Posted on 09/23/2023 1:12:35 PM PDT by daniel1212
Yes! And I [the author] say this as someone who served in an army that boasts about its female soldiers.
So I hope that even if you disagree with me, you'll bear with me and read till the end…
FACT TIME
* The Israeli defense forces stopped using actual female combat soldiers after 1948. This was when they noticed that coed combat units suffered close to 50% higher casualty rates than all male units, and were worlds less effective when it came to mission completion.
* Due to this fact, women were barred from all combat roles in the IDF until several co-ed units were created in 1990 at the behest of progressive politicians.
* The remaining co-ed infantry units in the IDF are purely ornamental.
The males who joined these units join them because they couldn't cut it to be in the regular combat units, the females who join these units are the cream of the crop and still are outperformed by the substandard males.
I could go on and on about the inherent biological differences making men stronger and more durable than women, but at the end of the day, the biggest factor is our biological programming to be protective of women, not the fact that we can lift more than they do.
If a tribe or a village loses half its male population in a war, they can bounce back. But if that same tribe or village loses half of their female population, then they will not survive the next generation. I would even make the case that man's desire to protect his mother, his wife, his children and grandchildren born and unborn; are our biggest driving factors for putting ourselves out there and doing it dangerous job because it needs to be done.
So much for gender fluidity. But what is ignored in the article is that the male is ordained of God to be the unselfish leaders in the martial and family unit (and by extension, in society at large), after the divine order.
197 word excerpt of larger article Comments
So much for gender fluidity. But what is ignored in the article is that the male is ordained of God to be the unselfish leaders in the martial and family unit (and by extension, in society at large), after the divine order.
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
And sometimes the women must force the man to fulfill his role, and sometimes women must do so when men will not.
Not barred from the military but certain MOS’s in the combat arms should not be open to them...
Put wimen where they are used best. On the field is never the best.
The relationship between men and women is, or should be symbiotic but in battle, leave it to men.
Never been in war but taught martial arts long enough. We’re just stronger. Women are much more graceful but that gracefulness is worthless in the brutality of battle.
They get infections.
I couldn't have said it better.
Also, the military is no place for social experimenting!
Mother’s with children should not be placed in the battlefield zones. I’d go a step further in that No mothers should be serving in the military, period.
Barred almost entirely from the military, as it was until 1972 or before.
What combat leader would not want to replace his man warriors with a shorter, lighter, weaker, sicklier, less aggressive, slower moving, more terrain limited, reduced distance traveling, hygienically vulnerable, smaller weight carrying, more prone to injury, version.
He would have to rewrite all the knowledge and experience, of what his troops are capable of and reduce all that accordingly, and simply eliminate some capabilities entirely, but a fair enemy would not seek to capitalize on those advantages of course.
Agree...
I guess it all depends on whether or not the guys are allowed to have sex with them.
Call me a chauvinist, but women should not be in the front lines of military or law enforcement.
“...head of Christ is God..”
Where in the non-trinitarian tarnation did you come up with that one.
The presence of and participation of women in the military is destroying it.
All the “if they can do the job”—”as long as standards stay the same”—”not in combat units”—”on an individual basis”—etc. arguments are more than 50 years old now since we made the change in 1972, yet people keep repeating them or coming up with them.
+1
5.56mm
Should women be banned from the armed forces? That’s debatable. What’s not debatable is the banning of trannies and others of a sexual perversion. I can see this demoralizing any unit.
Certainly from certain roles.
But that should have been obvious all along.
No, the armed forces should be primarily women. Diversity is our strength.
Think of what an excellent example we could be for the rest of the world!
Men have served and died a hugely disproportionate amount since the very beginning.
Let’s throw in firefighting while we’re at it.
While I understand your reasoning, I disagree with your conclusion.
Not only should women continue to be allowed to serve, they should also be required to register for the draft.
Women should, however, be banned from all COMBAT ROLES, including serving on Navy warships and submarines, and flying combat aircraft.
As an Air Force veteran who served alongside women, there are many roles that women can fill, including the electronics repair shop job that I performed.
Women can wield a soldering irin just as well as a man, which results in freeing A MAN to fill a frontline combat role.
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.