• Subscribe to Crisis

  • Women in Combat: “Equality” and Ambition Over Privilege and Duty

    by Bernadette O'Brien

    women-vietnam-memorial

    Now that the military has finally surrendered in the face of relentless feminist pressure to allow women into combat, one might as well chalk up yet another battle in the culture wars won by the progressive Left. The rather cynically amusing thing about it is the tone of the articles in the mainstream media that announce this particular development. They’re full of smug satisfaction. “This development should come as no surprise,” is the general consensus, “after all, women have been serving in hazardous areas for some time now….”

    Right-ho! And when women started serving in hazardous areas the worry-mongers who were afraid that it would lead to women serving directly in combat were accused of exaggerating the consequences. No slippery slope here. Ah, well. One must almost admire this insidious strategy—pushing little changes, pushing and pushing and pushing, and all the time scoffing at the fear that there will actually be a fundamental change. Then, when the time is right, you quietly make the change, as your opponents come to realize they have no leg to stand on. In other words, this battle was lost some time ago.

    In any case, the change has come, and now the field of argument is not about whether it is good for women, good for society, and good for our country to have our women serving in combat; it is about the absurdity of preserving an outdated little technicality that prevented them from serving in combat when they are getting shot at and killed anyway. All the prohibition did was to prevent women from receiving the promotions that require some kind of combat experience, which is of course a dreadful example of misogyny, and part of the oppression of women that has apparently marked our species since we first started balancing on our hind legs.

    Well, there are plenty of arguments and good ones too, that one can make about women in combat. One can go round and round about upper-body strength, about statistics, sexual harassment, equality, and so on and so on, et cetera ad nauseam, and I’m sure that people will.

    The thing is, these arguments rarely get anywhere. That’s because hardly anybody really cares about any of these things. The liberals don’t care because they have an agenda that calls for obliterating all recognition of the differences between men and women. The conservatives shouldn’t care because the traditional resistance to the idea of women in combat doesn’t actually rest on any of these arguments. It rests on a certain ancient idea of the fundamental differences between men and women, which naturally the liberals do not grant. Just for auld lang syne, I’d like to revisit that old idea.

    The idea was more or less that women are, in a special sense, givers of life since they bear children; and for this reason they ought to enjoy a certain status. According to this old-fashioned view, even if an individual woman does not bear children she shares in the dignity and privilege of womankind—for after all, no man will ever bear a child.

    If one accepts this idea of woman as life-bearer, it seems unfitting that she should make it her business to deprive people of life. The liberals like to talk about “a woman’s right to give her life for her country.” One is reminded of General Patton’s famous line about a soldier’s business being not to give his life for his country, but to make the other poor bastards die for theirs. The idea of women joining the military—all gung-ho to go out and make those poor bastards die for their country—is completely at odds with the idea that women have a special connection with life. Thus it was for a long time thought good in our Judeo-Christian society that women should not normally participate in combat.

    Since the women were not to fight, what were they to do? Well, it was observed that someone ought to preserve what the men were fighting for. Society thought that it made sense for women to do this. For the common good, it was thought best for women to preserve the home, to refrain from killing, and to nurture life; to stand, in a certain sense, for the goal and purpose of warfare: the restoration of peace and justice.

    The Role of Women in War
    So much for the general idea. Of course there were always exceptions, and by way of illustration that the exception proves the rule, I like the story of the siege of the Alcazar of Toledo in 1936.

    This story is taken from the book The Siege of Alcazar by Major Geoffrey MacNiell-Moss, a writer who arrived on the scene about six weeks after the siege was lifted by the arrival of Franco’s troops, and who conducted extensive interviews with the survivors. He did not support either side, and had no reason to inflate their deeds.

    At the beginning of the Spanish Civil War a contingent of the Guardia Civil, loyal to the Nationalist cause, had possession of the stone fortress dominating the city of Toledo, which dated from the late Middle Ages. They were under the command of a Colonel Moscardo. They had with them their wives and children.

    Toledo was in the hands of the Republicans, who laid siege to the Alcazar. The fortress was surrounded and the garrison greatly outnumbered. It was a situation that called for great courage on the part of the defending soldiers, but their part almost seems easy by comparison with what the women endured.

    The women and children spent the entire siege in the cellars. Under Moscardo’s orders the women of the Alcazar neither fought nor did they even assist in the care of the wounded, since this would have exposed them to fire. Major MacNeill-Moss, in commenting on this fact, suggests two reasons for this course of action. The first was that the men were Regulars. Fighting was their profession, they had sufficient numbers for the defense, and they did not really need the women’s help. The second reason was that it was a matter of pride and morale for the entire garrison that the women and children were safe for the time being. MacNiell-Moss goes so far as to say that, had they not been there, “it is well possible the defense could not have been sustained.” Although several of the men committed suicide, none of the women did so.

    In the cellars, the women supported from moment to moment the suspense of wondering what was taking place, and whether their husbands, fathers, and brothers were still alive. Along with the men, they were slowly starving. Their sleep was troubled by rifle and shell-fire—and the noise of the falling blocks of masonry on the stone courtyard above their heads was maddening. There was no getting away from the stench of the corpses, which were buried nearby in shallow graves. They heard for days, in quiet moments, the ominous scratching of the enemy’s tunneling. Under this almost unendurable strain they controlled their own fear, cared for their children, and encouraged the men when they came on hurried visits—managing to save food out of their own wholly insufficient rations to give to them. They prayed. Two babies were born.

    The women were not passive victims of circumstance. After nearly two months of siege, the Republicans sent in a certain Major Rojo under flag of truce to explain to Moscardo that mines had been placed under the fortress. He offered the garrison a last chance of surrender, which Moscardo refused. Then Rojo made one final offer: if the women and children and were sent out under flag of truce they would be well treated and their lives would be spared. If not, they could expect to be blown sky-high.

    Colonel Moscardo very rightly felt that this decision rested with the women. He called three of them in to hear the enemy’s proposal, and then sent them to talk it over with the others. Major McNeill-Moss describes their answer:

    After a few minutes they returned and…the unanimous reply of the women was this: that they would never desert their men; that, even if the men wished it they would always oppose the surrender of the Alcazar; that, if the time should come when there would not be enough soldiers left to man the defenses, then they would take up arms and do so themselves—as had the women of Saragossa [in 1813].

    The liberals can talk all they like about women’s rights and their desire to serve their country, but that is what real devotion to a cause bigger than oneself looks like—that is the courage women are capable of—selfless, unflinching, single-hearted, cold-blooded and deadly courage.

    As it happened, the detonation of the mines failed to oust the defenders. The arrival of Nationalist forces relieved the Alcazar shortly thereafter, and it was never necessary for the women to take to the barricades. In the official record was noted “the boast—: ‘Total number of women and children harmed by enemy action….None.’” But there is no doubt that the women were ready.

    Oh, no, I won’t argue that women can’t fight. “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven” as the Byrds (or is it Ecclesiastes?) put it. But it used to be that women fought as a last defense, fought when otherwise all was lost—fought, in other words, the almost-hopeless battles, the battles that are fought wholly on principle, because surrender is not an option. While there was still a home, while there was still a hope, the women preserved it. The women cared for the children, the wounded, and the crops; the men had something to fight and die for, and when the war was over, please God, they had something left to live for.

    I’ll grant that “keeping the home fires burning” doesn’t necessarily sound like much fun, and I don’t believe I’d have cared much for the cellars of the Alcazar. But on the other hand, men often must fight, even when they would rather not. It seems a fair counter-balance that women generally may not fight, even if they would prefer to…. “Dooty,” as Long John Silver remarked, “is dooty, mates.”

    No doubt, reader, you’ve noticed that I haven’t proven anything. I haven’t made an argument; I’ve only laid out certain views about women in combat, which you may or may not agree with. The point is that these views rest on a certain idea about women that is inherent in the Christian understanding, and which is totally noxious to the post-modern liberals of the New World Order. There’s really no common ground on this one. The liberals want women to be just like men, whereas the Christian understanding—which holds that God Himself has raised up a woman as His own mother and Queen of angels and men—accords to women a certain high status. This is in recognition of the incredible dignity of being God’s closest accomplices in the mysterious act of the creation of the human person. At the same time it asks of them such sacrifices as always accompany dignity and privilege.

    You can take it or leave it. I know it’s an unfashionable point of view, but personally, I’ll take privilege and duty above “equality” and ambition any day.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • CDR USN

      Well done. Well written. Completely agree.

    • Amy

      I’m printing out a copy and leaving it on my desk so my whole family can read this. What a wonderful article. Thank you!

    • Christopher Check

      Bernadette–

      Very well done. You get to the heart of the matter: what is the nature of women? As GKC observed, it was a Joan of Arc, a woman who understood why women should not wear pants, who was justified in wearing them.

    • anon

      I am all in favor of women in combat but since they have been “discriminated” against for centuries I would like to see women in the front lines while men can have office jobs so that women can catch up and die in equal numbers as men have done throughout history. When “equality” has been reached, that is when the same number of women have died as men have died in U.S wars, then true justice will have been achieved and also true “equality”.

      • S. Rainey

        Of course, men in combat must also be allowed to keep their hair long, and do lighter physical training, just to keep things equal.

      • Bob

        Kind of a tangent, but An interesting thing happened on September 11, 2001 during the attacks on the WTC. The morning TV networks (CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.) had mostly women reporting on the morning shows when the planes hit. As the day progressed and the country realized the great magnitude of the horror of the attack and that we were now at war, all the networks called in and put on their mature, male anchors for the rest of the day. Psychologists picked up on the fact that consciously or not, the networks realized that the viewers looked to and needed strong, male leadership telling us what happened during a major crisis. Having the voice of Tom Brokehaw report that day projected a soothing fatherly strength that Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer could never do.

        • djpala

          Oh, is that so, you mean like ‘anderson cooper’ !

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jambe-dArgent/100003865893919 Jambe d’Argent

      Speaking of the Alcazar in Toledo: until fairly recently it was a military museum containing well-preserved relics from the siege (the bullet- and shrapnel-ridden office of Colonel Moscardo, an underground chamber with folding beds for women and children, etc.) Several years ago, under Spain’s socialist government, a large portion of the building was turned into a public library. I often wonder what happened to those relics…

    • Ford Oxaal

      Ironic — since the new woman now uses abortion as a contraception backup, her traditional role as mother has been effectively self-nullified. So it makes sense for the new woman to go to the front lines. The new woman is now as expendable as an old man. When the draft comes back around, there will have to be some kind of exemption for nursing mothers. So, double irony, this might end well after all.

      • musicacre

        What about us mothers (older) who aren’t nursing anymore:)

        • Ford Oxaal

          You are expendable. And if you are pregnant and your draft number comes up, you have to report for an abortion and strap on your M4 with grenade launcher. Only nursing mothers are exempt. It has been decreed! Such is the brilliant illogic of the ‘progressives’.

        • Alecto

          Sarcasm alert! Nothing like the pent-up aggression and hostility of the menopausal unleashed on an enemy. I daresay one platoon of women suffering hot flashes, and hormonal erratics would scare the daylights out of Al Quaeda or the Taliban. Unfortunately, that will never happen because menopausal women are too old for the draft or volunteer army.

          • musicacre

            Maybe you could offer your services…..How is not nursing meaning I am old enough to be menopausal…and to even make a comment like that reveals you do not belong to the Christian religions, which expect males to be reverent and decent to females. Unless you belong to a “liberalized” religion which doesn’t expect anything except for you to feel good and not take responsibility for your behavior. In that case, put holes into everyone that doesn’t fit the sexualized, Hollywoood version of what women are to be like. I guess women who have done a great job focusing on their children don’t deserve any respect.

    • JP Wicki

      Thank you Bernadette for this very well written piece.

    • Lt. Willam J. Lawler II, M.Ed

      If women really are just as capable as men then I propose an experiment to prove it.

      Create 2 squads, platoons, companies, whatever size unit would make the feminist happy. They get to decide. One male unit and one female unit. Each unit is comprised of freshly trained soldier’s right out of training. Same training, same experience, same equipment. Place them in a training battlefield which mirrors itself on each side, and each side gets a side. They start out in North and South positions so that the sun is not in the eyes of either side or silhouetting either side.

      Then let’s see which side wins a real or simulated battle, and just how high the casualties are on each side. Real life or death combat could perhaps be morally justifiable since the life and death results would have extensive life and death results for all 300 million Americans. And as long as all participants were volunteers knowing that they could very well be killed or maimed. And there would be no incentives beyond standard military pay and benefits, so that there would be no moral question of people being coerced to volunteer because they were poor and tempted by riches.

      Oh, and since this a test of combat effectiveness, and since we cannot count on future enemies to follow certain “rules”, fFor this one scenario neither side would be bound by any rules or laws. Each participant would be provided with complete criminal and civil immunity for any actions taken during the exercise. This immunity would be signed by the Department of Justice, and the Pentagon, in the presence of the federal judge whose district the training is taking place. In addition, every volunteer would be required to sign a waiver agreeing that they and their families cannot sue the military, the government, or any other participants for any and all damagaes and injuries that may be incurred. As stated above, they would only be eligible for standard military pay and benefits.

      Can anyone come up with a more accurate and definitive way to resolve this issue? This exercise could even be conducted at multiple unit size levels so that no one could argue that the size of the unit affects the fighting capabilities of either gender.

      • Dave

        I think the women just might win in that scenario because the men would not commit themselves to winning against women.

        • msmischief

          Let us factor in that they do not want to be defeated by women

          • Dave

            I must disagree with you, msmischief. Most men would find it more humiliating to (1) take a battle with women seriously and (2) to actually defeat them. It is more manly and honorable, and therefore less humiliating, to allow the women to win the battle. This will hold much more true where an actual physical confrontation with the fairer sex is involved. It’s shameful to fight women.

            • Lt. William J. Lawler II, M.Ed

              Dave, for the most part I think you have a valid point. But in this case I have to disagree with you. The men would either fight to the best of their abilities and kill, or they would be killed. Any hesitation would in all likelihood be out the window once the first bullets whiz past them, or once their first fellow soldier gets his head blown off. Also, keep in mind that they are volunteering for this so they know going in what it’s all about. There is your inventive.

          • Bob

            And boy oh boy the silent treatment men would get for weeks if they did defeat the gals!

      • Ford Oxaal

        Exactly. It’s all so silly. There are, after all, women’s sports. Combat is not one of them. Yes, Billie Jean King beat that old guy in tennis, but everyone knows that was a joke.

        • Adam Baum

          Women don’t even complete with men on equal basis in golf.

        • Dan

          Yes. King should have played someone like Jimmy Connors.

      • sibyl

        I would love to see this happen, but realistically, it never will. We are clearly in an “emperor’s new clothes” situation here, and the media and general culture at large are intent on praising the gorgeous outfit that isn’t there. There can be no such thing as open-mindedness, and women will now go into combat to the detriment of themselves, their comrades, and the country as a whole.

        I have a teenage daughter who finds the excitement and glamour (!!) of military service attractive, who is physically strong, who lifeguards, and who wants to serve her country. She came home groaning from school the other day because her classmates had been having an arm-wrestling competition, and she’d been badly beaten. This, by a boy in no very great state of physical training. Her arm hurt for a week. Doesn’t this just exemplify the difference? Needless to say, we’re trying hard to divert her from entering the Navy ROTC after school.

        • Adam Baum

          The real question is, did your daughter learn anything from the encounter or is she still suffering under the effects of the popular propaganda of sexual fungibility?

          I am in my fifties and being a gym rat, I see the difference between men and women on a daily basis. In three plus decades of going to gyms, I’ve seen plenty of fit and able women but never seen a woman who could bench press 150 pounds, but it’s a “lower limit” for men. I’ve done it 25 times. Lot’s of men can do 400 pounds. That’s just one life, one parameter of upper-body power.

          • Adam Baum

            That’s just one LIFT, one parameter of upper-body power.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

      This is a very nice article by Bernadette O’Brien, but I would like to re-emphasize the obvious. It isn’t just “upper body” strength. Men are stronger in the lower body, too. They weigh more. Much more of their weight is in muscle. They are primed by nature for fighting. They are fleeter of foot. We are not talking about a couch potato, against a woman training at the gym all year. Men in war will be at the peak of their physical condition, and thus there will be a complete separation of the men from the women. I find it bitterly ironic that the same people who push for a Violence Against Women Act — since women cannot counter the violence of a brawling boyfriend — believe that by magic these same women will stand against the violence of enemies in top condition, armed to the teeth, and primed to fight, kill, plunder, and rape. It is also bitterly ironic that women who require special cordoned-off sports teams, just to have a chance to play at all — exactly as seniors require their special golf tours — will magically be just the same as their brothers, just because we put khaki pajamas on them.

      The other thing I’d like to emphasize is that the heart of an army is the male-male bonding within small groups like the platoon. You have to trust that your blood brother would do — and COULD do — anything to save you, and you would do the same for him. That bonding does not occur in a co-ed environment, wherein the men, if they are good, will seek to shield the women, and if they’re not good, will leave them behind for meat, or will force them to trade ….
      A challenge: if these idiots championing this policy had their own homes and families and lives on the line — if nothing but one platoon, or, hell, one football squad, stood between them and destruction, they sure as hell would not want any petites on the squad. Hypocrites and morons.

      One more: nobody gives a damn about the life and the limbs of the guy who has to have that wide-hipped narrow-shouldered thin-wristed fat-padded soldier next to him, on the battlefield. Heck, he’s probably a redneck anyhow, and who the hell cares if HE dies?

      • Ford Oxaal

        I can’t get past the silliness of it all. When we are in a real war, and a draft takes place, all this nonsense disappears. I will personally kill anyone who tries to get my daughter to fight on the front lines, unless I am already dead.

      • Adam Baum

        Its more than physical or social. Testosterone has mental effects. When “Rocky” movies come on the television, your wife will yawn. Your pulse will quicken and your muscles tighten.

      • Jeff

        “nobody gives a damn about the life and the limbs of the guy who has to have that wide-hipped narrow-shouldered thin-wristed fat-padded soldier next to him, on the battlefield. ”
        Dude, if that’s all you see when you see a woman soldier you’ve got problems. Some of those ladies could hand you or me our asses!

        • smokehill

          Yeah, that’s why in over 20 years I never saw one female soldier come out on top in a close-combat setup or even pugil stick competition. When one of each go down in that sand pit, you can bet your life on who’s coming out on their feet.

          Try to sell that to some other civilian or REMF, rather than someone who’s been there.

      • http://www.facebook.com/PattiKBrown Pat Brown

        Well said. I am a mid-fifties grandmother, but 30+ years ago I was one of the first female officers to graduate from college and ROTC and into the newly integrated Army. I was a combat support officer (communications) for an anti-aircraft unit. I was 21 years old, fit and fast and smart…..and I could not keep up, even in training (there were no wars during the four years I worn the uniform). Let me add that I was #1 in my ROTC unit, winning tons of awards and being the student commander my senior year, THAT was play-acting, nothing at all like the real Army.

        In short order, as in every otther instance, the standards will be lowered for women, and as a result, men and women will die. The first time there is live video feed of a female SEAL being gang-raped and tortured, the howls of protest will arise too late.

        I fear for the country my grandsons will inherit. God save us all.

        • smokehill

          You are exactly right. Unfortunately, the new “progressive” females who are demanding “equality” have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. They just want equal promotion straight up thru the chain even though they are thoroughly incapable of handling the rigors of combat, or even holding up their end in close combat.

          Being able to shoot an M-16 or fly a chopper is hardly comparable to trekking thru the mud with a 33-pound mortar baseplate IN ADDITION to your regular infantry combat load and weaponry. A 5-man mortar crew carries about 140 lb or more as “extra” equipment. I’d like to see the women who are going to load 155 howitzer shells at a firebase for hours on end (95 lb a pop), or load Abrams tank rounds at 45 lb apiece.

          We had to lower the standards drastically to get women thru West Point, the Ranger course & airborne training. The Navy had to lower their standards, too, which were based on each seaman being able to haul a certain mount of weight up a ladder so he could save wounded shipmates in case of ship damage or fire. No women ever passed that requirement, so instead they made separate tables for women. Unfortunately, when a fire breaks out belowdecks, those neat little tables are going to cost sailors’ lives, just so some whining little incompetent can feel good about herself, and get promoted along with those that really deserve it.

          Not the first time we’ve seen this. All Army promotions have been vetted thru Congress before being published, to make sure that minorities have exactly the same promotion rate, no matter what. So naturally the promotion boards (who only see records with no indication of race) compile their list, send it back to have the race added & the percentages calculated …. then they start lopping off the white guys until the numbers look acceptable & the Congressional committees won’t have a cow.

          So much for the new modern Army. After 20+ years, I had enough.

    • Lee

      Unfortunately, women have given up the right to be revered as givers of life, mothers, etc. when they have enthusiastically embraced abortion. Having said that, I believe it will be a disaster for our country….perhaps even the final nail in the coffin.

      • msmischief

        One notes they have also abandon the classic justification for male-only combat: women alone bear the risks of childbirth. True, they go on bearing them, but since they insist it’s on their own whim, they aren’t entitled to demand to be treated as a valuable contribution.

        • smokehill

          I never regarded that as a serious argument anyhow, since the actual risk from childbirth (aside from backwards cesspools like Africa & the Middle East), is hardly worth mentioning anymore. Probably far less than the average routine appendectomy, though I haven’t looked at surgical statistics in several decades. I assume the numbers are even better now.

          In fairness, one should exclude those at-home births with midwives, which might make the vegetarian girls happy — until things so wrong and they’re a long drive away from an emergency room & an emergency physician.

    • rsmyth75

      up until the 6 day war, woman in the Israeli army served in combat units. what they found though was that the men had this ancient and some say instintive notion to over protect the woman in their unit! disobeying orders to hold positions that were abandoned to come to the aid of woman in trouble and under fire! it was deemed a national security issue and woman were taken out of combat units from then on! not sure if this is still their policy, but if still true, how discriminatory and old fashion!!!!

      • poetcomic1

        Women do not fight on the front lines in Israel. They know HOW to fight as genocide is breathing down the necks of the Jewish people as it has for ages. The Polish Home army in the Warsaw Uprising saw women and men fight side by side and 10 year old boys blowing up tanks. Special circumstances.

    • hombre111

      A good article but the story about the siege of the Alcazar seems a little forced. Now I am waiting for this excellent writer to explore the way women and children bear the brunt of America’s poverty and family violence.

      • musicacre

        Why don’t you write it it? Reminds me of the pro-abortionists yelling since you’re saving babies, why don’t you people do this and that? As though doing one thing means you have to take on the whole world to justify yourself.

      • Christopher Check

        Hombre111

        The use of the story of the Alcazar made for a brilliant illustration that brought clarity to this debate. Also, What you call family violence is actually absence-of-family violence. The crimes you are decrying rarely take place within intact-marriage families. These crimes are the effect of divorce and non-marriage. So called domestic violence is considerably more common among the shacking up. Not surprisingly, lesbians living together are among the leading culprits. If you would like to see poverty and violence decrease, get married, stay married, and defend marriage.

    • musicacre

      Thank you for this beautiful, and well-researched article. It’s kind of strange how some women become when they have been in the “trenches” of office life for years and climb the tree of promotions.. My husband has found often times when he has a woman manager, there is a lot of aggression and “no quarter given”, as though they have to prove they are mean. Or have they lost the natural capacity to understand and be sympathetic? The story you related is very unusual and gives us a glimpse into an important historical event and also the real strength and endurance of women.

      • Ford Oxaal

        Yes, I think we are all looking for more from Bernadette. Unless, of course, she has to ship out.

        • musicacre

          :)

    • Tom Angeletti

      This is a generational issue as well as a woman issue. Polls show people of my generation (I’m 16) are mostly OK with it. As a guy I’m OK with it too. Theres this little kid who is like 11 in my tennis group and she kills most of the guys in varsity. She’s real skinny and small but she’s got the strokes and the accuracy. She’d be good with a gun. You can tell.

      • Ford Oxaal

        OK, well, polls might be showing some of the inexperience of your particular group. How do you think she would do in hand-to-hand? I mean anybody with a video console hooked up to some lead spraying drone can wipe out a whole village of innocent bystanders. But what about cutting some big ugly bastard’s head off with your k-bar?

      • smokehill

        Unfortunately, war is not a nice clean video game, and it’s not all drone strikes or shooting someone from 50 or 100 yards away. There’s a good reason why we still carry bayonets (and sometimes specialized fighting knives) and learn how to fight with bayonets & knives.

        I know this isn’t a large statistical sample, but out of my four separate wounds, only one was from a bullet; the other three were knife or bayonet (didn’t get that good a look to be precise).

        I have no difficulty believing that some women could do all right in combat IF (and ONLY if) their participation was strictly shooting at the enemy from some distance. My wife, in fact, is a spectacular shot.

        However, in ground combat you often get right up close and personal, where brute strength is sometimes as important as your skill with a knife (or fist or club), and most important is a fighter’s willingness to aggressively attack that enemy, not just stand there and wait to defend. Whether it’s genetic or just a product of our upbringing, the overwhelming majority of women are NOT going to do this. This not only will probably cost them their life, but cost OTHER lives because a soldier we need to depend on isn’t there to do the job.

        Just ask yourself — if you were suddenly and viciously attacked by someone, who would you want next to you on your side …. some random buddy of yours, or some random girl from your class? The answer is A, not B.

    • Victress Jenkins

      The late, great, Colonel John M Ripley testified against this idea in congress many years ago. I wonder how long it will take everyone to understand how wrong it is.

    • Adam Baum

      The sad thing is that the individuals who will learn of the utter foolishness of this decision will be young women who will be brought up to believe that they are a man’s equal, not a complement. They will be brought up to believe an a physically active youth will promote a body and mind that is equally adept at combat as a man’s body. The mirage will be furthered when physical fitness standards are inevitably lowered to assure “diversity” and “equality of opportunity”.

      It is ironic indeed that the political spectrum that believes women need special laws to protect them from masculine aggression at home and in the workplace, (forget for a minute what is said, let alone done in locker rooms that would repel and disgust most women) who think that no act of heterosexual intercourse can be consensual due to that man’s possession superior physical force -now tell us that somehow enemy forces will consult with their international lawyers to ensure that female soldiers will be spared a “hostile and offensive working environment”.

      What we have here, will be the sacrifice of young maidens to pagan idols-in this case, the statist left’s myth of the mighty Amazons.

    • Bob

      With all the equality going around, why not unisex bathrooms and locker rooms?

    • Tony

      Very good article! Agree completely

    • Alecto

      You failed to consider that one of the reasons this is so often pushed
      is that progressives believe in the triumph of technology, including
      battlefield technology, as the great gender equalizer. They do not
      consider in whose hands that technology is better utilized or that it is and has been developed with men in mind. Therefore, all of the tanks, weaponry, everything would have to be adapted for women’s smaller hands, smaller frames, lighter bodies. We cannot afford to sacrifice readiness while we spend decades redesigning or adapting weapons.

      I
      have run marathons, done triathlons, and I would put myself up
      physically against any man in that kind of contest. Women are mentally
      tougher than men. That’s why God didn’t bestow the gift of
      childbirth on men. They can’t take the pain of pushing a watermelon through a toothpaste tube. Anybody who has ever dealt with a sick man knows it. The point is not about equality of opportunity. The key issue and only issues for the military is readiness, fitness and effectiveness. The
      Armed Services are not a social laboratory. When we make them one, our
      readiness and effectiveness plunge. That is the goal of progressives
      who need to compromise the military so they can create paradise on a one-world
      government earth.

      • smokehill

        You forgot to mention that we have to make most of our more potent weaponry a lot smaller and weaker, too, until you find some women who can load 95-lb howitzer shells all day at a firebase, or load 45-lb shells into an Abrams tank while it’s bouncing over the ground at 60 mph.

        And where are you going to find the women to “man” a 5-man mortar team in an infantry company? In addition to the regular infantry weapons & load they have to carry, like everyone else, they split up another 140 lb of mortar parts, baseplate and ammunition — around 30 lb apiece.

        Simple, brute strength is often necessary on the battlefield, even the “modern” one. It takes a lot for most men to get to the point they can physically handle that, and many don’t make the cut and are transferred to support units. No shame in that, they just are better suited there — or lack the drive necessary to push hard enough in training.

        The likelihood of any woman (a) being able to reach that point, and (b) also WANTING to be an infantry squad member, is very close to zero. What will happen is that they will drop standards to make the Feminist Lobby in Congress happy, and good soldiers eventually will die because of some crackpot social experiment.

    • Adhemarde

      I agree 100% with the author of this brilliant narrative. The problem with our society today in general is that we have substituted Voltaire’s “reason” for the wisdom of the ages and God’s word combined. A casual look at the problems we face as a result, such as the issues with women in combat, speaks loudly for the folly of that arrogance. The very foundation of society is the family, and the purpose of the family is to raise children. Parents are a man and a woman united in matrimony to be father and mother to their offspring. The left knows this, and they must destroy the family so that the State can substitute for it. It is for this reason that the left promotes promiscuity, unwed motherhood, homosexuality, and blurring of sexual roles as evidenced by women in the military. There is no question about whether women “can” do certain things; the question is whether they should do them.

    • djpala

      Just one more example of how the muslim-communist is trying to destroy the USA internally. Every program he favors is geared to divide & conquer. What really feminine woman wants to be & act like a man, emulate ‘janet reno’, ‘kagen’, ‘napalitano’ & of course ‘hillary’, the no-good, always-bad & ultra ugly !

    • Gwyneth Holston

      GREAT article, Bernadette. Keep up the good work!

    • Bob

      I served in combat during Vietnam I had to worry about rules of engagement where and when along with who I shot. Also the press that was looking to condem any action I took,. The new 18 year old male now needs look out for women both in a physical sense (not able to cut combat) and those who wish to claim sexual harassment to get extra privilege or advantage. The implanted press along with the gays who I guess what to solicit them as a boyfriend. Can we make this any more difficult your best bet is not to join or stand up and let the enemy soot you it will be less painful.