Hot off the press: Pentagon opens combat roles to Women. Now women have the right to fight and die alongside us men folk. Obviously feminists still have to battle for the right to be drafted.
Hah. Right.
How They’ve Served
The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached – but not formally assigned – to battalions. So while a woman couldn’t be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
Sounds like they were asked and allowed to do all they could reasonably be relied upon to physically be able to accomplish. They didn’t avoid combat, but they weren’t sent out to participate in heavy combat or long, grueling sessions that would demand more than they were able to give either.
The Changes
The new order expands the department’s action of nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. Panetta’s decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.
…
The services will have until January 2016 to make a case to that some positions should remain closed to women.
So, in other words, all positions have to spend valuable time and resources to clarify that positions should remain closed to women and for a reason. Here’s the base guidelines they were given as a place to begin building such a case against women serving in positions
The official said the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps laid out three main principles to guide them as they move through the process:
- That they were obligated to maintain America’s effective fighting force.
- That they would set up a process that would give all service members, men and women alike, the best chance to succeed.
- That they would preserve military readiness.
Good luck doing all those things while allowing women to serve.
What Will Really Happen
“It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations,” Levin said.
As Dalrock has written and shown, women love to get into a male space, convert it, make it safe, make it theirs, and suck all the male out of it. Or maybe just suck off the males in it. I can’t figure out which. Though from what I’ve heard both from buddies serving in army or the marines, and from reports on the sexual conduct ….. both are probably equally true.
Try imagining that though. A report says that about 75% or more of the women currently serving in the army are having sex, with some of the women saying it’s probably higher. It isn’t exactly something you desire to keep a prestine fighting force operating at top of the line if you want to have them mentally and physically healthy – drama and STD’s sound like a good thing to have in a ditch? Let alone having to waste the training and travel costs when a fighting woman gets pregnant.
“Not every woman makes a good soldier, but not every man makes a good soldier. So women will compete,” said Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif. “We’re not asking that standards be lowered. We’re saying that if they can be effective and they can be a good soldier or a good Marine in that particular operation, then give them a shot.”
Lies. Well, maybe not technically. Maybe Rep Loretta Sanchez meant that they wouldn’t take the already lowered female requirements and lower them further to fulfill the now open positions.
In one of his older articles, Dalrock made a graph of some of the requirements for the army from info he found for 2008. I was able to pull up the requirements for those passing basic training and continued physical minimums regardless of position. I’ll bet you’re really surprised to hear that the minimum required pushups for a male are 40, but for a female are 17. Or that the required time of 16:36 for the two mile applies to males, with 19:36 applying to females. Hell, a woman that is able to meet the minimum requirements for men on either of those scores a 92/90 (respectively) instead of the 60 score it would get the men. And these are stats for the Army, the most basic of infantry training; I would wager it has nothing on the marines or seals.
How is that NOT lowering the standards of our military?
How is that NOT endangering the lives of our soldiers?
From a female who served in combat as an officer in the marines, underwent the trials, experiences muscular atrophy and a breakdown of her body stated in a well written article “Get Over it. We’re not all Created Equal”
“As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.”
Hard to argue with that truth. Unless you simply ignore it.
The ‘Real’ (IE political) Concerns
I almost laugh that, in the face of all this, the article writes these two issues are ‘concerns’ the military will have to face in the future:
In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.
…
If the draft were ever reinstated, changing the rules would be a difficult proposition. The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat, American women aren’t required to register upon turning 18 as all males are.
If combat jobs open to women, Congress would have to decide what to do about that law.
No concerns about the men that may die if women can’t fulfill their duties or make irrational decisions that get men killed. No concern from ‘equalist feminists’ about working towards the draft. No concerns about the individual women themselves. No concerns about how those positions opened will be filled with the best women, what requirements they will have to meet – just a demand that the positions are filled, whatever the cost. In other words…..
Just a political statement.
As always, the beatings will continue until moral improves.
Don’t worry, the feminist arm never tires! We’ve had practice for years!
From the link:
—————-
“Most male soldiers are not regularly having sex, despite some bragging to the contrary, the Tribune reports.
But they estimate that anywhere from a quarter to three-quarters of female soldiers are engaging in sex while on deployment.
Some female soldiers say that estimate is probably low.
“If you include all the girls who are having sex with girls, it’s much closer to every one of us,” said a female soldier in the 146th.”
—————
Only a few dudes and almost all of the girls are having sex. Just like in the rest of the world.
It’s pretty pathetic that the standards are already so low for women, it’s not the girly girls who are joining(apart from everyone in the Air Force that is).
Still the crowd over at this aint hell is fine with it so long as the standards are the same. I can agree to that too. Except that’s probably not going to be the case. You can be sure that if the governments doing it they’ll find a way to lower standards to allow for diversity(the very thing I wrote about today ironically), cause that’s the most important thing.
I think the military is quickly becoming the peace corps.
Yup. Big surprise. I imagine that feminist supporters would argue its simply because of the numbers difference between amount of men vs women, and thus the pressure put upon women for sex.
I imagine that if you made the numbers equal, it’d still be about the same though. A bunch of in shape women put in dangerous situations surrounded by in shape men able to show their masculinity? It’s like a sex battleground.
The female soldier says she’s “harassed”… but that she’s happier when she’s having sex than when she’s not. Why calling it harassment if it makes her happy? #rhetoricalquestion
Thanks for the linkage!
@ Drama
Hah. Hurray for the liberal religion of diversity, to be followed at all costs! Heretics shall be shamed and excommunicated from public life.
As for the Peace Corps idea…
My own opinion is that it will become the Peace Corps and the government will use it as an insidious way to covertly expand the US’s power (until the decline crashes us) as a form of ‘peaceful imperialism’. Both Dems and Repubs are focused on expanding US influence and getting us involved in conflicts; though each has different priorities on what we should be involved with.
What do you want to be that the elite versions of each force keep women out though, and that these will become more and more of the actual backbone of combat engagements? Then combine these with drone strikes and air force engagements. Less engaged, more precise, more deadly, more unseen. Then the ‘peace corps’ of an army extended in favor to the eyes of the world, to support democracy and women’s rights worldwide of course.
As you mentioned, the motive behind all of this is to extinguish the sense of manly pride. The percentage of men and women directly involved with combat is tiny in comparison to the overall goal, which is to make sure men don’t feel that there is anything special about being a man. To feminists no price is to high to accomplish that, although in reality manly pride isn’t something they can ever take away. In the end we are stuck with at best a demoralized and less effective military at great financial cost. But if we assume we have a military to win battles we need to win, the ultimate cost could end up being much, much higher.
@ Dalrock
Sure thing. You’ve covered the topic as it was at that time in more detail than I could. I consider it really interesting to see how it has progressed since you wrote those original articles.
Every set of standards has been lowered for women. Every study shows that they’re destroying their bodies in what are now even classified as ‘non-combat’ positions. Every study shows they’re destroying the actual military environment of our military.
Yet still they continue. And they’ve gotten better at lying about it since you originally wrote the article as well. It took me an hour to track down those standard tests for the army – and none of the armed services recruitment websites has minimal requirements posted, I checked them all first.
I can only assume they don’t want to ‘hurt anyone’s feelings’ so that they can ‘cast a wider net’. Hidden language for lowering their standards by making exceptions.
It really spits in the face of 2,000+ years of history(military and otherwise) that shows the value, and use of a military but here we are.
We’ll cause a few more clusterf*s like Somalia and Bosnia because we’re too afraid to get involved. The military will lose its honor and be castrated so the NY hipster typess who’ll then think it’s cool to join will be like UN peacekeeping forces just shitting there while the nearby village gets massacred and they shit inside their walls sipping wine and prostituting the local girls, absolutely refusing to go out and do anything cause it would be too hard and risky.
Hopefully the crash happens before that cause it would be a drag to have to see something like that. When the official crash happens I’ll be trekking to wherever traditional America remains somewhere.
I don’t think that liberal America understand the value that an honor and tradition based institution of any sort has for society. It gives men something to aspire to of worth while also instilling discipline and morality to acts of risk, courage, bravery, and honor. These give back to society even after a man has left the military.
By seeing only a gun and blood, and stripping a necessary institution of the things that make it worthwhile… they make it what they feared – only a gun and blood. Thus we have more men coming back with PTSD than ever, with no valuable skills, no valuable mentality and less training than ever. Then they point, say I told you so, and push more and more for your hipster version.
Ugh.
I suspect traditional America would remain in the South, with different flavors of it East and West of Texas.
Then again I’m not so sure most people would even care anymore. They watch their brand of news and puff out their cheeks when talking about it but when it comes down to it i think most Americans now are pretty much castrated. I dont think they’d really do anything about it no matter what happens.
They get their panties in a twist and start pissing and moaning but they’ll just sigh and go along with it. Americans could be the most pacified people on earth because we’re all too fat and lazy to actually do anything and disrupt our precious lives.
A valid observation. God knows I find it hard to rise above sometimes even knowing how much I enjoy it both in process and when I accomplish my goals. Its really easy to listen to the whispers of “Why try so hard?”
That caption beneath the skull had me laughing uncontrollably for some reason. Must be something in the water.