Boy, does she ever! In today’s Globe and Mail, serial aggravator Margaret Wente responded to the Pentagon’s decision to allow women to serve in active combat roles in the U.S. military.
Wente had several things to say, several of which contradicted not only common sense but other things Wente said in this column. This intrepid reporter has undertaken the Herculean effort of traveling into the depths of Wente’s mind in an effort to make this recent column understandable. Let’s see the results.
I admire tough fighting women as much as anyone. Their leadership skills are as good as men’s.
But…
Women cannot equal men in ground combat.
Which…
Makes up a very minor part of modern military life, especially post-Afghanistan.
But those differences still matter, and also biology!
Men are better fighters because they are bigger and stronger and can endure far more physical punishment before they break down.
Wente uncovers some disturbing facts about the type of woman who serves in the military, quoted from Stephanie Gutmann.
“She cannot pee standing up … She tends, particularly if she is under the age of 30 (as are 60 per cent of military personnel) to get pregnant.”
One woman served in combat and experienced adverse effects, which never happens to men.
[Katie Petronio's] last stint in Afghanistan was so gruelling that after seven months, she had lost a large amount of muscle mass and stopped producing estrogen.
The military-industrial complex has been cowed by the PC police and no longer dares to acknowledge outrageously sexist bullshit clear facts.
With the exception of the Marines, training and performance standards in the U.S. military are now gender-normed (i.e., watered down) for women. Officially, this is not a problem.
And now, a joke!
If a woman isn’t strong enough to carry a wounded soldier off the field, they’ll just work in teams!
Did you know Canada allows women to serve in active combat? Let’s see how that’s turned out.
As a result of a human-rights decision, front-line combat jobs were opened to women in 1989. Yet today, despite strenuous recruiting efforts, women hold just 2.4 per cent of these jobs.
But who’s doing this recruiting? Many men working around women don’t seem to be facilitating the process.
Their commanding officers praise their competence but treat them differently, by shielding them from combat. [...] Men serving next to women also exhibit a counterproductive battlefield trait: protectiveness. They want to carry women’s gear and keep them out of harm’s way.
But no, it’s not that men are still discouraging women from serving. It’s that women just don’t want to serve. (They’re probably too busy sitting down to pee or give birth.)
In the real world, few enlisted women want to be on the front lines.
Or is it that no one wants to be on the front lines of war?
Like a lot of men (but more so), they join up for the free education and career training, and would really rather not get anywhere near combat.
So who is it that wants women serving and dying all over those scary, arid countries we’re attacking? If it’s not male service members, commanding male officers, or women in the military themselves, it must be… PSYCHOTICALLY AMBITIOUS WOMEN AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVISTS.
The drive for full combat integration comes from female officers who need front-line experience to build their careers, as well as from a persistent band of activists who have succeeded in making the U.S. military hypersensitive to charges of discrimination.
Clearly, then, the U.S. shouldn’t be following Canada’s monstrous example of inclusion run amok. In fact, the best examples of military structure come from outside the developed world.
Outside the developed world, women do not take equal roles in war alongside men. There is a reason for this. The reason is that women on the battlefield are a liability.
See, you weirdos who believe in “equality”? We should be following the example of countries with horrific track records on women’s rights in crafting policy related to women. Because…
The sheer physical demands of war (to say nothing of group cohesion, and all the rest) mean that fighting capability and performance are simply not compatible with gender equality.
So there we have it. The myriad twists, turns and sexist throwbacks in Wente’s latest. As usual, the pleasure has been entirely hers.
via:Globe and Mail image: Canadian Army/Flickr
Comments are closed.