Comments

1. On January 27, 2025 at 4:50 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:

   Re: “Women still cannot graduate from the Marine Corps Infantry Officer school in Quantico without pelvic fractures and lower extremity injuries. The female anatomy isn’t designed to carry 125 pounds of kit between full body armor (including SAPI plates), weapons, ammunition, provisions and hydration. The bone structure is different, and women lack the necessary testosterone for strength and healing.”

   Your analysis is quite correct, but debating physical fitness requirements with the left/feminists concedes rhetorical ground which ought not to be given up lightly. In other words, those opposed to the leftist position do so only on the basis of female physical non-fitness; if those shortcomings could be fixed their objections would disappear.

   In my opinion, that view is mistaken. Even if women’s physical fitness defects could be fixed at a moment’s notice, there are still multiple sound and very compelling reasons to oppose women in the armed forces, and especially in the combat arms.

   Herschel, I am not the student of theological thought that you are, but unless I miss my hunch entirely, there is what could be called the Christian theological argument against sending women into harm’s way. Women are designed for home, hearth and family and the siring of children; men are designed to protect those things.

   Women who desire to serve their nation in uniform have always made invaluable contributions doing rear-area administrative/clerical jobs, or as nurses caring for the sick and wounded. For those of a more-adventuresome cast of mind, women are ideally-suited to certain kinds of espionage roles – and often make very good spies.

   Women are neither needed nor wanted in most other military occupations, including the combat arms.

   Kingsley Browne, in his excellent book “Coed Combat,” in his closing arguments as to why women do not belong in combat or in the combat arms, says something to the effect of, “The strength of the wolf is the pack – and sometimes that pack must be only males…”

   The very presence of women on or near the lines or in combat units is deeply disruptive of unit cohesion, esprit de corps and morale – and thereby operational/combat effectiveness.

   Over the last three decades, there has developed what amounts to a Stalinist mentality in the U.S. armed forces and defense establishment concerning the proper roles for women: Those not 100% on-board with the left/feminists were to be censured, muzzled, and ultimately forced out of the service.

   Concurrently, the DOD/Pentagon have embarked upon a systemic white-washing of the real history of the sexually-integrated military, and the actual data on women’s performance whether in garrison or in the field. Reports and experiences which did not conform to the officially-approved narrative were to be “pencil-whipped” into shape, or simply disappeared.

   Serving personnel, whether enlisted or officer, learned it was the kiss of death to one’s military career to sound off in any way which contradicted the official narrative. This left only the veteran’s community to be truth-tellers, apart from sources still in uniform willing to speak anonymously.

   Hollywood and the entertainment industry did the rest, cementing the image of the petite but beautiful “GI Jane” who weighs 100 lbs. soaking wet, but who can kick the butts of bad guys who outweigh her by a hundred pounds and who tower over her.

   As a black belt level martial artist with more than twenty years experience training, teaching, and studying the martial arts, my lived experience completely contradicts that fantasy as presented by Hollywood. I have never seen a women defeat a man in hand-to-hand combat; pre-teen boys occasionally – but never mature men.

   It isn’t that the female martial artists are not dedicated, hard-working, courageous, and skilled; it is simply that they are invariably overwhelmed by the size, speed, strength and aggressiveness of the men.

   Another interesting inflection point occurs with our students undergoing weapons disarmament training, which employs plastic (fake) handguns and knives. The props look realistic, but are obviously fake to anyone who knows even the smallest amount about how the real articles look.

   When we bring these props out and start teaching knife/gun disarms, the guys invariably get pumped up and enthusiastic, they’re into it, big time. The females, even the adults, are almost always a picture of grim determination. The teachers/training staff do our best to allay the concerns of any/all of our students, but it is a fact that we have had a couple of female students – high-school aged young women – break down crying at the sight of these props, and have to leave the class.

   No one is ridiculed or mistreated in any way; these students are always welcome to return if they wish – but none of them have so far.

   Returning to the military, just ask any old salt, any Marine or Army grunt, about what happens to the female personnel in the area when a six-by-six pulls up and needs unloading. Answer: They disappear. Not their problem.

   I know of a number of highly-skilled former USAF airframe mechanics and technicians. They’ll tell you over a cold beer about how often they have had to carry the tool-boxes of their female colleagues to their work stations ~ because Suzie Soldier couldn’t lift it.

   Everyone of these too-weak-to-work or too-lazy-to-work females is a weak link in a chain someplace that we – meaning our armed forces and our nation – cannot afford to have being weak in the first place.

   There is lastly, what I’d call the “civilizational argument” against women in uniform: What sort of society willingly sends its women – in particular those of child-bearing years -into uniform and into harm’s way when there are young-and-fit men available to send instead?

   Answer: Only one which is mentally-ill and morally confused…

2. On January 27, 2025 at 4:54 pm, Herschel Smith said:

   @Georgiaboy61,

   Thanks for your thoughts. Pls cp/paste this comment into the main article for me if you would.

3. On January 28, 2025 at 2:54 am, Georgiaboy61 said:

   Oh, OK – thanks…. consider it done….

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment