Posted on 02/24/2013 5:39:59 AM PST by IbJensen
(Kayla Williams, a former sergeant with the U.S. Army, spoke in favor of the lifting of the ban on women serving in combat units on Feb. 21, 2013 at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C.)
(CNSNews.com) - At an event to discuss the merits of lifting the ban on women serving in combat units in the U.S. military, a retired Army sergeant said that hygiene issues are not a problem, including menstrual cycles, which she said can be regulated or eliminated by using birth control.
“Women can use hormonal birth control to regulate or eliminate their periods during deployment,” Kayla Williams said in remarks on Thursday at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C. “It’s just not that hard.”
Williams and Michael Breen, a former U.S. Army officer and executive director of the Truman National Security Project, argued that the new policy would strengthen the military and that hygiene and privacy were not legitimate reasons to oppose the change.
“What about the hygiene issue?” Williams said. “Look, frankly I don’t even know what that means.
“People say this in this hushed tone as if the vagina is a secret,” Williams said. “If women died without access to indoor plumbing, the human species would not have survived long enough to develop showers.”
Williams said the military already has equipment designed to make hygiene easier for women in the field, including the female urinary device, or FUD, that allows women to urinate while standing or void into a bottle.
Michael Breen, a former U.S. Army officer, spoke in favor of the lifting of the ban on women serving in combat units on Feb. 21, 2013 at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Breen said privacy concerns don’t really exist in combat scenarios.
“My own experience in combat with a bunch of different units tells me that all of these worries for guys go out the window, basically, as soon as you are in an environment like that,” Breen said. “You just stop caring. And I realize that that may be difficult to understand. This is an environment where concerns like who sees who go to the bathroom in the field. This is just not at the top of your mind.
“Believe me,” Breen said. “You’re looking for sleep. You’re looking for food. You’re trying not to get your head blown off.”
Privacy was a concern, however, when the Defense Department issued a memorandum on Jan. 13, 1994, which ruled that “women shall be excluded from units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.”
The memo went on to list the restrictions, including the need for privacy and skills “where job-related requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women Service members.”
The fact that women would be required to spend long periods of time in the field with men was also cited as a reason for women not to serve in combat units.
Two times in the memo it is stated that this ban would be “expanding opportunities for women” by more clearly defining combat units as the one area where females could not serve.
In a press release distributed at the event, the lifting of the combat exclusion rule is described as a decision that “brings policy in line with reality.”
The press release states that more than 280,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, with some 150 women killed while serving and more than 800 who received the Purple Heart for being wounded while deployed.
That's what she said.
It’s Sunday morning. This is your third post of HT this morning. I just watched a beautiful sunrise but now feel the need for eye bleach which will rinse out your posts of HT but also the beautiful sunrise.
I guess we can assume that the hormone pills will be issued with their C rations and if they are captured the enemy will supply them.
I agree that most guys arent interested in watching a woman pee, but exposure of that Vagina we all know about does give them some horny ideas once in a while.
Fred On Everything - Women In Combat
From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993):
"The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer [stress] fractures as men."
Further: "The Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony about the physical differences between men and women that can be summarized as follows:
"Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
"In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."
From the same report: "Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men. …Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
"(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.
"(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
"(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
"(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge…."
Also from the Commission's report: "Non-deployability briefings before the Commission showed that women were three times more non-deployable than men, primarily due to pregnancy, during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. According to Navy Captain Martha Whitehead's testimony before the Commission, 'the primary reason for the women being unable to deploy was pregnancy, that representing 47 percent of the women who could not deploy.'"
From Military Medicine, October 1997, which I got from the Pentagon's library:
(p. 690): "One-third of 450 female soldiers surveyed indicated that they experienced problematic urinary incontinence during exercise and field training activities. The other crucial finding of the survey was probably that 13.3% of the respondents restricted fluids significantly while participating in field exercises." Because peeing was embarrassing.
Or, (p. 661): " Kessler et al found that the lifetime prevalence of PTSD in the United States was twice as high among women…" Depression, says MilMed, is far commoner among women, as are training injuries. Et cetera.
Should read, “The democrat party takeover of America”
Read through the list and it describes what the rats have been doing since the 60’s.
Why not slice their breasts off too and while their at it give them male hormones and have a penis sewn on.
Then we can teach male soldiers to be nurturers.
Utter madness.
“4.8 inches shorter and 31.7 pounds lighter...”
Advantage females in combat! Smaller target, lighter and more easily removed from battle field after becoming casualties. Can carry 5 women off in chopper only capable or carrying 4 men.
And their junk is not out in the way when one needs a quick upper thigh tourniquet to stop the bleeding.
And they do not eat as much and take unnecessary risks.
I’d present the feminist argument against you, except their current argument is that women are so weak and frail and unable to fend for themselves that they need the mostly-male legislators in our federal government to pass special laws that provide special protection for women.
Because everybody apparently knows that a woman needs a good man to keep her safe. At least when we are talking about violence against women.
Not a gun, mind you. It would be too dangerous to let a woman have a gun, they should use whistles. And go to college, where there isn’t any real rape, just “date rape” which every good democrat knows doesn’t really count.
AFAIK it was mandatory in former Soviet and Red German military since 1960s. Contributed to their birth and cancer rates greatly.
And heavily armed...
There is nothing quite like taking a military that is nearly 100% effective and turning it into one that is, oh, roughly 70% effective, if that.
No doubt the Chinese and the Islamists are licking their chops imagining the wealth and pleasures which await them when they finally crush our economy and destroy our military and take over a pussyfied America. The first thing they will do after purging our population of all but their necessary remaining slaves will be to drill and frack our immense riches of oil and gas for their economies.
In the 70s, the hardcore lesbo feminists were pushing “menstrual extraction,” some horrible act that terminated a woman’s period. These women are crazy and our army is now officially CRAZY.
In the 70s, the hardcore lesbo feminists were pushing “menstrual extraction,” some horrible act that terminated a woman’s period. These women are crazy and our army is now officially CRAZY.
It’s crazinesss, but it’s not the Army’s idea. The Army doesn’t want this.
They must follow the orders of their civilian bosses and the CIC, who, during Clinton’s term, Clinton, being the CIC, was a guy who could have adulterous relations in his office.
Any military maember is rightfully fired-at least- for doing so.
WE citizens just really forget about the chain of command.
Have a confidential chat with any army recruit or officer about this. You’ll see it’s not the Army who is crazy.
These are atrocious substitutes for the physical strength and stamina needed in battle and which women lack. The whole idea of women in combat is part of the anti-America, anti-God evil of the Left. Leftists seek to de-humanize by denying God-given differences, while undermining national defense.
If women can be in the Infantry, then why should they be treated like second-class citizens by the Selective Service? All women should be forced to register with the Selective Service. We should also apply the principles of Affirmative Action in this matter. In the draft, women should receive preferential treatment and automatically receive higher draft numbers. The Infantry should be at least 60% female to correct the injustice that women have been forced to endure by not getting shot in the head. And no exemptions for pregnancy or children. If Uncle Sam wanted you to have a child, he would have issued you one. It is time that we men stood back and let the women enjoy all the glamour, high pay and special privileges that the Infantry provides. Just remember ladies, when that bayonet rips open your guts to be sure and thank the Democrats. You keep voting for them.
Every point she makes is a straw man.
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.