So the SecDef is going to give the thumbs up to women being assigned to the Combat Arms MOSs.
How very special.
How very caring.
How very stupid.
If you believe for a moment that I believe that the fairer sex has no place in the Armed Forces, you’re wrong. Of course women should be able to serve… just not in Combat Arms.
But I’ll forgo the argument that women and men are physically different and that women simply aren’t built to carry large, heavy loads high on their backs and/or in their arms for prolonged periods of time.
Sometimes, testosterone matters. Just don’t tell that to liberal social engineers.
Neither will I point out the old-fashioned notion that no man worth his salt stands weeping pier-side while mommy/sissy/wifey/sweetie/daddy’s little girl ships off to the sound of the guns and into an unbelievable nightmarish world of blood, gore and violence that few could even imagine.
Oh, and how about the slippery slope that this could lead to? If this goes through, is it just a matter of time before unwilling females are assigned to the Infantry? We all know what the answer to that question is, so I won’t point out the obvious.
Do Marines S*** In The Woods? Not Anymore…
Nor will I also point out the hyper-sensitivity there is in the DoD to so-called “sexual harassment.” Something as basic as L/Cpl Schmotz emptying his bladder or voiding his bowels now will require a SALUTE* report.
And speaking of bodily functions, what happens when Suzy’s squad is suppose to set up an ambush site? If this happens to be the five=day time frame every month that lil’ Suzy is “feeling delicate,” you can count on said ambush becoming totally FUBARed.
That smell of raw menstrual blood will draw every wild dog in a 10 mile radius.
So much for your ambush.
But If They’re Qualified…
There’s no doubt in my military mind that there are women out there that are (in the parlance of those crazy kids now-a-days) pure bad asses. I’m quite sure that there are probably plenty of gals out there that could beat the dog snot out of me.
And I’m equally sure that there are more than a few who could pass the basic qualifications to be a Grunt, Tanker or Cannon Cocker.
But all that’s beside the point. Women still have no place in direct combat MOSs.
Here’s Why…
I’ve already pointed out that there are some women who have at least the physical wherewithal to serve in combat roles. I’m going to give you two categories of American citizens:
- 18-year-olds that just graduated high school and can’t even read the diploma just handed to them.
- 12-year-olds working on their Masters in Constitutional Law.
Of the two categories, which one can vote?
Of the two categories, which one is more qualified?
Think about it.
If this nation is willing to subject “certain” women to the hell that is combat, then we better start allowing “certain” kiddies access to the voting booth.
After all, isn’t that “the fair” thing to do?
On Second Thought…
You know, the more I think about it… I’ve changed my mind. I’m dead set against this ridiculous notion that men and women are equal. After all, why should women step down?
*Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, and Equipment.
First, let me say in re that picture, “Yowza!” Now, having gotten that out of my system, there is an argument to be made in terms of this being a healthy move away from collectivism. It’s rare to come down on the side of this administration, but that’s because this administration is so keen on lumping everyone into one or more groups.
I see if an individual woman is up to the task — and I mean totally … able to do the really heavy lifting — then why not send her into battle? There won’t be that many of them, for obvious reasons, but isn’t the Marines’ logo “The few, the proud”? As long as the standards aren’t watered down, I say go for it.
Not sure about the gal in the picture. She could be a distraction.
It’s not worth it. She requires a parallel pipeline that has to be maintained. And for what? To make a point? Enough with the point making. I would say. In my opinion. Insert sundry expected disclaimers. It also looks like she’s disruptive simply because she’s female, according to some of the looking-into-this-idea that’s happened over the last half century, and I’m not sure you train that out of a guy. Consider how you would even try: you would push the unisex vision of people, which is a fiction. Basically, you’d try to turn the Marine into a progressive capable of treating a woman like a man like a woman. Basically, you would have to make the Marine stupid and irrational. And how’s a stupid and irrational Marine more survivable?
No, no, treat a corporal like a corporal, a first sergeant like a first sergeant, etc., ignoring sex. But that layer of professionalism is also a fiction, since human beings do not ignore sex — they just pretend to to create a professional environment. Even if you ask this of 18 year old service guy: “Did you notice, Kevin, that Corporal Smith has enormous bosoms that appear to have no respect for gravity?” — and you get this answer: “No, sir, I did not.” — how is this ability to lie a combat skill? It’s not something we need gunking up the combat part of our combat force. It’s fine gunking up the base, but it’s not something we need in the dynamic of killing people while not being killed. A guy who is trying to stay underneath a line of bullets should be able to be completely honest about Corporal Smith’s lack of respect for physics.
(Setting completely aside the barbarism of handing my daughter a gun and pushing her to the front line, and the fact that I don’t want to be that people, whether she thinks she’s G. I. Jane or not. If that’s enlightenment, go dark ages. I don’t want to hear the hostage reports, I don’t want to read about the new and interesting torture techniques, etc. A choice. But that’s not my argument.)
So, anyway, I vote no.
Pleasure disagreeing with you, by the way. I hardly ever get to do it. I tried to be provocative and worthy. I probably failed. About halfway through, I started thinking of busty chicks with guns, and . . . it may have peppered my argument.
how is this ability to lie a combat skill?
it works for the Clintons, Obama and other liberals…they beat Romney didn’t they?
I agree wholeheartedly!
I just read the contributors page and my face is burning. I did not know your name was “Kevin.” I swear. And why I picked that name out of my head is something I’ll be asking God about later. Anyway, that personalization of my comment was unintentional. It probably doesn’t matter, but I wanted to clarify.
Geez. Words are dangerous.
Semper Fi.
Axe.
At ease. I’m pretty sure that “Kevin” is Tim Whiteman’s nickname. At least I assume that’s the case. I can’t imagine why else he would have surrounded it with quotes when he provided LU with his bio.
In any case, when selecting a name for generic use in the future, pick Howard. That way you can be sure of insulting no one.
ok…I see it now…Howard is a closet Obama cultist…hence forth we all have to post as Howard 1, Howard 2 etc.
what’s the dress code Howard?
LOL (have to use that because I still learning HTML and that smiley thing…that’s lesson 2).
Damn! Found me out.
As to your (everyone’s) use of HTML, I’m impressed. You have all been doing a splendid job that in no way implies I shouldn’t get off my lazy butt and explore options for making formatting tags available.
Thanks, folks (in case you think LU hasn’t noticed)!
Oh, also, teejk ….
Smiley face is colon (:) followed by hyphen (-) followed by closed paren ()).
No problemo, mi amigo!!
Howard, does this mean you are now in favor of certain 13-yr-olds voting?
No. But I don’t know that I find the comparison between children voting and women serving in the military all that compelling. Children are never going to have the level of maturity needed to vote. Obviously, many adults don’t either, but that’s another argument. A woman who is as strong and determined as a man should not be restricted from taking on any of the same tasks as a man.
I’m not suggesting that the standards in the military be lowered or that there be two sets of standards — one for women and one for men. Quite the contrary, I am saying if a woman can do the same job, why restrict on some arbitrary criterion?
well Howard (you are next)…I saw something months ago trying to dispell the discrimination myth…if women can perform as well as men at less pay, then a smart business would only hire women.
military is different of course…on a scale of 1-10, being able to point and shoot is probably at around a 4. I say let’s give them a chance. if it doesn’t work, then we can undo it. when the S**t hits the fan later, all they have to say is “What difference does it make?”
I can’t imagine why.
I’m concerned about the deep psychological drive that men have to protect women. Do they really believe the men can flip that switch off? The fact that there is a very primal difference in the way men care about their brothers-in-arms versus their sisters-in-arms could very well prove to be fatal .
Perhaps we could segregate combat units? At least you could compare combat effectiveness of men vs women. If the numbers didn’t stack up, revoke the decision to allow women into front line combat.
I’ll opine on this one first…I almost volunteered for service back in the 70′s…I’ll only say that “sex sells” in recruitment (like every where I guess). While appealing at the time, I declined for different reasons.
Just to be sure there’s no misunderstanding – I fully believe in the capabilities of women in the military. I’m no misogynist. My concern is purely directed at potential psychological issues causing hazards in combat.
I want our military to be the very best…and I don’t want to see it compromised by feelgood PC policies, when real men and women are putting their lives on the line.
yeah…well…hmmm…
women demand equal rights and like Howard I say give them the opportunity. perhaps they will regret it at some point. on this particular issue though, it will be VERY difficult to retreat from.
Just came across this today….this female veteran expresses some of my concerns:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/27/some-advice-on-women-in-combat-from-a-female-veteran/
And assuming the impulse exists and can be switched off, would we want that? I know progressives would in a blink, thinking of such a thing as vestigial and a hindrance to all things pantsuit. I think of it in friendlier terms; if mankind is a beast in a lot of ways, people are beautiful in a lot of ways too, and trying to flip that switch off would be trying to fix something that’s not broken.
…or perhaps, trying to flip that switch off would be breaking something that took a long time to fix…