Insanity – part infinity [1]

Desperately trying to stay off certain issues but it’s as if the MSM is being deliberately provocative and this is a reactive blog.   One of those issues now and a second at 16:00.

The insanity of girls in combat

If the veneer of civilization maintains so many fictions, then they’re not done to oppress but to protect.   Chivalry depends on the fiction that all women are nice people who need protection.

We know, from Myra Hindley to this monster to Knox to Anthony that that is not so.  I’d never impugn a woman’ courage – I’ve known too many game women who’ll bungee jump or throw themselves into some reckless enterprise to try to maintain that.

What I am saying is that no woman or girl should be anywhere near the front line – any time, ever.

Aside from them being a danger to everyone as well as their penchant for trouble, it’s just wrong – men do the defending.

In a post at OoL, it was pointed out that the PC fiction perpetuated by the unholy alliance of feminists and state likes to quote the Israeli military and how women do everything men do.   For a start, there is this PC element wanting them, forcing them to and constructing situations where they appear to be doing this.

The reality is different.

#  Women currently comprising 33% of all IDF soldiers and 51% of its officers – note the discrepancy.

#  The Hagana stated in its law that its lines were open to: “Every Jewish male or female, who is prepared and trained to fulfill the obligation of national defense.” Most served as medics, communications specialists, and weaponeers.

#  3% of women serve in combat roles though it is officially open to both sexes.

There is a special organization to ensure political correctness:

The position of Women’s Affairs Advisor to the Chief of Staff was created in 2001. The female officer holding the position is in charge of ensuring more opportunities and a suitable environment for female soldiers, as well as better enhancing their skills. The mission of the advisor is described by the IDF as “empowering women, the IDF and Israeli society by promoting conditions that allow for the optimal use of the capabilities of women serving in the IDF; promoting equal opportunities for women during their military service; and assimilating women into military leadership positions.”

It’s the whole artificial nature of it, along with the reports from the field [see OoL post above] which is the issue.  This youtube of the experience of a woman in the field goes into it in some detail and she concludes:

The push for women to succeed and the consequent lowering of the standards has ultimately resulted in the question: “Gender equality or combat effectiveness – which god do we serve?” And America has clearly made her choice.

Yet ex-communist Gillard still pushes women to their deaths and those of the men around them for what?   For a political narrative.   Against that:

Defence documents have revealed an extraordinary litany of reasons why it fears letting women fight in frontline combat roles – including increased sexual harassment, litigation, deaths and battlefield pregnancies.

Do serving officers in combat need such things on top of what is a difficult enough task as it is, requiring no peripheral issues to complicate it?

Now, what we have here is the sad tale of Gillard’s insistence versus reports from the field which cause the serving officers to make such rules – not to oppress women but to protect them and men and to ensure the most effective defence of the nation in a practical, day-to-day way.   And reports indicate that when you put men and women side by side in combat, it traumatizes both for different reasons.

One of those is man’s natural tendency to chivalry and to protect.   Many soldiers do not wish to have to be both doing that and being at their own best at the same time in live combat.   A couple of reports from the field:

Now, what do these physical differences mean for society outside of the military? Almost nothing. A woman doesn’t need strength to be a surgeon, professor, senator, journalist, or CEO. But weak women will get men killed in war. I’ve seen wars. I’ve been on casualty wards. So have a lot of men. For us, war isn’t abstract, and getting men killed to appease feminists isn’t cute.

Tell that to Gillard who is never likely to get anyway near a frontline combat role and thus can indulge her political correctness to her heart’s content and endanger everyone.

As an Attack Helicopter Pilot, [in training] I was told that falling out of a run at the Warrant Officer Entry Course was grounds to be set back. I saw men sent back. I saw women fall out constantly, but were kept. During a briefing from Perscom, the Lieutenant Colonel told us that any woman in that room could raise their hand and he would put them in AH-64 [Apache: a sophisticated anti-tank helicopter] training. He told the men in the room that there was not enough money to train them. Later I served with a woman who had raised her hand. She was now pregnant and wanted nothing more to do with the Army.

Tell that to Gillard.   Now back to the pic top left and at first I included it for the pretty combat soldier the men would appreciate.   Then I realized what the newspaper was doing – it ran three pics of a girl becoming progressively more traumatized by combat and my instinct was to remove the pic but then I thought no – I’m going to leave it there as a reminder of the type of thing Gillard’s and other criminals’ insanity has led to.

From a helicopter instructor pilot:

Ask any man in the military today what the first thing he does before he opens his mouth and without fail you will hear “I look over my shoulder to see if there are any females in the area.” Please don’t use my name because I too am always looking over my shoulder.

It goes on and on.  Feminists hit back that women in combat is a male problem, not a female, ignoring the double standards in the physical requirements [see vid again].     It’s a human nature problem as well:

There are two basic problems with having women in any combat branch of the military. First, scarce resources are being devoted to female soldiers, sailors, and airmen that could be better spent on the more proficient and durable male soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

Second, when women are introduced into a combat arena filled with men, the male mind is virtually always going to be distracted from the military mission to some degree, male bonding and unit cohesion will be reduced, sexual rivalries and tensions will break out, military discipline will suffer, and mission readiness reduced.

On this second point, some will argue that women’s effects on men are a male, not a female, problem and that women should not have to suffer because of male reactions.

But the truth is that these effects are not just a male problem, they are a human-nature problem that must be acknowledged in the same way that other laws of nature must be acknowledged. Because we may not like, for example, the law of gravity does not mean that we may simply wish it away.

That we may not want men and women together in close contact to result in sexual intercourse will in no way prevent that from happening. Human nature will inevitably take its natural course, no matter how hard the social engineers among us may wish otherwise or even try to suppress it, with temporary success.

Remember, the modern military fights as a combat unit, not as individuals who happen to be working together.[1]

So, no matter how capable an individual woman might be, to introduce her into a combat unit will distract men from their military roles and diminish their effectiveness.

And, as Kingsley Browne has observed, “The experience of the millennia is that men, not women, should serve as the community’s combatants.”[2]

Marine Captain Katie Petronio — an Iraq and Afghanistan vet — spells out why sending women forward, at least in the corps, may not be a good idea. She makes her case in the latest issue of Marine Corps Gazette:

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…

I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females…

I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females…

…this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force.

This thing is insanity and the people pushing it are criminals of the worst kind because they are both sending people to their deaths, as sure as night follows day, causing deaths where there weren’t any before due to the low calibre of the new fighting unit and they’re undermining morale – also selling off defence equipment and reducing military numbers at a time when they need to be boosting them.

These criminals need to be courtmartialled.   Just how much more trauma will be caused before that happens?

………..

Further reading

As sure as night follows day:

http://www.samhsa.gov/co-occurring/topics/military-justice/women-veterans.aspx

A psychiatrist opposes women in combat but tries to ameliorate it by perpetuating the fiction that women can acquit themselves equally.   He ignores reports from the field, including those of females and his error is due to faux chivalry.   If it is a choice of keeping women alive and chivalrous PCishness, I go for the former:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/19/why-dont-ever-want-to-see-women-in-combat-on-front-lines/

Warning from a woman:

http://jezebel.com/5923584/dont-put-women-in-combat-says-female-combat-veteran

Other female specific issues:

http://www.rollcall.com/features/Defense-2011_Policy-Briefing/policy_briefings/-205824-1.html

From a Christian conservative woman [you already know what she's going to say]:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/women/schlafly3.html

5 Responses to “Insanity – part infinity [1]”

  1. Jack October 23, 2012 at 06:45 Permalink

    There will be some women who are better at combat roles than some men. They could form a women’s only combat unit which avoids the distraction issue, but could distract the enemy!

  2. James Higham October 23, 2012 at 06:53 Permalink

    With all due respect, Jack, this is male chivalry. The reports say that that is not so, that they shouldn’t even be there in the first place. What they are better at is the honeytrap and other roles requiring a female-specific approach and where the female, in relation to the male, will get the result.

    This is not combat. Please see Marine Captain Katie Petronio again:

    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…

    I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females…

    I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females…

    …this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force.

    It’s insanity perpetuated for one reason only – a politically correct narrative. There is no other military need for women in our forces in combat roles, unlike early Israel, where numbers were an issue and many roles had to be adopted by women, as in WW2 with our parents.

  3. The Underdoug October 23, 2012 at 08:12 Permalink

    The only answer I can think of to the Feminazi pressures of pushing women to succeed (by merit or artificially) in a male-dominated environment is to continually ask the question: “Why would any woman want to reduce herself to the level of a man?”

  4. amfortas October 23, 2012 at 09:31 Permalink

    I speak as a 20 year ‘vet’ who has seen combat. I spent much of that time with women as colleagues. I trained with women as an Officer (not as a troop: I joined at the lowest level and worked my way up significantly). Many of those women were competent and courageous.

    That said, we are talking of ‘combat’ where frankly the Services have traditionally not given a toss for the supposedly superior physical abilities of its cannon-fodder. Recall WW1 and WW2 where boys as young as 16 were often in uniform either by accident ort ignorance by the ‘authorities’.

    In modern ‘limited’ war, much ‘combat’ is conducted at a distance, by air, long-range artilliary, missile and so forth. It is likely that we have reached the last generation of combat fighting aircraft, the performance of which is now limited only by having to carry a human being in its innards.

    Much of this ‘distance kinetic action’ can be performed by women as well as men.

    It is only in such theatres and tactical operations dependant on Infantry or ‘special forces’ where some significant endurance is needed by a troop. Their ‘strength’ requirement is gainsaid by the amount of weight they have to carry which has not changed since Roman Legions strode across Britain. The effectiveness of that weight however has multipled a hundredfold since.

    I hear the arguements about ‘chivalry’ and about physical damage. The first is easy to sideline. The second…. a bullet kills a man as easily as a woman. Maimed men suffer no less than a maimed women. The real difference is in the current body count.

    The answer, despite issues of financial asset distribution, is for all-female formations. No ‘integration’. Have female Battalions. Harrassment and physical demand, team operation and ‘endurance’ will be a ‘women’s problem’. So will be the outcome of poor planning, rough terrain, assisduous enemies and sheer shit luck. They can protect one another and suffer just as men have always suffered. They can overcome the logistical problems just as men have always had to. Two women can carry the load of one man for all I care, just so long as that man is back in the rear enjoying the showers and hot meals usually reserved for the ‘equal’ and equally paid women.

    Women demand equality. They shirk the effects. Then they blame men for those. They shirk the responsibility and blame men for that too. They demand High Rank but refuse to pay their dues as all men of high rank HAVE to.

    A few years ago Canada lost its first ‘married woman’ soldier. Her husband was automatically given the medal that ALL spouses of soldiers killed in action are given and told he could join the 100,000 women in the ‘Association’. There was uproar. From the women. Apparantly he didn’t deserve it !!!!

    Eeeekwaliteee’ cuts only one way it seems.

    Women, in my view, should be conscripted. They should be obliged to do at least five years from 18 to 23, to make-up for a thousand or more years of men dying on their behalf. Women, especially feminist inclined ones are forever telling us all that women have been ‘oppressed’ for thousands of years and that men today have to pay for that with all sorts of priviledges for today’s women.

    I frankly do not want to see anyone die. If anyone has to, let it be the enemy. But ‘our’ men have done their part. We fight wars-of-choice, not essential ones (as one might call WW1/WW2). Let women fight them. Let women do the dying called for.

    Then we would have equality.

    I would even allow that they could have Versace body bags. When their body count reaches male body counts of the last century, I will consider them having paid their dues. At last.

    Ohhh, bay the way… men should be given white feathers to hand to the wimpy women who do not want to serve.

  5. amfortas October 23, 2012 at 09:41 Permalink

    Ananotherthing….. in terms of effectiveness, in every war or battle, there is a winner and a loser. The losing sides, mainly through death/attrition, have always been men.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string y4YLJ0 to the field below: