No, Women Don’t Need to Be In Combat
Bill Quick

Let us send our daughters to die in battle for the sake of gender neutrality! | The Matt Walsh Blog

When the DC elite declared their plan to move women into combat positions, supporters of the move tried to assuage the concerns of rational Americans by insisting that physical requirements for combat roles would NOT be altered or adjusted for the sake of women. But rational Americans — being, well, rational — knew from the get-go that this was a lie. Women are not men. Men are uniquely equipped for the physical and mental rigors of combat. Women are not. This fact, while scientific and undeniable, seems quite insulting to the legions of childish Utopianists who’ve been hypnotized by Disney movies and college professors into believing that women can “do anything men can do.” Anything. And, in order to please these types, military brass will cave and kowtow, eventually rigging the fitness tests so as to achieve a paradise where our daughters and wives can charge into combat and be mercilessly slaughtered.

Most women hate war.  War generally kills their children, their men, and rapes and kills them.  Although, as prizes of war and vessels for rape, their chances of survival are marginally better than less useful booty.  But they also hate war because war is a man’s game at which they are singularly unequipped to excel, which is why they are so helpless against it.

And they know it.

Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments

No, Women Don’t Need to Be In Combat — 9 Comments

  1. I have no problem with “women in combat”; the female is, after all, the more deadly of the species. But strictly because they are NOT equal in terms of brute strength, I do not believe that women belong in the Infantry.

    But I could easily believe that women could excel in the air, or aboard ship, where physical strength isn’t often required. And a 110-pound woman pilot could carry another 100 lbs of ordnance if your A10 would be otherwise limited by max gross takeoff weight, when compared to a 210# male pilot.

  2. I have no problem with “women in combat”; the female is, after all, the more deadly of the species.

    Actually, they aren’t. Put ten women into a cage match to the death with ten men, and I’d be surprised if any of the women survive.

    That said, just as with any occupation where physical prowess and natural strength is not of paramount importance, there is no reason women shouldn’t be able to perform at an adequate level.

    I do have some reservations about women in general as to combat mindsets. Evolution has not as a general proposition selected for that with them, as it has with men.

  3. In an all volunteer army, if a woman wants to move into combat, and can pass the appropriate levels of competence, then let her fight. The bell shape curve suggest that there would be a small percentage of women who could function adequately in that role. To bar them seems wrong.
    As to the other areas of service, the fine motor skills, the multi-tasking abilities, etc. make women ideal for many roles.

  4. the female is, after all, the more deadly of the species

    It pisses me off every time I read this drivel. Focusing only on humans, because mating praying mantises or protective mother bears are not terribly informative regarding human behavior, women in many cultures will torture prisoners to death in horrific ways. That’s about it. That’s their claim to deadliness.

    By practically any objective measure you care to name, men are deadlier than women by an order of magnitude. But that inconvenient truth doesn’t appeal to manly women and womanly men, so we don’t talk about it, unless the discussion is about how all men need to be watched constantly and drugged into passivity.

  5. I’m reminded of my days when I actually used to sit around shooting the shit with street cops. They all agreed that they hated scuffling with butch lesbians, because the girls tried to fight like men, but the cops had to treat them like women.*

    One guy said, “If we worked out on them like we do on the guys who fight us, we’d probably accidentally kill a few.” He wasn’t being ironic about the use of accidental, either.

    Today, of course, they’d just pound the dykes into insensibility as quickly and thoroughly as they do the boys. Equality. It’s a blessing!

    *Back in the day, when I had the authority as either a restaurant manager or owner, I did as much as I could – freebies, a reserved table, whatever – to encourage the patronage of the local cops. First, because dumbasses were less likely to hold up the joint if a couple of squads were parked in front. Second, if you had a good relationship with your local patrolmen, you got really good service when you called for help.

    And I did like to sit around and listen to the war stories.

  6. I know some women in the Army. Well, National Guard, anyway.

    One is in an Engineering company, and was deployed to Iraq, and saw 2 of her fellow soldiers badly wounded.

    I think a rational system would recognize that when you fight savages like Muslims, there is no safe place, and women soldiers will need all the combat skills they can get, to survive to do their MOS.

    That is not the same as saying that level of combat skills is sufficient to conduct offensive operations, or even extended defensive ones.

    That same rational system would recognize those women who performed well in such situations. Unfortunately, you can train as a gunner in a Humvee, have your convoy attacked, shoot your way out, and not earn the combat infantry badge. If you lack the Y chromosome.

    • Understood. But whether women go into harms way was not the issue – Florence Nightingale answered that a good long while ago.

      The issue is whether they should be regards interchangeably with men in all combat roles.

      I think that to do so is indisputably an error far more often than otherwise.

      • I think the bottom line should be simple: Any military combat specialty should have optimal physical requirements attached to it. Anybody who can meet those requirements should be allowed to serve in that specialty. But the requirements should not be changed or lowered to accommodate women, simply to assure a fraudulent “equality” in the outcomes.

        BTW, I have the utmost respect for anybody, male or female, who wishes to serve in combat. I have little or no respect for those who wish standards to be lowered solely so they can serve, though.