Thursday, January 24, 2013

Women in COMBAT.............

WOMEN IN COMBAT.............Good or Bad?
I was thinking about this 'women in combat' thing and how much it would cost for separate gender-specific housing, bathrooms, etc., and then it dawned on me that we live in a time where women ARE men, where they'll probably be sleeping right next to the guys and using the same toilets.  Which means we'll probably have to pay more for abortions and give them birth control pills, etc.  I didn't like women on submarines and I don't like this.  I know we're as smart as any man, but stronger?  That's so obvious it's not worth asking.  Will this work?  Then there's this:
Exactly my point...........what the heck IS the difference anymore?   I know there's a difference, do they?  
How do you feel about it?  ARE women women anymore?  ARE THEY?

Z

59 comments:

Joe said...

In combat...front lines?

Only if you don't want the same chance to win the battle you had with all men, only if you have no respect for women and only if the women can do all of the things in physical battle men can.

Of course, Obama doesn't, society doesn't and women can't.

Ed Bonderenka said...

One: Women have been on the front lines for a few years now. It's a staffing trick. They are not designated "front line" but they are put there in "support" positions and given a rifle. That's why my daughter carried a SAW on the plane to Iraq.
Two: They already train alongside men.
Three: Romantic entanglement in a combat unit is counterproductive, be it gay or straight. When Sarge says "walk point", or "take out that position", the rest of the squad shouldn't need to wonder if it's because he's protecting his "sweety" from doing that.
Four: My son is a Senior Chief on a sub. It's not the boy's club (no wimmen allowed), it's the morale.
There's no privacy. Anyone with a sense of modesty loses it quickly.
Five: I had women serve on my team under my leadership.
There were often heavy emotional issues that impinged on unit performance in the field without being in combat. Nuff said.

Ed Bonderenka said...

And Elaine Donnelly (www.cmrlink.org) from here in Michigan is the go to person on this issue for years.

Phil Falcone said...

Well GOLLY, Leon Panetta is going to the military’s ban on women serving in combat. to women. Thus, another bit of gender radicalism has been shoved down the nation’s throat through executive fiat — and this one is sure to have deadly consequences.But i'm sure that's what the B0 has in mind.
Let's face the facts here! It's bad enough when a male soldier gets taken prisoner as it is, who really know just how much punishment a women can bare? And another ting, take Moochele for example,she screams bloody murder when ass gets too big from all of those Big Mac's she puts away, and gets upset when other women turn up at the same party wearing the same dress she maybe wearing.
With all due respect to my Lady friends, this action is by no means is intended to strengthen our military.And as Z said in her post, it would cost for separate gender specific housing, bathrooms, etc..
I wonder if Obama will allow his daughters to be drafted if that should happen or would Hillary Clinton daughter be drafted if necessary. And we ALL know that answer don't we!
Bottom lime, I wonder if this was done to to divert attention from the Pig in a Pant Suits horrible performance yesterday? Or maybe to get the Benghazi Cover up off the headlines.Just sayin.
I say, more power to women that want to serve but not on the front lines especially since the enemy are Jihadist not men of honor, if you know what I mean.
As for Madam Hilliary's testimony, that was really great theatrics, especially her going on the offense and shouting down the Republican Senator and her crying act that won an Academy Award so many times in the past. The PIAPS played the Senator like a fiddle! What kind of Morons do they take us for! That entire hearing was a joke.

I'll send my daughter to combat when BO sends Malia and Sasha!

Phil Falcone said...

Corrected Copy
Well GOLLY, Leon Panetta is going to END the military’s ban on women serving in combat. Thus, another bit of radical agenda has been shoved down the nation’s throat through executive fiat — and this one is sure to have deadly consequences. But I'm sure that's what the B0 has in mind.
Let's face the facts here! It's bad enough when a male soldier gets taken prisoner as it is, who really know just how much punishment a women can bare? And another ting, take Moochele for example,she screams bloody murder when ass gets too big from all of those Big Mac's she puts away, and gets upset when other women turn up at the same party wearing the same dress she maybe wearing.
With all due respect to my Lady friends, this action is by no means is intended to strengthen our military.And as Z said in her post, it would cost for separate gender specific housing, bathrooms, etc..
I wonder if Obama will allow his daughters to be drafted if that should happen or would Hillary Clinton daughter be drafted if necessary. I'm sure that they are more interested in where they are doing on their next spring-break trip anyway.
And we ALL know that answer don't we!
Bottom lime, I wonder if this was done to to divert attention from the Pig in a Pant Suits horrible performance yesterday? Or maybe to get the Benghazi Cover up off the headlines.Just sayin.
I say, more power to women that want to serve but not on the front lines especially since the enemy are Jihadist not men of honor, if you know what I mean.
As for Madam Hilliary's testimony, that was really great theatrics, especially her going on the offense and shouting down the Republican Senator and her crying act that won an Academy Award so many times in the past. The PIAPS played the Senator like a fiddle! What kind of Morons do they take us for! That entire hearing was a joke.

I'll send my daughter to combat when BO sends Malia and Sasha!

Ed Bonderenka said...

There is no draft. We depend on enlistment. Many women enlist for support roles.
This policy is not voluntary.
They won't enlist if they think they're going into a primary combat role.
So volunteer enlistment will drop.

Silverfiddle said...

It's a different world now. As Ed says, women already serve in front-line positions. I saw it myself in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A 50 year old grandmother in the National Guard got killed manning a 50 cal and riding gunner on a convoy outside of Kabul.

The summer after I got back, we had a bbq, and one woman came with her husband, and she had just gotten back from serving in Kandahar province. She was a nurse at a remote outpost, and the stories she told were chilling.

As long as it doesn't interfere with the mission...

beakerkin said...

I can see it now.

Your mother wears combat books and the
next kid stating and she's pretty good with a tank and small arms too.

Z said...

SF, would a nurse be considered COMBAT? Or you mean the nurse had stories of women IN combat?

Ed, why would they make this big announcement if most people know women have been in combat already?

Phil, that is an EXCELLENT point about jihadists and how they'd treat women if caught. Yikes. Of course, their faith would tell them leave them alone, they're 'dirty', etc., but does anybody think THAT would happen?

sue hanes said...

Z - I don't want to be the one to tell women they can't be in combat but I don't think they should be in combat. Women are still women and it just doesn't seem right to me.

But no one asked me and it looks like it's going to happen.

Fredd said...

Nobody except Leon Panetta thinks this is a good idea. But he's the one calling the shots, so to the rest of us, tough noogies, deal with it.

I served in a tank batallion overseas when women started showing up in significant numbers at our combat support company. It didn't go well AT ALL. Young humans (men and women, and that's who comprise the military are kids, really) have raging hormones, and relationships develop among team members that do not help the mission.

These relationships within the ranks adversely affect every mission, regardless, and everybody knows this.

Except Leon Panetta.

Fredd said...

Z: PS> it's nice not having to read that thug troll's garbage anymore on your site. I like your new comment format, it keeps the low lifes under control.

-FJ said...

Gee, maybe morons can become brain surgeons now! Woo-Hoo!

conservativesonfire said...

I'm sure Sandra Fluke would approve as long as the ladies get their monthly quota of condoms.

-FJ said...

btw - When is a woman QB going to win the Superbowl? 2015?

NO steroids for YOU!

Anonymous said...

Joan of Arc did well in the middle ages :)

FrogBurger

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Fredd, I'd been on Comment Moderation but am off now...
we just got lucky so far...

Sue, as a wife and mother, I think you'd know best of all of us what a rotten idea this is so I'm glad you weighed in.

Conservatives on Fire...GOOD POINT! really good one!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

FJ....what?

Fredd...I believe it's known that our government's had to pay for abortions of military, etc.
And that young newlyweds' marriages have been ruined or jeopardized. Imagine some 22 yr old guy on a submarine with adorable 18 yr old girls who aren't their new wife? What are they THINKING to allow this?

I guess it's all part of the:

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE IN GENDER joke that some on the far left have been trying to hoist on the West. Imagine a group of people who don't understand gender differences and gender roles?

While I'm all for a woman doing all she wants to do, all I see then is children left behind (and suffering consequences of that), broken marriages, etc etc...
Be all you want to be but set your priorities right, Ladies..if you have kids, THEY ARE YOUR PRIORITY for 18 years. Who'd have thought we need to TEACH that? Was it Betty Friedan who finally said she was truly sorry for the feminist BS she created?

Equal pay for equal work; something I TOTALLY agree with.

But women in COMBAT? Leaving their children behind?
And yes, I DO believe a mother leaving her children for 4 years is more consequential than a father doing the same...to the child and the parent.

rant rant rant :-)

Anonymous said...

But women in COMBAT? Leaving their children behind?

I agree. But I think then the question is about women leaving their children. The issue would be different for a single woman.

FrogBurger

Z said...

FB, these days, I'm sure there are VERY MANY children with no father whose mothers have enlisted, aren't you?
Grandparents are getting the brunt of raising grandchildren because their children are leaving the grandchildren through the military or having become incompetent from drug use. It's so sad. ANd it's always the children who pay and then society says "What's wrong with our kids?"

Funny; I was just looking at the Yahoo news headlines and there's a big picture of two mildly attractive young women and the headline is "Country Star and Wife to have child" and I honestly sat here thinking "Why are there two WOMEN in the picture illustrating that event...where's the husband whose wife's expecting?" then I realized they're lesbians.
I simply can't get used to women having wives.
And, frankly, I don't want to.

Again, I pity the children.

JonBerg said...

It sounds like it didn't work so well in Israel, although given their situation I imagine they tried it for reasons other than just social expermentation.

http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/

Joe said...

"They already train alongside men."

They lift half the weight and do half the push-ups, etc.

JonBerg said...

"I didn't like women on submarines and I don't like this."

While, in the Navy, I wasn't assigned to Submarine duty, per se, I did have occasion, however, to go on a submarine cruise. All I can say is that one couldn't intentionally design a more coeducational [unfriendly] environment!

christian soldier said...

you know that I believe that women are equal-however-
they are not physically able to carry 80# (combat equipment) into combat--
that means- the men would have to 'help'/plus-
the men - being real men- would be watching out for the women (as women) instead of watching out for themselves and the rest of the troop...
as to the comment on Joan of A-she had a HORSE to carry her weight and the weight of combat equipment---
Carol-CS

Z said...

Jon, I don't have time to open the link here at work but I'm surprised to hear it doesn't work in Israel. Well, not REALLY surprised because it just plain CAN'T WORK WELL, but I thought women had been in their military, in combat, for a long time.
Thanks for the link...I'll look at it later.

Joe, sadly, as you know, that 'half' would seem to also apply to "does SHE have your back covered?" "Half".

Kid said...

Now, Z, you know women are much smarter than men. But yes, women who want to be women will be women. Women who want to be in combat support roles will be successful IF the performance standards are not lowered.

I don't have any problem with it. Free will and all that. American women (based on an article I read recently that I somewhat agree with) have already stepped out of the 'traditional roles and many men(not me) are having a tough time with it but the women are certainly not going back.

Brave new world.

beamish said...

There's a reason one of my brother's former aircraft carriers and one of the first US Navy ships to go co-ed, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, is known as the Navy's maternity ward.

I have a mixed opinion on women in combat. I hate to see things like what happened to Jessica Lynch in Iraq, and then you have Lynndie England at Abu Ghraib dishing out a little reciprocal humiliation on Iraqis.

My cousin is a decorated medical evacuation helicopter pilot in the Army. SHE has a reputation for boldness, flying into active battlefields in Afghanistan to pick up the wounded, the whole time her chopper is being shot to hell by whoever we're supposed to be helping / fighting over there.

One of the most decorated A-10 pilots in the Iraq War was a female. I'd be scared to death to even climb into one of those bathtubs with wings.

I guess my view is guarded. Support roles, yes. Land combat roles, no. At least not while we have the luxury of choice.

My grandfather was dead-set against females in the military, but surprisingly not because he feared they couldn't handle it. Instead, he thought female soldiers would be TOO ruthless, TOO remorseless, TOO merciless. Then again, his only experience with female combatants was French women in the underground resistance, who would charge Nazi SS officers unarmed and stomp them to death just to acquire a weapon the men could fight with.







Pris said...

Helloooo! Men and women are hard wired differently!

This latest politically correct decision is IMO, dumb!

Is there anyplace men can be men, without women around?

Secondly, many men feel protective about women. Isn't that a distraction from what a real battle entails?

Women don't belong on the front lines. This is political correctness run amuck!!

KP said...

Some main points I have pieced together:

To date, I am of the mind that as long as physical and mental standards are not lowered, that women should be in combat; period.

Allow me explain:

I work on a regular basis (medically and as an advisor and participant) with elite endurance athletes, male and female. I assure the readers, women can suffer with the best of men. I mean that literally. When referring to suffering I am not specifically referring to pain, as that term is subjective.

My professional experience has been that women psychologically deal with hardship over acute or long periods of time as well as men.

By hardship I mean fatigue, hunger, perseverance, survival instincts, etc. Readers would enjoy the reference “Deep Survival” by Laurence Gonzales.

The mind has what is called a “central governor”. Each individual has a governor and the mind will seek to stop activity it sees as a threat to our health. My job, as an ultra-endurance advisor is to rewire the brain so that it understands the individual can and will survive.

Mind you, the central governor is part of the subconscious. We can learn to expand it; and those of us that actively seek to expand the mind, discover straight away that we didn’t know what we didn’t know. In my world, women are exceptional students!

Just like DADT, there is a gray area. Looks like we are close to deciding the gray area is less important than it once was.

Are hormones a part of the question? Indirectly. The ultimate ‘decider’ will not be men/women/gay/blood testing hormones levels. It will be performance. Predictive performance is everything, and testing that predictive performance is mostly objective. Bottom line, women may lack in strength in _some_ areas, but kick ass in endurance performance. And I want to make it clear, they are recent newcomers to rewiring endurance limiters via the central governor. The Olympics didn’t even allow the women’s marathon event until relatively recently.

It is a scientific fact — not in dispute — women perform at a 10% difference from men in endurance events. Each person in combat will be assigned via predictive performance.

Relative to pregnancy, the military needs to be sure birth control is everywhere, because sex is obviously almost everywhere.

Lack of privacy and the spontaneous nature available to the deployed probably mean birth control is less widely employed. The medical/legal issues should also be addressed as ‘gaming the system’ (ie, palnned preganancy to go home) would be detrimental to morale (esprit de corps) of both other women and men.

Z said...

KP..imagine the military legislating birth control, or else? Yes, they're going to game the system BIG time.

I believe women can fly, can do tons of things even better than some men could, but combat, where they could be needed to drag an injured American to safety? I'd think not.

I don't doubt women can REALLY get tough, emotionally and physically, but I'd rather they were doing anything but boots on the ground, or slippers under a sailor's bunk :-)

KP said...

<< KP..imagine the military legislating birth control, or else? Yes, they're going to game the system BIG time. >>

No legislation, just common sense, strong briefings and availability.

Lets be straight forward -- if soldiers are on patrol, on a base, facing death on a daily basis, sex is going to be a consideration. Basic humn drives are water, food and sex. Over time, humans don't face death and ignore human needs.

Crap, the office water bottle or sitting in the same room is the main driver of affairs back home. Add in life or death bonds and we are off the chart!

<< but combat, where they could be needed to drag an injured American to safety? I'd think not. >>

We have already covered this. More effeminate serve in combate. As I said, trained, elite women perform about 10% less than trained, elite men over endurance events. Recall, trained elite men _and_ wmone perform better than 95% of people on earth. So finding women or sorting out predictive performance is not a problem. Re-read, not a problem. A soldier either can meet a standard or cannot. In this regard the argument is not foggy.

As to the slippers ... flip flops are called slippers in Hawaii. And the mokes and haole men over there where slippers :-)

They Say/We Say said...

These circus act will be more and more in the news only to keep us from realizing that we are to be side tracked from the take over one small news story at a time.
Assault weapons have now been put on the back burner, and the hype is now magical 10 bullets magazines---which will ban 30 percent or so Hand Guns as well as some scary military style rifles and shotguns.
The U.N. Small Arms Ban Treaty, that cannot be Ratified by the Senate (That Damn Constitution keeps getting in the way), but can be by snookering the Public by 'Bills' passed to curb Gun - Violence/Safety/Control
And then there is Agenda 21-one set of regulations ata time; case in point the New Carbon Tax by Ex Orders. Chemical Plants and Coal Fired Electrical Plants, are now slipping pink slips in the files of 4,000 to 100,000 employees-or ex employees.
Keep on looking at the stories on at a time, and we will wake up one morning without any coffee to start the day.
Women in Combat--whooohooo. Fall For It---Fall For It....

Z said...

KP...we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

And have you ever heard of people refusing easy sex because your bosses advised against it? "Briefings?" (pardon the pun!)
naaaa ...

They Say..it sure isn't a huge story, is it. I'm hearing women have been pretty much doing combat for years, anyway. What's up?
I still think my post was an interesting question just for the intellectual exercise, but I agree with you; they're going to be spraying us with stories that aren't significant while the significant stuff's slipped into legislation while we weren't watching.
That's the hallmark of Obama, in my opinion. Midnight signings, etc..
scum

They Say/We Say said...

Nothing against your PoST!
Just giving a warning!

Marine4Ever said...

With everything else that has happened, is happening and is on the verge of happening in America (I mean, Amerika) along with that last little escapade that will wreak havoc in our military, I would have to ask this question: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Z said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338613/wrong-women-warriors-heather-mac-donald

KP...a dear friend of mine's daughter writes pretty eloquently and with pretty good information; thought you might like to read it.

Z said...

Marine4..you're sounding like HILLARY! GAAAAAAD!! :-)

KP said...

Z, I understand; but do think small, effeminate, less physically endowed with brute strength males should be denied combat roles? I am 6' 3" and 200lbs. I am super fit, and guys 5' 8" and 140 lbs destroy me in endurance events. It's a stereotype issue that is wrong headed. Gals can compete and so can gays. And if they cannot their performance will be vetted.

<< And have you ever heard of people refusing easy sex because your bosses advised against it? >>

No. What's your point? Like I said there is and is going to be double the unprotected preganancies in the military. Not is not enough od a reason to deny females access; any more than gay sex is.

KP said...

Z, I just saw this. Good article. Well written. In other words, the percentage of women who can past the tests are "vanishling small".

As long as honest performance is the test, why is that a problem?

I can tell you right now I would trust my life to some of the gals I work with over guys I know outside of sport who "look" normal.

We have to stop underestimating gays and women by appearance. The body (let alone the mind) does not work that way.

You can keep pulling up specific examples and that only supports my and the articles point; most women won't pass the test. The ones that do and volunteer should get their ass up there.

KP said...

Very nice comment by Marine4Ever. Loved it. That line will live forever and will not serve her well.

Z said...

well, we won't be paying for abortions from gay sex, but I understand your point.

And yes, there are plenty of women who could out perform men, that's true.

I just don't see how it's going to be so well run that all the facts you give will be adhered to, or put in use in testing, etc...

They Say/We Say said...

But KP how do we know if they are there to be a fighting force for us, or there just to fill an agenda, remember a liberal is infiltrating everything we hold dear as a Great Society, cause the women who are there for us will be cut down in the dreams by these liberal Amazons.

Marine4Ever said...

KP makes some (a lot of) strong and valid points for women in combat. From experience, combat ties people together tighter than their own family. In a combat environment, no one -- NO ONE -- takes advantage of another... if he/she wants to live to see the light of the next day.

In one of my other lives, I served as a deputy sheriff. I had the opportunity to work with female deputies and police officers that were just as good, if not better, than their male counterparts. They could mix it up with the worst of the worst and there was no quarter given on either side. I would choose to partner with them rather than some of the male partners I had. We had each others back and they cut no slack. And if you think riding around together in a patrol car at 0300 gives you ideas, think again. It's all built on trust and respect. If you don't have that, you're not going to be around very long anyway. I can see this happening the same way in military combat roles.

Besides, what difference, at this point, does it make? (Just HAD to get that one in, one more time!)

-FJ said...

I can't wait until paraplegics sue to serve in combat units under the Americans with Disabilities Act...

-FJ said...

after all... An employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it imposes an “undue hardship.” Undue hardship is defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of factors such as an employer’s size, financial resources, and the nature and structure of its operation.

...and knowing the nature and structure of the US Government with its' UNLIMITED resources, it's only "logical" that paraplegics should be accomodated.

-FJ said...

After all, nothing's too good for OUR troops...

-FJ said...

unless the DOD budget gets targeted for reductions and "Sequestered". ;)

-FJ said...

well, we won't be paying for abortions from gay sex,

Treatment for AIDS is cheaper than abortions? Who knew?

JonBerg said...

While I'm not at odds with the views expressed by KP and M4e, specifically, another issue remains un-answered. This from the link I refered to yesterday:

“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,”

Granted, this reference is from another time and place. Perhaps, in this day-in-age, it's no longer a concern. I'm more just asking.

Marine4Ever said...

JB, thanks for bringing up the Israelis and their not using women in combat. I didn't use it in my last comments as I was trying to keep my comments as short as possible -- also, I had a feeling that it would be brought up at a later time.

True, Israel has not used women on the front lines since 1948 because of jeopardizing the survival of the entire unit to protect and assist women in danger. True, there was the damaged morale factor to contend with when a woman was killed, maimed... or taken prisoner.

I've tried to rationalize that women have no place in combat roles ever since the subject came up long ago. I find that I can no longer take that stance.

You answered your own question, JB. The thinking is from another time and place and, in this day and age, it's no longer a concern. For example, our generation was brought up to open vehicle and building doors for the lady. When dining, the gentleman paid the bill. We held a chair for our female partner. The man walked to the street side when escorting a lady. I could go on and on. The point is, how many times have you seen any of these actions in the last twenty years, or longer? These mundane actions (or lack of) have taken a toll on how men think of women.

As KP has pointed out, and I've seen for myself, don't ever underestimate the smaller person.

If women were conscripted for combat -- all the above arguments hold true. However, women, today, voluntarily asking for combat duty should be afforded the opportunity. Only the strong will survive the training before being placed in a combat unit. After that, there is more weeding out -- male or female. And after that -- after that first firefight -- there's a bond stronger than anything on this earth.

All the arguments of why women should not be used in combat, could be used for an all male unit. But, we are trained to not let those emotions interfere with the mission. It can not, and must not, be said that consequences came about because of the sex of a person involved. It happens in an all male unit, too.

Times have changed in the male/female world -- like it or not.

Z said...

Marine, you well back up KP's comments...I hope he comes back and sees that.
You guys are convincing me; it's just that WOMEN IN COMBAT sounds so stupid and as if ALL WOMEN are in combat, not only PREPARED WOMEN,you know?

JonBerg had some excellent input, too.

That point about men seeing dead women is really compelling; I have a feeling most men don't even care anymore, thought.....men don't seem to have the same ethos regarding women as they did; don't cherish and protect anymore. Mostly because women asked them not to in a hundred different ways (the dopes)
!!

KP said...

Great comments Marine4Ever.

Here’s a thought for Readers:

If you were picking teams, who would you choose to work alongside you all day in 120 degree temperatures, and then depend on the person in a firefight at the end of the day? Two choices:

a) very fit and strong, (power/kilogram), well trained 200lb muscular man

b) very fit and strong, (power/kilogram), well trained soldier who weighed 140lbs

Hint, the larger soldier will have significantly more trouble dissipating heat, with dehydrating, decrease blood stroke volume, suffering high heart rates, fueling nutritionally, electrolyte loss and greater risk of heat stroke.

In other words, who is more likely to be there and still able to fight?

I am pretty sure a strong 140lb women could drag my 200lb butt to cover if I were shot and she needed to.

I would defer to Marine4Ever, as I didn't serve in the military. But it appears there are different kinds of jobs to be tasked, strengths and weaknesses to be considered.

In my mind, the KEY for choosing combat participants on the front lines should be standadized testing/performance markers. Then choosing markers that are most useful. Are doing ten pulls necessary? Probably for the SEAL Teams. Maybe not for fighters who are not rope climbing or faced with hand to hand combat.

I’d choose the gal that was a Division 1 college runner at the West Point over the guy that does pull ups in his back yard.

And have you ever watched women rock climbers? My gawd, it is amazing. Check it out, they are like Spiderman. Pretty sure they are doing as many pulls ups as they want. Maybe one handed.

I have been doing Ironman Traithlon for fifteen years. I have done twenty of them (2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bicycle leg and a 26.2 mile run). I was good enough to win my age group at international competition. At every single one of those races dozens of women beat me to the finish line. I coach them and I am telling you, these gals can suffer like no other!

KP said...

Good morning, Z! Love the word cherish.

I am reminded of the song "Cherish" by The Associastion. Perhaps you remember The Association's keyboard player, Terry Kirkman who also wrote "Along Comes Mary". I am aging myself.

Kid said...

It may have been mentioned but I haven't seen it yet.

I believe this change does NOT put women in infantry roles. Carrying motors and ammo up mountains and such. But there would be medics, no easy physical chore either, and other support roles.

Though, I know a Marine Recon (special forces) Amphibious Corpsman. The medical pack he carries on his back in 80 lbs.

They Say/We Say said...

A team trains for months for a critical mission that would save 1,000 lives. The team has a female with a dedicated purpose in the time critical plan. A month before deployment she is experiencing morning sickness - but does not tell. Then time to deploy she is showing.
Is she still a go? Or, is she easily replaced? Or, is the mission scrubbed and there is a loss of 1,000 lives?
Inquiring minds want to know.

JonBerg said...

Z,

"men don't seem to have the same ethos regarding women as they did; don't cherish and protect anymore."

Believe me I did, and all I got was it shoved back in my face. I've seen the same elswhere and often, so I don't feel all that personal or ego involved about it. It seems to me that what you rightfully refer to as "cherish and protect" is now considered "control", a great big NO-NO! BTW, I've seen REAL (or worse )controling and some seem to like that-go figure???????? I quit!

Anonymous said...

zgomt [url=http://www.celinebagnamey.com]celine bag[/url] yghgb http://www.celinebagnamey.com xbhb [url=http://www.celineluggagetotename.com]celine bag[/url] qahgt http://www.celineluggagetotename.com fojh [url=http://www.pickcelinehandbags.com]celine handbags[/url] rhxzj http://www.pickcelinehandbags.com kyums [url=http://www.savecelinebags.com]celine handbags[/url] yjkhd http://www.savecelinebags.com abdxv [url=http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com]celine bag[/url] fsdaf http://www.goodcelinehandbags.com kqwnl [url=http://www.onlinecelinebags.com]celine bags[/url] yksal http://www.onlinecelinebags.com fafa

Anonymous said...

kdgzm [url=http://www.hollisteroutletonsale.com]Hollister Clothing[/url] xiccr http://www.hollisteroutletonsale.com zkfpj [url=http://www.hollisterjeans-onsale.com]Hollister Clothing[/url] vhgky http://www.hollisterjeans-onsale.com vkuvw [url=http://www.hollisterclothingluck.com]Hollister Jeans[/url] fnfhp http://www.hollisterclothingluck.com xafn [url=http://www.hollisteroutletluck.com]Hollister Outlet[/url] nrgvx http://www.hollisteroutletluck.com pwhnz [url=http://www.hollisterjeansxiao.com]Hollister Clothing[/url] xfsxk http://www.hollisterjeansxiao.com mknll [url=http://www.hollisterjeansnamer.com]Hollister Jeans[/url] zbxjw http://www.hollisterjeansnamer.com tkiu