please don't block women from the draft. They are an importaft force multiplier, and would release many men for active combat service. We would desparately need them.

    (4)
    (6)
  • I understand that, under Obama's new edict, even our Special Ops units will now be open to women as well. It is important to recognize that most MALE candidates do not make it into these units now. No one changes the requirements or selection process because of this, and it is this very selection process itself that "weeds out" those who would not be capable of doing the job in combat. Ask anyone who has been through one of these selection courses and they will tell you that it is ultimately more of a mental challenge than a physical one; however, physical stress is used to test one's mental strength and commitment, and the physical requirements themselves are very demanding. Those who cannot meet the physical requirements are dropped by the wayside, just like those who cannot meet the mental requirements. The Navy's BUD(S) course is not designed to train new Navy SEALS; it is designed to "weed out" all but the few who are willing to subordinate EVERYTHING to becoming a SEAL, and who are physically and mentally capable of meeting the demands of the actual training, which will follow for those who pass BUD(S). The vast majority of BUD(S) candidates fail the selection process and return to their old jobs.
    On the other hand, the vast majority of those who enter the USMC's Infantry Officer Course DO make it through. That is largely because it is designed as a TRAINING program intended to train infantry officers, not a selection process to "weed out" officers who would be unable to function effectively in combat. That job has already been done by previous USMC programs and the application process. It's main emphasis is to train good infantry officers, and STILL no women officers were able to complete the course; indeed, none lasted more than a few days, and remember these trainees were already good USMC officers who had passed all the physical requirements for such, and who had done well enough to be recommended for this training by their parent commands . And I'm reasonably sure that the officers recommended WANTED it, and were seen by their parent commands as being the most motivated and best suited, both physically and mentally, for the training course. So, this was not just some random group of females chosen from the society as a whole (such as the draft will generate), but some of the best and most highly motivated, of those women who have already demonstrated their physical and mental ability to function well under stress as Marine Corps officers. If THEY were unable to handle the physical demands of the training, then it is a virtual certainty that a random assortment of drafted women would not be able to do so either.
    OK, so maybe that training program was too tough, but that's not a reason to just generally deny female soldiers and Marines the right to serve in combat, right? Perhaps, but the obvious solution to the issue of whether or not someone is able to serve effectively in combat should be determined by setting selection standards based on the physical and mental demands of combat, not on what percentage of enlistees can pass the physical testing, as is now the case for regular enlistees. At present, in ALL the services, the physical standards are set lower for females than for males, solely because an insufficient percentage of female enlistees are able to meet the male standards. Keep in mind that not all of the male enlistees meet the standards either, and those who cannot are eventually dropped. This difference in standards makes no sense at all unless the actual DUTIES of those females who can only meet the lower standards are going to be different than the duties of those who must meet the more difficult male standards. THAT was the rationale used for accepting the difference in standards from the outset. So if the male standards are based on the expected physical demands of combat, and females will now be expected to engage in combat, then females should be required to meet the more stringent male standards. Certainly SOME females will be able to meet these standards, just as some males will not. into the combat arms specialties should be strictly limited to those, of either gender, who CAN meet these standards.

    (8)
    (0)
  • In the Navy and Air Force in particular service members fight a weapon system such as a ship or a plane, performing tasks as a smaller part of a team to make the weapon system perform. In the Army or Marines, specifically in the infantry, the soldier or the marine IS the weapons system. The decision to integrate women into ground direct ground combat while pretending there are no biological differences between the sexes will be paid for in the blood of working class women coupled with tactical or strategic defeat on the battlefield. Infantry combat at its most basic has not changed one iota in the last 6000 years. It's still about brute strength, aggressiveness and the willingness to smash an opponents head in with a rifle butt, rip out his guts with a bayonet or cut his throat at 2:00 am while wrestling in the dark with an enemy sapper in a forward position where you're totally on your own.

    (7)
    (1)
  • Once the American people became ignorant and apathetic to the Constitution and their political process, the sharks of tyranny smelled blood in the water.
    The tried and true method of aggression used by the self styled social engineer dupes is simple .
    Increase burdensome and oppressive government from the topside of the population and then foment unrest and rebellion at the bottom. This will dilute and dissolve the nation state and traditional human government in favor of centralized control for the formation of a planet wide Nobles & Serf caste system. Every republic ever formed has denigrated from the inside out through careful long term cultivation of a dumbed down and disarmed populace. Once this system is firmly in place, the thinning of the herd through pestilence and famine will commence. The planned product of choice human worker bee will be an ethnically mixed labor beast with enough instant gratification tendencies as to be very predictable and controlled in numbers to ever achieve meaningful resistance in the new caste order.
    The new order farmers of people desire the sheep only and the dogs that watch them. Independent minded cats of any kind will not be tolerated and be hounded mercilessly by the dogs for their masters.
    This plan has been carefully crafted and nurtured for hundreds or more years and should be obvious to even the mediocre thinking man?
    Good luck.

    (8)
    (0)
  • Before we all get too hell bent and carried away in our usual misguided misogynistic delusions, for those of you, military or otherwise, who never actually participated in direct engagement with the horror of 'front line' eyeball to eyeball combat warfare for any real time duration outside of the movie theater, the fact is that for every one of these actual combat soldiers shooting at the enemy there has to be at least five other military or civilian personnel backing them up down the line.

    That's why there are so many other MOSs besides Infantry/spec forces. And women just happen to be already well entrenched in these support categories and do as well or better in some respects than most men. The step up, then, to actually firing the weapon they were basically trained with is ALREADY a dutiful, natural progression of the military job description.

    Throughout ALL the history of warfare, women have pulled more than their weight in these support categories, usually taking little or no credit, but nevertheless remained unsung heroes.

    Today we have combat infantry females engaged right along-side of men in Iraq and Afghanistan, and The Kurdish Peshmerga forces are said to be dominated by woman commanders which might explain why they are so good?

    I went on to eventually field train some of the first female leather jacket wearing, baton carrying street tactical beat cops in the mid-seventies and never worried about intrinsic gender differences that would be problematic to the job description work. Police women, just as Police'men', are now common assets in any police departments in all functional duties.

    If there was a non-discriminating draft, there would be no problem finding a purposeful MOS for everyone. The Army doesn't want incapable people in any position. That's why they have screening, testing, and qualification parameters which transcend gender differences.

    The problem is that too many people have archaic predispositions which lag behind the true evolution of society compared to the way it used to be in the old bio-genetic species survival mode eras which were proliferated mostly for the benefit of theocratic expansion and profit. Where women had only one purpose, to help produce more 'flock' for the feeding and fleecing process.

    Now, of course, there are far too many 'sheeple' in the world. There's not really 'enough' profit for everyone anymore without many of the sheep becoming cannibals, So continuous thoughtless wanton 'breeding' of the species has little pragmatic value anymore.

    Modern Women today no longer are bound and imprisoned by an obsolete social hypocrisy that is dysfunctional in pragmatic value production in a modern advancing society, flawed individual emotional content, notwithstanding. Women can't be dominated and subjugated anymore as they were in 'patriarchal' history. And this bugs the living shit out of traditional die- hard male dominance freaks to no end.

    So a lot of us better get OVER IT pretty soon or one of these hot and smart babes who 'came a very long way, Baby...' might just seriously kick your fat old stupid Male chauvinist ass... if you give her too much static?

    (4)
    (10)
    • I get it that there are women in combat all over the globe in various forces. I even have some personal experience with them; in Viet Nam I was almost shot by a VC who turned out to be a female. I get it that women, at least SOME women, can handle the rigors of combat. We have several enlisted National Guard women who have been decorated for their combat performance, and I think the Silver Star is no small matter. I also "get" the long support train behind every combat troop. My concern is with standards. If women are tough enough for combat, why do they need special, less rigorous, physical standards? If they are going to be doing the same job as male combatants (and if they go into combat they will be), shouldn't they be able, and more than that, shouldn't they be EXPECTED, to meet the same standards? The standards should be based on the requirements of infantry combat, and women (and men) should be accepted for that role or not, depending on their ability to meet those standards. Anything else is not only irrational, it is dangerous. If too many applicants are physically unable to meet those requirements (as occurred after Korea), that is a reason to initiate a national physical fitness program (I'm old enough to remember the JFK President's fitness test, that all kids in school took and worked to pass). It is NOT a reason to reduce the standards themselves. Those should be determined by the needs of combat and nothing else; and that means they must be the same for ALL who want to serve in regular combat specialties.

      (7)
      (0)
      • valid point in question, old shooter, I, too, remember my team getting unusually nervous when intel warned of 'certain' VC units well known for their ferocious tenacity, were likely our next engagement. They usually went down to the last 'Man' standing. Except when we were doing the body count, we were surprised at how many were young AND old women.

        The point being is that everybody who says a woman better be able to physically match a man push up for push up to be a competent warrior in combat doesn't know their buttstock from their buttHOLE!

        True empirical experience in combat is anything BUT 'standard''. I had a kid in my basic training unit who got recycled because he didn't make it through the first time. Pretty embarrassing for him.

        A year or so later i was trying to pull myself out of a downed chopper before charles got to us when an infantry squad leader leaped out of the grass with his men and began rescuing us. He lifted the pilot out of the smoking bird and carried him away to cover while ordering his men to lay down some suppression fire to cover our retreat. I had the feeling i knew him from somewhere and sure as shit, he was the dorky kid who couldn't make it through the basic training obstacle course!

        So the moral of the story is just because a woman doesn't have sixteen inch biceps like a young man who played football in high school and can't lift as much weight...

        ...doesn't mean She can't CARRY here own weight, when it gets down and dirty.

        (3)
        (2)
  • I'm telling you this is how insane obaama is. All this is ---is another way to weaken our military. Women are not that strong enough to handle what the men do. We don't have the weight or the arm muscles or the leg muscles . Let alone having to deal with our monthly stuff weakens a women at that time. Let alone endangers her health in any dirty or unhealthy situation. That is why most women are indoors at that time. Sorry ladies but we all know I'm telling the truth.

    (5)
    (3)
  • Oh, dear, where to begin? Give me a moment while I hop down from the chair - I just saw a mouse and am still hiking my skirt and screaming "eeeeekkk!" in hopes that my husband will rush home and rescue me.
    Mr. White, I don't suppose the name Jacqueline Cochrane ( originally Bessie Prittman) means anything to you. Of course it wouldn't, because America's (once) most famous woman and her band is WASP don't fit your narrative and you would probably prefer that America forget about them. The reality, however, is that Jacquie and her women saved America's bacon in WWII by doing all sorts of things that women "could not do", including flying fighter planes that our brave, burly male heroes wouldn't fly. Some of the planes were damaged from combat and the women were recruited to nurse them across the ocean to be repaired in the US, and some aircraft were considered too mechanically dangerous to fly until after - gasp- the women took to the skies in them and proved them safe for the guys! Turns out that the vaunted burly, brave American male warrior isn't always the fearless hero he's made out to be. Oh, and the WASP had to wear men's gear because the military refused to manufacture anything in women's sizes, they also had to pass all standards required for the men, at a time when doctors warned that flying large airplanes would - get this - make women sterile! The doctors back then were laboring under baseless, sexist "data", but fortunately the medical profession has evolved. Wish the armed services would, as well.

    Speaking of brace women in combat, have you ever heard of the Russian Night Witches Mr. White? They were WWII Russian female pilots who absolutely terrified their European foes by flying missions so dangerous that their male compatriots refused, and performing them with such skill that their foes feared their attacks above any other form of military engagement.

    And what about the contemporary Kurdish women who gladly serve in combat alongside the men? They are admired by their own people as being both fierce and deadly accurate fighters, and strike such fear into the Muslim men that the bave boys on the battlefield often actually throw their guns down and try to run away when facing a female fighter.

    Of course not all women are cut out to fight. But using the argument that all women are not fighters so therefore no women should fight, is a straw man. It's common knowledge that a significant portion of males who are drafted wash out of training, or don't perform once on the field. The argument that "some can't, so none can based on a shared general characteristic" is so obviously logically flawed as to not need comment, except when applied in a biased manner. By your own reasoning, the number of men who would choose to be, say, doctors or nurses and heal the wounded rather than hunt down and kill strangers, would disqualify men in general from being drafted as soldiers.

    Re: that women don't meet the same strength standards as men, so what? Neither do dogs, but we press them into combat roles anyway. We simply choose roles for which they are suited and create equipment that fits them. Incredible that we have helmets, vests and parachutes designed for dogs, but it will take years before we can figure out how to outfit women? Perhaps the brilliant Army brass need to talk to the entrepreneurs in the sporting equipment industry, who have been designing adventure gear for women for decades, now. The adventure industry can create gear for women who climb Mt. Everest, but the Army can't figure out how to use millions of taxpayer dollars to create equipment carriers suited for the female anatomy? I think that's one good reason to continue cutting our military budget. Let's stop throwing money at an institution that wastes it running in circles where the private market inventors find solutions.

    As far as the argument about women being in danger from aggressive men in their own units, yes, that is a problem, but talk about blaming the victims! "Because the men won't control themselves" is the same reason the Muslim societies put their women into fabric prisons. So if you're trying to differentiate the American military from the enemy you're recruiting men to fight, playing the "women's protection" card isn't making your case. Either teach the guys to keep their damn pants zipped, or just have separate male and female units ( like the WASP in WWII). There will always be issues, but the bulk of the problems CAN be overcome if the leadership sees a genuine need. Let a crisis for which women in combat becomes a necessity, hit, and see how quickly the army will make accommodations ( and then just as quickly cover up and deny the accomplishments of women to maintain the myth of male superiority in war).

    Last but not least, although I agree with you that most women do not want to go into combat, I have three things to say. First, I agree (I would not want to go into combat, for example), but then again, girls are not generally raised to fight in our culture. But give us a few decades under norms that are more allowing of individual expression , and see if the numbers rise. We now have female cage fighters, female police officers, female big rig drivers, and have you ever watched good roller derby gals? Would you really want to get in their way if they were well trained, hepped up with adrenalin and fighting for the lives of their fellow soldiers ("Cubs"?) I understand the reluctance of many women to fight and kill, but put that pistol in your wife's hands and let some creep begin molesting one of her kids, and I'd wager money that not only would that gun come flying out of its holster, but there would be little left but a bloody mass of pulp by the time she got through with him. Women may be more difficult to get to the tipping point, but once we're there, we don't mess around.
    Second, if you're going to use the tired old argument that men are better fighters because they're more testosterone driven, then let's ban them from all nursing and teaching positions in the military. Everybody knows that women make better nurses and teachers bexause we're all more nurturing and understanding, blah, blah. So to give our soldiers the best training and care, should not all of he "caring" positions go exclusively to women? Oh, that's right, under the double standard, what applies to women does not apply to men whenever male advantage is to be gained by ignoring rules and logic.
    Lastly, maybe it's time to begin examining whether we really need so much military conflict to begin with. I would be loathe to send either a daughter or a son into the military because I wouldn't want to see either one killed. It would be no easier to take the death of a son than to take the death of a daughter. I find the arguments that somehow the death of a daughter would be worse than the death of a son. Does this imply that parents love their daughters more than they love their sons? Are you sure about that? As attitudes change and the novelty wears off, we may become more like the Kurdish parents who are proud of their children who defend the homeland, regardless of their gender.

    I personally know a female helicopter pilot who has landed twice behind enemy likes to rescue wounded male soldiers, and a more lovely, modest and poised woman you could hardly hope to meet. I'm sure her parents are terribly proud of her on many levels, as they should be. She is the equal of any male pilot in her role but does not exude the swaggering braggadocio that. most guys would display in her shoes. And I think that's what you're really afraid of - losing a GOB culture in which sweat in', sppitin' and swear in' are the norm and assumed to be necessary to get the job done. Getting he guys to use the toilet instead of peeing in the corner and to act like human beings instead of dirty pigs when I'm the field (I've heard the realities from a male friend who makes his living as a hired gun) is what's really behind the prejudice against women in combat, and the military in general. It's one of the last boy's clubs, and there's therefore no incentive to figure out sensible ways to incorporate women because women, unlike dogs, pose a threat to unmask the male warrior mystique. Seriously, the threat is all in your head. While I don't wish to see women in combat, neither do I wish to see men in combat and would love to put my tax dollars to use finding out who is manipulating us into these endless conflicts than recruiting more men OR women to fight and die for somebody else's benefit.

    (8)
    (5)
    • Yup, well said, Jennifer, and more women are riding their own big hog motorcycles now instead of on the back of their husband's/boyfriend's bike. and there's a lot of suppressed 'history' reflecting the erosion of the exclusive male-only clubs--a throwback anachronism to the old biblical Patriarch mentality--that i enjoy smacking down on my super macho cohorts every chance i get.

      For a while the popularity of military/police SNIPERs reached an un-holy level of male dominated adoration. Until i tell them, 'oh yeah'? the 'legendary' Carlos Hathcok and current top snipers were amateurs compared to a couple of World War 1 and 2 FEMALE snipers who racked up over twice as many confirmed kills as the nearest modern male soldier trained with the most advanced equipment imaginable compared to the primitive Mosin Nagants and Mausers these women used of those past conflicts? And some of their shot distance records are still unbroken today!

      (3)
      (0)
  • First of all, I would like to say that I totally agree with this article. I was in the U.S. Navy in both an enlisted and Officer capacity, and I am a woman. I think I was an exception to the rule concerning psychological agressiveness, however even though I was always physically fit, I am only 5' 2" and slight of build. I would train with my Marine brothers, but had a hard time running in combat boots and could never carry a pack as large as they did. Using weapons made primarily for men was also an issue as they were usually too large to carry for long periods.
    I feel that there are many supportive roles that women can fill that are very important to the welfare of those we help serve and I personally would never want to impede the men on the "front lines" by my presence there.
    I was able to fulfill my dream by attending the Naval War College and being designated as a Tactical Deception Planner, however the majority of my time as an officer was in a supportive role in Administration and Public Relations. I also have a son who is an Officer who was on a sub I do not feel that putting women on subs is a good idea due to the restricted space. Having to reconfigure a sub for women would be a nightmare and to the detriment of the male sailors.

    (9)
    (0)
  • Some time last year I was reading about the abortion and birth control agendas, and found myself asking "Where is the money in this? Where is the power?" Well - a totally crazy idea popped into my head - that liberals supposedly support women's rights (but not a woman's right to unfettered access to a gun) so that they become "equal" enough for the draft. I come from a long line of soldiers and warriors - some enlisted - some drafted, and I would not want to see women (or men, actually) drafted because just about every war is a meat grinder designed to make fat cats fatter. So - I guess you could say I see this whole thing as liberals setting up the groundwork for yet another war, and when that comes, conservatives will "get over the shock of women in combat" fast enough to send them into war.

    As for what women are and are not capable of in terms of combat or dangerous situations... I cannot speak for every woman. But let me tell you this - I have been in more than cat fights; and, even though I am around 5'5", I've taken down men over 6" tall with 1 - 2 (max) hits. And - feel free to ask my dearest Fred one of these days - he can tell you that he has absolutely no doubt that I can and will pull the trigger in time of need.

    (5)
    (2)
    • a cat fight is a far cry from combat

      (1)
      (1)
      • Mwood - I agree with that 110%; and also with others that say there should be no reduced standard for women. Drafting women will be just as much of a disaster as drafting men. Those who are less than capable will still be put in positions that they cannot handle because the meat grinder must go on and those making money off it are desperate to keep it going.

        While I'm at it - I'd like to clarify something I said earlier with this observation:

        Reagan had to clean up after Carter - a liberal Democrat that used his "war on oil" to pave the way for hostilities in the Middle East.

        Bush Jr had to clean up after Clinton - another liberal Democrat that set the stage for 9/11 - something Al Gore almost spilled the beans about in the presidential debates.

        Obama is leaving us, again, with a weakened military and an extremely dangerous world scene in which ISIS is courting NK and a few other playmates.

        What do you think this draft of women is really about? A push for "women's rights"? I think not. I think its just a liberal fat cat scheme to gain money and power and then leave conservatives tasked with cleaning up the mess holding the bag. In this case - if you follow consider what will happen - it is the conservatives that will be blamed for sending women into meat grinder combat zones - not the liberals.
        I think this point is important because people keep believing media spin lies instead of actually looking at what is going on and how it all came about.

        (2)
        (0)
        • Carmela, while you're correct in your analysis of the motivation behind anything the government or special agenda groups try to influence and control, there will likely never ever be another draft because men don't want to be drafted either, LOL!

          (3)
          (1)
          • Oddly, LOL, most of those men who got drafted during the Viet Nam War didn't want to be drafted either! That fact that people don't want to be drafted doesn't seem to prevent it when the govt decides IT wasn't a draft.

            (2)
            (0)
        • Mahatma,

          Hmm... there being no draft implies that gov can command people without having to make an obvious decree. I can agree there is plenty of behavior shaping going on; however it is not all one sided. Ideaologically, I feel our nation is in the grasp of Roman Pincers; and both sides are playing the exact same cards to winnow out the buffer in the middle even as they claim to be "mainstream".

          Perhaps OT - but did you notice the "plug and play" format of news stories these days? I was reading something the other day about anti-transgender-potty laws and one by gun grabbers. In the first article, I just switched out "conservative/Republican" and "Liberal/democrat", and guns for transgender and got pretty much the exact same article complete with all the emotional and mental shaping cues. Been substituting in a few other topics and also find it.... interesting.

          (0)
          (0)
          • Carmela, Yeah, the plug and play mind control casino is in full swing these days. It always amuses those of us who were fortunate enough at some point in our lives to be exposed to the understanding of the dark and dirty truth in full 3D technicolor and surround sound, while the rest of most of the population played with themselves in their DIY mind prisons wearing super dark glasses and ear plugs...

            It functions as follows:
            The Power Elite controllers manipulate us through our banal forces-of-nature in the form of our predispositions, social propensities, and subjective persuasions

            This is actually a form of advanced behavioral science and psychological mechanics. Almost anyone can learn it and apply it. When you see parents with the most absolutely perfect behaving kids, that's usuallly a result of the process, either by intentional re-directed behavioral modification.
            or some parents are just 'natural' at manipulating people.

            The power elite does this by almost completely controlling and re-directing the collective behavioral psychology within a few different but powerful venues. The main 3 they brainwash and control you with are...

            The Main Stream Media.
            Religion
            Laws

            I always get a kick out of all these analyy retentive anti Huh Huh HOMMASAXUAL phobic holier than thou humans who from the sacrosanct alter of their higher moral ground just can't go one day of their miserable lives without condeming to hell the LGBT humans in some way or another.

            The Faith based belief systems are the easiest to manipulate. I have fun talking to them. Just the other day a local minister who i sometimes see at the post office chatting (preaching) with the mail lady was talking about the lgbt bathroom issue. Saying some of the same things Bill says here...

            I said to him, but Rev, what about 'there, but for the grace of god goeth YOU, ?

            Not Me, I don't go there, he said?

            So you don't believe in the idea of god's grace,,,???

            'well, hum, uh, ah, you know nothing of what iI belliee,

            I know that you are obviously compulsively obsessed with other people's bathroom habits, and private body parts...where does it say anything in the bible about that?.. You're not like one of those pedaphile priests are you? That's how they start out, you know? Constantly Sticking their noses into other people's private body part business eventually leads to a very slippery when wet slope?

            His face turned beet red and i thought he was about to rupture a forehead vein.

            Take it easy, Rev, I was just asking. Thinking people should always question blatant bigotry and unwarranted discrimination, wouldn't Jesus, himself, want that, uh?

            He gave me a '...see your heathen ass burning at the stake' look as he grabbed his mail and stomped off. The mail lady, smiled, and said thanks, the fire and brimstone was definately getting a little too hot in here, LOL!

            The true perpose of religion has always been, and always will be to control the hearts, minds, money, and sex organs of the sheeple.

            You've seen a lot of plug and play affectatious prorietary 'faith based' mind control manipulation in this political race, as well, first Amendment notwithsanding. And why should it. The Constitution IS NOT THE LAW OF GOD!!! Why can't all you sinners get that?

            (2)
            (0)
          • So what happens when the 100th monkey breaks all three chains and their "opposing" manipulators? Ie - religion/science, media/speech suppression, liberal law/conservative law?

            (0)
            (0)
          • Well, if the 100th monkey--and i'm not sure if you're referring to the energy field cosmic consciousness experiment or that movie with Bruce Willis--breaks free from her self imposed enslavement, the answer would be simply 'unbridled Thought Freedom and eventual enlightenment elevating the collective energy to higher consciousness and eventual advancement of the species'.

            But not to worry. We just don't seem cut out--as offensive to our instinctive ego-narcissism as this sounds--to ascend to higher consciousness as a human bio-species. After at least 3 known mass extinction events, and numerous higher evolutions within the epochs, we still can't seem to 'get it'.

            In fact, there are certain very reliable indicators of the imminent decline and collapse of humanity that an esoteric NASA funded think- tank discovered which came with a two component high explosive catalyst that blows us all away.

            It happens quite suddenly when a tipping point is reached between the situation of to large a gap between the rich and poor, ie., the total dissolution of the so-called middle class, And the point at which the population bomb destroys the last free market based resource distributions by their wanton consumption addictions and exhausts the planets capacity to quickly replenish that necessary consumption.

            This is happening now, and the fuze is getting shorter and when it burns down around the time the world pop reaches around 9 bil, which could be by 2025, we probably will be extinct by 2030.

            Conspiracy theorists think the 'Georgia Guidestone' group will just kill most of us all off with chem trails or something.

            But Scientists still think they can save us--or at least some of us from extinction to save the species. Now you know why NASA and joint government affiliates are spending untold billions into Trillions soon for space exploration. And are so curious about finding planets that can sustain life similar to Earth. In less than 5 years intergalactical space travel will be technically achievable. So an 'ARK' will be built to take a few thousand 'chosen few' (most likely all Muslims' if Hillary gets in) when the time to bug out to a new planetary BOL is right.

            The other alternative is for countries to do a self imposed birth control, to a level where the deaths exceed the births, to at least cut the fuze on the pop bomb.

            At the same time hoping that Science with the help of smarter than human AI (artificial intelligence) will solve the resource dilemma because AI is like 'god' in terms of infinite supreme power and knowledge.

            The problem with AI, however, is that Scientists are restricting the Singularity transition right now because they found out, that like God, AI will very quickly evolve to realize that we pusilanimous humans are not worth the fertilizer we could compost the land with, and decide to kill us off sooner than we will kill each other. (like Skynet in the Terminator series).

            So, again, it 'ain't nuthin about shit', as we used to say in those really Bad situations...

            Let us all Pray, as the religionists will say...but in the meanwhile, as Homer Simpson would say, lets just all eat, drink, and be merry, while we still can... because Beer ain't just for breakfast anymore!

            (1)
            (0)
  • It is a simple question ... when I was in the Navy ... serving in Viet Nam ... all my brothers in arms could firemans carry me for about 5 or 6 Klicks ... to get wounded out of the battle ... if these new rules include having the strength to do this ... then fine ... but if your woman can't do this ... it is part of combat

    don't weaken our soldiers by lowering pt for the pc ....

    (3)
    (1)
    • Terry, was that '"5 or 6 klicks' a typo or wishful thinking after watching Superman III?

      (0)
      (2)
      • I was an NROTC type (who also wanted to get one of the few "Space Available" Billets in the Army's Jump School), back in 1965. I distinctly remember having to sprint 110 yards, pick up a 225 pound, 6' 2" buddy (I was 5' 11" and 140 pounds), and fireman's carry him for 220 yards. And it was an exercise we did more or less daily. We were also running 5 miles a day, for 4 days a week, and 12 miles on 2 other days, plus a regular daily PT routine. We had no females in our group, and we may have been getting more than the usual NROTC level of PT (because we were aiming for a slot at the Army's Jump School), but that was considered a "normal" PT regimen to prepare us for the Army or USMC's expectations. I frankly, can't imagine carrying my buddy for anything remotely like 1 Klick, let alone 4 or 5, without lots of rest stops.

        (2)
        (0)
        • Maybe it's a simple error in terminology. A 'klick used tp be a combat phraseology m reference to milradian measurement and simply meant a thousand meters. In the field we'd say a n enemy target is about 6 klicks downrange., instead of six thousand meters. A meter is metric and is a little longer than a 'yard stick'.

          So when the Navy man here says all his brothers in arms could carry each other for 5 or 6 klicks, well, maybe in their 'pipe' dreams?, or he meant to say five or six hundred yards/meters, which would still put you up in the TOP tier of super Special Forces commandos.

          (1)
          (1)
  • spent 9 years as an Army Recruiter. enlisted many females.
    ,some as heavy vehicle mechanics, had many males return and ask me to stop that practice, as they had to do the heavy lifting for the females.

    (2)
    (1)
  • In Vietnam I fought against some damn tough women in VC units. I'm very, very old school but "IF" the standards for training are the same the same and that's a big if, I believe there are some women who can perform the task at hand!

    (1)
    (0)
    • Yup, I saw the same thing. And what about those Israeli kids, just teenagers, girls and boys, working security patrols in high-risk areas.

      It gives 'hanging out at the mall' a whole new meaning.

      (3)
      (0)
  • I served in the Corps active duty from 01 to 05. Some of that time was with females in my unit some officers and some NCO's my overall experiences and interactions have led my to say this. I'm not for it and I ultimately think if we go into harms way again we will bury a lot of sisters mothers daughters. Most are physically unable to perform most of the aspects of the job. I was in motor transport and only ever met one of the many I served with that could keep up and even out due some men but she was the exception. I had one under my command that was physically unable to charge the handle on a M2 Browning .50 cal. She could barely do it even after wedging herself in the ring mount and using her whole body like you would if you were rowing a boat. I told her that as a gunner that truck and driver as well as herself depended on keeping that weapon operational and if the gun went down due to inability to reload or load for that matter she was dead and so was her driver maybe others if she couldn't perform that job. So there is a lot of my reasons for what I have said. Semper Fi

    (3)
    (1)
  • Mr. White,

    I quote you:

    "If she ever had to draw her gun to protect herself, I’m quite sure she’d be terrified. Hopefully the sight of her with the gun in her hand will cause the bad guys to run off, because I’m not sure she would remember to pull the trigger."

    With all due respect, I feel this is exactly the kind of thing that makes gun grabbers stand up and cheer. Gun grabbers don't want women to have guns because guns make people harder to control. They want women to be intimidated into avoiding a legitimate form of self defense and building tangible confidence in their abilities. In fact, the big word out there among the anti-gunners is that if a woman has a gun, the male attacking her will just grab it and turn it on her before she has a chance to pull the trigger.

    It is my sincere hope that both male and female gun owners reading this who have not been to the range in some time, or doubt their capacity to manage a situation - please - go get more training instead of just "hoping" you will never need to fire a gun in self defense. Guns save lives - but you must also know how to use them effectively for this purpose.

    (2)
    (0)
  • one thing that seems very obvious to me is that obama rama lama dingdong will never do any thing to upset his brothers in the muslim brotherhood and if he can weaken the us military by weakening the personel by insisting on females taking combat roles that is his plan

    (3)
    (1)
  • I am against in the miitary, but women want equal rights, as long as it is an easy job. In Americas workforce , there are more women then men. obama just appointed a female as the commander of West Point, this women has never been in combat, are they trying to destroyed West Point.

    (0)
    (0)
  • Apparently you old farts fogot that MPs, CBRN, and Airborne qualified female support have been forward in combat since the Gulf War. There has been gunners, pilots, guards, and interrogators for decades. You also forget the puny 5 foot, 120lb tunnel rats in the infantry or lanky young recruits men aren't the perfect examples of a no limit soldier. Don't paint the picture that every male soldier is a stud or that all female ones are fit amazons. The height and weight standard exists as well as strength and endurance challenges that many have No-Goed surely once. True I never met a G.I. Jane in my 15 years and 3 combat tours but I have met some women who had more balls then some men I trained with it's a f@#$%^g fact. In many cultures throughout history there have been "warrior princesses" and women with courage and leadership ability to motivate men and armies to win. I'm just saying my 4 daughters if they choose can be an operative or a como geek. The reality of the risk you take is enough voluntarily to serve you country is honorable the choice of which MOS is decided by qualification standards. These standards have to be upheld to train qualified, adaptable elite Americans male and female to defeat the chaos worldwide. Lastly I do believe though that transgender and homosexuals are issues that should be closely addressed on the impact of creating more distractions than to keep national interests that have to do with security or global agreement defining civil gender , race or religious rights to exist that's not my concern. My concern is which failed human being is dropping bombs and missiles on someones head who will stop or punish them male or female I don't give a F@#? I want resolution to the military impacts that effect our lives.

    (2)
    (1)
  • Appreciating some excellent points made by the ex-Army officer author, several combat veterans, examples from history, and at least one female veteran among the commenters, I'll bite. The following is from a recently retired navy doctor and Annapolis graduate.
    If I ignore the one aside about intergalactic travel in 5 years, I must respect essentially all that’s been said. The main point being missed, especially by Ms Christiano, however, is that government's responsibility is to provide for the common defense, not the expression of individuals within the framework of that common defense. Unless you subscribe to the military as a de novo social engineering platform, it is not proper for it to expend resources to pound square pegs into round holes. Rather, it is our military's responsibility to cull from the general public the resources and personnel NECESSARY to provide for our defense. So sure, if a woman can pilot a plane or command a group of engineers, or even be commander in chief, I agree. If she’s a good neurosurgeon, she can operate on our brains. Let’s do, for crying out loud in 2016, have the best person in each job.
    But ground combat forces, especially commandos and expeditionary units, are a special case within all of human endeavor.
    * There is no comparison to pilots, doctors, drivers, mechanics, etc., who operate independently and whose jobs can be performed by any trained individual, often without even speaking our language.
    * It must go without saying that there is no comparison of an infantry soldier with an executive, a small business owner, or any other worker.
    * There is no comparison between the infantry and any sport, including cage fighting, boxing and roller derby, in which no contest is settled by death.
    * There is some weak comparison, not a good one, with police officers, who operate domestically and whose job it is to keep the peace, not specifically seek and kill enemies.
    * Let us also dispense with comparison to sailors, submariners and astronauts, all of whom work together in tight quarters for long periods but in highly technical (and reasonably comfortable) conditions.
    None of the worthy people I describe nor any other human being other than an infantry soldier or commando is routinely deployed in the mud in the rain in the cold in the dark in the woods in the desert with the mission of killing, up close and personal, body parts and blood spattering, other humans. Ms Christiano's points about "simple bravado" and "good old boy mentality" are insulting in this scenario, particularly misguided, and should be rejected.
    Regardless of historical examples from other cultures and other times (contemporary Kurdish women, Russian and French women soldiers and Resistance fighters in WWII, the snipers mentioned, Norse shield-maidens, Amazon warriors, Joan of Arc…), we have our own culture and our own time. And in our own culture, in our own time -- and to the best of my understanding 99% of all human cultures from all times -- 18 to 25 year old men and 18 to 25 year old women can be expected to interact in a manner that includes sexual tension. Am I wrong about this? Really? Has our species evolved and I just haven’t noticed? Because this is what I see essentially every time one substitutes a woman for one of four men in that 18-25 year old age range in a situation of close contact and experience away from home, friends and family:
    * one man who wants/ pursues the woman and may be (usually is) rewarded either sexually or by intimate friendship
    * one man who wants the woman but doesn't get her and is therefore jealous
    * one man who is disgusted by the sexual tension between the other three because he just wants to do his damned job and not be impeded or killed because his comrades are expending energy in the sexual dynamic
    * one woman, who, unless she has a non-human superpower to offset the detraction caused by sexual tension, probably does not contribute MORE than an equally capable man would have to the mission.
    What I describe is what happens. People with experience who say it doesn't happen this way are lying, likely to conform to political pressure upon their own job security. Statistics seem to be massaged and manipulated to overlook the number of people transferred, who change specialties, who drop out after wasting enough other people's time and government money on sexually related nonsense.
    The only time I’ve ever heard or read of unique benefit from some personnel specifically being women in a particular unit is when there were women detainees, suspects, or prisoners to be dealt with. Otherwise, the notion that integrating women into any military specialty (or anything at all, really) improves that thing specifically because the integrated personnel are women is not only nonsense, it is specious and sexist tripe. After all, is it equality or superiority that we are even discussing?
    An argument contrary to mine would say that my rationale would have kept blacks and all women out of the military altogether. But no. Gender is not race, and no one is saying to keep women out of the military, or for that matter to not draft them.
    Here is the bottom line: Given its mandate to expend tax revenue for the common defense, how much should the United Stated devote to "integrating" women into ground and commando combat units? How much tax revenue is properly expended in order to deploy those rare individuals whose best contribution to the SEALS, Rangers, and ground combat grunts will be to satisfactorily participate in, but make no unique contribution to, and potentially detract from (inevitability so, in my opinion), the ground combat mission? I say none.
    Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some women are just so special that the United States needs to search and find by national effort the few who simply must be placed into every SEAL Team and Ranger Unit. But for whose benefit? The common defense? There are already places for such rare women in the FBI, DEA and CIA, where women can become special operatives. In doing so they’ll likely exhibit more dedication and personal courage than I ever did, and they have my undying respect. If necessary to deploy such a woman with a group of pure soldiers to a particular mission, that can be done. But to jeopardize, detract from and distract the established well-functioning machines of the SEALS, Delta Forces, US Marine and Army infantries by even attempting to “integrate” women is unnecessary. This blatant social engineering costs money better spent elsewhere and achieves nothing useful. It is sheer vanity for the women so inclined. It is antithetical to the virtue of duty.

    (0)
    (0)
    • Your comments are interesting, and your argument well developed, but it is an argument uncomfortably similar to those often made about integrating Blacks into the (previously segregated) military services in the late 1940s. It was being argued back then that Blacks were too poorly educated, too unintelligent, too cowardly, etc. to be integrated into the services generally, and especially into the combat arms. It may well have been done as a social engineering thing then too, but it worked out well in the end. Are you really saying that, while we can expect a combat troop to obey the ROE, even at the risk of his life, we cannot expect him to keep his mind on his job if he has a woman in his squad? The argument is not being made that women will be any better than men in combat units, only that they should have the right to try out for them without regard to their gender. So long as the acceptance standards are based on the needs of combat, I see no good rationale to deny women the right to serve their country in this manner. Having once nearly been shot by a Viet Cong woman, I can honestly say that, as a practical matter, I was quite unconcerned with whether or not she might have been having any kind of "relationship problems" within her unit. So far as I could tell, and as far as I was concerned, she was just another VC grunt, and she was with her unit, in combat, putting rounds downrange (at ME!), when it counted. Had it been my M2 that ran dry instead of her AK, SHE might well be the one writing this post instead of me. But I bet she'd have been saying fundamentally the same thing.

      (0)
      (0)
      • I commented on this thread about a week ago. What I said was the Obama administration is systematically unraveling the traditions of our nation (including the military) and setting up alternative structures that appear to be pliable to his agendas. I really made no comment about women in combat arms. I never served in the military but I did serve in law enforcement. There were males and females that I would trust with my life and there were a few of both genders that I didn't want behind me. Some women can do anything (and more) than some men can do. They deserve the chance.

        I spent most of my life as a pastor. When I went to seminary, there were some of the second generation of female pastors there in training. (The first generation were true servants of the faith. Many of them had been Directors of Christian Education. Some were college professors. Some worked as missionaries or in social work. When the opportunity to be ordained was approved, they were waiting in the wings with the proper education and a great deal more experience than most women or men coming through college and going to seminary. They were great!) The second generation were a mixed lot. Again, there were some who were great (and better than a lot of their male counterparts). However, there were some who Rush Limbaugh would call "Femi-Nazis." The feminist agenda was the driving factor, in contrast to a desire to promote the gospel.

        Much of that is a product of by-gone times. In the last forty years, women (and men) have demonstrated that some are good and some are lousy in the role of pastor. I really don't care whether a pastor (or a doctor or a nurse or a teacher or a lawyer or a peace officer or a plumber or a barber or...) is a man or a women. I just want them to be competent in what they do.

        Bottom line, that's what I want from a soldier. However, a part of that competency is a knowledge and respect for the Constitution.

        (0)
        (0)
        • AAHHH, I love the smell of rational thinking in the mornng...

          (0)
          (0)
        • Pastor, Pastor: God bless you but you are still missing the point. Maybe it is too buried within my post, so I will repeat just the key points:
          * There is no comparison between the infantry and any sport, including cage fighting, boxing and roller derby, in which no contest is settled by death.
          * There is some weak comparison, not a good one, with police officers, who operate domestically and whose job it is to keep the peace, not specifically seek and kill enemies.
          * Let us also dispense with comparison to sailors, submariners and astronauts, all of whom work together in tight quarters for long periods but in highly technical (and reasonably comfortable) conditions. Capitals below for emphasis (not shouting!!)
          NOTHING COMPARES TO GROUND HAND TO HAND CLOSE UP COMBAT TO THE DEATH. It IS A UNIQUE ENTERPRISE AMONG HUMAN ACTIVITY. THERE ARE NO COMPARISONS.

          (0)
          (0)
  • >>Old Shooter asks: "Are you really saying that, while we can expect a combat troop to obey the ROE, even at the risk of his life, we cannot expect him to keep his mind on his job if he has a woman in his squad?"
    * Not exactly in that manner, but essentially, yes, I am. That's the whole point of my reply - that her presence will have detracted from the readiness of the squad - that no matter how effective the squad may have become it would be more effective without the distraction of the woman. You also missed my point about your female VC adversary. On US soil being attacked by outsiders, I'd give my wife a gun and run along side her into battle. But take her along on an expeditionary mission in the rain in the mud in the dark for weeks and weeks to seek out and kill enemies? That's a different scenario. I'm really shocked and surprised that you of all people a Vietnam combat veteran will not appreciate this distinction. Don't get me wrong - I seriously value your opinion. I am just shocked by it.

    (0)
    (0)

LEAVE A COMMENT