BUSH PENTAGON MOVING TO FORCE WOMEN INTO LAND COMBAT (Center for Military Readiness Bulletin)

Center for Military Readiness ^ | 12/9/2004 | Elaine Donnelly

[processing please hold]

How on earth did you see something that is not there?

Never, ever have I even remotely suggested that women should not be in combat if they pass the physical or have the inclination to fight for their country.

Point out to me exactly the part were you see conflict in any of my post about women in the military.

[processing please hold]

P S, I don't beat around the bush. Which is the reason I seem to always be reprimanded by the moderators when I find myself on these threads.

[No Blue States]

"It amazes me that the moderators allow such threads to be posted. Is Free Republic anti-woman? Does Free Republic enjoy seeing men and women cut each other off at the knees? I believe there is more animosity toward women than anywhere else. Can you macho, chest-beating, knuckle-dragging men even see what you are posting? A lot of you belong in an Arab country, where you will find you perfect female bashing buddies to help you fluff up your egos when you talk about controlling your "WOMAN"."

Who was bashing females? Most of the men here were just stating that females shouldnt be front line combat soldiers. (with good reasons included, i agree with them)

And do you seriously think there is more "female bashing" on FR than other places?

Who, specifically do you think belongs in an arab country to get their ego fluffed up by controlling their women?

I thought your #72 feminist sounding rant was about FR men being neanderthals because they did not think females should be front line warriors. The subject of the thread was women in combat.

Maybe I lurked too long and forgot how to effectively argue.

[Ciexyz]

Waiting for more info to come out, before commenting.

[No Blue States]

lol I can appreciate that. Merry Christmas.

[processing please hold]

Feminism = Feminazi

Chauvinism = Chauvinazi

There, we are equally abhorrent to all who wish to make racist catch phrases. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

That being said, You may agree that women don't belong on the front lines in combat....but I don't. Is you opinion more valuable than mine? If some Islamofacist wants to cut my head or the heads of my family off, am I supposed to just sit on my thumbs till that day gets here, or get my butt out there and kill them before they get here?

It isn't just about women in the military any longer, it's about survival now. Put a rifle in any willing hand, the trigger can't tell if it's a male or female pulling on it. But the result will be the same either way. That person will be dead.

These threads always turn into what they are at the end, precisely because of their content.

[processing please hold]

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

[em2vn]

Who's ego needs to be burnished? I know too many cops who have to carry the load because their female partner is missing in action when push comes to shove. The talk of the jobsis the easiest part. When it comes to the grunt work of clanging and banging it's the guys who pick the injuries.
The bad actors go through the female cops like an open door. The more worthless a female cop is the more likely she is to get promoted where she can do the least damage.

[processing please hold]

"The more worthless a female cop is........"

You need to adjust your medications. The prescribed doses are not working.....jeez

[506trooper]

""Femzazis" That has to be the most ridiculous word I have ever heard. Only a man not comfortable in his manhood and having doubts about his masculinity would utter such a racist word."

Uh...I didn't realize women were a race, thank you for clarifying that,

Sorry if the word offends you, but I didn't coin it; many people use it to describe a particularly strident group of radical feminists, and have for years. I believe it is an appropriate word to describe them, and no, I don't think all feminists are "feminazis" .

from wikipedia and the use by Rush Limbaugh
here

From townhall.com
see here

Lots of other places to google.

Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto was published in 1968 (caution, adult language); there are feminists who believe in it. (The debate has gone on as to whether this was satire or not; I think she was serious.)

There are physiological differences between men and women, and the feminists who ignore it, in the interest of their own definition of equality, might have motives truly suspect.

I debated how to respond to the attack on my masculinity.

I could choose to ignore it...that has merit, except there is a belief by some, that by not responding, it would be an admission the charge is true.

OK, discard solution 1.

I could choose to vigorously defend myself....knee jerk reaction may not be necessarily bad, except there are those who would believe that "....doth protest too much, methinks." might be an attempt to cover up repressed feeling of doubt. LOL, funny how I chose to use a quote the begins "The lady.."

Hmmm....discard solution 2.

I think I'll go with door number 3.

I'm too old and thick skinned to get upset by collecting a label from someone who doesn't know me personally...heck, I've been insulted far worse than that by my friends, for crying out loud.

The only way you can hurt me with words, is to write them down on a sheet of stiff paper, roll up the paper into a very thin tube, and poke me vigorously in the eye with it.

[processing please hold]

"SEXIST" There...comfy now.

Talk about splitting hairs. You win that one hands down. You are king/queen, whichever.

I believe I coined Chauvinazi, now we can both be proud.

That's good you don't think 'ALL' women are feminazi, because I don't think 'ALL' men are Chauvinazi either. On that we can agree.

I've noticed from time to time that when a mans masculinity is put into question, most men run straight to the old reliable tried and true phrase...."Doth protest too much, methinks, might be an attempt to cover up repressed feelings of doubt"

Is there a play sheet that some men read off of? Is that statement like #42 on the list, when manliness is called to the forefront of a debate? A way of reaching into that old sack of cliches, tossing one out and see what sticks?

Poke you in the eye with a rolled up piece of paper with bad words written on it.......hummmmmm, never thought of that one, thanks for the idea, I'll keep it in mind. LOL

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

I happen to be a female. Women do not belong on the front lines of combat. Women do belong learning how and being able and ready to defend themselves and their family. However, being on the front lines in the armoed forces with all of the physical demands on that position, demands for which women are simply not equally physically equipped as their male military counterparts, simply puts the soldiers in greater danger than they would be in with a fully fit and trained male combat soldier. There are tens of thousands of military "jobs" for which women can out perform or equally match their male counterparts. But frontline combat is not one of them.

Elaine Donnelly is another female with the same opinions and she has done the research and fought the good fight in this arena longer and more effectively then any "chauvinazi" you can locate.

[processing please hold]

As I've said from the get-go, if a woman cannot pass the physical part of training she should not be a soldier. If, she can pass the rigors of it, she should be allowed to serve her country in any capacity that she is able to fill, be that front-line or in the rear.

Women soldiers aren't stupid. They know what can happen to them if caught by the enemy. It should be their conscious decision.

I have never heard of Elaine Donnelly before today. And if perchance I have, she did not make an impression on me that I would remember her name.

If women have the ability and desire to fight for their country on the front line...let them. They know the risk.

[D Rider]

There are just as many weak kneed, spineless, easily frightened men. They just don't volunteer for the military. (Remember, most of our current forces are volunteers)

Great, then you support having the same standards for both men and women. The problem, of course, is that the enlistment goals for women are going to suffer. Or worse, the basic standards are going to have to all but be eliminated.

[506trooper]

Actually wasn't trying to "win". Was merely pointing out, in an obscure way, your basis for argument was flawed to begin with.

As for this

"I've noticed from time to time that when a mans masculinity is put into question, most men run straight to the old reliable tried and true phrase...."Doth protest too much, methinks, might be an attempt to cover up repressed feelings of doubt......Is that statement like #42.."

I think I'd better update. It's #99 on my list...gotta download 3.1.

"You are king/queen, whichever."

You seem to be somewhat single minded...a "one trick pony"....attacking my masculinity gives you pleasure?

Valerie Solanas, is that you? Might I recommend here for a list of sites where you'll feel more comfortable.

[Cold Heat]

I smell some JAG lawyer rats involved in this.

For cryin out loud, either get them completely out, or treat them as any other soldier.

This game playing needs to come to a screeching halt.

They have everything from shipboard life to military academies screwed up royally and you can do some creative guessing to figure out what side of the issue I am on.

What I suggest is that if women want to serve, that they resurrect the WAC and other female units that are purely support in specific non combat areas, and that military academies drop the co-ed crap and get back to the business at hand.

[506trooper]

"Elaine Donnelly is another female with the same opinions and she has done the research and fought the good fight in this arena longer and more effectively then any "chauvinazi" you can locate."

Agreed, Elaine Donnelly is, IMO, right on for the right reasons.

Best response on the thread...*applause*

[processing please hold]

I have a fault, I rarely read about pages. I take people for what they say not what sex they are. Why should I answer someone differently be it man OR woman. I merely answer.

Sexism, I haven't used that word in thirty years, I though it died. Guess not.

Your phrase...has been tossed at me many times, The doth protest one. I've used it myself but never in a conversation about women and men, always about when people go over-board on defending muslims.

I digressed.

Attack your masculinity? I never attack personally,(once i did, i called someone stupid, but that's when i first came on here) but I noticed that when someone has a guilty conscious, they speak right up. Sorta like a smoke screen defense. You seem to not have a problem attacking women who want to serve their country.

See, my point is proven in your last statement, some people can't handle women with thoughts and ideas that don't mesh with theirs, so they try and send them out to play with others. Hey, if you have a problem with me say so, I always like debate where it went back and forth and not one sided. What can one learn about oneself if they only debate with people who think like they do? Personally, I think that would be boring. A spirited exchange of ideas is always preferable to a dull exchange. Don't you agree?

[dvwjr]

Originally posted by pbrown:

"That being said, You may agree that women don't belong on the front lines in combat....but I don't. Is you opinion more valuable than mine? If some Islamofacist wants to cut my head or the heads of my family off, am I supposed to just sit on my thumbs till that day gets here, or get my butt out there and kill them before they get here?"

"It isn't just about women in the military any longer, it's about survival now. Put a rifle in any willing hand, the trigger can't tell if it's a male or female pulling on it. But the result will be the same either way. That person will be dead."

The difference between shooting and combat is that the other side makes it difficult to shoot back by not being a co-operative target while at the same time making YOU their target. The key is to combat is NOT pulling the trigger, it is getting into position alive so that when you DO pull the trigger you have the advantage of position and timing so as to eliminate said target. The difference between men and women in combat is that men are able to carry an infantryman's combat load and carry out the mission due to his physical stature and strength. Women are not so equipped and hence cannot perform the same mission and be considered a replaceable cog in the military machine as would another man...

If you are serious about women in combat, then a unit of 100% women should be as effective as one composed of 100% Blacks, or 100% Whites, or 100% Asians, etc...

======================

Originally posted by on another thread by William Terrell:

"My worry here is that, should a equal force of men were to meet an equal force of women, both equally equipped and equally knowledgeable, the force of men will win hands down."

Exactly! I have long thought that you could take any 'group' and compare how a combat unit formed of 100% of that group would fare against an all-male US Army (or Marine) ground-combat unit of identical size/support.

Take any population sub-group that can be uniquely identified - say Black, Asian, White, Male, Female, 13 year-olds, 62 year-olds - what ever group, no matter how it is composed or seems ridiculous. Now create a well-trained ground-combat unit following the same training and using the same weapons as a current US ground-combat unit and pit them against each other and compare the results.

Now the US has had all-Black combat units in the Civil War, the Frontier wars, WWI and WWII. The 442nd Regiment was all Asian-American in WWII. In both cases they were pitted against all-White 'Ayran supermen' German troops in WWII and they performed as well or better than WWII combat units then composed entirely of all-white American troops. So we have a yardstick which works... The key factor was that they were males of the same age, physical condition and agressiveness as their German combat counterparts.

Now say we form ground combat units of 100% 13-year old male teenagers, OR 100% 62-year old male senior-citizens, OR 100% 22-year old female college athletes. Does anyone reading this think that even after three years of physical conditioning and tactical training, when you would end up with 16-year old male combat teenagers, or 65-year old combat seniors, or 25-year old combat females - that any of those three groups could engage and defeat a same-sized and armed all-male unit from the United States Army or Marines?

If a combat unit of 100% of some population sub-group is as effective as the current all-male combat units, then integrating those new sub-groups makes sense. Outside of the social issues of racial segregation in the pre-Korean War era there was no decrease in the effectiveness of integrated units in terms of combat power. Now would the integration of women into any ground combat MOS result in no change in combat effectiveness or power? If not, then all you have accomplished is social engineering and the dilution of combat power.

What say you???

dvwjr

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.

"The guy in the war movies that carried the radio, did so because he probably wasn't good at shooting a gun."

UCANSEE2, my RTO, Teacup, would beg to differ with you. He carried the radio because he could keep his head and communicate clearly when necessary. He was also a deadly shot with most infantry weapons.

While 'high end athletic performance isn't necessarily a requirement, carrying an 80lb to 100lb rucksack, LBE, weapon and 300 to 400 rounds of ammo for several days in heat and humidity or heat and dust, or in any of the nasty environments that wars tend to be fought in, requires fitness and upper body strength.

I think you are speaking less about what you know and more about what you feel.