Friday, February 04, 2011

Why women don't belong in combat

Kevin Whiteman:

Some committee that could best be described as the uglier version of a bureaucratic abortion gone wrong, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, has drafted a proposal calling for the Fairer Sex to serve in combat roles Service-wide.

Isn't that just swell? These soft-headed maroons understand as much about the deprivations of military life as they do about... well, the deprivations of military life.

I'm not going to get into the specifics of how women simply aren't designed to carry heavy weight high on their backs for long periods of time (80 lbs. plus for 20 miles plus). I won't bring up that gals don't have the upper body strength to hump 155 Mike Mike rounds all day, etc. And I certainly won't bring up the fact that when it comes to killing very, very bad people, testosterone plays a rather large role in the equation.

Oh, and I promise not to bring up that if your squad is setting up an ambush and one of your young ladies is experiencing that time of the month (AKA: Feelin’ Menstru-riffic; is currently reading The Hunt for Red October; dealing with Bitchy Witchy Week; has called her own Code Red on herself; Harvesting Cotton at Crotch Canyon; so on and so forth), every wild dog in a 20 mile radius is going to be beating feet straight to your site.

So much for an effective ambush.

The people who have the right to be in the military are the people who can win a war for us.

Sorry ladies, but no, you're not going to win a war for us. When the Jihadi nutcases get their hands on you, you're done. Women are simply not as strong as men. Case closed. Maybe there's the odd exception of a gorilla of a woman who might be able to hold her own. That's like one in a thousand at best. There's still the issue of sexual tension. Even if you are a gorilla of a woman, in you're the only female in a 50 mile radius, you will look mighty tempting to the guys in your platoon.