Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The idiocy and hypocrisy of females suing to get into Combat Arms.

Women should not be in Combat Arms.


There.  I said it.

I spent 14 years in the Army.  Nine years and change enlisted in Combat Arms (Recon Scout, Infantry Weapons Instructor (Crew served, primarily: M-60 machine guns, Ma Deuce, LAWS, TOW missiles))  Weapons committee chief, JAG Intern while in SMP.

Upon my commissioning, I was re-classed into Adjutant General due to hearing loss.  I worked in special enlisted management, qualitative management, community postal operations, Force Modernization with the 11th Cav, and AG operations with the 8th Infantry.

I served with, trained and commanded both men and women.  I had to deal with reduced mission capability because of women and their issues. And in the military, mission capability is SUPPOSED to be Job One.

Women have never been equal in the military.  They have always had special consideration for quarters, "facilities," and a double standard in physical fitness.

Further, women have never been drafted in the history of this country, nor are they required to register for the draft as all men are upon their 18th birthday.

Oddly, to the best of my knowledge, no woman has ever sued over any of that.

Why do you suppose that is?

And yet, bimbos are suing to get combat arms status in the US Military... while ignoring the other built-in discriminations that favor them.

Why do you suppose that is?

The military has the right to discriminate, and they do... frequently... every day, in fact.

That is why homosexuality was illegal in the military.  And that's also why if you weigh too much or too little, are too short or too tall, are missing a limb, blind, deaf, dumb, diabetic, HIV positive, too stupid, too much acne, too much of a criminal record, feet too big or any number of other reasons that disqualify one from even serving in the military at all, then you can't get in.

That's why we lose the right to free speech, free expression and the right to quit, for example.

And here's the deal: every one of those women, who have enjoyed the affirmative action of their gender by benefiting from the institutional double standard in their favor,  have failed to express any concern about the discrimination that favors THEM.

They ain't suing over the roughly 20% lower PT standard.  They're not suing over their advantages of non-deployability when they choose to become pregnant, a choice that screws someone else because of THEIR choice.

None of them have sued over the requirement that men and men only have to register for the draft.

No... they only want to risk lives with their lowered-standard, drama-filled presence in combat on the ground.

I, for one, don't give  a rat's ass that they have a death wish.  Frankly, a bullet don't give a damn about "female problems." Neither does shrapnel. 

The problem is, that much like the deaths and blood yet to be spilled because of the idiocy of getting rid of DADT, giving people assignments only because of their plumbing will also lead to unnecessary deaths and injury and wounds.

I really don't give a damn about those women delusional enough to believe they can successfully operate in the ground combat environment.

MY concern is for those around them who will also suffer because of this PC bullshit.

It's bad enough to be led by the clueless morons currently calling the shots.

But add women who are assigned ONLY because they have boobs and a vagina?

That's a recipe for disaster.


Anonymous said...

Thank you. And yes, I'm a woman. Coulnt agree more.

Jack said...

Amongst the equipment issued to female "warriors" should be Iron breast-plates and fake, strap-on penises, the "theory" being women bearing those items will then feel "equal" to the job and will scare the hell out of any opponent on the battlefield.Imagine a screaming herd of Mad Cows dressed in these implements and waving strap-on penises charging an enemy position.What a "visual"!

Anonymous said...

Jack - Would you lead the culture club of that into battle? You seem to have such a keen interest! ;-P

Hell, I would send in some of our worst jail cell hellions with a proposal and let them loose. What is worse than some of our worst? :) -- Jeremy

Jack said...

don't ask, don't tell, Jeremy. Wave those aluminum strap-ons!

Anonymous said...

Hey Jack - I think you might get your reconn party ready for deployment to North Korea and permanent residency. I hear they need a new general of arms over here! I also here that Kim is getting ready to blast another missile over Japan and the dear leader just cleared out his fathers old cabinet of sleepy-ness people.
Maybe drag all of the women's prisoners from washington, oregon and idaho with you? I hear they would probably like to help you!

But let me get to the point of what Kelly has been trying to say and not off topic on some sexual parade of stars and back forth frothing.

What I believe someone should be able to do is follow order and do what they are told to do, follow the basics of orders, no matter who the gender is.

Though I disagree with the blog owner, I do agree if one soldier has to work harder than another, how about up the standards? And apply it equally to everyone, no matter the gender.

But Kelly makes a GREAT point. Not every mission is a great fit for one military resource or another! You not send a reconn patrol to cook supper on a Naval ship? You would send a cyber specialist of military rank to fly bombers over enemy territory?

In the military, every situation is different! And what was SAID in his piece was correct. There is damn SURE discrimination in the military, which should be based on MERIT and NEED to accomplish a mission with the proper skill sets.

Where I might disagree with people here is based on gender. And if a woman has to do the same high achieving skills as a man, then they achieve it... No more, no less.

And if some woman is dumb enough to want to go into battle areas and get their heads or bodies blown up, guess what? They face the same risks, no matter the gender... -- Jeremy