6/26/2007
In defense of the women NOT in combat
Since I’m still tweaking my paper, I’d thought I’d do a little exercise, based on Rosa Brooks’ article “In Defense of Women in Combat”. This is from her Los Angeles Times article from July of 2005, also available at her blog here.
The deaths of five female soldiers in Iraq this month have fueled a new surge of opposition to allowing women to serve in the military in combat roles. But it’s based on some pretty dubious claims.
So let’s examine them.
“Women aren’t big and strong enough for combat.” I’ll buy this when someone explains why the Marine Corps will cheerfully accept a 4-foot-10 male recruit who weighs 96 pounds.
That’s kind of interesting hyperbole. I’m not sure where Rosa gets her information, but according to what I have, the physical height requirement of a man in the Marine Corps is 5′5″, with corresponding weight. There is no man as far as I know who has ever joined the Marine Corps who was 4′10″ who weighed 96 pounds. My dad is former Marine Corps, he’s 6′1″ and a very large guy; his hands look like baseball mitts.
Sure, the Marines will make a man out of him, but even if they water the guy with Miracle-Gro, they won’t be able to turn him into a 6-footer. The average man may be bigger and stronger than the average woman, but plenty of women are bigger and stronger than many men. Why discriminate based on gender when you could have straightforward, task-specific strength requirements?
Very funny, but not accurate. First, the 4 foot tall Marine guy doesn’t exist. Next, a woman’s size is on average about 60% of a man’s.
“Plenty of women are bigger and stronger than many men.” That’s a sweeping generalization that is not based on fact.
Photo Credit: By Rick Kozak — Associated Press
C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment soldiers carry injured colleagues to a medical center at the base in eastern Baghdad after an bomb destroyed a Bradley fighting vehicle, killing five U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter.
Here is a very good example of why women do not belong in a combat situation/scenario. A woman would be required to help carry the bodies of wounded, injured, and killed soldiers; and she doesn’t have the same upper body strength as a man does.
Through email I received even more compelling information regarding this picture and why the collocation rule should stand:
[This picture].. portrays a “luxury” situation. When soldiers are under fire and attacking, as was the case in Fallujah in November 2004, a fallen soldier frequently has to be rescued by another single soldier strong enough to carry him off the battlefield on his back. Other soldiers are busy engaging the enemy and providing cover. This is why the collocation rule is important, and why it should be retained.
I witnessed such a “fireman’s carry” rescue during a live fire exercise at Fort Bragg in 1992. The soldiers were very matter of fact when I asked why they didn’t use stretchers. On ships as well as on land, you cannot count on several people to perform a life-saving rescue.
This is a picture of the ‘fireman’s carry’.
Think about it. How many funerals have you attended where the pallbearers were women?
Carrying a body, whether dead or injured, requires physical strength; which women do not have a great amount of in comparison to men. That’s not a fantasy; that’s reality.
A study found that “[m]ore than half US soldiers have been medically evacuated from Iraq and treated at two of the military’s large pain treatment centers suffer not from battle wounds but from bad backs”. “Inherent in being a soldier is carrying large weights. Historically, the ideal ‘carry weight’ is a third of your body weight,” said Lt. Col. (Dr.) Frank Christopher, chief of deployment health at Fort Bragg, North Caolina. (Weise, 2005)
Many troops in the field carry much more than that - up to 180 pounds in some cases. (Weise, 2005)
Side plates in the new body armor system have nearly doubled the weight of protective vests from sixteen to thiry-one pounds since March of 2003. (Cox & Maze, 2006)
During one training cycle, some of the women participated in an urban warfare course. One of them promptly broke her leg doing a spider drop out a window. Her smaller frame could not take the shock of landing after dropping approximately 6 feet while weighted down with all the equipment a Marine is expected to wear in battle. (Neumayr, 2005)
Bearing just some of this in mind, what kind of kooks would intentionally wish combat on women in uniform, let alone actively campaign for it?
In any case, in a war that mixes high-tech weaponry with low-tech hazards, being big and strong isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. You don’t need to be big and strong to fly a modern combat jet, and size won’t help when you’re up against suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices. Why do we believe that bigger people make better soldiers? In Vietnam, an army of big, strong American men fought an army of small, slender Vietnamese men — and lost.
Using Pat Schroeder’s “push button wars” characterization of modern day warfare, heh? With memories of pictures from the Battle of Fallujah fresh in my mind, that one battle pretty much wipes that argument off the face of the map. Wars are not videogames. War is still tough, rough and hard. Hand-to-hand combat and firefights are real, and will still be fought. To ignore that, and intentionally place a woman in that situation in my opinion is a demonstration of willful ignorance.
In Vietnam, by the way, were winning on the ground. If we’d just let them to their job, we wouldn’t be faced with still wondering what happened to our POW/MIAs. When you’re talking from a position of defeat, you really have no bargaining chips.
It was the politicians and the propaganda about the war at home, coupled with Nixon’s resignation and the democrats cutting the funding that led to our throwing in the towel on that conflict, just like Harry Reid is trying to do today.
To say our military lost it is another defining example of ignorance of historical fact.
“Allowing women in combat will hurt military morale, cohesion and readiness.” On the contrary, studies suggest that the presence of women has a neutral or positive effect on military morale and cohesion. Maybe that’s why support for women serving in combat positions is stronger in the military than in the general population: Two-thirds of military personnel support allowing women to serve in combat, compared with roughly 50% of the general population. The more familiar people are with the military, the more they support full participation for women — which ought to tell us something.
What studies? Military personnel aren’t allowed to speak against affirmative action or equal opportunity, lest they might be ‘discriminating’ against women. And it is more than 50% of the general population who don’t agree with sending our daughters to combat. 90% enlisted women surveyed said they don’t want to be sent to combat, but they stopped asking women what they thought about it in 2001. That makes sense, doesn’t it? If you don’t want to hear the answer, don’t ask the question.
“We can’t let women into combat because they might be taken prisoner and raped.” Male prisoners can be raped too. And how exactly is rape worse than the numerous other horrors (such as beatings and torture) to which prisoners of either sex might be subjected? Anyone who volunteers for combat needs to be prepared for possible mistreatment if captured. If women understand and accept the risk of rape, that should be the end of the debate.
Isn’t it much worse to contemplate a fresh-faced girl right out of high school and pigtails, only 19-year old, whose MOS was a supply clerk, faced with being anally raped by Saddam’ horrible fayadeen like Jessica Lynch was? When their FSC (forward support company) got lost and they found themselves under fire, Lynch and Piestewa looked at each other, saying they weren’t supposed to be there. Indeed, the military is breaking the rules ALREADY on putting women in dangerous situations, and the American people, I’m sure, wouldn’t agree with it if the awareness was raised.
Isn’t it odd how military women complain about a crotch grabbing incident and demand the careers of naval officers like in the Tailhook incident, but it’s perfectly alright for women to be tortured, maimed, sexually molested and killed as long as it’s by the enemy. This is a bizarre double standard that requires at least some kind of explanation to understand.
“We can’t let women into combat because they might get killed.” They surely will, but so what? Women die in car accidents and from heart attacks, but though these deaths too are cause for sorrow, we still let women ride in cars and super-size their fries. And contrary to near-universal belief, even if we allowed women to participate in the full range of combat positions, women in the military would probably be no more likely to die than women in civilian life.
That’s also kind of a strange argument. Let’s just tie women to the railroad tracks like Snidely Whiplash and then have SERE training like they do in the Air Force so that men will not respond to the screams of a damsel in distress. This again is disingenuous and meaningless argument.
In 2002, the death rate for full-time military personnel was 64.4 per 100,000, a rate substantially lower than for civilians with the same age breakdown. (Why? Military personnel get good healthcare and keep fit). The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased the military death rate, but not by as much as most people assume. Crunching available numbers from the last three years suggests that the current death rate of military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan is roughly 150 per 100,000.
Precisely why the anti-war people are wrong about their complaints, thanks for pointing that out.
Source: Investors.com hat Tip: RTLM & Gateway Pundit
Whether you consider that high or low depends on what you compare it with, but here are a few data points: the 2002 civilian death rate for 15- to 24-year-olds was 171 out of each 100,000 in Washington, D.C., 131 per 100,000 in West Virginia, and 119 per 100,000 in Louisiana. For 25- to 34-year-olds in those same states, the death rates were, respectively, 158, 173, and 134 per 100,000.
Again, thanks, but I don’t know why that is a substantial argument in favor of women in combat. I think it’s more illustrating the point that even though we’re at war, the nation doesn’t feel particularly like we are; we aren’t experiencing heavy casualties like we did during WWI or WII. But during those conflicts, we didn’t have an integrated force, and there was conscription, so everyone had a relative who served, and it was considered your civic duty to serve. Nowadays, people are so removed from the military experience because of base closures and the fact that it’s ‘voluntary’ and universities outlawing military recruiters on campus, the public perception of serving in the military is very different.
In contrast to the bogus arguments against women in combat, there are strong arguments in favor. Locking women out of combat positions makes it harder for women to advance within the military, limiting their opportunities to attain more prestigious jobs and higher salaries. This in turn hurts their families and increases gender inequalities in society as a whole.
I would consider the bogus arguments on the pro women in combat side. Rosa just hit on the real reason why this is an issue. The small percentage of women who are officers want to be promoted, and they are campaigning for women in combat in direct opposition to what the majority of enlisted women want.
Denying women the opportunity to take on combat roles also reduces their future ability to shape national policy. In the post-9/11 world, credibility on military and security issues is increasingly necessary for those who hope to succeed in important public positions — and if only men can occupy combat roles, that gives them a substantial edge.
This is laughable; denying the 90% of enlisted women who disagree with women in combat to have a voice is denying THEIR right to shape national policy, and is an outrage. Why should we allow a handful of aggressive women with their eyes on promotions to shape national policy, and send our young women into dangerous situations they never dreamed they’d ever be in? What’s the problem with the military remaining male-dominated? The military only leverages traits that are inherently male, including strength.
With the rise of terrorism and asymmetrical warfare, the distinction between “front” and “rear” has eroded. In Iraq, women in noncombat military jobs, such as escorting cargo convoys or serving as military police, are in harm’s way. And here at home, hundreds of women lost their lives in the wreckage of the twin towers.
Why not let them serve in a separate corps? Why not let them serve in support positions that are more suited to them, like nurses, clerks, etc.? Why are we so determined to do what no other country has done? We are leading the disastrous way where this policy of integrating women into our fighting force is concerned, and we’ve already reaped some of the benefits of that disastrous policy.
General Karpinski and Abu Ghraib, anyone?
Locking women out of combat positions may help a few American men maintain the illusion of gallantry, but it’s time to acknowledge reality. Women will die alongside men in any terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and women, like men, are affected by our national defense policies. It’s time to give them the right to fight for their country.
There is no reason to put a defenseless young woman like Jessica Lynch or young mothers like Lori Piestewa or Shoshona Johnson intentionally into the hands of the enemy for the sake of a few women who want to be promoted. That’s like intentionally sending men and women to the slaughter so that you can say you’ve provided an ‘equal opportunity’, which doesn’t exist on the battlefield, considering women’s smaller physical stature and lesser strength.
Women have a greater opportunity to get killed in a combat situation. Placing them intentionally alongside men increases the risk to men’s lives in a combat zone, as well. This isn’t a very smart thing to be advocating, in my opinion.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
The Mongols were physically small. They rode horses no larger than ponies and survived on few calories. They conquered most of Asia and the middle east, so size and strength aren’t everything. They used the bow, however, women archers are less effective than men because it is an upper body thing.
Europe made fun of Frederick the great for insisting his soldiers be tall, close to six feet, on the assumption he was focusing too much on parade appearance. But their long arms made reloading their muskets easier and faster.
The British made an army 150,000 to 500,000 strong out of Indian soldiers. The cut down the size of the muskets and sabers to make them more manageable for the smaller native troops. The Sepoys were very effective soldiers anyway. discipline and training are just more important than strength.
I’d rather serve in a well trained and disciplined all-female unit than an all-male militia with poor training and discipline.
Are you sure your motive for not liking women in combat is the well being of existing male troops? Could it be you think the combat role should be male for some other (good or bad) reason?
June 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
The Mongols might have been small, but they still had 60% more strength than women; that is the point.
An all female unit who has the cards stacked against them in terms of strength as opposed to an all-male army, like China’s, let’s say? So you’re advocating their slaughter because of…’equal opportunity’??? There is no gender norming on the battlefield, my friend.
We are facing Mickey Mouse amateurs in Iraq; what would happen if we were faced with a nation state with a real military of fighting men? What would you say then?
If you were with an all-female unit, and you were opposed by an all-men force, I don’t care how disciplined they are, they’re going to die and have a greater chance of death than if it was an all-male force if they’re on the ground in combat or in collocated units to combat units. And God help any man with them who gets injured; they’d be unable to carry him and his gear unless it was a bunch of them, but then who is going to do the shooting?
It’s just simple arithmetic and common sense.
It’s funny that you would question my motives, but I remember conscription when everyone had a loved one in the military (and a majority of the time they were male loved ones). Then, it was considered your civic duty and nobody objected. Women were protected then, and not placed intentionally in harm’s way for the sake of a handful of women who want to be promoted.
My, how times have changed.
The battle of Fallujah showed us that combat hasn’t.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Cao: Are you serious about this? What if some women would just like to fight and die in combat like any other red-blooded American?
June 28th, 2007 at 12:08 am
I’m not sure strength is so important that it rules women out of combat. Weaponry uses chemical power now, not muscle. And a lot of fighting is done from vehicles where small stature is an advantage. A handful of women who want promotion may be one advocate, but I think a principal against discrimination is another. Personally, I think women are physically more suited for combat than they are emotionally.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:49 am
This is another picture of the fireman’s carry, which is something that often happens and is necessary if someone gets wounded in combat. There were many pictures of Americans carrying wounded soldiers like this during Vietnam.
This particular picture is that of an Iraqi soldier carrying another Iraqi who was wounded in the battle of Fallujah in 2005. To picture today’s battlefield as some kind of pushbutton situation like a videogame is still way off in terms of reality. There is still close quarter combat, where there is no substitution for plain old-fashioned manly strength and muscle capacity.
In drills, Marines are required to do this for at least 100 yards.
I’m not certain that a woman who is generally 60% the size of a man, whose upper and lower body strength is also a fraction of that of a man’s, could carry this off at all, let alone for a long stretch.
Emotionally, women experience post traumatic stress syndrome 2:1 in comparison to men, which is another factor to consider, as you pointed out. During the battle in Panama, two women truck drivers who were driving guys to the battle broke down and cried. They were removed from duty, but assured by the Army that they had not committed a dereliction of duty. This is not to say that men don’t have problems or break down during battle stress, but women and men are simply wired differently, and those differences should be taken into account instead of making the assumption that men and women are completely interchangeable in situations like these; they’re not.
Overall, women just fail the requirements, which is why they had to lower the test scores in order to accommodate women; an important reason to object to the integration of women in combat: it means unnecessary death and injury to people of both sexes, not to mention disastrous results in terms of lawsuits that feminists bring, charging that they’ve been treated unfairly.
Military brass has responded as though the men are evil oppressors and the women are victims when the women don’t see themselves as victims; they’re social engineers trying to change the all-male white culture.
I’ll be posting more about this because there is what appears to be willful ignorance on this, or simple blindness, or both.
June 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am
If women are %60 of men’s weight, surely there are easier to carry out of combat when wounded? Size isn’t that important - your own data shows the Marines will take a man who is 5′6″ but refuse a man who is 6′7″.
I do think there is an issue with socialization - I suspect the killing taboo will be harder to overcome in female soldiers because they have less testosterone and perhaps more of an empathetic nature.
But all these are averages. Surely we could make these choices on an individual basis? Some women can handle a rifle, carry another person their own size, learn to kill other people without emotional breakdown. The army screens male recruits, refusing those who are unlikely to be good soldiers. Surely they are capable of screening women for the same purpose? They would have to accept less upper body strength, maybe turn away a larger portion of female recruits, but there are women who can fight.
I thin your problem with women in combat has to do with Feminists. You seem to feel if it is something they want, it must be bad. Don’t let your enemies teach you what to think.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Woman should have every chance to serve in combat. They should have to meet some strength requirements, but it should be reasonable. Being physically strong is not the only thing that makes a good soilder. A very strong,but week minded person may hurt more people than he can save.
And there are techniques for a smaller person who doesn’t have superior physical strength to be able to lift and carry people to saftey. There or female poilce officers and fireman whol do very well becasue they are trained well.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
90% of the enlisted women said they didn’t want to be exposed to combat, that they didn’t want to be ordered there.
So where is the evidence that you can provide that you should go against what women want?
The military just stopped asking them when they kept getting the same answer.
The only women who want women in combat are the feminists; and the handful of female officers who have their eyes on promotions. I don’t think that’s enough reason to endanger both men and women who are on the frontlines.
Do you know what a special forces soldier does? Someone who specializes in weapons or human intelligence? These are people who operate behind enemy lines. Personally, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone; God Bless the guys who are suited for it; but there is no woman who is suited for Special Forces.
Women are not met and they shouldn’t pretend they are.
C’mon. Look at the physical requirements for a green beret. and for SFAS PT. People who are saying they want women in combat either aren’t in the service, or don’t understand what the requirements are–or don’t care that this will cause more injury and death.
Bending physical requirements and gender norming only leads to death - like Kara Hartgreen’s did. They lowered the test scores so she would be able to pass, even though her instructor tried to send it up the flagpole that something terrible would happen.
His career was ruined as a result of trying to draw that to peoples’ attention. And the other feminist flyer, Carie Lohrenz, at the bottom of her class who was removed because she wouldn’t follow instructions and blamed everyone else for her bad scores, sued Elaine Donnelly and it turns out everything Donnelly said was true; she was shoved through the system just like Hultgreen was–in spite of what the consequences would be.
We should be looking at the effect this is having on morale and unit cohesiveness. In the Navy the result of Tailhook and Hultgreen’s death was that a lot of people lost the ability to get promoted, and some were forced out–even though there was no reason for that kind of response.
So tell me what combat jobs women are qualified for. Weapons? Artillary? Infantry? Do you even have any idea what you’re talking about?
The military isn’t a frat house, but that’s what happens with people during their childbearing years who are thrown into a coed environment; complete with the sexual tension. That kind of drama and/or distraction does not belong in a situation when you’re preparing for combat. This is literally a matter of life and death, and what’s funny to me is - hateful vicious feminists are AGAINST WAR. They don’t see a reason for the military.
But…if there is one, …they want to run it.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Women aren’t currently allowed in the Green Berets, so that indicator’s no good. In any case, equality of opportunity is actually a conservative principle. If we have an all-volunteer military, why would you seek to prohibit women from fighting and perhaps dying for the country, particularly if they are willing and able? I’m not igorant on this point either. Geez, why have women in the work force at all? Your argument sounds less against feminism than favoring the “protectionist” claim for the more “delicate” and “timid” sex, prominent in the 19th century!
June 28th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
What we’re discussing is opening combat positions to women that are now closed. Or at least that’s what I thought we were discussing,
It’s a very small percentage, Lt. Col McSally quotes about 180,000 jobs; and she’s actively promoting the idea of opening every single damned job to women in all branches. As long as they’re qualified, whatever that doublespeak means.
Are you with me now?
And she tellingly uses communist countries as the models and reasons why we should do it.
“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without the feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex; the ugly ones included.”- Karl Marx German social philosopher, revolutionary
June 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
And your point is that anything feminists and communists are for we should be against? Wouldn’t it make more sense to ignore what they have to say and decide the issue on the merits?
“As long as they’re qualified” sounds pretty straightforward.
Anecdote doesn’t really prove much. I can point to many instances of unfit male soldiers, doesn’t mean men can’t make good soldiers.
I went to an all male boarding school, it had it’s advantages, but it had disadvantages as well. In any case arguing that women will ruin small unit cohesion is an easy one to disprove. Talk to men who have served in mixed gender units.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
The military should be designed to further American foreign policy. It is not a place for social engineering.
In terms of combat that is one of the most physically demanding things anyone can do. By and large women do not have the physical strength of men.
Why attempt to change everything to accommodate a few women who may possess the same physical abilities of men?
The armed forces are not about making sure we have an equal number of men and women in combat units. The goal is to make sure we win. Men are better suited to that.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Here is an interesting study: http://www.cmrlink.org/international.asp?docID=113
Some highlights:
An extensive study ordered by British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has reportedly recommended that women should not be allowed to fight in the front line. Citing evidence gathered over 18 months, the “Combat Effectiveness Gender Study” concluded that females lack the strength and stamina needed to serve in the infantry, armored regiments, Royal Marines or the RAF Regiment, the Air Force’s infantry unit.
In a test requiring soldiers to carry 90 lbs. of artillery shells over measured distances, the male failure rate was 20%. The female failure rate was 70%.
· In a 12.5-mile route march carrying 60 lbs. of equipment, followed by target practice simulating conditions under fire, men failed in 17% of cases. Women failed in 48%.
· Females were generally slower in simulated combat exercises involving lengthy “fire and move” situations, in which participants had to sprint from one position to another in full battle dress.
· In close-quarter battle tests, including hand-to-hand combat, women suffered much higher injury rates.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Here’s an idea.
Let’s get women playing in the NFL and see how that does as an ‘experiment’. I mean since women and men are completely interchangeable fungibles.
Oh, and thanks for that, PI!
June 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Matt, I’m saying that this feminist thing that has infiltrated the military with attacks on our boys for rape and lawsuits about gender equality is not from our culture.
I have talked with men who’ve been in mixed gender units: one of them is my son, who went to Basic with them.
He says it sucks; the women are disrespectful, loud, and treat it like it’s some kind of a dorm instead of a military barracks. On top of that, you’re not allowed to complain about them.
Not to mention the sex. Fraternization isn’t supposed to happen, but it does - did anyone catch those pictures of Lynndie England in the pregnancy uniform? Made me wonder if we’re running a welfare agency for unwed mothers or what. And you think General Karpinsky did a good job with Abu Ghraib?
Those are just more ridiculous examples.
I can cite a lot of examples, Matt, you’re just using empty rhetoric.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Do you think woman are second class citizens?
A lot of men think this way so when woman themselves think they are only made for certain roles its bad.
Being a female you should want to see other females advance in society.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
That’s a ridiculous comment.
do you think men are monkeys?
I am not a social engineer and don’t believe in that bullcrap.
I believe in womanhood; motherhood, and all the good things that come from family values, including protecting women and children instead of shoving them into the rockets red glare.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Once again…it is not about women being second class citizens. It is about reality. However you may look at why it is that way…from God…or from evolution…men are physically stronger than women. That is fact.
Combat is a physical activity in which the strong have a better chance of survival…and of course success than the weak.
To say that men are better suited at combat due to their physical nature is in no way is a slight upon women. Women are not second class citizens.
We are simply dealing with reality. Men and women are different…and by stating the obvious it does not mean we are degrading or consider women to be second class.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
You don’t think woman should have the same opportunities as men so thats putting them below men. I would consider that 2nd class. There areplenty of woman out there that are strong enough to preform some of these task you talk about. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to? You want the best PERSON for the job. And the doesn’t automatically mean a man.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
For those who wish to see women in combat I have a single question: Why have you let your sence of political correctness overrule your common sense?
June 28th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Boy, Venessa, you’re putting a bunch of mish mosh in there that nobody has said.
Protecting women who want nothing to do with this has nothing to do with ‘you don’t think women should have the same opportunities as men’.
If you want women to have the same opportunities as men, lobby to have them join the NFL. Or competitive weight lifting, and then let’s see what happens.
Simply: I don’t think we should put them forcibly with no choice-with an unequal opportunity to die. If conscription comes back because we’re facing the Red Chinese’s army, how many of our daughters will go with that?
You are using some very twisted rhetoric, there, girlfriend.
DO YOU HATE YOUR SISTERS SO MUCH THAT YOU WANT THEM TO DIE? And have no choice in the matter?
90% of the enlisted women surveyed said they didn’t want combat. After 2001, they stopped asking them what they thought, but Roper polls still indicate there is little support for this stupid idea.
Don’t you care that women don’t want this? I’m a woman, I wouldn’t want this if I were in the service…and I wouldn’t want it for my daughters, my neighbors daughters, or even my enemy’s daughters.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Cao - excellent post, and not just because I agree wholeheartedly!
Vanessa - It has nothing to do with women being second class citizen; it has everything to do with women *for the most part* being ill-suited to close combat, and forcing the military to adapt and support the .01% of combat-ready females is not feasible. “Being a female you should want to see other females advance in society.” … is that like a right to die argument?
Oh, and also, Vanessa - as a male I want to see females (and males … and dogs …) advance in society, your statement is just a bit sexist, don’t you think?
/TJ
PS - the .01% is totally a guess / made up, I haven’t done any research on that aspect
June 28th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Some women do want this, obviously, or it would not be an issue.
That British study:
In a test requiring soldiers to carry 90 lbs. of artillery shells over measured distances, the male failure rate was 20%. The female failure rate was 70%.
· In a 12.5-mile route march carrying 60 lbs. of equipment, followed by target practice simulating conditions under fire, men failed in 17% of cases. Women failed in 48%.
Would we not want to permit the 30% of women who passed the test in combat units rather than the 20% of men who failed?
I’m not advocating women in combat, by the way, I could care less. I just find it weird you want a female who wants the role, who worked hard enough to pass the requirements, excluded on the basis of gender.
June 28th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Im not adding anything. You and a couple others are saying woman shouldn’t have equal rights. I am not saying every woman should jump in the trenches. Just like every man shouldn’t have to either. The army is volunteer and there is no draft. So these people want to be there. And i know there are several fields to go into. The 90 % who don’t want to go into combat didn’t join to do that. They help in other ways. The 10 % that want to or are willing should get the chance to prove themselves.
And there are a couple of girls if you put on roids probably could play in the NFL.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Hey there! This is some interesting debate, considering this blog promotes macho images of women, a la Linda Hamilton. I’m with you Cao, and you’re not making much sense. Frontline infantry combat position AND elite special forces units are closed to women. Why? Pentagon’s policy of protection. This discriminatory policies date back to the 19th century and earlier, when women were deliberately subordinated — in culture and in law — in the family household unit. I, for one, am not dismissing gender diffenrence, nor do I promote a radical femi-nazi-style egalitarian. I see in your comments, though, a denigrating element of gender uniqueness (men can’t bear children, but they sure as hell can care for them). I don’t care who this Sally such and such is! She indeed probably needs to fill some damned quotas to make her bosses happy. That doesn’t preclude me from arguing that women should be entitled by right to opportunities based on their desire to achieve to the best of their ability. Duh, they’re not going to play on the football team and get creamed. Yet, a lot of smart chicks will kick some testosterone-butt in law schools. We can make traditional distinctions, but societies do progress, often on the base of need. I don’t think the U.S. Armed Forces couldn’t use a few good women in the ranks, front and center, wiping out some al Qaeda ***!
June 29th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Love that. Women ‘deliberately subodinated in culture and in law to the household unit’.
As if it was the Taliban or something. During those days, kids could play outside all day long, and the mothers would network to look after them. There was a lot more trust and love between men and women, husband and wives, then.
In today’s world, thanks to demonizing the family, going after parents and grandparents through law and totalitarian government, people are suspicious of their neighbors and report them to DCFS for abuse, even if none exists.
I think it’s time we look back an reevaluate where we’ve traversed, and what we’ve abandoned; a good portion of our cultural heritage that made us profoundly great and the US a place to raise children. Instead, we’re morphing into a police state that would rather have the government teaching our children to hate Christianity, embrace witchcraft and cultural humanism and that being a man is evil.
In the military, we have the example of Owens who was treated like the LaCrosse Players on the same type of flimsy evidence; the charges of a woman who couldn’t prove her story of rape. Not to mention Tailhook and the Aberdeen sex scandals, but all of that in total just proves that feminists are doing their best to ruin the military culture of over 100 years and feminize it into a weak force that will not win should we be ever engaged in a real war against a nation state with a real army.
As far as a bunch of women facing al Qaeda, just ask Margaret Hassan how a woman pleading for her life worked. Oops, you can’t her body ended up discovered disemboweled, with her arms and legs sawed off. (I’m not sure if they beheaded her, but you get the point. She was married to an Iraqi for 25 years…but that didn’t matter to these barbarians we’re facing. Plus, she was doing humanitarian work and loved by the Iraqis. It really ended up to be more of a statement as to how they feel about women and how our women would be treated in their hands, not to mention the real story of rape, sodomy, broken bones, etc.-from Jessica Lynch.)
Actually the only strong woman image here is Linda Hamilton, which has a figurative meaning to me for a number of reasons. The soldier with the Bible is a man.
This is getting rather humorous,
June 29th, 2007 at 4:41 am
When I was campaigning against ERA, I had two contentions. One was that women deserve the right to chose between working outside the home and raising children, which is still a very honorable and respectable thing to do. Many women across America except those in the welfare state-have lost that right to chose parenting children, and been forced for economic reasons to work outside the home, while desperately trying to hold onto their families.
The family, which feminists seek to destroy, is culturally in danger. Boys are being compared to girls and medicated so they don’t act like boys in school. Male characteristics are demonized as socially unacceptable. Boys and their families are brought in front of social workers for ‘understanding’ and ’sensitivity training’ when a 6-year old boy kisses or touches a little girl. In the Air Force, there is actually SERE training to program men to resist responding to a woman’s screams from rape or torture. Yet they complain about sexual harrassment in the service (most of which, as we discovered with Tailhook were unfounded accusations like Nifong’s case), which I don’t understand. If on the one hand, you devalue the meaning of torturing of a woman, take away her value as a person making her not worthy of rescue under those circumstances, why should crotch grabbing matter? This is plain wrong.
This just insures that if a woman is captured, our soldiers will do nothing to save her, because it’s in their training not to respond. And this is EQUALITY? Traditionally, women have been viewed as the people who nurture children in our culture, who deserve to be placed on a pedestal. Now we’re morphing into a nation who views them (and unborn children) as disposable trash. And that’s what feminists are actually working for and ultimately achieving.
The other was that our young women would be considered interchangeable with men, so our daughters would be sent into combat. At the time, it seemed like the wildest idea imaginable. But sadly, it has come to fruition within my lifetime, which is abdominable, and something I abhor. This feminist ideology is doing a lot more to destroy women’s freedoms and rights than I would ever have imagined back then.
Dr. G.L.Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret.) has a very interesting website up called the new totalitarians which sheds light on a lot of things (like the elitists who would decide for us what to do and what to take away from us and what part the baby boomer generation plays in that), but particularly the feminist phenomenon (and the part it has played in destroying military culture), where our nation is headed, lending valuable insight into the possibilities that would give us hope rather than utter hopelessness.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Cao -
I think you have a paranoid fantasy of a Feminist movement or agenda. Today it’s very weak as a movement and what there is doesn’t have the values eroding sinister agenda you seem to feel it does.
I grew up in the seventies just as the movement lost it’s way and developed a man-bashing taste to it. I went to Berkeley when feminist women were wondering whether they should have anything to do with men at all, which was very demoralizing. Who wants to date people who think you are somehow damaging to them?
My father was in the marines and from the south and he thought the whole thing was a breakdown in gender relations and a bad sign for our culture. Now he sees it very differently. Overall, with the excesses now died down, the women’s liberation movement has had a positive effect. If we could afford it, my wife would rather stay home while our children are small, and I would prefer this as well. But I defiantly want her to have the choice, rather than be forced into something she resents, even the right thing. I would have taken you for a libertarian, but here you seem to want the government to make the choice for us. Isn’t that the magic of freedom? Every possible door is open so citizens may come to the best choices without coercion by law or government?
I suspect combat doesn’t have the romantic sheen for girls it has for boys, but if the door was thrown open some women would try it out. Military culture is not such a rarified and delicate thing that it cannot survive change like any other aspect of our culture. I think we would find that after the initial tryout, few women want the combat roles in the long run anyway, so the whole question is a tempest in a teacup.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Paranoid fantasy. heh. I’m speaking from experience; I’ve seen some of these nuts face-to-face at anti-war protests. All you have to do is read some of these female officers lamenting the fact that a small percentage of combat jobs should be open to women, but then read their feminist rants against white male oppression, blah, blah, blah.
Where did you see that I said that I want the government to make the choice for us, Matt? You really don’t read much here now, do you? I quote the founding fathers quite frequently on limited government which gives us freedom, totalitarianism which takes our freedoms away.
I’m in agreement with Atkinson- that there has been a breakdown of constitutional authority in America. The feminists are lobbying for the government to order us like a totalitarian government instead of when we were definitely a constitutional republic and not a ‘democracy’.
As I said, read from the old guard at the new totalitarians - I’m not going to chew cabbage twice.
If they order women into combat, how is that allowing women to chose? And how is the government NOT chosing for us in that instance? The feminist lobby shouldn’t be making these decisions for us, they are in the minority.
Funny. I was born in the late ’50’s and my recollection of all of this is very different and probably closer to my dad’s, who was born in the mid-30’s. All you have to do is read Gloria Steinhem and her affection for Marxist philosophy to see where that ideology comes from. Her quotes are available on google.
If you think the radical feminists like Hillary Clinton aren’t still radical, then you’re in a dream world. Evidence of that is how Nifong went after the Duke LaCrosse players, and in the military, how Rodney Rempt went after Lamar Owens; all feminist agenda driven.
ADM Boorda’s suicide and the disintegration of naval aviation under the present affirmative action regime for women and minorities are examples of increasing complexity for the potential collapse of American civilization - all caused by a complete breakdown of trust.
A Real-Life ‘Sensitivity Training’ Session. Choose this link to find the truth about the totalitarian nature of ’sensitivity training’ as it is practiced in American culture today. This ‘first hand’ account of such a session undertaken by Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson is described in detail. If you have never been exposed to the most effective tool in the modern science of coercion, ’sensitivity training,’ it is well worth the effort to seek out the opportunity to attend such a session. The subject of the training session was ‘Making Our K-12 Schools Safe for *******, ***, Bisexual, and Transgendered Youth,’ which was the theme of the Workshop conducted under the auspices of the Center for Disease Control, the AIDS Administration of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the Maryland State Department of Education — our federal and state tax dollars at work. And what does one learn from such a ’sensitivity training’ session?
First, one learns that these sessions are extremely authoritarian and tightly controlled by the ‘facilitator.’ Second, one must understand that these ’sensitivity training’ sessions are very carefully orchestrated to serve an AGENDA. The subject matter is very carefully regimented and controlled by narrowly defining the range of discussion topics. This is an important part of assuring the desired outcome. And what is that? You will either be forced to change your ‘world view’ on the subject matter by the coercive psychological methods of the encounter group — using peer pressure — or if that does not work, you will be rendered ‘passive’ by the confrontational atmosphere if you have a ‘differing’ view of the world and can be intimidated into silence. You will be rendered unable to formulate a RESISTANCE to the radical feminist agenda. And if that does not work, you will be excluded from the group. Anyone who opposes this coercion will be either silenced or expelled. That is how ’sensitivity training’ is being used in America today — in our public schools, in our elite universities and in our public discourse. That is how it was conducted in this workshop. Read this account of a real-life ’sensitivity training’ session and become AWARE!
Sensitivity training like this goes on in Air Force SERE training and elsewhere in the military.
“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” -Benjamin Franklin
June 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
And Matt, you’re probably about my son’s age, so read very carefully and slowly because you’re coming from the perspective of Generation X.
Feminists are inherently against family values. Read Pandagon and see how Amanda Marcotte feels about Christianity, faith-based values, children (are parasites before they’re born), and her hatred for men she characterizes as rapists. Marcotte is a modern day feminist who is also ‘for’ women in combat; not somebody from the past…an embarrassment to the Edwards Campaign and to democrats everywhere because she marks just how hard left the ‘democrats’ really are.
Previous: The Wenatchee Witchunt and how government wants to tell you how to raise your children; coincidentally a case that Janet Reno refused to correct or pursue-but an example of prosecutorial overreach and accusations of rape and sexual abuse–achieved through beatings and giving drugs to illicit false accusations that broke up numerous families.
Putting women in combat shows that we as a nation accept and encourage the idea of deliberate violence against women-as long as it’s at the hands of the enemy. Sorry, I don’t go for it.
June 29th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I think I am getting off subject a bit. I just believe equality should mean equality. I’m personally not strong enough physically or mentally to be in combat, but if I was I should be allowed. Men weren’t teachers many years ago and now they are. Times change and change is good. It can only make are spieces more advanced.
June 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Well women and men are not the same, Venessa, so I don’t know how you’re going to drag me to the ‘equality’ thing. They’re simply not ‘equal’, they never will be ‘equal’, -and I don’t know how you’ll force that on me…even sensitivity training won’t do it-
“Species more advanced”. Yeah, like we’re on star trek? Get off the starship enterprise and face up to reality!
June 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
cao is your real name June Cleaver? People evolve. society evolves. Look how much things are differnt from 200 years ago.
And its equal oppertunity. If I wanted to be told where my place was I would move to the Middle East.
My dad,who is a man, said I can do and be anything I want.
We could go on for days. So this is what I am getting… You think men and woman have differnt roles and thats that?
June 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Vanessa…per your comment above you state:
“I think I am getting off subject a bit. I just believe equality should mean equality.”
Yet earlier you stated: “Woman should have every chance to serve in combat. They should have to meet some strength requirements, but it should be reasonable.”
So should the requirements be equal…or in your mind reasonable?
Already you are implying that women shouldn’t be held to the same standard.
Interestingly if you look at the physical fitness requirments for the Marines and the US Army you will note that the requirements for women to pass are LESS then what is required from men.
Do we really want to reduce the fitness requirement for women to allow them in combat? Don’t you want your strongest and most physically fit to do the dirty work?
Remember we are talking about combat units.
I want our armed services to win. I don’t want them to play the politically correct game of trying to get a certain percentage of women in to satisfy some interest group who feels there is some type of discrimination.
And to Matt Weens:
In response to this item I posted:
In a test requiring soldiers to carry 90 lbs. of artillery shells over measured distances, the male failure rate was 20%. The female failure rate was 70%
Your comment was:
“Would we not want to permit the 30% of women who passed the test in combat units rather than the 20% of men who failed?”
First off…those 20% who failed (men) don’t pass and don’t get those assignments.
Secondly: It is an inefficient use of resources to test a group of women to find the 30% who pass a physical test (which is not even as tough as that provided to men) when you can get what you need much easier and with less cost just focusing on men.
We want our military (combat units) to be as efficient…and deadly as possible. Testing that many women to get such poor results is bad policy and not efficient in terms of resources.
The goal of the military is to win. It is not a place where we should be concerned about counting heads and making sure we are politically correct.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
The reason I say your position is anti-libertarian is you would have the law forbid a person from applying for a job on the basis of gender, forbidding them the chance to prove they are (or are not) qualified as an individual.
I think you don’t care whether a woman might be qualified as a combat soldier, that you belive a female combatant threatens what you think gender roles should be. If that’s the case, say so. I don’t like that kind of legally enforced social policy, but at least we can stop arguing over women’s qualifications for combat.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Matt, the rules are already in place and have been there for over 100 years. Women have never been allowed in combat in our culture. Why are you so determined to ignore the differences, which are so important in a combat situation and which are crucial to the jobs that they’re campaigning to open; primarily physical strength? This isn’t the private sector or an insurance company–the primary goal here is to insure that our fighting forces can defeat the enemy on the ground. Did you take a look at the physical requirements for special forces? That is just one of the positions they’re lobbying to open to women; which is simply ridiculous.
As I’ve said on this site repeatedly, the rules for women in combat today are: that if they are to be changed, there is to be notification to Congress and the Secretary of Defense with justification and rationale submitted, within 30 days. This issue, whether you like it or not, has Congressional oversight.
They have circumvented those rules by doing a shell game on paper and exposing young women like Jessica Lynch in forward support companies which support combat units–to combat.
This is against the rules. From CMR:
When the DoD Risk Rule was dropped in 1994, assurances were given that direct ground combat (DGC) units would not be negatively affected because of restrictions such as the collocation rule. Many land combat soldiers carry 100 pounds or more, but individual physical qualification tests for these positions have been unnecessary because average men have sufficient physical strength to do the job. All-male DGC units have also been spared social complications that are common in gender-mixed units.
Contrary to the notion “there is no front line,” the deliberately offensive missions of DGC troops have not changed. If this were not the case, the Army could abolish the infantry and Special Operations Forces, and rely upon female soldiers who are 5-foot 110-pounds to attack the enemy in battles such as the liberation of Fallujah in November 2004.
Army orders to assign female soldiers to forward support companies (FSCs), which collocate with direct ground combat troops at the battalion level, effectively repeal the collocation rule, without the required notice to Congress. In addition to being illegal, this practice increases burdens and risks for all land combat soldiers, for at least three reasons:
a) High level departures from law and policy are confusing and demoralizing to the troops.
b) Infantry/armor and Special Operations Forces will have to wage offensive warfare without the immediate support of embedded soldiers who are physically strong enough to perform single-man rescues under fire.
c) DGC soldiers will have to cope with the full range of issues associated with gender integration; i.e., sexual misconduct allegations, higher non-deployability and evacuation rates, the extra need to protect females from capture, etc.
All I’m saying is–instead of campaigning with no justification for opening combat jobs, the military should follow the rules!
I don’t claim to be anything but me, so stop trying to pigeonhole me into some type of stereotype with that anti-libertarian garbage. I am not anti- anything.
I am pro American, pro military (not the new type with the sensitivity training) but the old-fashioned benighted one, pro woman, and pro man; men and women are not the same, they’re not interchangeable fungibles, no matter how much you whine, cry and stamp your foot about it, and I’ve put up the physical test results to demonstrate it, I don’t know how it can be any more clear.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Matt…I know your last response was for Cao…
However…from a libertarian standpoint…
We dislike waste and want to minimize what the government spends. It costs a lot more to find a couple of women who might be up to combat standards.
It is a far better use of funds to focus on a group that consistently produces a much higher percentage of people who qualify for combat duty.
Gender roles?
To be honest if women were physically equal I wouldn’t have any problem with them in combat.
Furthermore if women were more physically capable then men…then I would argue for women in the military…and would likewise argue men shouldn’t be there since as a group they don’t match up.
Really very simple.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Its not about being politically correct. Itsreally simple. If a woman can meet requirments she should be allowed to do whatever it is. There might only be 10 American woman that can do it well enough. So those 10 woman should be allowedin combat. I’m not saying let the underqualified serve.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Feminism, in its eagerness to claim manliness for women, is destroying femininity. The gender-neutral society created by feminism is not neutral-its dislike of the word manliness now stresses its replacement, which is the supposed sexless term, ‘leadership’. The world seems to have been feminized, but it’s still a man’s world, because both sexes are now engaged in employments that reward manly qualities of aggression an assertiveness.
And women continue to try and wedge themselves into places where they’ve never been before; where only men have walked. They’ve successfully done so in the all-male military academies, with disastrous results–and false accusations of sexual harrassment and rape. This has cost the taxpayer and others not only their careers, but millions of dollars.
It’s odd that you don’t even recognize that any of this has occurred.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
PI–those were excellent comments. But these people want women in combat positions, no matter what the requirements are, and no matter what the rules are–I guess rules mean nothing to them, as long as the goal of sending women to combat is achieved.
Women have shown themselves capable in careers closed to them, but they don’t know how to be women anymore. On Desperate Housewives, (isn’t that a great title - if you’re a Housewife, you are ‘desperate’)-Society goes so far as to recognize similarities and accentuate them. Today women are pushed further than they may want to go, whereas previously, they were held back from the careers they might one day have had. A great example is the women in combat example; 85-90% women polled said they want nothing to do with it.
Yet people like Matt and Venessa keep advocating and pushing for it.
So when are you enlisting, Venessa?
Venessa, what kind of dreamworld are you living in when - only the women who qualify get in? that’s the whole reason they lowered the standards - was to let women in - because they can’t meet those qualifications!
That is the key and only reason that I’m aware of-that Kara Hultgreen died.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
“I don’t claim to be anything but me, so stop trying to pigeonhole me into some type of stereotype with that anti-libertarian garbage. I am not anti- anything.”
That’s not true - you are anti-feminist, which is what this is all about.
Given the trends over that last 100 years, blacks integrated in the military, women voting, I’m guessing combat positions will be opened up to women in the military. Probably **** will be allowed to serve there openly as well.
I can’t say I care very much either way, except I prefer that people be allowed to apply for whatever position they desire, and not be turned away for anything other than not meeting the requirements.
If you think feminists are out to destroy the foundations of our culture go ahead and fight them, I think you are wasting your time attacking phantoms though.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
No, I am pro-woman. I am FOR the women who you are ignoring - the 80-90% of women polled who said they were against women in combat. 34% said they would quit if ordered into combat along with the men.
You are “FOR” the minitory egalitarian marxist view of ‘equality’, and you speak “FOR” that tiny percent of woman (about 15% of the women officers serving) who don’t give a damn about the 80-90% of women I’m supporting.
In this graph, you are speaking for 15% of the women officers. I am speaking for the other enlisted women (80-90%); and some of the men who have been censored and are not allowed to talk against a) women’s low substandard performance and double standards and b) ‘equal opportunity’ policies.
Essentially the ‘equal opportunity’ policies are censoring rational debate on the subject and allowing people like Lt. Col. McSally and others to go unchecked with no opposition, and accolades come only from the careerists who fear for their jobs.
The key part about your end of the debate is - in the military, you can’t become a flag officer until you’ve had combat experience. These are people who have their eyes on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and they’re only a small percentage of women officers.
Again, from CMR, July, 2000:
The current assignment of women to air cavalry helicopters, which routinely deploy in close tandem with artillery and armored units, virtually guarantees that in future wars women will be shot down, killed, or captured as prisoners of war. The new policy was promoted as a triumph for equal rights, even though female casualties and prisoners would not have an equal opportunity to survive.
Secretary West and Lister also reinstated co-ed basic training, which had been tried for five years starting in the Carter administration. The experiment failed because women suffered excessive injuries, and men were not being challenged enough. Many tests have shown that even with extensive physical conditioning, women are 50-60% less strong than men, and have about 25-30% less aerobic capacity needed for endurance.
To get around realities such as this, and to avoid failure for co-ed basic training the second time around, civilian Army officials changed the regime and redefined “success” in terms of women’s morale. Early focus group surveys found that women’s self-esteem improved by 14 points, while the men’s morale sank by 17.
Co-ed basic training incorporated gender-normed tests, adjusted for physical differences, and less-demanding requirements, such as map-reading or first-aid, were assigned greater importance. Focus group evaluated “cohesion,” but only in terms of feelings and emotion, rather than combat readiness.
Gender-adjusted scores are considered more “fair” because they measure “equal effort, not results”. The system does not inspire confidence, because everyone knows that there is no gender-norming on the battlefield. No one would consider adopting the concept in non-lethal combat, such as the Army-Navy football game.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I think if you asked those %80-%90 the question “should women be allowed to try out for combat posts?” Instead of “Would you like to go into combat?” you would get different numbers.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Well what you think should happen is not what’s happening; they stopped surveying what women think in 2001 because they didn’t like the answers that were given; which was the majority of enlisted women who are not officers oppose the idea, and for good reason.
In her new book The Kinder, Gentler Military, Stephanie Gutmann shines a bright light on the consequences of “ungendered visions” in actual practice. The book describes scenes of women struggling to compete in a world of false equality, which sometimes appear comic, but really foretell tragedy in the making. No one should have to lose their life in pursuit of feminist fantasies. (Donnelly, 2002)
“Truth be known, that’s one of the reasons I’m getting out. It’s all too PC. I came in to be in an organization with a clear mission policy and a focus on individual and unit efficiency (although at the time, I didn’t know that). Now, the focus is what you say, how you say it, and to whom do you say it. Whatever happened to simply training Marines? And how in the hell did we ever get stuck in this mire?”
— S.Sgt. Charlotte Crouch, USMC, age thirty, April 1998, Okinawa, Japan
From a reviewer-JM White in Little Rock, Arkansas:
Frightening **** The book is advertised as being about women in the military, but a more accurate description is that it’s about the feminization of the military. The same culture warriors that have remade the academy, the press, and the non-profit world into their image are quickly subverting that bastion of alpha-male values, the military. Gutmann uses endless stories and anecdotes to paint a disturbing picture of a military incapable of “killing people and breaking things”, a military more interested in politeness, cleanliness, and self-esteem. Frightening, indeed.
Also, the book presents the first balanced look at the Tailhook “scandal” I’ve ever seen. This partial vindication of the air force pilots there alone is worth the price of the book.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
PI
I think the waste argument doesn’t really stand up. Universities could say “We don’t have time to consider black applicants for professors because most blacks aren’t educated enough and we don’t want to waste the time and money.” It’s just an excuse. Start with a physical test, you can rule out women who are unfit from the start. What about women on the police force? Some of them don’t cut it, some make good officers, let the requirements decide.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
The same thing is happening with the police force. Do you recall Brian Nichols going on that murderous rampage because there was a 5′ 2″ tall grandmother guarding him? That guy was the size of a fullback.
You’re kidding yourself if you think that these disastrous policies are not costing us millions of dollars!
June 29th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I remember in college a really bright aggressive girl who wanted to fly jets. The military was the only place she could fly the kind of planes she wanted to, but as a woman she would have been stuck flying transports. So she never went in the military.
There are plenty of single examples on each side of the argument. Anecdotes don’t count for much.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Neither does your nonexistent experience, promulgation of myths and political pandering. But, feminism relies on myths and does not stand up to empirical evidence.
A study that was published in 2000 examined the effects of affirmative action on police hiring. While comparing male and female public safety officers, it was discovered that female officers had 32 percent to 56 percent less upper-body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower-body strength than male officers. (Lott, 2005)
She was very easily overcome by this guy; and he went onto commit several murders.
But…she was ‘equal’, right? And that’s all that matters.
The same principles that caused that situation will cause disastrous results on the battlefield. You’re right, they’re comparable.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
That is an interesting question. I don’t know very much about how women police have worked out - but I’ll bet there are studies out there. I’ll go look for them.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
John R. Lott Jr., “Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime,” Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.
Although affirmative action proponents claim that women are ‘understanding’ and are better at ‘de-escalating force’ situations, through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts.
Female officers are more quick to use fatal force. According to Lott, each 1% increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7%.
Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians accidentally shot by police. Adding black males to a police force decreases civilian shootings even more. By contrast, adding white female officers increases accidental police shootings.
In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers – as the whole country saw with Brian Nichols in Atlanta. Lott says: “Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent.”
In a study of public-safety officers-female officers were found to have 32% to 56% less upper body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower body strength than male officers (Frank J. Landy, “Alternatives to Chronological Age in Determining Standards of Suitability for Public Safety Jobs,” Technical Report, Vol. 1, Jan. 31, 1992.)
Time:
Ah, why look anymore? It’s all the same BS **** results. Same old ****, different day.-
Oops, one more: Philadelphia Times Reporter: 30 Seconds: Cutts is best reason for abolishing affirmative action
The reason that person wrote that is probably because Cutts was a police officer who
I haven’t seen that he was a FORMER police officer, but you just have to wonder if affirmative action has anything to do with his remaining on the police force–and what are the standards around becoming a police officer and retaining that position considering all of these circumstances.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
If any of you happy people care I took the writtne and the physical test for the poilce department.I had to lift and run the same as the guys and not to bragg I did better than a lot. I am also in really good shape too. Afetr starting the interview process I realized this is not what I wanted to do. I would have been physically able. Thats the point I’m trying to make. And cao if there was a shortage of soilders and my country needed me I would in a heart beat
June 30th, 2007 at 4:46 am
You would have been physically able because they lowered the standards to accommodate women and you passed because of that, or because you tested like a man?
June 30th, 2007 at 11:07 am
it was the same standards for men and woman. A lot of guys could not meet requirments so I don’t think the test has been altered. or at least notrecently. It was a couple years ago so I don’t remeber the exactly, but it was 3 miles under 22 min. youhad to run a course under 3 min that involved clibming walls sprinting and lifting and carrying 150lb like 10feet. there was a couple other things. Its not demanding like the military ,but my point is from what I saw woman who holding there own.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:39 am
I’ve only scanned through the comments, but I didn’t see anyone with any actual experience here. Allow me to rectify that.
While the media was reporting that “Women are proving that they can perform equally” during Desert Storm, men were carrying women’s equipment, setting up their tents, changing their tires, and doing the jobs they were afraid to do, like driving trucks on dangerous Arabian roads. The women compensated them by providing a steady supply of sex.
Combat is still hard, physically and mentally, and no technology will ever change that. Combat support is pretty hard, too, and can turn into combat quite easily, as we saw with Jessica Lynch’s unit. Most women and some men don’t have what it takes. So, why not allow those very few women who might be able to handle it to do so? Many reasons, but here are some of the most important:
1. Combat unit cohesion is based on male group dynamics, and has been tried, tested, and refined over centuries. Put one woman in the unit and the whole dynamic disintegrates.
2. Sex.
3. Virtually no women, unless they’re on steroids or testosterone, have the physical strength and stamina required. Many men don’t, either. The exceptions among women are so few as to make them statistically insignificant.
4. Psychology has now shown what most of us knew all along: men and women are different mentally and emotionally. Women are simply not suited for combat, which, by the way, involves killing people. Our ancestors figured this out a long, long time ago. Remember the true story of Jessica Lynch? Her weapon jammed and she fainted. Want her in a foxhole with you?
4. Men might be raped or sexually abused if they are P.O.W.s, but it is rare. Women WILL BE. It’s not publicized because it would be damaging to the feminist cause, but it happened in Desert Storm and in the current war. And even with the few men who are, they aren’t coming back carrying an enemy soldier’s baby.
5. Feminists like to tell us that our natural male instinct to protect women is patronizing and wrong. Bull. It’s right and good, and most women wouldn’t want it any other way. Even if they did, it’s hard-wired and not going away, so we just have to accept that that’s the way it is.
The women-in-combat agenda is being pushed to further the feminist agenda of neutering society, and for the sake of career advancement for a few female officers who want to be able to attain the highest positions in the military, which are reserved for combat officers. But the armed forces do not exist to provide career opportunities for a few climbers, nor a captive-audience experimentation lab for social engineers. They exist to defend our country and our way of life, and anything that is detrimental to that mission needs to go away.