Viewers 594,762
WND Exclusive
Look what's happened to women of Fox News
Legendary beauties suddenly become immortalized
by
Subscribe to feed- 2013 Best Skin TightenersAn Unbiased Review List of The Top Performing Skin Tighteners In 2013 www.SkinCareSearch.com/FaceLifting
- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Molly Line of the Fox News Channel
Or MSNBC.
Or PBS.
Or ABC, CBS or NBC News.
But you just may hear it talked about on the Fox News Channel or the Fox Business Network.
Singer and songwriter Austin Cunningham
Titled “The Girls On Fox News,” the song starts off with a true-to-life description of what happened to its writer and performer, Austin Cunningham:
Well I used to be a Democrat, Liberal no doubt I didn’t think Conservatives knew what life’s about Then I started leaving the Fox News channel on. If that’s the face of the right, I’ll tell the left so long.
Watch and listen to the song by clicking on the video below:
The song is upbeat and replete with jokes, including a catchy chorus proclaiming:
Oh, I want a girl like the girls on Fox News Everyone is beautiful, anyone you choose Whoever does the hiring knows how to light my fuse I want a girl like the girls on Fox News.
The song is not on an any album yet, but can be purchased on iTunes, and the YouTube video of the song has rocketed to more than 600,000 hits in that past two weeks.
“I’ve only performed it live at a few shows so far, but people go nuts for this song and my e-mail from my website is piling up!” Cunningham told WND.
A native of Garland, Texas, Cunningham now splits his time between McKinney, Texas, and Nashville, Tenn., where he composes for other artists.
As far as how it all began, Cunningham says, “The idea for the song came from a phone conversation I was havin’ with a buddy and I said something like, ‘Have you noticed how good-looking the gals are on Fox News?’
Monica Crowley of Fox News
He says he originally wrote the song some four years ago, and would occasionally tweak it, but never thought about releasing it.
“I looked at it last fall and it still seemed funny and relevant, so I did my research and updated some of the gals names. I played it for a few people and they started begging me to record and release it,” he said.
Cunningham indicated while the song is playful, “even a funny song like this, should start somewhere and take the listener on a three-to-four minute trip. So going from liberal to conservative because of the girls’ beauty didn’t seem like too big a stretch. Sure there may be better reasons to lean conservative, but like Brad Paisley said, ‘I’m Still A Guy.’”
Shannon Bream of Fox News
Cunningham now confesses he’s a “Fox News Junkie,” and “with the risk of your readers’ disbelief, I like the guys on there, too. I relate to them. How can you not like Steve Doocy or Brian Kilmeade? I mean these guys and girls come off as kind, decent, hard-working and caring professionals that I can give my time to. I’m a Fox Business guy now, too, and love [Don] Imus. He kinda hates everything, but he has great taste in music!”
Some of the men of Fox are mentioned in the song:
Now to Doocy, Kilmeade, and Bolling, Bret, Shep and Sean And all them other hairy-legged Geraldos you put on I ask you all one question, who would you rather watch Cavuto or Courtney Friel interview Ed Koch.
Courtney Friel of Fox News
“If I absolutely HAD to choose one Fox anchor/contributor,” he explained, “I suppose it would have to be Megyn Kelly. She is like the new ‘America’s Sweetheart.’ She, and seriously all these gals, seem to be what our elders used to describe as ‘lovely.’ Meaning looks certainly, but also with qualities like elegance, grace, intelligence, wit and kindness.”
Megyn Kelly of Fox News
A lyric in the song is dedicated to Meade, saying:
‘Cause honey sure beats vinegar to watch down the news we need No one else comes close, well except for maybe Robin Meade.
Robin Meade of CNN
When asked if he thought most people choose to watch a certain channel or network based on the appearance of the on-air talent, he said, “Look, it’s an ‘American Idol’ world whether we like it or not. I’m in the music business where they want the girls younger and hotter; and it’s the same with guys really. A pretty package never hurts, I just wish that in movies, music or TV news or sitcoms, they wouldn’t take it so far. Just like in the song, I obviously noticed the gals and I respond to it as well, but there’s a way to have some class and dignity with the nice, pretty package you offer people. I think Fox does a great job of that.”
“After knowing I wrote this song, this may be hard to believe,” he continued, “but when I’m taking in news or even commentary, it is not about looks whatsoever. I know myself, and if I’m hearing a story and I don’t feel manipulated by the presentation, I’m in. I feel way less manipulated by Fox. And to stay on point, if Martha MacCallum, Gretchen Carlson, Dana Perino or Kimberly Guilfoyle are presenting that news, well, I rest my case!”
Martha MacCallum of Fox News
There’s Gretchen, Megyn and Martha, Harris and Pattie Ann Janice, Jen and Julie, Maria, Anna and Alison Dana, Ainsley, Andrea, Uma, Shannon, Molly and Heather
Hey, is there even a Heather? Yeah. There’s two? Yeah, two
There’s Mollys too? Yeah. Perfect.
Another verse pleads with listeners not to think poorly of Cunningham:
Now please don’t call me shallow, a pervert, or insane. Because who the heck does not love beauty with brains?
Cunningham is married and has a daughter in real life, and the last part of his song is a reminder to his wife that she’s the only true love for him:
No, honey, I love you! I mean if I wasn’t married to you, I’d love them I mean they’re awesome But you’re the most awesomest, really!
When asked what his wife thought of the song, Cunningham indicated, “She actually likes it a lot and is having fun with it, too. I never worried that she wouldn’t, but I completely understand the question. Some of my songwriting buddies asked me the same question. I actually believe people, including me and my wife, watch or listen with our hearts as much as with our eyes and ears. Meaning the spirit of the song is light, complimentary and with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek!”
Kimberly Guilfoyle of Fox News
In a 2011 interview with the Associated Press, he admitted, “I hired Sarah Palin because she was hot and got ratings.”
Last October, WND reported on a UCLA study that found Republican women in Congress are more feminine than their Democrat counterparts.
“Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker’s voting record,” said lead author Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology.
According to a report on the UCLA website, “The researchers also found the opposite to be true: Female politicians with less stereotypically feminine facial features were more likely to be Democrats, and the more liberal their voting record, the greater the distance the politician’s appearance strayed from stereotypical gender norms.”
People who have viewed “The Girls on Fox News” song have been leaving some interesting comments.
Among them is one by Robert S. Moulds,who noted, “Hillary Clinton needs the fashion advice from those Fox women. Maybe then she would not be such a frump. Those Fox women wear some really colorful dresses, shoes and apply just the right make up. I mean, who wouldn’t want to look as lovely or be around them? Despite this, they are still less prissy than that ugly effete rude creature Piers Morgan who, like Hillary, could use their fashion advice. They even make me wish I was straight.”
The complete lyrics for “The Girls On Fox News” by Austin Cunningham are presented here:
Well I used to be a Democrat, Liberal no doubt I didn’t think Conservatives knew what life’s about Then I started leaving the Fox News channel on. If that’s the face of the right, I’ll tell the left so long.
Oh, I want a girl like the girls on Fox News Everyone is beautiful, anyone you choose Whoever does the hiring knows how to light my fuse I want a girl like the girls on Fox News.
There’s Gretchen, Meagan and Martha, Harris and Pattie Ann Janice, Jen and Julie, Maria, Anna and Alison Dana, Ainsley, Andrea, Uma, Shannon, Molly and Heather
Hey, is there even a Heather? Yeah. There’s two? Yeah two
There’s Mollys too? Yeah. Perfect.
Well they make the bad news on TV look a whole lot better!
Now please don’t call me shallow, a pervert, or insane. Because who the heck does not love beauty with brains. I bet you that Bill Clinton, when Hillary walks in Quickly switches back from Fox to MSBNN!
Bet Bill wants a girl like the girls on Fox News Everyone is beautiful, anyone you choose! Whoever does the hiring, knows how to light my fuse I want a girl like the girls on Fox News!
Now to Doocy, Kilmeade, and Bolling, Bret, Shep and Sean And all them other hairy-legged Geraldos you put on I ask you all one question, who would you rather watch Cavuto or Courtney Friel interview Ed Koch.
‘Cause honey sure beats vinegar to watch down the news we need No one else comes close, well except for maybe Robin Meade. They got your blondes and brunettes, even redheads, too Which proves that they’re the only ones with fair and balanced news!
Oh I want a girl, like the girls on Fox News I’d settle for an hour there in Billy Hemmer’s shoes Can’t help if other network girls’ egos get bruised I want a girl like the girls on Fox News.
More Cowbell!
And I like Michelle Malkin, she never makes my reds stay blue And if my wife would let me, hey I’d marry Michelle, too. Save some love for Greta, she’s the smartest y’all Bet when she’s off the record, she’s the wildest of them all!
Now I’m a Fox News junkie, I watch it all I can My Liberal days are over, hope Bob Beckel understands. And I believe in everything O’Reilly has to say Especially when he has Kimberly Guilfoyle on that day.
Oh I want a girl like the girls on Fox News! Everyone is beautiful, anyone you choose. Whoever does the hiring knows how to light my fuse I want a girl like the girls on Fox News. Hey, I want a girl like the girls on Fox News!
No, honey, I love you! I mean if I wasn’t married to you, I’d love them I mean they’re awesome But you’re the most awesomest, really! I swear it, honey.
The Truth About Women in Combat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NBtBFiaJUY4
Conservatives
often stand accused these days of standing outside the "reality-based
community." Yet liberals can be blinded by ideology, and nowhere is this
more true than in the debate over women in combat.
Over
the past two decades, the United States has moved steadily to open all
military roles to women. Last month, departing Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta removed the last barriers. Women may henceforward qualify for
every duty, including combat infantry. The few - very few - public
objections raised to this decision were met with derision rather than
argument, well represented by this sneering item from the Daily Show.
Yet to deny the highly combat-relevant differences between the sexes is to deny reality as blatantly as ever done by any anti-evolutionist - and with potentially much more lethal consequence.
In 2007, Kingsley Browne gathered the evidence in a clear and concise book, Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars. The case presented by Browne won't come as news to any military decision-maker. But it will and should jolt those who have relied on too credulous media sources for their information about what soldiers do and how they do it.
Yet to deny the highly combat-relevant differences between the sexes is to deny reality as blatantly as ever done by any anti-evolutionist - and with potentially much more lethal consequence.
In 2007, Kingsley Browne gathered the evidence in a clear and concise book, Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars. The case presented by Browne won't come as news to any military decision-maker. But it will and should jolt those who have relied on too credulous media sources for their information about what soldiers do and how they do it.
The case for women in combat runs more or less as follows:
1) We have entered an era of push-button war in which purely physical strength has lost much if not all of its military relevance.
2) To the extent that strength continues to matter, some women can meet requirements and should be given a chance to qualify.
3) Other than physical strength, there are no militarily relevant differences between men and women.
4) To exclude willing women from military service is unfair and unjust.
Browne demolishes these four claims, step by remorseless step, with studies and examples drawn from military experience.
1) Physical strength continues to matter in warfare. Soldiers still must hoist heavy packs and march for miles. Soldiers still must be prepared to function with reduced food and water. Soldiers must still sometimes fight and kill their enemies hand to hand. And even in other contexts where strength seems obsolete, the mischances of war can suddenly thrust soldiers into situations where strength determines who lives and who dies. Browne reminds us of the 2001 encounter between an American EP-3E surveillance aircraft and a Chinese "Finback" fighter jet. The EP-3E is a big plane, powered by four turboprop engines and carrying a crew of 24. The much faster Finback harassed the EP-3E with mock interceptions.
1) We have entered an era of push-button war in which purely physical strength has lost much if not all of its military relevance.
2) To the extent that strength continues to matter, some women can meet requirements and should be given a chance to qualify.
3) Other than physical strength, there are no militarily relevant differences between men and women.
4) To exclude willing women from military service is unfair and unjust.
Browne demolishes these four claims, step by remorseless step, with studies and examples drawn from military experience.
1) Physical strength continues to matter in warfare. Soldiers still must hoist heavy packs and march for miles. Soldiers still must be prepared to function with reduced food and water. Soldiers must still sometimes fight and kill their enemies hand to hand. And even in other contexts where strength seems obsolete, the mischances of war can suddenly thrust soldiers into situations where strength determines who lives and who dies. Browne reminds us of the 2001 encounter between an American EP-3E surveillance aircraft and a Chinese "Finback" fighter jet. The EP-3E is a big plane, powered by four turboprop engines and carrying a crew of 24. The much faster Finback harassed the EP-3E with mock interceptions.
On
his last approach, [the Chinese pilot] comes too close. He pitches up
to maintain his slow speed, and one of the EP-3E's propellers strikes
his plane at the junction of the vertical stabilizer and the fuselage,
sounding "like a monster chain saw hacking metal." The propeller cuts
the Finback in two. The fighter's nose flips up and strikes the nose of
the American plane, knocking off the large fiberglass nose cone
containing the weather radar. The immediate decompression of the cabin
is deafening.
The EP-3E immediately flips over into a
nearly completely inverted dive. "This guy just fucking killed us,"
[Captain Shane Osborn] thinks, as he is looking up at the sea
below and observing that his plane is falling almost as fast as the
wreckage of the Finback. The lumbering EP-3E, which is a converted
Lockheed L-188 Electra passenger airliner, has never been rolled and
never recovered from an inverted dive.
Using "every ounce of strength" in his
muscular frame, Osborn struggles to bring the wings level. Gradually, he
is able to gain airspeed and recover from the roll. The plane has
fallen almost 8,000 feet from its original altitude of 22,500 feet in
about thirty seconds and is still losing altitude.
(LOC 1352-1359)
Osborn eventually brought the plane to an emergency landing on Hainan
Island and succeeded in destroying the plane's computers before Chinese
forces arrived. He won the Distinguished Flying Cross for saving his
plane and crew.
As
Shane Osborn's experience reveals, strength is not irrelevant to modern
aviation. Although it is not usually an issue in flying modern
airplanes under ordinary circumstances, when things go wrong the
situation can change dramatically. In the words of the principal
investigator of a study of strength requirements of aviators, "If they
lose hydraulics or an engine or two engines, it gets really tough to fly
the plane."
(LOC 1376)
Strength matters too for a grounded helicopter pilot or a captured
aircrew. Browne notes that about 90% of the prisoners of war held by
North Vietnam were downed pilots and aircrew.The United States is planning its future air force on the assumption that future aircrews need not worry much about enemy fire. That's a very dangerous assumption.
2) One might answer: "Fine. Strength matters. But why should gender matter? Set strength requirements, run the tests. If the women pass, they pass. If not, not."
But that answer ignores the bureaucratic realities. The record shows that the military does not and will not enforce gender-neutral standards.
“ The record shows that the military does not and will not enforce gender-neutral standards.
”
[A]t
the time of enlistment, a seventeen-year-old female is expected to do
thirteen push-ups, compared to thirty-five for males, while for
forty-one-year-olds, the numbers are six and twenty-four, respectively. A
seventeen year-old girl is expected to run two miles in nineteen
minutes, forty-two seconds or less, which is twelve seconds more than a
forty-one year old man gets. A forty-one-year-old woman has to "run" two
miles in twenty-four minus and six seconds, almost five minutes more
than a man receives. Only in combat, it seems, will demands on the sexes
be equal ….
(LOC 399-403)
The military executes missions, and the generals and admirals
understand that one of their most important missions - from the point of
view of their personal advancement - is to recruit sufficient numbers
of women to please their political masters. The only way to achieve that
mission is to operate very unequal standards. Browne again:
The probability that a randomly selected
man will have greater upper-body strength than a randomly selected woman
is well over 95 percent.
(LOC 432)
The
army's standard fragmentation grenade has a blast radius of 15 meters.
Infantrymen are required to demonstrate the ability to throw a grenade
35 meters; military women, only 25 meters. In practice, many military
women cannot throw even that far. Browne tells the story of a Sergeant
Leigh Ann Hester and squad leader Timothy Nein who came under attack in
Iraq. Both won the Silver Star.
During the 1989 invasion of Panama,
Hester gave her grenade to Nein because he
"had the better arm." She did, however, throw one about fifteen yards,
which, depending upon cover, may be a little close for comfort …. Even
if two men had been involved, of course, one might have given a grenade
to a comrade with a better arm, but the soldier with the better arm in a
mixed-sex pair will almost always be the man. If both members of the
pair are women, their ability to throw a grenade where it is needed will
be substantially limited.
(LOC 1132-1139)
The sexes differ psychologically as well as physiologically. Women
react to threat very differently from men. It seems painfully obvious to
say this, but the sex hormones testerone and estrogen push the sexes to
behave radically differently. Many young men will risk death rather
than be seen by their peers to flinch from a fight. Women's courage
takes very different forms. Browne amasses a battery of stories of
military women behaving in ways that, had they been men, would have
brought accusations of dereliction of duty - or worse. During the 1989 invasion of Panama,
CBS News reported that two female truck
drivers had tearfully refused to drive troops to the scene of fighting,
prompting an Army investigation. Two days into the investigation - and
several days before it was completed - the Army announced that the women
had acted appropriately. According to Army spokesmen, the two women
were "exhausted" after driving under fire for nine hours …. According to
officers of the infantry battalion whose soldiers were supposed to be
transported, however, the women had not been driving under fire for nine
hours. They had come under fire briefly in the first hour of the
invasion and then spent eight hours waiting for their next mission, at
one point having to be rousted from their barracks and made to stay with
the trucks. ... [Quoting another author, Browne adds] "The men at the
scene had no doubt but that the women were afraid, not tired."
(LOC 1895-1902)
Sex
integration has tangled the military in double standards and collective
denial. The Army, Browne reports, maintains an unofficial policy
whereby women - but not men - showers in the field every 72 hours. This
practice is not written down, but it's observed by the troops as another
example of a demoralizing military culture of denial and lying. Browne
quotes interviews of enlisted men by military sociologist Laura Miller:
(LOC 1844)
"Today all you hear in the Army is that we are equal, but men do all the hard and heavy work whether it's combat or not."
"The majority of females I know are not
soldiers. They are employed. Anything strenuous is avoided with a
passion. I would hate to serve with them during combat! I would end up
doing my job and 2/3 of theirs just to stay alive."
(LOC 3644)
More cutting still, Browne repeats a bitter military joke that true
equality will arrive - not when women receive Medals of Honor (since it
will be suspected that the standards were bent in their favor) - but
when women "can be subject to a court-martial for cowardly conduct." (LOC 1844)
3)
The most fundamental differentiator between men and women of course is
mutual sexual attraction. That fact has become an increasing source of
weakness to US military units, and will weaken them still further when
full combat integration is achieved. Where men and women are put
together, sex will follow. So will pregnancy - which is of course
grounds for removing women from active duty. Sex is sometimes
consensual. It is is sometimes coerced. And it is sometimes sold.
[P]rostitution by female personnel appears
to be a widespread phenomenon, although the Pentagon's reticence on the
subject makes it difficult to ascertain just how widespread. I have
heard from numerous sources claiming personal knowledge (not as
customers, they all assure me) of prostitution rings in the Army, Navy,
Air Force, and Marines. I have heard it from officers who were
responsible for discipline and from enlisted men who were aware of the
women to go to.
(LOC 3507-3510)
The most dangerous consequence of sexual attraction, however, is the
corrosion of unit cohesion. A "band of brothers" pretty quickly
degenerates into a snarling pack of primates when the brothers begin to
compete amongst themselves for the sexual attention of a much smaller
number of women.“ Is the unwillingness of men to follow women into battle "unfair"? What does that question even mean?
”
4)
It is on the point of "fairness" that Browne expresses himself most
scathingly. It's not the military's job to be "fair." It is the
military's job to win wars. Our society values freedom of speech. It
values the right to elect leaders. It values individual choice and
market competition. All of those values are suspended in the military,
sacrificed to the paramount need for military effectiveness. Yet on
gender issues, the military seems to have decided that the desire of a
relatively very small number of female officers to reach the highest
levels of command trumps the necessities of national defense.
Ironically, the motive that most impels women into combat - the eagerness of some female officers to ascend to higher levels of leadership - is precisely the end that may be most unobtainable. A battery of studies cited by Browne confirms the reluctance of men to accept female leadership when the shooting starts. This reluctance actually increases the more that male soldiers experience female leadership, for reasons hard-wired into the male brain. Psychologists find that women's leadership is accepted by men (and women!) to the extent that it is warm, nurturing, and participatory: in other words, maternal. It is least accepted when it is cold, challenging, and hierarchical: in other words, paternal - or in other other words, military. Which means:
Ironically, the motive that most impels women into combat - the eagerness of some female officers to ascend to higher levels of leadership - is precisely the end that may be most unobtainable. A battery of studies cited by Browne confirms the reluctance of men to accept female leadership when the shooting starts. This reluctance actually increases the more that male soldiers experience female leadership, for reasons hard-wired into the male brain. Psychologists find that women's leadership is accepted by men (and women!) to the extent that it is warm, nurturing, and participatory: in other words, maternal. It is least accepted when it is cold, challenging, and hierarchical: in other words, paternal - or in other other words, military. Which means:
Military women may be in a bind. The
leadership role calls for an authoritarian style, but when women act
accordingly, they tend to be negatively evaluated and therefore less
effective.
(LOC 2656)
Is the unwillingness of men to follow women into battle "unfair"? What does that question even mean?
Too many draw an analogy between sex distinctions and the military's discredited history of racial discrimination. Browne urges us to think of sex as a distinction more like age.
[T]he measure of a leader lies not in the
leader's behavior but in the behavior of his subordinates. If potential
followers will not follow a leader for whatever reason, the leader
cannot be effective. Whether blame is assigned to the failed follower or
the failed leader is immaterial. If the mission is not being
accomplished, the unit is ineffective.
(LOC 2680)
Browne stresses: "one may challenge the policy of sexual integration
without disparaging the service of military women. Those who are serving
now, and those who served in the past - not to mention those who will
do so in the future - deserve the thanks of a grateful nation." (LOC 32)
Too many draw an analogy between sex distinctions and the military's discredited history of racial discrimination. Browne urges us to think of sex as a distinction more like age.
[W]hat would happen if the United States
had fifteen thousand sixty-year-old men in Iraq and Afghanistan instead
of fifteen thousand women. If it did, many of these older men would
undoubtedly behave bravely. Would these stories be persuasive evidence
that the military should allow sixty-year-olds to enlist? Not at all.
The relevant question is whether the sixty-year-old men are as effective
in combat as twenty-year-old mean, and few would be (or be expected to
be).
(LOC 3943)
Co-ed Combat depicts a country that seems to have made up its
collective mind that it need not worry about ever again fighting a major
war against a capable enemy - A country so confident in its margin of
superiority that it can afford deliberately to weaken its own military
performance for reasons of pure ideology. And this time it is the
so-called progressive side that treats facts as unwelcome intruders.
Sara Lister, [the Clinton-era] Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, candidly stated
that the Army does not publicly discuss strength and pregnancy issues
because "those subjects quickly become fodder for conservatives seeking
to limit women's role in the Army."
(LOC 3831)
Well, yeah. But if your preferred policy can only be advanced by
concealing relevant facts, isn't that a blaring warning of a bad policy?
A big, rich country like the United States can afford many mistakes.
But in this case, the mistakes will exact a cost in lives sacrificed and
- very conceivably - future battles lost.You Might Also Like
30 people listening
Montezia
This
article is very on target with the issue. Even if you get women
physically fit, you can NEVER fix that fact that our lungs our smaller
thus we can carry less oxygen and that our muscles can never be as
developed as a man's. And sure, you have female body builders, but if
you take one of the same size, the man would still be stronger, period.
Also consider the fact that the average woman is around 5'4. But there are many female soldiers that are only 5'0-5'1 and weight barely above 100-105 lbs. And if the equipment weighs up to 75 pounds, folks that is 3/4 their entire body weight and the last time I checked many women simply are not that strong. Would you honestly trust a 5'0-5'4 and barely above 100 lbs with your life? This is not an issue about equal rights. No, screw that. It all goes down to biological differences and women just aren't built for combat. At all.
Also consider the fact that the average woman is around 5'4. But there are many female soldiers that are only 5'0-5'1 and weight barely above 100-105 lbs. And if the equipment weighs up to 75 pounds, folks that is 3/4 their entire body weight and the last time I checked many women simply are not that strong. Would you honestly trust a 5'0-5'4 and barely above 100 lbs with your life? This is not an issue about equal rights. No, screw that. It all goes down to biological differences and women just aren't built for combat. At all.
As a woman, and one who had a career, I believe this article has lots
of truth in it. We need to be realists. Women are not men and never
will be, no matter what concocted fantasies Feminism has purshed
forward. Our society, mouthing "equality," has tried to turn women into
men in the sexual arena, also. Casual sex doesn't satisfy a woman's
need for intimacy in the context of a committed relationship; however,
our society would like us to behave like men in this realm. Why don't
we all just accept the fact that we are different sexes and have
different capacities and needs? We don't all have to be considered the
same to be honored equally. But the abuse of power and degradation of
women by men in the past fueled the fires of Feminism. Let's arrive at a
new place of honoring each other for our contributions and differences
and not punish women with less pay for doing an equal job - if she is
indeed doing an equal job with equal standards of excellence.
Why
don't the socialist feminists demand "fully integrated" sports? Why
don't they demand that women get to compete with the men in running,
boxing, swimming, golf, basketball, tennis, skiing, jumping? Because
they would be easily beaten. So it is in combat too.
Almost all who have had to work with women in uniform become disgusted. Disgusted by the women who demand preferential treatment, who shirk away from hard work, who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to do their part in combat.
Disgusted by the officers who favor women at all turns, even driving them when the men have to walk, because socialism demands that women be favored at the expense of men, since that makes them a loyal voting group.
And disgusted by the drooling men in uniform who start flirting with and fighting over these women, destroying group cohesion.
And finally, disgusted again by the women, who use the potential promise of sex to get the men to do them favors. And who LOVE to see men divided and fighting over them, it is a huge power trip for them.
Almost all who have had to work with women in uniform become disgusted. Disgusted by the women who demand preferential treatment, who shirk away from hard work, who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to do their part in combat.
Disgusted by the officers who favor women at all turns, even driving them when the men have to walk, because socialism demands that women be favored at the expense of men, since that makes them a loyal voting group.
And disgusted by the drooling men in uniform who start flirting with and fighting over these women, destroying group cohesion.
And finally, disgusted again by the women, who use the potential promise of sex to get the men to do them favors. And who LOVE to see men divided and fighting over them, it is a huge power trip for them.
But, but the grrrrrls are such excellent NFL kickers......lol.
Frankly, my dear get to the effn front of the line. No man in his right mind would defend this man hating culture known as the USSA, the FemNazi Commie Obummer Empire, you are on your own c*nts,.
Frankly, my dear get to the effn front of the line. No man in his right mind would defend this man hating culture known as the USSA, the FemNazi Commie Obummer Empire, you are on your own c*nts,.
"[T]he
measure of a leader lies not in the leader's behavior but in the
behavior of his subordinates. If potential followers will not follow a
leader for whatever reason, the leader cannot be effective. Whether
blame is assigned to the failed follower or the failed leader is
immaterial. If the mission is not being accomplished, the unit is
ineffective."
That applies to our President and Congress as well, right, Mr. Frum? Sounds of silence.
That applies to our President and Congress as well, right, Mr. Frum? Sounds of silence.
Washington
Post: It is only constitutional to register men for a draft, the
Supreme Court ruled more than three decades ago, because the reason for
registration is to create a pool of potential combat troops should a
national emergency demand a rapid increase in the size of the military.
Women were excluded from serving in battlefield jobs, so there was no
reason to register them for possible conscription into the armed forces,
the court held.
ALL
young men are required, by law, to sign up for the draft. With women
now 'officially' approved for combat, will ALL young women now be
required, by law, to sign up for the draft?
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
Several
years ago I recall reading about experiments the Israeli army did to
integrate women into their combat units. (Often used as an example of
integration). What they found was that once a platoon came under fire a
portion of the men tried to protect some of the women and the goal of
the overall mission broke down. After a few years things went back to
the way they were before, women are fully a part of their armed forces,
but not all of its roles. As an intellectual excercise it seems biology
is difficult to beat.
@angryferrets sappers
are not grunts, i was a machine gunner and carryed a minimum of 75
pounds every patrol and up to 140, we often hat FET teams with us
(female engagement teams) who were both on paper 300 pft'ers ( meaning
they had perfect scores on the physicle fitness test) on patrols they
carried nothing but there own gear, weighing less then 60 lbs, forced
patrols to stop and wait for them to catch up on a painfully regular
basis, couldnt hold pressure down on a afghan with a leg blown off and
one went home with a stress fracture half way through depoyment while
both recieved special treatment when ever possible. they put me and my
freinds lives at risk every time they left the wire with us, and these
were theoreticly the cream of the crop. its simply illogical to put
women into a job men have evolved over thousands of years to do, it
creates a weak point to be exploited and spends mens lives in the name
of gender equality and will undoubtably end the claim of the marine corp
as the worlds most ellite basic infantry
The precept of this article is
fundamentally flawed, as it is many times when someone tries to address
political or ideological issues, in which this definitely qualifies.What I mean by this is that the author uses
two different contrasting methods to make his case.On one hand, he applies general statistics
from a group of women as a whole to prove they are physically inferior to
men.I would argue a majority of the
female population is not going to run to their local recruiting station to
enlist for the infantry, so we need not compare either gender as a whole.On the other hand, he cherry picks individual
cases from combat situations which fit into his agenda.If one desired, they could find numerous
cases where men were unable to perform the physical rigors of combat, or acted
in a way which displayed fear or cowardice....
I
am an active duty Army officer, combat arms, with over eleven years of
service; three of those years have been spent on combat deployments to
Iraq.In that time I have served with numerous women, to include
officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers who have performed
their duties honorably.Based on my experience, I have observed many of
the arguments against women serving in combat being dispelled over the
course of the last decade.Men and women can co-exist without a unit’s
cohesion breaking apart, women can be capable leaders, and women are
capable of living in the field in arduous conditions.Of course there is a
potential for issues, and some will exist, but the majority of these
will be overcome with discipline and proper planning; just as they are
in numerous military specialties where females currently serve.The truth
is we want our military to be a reflection of society, a society which
practices equality and fairness; the military is no exception to this
rule in any regards.
I
do believe there is one issue which must be addressed, the physical
standards accepted to allow women to serve in traditional combat
positions.Where the author and I disagree, is this standard should not
be centered on the improbable, such as a pilot having to recover a EP-3E
from an inverted dive, but should instead be based on the normal
physical demands placed on a soldier of that military specialty.Standard
tasks such as buddy carries, carrying the M240B machine gun while in
full combat uniform, or carrying the base plate for the M224 60 mm
Lightweight Mortar are just a few examples which all infantry soldiers
should be required to achieve.The Army and the other services as well,
should conduct their due diligence to ensure the proper standards are
established, which are gender neutral, for any soldier to serve within a
combat arms military specialty.It has been discussed that the Army’s
Training and Doctrine Command is developing MOS (military occupational
specialty) specific physical fitness test which will require just
this.The bottom line is our military must remain ready and relevant, to
do this we must have soldiers who are capable of carrying out their
missions and maintaining our combat effectiveness, regardless of gender.
For
those wanting to integrate women into combat arms-there is a show on
NEtflix called "making the cut." For those of you without experience in
Combat Arms, watch a few episodes and honestly ask how many women CAN.
In
the episode about the Sappers a female does pass, and she is held to
the same standards as the men. As a matter of fact over 60 women have
passed the Sapper course, but until now they were not able to deploy as
combat engineers.
British
army did a test about 10 years ago when this was all the rage in
Britain. Tests showed a women would cost 30% more to train up to a half
decent standard , would get injured training 30% more and none of the
women in the lefts much vaunted exeriment passed the test at the end..
Waste of time and tax payers money for the sake of political idealism.
During world war 2 tito the leader of the slav partisans had to make having sex a capital offence in his ranks because of heigthened sexual arousing in mixed units causing sever disipline and opperational problems. The Russians had a similar system in their mixed ranks.
Are the Americans willing to do the same? Or will they live with the problems and use ideology instead of millitary common sense?
Waste of time and tax payers money for the sake of political idealism.
During world war 2 tito the leader of the slav partisans had to make having sex a capital offence in his ranks because of heigthened sexual arousing in mixed units causing sever disipline and opperational problems. The Russians had a similar system in their mixed ranks.
Are the Americans willing to do the same? Or will they live with the problems and use ideology instead of millitary common sense?
It's
about time some one speaks out about this reverse injustice. Because we
all want to be politically correct and polite...we fail to see the
error of our ways that, as the article states, will be a weakening force
to reckon with. What the article is saying is nothing new. This has
been known for millennia. However in this age of educational stupidity
we confuse common sense with prejudice. Wake up America...
Why
would Army standards be so different for upper body strength if women
and men are so similar? Men must do more than twice as many pushups.
18 Year old Male minimum pushups 42
18 year old Female minimum pushups 19
18 Year old Male minimum pushups 42
18 year old Female minimum pushups 19
Interesting
article. I find the strength issue unconvincing. It's certainly true
that physical fitness remains important, but just because the armed
forces are currently applying double standards does not mean that this
could not be changed.
The other points are certainly worth debating. It seems, though, that there are quite a few cultural issues at work here, and it's not obvious that the only solution to these problems would be to keep women out of the armed forces or to restrict their roles. It's good, though, to keep this debate grounded in facts, even and especially when these facts might be unwelcome.
The other points are certainly worth debating. It seems, though, that there are quite a few cultural issues at work here, and it's not obvious that the only solution to these problems would be to keep women out of the armed forces or to restrict their roles. It's good, though, to keep this debate grounded in facts, even and especially when these facts might be unwelcome.
@jwjanneck Physical
fitness remains important? Are you serious? We are talking 100 lbs on
our back up and down the Hindu Kush mountains to close with and destroy
the enemy. But you are spot on with cultural issues.
speaking to the physical, here is an article from a female Marine Captain:
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
It is not about women in combat but women in Combat Arms units (Infantry, Armor and Field Artillery). That is a much different thing because they are based on physical strength, upper body strength and a complete lack of privacy. So even the outlier female who could meet the physical standards as a member of an infantry squad, the question does not end there. This change would require some sort of cultural change in our society with regards to expectations of privacy. Additionally male married Soldiers wives would not take to kindly to that lack of privacy (naked female Soldiers) in that setting. When I say NO Privacy, I mean NO privacy. I have been in Infantry, Armor and Logistics units. The last can provide the minimum amount of privacy required. The first two, there is no way around the zero privacy issue. -
the necessity of doing it in the open or showering or bathing next to each other is Infantry. So how do you deal with Sexual Harrasment issues as presented above?"We would go months without bathing, except when we could stand naked among each other next to a village well or in a stream or in the muddy water of a bomb crater. It was nothing to begin walking at midnight, laden with packs and weapons and ammunition and supplies, seventy pounds or more of gear, and still be walking when the sun broke over mud-slick paddies that had sucked our boots all night. We carried our own gear and when we took casualties we carried the weapons of those who had been hit. When we stopped moving we started digging, furiously throwing out the heavy soil until we had made chest-deep fighting holes. When we needed to make a call of nature we squatted off a trail or straddled a slit trench that had been dug between fighting holes, always by necessity in public view.
speaking to the physical, here is an article from a female Marine Captain:
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
It is not about women in combat but women in Combat Arms units (Infantry, Armor and Field Artillery). That is a much different thing because they are based on physical strength, upper body strength and a complete lack of privacy. So even the outlier female who could meet the physical standards as a member of an infantry squad, the question does not end there. This change would require some sort of cultural change in our society with regards to expectations of privacy. Additionally male married Soldiers wives would not take to kindly to that lack of privacy (naked female Soldiers) in that setting. When I say NO Privacy, I mean NO privacy. I have been in Infantry, Armor and Logistics units. The last can provide the minimum amount of privacy required. The first two, there is no way around the zero privacy issue. -
the necessity of doing it in the open or showering or bathing next to each other is Infantry. So how do you deal with Sexual Harrasment issues as presented above?"We would go months without bathing, except when we could stand naked among each other next to a village well or in a stream or in the muddy water of a bomb crater. It was nothing to begin walking at midnight, laden with packs and weapons and ammunition and supplies, seventy pounds or more of gear, and still be walking when the sun broke over mud-slick paddies that had sucked our boots all night. We carried our own gear and when we took casualties we carried the weapons of those who had been hit. When we stopped moving we started digging, furiously throwing out the heavy soil until we had made chest-deep fighting holes. When we needed to make a call of nature we squatted off a trail or straddled a slit trench that had been dug between fighting holes, always by necessity in public view.
@joetheragman2 @jwjanneck
I can't tell whether this is a response to what I wrote or not. If I go
by the style, I would say you are disagreeing with me, but I can find
nothing in the substance of what you say that would bear this out.
Confusing...
@jwjanneck the question is not whether it can be changed...the question is will it change?
@lucancorpsman @jwjanneck
Last I looked, the U.S. military answers to civilian leadership, and
their top dog is an elected official. Not saying that there isn't
inertia in such a massive system, but in the end it should be society
that tells the military how it is supposed to conduct its business.
@jwjanneck @lucancorpsman It
is not so clean cut. The military also answers to the Congress and that
means that there is a natural friction involved as it should be. I
honestly think that the law will pass regardless of the tests and the
science but I do not think you are going to see Female Rangers. It is
not the women's fault for trying, but the fact is not enough
testosterone and the present laws such as Sex Harassment laws will cause
havoc if there were to be women there...
@jwjanneck
Well you've obviously not got any experience in a infantry military unit.
Strange thing to say strength dosen't matter.
A fifeteen stone wounded man getting dragged to safety by a 9 stone female... LOl! Male soldiers should sue the political class in American for endangering their lives even further.
Well you've obviously not got any experience in a infantry military unit.
Strange thing to say strength dosen't matter.
A fifeteen stone wounded man getting dragged to safety by a 9 stone female... LOl! Male soldiers should sue the political class in American for endangering their lives even further.
@Skullduggery @jwjanneck
I'd wager that I have more experience in an infantry military unit than
you do in reading and comprehending --- where did I say that strength
does not matter???
We
just passed the Violence Against Women act? How in the world should
that be necessary if women are just as strong and aggressive as men?
Why do women worry about getting raped if they are physically as strong
Primrose says"For that matter, women risk gruesome death simply going about our daily lives, serial killers, cannibal cops or just a man with a control issues. "
I ask why is that an issue if women are just a physically capable as men?
Why do women worry about getting raped if they are physically as strong
Primrose says"For that matter, women risk gruesome death simply going about our daily lives, serial killers, cannibal cops or just a man with a control issues. "
I ask why is that an issue if women are just a physically capable as men?
@joetheragman2
Women are just one of the sacralized species. To the progressive mind, it's necessary to tilt the playing field as far to the left as possible to level it.
Women are just one of the sacralized species. To the progressive mind, it's necessary to tilt the playing field as far to the left as possible to level it.
@OneBadStud @joetheragman2 One,
black men are men, gay men are men but women are women and it is not
due to teh Patriarchy that they have less testestorone. Reality based
facts are someone not making it into the conversation.
@joetheragman2 @OneBadStud
Your obsession with testosterone and superior physical strength belies a certain insecurity. Just admit it, women are merely sex objects and they should yield to your loudly proclaimed masculinity...
Your obsession with testosterone and superior physical strength belies a certain insecurity. Just admit it, women are merely sex objects and they should yield to your loudly proclaimed masculinity...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud The
obsession with testosterone is all this conversation is about. Women
just don't produce enough of it to be good in the combat rates.
@scooter23 @barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud
Good morning, scooter! ready for combat again, I see...
Good morning, scooter! ready for combat again, I see...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud barabbas.
you obviously have not read my posts on here. I have extraordinary
respect for female Soldiers. I honestly do not think my career in
logistics would have been half as successful without the extraordinarily
competent Soldiers who happen to have been female. The key ones that I
am speaking of would not want to be Infantry.
Could you or someone who thinks women should serve in the Infantry explain to me if you would suspend Sexual Harassment laws as they now stand to protect the 19 year old male soldiers in teh field looking at the naked female form?
Could you or someone who thinks women should serve in the Infantry explain to me if you would suspend Sexual Harassment laws as they now stand to protect the 19 year old male soldiers in teh field looking at the naked female form?
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud by the way, the reality based society is supposed to respect science? Are you also against evolution?
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
And where did I say women should serve in combat roles? If you read my discussion with scooter last night, you will see that i question the efficacy of combat, period. Reducing a human being to a puddle of flesh instantly is not heroic mano-a-mano combat. It's insanity.
And where did I say women should serve in combat roles? If you read my discussion with scooter last night, you will see that i question the efficacy of combat, period. Reducing a human being to a puddle of flesh instantly is not heroic mano-a-mano combat. It's insanity.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
Evolution is working in reverse with humans. We have survival of the mediocre and the bureaucratic, not the fittest. Think of the politicians who send you to Afghanistan...
Evolution is working in reverse with humans. We have survival of the mediocre and the bureaucratic, not the fittest. Think of the politicians who send you to Afghanistan...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud I
must have thought you were saying women should be in combat roles...I
have a few fights going on at once and my testosterone does not allow me
to multi task as well ;o)
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud LOL,
I think that is unfortunately an accurate statement for the west. I do
not think it is true in China or the emerging powers. They are rising
for a reason. Afghanistan is the good war IMHO.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
I know all about high testosterone, bro. Let's continue the discussion. Is the Afghanistan mission viable? Can we kill terrorists without spawning more?
I know all about high testosterone, bro. Let's continue the discussion. Is the Afghanistan mission viable? Can we kill terrorists without spawning more?
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud Sure
you can kill terrorists without spawning more. What you have to do is
kill the smart and capable terrorists and be relentless. Now if you are
asking if we as a society are capable of that, well from what I have
seen, only after a massive attack on the "homeland" where you have a
window where the gloves come off. in my personal opinion, that will
happen again and give us the opportunity, with alot more expertise
available, to possible make it hurt. But the best you are going to buy
is 10 years...everyone was scared of us after Desert Storm for a few
years...you have to demonstrate and show it to them again and again.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
Ah, perpetual war... Job security for you, higher taxes for me. I'm not convinced that preventing terrorist attacks is a combat mission.
Ah, perpetual war... Job security for you, higher taxes for me. I'm not convinced that preventing terrorist attacks is a combat mission.
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud Pretty
unfair characterization of what I was saying. You asked a question
about can we do one specific thing. Here is another way that would
answer your "new" question. We can become the US of pre WW I. Screw it,
dont get involved in all of these spats around the world. Make money and
stay on our continent with a bad ass Navy and serious technology. MUCH
MUCH cheaper and would work. But then you have Christiane Amanpour out
there screaming about the Bosnian Muslims or the Southern Sudanese or
this years Ethiopans or my favorite that is soon to be forgotten for a
few years, teh women of AFghanistan.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
I argued last night that decriminalizing heroin and treating addicts in clinics would go a long way toward defunding the Taliban and save on law enforcement at home. I'm not an isolationist by any stretch. I just don't believe combat is effective in high tech warfare. It's a different brand of terrorism...
I argued last night that decriminalizing heroin and treating addicts in clinics would go a long way toward defunding the Taliban and save on law enforcement at home. I'm not an isolationist by any stretch. I just don't believe combat is effective in high tech warfare. It's a different brand of terrorism...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud what
is your definition of high tech warfare? I am sorry but I just dont
think that warfare is that much more high tech than it used to
be...decriminalizing heroin is not a realistic point. In Holland they
are talking about recriminalizing prostitution and pot...I am
libertarian enough to agree with you though that we should try it. But
it would have to happen across teh entire west all at once and I dont
see it.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
the portability of explosive devices has increased exponentially...
the portability of explosive devices has increased exponentially...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud That is one upgrade but the reality is that it is the use of suicide bombers, not the tech IMHO.
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud barabbas,
you sound like an isolationist. If you are against the Afghan war, can
you tell me what possible war you would support?
@barabbas
Go back to your women studies class, your cat and your fat ugly butch female lover please.
Go back to your women studies class, your cat and your fat ugly butch female lover please.
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud You say you are not isolationist but dont believe in combat? What kind of an non-solationist are you then?
@joetheragman2
We have a culture that objectifies women and rationalizes sexual exploitation, hence VAWA. Many rapists use weapons or drugs to ensure their physical superiority.
We have a culture that objectifies women and rationalizes sexual exploitation, hence VAWA. Many rapists use weapons or drugs to ensure their physical superiority.
@barabbas @joetheragman2 A better argument for concealed carry has never been made. All cultures objectify women and always have.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas
And you well know that acquaintance rape is by far the most prevalent. Guns aren't going to cure that. A little testosterone-based control would help more.
And you well know that acquaintance rape is by far the most prevalent. Guns aren't going to cure that. A little testosterone-based control would help more.
@barabbas @joetheragman2 True
dat. That is cultural and I would say that testosterone based control
was thrown out the window to a large degree but a modern society that
worships "equality" instead of stating that there is a difference in the
sexes. ButI disagree with your gun statement-- a .22 in a pocketbook
would stop 99% of acquaintance rape in MHO.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas
And also lead to more domestic violence. Too bad Pistorius' girlfriend didn't have a .22 in the bathroom...
And also lead to more domestic violence. Too bad Pistorius' girlfriend didn't have a .22 in the bathroom...
@joetheragman2 @barabbas
It's also the culture that I'm questioning. I'm an advocate of a much more open sexuality. It's a great stress reliever. In fact, I'm feeling a little testy (quite literally) this morning because my girlfriend wasn't in the mood...
It's also the culture that I'm questioning. I'm an advocate of a much more open sexuality. It's a great stress reliever. In fact, I'm feeling a little testy (quite literally) this morning because my girlfriend wasn't in the mood...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 cause
she would have offed him if she felt threatened and the testosterone
advantage that Mr no legs had would have been nullified. You can say it
would lead to more domesetic violence but so would legalizing heroin and
other drugs...
@joetheragman2 @barabbas
Heroin tends to incapacitate its users. the violence is associated with withdrawal and criminal activity to be able to buy another dose. Make addicts sign a waiver and then let them OD. Kind of harsh, but kind of realistic too...
Heroin tends to incapacitate its users. the violence is associated with withdrawal and criminal activity to be able to buy another dose. Make addicts sign a waiver and then let them OD. Kind of harsh, but kind of realistic too...
@barabbas Heroin use would still be expensive to Heroin addicts...they would have to steal to buy a does
@barabbas
Barabbas make the point I was trying to illustrate, Joe. As long as there is the perception of privilege, purification rituals must be performed, taboos instituted. It is imperative that women be allowed in combat positions because men can't be allowed any exclusive clubs, not because <1% of women are being denied something.
Barabbas make the point I was trying to illustrate, Joe. As long as there is the perception of privilege, purification rituals must be performed, taboos instituted. It is imperative that women be allowed in combat positions because men can't be allowed any exclusive clubs, not because <1% of women are being denied something.
@OneBadStud @barabbas that
is exactly the reason this argument is happening. I bet you that there
is not women on this board who wants to sign up for the Infantry (let
alone the military) or knows of a woman who does but it is because
1% of women are being denied something.
1% of women are being denied something.
@OneBadStud @barabbas
Again, i am not advocating women in combat roles. I am advocating alternative strategies to combat.
Again, i am not advocating women in combat roles. I am advocating alternative strategies to combat.
Who is Waging War on Women?
- Written by Phyllis Schlafly
Defense
Leon Panetta as the fall guy, to assign women for the first time in
American history to fight our nation’s enemies in military ground
combat. That’s real war, with real guns, real bullets, and real deaths.
This war doesn’t involve only women who have volunteered to serve in our military. It’s a real war against all 18-year-old American girls, because for the first time in our nation’s history they will be required to sign up for the draft and be ready for a letter from Selective Service ordering them to report for military duty.
That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981 that the gender difference in the law requiring “every male citizen” of age 18 through 25 to register does not violate equal protection or due process. However, there was a caveat.
The Court ruled:
The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.Congress must act immediately, before the May passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014, in order to preempt what Obama’s Department of Defense, without constitutional authority, is trying to do unilaterally. There is no demand from the American people to pursue this war on young women. The House has not had any hearings on women in combat since 1979, and the Senate has not had hearings since 1991.
Some U.S. military commanders’ disdain for our traditional civilian control of the military is insufferable. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said Congress can “legislate if they like” but “they don’t have to,” and Panetta said he didn’t know “who the hell” is in charge of Selective Service.
They should read the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, gives power to Congress “To raise and support Armies, … maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”
Demands from the feminists for 18-year-old girls to register for the draft are already appearing on the internet. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has reintroduced his bill to include women in the draft or at least to require them to perform some kind of compulsory service.
Assigning women to close ground combat against vicious enemy troops creates a war not only on 18-year-old girls who don’t choose to serve in the military. It creates a war not only on the courageous enlisted women who have volunteered to serve in the military but don’t want to be assigned to close ground combat with the Army pretending they are physically equal to men.
The new orders to achieve “diversity metrics” (i.e., female quotas) will change all requirements that women pass the same tests required of the men. The services will be required to introduce a “critical mass” or a “significant cadre” of women, expected to be 10 to 15 percent, into previously all-male units.
The mandate for diversity metrics will trump truth, honor, and common sense. The Defense Department has recommended that a new Diversity Czar (officially called a Chief Diversity Officer) be established to monitor “diversity management.”
This Diversity Czar and the Defense Department-endorsed Military Leadership Diversity Commission will be charged with the following mission. “To ensure that the diversity effort continues, demonstrated diversity leadership must be assessed throughout careers and made … a criterion for nomination and confirmation to the 3- and 4-star ranks.”
Men, do you get what that means? Your promotions will depend on giving the feminists whatever they demand and lying about so-called equal performance by males and females in order to demonstrate your “diversity leadership.”
The men will be expected to ignore the fact that gender-fair training is not the same as “gender-free training.” The Military Diversity Commission Report admits that fair treatment “is not about treating everyone the same.”
Gen. Robert W. Cone, who heads the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, said, “I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army.” But ground combat with evil enemies is not fair or equal; it is not even civilized. So, what do you think of men who would send women into that?
And, here is more Cone nonsense: “Army officials will look at ‘traditional impediments’ — the attitudes regarding the acceptance of women into previously male-only jobs…. The Army will take ‘proactive measures’ to mitigate resistance to women going into these specialties.”
The only way to preserve tough standards for ground combat training, and maintain women’s Selective Service exemption, is for Congress to reassert previous regulations exempting women from direct ground combat units.
Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo. She has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer organization called Eagle Forum.
In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to
victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists,
called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent
of the radical feminist movement, she appears in debate on college
campuses more frequently than any other conservative. She was named one
of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home
Journal.
Ainsley Earhardt
Alicia Acuna
Alisyn Camerota
Andrea Tantaros
Anita Vogel
Claudia Cowan
Courtney Friehl
Dana Perino
Dari Alexander
Dominica Davis
E.D. Hill
Gretchen Carlson
Harris Faulkne
Click on their Names
WND Exclusive
Look what's happened to women of Fox News
Legendary beauties suddenly become immortalized
- 2013 Best Skin TightenersAn Unbiased Review List of The Top Performing Skin Tighteners In 2013 www.SkinCareSearch.com/FaceLifting
- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Molly Line of the Fox News Channel
Or MSNBC.
Or PBS.
Or ABC, CBS or NBC News.
But you just may hear it talked about on the Fox News Channel or the Fox Business Network.
Singer and songwriter Austin Cunningham
Titled “The Girls On Fox News,” the song starts off with a true-to-life description of what happened to its writer and performer, Austin Cunningham:
Well I used to be a Democrat, Liberal no doubt I didn’t think Conservatives knew what life’s about Then I started leaving the Fox News channel on. If that’s the face of the right, I’ll tell the left so long.
Watch and listen to the song by clicking on the video below:
The song is upbeat and replete with jokes, including a catchy chorus proclaiming:
Oh, I want a girl like the girls on Fox News Everyone is beautiful, anyone you choose Whoever does the hiring knows how to light my fuse I want a girl like the girls on Fox News.
The song is not on an any album yet, but can be purchased on iTunes, and the YouTube video of the song has rocketed to more than 600,000 hits in that past two weeks.
“I’ve only performed it live at a few shows so far, but people go nuts for this song and my e-mail from my website is piling up!” Cunningham told WND.
A native of Garland, Texas, Cunningham now splits his time between McKinney, Texas, and Nashville, Tenn., where he composes for other artists.
As far as how it all began, Cunningham says, “The idea for the song came from a phone conversation I was havin’ with a buddy and I said something like, ‘Have you noticed how good-looking the gals are on Fox News?’
Monica Crowley of Fox News
He says he originally wrote the song some four years ago, and would occasionally tweak it, but never thought about releasing it.
“I looked at it last fall and it still seemed funny and relevant, so I did my research and updated some of the gals names. I played it for a few people and they started begging me to record and release it,” he said.
Cunningham indicated while the song is playful, “even a funny song like this, should start somewhere and take the listener on a three-to-four minute trip. So going from liberal to conservative because of the girls’ beauty didn’t seem like too big a stretch. Sure there may be better reasons to lean conservative, but like Brad Paisley said, ‘I’m Still A Guy.’”
Shannon Bream of Fox News
Cunningham now confesses he’s a “Fox News Junkie,” and “with the risk of your readers’ disbelief, I like the guys on there, too. I relate to them. How can you not like Steve Doocy or Brian Kilmeade? I mean these guys and girls come off as kind, decent, hard-working and caring professionals that I can give my time to. I’m a Fox Business guy now, too, and love [Don] Imus. He kinda hates everything, but he has great taste in music!”
Some of the men of Fox are mentioned in the song:
Now to Doocy, Kilmeade, and Bolling, Bret, Shep and Sean And all them other hairy-legged Geraldos you put on I ask you all one question, who would you rather watch Cavuto or Courtney Friel interview Ed Koch.
Courtney Friel of Fox News
“If I absolutely HAD to choose one Fox anchor/contributor,” he explained, “I suppose it would have to be Megyn Kelly. She is like the new ‘America’s Sweetheart.’ She, and seriously all these gals, seem to be what our elders used to describe as ‘lovely.’ Meaning looks certainly, but also with qualities like elegance, grace, intelligence, wit and kindness.”
Megyn Kelly of Fox News
A lyric in the song is dedicated to Meade, saying:
‘Cause honey sure beats vinegar to watch down the news we need No one else comes close, well except for maybe Robin Meade.
Robin Meade of CNN
When asked if he thought most people choose to watch a certain channel or network based on the appearance of the on-air talent, he said, “Look, it’s an ‘American Idol’ world whether we like it or not. I’m in the music business where they want the girls younger and hotter; and it’s the same with guys really. A pretty package never hurts, I just wish that in movies, music or TV news or sitcoms, they wouldn’t take it so far. Just like in the song, I obviously noticed the gals and I respond to it as well, but there’s a way to have some class and dignity with the nice, pretty package you offer people. I think Fox does a great job of that.”
“After knowing I wrote this song, this may be hard to believe,” he continued, “but when I’m taking in news or even commentary, it is not about looks whatsoever. I know myself, and if I’m hearing a story and I don’t feel manipulated by the presentation, I’m in. I feel way less manipulated by Fox. And to stay on point, if Martha MacCallum, Gretchen Carlson, Dana Perino or Kimberly Guilfoyle are presenting that news, well, I rest my case!”
Martha MacCallum of Fox News
There’s Gretchen, Megyn and Martha, Harris and Pattie Ann Janice, Jen and Julie, Maria, Anna and Alison Dana, Ainsley, Andrea, Uma, Shannon, Molly and Heather
Hey, is there even a Heather? Yeah. There’s two? Yeah, two
There’s Mollys too? Yeah. Perfect.
Another verse pleads with listeners not to think poorly of Cunningham:
Now please don’t call me shallow, a pervert, or insane. Because who the heck does not love beauty with brains?
Cunningham is married and has a daughter in real life, and the last part of his song is a reminder to his wife that she’s the only true love for him:
No, honey, I love you! I mean if I wasn’t married to you, I’d love them I mean they’re awesome But you’re the most awesomest, really!
When asked what his wife thought of the song, Cunningham indicated, “She actually likes it a lot and is having fun with it, too. I never worried that she wouldn’t, but I completely understand the question. Some of my songwriting buddies asked me the same question. I actually believe people, including me and my wife, watch or listen with our hearts as much as with our eyes and ears. Meaning the spirit of the song is light, complimentary and with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek!”
Kimberly Guilfoyle of Fox News
In a 2011 interview with the Associated Press, he admitted, “I hired Sarah Palin because she was hot and got ratings.”
Last October, WND reported on a UCLA study that found Republican women in Congress are more feminine than their Democrat counterparts.
“Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker’s voting record,” said lead author Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology.
According to a report on the UCLA website, “The researchers also found the opposite to be true: Female politicians with less stereotypically feminine facial features were more likely to be Democrats, and the more liberal their voting record, the greater the distance the politician’s appearance strayed from stereotypical gender norms.”
People who have viewed “The Girls on Fox News” song have been leaving some interesting comments.
Among them is one by Robert S. Moulds,who noted, “Hillary Clinton needs the fashion advice from those Fox women. Maybe then she would not be such a frump. Those Fox women wear some really colorful dresses, shoes and apply just the right make up. I mean, who wouldn’t want to look as lovely or be around them? Despite this, they are still less prissy than that ugly effete rude creature Piers Morgan who, like Hillary, could use their fashion advice. They even make me wish I was straight.”
The complete lyrics for “The Girls On Fox News” by Austin Cunningham are presented here:
Well I used to be a Democrat, Liberal no doubt I didn’t think Conservatives knew what life’s about Then I started leaving the Fox News channel on. If that’s the face of the right, I’ll tell the left so long.
Oh, I want a girl like the girls on Fox News Everyone is beautiful, anyone you choose Whoever does the hiring knows how to light my fuse I want a girl like the girls on Fox News.
There’s Gretchen, Meagan and Martha, Harris and Pattie Ann Janice, Jen and Julie, Maria, Anna and Alison Dana, Ainsley, Andrea, Uma, Shannon, Molly and Heather
Hey, is there even a Heather? Yeah. There’s two? Yeah two
There’s Mollys too? Yeah. Perfect.
Well they make the bad news on TV look a whole lot better!
Now please don’t call me shallow, a pervert, or insane. Because who the heck does not love beauty with brains. I bet you that Bill Clinton, when Hillary walks in Quickly switches back from Fox to MSBNN!
Bet Bill wants a girl like the girls on Fox News Everyone is beautiful, anyone you choose! Whoever does the hiring, knows how to light my fuse I want a girl like the girls on Fox News!
Now to Doocy, Kilmeade, and Bolling, Bret, Shep and Sean And all them other hairy-legged Geraldos you put on I ask you all one question, who would you rather watch Cavuto or Courtney Friel interview Ed Koch.
‘Cause honey sure beats vinegar to watch down the news we need No one else comes close, well except for maybe Robin Meade. They got your blondes and brunettes, even redheads, too Which proves that they’re the only ones with fair and balanced news!
Oh I want a girl, like the girls on Fox News I’d settle for an hour there in Billy Hemmer’s shoes Can’t help if other network girls’ egos get bruised I want a girl like the girls on Fox News.
More Cowbell!
And I like Michelle Malkin, she never makes my reds stay blue And if my wife would let me, hey I’d marry Michelle, too. Save some love for Greta, she’s the smartest y’all Bet when she’s off the record, she’s the wildest of them all!
Now I’m a Fox News junkie, I watch it all I can My Liberal days are over, hope Bob Beckel understands. And I believe in everything O’Reilly has to say Especially when he has Kimberly Guilfoyle on that day.
Oh I want a girl like the girls on Fox News! Everyone is beautiful, anyone you choose. Whoever does the hiring knows how to light my fuse I want a girl like the girls on Fox News. Hey, I want a girl like the girls on Fox News!
No, honey, I love you! I mean if I wasn’t married to you, I’d love them I mean they’re awesome But you’re the most awesomest, really! I swear it, honey.
Should President Obama Start Federal Gun Control?
The Truth About Women in Combat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NBtBFiaJUY4
Conservatives
often stand accused these days of standing outside the "reality-based
community." Yet liberals can be blinded by ideology, and nowhere is this
more true than in the debate over women in combat.
Over
the past two decades, the United States has moved steadily to open all
military roles to women. Last month, departing Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta removed the last barriers. Women may henceforward qualify for
every duty, including combat infantry. The few - very few - public
objections raised to this decision were met with derision rather than
argument, well represented by this sneering item from the Daily Show.
Yet to deny the highly combat-relevant differences between the sexes is to deny reality as blatantly as ever done by any anti-evolutionist - and with potentially much more lethal consequence.
In 2007, Kingsley Browne gathered the evidence in a clear and concise book, Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars. The case presented by Browne won't come as news to any military decision-maker. But it will and should jolt those who have relied on too credulous media sources for their information about what soldiers do and how they do it.
Yet to deny the highly combat-relevant differences between the sexes is to deny reality as blatantly as ever done by any anti-evolutionist - and with potentially much more lethal consequence.
In 2007, Kingsley Browne gathered the evidence in a clear and concise book, Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars. The case presented by Browne won't come as news to any military decision-maker. But it will and should jolt those who have relied on too credulous media sources for their information about what soldiers do and how they do it.
The case for women in combat runs more or less as follows:
1) We have entered an era of push-button war in which purely physical strength has lost much if not all of its military relevance.
2) To the extent that strength continues to matter, some women can meet requirements and should be given a chance to qualify.
3) Other than physical strength, there are no militarily relevant differences between men and women.
4) To exclude willing women from military service is unfair and unjust.
Browne demolishes these four claims, step by remorseless step, with studies and examples drawn from military experience.
1) Physical strength continues to matter in warfare. Soldiers still must hoist heavy packs and march for miles. Soldiers still must be prepared to function with reduced food and water. Soldiers must still sometimes fight and kill their enemies hand to hand. And even in other contexts where strength seems obsolete, the mischances of war can suddenly thrust soldiers into situations where strength determines who lives and who dies. Browne reminds us of the 2001 encounter between an American EP-3E surveillance aircraft and a Chinese "Finback" fighter jet. The EP-3E is a big plane, powered by four turboprop engines and carrying a crew of 24. The much faster Finback harassed the EP-3E with mock interceptions.
1) We have entered an era of push-button war in which purely physical strength has lost much if not all of its military relevance.
2) To the extent that strength continues to matter, some women can meet requirements and should be given a chance to qualify.
3) Other than physical strength, there are no militarily relevant differences between men and women.
4) To exclude willing women from military service is unfair and unjust.
Browne demolishes these four claims, step by remorseless step, with studies and examples drawn from military experience.
1) Physical strength continues to matter in warfare. Soldiers still must hoist heavy packs and march for miles. Soldiers still must be prepared to function with reduced food and water. Soldiers must still sometimes fight and kill their enemies hand to hand. And even in other contexts where strength seems obsolete, the mischances of war can suddenly thrust soldiers into situations where strength determines who lives and who dies. Browne reminds us of the 2001 encounter between an American EP-3E surveillance aircraft and a Chinese "Finback" fighter jet. The EP-3E is a big plane, powered by four turboprop engines and carrying a crew of 24. The much faster Finback harassed the EP-3E with mock interceptions.
On
his last approach, [the Chinese pilot] comes too close. He pitches up
to maintain his slow speed, and one of the EP-3E's propellers strikes
his plane at the junction of the vertical stabilizer and the fuselage,
sounding "like a monster chain saw hacking metal." The propeller cuts
the Finback in two. The fighter's nose flips up and strikes the nose of
the American plane, knocking off the large fiberglass nose cone
containing the weather radar. The immediate decompression of the cabin
is deafening.
The EP-3E immediately flips over into a
nearly completely inverted dive. "This guy just fucking killed us,"
[Captain Shane Osborn] thinks, as he is looking up at the sea
below and observing that his plane is falling almost as fast as the
wreckage of the Finback. The lumbering EP-3E, which is a converted
Lockheed L-188 Electra passenger airliner, has never been rolled and
never recovered from an inverted dive.
Using "every ounce of strength" in his
muscular frame, Osborn struggles to bring the wings level. Gradually, he
is able to gain airspeed and recover from the roll. The plane has
fallen almost 8,000 feet from its original altitude of 22,500 feet in
about thirty seconds and is still losing altitude.
(LOC 1352-1359)
Osborn eventually brought the plane to an emergency landing on Hainan
Island and succeeded in destroying the plane's computers before Chinese
forces arrived. He won the Distinguished Flying Cross for saving his
plane and crew.
As
Shane Osborn's experience reveals, strength is not irrelevant to modern
aviation. Although it is not usually an issue in flying modern
airplanes under ordinary circumstances, when things go wrong the
situation can change dramatically. In the words of the principal
investigator of a study of strength requirements of aviators, "If they
lose hydraulics or an engine or two engines, it gets really tough to fly
the plane."
(LOC 1376)
Strength matters too for a grounded helicopter pilot or a captured
aircrew. Browne notes that about 90% of the prisoners of war held by
North Vietnam were downed pilots and aircrew.The United States is planning its future air force on the assumption that future aircrews need not worry much about enemy fire. That's a very dangerous assumption.
2) One might answer: "Fine. Strength matters. But why should gender matter? Set strength requirements, run the tests. If the women pass, they pass. If not, not."
But that answer ignores the bureaucratic realities. The record shows that the military does not and will not enforce gender-neutral standards.
“ The record shows that the military does not and will not enforce gender-neutral standards.
”
[A]t
the time of enlistment, a seventeen-year-old female is expected to do
thirteen push-ups, compared to thirty-five for males, while for
forty-one-year-olds, the numbers are six and twenty-four, respectively. A
seventeen year-old girl is expected to run two miles in nineteen
minutes, forty-two seconds or less, which is twelve seconds more than a
forty-one year old man gets. A forty-one-year-old woman has to "run" two
miles in twenty-four minus and six seconds, almost five minutes more
than a man receives. Only in combat, it seems, will demands on the sexes
be equal ….
(LOC 399-403)
The military executes missions, and the generals and admirals
understand that one of their most important missions - from the point of
view of their personal advancement - is to recruit sufficient numbers
of women to please their political masters. The only way to achieve that
mission is to operate very unequal standards. Browne again:
The probability that a randomly selected
man will have greater upper-body strength than a randomly selected woman
is well over 95 percent.
(LOC 432)
The
army's standard fragmentation grenade has a blast radius of 15 meters.
Infantrymen are required to demonstrate the ability to throw a grenade
35 meters; military women, only 25 meters. In practice, many military
women cannot throw even that far. Browne tells the story of a Sergeant
Leigh Ann Hester and squad leader Timothy Nein who came under attack in
Iraq. Both won the Silver Star.
During the 1989 invasion of Panama,
Hester gave her grenade to Nein because he
"had the better arm." She did, however, throw one about fifteen yards,
which, depending upon cover, may be a little close for comfort …. Even
if two men had been involved, of course, one might have given a grenade
to a comrade with a better arm, but the soldier with the better arm in a
mixed-sex pair will almost always be the man. If both members of the
pair are women, their ability to throw a grenade where it is needed will
be substantially limited.
(LOC 1132-1139)
The sexes differ psychologically as well as physiologically. Women
react to threat very differently from men. It seems painfully obvious to
say this, but the sex hormones testerone and estrogen push the sexes to
behave radically differently. Many young men will risk death rather
than be seen by their peers to flinch from a fight. Women's courage
takes very different forms. Browne amasses a battery of stories of
military women behaving in ways that, had they been men, would have
brought accusations of dereliction of duty - or worse. During the 1989 invasion of Panama,
CBS News reported that two female truck
drivers had tearfully refused to drive troops to the scene of fighting,
prompting an Army investigation. Two days into the investigation - and
several days before it was completed - the Army announced that the women
had acted appropriately. According to Army spokesmen, the two women
were "exhausted" after driving under fire for nine hours …. According to
officers of the infantry battalion whose soldiers were supposed to be
transported, however, the women had not been driving under fire for nine
hours. They had come under fire briefly in the first hour of the
invasion and then spent eight hours waiting for their next mission, at
one point having to be rousted from their barracks and made to stay with
the trucks. ... [Quoting another author, Browne adds] "The men at the
scene had no doubt but that the women were afraid, not tired."
(LOC 1895-1902)
Sex
integration has tangled the military in double standards and collective
denial. The Army, Browne reports, maintains an unofficial policy
whereby women - but not men - showers in the field every 72 hours. This
practice is not written down, but it's observed by the troops as another
example of a demoralizing military culture of denial and lying. Browne
quotes interviews of enlisted men by military sociologist Laura Miller:
(LOC 1844)
"Today all you hear in the Army is that we are equal, but men do all the hard and heavy work whether it's combat or not."
"The majority of females I know are not
soldiers. They are employed. Anything strenuous is avoided with a
passion. I would hate to serve with them during combat! I would end up
doing my job and 2/3 of theirs just to stay alive."
(LOC 3644)
More cutting still, Browne repeats a bitter military joke that true
equality will arrive - not when women receive Medals of Honor (since it
will be suspected that the standards were bent in their favor) - but
when women "can be subject to a court-martial for cowardly conduct." (LOC 1844)
3)
The most fundamental differentiator between men and women of course is
mutual sexual attraction. That fact has become an increasing source of
weakness to US military units, and will weaken them still further when
full combat integration is achieved. Where men and women are put
together, sex will follow. So will pregnancy - which is of course
grounds for removing women from active duty. Sex is sometimes
consensual. It is is sometimes coerced. And it is sometimes sold.
[P]rostitution by female personnel appears
to be a widespread phenomenon, although the Pentagon's reticence on the
subject makes it difficult to ascertain just how widespread. I have
heard from numerous sources claiming personal knowledge (not as
customers, they all assure me) of prostitution rings in the Army, Navy,
Air Force, and Marines. I have heard it from officers who were
responsible for discipline and from enlisted men who were aware of the
women to go to.
(LOC 3507-3510)
The most dangerous consequence of sexual attraction, however, is the
corrosion of unit cohesion. A "band of brothers" pretty quickly
degenerates into a snarling pack of primates when the brothers begin to
compete amongst themselves for the sexual attention of a much smaller
number of women.“ Is the unwillingness of men to follow women into battle "unfair"? What does that question even mean?
”
4)
It is on the point of "fairness" that Browne expresses himself most
scathingly. It's not the military's job to be "fair." It is the
military's job to win wars. Our society values freedom of speech. It
values the right to elect leaders. It values individual choice and
market competition. All of those values are suspended in the military,
sacrificed to the paramount need for military effectiveness. Yet on
gender issues, the military seems to have decided that the desire of a
relatively very small number of female officers to reach the highest
levels of command trumps the necessities of national defense.
Ironically, the motive that most impels women into combat - the eagerness of some female officers to ascend to higher levels of leadership - is precisely the end that may be most unobtainable. A battery of studies cited by Browne confirms the reluctance of men to accept female leadership when the shooting starts. This reluctance actually increases the more that male soldiers experience female leadership, for reasons hard-wired into the male brain. Psychologists find that women's leadership is accepted by men (and women!) to the extent that it is warm, nurturing, and participatory: in other words, maternal. It is least accepted when it is cold, challenging, and hierarchical: in other words, paternal - or in other other words, military. Which means:
Ironically, the motive that most impels women into combat - the eagerness of some female officers to ascend to higher levels of leadership - is precisely the end that may be most unobtainable. A battery of studies cited by Browne confirms the reluctance of men to accept female leadership when the shooting starts. This reluctance actually increases the more that male soldiers experience female leadership, for reasons hard-wired into the male brain. Psychologists find that women's leadership is accepted by men (and women!) to the extent that it is warm, nurturing, and participatory: in other words, maternal. It is least accepted when it is cold, challenging, and hierarchical: in other words, paternal - or in other other words, military. Which means:
Military women may be in a bind. The
leadership role calls for an authoritarian style, but when women act
accordingly, they tend to be negatively evaluated and therefore less
effective.
(LOC 2656)
Is the unwillingness of men to follow women into battle "unfair"? What does that question even mean?
Too many draw an analogy between sex distinctions and the military's discredited history of racial discrimination. Browne urges us to think of sex as a distinction more like age.
[T]he measure of a leader lies not in the
leader's behavior but in the behavior of his subordinates. If potential
followers will not follow a leader for whatever reason, the leader
cannot be effective. Whether blame is assigned to the failed follower or
the failed leader is immaterial. If the mission is not being
accomplished, the unit is ineffective.
(LOC 2680)
Browne stresses: "one may challenge the policy of sexual integration
without disparaging the service of military women. Those who are serving
now, and those who served in the past - not to mention those who will
do so in the future - deserve the thanks of a grateful nation." (LOC 32)
Too many draw an analogy between sex distinctions and the military's discredited history of racial discrimination. Browne urges us to think of sex as a distinction more like age.
[W]hat would happen if the United States
had fifteen thousand sixty-year-old men in Iraq and Afghanistan instead
of fifteen thousand women. If it did, many of these older men would
undoubtedly behave bravely. Would these stories be persuasive evidence
that the military should allow sixty-year-olds to enlist? Not at all.
The relevant question is whether the sixty-year-old men are as effective
in combat as twenty-year-old mean, and few would be (or be expected to
be).
(LOC 3943)
Co-ed Combat depicts a country that seems to have made up its
collective mind that it need not worry about ever again fighting a major
war against a capable enemy - A country so confident in its margin of
superiority that it can afford deliberately to weaken its own military
performance for reasons of pure ideology. And this time it is the
so-called progressive side that treats facts as unwelcome intruders.
Sara Lister, [the Clinton-era] Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, candidly stated
that the Army does not publicly discuss strength and pregnancy issues
because "those subjects quickly become fodder for conservatives seeking
to limit women's role in the Army."
(LOC 3831)
Well, yeah. But if your preferred policy can only be advanced by
concealing relevant facts, isn't that a blaring warning of a bad policy?
A big, rich country like the United States can afford many mistakes.
But in this case, the mistakes will exact a cost in lives sacrificed and
- very conceivably - future battles lost.You Might Also Like
30 people listening
This
article is very on target with the issue. Even if you get women
physically fit, you can NEVER fix that fact that our lungs our smaller
thus we can carry less oxygen and that our muscles can never be as
developed as a man's. And sure, you have female body builders, but if
you take one of the same size, the man would still be stronger, period.
Also consider the fact that the average woman is around 5'4. But there are many female soldiers that are only 5'0-5'1 and weight barely above 100-105 lbs. And if the equipment weighs up to 75 pounds, folks that is 3/4 their entire body weight and the last time I checked many women simply are not that strong. Would you honestly trust a 5'0-5'4 and barely above 100 lbs with your life? This is not an issue about equal rights. No, screw that. It all goes down to biological differences and women just aren't built for combat. At all.
Also consider the fact that the average woman is around 5'4. But there are many female soldiers that are only 5'0-5'1 and weight barely above 100-105 lbs. And if the equipment weighs up to 75 pounds, folks that is 3/4 their entire body weight and the last time I checked many women simply are not that strong. Would you honestly trust a 5'0-5'4 and barely above 100 lbs with your life? This is not an issue about equal rights. No, screw that. It all goes down to biological differences and women just aren't built for combat. At all.
As a woman, and one who had a career, I believe this article has lots
of truth in it. We need to be realists. Women are not men and never
will be, no matter what concocted fantasies Feminism has purshed
forward. Our society, mouthing "equality," has tried to turn women into
men in the sexual arena, also. Casual sex doesn't satisfy a woman's
need for intimacy in the context of a committed relationship; however,
our society would like us to behave like men in this realm. Why don't
we all just accept the fact that we are different sexes and have
different capacities and needs? We don't all have to be considered the
same to be honored equally. But the abuse of power and degradation of
women by men in the past fueled the fires of Feminism. Let's arrive at a
new place of honoring each other for our contributions and differences
and not punish women with less pay for doing an equal job - if she is
indeed doing an equal job with equal standards of excellence.
Why
don't the socialist feminists demand "fully integrated" sports? Why
don't they demand that women get to compete with the men in running,
boxing, swimming, golf, basketball, tennis, skiing, jumping? Because
they would be easily beaten. So it is in combat too.
Almost all who have had to work with women in uniform become disgusted. Disgusted by the women who demand preferential treatment, who shirk away from hard work, who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to do their part in combat.
Disgusted by the officers who favor women at all turns, even driving them when the men have to walk, because socialism demands that women be favored at the expense of men, since that makes them a loyal voting group.
And disgusted by the drooling men in uniform who start flirting with and fighting over these women, destroying group cohesion.
And finally, disgusted again by the women, who use the potential promise of sex to get the men to do them favors. And who LOVE to see men divided and fighting over them, it is a huge power trip for them.
Almost all who have had to work with women in uniform become disgusted. Disgusted by the women who demand preferential treatment, who shirk away from hard work, who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to do their part in combat.
Disgusted by the officers who favor women at all turns, even driving them when the men have to walk, because socialism demands that women be favored at the expense of men, since that makes them a loyal voting group.
And disgusted by the drooling men in uniform who start flirting with and fighting over these women, destroying group cohesion.
And finally, disgusted again by the women, who use the potential promise of sex to get the men to do them favors. And who LOVE to see men divided and fighting over them, it is a huge power trip for them.
But, but the grrrrrls are such excellent NFL kickers......lol.
Frankly, my dear get to the effn front of the line. No man in his right mind would defend this man hating culture known as the USSA, the FemNazi Commie Obummer Empire, you are on your own c*nts,.
Frankly, my dear get to the effn front of the line. No man in his right mind would defend this man hating culture known as the USSA, the FemNazi Commie Obummer Empire, you are on your own c*nts,.
"[T]he
measure of a leader lies not in the leader's behavior but in the
behavior of his subordinates. If potential followers will not follow a
leader for whatever reason, the leader cannot be effective. Whether
blame is assigned to the failed follower or the failed leader is
immaterial. If the mission is not being accomplished, the unit is
ineffective."
That applies to our President and Congress as well, right, Mr. Frum? Sounds of silence.
That applies to our President and Congress as well, right, Mr. Frum? Sounds of silence.
Washington
Post: It is only constitutional to register men for a draft, the
Supreme Court ruled more than three decades ago, because the reason for
registration is to create a pool of potential combat troops should a
national emergency demand a rapid increase in the size of the military.
Women were excluded from serving in battlefield jobs, so there was no
reason to register them for possible conscription into the armed forces,
the court held.
ALL
young men are required, by law, to sign up for the draft. With women
now 'officially' approved for combat, will ALL young women now be
required, by law, to sign up for the draft?
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
Several
years ago I recall reading about experiments the Israeli army did to
integrate women into their combat units. (Often used as an example of
integration). What they found was that once a platoon came under fire a
portion of the men tried to protect some of the women and the goal of
the overall mission broke down. After a few years things went back to
the way they were before, women are fully a part of their armed forces,
but not all of its roles. As an intellectual excercise it seems biology
is difficult to beat.
@angryferrets sappers
are not grunts, i was a machine gunner and carryed a minimum of 75
pounds every patrol and up to 140, we often hat FET teams with us
(female engagement teams) who were both on paper 300 pft'ers ( meaning
they had perfect scores on the physicle fitness test) on patrols they
carried nothing but there own gear, weighing less then 60 lbs, forced
patrols to stop and wait for them to catch up on a painfully regular
basis, couldnt hold pressure down on a afghan with a leg blown off and
one went home with a stress fracture half way through depoyment while
both recieved special treatment when ever possible. they put me and my
freinds lives at risk every time they left the wire with us, and these
were theoreticly the cream of the crop. its simply illogical to put
women into a job men have evolved over thousands of years to do, it
creates a weak point to be exploited and spends mens lives in the name
of gender equality and will undoubtably end the claim of the marine corp
as the worlds most ellite basic infantry
The precept of this article is
fundamentally flawed, as it is many times when someone tries to address
political or ideological issues, in which this definitely qualifies.What I mean by this is that the author uses
two different contrasting methods to make his case.On one hand, he applies general statistics
from a group of women as a whole to prove they are physically inferior to
men.I would argue a majority of the
female population is not going to run to their local recruiting station to
enlist for the infantry, so we need not compare either gender as a whole.On the other hand, he cherry picks individual
cases from combat situations which fit into his agenda.If one desired, they could find numerous
cases where men were unable to perform the physical rigors of combat, or acted
in a way which displayed fear or cowardice....
I
am an active duty Army officer, combat arms, with over eleven years of
service; three of those years have been spent on combat deployments to
Iraq.In that time I have served with numerous women, to include
officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers who have performed
their duties honorably.Based on my experience, I have observed many of
the arguments against women serving in combat being dispelled over the
course of the last decade.Men and women can co-exist without a unit’s
cohesion breaking apart, women can be capable leaders, and women are
capable of living in the field in arduous conditions.Of course there is a
potential for issues, and some will exist, but the majority of these
will be overcome with discipline and proper planning; just as they are
in numerous military specialties where females currently serve.The truth
is we want our military to be a reflection of society, a society which
practices equality and fairness; the military is no exception to this
rule in any regards.
I
do believe there is one issue which must be addressed, the physical
standards accepted to allow women to serve in traditional combat
positions.Where the author and I disagree, is this standard should not
be centered on the improbable, such as a pilot having to recover a EP-3E
from an inverted dive, but should instead be based on the normal
physical demands placed on a soldier of that military specialty.Standard
tasks such as buddy carries, carrying the M240B machine gun while in
full combat uniform, or carrying the base plate for the M224 60 mm
Lightweight Mortar are just a few examples which all infantry soldiers
should be required to achieve.The Army and the other services as well,
should conduct their due diligence to ensure the proper standards are
established, which are gender neutral, for any soldier to serve within a
combat arms military specialty.It has been discussed that the Army’s
Training and Doctrine Command is developing MOS (military occupational
specialty) specific physical fitness test which will require just
this.The bottom line is our military must remain ready and relevant, to
do this we must have soldiers who are capable of carrying out their
missions and maintaining our combat effectiveness, regardless of gender.
For
those wanting to integrate women into combat arms-there is a show on
NEtflix called "making the cut." For those of you without experience in
Combat Arms, watch a few episodes and honestly ask how many women CAN.
In
the episode about the Sappers a female does pass, and she is held to
the same standards as the men. As a matter of fact over 60 women have
passed the Sapper course, but until now they were not able to deploy as
combat engineers.
British
army did a test about 10 years ago when this was all the rage in
Britain. Tests showed a women would cost 30% more to train up to a half
decent standard , would get injured training 30% more and none of the
women in the lefts much vaunted exeriment passed the test at the end..
Waste of time and tax payers money for the sake of political idealism.
During world war 2 tito the leader of the slav partisans had to make having sex a capital offence in his ranks because of heigthened sexual arousing in mixed units causing sever disipline and opperational problems. The Russians had a similar system in their mixed ranks.
Are the Americans willing to do the same? Or will they live with the problems and use ideology instead of millitary common sense?
Waste of time and tax payers money for the sake of political idealism.
During world war 2 tito the leader of the slav partisans had to make having sex a capital offence in his ranks because of heigthened sexual arousing in mixed units causing sever disipline and opperational problems. The Russians had a similar system in their mixed ranks.
Are the Americans willing to do the same? Or will they live with the problems and use ideology instead of millitary common sense?
It's
about time some one speaks out about this reverse injustice. Because we
all want to be politically correct and polite...we fail to see the
error of our ways that, as the article states, will be a weakening force
to reckon with. What the article is saying is nothing new. This has
been known for millennia. However in this age of educational stupidity
we confuse common sense with prejudice. Wake up America...
Why
would Army standards be so different for upper body strength if women
and men are so similar? Men must do more than twice as many pushups.
18 Year old Male minimum pushups 42
18 year old Female minimum pushups 19
18 Year old Male minimum pushups 42
18 year old Female minimum pushups 19
Interesting
article. I find the strength issue unconvincing. It's certainly true
that physical fitness remains important, but just because the armed
forces are currently applying double standards does not mean that this
could not be changed.
The other points are certainly worth debating. It seems, though, that there are quite a few cultural issues at work here, and it's not obvious that the only solution to these problems would be to keep women out of the armed forces or to restrict their roles. It's good, though, to keep this debate grounded in facts, even and especially when these facts might be unwelcome.
The other points are certainly worth debating. It seems, though, that there are quite a few cultural issues at work here, and it's not obvious that the only solution to these problems would be to keep women out of the armed forces or to restrict their roles. It's good, though, to keep this debate grounded in facts, even and especially when these facts might be unwelcome.
@jwjanneck Physical
fitness remains important? Are you serious? We are talking 100 lbs on
our back up and down the Hindu Kush mountains to close with and destroy
the enemy. But you are spot on with cultural issues.
speaking to the physical, here is an article from a female Marine Captain:
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
It is not about women in combat but women in Combat Arms units (Infantry, Armor and Field Artillery). That is a much different thing because they are based on physical strength, upper body strength and a complete lack of privacy. So even the outlier female who could meet the physical standards as a member of an infantry squad, the question does not end there. This change would require some sort of cultural change in our society with regards to expectations of privacy. Additionally male married Soldiers wives would not take to kindly to that lack of privacy (naked female Soldiers) in that setting. When I say NO Privacy, I mean NO privacy. I have been in Infantry, Armor and Logistics units. The last can provide the minimum amount of privacy required. The first two, there is no way around the zero privacy issue. -
the necessity of doing it in the open or showering or bathing next to each other is Infantry. So how do you deal with Sexual Harrasment issues as presented above?"We would go months without bathing, except when we could stand naked among each other next to a village well or in a stream or in the muddy water of a bomb crater. It was nothing to begin walking at midnight, laden with packs and weapons and ammunition and supplies, seventy pounds or more of gear, and still be walking when the sun broke over mud-slick paddies that had sucked our boots all night. We carried our own gear and when we took casualties we carried the weapons of those who had been hit. When we stopped moving we started digging, furiously throwing out the heavy soil until we had made chest-deep fighting holes. When we needed to make a call of nature we squatted off a trail or straddled a slit trench that had been dug between fighting holes, always by necessity in public view.
speaking to the physical, here is an article from a female Marine Captain:
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
It is not about women in combat but women in Combat Arms units (Infantry, Armor and Field Artillery). That is a much different thing because they are based on physical strength, upper body strength and a complete lack of privacy. So even the outlier female who could meet the physical standards as a member of an infantry squad, the question does not end there. This change would require some sort of cultural change in our society with regards to expectations of privacy. Additionally male married Soldiers wives would not take to kindly to that lack of privacy (naked female Soldiers) in that setting. When I say NO Privacy, I mean NO privacy. I have been in Infantry, Armor and Logistics units. The last can provide the minimum amount of privacy required. The first two, there is no way around the zero privacy issue. -
the necessity of doing it in the open or showering or bathing next to each other is Infantry. So how do you deal with Sexual Harrasment issues as presented above?"We would go months without bathing, except when we could stand naked among each other next to a village well or in a stream or in the muddy water of a bomb crater. It was nothing to begin walking at midnight, laden with packs and weapons and ammunition and supplies, seventy pounds or more of gear, and still be walking when the sun broke over mud-slick paddies that had sucked our boots all night. We carried our own gear and when we took casualties we carried the weapons of those who had been hit. When we stopped moving we started digging, furiously throwing out the heavy soil until we had made chest-deep fighting holes. When we needed to make a call of nature we squatted off a trail or straddled a slit trench that had been dug between fighting holes, always by necessity in public view.
@joetheragman2 @jwjanneck
I can't tell whether this is a response to what I wrote or not. If I go
by the style, I would say you are disagreeing with me, but I can find
nothing in the substance of what you say that would bear this out.
Confusing...
@jwjanneck the question is not whether it can be changed...the question is will it change?
@lucancorpsman @jwjanneck
Last I looked, the U.S. military answers to civilian leadership, and
their top dog is an elected official. Not saying that there isn't
inertia in such a massive system, but in the end it should be society
that tells the military how it is supposed to conduct its business.
@jwjanneck @lucancorpsman It
is not so clean cut. The military also answers to the Congress and that
means that there is a natural friction involved as it should be. I
honestly think that the law will pass regardless of the tests and the
science but I do not think you are going to see Female Rangers. It is
not the women's fault for trying, but the fact is not enough
testosterone and the present laws such as Sex Harassment laws will cause
havoc if there were to be women there...
@jwjanneck
Well you've obviously not got any experience in a infantry military unit.
Strange thing to say strength dosen't matter.
A fifeteen stone wounded man getting dragged to safety by a 9 stone female... LOl! Male soldiers should sue the political class in American for endangering their lives even further.
Well you've obviously not got any experience in a infantry military unit.
Strange thing to say strength dosen't matter.
A fifeteen stone wounded man getting dragged to safety by a 9 stone female... LOl! Male soldiers should sue the political class in American for endangering their lives even further.
@Skullduggery @jwjanneck
I'd wager that I have more experience in an infantry military unit than
you do in reading and comprehending --- where did I say that strength
does not matter???
We
just passed the Violence Against Women act? How in the world should
that be necessary if women are just as strong and aggressive as men?
Why do women worry about getting raped if they are physically as strong
Primrose says"For that matter, women risk gruesome death simply going about our daily lives, serial killers, cannibal cops or just a man with a control issues. "
I ask why is that an issue if women are just a physically capable as men?
Why do women worry about getting raped if they are physically as strong
Primrose says"For that matter, women risk gruesome death simply going about our daily lives, serial killers, cannibal cops or just a man with a control issues. "
I ask why is that an issue if women are just a physically capable as men?
@joetheragman2
Women are just one of the sacralized species. To the progressive mind, it's necessary to tilt the playing field as far to the left as possible to level it.
Women are just one of the sacralized species. To the progressive mind, it's necessary to tilt the playing field as far to the left as possible to level it.
@OneBadStud @joetheragman2 One,
black men are men, gay men are men but women are women and it is not
due to teh Patriarchy that they have less testestorone. Reality based
facts are someone not making it into the conversation.
@joetheragman2 @OneBadStud
Your obsession with testosterone and superior physical strength belies a certain insecurity. Just admit it, women are merely sex objects and they should yield to your loudly proclaimed masculinity...
Your obsession with testosterone and superior physical strength belies a certain insecurity. Just admit it, women are merely sex objects and they should yield to your loudly proclaimed masculinity...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud The
obsession with testosterone is all this conversation is about. Women
just don't produce enough of it to be good in the combat rates.
@scooter23 @barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud
Good morning, scooter! ready for combat again, I see...
Good morning, scooter! ready for combat again, I see...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud barabbas.
you obviously have not read my posts on here. I have extraordinary
respect for female Soldiers. I honestly do not think my career in
logistics would have been half as successful without the extraordinarily
competent Soldiers who happen to have been female. The key ones that I
am speaking of would not want to be Infantry.
Could you or someone who thinks women should serve in the Infantry explain to me if you would suspend Sexual Harassment laws as they now stand to protect the 19 year old male soldiers in teh field looking at the naked female form?
Could you or someone who thinks women should serve in the Infantry explain to me if you would suspend Sexual Harassment laws as they now stand to protect the 19 year old male soldiers in teh field looking at the naked female form?
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud by the way, the reality based society is supposed to respect science? Are you also against evolution?
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
And where did I say women should serve in combat roles? If you read my discussion with scooter last night, you will see that i question the efficacy of combat, period. Reducing a human being to a puddle of flesh instantly is not heroic mano-a-mano combat. It's insanity.
And where did I say women should serve in combat roles? If you read my discussion with scooter last night, you will see that i question the efficacy of combat, period. Reducing a human being to a puddle of flesh instantly is not heroic mano-a-mano combat. It's insanity.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
Evolution is working in reverse with humans. We have survival of the mediocre and the bureaucratic, not the fittest. Think of the politicians who send you to Afghanistan...
Evolution is working in reverse with humans. We have survival of the mediocre and the bureaucratic, not the fittest. Think of the politicians who send you to Afghanistan...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud I
must have thought you were saying women should be in combat roles...I
have a few fights going on at once and my testosterone does not allow me
to multi task as well ;o)
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud LOL,
I think that is unfortunately an accurate statement for the west. I do
not think it is true in China or the emerging powers. They are rising
for a reason. Afghanistan is the good war IMHO.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
I know all about high testosterone, bro. Let's continue the discussion. Is the Afghanistan mission viable? Can we kill terrorists without spawning more?
I know all about high testosterone, bro. Let's continue the discussion. Is the Afghanistan mission viable? Can we kill terrorists without spawning more?
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud Sure
you can kill terrorists without spawning more. What you have to do is
kill the smart and capable terrorists and be relentless. Now if you are
asking if we as a society are capable of that, well from what I have
seen, only after a massive attack on the "homeland" where you have a
window where the gloves come off. in my personal opinion, that will
happen again and give us the opportunity, with alot more expertise
available, to possible make it hurt. But the best you are going to buy
is 10 years...everyone was scared of us after Desert Storm for a few
years...you have to demonstrate and show it to them again and again.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
Ah, perpetual war... Job security for you, higher taxes for me. I'm not convinced that preventing terrorist attacks is a combat mission.
Ah, perpetual war... Job security for you, higher taxes for me. I'm not convinced that preventing terrorist attacks is a combat mission.
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud Pretty
unfair characterization of what I was saying. You asked a question
about can we do one specific thing. Here is another way that would
answer your "new" question. We can become the US of pre WW I. Screw it,
dont get involved in all of these spats around the world. Make money and
stay on our continent with a bad ass Navy and serious technology. MUCH
MUCH cheaper and would work. But then you have Christiane Amanpour out
there screaming about the Bosnian Muslims or the Southern Sudanese or
this years Ethiopans or my favorite that is soon to be forgotten for a
few years, teh women of AFghanistan.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
I argued last night that decriminalizing heroin and treating addicts in clinics would go a long way toward defunding the Taliban and save on law enforcement at home. I'm not an isolationist by any stretch. I just don't believe combat is effective in high tech warfare. It's a different brand of terrorism...
I argued last night that decriminalizing heroin and treating addicts in clinics would go a long way toward defunding the Taliban and save on law enforcement at home. I'm not an isolationist by any stretch. I just don't believe combat is effective in high tech warfare. It's a different brand of terrorism...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud what
is your definition of high tech warfare? I am sorry but I just dont
think that warfare is that much more high tech than it used to
be...decriminalizing heroin is not a realistic point. In Holland they
are talking about recriminalizing prostitution and pot...I am
libertarian enough to agree with you though that we should try it. But
it would have to happen across teh entire west all at once and I dont
see it.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas @OneBadStud
the portability of explosive devices has increased exponentially...
the portability of explosive devices has increased exponentially...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud That is one upgrade but the reality is that it is the use of suicide bombers, not the tech IMHO.
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud barabbas,
you sound like an isolationist. If you are against the Afghan war, can
you tell me what possible war you would support?
@barabbas
Go back to your women studies class, your cat and your fat ugly butch female lover please.
Go back to your women studies class, your cat and your fat ugly butch female lover please.
@barabbas @joetheragman2 @OneBadStud You say you are not isolationist but dont believe in combat? What kind of an non-solationist are you then?
@joetheragman2
We have a culture that objectifies women and rationalizes sexual exploitation, hence VAWA. Many rapists use weapons or drugs to ensure their physical superiority.
We have a culture that objectifies women and rationalizes sexual exploitation, hence VAWA. Many rapists use weapons or drugs to ensure their physical superiority.
@barabbas @joetheragman2 A better argument for concealed carry has never been made. All cultures objectify women and always have.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas
And you well know that acquaintance rape is by far the most prevalent. Guns aren't going to cure that. A little testosterone-based control would help more.
And you well know that acquaintance rape is by far the most prevalent. Guns aren't going to cure that. A little testosterone-based control would help more.
@barabbas @joetheragman2 True
dat. That is cultural and I would say that testosterone based control
was thrown out the window to a large degree but a modern society that
worships "equality" instead of stating that there is a difference in the
sexes. ButI disagree with your gun statement-- a .22 in a pocketbook
would stop 99% of acquaintance rape in MHO.
@joetheragman2 @barabbas
And also lead to more domestic violence. Too bad Pistorius' girlfriend didn't have a .22 in the bathroom...
And also lead to more domestic violence. Too bad Pistorius' girlfriend didn't have a .22 in the bathroom...
@joetheragman2 @barabbas
It's also the culture that I'm questioning. I'm an advocate of a much more open sexuality. It's a great stress reliever. In fact, I'm feeling a little testy (quite literally) this morning because my girlfriend wasn't in the mood...
It's also the culture that I'm questioning. I'm an advocate of a much more open sexuality. It's a great stress reliever. In fact, I'm feeling a little testy (quite literally) this morning because my girlfriend wasn't in the mood...
@barabbas @joetheragman2 cause
she would have offed him if she felt threatened and the testosterone
advantage that Mr no legs had would have been nullified. You can say it
would lead to more domesetic violence but so would legalizing heroin and
other drugs...
@joetheragman2 @barabbas
Heroin tends to incapacitate its users. the violence is associated with withdrawal and criminal activity to be able to buy another dose. Make addicts sign a waiver and then let them OD. Kind of harsh, but kind of realistic too...
Heroin tends to incapacitate its users. the violence is associated with withdrawal and criminal activity to be able to buy another dose. Make addicts sign a waiver and then let them OD. Kind of harsh, but kind of realistic too...
@barabbas Heroin use would still be expensive to Heroin addicts...they would have to steal to buy a does
@barabbas
Barabbas make the point I was trying to illustrate, Joe. As long as there is the perception of privilege, purification rituals must be performed, taboos instituted. It is imperative that women be allowed in combat positions because men can't be allowed any exclusive clubs, not because <1% of women are being denied something.
Barabbas make the point I was trying to illustrate, Joe. As long as there is the perception of privilege, purification rituals must be performed, taboos instituted. It is imperative that women be allowed in combat positions because men can't be allowed any exclusive clubs, not because <1% of women are being denied something.
@OneBadStud @barabbas that
is exactly the reason this argument is happening. I bet you that there
is not women on this board who wants to sign up for the Infantry (let
alone the military) or knows of a woman who does but it is because
1% of women are being denied something.
1% of women are being denied something.
@OneBadStud @barabbas
Again, i am not advocating women in combat roles. I am advocating alternative strategies to combat.
Again, i am not advocating women in combat roles. I am advocating alternative strategies to combat.
Who is Waging War on Women?
- Written by Phyllis Schlafly
Defense
Leon Panetta as the fall guy, to assign women for the first time in
American history to fight our nation’s enemies in military ground
combat. That’s real war, with real guns, real bullets, and real deaths.
This war doesn’t involve only women who have volunteered to serve in our military. It’s a real war against all 18-year-old American girls, because for the first time in our nation’s history they will be required to sign up for the draft and be ready for a letter from Selective Service ordering them to report for military duty.
That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981 that the gender difference in the law requiring “every male citizen” of age 18 through 25 to register does not violate equal protection or due process. However, there was a caveat.
The Court ruled:
The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.Congress must act immediately, before the May passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014, in order to preempt what Obama’s Department of Defense, without constitutional authority, is trying to do unilaterally. There is no demand from the American people to pursue this war on young women. The House has not had any hearings on women in combat since 1979, and the Senate has not had hearings since 1991.
Some U.S. military commanders’ disdain for our traditional civilian control of the military is insufferable. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said Congress can “legislate if they like” but “they don’t have to,” and Panetta said he didn’t know “who the hell” is in charge of Selective Service.
They should read the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, gives power to Congress “To raise and support Armies, … maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”
Demands from the feminists for 18-year-old girls to register for the draft are already appearing on the internet. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has reintroduced his bill to include women in the draft or at least to require them to perform some kind of compulsory service.
Assigning women to close ground combat against vicious enemy troops creates a war not only on 18-year-old girls who don’t choose to serve in the military. It creates a war not only on the courageous enlisted women who have volunteered to serve in the military but don’t want to be assigned to close ground combat with the Army pretending they are physically equal to men.
The new orders to achieve “diversity metrics” (i.e., female quotas) will change all requirements that women pass the same tests required of the men. The services will be required to introduce a “critical mass” or a “significant cadre” of women, expected to be 10 to 15 percent, into previously all-male units.
The mandate for diversity metrics will trump truth, honor, and common sense. The Defense Department has recommended that a new Diversity Czar (officially called a Chief Diversity Officer) be established to monitor “diversity management.”
This Diversity Czar and the Defense Department-endorsed Military Leadership Diversity Commission will be charged with the following mission. “To ensure that the diversity effort continues, demonstrated diversity leadership must be assessed throughout careers and made … a criterion for nomination and confirmation to the 3- and 4-star ranks.”
Men, do you get what that means? Your promotions will depend on giving the feminists whatever they demand and lying about so-called equal performance by males and females in order to demonstrate your “diversity leadership.”
The men will be expected to ignore the fact that gender-fair training is not the same as “gender-free training.” The Military Diversity Commission Report admits that fair treatment “is not about treating everyone the same.”
Gen. Robert W. Cone, who heads the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, said, “I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army.” But ground combat with evil enemies is not fair or equal; it is not even civilized. So, what do you think of men who would send women into that?
And, here is more Cone nonsense: “Army officials will look at ‘traditional impediments’ — the attitudes regarding the acceptance of women into previously male-only jobs…. The Army will take ‘proactive measures’ to mitigate resistance to women going into these specialties.”
The only way to preserve tough standards for ground combat training, and maintain women’s Selective Service exemption, is for Congress to reassert previous regulations exempting women from direct ground combat units.
Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo. She has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when she started her national volunteer organization called Eagle Forum.
In a ten-year battle, Mrs. Schlafly led the pro-family movement to
victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists,
called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent
of the radical feminist movement, she appears in debate on college
campuses more frequently than any other conservative. She was named one
of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home
Journal. 
Afghan Teen Kills U.S. Soldier Playing With Local Children By Stabbing Him In The Neck, Pentagon Lies And Says He Was Killed During Combat With The Taliban…
I’m guessing because it doesn’t fit the narrative we’re winning Afghan “hearts and minds” is the reason the Pentagon lied about the circumstances in which Sgt. Michael Cable was killed.
Via WaPo:
An Afghan teenager killed an American soldier in eastern Afghanistan by stabbing him in the neck while he played with a group of local children, officials said Monday.
The killing comes as the monthly U.S. death toll rose sharply in March to 14 with the start of the spring fighting season when the Taliban and other insurgents take advantage of improved weather to step up attacks.
Sgt. Michael Cable, 26, was guarding Afghan and U.S. officials meeting in a province near the border with Pakistan when the stabbing occurred last Wednesday, two senior U.S. officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
The attack occurred after the soldiers had secured the area for the meeting, but one of the U.S. officials said the youth was not believed to have been a member of the Afghan security forces or in uniform so it was not being classified as an insider attack.
The official said the attacker was thought to be about 16 years old, but the age couldn’t be verified.
The Afghan and American dignitaries were attending the swearing-in ceremony of Afghan Local Police in Shinwar district in Nangarhar province, senior district official Zalmai Khan said. Afghan Local Police, or ALP, recruits are drawn from villages and backed by the U.S. military.
The soldier was playing with a group of children outside when the attacker came from behind and stabbed him in the neck with a large knife, Khan said, adding the young man had escaped to nearby Pakistan.
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said the young man was acting independently when he killed the soldier but had joined the Islamic militant movement since fleeing the scene.
The Pentagon said in a statement last week that Cable, of Philpot, Ky., died from injuries sustained when his unit was attacked by enemy forces.
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content
and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the
content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network
Ainsley Earhardt
Alicia Acuna
Alisyn Camerota
Andrea Tantaros
Anita Vogel
Claudia Cowan
Courtney Friehl
Dana Perino
Dari Alexander
Dominica Davis
E.D. Hill
Gretchen Carlson
Harris Faulkner
Heather Nauert
Jamie Colby
Jane Skinner
Janice Dean
Jenine Pirro
Jenna Lee
Jennifer Griffin
Jill Dobson
Julie Banderas
Juliet Huddy
Kimberly Guilfoyle
Kirsten Powers
Laura Ingle
Laura Ingraham
Pattie Ann Browne
Paige Hopkins
Nina Easton
Monica Crowley
Molly Line
Molly Henneberg
Megyn Kelly
Martha MacCallum
Michelle Malkin
Marianne Rafferty
Maria Molina
Margaret Hoover
Lisa Bernhard
Lis Wiehl
Laurie Dhue
Lauren Green
Reena Ninan
Shannon Bream
Alexis Glick
Cheryl Casone
Dagan McDowell
Elizabeth MacDonald
Gerri Willis
Lauren Simonetti
Liz Claman
Lori Rothman
Melissa Francis
Nicole Petallides
Sandra Smith
Rebecca Diamond
Shibani Joshi
Uma Pemmaraju
Tracy Byrnes
No comments:
Post a Comment