Women in Combat, One mans opinion

[zaaz]

Let us send our daughters to die in battle for the sake of gender neutrality!
Posted on January 3, 2014 by The Matt Walsh Blog

There are three different types of ideas: good ideas, bad ideas, and ideas so horrifically stupid that they will be mocked and scorned by our descendants for centuries to come.

Modern left-wingers typically trade in the second sort of idea, while occasionally conjuring up something that unquestionably falls into the third category.

Speaking of which, there’s this.

After discovering that half of the female Marines can’t meet the minimum physical fitness requirements, usually failing to do three pull-ups, the Corps has decided to delay the standards. This is all part of the process of “equalizing” physical requirements so as to integrate women into combat roles.

Here we have a horrible idea, stacked on top of a bewilderingly idiotic idea, poured over a collection of reckless, ideologically-fueled, irrational, liberal feminist ideas. Basically, an insane idea had sexual relations with a moronic idea and the two gave birth to this idea.

In other words, I disagree.

Let me be more specific: I disagree with the notion that women need to be “integrated” into combat roles.

I disagree with the fools who like to pretend we’re living in a Charlie’s Angels movie, where ladies can shout “girl power” and then kick butt and take names with the best of ‘em.

I disagree with the bureaucrats who think the military should be an instrument for social experimentation.

I disagree with anyone who claims that the battlefield is a place for “equality.”

I disagree that there is any tactical or strategic advantage to getting more women involved in combat.

I disagree that the military should place feminist ideology over tactical and strategic concerns.

I disagree with the pencil pushers and politicians ignoring the combat troop who has rightly worried about a scenario where he is wounded and needs to be carried out of a firefight, but the woman fighting next to him is completely physically incapable of doing so.

I disagree that we should get people killed just so that pushy liberals can feel like they’ve won some sort of bizarre moral victory.

I disagree with the notion that military fitness requirements are “barriers” to “gender equality” and ought to be adjusted because of it.

I disagree with the “gender equality” fable entirely.

I disagree with the strategy of achieving “equality” by treating different groups unequally.

I disagree with every single thought process and ideological dogma that goes into creating a scenario where the home of the Few and the Proud is transformed into a place for the Many and the Physically Incapable.

When the DC elite declared their plan to move women into combat positions, supporters of the move tried to assuage the concerns of rational Americans by insisting that physical requirements for combat roles would NOT be altered or adjusted for the sake of women. But rational Americans — being, well, rational — knew from the get-go that this was a lie. Women are not men. Men are uniquely equipped for the physical and mental rigors of combat. Women are not. This fact, while scientific and undeniable, seems quite insulting to the legions of childish Utopianists who’ve been hypnotized by Disney movies and college professors into believing that women can “do anything men can do.” Anything. And, in order to please these types, military brass will cave and kowtow, eventually rigging the fitness tests so as to achieve a paradise where our daughters and wives can charge into combat and be mercilessly slaughtered.

And the rational Americans were right. Again.

Diversity has become the military’s top priority. Google the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. In fact, you don’t need to read it. It’s sad enough that our military has a thing called a “diversity commission.” I grew up thinking that our military’s top concern at all times must be: “are we ready and able to kill the enemy if called upon?” But, apparently, it’s more like: “are we ready and able to impress Gloria Steinem with our female enlistment statistics?”

Here’s a funny thought: if women can fight in combat roles, then all-male conscription must assuredly be unconstitutional. So, when the Supreme Court strikes it down, and the draft is reinstated, will the liberal feminists of America jump for joy as their daughters are forcibly recruited and sent off to die in some godforsaken desert halfway around the world? If you want to be like men, will you die like them?

Maybe you would. But we are a shameful, cowardly country if we would send our daughters off to war for no reason other than to obey our New-Age Gender Creeds.

There are other aspects that go beyond the physical toll of battle. I’ve never been to war, but I understand (in the abstract, anyway) how the horrors of it can weigh on a man. In a world where we must pretend that women are as physically strong as men, I suppose there’s no hope that we’ll acknowledge the more difficult reality: that men are more psychologically equipped to deal with the lasting mental burden of combat. No human being is designed to deal with the carnage of war, but men at least have a better chance of carrying it and processing it. Research has shown that women are more vulnerable to developing PTSD than men — a fact that should come as no surprise to anyone with even the most basic understanding of the inherent emotional and psychological differences between the sexes.

And, somewhere in my disgust at this whole thing, I must admit that I am also personally fed up with what it all represents: the cheapening of masculinity.

No man would claim that they can do everything a woman can do. Or, I should say, not very many men would make that claim. It is a generally accepted truth that women possess unique capabilities. Women are invaluable and indispensable. Who would deny this? Not I, that’s for certain.

But what about the unique capabilities of men? Are we completely replaceable in every facet of society? Is that the new philosophy? And what about all of the things men have built, and achieved, and won, and died for, just so that we can live in a country where you’re allowed to be a crazed gender revolutionary? Women could have done all of that?

Ridiculous.

You know, maybe it would be wise to raise our daughters to have an appreciation for manhood. Maybe we should stop filling her head with this “you can do everything a man can do” garbage. Maybe she isn’t benefitted by this lie. Maybe it will only make her bitter and arrogant. Maybe it will cause her to see men as worthless, with the only characteristics particular to them being negative stereotypes about leaving the toilet seat up and drinking too much beer.

Maybe we should tell her that it is men who fight the wars, and men who are best equipped for the task. This is not because of “discrimination” or “glass ceilings,” it’s because men are men, and women are not. Women need men. GASP. What a scandalous notion. But I say it again: women need men.

Of course, in turn, I have absolutely no trouble admitting that men need women. I need my wife. The world needs my daughter.

Just not on the battlefield.

************

Find me on Facebook.

Twitter: @MattWalshRadio

Interesting read, i tend to agree with pretty much everything he had to say which i find surprising.

[Deleted]

The last thread was locked because people got defensive, just warning you.

[Easo]

I disagree with that wall of text, just TOO much bias and ranting.

[apepi]

The problem is not the women but the delaying of standards. Treat them all equally if they can do the work, if most women can not then too bad.

[eschatological]

That guy's an idiot. Especially when he discussed the mental/psychological "inferiority" of women in terms of handling stress. I'd love to see his sources on studies that women would be worse, psychologically, on the battlefield. It sounds like me he's dressing up old fashioned views of "hysterical women" with some sort of claim to pseudo-scientific rationale.

I agree the standards shouldn't be delayed/lowered, but that's about it.

Personally, my opinion on this issue falls more along Chris Rock's reasoning about why they should allow gays in the military:

"If they wanna fight, let 'em fight. Cause I ain't fightin'! I don't give a fuck if there's a Russian tank rollin' down Flatbush Avenue. I ain't shootin' nobody."

[Deleted]

The problem is not the women but the delaying of standards. Treat them all equally if they can do the work, if most women can not then too bad.

All that needs to be said on the subject right there.

[MikeBogina]

The genders are different for a reason.

if a village had 100 men an 100 women and 99 men went off and died, that 1 man can still impregnate all those women within a couple weeks(or days) but if 99 females went off and died, 100 men can only fight and kill each other over getting that one female pregnant every 10+ months. Men are more disposable than women, and therefor are born with a better ability for war.

[GreatOak]

Standards shouldn't be lowered but women aren't mentally incapable of serving in combat roles.


I think the perfect score for women's pull-ups is 8 vs. 20 for men. I think they only have to do a 15 second arm hang now.

[Aqua]

Ugh wasn't the last thread of this crap like 100 pages long and the consensus just ended up being those who disagree are simply going to disagree?

Can we stick to that? Because the arguments were highly opinionated, short sighted and lacked any good contextual data other than 'this is what I think, everyone should shut up and listen to me while I rain down walls of ranty text that really just boil down to how you've been raised and taught.'

...And I disagree alot with that wall. And my father and the men in my life are, of the people I respect most in this world, I have plenty appreciation for men and I think people who think that way miss the point of the debate in question entirely by immediately going on the defensive of 'OMG WHY ARE YOU ATTACKING ME'.
Like a footballer taking a dramatic dive to halt the game and reset the momentum of play.

But by and large I'd like this thread to not continue. It burned on for days and neither side got any ground and it descended into petty insults and raging sexism.

[Total Crica]

unless everyone else in the sqaud/outfit are able to take up the slack from someone who can not meet the same standards as everyone else, then the squad/outfit is going to have problems...

but the military may be taking this into consideration before they place someone in a squad/outfit that is not able to keep up with everyone else...im not in the military so i wouldnt know...

[zaaz]

unless everyone else in the sqaud/outfit are able to take up the slack from someone who can not meet the same standards as everyone else, then the squad/outfit is going to have problems...

but the military may be taking this into consideration before they place someone in a squad/outfit that is not able to keep up with everyone else...im not in the military so i wouldnt know...

Ill tell you that the military does not think about other people picking up the slack when an incapable person is assigned to the group. Its only about looking good on paper for them. A we have X number of women in combat battalions kind of thing

[Total Crica]

Ill tell you that the military does not think about other people picking up the slack when an incapable person is assigned to the group. Its only about looking good on paper for them. A we have X number of women in combat battalions kind of thing

then they are going to have problems when it comes to execution of duties - when they figure it out, they will fix it - if they dont fix it, they gonna fail, its that simple

[Damsbo]

The genders are different for a reason.

if a village had 100 men an 100 women and 99 men went off and died, that 1 man can still impregnate all those women within a couple weeks(or days) but if 99 females went off and died, 100 men can only fight and kill each other over getting that one female pregnant every 10+ months. Men are more disposable than women, and therefor are born with a better ability for war.

I can also say some random things, for example "Steven Spielberg has never in his life, had a cup of coffee" - This is an answer as valid as yours; irrelevant.

Edit. My point is, you seem to misunderstand OP. The difference between men and women, go beyond reproduction. Please dont scale it down to semen and wombs.

[Deleted]

Can't achieve "gender equality" because the femenists just want total dominance & there's a reason why we call some male and others female. A difference, that is.


Anyway i don't want a skinny girl attempting to save me from a burning building, i want a muscly macho man that can lift me with one arm, that's my view.

[Spectral]

I don't really see why opinions are particularly relevant. Just set an objective set of criteria for what's necessary and anyone that can meet it, meets it.

On the 3 pullups that nearly half of the women failed, the issue I see there isn't one of ability, it's of raw, unbridled laziness and entitlement. That's a very, very easy task that they knew they were going to have to perform and they didn't bother to prepare for some reason.

[Rukentuts]

On the 3 pullups that nearly half of the women failed, the issue I see there isn't one of ability, it's of raw, unbridled laziness and entitlement. That's a very, very easy task that they knew they were going to have to perform and they didn't bother to prepare for some reason.

Although it makes me wonder how many men fail on three pullups.

[Zecora]

Interesting read, i tend to agree with pretty much everything he had to say which i find surprising.

Uninteresting read. I disagree with pretty much everything in that rant.

[Deleted]

That's an awfully long article for what needs to be stated.

If women want equality then by all means let them try and pass the physical requirements... the same as the men have to.

The requirements are obviously there for a reason. If they aren't, reduce the men's to the same standard as women's if it really isn't that important. But of course that won't happen.

[GreatOak]

Although it makes me wonder how many men fail on three pullups.

Recruits? 1% fail

General Public? Probably 50%

[Rukentuts]

Recruits? 1% fail

General Public? Probably 50%

I bet both numbers here are low.