(Editor’s note: read part 1 here. The views expressed in this column are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect our views as an organization.)
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 Constitutional Law. Nature has no regard for equality, and each one of us is born differently 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), 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.”
It costs approximately a million dollars per individual to get trained through bootcamp and 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 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 Captain, complains about women not being able to be promoted to certain ranks, claims that women aren’t getting proper recognition for action in combat (a claim also made here), and claims 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 and 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.” 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.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Most excellent article, Jude Eden. Precise, to the point and an honest look @ the problems of WICs. Not bias, just real.
If women want to be in the Military, they will join the Navy … not the Marines (cause they’re the first in line) or the Army, they’re next…. the Waves will be what they will chose. No woman has the physical ability to carry all the weight men have to carry.. they cannot do all the hard training the men have to… either. If you wanna watch a woman go through basic training.. watch Private Benjerman with Goldie Hawn… that was the funniest movie I have ever seen and will be typical of most women too.
This is silly. I am sick of everybody thinking they know whats best for me because I am a woman. Dammit, if I can pass the current physical standard to be pararescue, being a woman doesn’t matter. If you really look into it, there are only a handful of military career fields that are not currently open to women, and for every 1000 one of these people flipping out over changing that, there is maybe 1 qualified woman waiting for the day she is accepted into one of these elite combat units. In addition- any woman who can pass the rigorous training is going to be able to figure out how to handle getting her period in the field, and where is this “losing half her strength” proven? This may be based on your own experience, but it certainly is not mine, and have never heard of this from any of my female friends.
I seem to remember a lot of fuss about repealing DADT and how it would destroy unit cohesion. Here we are, over a year later, and the worst thing happening is that other laws haven’t caught up to it. (DOMA- rights of spouses to military benefits) And there are many, many more gay/lesbian active duty members than there are women lining up for these combat roles. We don’t have a draft, nobody is forcing any woman to sign up for these jobs, we are just allowing the opportunity for those women who can hack it.
And finally shame on the author for attempting to degrade the female Purple Heart recipient- who are you to say what her motives were for deploying, or if her children are worse off than if they had an injured father. It doesn’t matter that she was a woman, she is a veteran who sacrificed for her country, and deserves just as much respect as any other Purple Heart veteran, male or female.
@beccawxgirl Dammit, if I can pass the current physical standard to be para-rescue, being a woman doesn’t matter.
YES It does………. It Does Matter !
@beccawxgirl Dammit, if I can pass the current physical standard to be para-rescue, being a woman doesn’t matter.
YES It does………. It Does Matter !
There are Beau-Coup jobs for women in the armed forces. WHY does it have to be combat ?????
Because in order to get most of your higher paying better jobs you HAVE to have held a combat position.
Those are my own thoughts on women in combat. Just not built for it.
This myriad of sexist delusion is almost as amusing as the last one.
With your first argument… there are a myriad of diseases that men can get that are not combat related every time they go out into the field. Most of them are indeed hygiene related.
As for pregnancy and rape in the military. You really are trying to play the card that men are more worried about women’s safety and getting raped in times of war, when a women in the military has a higher chance of getting raped than most any other women. And raped by her co-soldiers. We are no longer in this world either where men have to take care of women. Women do a very good job at keeping themselves employed and alive without the help of men.
Far gone are the times as well that woman’s only value was for her ability to bear a child. A lot of women nowadays don’t even want children. A woman going into the military or playing any sport, career-wise, is going to severely diminish their chances of being able to carry a child to term. But that is a choice she should be allowed to make for herself. She should not have 6-10 men who know very little about the woman’s life or reproductive decisions, to tell her what she can or can’t do. The excuse “We’re trying to save your vagina and all it’s holy child-bearing glory” is really just you saying “we don’t care if you are able to eat every day and pay your bills, as long as that uterus is looking good.” Women aren’t animals. They aren’t here for us to breed with and then just throw off to the side. They have thoughts and needs and bills to pay just like everyone else. You would also be adding insult to injury to a woman who is infertile.
Ah and last but not least, the career-hungry, money-grubbing gold-digging whores who want to just better themselves in the military. Well damn…. since when did trying to better yourself become such a scandalous, unforgivably damning action?
The USA is a society that puts up a whole hell of a lot of excuse for the white men and why we need to make things easier for them. The military tends to be the job taken by those who feel they have no other options, but still want to do better for themselves. What this says is “I’m sorry you’re a woman, I’m sorry you’re gay and I’m sorry you didn’t get to choose this, but we don’t care as much about you in the military because you’re not a fighting non-emotional machine.And even though we have seen that treating our men like they are this machine has done more harm than good, we’re still going to hold you to the same standard.”