Posted on 03/14/2021 2:14:44 PM PDT by DFG
Honestly, I think a lot of women don’t think of it in those terms.
Among the ones that don’t want to be in combat, I have no doubt that there are ones who don’t want to be in combat themselves, but think “Oh, Sue definitely wants to be in combat, so...I am all for women in combat.” These women engage in what Thomas Sowell calls “Stage One Thinking”.
But there are women (Such as Jude Eden, a female Marine who served in the Middle East) who understand the differences and realize the harm it would do overall. Women like Jude Eden, who has experience, thinks beyond “Stage One”.
In Stage One thinking, the woman who doesn’t want to be in combat and thinks it is okay for other women to be in combat should be asked the necessary questions to make them think beyond Stage One.
When a woman says “I don’t think I could do combat, but Sue is well conditioned and can serve in that role” she would be asked “Okay. If we allow that, how do we determine who goes into combat and who doesn’t?”
She might well frown and say “Well, you could make it optional. Ask it as a preference.” At that point, one would say “Should it be optional for men as well? If not, is that unfair to men?” and so on.
I think most of them don’t even think about the concept of capture. They would likely say “Oh, but we are a signatory to the Geneva Convention...”
And we would say “Uh huh. You think that will help?”
Jude Eden is one of those women who are realistic and understand this well, which makes me respect her all the more beyond being a Marine.
This has nothing to do with respect or disrespect of a specific woman or women in general.
It has to do with the fact (As Jude Eden specifically states in her article) that there are tasks like combat artillery gunners where 99 percent of men can do the heavy-lifting tasks typical of gunners, but 85 percent of women cannot.
Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm marked the first large-scale combat deployment of women. Estimates are that between 35,000 and 50,000 women were deployed to the combat zone alongside some 550,000 men.3,5–7 Many of their needs were similar to those of men except for gynecological care.
Studies on women in the Persian Gulf War have noted similar findings. In a study of the 1st Cavalry Division’s medical visits, gynecologic disorders were the most common diagnosis recorded in women. Approximately 26% one quarter of the visits, of the 1,792 visits were gynecology related. Women were 6% of total troop strength and found to be three times more likely to have sick call visits than men.
During one stretch, twenty-four pregnancies were encountered in the 458 gynecologic visits. This trend continued throughout the sortie and ultimately more women were sent home due to pregnancies than combat injuries.
In a study made for the secretary of defense by the GAO, listed below, except for officers which is in the ballpark also, graph 5.2 displays the problem:
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat5/149552.pdf
This information is not to put a mark on women, but to display the inaccuracies and misfunction of the need for combat use. The need by our politicians is political to get votes, and the need of the military is mission. Apparently two different thought processes.
wy69
There is no delete here. Ask Admin Moderator and he/she might do it depending on what kind of mood they are in today.
LOL, “women belong in the kitchen and the bedroom” not on a battlefield. “To the victor goes the spoils” and if you are a female combatant that means you.
I think the focus and main concern for our military should be flight suits for pregnant women and day care centers on subs. What’s up with our misplaced priorities?
At least we’re finally paying for sex change operations.
"...Women have honorably served in the combat zone, but not on the infantry’s standards, on door-kicking missions. Let us be honest. Panetta’s words are spin—not exactly the stuff combat commanders’ dreams are made of when it comes to building the tip of the spear. Military women are strong, tough, and dedicated in their own right. Women do not need to be in the combat units to prove they are important or to serve honorably and well, and they do not need to be there to gain career opportunities. Women have achieved some of the highest levels of military leadership without entering combat units..."
In my non-military career (which has been nearly six times longer than my military one) I have had the privilege of working under skilled, dedicated, and capable women whose ability inspired unreserved loyalty, fealty, and respect in me for that person.
But it is not the military, and definitely not combat.
And thank you for that link. I will check it out later.
Let’s see Tucker go three rounds in the MMA ring with *any* female Marine.
“Military women are strong, tough, and dedicated in their own right.”
The problem is that defining “in their own right” may not be very easy. And the lack of capacity of women in upper body needs is a major part of it. The job calls for requirements that women as a whole don’t have strength in. And many men can’t handle the job for the same reason. But God’s design, and man’s innovation, helps that a little as man has learned to pick up the club in our beginnings and hit someone harder because our upper body was better designed.
Can the women gender compete physically with men overall and not place themselves and others in harm’s way. Proven no. And admitted by the lesser needs in those PFT’s we’ve been displaying. Everyone, even the vote harvesters, all admit there is a standards need problem there. Can women push buttons? A vast majority can. Can a woman carry a 135 ruck with ammo and weapon on a forced run of a hundred yards or more. Not too many. So why expect them to?
And let’s face it, lowering the PFT standards to job related function, may be closing the gap between the genders based upon lower expectations, but it isn’t doing either gender a favor putting them into a firefight downrange with less than the best PFT training just for a cause.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the current government way of thinking was wrong. He saw “two principles prior to reason” in human nature. First we hold an intense interest in our own well-being. Secondly we object to the suffering or death of any sentient being, especially one like ourselves. Our current theories blew that out of the water with the evil men/women do.
Tomorrow I think I’ll self identify as whatever animal is going to take over. Right now it looks like viruses. They accomplish more it seems. And they do it on about the same IQ level of a politician. (Maybe higher)
wy69
Same. This is disgusting...
Pregnancy flight suites? For real?
We don’t disagree. I understand the rhetorical tool used by the author when she stated “in their own right”, so I don’t take issue with that.
If someone on the left wants to define “their own right” to include or exclude the 155 mm artillery lift-and-carry test as a component, they are welcome to do so and provide their justification.
Of course, we KNOW they will take advantage of every unclear or undeclared phrase or definition, but heck, they do that as a matter of course.
In a rational world, we wouldn’t have to watch them like hawks on these kinds of things and could assume they had the same goals of fielding a deadly and efficient military, but the other side left that path a long time ago.
Reading the statements such as “we are a better military because of our diversity” is like every other situation, corporation, or entity that states “we are a better ________ because of our diversity.”
Diversity is absolutely irrelevant to reality in any field except Gender Studies and such. And even then.
“...but the other side left that path a long time ago.”
I’m not totally sure if there is an “other side.” Over the last 30 years the GOP has allowed themselves to be completely neutered. They’ve become the party of mediocrity rather than conservativism. For there to be a two party system one has to have disagreements with the other. Not seeing it. And didn’t see any to support Trump in his disagreements. Do we actually have two parties? I’m not sure.
wy69
That's the wrong comparison. Tucker, like any U.S. citizen, hopes a Marine can overpower our enemies. If a female Marine can't go a round against another Marine, what does that mean for Marines on the battlefield?
You don’t have to convince me! :) I know women are NOT equal to men in physical ability/stature/etc., and NEVER will be.
I am a woman. (Me Bill of Rights FIRST is a woman.)
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.