Posted on 03/14/2021 2:14:44 PM PDT by DFG
I worked at the Naval Space Command in the late 80’s about the time when they were first putting women on ships. I remember attending a conference with a couple of Rear Admirals that got rather informal. After reminiscing about the antics of whores in Saigon, one of them commented on women on ships by saying “What do you get when you put healthy 20 year old men and women in close quarters? Babies! Lots of babies!”
I served on the uss comstock, early 90’s. Prior to women being allowed on board. The marines we would on-load were hard. And very un-pc. One of the popular thoughts I heard about women in the marines went like this:
A woman not on her back is a woman out of her MOS.
Today’s sailors have no idea how glorious it was to serve in all male crews. I weep for what’s become of my US Navy.
Thanks, Mac ... it came to me out of the blue a couple of months after watching Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.
I was delighted no one had yet claimed the handle.
The marines use to be foul and tough. Not PC at all. Now they are “inclusive” and “accepting”. And would get their asses handed to them by the Russians or Chinese.
Give me foul mouth and un pc any day of the week every time.
I see the Navy PRT test was updated this year - and a 17 to 19 yr old female is equivalent to a 35-39 yr old male on the run.
Are they implying an old man (Navy-wise) is better than a female teenager? By the time I was 39 in the Navy, I had four different ships, six deployments and nine PCS moves.
https://www.addisonlibrary.org/sites/default/files/Women%20in%20Combat.pdf
I served with CSM Grinston in Iraq. I never would have thought it possible he would drink the koolade. MG Funk however, was an idiot son of a GO who continues his sycophantic rise in rank...nothing new in 20 years there...
Sorry, posted on the wrong article. Please disregard until I figure out how to delete posts...
regards,
” A woman not on her back is a woman out of her MOS.”
Or, as the Bible puts it...
“Be fruitful and multiply”.
Other positions are lies from the Devil..
Thanks for the info but I know that.
Firmly tongue in cheek - Should have used the /s.
Odd...I can see it on multiple computers. But yes, that is the article, and thank you for that link.
I’m printing it off today for a full and proper reading. Thanks for posting.
You are most welcome. It is the best treatise on the subject, written by someone who might normally have a vested interest in the opposing view, yet is intellectually honest enough to understand the inherent danger in that opposing view.
That’s true...
IMO, there are two types of people who want women to be eligible for combat units: those who want to destroy the military in particular and the country in general, and those who see female combat exclusion as some form of unjustified discrimination against women.
No need to comment on the people using this as a lever to weaken and destroy the Republic. Their assumptions and intentions need no explanation.
But the people who see the exclusion of women from combat units as some form of unjustified discrimination against women range from feminists who want the illusion of equality at all costs to those who don’t know better or have been brainwashed to believe the combat exclusion has no justification, and is no different from a female being denied a position in a corporation because of her sex. Granted, Feminists may be be in either the “destroy America” group or the ignorant group, but in their case, I see them in both.
Regardless, the reason this seems so unjustified to people who might otherwise be rational, is that they don’t understand the role of the military and its structure, and they don’t understand combat.
They assume that combat is just like any other job, and should be treated as such. If that were true, they would be correct in seeing the combat exclusion of women as unjust. But it isn’t true.
First, actual combat at a unit level of any kind is predicated on “the average”. Planning and ongoing administration of combat units leverages the average. When everything is hunky-dory, planning and administration probably isn’t much different at many levels than it would be for many corporate activities. However, when supply chains are restricted or eliminated due to active enemy interdiction and activity, what gets through in any supply activity becomes extremely sparse, as many veterans of campaigns such as Guadalcanal, Battle of The Bulge, and Chosin will attest to.
Everything from what size combat boots the average soldier wears, how many calories the average combat soldier consumes, and how much the average combat soldier drinks (from a supply perspective) to how much supplies and ammo an average individual soldier can carry, and how far and how fast they can carry it. Add to this the advantages of assuming all male from a supply perspective for everything from feminine hygiene products to birth control products. These things are a fusion of logistics and performance.
And there is also the effect of mixed sex units that you reference-the sexual interaction between the two sexes, young people, far from home, isolated, lonely, and in dangerous environments. There are people who completely discount this as if it has no bearing at all. They say there are rules and regulations to keep young men and women from getting involved, they are adults and can be counted on to act professionally, or even more laughably, they think sexual relations are like a genie that can be kept in a bottle. The simple biological fact is that young men and women thrust into this environment are going to expend thought and energy towards that facet of existence. Life finds a way.
But there are a host of other things that go along with it-love triangles, changed behavior to protect or get back at someone of the opposite sex, men who are resentful of women who can’t do the work, women resentful of men, men and women who leverage the entire toxic sexual broth for sexual, personal, or professional gain, the list would go on and on. And the bottom line is that every single behavior imaginable has no positive aspect in a combat environment, but can and will have negative aspects in that environment. In summary, there will be a loss of focus, and only serve to degrade the mission.
And all of this is completely independent of the physical grind of combat that the differences in physical capability would highlight and exacerbate, and the simple loss of capability via increased attrition of women due to physical differences and the increase in recovery time for those removed from conditioning or training due to injury, pregnancy, or simple inactivity. (as highlighted in the article).
Any person who has served in real, extended, life-or-death combat has a uniform response when asked about the physical drain of combat-there is nothing else in the human experience that physically drains a human as much as extended high-level combat. Not football training or even running triathlons or marathons, simply because the psychic drains of combat magnify the physical drains, which forces individuals to fall back on physical reserves.
Combat activities are not corporate activities, and it is astonishing, yet undeniable that there are those who would advocate for women in combat roles who simply do not understand that fundamental truth.
This is not the Marine Corp I served in.
It definitely has been and continues to be the emasculation of the military in lots of ways!
Some of the women in the military KNOW women should not be in combat. Any woman who thinks women should be in combat is an EVIL FEMINAZI, AND/OR A BUTCH, ETC.
NO WOMEN IN COMBAT!!
ALSO, NO HOMOS/LESBOS/BUTCHES/GAYS/ETC. IN THE MILITARY, EVER!!
I wonder if women really want to go to combat in the Mideast. Do they really think the Muslims who treat their own women as second class citizens would treat them with respect if they were captured in combat?
This is not the country that you served anymore.
We never know who/what is a psyop, and who really means what they say, etc. NONE of us citizens nor the military know what NONE of these people are like 24/7 when they are out of the earshot and eyeshot of the public and the military. We need to have the Right people (those that are not part of the plans to take down America) to see what all these people are really like 24/7. The only problem with that, is if the EVIL ones think the military is getting wind of them, etc. the EVIL ones will start using/talking in one or more of their codes more/totally, etc. so we may never find out who is on the EVIL side. Also for example, is the deep state really after Flynn, or is he part of the deep state with the psyop being run that he is not part of it? I KNOW Petraeus (nickname Betray Us/US) is EVIL. There is no telling in how many ways he for example is EVIL, although I know one is that he was part of “ordering”, etc. the severely restrictive, etc. ROE etc. that got some of our military killed, maimed, etc.
Addition to this sentence that I accidentally left out:
We need to have the Right people (those that are not part of the plans to take down America) in the Military to see what all these people are really like 24/7, what codes they are talking, etc. Including talking opposite what they REALLY mean, etc.
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.