If I lived my life with the philosophy, “Whatever the Los Angeles Times says, I’ll believe the exact opposite,” I would live a good and wise life.
From the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times:
Women in combat — it’s time
U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up.
December 3, 2012
When politicians pay tribute to members of the U.S. armed forces, they almost always refer to our “brave men and women,” a recognition of the fact that women now constitute 14.5% of the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty military personnel. But even though women are permitted to serve, the nature of their service is limited because Defense Department regulations exclude them from most combat positions, a policy that primarily affects the Army and Marine Corps.
That would change if four servicewomen who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan are successful in challenging the Pentagon policy. Their lawsuit, filed last week in federal court in San Francisco, persuasively argues that regulations barring women from combat violate their constitutional rights. The current version of the policy, with minor changes, dates to a memorandum in 1994 from then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin that barred women from units whose primary mission was to engage in “direct combat on the ground.” The directive also allowed for the exclusion of women from assignments “where job-related physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members.”
Women seeking to rise in the ranks of the military find themselves in a paradoxical position. On the one hand, they are excluded from an array of combat positions that can be crucial to advancement. On the other, they find themselves in danger anyway because the military engages in legal fictions such as saying that a female soldier is “attached” but not “assigned” to a ground combat unit.
For example, one of the plaintiffs, Capt. Zoe Bedell, graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In Afghanistan, she oversaw “female engagement teams” that accompanied male infantry units into the field. “My Marines supported infantry units,” said Bedell, who is now a reservist. “They patrolled every day. They wore the same gear. They carried the same rifles. And when my Marines were attacked, they fought back.”
In asking the courts to strike down the Pentagon regulations, the plaintiffs aren’t proposing that the military compromise its physical requirements for service in combat or sacrifice readiness on the altar of sexual equality. They are not arguing that women shouldn’t meet the same standards as men. But today’s blanket exclusion makes it impossible for a woman to demonstrate that she possesses the necessary skills.
One argument that has been made against allowing women in combat is that they supposedly don’t have the necessary strength and mental toughness to serve. Another is that the presence of women in a combat operation might undermine “unit cohesion.” (The same argument was made about gays in the military.) During this year’s Republican presidential primary campaign, former Sen. Rick Santorum said that if women were to take part in combat, their male comrades might neglect the mission because of “the natural instinct to protect someone that’s a female.” It also has been argued that integrating combat units poses logistical difficulties such as the need for separate bathrooms; yet such concerns haven’t prevented women from being placed in the thick of combat operations as part of female engagement teams.
Given the flimsiness of these arguments, the plaintiffs are on solid ground in contending that the exclusion policy fails the Supreme Court’s requirement that laws treating the sexes differently must have an “exceedingly persuasive justification” substantially related to “important governmental objectives.” That test was laid out by the court in a 1996 ruling in which it ordered the Virginia Military Institute to admit women. Less encouraging for the plaintiffs is a 1981 decision in which the court upheld the constitutionality of a law authorizing a male-only standby military draft. But in that case the provision to which the court extended deference was an act of Congress, not a policy of the executive branch.
Even if it is ultimately successful, the servicewomen’s lawsuit could take years to change the status of women in the military. A swifter and surer way to end the injustice they complain of is for the Pentagon or Congress to repeal the current policy. Women are serving — and dying — in war zones. It’s time the rules caught up to that reality.
“U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up,” we’re told. Of course, women are already being raped, too. So let’s apply the identical logic and make rape the law of the land. That is about all I have to say in direct comment on this idiotic article. Because that is basically their argument: since there have been women who have ended up in combat, we should open the floodgates to women in combat. Again, don’t do with rape what liberals want to do with women getting blown apart on a battlefield.
This is what is being decided in some court with some idiot judge dictating I mean presiding: are women the numeric identical of men such that whatever a man is able to do a woman ought to be able to do? And liberals say of course. Which means all women should pee into a urinal (they DO use less water, after all!) standing up.
If women should have the right to serve in front-line combat, women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in front line combat. Because we are a nation that has never legally banned the draft and that method of filling the ranks in time of war is still available. It’s called “selective service” and somehow only young men are able to sign up so they can be called up to run into some future meatgrinder. And as we look back into our draft history and realize that men were forcibly compelled to join the military, get their heads shaved, and then wear a hundred pound ruck into battle while going over the top to charge machine guns, we come to a grisly question: why not women, too?
Because women can do anything a man can do. Including get blown to bits.
It doesn’t matter if women can’t physically carry that damn ruck, I suppose. Details like that simply don’t matter to liberals.
Liberal women can bench press more than the 1,070 lbs of a man just because they believe in the rightness of their ideology.
When I was serving in the army, I heard that Canada did it right. They had liberals demanding women in the infantry in those days; so what they did was issue a regulation that ANY woman who could pass men’s boot camp could serve in the infantry. And not one woman ever passed that bar in spite of the fact that female Olympic athletes tried repeatedly to do it.
Liberals are a truly and astonishingly stupid breed: they say that women can do anything a man can do as long as women are never actually EVER required to so much as TRY to do what men have to do.
There was an infamous episode in which male firefighters secretly recorded female firefighter candidates comically trying to raise a ladder. The outrage wasn’t that female firefighters can’t raise a damn ladder and they most definitely can’t carry somebody out of a high-rise apartment to save a life; no, the outrage was how dare these awful men show up women? And the male firefighters were reprimanded for revealing the TRUTH and the truth was deemed irrelevant.
Now they have requirements that are 30% of what they used to be for firefighter applicants. So women can be firefighters, too. And who cares if the best people don’t get to do the job, or that people die because females simply aren’t physically strong enough to carry an unconscious victim to safety? Who cares if they can’t break the door down and that therefore you and your family will burn to death or die by smoke inhalation?
It doesn’t matter if it’s a giant government boondoggle that sucks up massive taxpayer dollars. Liberals eat government waste up like the pigs they are.
My primary care doctor is a woman and she is one of the best doctors I’ve ever had. But that lady has no damn business rushing machine gun nests.
Men and women are different. Anybody but a fool knows that. Which is why liberals don’t know it.
Again, liberal feminists are right now fighting for the right for future mothers and daughters to be forcibly compelled to hurl their bodies into the path of machine guns. Because if they CAN fight, why is it that only men should be drafted and forced to fight? If this ruling goes the way the left wants it to, why shouldn’t women be forcibly drafted just like men have been the next time we need a draft???
If this lawsuit carries and women are allowed to serve in combat, then women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in combat. ALL women should register for selective service (“the draft”) just like all healthy men are required to register. That’s what is at stake here.
There are things that women do every bit as well as men. Fighting isn’t one of them. Which is why when you see the mixed martial arts on TV, you don’t see women on top pounding the crap out of some helpless man. I’ve been in courtrooms as a juror where some lowlife a-hole pile of slime scumbag beat up a woman with the “it was a fair fight” argument. No it wasn’t, you roach; you were whatever poor miserable excuse of a man beating the crap out of a woman. But again, reality doesn’t matter to the left; political correctness trumps reality a thousand times out of a thousand.
What is going on is another giant step down “God damn America.” Because it is a fundamental perversion of the God-created and God-ordained difference between males and females.
Men and women are NOT exchangeable or interchangeable. And the liberal perversion of the roles of men and women is at the heart of what St. Paul was talking about when he described a society going down the moral dregs.
Update, April 2, 2013: I had an excellent idea in honor of the fact that men and women are completely equal and interchangeable (apparently especially as spouses, given the adoration of homosexual marriage): let’s just say that women ARE equal to men and actually put it into practice.
For the record, marriage USED to be the ultimate symbol of equality: one man and one woman united in the bond of marriage and becoming one flesh. That is, until liberals shot marriage in the head by “fundamentally transforming it” into an institution of sanctified sodomy.
Title IX? We don’t need that any more. In fact, we don’t need “men’s” or “women’s” sports at ALL! Let’s just – from high school on up (and you can start earlier if you’d like) – integrate boys and girls and men and women in the SAME sports. If women can’t hack playing with men, they don’t deserve to play at all, given that women are men’s equal in every way and all. And the same is true, of course, for professional sports. We don’t need a “WNBA” for basketball or a “LPGA” for golf or a “WTA” for tennis. Women shouldn’t have their own league to play soccer or softball or anything else. They should compete fairly and squarely with the big boys.
It’s actually funny, when you stop and think about it: the only reason women are able to play sports is because it has been officially acknowledged that not only are women not the same as men, but that they are nowhere NEAR the same. And it would be insane to suggest otherwise. I think I saw that only seven women in college basketball have EVER slam dunked a basketball during a game; and only one woman has dunked a ball twice in a single game. That’s probably just as true for men, right?
If we’re going to dictate that women are as good as men in something as life-or-death important as war and combat, we ought to let women put their money where their mouths are in sports, shouldn’t we?
The reason you can have “women in combat” and “women’s sports” is because liberals are hypocrites to the cores of their shriveled little holes where their souls should have been.