Posted on 01/04/2014 7:31:55 AM PST by NKP_Vet
There are three different types of ideas: good ideas, bad ideas, and ideas so horrifically stupid that they will be mocked and scorned by our descendants for centuries to come.
Modern left-wingers typically trade in the second sort of idea, while occasionally conjuring up something that unquestionably falls into the third category.
Speaking of which, there’s this.
After discovering that half of the female Marines can’t meet the minimum physical fitness requirements, usually failing to do three pull-ups, the Corps has decided to delay the standards. This is all part of the process of “equalizing” physical requirements so as to integrate women into combat roles.
Here we have a horrible idea, stacked on top of a bewilderingly idiotic idea, poured over a collection of reckless, ideologically-fueled, irrational, liberal feminist ideas. Basically, an insane idea had sexual relations with a moronic idea and the two gave birth to this idea.
In other words, I disagree.
(Excerpt) Read more at themattwalshblog.com ...
I am a woman and live in my active duty Navy Commander Son-in-Law’s home. I totally agree with you. Never should we send our women to war.
Way to go Matt!
Democrats want women to be able to murder their unborn, up through 9 months of pregnany and also to die in front line combat roles just like a man. But it’s the Republican Party that suppossedly has a “war on women”. Go figure.
You and me both brother.
Bookmark
Don’t forget Russia.Their women snipers were pretty effective in WW2.
Instinct runs deeper than love. Nor can instinct be trained out.
I have used a similar argument against having homosexuals in the military. The leftist argument is that it is more important to have homosexuals in the military than it is to have those who are “homopsychotic”. Wrong again.
Again, possibly with the rare exception, homosexuals will never be good warriors. As such, having an entire company or battalion full of homosexuals is worth less than a squad of real warriors in a fight.
So what the left is saying is simple: “Diversity in the military is more important than either mission accomplishment *or* protecting the lives of military personnel.”
This is no surprise, given their contemptuous attitude that “people join the military because they are too dumb for minimum wage jobs.” And its axiom, that any ghetto gang-banger scum can be given a Glock .40 and ammo, and be *just* as effective as a trained soldier.
i’m trying to picture today’s marine that cannot do 3 pushups landing at omaha beach...
freakin insanity
why are we allowing this? why haven’t we surrounded the fedgov in washdc, started banging pots & pans and thrown the bums out like they did in iceland?
Our feminized and homosexualized military will be routed.
Gay men are incapable of fighting? Too bad you weren’t around to inform Spartan soldiers of that.
The women in the service could do pull ups if they did enough PT.
If they don’t have enough discipline to be doing what it takes, its on them.
There are men who have to run more and work out more to stay in shape. They either do what is required or they get tossed out. The physical standard should be the same across the board for the Marine Corps.
Women do not really belong in deploy-able MOS fields period. Not even if they are not sent to combat. That is a separate issue.
If women can not be sent to combat then during war time, then they fill up choice billets like Kaneohe Bay. That means that those billets are not available for combat troops between tours. They wind up not “Freeing a man to fight”, but reducing the possibilities for downtime.
So if they are going to be in those fields they need to be sent into combat too. Yes, even if they die. We don’t have a draft, no one made them sign up, and if they die then they died of their own choosing. Just make them meet the same standard as everyone else if they are going to be there.
I don’t suppose there are too many people I have not offended with this post.
But what I posted is the truth.
I disagree. When the defecation hits the ventilation, combat Marines and soldiers will take care of any problem queers in very short order. Always have, always will. And don't forget that homosexuals comprise less than 2% of the population, so I don't expect a great number of them to pour into infantry units. The problem shouldn't exist, but the troops will take care of it in combat.
Women are a different and far more destructive problem altogether, and an increasingly systemic one. Their sheer numbers have already degraded training standards and operational effectiveness, as planners must take into account - without daring to admit - the inability of women to perform vital physical tasks at the level of even the weakest males. And let's not kid ourselves - the weakest males are slaughtered in ground combat. So the bureaucrats surge ahead, determined to insert women into the most brutal environment of infantry combat, where battles are won by the application of sheer force and ferocious brutality by the very strongest and most aggressive males. There is no way to overstate the horror of close combat, or the total unfitness of women to engage in it.
It pains me to see naive American parents proudly send their daughters to the Army and the Corps as if they were real soldiers or Marines. They are not. Though these fine young ladies may wear the same uniforms and earn the same pay and even thrive in the artificially rigged, gender-neutral environments where their physical weaknesses are masked or ignored, they are not the same as the males who are actually capable of and ultimately must fulfill the fundamental duties of soldiers and Marines. We were honest when WACs and Women Marines were recognized for filling support roles that didn't require the full qualification of soldiers and Marines.
If anyone thinks this argument sounds "sexist" or misanthropic, he should witness close quarter combat with hands, feet, knives and clubs, in which many strong men are killed. Even without life and death on the line, the National Football League does not field girls - and everyone knows why. Americans are fooling themselves with this dangerous fantasy of a feminized military. They are fooling a generation of American girls into believing they can do things they clearly cannot, and they are they are fooling the American people into believing that a feminized military can win desperate and protracted wars against our strongest and most determined enemies.
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=7487
The Ancient Spartans were not homosexuals. This is a modern myth. Sparta was a very unique place in the Greek world, and comparisons to the rest of Greece at the time may not be particularly useful. This is not to say that other Greeks were homosexual either. It’s not true either, but there was diversity within the Greek world with regard to sexual mores, as with other aspects of culture. Different thought they were, the Spartans were still thoroughly Greek. When a Spartan male youth was old enough to begin their 13 year long training to become a Spartan soldier (a hoplite) and ultimately a citizen, they were paired with an older partner, a hoplite solder who had already successful completed their training. This was, I think, around the age of eight. This was to become the most important relationship in the lives of both partners. The older partner served as a mentor to the younger, encouraging them in their training. The two would also fight side by side in the Spartan phalanx in battle, the older providing an example of skill and courage the younger sought to emulate while the younger strive to earn the respect of the other partner. It was expected that this relationship would have a sexual aspect, but it was certainly not what we today would consider homosexual or pedophilia. First, the sex probably took place when the youth was in puberty and becoming aware of themselves sexually and the sex would have occurred in the context of simply learning the physical mechanics of sex. Second, it was inter-femoral sex, ie. “between the legs.” The Ancient Greeks actually regarded anal sex as; well, nasty, for obvious reasons. The Greeks, like the Romans, were fanatical about personal hygene. Someone on the receiving end of anal sex would have been viewed as dishonorable (a slave, for example) and this was not something that the Spartans would have wanted to instill in their future warriors. In fact, most sex discussed in the ancient world (Greeks and Romans) between men and boys was inter-femoral, although not all. Third, when the time came, the role of the older was to find a wife for the younger partner. Obviously, this is not modern homosexuality but something very unique and peculiar to Spartan society in Ancient Greece and it served to heighten the bond between two men who would fight together in the heat of battle. In fact, it symbolizes the degree to which the Ancient Greeks so elevated the masculine over the feminine that it took a man to instruct a man in every area of life. The masculine virtues of reason, courage and fortitude were celebrated as supreme and the feminine vices of emotion, frightfulness and sensuality were shunned. Far from being modern, effeminate homosexuals, the Ancient Greeks, were the ultimate “manly” men, almost to the point of misogyny.
I say, put your actions where your mouth is. Join up and volunteer for combat arms, pass selection, and show us proof YOU can do this! You can do the job, can't you? If not, why are you relevant?
If you could magically be transferred back to ancient Sparta, I would love to see what would happen if you called a Spartan Hoplite a homosexual.
They also did not run around dressed like pro wrestlers either.
And exactly HOW MANY females are able to pass the selection criteria for Infantry, Armor, or Artillery? Canada, the last I heard, had exactly THREE females that passed selection for Infantry and none of them were actively serving in that job.
Training requirements must not be watered down to qualify Suzie Soldier into combat arms. You put both sexes in deadly danger because Suzie thinks she can do a job she really cannot do. Combat is an equal opportunity killer and not a resume enhancement or fast track to promotion. You must be alive to get the promotion or enjoy the resume enhancement. Besides, this is about putting females in officer slots; enlisted females rarely harbor such ambitions.
In world record sports, men don't just run a little faster than the best women runners in the world, they run a lot faster, as in 20 minutes faster in finish. Same thing with weight lifting. They don't just beat the best women in the world by a little bit, they beat them by a lot.
We women have our strengths in other areas, ones that guys can't touch. They need us to thrive as much as we need them. Combat is their job. We have a different one, whether we like it or not.
I say the "women" who pursue combat status are girls. Real women know when they're in the way of men's business.
Harrrrumph!
No doubt he has.
A useful idiot for the deliberate sabotage of our military, programming it to lose the next major conflict.
Submarine warfare is screwed until our enemies start manning their sub crews with girls -- er, "women."
It's no accident, nor a simple absurdity of leftist fantasies. It's sabotage.
The woman you describe in that post was no lady!
“Second Female Marine: I don’t have a nail file on me but here’s some new mascara I just got at the PX. So you’ll look good in the infirmary when that handsome new Marine doctor checks you over………………..”
SEXIST !! The doctor could be a woman. (Only kidding,of course :-)...)
Good point!
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.