Are you kidding me? All combat positions now open to women?
Just when I think social policy can’t get any more divorced from reality, it spins farther out into Social Justice Warrior land.
Social Justice Warrior land is a virtual reality world where the laws of physics and biology don’t exist. (They really do exist, but because logic and common sense *really* don’t exist in this world, no one notices.) The other thing that doesn’t exist in SJW land is any connection between data and decisions.
The Marines, who took the idea of females in combat extremely seriously, studied the effectiveness of mixed male-female units compared to all-male units over a nine-month period. It won’t come as a shock to anyone still in possession of logic and common sense that the mixed units weren’t as effective. To put it mildly.
Out of the 134 categories evaluated, all-male units performed better—not just a little but significantly better—in 93 of them. Women were injured more often than their male counterparts who, by divine design, possess sturdier bones and ligaments. Mixed units were slower at completing tactical movements, especially with heavy machine guns and mortars that are “crew served,” meaning they require a crew to function due to their high operational complexity. All-male infantry squads had better accuracy than mixed squads “for every individual weapons system.” The top 25th percentile of women performed only as well or not even as well as the bottom 25th percentile of men.
Under increasing pressure to fully integrate women, the Pentagon declined to make the connection between this data and more dead Americans.
What’s more important than preventing American deaths? Women getting what they want. Lance Cpl. Brittany Dunklee, one of seven women who completed training on tanks and armored vehicles at Camp LeJeune in North Carolina, wants to participate in combat operations: “If I can physically do it, why can’t I?” According to the Pentagon, there’s no reason she can’t.
Her fellow soldiers might be able to come up with a few.
Let’s assume she was in the top 25th percentile of women and performed as well as the weakest man during training. If we ignore women’s greater susceptibility to being injured and the concomitant weakening of a unit’s morale and cohesion, and if Lance Cpl. Dunklee is not injured, she may indeed perform physically as well as her male counterpart. Unfortunately combat is not a purely physical endeavor.
Combat effectiveness is as much about the relationships between soldiers as it is about endurance and stamina. (Here is where logic and common sense would come in so handy.) I defy anyone with a straight face to tell me that male-female dynamics are no different than male-male ones. If you’ve seen season one of “The Walking Dead,” you know that male-female-male dynamics are the most powerful of all.
If anyone thinks men and women living intimately—urinating, defecating, showering, and sleeping next to each other—will abstain from all sex and jealousy, you’ve never taught a high school English class.
Radical feminists are already ticked that men would open doors or pull out chairs, so they definitely don’t want men acting protective toward them in combat. The only fly in the ointment is that men’s protective instincts toward women come from the same fierce male nature that annihilates the enemy in combat. If we ask men to stopper one, the other inevitably weakens as well.
More dead Americans.
Radical feminists are a one-trick pony; all they know how to do is push against men. How long will they tolerate combat readiness standards that exclude the vast majority of women? Radical feminists will never stand for infantry units that are 4 percent female. Official standards may not change, but military school instructors will be under enormous pressure to pass more women.
More dead Americans.
With great fanfare, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that the change was recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Strange, then, that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Gen, Joseph Dunford, declined to attend the press conference but instead issued his own statement. His role, he said, was to provide “candid best military advice” to Secretary Carter and then ensure that “[Carter’s] decision is properly implemented.”
Who wants to bet that Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford will be “voluntarily retired” within a year?
I find it interesting that men who never had to serve in combat with women are telling other men to get with the program. Jon Soltz, an Army vet who served two tours in Iraq, said, “There are women who can meet these standards, and they have a right to compete.” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, proclaimed, “It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations.”
The Marines, who are the only ones to have even simulated combat with mixed male-female units, fought for exemptions in certain jobs like machine gunner. They argued, based on nine months of evaluation, that women lacked the ability to fight and survive in combat.
“There will be no exceptions,” announced Secretary Carter in his zeal to turn military service into diversity training.
The only fly in the ointment is that “the purpose of the Marines is not to be an idealistic utopia: The purpose of the Marines is to kill the enemy.”
Donna Carol Voss is an author, blogger, speaker, and mom. A Berkeley grad, a former atheist then pagan, she is now a Mormon on purpose and an original thinker on 21st century living, especially 21st century women. Her memoir, “One of Everything,” traces the path through one of everything she took to get here. www.donnacarolvoss.com
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.