Pages

Thursday, 24 January 2013

Dipshit Thinks Women Can't Handle Combat

Ryan Smith over at the Wall Street Journal thinks that women can't handle combat. He seems to be preoccupied with women's bodily functions during combat.
The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.
See Mr. Smith, women don't need to stop at a restroom to take a leak. News flash bozo, women and men take a shit in the same way. I've been in situations where it has been a couple of weeks between baths and was no worse for wear. Perhaps a little smelly, as was everyone else. It sure does feel nice to have a long hot shower after spending a couple of weeks in the woods with no shower facilities, only a rag and a container with about a half gallon of water. You can get fairly clean with this. But somehow, I don't think pissing or shitting is really on his mind. I think the thought of women having periods absolutely scares the living shit out of him. Poor delicate flower.
Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?
 You know women have fought in practically every war that has been waged throughout history. And have performed just as good as the men. When your village or town is getting overrun, no one has time to worry about who is holding and shooting the guns. And why would women automatically be ineffective during combat? You know who I think would be ineffective during combat? A man who is traumatized at the sight of a woman taking a leak, possibly even standing up to do so.
Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms. 
 Women have been taking care of the injured and sick for centuries and have not freaked out at bodily functions. Poor Mr. Smith, is he saying that he will have a case of the vapours at the sight of naked people, especially those of the opposite sex? Grow up.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I assume you're in favor of registering all girls for selective service once they turn 18?

Anna Lemma said...

I have no problem with everyone who is physically and mentally fit serving in the military. After all I am a former military officer myself.

Anonymous said...

I think you've missed the point. It's not about women being able to handle combat. It's about the average combat unit being able to handle women.

I think you're former branch of service may have limited your vision into other branches. Have I served with women who were more capable than most men? Yes. Have I been in the field with women for extended periods of time where they performed admirably? Yes. Do I think there are some women who can hack it? Absolutely.

Do I remember how the presence of women affected the 130+, 18 - 25 year old males of an infantry company? Hell yes.

The grunts are where the rubber meets the road. You mentioned growing up in your article. I suggest the same. The young males in the combat arms branches are what they are. To require that they change in order to accommodate those women who can handle the job is both self-centered and destructive.

Note that I'm not saying there are not combat positions that women can't do as well, if not better than men, in. Just saying that forcing the issue in the ground-pounder position is not logical and borders on stupid.

Anonymous said...

It's not the fight or Shooting, it's the mental capacity women have been proven to be more emotional and when somebody it's trying to kill you. You can't just sit there and cry. Like wise women have been proven to not be able to think on their head as fast as men

Anna Lemma said...

What a crock. First men say that women are too emotional for combat; then they say that they can't handle it just having women around. Seems to me like it is the men who let their emotions get the best of them far more often than women do. I think that men confuse a woman's reaction to stress (releasing a few tears) with a strong emotional reaction, they don't always correlate. A woman can cry one moment and be calm and clearheaded the next. I think it is much harder for men to do so, but perhaps we are both generalizing too much.

Anna Lemma said...

Also you talk about "Young males in the combat arms branches being what they are". What the hell are you talking about? The young airmen and soldiers under my command knew exactly what I expected of them at all times. Even though I wasn't that much older than them at the time, I had more than a couple (men and women) tell me that they regarded me as some kind of mother figure. And those "young men" that you think could not control themselves, I think you do a disservice saying that. The young men that made up my unit were highly trained and professional.

They knew that they could count on me to have their backs, they also knew that I did not expect anything from someone that I was also not willing to do myself.