Posted on 11/30/2024 7:39:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
With Senator Tammy Duckworth prioritizing her radical Democrat social policies about women being equal to men in combat, she demonstrates that she is disingenuous, “flat-out wrong,” and “inordinately unqualified” to be a senator or representative of the people at any level.
Pete Hegseth, on the other hand, has shown great courage by sharing the truth, in a world of false narratives: “I’m straight-up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated.”
Hegseth’s on-the-record position confirms that he is committed to the mission of the military, which is to fight and win wars. Everything else is irrelevant. By taking a bold stand in this woke world, he proves to all that he is exactly the person we need as the secretary of defense.
A fair point: If you acknowledge that men have an unfair advantage over women in sports, you’ve got to recognize the same in combat.
Duckworthless is a disgrace to the uniform she once wore.
Anyone wondering whether women should be in combat should watch a season of “American Ninja Warrior”. Men and women compete on absolutely equal terms. The men’s performance greatly exceeds the women’s; it’s not even close.
RE: If you acknowledge that men have an unfair advantage over women in sports, you’ve got to recognize the same in combat.
Well, if a woman can PROVE herself equal or better than a man in combat ( think Wonder Woman), I have no objections to her participating in combat ( that is, if they can find one ).
My question is always this — CAN THEY DO THE JOB WITHOUT THE MILITARY HAVING TO LOWER ITS STANDARDS? If the answer is yes — knock yourself out.
Actually, the one, rare, woman who could equal a qualifying man in direct combat would so, as Hegseth says, “complicate” things in practicality in the field that I don’t think it would be worth it.
A relative who spent time downrange in Afghanistan was very much not in favor of some of the adverse personnel dynamics that women downrange caused.
I encourage people who believed in G.I. Jane horse apples to read the Marine folio histories of the WWII island campaigns at Project Gutenberg. They’re succinct, free, and anyone who reads about the details of that combat, who thinks women have a place there, is an idiot.
Pretty much everything in this link:
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=World+War+II+marines&submit_search=Search
And all the ones less capable cause those same problems. And see my prior comment.
The ultimate test? Can they carry their wounded comrade out of the combat zone? If they can’t we don’t need them.
BTTT
To kill people and break things.
We just need to look at there number of men becoming fake women to participate in real women’s sports versus the other way around. I can’t think of a single woman who pretended to be a man and played against real men who took home a trophy or a scholarship.
The same is true in combat.
About women in combat ... there’s no safe place on the modern battlefield. The fuel and ammo truck drivers who supplied our tanks making their way to Baghdad were as exposed to enemy fire as the tankers were. Plus, they didn’t have several inches of armor.
As for being abused upon capture, don’t kid yourself, the scum that disregard Geneva and abuse our female soldiers abuse our male soldiers as well.
The valid reason to keep women out of most combat units such as infantry is that few could meet the standard, and putting one or two exceptional women who meet the standard wouldn’t be fair to those women. They would tend to be singled out.
We should follow the example of the Israelis. They have a lot of experience in the matter and absolutely cannot pursue “gender equality” at the expense of national defense.
Putting qualified women in units like military police and air defense would have the result of a good number of service members in those units being women. So, those women wouldn’t be singled out.
Bottom line: don’t lower standards plus, if only a few women would qualify for certain units, reserve those units for men and concentrate qualifying women in combat and combat support units so they reach a critical mass in those units.
It is called social engineering and it is not what the military needs. Yes the female counterparts can contribute but it does complicate the situation. People who have never been in a war zone are clueless. Some like Peggy push the agenda due to their own shortcomings. Peggy was mediocre at best and look what it cost her. Next is the living accommodations are not conducive to females. It takes some segregation and restraint to pull this off. When you have all male force you just throw them in the field and they figure it out. Not that it cannot be done but there is a cost for all this ideological dream that takes away from the war fight.
See how quickly they cease their Communist puppet attacks on "The Patriarchy".
Let them have skin in the game instead of enjoying the privileges of the most generous lifestyle in the history of the world. If they don't like it, they can go live in a country where they're treated like domestic animals.
“Frankly, America’s daughters are just as capable of defending liberty and freedom as her sons.”
—Senator Tammy Duckworth
No Tammy, you are wrong and your opinion is based on emotion. Can anyone imagine an all female unit in any of our nations battles, facing an all male enemy?
Tammy, For extra credit please tell us why there are no women in the NFL. Or an ultra competitive college football. There are no rules keeping them all out.
They are excellent nurses and doctors. So we should have them in segregated units and they can serve.
Women in combat is social engineering like you said.
It’s not even about whether an individual woman can do the job or not. Their very presence degrades the overall performance of a unit of males. Just because somebody can find an Amazon woman who can run marathons at Cetera. They make the unit weaker. They upset the natural order. You don’t take young 19 and 20 year old testosterone filled males and make them follow the shrill voice of a female yelling at them. And the reality of what happens is that women in the unit argue with each other, compete for the attention of high status males, and anytime things get really bad, they get pregnant and go home. It’s a horrifically stupid idea to put them in there whether they can meet the standard or not .
A couple of years ago the Marines did a very tightly planned and controlled experiment where they compare the performance of all male infantry units, female infantry units, and mixed units. The results were completely unambiguous that all male units are more effective and deadly in every way.
Maybe she meant in other roles, like espionage etc.
If not, she’s either blind or crazy.
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.