WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has lifted the military’s ban on women serving in combat, a move that will allow women into hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando units, a senior Pentagon official said Wednesday.
Over at HotAir, they have a writer, Sentry, who echoes all of my criticisms of this stupid move by Panetta and the PC idiots in the Pentagon. And the writer is a PT stud female Marine.
I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.
We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.
Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?
The answer, Sentry, is yes. They want to deprogram that instinct, because to a stupid, petty, foolish human with female attributes who lives in political worlds of cocktail parties and in the ivory towers and ivy halls of academia, chivalry and chauvanism are the same. Any acknowledgement that women and men are different not just biologically but physiologically and simply by nature; would mean that such things can be judged.
Remember “How Modern Liberals Think”?
The leftist philosophy opposes the objective judgement that women simply are inferior to men in their capacity for war.
Though I’ve said it before, it bears repeating that doesn’t mean there’s any judgement of a woman’s character or civic virtue due to physical, physiological, or other limitations.
Doesn’t mean you don’t have the character or virtue to stand up for your nation. Does mean you’re going to be a liability if you want to go to BUDS.
The leftist philosophy has an ulterior motive, though. It also supports the idea that an “empowered” woman will, to be very blunt here, put out to an inferior man. A sniveling, cowardly toad academic, or a womanizing rapist politician who has his state police procure conquests for him – these are the kind of “men” whose actual character is no longer called into question when their behavior is viewed as normal, and when men and women are to be treated as “equals”. They subjugate women by destroying the privilege that women used to enjoy as part of their nature; all while decrying it as “chauvanism”, “antiquated”, “anti-feminist”, or other such nonsense, and claiming that those who would put women on a pedestal are in fact engaging in a “war on women”. (Contrast GirlWritesWhat’s comments about bonobos.)
A woman may well find that society (depending on region) has stigmatized her virtues as a provider and protector of life, traditions and values that she sticks to in order to give better chances for success at providing and protecting life. Why is “women’s rights” synonymous with destruction of infants today, rather than protection of infants, children, and all life? Why is “women’s rights” about a woman being denigrated to the point that she is just a few “parts”? Is she a mother or a “breeder”? What is really being supported with these ideas?
One could dissect the destructive nature of leftist philosophy that denigrates women – and also denigrates men’s roles – but that’s a broader (no pun intended) topic than could be looked at in any single blog post.
If you want a very intelligent analysis of modern feminism and the leftist philosophy that denigrates both women and men, consider Girl Writes What (you could start with this most recent video and go from there if you’re not familiar with her very intelligent critique of the modern feminist movement). You’ll note her own analysis has changed as she went on, but it’s all a series of very fascinating opinions and reasoning. Her look at it is from a fairly utilitarianist point of view (at least as it seems to me).
I’ll finish this section with this quote from Thomas Sowell:
“For the anointed, traditions are likely to be seen as the dead hand of the past, relics of a less enlightened age, and not as the distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before.“
Many things are done for a reason, and throwing women into combat because it feels good to some limousine liberals who will never see the two-way range is a violent idiocy, stupidly rejecting billions of years worth of human lives that said no.
On the radio today, I heard this line of weapons-grade stupid trumpeted by some dumb plane driver:
WASHINGTON — The nation’s first female combat pilot yesterday defended the Pentagon’s decision to allow women on the front lines of war, dismissing an argument that the genders shouldn’t be blended into the same battle environment.
“So that’s like saying Pee Wee Herman is OK to be in combat but Serena and Venus Williams are not going to meet the standard,” Air Force Col. Martha McSally said on “Fox News Sunday.”
I know not all Air Force pilots are imbeciles, but this one is. If they were all three to try out, Paul Reubens has to meet the same standard as all of the current men. If standards at boot camp are held, he doesn’t go. If he fails an indoc for a unit, he doesn’t go. Serena and Venus maybe could meet one physical standard, but they’re exceptions that prove the rule. Also, tennis is not combat. Tennis does not last for 10 months in cramped, nasty conditions with poor sanitary facilities and if you lose at tennis, you don’t end up in the hands of jihadis who will behead you after mutilating your body.\
But there’s another dimension to this – how simply out-of-touch the comparison is.
Guess what, Colonel? Paul Reubens is 5’10″. He ain’t exactly a small guy. He’s also 60, and more an example of how she confused Reubens’ character name with him actually being small, as well as naming someone who was popular decades ago. Why not compare Billy Barty to Allison Hayes?
Or someone more modern like Verne Troyer and Carmen Electra?
Or how about a more apt comparison of wannabe badass couch-jumper Tom Cruise to the much more badass Claudia Black?
Tom Cruise wasn’t tall enough to get into the picture even when he wore elevator shoes, so you’ll just have to pretend you can see him.
The Air Force Colonel doesn’t know what she’s talking about. She is not a subject matter expert on groundpounders any more than a “leg” is going to know about Immelmans or the Thach Weave. Air Force pilots do not endure the same conditions that infantry or any other land or sea combat unit does.
Note that SERE, arguably some of the most difficult training for pilots, already had the standard lowered.
As a last note, for some unfathomable reason, unplanned pregnancies are very high in the military. What’s usually ignored (outside of those who deal with women in the military) is that it’s a free pass out of a deployment. A young woman who’s already given special treatment in the military environment (anyone who says they aren’t doesn’t have a clue) has an easy out. On top of this, there are financial incentives as well as personal incentives. The military, in effect, has enabled the use of the female agency against it. A female servicemember can’t be hit with malingering because they created a medical condition that prevents deployment.