WomeN in Combat..Hmm..

“Why are our generals trying to push women into ground combat in Iraq despite Pentagon regulations and congressional law against it? What is it about civilian control of the military that the generals don’t understand?
Women Don’t Belong In Ground Combat adds..

The advocates of women in combat say the front line is everywhere in Iraq. They continually try to fuzzy over the difference between being subject to risk (such as being ambushed by a car bomb) versus the task of aggressively seeking out and killing the enemy.

Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker tried to laugh off the difference by saying that “maybe since we’re killing 40,000 people a year on the highways, they [women] shouldn’t drive. That’s very dangerous, too.” Comparing the risk of highway driving with engaging the enemy in combat is insulting to our intelligence and common sense.

Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society. Feminists are determined to impose what Gloria Steinem called “liberation biology” that pretends all male-female differences are culturally imposed by a discriminatory patriarchy.

History offers no evidence for the proposition that the assignment of women to military combat jobs is the way to win wars, improve combat readiness, or promote national security.

Women, on the average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, are about six inches shorter, and survive basic training only by the subterfuge of being graded on effort rather than on performance. These facts, self-evident to anyone who watches professional or Olympic sports competitions, are only some of the many sex differences confirmed by scholarly studies.

Denial of physical differences is an illusion that kills. That’s the lesson of the Atlanta courtroom massacre where a 5-foot-one, 51-year-old grandmother police guard was overpowered by a 6-foot-tall, 210-pound former football linebacker criminal; so now three people are dead.

Every country that has experimented with women in actual combat has abandoned the idea, and the notion that Israel uses women in combat is a feminist myth. The armies and navies of every potential enemy are exclusively male; their combat readiness is not diminished by coed complications or social experimentation.

No country in history ever sent mothers of toddlers off to fight enemy soldiers until the United States did this in the Iraq war. We hope this won’t be the legacy of the Bush Administration.”

I know I know I know.
It’s controversial..Feel free sweet readers to share your slant on this one.
What is for me most offensive about women in combat is the total denial of male /female differences and the negative consequences this has on morality and ultimately relations between the sexes.

The “Political Correctness Machine” has made it embarassing for men or women to think of women as “ladies”. Women used to be known for their high standards of moral behavior, for knowing what’s “proper”, for politeness. Men felt a need to protect and defend women. This “Machine” has stolen true male heroism from the world.

The softness and empathy of women and the risk-taking of men used to complement one other. (which is not to say women don’t take unique risks..After all every woman risks her health and life in childbirth alone..)

But what has happned to the Titanic cry of “Women and children first”?
The man churned out by the “PC Machine”is supposed to abide and cheer women on if they wish to enter combat and risk their lives.

He dare not treat her any differently than his male counterparts. He can now freely cuss and spit in front of her, tell crude jokes,all the while no longer feeling the need to even protect her.
After all, being just like a man…….she can take care of herself right?

Not quite sweet readers:

Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime by a man.
Heise, L., Ellsberg, M. and Gottemoeller, M. Ending Violence Against Women. Population Reports, Series L, No. 11., December 1999

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.
The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999

Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.

In the year 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003

On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003

Women are NOT men.
And what of the moral implications?

“Lt. Col. Stephen Smith, a Gulf War mechanized infantry commander, told the Commission (November 1992, the 15-member Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces) in Los Angeles:

“By introducing women, even women who have the physical capability to lift the rucksacks, walk the distances, raise the hatches, load the TOW missiles, break the track on those vehicles and put it back together again, you are still introducing into that equation other factors that weren’t there before: sexual jealousies, intentions, our own social or moral values come into play, and they make more difficult that job of that commander who is forward.

“It has been said that in combat the important things are simple, and the simple things are difficult. We are making this more difficult by doing that …. I believe that women in those squads would reduce the combat effectiveness of those squads, and I think we would pay for that in lives.”

The issue of violence against women was crystallized when former prisoners of war appeared before the Commission, including one of the two women captured during Operation Desert Storm. Testimony about the indecent assault on one of the women drew further attention to POW training programs already in place that “desensitize” male POWs to the brutalization of women with whom they may be held captive.

An interview with trainers at the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training center at Fairchild Air Force Base uncovered a logical but disturbing consequence of assigning women to combat:

“If a policy change is made, and women are allowed into combat positions, there must be a concerted effort to educate the American public on the increased likelihood that women will be raped, will come home in bodybags, and will be exploited..”
Case Against Women in Combat
Allowing women to fly combat missions would dramatically increase the probability the United States would have women become prisoners of war. In Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm, the great majority of POWs were combat aviators. Col. John Ripley, USMC, told the Commission in June, “When that airplane, with its female pilot, returns to earth or collides with earth or she must bail out of it, she is no longer a female pilot; she is now a victim.” …

The presence of women would increase morale problems for male prisoners, as well as their vulnerability should the enemy torture women prisoners to coerce cooperation from the men, as highly decorated American aviators who spent years of captivity in Vietnam told the Commission.”

Women are not Men.
Should I repeat that?
The argument that men and women are the same is essentially based on Marxist theory. Simply substitute “gender” for Marx’s category of “class,” and hence…We are all the same.
This “gender” theory is a dangerous form of political moralism, with the same totalitarian characteristics as other versions of Marxism.
Ah..We are all the same.
The American ahem.. “Imperialists” are the same as the Muzlim terrorists and their actions, therefore, seen on the same scale and judged as morally equivalent.

Men and women advocating women in combat?
I suppose if one believes that gender differences are the result only of arbitrary social convention.
But if that is the case, I suppose men should be wearing the mascara and high heels and women need not worry about rape any longer eh?

I remain bewildered and astonished.


Bennings Writing Pad keeps us informed bout illegal immigration and the latest fiasco.,Freedom Watch shows us someone with national Pride., TMH’s Bacon Bits shares insights bout John McCain and betrayal., Updates on the Fair Tax Movement over at third world county

16 Responses to “WomeN in Combat..Hmm..”

  1. benning says:

    My opinion? I think after all the crap the Dems have inflicted on the US Armed Forces, with Patsy Schroeder as the first shriek – I mean strike – that the General is tring to prove a point.

    Me, I loathe the idea of women in combat, or in anything more than support roles in the military. A Chauvnist Pig? You betcha! I don’t want American women being endangered that way or degraded. Just ask your self about Jessica Lynch and what her role was in the Iraq War.

    She is a famous victim, lionized by the press for being … a victim. Brave? Sure was! She was there because she volunteered. Belonged there? No! Hell, no!

    Sorry, Angel, but there are tremendous roles for women in any society. And combat is not one of them. Any more than they can play middle linebacker for the Chicago Bears.

  2. VBGuru613 says:

    It should not be about the sex of the person but rather the physical ability. Some women are smarter then men and could replace some heads in the army and some woman are stronger then some men and those women can be in the army. Perhaps if the physical requirements are met then who cares what sex the person is.

  3. elmers brother says:

    The Navy for some time has put women in charge of and stationed them on combat vessels. This has been a gradual change. The first ship I was on only had female officers and by the time of Iraqi Freedom nearly 10% of the ship was female.

    What the Navy didn’t get was that you stick 19 year old kids on a ship for 6 months while their hormones are raging and then you act all shocked cuz they can’t be professional. There were at least two occasions where people were caught …well you know and then suffered non judicial punishment. Don’t get me wrong they should have been professionals. But why be shocked? Men and women are different.

    OT thanks for stopping by today.

  4. elmers brother says:

    IRT VBguru613: The physical requirements are different for females than males. Women are not required to do as many push up, situps and their times are different for the runs with men in the same age group.

  5. chris says:

    i really like this post and agree with you. very imformative.

  6. Diane says:

    I battle every single day of my life trying to raise my children with values. I have absolutely no desire to go to war, and any woman who is pissed off because she can’t is out of her mind as far as I’m concerned. Should she have the right to do so is another story entirely.

  7. Angel says:

    Thanks benning, VB, EB, Chris and Diane..I had a feelin this may be somewhat controversial eh?.. :)

  8. Brooke says:

    I have no problem with women in logistics and administrative positions.(non-combat)

    However, putting a woman in battle is illogical; she is not as physically strong as a man, nor does she have the same endurance.

    It was my experience, too, that while I drilled in my National Guard MP unit fresh out of high school, I was regarded more as a “little sister” by the older and more experienced soldiers (And with the younger ones, the hormones EB mentioned came into play!) Such a mentality could be detrimental on the battlefield!

  9. ABF says:

    EB makes an excellent point, and I to think women should only be in support roles. On this statement:
    “No country in history ever sent mothers of toddlers off to fight enemy soldiers”
    Didn’t Russian women go into battle in WWII. I can’t remember where I read it, but I believe they did.

  10. KKAArrLL MMmm says:

    SO THIS Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker, IS A PERSON IN CHARGE!!!???..NO WONDER WHY IRAQ IS NOT A PARKING LOT YET..


  11. benning says:

    ABF: Yeah, I believe they did! And the country was being invaded by Nazi Armies at the time – they got inside Russia as far as Moscow. At that point it’s no longer a gender thing, anyway. Then it’s survival.

    For me there’s a huge difference.

  12. David says:

    Angel: Do your arguments make sense? Yes. Will they carry the day? See my first questtion/answer. Because your arguments make sense, of course they are unlikely to have much weight in todqay’s society.


  13. Butch says:

    Women are strong. They can do essentially anything a male can do God willing…

    I love women. Always.

    Thanks mom…God rest her soul…

  14. Nathan Bradfield says:

    I agree. I agree. Love it! Nice that this is coming from a woman too. Thank you.

  15. DragonLady says:

    Well, as a female vet who spent her first 4 years of hell of her short US Air Force career in Combat Communications after picking COMPUTER OPERATOR because it did NOT have COMBAT in the title like the 13 AWACS jobs I turned down, let me state this. Men don’t have periods. Here’s my opinion for what it’s worth, If a woman can physically do everything that her male counterpart can do physically with regards to combat (run as fast and as far, same number push ups & sit ups in same amount of time) AND not have periods and wants to go to battle, I’m all for it. However, she cannot bitch about non-privacy, about men staring at her boobs or nether regions, because she should be expected to do the same personal care in the same fashion as the men when in a “front-line combat” environment. Did I mention she can’t have periods?

    I’m not a small woman, I’m not weak, and I don’t fight like a girl, but I am well aware of my physical limitations compared to the average man despite being bigger than the average woman.

  16. Skarlet says:

    Well Dragonlady, if that’s what you want to do that’s great…
    But, as someone who has spent the last 4 years of her airforce career doing one of those “13 combat jobs,” I can assure you that my period has never stopped me from performing my duties. The Ops world, in the Air Force at least is more female than the rest of the Air Force…meaning I have more women coworkers in the air, than the typical support squadron. Medical excluded of course.

    Men will always be men, and women will always be women, but the responsibility is your own in how to deal with that fact. If you want to giggle and whine and cook, then do that. If you want to do your job the way you would normally were you not focused on societally-induced gender norms, then do that too. I don’t mean you personally, I am sure you are just as professional as the next person. There is also no reason to be a raging psycho who hates men because they have a chip on thier shoulder. You garner your own respect. I find less discrimination from miltary members anywhere, then I do from male civilians.

    I completely agree with you, if a woman can’t do the job that is required of her because she is weaker, and we are weaker, then she can not do that job. My job requires I sit in a chair and look at a screen while moving a trackball. I am perfectly capable of that with or without a period as long as I do not have arthritis. An affliction I believe strikes both men and women. Maybe osteoperosis, since it is much more common in women. I see your right, I’ll go quit. I don’t want the military to have the burden of paying for my calcium supplements and tampons.

    Thanks for serving,

    btw, there are not even 13 different positions on an AWACS.There are 7 in all including flight deck O’s and E’s.