Posted on 01/15/2019 10:18:21 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It is well established that enemy snipers target smaller figures, anticipating they’re women, and knowing that other targets will rush to her aid.
“At the time, we were assured that female recruits would have to meet the same physical standards as their male counterparts.”
I remember the very first words out of their mouths were “standards will not be lowered.”
When I heard that I knew plans were in place to lower standards.
The military seems to have concluded that the next war will be won in a UAV command center in Nevada and all the other stuff is window dressing to keep the tax dollars flowing. Maybe they are right...
All human life depends upon the profound differences between the sexes.
We’re done.
The biggest thing I noticed was not that most of the females would quit both physically and mentally before most of the men, but that when it happened, the best of the men get all chivalrous about it rendering the unit down not 1-2 Marines, but 3-4. These were always the best of the men, incapacitated at the sight of a crying/hurt/panicking/whining female. Heroes neutered.
Thank you. So many, even at FR, seem not to get this. A country that sees nothing wrong with sending women into combat is a country detached from what it means to be human. Countries like that are not worth fighting for.
I completely agree with that. Soldiers are trained to carry out the mission, even as their fellow soldiers are cut down all around them. You continue on with the mission and let the medics deal with the casualties.
However, women change that whole dynamic. Just as women are wired to protect their children at all costs, men are similarly wired to protect their women. I cannot envision a battlefield scenario where I leave a woman behind who has been seriously hurt. My first instinct will be to help and protect her.
"Women in Combat-A Question of Standards" by Jude Eden
Jude Eden was a female Marine who just lays out the truth. (I think the article was from 2015 and discusses charges by a female Marine 1st Lt. Sage Santangello in the Washington Post who alleged women are discouraged from meeting the physical standards...which Jude Eden debunks thoroughly.)
The main reason why women traditionally were not soldiers is that women carry babies and become mothers. Motherhood occupies a woman’s time full time for years!
Women are not optimized for battle.
The military is run by a$$holes for lowering the standards to please feminazis.
And that assumes we win. We're definitely degrading the combat effectiveness of these units.
A country that sees nothing wrong with sending women into combat is a country detached from what it means to be human.
I sort of agree. My niece was an Army nurse in Mosul. She came home with PTSD after seeing horrifically burned bodies and such in the emergency room. Then she got a civilian job, got married, had children. She is overly protective of her kids and still has nightmares of war. A woman who is going to be carrying and nurturing life should perhaps not see horrors like this. She should be protected from this. It is important for her family’s well-being, not only her own.
And here is why, in my opinion, Clinton should have been impeached:
Abuse Of Power. (The Presidential role with respect to the military, was never intended to be to promote Egalitarian day dreams.)
Check out this article, written by a female Marine. It is VERY well written and unsparing.
"...Meanwhile, the argument to maintain the combat exclusion makes itself easily in every aspect...including women in combat units is bad for combat, bad for women, bad for men, bad for children, and bad for the country. The argument for the combat exclusion is provable all the time, every time. Political correctness has no chance against Nature. Her victories are staring us in the face at all times. The men just keep being able to lift more and to run faster, harder, and longer with more weight on their backs while suffering fewer injuries. They just keep never getting pregnant. The combat units have needs that women cannot meet. Women have needs that life in a combat unit cannot accommodate without accepting significant disadvantage and much greater expense. Where 99 percent of men can do the heavy-lifting tasks typical of gunners, but 85 percent of women cannot, there is no gap women need to fill..."
That pretty much sums it up.
The left WANTS the women to be raped. And they WISH they could be the ones to do it. Then they could do their next favorite thing, order the women to get abortions.
Agreed, but the strongest argument of all is that the Chivalric code, which this combat integration rejects, is what brings out the “above & beyond” aspect of male heroism. Losing that incentive is irrparable.
As a woman, I completely agree. Our male soldiers do not need to be distracted on the battlefield. Female soldiers do that, no question.
I agree, just came at that from another perspective. Agree completely.
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.