Posted on 01/19/2025 7:25:31 AM PST by MagillaX
Air Force veteran Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) knows a thing or two about women in the military — and now she’s clearing up one of the Democrats' biggest lies about Trump’s pick for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, during his confirmation hearing.
“Pete never said that he didn't want women to serve in the military. In fact, it’s quite the opposite,” Luna tells Glenn Beck of “The Glenn Beck Program.” However, Luna believes that “there are certain roles that women should not be subjected to in the military.”
“I preface this by saying that when women were placed in harm’s way, that the natural instinct for men was to protect that woman. And that’s quote-unquote ‘toxic masculinity’ that the left tries to attack us with all the time,” Luna says.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
We need to get the social engineering and the social justice warriors out of the military and use science and logic and rational common sense in what works best for the defense of this country.
Isn’t it incredible that people have to be reminded of what common sense looks like today?
Women belong in REMF units ONLY. Not infantry squads or armor/artillery units. Great pilots.
No women in combat. Period. Too many reasons why it is counter-effective militarily. That doesn’t mean they can’t be extensively effective in other military roles, as they have been historically. Stop making arguments for the woke and left position. It makes you look really stupid.
Re defensive situations - street to street fighting, would not want to stumble on to a squad of mama bears with guns defending their lair.
I remember my late grandfather telling me that women should not be allowed in the military, period. He spoke from experience; he served in the occupation forces in postwar West Germany shortly after the war ended, and no doubt saw up close what war did to other soldiers. He simply believed that women should not be subjected to those horrors.
My grandmother was even more emphatic. Even though she was very liberal on some issues, she firmly believed that a woman’s place is in the home.
Having women in combat roles is NOT A PROBLEM as long as they are properly trained. Oh yeah, and as long as there’s never combat.
And so that’s the problem with the Neocons - they sit back and do not lift a finger while our military is being destroyed by the Leftists (force-in DEI, women in combat, LGBTs in combat, men being told they’re the scum of the Earth, and leftist grunts not being immediately kicked out).
And then, after all that crap, they start wars with Russia, are close to starting a war with China, and even want to start a war with Iran.
NONE of those countries have any of the garbage the Left has imposed on the US military - yet the Neocons still want to fight those countries, without even considering the need to clean up their own military first? They can go to hell.
And sorry Neocon supporters, but that is EXACTLY where we’re at now - hopefully Pete can start fixing it, but if the Democrats push back hard, Pete won’t be able to fix the recruiting problem - because kids will understand that all his work could be undone the next time a Democrat takes office.
The problem with the “defense camp” is that it would still be subject to the horrors of war. People suffer in unimaginable ways. They get their faces shot off. They get massive burns, lose their legs, lose their minds.
I met one young man during FR’s days supporting the wounded soldiers at Walter Reed hospital who was wounded in the throat by friendly fire. He breathed (and smoked cigarettes) through a stoma in his throat.
No woman should be subjected to this stuff. Period.
The standards should be set to the height needed for maximum combat readiness. If an exceptional woman can meet those standards, then fine. But under no circumstances should the standards be lowered with the goal of increasing the percentage of women at the cost of combat readiness.
I’m not for female pilots. I think it’s a terrible mistake. We had some come through SERE that I was instructing on (simulating being shot down over enemy territory). It’s escape and evasion type stuff. The women did not fare well at all. Very easy to catch, no effort and cracked very easy. Also very demoralizing when you see your ladies on tv about to be beheaded. Very bad for the unit’s morale and the country.
Common sense says no women in combat roles. Period.
they make RPGs for such occasions.
A good start would be to stop using the defamatory term ‘REMF’.
Offense vs Defense roles. We kinda sorta have a dichotomy with direct combat roles and combat support. The combat roles already include offensive and defensive strategies. Defense can be one of the bloodiest of all combat roles. You don’t really get to run a defensive unit onto the battlefield as in football.
Your grandparents were RIGHT!
Never in combat a MOS, Special Forces, or Airborne and if the powers that be insist the physical requirements need to remain the same for them as for the men.
In your mind only. It's not only about physicality or size.
They get pregnant, fraternize, have periods, have sex with their superiors, cause drama, stifle conversations, disrupt morale, deteriorate comradery.
That's a partial list.
Translation: I was a REMF and your post hurt my feels... lol.
They also, via statistics, have a FAR higher crash and error rate.
That said, I believe that women can still serve in the military. But we'll have to segregate the units by gender.
We'll still need nurses, doctors, etc to serve in the military.
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.