Posted on 01/04/2014 7:54:20 AM PST by darkwing104
The physical demands of combat positions is a job that only a few men and even fewer woman are capable of performing. In a headlong rush to satisfy the utopian stupidity of political correctness, the Washington establishment insistence that women be allowed in combat positions will only emasculate the military that protected this country since its founding.
This week the Marine Corps announced that fewer than half of female recruits were capable of meeting the minimum standards required for combat jobs. These requirements are the same for males and females in basic training. In an effort to conform to political correctness, the Marine Corps delayed implementation of the minimum requirements for women, fearing that they might lose female recruits and those already serving who cannot meet standards. These standards just happen to apply to men as well, some of whom are also not fit for infantry training
The debate
This news rekindled the debate about whether women have the physical strength for a front line combat position. The delay of standards for combat-ready troops is an indication that the overwhelming majority of women are simply not capable of serving in front line units. President of the Center for Military Readiness, Elaine Donnelly told the Associated Press that “Awarding gender-normed scores so that women can succeed lowers standards for all. Women will suffer more injuries and resentment they do not deserve and men will be less prepared for the demands of direct ground combat.”
Why
The culture war to diminish the status of military services attempts to erase the biological differences between men and women. Hard work is no longer appreciated, and the role of education today is to castrate male students. (2) Camille Paglia told the Wall Street Journal “This PC gender politics thing—in a very anti-male way,
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
I wonder whatever happened to “We won’t lower the standards”? I mean, wasn’t there this big to-do about not reducing the criteria to allow women to be the “same” as men? It was all about combat capability - combat efficiency!
Right? Bueller? Anyone?
The women who have used gender bias since the unconstitutional law passed by evil DC politicians is working to destroy men from the military as in the schools and government and will continue into work and sports and the church and thereby destroy our once great country. It already has in my opinion.
Here’s a woman’s point of view - if I were enlisting in any of the Armed Services, where there was any chance at all of placing myself in a combat situation, I would make darn sure I could meet or exceed the “standards” - for my own protection and that of my fellow warfighters.
“... I could meet or exceed the standards”
As a female, I just can’t see women being in the front lines. No apologies either. Women don’t have the physical or psychological capabilities for this role. Even if a woman was extremely physically strong.. more so than the “average” female.. the risks to the MEN in the unit far exceed any good she could possibly do. IMHO.
Knowing that this brother in arms can carry more than I can, can pull and push harder than I am physically capable, do I think I should enter the battlefield next to him?
Before those questions are answered, remember that there are 120lb men in combat arms who can do 20 pullups, 80 pushups, run a mile, with boots, under 7 minutes, and hump an 80lb. ruck with the rest of the men. Minimum standards might be adequate at an initial screening of physical fitness, but in no way should it indicate the best of expectations.
Oh my friend, welcome to the new Obama world. Minimum is good enough. Everyone should do just the minimum. Anything more is just showing off and might make everyone else feel bad.
Let’s tell the truth. Women were created to help, not lead. This is Satanic. Period. We are POGs. Get over it.
This will be rethought when women have to go head in close combat with the enemy. When say three or four thousand trying to hold a position get chopped up literally there will be a change
They were the ones to INSIST, DEMAND to be sent into combat. Be careful what you demand. Now you have opened yourselves up for the DRAFAT. IF our sons have to register at 18 so do you! In the name of equality.
If I had a son of draft age I’d bring a lawsuit of gender bias and inequality to force the libs into making 18 year old women sign up for the draft same as our sons are made to do.
Want equality, be sure you can do the same JOB at the same RULES ad REGS!
I said it then, and I will say it now, the military is NOT for 96% of women. 3% of those who can make it are masculine by nature. I suppose I fall into the remaining 1%.
And there is no way, on God's green earth, I could survive the front lines.
Our mission was to SAVE lives, and that was the main reason I joined (circa 1981).
Gays, women, and the remaining rejects have no place in the military.
• On 20 November 1943, during the horrific fighting on Betio atoll during the battle of Tarawa, two Japanese tanks mounted a counterattack against the fragile Marine toehold on Red Beach 3. The Marines were huddled there at the base of a seawall in the face of withering fire from Admiral Keiji Shibasaki’s fanatical Japanese Naval Landing Force defenders who were slaughtering hundreds of their comrades in Betio Lagoon during 76 hours of some of the most savage fighting in the history not only of the Marines, but the US armed forces.
Marine anti-tank gun crews were trying to figure out how to get their 912 lb 37MM M3 antitank guns over the 7 foot plus seawall. The battery commander ordered his 5 man crews to LIFT them over. Being Marines who always obeyed even seemingly impossible orders, they did EXACTLY that and promptly knocked out the tanks. They then engaged several enemy bunkers whose dual purpose guns were repeatedly knocking out the approaching landing craft and put them out of action. Finally they routed a local counter attack of 200 or so Japanese against the south shore of Red Beach 3 with canister shot, all of this at a critical and precarious point in the landing.
Whats that about upper body strength being not as important in modern warfare anymore and that women are just as likely to be able to do the job of combat infantry?
I mean no disrespect to the female perssonnel of the US Armed Forces who have served and ARE serving their nation honorably and well. I respect them as fellow vets and comrades in arms. Policy decisions are above their level for the most part.
But as a matter of POLICY, I think that women should be excluded from the armed forces for the most part, with a few exceptions and COMPLETELY from combat and most combat support roles, particularly when the armed forces are a small percentage of the total population, as is the case now. The use of significant numbers of women should be reserved for large scale mobilization as was the case in WWII. The population base is more than twice as large now as then and there would be no problem securing a sufficient number of qualified men with appropriate incentives for such a relatively small armed forces.
The advantages for the armed forces, particularly the Army would be greater flexibility as to how personnel can be deployed in combat emergencies and other contingincies and a lesser logistical strain as involves clothing, barracks and housing, and innumerable other considerations that are exclusive to the maintenence of large numbers of women. I think morale and discipline would also be improved as well.
The courts have repeatedly ruled that the armed forces are exempted from many of the equal opportunity requirements of the civillian world, and for the very good and sufficient requirements that are unique to the armed forces. This contretemps is being propelled largely by the cultural marxist wing of gender equity feminism who wish for the placement of a leftist Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The reultant detriment of the ability of the armed forces to fight plays no consideration in their calculus, other than as an peripheral side benefit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.