#GOPDebate Feedback: Women In Combat Is A Progressive Position

Posted on | February 7, 2016 | 105 Comments

by Smitty

The GOP debate in New Hampshire was relatively well done, once everyone got onto the stage. The one curve ball is the topic of this blog post. Sorry, Governor Christie, there is no “natural right” to serve in the military, and the overall swellness of any individual aspiration to serve is not a basis for policy or military strategy.

The proper basis for any actual veteran (that is, non-careerist, brown-lipstick-wearing senior brass tools in the Pentagon) is this: combat power of the military unit.

Had we shred #1 of intellectual honesty, we’d do a cost/benefit analysis of our decades of experience with co-ed units, and locate the sweet spot of “co-edfication” and combat effectiveness, and be willing to admit that we may very well have sacrificed the ability to win a war on the altar of Political Correctness.

Which, by the way, is not to take anything away from any of the really excellent ladies with whom I (genuinely) enjoyed serving. They rock. The point is simply that their overall rockingness is not the proper question, and, sadly, nothing short of abject ruin will trigger an honest appraisal.

War is The Evil That Men Do. I shall go to my grave unpersuaded that War Is More Awesome When Women Are Part Of The Team.

Category: Chris Christie, Republicans

Comments

105 Responses to “#GOPDebate Feedback: Women In Combat Is A Progressive Position”

DeadMessenger
February 8th, 2016 @ 3:56 am

I’d rather let the better qualifed men charge machine gun nests, while I charge the farmer’s market at daybreak so I can score the best fruits and vegetables, which I’m better qualified to do.
Neal Bracken
February 8th, 2016 @ 6:44 am

Joe Joe. So it’s okay to make men disposable?
trangbang68
February 8th, 2016 @ 8:12 am

In my humble grunt experience, I don’t see the wisdom in this. I once saw a man blow his foot off with an antipersonnel mine. While he was being tended to, he dropped his other foot and hit another one and had the same result as well as injuring those tending to his wounds. Only one instance in many of dirt, mayhem, sickness, stress and madness which I don’t think many women are constitutionally capable of dealing with.
Neal Bracken
February 8th, 2016 @ 9:27 am

trangbang68. But you believe that men are constitutionally capable of dealing with? Explain, please.
trangbang68
February 8th, 2016 @ 10:32 am

No one is really capable of dealing with it hence the many instances of PTSD, etc. Men by nature, not emotionally driven, are more capable of dealing with it.
I understand we live in a Pajama Boy age, but being warriors is still in our genes.
Neal Bracken
February 8th, 2016 @ 11:33 am

trangbang68. There is no evidence that men are warriors genetically speaking. On what are you basing your conclusion?
Quartermaster
February 8th, 2016 @ 11:45 am

Really? I guess you don’t know much about the biological bases of masculinity then. perhaps you should go away and do some research then come back.
It would also be helpful if you studied sources other than the nonsense the loony publishes.
Quartermaster
February 8th, 2016 @ 11:46 am

There prolly out to be a progression of medals for storming the market. I’d just as soon stay away from those place, particularly Walmart on Black Friday.
Quartermaster
February 8th, 2016 @ 11:48 am

Remember the scene in Star Trek 5 with Uhura doing “that dance.?” It might have application in certain applications in combat.
Quartermaster
February 8th, 2016 @ 11:53 am

It’s caused a real stink. Susan Katz Keating (former WAC) reported the statements of the cadre and has had to hunker down because of the firestorm it created. While the storm has died down some, she hasn’t made a post to her blog since late October. Certain people in DOD are after her hide, if they can collect it. She has temporarily moved out of state while things die down.
Others, such as Fred Reed, have written on the issue. Fred also was on the staff of Washington Times and Soldier of Fortune Mag at the same time she was on both. DOD has lied through there teeth on this.
Quartermaster
February 8th, 2016 @ 11:55 am

Many think Israel is a conservative country. It isn’t, and is just as much prey for the PC left as any other country. I think the women’s auxiliaries worked well and should be brought back. The PC left simply needs to be told to STFU and then go do what we know is right.
trangbang68
February 8th, 2016 @ 11:59 am

maybe genes is too loose a term, but I’m looking at history. Men fight wars and most men (if properly trained and equipped) acquit themselves well.
Quartermaster
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:03 pm

There is a big difference between being disposable and expendable. To be disposable means you are of little worth. Think toilet paper or Kleenex.
Expendable means you have a mission which you may not come back from, but still must be accomplished. The men you send on that are expendable because they may be expended in accomplishing the mission. So called “suicide missions” do exist, alas, and they will not be avoided completely.
By and large, women are not able to carry out the mission critical function of the military. In every case, standards have been dropped to let them in. The Navy dropped them too far, and Kara Hultgren resulted.
The rest of the idiocy results from the sexual tensions that arise when units are integrated. Not only does it cost a lot more to make the provisions for women, but the decline in both unit readiness and cohesion are affected seriously. The plaint of “let in everyone who is able” is simply a smoke screen. Women have been shown to be inferior in the military, repeatedly, and the only reason to put them there is to placate a small coterie of feministas who want to be in the military and couldn’t care less what it does to the military.
Quartermaster
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:13 pm

The articles didn’t go into the details. They were too horrific and PTB had no intention of allowing the truth to come out.
Quartermaster
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:16 pm

The standards have been dropped and what is required of combat troops has not changed. The old standards should be reinstated. However, they won’t be because they are not PC.
Whether you are talking about an infantry unit, or the crew of a ship, people are fungible and must be moved around at will when needed. Placing women in units introduces a stress that no commander should have to face. Command is not the same as people management.
Quartermaster
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:18 pm

Disposable is a poor word choice. The military does not make men disposable, although they could be expendable. The two are not the same. Placing women in combat slots, however, does make them expendable as most the work they are simply incapable of. Getting them killed is the only reason to put them there, and losing a war may get tossed in as a bonus.
Quartermaster
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:20 pm

I think we are there now. The other critical mass, however, that must be reached is the numbers of people who will acquiesce. We’re close to that now.
Dana
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:29 pm

Ilion wrote:

Oddly, I don’t recall any women ever demanding to be allowed to be coal miners (or plumbers or steel workers). So, in this regard, what’s different about coal mining (and plumbing) vs copping and soldiering? Social status … and the opportunity to order others around.

http://www.etsu.edu/news/2013/07_July/pictures/Coal_Women001_NewsItemSize.jpg

There aren’t a lot of them, but there are female coal miners.

http://www.wvculture.org/history/thisdayinwvhistory/0622.jpg
NeoWayland
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:34 pm

Progress never comes from satisfaction.

And I am not talking about progressives.

We adapt, we change, we rise to meet the challenges. Life is a journey, not a destination.
NeoWayland
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:39 pm

*nods* Sort of like how the networks banned the 9-11 footage for years, especially right around the 2004 election.

“The narrative must survive.”
NeoWayland
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:46 pm

I am not surprised.

My connections to the military have always been familial. The last of my generation retired a while back after his 20 years. The new generation hasn’t chosen to serve.

Because I don’t have any direct experience, I don’t pay as close attention as I could.

The general feeling that I’ve gotten is that things took a few strange turns with Bush the Elder and have just gotten weirder since.
NeoWayland
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:52 pm

Well, in truth I have to agree with you.

In my Corporate Clone days, one of my hats was a VP in HR. It gets worse, I was the one writing the training manuals.

But as a male, I can’t make those criticisms without sounding sexist these days. I have to pick and choose my battles. The government sanctioned RadFems are a big enough target.
Daniel Freeman
February 8th, 2016 @ 12:55 pm

That reminds me of the Chinese tech cheerleaders. Wait, isn’t the USO basically the military version of that?
Joe Joe
February 8th, 2016 @ 3:15 pm

Nature makes men more disposable. In the wild, male animals fight for the right to mate, killing each other off so that the best genes survive. It is biologically the business of males to fight. Look at any male of the species–deer, beetles–and you will see built in fighting apparati. We are naturally stronger and much more aggressive. Testosterone is nature’s fight chemical.

In the same way, it is nature that makes females more vulnerable: smaller in stature, much less physical strength in the upper body, and, of course, open to fertilization and/or impregnation, either voluntarily or by force. It is nature that chooses for the female mammal to carry the child in her body (making her slower and even more vulnerable to attack) and to feed that child from her body, making the child’s welfare her life’s work.

Nature does not care at all about individual males and females. If it were up to nature alone, half of all human males would be dead before reproduction and almost all females would be impregnated within a year or two of the onset of puberty (12 or 13). And, of course, humans would mostly die before hitting what we now call middle age, invaded by various pathogens and beset with injuries. Nature doesn’t care about the adult of the species–it only cares that the adults reproduce and that the offspring survive to adulthood.

It is culture that cuts the blunt ends off of nature by setting up value systems that reward humans for struggling against the strict plan of nature. Males are rewarded for channeling their aggression into culturally acceptable rituals (like sports) and women are rewarded for saving their sexuality and pregnancies for a culturally valued state (like marriage). By struggling against the amoral forces of nature, humans create morality and, in so doing, buy more time and protection for themselves and their offspring.

Unfortunately, planet earth is not a safe place. Human males need to retain their aggressive natures for the times when culture breaks down. Warfare is the natural result of a hostile planet where resources are not endless and may be fought over. Warfare is necessary to defend one’s own against the incursions of other aggressors. And warfare requires the toughest and the strongest to win. Women do not have these qualifications.

What appears to you to be culture deciding that men are expendable is actually nature making that decision. Culture actually gives men value, especially beta males who might ordinarily be killed off. The institution of monogamous marriage also gives men value, allowing males who might otherwise be killed off by nature to supply their DNA to the future generation. It is culture that makes men valuable.

It is nature that causes men to fight again and again, and it is nature that makes them expendable in this fighting.
DeadMessenger
February 8th, 2016 @ 4:12 pm

VP in HR? Then you knew a lot of professional meeting attenders, probably a majority of whom were women.

I hate meetings, for that reason.
NeoWayland
February 8th, 2016 @ 6:12 pm

I was a very junior VP on a technicality, and didn’t know it because they sent the notice to my desk at corporate headquarters which I didn’t know I had until they told me it had too much stuff piled on it.

I didn’t have time for meetings, I was too busy traveling for training sessions.

And that’s how a local department head found out he had been in charge of training programs for five months. It couldn’t happen today, but that company didn’t have email in the early 90’s.
Finrod Felagund
February 8th, 2016 @ 9:07 pm

While your initial read wasn’t my idea, I strongly endorse it.
DeadMessenger
February 8th, 2016 @ 11:55 pm

Sounds pretty typical of corporate life to me.
Neal Bracken
February 9th, 2016 @ 6:58 am

NeoWayland. You pointed out that you never served in the military. It shows. Today’s military is concentrated on working smart not hard. You sound like one of the cold warriors from World War II. Out of touch, definitely.
Bob Belvedere
February 9th, 2016 @ 2:40 pm

Damn well put, Squid.
Neal Bracken
February 9th, 2016 @ 2:49 pm

Joe Joe. What has distinguished our species from the other animals is our capacity for rational thought. Perhaps you as a male might think of yourself as being more disposable but I do not. Perhaps you as a male might think of yourself as a warrior but I do not. You do an excellent job of intellectualizing but not providing any practical application for any kind of modern society. I might add that it is the female lions who are the prime hunters that kills her prey.
Neal Bracken
February 9th, 2016 @ 3:03 pm

Quartermaster. You state that getting the (women) killed is the only reason to put them there. That is beyond ridiculous! Donald Trump could do better than that. So the service academies which admitted women in 1976 were all wrong. Right? I have yet to read or hear any news about the service academies wanting to get rid of their female cadets. Have you? Nor have I read or heard any news about any of the armed services wanting to get rid of the female soldiers, sailors and air personnel. Have you? Why do you think that is?
Joe Joe
February 9th, 2016 @ 3:47 pm

If rational thought it so important, why did you argue irrationally?

Killing food is not the same as fighting your own species to the death for the right to reproduce. The average house cat, regardless of gender, will go after food sources–mice, insects, birds. But it is the males that will go after each other in fights that leave torn ears and bleeding fur. In human history, women have speared fish for food or caught small animals. And, until factory farming, It was the human female who twisted the neck of the live chicken and then plucked its feathers before cooking it. However, it was not these food-hunting, food-killing females who got into knock-down, drag-out bar fights or fought duels over honor. Nature has designed males to be more violent towards each other and to be stronger overall. Both genders, however, are designed to look for and kill food sources.

Secondly, don’t mistake nature’s design for some personal opinion of my own. Nature does as it does. Some biology courses might help you here. Nature doesn’t care about individuals–at all–only about the process of continual reproduction and the survival of offspring to reproduce again. As long as an organism, male or female, has a place in reproduction, it is valuable. Once that organism’s reproductive potential ends, it is expendable. The old become weak, menopausal or impotent, and nature is done with them.

A young female’s place in reproduction is almost assured, barring some severe mental or physical problem. A young male’s place in reproduction, up until recent human history, was dictated by fighting for the right to reproduce. (We still fight symbolically: getting more money, more status, stronger bodies, etc. This “fight” is a diversion of nature’s own programming into less lethal arenas.)

Young men, especially beta males, are more expendable by nature’s own design. However, everyone who gets beyond viable reproduction ceases to be of use to nature (old age). This is how nature works. It’s not just my personal opinion.
NeoWayland
February 9th, 2016 @ 4:35 pm

“Working smart not hard” comes from the corporate universe, and it’s only marginally effective there.

Show me women who can fill the physical and mental requirements without any allowances for their gender and I will respect them.

If what Quartermaster has pointed out is true (and I have little reason to doubt him in this case), the unit’s overall strength is being used to prop up someone’s political agenda. That’s not “smart,” that’s stupid. And it means everyone involved has to work harder.
NeoWayland
February 9th, 2016 @ 4:36 pm

Yep. I shouldn’t complain too much about that job. It bought me a house, even if I didn’t spend much time there for years.
Quartermaster
February 9th, 2016 @ 8:08 pm

I’ve been watching the direction of this for better than 30 years. I won’t go into all the progressive loonies want women in combat units, but one of the reasons stated over the years has been, quite literally, to decrease unit efficiency to the point that casualties rise and we will be forced to withdraw from combat early on. The result of such is that women will end up being among the casualties and if we start bringing women home in body bags, out of proportion to their numbers, the country will be savaged spiritually, and we will quit.

So, if you are of the persuasion that does not mean that women are being placed in those slots to get them killed, then I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska I’m sure you’re a good fit for.
Neal Bracken
February 10th, 2016 @ 6:32 am

Quartermaster. So you believe that we (intentionally) place women in combat units to decrease unit efficiency to the point that casualties rise and we will be forced to withdraw from combat early on? That would be the military shooting itself in the foot. If you think I could ever swallow that gobbledygook then you can keep that oceanfront property in Nebraska. I have rarely ever heard such a ridiculous notion.
Neal Bracken
February 10th, 2016 @ 7:00 am

Joe Joe. Here is a fly for your ointment. Women have two of the same sex chromosomes, XX, where men have two dissimilar chromosomes, XY. The Y chromosome is considered to be a truncated X chromosome. That would make women genetically superior to men. Right? Theoretically, if women were able to reproduce without the help of men we guys would be expendable. The flaw here is whether the sperm and egg cell from women would be sufficient to provide a healthy infant. This all makes for a very interesting discussion but I fail to see how this would apply to a modern society. You are not the first nor I am sure the last to posit the survival of the fittest. The problem occurs when you are not one of the fittest. Are you willing to die to preserve your society? I suspect not.
Neal Bracken
February 10th, 2016 @ 7:05 am

Dana, I don;t know where you live but where I live near a number of metropolitan cities there are women who want to be plumbers and steel workers. They will fight to have apprenticeships open up to include them. The pay even for apprentices is damn good.
Ilion
February 10th, 2016 @ 7:58 am

I didn’t say there weren’t any women at all in dirty-and-dangerous low-status jobs; I said that women (women in general, and feminists in particular) aren’t howling about the “unfairness” of the low participation of women in those fields.
Ilion
February 10th, 2016 @ 8:12 am

Of course. We all share the blame for the on-going worship and expansion of degeneracy — but, even if one should happen to be totally innocent. one will still pay the price: it is, after all, the nature of sin to try to push of its own consequences to the innocent.
Ilion
February 10th, 2016 @ 8:13 am

Properly, men aren’t disposable; they’re expendable.
.
I was *very* careful, and *very* clear, in the words I used.
Neal Bracken
February 10th, 2016 @ 10:05 am

Illion. Ah but the feminists (of which I include myself) are and have been howling about the unfairness of the low participation in said jobs. I might add that being a plumber or steel worker are hardly low status jobs.
Joe Joe
February 10th, 2016 @ 11:57 am

Your speculation is not any kind of counterargument to the thesis put forward.

If the Y chromosome is indeed a truncated X, that would have absolutely no bearing on “genetic superiority” of one gender over another. Superiority in the genetic sense is always connected to the expression of that gene in a particular environment, not in how the gene looks under a microscope. But to play your particular game for a moment, one could argue exactly the opposite: that having two X chromosomes seems to suppress certain traits–like upper arm strength, height, limb length, general muscle mass, speed, etc.–and that the extra X is actually a liability. The Y (or truncated X) would then fall under the category of “less is more”, with the Y chromosome either enhancing the X in ways that another X does not, or in not suppressing as many traits of the original X as the additional X does. But, both this argument and the one in your post are not scientific ones–they are merely playing.

Now to your second point: positing a human female who could reproduce without a male (asexually) in nature. The phrase “in nature” is important, because there is a lot of experimentation going on right now to enable homosexual couples to have genetically related children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3323846/Sperm-cells-created-from-female-embryo.html

It is unclear what will happen to humanity if and when these procedures become commonplace. However, since they are still based, no matter how artificially, on the sexual model of reproduction (DNA mixing) and since the chromosomes themselves are still X and Y, this would seem to be more of a social issue than a biological one. However, we shall see.

In nature, women do not reproduce asexually. There are, however, so-called “parthenogenetic species”, like a certain southwestern lizard. These species are all female and start out with more chromosomes than sexually reproducing female lizards. They then combine these chromosomes for genetic diversity:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/asexual-lizards/

In general, these species are isolated and thrive in limited areas with a predictable environment. All of their offspring are female. And while existing in a number of species, parthenogenic reproduction is neither common nor dominant. It seems to be an unusual response to highly specialized conditions.

Now, as to your theoretical question: if women could biologically–in nature (not the lab)–reproduce without men, then, yes, there would be no need for men in the reproduction process. One assumes that the male of the species would disappear entirely, since parthenogenic species reproduce only females.

However, such reproduction would leave the human species less flexible in terms of environment and probably fewer in numbers as a result. This is not the best alternative for the human species, although it might mean that nature had some other species up and coming to dominate the animal kingdom. That species would sexually reproduce, if the past is any model for the present.

Now, as to your last–illogical–paragraph:

(1) I am not the first to posit survival of the fittest. That would be Charles Darwin. 🙂

(2)Yes, if you are not one of the fittest to a particular environment, that can be a problem. Nature does not favor you for survival.

(3) Am I willing to die to preserve my society? Not sure how this relates to anything that came before–logic is not your strong suit, my friend; nor is organization. However, yes, I am willing to die to preserve my society. Are you?
Quartermaster
February 10th, 2016 @ 3:39 pm

” I have rarely ever heard such a ridiculous notion.”

Really? Obviously, you haven’t read your own posts. In this thread you’ve shown you are both uninformed and ridiculous. I know what I’m talking about, and leftists have indeed stated that getting women killed so we would withdraw from combat is one of their goals. You need to discuss it with those idiots instead of pointing to those who simply point out what the left has said.

You’re simply being a useful idiot.
Neal Bracken
February 11th, 2016 @ 7:10 am

Quartermaster. Where have you read this notion about leftists (?) getting women killed so we would withdraw from combat?
Neal Bracken
February 11th, 2016 @ 7:20 am

Valerie Stewart. Well said.
Neal Bracken
February 11th, 2016 @ 7:24 am

NeoWayland. Check out the various jobs in the Navy and Air Force. Very little reliance on “brute” strength which you seem to accuse women of not having.
NeoWayland
February 11th, 2016 @ 8:53 am

On this thread I specifically mentioned and implied combat.

That’s also in the title of the thread, just in case you hadn’t noticed.

As I said, “All other things being equal, strength and weight are going to win out.”

These are overwhelming advantages, as history has pointed out again and again.
Quartermaster
February 11th, 2016 @ 10:10 am

Why don’t you get out of your mother’s basement and keep up with stuff. That’s been around long before the internet.