Let us send our daughters to die in battle for the sake of gender neutrality!

There are three different types of ideas: good ideas, bad ideas, and ideas so horrifically stupid that they will be mocked and scorned by our descendants for centuries to come.

Modern left-wingers typically trade in the second sort of idea, while occasionally conjuring up something that unquestionably falls into the third category.

Speaking of which, there’s this.

After discovering that half of the female Marines can’t meet the minimum physical fitness requirements, usually failing to do three pull-ups, the Corps has decided to delay the standards. This is all part of the process of “equalizing” physical requirements so as to integrate women into combat roles.

Here we have a horrible idea, stacked on top of a bewilderingly idiotic idea, poured over a collection of reckless, ideologically-fueled, irrational, liberal feminist ideas. Basically, an insane idea had sexual relations with a moronic idea and the two gave birth to this idea.

In other words, I disagree.

Let me be more specific: I disagree with the notion that women need to be “integrated” into combat roles.

I disagree with the fools who like to pretend we’re living in a Charlie’s Angels movie, where ladies can shout “girl power” and then kick butt and take names with the best of ’em.

I disagree with the bureaucrats who think the military should be an instrument for social experimentation.

I disagree with anyone who claims that the battlefield is a place for “equality.”

I disagree that there is any tactical or strategic advantage to getting more women involved in combat.

I disagree that the military should place feminist ideology over tactical and strategic concerns.

I disagree with the pencil pushers and politicians ignoring the combat troop who has rightly worried about a scenario where he is wounded and needs to be carried out of a firefight, but the woman fighting next to him is completely physically incapable of doing so.

I disagree that we should get people killed just so that pushy liberals can feel like they’ve won some sort of bizarre moral victory.

I disagree with the notion that military fitness requirements are “barriers” to “gender equality” and ought to be adjusted because of it.

I disagree with the “gender equality” fable entirely.

I disagree with the strategy of achieving “equality” by treating different groups unequally.

I disagree with every single thought process and ideological dogma that goes into creating a scenario where the home of the Few and the Proud is transformed into a place for the Many and the Physically Incapable.

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.

And the rational Americans were right. Again.

Diversity has become the military’s top priority. Google the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. In fact, you don’t need to read it. It’s sad enough that our military has a thing called a “diversity commission.” I grew up thinking that our military’s top concern at all times must be: “are we ready and able to kill the enemy if called upon?” But, apparently, it’s more like: “are we ready and able to impress Gloria Steinem with our female enlistment statistics?”

Here’s a funny thought: if women can fight in combat roles, then all-male conscription must assuredly be unconstitutional. So, when the Supreme Court strikes it down, and the draft is reinstated, will the liberal feminists of America jump for joy as their daughters are forcibly recruited and sent off to die in some godforsaken desert halfway around the world? If you want to be like men, will you die like them?

Maybe you would. But we are a shameful, cowardly country if we would send our daughters off to war for no reason other than to obey our New-Age Gender Creeds.

There are other aspects that go beyond the physical toll of battle. I’ve never been to war, but I understand (in the abstract, anyway) how the horrors of it can weigh on a man. In a world where we must pretend that women are as physically strong as men, I suppose there’s no hope that we’ll acknowledge the more difficult reality: that men are more psychologically equipped to deal with the lasting mental burden of combat. No human being is designed to deal with the carnage of war, but men at least have a better chance of carrying it and processing it. Research has shown that women are more vulnerable to developing PTSD than men — a fact that should come as no surprise to anyone with even the most basic understanding of the inherent emotional and psychological differences between the sexes.

And, somewhere in my disgust at this whole thing, I must admit that I am also personally fed up with what it all represents: the cheapening of masculinity.

No man would claim that they can do everything a woman can do. Or, I should say, not very many men would make that claim. It is a generally accepted truth that women possess unique capabilities. Women are invaluable and indispensable. Who would deny this? Not I, that’s for certain.

But what about the unique capabilities of men? Are we completely replaceable in every facet of society? Is that the new philosophy? And what about all of the things men have built, and achieved, and won, and died for, just so that we can live in a country where you’re allowed to be a crazed gender revolutionary? Women could have done all of that?

Ridiculous.

You know, maybe it would be wise to raise our daughters to have an appreciation for manhood. Maybe we should stop filling her head with this “you can do everything a man can do” garbage. Maybe she isn’t benefitted by this lie. Maybe it will only make her bitter and arrogant. Maybe it will cause her to see men as worthless, with the only characteristics particular to them being negative stereotypes about leaving the toilet seat up and drinking too much beer.

Maybe we should tell her that it is men who fight the wars, and men who are best equipped for the task. This is not because of “discrimination” or “glass ceilings,” it’s because men are men, and women are not. Women need men. GASP. What a scandalous notion. But I say it again: women need men.

Of course, in turn, I have absolutely no trouble admitting that men need women. I need my wife. The world needs my daughter.

Just not on the battlefield.

************

Find me on Facebook.

Twitter: @MattWalshRadio

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

908 Responses to Let us send our daughters to die in battle for the sake of gender neutrality!

  1. Angie says:

    Actually, I’m a female and am also a military veteran. I’ve seen, with my own eyes, women who could out-perform all of the men according to the MALE PT (physical training) standards. AND I’ve seen MEN who COULDN’T perform to even the women’s standard for training. It’s really not about female OR male standards. It’s about finding a good strength and endurance standard for each individual military occupation as well as having a minimum standard that EVERYONE in the military has to be able to perform to just to BE in the military AT ALL. I do agree with you about not lowering the standards for women…that isn’t the answer in any way, shape, or form. I admire your male desire to protect women…but sometimes women can be the Alpha too. It just depends on the situation and the people involved. I’m not saying to make combat available for everyone…but I AM saying that it should be available for everyone that can perform to the standard and who WANT to do it.

    • Boilermaker says:

      Just curious, but what kind of unit did you serve in? I have never met a female that I am certain that could make it through Special Forces Assessment and Selection. Believe it or not, Infantry standards used to be higher, basic training used to be harder, airborne school was considered hard. To allow women into airborne school, the standards were lowered…now everyone is basically passed (that takes the pride out of something). Now we get weaklings that come from basic training and airborne school that were pushed through the system because standards have steadily dropped. It provides us an even lower caliber male now. We want the best, instead I get guys that cannot run 2 miles under 15 minutes. Lowered standards damages units. So you get one female that makes it out 100, she then gets to an all male unit. Do you expect her to share showers with the guys or does she get special privileges? I thought we were talking equality here? How many females can say that it is no problem to “take care of business” 5 feet away from your buddies and in plain sight? The more and more you dig into this area the more it becomes a reality that at what cost does “equality come at?”

    • Nichole says:

      I agree! if you are a woman and you want to fight in a combative role, then you better perform to the same physical standards that are expected of men.

    • Ellen says:

      Thank-you for your service to our country, Angie, and for your response.

    • Jennifer Hulan says:

      Angie, first I want to thank you for your service. And tell you that I agree, there are certainly places in our military for women, but I would ask, why combat?

      When it comes to our self preservation and strength as a nation, there should be no such thing as a “women’s PT standard” and a “men’s standard”. If we had a standard “standard” and a woman is able to perform at that level, then should be able to do as she pleases I suppose. But when you have to change the standards in the least bit, for fat out-of-shape men or super in-shape women who simply cannot perform at that level, then you are weakening our military and no one benefits from a weaker military.

      We definitely shouldn’t make these changes for political reasons. People need to get back to using logic rather than emotions and feelings. Is it logical, does it make sense? Then do it. Is it only to placate a handful of people but in the long run will weaken our military, then it’s a no. Period.

    • Chesty Puller says:

      “I’ve seen, with my own eyes, women who could out-perform all of the men according to the MALE PT (physical training) standards. AND I’ve seen MEN who COULDN’T perform to even the women’s standard for training.” Really….? Which branch of the service were you in? If you try to tell me the Marine Corps I’d like to hear which unit(s) you served with, otherwise that’s a steaming load of BS. I’ve NEVER met a woman who could do 20 pull-ups and/or run a sub-18 minute three mile. That is how you max the Marine Corps PFT (that and 100 crunches, which is easy). If you were in the Air Force, lol, that tells us nothing about the ability of women to successfully meet the physical rigors of combat arms training en masse.

      • Ian says:

        Seriously?

      • Meagan says:

        HA wow. If you’ve never met a woman who could do 20 pull-ups and run a sub-18 min three mile, you don’t get out much… let alone visit a gym. This comment makes me lose faith in people.

        • Dave says:

          Meagan – I’m at the gym 4-5 times a week and I NEVER have seen a woman who can do 20+ pull-ups. If you know of so many please make footage of this and post it on youtube. Again, I want to see multiple women doing this as you suggest so many at your gym are capable.

        • LilyL2182 says:

          Dave- now you know the biggest difference between men and women: women don’t hang around in the gym discussing their stats and having pull up contests.

    • Theresa says:

      Angie I appreciate your service, but I think it’s high time we left the military for the men. Why are women insisting on stealing their thunder in every facet of life? Who cares if there are some women who can outperform men? Why does this matter? Why does this make any difference? Women have been given the gift of a uterus and can grow life in their wombs, men cannot. It’s high time that women appreciate their God-given gifts and inbred characteristics and stop thinking that the grass is greener on the other side. Let men be men and stop hijacking their livelihoods just to prove that “women can be the Alpha too.” What good has that done for humanity? Women have become selfish, prideful, spiteful, and less compassionate toward their “fellow man.” Women are so blinded by their own self-centerdness they have failed to see the damage that has been caused by the women’s movement. We must stop thinking only of ourselves and our gender and strive for the greater good.

    • Toby says:

      Angie: Don’t give us that. Everyone knows that there are women who can outperform men. BUT, that is very rare. The majority of women would not be able to pick me up and carry me off the battle field if i were wounded (I’m in the army,) especially under fire. and thats how it needs to be looked at. War is all about life and death and getting soldiers home safely. Now reeeeeeaaallly think, is there a tactical advantage to having women on the battlefield? If your answer is yes, youre simply not thinking logically. if only 1 in every 10 women are truly suited for battle, that makes it 100x more dangerous for everyone else fighting. War is no place to make women feel better about equality.

    • SS says:

      As a woman and Marine Corps veteran, I don’t know why I’m still surprised by the simplistic and overreaching opinions on where we belong and what our goals should be. Let’s complicate our outlook for two seconds: I was poor and didn’t have the grades or support to start school. I lived in a dirty trailer park and I wanted out. If you think that’s unusual in the military… you might be a civilian. We’re not all pretty little daughters who want to be protected until we’re married off. A lot of my old friends ended up addicts, strippers, or still work for minimum wage seven years later, which is what many of you would want for me, wrapped up in intentions of preserving the masculine and leaving me to my feminine world. What an uninteresting fantasy.

      I was a great Marine. Now I am finishing up my master’s in another typically male profession. My graduating class is 17 percent female. I kind of like how I don’t even have to do anything to make detractors feel bad. I can keep working and appreciating how everything is opening up for my generation, while the frustrated spend their energy blogging their under-experienced opinions. Those of you against us, you’re being left behind. I think you feel it. I can’t help enjoying it a little.

      • JSantorelli says:

        @SS: I love it when women pontificate about “things opening up for them.” Try being a male nurse, dental hygienist, or worse an elementary ed teacher. Yeah people think a man wanting to teach kids is a “kiddy fiddler.” Where are all the groups protecting men’s uninhibited entry into these professions? Oh, right feminists and women don’t care about men so we’re out of luck. The “freedom” and “left behinds” you speak of are an illusion. Enjoy the land of make believe.

        • SS says:

          For now, you’ll have to make do with being the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, judges, and law enforcement. Not exactly an imbalance of power. For the record though, I employ a young man as a babysitter for my daughter. He’s a Navy reservist and an exceptional human being. I feel pretty good about my own biases.

        • JSantorelli says:

          @SS: Politicians and judges are bought and sold by special interests one of which is women’s lib groups. Obamacare is a perfect example of feminist legislation. Problems with CEOs? Go start a company! CEOs don’t run the company, the board does. The CEO is just a highly overpaid figure head. Law enforcement is constrained by the laws politicians and judges hand down. They are pawns and have no real power either.

          Ever hear the quote “the hand that rocks the cradle holds the power to the world?” No wonder women don’t want affirmative action for men in elementary education. They are not interested in power sharing, only power grabbing. Your male caretaker is an exception to the rule. Most women would be horrified at thought especially feminists!

  2. Dennis says:

    Wow. Just found your blog. Very good! As a former Marine, I must say you are correct. BTW, my wife also agrees!

  3. Hannah Power says:

    “I must admit that I am also personally fed up with what it all represents: the cheapening of masculinity.”

    I think I can go ahead and say that this sums up the whole reason for your masochistic, sexist perspective. You have a problem with your definition of masculinity. You have defined what it is to be a man in certain ways, including being physically and psychologically stronger than women. You get upset when you see women taking on these positions because it threatens YOUR masculinity. If you see a woman doing these things that you have defined as masculine, it threatens your usefulness, your manhood.

    “And what about all of the things men have built, and achieved, and won, and died for, just so that we can live in a country where you’re allowed to be a crazed gender revolutionary? Women could have done all of that?”

    Yes. Yes, we could have – the same way we fought for and won our rights in the women’s suffrage movement. We are people first. We have gender, but that gender affects us each in different ways, and means something different to each of us. The truth is, women ARE as capable as men, and CAN achieve every thing a man can.

    But woah.. making an intelligent argument is more of a man’s thing, right?

    • JSantorelli says:

      @Hannah Power: You think marching in the streets with picket signs is equivalent to the men who fought in the Revolutionary War? Like George Washington during the winter at Valley Forge? LOL! You just proved Matt’s point about women and logic. Men are more likely to put aside physical discomfort than women and often times that is necessary in a crisis situation. Don’t even give me that pregnancy mumbo jumbo because most women run for that epidural so you aren’t enduring pain for that long and at least at the end of you stand a better chance of surviving and will receive a bundle of joy. Soldiers end up going home with PTSD or loosing limbs. Try again Hannah!

    • Jennifer says:

      Wrong. Women and men are different and it doesn’t matter how many times you say that we can do the same things, we can’t. No. Nope. Not so much. Naw. No. You are simply wrong because you want to feel equal and for some reason you only find your worthiness in being equal to a man. You can’t see your worth as a female so you want to be more male. Still no. Sorry. We’re not. Period.

      Oh, and “fighting” for our right to vote isn’t the same as stabbing a man in his chest with a bayonet when your bullets have run out for self preservation.

      We are women. We are strong. We bear children, arguable one of the most difficult and painful things a human can endure, but that doesn’t mean we need to be like men. Embrace your womaness. Realize that we are not, and never will be the same as men. And really, who wants to be? Being a woman doesn’t make you weak.

      I can only imagine what it would be like to not be able to shower or change your tampon on the battle field of Fallujah. Nope. No thank you. But mostly, Thank You to everyone who willingly puts their lives on the line for me and lives in the hellish conditions of the middle east. Sorry Hannah, I am going to have to disagree with you, as well do most of my female friends. But then wisdom only comes with age.

      • CK says:

        Women can do things men can. They just have to train differently because our bodies are different.

        You think I wouldn’t stab an enemy in the chest if I had to? Hell yeah I would. No one is trying to “be like men.” Women have fought in combat for centuries. Since we have fought wars. Do some research into history. Why is it so wrong for women to want to be in a combat arms role? Why do people throw such a fit about women being in male-dominated areas? It’s been this way forever. Women entering politics, sports, military, etc. It’s always pushback. “That’s not a woman’s place.” “Embrace your womaness.” What if that IS our “womanliness?” (that’s the correct term). If a woman meets the same standards in place for combat arms, LET HER DO IT! Let the option be there like it is for men who make it.

        • Why would you want women to be in a role where momentary physical weakness is fatal?

          Women fought in wars, yes… when the opposing army invaded and all or most of the men fit for combat were dead. And almost every time they were raped en masse and the village torched if the conquering army deemed it strategically wiser to torch rather than occupy. Maybe you’re comfortable with starting a pyre of raped and broken women’s bodies as a human sacrifice to please the God of Gender Equality. I am not, and Matt is not.

          The only military where women take an active role in combat is Israel, and that’s because Israel is surrounded 24/7 by violent, theocratic neighbors intent on using Israel’s existence as a rallying point to keep their oppressed populations venting their rage at targets outside the ruling power structure instead of inside it. Israel arms their women because they are constantly in a defensive position.

          But you never send a woman to do armed combat when you need to secure new territories or siege previously taken ones. If you do you’re just jeopardizing the mission and ensuring there’s one more unit on the battlefield that can’t lift another unit and all their gear out to safety before themselves falling to enemy fire. The problem with this specifically is that it’s stupid to make our military more impotent and put more soldiers in danger just because one woman in a hundred thousand can actually back up playing soldier in real life.

        • Jennifer says:

          “Womaness” and “womanliness” are two different concepts and although my word was made up to convey my idea that we women should embrace the fact that we are women, womanliness means to be feminine, which is not what I was suggesting, but thanks for the English lesson.

          And yes, women can do some things that men can do and vice versa. However, my point was that women can’t do EVERYTHING a man can do. It’s a scientific fact that as a species, female humans are decidedly different than our male counterparts. Just because we keep espousing that we can doesn’t change the fact that men are physically superior to women.

          If you want to put yourself on the front lines and it doesn’t hurt our military, cost me a billion dollars to put in separate facilities for women, or cost our country our freedom, then by all means.

      • Christine says:

        Spot on, thank you for this. We need more women to embrace their gender rather than trash it ironically under the banner of “fighting” for it.

      • banjo guy's wife says:

        Agree. We are what we are, women.

    • LilyL2182 says:

      I love you Hannah!

    • JamesS says:

      Preach!! Thank you for being a voice of positivity. I’m glad there are some sensible individuals around.

    • Brandt says:

      I didn’t know women’s suffrage involved getting dropped 25-30 miles off your objective, and marching through France pushing through pain and frostbite with 80lbs of gear….

    • Brandt says:

      It’s not a threat to masculinity; it’s a biological fact. This is why ALL professional sports which involve strength and endurance are separated by gender. It’s why there are women’s Olympic categories, and men’s Olympic categories. World records for women’s sports don’t come close to the records for men’s.

      There are also many other complications to placing women in combat arms roles.

      1. Separate accommodations. Combat units which spearhead operations will not have the ability to provide separate accommodations for women. It is simply not feasible, and in some cases not possible.

      2. Injury. Both Israel and Canada put a halt to allowing women in their combat roles. One of the biological difference between men and women happens to be the density of their bone structure. Women have a lower bone density, and these two nations found women performing the physical duties required in combat roles were statistically at greater risk for stress fractures and joint problems than their male counterparts.

      3. Distraction. This is not the fault of either party, but it needs to be included in the argument. I don’t care what type of unit you serve in. When women and men serve in close proximity people from both sides cannot seem to keep it in their pants. Generally not an issue in all male units. The most frustrating deployment I had was with a non-combat company. “We were dating last week, but now we hate each other so we can’t work together so please change the schedule.” I cannot tell you how many times I heard this, or how many times I had to step in between the new and former significant others. Like I stated earlier, not the fault of either party when considering gender as a whole, but as an Infantry NCO my job is exponentially less complicated without women in the equation. My hats off to those of you in either gender in leadership roles in coed units… I would rather copulate with a taser in a pool of pepper spray and CS gas while being mauled by a tiger (underwater of course!)

      4. Lowered standards. The Army does a pretty consistent job of this and it drives me up the wall. Oh, Soldiers are getting booted from NCOES courses for being unable to pass HT/WT or the APFT, and now we don’t have enough NCOs? Ok, now you don’t have to pass to graduate… It’s just a needs improve on your 1059. Not enough Soldiers are making it through basic training because they are failing APFT 5? Not required anymore… Pass them on to their units for improvement where they will spend the next 3 years as an E1 because they are flagged their entire enlistment. This would soon translate into “not enough females are meeting the “equal” combat arms standard. Lower it till we get our numbers up.” And since in the combat arms world your unit is only as strong as your weakest Soldier (as we can only train at the speed of our slowest) the entire force becomes weaker. It is inevitable.

      And now for my own two cents about feminism in all it’s glory. Most feminists who scream about equality do not really want it. What they really want is “equity without equality”. They want to be considered equals, but still yell at us for leaving the toilet seat up in the middle of the night. They want to be the same, but be treated like women. They are physically competent enough to do anything a man can do, and scream when they are not allowed to… But if granted their request they want special circumstances because they have different needs. It’s all about equality until something, like a PT standard, is not fair because their different. I recently attended the Army’s Equal Opportunity Leaders course and had a conversation with a Corps EOA that summed up this entire discussion pretty well. We were covering the topic of gender discrimination in the workplace when he (the Corps EOA) stated that the combat arms in the services is the only place in the Nation where you have legal gender discrimination. I raised my hand and politely stated that I believed he was incorrect. He asked me for an example and I stated simply that the Army Physical Fitness Test which has lower standards for females was also an example of legal gender discrimination. He told me that actually there is YEARS of research and data that supports the reasons why females have lower standards for the push-ups and two mile run. I asked, “Wouldn’t that same data support the reasons why females are restricted from serving in combat roles which traditionally require more strength and endurance than other occupational specialties?” Think about that for a moment and try to make an educated rebuttal for placing women on the front line (and just to be clear, I don’t consider rolling around in a HMMWV or MRAP during OIF the front line… I reserve that for more along the lines of conducting a three day patrol in the Hindu Kush). Not trying to downplay the sacrifice or dangers of rolling through Sadr City in wheeled stock, just the amount of physical demands involved. Take it how you will.

    • banjo guy's wife says:

      Perhaps the military should put a whole contingent of your kind of women together in the front line in the battle field. Just women of your kind only.

  4. yayainov says:

    Let’s examine just one basic fact. What do you feminists think is going to happen if a woman , who’s in combat, is captured? Anyone? I’ll tell you, the enemy WILL RAPE HER. Personally, if I’m on the battle field I would not feel comfortable with a woman defending,

    • Kendall says:

      Men can be raped as well, so I find this argument highly flawed and insulting.
      As if an individual, male or female don’t realize the risks of being in combat. The military’s standards should not be lowered for earthier sex, this i agree with, but don’t act like all woman are disabled or lacking in physical or intellectual abilities compared to a man. Now are the chances of a woman being raped a higher possiblity? Most likely, yes. However as i have stated once and will state again, an individual, male or female realize the risks of being in combat. Don’t insult their intelligence, they know what risks they are facing.
      Good day.

  5. leia says:

    As a wife of a soldier, I’ve seen the physical demands that my husband goes thru and there is no way I could do them, well maybe the sit up one but carrying a 50lb ruck for 15 kilometres? I weigh 115lbs! Also I think there is one of my husbands battle buddies that I might be able to drag. But most of them who are more than 5ft 10 and 160 lbs, its just not feasible.

    • CK says:

      YOU can’t do them but some women can. That’s why you’re not in, right?

      • Chesty Puller says:

        But most women can’t. That’s the point.

        • Kris says:

          I know of only one WM who can do twenty pull-ups (and she’s skinny as a rail and all lean muscle). My cover’s off to her.

          But,like you say, the vast majority can’t meet even the basic standards required for infantry. Not even all MEN can be Marine Corps Infantry! Much less 99% of all women.
          I went on patrols in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and let me tell you all, it was hard at my age (older than average “retread” enlistee) and as a “Pogue”…
          Sure, a lot of women have risked their lives and have even been in combat overseas in the wars. And yes, there are a few women who can meet the same physical standards:

          http://blogs.militarytimes.com/battle-rattle/2013/11/19/the-first-four-women-in-marine-corps-history-have-completed-infantry-training/

          But why restructure the entire way the infantry will have to operate, just to accommodate those very few?

          I say, if they wanna be infantry, let them live with, train with, bivouac with and meet the same standards as, all of the men in their platoons. Make the integration seamless and without any change to the training or standards.
          If that’s not doable, then let’s scrap the whole notion of women in the infantry.

        • Marine15635 says:

          Besides the the extra body weight of the wounded warrior, let say 160 pounds in this case. The wounded warrior also has gear weight like flack jacket, rounds, weapons, chemical suits (MOPP Gear), etc. which can be 40 plus pounds. Don’t forget you are wearing the same gear. One must carry 240 extra pounds to get one’s battle buddy to safety.

  6. Tara says:

    You don’t think a man can get raped in captivity either?
    I don’t believe that standards should be lowered to meet any sort of quotas however I absolutely believe that if a woman can meet the standards, then she should be a viable candidate, just as a man would be. Besides, maybe we’re not shipping our daughters off to war..maybe our daughters are making their own choice to work and fight for something they believe in and believe they can do!

    • Jennifer says:

      But the problem is that they’ve already HAD to lower the PT standards to allow women into the military. So every other argument is flawed…they couldn’t meet the standards that are in place for men so to make it “fair” they had to lower the standards. Our strength has already been compromised by this.

      • shanonawriter says:

        I joined the Navy in 1992 and had no physical requirements to get in. They gave me the ASVAB and a doctor visit and that was it. I can’t speak for now, but back then they didn’t “have to lower standards for women to get in”…that is ridiculous. I agree that no standards should be lowered, there should only be one…but if someone meets that standard–male or female–they deserve to be there. Maybe most women don’t want to go into combat…I didn’t. But there are many quality, competent, battle-ready women who should be allowed to fight for their country…if they so choose. This entire post is little more than a misogynist rant…and it’s disheartening to see anyone agreeing with it…especially women.

        • jyake says:

          misogynist
          mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)nɪst,mʌɪ-/
          noun
          noun: misogynist; plural noun: misogynists

          1.
          a person who hates women.
          “a bachelor and renowned misogynist”
          synonyms: woman hater, anti-feminist, male chauvinist, male supremacist

          Just where in the post does it sound like he hates women?

        • Eric Magalhaes says:

          The biggest problem is your “if they so choose”.
          When we’re at war, do men choose to go to battle? Would it be fair to draft men and women alike into the battlefield, the sole condition being age and physical capability?
          I personally don’t know many women who say they’d like to die for their country in case of a threat. Most men would readily do it.
          If you believe in setting forth equal obligations, in addition to equal opportunities, then your argument would be a little more logic, but most apologists leave that out of the equation.

  7. thank you, this insanity has gone far enough

  8. CK says:

    You sir are an ass clown. You haven’t even BEEN in combat so what the hell do you know Matt Walsh? Can all women be in combat arms? No. Just like all men can’t either. So you keep the same standards for combat arms, anyone who meets them gets in. Like the 13 females who passed infantry school in the Marines.

    Also get your damn facts straight. The original standard for females in the Marines was the flex hang. They were TESTING OUT THE PULLUPS to see what females could do. THAT IS IT!! They didn’t lower a fucking standard. They tried out something different.

    Oh and why aren’t females forced to sign up for the draft? Because there was a LAW that DENIED FEMALES access to combat roles. The draft is essentially to fill INFANTRY TYPE roles. Now that the exclusion policy is lifted, CONGRESS has to change that law. That’s it.

    Do some fucking research before you talk out of your ass you idiot. Oh and tell all the female MPs, truck drivers, medics, and so on who have fought the last 12 years they don’t know about combat. All the females who lost limbs, who died. They don’t count…

    • LilyL2182 says:

      I love how Matt thinks we will be horrified by they idea of conscripting women. I am actually pretty horrified by the idea of drafting women, but I’m also horrified by the idea of drafting men.

    • Boilermaker says:

      Easy there champ, the research speaks for itself. I don’t know a single female killed in action, sure there are some…but I have known several males that have died in combat. Before you go screaming your song and calling people names, check yourself. You have just made yourself look less intelligent then the blogger you are responding too. Are you actually from the combat arms field? How much time do you have in the military?

      Since you like to tell everyone else how stupid they are, please answer me this. Of those thirteen females that made it, how do those units have to accommodate for them? Will they get special privileges that their male counterparts won’t get? They will get special living conditions, that means an entire living area just for them. At the same time the males are crammed in like sardines into their quarters. So equality huh? This becomes an issue because the needs of a few will trump the needs of many. Good job, you have now turned equality into accommodation which in turn leads to favoritism. Favoritism leads to resentment.

      The funny thing is people like you are screaming equality, but in fact it is anything but equality. The military has never advocated this, rather it has been purely political since its conception.

    • jyake says:

      The original standard for females in the Marines was the flex hang. They were TESTING OUT THE PULLUPS to see what females could do.

      -Flex hang is something they would have students do in middle school who couldn’t even do a single pull up. How is giving women something easier to do NOT lowering the standards?

      female MPs, truck drivers, medics

      -So which of those were actual combat rolls?

  9. jamestill says:

    A teenage guy will produce an average of 30 times more testosterone than a woman. The mere fact that they lowered the requirements for women should be an obvious giveaway. Mat, your theory is confirmed by the fact that there are many arrogant women responding on here.

    There are strong women and weak men out there, but a strong man will be stronger than a strong woman. I do multiple martial arts, I know. 30 times more testosterone.

  10. Emz says:

    I appreciate most of what you’ve said here. But I think it’s important to allow women in the military in whatever capacity that they are capable of doing (of course it makes no sense to send ANYONE to do a job they’re not physically able to do). That said I don’t think women should be denied the opportunity and privilege to serve their country–and if the woman happens to be as strong as the men, why not in combat? I should think that would be an honor.

    • Boilermaker says:

      There has never been a person on here saying women should not be allowed into the military. The military has never seen a need to fill the combat roles with females, the government wants females in these roles. For what reason, I have no clue. Most of the front line females right now are known as Female Engagement Teams and FETs were created to address the issue of non Muslim males touching Muslim women. In a conventional war this role would not be needed. Just imagine the best female boxer trying to fight Mohammed Ali in his prime, the best female runner try to sprint against Usain Bolt, the strongest female on Earth try to compete in the a strong man competition. The issue is that the best women out there would be among the lower echelon of performers in a combat arms style unit. If they barely pass the male standard, then they are still considered weaklings. This is why you need to have spent time in this field to understand how things really work. For example, the minimum passing score for our unit is a 240 out of 300. That is an 80%, if you score any where between a 240 and a 270, you aren’t even considered for promotion. So this argument that women should have a shot is bogus because then you are setting them up to be second rate soldiers. Some places I have been consider you a weakling if you don’t score a 300 or more. So take those 13 Marines that passed the minimum standards and place them in a real unit and see how they compare to a real infantry unit and not a class full of recruits. A simple statistics class will teach you that there are always outliers, but just because they exist doesn’t mean they need to be factored into the equation.

  11. Morgan says:

    Your whole arguements was null and void when you stated that you had never been in any combat situation. Well I have been and I am a female. It’s all fine and dandy if you don’t want your wife or daughters in combat but I’ll tell ya my husband backs me up with every decision I make in my military career. To me he is a true man who not only loves me and takes care of me but takes care of out family while I am away. To me you are a coward. How about you join and do what we do then you will have the education to make a valid statement rather then your disgusting anti women statements that are based on not facts but your own personal opinion.

  12. Paula says:

    Welcome to Maryland! I’ve actually only lived here 5 years myself (Nebraska native), but have had 2 children and lived in two houses, so I feel like I’ve lived here long enough to qualify for the welcoming committee!

  13. Denise says:

    Being a mother of three boys, all you have to do is listen and watch them play. They are natural warriors. I’ve yet to see little girls with their army men in the sand making audio shooting and laser beam sounds.

  14. Br says:

    Who gives a shit? society is going down the toilet because everything we do turns into an arguement between two opposing points of view. Civility is dead. People attack others and call them names because they disagree (CK above). I’m a combat vet and a male, and frankly, I’ve had enough of this BS back and forth. If women want to join a combat arms MOS, let them, when they fail (or succeed) atleast one group will get to say I told you so…

  15. Belle says:

    I am not a feminist, but an equalist (that’s what I personally have dubbed it). I believe that different people have different gifts. Though I almost wish it wasn’t so, men ARE more physically able then women. What I would like to disagree with is that women are not psychologically fit to go into battle. I believe that there are SOME women who are, and SOME men who are, and vice versa. But what I’ve found…. there is always an exception to a statistic. If someone feels called to something, and feels a call deep in their heart, why can they not follow it? If a women feels the call to serve her country, then she should follow that call, even against the odds. I feel the call to be a female pastor, which is highly against the odds seeing as how I’m not planning on going into the women’s stereotypical pastoral role as “children’s pastor.” But I feel the call. Can that not also apply towards the military?

  16. JLi says:

    The Williams sisters made a claim once that they could compete against the men in tennis. This was in their prime when no other woman on the pro circuit could touch them. Some lower ranked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch) male tennis pro played the sisters in a “Battle of the Sexes”. He creamed both. The Williams sisters were in their prime and Braasch was well past his prime.

    Sports are segregated by gender for a reason. Can women play soccer? Of course! How well would a women’s team do against a men’s team? And I’m talking about matching the top men’s team against the top women’s team.

    I have only witnessed one female do more than 3 pull ups. She did 8. She was unusually built at over 6 feet and massively strong. Multiple sport varsity athlete. While I don’t doubt there are women like her who can pass the minimum standards for the infantry training, I’d rather have people who can attain a higher level than minimum to serve in our nation’s military for combat roles. If only men can attain more than minimum, then so be it.

    I think we’ve watched too much movies that depict very thin women like Angelina Jolie kicking butt against men 3 times her size.

    • cj says:

      Good job, and I think it needs to be said that although a woman can do pull-ups it does NOT mean that they are physically capable to carry a wounded soldier from the field. The fact is that shorter, smaller people can do pull-ups easier than taller heavier people. Pull-ups are not a measurement of strength that should be compared between people because everyone is lifting a different weight. Pull-ups are for a personal measurement for the individuals fitness levels. That is why they have requirements in the military, so that they know how each individual has improved. I am a woman and I can do 7 pull-ups at once, I am 5 foot tall and weigh 100 pounds.That was without training and I feel confident that with training I could easily do many more. However, I could never, ever, ever, carry a wounded comrade off the field, I could dress their wounds and give them great first aid and care, but that won’t do them much good when we are both caught in the enemy line of fire. My point: Women who can do pull-ups can not necessarily compete with men.

  17. First off Matt, let me begin by saying I enjoy your blog posts. They are a refreshing dose of reason and common-sense in an age plagued by short-minded “progressive” ideas. Now, while I agree with the premise of your post, there are a few comments I feel are important to either note and or clarify your position– comments I think you’ll agree with.
    First, as humans Women have the same divinely appointed natural rights as man; chiefly the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a woman desires to join the armed forces, it is entirely within her rights to do so, and as conservatives and all Americans we need to support and fight for those rights. However the right to pursue happiness, in any endeavor, does not mean that success and happiness themselves are guaranteed. She has the right to pursue a military career, but not the right to succeed. There are conditions that need to be met in order to succeed– in this instance the entrance requirements. Her right to pursue a military career should never interfere with my rights; namely my right to life. If a woman becomes a soldier through watered-down standards then my right to life may become compromised. In the example you gave, if I was in critical condition on the battlefield, how could I expect a woman incapable of supporting her own body weight, much less mine, plus both our gear, to carry me out of a life-threatening situation. The same goes for a man unfit for combat. If she is able to do so, willing to do so, and willing to accept the consequences thereof, then more power to her. That is her right, her choice and she is to be commended for it.
    One more thing I wish to add. The Right gets pounded by the Left for a so called “war on women.” The hypocrisy! Can they not see that this is more of a war on women than Mitt Romney’s “binders?” They are sending ill-prepared women to die on the battlefield. In droves. Newsflash liberals (though not on MSNBC because Lord help them) that’s a real war on women. In fact the liberal “progressive” idea is the war on women.They have turned feminism into masculinity in skirts (soon the skirts will be sexist and be gone too). They have challenged the sacred notion of womanhood; an insult to their divine nature an unique character.The Left thinks that in order for women to be equal to men they have to be men. Equality does not mean everything is the same. A pound of feathers is not the same as a pound of lead– but they equal. The Left clamors about diversity but fails to understand the definition. Diversity is embracing everyone’s differences. Not trying to make everyone gravitate towards one twisted, fictional norm. It’s equally dangerous and degrading to both of the sexes.

    Thanks for all you do Matt and I look forward to other posts from you.

  18. What i have got out of this blog is that women are not capable of doing a mans job. I call bullshit their are hundreds for women is fields that are traditional male employment that requires the strength that you seem to think is all for males. My girlfriend for 12 yrs as worked as a construction worker, a drywaller, a roofer, and worked heavy equipment. these fields require you to be able to lift heavy loads weather you are female or male. She as done it all with out complaint and as worked most of the males on her crew to the ground. I should believe if she were to ever enter a military branch she would do much the same there. I will admit that I wouldn’t be able to do the work that she dose nor was i able to pass requirement to serve but it wasn’t just the physical requirements that kept me out of service due to the fact that i have adhd and am half deaf is what kept me from service.

    I am just saying that there are some women that are more able to do physical requirement then others do. But you just lump them all together as weak and unable to serve in their country in a combat role. I find this short sighted and well very miss informed, you need to do more research on this subject. all i see in you argument is you trying to protect your “man box”.

  19. Katie Kieschnick says:

    Saw your blog on a friends FB page. I’m not a political person. I’m not for or against the war. I do come from a long line of family that have served, lost their lives, and lost themselves in protecting and serving our country..and one member was my baby girl cousin..I admire women who are brave enough to leave it all behind to protect their country, put on a badge or pull strangers from burning buildings..I am not a woman’s liberest, or do I believe men are better..BUT..we were designed totally different. I am a 38 yr.old mother of 4..I break horses, I can change oil in my truck, I’m not afraid of men of different ethnics in a dark ally, but I am still a woman..I’m tough , have lots of muscles but Iam still a woman..I had a petite beautiful woman friend once that was determined to become a fireman,I was supportive thought it was great..until she told me one of the tests she took..I forget all the numbers and %’s but she weighed 98 lbs..she was given the test like the men but was given a “dummy” to pull from the decoy building on fire based on her size and weight! I never told her my real opinion, I was young when I knew her. But I just remembered thinking oh my gosh..I would not want ANYONE out training to save lives on half of what is typically required..to me it was ridiculous..dangerous!! Yes there are weak men and then woman that with training are ripped..my generation was taught ,” just do it, you can be anything you put your mind to, the sky is the limit” but it’s all half truth..you can do it all possibly mentally but on the physical end you can’t..I’ve been on ranches where I was breaking a wild horse, and I being a woman was more gentle with it made it more calm, but when the animal “blew up” went wild again, I was thrown, went higher in the air and landed further out and broke bones, then the cowboy that picked up the rope after me and ended up with a baind aid. We know because of how politically correct America has become, women will be given the chance to do whatever men are given the chance to do. I just wish more mothers would be there for their daughters to teach them guide them in their futures help them decide what they want to do that would help them believe in themselves, maybe prove they are equal but still be safe and keep others safe. Believe me it’s not cool being a Haas, I wish I was a princess. My daughters are and I love they are self sufficient but want to find a mate that does what typically a man is supposed to do! God bless each one of our opinions!

  20. Marine Infantryman Wife says:

    I am the wife of a Marine Corps Infantryman. He did tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He can tell you what it’s like to carry a wounded 220 pound man when his life depends on it, because he did it. He can also tell you what it’s like to carry a very heavy pack across the desert for months at a time. He can tell you what it’s like to have men who think of women to be no more than slaves, trying to stab you, shoot you, etc.and you have to fight for your life with hand to hand combat. No gun involved, just fighting for your life with your bare hands with a man that could be twice your size. I consider myself an incredibly strong woman, both physically and mentally. I lifted a CAR off someone trapped underneath it last summer, by myself. I own a successful and demanding business, etc. etc. etc. I believe in equal rights for women. I also believe that we as women are smart enough to know that the combat zone is not a place we should be. Is risking your fellow infantrymen’s life worth proving we are equal in every way? When you have to carry a 220 pound wounded man 10 miles to safety and can not where is your equality then? There are things that my husband will never be able to do as well as me and I’m not talking birthing babies. I’m talking about the fact that women possess traits that men do not and we are better at them than men. Men have the same. This is evolution. We all depend on each other, have roles to play on this planet and for our survival as a species. Men were given testosterone for a reason. Now women as rulers? Absolutely! Women are born leaders.

    • Morgan says:

      How dare you say that you are all for womens right and equality and then you spew that disgusting non-sense about women in combat rolls. Your not even a woman in the military so who are you to speak for all of us. People should not be stopping an entire gender from doing something that a few in that gender want to do.

  21. Marine Infantryman Wife says:

    I am the wife of a Marine Corps Infantryman. He did tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He can tell you what it’s like to carry a wounded 220 pound man when his life depends on it, because he did it. He can also tell you what it’s like to carry a very heavy pack across the desert for months at a time. He can tell you what it’s like to have men who think of women to be no more than slaves, trying to stab you, shoot you, etc.and you have to fight for your life with hand to hand combat. No gun involved, just fighting for your life with your bare hands with a man that could be twice your size. I consider myself an incredibly strong woman, both physically and mentally. I lifted a CAR off someone trapped underneath it last summer, by myself. I own a successful and demanding business, etc. etc. etc. I believe in equal rights for women. I also believe that we as women are smart enough to know that the combat zone is not a place we should be. Is risking your fellow infantrymen’s life worth proving we are equal in every way? When you have to carry a 220 pound wounded man 10 miles to safety and can not where is your equality then? There are things that my husband will never be able to do as well as me and I’m not talking birthing babies. I’m talking about the fact that women possess traits that men do not and we are better at them than men. Men have the same. This is evolution. We all depend on each other, have roles to play on this planet and for our survival as a species. Men were given testosterone for a reason. Now women as rulers? Absolutely! Women are born leaders.

    • JSantorelli says:

      @Marine Infantryman Wife: A man has every right to refuse service under a woman’s leadership unless women have the same skin in the game. I’m sorry but that is a simple matter of justice. If you want to be that successful business woman and enjoy the perks of a free society like a man then you have to have some skin in the game too. Men are not cannon fodder for women to live the good life. I’d rather sit in a jail cell than throw my life away so a woman can play princess.

  22. Elisabeth says:

    While I agree with you on some points, I think there are some points that I want to address.
    1. women are not all the same. There are plenty of women who are perfectly capable of meeting the standard requirements for men to go into battle. I think if they can’t meet those requirements, then they shouldn’t go, but if they can then they should have the opportunity, should they desire it.
    2. I don’t think the ability to perform 3 or more pull ups would save someone’s life in battle.
    3. “the cheapening of masculinity”. Are you for real? How does women having the right to do whatever men do “cheapen masculinity”? I can’t even begin to fathom your logic. Men are more than welcome to fulfill any role that women traditionally fill. Such as being a stay at home parent. Or cooking. But men seem to be under the impression that female = weak or inferior (thus the saying that something “has balls” when it’s tough – which makes no sense when you think about it, but I won’t get into that one.)
    To sum up: The military should expect women entering combat to meet the same physical requirements as men. But they should be allowed if they want to. And your concept of feminine strength cheapening masculinity is just nonsense.

    • Walter White says:

      Pull ups are about upper body strength. I would prefer a 200lb dead lift across the shoulders followed by a one mile carry. That would demonstrate battlefield strength.

    • Eric Magalhaes says:

      It is not the concept of feminine strength that cheapens masculinity. It’s actually the other way around: since the concept of masculinity has been so degraded by feminism, feminist apologists want to “prove” that they can beat men in all areas.

  23. quirkyblonde1980 says:

    While I agree with you on some points, I think there are some points that I want to address.
    1. women are not all the same. There are plenty of women who are perfectly capable of meeting the standard requirements for men to go into battle. I think if they can’t meet those requirements, then they shouldn’t go, but if they can then they should have the opportunity, should they desire it.
    2. I don’t think the ability to perform 3 or more pull ups would save someone’s life in battle.
    3. “the cheapening of masculinity”. Are you for real? How does women having the right to do whatever men do “cheapen masculinity”? I can’t even begin to fathom your logic. Men are more than welcome to fulfill any role that women traditionally fill. Such as being a stay at home parent. Or cooking. But men seem to be under the impression that female = weak or inferior (thus the saying that something “has balls” when it’s tough – which makes no sense when you think about it, but I won’t get into that one.)
    To sum up: The military should expect women entering combat to meet the same physical requirements as men. But they should be allowed if they want to. And your concept of feminine strength cheapening masculinity is just nonsense.

  24. dan says:

    Wow!!! You are right on man. I am personally saddened by it. The military pushes equality and enrolling women much harder as if they have quotas to fill. Its really sad. Its great to have someone openly speak against something that is held to be a civil rights or moral thing. At least in liberal California it is.

  25. S. Walker says:

    Men and Women are equal BUT they are DIFFERENT. men cant have babies and women cant do some things that men can do, so why don’t we go with our strengths.
    i don’t think women should be in combat in the military not after all the horrific rape stories i have read that have been mostly covered up. raped by their own American colleagues or other Americans on base working for some other company.

    • JSantorelli says:

      Women cannot naturally impregnate women so women can’t have babies without a male contribution of some sort. New technologies of converting egg cells into sperm cells is dangerous, expensive, and not as good as the natural method. I refuse however to be cannon fodder for women to live the good life. My life is no less valuable and if women are going to be allowed to lead the country then they must have skin in the game. No one gets to sit on the sideline because freedom isn’t free.

  26. Jada says:

    My daughter is a Coast Guard C-130 pilot. I couldn’t be prouder of her.

  27. Pingback: Downton Abbey; John Piper and Marijuana; Worship Ministry; A Broken Ocean; Fraud and Obamacare and much more. « ChosenRebel's Blog

  28. Tracy says:

    I was in the Army for eight years and I’m a woman who not only passed my APFT but passed the men’s standards as well. I did Sergeant’s Time Training EVERY Thursday and yes we practiced dragging dead weight, etc. Myself along with other women trained just as hard as the men. Just like in everything there are some things that are better suited for men and some that are better suited for women. That doesn’t mean one gender is better or stronger than the other. I do agree that God created man first and he is the head of the house but I don’t agree that certain jobs should ONLY be left to the men. There are certain jobs that I myself will not do and I’m okay with that, but it’s not too say I can’t if I really wanted to. There are men that get raped, beat up, along with other things that can happen to women as well. I’ve out ran men
    Running and doing other things. I feel that if a woman wants to do it then she should be allowed to try and if she succeeds then hats off, but I will never say one gender is stronger than the next because it’s simply not true.

  29. Doubledad says:

    What I find hard to understand is the consternation in the media over the sexual assaults in the military. Let me be clear, I absolutely abhor any violence toward women, but have we forgotten that there are differences between genders? Placing members of the opposite sex in stressful isolation in a combat zones and then expecting that there will be no incidence of sexual assault seems a little naïve to me.

    Young men in their prime and in life threatening situations are full of hormones and adrenaline and may not have the best judgment when it comes to boundaries. I can’t speak to young ladies, but surely combat zones would generate loneliness and longing for company.

  30. Rebekah says:

    Personally, I respect and value the achievements of men. My older brother is a second lieutenant in the Air Force. I could never do what he does. In addition, I have much more developed set of communication and interpersonal skills than what he does, which will be valuable in the counseling field, which I am pursuing. Women have the ability to do things men cannot do nearly as well, too! So there- my two cents.

    • JSantorelli says:

      @Rebekah: You sound as though the only thing men are good for is fighting, killing, and destroying. You think men don’t have interpersonal, communication and other positive / creative skills? Who do you think women “communicate” with? Mostly, other women! It is like pro-football players trying to teach other pro-football players how to play football. Women can do the things they do because out there somewhere is a man taking up some dirty or dangerous job so you can sit in an office and “talk” to people. I’m not trying to down women’s skills but I am also tired of hearing how wonderful women are at talking as if men are simpletons that walk around grunting and looking for something to kill all day.

  31. mommyx4boys says:

    i agree that the military should not lower its qualifications, but there are some women who are up to doing the exact same things as men for example female body builders they would be able to carry a man out of battle just as well as another man so i say if a woman can meet all the expectations and she wants to join the military she should go for it also there are men who can be just as nurturing as a woman and if he wants to stay home with the children he should go for it to. but no standards should be lowered for either, the fact should be if you are good enough for the job great if not sorry

  32. JohnJones says:

    All men in the military should be replaced by women from command down to the rifleman.
    Let women die in combat … let them suffer horrific injury … let them be disposable for a change .
    Men have done it by the tens of millions … it’s your turn now.
    But that will never happen. Women will be elevated to command and never spend a day on the battle field. They will give orders from behind a desk and send men to their deaths . That will be the new armed forces.

    • JSantorelli says:

      Which is why every man in the army should quit and no more should enlist. If a draft ensue we should all cry “our body, our choice” and see how far that gets us!

  33. EG says:

    I think that standards for every position in military should be the same regardless of gender. That said, I disagree with much of your reasoning as well as the language you use to get across your point.
    One way to look at is to argue that if females want equality, then the standards for entrance should be equal. Yes that may discount physical predispositions, but in the same way, someone might be naturally more intelligent and therefore meet the standards of an entrance exam to an academic program. That doesn’t mean we should lower the standards of that program to allow more equitable entrance for the sake of inclusiveness.
    Rather, in both cases , instead of lowering standards for any particular group, what should be done is to pump up recruitment and advertising targeted to the marginalized group (such as women in this case) so that there are more applicants from that group overall, and therefore more chance of successful female candidates who CAN pass the standard testing.
    It is similar to the way that there are programs springing up to encourage young girls and women to pursue STEM education and careers. And since such programs have started, there has been a definite increase in the numbers of females pursuing degrees in STEM fields.
    Universities haven’t lowered their standards to allow more females entrance to STEM programmes, they have simply been receiving more female applicants overall, those of which meet the qualifications are not barred from entrance due to the fact of their gender (as they once were).
    Some people (man or woman) are naturally strong. Some aren’t but can train to get there. Some unfortunately, probably can’t even with training. But does that mean the standard should be lowered for those who can’t? No. Its a matter of safety of their fellow soldiers and for themselves. It sucks, but the truth is, they aren’t cut out for this particular job.
    Some people are naturally intelligent. Some may not be so inclined, but can study and discipline themselves to get there. Unfortunately, just as above, some probably can’t get to the levels needed to pursue higher levels of academia even if they study.
    But does that mean the standard should be lowered for them? No. You wouldn’t want someone with a subpar IQ working in labs with dangerous pathogens or drafting legislation
    I see these two things in much the same way.
    I obviously disagree with your when you say that “Men are uniquely equipped for the physical and mental rigors of combat. Women are not.”
    This is inaccurate. SOME men are equipped for the physical rigors. As are SOME women. Some men are not. Some women are not.
    I also know many men who are skinnier and weaker than even a petite girl. I know men who have applied for the military only to be told they didn’t meet the physical requirements.
    I know the same of women. I know woman who are much stronger and built sturdier than many men.
    I also know girls who are naturally weaker.
    We also can’t discount those who fall between the two genders who may want to pursue a career in the military. What about transvestites? What standard should they be held to? The same as everyone else, because there should be only one standard. Because people are people.
    Thats the funny thing about people…they are born with different attributes: physical and mental. Thats why generalizations like the author are making are very, very dangerous.
    I also just don’t appreciate the whole tone of the argument. You are distracting from your own point with generalizations, absolutism and misogynistic language, such as below:
    “You know, maybe it would be wise to raise our daughters to have an appreciation for manhood. Maybe we should stop filling her head with this “you can do everything a man can do” garbage”
    I don’t even think you understand the misogynistic language you are using and how it is harmful. It is pretty clear you have a skewed concept of what feminism entails, as do many.
    Thats the thing people don’t understand, feminism isn’t an attack on masculinity. It is a compliment to it. But people feel the need to pit the two against each other as if they are opposing forces.

  34. Mockingbird says:

    While I would have loved to have a particular job in the military, I am in no way promoting any alteration to physical standards or accommodations for the sake of stroking the feminist ego. Nor do I think there exists the feminist ideal of “equality” between genders. No one is truly equal to another and the feminist ideal is not what the Founders intended: equality under the law is a different concept and not one we should foolishly confuse with the other.

    But if there are a few women who can satisfy the current standards, accept the same hardships as their male counterparts, and conduct themselves with honor (i.e. avoid work-place romances and risking pregnancy just before deployment), then I’d like to see them receive the chance. However we must not dismantle any of the current standards or people will die as a result of our foolishness and even selfishness. Plain. Simple.

    That said, I do have an observation: it’s implied (or perhaps more than implied) that feminists have confused the female role and are contributing to confusion of the male role by seeking their so-called equality. This is probably true to a great extent (though feminism is not wholly to blame, either). But I think the “correct” masculine role as expressed in this blog is still somewhat confused. May I be allowed to even go so far as to suggest that it still shows signs of convolution by worldly, social roles. The masculine role is not a type of career. It is not a personality. Though our bodies are different for a purpose, masculinity is not a mortal condition that must fit the one worldly archetype – an archetype that is ultimately unChrist-like.

    Masculinity is a divine calling: fatherhood, the compliment of motherhood. A talent, even! And it is my opinion that neither of these roles is embodied in our careers (or lack thereof in the case of spouses who remain at home). Nor is it embodied in our personalities or bodies. There are soft-spoken men and aggressive women. There are short, weak men and tall, strong women. And have been since the beginning!

    What of the father that has lost his job or is physically unable to work, and his wife must work outside of the home to support the family: has he lost his masculinity to his wife? Nay! Aggression, the battlefield: these are not masculine traits! They are mortal, carnal, evil ideas that have been unfairly (to men) stamped upon men by worldly society; glorified and so confused in our minds by things like Hollywood that, now, we errantly believe a peaceful, quiet man who simply wants to be a tailor is emasculated. How blind!

    Sure, it’s polite and old-age chivalrous to hold the door for a woman, and will always win “points” with your date or a stranger. It’s also old-age culture to say the woman is “given in marriage” and not the man. But it’s the man that is to cleave to his wife; and is a woman wrong to politely perform an act of service by holding the door for a man? No. True, I think it is divinely intended that fathers perform the lion’s share of supporting their families and mothers perform the lion’s share of nurturing the young children, if simply for the fact that our genders play different roles in conception and bring different challenges. One might say that this means the father is the only hunter/gatherer and protector archetype. And, yes, I think a young man who willingly fails to prepare to provide for his family has emasculated himself. Yet, I also think women should seek education and skills; not to replace the father, but to compliment him in marriage. And how often throughout history and even today do we see fathers and mothers sharing these roles of providing and protecting in one way or another. How often, in the days of agricultural socioeconomics, did mothers help plant the crops and care for the animals? How often mothers have protected children from harm. How often they have had to work outside the home to help support the family in poor economic times. Because the roles of mother and father are complimentary, not exclusionary! I submit to you that these things, this sharing of roles does not make a man less nor a woman more masculine.

    Masculinity – true masculinity; this role of fatherhood – is a calling based upon eternal and heavenly principles that will long outlast our careers, experiences, and carnality in this life. It extends beyond our carnal understanding. True fatherhood is preaching/teaching the gospel, ministering to the weak, serving, and leading and providing for your families in concert with your wives.

    Christ was the ultimate example of masculinity: the Son who taught us to turn our cheek in the face of aggression; who set aside time for children; who shared tears with the grieving and confounded His enemies with words instead of swords. Surely, one would not stoop to calling Christ feminine because He eschewed aggression and the battlefield!

    And, yet, both men and women, father and mother, were told to become like Christ in all of the same ways. It’s not “men be like Christ this way and women that way”. It’s everyone: be like Christ. So, I submit that it’s not whom fights on the battlefield and whom stays at home that makes or breaks masculinity and femininity. But that mothers and fathers fulfill their divine roles as fathers and mothers: compliment each other in marriage and work together as a whole for the nurturing and salvation of their family.

    At any rate, that is my opinion and I’m sure there will always be one who disagrees. But thank you for reading all the same.

  35. Alexandra says:

    One thing Matt did not address is that if you send women into combat, you will be sending pregnant women into combat. I served as an officer in the Navy for four years and the conclusion I have come to is this: expecting women in their twenties to NOT get pregnant is completely unreasonable. Therefore, if a job is not suitable for a pregnant woman, it is not suitable for ANY woman.

    • JSantorelli says:

      Free birth control courtesy of the USofA gov’t is now available! No excuses! Take responsibility or dump feminism. You can’t have it both ways.

  36. GiannaT says:

    I remember going to summer camp and scadelizing one of the other kids by saying we should let one of the guys move something because they were probably stronger.

    It’s an odd world.

Comments are closed.