The price of affirmative action in combat units…
…is death.
Time to sacrifice on the sacred alter of equality of outcome for women.
[Hat tip: Artfldgr.]
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
…is death.
Time to sacrifice on the sacred alter of equality of outcome for women.
[Hat tip: Artfldgr.]
I had a dream about that once. In the dream, I was a special forces unit. We were tasked with very difficult jobs, with very little clearance for mistakes or flaws. Simply, things had work exactly, and we had to fit ourselves to the demands. We were sworn to do our task, regardless of how difficult it was or the costs, in many forms.
They forced a woman into our unit. Orders, you know. On our first mission with her, in the lead up, we all realized she would cause the mission to fail. She could not hump her and the extra gear we needed her to share out. Actually, she couldn’t lug just her own gear. We, the rest of us, could split out the rest of the gear, but not her gear on top of it. Trial after attempt on the mock course, she failed. She would not step aside, command would not pull her.
When we dropped into the zone, the rest of us, since mission was more than ourselves, all without having to discuss it, pulled out our arms and shot her. Gave her a quick burial, along with her gear, split up the rest of the gear, and continued with the mission. Sir.
The Left’s goals for this integration are as follows, from a combination of sources and historical deductions.
1. To infiltrate the military with Democrat loyal women that owe their promotions solely to the combat branches that were forced to allow them in, as part of a Democrat deal. This allows Democrat operatives to replace US combat leaders at all levels of the chain of command.
2. Puts more women at risk, thereby eliminating future American reproduction rates, similar to abortion.
3. Allows them to sabotage American foreign operations, in favor of Democrat led AQ terrorist allies and UN based corruption. By weakening American forces, it automatically improves the odds for Iran and AQ.
Well, interesting dreams Doom.
I have reported earlier, that I was involved in training the first three woman jet pilots in the Navy. Two were just fine; one of those exceptional. The third was “entitled” and never got over it, either in the Navy, or after with an airline. Needless to say that did not serve her at all well. Since then women have proven themselves as military and airline pilots.
Still, it pure nonsense to pretend that there are not significant differences in physical ability. Even elite women athletes tend to rank with average to above average men athletes at best, in the sports that are based on measurable criteria. Just finished four years of cheering for high school track, (twin grand son and grand daughter) and was able to watch some extremely accomplished girls; they could beat many boys, but their times did not rank with better male competition. Sorry ladies. There are many fields for which you are suited, but not all. Of course the other side of the coin applies as well–it is just that men generally accept that.
“The push to put women into combat is driven by an extreme, reality-challenged form of feminism.” National Review
Partially correct. The extreme feminists pushing for women in combat units are ideological fanatics willing to sacrifice however many men as are needed. However, those extreme feminists are but one category of the “useful idiots” that the hard core left is using as leverage to internally destroy America, the primary impediment to the Left’s totalitarian agenda.
Sabotaging America’s ability to defend itself is a fundamental strategy for the Left.
America’s extreme feminists are so cognitively dysfunctional as to be blind to a fundamental aspect of reality; the ‘rough men’ who stand ready to do violence upon their behalf are the only real barrier between those women and the barbarians. Thus, if they succeed in castrating America they will ensure their own enslavement to animals whose misogyny they cannot even imagine.
I can’t find a reference but I seem to recall reading the Israelis tried coed infantry units in the 1940s but the units had high casualty rates and men didn’t want to be in those units.
Geoffrey Britain:
It’s not just the “extreme” feminists. The class diversity, selective exclusion, and pro-choicers are prepared to sacrifice men, women, and babies, too; and earn a profit from resale of the last. As if parts trafficking is somehow less wicked than indiscriminate killing. Not even the military can claim the near perfect rate of collateral damage caused by Planned Parenthood et al.
I agree with the article and have always had a nearly visceral reaction to the idea of women in combat. Certainly, women can do other tasks in the military well, but front line combat is best left to men. And, as we know, not all men qualify for that as the military does have strict physical qualifications – or they did. Some barriers are there for a reason.
I am shocked that this just went through with hardly a whisper of objections. The military is the last place I thought would go to PC, but I guess, I was wrong.
We need a different Commander-in-Chief to change this but — possibly it is too late for now.
n,n.,
It wasn’t my intention to imply that ‘extreme feminists’ are a singular group on the left. The left is composed of many ideological groups but the primary determinate of the hard core left is IMO, their lust for power. Those individuals whose lust for power is their primary motivation inhabit every ideological group of which the Left is composed.
Why need men be put at risk? Entire special ops teams and regiments ought be made of women with female leadership. See how the separate but equal experiment turns out and then take it from there. What real woman would mind jettisoning the very Y that had been holding back, pulling down, X for millennia?
Now, and when she was in her 20s, I trust my wife to defend herself, me, and our family from violent assault. Now, and when she was in her 20s, I would be opposed to the very idea she was fit for front line combat duty. Y is on the right track, the goal is to weaken our combat readiness.
The U.S. women’s national soccer team is the best in the world, and they just won the women’s World Cup. They are superb athletes. To prepare for major competitions they sometimes scrimmage a boys U16 team to train for the superior speed and strength of the boys. The boys win.
Yes, and it hurts me as a career military NCO to say – no, woman in direct combat units will not work, for all the reasons that this article lists. Yes, women in military support, and even in units that might likely come into combat as my daughter did in her Marine unit in Kuwait/Iraq in 2003 – that will do. Women in specialized military support have been doing it since WWII — but the brute physical requirements are killing – there was an article a couple of months ago that I read from a female Marine officer who hung with the best and did her bit – but it wrecked her physical health. My daughter has a VA disability for life from an accident in which she collided at full run with a male colleague in an infantry retraining accident. He was one of those six-foot guys in full battle rattle, she was fit and experienced, also in full battle rattle – but she still bounced off him like a Smart Car off an 18-wheeler.
Yes, women can do lethal stuff in war – but not in the direct physical way.
Most women I know want none of this “equality” that is being pushed down everyone’s throats. They want “equality” insofar as they do not wish to be barred from educational or professional opportunities where physical differences between the sexes bear no inherent relevance to the task, but that is where it stops. It is clear that few, if any, women are physically suited for combat – and that it may just not be cost effective to specifically seek out those few to train them in the name of “diversity”.
Physically women cannot really do much – with the “tiny” exception of generating other humans, the process of which also comports risks and a sacrifice of its own. To each his own. Women are not “defective men”. Different forms of contribution, different forms of sacrifice, different standards – equal dignity.
Interestingly, most men I know cannot stomach “equality” (thus conceived) either. I have had some quite surreal conversations with young men my age. They decidedly do not want women in danger, they do not want to find themselves in a situation where their mere presence is a sort of complicity in that (e.g. being soldiers with women soldiers), and if an extraordinary situation were to arise, they would go to extraordinary lengths to save the women, “equality” and “feminism” be damned. Even if those women _demanded_ “equality” in danger, they would decline to give it to them.
Here, a woman willing to get in a wimpy boy’s face:
“You cut that out or you’re going home in an ambulance.”
Maybe Islam has a point ….
Old flyer points out that many women are good pilots and even though flying fighter or attack airplanes means pulling G’s, those who are mentally and physically suited can do it. After all pilots earn their living sitting in a chair. 🙂 Not exactly the same as humping 80 pounds of gear over hill and dale.
That said, who wants to be CO of a submarine on a 60 day patrol with 10% female crew? Women on even Navy surface ships have been a big detractor from good order and discipline. 30 days at sea for young men leads to extremely high hormone circulation. Put some females in that scenario and there is going to be “fraternization.”
Here’s how one study put it:
“In addition to a weaker fighting force, a highly sex-integrated military produces ever increasing pregnancies, (especially aboard ships at sea [because the ages of both sexes are conducive to sexual activity, women being in their child bearing years]). It can also lead to aberrations such as sadistic, pornographic photographs and videos that came out of Abu Grhaib. The first explanations of the prison abuse, incidentally, were that the co-ed guard staff was practically running a sex club right under the nose of their incompetent female commander, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski. Coincidence or design? You decide”.
Yup, I’m against women in infantry combat roles and as crew aboard combatant ships (including pilots on aircraft carriers). Just an old curmudgeon am I.
Liberty Wolf:
From what I’ve read (not from personal experience), the military has become one of the most PC organizations in the US.
Once the Left takes over a significant portion of the command and control staff of an org, the org “flips” like a captured piece turning traitor or a turned spy. It flips completely.
The military is a dictatorship, not a democracy, so all one has to do is to take over at the top. Enough John Kerries will do it.
There’s one tale from the Sand Box:
In a Marine outfit, a BAM (female marine) challenged a fellow male Marine to a fight.
The first landed blow — knocked her unconscious.
She died the next morning from the internal bleeding. (the brain)
Women at a battlefield serve the same function as husbands at the maternity ward: spectator, and ally.
Yes, that is shocking to me Neo. That they would be so PC. I mean, I thought they would resist! It shows there has been a real shift in our culture. In this case, not a good one.
Neo: Altar (unless you’re talking about Miss Bruce et al.)
Fighting is a man’s job if there ever was one. Most women realize this; the few who don’t are an embarrassment, and as this article points out, they’re even endangering their fellow soldiers if they insist on being in combat roles.
The pilot position makes more sense, but if they’re captured, oh boy. Bad. (Yes, they get raped; with the Islamonazis, they ALL do if caught.)
I remember reading the PROCEEDINGS, a letter from a female officer on a Destroyer Tender, who stated that she had no business on board a combatant, as she could not carry a 100 pound Damage Control toolbox, nor wrangle the 4X4 baulks for bracing bulkheads, nor haul a 150 pound sailor up a ladder from a lower deck. She believed women should serve on Auxilaries, but not on combatants.
Some time back, when the issue was gays in the military, there were congressional hearings. One witness said that, as the most powerful nation in the world, we could afford some inefficiency. That meant death and that didn’t mean anything at all to the proponents.
There was no question. Diversity trumps unnecessary deaths.
My son enlisted under the Obama presidency so he knew what he was getting into. But within a couple months of his re-up, he regretted his decision, because the changes in the military started becoming apparent on a day-by-day basis. With regard to the surprise that the military has become so pc…don’t be. The officers are culled from the universities and we all know the effectiveness of the Gramscian march through that institution.
Sharon W US military academies will expel males for having sex, but the female gets promoted. The conditioning process to Authority starts very early. They learn that if you don’t have a preferred victim status or some serious mil/pol connections, you aren’t equal, even if you got merit. Merit is worthless against Power. Truth is worthless against Power. That is what they take onto their careers with expected results.
I mean, I thought they would resist! It shows there has been a real shift in our culture. In this case, not a good one.
Resist? They aren’t alive to resist. Most of them the Hussein Regime sent to Afghanistan and got killed intentionally. The rest were fired for one reason or another and replaced with Diversity Caseys and Nidals.
Resist? Based on what criteria would a military chain of command resist their own leadership?
The balance of power changed, the culture is as it was in Vietnam. The Left’s power is not something you should underestimate. It can accomplish many things thought impossible.
Jeb is supporting Tranny admission in our Armed Forces. Mein Gott..!
Richard Aubrey: I think there’s a fairly obvious difference between allowing gay men–who are physically capable of meeting all the same requirements as heterosexual men–and allowing women in the military.
For one thing, you can’t *stop* gay men from being in combat units. Gay men who want to serve in combat units can hide their identity to get into combat units, but that accomplishes nothing other than making those men’s lives worse. Having a closeted man creates a topic of gossip and a source of disunity–having an out gay man doesn’t create any more of an issue than having any other single demographic in a unit. If a gay man is causing issues because of his behavior, punish him, just like you should punish any other man whose behavior is endangering unit morale.
Putting women in combat roles is insane and makes no sense, but it’s a totally different scenario from allowing gay men into combat units.
And for the record, I’m not really sure where I stand vis-a-vis trans soldiers. In principle, I think trans men should be given the opportunity to meet the same physical requirements as men to serve in the same roles, but at the same time, I don’t know enough about sexual realignment to know if bone structure, muscle mass, etc. are affected enough to make trans men as capable as other men. If they’re not as capable of the physical work, then they’re not.
I see no reason to bar trans soldiers from serving in support roles, though. Nobody cares if their dentist used to be a man and is now a woman or intel officer used to be a woman and is now a man.
Bryan
The ancients already solved this. Any special group was put into their own segregated units. All women. All homo lovers. All X. Worked out quite well.
You don’t talk about it cause you don’t hear about it. You don’t hear about it, because they don’t really want it to work.
Ymarsakar:
That’s a ridiculous suggestion, and you very well know that. Even if you ignore the fact that what you’re suggesting is segregation, which we stopped doing decades ago because it’s morally repugnant, I seriously doubt you can come up with more than a single instance of armies having all-gay units. I can think of one example of a Greek army that was reputed to have sex with each other before battle, but if I recall correctly, that reputation is without concrete evidence. It’s a rumor.
And, of course, the logistics make no sense. Unless you would like to explain in detail how you think making all-gay units would work in practice, of course. Is there going to be one gay carrier group? Is CENTCOM going to be the gay Combatant Command, or do you think SOUTHCOM makes more sense? What happens when the commander of the gays is deserving of a promotion that would put him in command of non-gay soldiers? Should he just never be promoted?
And, by the way, “homo lovers” is not clear terminology. “Homos” refers unambiguously to gays, while “homo lovers” could include people sympathetic to gays.