Posted on 01/19/2025 7:25:31 AM PST by MagillaX
the more important arguments of replacing male soldiers with girls, and weakening the entire military training and schooling system, and field capabilities and requirements to even make that bizarre choice possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well said. I would only replace the word “arguments” with the word “facts”!
Woman are indispensable. . . . the military could never function without women.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Nonsense
A military cannot be a fire breathing, bare chested warrior type organization constantly pushing itself to the limits of physical fitness and toughness, focus, and aggressiveness, when females are part of the mix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
100% correct.
Translation: I was a REMF and your post hurt my feels... lol.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dang it man, I was sipping my hot coffee when I read that comment, and then I had to go change my wet jammies!
They get pregnant, fraternize, have periods, have sex with their superiors, cause drama, stifle conversations, disrupt morale, deteriorate comradery.
That’s a partial list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Now you know Lefty ideologues don’t want to hear about those concerns! Too much commonsense pisses ‘em off!
Female members of the Israeli Defense Forces, I recall, were captured by the Palestinian hoard on October 7 and were sexually assaulted and killed.
The challenge in Operation Iraqi Freedom (Gulf War 2) was that the combat units were so few, and so strung out in pursuit of unhinging the Iraqi defenses, that combat support units (staffed with females) were coming under attack from bypassed Iraqi units. The whole “Jessica Lynch” situation was emblematic of the acceptance of that risk.
I think after that war that the Pentagon studies showed that they could continue with the heavy reliance on females near the front lines. Unfortunately, an honest assessment of the Lynch incident would have concluded otherwise. The US public wasn’t then, nor is it now, willing to see large numbers of female servicemen returning to Dover AFB in body bags.
The problem with all females (and men of lighter builds) is that the connective tissues are not tough enough and those individuals suffer more sprains, tears an stress fractures from repetitive motion.
IOW’s it’s not only that the average woman lacks the strength of the bottom percentile males — she might be able to hold her own with that group. It’s that she can’t do it for long. She’ll break down. The scuttlebutt about the first females that succeeded at Ranger School says that they were given extra recuperation periods and carried lighter loads. Their Ranger Tabs were essentially participation trophies.
“Then approval of it for any reason is a damn waste of time and money.”
Not completely until the woke politicins begin to use their heads and determine that the physical needs of the combat ranger are not within the physique of a woman in a vast majority of cases. (Almost all ovbiously)
But with the knowledge of the career field that can be absorbed and put into application it can be immeasurable to aid in the mission. It doesn’t mean in combat, but there are hundreds of tasks that are essential to success that women with any physique can handle. Don’t try to make an apple into an orange. But select the best apples. That goes along with not trying to make juice oranges into table orange. Not all men are cut out for it.
wy69
We sustained 58,200 combat deaths during Vietnam when women were precluded from combat arms. 8 of those deaths were women, all nurses. If women were nor precluded, not only would there have been more female deaths, but there would be proportionately male deaths from the male instincts to protect them. No amount of training females for combat is going to result in changing the male instinct to protect women and put both genders at risk..
You are absolutely correct, and the discussion has moved so far that I had forgotten basic facts like what you just laid out.
For what it is worth only one of those women died from hostile action, she was a nurse hit by shrapnel while commandos attacked a hospital, almost 11,000 of the male deaths were not from hostile action.
He simply believed that women should not be subjected to those horrors.
—————
I would have been skeptical of that, had I not seen this with my own eyes in my family. My niece was an army nurse in Iraq. She jumped out of planes to help injured soldiers and worked in the emergency room helping soldiers whose burned skin melted off their bodies. She came home with PTSD.
She married and had children. The trauma she had been through left her overly scared for the safety of her children. She was afraid to let them play outside, for example. She has healed a lot over the years and her family is happy. But I can’t shake the feeling that children deserve a mother who has never seen the worst war can be. They deserve one parent, a mother, who has a joy that has never been compromised in such a way.
At post 51 before replying. Setting up last-minute chimney chase stuff for wood stove in bedroom before the inaguration apocalypse hits so I have NOT vetted the links.
One of these should work. Hell of a controversy in its time.
As ex-army company-grade officer late ‘69-’73 before coming back to grad school, I sometimes find myself in conversations with conservative women re women in combat.
I still don’t have a rote answer. I can say that the imbedded Israeli people in my group had an interesting take. Mostly, we agreed to disagree.
https://www.washingtonian.com/1979/11/01/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1997/august/tangled-webb
(the UNI articles still elevate by blood pressure. I’m not a marine retired O-6, never-the-less I call BS on his straw-man argument. If I cared, I could probably show scars from my fights with 1st Army TRADOC command as a yet-to be commissioned 2LT regarding utility of ‘hazing.’ Just didn’t sit well with me as an already vetted engineer and scientist.
Another, in the same vein.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/may/webb-controversy-whats-right
In the long run, it didn’t matter ‘cause I thought for myself.
https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/james-webb-advises-junior-naval-officers-stay-true-themselves
A counter-argument.
Lastly -
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2940&context=parameters
I’m exaggerating a little for effect, but I’m missing body parts because of McNamara’s 100,000. Those of you who experienced this social-engineering experiment might relate.
I don't believe men want to protect every woman. Probably only the women who look like Rep. Luna. LOL.
The real reason women shouldn't be in combat is that a woman can become pregnant.
We shouldn't want a possibly pregnant woman in combat because a baby could be in harm's way.
Also, if a woman is captured by the enemy and raped, she could become pregnant, and a baby would be in harm's way.
That's the reason. Why doesn't anyone else ever make that point?
BTW, I knew many women who served in the military, but not in combat roles, and they would've agreed. Common sense.
Here you go. It’s a long read, and the general theme zeroes in on women at the US Naval Academy, but it’s time well spent.
https://www.washingtonian.com/1979/11/01/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/
Here you go. It’s a long read,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Long read but I read every word of it and then passed it on to everyone on my email 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.