What Kind Of Nation Sends Women Into Combat?

LewRockWell ^ | April 11, 2003 | R. Cort Kirkwood

[Kenno]

Well, like the old statement about a stopped clock...

Hell, they even managed to avoid cheap shots at Pfc. Lynch. I'm impressed.

[Support Free Republic]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Spruce]

My daughter's 16th birthday was 09/11/2001. She will be reporting to boot camp 1 week after she graduates high school this summer. Wild horses couldn't stop this young woman from doing what she thinks is right. God bless her!

[electron1]

This is also what a friend of mine wrote on the subject,

Biologically, emotionally and physically men were made to fight other men. Women simply don’t have this make-up. If I were under enemy fire for a prolonged period of time I certainly wouldn’t want to be surrounded by a bunch of women, who would probably end up shrieking and crying. I saw a tv program a while back on women going through basic training in the British army and it seemed like every ten minutes one woman or another would break down crying. It was ridiculous.

I don’t think I need to say much about the physical strength differences between men and women, but if I were lying out in a battlefield injured and had to be dragged off, I certainly wouldn’t be able to rely on a woman to do that.

You don’t have to look much further than a man’s eyes to realize that it’s in his biological nature to fight. Men’s eyes are sunken into their head to protect them during fights, while women’s eyes bulge out more.

Violence and killing simply comes much easier to men. Look at chimpanzees – something like 98% the same genetic make-up as man. And when one chimp troop begins to harass another chimp troop the males get together and silently sneak into the other camp and let loose with some chimpanzee whoop-ass. It's something to read about - it almost reads like a special forces assault.

Interestingly, I saw a report not more than a couple weeks ago that found that having men who’ve been through battle and have post traumatic stress syndrome sit around and talk about it in a therapy-like atmosphere aggravates the situation to no end. That’s the female way to do things – sit around and talk. The normal male response of simply shutting your mouth, sticking the memories in the back of your mind, and getting on with life is the best recourse for men.

I would also doubt that many soldiers would take orders from women in the midst of a firefight. I imagine that most grunts on the ground would have absolutely no confidence in a woman’s ability to conduct a battle. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. The perception exists. I very much doubt that a high pitched voice would carry much authority during a pitched battle. Homosexuals are kicked out of the military, to a large degree, because men in battle will not listen to someone who is not truly a man.

For much the same reasons, when you get on a plane, you know as well as I, that both men and women want to hear a man’s voice coming over that intercom when the captain comes on to speak. Rightly or wrongly, I think a majority of people would feel less comfortable and confident if they knew a woman was flying the plane. When I’m driving a car and somebody in front of me does something stupid, I naturally assume it’s a woman and 9 times out of 10 I’m right. There has to be a confidence level between the people in a combat unit and throwing women in there will lessen that level greatly.

So putting women in combat is stupid. Women were never meant to fight in battle. There is nothing about women that would ever indicate they have any sort of inherent inclination towards fighting and war. And because having women in combat roles is simply wrong for so many reasons, and because combat is such an important and grave matter, I would say that having women in combat is, in fact, morally wrong.

I appreciate women to no end, but I'm not about to subscribe to things that I consider fundamentaly erroneous simply because of political correctness.

Personal experience has repeatedly demonstrated to me that men are better drivers than women. It's a scientific fact that men have reflexes way above and beyond that of women. They are better able to react to fluid situation than are women. Men are generally right-brained creatures while women are left-brained. People with more devleoped right-brain functionality are better at operating machinery.

Men also have much better spatial abilities than women, i.e. men are much better able to quickly judge and react to unfolding traffic situations. Hence, men are better drivers than women. But we all knew that anyway. (well, at least I did)

It's a scientific fact that women are far more emotional than men.

[The Westerner]

Thank you for posting this article. I liked the point that even though men will have to be desensitized to the women among them, that will never happen, as long as good parents raise children. Though I am not Christian, nor even religious, I agree with this author. It is somehow a decline of Western Civilization to send women to be soldiers among men.

The only exception I can think of is tiny Israel, but I have not heard of women in battle there either. With apologies to that exceptional woman pilot who brought in the shot-up A-10 Warthog (?) this week, I still think, in principle, that women do not belong in combat or on ships.

[steelmagnolia2]

Wow, you must have been around a bunch of "hot house roses," or spoiled little brats that cried when they broke a fingernail. In the real world--not some imaginary version of a macho wannabe's fantasy land--men talk about stuff. Things that happen in their life get talked about, and they gossip, and they whine, and they whimper. I have always thought women were really the tough ones, especially after working as the only woman in my department at a steel mill. I have always heard that women make better welders, crane operators, and heavy equipment operators because we have better eye-to-hand co-ordination. I probably run a backhoe better than 90% of most men who 'think' they can run one.

It's a scientific fact that men are more "emotional" than women. Men's emotions that come from Testosterone are far more apt to be out of control. Rage, revenge, jealousy, and fear are all emotions that are acted out with irrational aggression. Women, on the other hand, can be trained in the military to use a more rational aggression, the type more useful for military combat.

By the way, I am a normal, married hetero female, of athletic build and have no tatoos and all my teeth! Also, I do not dip!

[electron1]

As the guy said, the statistics he gave are "known facts". Even by the opposing side.

[dcwusmc]

Post-conflict BUMP.

As a retired Marine and Vietnam vet, I tend to strongly agree with this article... for all the reasons given. Plus the simple biological fact that after a war which decimates a country's male population, that population can ONLY be restored by women who are of an age to bear children... the very age group that would be sent off to fight in this very PC nation. As insensitive as it may seem, one rooster is all it takes for a flock of hens, one bull to a herd of cows, one male lion to a pride of females... not that one man should service multiple women... perhaps guys who are about to head off to combat should make donations to sperm banks or something. But if we kill off the womenfolks, just exactly HOW would the nation reproduce and refill the lost population? THAT, IMO, is the ultimate argument against putting women in combat. And has been since time began. Women are the NURTURERS and the child BEARERS... as designed by Nature's God... Men are the protectors and providers... by design. In some areas, it doesn't MATTER that the lines blur. In war, it matters greatly.

[RealEstateEntrepreneur]

Good God, man, are you completely out of touch with the reality?

Your argument is wholly based on our country losing a substantial portion of our male population.

Are you living in the 1940's?

[dcwusmc]

And your point is???

My argument is made based on history, biology and human nature. The fact is that such thinking as yours appears to be is so myopic as to make massive conflict inevitable. You are too used to low-casualty, quick live-fire exercises against ill-trained, unmotivated troops. Thus, you accept them happening as often as the president might desire. It's too video gamish. However, if such things continue to happen, we will soon run up against an opponent who IS well trained and motivated... and then what? Would we just give up? Or do we fight to the finish? If we posit that conflict and war are inevitable and prepare properly, part of that includes looking at "worst case" scenarios, including massive casualties among our MEN. And looking at women as being the only ones capable of helping to restore the population in such a case. THAT is reality. Wishful thinking is insanity... and that is what your post implies about you... you are engaged in wishful thinking without considering the consequences of it. So women have NO PLACE in combat. Period, end of story.

Not to mention that putting women in such units exacts a price from the spouses of those who have to deploy with them. Can you imagine what it would be like to know that your spouse is aboard a ship with a mixed crew? Where they are at sea for months at a time? Where fraternization is INEVITABLE? What do you suppose YOU'D think in such a situation? Such things have no place in our armed forces. No matter HOW un-PC or 1940's thinking it is. THAT is reality. YOU are dreaming, if your post was not sarcasm.

[RealEstateEntrepreneur]

Modern warfare also includes nuclear weapons. No scenario ever has us sending tens of millions of men into conventional combat.

Also, the RLC is about respecting individual choice. The women in the military choose it, and you don't hear them complaining. They love it and defend their position in it--as do their families.

But you'd rather impose your authoritarian moral thinking on them.

[dcwusmc]

Did you actually READ the article? If not, try reading it and THEN comment.

[RealityShot]

Ive lived in Va Beach, Va for 20 years. I come from a military family where all men served in either the marines or Army and many saw combat. Living in the Norfolk area, i am surrounded daily by military personnel and military families. Most are Navy. Not to say that they dont exist, but I dont know a single woman, who hasnt complained about serving and strongly states they will put in their 4 years and get out. When Lynch was rescued, they did not send in a team of women to rescue her. It was men. And I guarentee, it was on their mind that this POW was a young Girl.

[dark_lord]

This again.

Yeah, women are lousy combat infantryman. Truth. Tell it to the air farce. Basically every land based US mainland air force role can be filled by women. And big surprise -- there are tons of rear echelon positions in the US army in the US that aren't ever going overseas. Mainly pick, pack, ship, and paperwork.

[poet]

"there are tons of rear echelon positions"

The post is about women, not gays in the military 8>)

[Voice in your head]

I would be suprised if the author of this piece, or your friend whom you quoted in post #5, were in the military. The reason that I say that is that the author(s) seem to have the common, but incorrect, belief that the military is a bunch of infantry, armor, artillery, and special forces units. The Army has many units that do not have combat functions. They are combat support or combat service support units, such as quartermasters, adjutants, medical personnel, finance personnel, lawyers, etc. Women do not belong in the ranks of the special forces, infantry, armor, field artillery, combat engineers, or combat medics and they do not serve in those positions. Women are welcome to serve in other positions. What is the problem?

[GigaDittos]

During WWII women served in certain non-combat positions in the military. That's as far as it should go. I don't give a d@mn what the feminists think about the military. Their only concern is politics, not the security of our nation. In GENERAL, women are more emotionally sensitive and physically weaker than men, and THAT'S part of what makes them so attractive. If you're a real man, then you know the protective instinct you feel toward women. Imagine you're in a foxhole with Michelle Pfeifer with bullets flying. If you're a real man, I don't have to say another word to you. Another thing, a fighter needs to be physically strong and have an ass-kicking mentality....so the feminists and intellectually dishonest people need to stop BSing themselves and get the hell out of the way.

I'll tell you what kind of nation sends women into combat, one that surrenders to bullsh$t!

[Indie]

I'll tell you what kind of nation sends women into combat, one that surrenders to bullsh$t!

Good post.
It's also the same kind of country that allows its courts to pass laws (I know I said "pass laws" /sarcasm) and shred the Constitution unimpeded, by allowing the deaths of 40 million people by abortionists.
That is forty million..and growing. What's wrong with this picture?

[Centennial]

Well if you think this idea was /is bad just wait until Hillary makes it to the White House. Things will get really strange. She is the single person most responsible for this stupid idea of women in combat. Generations from now when sanity has returned people are going to wonder "what were they thinking?"