The left’s new W.I.C.* program

*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.

31 thoughts on “The left’s new W.I.C.* program”

  1. This issue is not women in combat, the issue what role they play there. Convoy Commanders? Got it. Turret gunners in CLPs? Got it. Foot patrols in hostile areas with men who don’t view them as equals…. No.

    The reality is that their bodies as a whole cannot compete with men in terms of carrying the weight required of your average grunt.

    Loading heavy tank/arty shells? Males are better suited. Long patrols with 80 pounds of gear? Males are better suited.

    There are a ton of rock star females in the military, and we can’t get enough of them. But opening all of these jobs ensures a lowering of the physical standards that puts people at risk.

  2. Duke,

    Wars always put women in combat, since most war casualties are civilians, of which many, if not most, are women.

  3. It’s just a snow job to garner more support from woman,(like they actually need it), for the current government, and the Democratic party. The actual wide spread implementation probably will never happen.

  4. Duke,

    I respect your feelings on this matter but have to challenge you on facts. I’m going out on a limb here and making some assumptions:

    You’ve never sparred with Sensei Donna Craddock of the Ninja Academy in Ventnor N.J.

    You’ve never dated an Israeli woman.

    You have never seen anybody try and manhandle former IPoD candidate Cathy Samardza.

    You’ve never challenged Neghar Fanooni to a contest of strength.

    You were never a mercenary in Rhodesia. Many who were would advise others to shoot the women first in a firefight if they wanted to survive.

    I’ve done the first two, heard about folks who have tried the next two and read an article written by a man who was fighting in Rhodesia.

    People with direct experience in any of the above would caution you not to dismiss women as equals on the battlefield. Cathy, Donna, and Neghar are all small sized very feminine looking ladies, as are many Israeli women who fight alongside the men.

    I know too many men who sound off about the fallacy of women warriors that wouldn’t want to tangle with any of these women in a sporting contest, much less combat.

    Remember Jeanne Assam who took out a gunman with an AK-47 who was attacking a church? Jeanne had a handgun and no shortage of heart.

    Should we also ban women from serving as police officers? I am in favor of abolishing ‘gender normalization’ of standards across the board. Equal means equal.

    In nature there is nothing quite so fierce as a mother protecting her young. Perhaps something to reflect on. I would rather not be in a fight at all, first choice.

    If I have to fight I care more about what kind of heart and skills my colleagues have than what kind of genitals they have. That’s just me.

  5. “Should we also ban women from serving as police officers?”

    When is the last time you heard of a police force patrolling 7 miles a day up and down mountains?

    “Equal means equal.”

    This is never going to happen, that is the problem. You’re encouraging lowering standards and putting lives at risk.

    “Remember Jeanne Assam who took out a gunman with an AK-47 who was attacking a church? Jeanne had a handgun and no shortage of heart”

    This has nothing to do with the rigors of being an infantryman.

  6. “But combat isn’t one of them, and it must never be.”

    Tell that to Rep. Tammy Duckworth, please.

    Y’all act as if every man in combat is an infantryman with a full pack.

    “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.”

    Thank you for this acknowledgement. Now I understand why Dick Cheney had “different priorities” — he wanted to eliminate all the other, superior males who might have fought him for the hand of Lady Lynne.

    “Make no mistake: both my parents fought the Axis in World War Two.”

    Am I making a mistake in assuming that you haven’t donned a uniform to fight anyone? If so, kindly eat a big bowl of ST*U.

    I could go on and on deconstructing this atavistic nonsense, but you know, so many fish, such a small barrel.

  7. Let’s start you with an easy one, Duke. Try looking up Jehanne la Pucelle and tell me that she didn’t fight and lead French armies to victory against England.

    Then go to this website: http://www.lothene.org/others/womenprehist.html
    Which will give you hundreds of historical examples of women in combat. At the bottom of each page you get a link to the next historical era.

    So nice to know that the spokesperson for the Sussex County GOP has no regard for what women have historically achieved on battlefields.

  8. “When is the last time you heard of a police force patrolling 7 miles a day up and down mountains?”

    This morning.

    FYI, the average Chinese man weighs ten pounds less than the average US woman (sorry ladies).

  9. Doug:
    I dated an Israeli woman; her brother and I are still good friends. She was, in fact, in the Israeli army and did, in fact, take out some mohammedans in combat. She’s back in Israel now. Israel is a small country, which means its existence can be threatened from without. Their culture, as such, is dramatically different from that of a “large country,” and the military pressures under which they have existed since their founding necessitates a “whole population” approach to defense. Very few, if any, other nation-states in history have fielded armies comprising nearly equal numbers of males and females.
    I don’t have “feelings” on this issue; I merely presented biological facts. If you are certain that males and females are biologically identical in their possession of eggs/sperm, then there is nothing more to be said.
    I did say early on that there are exceptions to the “men-only” rule. There are, in fact, exceptions to everything. The exceptions are just that: exceptions. And, in the vast scheme of human history, the exceptions are so rare and so few that they do not bear scrutiny and cannot be used to void the overwhelming history of armed combat, nor the inherent biological purposes and evolutionary nature thereof.

  10. Everyone who knows me knows that I have never been in the military. I have admired the armed forces and was rejected by Annapolis, and later the Navy NFO program, due to poor eyesight.
    These facts do nothing to change the biology of the human race. Of course, no fact known to mankind will ever change the liberals’ belief system.
    I write as an individual, and not as spokesman for the Sussex GOP.

  11. When you’re the official spokesperson for the Sussex GOP, you don’t get to write as an individual. Do you think the Democrats are going to make that distinction when they use this kind of thing against us in 2014?

    The issue is not what your opinion is. The issue is why the GOP would choose as its spokesperson someone who is so politically tone deaf, they think writing something like this is a good idea. Or maybe I’m wrong and you’re perfect, since tone-deafness is a leading quality amongst the majority of the active Sussex GOP today.

  12. Doug Beatty-

    Are you an idiot?

    A woman couldn’t play in the NFL, or even in MLB. They aren’t physically equipped to do so. And, no matter how big they are, they can’t take a punch- ever seen female boxing?

    How many of your cherry-picked list of female studs do you think could have gone more than 10 seconds against a guy like Tyson? Wake-up and get real.

    Sure, there’s a place for them, as mentioned by Falcor- there’s also places they shouldn’t be, also mentioned by Falcor.

  13. Point of clarification.

    “men who don’t view them as equals”

    This is about the male citizens of a lot of 3rd world countries, not the male servicemebers.

  14. anon (who is so certain of his/her own infallibility that he/she refuses to identify him/herself when posting here, unlike dozens of others who are, at least, unafraid to publicly identify their opinions): I can be a spokesman for anything in the world, and, in America, I can STILL write and publish as an individual. My post comprised undeniable facts of biology and evolution, plus a very brief expression of my own personal opinion. If I were writing here in my capacity as spokesman for the Sussex GOP, I would have been identified as “SussexGOP” and not by my own personal name. (The Committee, incidentally, has no official opinion on this national issue.) The Democrats will use ANYTHING said or done by ANY Republican ANYWHERE in the nation against us, and such tactics will be heralded by their fellow travelers in the national media as “truth.” Given those facts, should all Republicans refrain from expressing their opinions on any subject known to man? Or should we simply be cowed by name-calling leftists into silence even when we deign to mention simple facts? The GOP has facts and history on our side; the left has feelings, emotions and theory on theirs.

  15. There are 2 anons on this thread.

    I supplied you, Mr. Brooks, with a website that chronicles women in combat. I challenged you to look up Jehanne la Pucelle, a fierce warrior woman also known as Joan of Arc. She lead the French against the English in the 1400s. If you would take the time to read through this link:

    http://www.lothene.org/others/womenprehist.html

    and follow the links at the bottom through history, you would learn that women fighting in combat isn’t an unusual thing. It even happened here, in the USA, from the American Revolution through our most recent wars. Do you think American pioneer women sat on the floor of their shack and cried when the Indians attacked, no, sir, they picked up their dead husband’s guns and fought for their families lives.

    You can pretend that women never fought in combat successfully, Mr. Brooks, and you can write your little made up history about women in combat, but the truth is that women have historically stepped up and fought their enemies.

  16. …you would learn that women fighting in combat isn’t an unusual thing. It even happened here, in the USA, from the American Revolution through our most recent wars.

    It’s extremely unusual.

    And I doubt if Joan of Arc was at the front line- as a ‘leader,’ she would be at the rear, observing the battle(s) and making adjustments.

  17. As a retired Navyman (20 years honorable active duty) the first ten in Naval Security Group communications intelligence and the last ten years as a Navy Recruiter managing recruiting stations throughout Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania I feel somewhat educated on this subject. I have a complete knowledge of all Navy occupations and their specialities. At the time of my service 1963-1984 NO women were permitted in the naval security group. Then in 1974 that restriction was removed and women were permitted to go to Navy Communications schools to learn and work in that specialty. I personally had no working relationship with any females in the navy from 1963 to 1074. I was accepted into Navy recruiting in November 1974 and worked with many female navy personnel until I retired in 1984 from NSA, Ft. Meade, Md. None of the women ever had postions that required them to be deployed to a combat zone. Their Officer and enlisted occupations exempted them from most hazardous duty areas. They were challenged to suceed in the administrative, medical and clerical duties that were just as important as any war zone duties.

    On a very small scale, some, very few females are going to be able to compete with a male in combat. Not this present day digital techology, but pure hand to hand, in your face, knife in the gut, blood gushing out, bone crushing kicks to the body type encounters. And that is with little or no sleep in a terrain that will take away most of your energy. Most males can and have gone through this. Size and stature are relative, but large males tend to be more victorious over smaller males.

    No. I belive this WIC is politically motivated. And I see a cultural change taking place in our nation that was not there in the 50,60,70,80’s. Males are assuming roles in life that were more female gender oriented. In the 50’s a male would never carry a baby around on his chest in public. And he would never be a stay at home dad, permitting his wife to go out to work for the family livelihood. He had too much male pride. This seems to be a norm in today society. Politally, I see a problem in military recruiting. More males are not considering the military, especially the Army and Marines as a viable occupation and career source. And all branches of the armed services are in a downsizing mode due to economic and man power needs. What better way to attempt to fill the ranks than with females who are willing to volunteer for combat duty.

    But this activity has a way of eventually hurting the services. Women are procreators. They want children. They want to be cared for regardless of who give the care. They have special needs that must be given even in remote areas. They tend to have monthly mental changes that although natural, they can be confusing to most males. Yes, other foriegn nations have WIC. We can too, but on a very selective basis.

    One last thought. If we ever go into another war that requires us to deploy WIC and the bodybags of moms, sisters, aunts, friends start returning home in large numbers will we as a nation be able to look in the mirrors and ask how did we let this happen? We are supposed to protect our women and children, so what went wrong?

  18. “Do you think American pioneer women sat on the floor of their shack and cried when the Indians attacked, no, sir, they picked up their dead husband’s guns and fought for their families lives.”

    Can somebody please explain to me how this is relevant to the physical inability of most women to carry the weight required of an infantryman?

  19. Well said Steven, I feel almost exactly the same. I don’t feel that women should be discriminated against, but on the front lines in hand-to-hand combat. A ginourmous NO!

  20. “If we were to truly take physical attributes into account, most astronauts would be women, and small ones at that — every extra pound takes that much more fuel to put into and beyond orbit.”

    Works for me.

    “I know women who can carry a pack all day while hiking into wilderness, and they’re as lean and fit as any athlete.”

    You’re looking at one end of the spectrum, not the fact that there will be women who slip through the cracks to push this agenda forward.

  21. We are a nation that is very young when compared to other nations like our former England. And our population is so diverse – and it continues to become even more so as time goes on. That’s what makes our nation so special. I have lived in so many foriegn lands over the years. A large population of our citizens have never left their own neighborhoods so they don’t know first hand how special and different our diversity is as a people. Yes, some of us male and female are going to make good warriors. We have all the right attributes to take on this challenge. I am praying for our nation’s people to confront our leaders. The one’s who have the authority to order the general population to go off to war, do battle with the enemy at the time, die for the reasons they were sent into harms way and then have the audasity to hold ceremonies and place platitudes and thank you’s for giving up all you have and ever will have to a grateful nation. I want the proposed act of war to be so grave and serious as to elicit a vote from every single citizen of this nation. Yes or no. Do we take on the huge task of putting all our resources, including our most precious being our young men and women in harms way for this cause of war?

    I have been in war. Vietnam. It wasn;t pretty even outside of the battle zone. It changes every aspect of your life. The most basic is not being home to live yourlife with your family and friends. Time marches on, people change and if your away you lose out on all the wonderful life events that take place while your in another part of the world. I never got that back. Oh, I built my own box of memories of those times and place and the awesome military men and women from all over this nation I had the honor to serve with. But, my hometown. My little piece of America was lost to me and I will never get it back.

    WIC will lose much of the same while in the service. I pray that our nations leaders and our nations people will have the strenght and foresight, based on our numerous past experiences in war to re-evaluate not who should be in combat, but why is combat even necessary. I hope I am not alone in my feelings.

  22. At least some of the social agenda changes in military are for the better. This was overdue….

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/11/us/pentagon-benefits/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

    Military extends some benefits to same-sex partners:

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced just days before leaving office that the Pentagon is extending some benefits to the same-sex partners of service members.

    Same-sex partners who sign a military “Declaration of Domestic Partnership” form will be eligible for several benefits, including military identification cards as dependents.

  23. Social agnda changes? Can you think of a better word than ‘social’ because the DoD does not care a hoot about any social agneda’s in the military. But that will certainly be a budget line item consideration when they are cutting away at vital resources and need to fit in spending allowances for same-sex partners or “dependents” of any sexual choice. The military has nver been a social welfare sponsored program, so let’s see how this plays out in the few years. Cuts are happening as we speak and more military spending cuts are going to happen. Not only will the services suffer, but the civialian businesses supporting the bases will suffer.

  24. “The military has nver been a social welfare sponsored program”

    Ever hear of the GI bill? You don’t know what you’re talking about.

  25. “But that will certainly be a budget line item consideration when they are cutting away at vital resources and need to fit in spending allowances for same-sex partners or “dependents” of any sexual choice.”

    They should have been fit in a long time ago, if this means we stop wasting money on the enormous number of unnecessary programs on base I DGAF.

    “Not only will the services suffer, but the civialian businesses supporting the bases will suffer.”

    Those businesses should suffer, they suck at what they do. They’ve been propped up by corrupt defense contracting procedures. The F-22 is a 420 million dollar lemon. The F-35 isn’t a whole lot better, and don’t even get me started on the EFV. Meanwhile, after a decade of record defense spending the 19 year old kids still have to execute live fire ranges without IFAKs because I MEF ran out.

  26. GEEZER – I do know what i’m taling about. The GI Bill was passed because the WWII veterans returning home had no money to go to school and train for a civilian job because they were drafted into the service of their country when the entire world was at war. Many never returned. For their dedication and devotion to country they were given the GI Bill. And those armed forces members were given an educational benefit they never had before. They were given an opportunity to advance their education compliments of a grateful nation. How you interpret that as social welfare is a mystery to me. Personally, I used it for my education. It saved me a pile of money! I thank my fellow Americans for the opportunity they gave me to go to college and not need any student loans that would have burdened me with a financial debt I didn’t need in my life. As an educated, productive citizen I was able to repay my country by working hard with those educational skills and made a good life for the many people I employed in the daily operation of the business I created. I never looked at the financial help from the GI Bill as a social welfare program, so I know you don’t know what you are talking about when you make stupid remarks about something you personally never experienced. I do detect some degree of envy from you Geezer. Shame on you.

  27. “I never looked at the financial help from the GI Bill as a social welfare program, so I know you don’t know what you are talking about when you make stupid remarks about something you personally never experienced.”

    Because you were the one using it and you don’t want to lump yourself in with “those people.”

Comments are closed.