[Vision2020] Women in Authority and Leadership!

[Carl Westberg]

"You, not being a real man...".  Tom, have you been eating quiche?  Carl 
Westberg Jr.


>From: heirdoug at netscape.net
>To: thansen at moscow.com, kjajmix1 at msn.com, godshatter at yahoo.com
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Women in Authority and Leadership!
>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:20:41 -0400
>
>
>
>Tom,
>
>
>
>Below is a very clear answer to your continued bombardment of pictures
>and stories of women in uniform.
>
>I for one don't believe that real men want women to go to combat. You,
>not being a real man, do! I have never said that women can't do the
>job. I just say that they shouldn't. Now before you get all hot and
>bothered about how you were under a lot of female officers I only have
>one thing to say. Being a private for all of those many years of
>military service you were bound to be passed over for advancement for
>someone with greater talent and superior skills and intellect. And I'm
>sure most of them were women!
>
>I'm also certain you could beat a women up if you were called upon to
>do so, in combat of course. I'm sure it would have made your mother
>proud to have you exercise your inner amazonian side!
>
>
>
>Doug!
>
>
>
>ps The day job is going just fine!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  What Kind Of Nation Sends Women Into Combat?
>
>
>
>by R. Cort Kirkwood
>
>
>
>Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a
>link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com  Email a link
>to this articleEmail a link to this article  Printer-friendly version
>of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article  View a list of
>the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular
>articles on our site
>
>
>
>The ridiculous spectacle of rescued POW Pfc. Jessica Lynch, the feisty,
>ballyhooed warrior of the Army’s 507th Maintenance Company, which was
>butchered early on in Iraq, occasioned the usual war whoops. Yet no one
>asked a simple question: What in heaven's name was a hundred-pound
>girl, barely out of pigtails and high school, doing in a combat zone?
>
>
>
>The more cosmic abstraction of woman in combat evokes little if any
>debate these days, and what little debate we hear isn't loud enough.
>Other women have been killed and captured, including at least one
>single mother, and it's all just part of the modern military. As one
>lady columnist for the Washington Post triumphantly pronounced, the
>debate over women in combat "is over."
>
>
>
>How many Americans knew that?
>
>
>
>Whatever the answer, a few days ago in this corner of cyberspace, this
>writer suggested a fine way to stop American wars of conquest:
>Conscript the sons of politicians and bureaucrats who start them.
>Nearly three dozen letters came in, almost every one posing this
>question with the corollary mandate: Why are you excluding the
>daughters? Let Bush send his daughters to war.
>
>
>
>It's a passionate and in some ways understandable reaction.
>
>
>
>And most likely, it won't be long before women, along with young men,
>are required to register for the draft; the explanation for that
>observation appears below. But first, an answer for those
>correspondents: The debate over women in combat turns on two questions:
>whether women can do it (handle the rigors of combat) and whether they
>should do it (is it morally acceptable and socially desirable).
>
>
>
>In a word, no. It is un-American, un-Christian, and immoral.
>
>
>
>The Practical Question
>
>
>
>As a practical matter, 99 percent of women are unsuited for combat, and
>that includes flying combat aircraft and serving on combatant ships.
>That women do these things doesn't mean they should; it just means the
>military has been feminized and civilianized, as any military man will
>admit after a few shots of Jack Daniels at the Officers' Club, and of
>course, after his commanding officer leaves.
>
>
>
>In the early 1990s, I was a staff member on the Presidential Commission
>on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. The evidence the
>commission gathered was clear on one thing: Women don't belong in
>combat.
>
>
>
>The evidence showed women lack the necessary physical prowess. The
>strongest woman recruit, generally, is only as strong as the weakest
>man. Given that the services try to weed out the weakest men, it's
>counterproductive to recruit even the strongest women. And our
>volunteer military, remember, doesn't get the strongest women; it gets
>average women.
>
>
>
>As well, women suffer higher rates of bone fractures, and other factors
>such as menstruation, pregnancy and aging militate against recruiting
>women as combat soldiers. The 20-something woman, for instance, has
>about the same lungpower as the 50-something man.
>
>
>
>Well, that might be true for ground combat, the feminists insist, but
>surely they can fly jets and bombers. It's all just a Nintendo game up
>there. Again, untrue. Flying high-performance jets requires incredible
>conditioning and strength, particularly in the neck. Top Gun fighter
>pilots told the commission (and news reports later confirmed) that
>unqualified lady pilots routinely passed Naval flight training. At that
>time at least, officers were rated on the number of women they
>promoted. The result in one case? Kara Hultgreen, the first woman to
>"qualify" flying an F-14, was killed when her jet crashed because she
>couldn't land it on the carrier Abraham Lincoln.
>
>
>
>But let's suppose women fly jets as well as men. What happens when one
>is shot down? The safety of the high-tech cockpit is gone, and she is
>alone on the ground, trying to survive. She is another Jessica Lynch.
>
>
>
>As for the ships, consider the obvious: You don't send a few nubile
>sailorettes aboard Navy ships with 1,500 horny sailors, no matter what
>the Navy says about its "leadership" correcting carnal temptations. As
>well, the strength deficit surfaces again in many shipboard tasks too
>numerous to mention here.
>
>
>
>Military training is another area where the women fall flat; they
>cannot survive the same basic training as men, so it is
>"gender-normed." That means the services (and military academies) have
>different standards for women than for men, and not just for hair
>length. If women were held to the same standards as men, more than 14
>percent of our armed forces would not be women; they could not attend
>the academies. Oddly enough, the feminists aver that scrapping the
>double standard would be discriminatory! So much for judging someone on
>her true merit.
>
>
>
>In the decade since the commission heard tons of testimony on these
>points, nothing has changed unless women have evolved markedly improved
>muscle and bone.
>
>
>
>In reply to these unassailable facts, some suggest some women can meet
>the same standards with the proper weight training and physical-fitness
>regimen. That's a stretch, but let's say a few can. That takes us back
>to the weakest man vs. the strongest woman. What standard would these
>few meet? The lowest among the men? Even if they fell among men of
>medium strength, consider the prohibitive cost of selecting these
>Amazonian anomalies from among general population. And finding them
>assumes they want to be found.
>
>
>
>A friend of mine, a former Green Beret, suggests an experiment: Let's
>train two squads, one all women, the other all men, to peak physical
>and combat-ready condition. Then drop them in the woods for a war game
>and see who wins.
>
>
>
>Point is, women get by in the military only because of men. As one
>Internet wag observed, the equipment one man carries into combat is
>nearly as heavy, perhaps heavier, than Jessica Lynch. Lynch and women
>her size do not have the strength to carry a fallen 200-pound comrade
>out of harm's way. Forgetting about combat, some women aircraft
>mechanics need men to lift their toolboxes. Without men, the armed
>forces would collapse, and the more women the military enlists, the
>weaker it becomes.
>
>
>
>As one commissioner remarked in exasperation: "Women are not little
>men, and men are not big women."
>
>
>
>The Moral Question
>
>
>
>That leaves the moral and social questions, which commission member and
>Vietnam War hero Ron Ray addressed with this remark: "The question
>isn't whether women can do, it's whether they should do it."
>
>
>
>Women should only be used in combat, Ray argued, if national survival
>demands it; i.e., when the Indians are circling the ranch and the men
>are dead and wounded. Even then, using women would be a last resort. It
>would not become a policy. Such an emergency isn't likely to happen
>here unless Saddam Hussein's vaunted Republican Guards make a
>spectacular comeback and march into Jonah Goldberg's and Sean Hannity's
>neighborhoods. In that case, we know all the women will be fighting.
>
>
>
>The kidding aside, the moral and social argument is one of "rights" vs.
>what is right. The feminists claim combat service is a "right."
>Nonsense.
>
>
>
>A battlefield is not a boardroom, a courtroom or an operating room, and
>the contrary notion is hyperegalitarianism rooted in feminist fantasies
>that women "will have made it" when they have commanded troops in
>battle. Women do not have a "right" to serve. Military service for
>volunteers is a privilege; for draftees, it is a duty. No one has a
>"right" to serve, a civilian idea equivalent to having the "right" to
>be a doctor or lawyer that has no place in the military, whose
>principal purpose is to kill the enemy and destroy his capacity to
>fight.
>
>
>
>In "Crimson Tide," Gene Hackman's submarine skipper explained the
>point: The armed forces defend democracy, they do not practice it.
>
>
>
>So much for "rights." Now, as to whether women in combat is right:
>
>
>
>At one commission hearing, Col. John Ripley, one of the most famous
>Marines who fought in Vietnam, explained combat for the largely
>civilian audience. A good picture of real combat, he said, is walking
>down a path to find your best friend nailed to a tree, or his private
>parts in his mouth. The feminists and military women in the audience
>gnashed their teeth.
>
>
>
>Then again, they don't understand that until Bill Clinton's war
>minister Les Aspin changed it, the law excluding women from combat was
>always considered a privileged exemption, not sex discrimination. It
>was the thoughtful recognition that women should be spared the carnage
>and cruelty of war.
>
>
>
>Why?
>
>
>
>Because turning a woman into the kind of person who views such gore
>without blinking an eye, or who participates in the wanton killing war
>requires, is a step down to pagan barbarism and cultural suicide. In
>some sense, given what we've seen in the Gulf, we've already taken that
>step. But the feminists won't quit until they get women into ground
>combat units. As recent events prove, no one seems to care what all
>this means not only culturally but also psychologically.
>
>
>
>It will require training men and women to regard the brutalization of
>women, and a woman's brutalization of others, as normal and acceptable.
>To train the men properly, a woman commissioner observed, we must erase
>everything their mothers taught them about chivalry; i.e., that a real
>man protects a woman from harm. Instead, they must be trained to brain
>a woman with a pugil stick in training. This truth raises two paradoxes.
>
>
>
>On one hand, to completely desensitize the men, such training would be
>required. But the feminists don't want that because women can't meet
>the same standards as men; they won't survive it. Yet how are these
>women to survive combat if they cannot survive real, not gender-normed,
>basic training? The men would have to protect them. Successfully
>integrating women in combat means this: A soldier must ignore the
>screams of a woman POW being tortured and raped.
>
>
>
>On the other hand, while the feminists never stop the finger-wagging
>about "domestic abuse," they importune us to inure men to the wartime
>abuse of women. Again, to some degree, we're already there. The capture
>and torture of Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson, the single mother,
>was just another day in the war. But then again, the society that sent
>these young women to war is the same one that has steroidally-fortified
>men and women bashing each other senseless in television's faux
>wrestling, which presents the illusion that women really can fight
>against men, as well as preposterous movies about women Navy SEALS, or
>women who receive the Medal of Honor while the men cower in fear.
>
>
>
>Lastly, assigning women to combat, or even combat support units like
>the 507th, purposely subjects them to trials and tribulations for which
>nature has not prepared them. Such assignments endanger not only the
>women but also the men around them, who will redirect their attention
>  from fighting toward protecting or helping the women. Men will do that
>because they are men, because regardless of feminist propaganda, good
>parents teach their sons about chivalry and honor. The Steinem brigade
>doesn't like it, but it's true nonetheless. Thus, men will die
>unnecessarily. That is immoral and unjust, as is ordering married men
>and women to live in close quarters where they are tempted to adultery.
>Some observers even question the legality of orders sending women into
>combat. But that is a debate for another day.
>
>
>
>Ray's point? Civilized Christians don't send women and mothers to fight
>the wars. Chronicles editor Tom Fleming has observed that our nation
>has become anti-Christian. The saga of Pfc. Lynch and other military
>women proves him right.
>
>
>
>The Final Answer
>
>
>
>Back to that draft.
>
>
>
>Don't be surprised if women are required to register. Legally speaking,
>the draft exemption for women is tied to their exemption from combat.
>Now women serve in aerial and naval action. And given the proximity to
>combat of women in "maintenance" and other units, it won't be long
>before the politicians, and bemedaled generals in the Army and Marines,
>hoist the white flag and put women in ground combat. Then, some young
>man will file the inevitable "equal protection" lawsuit and the
>exemption will fall, its legal rationale having been dropped.
>
>
>
>Oddly enough, the silly clamor for women in combat assumes most
>military women want combat assignments. The commission found that they
>don't. Only a few aging feminists do, and of course, they won't be
>subject to the combat assignments or the draft. When you join the
>military, you join voluntarily, but you go where they need you. When
>women get their "right" to fight, they won't have the "right" to
>refuse. And why would they? After that, again, comes the draft for
>women.
>
>
>
>The answer to the many folks who suggest conscripting women is this:
>Real Americans don't send women to war. Neither do real men. A genuine
>Christian wouldn't contemplate it. The story of Jessica Lynch reveals
>an awful truth: All three are in short supply, particularly among
>American political and military leaders.
>
>
>
>April 11, 2007
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and
>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>=0
>
>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
http://newlivehotmail.com