Valerie “Old Irony Pants” Jarrett

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Well, the only thing that comes to mind about women in combat is that if I was the enemy, and I really, really wanted to ruin the morale of a unit, I’d wound the first woman I had in my sights, wait for the the men to make an extra strong effort to save her and take them all out, one by one.

    So, I don’t recommend you join the infantry, if you’re a woman. You’ll be first and last.

    Comment by Jess — January 23, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

  2. Dougie is so dreeeeeeeemy….sigh….

    Comment by SondraK, Queen of my domain — January 23, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

  3. Oh and WAR ON WOMEN!!!

    or something…

    Comment by SondraK, Queen of my domain — January 23, 2013 @ 3:43 pm

  4. The usual weaseling crap from the progs.

    “Women CAN serve in combat (if they choose to).”

    I don’t remember being given the fucking choice.

    Comment by mojo — January 23, 2013 @ 3:51 pm

  5. allow women to serve in combat

    HOO-HAH!

    Comment by SondraK, Queen of my domain — January 23, 2013 @ 3:59 pm

  6. I don’t think anyone has ever embodied my idea of the Perfect Woman™ more than Reba McIntire in that basement scene in the movie Tremors, with Michael Gross where they kill the giant graboid who was trying to get into the wrong rec room..

    Lock and Load Baby!

    Comment by Hog Whitman — January 23, 2013 @ 4:02 pm

  7. Nice of Panetta to handle this particular item before he dives out the door…

    Comment by rickn8or — January 23, 2013 @ 4:54 pm

  8. ^ Yeah, and I assume Congress has bought-off on that.
    Wait, no not “assume.”
    Oh, what’s the word?
    Oh, yeah … doubt.

    Comment by DougM (Progophobe) — January 23, 2013 @ 6:10 pm

  9. Women have been dying in wars for a long time.

    It’s assigning them to kill that gets everyone all confruserated.

    Comment by staghounds — January 23, 2013 @ 6:19 pm

  10. I suppose they’d be quit scary as long as it was day 2.

    Comment by geezerette — January 23, 2013 @ 6:20 pm

  11. Isn’t that sexist or something? We want to protect women from violence – what about everybody else? Men and children especially. Everybody else can fend for theirselves.

    Maybe we could repeat (or at least paraphrase) a little bit of history (aviation history) and put together an all-woman infantry company. (Satirists can go wild on that one.)

    On the other hand, there are more than a few women who could hold their own in a street fight.

    Comment by ZZMike — January 23, 2013 @ 7:00 pm

  12. Women can`t carry the modern loads for combat. Men today may carry 80 lbs of extra ammo and supplies, a whole day and night. And still have to fight or stay awake all night. It takes 4 men to carry a litter with a wounded man in it.

    Plus the savages we fight are not gonna abide by the Geneva Convention when it comes to a female POW! The Israilis tried it in the Yom Kippur war and found out it did not work….

    Comment by Colonel Jerry USMC — January 23, 2013 @ 7:30 pm

  13. Mixing men and women in a front-line unit is a recipe for disaster. You can be sure they won’t be getting a SAW or put on weapons squad. Resentment, mistrust, anger, and infighting will be rampant. Where are they going to stay? What are they going to do after being in the field two weeks without a shower? You gonna tell them to “man up” and “pull it together” when they start freaking out and screaming? Who in the world would want such a terrible job? It’s really not very fun. I promise. Not to mention, if women are there why would I, as a man want to be there? If it’s not my duty to protect women anymore, why should I bother? You can do it yourself? Fine with me. I’ll stay back here in the states where everyone I pass on the street doesn’t want me dead and I don’t have to worry about running over IEDs or snipers or RPKs.

    Comment by Todd — January 23, 2013 @ 7:35 pm

  14. I’ve met a few women whom I’d like to have my back in a fight, but they were the exception, not the rule, and likewise I’m sure there is a small percentage of women who could be good infantry, armor and artillery troops. I’ve heard there are some who do well now in gunship and fighter cockpits, but I’m not sure how they would do if forced to the ground in a SERE situation.
    All the men in our volunteer military who qualify in combat arms meet a certain strength and endurance standard for their MOS, and are cut if they don’t measure up.
    Currently, according to a few younger friends serving as ground and air officers in the Marines, Navy and Army, there is very much a double standard for physical fitness and mental toughness between men and women, and women often get extra tries to succeed at a training or career stage measurement point in blatant affirmative actions to showcase more women in tougher and more responsible positions.
    And bluntly, young women get a sometimes a physical and mental disability once/ month, and young people being what they are, some women in important slots will get pregnant and leave a combat outfit shorthanded. Sounds sexist, takes two to tango etc, but it is the woman half of the two who manifests the problem.
    With Doug’s reservations about Western civ’s ingrained chivalry toward women, I guess I can live with it if:
    1. training standards are made absolutely uniform and gender blind, with only one standard for success.
    2. affirmative action must be gone.
    3. women now register for the draft.

    Otherwise, this is nothing more than feminazi politicking for some unearned combat awards to punch their promotion tickets, and more Prog social engineering to fit their utopian templates. They’ve forgotten the job of a military organization is to win. We miss that a whole bunch lately, and not at the grunt level either. Those young guys at the tip of the spear still want to win and come home.

    Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — January 23, 2013 @ 8:01 pm

  15. Early analysis by Rush:

    All American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion

    Comment by mech — January 23, 2013 @ 9:59 pm

  16. Every major country in the WORLD figured out putting women in front line combat positions was not good unless your back was against the wall.

    But Obama figures it’s a job program. Once he as destroyed the middle class, well where else can women in that category go?

    Yea it’s all about jobs, at least in Obama’s view, but Al Qaeda has other ideas. To them it’s a holy war.

    Comment by Paul — January 23, 2013 @ 10:11 pm

  17. IDF!

    Comment by Lance — January 23, 2013 @ 11:34 pm

  18. The Israelis tried it in the Yom Kippur war and found out it did not work….

    Yet their women have served in every one of it’s wars and conflicts for 64+ years. Mandatory draft even…

    Comment by Spin — January 24, 2013 @ 2:06 am

  19. IDF women are trained in weapons firing, but are prohibited from serving as infantry, armor and artillery as her primary duty. They do serve in those units, but as supporting elements, removed from the front lines. Such as logistics, administration and medical. In the flluidness of all IDF wars, some women have been forced to defend themselves and their unit, the same as the men but not for long and not as their primary duty.

    This is a summary of a briefing the IDF gave to our DOD back in 1978. I got that report from IDF Colonel Avigador Kahalani(Tanker), the hero of the Golan Heights in the Yom Kippur war. He sat next to me for a year at the Army Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas.

    Comment by Colonel Jerry USMC — January 24, 2013 @ 6:28 am

  20. (see UPDATE BTF)

    Comment by DougM (Progophobe) — January 24, 2013 @ 8:08 am

  21. The whole thing has to do with classification and who gets paid what for what they do.

    Comment by geezerette — January 24, 2013 @ 8:08 am

  22. Nice timing on this — the Same Day Hillary! “takes full responsibility” for whatever What Difference Does It Make?!? happened in Benghazi – and wanders off into HisHerstory.

    “equal” ≠ “The Same As”

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — January 24, 2013 @ 8:17 am

  23. a double standard for physical fitness and mental toughness between men and women

    There’s the rub. How insulting is it to lower the standards “because you’re only a a girl”?!? Why aren’t the Feministas objecting to that?!?

    I’ve failed to do many things in my life – from physics to fencing — because I just couldn’t cut the mustard. Did it bother me? Oh HELL yeah. But I learned to cope with my shortcomings and to develop my strengths.

    So I buy Physicists beers and listen to their discussions and I go get the pizza and put on buckets of wire clips because 1] I can do that and B] men hate that kind of fiddly little crap and I enjoy it. But I can’t lift a roll of bo’b wire and I can’t pound in a t-post. [well, I can but it takes me half a day. That's just silly.].

    IF there are a sufficient number of women who can make it thru the PT requirements AS THEY STAND for front-line combat – with the mental toughness requirements and the SERE requirements and all – give ‘em their own troop/brigade/whatcha-call-it.

    Meanwhile, it has always been thus that some female pilots have flown into “hot” areas – then been denied combat pay because they weren’t “officially” there. Yeah, it ain’t fair. But, Honey — yer flying. Yer doing it. And ya got your bird and your crew home whole. Such is Life.

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — January 24, 2013 @ 8:35 am

  24. It’s biology, people. Males are the risk-takers because they’re expendable. That’s why the higher aggression, the greater body mass and endurance, all of it. They can afford the energy expenditure, because they’re not building children.

    Women and children first: it’s not just a good idea, it’s biologically programmed.

    Comment by mojo — January 24, 2013 @ 8:43 am

  25. Oh, and ladies? That whole “won’t ask for directions” thing?

    See, for hundreds of thousands of years, asking for directions while out in the field was a real good way to get killed.

    Comment by mojo — January 24, 2013 @ 8:50 am

  26. Good point, Mojo – I’d never thot of that.

    Mostly because every Man I’ve ever known could be air-dropped blindfolded into any strange city/countryside and find his way to where he wanted to go cuz he knew how to read the lay of the land. Taught by his Father and Uncles and “practiced” by his older brothers/cousins…

    I’m glad my Dad taught me lots of that lay of the land stuff.

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — January 24, 2013 @ 9:04 am

  27. our heroic SecDef.

    Ya mean the one who’s also slinking off into History?

    Comment by Claire: rebellious pink pig with car keys - and a *cause* — January 24, 2013 @ 9:35 am

  28. Claire: yeah, men and women navigate by different means – women tend to use landmarks and the like, where men tend to use direction/distance.

    I also like to say that men think logically where women think emotionally, but it always get me in trouble. The women always object. Emotionally.

    Yeah, like that.

    Comment by mojo — January 24, 2013 @ 11:36 am

  29. ^ Well, emotionally is not always wrong,
    but it is always irritating to the male;
    and logically is not always right,
    but it is always frustrating to the female.
    (What? Yep, always been single. That obvious, huh?)

    Comment by DougM (Progophobe) — January 24, 2013 @ 12:22 pm

  30. Considering many women have died overseas on my behalf already, I don’t feel qualified to have an objection to women in combat.

    Comment by TiminAL — January 24, 2013 @ 8:06 pm

  31. We’re only here to provide them with some sperms.

    Comment by Hog Whitman — January 24, 2013 @ 10:38 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.195 Powered by WordPress