Posted on 08/09/2016 12:50:47 PM PDT by Kaslin
The subject of women in the military was addressed by both political parties at their national conventions last month, and it's no surprise that Republicans and Democrats came to diametrically opposite conclusions. After the two parties adopted sharply conflicting platforms in Cleveland and Philadelphia, Congress must now try to reconcile the same conflict in the annual defense policy bill known as NDAA, because the House version of that bill reflects the Republican view while the Senate version includes the Democrat position.
The Republican platform states, "We oppose unnecessary policy changes including Selective Service registration of women for a possible future draft. We reiterate our support for both the advancement of women in the military and their exemption from direct ground combat units and infantry battalions."
The Democratic platform states, "We are proud of the opening of combat positions to women." The platform doesn't specifically say that women should be forced to register for Selective Service, as the Senate version of NDAA requires, but it does call for adding the so-called Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, which would have the same effect.
Assigning women to combat positions would be a radical social experiment in the redefinition of gender, yet there's been deafening silence in the media. Congress hasn't held a single hearing about it.
Meanwhile, there's new evidence proving what most of us already knew, namely that women just can't perform the tasks that combat jobs require, and don't want to anyway. A reporter for the Associated Press managed to get the numbers of women who tried and failed to qualify for combat roles in the Marine Corps in the six months since President Obama opened all combat positions to women.
A grand total of seven female Marines tried out for combat in the first six months since they were allowed to do so, but only one woman passed the grueling physical fitness test. Another 167 women applied for "intelligence, logistics or communications" jobs in combat units, but those jobs don't require the same level of physical fitness.
The AP helpfully explained the math: when six out of seven female recruits failed to pass the test, that's a female failure rate of 85.7 percent. By comparison, 40 of about 1,500 male recruits failed the same test, for a male failure rate of only 2.7 percent.
The combat test included standard athletic measures of running and lifting which an extremely fit, athletic young woman might be able to do. But the test also included combat maneuvers such as belly crawling and evacuating a casualty, which almost no woman can do successfully.
On July 6, an amendment was offered by the newest member of Congress, Warren Davidson, who won a special election on June 7 to succeed former Speaker John Boehner. The new Congressman discovered that the Selective Service Administration isn't funded by the Pentagon budget after all.
So Davidson introduced a very simple amendment to the General Government Appropriations Act: "None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to change the Selective Service System registration requirements in contravention of section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act."
In offering his amendment, Davidson pointed out that there's been no discussion of this radical social change outside Washington, D.C. "Many families back home aren't aware of this, and especially many young women aren't aware of this."
He added, "We should be clear to the courts that we don't need them or want them to come in and decide the rule." Davidson's amendment passed by the narrow vote of 217-203, with 24 Republicans joining all but 2 Democrats voting against it.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Robert Neller, told the AP how hard it is to open combat to women on the same basis as men. To begin with, most female Marines "are not interested at all" in combat roles, but "some want just to make it gender neutral and we'll just figure it out."\
If only one woman qualifies for combat, will the Marine Corps assign her to an otherwise all-male combat unit? Apparently yes, but to provide a buffer for that woman, "the Marines will also put a female officer and a female senior enlisted leader in the combat units doing a noncombat job such as intelligence or logistics" whose physical requirements are less demanding.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a former Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said, "This is what happens when you have a military decision made for political ends. If women can't do it, they'll say it's not fair" and standards will have to be lowered.
That's where another plank of the 2016 Republican platform should apply: "We reject the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation. Military readiness should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness."
If you allow women in combat, you must have them register for the draft. I oppose both, but I oppose having your cake and eating it too even more.
Where do the Romney boys and the Sununu boys stand on putting women into combat?
..a male failure rate of only 2.7 percent.
Doesn't matter
Diversity is Our StrengthTM
</liberals>
If you’ve ever been in combat, there are people you don’t want with you, i.e., people who have been drafted and don’t want to be there, dopers, and others who don’t, won’t or can’t carry their weight..
These people will get themselves killed and you.
I’ve never been in combat with a woman, so I can’t comment on their fitness for combat.
Congressman Davidson, one of the rarest creatures...a GOP congressman who knows what he is talking about when it come to grueling military service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Davidson
..a female failure rate of 85.7 percent.
..a male failure rate of only 2.7 percent.
Its just plain wrong and shows how devolved our society has become.
I am woman. I cannot do what the cream of the crop of our military, The Seals, The Marines, Sorry I dont know all of them but respect and appreciate protecting my sorry butt!
I am sure there are exceptions but not the norm. AND most men are going to try to protect the woman. That puts them in harms way in battle.
These people haven’t got a clue about how difficult it is to be a grunt.
Stupid people aren’t too useful, either. Always need to weed out the damn fools who insist on walking on skylines, smoking on ambush (or falling asleep), or any number of dumb activities that get them and others killed.
You numbskulls always show up at any discussion about females in combat. No, we don’t need to have women drafted. We would end up with scads of plump, weak and unfit young women - the average these days. At least with young men you have a better-than-average chance of getting someone that can carry the load and maybe be reasonably effective at killing.
Whenever I see someone like you posting for women in the draft, I think “coward”. That would describe any so-called man that would propose such a thing.
You’re not very bright, are you?
Women should not be in combat. This is communist tactic to destroy families.
Possibly not - but brighter than you. And a whole lot less cowardly.
?
Perhaps I was unfair. Maybe you’re intelligent but your reading comprehension is poor. Or maybe you’re just an overly emotional person. There has to be some logical reason you completely missed the part of my post in which I clearly stated I oppose BOTH women in combat and drafting women.
However, giving woman the choice to CHOOSE combat roles, without the same obligation as men to be required, is the WORST of all possibilities.
There’s only two ways women in combat is not going to happen. One is a disastrous war with your fellow Marines dying needlessly and the Pentagon says screw this insanity, the laws be damned.
The second is young women being drafted. My god the uproar if that ever happens.
I have seen posters here demanding that women be drafted. Such individuals are not conservatives, imho.
Or, possibly you could work harder on writing your meaning more clearly.
I am a combat veteran and there is no place whatsoever for women in combat, period. We don’t need to draft women. We need men to start acting like men and saddling up to their responsibilities as men.
Putting women in combat is insanity. I’m sorry the other poster seems to have completely misjudged my intent and my viewpoint.
I was unsure as well. I’m glad that you responded.
We agree on that sir.
I not only never served, I never even registered because my 18 birthday fell in a zone between the end of registration and the resumption a few years later, and the service was not on my horizon. So I defer to you and others like you on matters of the military.
I apologize for questioning your intelligence. It was a knee jerk response to being called a coward on a public forum.
Again I do not favor women in combat. It’s nuts!
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.