Feministing: We Know Nothing About the Military… But Do What We Say!
Feministing: We Know Nothing About the Military… But Do What We Say!
Feminazis seem to have an eager need to prove that they have no idea what they heck they are talking about 99% of the time. Feministing proved it yet again.
A few days ago, feminist Amy Choi wrote a piece in response to retired Army General Robert H. Scales, who said that women are not fit for close combat. Duh — anyone with half a brain can figure that out. And it’s not because the military is sexist or hates women or that women can’t serve honorably. It’s not, they don’t, and they can. But that’s all immaterial to the feminists. Not allowing women to be in combat, or basically, not allowing them in the infantry, will apparently forever be a source of grief for them, regardless of how much the facts are against them. Let’s go over the high points of Amy Choi’s mindless drivel:
Oh hey look, it’s Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, saying women aren’t fit for close combat!
I am not a military or combat expert, but I have reasons for thinking that nobody is truly fit for close combat. I understand that killing is necessary in war. But to be fit for killing? To be the best killer you can be?
Close combat units, says Scales, are “made up of soldiers whose purpose is to kill the enemy directly.” What can truly prepare for someone for becoming non-anonymously, face-to-face deadly? Except practicing death, which soldiers do. In combat. As far as I know (again, no expert here) the close-combat arms of the Army, Marines and special forces aren’t actually killing people in training.
So why do men so obviously belong in close combat, while women do not?
… So you can be black or gay or “differently” intelligent, and that is good for the infantry, because that will better prepare you for killing someone and helping others kill people than having a vagina.
… So. Women shouldn’t be in combat despite the fact that we are fit, skilled, trained, are willing to die for our country AND can “hang” (that’s so important, guys) because men just know that women will ruin everything.
No one can prove it. Not the most highly trained specialists in the military, and not Robert H. Scales, retired Army major general, can prove that including women in close combat will destroy military unity. But they know! Generations of experienced (male) leaders, they know!
No one can prove it? Oh, dear. Perhaps Amy Choi should have stopped at the beginning when she said I am not a military or combat expert. Because really, it isn’t a great idea to ramble on idiotically about something you know absolutely nothing about. She should stick to man-hating and why the world should pay for limitless abortions for women.
Here, let me prove why women don’t belong in the infantry. Because they physically cannot do it. Consider the test run the Marine Corps did by allowing two female Marine officers to volunteer for the Infantry Officer Course. What happened? They dropped out. Both of them.
The Let Women Join the Infantry! crowd seems to constantly forget something: men and women are not exactly alike. Feminists will never admit it, but our bodies? They’re built differently. And this is why women do not belong in the infantry. 99 times out of 100, they simply cannot physically do it. They may be excellent Marines. But that doesn’t mean they can be grunts.
Marine Corps officer Capt. Katie Petronio wrote a piece about why it’s such a bad idea for women to be in the infantry that made a lot of people pretty angry. But she was 100% right.
There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.
There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?
Which leads one to really wonder, what is the benefit of this potential change? The Marine Corps is not in a shortage of willing and capable young male second lieutenants who would gladly take on the role of infantry officers. In fact we have men fighting to be assigned to the coveted position of 0302. In 2011, 30 percent of graduating TBS lieutenants listed infantry in their top three requested MOSs. Of those 30 percent, only 47 percent were given the MOS. On the other hand, perhaps this integration is an effort to remove the glass ceiling that some observers feel exists for women when it comes to promotions to general officer ranks. Opening combat arms MOSs, particularly the infantry, such observers argue, allows women to gain the necessary exposure of leading Marines in combat, which will then arguably increase the chances for female Marines serving in strategic leadership assignments. As stated above, I have full faith that female Marines can successfully serve in just about every MOS aside from the infantry. Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that she’ll be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.
Women? Our bodies are not designed to handle it. It’s as simple as that. Men have more muscle mass than women do — this is a biological fact — and not even all men can make it in the infantry. Even a good number of men flunk out, let alone women. Women cannot hike for nine miles carrying an 80-100lb rucksack in either freezing or sweltering temperatures, through deserts and up mountains. Add in that, during field ops, they routinely do this for days at a time eating only MREs and going with only a few sparse hours of sleep and it’s no wonder that even some men can’t hack it.
Are there any women that can do it? Probably. I’m sure that there are those few, extremely rare women who could physically handle the grueling requirements of being in the infantry. But this is the military we’re talking about. And you don’t change everything and lower standards just so a few women can do something for no reason other than for political correctness. Because that’s what this is. Our military’s infantry isn’t broken. There’s nothing that a woman can bring to the infantry that is somehow different or better than what a man can bring. Lives are on the line, and lowering standards just so that a woman can join to pacify the politically-correct bean counters in Congress isn’t just stupid. It’s dangerous.
I know, it’s hard for idiot feminists to understand. But this has nothing to do with women not being good soldiers, sailors, Marines, or airmen. It has to do with ensuring that the best people possible are in the infantry, the ones who are physically capable of doing the job. And women? They can’t cut it. And despite what Amy Choi insists, it has been proven. Are we going to open the floodgates and allow 99 less capable women to weaken our infantry just so that 1 capable woman can join? It’s a ludicrous thought.
Oh, and it isn’t as if the only way you can see combat is by joining the infantry. Women can and do serve in combat now, without being in an infantry MOS. It’s not about that. But that’s not good enough for the feminazis, is it? (Although I dare them to find a combat-experienced female Marine and tell her that.)
Maybe one day, they’ll pull their heads out from where the sun doesn’t shine and realize how unbelievably stupid they are being, and that they have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about. (But I doubt it.)