Tag Archives: women in combat

Combat: Testosterone Required (More Than Ever)

Are double standards and endemic discouragement of women to train hard to blame for the fact that women continue to wash out of the Marine Corps’ Officer Infantry Course? That is the charge of female Marine Lt. Sage Santangello in an article for the Washington Times. She says:

“I believe that I could pass, and that other women could pass, if the standards for men and women were equal from the beginning of their time with the Marines, if endurance and strength training started earlier than the current practice for people interested in going into the infantry, and if women were allowed a second try, as men are.”

Can she do a dozen pull-ups in all this gear? Photo c/o misguidedchildren.com

Can she do a dozen pull-ups in all this gear? Photo c/o misguidedchildren.com

I absolutely agree that the military should have one standard from the beginning, and it should be the men’s higher standards.  The tiers could remain – higher standards for combat military occupational specialties (MOSs) and support units, appropriately lower for the rest – but within each, women making the higher men’s standard.  It would be optimal for military efficiency and readiness (not to mention the most effective use of our tax dollars), but most women wouldn’t make it into the military in the first place. And although their caliber would be higher for having to pass and maintain higher standards, the ones who did make it would suffer far higher rates of injury (currently 4-10 times those of men, even on lowered standards) and attrition than we already do. We’d see women promoting more slowly, having shorter and fewer military careers, and the percentage serving would drop from 20% to 5% or less. The quality of women serving would be higher, the quantity would be lower, but the military would be stronger and more battle-ready.

While that would be the best thing for a country at war as we are with child-raping, honor-killing, suicide-bombing, amputation-happy savages, the problem is that feminists won’t tolerate it. Mainly through the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), quotas for women have been imposed on the military for sixty years. And every time jobs have been opened to them, the standards have been lowered to accommodate their lesser physical capabilities and to reduce their high rates of injury. (Say, if those military men are such thugs, such brutes, such women-hating monsters, how come they’ve accommodated women this way since 1948? Weird.) So the 2-person (one daren’t call it 2-man) stretcher-carry is now a 4-person stretcher-carry, women don’t have to do the pull-ups men do, throw a grenade as far, run as fast, scale the wall without steps, and on and on. Between lower standards for women and political correctness that sees making men out of boys as abuse, the standards are de facto lower for all.

Breaking ground. Fallujah, Iraq 2005. © Jude Eden

Breaking ground. Fallujah, Iraq 2005.   © Jude Eden

Any testing to evaluate women’s strength, how they respond to types of physical training, or qualifying tests to determine job suitability have been defunded, abandoned, or, when the results show that women don’t qualify for the heavy-lifting jobs that feminists want them to occupy, discredited. One example is the Military Enlistment Physical Strength Capacity Test (MEPSCAT). It was initially developed to address a problem brought to light by the military itself: Although they were filling their quotas, 85% of women filling the slots couldn’t do what the jobs required. As Stephanie Gutmann writes in The Kinder, Gentler Military, research scientists

“…categorized all Army jobs as light, heavy, or very heavy, and then devised standard physical requirements – expressed as low, medium, high – with which to separate applicants for a particular MOS. They then conducted preliminary tests to see if soldiers in the field, already out there in assigned jobs, were matched with an appropriate MOS. ‘The results,’ as the Army Times put it, ‘did not bode well for women.’ While most men exceeded the high and medium standards for aerobic capacity,’ the paper reported, ‘no woman met the high standard and very few the medium. In other words, by the proposed test’s standards, all of the men were qualified for their jobs in heavy-lifting specialties but fewer than 15 percent of the women.’”[1]

Military readiness? Hardly. The reaction from a member of DACOWITS? “The Army is a male-oriented institution and officials are resistant to changes that will allow women to be fully utilized.” Testing showed the obvious, women couldn’t do the heavy lifting in jobs where they were placed via quotas, so the data had to be buried. The MEPSCAT was never implemented as a way to match recruits to appropriate jobs, even though that makes all the sense in the world to anyone but feminists and their lackeys at the Pentagon.

Lt. Santangello has a similarly feminist angle on why she was powerless to supplement her own training to prepare for the OIC: “Women aren’t encouraged to establish the same mental toughness as men — rather, they’re told that they can’t compete. Men, meanwhile, are encouraged to perceive women as weak.” It’s the male-dominated culture, stupid.

Why does a strong young college hockey player with the guts to join the Marines and the ability to become an officer suddenly wilt at negativity from anyone? Is that the attitude that got her through Officer Candidate’s School? Why would such a tough cookie listen to anyone who told her she couldn’t compete? Why wouldn’t she use it, as so many athletes do, to fuel her ambition to prove them wrong? Herein lies the usual riddle of feminist dogma: Women are as strong as men, but women are victims of men. It’s garbage. Advocates for women in combat are desperate to explain away the natural ability differences between the sexes.

I only served a four-year term in the Marines, but in that time (2004-2008) no one ever told me I couldn’t compete because I was a woman. Nor are men encouraged to perceive women as weak. If anything, their encouraged, at peril of losing their careers, to make themselves believe the lie that women are their physical equals. Today, we all are. Point out the obvious and you’re charged with waging the “war on women.” In my experience, feminism is so prevalent in the military that men trip over themselves trying to ensure they don’t offend. They can’t afford to even think the truth. Women are not as strong and athletic as strong, athletic men. That is why women, even very athletic women, are failing OIC. That is why women aren’t competing with men in professional football, wrestling, or mixed martial arts. It doesn’t mean women are inferior human souls, nor does it mean there is no place for women in the military. It means it makes total logical sense for many MOSs, especially the combat units, to remain closed to women.

Hey Girl, forget your pack?  Photo c/o Marine Corps Times

Hey Girl, forget your pack? Photo c/o Marine Corps Times

Equal training standards would indeed put women in better stead. It’s hard to take pride in the hollow affirmations that we’re doing everything that men are when we know we’re held to a lower standard. It would be better for us as women serving, better for the men with whom we serve, and above all better for a winning military. However, women’s failure to make these kinds of standards is not just for a lack of training. For example, the women going through Marine Corps boot camp throughout 2013 were being trained to achieve the men’s minimum of three pull-ups. They were trained to pass the test, yet 55% of them couldn’t make that minimum. 99% of male recruits can, whether or not they were particularly athletic before shipping off.

When I decided to join the Marines, I already worked out regularly. I had been jogging and hitting the gym since my teens, my sport was martial arts. To prepare for the Marines, I worked out harder and more often. No one had to tell me to, I knew my own weaknesses. If I made it to graduation, I didn’t want to let down the Marines to my left and my right. Once I hit the fleet, despite developing knee problems, I worked out more often than anyone in my platoon to maintain a first-class PFT and perform anything else that was demanded. The guys could eat fast food daily, smoke and drink, then run 6-minute miles. Meanwhile I ate clean and mixed weight training and Semper Fit classes to supplement our regular PT schedule. I envied the guys’ natural ability and found their metabolism particularly infuriating. I may have had more to overcome than some of my female peers, but my experience is not singular. To complete the same physically demanding task, a woman expends much more effort than a man. His units of work effort are worth many of hers, and he will be able to maintain a demanding, arduous level of performance for far longer than she in both the short and long term. Double standards didn’t create this reality, and women training harder won’t change it.

In his book, Coed Combat, Kinsley Brown, a law professor whose graduate work includes physical anthropology, points out that,

When males and females both start out in good physical condition, women gain less than men from further conditioning, so that the gap between the sexes actually increases. A study of male and female cadets at West Point, who all started out in relatively good condition, found that although women’s upper body strength was initially 66 percent of men’s, by the end of their first two years, it had dropped below 61 percent…Sex differences in physical performance are here to stay. As Constance Holden observed in Science magazine, the male advantage in athletics will endure, due to men’s ‘steady supply of a performance-enhancing drug that will never be banned: endogenous testosterone.’ [emphasis in the original][2]

img6503p124 Army Lieutenant Colonel William Gregor, who taught at West Point, also compared the performances of male and female cadets.

“Gregor found that the upper fifth of women achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom fifth of men, but even with equivalent scores, the men and the women were not physical equals: ‘The women who achieved this level of fitness are unusual. They are confident, they are talented, but they are limited in their potential relative to men. The men, in contrast, have the potential to do much better…APFT scores do not measure relative strength or performance [and are therefore] the kindest to the woman, because she works only against her own weight. If we were to add a load, the gap between males and females would widen. If we were to reinstate the 40-yard man-carry that was part of readiness 20 years ago, we would find far fewer women achieving passing scores using the male tables.’ Gregor also testified that a man is more likely to be able to meet minimum standards later in his career, whereas a woman has nowhere to go but down, and rapidly as she ages.”[3]

www.anatomy4sculptors.comFemales can train as hard as we like, and we may increase strength, stamina, and fitness. But our increased fitness still won’t put us on par with that of the men who are training to their utmost, like men in combat units. No matter how widespread feminism becomes, our bones will always be lighter than men’s, more vulnerable to breaks and fractures. Our aerobic capacity will still be 20-40% less, and we’ll still be less able to bear heavy gear at a hard-pounding run. Can we scale the eight-foot wall in full combat load? No steps are provided to give women a boost in the heat of battle like they are in coed military boot camps (and even the MC’s Officer Candidate’s School). Santangello boasts that she got 16 pull-ups on her last physical fitness test. That’s excellent, but PFT’s are done in a t-shirt and shorts. Can we do a dozen pull-ups in full combat gear? That’s just one of many requirements in the OIC combat endurance test. Can we carry another man on our back with both our full combat load and his? These differences in ability are deal-breakers in combat. The standards are not arbitrary. They’re designed to keep the weak out, because accommodating the weak means lives lost and mission failure. This is not just competitive sports, this is war. Infantry officers must not only be educated, brave, and highly athletic. They must be better at everything than all their men because Marine officers lead from the front. Hence their motto: Ductus Exemplo, leadership by example. Which of these women is better than an entire infantry platoon?

Today, advocates for women in combat, primarily civilian feminists and a handful of feminist officers, are doing everything they can to see that the standards are lowered once more to accommodate women. Hence, reservist Army Colonel Ellen Haring, one of the women suing to open combat units to women, wants the OIC’s combat endurance test thrown out (so tries to discredit it as merely an initiation rite). The females who made it through the Marine Corps’ enlisted School of Infantry were still rated on a double standard for the combat fitness test, a fact dutifully and deliberately omitted by those reporting breathlessly: “Women Pass Infantry Training!” (How will that help them when they’re actually in combat, to have passed on a lower standard?) And in the announcement of the WIC policy last year, General Dempsey said, “[I]f we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” We all know where this is going, and it will be catastrophic for all: women and men on the front lines, our ability to win wars, and the country and loved one’s we’re protecting.

Finally, Lt. Santangello’s contention that women are unfairly barred from a second chance at OIC is deliberately misleading. The only officers who get a chance to remediate and try the course again are those slated for an infantry unit, as Marine Lt. Emma Stokein explains in a recent piece, The Mission Goes First. Since combat units are still closed to women, they don’t get a second try because this delays the training for their assigned MOS and unfairly pushes behind other Marines waiting their turn. As a Marine and officer, Santangello knew this when she wrote her article, so she had no business calling it discrimination. Letting her try the course again, which the commandant of the Marine Corps did after she published, was applying a double standard. She asks that the rules and standards be ignored and that she get special treatment because she’s a woman. That’s quite a start for an officer claiming to want equal treatment, and wanting to lead men in combat. Does she want men to follow her example? Once she’s head of a platoon, will she expect her men(and women) to follow her example?

[1] Stephanie Gutman, The Kinder, Gentler Military. New York: Scribner, 2000.

[2] Kingsley Brown, Coed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight The Nation’s Wars; New York, New York: Penguin Group, 2007.

[3] Brian Mitchell, Women in the Military: Flirting With Disaster; Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1998.

The author before heading out on convoy to checkpoint duty, Fallujah, 2005.

The author before heading out on convoy to checkpoint duty, Fallujah, 2005.


Women Fail to Achieve Male Marines’ Lowest Standard

Earlier this month the Marine Corps decided to delay the low 3 pull-up requirement for women that they had hoped to apply in 2014.  The measure was set in preparation for compliance with the Pentagon’s intent to open combat units to women in 2016.  Since less than half of female recruits could make the minimum requirement by the end of 2013, this implementation is being delayed.

pullupsAdvocates for women in combat have mouthed the words: If women can make the standards, they should be able to serve in the combat units and Special Forces.  If they are telling the truth, why don’t they insist women be tested on the men’s unaltered standards?  Three pull-ups is the bare minimum, it would put a man at the bottom of his unit.  Women get 100% for eight pull-ups where men have to do twenty for 100%.  Is that equality?

The tiny cabal of feminist officers and NCOs who sued to be able to join the combat units and their far-left backers like DACOWITS and SWAN have been telling America not only that women can do anything men can do, but that they already are.  “Women are fighting and dying with men in the combat zone,” they claim.  This is lying by omission: Dying in the combat zone does not mean one qualified for the combat units or Special Forces, whose standards are now being “re-evaluated” to justify why they are so high that women can’t achieve them.  For women, dying in the combat zone doesn’t even mean they qualified in their support (non-combat) units to the standards their brothers have to meet.

If, as these advocates say, women can do everything men can do, why can’t women succeed by the men’s standard naturally, or even with result-specific training?  This is where WIC advocates cut to commercial and cry discrimination.  That’s their playbook.  The feminists and their lackeys have been doing it since women were fully integrated into the military branches and academies, resulting in overall lower standards and reduced combat readiness.  Doing the same to put women into the combat units on a false narrative of equality will have even more disastrous results.

If they were serious about equality, they would demand that no standards be “re-evaluated” and insist that women perform on the men’s standard.  That will never happen because on those standards most women wouldn’t be qualified for the military in the first place.  Women already have an equal opportunity to compete against men in the military, but every time they are tested, they fail to measure up.  It is Nature herself who discriminates.  Women were built for something more important than combat.

Even on the lower standard, women have a much higher rate of injury, non-availability, non-deployability, and attrition (separating from the military before fulfilling their contract) than men.  These are among the plethora of eternal truths making it impractical to put women into combat, even if they do train like Cross-fitters to improve their performance.  When women were integrated fully into the forces and the academies, the same type of feminist cadre said that exposing these facts would hurt morale.  Indeed.  “Equalizing” standards, “leveling the playing field,” even “providing women the best opportunity to succeed” actually means lowering the standards and discriminating against more capable men.

This issue is not about equality or even equal opportunity.  The WIC advocates don’t care about equality, let alone combat readiness.  They don’t care that they are subjecting the entire population of able-bodied young women to the possibility of the draft.  They care about themselves and their own power, and they don’t care if they have to destroy women, men, the military and by extension the country, to get it.


The Real War on Women is Sending Them Into Combat

Click image to get your copy

Robert L. Maginnis has done a tremendous service to the debate on opening American combat units to women in his new book, Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women Into Combat.  This is a must-read for any woman thinking of joining the military and, indeed, anyone with a daughter, sister, or 18-26-year old female loved one.  With clarity, detail and extensive research, Maginnis shows that the arguments being made (by radical feminists, leftist politicians, and politician-like top military brass) in favor of women in combat dismiss and ignore the most important considerations of the problem.  While they argue that it is an issue of equality, Maginnis shows why the scientific biological differences between men and women put women at a serious disadvantage on the battlefield, destroy operational standards and military readiness.  The policy will further sexualize the military and extinguish the masculine spirit of the combat units and Special Forces – a spirit vital to a strong, winning military.  Standards must necessarily be lowered so that more women can “succeed,” while in reality women cannot perform at the level necessary to close with and destroy the enemy.  Fifty years of data have proven this, and it continues to be proved today as women wash out of, for example, the Marine Corps infantry officer’s course.

Maginnis acknowledges the valuable contributions of women in the military and in our wars past and present.  Even so, women are injured twice to four times as much as men, or more.  They are leaving deployments at three times the rate of men, and mostly for non-combat-related issues.  This is not enhancing our ability to fight, as feminists argue, it’s absolutely destroying it (that is the goal).  The toll of putting women into combat units will be taken in greater female casualties, motherless children, psychological turmoil, sexual assaults, and more brutal torture if captured by the enemy than men historically have endured.  This, he rightly points out, is the real war on women.

Deadly Consequences derides the cowardly politicians and politically motivated military brass who have allowed themselves to be intimidated by feminist bullying and Obama’s leftist agenda (Bush not being much better with regard to military policy) rather than promoting policies that keep readiness and troop welfare the topmost priorities.  Through interviews, surveys and more, Maginnis verifies that most military men and women themselves are not in favor.  Pushing women into combat units sets everyone up for failure, and the enemy cares nothing for diversity quotas.  In fact, he says, they have historically fought more viciously when women are on the battlefield.   He takes each oft-cited country that has tried putting women in combat and exposes that they lowered their standards (Canada) , don’t actually put their women at the front (Israel), haven’t had a need for serious military readiness (New Zealand, Norway, Germany) or abandoned the policy altogether (Russia).

Perhaps the most powerful insight Deadly Consequences provides is the witness of experienced combat veterans.  No one reading the accounts of brutal warfare in places such as Najaf and Korea can dismiss the real bloodshed into which we would be sending our women if we don’t demand that our representatives to oppose this dangerous policy.  Maginnis explains the differences in the types of engagements we have faced, contrasting previous wars with the counterinsurgency tactics of Iraq and Afghanistan.  He also warns us against assuming the draft will never again be used.  Once combat units are open to women, the Supreme Court will necessarily rule excluding women from the draft unconstitutional.

Much of the American population has no military experience to inform their opinions on this important issue, making this book even more timely and valuable.  Maginnis gives the lie that adding women to combat units reduces sexual assault, the lie that it enhances military readiness, the lie that it benefits the men.  None of the arguments for women in combat withstands scrutiny.  Deadly Consequences will give the reader a comprehensive yet easy-to-digest understanding of what is at stake if we choose to let these cowards push our women into combat.


Sequestration: Say Goodbye to Our First Line of Defense

Between Leon Panetta’s unconstitutional order that combat units be opened to women and impending Sequestration this week, America can kiss goodbye its military superiority and ability to fight wars effectively.  As readiness goes, so goes our security both at home and abroad.

Under Sequestration, equipment isn’t the only thing on the chopping block.  Personnel will be as well, and all will have to prove their value in the positions they hold or want to hold.  With the conflicting directives of cutting fat vs. compliance with female quotas in the combat units, it is qualified and experienced men who will be purged first.  Combined with the inevitably lowered standards in these units to accommodate women, it is combat readiness that will suffer the most.

The top military brass is already under pressure to show diversity and prove it doesn’t discriminate.  Indeed, that is now its foremost mandate, not military readiness.  With the repeal of laws barring women from combat units and special forces, they will now be forced to prove they’re giving women a “fair” shake by discriminating against more qualified men, since no comprehensive testing was done to prove women can make it through their training, and the only two we know of who attempted such, two in the Marine Infantry Officer course, failed in the first day and the first week of training respectively.  It won’t matter that the women can’t make those standards that most of the top men in every branch can’t achieve.

It will go something like this at the officer level:  “Suzy-Q failed the training?  You’re up for promotion, aren’t you?  Take another look at Suzy-Q.”  And from DOD to the top brass:  “We expect X% pass rate for females.  Anything less will be seen as discrimination.  Next year’s budget will reflect the success of this program.  Understood?”  The military will have to lower the standards of its toughest units in order to fill quotas of women to show they’re not discriminating.

Cutting spending is vital for every department of government, including the military.  The Marines have always been in the lead when it comes to working with the least, then cutting even more.  With so many other ways to cut the excess – from non-vital programs like the National Endowment for the Arts to stopping the fraud and waste so pervasive in government programs from Social Security to Medicare – Sequestration is totally unnecessary.  But this was Obama’s idea, and it put the military in the cross-hairs from the start.  It’s easy to see why.  This administration thinks the military is too masculine, too white, too conservative, too straight.  They’ve repealed DADT, opened the toughest units to women who can’t make it through one week of their training and sold our equipment to our enemies.  This is just the next phase in destroying the last bastion of merit and strength our country has against enemies both foreign and domestic.


Let The Men Be Heroes – Because They Are

This is Part IV and the conclusion of my series on The Problems of Women in Combat

On Thursday January 31,  2012 I had the pleasure of participating in a roundtable discussion on the subject of women in combat roles on the Glenn Beck show (members can view the show in full in the website’s archives).  I didn’t know Green Beret Greg Stube or Navy Seal Pete Scobell before that day, but we got to know each other well over the course of the show and afterward.  I was blown away by their level of sacrifice, what they had endured and overcome, and how they are still serving our country in their current endeavors.  “Heroes” doesn’t begin to cover it, but this is not unusual for men in units like these who have seen action again and again.   As I listened I was reminded once again of the truth about the male bond in these elite units, and the superhuman things they do.

Watch the series “Surviving the Cut” which shows the rigorous training men go through to make it into the elite Special Forces.  They’ll start off with a hundred men who are already the top performers in their branches, but only ten will make it to graduation.  The only example we have of women even attempting such training are two women who attempted the Marines Infantry Officer Course.  One washed out after a day, the other after a week.

The decision to open the combat units to women was done without any testing because testing shows that women can’t cut it.  To be brutally honest, we can’t even approach cutting it, as anyone who watches this series will be able to see.  The truth is that the top 25% of women performers in any branch is equivalent to the bottom 50% of men.  The top woman is no comparison to the top man.  Some pundits like to say get the best man for the job, “even if the best man is a woman.”  The best man in combat is never ever a woman (and women prove it).  The best man is always a man.  Let’s give them credit where credit is due.  Each one that makes it into a combat unit or Special Forces trumps the best woman, and by a large margin.  The caliber of man that a high-performing woman could compete with doesn’t make it into the Special Forces.  He washes out.  Comparing these potential (fictional) women (who was it that found that brass ceiling anyway?) to the men in these units is not just comparing apples to oranges.  It’s comparing apples to steak, and the result is to demoralize our country’s strongest, bravest and most capable men who risk and sacrifice their lives for us doing things that no woman really wants to do.

Another interesting facet of these men as I’ve gotten to know them is that they shun recognition, even refusing their hard-earned benefits from the VA.  Compare that to the Feminist officers pushing women into combat (anyone notice that enlisted women, who will bear the brunt of this experiment, are not being asked for their opinion?).  If you watch their interviews, it’s all about recognition and recognition and recognition.  They will get it thanks to Leon Panetta, but just as the standards are “gender-normed” to show false equal results of current training standards, they will get the same recognition for doing a fraction of what the men in combat units do.

We already know women in the military has lowered its overall standards as I point out in my earlier articles in this series.  Adding women to the combat units will destroy the Bands of Brothers and with them our ability to fight our savage enemies.  But that is the intent.  Under pressure from Washington politicians, the military’s paramount mandate is no longer combat effectiveness.  It is diversity.  The fact that Leon Panetta gave this authoritarian order (and likely unconstitutional, since the power to make such decisions is supposed to rest with Congress) on his way out the door shows his abundant spinelessness, for he will not have to answer for the destruction this foolish decision will cause.

The men in these units are our supermen, and that does not take anything away from women.  They are doing heroic things that women can’t do, and they do it because they love women: their mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives. We want to protect women from participating in the ravages of war, not throw them into the front so they can be ravaged themselves.  The bond of men in combat is something that women cannot share even when they are present.  We serve together in many important military capacities and enjoy our own strong bonds because of some shared training and experience, but the connection that the men have is something very special, different and hard-won.  We should let them have it without disparaging it as brutish and discriminatory.  It not only enhances combat effectiveness, it is a part of our societal moral fabric as a country.  It is frankly vital to our survival, not something passé from a bygone patriarchal age that we should abandon for phony “equality.”

Let us love and laud our Bands of Brothers, not demoralize and destroy them.  They are the only thing really standing between us and slavery.

Read Part 1: The Problem(s) of Women in Combat

Read Part 2: Careerists V. Mother Nature

Read Part 3: Women in Combat Units Vs. the Military’s Sexual Assault Problem

Part 4: Let the Men Be Heroes, Because They Are


Women in Combat Units Vs. The Military’s Sexual Assault Problem

The Invisible War is a 2012 documentary showing the shocking prevalence of sexual assault in the military, and worse, the cover-ups that tend to follow.  The rate of assaults against women is completely unacceptable as it is.  We should not put women in infantry and special forces where the risk will be even greater to them because there is less supervision, more pressure, and everyone does everything together and in front of each other.  It will be totally destructive of women and combat readiness both.

theinvisiblewarAccording to the documentary which sites government studies, 20% of women in the military have been assaulted, fifteen thousand in 2011 alone.  They estimate half a million women have been assaulted over the years.  The testimonies of rape victims are horrendous.  But it shows that neither the boot camps, nor the deployment training, nor the Feminist theories on women’s equality we’ve been fed since the mid-sixties equipped these rape victims to fight off the men who raped them, or to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.  Besides exposing a very dark problem in the military branches, what The Invisible War shows without intending to is that breaking down the age-old standards of behavior and of separating women from men doesn’t empower them – it makes them more vulnerable to attack.  This is the truth the Feminists don’t want you to know.  They’ve been lying about it for the past fifty years.

Women have served in the military since World War I, beginning with separate units for women in nursing and administrative roles that “freed the men to fight.”  Today everything is integrated: We train together, eat together, we socialize and often drink together (one of the common avoidable circumstances that leads to rape), and single servicemen and women sleep in the same barracks together.  These all become high-risk activities for a woman, as the documentary shows.  Some were raped while on duty, or in the offices of their attackers.  Some were having a few drinks, bonding with their fellows who in some cases drugged them.  Where all that stands between a woman and an attacker is a locked door, we’re already too late.  And in special forces in the combat zone, there aren’t even any doors to lock.

We’re putting the sexes together as if eros and human passion don’t exist.  All the steps that for thousands of years have been in place to protect women have been destroyed by Feminists who see these protections and standards as oppression.  They are in fact the opposite.  It takes a village to protect women – with both men and women holding each other to high standards of behavior.  The differences in how we treat the sexes not only exist, they are essential.  We don’t expect women to be treated like men – that would be barbaric.  We don’t expect men to be treated like women – that would be pathetic.  In the age of “friends with benefits” and “dress like a slut” day, everybody instinctively knows that how a woman dresses affects men.  They can’t turn it off.  That’s why dress and other behaviors in our own control matter.  The Feminist’s assumption that we can presto-chango transform our natures is absurd, and when tested is proven false.  They give themselves the lie by adding double standards – women can be sluts but you have to respect them as if they were chaste, women can do what men can do except you need to gender-norm the testing standards to manufacture equal results.  There’s no way they can create sexless uniformity among men and women, so they have to propagate a huge deception.  They falsely frame the issue as one of civil rights and liberation, making it all but impossible to discuss the real issues.

Anu Bhagwati, a female veteran advocating for women in combat roles, was in this documentary giving “expert” testimony.  Even knowing the horrifying rates of assault, she wants women in elite units where there is no separation of the sexes, where there is not just less, but no protection of women.  Put the sexes in close quarters, under pressure, tell them their biology is artificial and their previous sense of decency something to just get over.  Anyone who doesn’t want to share their junk with the opposite sex (the spouses are cringing), is just a prude trapped in a bygone age.  Martha McSally continually claims common decency standards are nothing, and that the lack thereof doesn’t hurt unit cohesion at all.  The media claim outrage at the prevalence of violent rape in the military.  Yet in the combat roles debate, rape is nothing.  The female proponent in this debate asserts that if women are willing to risk capture and rape by enemy combatants, they should be allowed to do so.  Just another choice.  Would she say the same to women joining the military in the first place?  Big Lies, perpetrated by big-time Feminists.

The pressure of combat missions is already unbelievably high.  What if an assault happens the day of a mission?  We know there’s at least a 20% risk.  Suddenly there are opposing needs – to complete the mission and to deal with the assault.  If reported, the command acting rightly would have to destroy the mission by taking both rapist and victim off the battlefield.  There would be even more pressure not to report the assault – even self-imposed by the victim herself – because there’s a mission at stake.  We are, after all, at war.  That is a decision no woman nor any commander on the ground should have to face.  Until Leon Panetta’s act of tyrannical fiat, the infantry and special forces did not have to consider it.

Women with men is not an equal opportunity.  The standards of conduct and degrees of separation have existed for women’s own protection, but Feminists have bullied us into abandoning them in favor of fake constructs that end up hurting women most of all.  The appalling rate of sexual assault and the lack of prosecution in the military are serious problems that The Invisible War brings to light.  These should be dealt with before putting women at greater risk in combat units on the battlefield.

This is part 3 in a series.

Read Part 1: The Problem(s) of Women in Combat

Read Part 2: Careerists V. Mother Nature

Part 3: Women in Combat Units Vs. the Military’s Sexual Assault Problem

Read Part 4: Let the Men Be Heroes, Because They Are

aristotle_000


Careerists v. Mother Nature

In continuing the discussion of opening combat roles to women, we have the argument that women are already there, deploying and fighting in hot zones.  This is true, and it gives us a record of the problems we are already experiencing as a result.

Wasted:  Valuable Time, Training, and Resources

I talk about several of the female-only issues for which extra accommodations have to be made in my previous article.  We are not equal except in our rights under our Constitutional Law.  Nature has no regard for equality, and each one of us is born uniquely different from each other.  We are diverse and dissimilar in our talents, physical aspects, intellect and emotions, and the sexes are inherently different.  We know, for example, that women are much more prone to certain types of infections.  For a woman on patrol, setting up an ambush, or, as the infantry do, living in abandoned buildings with no running water and sleeping in close quarters, hygiene is a constant problem.  A urinary tract infection can quickly become a kidney infection (debilitating in itself) and then kidney failure if left unchecked.  Suddenly a woman needs to be evacuated for a problem that has nothing to do with combat and to which men are not susceptible.

Then there’s pregnancy.  Margaret Wente writes, “One study of a brigade operating in Iraq found that female soldiers were evacuated at three times the rate of male soldiers – and that 74 percent of them were evacuated for pregnancy-related issues.”

Women leaving the combat zone three times as much as men!  And mostly due to shacking up and getting pregnant.  It costs something like a million dollars per individual to get trained through bootcamp and additionally to be made ready for deployment.  Those are taxpayer dollars spent on someone who has to turn around and leave the combat zone to have a baby (for which our tax dollars also pay), having nothing to do with combat.

Changing Our Best Instincts: Protecting Women, Mothering Children

We know that rape is a tool of torture for the already savage enemy we’re fighting.  In one TV interview a woman suggested that if women are willing to take that risk, we should let them.  She also absurdly claimed that men are raped as much as women when captured, which is patently false.  But the idea that men shouldn’t worry any more about women in battle goes against the very best primal male instinct.  In every country from Canada to Israel where women are in combat (and in American units where women are in theater), the men will tell you they are more protective of the women.  It’s different from men’s protection of each other, and it distracts from mission completion.  The pro-WICs would have men thwart this wonderful and thoroughly ingrained instinct. A world in which men don’t feel a strong need to protect women when they’re in the most dangerous and hostile of environments would be a nightmare.  We would rightly call those men brutes.

We’re also thwarting mothers’ nurturing instincts.  Women are already training to kill and leaving their children in order to deploy, even when they are the sole caregiver (turning care over namely to grandparents).  This sets a bad precedent and hurts children.  There will always be war, and it’s bad enough for fathers to leave their children to fight necessarily, but to allow mothers to choose this path over motherhood is bad for everyone.  There are many noble capacities in which women with children can fight for this country, such as administrative jobs stateside.  We don’t need to deploy mothers to battle, we shouldn’t.

The Career-Hungry

A small handful of high-ranking females have instigated this policy change in order to advance their own careers.  In this interview, Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine Captain, complains about women not being able to promote to certain ranks, claims that women aren’t getting proper recognition for action in combat (a claim also made here), and that it’s harder for them to get combat-injury-related benefits from the VA.  Regarding the latter, I know females who are receiving combat-injury-related benefits, so if there are some who are not receiving them but should, the bureaucratic, inefficient, fraud-riddled VA should be confronted.  Administrative changes could certainly be considered to take care of veterans as we should – regardless of sex – for injuries sustained in battle thus far.  As for recognition of action, this is also a bureaucratic aspect that can be addressed through the chain of command without changing the policies on women in combat units.  And finally as to rank, cry me a river.  The military is about preparing for an executing war, not advancing your career at the cost of readiness for war.

The careerists are also on the hook for the double standard that we currently have for the sexes, which inherently lowers the standards overall.  Even if one standard is imposed, it’s likely it will be an overall lower standard.  As the Center for Military Readiness points out, “The same advocates who demand ‘equal opportunities’ in combat are the first to demand unequal, gender-normed standards to make it ‘fair.’”  Enormous pressure from Washington is already on the military brass to fill quotas of race and sex, and the higher they get, the more politically motivated the brass’ decisions.  Whereas imposing one higher standard would in fact result in fewer women serving in these roles, the political pressure to prove diversity will result in more unqualified women (and men) attaining positions for which men are more qualified.  But go against the diversity status quo dictated by Washington and you can kiss your rank and career goodbye.  The purges have already begun.

The word discriminate has several meanings, including “to distinguish particular features, to be discerning; showing insight and understanding,” and its synonyms are “wise, perceptive, prudent.”  We should absolutely be discriminating in our criteria for war preparation, and the lives of our men in uniform depend on us taking an honest, discerning look at who adds to military readiness and who detracts from it.  We should absolutely not open the combat units to the myriad problems we face already with women deploying to the theatre of war.

This is part 2 in a series.

Read Part 1: The Problem(s) of Women in Combat

Part 2: Careerists V. Mother Nature

Read Part 3: Women in Combat Units Vs. the Military’s Sexual Assault Problem

Read Part 4: Let the Men Be Heroes, Because They Are

The Globe & Mail:  Women in Combat: Let’s Get Real

National Geographic : 8 Other Nations That Send Women to Combat

Center for Military Readiness:  Seven Reasons Why Women-in-Combat Diversity Will Degrade Tough Training Standards

Hot Air: Some advice on women in combat from a female veteran

The Washington Post: Most Americans back women in combat roles, poll says

aristotle_000


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,139 other followers