I left the following comment in response to this discussion at This Ain’t Hell: Legislation to allow women in combat specialties
Just another case of the ‘progressive’ mindset vs the conservative mindset. Conservatives are about equality of opportunity and focusing on excellence of results. ‘Progressives’ are about equality of results and excellence of ‘diversity’. Even then, conservatives and ‘progressives’ define results differently. While conservatives’ idea of results RE: the military is based on specific tasks military members must complete successfully, the idea of results for ‘progressives’ RE: the military is based on ‘diversity’.
The conservative, logical mindset will look at the tasks to be completed and then set standards to get the people best suited to complete those tasks. Anyone will have the opportunity to prove they can achieve the standards. But only those who achieve the standards will be chosen. If the pool of people chosen are all white men, all black/hispanic/asian men, all white women, all black/hispanic/asian women, etc, matters not to the conservative, logical mindset. What matters is that everyone chosen meets the standards and will complete the tasks successfully.
The ‘progressive’, emotional mindset will ignore the tasks to be completed and look only at what pool of people they want chosen. If they see that the standards set to successfully complete the tasks are preventing their ‘diverse’ pool of chosen people, they will change the standards to help their ‘diversity’ agenda. If this change in standards negatively affects the successful completion of the tasks, it matters not to the ‘progressive’, emotional mindset. What matters is that those attempting to complete the tasks are properly ‘diverse’.
Anyone or any company or organization who/which focuses on ‘diversity’ instead of excellence should be avoided. Period.
But, how about we take the emotional ‘diversity’ illogic of feminists and ‘progressives’ to its logical end. Someone mentioned that this crap started when these riTARDs started ignoring results-based success and started looking at ‘diversity’-based ‘success’. For example, they looked at the NFL and started bitching that there were not enough Black QBs or Black coaches, etc. So, they started the ‘Rooney Rule’ to force teams to interview Black coaches.
Well, as far as I can tell, the demographics of NFL players skews to Black athletes. And I believe those demographics do not match up with the demographics of the US population at all. Thus, we need a quota system in the NFL. No NFL team will be allowed to have its roster any different than the demographics of the US population overall. If the percentage of Blacks in the overall population is 20%, then no more than 20% of any roster shall be made up of Blacks. We can extend this ‘diversity’ agenda to the NBA, MLB and NHL as well. All major sports will be forced to adhere to this policy. This will also mean that more Mexicans and Asians will need to be on each major sports league’s teams. Afterall, we cannot have any ethnic background improperly represented.
Also, this will need to extend to colleges as well. Thus, only 20% of atheletic scholarships shall be given to Blacks in any sport. And more athletic scholarships given to Mexicans and Asians, etc. (Think this is wrong or unfair? Well, it is absolutely NO different than changing/lowering academic standards to give more scholarships to minorities who would otherwise not get them. So if we need to make academic scholarships more ‘fair’ and ‘diverse’, it follows that we need to do the same with athletic scholarships, right?)
But wait, I’m not done. As we’re learning from the feminists and the LGBTs, women are absolutely, positively NO different than men. A woman can do anything a man can do. She can play sports, she can be a father to a child and she can do anything a male member of the military can do. Now, since we don’t set up our military to be “The US Military” and “The Female US Military” (yes, I know, we actually DO set it up that way, since no female military member in any branch of the military actually has to achieve the same standards as their male counterparts, by default creating ‘female Marines’, ‘female soldiers’, etc), then there is absolutely no reason for the existence of the WNBA, the LPGA and female tennis leagues. Also, women’s softball shall be eliminated. Women can throw overhand just as well as men, so there is no reason to have a separate league for them where they throw underhand.
Thus, just as the US Military is being forced (and has been forced throughout history) — in the name of ‘diversity’ and equality — to open its organization to women, regardless of how that will affect the effectiveness of the organization, all other organizations shall be forced to do the same.
NFL — What’s that you say? A 100-lb female DE can’t compete with a 350lb male offensive lineman, thus no high school or college or NFL team will give her a shot? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of football so that women can compete better.
MLB — What’s that you say? Women can’t throw overhand as far as men can, which is why women’s softball mounds are set up closer to the batter and they are allowed to throw underhand? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of baseball so that women can compete better.
NBA — What’s that you say? A 5’5″ female guard can’t get her jump shot off over a 6’5″ male guard? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of basketball so that women can compete better.
PGA — What’s that you say? There are not enough females who are as good at golf as men, so there wouldn’t be an even number of men and women competing each week in the tournaments? No problem! We’ll just create a quota rule where each tournament has to be 50-50 men and women.
NHL — What’s that you say? A 100-lb female getting hit into the boards by a 250-lb male would get herself mauled? No problem! We’ll just change the rules of hockey so that women can compete better.
Think about that for a minute. Anyone proposing that we make those changes for our major sports would be ridiculed as the idiotic, dumbass riTARD that s/he is. YET, this is exactly what is being proposed for our US military, an organization which conducts MUCH MORE SERIOUS tasks than simply throwing balls around or hitting balls with sticks.
When it comes to a game, no one makes the absolutely majorly f-ing idiotic suggestion that women be treated the same as men. But when it comes to our national defense, all of a sudden, it’s somehow less riTARDed an idea?
WTF is wrong with people. Seriously, what the bloody f’ing f’ck is wrong with people.
Anyone suggesting that women be allowed in the military with lesser standards, let alone in combat MOS with lesser standards, should be treated the same way as we would anyone suggesting that women be allowed in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL with lesser standards. Yet, we’re actually treating this as a serious, intellectual idea. Un-freaking-real.
What an absolute joke our society has become.
Some great points made in the comments:
Frankly Opinionated Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 8:25 am
Let’s take this from the basics:
Men in the military are not permitted to grow their hair long. I believe this is for good reason. I was told that it was because of the hygiene, and the fact that hair can get in the way or get caught in weaponry. I agree.
Women are not made to cut theirs “high and tight”, but in combat MOS’, wouldn’t those same factors apply.
Not too long ago, a lady commented here, about the once a month hygiene difficulties of a women, and on how much more difficult it is for them at that time. Great point.
Men must meet a certain standard in Physical ability. Because it is what is needed to perform the job. If women in the same MOS’ are held to a lesser standard, how could we expect them to perform the same job, (handling, mounting/dismounting a “Ma Duece” perhaps), as timely and well as a man?
And back to my time in service, (right after we replaced the musket), we had women in the Army, in the Air Force, in the Navy, and in the Marines. They were WAC’s, WAF’s, Wave’s, n BAM’s. They performed a necessary job, did it well, made rank, stayed in til retirement.
Women don’t have a “right” to be in a MAN’s slot, anymore than a Man has a “right” to a promotion that he did not earn.
May 21st, 2011 at 9:14 am
“The Vietnamese are trying to take our seat!”
She is such a piece of shit.
Anyway, here’s the point: “Sanchez’s amendment would implement a recommendation made earlier this year by the Military Leadership Diversity Committee, a group of current and retired officers, noncommissioned officers and civilians, which determined that combat exclusion laws hurt advancement opportunities for women.”
So the point here is that the rules are standing in the way of their advancement opportunities. My initial reaction is that we already have affirmative action that gives women and minorities special treatment in advancement at the expense of white guys like me. Women can shoot up through the ranks without putting in half the effort as men. It’s disgusting. Talk about incompotent people being placed in positions of power.
But that’s not even the most important thing to consider. Combat effectiveness should ALWAYS be the focus. What’s best for our ass-kicking power is more important than what’s best for some whiney woman’s career.
By the way, affirmative action hasn’t been very beneficial to my career either. Not that Sanchez cares. She wants “equality” not equality.
Doc Bailey Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 10:00 am
Medics are technically a non-combat MOS, but we do NOT let them anywhere NEAR the line. Officially. Sometimes they sneak in as “attachments” but brother let me tell you, dealing with women in the chain of command adds a whole new dynamic. Whatever drama you had before suddenly becomes a soap opera, and a lot of female officers are passive aggressive in the extreme. I’ve seen female NCOs go nuts over minor things and Female officers are if anything worse, because the Army almost TELLS them to be passive aggressive. I understand shit details tend to go to those you don’t like, but still. . . it gets ridiculous if you don’t have a 1SG willing to tell them off.
Its not PC, but I’m going to say this as honestly as I can. Units with women in them are 10 times harder to deal with than all male ones.
But that doesn’t even touch on the physical reasons to include weight carrying capacity (their hips are NOT designed to carry loads the same way as men) Stamina and speed, (just why IS the 2 mile run standards so much lower?) the idea that a mostly male unit would “protect” the females, and lets not forget my favorite: women are psychologically predisposed to “nurture”, the battlefield is a bit of a jump in the opposite direction, so no one really knows if more extreme cases of PTSD might result.
This is just another Dem political stunt, like DADT repeal and women on Subs. It makes no sense to the people tasked with implementing the policy (timing and even in most cases the NEED for such) and we’re just supposed to salute, say Hoah and carry on like the GOOD little mindless robots we are.
May 21st, 2011 at 10:59 am
Bottom line: Men and women are different. They are not interchangeable parts. Treating different things differently is not discrimination.
May 21st, 2011 at 11:01 am
I agree that this is a stunt. It worked exceptionally well with Repealing DADT, with so-called gay conservative groups imploding with their support of the repeal.
Women in combat MOS is not about the individual woman, or the chosen ones who will be given rank and position. This is about Democrats having lost the Feminist Mojo to conservatives such as Governor Palin and Rep. Bachmann. The meme goes: if woman can do anything, then woman can do anything.
Being an artillerist, I’ve served with women assigned to brigade-level HQ and higher; and in our support battalions. In a peacetime Army, they were professional. In wartime and on operational deployments to Bosnia? Most were professional.
This measure is also an insult to women who serve, and have served. They made the rank by going to the schools, walking the trail, taking good assignments and bad. Now? Now soldiers won’t know if their female leader is competent, or a quota requirement.
Before I’m willing to consider women in combat MOS, IMO DOD needs to get to the bottom, if you’ll pardon the pun, of all of these sexual assaults going on. There’ve been so many reports of rape, and countering accusations of accusing joe of rape in order for the female to avoid UCMJ, that no one knows what is true. But, the VA is reporting more women veterans as survivors (to one degree or another) of sexual assault.
There’s been no study of how to best integrate women into combat MOS – there’s been the political position with a veneer of statistics, but no serious, scientifically-based study.
Real-world, no-kidding issues are not, and will not be addressed. To do so may reveal truth. This amendment is not about truth, and it is not about women. It is about reclaiming the mantle of Feminist from conservatives.
May 21st, 2011 at 12:52 pm
This infantryman is steadfastly against opening combat MOS’ to women. I have seen a very few women who might make average grunts on the line, and none who would be extremely impressive. The only female that made it past Zero day in my Air Assault class had a very impressive time on the road march, but that doesn’t mean she’d be able to keep up with us carrying a standard light infantry load. Let’s go through my limited military experience and interactions with females:
101st: About 45 days without a real shower or bath after entering Iraq. We had an Air Force unit sharing our tent complex in Kuwait that had a few females; we were all distracted by them and our PL one night found a porta-john occupied by one of them and a man one night. Not even two weeks into the deployment and they were already working hard. First four or five months we had no cots, power, or running water. After over a month of slit trenches and baby wipes we built a shower and outhouse and burned shit until around September 2003. Just before a parade through Clarksville when we got home a female Sergeant was recognized by one of the Afghanistan vets as part of a group whoring themselves out back in 2002. Go to Air Assault a 10 or so days after getting back home and watch 30 or so females wash out of the obstacle course.
TOG: A bit more interaction with females. MP company commander relieved (and Tomb Badge revoked) for having sex with enlisted Soldiers after pictures spread around. very few females on the field during ceremonies (of course, but even 289th MP Company had few when they were on the field). Went to PLDC, most of the females were at least proficient but one sandbagged the entire course. The instructors threatened to kick a few of the louder 11Bs out for continually pointing out the malingering nature of the female. I guess it’s better to send three or four good NCOs home to protect one POS.
Recruiting: Yay! A co-ed assignment. Work with two females directly, both are good at what they do and strive to participate in PT. Other females in the company? Not so much. PT days find them sitting down watching us. Despite the females I work with being squared away they still have their nuances–one time getting into an argument and refusing to talk or even work together for a few days.
I’ve seen that at work myself. Call me racist, misogynistic or whatever, but it seems that minorities (including women) are often promoted over white males in the Army (especially on the enlisted side). I’ve bitched about it before but I still find it odd that a non-deployable infantry unit could be so top-heavy in minority senior NCOs. My company had at most four blacks E-2 through E-6 (out of some 128 or so). Yet we had two E-7s, a 1SG and both CSMs. Our NCOPD one day had the author of “100 Sergeants Major of Color” as the guest speaker. I wonder how he felt about his profile of Staff Sergeant Stoney Crump (feels good to outrank that guy). On the flip side my unit in the 101st had very few minorities at all levels.
AW1 Tim Says:
May 21st, 2011 at 3:24 pm
For those want women in combat jobs, ask yourself this: Why aren’t women playing in the NFL? It has NOTHING to do with intelligence, marksmanship or communication skills. It has everything to do with physical requirements, and brute-force ability.
Hormones also play a VERY big part of that. I am so tired of all this craptacular social-engineering experiments being conducted by assmaggots who have never been involved in the military.
The crap will get people killed, and when it happens, those responsible for this legislation ought to be charged with murder and put to death. Publicly.
May 21st, 2011 at 8:02 pm
I demand that our legislative body and executive branch prepare legislation that will effectively boycott the Olympic Games, both summer and winter, until the gender-specific events are eliminated. Participants should not be held back from achieving greatness by some arbitrary rule like gender-classification.
On the “study” that was perpetrated by this gender group, they mention that women are underrepresented in the senior ranks. Well, give me the number of women who stay in to serve in the senior ranks? Do women stay in the military as long as men? And this study concludes that women are hurt because they are not allowed to serve in Combat units, yet Service Support and Support units outnumber Combat units, 8-10 to 1. The tooth to tail ration favors the advancement of women. And plenty of them are in “combat” for women to receive the same “experience” as men. The majority of General/Flag Officer billets aren’t even “combat” related. There is no reason why a woman can’t be promoted to take over US Cyber Command or TRANSCOM.
May 21st, 2011 at 8:38 pm
I had 6 women come into my airborne unit and within 6 months 4 were pregnant. Can’t see how this enhanced the operational readiness of my unit in the slightest
May 22nd, 2011 at 2:14 am
If you guys think having a woman that’s less than lack luster in infantry, armor or artillery try having several in an MP unit. Neither one carried their weight, our squad always had to mount their 60’s & load them in the gun trucks. All they had to do was woman(man)the 60’s and they bitched about that…the rest of us did ingress & egress.
Twas a damn good thing when Uncle Sugar Army gave us 6 of the V-100’s….they could hide inside them and not be a pain in our butts. Neither could shoot a .30, .38, 12gauge or M-16 worth a shit….Yet, they consistently passed weapons qual’s….go f’ng figure.
Doc Bailey Says:
May 22nd, 2011 at 3:31 am
I would like to point out that MOST women I talk to do not want to be ANYWHERE NEAR combat. Being on the FOB can be scary enough, and rolling up and down Predators or God Forbid Irish, sometimes felt like a fools errand, sure to get you wounded or killed. By my reckoning there are no “million dollar” wounds anymore, you get hit you’re probably losing something.
So I’ve got to ask a serious question here, and I’m asking mostly the women mind you; When did it become wrong for a man to want to protect a woman? Call me a chauvinist, but I’d really rather not have to treat women that get torn to pieces. I don’t want to treat guys that get torn up like that, but women getting hurt like that somehow seems. . . wrong. Is that really a wrong opinion to have?
No, it is not a wrong opinion at all.
And I will even take that one further. Forget the desire of men to protect women. Let’s just talk about simple science. Women are special in that they are the only ones who can give birth to our next generation. Losing 100 men in war is nothing compared to losing 100 women in war. That loss of 100 women means there are 100 less available to continue the next generation.
A society should treat its women special, because they are special. But our society has already proven that it does not consider life sacred and special by its acceptance and promotion of the mass murder of babies through the evil of abortion. So it should come as no surprise that no one even thinks to believe women should be kept out of the military — or at least kept out of deployment and combat — due to them being sacred life givers.
(Of course, considering it seems that half our female population now believes in the mass murder of babies through abortion as some sort of “right”, I guess we can stop considering women as special life givers, as they now seem quite happy with taking life.)
That’s the takeaway from President Putt-Putt’s recent speech on his desire for Amnesty: Obama: “That fence is now basically complete; They’ll never be satisfied.”
Bryan Preston sums it up nicely (emphasis added):
As predicted, the president spoke in El Paso, Texas today, where he conflated legal and illegal immigration, pushed for the DREAM Act, and showed his longstanding contempt for the rule of law as regards our immigration system. President Obama knows the DREAM Act is dead in the water, as is the overall push for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is code for amnesty. Everyone knows all this, and everyone knows the policy is going to go nowhere for the remainder of Obama’s term.
He is pushing this issue now purely for politics. He is playing Hispanic voters for suckers while the national economy melts down, the way Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned. He has played them for suckers throughout his presidency.
Another astute observation from Mr. Preston:
Perhaps the worst line in the president’s speech came when, in pushing for the DREAM Act, called for the US to “stop punishing children for the sins of their parents.” He is referring to parents who travel to the US illegally, bringing their children with them. But for the most pro-abortion president in American history to utter that line, and not realize how it boomerangs back on his own stance favoring partial birth abortion, is repugnant. This president seems to have little moral sense about him.
Yes indeed. And if I remember correctly, the babies themselves are “punishments.”
So, apparently Obama believes it is a-okay to punish children with death for the sins of their parents when it comes to abortion, but sending kids off to Mexico with their parents for the sins of their parents is beyond the pale.
What an evil prick.
Via the Maha Rushie:
If your spouse has three different versions of a night out with the girls, she’s hiding something, right? No question about it, right? If your spouse has three different versions of a night out with the boys, he’s hiding something. Probably. Either that or he or she was so drunk they can’t remember and they have to make up different stories, but probably they’re hiding something.
Now, based on what everybody heard on this increasingly popular, growing-by-leaps-and-bounds radio program yesterday the reason the regime’s story keeps changing is they don’t want to say Obama ordered an assassination. Well, Holder goes out there and claims it was self-defense; they’re twisting themselves here in lot of different ways. But the fact is as we pointed out yesterday there was no way they were gonna take Bin Laden alive because that would have put them in an impossible political position. They’re not gonna subject Bin Laden to their own sissified policies.
They’re not gonna send him over here, not gonna give him an ACLU lawyer and not gonna promise him a trial, they’re not gonna do that to themselves. They would not do that. So apparently Obama was willing to pass up a possible treasure trove of information if Osama was taken alive. The political situation had to be certain here. We found Bin Laden. He was available for a kill shot any number of ways. He was defenseless. We caught him totally by surprise. It was important to say that Osama’s death was the result of some contorted version of self-defense. I mean, they tried out wearing a suicide vest under the pajamas!
They gave up on that and said, “Oh, there was an AK-47 within arm’s reach.” (chuckles) Now, we’ve been told that Bin Laden had been there for quite some time. The SEALs were there to kill him. The Reuters story, I believe. It was a kill mission. Like we care. But Obama cares, his base cares, he can’t admit it. So here’s where we are. Now, follow me on this. He ordered an assassination, and he can’t say it. He put us on a path to socialized medicine, and he can’t say it. The stimulus bill was a slush fund for public sector unions. He can’t say it. EPA regulations are back door cap and tax. He can’t say it.
He’s a card-carrying member of the radical left. He can’t say it. He has a leftist-inspired prejudice against the private sector. He can’t say it. Bill Ayers was his good friend. He can’t say it. He listened to every word in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. He can’t say it. And he has a real problem with Israel, but he can’t say it. That is why Obama has so many lame, phony, nonsensical versions of answers to simple questions: Because he can’t say what’s really going on. He has to hide who he is and what he’s doing. That’s all that needs to be said.
He has to hide who he is and what he’s doing — and he is “the most transparent president ever.” He has to hide who he is and what he’s doing, and that truth — that undeniable truth — is on display every day. How many versions are we on now in the aftermath here of what happened?