5 Reasons Why Women Should Not Serve in Combat

1. Training Criteria are Lowered Because of Political Correctness

People must go on believing that "Xena: Warrior Princess" is real, as some believe Santa Claus is genuine. When reality does not support this, training standards have to be lowered. Joshua Sowin of fireandknowledge.org quotes David Horowitz as saying:

"'Gender norming' is now the rule-women are measured against other women, rather than against men who outperform them.

Even though West Point officially says there have been no negative effects from the admission of women, the sworn courtroom testimony of a West Point official says that women cannot perform nearly as well as men and that the men's training program has, for that reason, been downgraded. For example, men are no longer required to run carrying heavy weapons because women are unable to do that.

Even if a man is willing to lead women in combat, the very thought that it might not be suitable is sufficient to end your career."

This, of course, indicates that freedom of speech and freedom of thought in the military must conform to liberal and feminist standards. Mandated beliefs are apparently made more important than the national security.

2. Women are Different, Says Woman Officer

Former Major Judith Webb of the British Army says, "It may not be fashionable but it's time that society accepted the simple fact that women are different.

Not, please note, inferior, but different physiologically, mentally and emotionally to men and there are some roles for which we are simply not suited. Yes, we may be capable of incredible mental and physical toughness, but there is no getting away from the fact that we are the more compassionate sex; instinctively more nurturing and lacking the thirst for aggression that drives our male counterparts."

3. Women Should Serve Where Needed and in Capacities for Which They're Best Suited

This makes sense, considering former Major Webb's point about not being inferior. The "inferior" or "second class citizen" notion is really what this is this issue is mostly about, and the feminist mentality almost tends to be as much of an adversary as those on a battlefield. There are many vital roles in the military for young women, not the least of which are nursing, clerical work and all forms of vital support activities. Why should shortages exist in these capacities, just because radical feminism has misguided many and has deceived them about the critical importance of their roles?

I maintain that women in combat should be a last resort (for example, if our men were being depleted and an enemy were approaching our shores).

4. The Physical Element

Even though former Major Webb mostly stresses mental and emotional differences, the fact is that most men are much stronger than women physically. There are some rare exceptions, but recruiters would probably have to go to Muscle Beach in California or similar places to find some, and the supply would probably quickly run out.

5. Men can Handle It

Men understand that when the defense of their country is necessary, the duties fall primarily on their shoulders. Women, by the same token, display nobility when going through childbirth, raising children and accepting all forms of responsibility. Very few men feel envious, and they rarely want to compete with women to prove they're on the same level and not inferior.

In conclusion, let me add the following, and perhaps it can serve as a compromise. I have no objection to women training for combat in reserve units if (1) It is for last resort emergency situations as I described above; and (2) It will not distract women from performing the aforementioned critical roles or create a void for those needed services. It is important for me to note that I do believe women can have sincere motives.

Sources:

fireandknowledge.org

dailymail.co.uk