*Women in combat
I read last night the inspiring story of how a phalanx of Spartan hoplite women held off Xerxes the Persian at Thermopylae. Then, I studied the famous Female Cohorts of Rome, who, outnumbered three-to-one, fought Hannibal Barca and the Carthaginians at Trebbia. Later, I read about how a regiment of 800 Wisconsin women stormed Island No.10 during the Civil War. Next, I read about how two battalions of French women dislodged a reinforced German machine gun nest during the Battle of the Marne in World War 1. Then, I was impressed as all-get-out by that fabulous tale of the all-female squadron of B-29s that firebombed Yokohama in the summer of 1945. But the most inspiring story, truly highlighting the incredible combat prowess of women, detailed the two companies, comprising about 180 women Marines, who held off two regiments of Chinese Communists at the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. Most of the women from those companies of the 4th Marines remained in the Corps, and held off Charlie and the NVA at the siege of Khe Sahn about fifteen years later.
Of course, there are no such stories. No stories about American women hurtling head-long into English formations at Cowpens, none about Bavarian women defeating the French in 1870, and none about the two regiments of Swedish women running, with bayonets fixed, cut-and-thrust, pell-mell, directly into the flank of a slovenly battalion of Prussian male troops during the Seven Years’ War.
There’s a reason why nobody ever read any such things, and there’s a reason why nobody ever wrote about any such things: No such things ever happened. Almost never, in the history of mankind, have women fought in combat. In fact, the exceptions to that rule are so rare, and so few, that they can be discarded altogether in favor of the tidal wave of obvious and clear reasons why women have no business, and no place, in actual combat.
Note that I said, “actual combat.” There are places for women in national defense, and there are certainly jobs they can do, have done and will do, in the military. But combat isn’t one of them, and it must never be.
And here’s why: Whether there are economic, territorial, punitive or political justifications for war, the primary reason that wars are fought is to reduce the number of males. This is strictly for biological and evolutionary reasons and takes place under several presumptions, namely that females each possess 200-300 eggs, so their reproductive opportunities, and age of viability are, therefore, limited. Males, on the other hand, each produce trillions of sperm and can reproduce until they’re 80 or so. Therefore, as they say, eggs are dear and sperm is cheap. It’s simple supply and demand. For this biological reason, females are idealized and protected, while males are replaceable, expendable and unimportant…in a strictly reproductive, biological sense.
Further, the act of males in mortal combat against each other is well and truly known throughout the entire animal kingdom. The reasons, obviously, are this: Stronger, tougher males will eliminate weaker, less fit males, which has two effects: the gene pool is improved and the reproductive choices and odds for the remaining, surviving males are better. In a population, with a ratio of males to females of approximately one-to-one, weak males have lower odds of combining their genes with females than fit males do; after a major war, like World War One, or the Civil War, for example, the female population is generally unscathed, so the ratio, from a male perspective, is “improved” to something like 1.3 females per male. Males are willing to risk their lives in war to emerge, as survivors, into that kind of environment.
For these exact same reasons, females hate war…because it reduces their reproductive choices. There are, after warfare, fewer males, hence fewer potential partners from which females may choose.
Simply put, females conduct genetic selection (Genetic selection is everything.) through acceptance of a male mate; males conduct it by eliminating other males.
The idea of females being put at grave physical risk in combat is, therefore, exactly the opposite of what combat is all about…and, if one factors in the obvious and undeniable fact that males possess greater physical strength, stamina and endurance than females, an army with large numbers of females in combat positions will, of necessity, be a physically weaker army than an all-male army.
Why does the left want this? Politically, it wants to secure feminist votes while denigrating the Pentagon as a “he-man woman-haters club.” Further, the liberal left is utterly opposed to the idea that this country should be able to militarily defend itself in any kind of meaningful way whatsoever; a weakened military, used primarily as a social-scientists’ petri dish, fits right in with their plans for a downgraded, weakened America. In their “thinking,” a socialist/communist country should occupy the place of influence, power and leadership now occupied by America, and removing the U.S. military, in any way possible, from the world’s balance-of-power equation is just another part of their agenda.
Make no mistake: both my parents fought the Axis in World War Two. My dad was in the Marines (so you know who he fought) and my mom held a “simulated rank” of captain in the U.S.O. as a 21-year-old singer in “Rae Scott’s All-Girl Orchestra” in the E.T.O. But neither she nor her musician friends were in actual combat, and only once got anywhere close to it, and that was by a motor-pool mistake. My dad, on the other hand…well, his job was to kill Japanese, and the Marines gave him an F4U Corsair with which to do it. But knowing more about World War Two now than I did when I was a kid, there’s no doubt in my mind that American women not only helped to build the airplane he flew, but a woman probably ferried the Vought fighter from Connecticut to NAS San Diego…but no farther.
I couldn’t be more in favor of women assisting, in uniform, in the defense of our country, but I couldn’t be more opposed to the idea of women being wounded or killed in combat. Thanks, liberals, for doing one more thing to weaken and harm our country.