Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Xena, Warrior Princess” makes great TV, but not sensible reality

“Xena, Warrior Princess” makes great TV, but not sensible reality

The timing of the recent announcement from the Obama Administration that it would lift the ban on women serving in combat positions was fascinating.

After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s responsibility dodging and Biden-esque responses to questioning by Senators yesterday, the White House needed a distraction and a way to appease their feminist supporters (because it is so obvious that Clinton is being tossed under the bus).  So, the rules regarding gender roles in combat assignments are now rescinded.

I have serious concerns.  While I admire the role women play in the military, and acknowledge they can show tremendous bravery under battle conditions (such as Army Spc. Monica Lin Brown, who earned the Silver Star in Afghanistan), I am a firm believer that 40 years of politically correct social engineering cannot alter the realities of several million years of evolution.

As a biochemist, I have asserted that women suffer in our “hooking up” culture because certain hormonal realities exist even if they are ignored.  In this same way, I believe that physical realities do not magically disappear because elite politicians have decided to pander to activist constituencies.  For example, muscle development is, in part, driven by testosterone.  As a result, most men are physically stronger than most women.  There are always exceptions, but such exceptions should not drive policy.

However, since the only military experience I have is creating electronic armies in Civilization V, I  asked a veteran for his opinion.   Barry Jacobsen, who was a member of Special Forces Operational Detachment “A” (known as an “A-Team”), offers his assessment based on his experience about what it takes to be a combat infantryman.

I have heard from friends still in Service that today, women are given “breaks” the male soldiers never enjoy. Such as transport back to the “rear” for showers after several days in the field; reduced Physical Training scores; and, of course, maternity leave when/if they become pregnant (on one recent West Pac deployment, on a Navy war ship half of the female crew members became pregnant during the deployment; the ship subsequently being dubbed “the Love Boat”). In combat, where political correctness can get someone killed, women who will be allowed to participate due to lowered requirements and standards risk not being able to pull their own weight; literally or figuratively. This will weaken the overall unit ability, jeopardizing the mission and putting lives at risk.

But today we are led by a civilian leadership, and  particularly by a President with no personal military experience. They have never had to “hump a ruck”. Otherwise, they might understand that such proposals, while fashionable in Washington cocktail parties, have no place in the harsh reality of combat. (Though the current nominee for Secretary of Defense, Senator Chuck Hagel, is a Vietnam War veteran. It remains to be seen what his opinion of this proposal will be.)

Those making policy should be reminded that the American military does not exist as a petri dish for social experimentation. It exists to fight and to win wars. We have the best military in the world, and when the next war comes around (and it will come), we want still to have the best military in the world. Not the most socially equal; not the most politically enlightened. But the best fighting force in the world.

I think new technology levels the playing field somewhat, so there may be combat options that benefit from the strengths women possess (e.g., fine motor skills). However, expecting every woman to be the physical equal to a man, like some sort of “Xena – Warrior Princess” is senseless. As this clip shows, those feats are staged; men need to fight beside others who can do this in reality.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

As I have stated-we have no shortage of men. We have no shortage of tip-of-the-spear brave warriors.

What we do have, is a military being gutted.

What we have here is women replacing men. Period.

VetHusbandFather | January 26, 2013 at 2:14 pm

My 2 cents as a veteran from a combat unit. I’m ok

I think that it’s highly instructive that the only place where this country has experienced effective social engineering has been in the military. That’s not an excuse to give the politically-correct crowd free reign with the lives of our service men and women: it’s an observation that our military has achieved in the recent past what our community organizers have not.

VetHusbandFather | January 26, 2013 at 2:21 pm

I thought I might throw in my two cents as a Cavalry vet, that spent plenty of time living on “male only” patrol bases in Iraq. Will it be a culture shock to a lot of combat arms units? Sure, but we can deal. Will it distract from the mission? Yes, definitely. Will some of our partners not respect women (particularly officers)? Yes, probably. But are any of those reasons good enough to keep women out of combat arms? No, I don’t think so. I do think they may need to consider changing physical requirements, but as long as the women are as physically capable as the males, then I’m okay with it.

1. My considered reply: A judicious, sensibly thought out assessment, Leslie. I agree that technology levels the playing field somewhat. (I read Starship Troopers back when it came out.) The proper recourse is to proceed incrementally, guided by objective performance testing and evaluation.

2. My gut-level reply: The military is one of the few institutions in the country that still works well. As one of the few things the politicians haven’t screwed up, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Of course they can’t resist it.

The caveat many have cited, namely that physical standards be THE SAME, is already being undermined….

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/chairman-of-joint-chiefs-of-staff-if-women-cant-meet-military-standard-pentagon-will-ask-does-it-really-have-to-be-that-high/

Gen. Dempsey is…IMNHO…one of the worst, most political officers ever to serve in his role.

Even PROVIDED a high, hard physical standard, there are other immutable problems.

Just after 9/11, I had occasion to be on several military bases. I was struck by the young women. Many of them in the enlisted ranks were very pregnant.

This is also a major (not discussed) problem in the Navy.

To be sure, there are many roles that women can and do fill in the military. Just as surely, there are others where they would negatively effect the fighting ability of units.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Ragspierre. | January 26, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    just 15 minutes ago I was at the supermarket & saw the. Sunday papers.

    Right there was a photo of a woman & baby ,who happen to be a Lance Corporal & the baby happens to be the child of a Commando who died in Afghanistan before he was born.

    So there would be one such as ‘ your heavily pregnant ‘ types.

    If it is not frontline & few military actually see combat – then a few babies is no big burden.

Women have always served in the military in areas where they are of the most use.

If our American armed forces use the same reasoning as the IDF does in placing them in positions where they are equal, and often better, than their male counterparts there will be few problems.

Sadly, I have no hope that this bane of ‘political correctness’ won’t screw it up royally!

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-women-warfighters-of-idf-femaile-snipers-israel-2013-1?op=1

    Browndog in reply to Joy. | January 26, 2013 at 3:04 pm

    IDF ended the practice of women assigned to direct combat units long ago.

    This is another lie being perpetuated by the libs.

        gs in reply to Joy. | January 26, 2013 at 3:56 pm

        1. Thanks for your posts, Joy. This is the kind of input a reasoned discussion needs.

        2. As for the pregnancy issue, in the spirit of brainstorming: I’ve heard that it was a court martial offense to get malaria as a troop in Vietnam: it meant you hadn’t taken your medication.

        One could do something similar wrt pregnancy (with an exemption for rape, of course, and an exemption if it could be shown that a reasonable precaution had failed). While this might never happen in our hyperpoliticized environment, IMHO it’s worth mentioning on the merits.

          VetHusbandFather in reply to gs. | January 26, 2013 at 9:07 pm

          gs, getting pregnant during a deployment is already a punishable offense in the military. Usually any deployed unit falls under General Order #1 which prohibits cohabitation between opposite sexes, sexual activity, and becoming pregnant or impregnating someone else. That being said, I’ve seen these kinds of pregnancies go unpunished.

        Browndog in reply to Joy. | January 26, 2013 at 5:51 pm

        You find one link–

        I researched this last time, and again yesterday.

        Stand by for the links, once I do all over again-

        Gonna be a while, kinda busy.

        BTW- IDF studied this two decades ago, and the conclusion was that females embedded with front line combat units causes a breakdown in command and control–they could not find a way around men’s instinct to protect the women, and refused orders they thought otherwise.

        That link, to that study, I couldn’t find yesterday, but I know what I read a couple years ago.

          Browndog in reply to Browndog. | January 26, 2013 at 8:39 pm

          Spent the last half hour looking–can’t find squat.

          Asking myself “why do I have to do all the research, I already did. Easy to grab a link from the first page off Google. Noticing how Google doesn’t want to link anything past 2011.

          Anybody that really wants to know, can.

          Besides, ask yourself this–

          Why to I have to cite an IDF study?

          Where’s the U.S. study?….you know, before they implemented this “policy”?

          I stand behind my post. I don’t post “ideas” stated as “facts”.

          It appears that you, Browndog, and most of the other people reacting to my comment did not, or preferred to not, make the connection with the first sentence I wrote:
          “Women have always served in the military in areas where they are of the most use” in regard to the links I posted there and in my response to you.
          Allow me to spell it out for you with a few of the sentences describing the duties of the IDF women from the link:

          Israel decided to allow women into limited combat infantry roles in 2000. (note it says ‘limited combat’)

          The Wildcats are a light infantry and surveillance ground combat unit responsible for guarding the southern area of operations (AO). (Self-explanatory)

          One thing does seem gender biased though: Intelligence gathering.

          Of the many positions newly available to women, ground intel saw the most support from the ‘fairer’ sex.

          Women proved more capable at extracting intel and developing sources then men — today they make up 55 percent of the IDF’s intel operators.

          Israel still holds 8 to 12 percent of ground combat positions out of reach for women.

          Of the roughly 1500 women conscripted every year, a select few will try to be infantry.

          And of them, a staggering 40 percent wash out without earning the occupation.
          ———————————————————-
          ergo My prefacing “areas where they are of the most use.”

          In Iraq, we lost four women. In Cuba, five. Not to combat, but pregnancy. Several others were moved to headquarters because of stress. There was one on again off again couple that cauesed an insane amount of drama. In Iraq, a female called my NCOIC a “fucking faggot bitch” to his face, in front of 15 or so Soldiers and about a dozen Iraqis. My NCOIC didn’t do anything and I wondered why. A few years later, when I was an NCO and had a problem female Soldier, I found out why. As a male NCO, it is career suicide to cross a woman. When I would attempt to discipline her, I would be undermined by other male NCOs… who perhaps wanted to curry favour in the hopes of a sexual encounter. Male Soldiers see this. One of my very best troops told me that he wasn’t going to work hard anymore because there was simply no benifit. One out of control female made life hell for my Soldiers. I rationalized the experience because I figuered we weren’t all that crucial to the national security. I figured as long as we have an infantry that still adhered to standards, we would be okay. I feel bad for the young NCOs and company grade officers who’s careers will be ended forsaying the wrong thing or for not having a robust enough EO program.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Browndog. | January 27, 2013 at 1:23 am

          To Pat – Cuba? Are we talking Bay of Pigs or Guantanamo.?

          In war when we say ‘ lost ‘ someone we g enerally think dead. Plenty of men are sent home because of stuff – pregnancy is likely to be a better outcome for the American nation than PTSD or just gone batshitcrazy.

          Besides why isn’t a Depo Provera contraception injected ?

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Joy. | January 26, 2013 at 7:19 pm

        Female soldiers suffer a number of health problems and injuries:

        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149820

No one seems to want to address the unnecessary and highly corrosive sexual tension in down time. Wonder why that is…

    VetHusbandFather in reply to Browndog. | January 26, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    Of all the arguments I’ve heard for keeping women out of combat arms. This particular issue is the one I think carries the most merit. I’ve seen the kind of problems that co-ed units can have with the drama of ‘who’s sleeping with who.’ This is certainly the issue that would make me most reluctant to support co-ed combat arms units. That being said, I promise you our frontline forces deal with the same kind of drama as soon as they call back home and find out that their wife wants a divorce or hear a rumor that their girlfriend is cheating on them back home. You aren’t giving our Soldiers enough credit, they are made of tough stuff and will get the mission done regardless.

As a veteran, I have no problem with women serving in combat roles, provided they can physically uphold the standards that men in the same combat roles regularly take. This would involve setting a SINGLE standard for the Physical fitness tests, and making it very clear that women who get pregnant (especially to avoid combat) can no longer serve in combat roles ever again. Who wants to send a mother to combat anyways? Still, there are many fine and capable women who I would be honored to serve with in a tank or infantry outfit.

I share your concerns but I am taking a wait and see on this…

Mainly because women are serving. The Marine saying: “Every marine is a rifleman first” recognizes that anyone can be in combat whether they plan it or not. This is voluntary. Women can opt out. I would propose that the physical requirements be high and equal to men and women who want to serve (physical fitness, along with training, and been shown time and time again to be a critical factor in lowering KIA and casualty rates in combat).

And yes, more women will die, get raped and suffer because of this. But if they opt in and understand the risks, and pass the necessary physical tests, I am not opposed to letting them serve and seeing what happens.

The soldier is right. When women are involved in physical jobs the standards fall. Sometimes you can get away with it, sometimes men cover up the failings by “protecting” the women around them- and they know it. In my police career I watched the change. What started out as pushups, runs and dragging a dead weight dummy for a distance to make the minimum qualifications turned into a literal joke. Back when I first started if a man didn’t make the cut he was not hired. Now, if a woman doesn’t make the cut she gets another try, and another.

When it came to shooting, most females on our department were borderline. They didn’t handle pistols well and HATED the shotguns! We had to actually have our range people work with the women one on one to get them to qualify by one round.

In violent confrontations, few women were worth their weight. However, there were a few exceptions I found very effective, including one who came from NYPD. She’d kick you scratch you and bite your ear off to win. Scary.

Now to be fair, when the job entailed intelligence and drive, women were very good- when they weren’t being a woman. And yes, you can get mad at that statement, but you know what I mean. There is always an element you have to deal with in a mixed unit that you don’t when you are a single gender unit. This will be occur on the frontlines just as it does now in support units, as pointed out by the soldier.

The Israelis learned this lesson the hard way. We’re too stupid or arrogant to learn from others.

Bad idea that will get people- mostly the women and the men trying to save them- killed.

I’m thinking Lindsay Lohan driving a tank on day 28 of her cycle could be a pretty effective force against any enemy.

WOMEN PERMITTED TO JOIN COMBAT UNITS ON THE FRONT LINES JUST LIKE MEN?

THEN WOMEN REGISTERED IN SELECTIVE SERVICE JUST LIKE MEN!

They damn well better add females to the Military Draft Registration requirements too then – if they’re actually going to go through with this asininity.

I can’t wait to see the precious little daughters of Congressman and Senators — much less Sasha and Malia Obama — and especially the precious little daughters of the Libtarded Electorate registering for the draft and then ending up conscripted to war along with our young men.

After all – it’s only FAIR. Right?

    rinardman in reply to FlatFoot. | January 26, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    From the Selective Service website:
    Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18 thru 25. Women still do not register.

    Sounds like it will happen, when the law is changed?

    Anchovy in reply to FlatFoot. | January 26, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    Oh, I want it to go even deeper than that. We have all kinds of affirmative action programs to make up for past discrimination. I want to see women drafted, starting now, until the number of female draftees is equal to the number of men who have been drafted for the last 200 years or so. That should help make up for the years the little sweeties were discriminated against by the sexist evil draft boards.

    In the 60’s during Viet Nam I didn’t notice any bra burners demanding to be included along with the men who were getting drafted. What I did notice was getting spit on when I returned and I also remember having to drop several courses in college because the professors were so militantly anti-veteran (you know…. us baby killers) that it was impossible to continue. I also noticed that, when I did graduate, I was two to three years in seniority behind those sweet things that were denied the opportunity to serve their country because of rampant sexism.

    Screw ’em.

As for military pregnancy. Applying a lib obvious solution easily addresses the problem. Establish a separate Planned Parenthood medical corpse.

    Browndog in reply to secondwind. | January 26, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    Probably already in the works.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to secondwind. | January 26, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    I believe women are allowed to be pregnant whilst in the military already. After the normal maternity leave. What is so wrong with being a baby / child whose mum is in the military.

    Simon & Garfunkel’s Baby Driver had a mum in the reserve way back in the 60s & it was a great addition to the theme.

      What is wrong is that it’s not good for the children when their mother is deployed. And don’t forget that these days something like 40% of these babies are born to unwed mothers.

      What is also wrong is that there already are far too many women in the military, period — without even getting to combat roles. This already has created repeated logistical nightmares for some “non-combat” but nevertheless necessary support units in which high percentages of troops are unable to deploy because so many of them are pregnant.

      There is no shortage of men. The presence of women in the military with very few traditional exceptions has done absolutely nothing of benefit for the military or this country.

What will most likely happen will be that the military will (like industry) automate more and more.

Drones, robots and generally remove soldiers from frontline dangers.

This will depersonalize combat and most likely lead to a willingness to deploy and to stay deployed where we have no business being.

[…] Eastman at Legal Insurrection has up a terrific post on “Xena, Warrior Princess” makes great TV, but not sensible reality” Good […]

I always suggest reading “The Amazon’s Right Breast” to anyone who seriously suggests that putting women in the front line is a good thing.

http://www.baen.com/amazonsrightbreast.asp

Two things. First, my last 10 years in the Army were Army Reserve and my unit was the Reserve element of an active duty unit at Fort Hood, TX. When that AD unit was notified that it was on orders to deploy to Iraq – the first deployment for this unit since the Korean War, I would add – an estimated 40% of the female AD soldiers showed up pregnant at the deployment preparation. Second, there is no doubt that women soldiers – apart from the exceptionally fit – cannot meet the physical standards. The physical standards are already lower for women than for men. Example, two mile run. When I was in the Reserve I had to complete the 2-mile run in about 18 minutes and I was between 50 and 60 years of age in those years; 18-year old female soldiers had about 17 minutes for complete the two miles and were exempt from the run requirement at an earlier age than men, 54 instead of 57. Third and most important of all, women ought not serve because war is, literally, hell, and we already have enough young men (and women) who have been traumatized almost beyond description or enduring by their experiences in Iraq and in Afghanistan. I hear you already: “Oh, what do you know?” Plenty: I served three tours in Vietnam and while I was not deployed to Iraq – they said I was too old at 57 – I was on AD and the rear detachment first sergeant of our unit and these days phone service is easy and emails even easier and I got an earful, believe me. There is no reason to allow women to have to go through what we did, do what we did, see what we saw, hear, smell … I don’t need to go through the whole schmear; do I? A women who goes through combat – like a man – will never be the same person she was before that. How about having a flashback while feeding your infant? How about going nuts because you’ve been up too many hours with your new-born? How about all the normal stresses of being a mother – even with a good husband around – combined with the stresses of having been in combat, at the sharp and dirty end of the stick? Anybody want their daughters or sisters or mothers or nieces to go through that? You civilians who have never served a combat tour cannot appreciate just how gruesome it is. None of us really left Vietnam; it plays in our heads 24/7/365 and we have to somehow learn to look away from the movie and lower the sound and ignore the smell and the vividness of those memories. Women? Really?? Who do you think we think (thought?) we were protecting, serving in combat? Not Dad, not Brother, not Son not Uncle or Granpa; Mom, Sis, Daughter, Aunt … get it? Reconnect with reality, folks. It’s bad enough men have to go, sometimes have to, now you want to send women? We did that already with the “equality of the sexes”. How’s that working out for most women? Seems to me that the unintended consequences of that “policy choice” didn’t work out worth a damn for most women. Rich ones? Yeah. Working class? Not so much. So what makes you think this stupid idea will do any better? Combat for women; really??

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Ike. | January 26, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    Ike – I don’t know about the women bit. Vietnam was a long way from America. Were the Vietcong going to swim over & attack American ladies?

    I think you might like to get a perspective from the VietCong women . You cannot demean their combat experiences & maybe they are quite happy about it .

    Post war effects are much better when you were the victor. – male or female.

      The point of my remarks about protecting women wasn’t relating to the Vietnam War or any war, specifically. By custom and historically, defending women and children was a purpose – if not the purpose – of men becoming soldiers … or to be more modern and deconstructionist about, that was the propaganda that was fed to the men to get them to fight wars for the benefit of the capitalist bourgoise exploiters. (Sorry; I seem to have left out “white, male” in that descriptive clause.) Iv’e re-read that part of my comment again, and I don’t see anything in there about protecting American women from the VietCong.

      I don’t recall writing anything demeaning the combat experiences of Vietnamese women, either; re-reading my comment, I don’t see any mention of Vietnamese women at all. What is the point of that remark? Are you trying to say that Vietnamese women who fought in the Vietnam War – on either side – are somehow immune to the effects of what used to be called “shell shock” or “combat fatigue” and what is now labeled “post-traumatic stress disorder”? If so, what is your basis for that?

      As far as being the victor or the loser in a war, making any difference to my point, I seem to recall that World War 2 is considered a substantial victory, yet there were millions of American men who served in that war who were, to the end of their lives, still suffering the emotional and psychological costs of their time in the war. How do I know? My father, three of his brothers, my mother’s only brother, my great-uncles’ six boys all served and these were men I knew as a child, a young man and into my thirties; they all suffered PTSD, to a greater or lesser extent. So, I think your snide remark about our loss in Vietnam likewise fails as an argument against my position.

      I take it as given that you disagree, both with what I said and the way I said it and that’s fine. I have a problem with a response which fails to address my point(s) and is insulting into the bargain. Try again and before you put your other foot in your mouth, take out the first one and go talk to a combat veteran and ask him or her how much enjoyment their combat time has added to his or her life.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Ike. | January 26, 2013 at 11:51 pm

        You are being way too sensitive. We are talking women & war then we need to get over these women as daisies thing.

        Ii agree men have taken the risks for too long & it is time for women to get shot at & bayoneted if it comes to that – they are already being blown up by IEDs .

        All wars are not strictly battle zones separate from urban. I happen to be quite knowledgeable about the Red Army in WW2 & hav e visited many of the war sites eg Stalingrad. Certainly , there is no substitute for good men , but a handy supply of women prepared or forced into combat is an absolute necessity – especially if it is an all encompassing war.

        Just as the USSR broke Germany by the force of its Army & peasants & women, so we shall need such women to beat any coming Islamic War.

        Annie Oakley offered Rooseveldt a squadron of women snipers for The Spanish Civil War. of course the big hero end up being pen pusher Hemingway.

        YEah , women will be killed. equalite Fraternite et Egalite..

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | January 27, 2013 at 12:14 am

          Ike – yeah my dad was a Pacific War vet who also went direct to Japan into what he said was real hell.

          Yeah – many children of he 50s & 60 s lived every day with the effects of whatever demons their faiths had , but we had fun also.

          i repeat – we won. And when he was dying , I said – forget about the rest – that winning thing was pretty good – eh?

          The bottom line is that it’s not about how physically fit some woman is. It’s not about whether she can shoot a gun. And it’s not about equal opportunity.

          It’s about how much work a body can do.

          The military has been doing research and trying for at least two decades to comply with the pandering orders from civilian politicians and higher-ups in the Pentagon who report to them. With extensive extra training ($$$$$), a small number of the most extraordinary women can manage to equal the strength and stamina of the least capable men. Is that what we want?

          And that’s not even getting into the problems of unit cohesion, the extra and unnecessary work and cost of dealing with having women in these units, the headaches for COs who have better things to do, the deployment readiness issues, the research that shows that women will not take risks that men will, the problems of stress fractures and increased injury (and that women also are prone to problems from certain kinds of infections that men are at less risk of getting if the women don’t get special hygiene accommodations).

          There’s a reason that when you read about some car that has gone off the road into a lake and there’s a bunch of people standing around, it’s a man and virtually never a woman, who dives in to rescue a trapped passenger. Etc.

          It’s become ridiculous.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | January 27, 2013 at 5:02 am

          The man diving in – first they must be able to swim & then not be a Kennedy.

          janitor – what about women that used to be men? they are usually very big. Laydees with massive hands & feet.. and they never get pregnant.

We can automate everything. Technological edges only go so far. There is still a lot of hand to hand combat. If a woman can meet the same physical requirements as a man, then I think they should be allowed to be in the infantry. The problem is DoD will either lower the standard for all war fighters, or simply ignore the issue until the next time we have large numbers of troops engaged in a ground war.

Sadly, I predict we’ll be in a ground war sooner, rather than later. We won’t be ready, we’ll be poorly equipped, and we’ll take unnecessary casualties because of this and other bad decisions.

[…] Finally, please check out my latest at Legal Insurrection: “Xena, Warrior Princess” makes great TV, but not sensible reality […]

Here is the major problem with the women in combat ruling:

Panetta made that ruling on his way out. So the first time some female soldier is sent into a war zone, and pictures of her with her guts hanging out after she has been shot, or she is captured and raped repeatedly by devout Muslims, Panetta will be long gone and will not take any heat for this decision.

Women are not capable of the upper body strength of men, and every soldier has the right to expect his comrades to try to pull him out of the line of fire if he goes down. Show me any woman that can throw a 5’11”, 185 lb. former farmboy over her shoulders and carry his out of harm’s way. News flash, Obama and Panetta: G.I. Jane was a movie, not reality, and there are NO women in the Navy SEALs for a reason. The women in our military are not Demi Moore.

There are fire departments all across the nation that decided that women could be firefighters. So what did they do? They lowered the testing standards for women, putting every male firefighter in danger because the women can’t pull their own weight.

And what happens when women are sent into combat? They will be expected to drop their pants and relieve themselves in the same area as the men. If they need to change a tampon, well, tough, girlie, change it in front of your entire squad.

I don’t understand why women want to be men. And I don’t think you can breed out of men that DNA that makes them want to protect women. This will only serve to get our troops killed.

If Obama wants to try social engineering by putting women in mens roles, let him start by insisting that the NFL hire a 5’2″, 110 lb. female linebacker. Or putting that same woman on a NBA team.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to retire05. | January 26, 2013 at 10:48 pm

    Ambassador Stevens was a man who was most likely raped & a victim of sexual torture / sodomy over the nice western toilet if the blood trails are any indication.

    He had American guards plus another CIA (?) unit with an unknown number of possible members 3 blocks away.

    Pics were posted of an ambassador being dragged away to unknown places fungal he turned up at a hospital hours later.

    All this is known . Americans do not care.

    Why would they care about a soldier male or female raped & killed.?

      True, as a nation we don’t care. Only a relatively small subculture does care about the ambassador and will be shaken when see pictures of tortured female soldiers. Everyone else might strike a self-righteous pose if said event happen during a Republican administration, but they don’t care.

Just like with allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, this is not a cause of cultural decay. It’s a symptom. We are pretty much done. If society can’t understand that women are not built for war, or that any war that can successfully use women is not fighting as hard as it can, then we simply deserve the fate we will continue to suffer; we know how to start wars but we don’t know how to win them.

I’ll stick with the piss and vinegar, and least it’s honest, and the other way has obviously worked so well for us to date…

I have to thank Hollywood for flicks like Xena because they contribute to the enduring popularity of the Second Amendment.
I seriously have to wonder why a straight man would want to join the armed forces at this point. I understand family tradition, patriotism, pride, comradery, and attractive positive masculine image, etc. However, our society as a whole values these qualities less and less and we don’t fight to win. It has to be demoralizing.

Noblesse Oblige | January 27, 2013 at 10:25 am

Given our pop culture, I suppose this development was inevitable once Sigourney Weaver became the last man standing in the original “Alien.”

Anyway it doesn’t matter. In a world where the US leads from behind, there won’t be any need to defend ourselves.

So, in the same combat team, we might see an assemblage of heterosexual men, gay men, heterosexual women, and lesbians. This strikes me as a potent stew for trouble.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/27/some-advice-on-women-in-combat-from-a-female-veteran/

Some advice on women in combat from a female veteran

This article makes some very good points. “Sentry” explains exactly what is involved in the proposed women in combat situation.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend