Correctamundo! It won't take long at all, for the bastards and bitches we have in Congress and in the Armed forces, to begin lowering standards and "tweeking" the system. Pregnant soldiers, fat soldiers, crying soldiers, and gaming the system soldiers, all something that detracts from readiness and morale, are already part and parcel of what we have now. Do that to Infantry units, and you'll have the equivalent of the Dutch Army. A bunch of has beens and never weres' that run at the first sign of trouble. Social engineering has usually stupid results. In the Infantry, it'll be catastrophic.
The Israelis are outnumbered by about 20 to 1 and they won't put women into combat roles unless it's down to the bitter end. Because they already learned that lesson.
A lot of Vets don't talk about it, because most folks won't believe them. So, we just keep our mouths shut about it and only talk about it to others who were there, too.
Simply put, this is a matter of simple biological imperatives, which transcend accidents of particular biology.
Both men and women are genetically programmed to prioritize the survival of women over the survival of men. In combat, this has a catastrophic effect on unit cohesion and effectiveness as the primal instinct of both sexes is to find a way to get the women out of danger, sacrificing the lives of as many men as necessary. Not to accomplish the mission for which they have been deployed, but to allow the women to escape from the very situation they have volunteered to enter.
The group splits into three parts, the women seeking to escape, the men wanting to help cover the women's escape (at the cost of carrying out their assigned mission), and whoever overcomes an instinct more powerful than fear of their own deaths to stay focused on actually doing what they all supposedly came there to do.
Men are genetically primed to risk violent death to gain social approval (which, for men, is mostly valuable as a way to impress women). Women prefer their risk of death in much less overt and messy forms, and they like to have a good deal less of it (as all mortality statistics from all nations and ages abundantly attest). This is only cowardice when women refuse to take on the comparable and complementary burden of devoting their lives to their society by bearing and nurturing children and teaching them traditional values, indispensable work for which a very high percentage of the female population is needed if any society is to prosper. To rant about the unfairness of women not being in combat roles is of a piece with ranting about the unfairness of men not getting pregnant, and as reflective of a serious disconnect with the fundamental realities of life.
In theory, if we devoted as much effort to allowing men to bear children as is being devoted to trying to put women in combat roles, a similar percentage of men might actually be able to pull it off (especially if we include redefining pregnancy so that men can qualify). Does anyone think that's a good idea?
4 comments:
Correctamundo! It won't take long at all, for the bastards and bitches we have in Congress and in the Armed forces, to begin lowering standards and "tweeking" the system. Pregnant soldiers, fat soldiers, crying soldiers, and gaming the system soldiers, all something that detracts from readiness and morale, are already part and parcel of what we have now. Do that to Infantry units, and you'll have the equivalent of the Dutch Army. A bunch of has beens and never weres' that run at the first sign of trouble. Social engineering has usually stupid results. In the Infantry, it'll be catastrophic.
The Israelis are outnumbered by about 20 to 1 and they won't put women into combat roles unless it's down to the bitter end. Because they already learned that lesson.
A lot of Vets don't talk about it, because most folks won't believe them. So, we just keep our mouths shut about it and only talk about it to others who were there, too.
Simply put, this is a matter of simple biological imperatives, which transcend accidents of particular biology.
Both men and women are genetically programmed to prioritize the survival of women over the survival of men. In combat, this has a catastrophic effect on unit cohesion and effectiveness as the primal instinct of both sexes is to find a way to get the women out of danger, sacrificing the lives of as many men as necessary. Not to accomplish the mission for which they have been deployed, but to allow the women to escape from the very situation they have volunteered to enter.
The group splits into three parts, the women seeking to escape, the men wanting to help cover the women's escape (at the cost of carrying out their assigned mission), and whoever overcomes an instinct more powerful than fear of their own deaths to stay focused on actually doing what they all supposedly came there to do.
Men are genetically primed to risk violent death to gain social approval (which, for men, is mostly valuable as a way to impress women). Women prefer their risk of death in much less overt and messy forms, and they like to have a good deal less of it (as all mortality statistics from all nations and ages abundantly attest). This is only cowardice when women refuse to take on the comparable and complementary burden of devoting their lives to their society by bearing and nurturing children and teaching them traditional values, indispensable work for which a very high percentage of the female population is needed if any society is to prosper. To rant about the unfairness of women not being in combat roles is of a piece with ranting about the unfairness of men not getting pregnant, and as reflective of a serious disconnect with the fundamental realities of life.
In theory, if we devoted as much effort to allowing men to bear children as is being devoted to trying to put women in combat roles, a similar percentage of men might actually be able to pull it off (especially if we include redefining pregnancy so that men can qualify). Does anyone think that's a good idea?
Post a Comment