Men are better than women in combat by leaps and bounds, and the ACLU needs to stop denying the science. This from redstate.com.
“It’s also sending a tremendously harmful message that women are less fit than men to serve their country in this particular way and conversely that men are less fit than women to stay home as caregivers in the event of an armed conflict. We think those stereotypes demean both men and women,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project.
What the ACLU is effectively saying is that women should be forced to abandon their children, families, homes, etc. to go fight in a war somewhere so that the leftist feminist narrative that “women are the same as men” can be upheld. This isn’t just cruel, it’s cruelty in favor of a political ideology being right about something.
But it’s not right. Studies conducted in 2015 have already shown that when it comes to combat effectiveness, women trail behind men. When women were introduced into male units, performance dropped significantly as reported by NPR:
“The Marines created a battalion of 100 female and 300 male volunteers. During the past year, they trained in North Carolina and California, taking part in realistic combat exercises.
“All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed gender units across the board. The males were more accurate hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries.
“The Marine study says its main focus is maximum combat effectiveness, because it means fewer casualties. The Marines have not said whether the study’s results will lead them to ask for a waiver that bars women from ground combat jobs.
“Defense Secretary Ash Carter said he hopes to open all combat jobs to women.”
The commission who undertook this study concluded that when it comes to war, winning is sometimes a matter of inches, and combat effectiveness decides who wins and who loses, who lives and who dies. The introduction of women to frontline combat was clearly not a good idea.
“Unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy,” said the commission. “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”
The “morally wrong” part of the argument is one that doesn’t get enough attention, but it’s glaringly obvious once it’s seen. People die in combat, and that combat may decide whether others die further down the line. By introducing women into the front line you’re lowing the chances that soldiers will come out alive and the consequences for that could be dire. To be clear, people will die because some politicians who will never see battle wanted to try to prove a point and push a social narrative.
- 1948: Women on full combat status during the War of Independence
- 1948-Late 1990’s: No women allowed in combat roles
- Late 1990’s-Present: Majority of combat positions – including pilots and special forces – open to women
Combat veterans, any thoughts? Women are nice to share time with and they’re sure nicer to look at, and they smell better than most guys. (Sick humor.) But to send women into combat? Is this not stupid?
