Building the "progressive people's army."
I was chatting with a current serving veteran of four deployments today about this: Combat Ban for Women to End
I pointed out that this would only get more line infantry people killed, because of the lack of stamina and upper body strength in females as well as the complex sociology interactions that would be threats to good order and discipline. He responded, "Well, it's not like the progressives' kids are going to get killed, is it?" He later added:
If you think about what women in combat roles would do and why the progressive admin would want to push for it you have to look a little further back to women's suffrage. What happened after women got the right to vote was that increasingly in each election cycle the women's vote became more and more socialist/democrat/progressive. As you plainly saw in the last two election cycles, the presidential election is nothing more than a Dancing with the Stars popularity vote. What person in their right mind would vote for the boring Mormon guy who is good with numbers? Besides, like, Obama knows Beyonce and Jay-Z, and he takes publicity pictures hanging curtains, and he loves his dog Bo and his wife and two daughters, and he is sooo cool. If women have shifted the balance of the electorate to debase the electoral process to such base feelings then why would it not work for the military? If you could get enough women and feminized men in the military then eventually the paradigm would shift from a bunch of sons of red state hicks and political wanna-be's to a progressive people's army that they always dreamed of. It does not have to make sense but I am sure where you can see the logic. If their little experiment bears fruit then to their detriment they will learn that having a gun does not make you a rifleman. But like I said, it is not like this social experiment will involve their daughters.
I tend to wonder, too, whether "Good ol' Boys" would be hesitant to shoot women in uniform when the pending unpleasantness over liberty finally erupts.
As long as the army stays all-volunteer, I doubt that very many liberal/socialist/progressive women are going to enlist. It's pretty much all conservative women.
The logic does make sense though.
3bMaybe Obama thinks that he get women to fire on US Citizens easier than he can get the men to...
I'm not so sure I buy this. The women I know who shoot and who might be interested in combat arms are a rather unprogressive lot.
Women are weaker and smaller; that's a real problem. But I suspect those women willing to fight are not the same as the ones who fawn over how cute and caring Obama is.
Making women more like men helps in making men more like women. And in making everyone like everyone else (except in superficial things like hair styles, where diversity is still approved of).
It's a bit like a farmer wanting all one breed of cattle.
To answer your question, Kent, everyone I know will not hesitate to kill anyone coming for their weapons. That's because they all know who they'll come for next.
in the broader (pun intended) sense, Ann Coulter addressed the women's sufferage issue some time ago when she state, "women should never have been granted voting privileges".
Progressive-fascists supported women's sufferage in the US because they had the results of those changes in Europe, so they knew their power would increase once universal women's sufferage was the law of the land.
An even more perverse negative is that before women's sufferage was the law, the man represented the family at the polls. A decision within the family was reached, the man cast the vote for the whole family. That power ended with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1920.
My 90 year old mother says "This brings a whole new meaning to Foxhole"
Off topic, but incredibly funny on how to stop the gun grabbers:
I recall some female soldiers getting captured in the sandbox. As I remember the first thing the ragheads did was to start gang raping the captured American women.
It will give a whole new meaning to the term, FUBAR.
Just had a near miss big fight with my wife about this... near miss because I stopped short of bringing up the real subjects: i.e. women's suffrage and Regime/progressive objectives into it. She accused me, as she usually does, of "not knowing what I'm talking about, not knowing everything," and assuring me that this rule change was all about combat medics and similar.
At times like these, I can't wait to be shot dead... after a suitable period of exacting a toll on the Enemy, of course.
I am trying to do all that I can to prepare to defend my family, my nation and Liberty and I can't even get my wife to take off the blinders.
Yeah, right, thought so.
This is an officer thing. The Females need combat arms to have a real shot at getting past O-5 Lt. Col in the Army. I mean it is difficult to make O-6 even when you are branched combat arms, and have several command tours. This is a power play to give the girls a shot at brigade level command and then to receive their stars.
Here is the problem. These officer women will be writing a check that female troops will have to cash. The ones who want this aren't going to humping the 70# rucks. It is the little hillbilly girl from down the street.
When was branched MP when I was in, and I can tell you that 90% of the females were falling apart downrange (nuke security) and kept at it until they profiled their way onto a desk in the rear. Women are worthless under ruck, but I guess it doesn't matter because the man is right. The entitled progressives aren't joining anyway.
I am beginning to see it, the only room left for a guy like me, is the room I make.
I've made piece with the Lord, and I am prepared for what comes my way.
hi mike can you get permission and use this art please... it makes a valuable point:
As long as they don't have different standards. I have been a police officer/firefighter/medic for 30 years. And you would be surprised at the ladies in uniform. They had to pass the same physical agility tests.
In the fire side, they had to haul the same heavy pieces of equipment, had to carry a 150 pound dummy the same distance, had to haul 50 feet of rolled hose by stairs to the 4th floor, etc. And I never had a problem with any of those ladies backing me up inside of a burning building.
Just keep the standards the same, and it will work out.
Well, here's another possible reason. The military only takes "THE best"! After generations of loosing those 'best' in wars, women are home mating with the 'lessers' who remain. If the best women are now being killed off in all the elite's wars, along with all the best men, how very difficult is it going to be to really dumb down what's left of society? They are already doing a pretty damn good job by controlling our education system if you ask me......
Just my 2¢.......
Every military who has tried this say it doesn't work, but these collectivist think they are different and will magicaly make it work.
Put an 80 lbs ruck on them and make them run three miles, then be able to fight.
If they can't they should not be in combat arms.
You can always find some amazon who can make the cut physically. That's not the point. Unless and until someone has actually spent time in the infantry or special operations in combat they don't know what the fuck they are talking about and should butt the fuck out of the argument. It is NOT the same as being a cop or fireman or even an MP or an Air Defense Artilleryman(person?).
It's not just about pulling the trigger. And it's not even just about being able to hump a big fucking rucksack up a steep mountain in Afghanistan (notwithstanding one veteran Ranger senior NCO's observation that no legislation or policy change will be able to make a 110 pound female do anything but sit on a 120 pound rucksack). It's about all of the above and a whole bunch more shit that it is virtually impossible to get anyone who hasn't been there to understand.
However, failure to understand this is not why the policy change was made. This is about cultural marxism and using the military as a social experiment. The question asked by policymakers was not, "will this change make combat arms units more or less capable?" but rather, "should women have the same opportunities for advancement as men, regardless of how this might affect combat readiness?"
So, there weren't any men who voted for Obama? Really?
And no women riflemen? I beg to differ. But indeed... I don't know any riflewomen who would be the least interested in becoming a whore to the state like that. And if they do? More power to them. I don't know why men want to be whores to the state either.
The problem isn't that women can vote. I certainly don't.
There is nothing legitimately subject to such a vote - if you own your life and body. THAT understanding is the serious lack in our society.
You can't vote yourself free, any more than you can spend yourself rich.
"women should never have been granted voting privileges"
Actually there was a way to do it that would have decreased the size of government rather than increasing it: add a Women's House of Representatives, filled only by women and voted for only by women. The other became the Men's House of Representatives. Now, legislation must run the gantlet of 3 houses to be passed, not just 2. Voila, fewer bills passed.
Better though if nobody has the vote and nobody has power over others. 2nd best is to have panarchy (each individual gets the kind of government he wants, just like religion).
An expert on the Russian military once noted that the armies with the most experience with women in ground combat roles have the least women in ground combat roles.
Post a Comment