Some backward minds might find this simple question an interesting question:
Why allow women in combat if we won’t allow them to compete alongside men in sport?
[…]
While the U.S. Navy and Air Force are pledged to open all positions to women, and the Army is being coy, the Marines did a major study on hundreds of volunteers in simulated combat. The results, NBC reports, included “Women were injured twice as often as the men (40.5 per cent for women, 18.8 per cent for men); Men were more accurate at shooting on every weapon system except the M4 [rifle]; Women had trouble with combat tasks, including removing casualties.” But this study will be dismissed as outdated thinking rather than welcomed as important new evidence. And in one sense, indeed, it merely confirms what we all know already.
Why are we determined to put women in combat alongside men when we absolutely refuse to do it in sports? We would be horrified by a society where cheering crowds watched male safeties smash into female receivers and leave them writhing on the ground, or female forwards were ground into the boards by male defencemen five inches taller and 70 pounds heavier and given cracked ribs.
We certainly wouldn’t put women in a boxing ring with men or an MMA match.
As to why, the answer (duh!) is because they say so! Unless they say otherwise.
We do not elect leaders, nor do we consent to being governed by these people. We are, simply, ruled.
Believe it or not, I include women in the “we.”
UPDATE: Many thanks to Sarah Hoyt at Instapundit for the link! A warm welcome to all!
Comments
36 responses to ““Debate is closed on this issue,” they explained…”
If you think the regime in Washington is illegitimate, lawless, corrupt and violent, then anything that weakens its military is good.
w0men do compete in sports with men and win! automobile racing and horse racing. women are very successful in drag racing. and as for combat you better get out of the way if you see a woman coming down the road in a huge pink suv talking on her cell phone!
We should let women compete with men in sports. And if they can’t, they can’t. But some can (maybe not a lot, but some).
Judge by the individual, not the group. Same applies to the military. And anything else.
danica patrick has won an indy car race and does as well as most of the men in nascar. women are doing really well winning races in nhra drag racing.
…women are doing really well winning races in nhra drag…
Sure they are. And some men are doing well in drag also, like Caitlyn.
w0men (sic) do compete in sports with men and win! automobile racing and horse racing. women are very successful in drag racing.
So women can compete with men as long as they are riding something or driving something. So when we bring back the cavalry or need funny car drivers to attack enemy artillery, women should be considered for service in those roles. 😉
During World War 2, the British army allowed women to operate anti-aircraft guns around London, a very dangerous job. They found that women were more accurate than men doing the same thing. Before the war, a job like that would have been completely off-limits to women.
chocolatier some of the british women went to antwerp belgium with their anti aircraft guns. also their were several russian women pilots who be came aces shooting down 5 or more german aircraft.
Exactly. Those of us who can compete, LET US. Those of us who can’t, well, too effing bad. And the same goes for any “minority”.
All I ever asked as a feminist was to be judged by the quality of my character, not the curves of my body.
(And you know da**ed well who I’m misquoting.) The same thing applies to “affirmative action” anywhere.
Equality. Not condescending “oh, you aren’t good enough so we’ll pretend you are.”
Two problems.
1. Nobody wants to admit it but men behave very differently around women. A couple of women in an Infantry unit will result in romances, jealousies, and drive a wedge through the unit’s morale.
2. We are simply too weak-hearted to weed out the 99.5% (at least) of women not strong enough to pull their weight in an Infantry unit. Instead, men will be carrying her gear as well their own. Loss of effectiveness and resentment will ensue.
But that’s your problem, not ours. And I don’t think it’s 99.5, either. Man have more strength, but women have more stamina.
So, on a long march, the women will still be stumbling along while the men are collapsed. Military needs to play to both strengths.
Or split them up – use women in one group (squad/platoon/whatever) and men in another.
But effing quit protecting those of us who can fight, unless your are guarding our backs while we are guarding yours.
[…] CURIOUS, ISN’T IT:“Debate is closed on this issue,” they explained… […]
@Kathy K –
“But that’s your problem, not ours. ” From your sentence, I can tell you have never served as part of a close team. On a team, something that effects the individual, effects the whole team.
“So, on a long march, the women will still be stumbling along while the men are collapsed. ”
Please post a link to a study that proves this.
The Marines just spent millions of taxpayer dollars proving that women were less capable than men in combat.
“Equality. Not condescending “oh, you aren’t good enough so we’ll pretend you are.””
That is what we have now in the military. Women are scored higher for less output on PT tests. They do not have to do as many push ups, sit-ups and have much more time to do the 2 mile run (Army).
But that’s your problem, not ours.
Um, no. In a military unit, a morale problem is everybody’s problem. Any other approach to morale issues gets people killed. Demanding that men “get over it” is saying accommodating the desire of some women to serve in combat units is worth dead soldiers.
So, here’s my question to you. How many dead soldiers is it worth?
Army PT Test Standards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Physical_Fitness_Test#Standards
bob sykes said: “If you think the regime in Washington is illegitimate, lawless, corrupt and violent, then anything that weakens its military is good.”
The US Military would be the one government organization that would refuse to take up arms against the citizenry. Individuals in the military understand their oath “to support and defend the Constitution.” The police, secret service, FBI, homeland security, border parol, etc.. would be the ones to worry about as they already view “the citizenry” as a threat.
Women’s sports are a contrivance, invented to provide women with college scholarships.
If college sports were integrated, women would get fewer college scholarships.
Feminists demand “integrated” facilities when that will benefit them, and segregated ones when that will benefit them.
That’s all you need to know. Free stuff trumps logic and consistency. Always,
FrabcisChalk, I’d like to believe you I really would. However, the way Obama is replacing mid-level and higher officers and many NCOs that might not be true any more. Welcoming homosexuals into combat arms and some recent exercises in civilian areas should give you pause too.
The military in many countries is used to control the population more than protect against external threats. That could happen in the USA if civil order breaks down under the assault of the progressive agenda against many long held values. Some of these include same sex marriage, abortion on demand for children without parental consent or notification, religious organizations forced to provide abortion funding. The list goes on almost endlessly.
First question to ask females entering infantry training:
“Are you ready, willing, and able to decapitate a screaming jihadi with an e-tool or disembowel him with your bayonet? If you aren’t, why the f*** are you here?”
[…] From here: […]
The next time some woman wants to tell you that females should be allowed to be infantry, ask her if she thinks it would be effective to have an ALL female infantry unit go fight the enemy all-male force.
Ask them to imagine it…100 females vs 100 males. They’d never do it.
So then why let even one female take the place of a male?
@Kathy K –
“But that’s your problem, not ours. ”
It’s your problem if you’re not physically capable of shouldering the load.
There’s no room for catering to individuals in combat unit, dead men and and a devastated unit will result.
I like that: women in sports is a contrivance. So true.
Most of the women I hear who want to go into combat arms are talking about promotion possibilities. That’s the worst sort of careerism – they’re thinking of what might be good for themselves and to hell with what might be good for the unit or the mission. Women have served well for decades in a variety of roles. There’s no need to jeopardize unit effectiveness just so some women might make rank easier.
Point of order- we DON’T forbid women from competing with men. Can you imagine the lawsuits? Women self select out of football an hockey etc because they cant compete. There is no ban.
i think they need to deal with the pregnancy issue. A large number of ladies in the Navy get pregnant before long deployments. Despite rules and regulations about that.
We do let men do MMA with women. Didn’t you hear about Fallon Fox? He’s a man who had surgery done to allow him to pretend to be a woman and he does MMA against real women. In today’s society all you have to do is wish really hard.
This is an original conclusion, nor it it new:
We should make ALL combat personnel female, and divide them into four armies, by week of the month. What male army could stand against such awesome ferocity?
Nor is it PC, and even Amy Schumer and Chris Rock wouldn’t use it at any university without risking violent retribution.
“NOT” an original conclusion.
Man have more strength, but women have more stamina. – Kathy K
Which is why the world record for pretty much every endurance event is held by women. Oh? What’s that Mr. Guinness? Those records are held by men? I suppose that means Kathy’s argument is INVALID. Or at least any and all portions of it that rely upon “women have more stamina.”
“It’s your problem if you’re not physically capable of shouldering the load.”
Umm. NO. That’s what I just said. IF a woman can shoulder the load, she should be allowed to. If not, too bad.
@MarkJ
“Are you ready, willing, and able to decapitate a screaming jihadi with an e-tool or disembowel him with your bayonet? If you aren’t, why the f*** are you here?”
May I refer you to Kipling?
“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.”
I assure, you, that in some ways, women are MUCH meaner than men. And not just in Afghanistan. Think female animals defending their young. Humans are animals, too. Even in the west.
For the first 80 years of this nation’s existence, few blacks were allowed the honor of defending our nation. Gays and women, more like 230 years.
Let’s have blacks, gays and women staff our combat positions for an equivalent period.
#fairness.
Why do I care that women might be a little better at walking long distances if they can’t carry dying men out of a combat zone? What military wife would ever want her husband serving in a combat unit with people who are physically unable to lift him if he gets injured?
In the name of “equality,” they are sentencing men to unnecessary death. I think it’s a bad trade-off. (I’m female.)
So Kathy K supplies a poem and Nature Shows as her proof. LOL
while winston churchill said this about the royal navy june it is just as true for the first 80 years of are military. churchill was told he was attacking the tradition of the royal navy on some obscure issue. his answer gentlemen the traditions of the royal navy are rum sodomy and the lash!