Posted on 01/26/2013 9:26:55 AM PST by chessplayer
or “equality”
The yet more compelling argument is this. It is the Chivalric duty for young men to protect the women & children, which creates the concept that the measure of a Man is in at least a significant part defined by his acceptance of that duty. It is that sense of defined manhood that elicits the "above & beyond" concept, which brings out that something extra, which can turn the tide of battles & win wars.
It is also in that traditional sense of sexually defined roles that brings out the best in young women, even as its repudiation undermines the social fabric.
See Feminist Delusion, for an analysis of the absurdity of the Feminist denial of the importance of traditional sex roles. In the real world, there is nothing more important to the normal individual than his or her sex; after all the future of all advanced forms of life, is derived from clear sex roles.
Query: Does anyone believe that further confusing the traditional sense of male duty, purpose & moral responsibility, makes it more or less likely that we will continue to see acts of murderous rage from young males who have no sense of duty, purpose & moral responsibility? George Washington--in urging the Swiss system of armed youth in their own homes--elaborated on the benefits to those youth, themselves, in the sense of moral responsibility & purpose that such a system would develop.
Isn't it just possible that General Washington had a better understanding of male psychology than the toadies in the Obama Administration? Or do I exaggerate basic cause & effect? Does Switzerland have a lower crime rate than Obamanist strongholds, such as Chicago & San Fransisco?
Will no one, today, acknowledge what has been understood by normal people throughout human history?
William Flax
William Flax
No special treatment for women. They get to shower, brush their teeth, wash, blow dry, eat, sleep, go to the head with NO PRIVACY. They sleep in open bay barracks and they do the same PT as the men. No dual tracks and no waivers based on gender. Let the macho girls play in the major leagues by proving themselves as capable (or not). When we get into combat operations, send the girls in first. After all, they’re the new super soldiers along with the LGBT groupies. The rest of the folks who know what they’re doing will get to watch the slaughter instead of being part of it.
This disgraceful chairman is just as bad as the last one who approved open homosexuals in foxholes.
Will the foxholes now be segregated by homosexuals, women and straight me? Can we negotiate something with the Taliban forces before they attack?
This disgraceful chairman is just as bad as the last one who approved open homosexuals in foxholes.
Will the foxholes now be segregated by homosexuals, women and straight men? Can we negotiate something with the Taliban forces before they attack
Way back in the day, I was part of a team on TDY from Japan which was carrying out an operation from an SF camp near Cambodia. I had served four years in the USAF, and had never seen such appalling conditions, but I got acclimated eventually. I just cannot picture a female, no matter how tough, living like that. For the record, I was NOT in the SF.
I agree, Dempsey and the rest of the JCS are bassically Obama Kool-Aid drinkers. This is just the beginning, we can expect more “enlightened leadership” from these guys as they find new and creative ways to destroy morale, capabilities readiness. However, we will be very politically correct, that is now the most important thing.
Ageism?
I have news for the Joint Chiefs. Any woman on the combat front lines is no lady.
I disagree with the good general. For frontline combat units, we should be putting next to no effort into giving soldiers privacy. If they can handle seeing their buddies blown to bits, I think they can handle seeing the opposite sex in compromising positions.
Dempsey is the un-American moron who took the unprecedented step, as a general, to call a private citizen, a civilian (Terry Jones), and try to intimidate him (by implication) into backing down on his threat to burn a Koran. I don’t remember the outcome, but I hope Mr Jones didn’t back down. It’s not so much that I support burning the Koran (though it doesn’t bother me) as that a general of the US military, the very organisation devoted to defending our freedom and rights, tried to use the power of his rank to stop a citizen from exercising those very rights.
He is also the moron behind the persecution of a decorated soldier (Army Lt Colonel Dooley) for teaching facts about Islam to his classes.
No longer true.
LOTS of women work towards diminishing the natural male instinct to protect the female.
As we saw by the several men in the Aurora theater who died protecting their women, the instinct is not dead.
Tactical showers built with slats for sides and open areas upper and lower -- so you can see around you when showering. . .in the field, in combat, never let your guard down.
Females complained that the men watched them shower. . .so. . .females got their own shower built, complete with full walls so no one can see then. . .and they couldn't see outside either. Tactically unsound and dangerous, but hey. . at least they had privacy.
Field latrines, half-50-gal drum with waist-high sides around the “toilets.” Must have half-walls because in a combat environment must be able to see around you even when sitting dow doing your business. . you are vulnerable. . .can't let your guard down. . . .unless you are a female.
Females complained and they had their own $h^^ers built, completely enclosed, of course, so the men couldn't watch them.
So, men had no privacy but women were afforded all the privacy they wanted. . .regardless of the tactical requirement to be alert, aware and able to respond,
No sir, standards and privacy will not be compromised, no sir (sarc/)
“Weak Link” book by Brian Mitchell is an excellent read to discover just how much combat standards have been lowered already. . .
Well, separate but equal. See?
Please see Post 94. . .I’m right there with you.
That was the idiot movie, not the book where the Mobile Infantry was all-male, despite their powered armor that would in actuality largely eliminate the physical reasons men outperform women.
Women were in the military, but not the infantry.
She complained about having to wear a burka when off base in Kuwait/Saudi. Military leadership said, sorry, but you gotta play by their rules when you are in their country. McSally said, “No!” it's all about me!” and took her complaint to the IG instead of up the chain.
Media got wind of it. . .likely from McSally and her feminist cronies.
Thing is, we HAVE NO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Saudi and Kuwait that allows us the right to be exempt from local rules/laws. So, McSally fussed about not having her “rights” while in a country where she has no rights, and then she fussed publicly and cast the military as being insensitive and oppressive. . .she was too stoopid to understand the SOFA limitation and the fact the military had no choice!!
She was coddled for political reasons and promoted to colonel just to keep her and her lezbo cronies quiet.
She is a disgusting attention wh0r3, making it all about her and not the mission.
She is not respected.
I can’t see how this can last. The first time a female troop is captured and publicly tortured America will want them out.
I think an aspect of this isn’t being discussed much.
Traditionally, intentionally killing women and children was held to be the ultimate dishonor for soldiers. This was because women and children were by definition noncombatants.
Now women are equally potential combatants as men, and the rationale for excluding them as targets just went away. Hopefully, kids will still be off the list.
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.