In the war between political correctness and military readiness, the PC Army has just won another battle. Despite the biological fact that women are not designed for combat, and that recent experiments have been miserable failures, Leon Panetta has decreed that the military must open combat roles to women.
Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military’s ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.
The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.
Let’s get one thing clear right off the bat: this is being done to appease the feminazi groups and to force political correctness on the military. This is not being done to increase our combat readiness or for the welfare of our Armed Forces. While women supposedly still will not be allowed in infantry positions, they will be allowed to take positions as medics, pilots, and other combat-oriented military occupational specialties (MOS).
None of this is to say that women cannot serve in the military. They can, they do, and they should. Our female troops have shown that women can fight with valour, honor, and courage. But this does not mean that women should be serving in combat, on the front line. If women can serve with valour, honor, and courage, then why shouldn’t they be on the front line?
Simple: because women are physically built differently than men — specifically, we are weaker than men. It’s a biological fact. Women have drastically less muscle mass than men. Our bodies are not built to handle nine mile hikes, while carrying 100+ lbs of gear on our backs. Not even all men can handle a combat role in the military, let alone women. And there is no shortage of men willing and able to serve in combat positions. Basically, there is no reason at all for this. There is nothing — nothing — that a woman can bring to a combat position that a man cannot, and with no shortage of men wanting to serve in a combat MOS, this move serves no purpose other than pacifying the feminazis and the PC Gods.
There is surely the rare woman who can handle a combat position. And she would probably do well. But the problem is, the majority of women cannot, and are we really going to weaken our combat forces just for the sake of political correctness?
Other people may say that as long as standards aren’t lowered for women, then there isn’t a problem. But we all know that isn’t going to happen. Women will not have to meet the same standards as men — maybe not right away, but eventually they’ll be relaxed — to serve in a combat MOS. Because again, this is about political correctness, not about what will make our military strongest or what is best for our service members.
Shame on you, Mr. Panetta.
Penny says: CASSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST WHAT we all want to say!!!! MUWAH TO YOU FOR AIRING YOUR JUNK!!! YOU GO VICTORY GIRL!!!!
Sean Wells says: I, personally, served with numerous females in “front line” positions already. Half our medics were female when we took to the streets of Baghdad for counter-IED patrols. The pilots overhead, watching over us, and ready to evacuate us if the event one of our members got hurt were at least 1/3 females. I have no issue with women being in positions that they are capable of filling, up to and including front line Combat positions, IF THE STANDARDS ARE MAINTAINED. If that happens, then the logistic matters are small issues, easily resolved.
The other potential factor that most people seem to overlook is roughly 50,000 years of male instinct to protect women from outside violence. (I know, not ALL of us are wired that way, but the majority are, to some degree) That means, having a woman in your midst when something hits the fan, a significant number of the males in the group will be distracted by the GENETIC and EVOLUTIONARY drive to guard her. That is a MAJOR distraction in a situation where the smallest loss of focus could mean the difference in most of the group coming home in a box, as opposed to on their own two feet. It’s not fair to exclude them based on their sex, but the issue needs to be dealt with as it REALLY is, not as we wish it was. The decision should ALWAYS be made by asking one simple question: “What is the best choice for The Service?”
Cassy noted:
While women supposedly still will not be allowed in infantry positions, they will be allowed to take positions as medics, pilots, and other combat-oriented military occupational specialties (MOS).
Female soldiers are already serving as medics and pilots, and many have seen combat. SPC Monica Brown won the Silver Star while replacing the regular medic in a combat unit; she had been deliberately selected by the unit commander, choosing her over other available medics, because she was the most technically proficient. She could not be assigned to that unit, but she could be, and was, attached to that unit.
My younger daughter is a 25-U Signal Support Systems Specialist, and while she is currently a reservist in the United States, she could just as easily, under the old rules, have been sent to Afghanistan and attached to a combat unit as their “commo.”
As for Mr Panetta, this was a decision taken not by the Secretary, but by President Obama. It is easier to have the outgoing Secretary announce it as his decision, as not to saddle the incoming Secretary with the political burden.
As a retired combat arms soldier/NCO/officer, I have to say that I’ve seen this coming. From the first female tank turret mechanic that asked this then young sergeant with my hands full of a tank tool back and track jacks to carry HER tool box out to MY tank so she could work on it to the female Specialist Four who came to my motor pool to investigate this first lieutenant combat support company executive officer for alleged EEO violations, I’ve seen this coming.
This is part of the agenda of those who support the sissification of the military and, by default, the United States.
ECS
A very well-articulated article on this travesty.
While I agree with about all the other comments made here, I feel the agenda behind Panetta’s decision goes further. In working to suppress and “re-train” biological instinct and social mores in the men and women, socialist agenda seeks a permanent disruption of natural complementary dispositions between the sexes. It has never been about treating women with dignity, it is about “equal rights”, aka “the same” mentality. These people know that “the same” mentality must be instilled if they are ever to turn the majority from the underlying principles that provide a people reason to hold a State accountable for its policies. A person without reason or backbone is just a well-lubricated cog in the machine’s wheel. Without mutual respect to the differences between the genders we likewise easily give up our own self-respect. They know this and thus work tirelessly to foster a collective conscience dependent on the machine to determine what is right and what is wrong, biology and common sense be damned.
Liberals tried to “equalize” women to men, but the bottom line is, we aren’t equal. We aren’t lesser, but we are different. “Equality” is a false concept, twisted to make “different” mean “worse.” Thus, anyone who says women are different, are coined bigots and chauvinists and just generally horrible people.
The really evil part comes in when you see that liberals ended up realizing what we already know–women ARE different. In order to foist their “equality” agenda, then, they had to change MEN. Hence you see the entertainment industry’s version of a man: the bumbling, somewhat unintelligent, emasculated male who (thank God) has a smart, clever, capable, beautiful and much-more-savvy woman in his life, whose witty sarcasm reminds the man that she’s the one running this show and If It Were All Up To Men This Place Would Never Run Right. (and it’s not always the wife anymore, either, because Women Are Too Smart and Evolved For Archaic Chauvinistic Things Like Marriage.)
Think about it…know any sitcoms where men are strong, capable, smart leaders of their home and family? Of course not. That went out in the early 60s. Well, every so often they show a well-organized, smart, clever male, but he’s gay.
Liberals realized women couldn’t meet the “man’s standard,” so to speak, so they did what they always do–lower the standard. If you think for one second that this won’t lead to separate physical standards for men and women in combat, you’re an idiot. And God help us the day that a woman’s desire to prove something results in the death of a troop she couldn’t carry out.
And by standard, I don’t mean that women aren’t good enough to be men–I’m saying they aren’t BUILT to be men. I’m quite intelligent and capable and logical and perfectly able to perform a lot of tasks that a man can. But guess what? I can’t haul 70+ pounds of gear around while carrying my wounded buddy and HIS gear out. That’s the standard we’re talking about. I can’t spend weeks in a foxhole without making some kind of arrangements for my femininity that a man does not have to make. That’s a standard.
Junk Yard Dog says: I am an ardent and a unapologetic liberal, but also a former Marine, and I think putting women in combat units such the infantry, artillery, and armor will be a disaster. Physical strength and endurance does matter. My follows liberals are utterly wrong on this one.
Proponents of putting women in combat will, of course, say that women should be allowed to serve in the combat arms as long as they can meet the same standards as men, which seems reasonable enough. But, here is the catch — those standards can be changed and manipulated. So when some feminist group decides that not enough women are in infantry units, to their liking, because the standards are too tough, they will try to get the standards changed. Their typical mode of operation is to argue that the standards are not “relevant” for today’s type of conflicts. Accordingly, they will urge more female friendly standards — whether those standards are realistic or not.
I have personally experienced this during my own military service. Just before graduating from my MOS school, a physical test required for graduation was changed because too many women were failing it.
By these comments, I, of course, do not mean to diminish the contributions that women have made over the last few years to our nations defense. I just think putting them in the combat arms is a really bad idea.
justiceday says: As a woman I am more disturbed by the fact that women aren’t seeing how this is nothing more than a PR move by the Pentagon to take our focus off the epic problem of rape and sexual assault in the military.
This announcement came on the heals of the commission on civil rights having a hearing discussing looking at investigations, and the documentary about military sexual assault being nominated for an Oscar.
Women are already in combat positions, they just don’t make a big deal about this.
Why aren’t women more upset about how the men in the military are allowing women and men to be assaulted?!
And the fact that Dempsey tried to say that women not being in combat is why there are so many sexual assaults is insane.
I have trouble respecting any man or woman that has served and turned their back on those being assaulted. I have read where women are mad that the sexual assault issue is being brought up because it makes women look weak. What makes us look weak is that we allow it to happen!
I’ve seen the site that has evidence on how the marines view women and ignore rapes. It’s very disturbing. I’m more concerned about that than the combat issue.
http://www.theusmarinesrape.com/MarshmallowHead.html
10 Comments