ReadabilityReally, Leon Panetta? You want Sandra Fluke in combat?
Yes, women in combat. Women, who can’t figure out how to go to the Target pharmacy and $9/month birth control, will be gunning down terrorists. Women, who think that telling them to buy their own birth control, cupcake, is a “war on women,” will be seeing actual combat. Women who complain about a “rape culture” want girls out into the front lines as rape-bait if captured by the enemy (and those front lines will be six thousand miles away from the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic). The same people who think that it’s a right wing nutjob idea for women teachers to be ready to use force to defend their pupils against school shooters also believe that there those same women can use deadly force to defend their country against the Taliban.
I would be cracking up if the consequences to this absurdity were not so deadly.
Seriously, chickies, you can’t have it both ways. You’re either wilting wallflowers who can’t be expected to figure out how to bargain-shop for condoms, or you’re a big strong woman who can gun down the Muslim Brotherhood like a boss.
It would also be nice if we could do a quick primer on why women have historically not been allowed in combat; if you answer “the evil patriarchy,” then you have issues. Our generation, and even Da TechGuy’s generation, has not seen a war that wiped out most of the young male population. But those exist and tend to crop up with frightening regularity - WWII, WWI, the Civil War, the American Revolution. Hundreds of thousands of young men dead in all of them, but the country kept going strong.
You can kill half of your young men and repopulate your country in relatively short order. You can go all Old Testament and men can take multiple wives; old men can marry young women who are desperate for a husband; men whose wives pass away at a young age can remarry. But when you kill your young women — and make no mistake, it will be young women in combat — your country has no future. Liberals salivate over The Handmaid’s Tale, the premise of which is that most women have become infertile. What insanity has to possess you to create that situation by leading young women to their slaughter in combat?
Bad enough, too, that many children lose their dads in wars (and some lose their mothers); do we really need an entire generation of war orphans, with both Mom and Dad dead on the front lines? Bad enough that many women at home and abroad are raped; do we really want to subject young women to that particular form of intel-gathering torture? (On the plus side, waterboarding is about to be vindicated.) We saw what happened to Lara Logan; what sort of psycho do you have to be to deliberately put young woman in the way of that harm?
Let me know, America, how you will look young women in the face when they arrive back in America, finally released from capture, violated in every way a woman can be violated, and bearing the children of our enemies. Let me know how that’s gonna work out for you.
And be well-aware, this is aimed directly at attacking the constitutionality of the Selective Service Act, so we will either draft women to the front lines, or we’re going to end the draft entirely and become some neutered, declawed nation incapable of defending itself. I shall leave you, gentle readers, to guess which will happen.
Yes, women in combat. Women, who can’t figure out how to go to the Target pharmacy and $9/month birth control, will be gunning down terrorists. Women, who think that telling them to buy their own birth control, cupcake, is a “war on women,” will be seeing actual combat. Women who complain about a “rape culture” want girls out into the front lines as rape-bait if captured by the enemy (and those front lines will be six thousand miles away from the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic). The same people who think that it’s a right wing nutjob idea for women teachers to be ready to use force to defend their pupils against school shooters also believe that there those same women can use deadly force to defend their country against the Taliban.
I would be cracking up if the consequences to this absurdity were not so deadly.
Seriously, chickies, you can’t have it both ways. You’re either wilting wallflowers who can’t be expected to figure out how to bargain-shop for condoms, or you’re a big strong woman who can gun down the Muslim Brotherhood like a boss.
It would also be nice if we could do a quick primer on why women have historically not been allowed in combat; if you answer “the evil patriarchy,” then you have issues. Our generation, and even Da TechGuy’s generation, has not seen a war that wiped out most of the young male population. But those exist and tend to crop up with frightening regularity - WWII, WWI, the Civil War, the American Revolution. Hundreds of thousands of young men dead in all of them, but the country kept going strong.
You can kill half of your young men and repopulate your country in relatively short order. You can go all Old Testament and men can take multiple wives; old men can marry young women who are desperate for a husband; men whose wives pass away at a young age can remarry. But when you kill your young women – and make no mistake, it will be young women in combat – your country has no future. Liberals salivate over The Handmaid’s Tale, the premise of which is that most women have become infertile. What insanity has to possess you to create that situation by leading young women to their slaughter in combat?
Bad enough, too, that many children lose their dads in wars (and some lose their mothers); do we really need an entire generation of war orphans, with both Mom and Dad dead on the front lines? Bad enough that many women at home and abroad are raped; do we really want to subject young women to that particular form of intel-gathering torture? (On the plus side, waterboarding is about to be vindicated.) We saw what happened to Lara Logan; what sort of psycho do you have to be to deliberately put young woman in the way of that harm?
Let me know, America, how you will look young women in the face when they arrive back in America, finally released from capture, violated in every way a woman can be violated, and bearing the children of our enemies. Let me know how that’s gonna work out for you.
And be well-aware, this is aimed directly at attacking the constitutionality of the Selective Service Act, so we will either draft women to the front lines, or we’re going to end the draft entirely and become some neutered, declawed nation incapable of defending itself. I shall leave you, gentle readers, to guess which will happen.
[...] Read it. [...]
So all women are just like Sandra Fluke. There is some brilliant reasoning right there. Good thing I am not like you and don’t judge an entire gender based on the actions of one of its members otherwise I would dismiss all women as empty-headed ditzes incapable of reasoning or logic.
Luke, I’m obviously not judging an entire gender – I’m a woman and know that I’m no weakling nor idiot – but am mocking the women who support this, who are the same women who hold a host of contradictory positions.
Ooops! Neglected to add the link! http://deadcitizensrightssociety.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/dcrs-2013-awards-winners-announced/
I don’t mind women being in combat IF they meet these criteria:
1) Be able to meet exactly the same physical capability tests as do males in the same combat role,
2) Refrain from all sexual contact with anyone during their time in service (much like Albanian sworn virgins),
3) Undergo surgical sterilization to prevent enemy impregnation.
Otherwise, hell no.
There’s non-surgical ways to prevent pregnancy, and there are various issues with women getting pregnant to get out of combat duty, but my other big issue is sexual dimorphism. (I’ll also add, without too much girly TMI, that the rigours of fighting may cause a woman to become temporarily sterile.) That a few women could perhaps meet the physical requirements to be on the front lines could mean that we should open up those positions to women, but not that we should weaken the physical standards so that more women pass.
Leon earned the 2013 Dead Citizen’s Rights Society Award for “Zero Population Growth” for his policy change that will result in the Republic becoming a virtual wasteland, unpopulated and fallow.
[...] “You can kill half of your young men and repopulate your country in relatively short order. . . . But when you kill your young women . . . your country has no future.” – Roxeanne de Luca, “Really, Leon Panetta? You want Sandra Fluke in combat?” [...]
Three comments:
1. Women in the military already have lower fitness standards than men. Will the lower standards carry over to the infantry? To place in perspective, a winter survival load is over 110 lbs. A moderate climate patrol load with full body armor, extra machine gun and mortar ammunition shared throughout the unit, etc weighs in between 60 and 80 lbs. If a buddy goes down, then you must also be able to carry him in addition to your load. If the standard remains the same for both genders, and without a “normalization” to meet physical constraints of female physiological realities, there will be very few women that will meet the standards. I suspect the social engineers will not like this “inequality”. If, however, standards are lowered, I am trying to imagine the conversation among our enemies: “Hold your fire, Achmed, females get an extra 2 seconds on their combat rush.”
2. Combat is pure testosterone. It usually happens very quick, and it is always very violent. Infantrymen must be prepared to stab, bash, and strangle, as well as shoot their enemy. No amount of technology will ever change this fact. This is why combatives remain a crucial element in infantry training still today. I am trying to envision our nation supporting multi-gender UFC matches. If we won’t accept it in a controlled sports environment (i.e. referees who can call the match), why would we support it in an environment without rules and with enemies who will not offer quarter?
3. This experiment (women in infantry formations) has been tried over and over again in the 20th century. The only limited combat success story I am aware of is the Soviet Army in WWII. Of course, they fielded gender segregated infantry battalions. I doubt this is what our social engineers have in mind.
Agreed on all points.
Thus highlighting the absurdity of reduced standards for anyone. Fires don’t burn more gently when women wield the hoses; criminals don’t become weaker or run that much more slowly; loads will not become magically lighter when borne by a woman. (Well, physical loads, at least.) The same rationale for Title IX is the rationale to keep women off the front lines: we simply can’t compete with men’s physical strength.
Women have always served in wars – sometimes disguising themselves as men, sometimes defending the home like a man when the men were off on the front lines. More recently, women have seen nasty combat in the Middle East. But this just strikes me as patently absurd.
Please please send her. Make her a point girl.
The same woman who can’t walk a few blocks to Planned Parenthood will be subjected to rape by Taliban, six thousand miles from the nearest abortion clinic, and thinks that such is a vindication of the rights of woman. I can’t make this s— up.