Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/14/2003 6:25:13 PM PDT by electron1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: electron1
Well, like the old statement about a stopped clock...

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

2 posted on 04/14/2003 6:28:37 PM PDT by Kenno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All

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!

3 posted on 04/14/2003 6:30:31 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: electron1
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!
4 posted on 04/14/2003 6:32:08 PM PDT by Spruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
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.

5 posted on 04/14/2003 6:38:01 PM PDT by electron1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: electron1
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.
6 posted on 04/14/2003 6:40:30 PM PDT by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: electron1
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.

15 posted on 07/25/2003 5:17:11 PM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: electron1
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?
17 posted on 10/07/2003 4:46:14 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: electron1
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?"
20 posted on 12/06/2003 4:02:16 PM PST by Centennial (It is later than you think....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: electron1
What kind of nation sends men into combat?
24 posted on 02/09/2004 1:35:03 PM PST by Sloth (It doesn't take 60 seats to control the Senate; it only takes 102 testicles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: electron1
What Kind Of Nation Sends Women Into Combat?

One that lost the culture war at home.

Regards

J.R.

25 posted on 02/11/2004 4:51:40 PM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: electron1

Israel?


26 posted on 01/12/2015 10:30:51 AM PST by morphing libertarian (defund Obama care and amnesty. Impeach for Benghazi and IRS and fast and furious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson