Wrong on Women Warriors (The new policy to place women in combat units is a mistake)

National Review ^ | 01/24/2013 | Heather MacDonald

[SeekAndFind]

We have apparently arrived at the Golden Age, free from strife and the threat of foreign enemies. Little else can explain so gratuitous a decision as to place women in combat units. The downsides to such a policy are legion and obvious; the only reason to pursue it is to placate feminism’s insatiable and narcissistic drive for absolute official equality between the sexes.

Any claim that our fighting forces are not reaching their maximum potential because females are not included is absurd. The number of women who are the equal to reasonably well-developed men in upper-body strength and who have the same stamina and endurance is vanishingly small. Because the number of women who will meet the military’s already debased physical-fitness standard will not satisfy the feminists’ demand for representation, the fitness standard will inevitably be lowered across the board or for women alone, as we have seen in civilian uniformed forces.

Feminists routinely deny Eros — except when it suits them to exploit their sexual power. Only someone deliberately blind to human reality could maintain that putting men and women in close quarters 24 hours a day will not produce a proliferation of sex, thus introducing all the irrational passions (and resulting favoritism) of physical attraction into an organization that should be exclusively devoted to the mission of combat preparedness. Reported “sexual assaults” will skyrocket, and of course it will only be the men who are at fault. Any consensual behavior leading up to the “assault” — getting in bed with your fellow grunt drunk and taking off your clothes, for example — will be ignored, since in the realm of sexual responsibility, women remain perpetual victims, at the mercy of all-powerful men. Expect a windfall to the gender-sensitivity-training industry, which will be called in both before and after the entry of women into combat units to eradicate endemic male sexism.

Even if Leon Panetta intends to keep female fighting units sex-segregated, that distinction won’t last. Feminists will complain that female-only units stigmatize women.

Chivalry is one of the great civilizing forces, taming men and introducing social graces and nuance to what would otherwise be a brutish social world. It is already on life support, but sex-integrated combat units will provide the coup de grâce. If a woman is taken prisoner, will special efforts be made to rescue her to save her from the risk of rape? If so, the necessary equality among unit members will be destroyed. If, however, policy requires that she take her chances along with the male captives, we are requiring men to squelch any last remaining vestige of their impulse towards protection and appreciation of female difference.

I am not aware of any comparable crusade to create gender-integrated football teams. At least America knows what’s really important.

— Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

[SeekAndFind]

Here's a 9 letter word that people tend to forget : STANDARDS.

If a woman MEETS or EXCEEDS the required physical and mental standards needed to do the job for combat, why not let them?

CAVEAT: Don't LOWER the standards simply to accommodate women.

[microgood]

If men can be forced into a combat role after they have enlisted but women can only be called to combat when they volunteer, then we have an inherently unfair situation.

[Steamburg]

I think the logical thinkers have this one wrong. The left has long believed that women are driven by emotion and therefore will ignore the Constitution and will follow the orders of their father in Washington.
Remember “Soccer Moms” or do we have to go farther?

[JoeProBono]

[USAF80]

Very few women will even meet todays lowered standards. They will lower the bar as always. The service chiefs will make it work as they always say.

[SeekAndFind]

The fact is, as this Wall Street Journal article points out, that 152 women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that women already serve in forward areas, on Navy ships, and as combat pilots. It's not as big a change as some are making it out to be.

The change is an acknowledgment that women on modern battlefields already are in the fight-152 women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan-and that military rules need to be updated to reflect realities of the current-day war zones. At the same time, the shift establishes a process that could take years to complete.

As your picture above shows, Israeli women have served in combat roles bravely for decades. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand also allow women in combat roles.

Here's my bottom line concern: Will it make the military a better fighting force?

The question here is whether this change will actually make our military better at operating in combat and killing the enemy, since that will be the women's job, too

We ought to answer this question honestly instead going all politically correct once again.

[Resolute Conservative]

So is the next step letting boys who get cut from the varsity athletic team play on the girls team. That would be equality... yeah right.

This PC crap is getting far beyond annoying.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If men can be forced into a combat role after they have enlisted but women can only be called to combat when they volunteer, then we have an inherently unfair situation.

I guess with this new policy change, WOMEN CAN AND SHOULD NOW BE CALLED FOR COMBAT ROLES AFTER THEY HAVE ENLISTED.

But again my caveat -— IF THEY MEET THE PHYSICAL and MENTAL STANDARDS.

Here’s my personal take on this ( agreeing with Rick Moran of the American Thinker ):

This change in policy won’t dramatically effect the military immediately. My guess is any expanded role for women in combat will be AT THE MARGINS and not directly impact our fighting capabilities.

[Iron Munro]

Put them all in a few batalions of she-men and send ‘em out to deal with the crazy muzzies.

[Venturer]

I don’t know about the rest in here, but I love women.

Tender,soft, caring,sexually provocative,feminine.

If I wanted a tattooed hard ass killer with a trash mouth I would turn queer.

That aint gonna happen.

[jesseam]

We already gave females in combat situations that do not require the same physical standards that men do. My unit had female helicopter pilots and at least one female door gunner. Females should not be on combat patrols etc. OIF vet.

[xzins]

If a woman MEETS or EXCEEDS the required physical and mental standards needed to do the job for combat, why not let them?

They don't use the same physical standards and they never will since it shows the foolishness of their position.

[mkboyce]

Want equality?

All women must register for the Selctive Service by age 18...just like the men.

[circlecity]

I wouldn’t want to trust my six in combat to anyone who can’t do 10 pull ups. That leaves out 95% of women.

[JoeProBono]

She Went to the Field: Women Soldiers of the Civil War tells the little-known, true stories of the brave women who boldly challenged gender boundaries during The War Between the States. Whether disguising themselves as male soldiers or participating in related military capacities as spies, nurses, and vivandieres, these heroic women deserve to be recognized both for their contributions to the war and to women's rights.

[USAF80]

Argument=Not much use for pull ups in a combat situation.

Next....

[karatemom]

Anecdotal story here: I am in my late ‘40’s but have worked out all my life. Lifting, running, heavy bag workout-you name it, I’ve tried it.
My 20 year old son was home on break. He is tall and broad-shouldered, but does not have time to work out.
He gives me one of those side bear-hugs-grabbing my right shoulder- and pulls me in. In an effort to show how much he loves me, he pulls tightly and I drop to the floor in excruciating pain. I still do not have complete movement of my shoulder, and he meant no harm. He didn’t even apply the full measure of his strenghth.
Although he instinctly knew that women break easier than men do, he saw it firsthand.

[Venturer]

Things are a bit different in Israel.

They are fighting for their lives and the women there know what will happen to them if the Muslim hordes swoop in. They need to be able to defend themselves from the monsters surrounding them.

Hopefully America never reach’s that point.

[kevslisababy]

Having seen the results of a son injured in Afghanistan; I think all these women who are considering combat should tour some of the hospitals where our wounded are being pieced back together, and sometimes missing parts.

[newzjunkey]

Here's my bottom line concern: Will it make the military a better fighting force?

We're not fighting wars like the early last century. That needs to be kept in mind. Further, it appears the rules of engagement are causing more trouble with regards to the effectiveness of the fighting forces when deployed than other factors.