Posted on 07/01/2020 11:58:05 AM PDT by bgill
There are plenty of positions in the military that women can do well, but infantry, artillery, etc. is not among them.
I have no issues with logistical support, medical support, etc, but the dirty and gritty parts need to be done by the meanest, nastiest, strongest, toughest, people we can find.
Not her personally, but the concept in general. This is a distinction that you and others like you are deliberately ignoring.
She is simply the latest example of this folly. It is the policy which is wrong, and it is the policy which should be changed.
This is the equivalent of what you have done here...
No it isn't. You are trying to put your words into my mouth.
Women have always been in the military, as cooks, washer women, nurses, supply and camp followers “Hookers” They just—with a few exceptions—didn’t fight. When Mehamed II captured Constantinople—in the final attack—all fought, women too. Many cases of prostitutes with the French Foreign Legion picked up arms when outposts were attacked by Riff tribesmen in North Africa. Attempts to form combat units with women has not worked well for the USSR and Israel. Women have done well as pilots and in the many office roles in the Modern armed forces. In truth, women are too important to risk in combat.
As a mother of a 20 something daughter, i can tell you some are still so young and naive, even with a college degree. This one barely out of high school. No chance against a career Sargeant Major.
The military should take women under the same rules they used in WWII.
If they are in all women units, most of the troubles will evaporate.
a large number of jobs in the military do not require extraordinary endurance or power. We have always had less-physically-capable soldiers who did jobs that needed to be done, and in the modern army, these jobs sometimes make up the majority of the “fighting force”.
The suggestion that a female shouldn’t be the secretary that handles a commander’s work schedule because other soldiers will assault or kill her seems off, and I don’t think you are suggesting that only a muscle-bound 6-foot male could answer a telephone.
If they are in all women units, most of the troubles will evaporate.
Rush had this idea years ago....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahPwlOOKedg
And apparently, those women in the positions where they can do well, you think we need to hide them from the men, because their very existence, you say, tempts men to rape and kill them.
But Rush didn’t say this was right, or excuse the men for being reprobates. He was simply noting that there are reprobates, and that offering reprobates an easy opportunity, in cases where the men and women are put in common bunks on deployment in close quarters, made the reprobate’s job easier.
In this case, the woman is on a military base filled with men and women, has her own dorm, showers, bathrooms. This is no different than a college campus, and somehow we expect college boys to not rape and kill girls at college.
Sure, if she had a female commander, and was kept hidden, she might still be alive. But the person who killer her, was probably going to kill somebody at some time, because you don’t become a killer through temptation, you ARE a killer who gives in to temptation.
I feel for the poor and those who lack opportunity more so than most on this site, i'd wager, but I do not regard the military as a social program. It should not be used as a social program.
We should have the most effective war fighters we are able to find, and we should not be focusing on "equality" in order to accomplish this task.
I don't have an answer as to what to do about the problem of poor people seeking a living in areas that lack opportunity, but I believe our military should be kept as strong as possible, even if that requires denying some people opportunities to advance themselves.
Yes, i'm a terrible person. Just terrible.
I simply do not believe that the vast majority of women are physically capable of beating up average males. I simply consider this to be an acknowledgement of reality.
You can believe whatever you like. You can speak for yourself. Please don't try to speak for me. I didn't say what you said.
Thank you. I was perhaps a little rough in making my point, but the point is valid none the less.
I have knowledge of this sort of thing beyond what we see in this particular story. There have been plenty of examples where men had to pick up the slack to carry the women assigned to them. They don't dare complain about it, but it has happened quite a lot.
The military should not be a social program, or an "experiment." We now have enough data to make accurate decisions on the matter, and the data says it's a bad idea to mix men and women in combat forces.
At the end of they day a lot of stuff comes down to this: Dogs are dogs and cats are cats they both behave accordingly. You are foolish to expect otherwise because God made them that way.
Pretty d@mn sure. People will do whatever they think will help keep them from getting killed.
I think it's disgusting that he killed this girl, might have raped her, I dunno, I hadn't heard that for sure, but there have been some godawful bastards in military history that were good at fighting the enemy.
So would Sargent Robinson have been a good soldier if this hadn't happened? I don't know, but I think we've had just as bad and worse that made good soldiers. And by "good soldiers" I mean someone who advances their nation's war fighting effort.
And putting him in a supervisory capacity over a female soldier is "creating temptation"?!?!?
Bill Clinton. Harvey Weinstein. Bill Cosby.
You get some of the bottom of the barrel in the military too. Again, if we could weed them out, we would, but we can't, so the only thing we can do is take other steps to keep them away from temptation.
So how do you feel about "gay" scoutmasters? Share your thoughts on this point.
In the corporate world, sure. But in the military you can’t just resign, and, this was a impressionable young person far junior in rank. Her superiors had a duty of care to set the example and not cave to impulse, and they failed her.
The selfie glamour shot in her “combat uniform” says it all.
From the tone of your first post I am guessing there are a few “missing” females in YOUR past. Know what I’m saying?
By your logic apparently, if a gay scoutmaster harassed and killed the scout, the scout should be blamed for creating the condition for temptation.
This is my understanding as well.
In truth, women are too important to risk in combat.
And that last is a point that has long been forgotten. A nation needs people in order to be strong, and women are the only ones that can fill that need.
Societies have gone for thousands of years protecting the women because they create the next generation, without which no country can survive.
This business of deliberately putting them at risk is a modern bunch of foolishness. It is contrary to human nature. I believe one of the reasons the Israelis have discovered as to why putting women into combat units is a bad idea is because the men would do stupid things in order to protect them.
They would take unnecessary risks, and this would end up getting more men killed than would have occurred otherwise.
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.