Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Deebow Speaks - Women in Combat

Molly Pitcher In Combat
I have no first hand experience in the military, let alone in combat, which causes some to peremptorily declare that I can't be against women in combat because, with no military experience,  I'm not eligible to have an opinion on the subject.  This is of course not good thinking.  Plenty of people are against all kinds of things with which they have no first-hand experience.  People who have never starved decry starvation, confirmed bachelors declare marriage a waste of time and secular humanists rail against organized religion though the last time they were in a house of worship,  if at all, is when Mother and Dad took them as mere babes. 

Anyone can be for or against something based on principles, beliefs and logical, common sense reasoning in addition to relying on experience.  Speaking of the latter,  here is someone who can talk about the senselessness of women in combat based on his experience.   It all makes sense, but here is a taste of Deebow's thinking:
This idea that we can reshape our force by allowing women to be snake eating Navy SEALS and make us more combat effective is the pinnacle of Libturd thinking.  General Dempsey believes that the US Army can make standards in these unique career fields "gender neutral."  Well General, they already are.  You have to be able to demonstrate for the Blackhats that you can do the buddy-run carrying the man next to you until they say "ENDEX" and not end up with stress fractures in your hips and shoulders. You have to be able to do as much as the man next to you in your boat crew, for as long as the Navy SEAL screaming at you from the top of the berm tells you to do it.  You have to be able to carry your battle rattle, and maybe that of your wounded buddy, for miles and not completely destroy your body doing it.  The battlefield is an unforgiving place and you don't get safety stand downs when you get hot and tired and the fighting doesn't stop just because your needs aren't being met.
Joan of Arc in Combat



  1. 1. There are men who can't do these things. Does that mean we should ban all men or lower the standards?

    2. There are women who can do these things and in some cases, are better at them.

    3. Is being an oh-so-coveted Navy SEAL all about brawn? If so, that would explain SO. VERY. MUCH. of my experiences with these guys.

  2. I love the irony in this - some of your posts with this tagline for your blog, "We know the Race is not to the swift nor the Battle to the Strong. Do you not think an Angel rides in the Whirlwind and directs this Storm?"

    Love the quote.

  3. Hi, Genevieve: Thanks for your comments! Just to clarify, in your points 1.,2. and 3., you're responding to what Deebow wrote, not what I wrote, right?

    Nonetheless, I would respond with respect to 1., no, it doesn't mean any standards should be lowered, it means those men who can't perform to standard should be rejected. WRT 2., for those women who can perform and in some cases perform better than men, I don't think it means anything. The only time it would really mean anything is if we get to the point in our society where there are no men who can perform the jobs that need to be done in the military. Then we might have to call on another group, the women. However, there will always be men who can perform better than women on those tasks that require a man to do them. Or, to put it another way, the military doesn't need women, at least not in killing and combat roles. There are enough men to do that and, given their physical make-up and the associated uniquely masculine traits with which they've been endowed, they bear the responsibility to do the heavy work regardless of whether there's a woman who can do the same.

    Just because someone can do something doesn't mean they must be given the opportunity to do it.I don't understand why people use this pseudo-argument. Maybe I can paint better than Picasso. So now I should be famous? Maybe I'm the smartest graduating high school senior in the United States. So Harvard has to accept me? Of course not. To argue this line is ridiculous and it's inane for women to harp away at this. Just because you want to and you can doesn't mean you must or you should.

    On point number 3., yes, let's suppose it is about brawn. So what? They're men. They're supposed to act like that. Women shouldn't try to change that.

    Thanks again for your comments. Didn't know anyone was reading. I have a response to your other comments as well, but no time at the moment, but will do so later.