New Secretary of Defense Weighs In on Women in Combat Roles – Here’s His Take (Video)
(www.rightjournalism.com)
Comments (24)
sorted by:
Women in the military undermine morale, and constantly try to get out of work by batting their eyes and spreading their legs. It introduces an artificial stimulus for men on a team to compete against each other for the female, instead of working cohesively against the enemy. They also get pregnant on purpose so they can leave the deployment. Keep the women in the rear with the gear.
This is so true. They get 3 months of paid leave whenever they pop out a child. I knew a woman who had a baby each year so she could keep getting all these benefits on the tax payer's dime without ever having to deploy.
AMEN
Mr. Don't know where you served, but it was far from a problem with every female soldier. Very few were like that. And I've known as many men who were lazy as hell and in fact it was female soldiers who picked up the slack. I don't want them in combat for for selfish reasons as I feel the need to protect them being the father of 3 daughters amd having one who is a combat veteran who served over there in the army maintaining Blackhawk. I felt much different about it than sending my son who is a retired MARSOC marine. That is 3 of 6 in our family that went. I went when my son was only 10.
Supertootsday-I just rolled my eyes so hard my head hurt. Women can and are a vital part of a well oiled fast strike military. In the RIGHT role. FYI I saw a whole lot more fat private males trying to get out of work than women. Way more boys in trouble for sexual misconduct than women. You want a soy boy over a woman who is base? Please go right ahead. Have a conversation with an army nurse before you make moron comments. Actually don’t better yet have a conversation with a vet who held one as she died from wounds as she covered her patient. There is A BIG difference between calling out woke BS and going so far the opposite way you become the catalyst for a whole new generation of soy boys skirt chasers. Women can and have served with honor. Putting a heavy pack on and slowing down their team who might get killed trying to protect her isn’t wise. Putting her in a role that serves that team is. Telling girls they can do what men do in the same way men do it is assinine. Telling women who are willing to sign up in war time that they are just there to “spread their legs” is also assinine. Here’s a thought. Let’s recruit the best and put them positions that maximize their capabilities while insuring they are not used by corrupt politicians and leadership, then give them the tools and mandate to get it done.
It is not a moronic statement. I served 2 tours for both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. What I said is true. Does that mean its widespread? Probably not. Is it enough to cause major issues. Yes. Women do not belong in direct combat. They belong in support roles. Period.
Pretty sure I agreed with you on that point. The throwing ALL female soldiers into a dishonorable category IS moronic. Your WHY is moronic. We are NOT designed to fight the way men are that is a fact. We have however served honorably and some of us ( most actually) NEVER shunned our duties got knocked up on purpose or were loose in our morals. THAT I have issues with. There is A VERY good reason men and women should not serve the same roles in combat. Supplied by God. Degradation is not needed to make the point.
On a side note as a woman please don’t judge all of us by the few who are louder and determined to use every advantage for their own personal gains. This is a by product of generations being removed from examples of REAL empowered women. They are wellspring of awful for us all. Females are the gate keepers of family and the knitters of societal fabric but only when we can be honored and protected by honorable men. You seem a man of honor and it is a privilege to support and defend our honorable men. When you place all women in that framework you cut my legs out from under me. We have entire generations that have to be deprogrammed. Boys, Men Women and girls. There is a reason they are going after our daughters so hard. The women who serve that are dishonorable should not get to be the center of attention. Raise the standards hold them accountable and then judge them not by other women but as individuals. Otherwise we will just repeat these cycles. Strong men deserve strong women.
Well said, and will do.
Female combat medics are used in some Brit regiments of the line, they are very good as well. They carry ammo and guns as well as medicines and other medical equipment, they are shit hot.
Competency is sexy. If our daughters learn this they will finally understand their true power and not be fodder for the sex industry. Our power isn’t in our sex it is in our ability to protect those weaker. God designed us to protect our children just as he designed men to protect us. We can stretch that into battle and become a shield for our brethren. This is the heart of what makes a Shield Maiden hot not the corset.
It isn’t our ideal position. I truly believe as a woman we aren’t designed for war but for peace. Having said that sometimes there is no other way to protect your children or future children ( including those that you don’t give birth to) than to take up arms with your brothers. Also there are exceptions to every rule hopefully I don’t have to add that content warning here since I like to think Frens are better at critical thinking.
Rather let me rephrase- I believe women’s wars are fought in and for peace time. The most powerful warrior I ever knew was a prayerful widow who raised 10 amazing successful and honorable children in terrible conditions. THAT woman fought night and day against everything that came at her hoping to get to her babies. 4 were hers by birth 6 she took in off the streets. THIS is I believe our battle front where we were designed to stand and the skills for that can be of use on the military field in times of need.
"Pete Hegseth is not against women serving in combat if they meet the standards that are required. Lowering standards in order to fill a quota is not an option."
Should be a no-brainer. A very few women can meet the standards of 18 year old men, but not many -- except some of the trans ones.
Very few women can meet those standards and if they can’t, it isn’t an option for them. As a woman veteran, I whole heartedly agree.
Thank you for your service -!
Same
It’s been said before that women jeopardize the men around them in combat. Real men open doors for women. They offer their seat to a woman. They go out of their way to assist a woman. And therein lies the problem. In combat, these upbringing mannerisms don’t fall away because she wears the uniform. Understand brothers in combat will help each other. But a woman screaming and then the knowing thought of “if SHE gets captured”…men will die trying to save her. It’s not her fault. It’s how real men are built. Men see women and children as “the innocent”, in many situations. It’s not really true. But we do. Precious creatures that we are designed to protect. Can’t undue that ideology just because a woman wears a uniform. They don’t belong in combat situations, ever. Wanna fly drones? Go for it. But where the metal meets the meat…it shouldn’t be.
Agreed
Just judging from what I personally witnessed during my military college days and time as an officer in the Navy, the standards have been lowered since at least 1975 when the first female cadets attended Academies. That's just fact because I witnessed it. The lowering of standards has only gotten press in the past several years because the standards went so low. Back in 1978 I saw men failing to pass the obstacle course and being kicked out of the Aviation program because they couldn't scale a 12' wall using the knotted rope attached to the top. It was a measure of upper body strength and coordination, none of which appeared to be related to flying a plane, but it was there nonetheless. The very few women in that program at the time got to run past the wall instead of going over it. So while I won't argue the necessity of having to climb that wall to qualify as an aviator in the Navy, I will say that the double standard there was just one example of the Navy accommodating the differences between the sexes. Men were kicked out of a program over something women didn't have to do. Pretty unfair and like I said, just one example and not my main point.
There are cases of a few women who can pass all the requirements of some programs on equal footing with the men. However now you have another issue, that of morale and cohesive team spirit. This isn't women's fault, but when you put a few females among a team of men it's VERY disruptive. When you have a team where all but a couple are suffering being away from society, family, etc but some of them are not because they are getting laid, it starts issues. Then you have the issue of facilities. Most military facilities are laid out with common showers and bunks. This is obviously not appropriate for a mixed team. But, that usually means the men get all jammed into one small space while just a few women get a bunk/shower facility built for dozens. This are but a few of the many issues that arise having women in combat roles.
Now if the military were to really bring standards back to what they were when I was a member, damn few women would qualify and a lot of the men showing up for duty wouldn't either. Just the weight qualifications would disqualify many of them. So do we really need to completely screw up the various fighting units of the military to accommodate the relatively few women that would qualify? It's not just about equal rights, it's about what is right for the mission. So my opinion is that they shouldn't be in combat roles. The best that can happen is that they aren't disruptive, but all the units I've been assigned to that had women, experienced the issues above. I won't even go into the problems on deployment between married and unmarried sailors. It's really nothing but problems that shouldn't even exist and I realize it's not always or even mostly the fault of women in general, but we don't mix well in close quarters for long periods of time. Human nature will not be denied. Just IMO.
I agree totally with you. Men and women are not alike in most things. They should not be forced to be together in the ways you describe. No women in combat!!
That has cost female naval aviators their lives too.
I agree completely with All of your points. I will say this as well- women need different training than men. We are not built or designed the same way. I don’t agree with saying a woman should never expect combat. You put on the uniform be prepared for that or don’t step up. That doesn’t mean women should be infantry. It does mean if you are serving at a base and you have to help defend you can in a capacity that ACTUALLY helps. Lowering male standards is ridiculous. No woman should qualify based on lower standards. An MOS should have no sliding scale. There is definitely more drama when groups of women get together and I am no arguing there. That should not be an excuse drama is conduct and be met with swift deterrents ESPECIALLY in the armed forces. Create the standard and except no excuses. WHEN did that change? I agree women and men serving together is Hollywood BS and makes more problems than solutions and not just for men. You would be surprised how many women agree completely. THIS needs to be the talking points to roll back some of this DEI nonsense. All your points are valid and accurate. I only disagree with women not serving in combat as logistics or medical. In an ideal world that would not be necessary but can you honestly say we have enough men currently to be successful without that? We have ALOT of work to do before we are there IMHO. In an ideal world you won’t NEED women in combat. Last I checked we are a long way from ideal.
He's right the wokies are trying to put weak women in combat and that isn't allowed!