all in accord with satans plan..been going on since the 60’....womens rights, Helen reddys anthem: I AM WOMEN…women wearing pantsuits, women wearing ties, women getting short haircuts in their lesbian depraved relationships…all along satans goal to make women as men and men to act like women…in the end the destruction of marriage between one man and one woman…also since women want to act and look like men we have women priests…in the end the result is the destruction of humanity

yes! thank you! I’m a 30 year-old mom of 3 daughters, and if I was off pursuing my own interests and risking my life, what would become of them? I allow my husband take care of me in the way he was designed, and he allows me according to my design. My husband doesn’t rule me, we are equals according to what we were created to do, and we respect each other’s vocation.
People are so unhappy because they’re always trying to do in life the exact opposite of what they were made for.

Nice job incorporating women more fully into the culture of death.  Not only can they kill their pre-born children, now they can kill adults. So now that our society promotes sexualizing virtually all women, from preteens to grandmothers, married, religious, etc…, lets encourage them to kill too.  Who is going nurture our children?  Oh, wait, there are no children, we’ve contracepted and aborted them all….

I’m a mom and I used to wear combat boots. Shortly after I became a mom, I hung up my combat boots (from the rear view mirror…I have really small feet). My husband is a soldier.

We both agree that the military is no place for a woman. Terribly un-PC of us, but we’re pretty familiar with the territory. Of course, we both know there’s no going back, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.

My husband believes no woman should have to put up with military living/being a soldier. It’s really not a nice life. He loves it, but it’s not nice. Many would believe that he’s being paternalistic and condescending, and there doesn’t seem to be a way to convince some folks that his motives are based in chivalry.

The fact (and problem) is that the prevailing opinion of today’s women is that we don’t need or want protection. It’s a crying shame.

“We have liberated you to die”—sent shivers down my spine. Totally beckons to the garden of Eden. So well it, thank you. You’ve put words to what I’ve been feeling for a long time.

It just fits in line with everything else the Obama administration stands for.We can expect to see even more hard-left stuff over the next 4 yrs, especially as he doesn’t need to run for re-election now.
I think I remember reading that the Russian women fighting in WWII were fiercer than their male counterparts, but perhaps because they were forced to defend their homeland & families.
Women serving in the military already have had serious problems with sexual harrassment, etc.We haven’t solved the issues that already exist for women soldiers in the roles they currently hold.

I’m all on board with the idea that women in combat is a terrible idea for a variety of reasons.  But did someone just suggest that women in pantsuits is along the same continuum as sending women into combat?  Dude, get a grip.

I understand where you’re coming from, and the value of upholding women’s dignity—but how is the question of women in combat roles not a decision for women to make for themselves? Regardless of how protective men might feel about it?

As it is now, women don’t need to meet the same standard of physical fitness as the men. A team is only as strong as it’s weakest link, and women are generally weaker.

What happens when you are told to treat someone as an equal yet are then forced to shoulder their burden? Think of when you are on a research project and one person doesn’t pull their weight and you end up doing 90% of the work. Even if that person is the nicest person you end up hating that person.

It’s a simple FACT that women are not as strong as men. It’s FACT that we are more emotional, more sensitive, and more easily hurt. Yes we can endure lots of pain for long periods of time (labor comes to mind), but that doesn’t make us warriors. Yes we will kill to protect a child, but we don’t have many of those in the military.

Thus you have a bunch of men who resent the women they are forced to work with. You have a bunch of young people in general who have been saturated with a sex culture that says sex doesn’t matter and is just for fun. You end up with a lot of women on BC, a lot of sexual encounters that they later regret, a lot of pregnancies/abortions, and, on those occasions where men forget to be men and instead become beasts, you have sexual assault and rape.

All to prove that “women are the same as men”. Or maybe they do this just because they hate women and want them to be used, assaulted and killed.

Well for starters, let’s just bring the troops home. The enemy uses ied’s - more effective in casuality counts.  Their women are at home, unless you find one willing to strap a bomb to her chest and die for Allah. We have seen enough and had enough, cried and grieved over the lost of soldiers and for those who come home traumatized, paralyzed, forever maimed…heros…haunted by the horrors….  The women who want to fight in combat? Wait until a war comes to our soil.  Then defend our homeland alongside those who love this country. You just may have a bigger gun and that suits me fine.

Liz, it’s not a decision that women get to make for themselves.  Since the government has now decreed that women are just as capable of fighting in combat as men, the government has now decreed that men and women are the same.  Not that men and women should enjoy equal dignity, but that there is no difference between men and women.  Not only is this ludicrious (of course, the same argument is being used in regards to many other aspects of our society… marriage, for example… that children don’t need a mother and a father, but simply two loving individuals), but the one thing that women fail to realize is that you are now going to be eligible for the draft.  It is outright legal discrimination for the government to declare that men and women have the same combat capability, but that only men can be drafted.  If the government doesn’t enact it itself (and I doubt it will, because they know it won’t be popular), someone will raise a lawsuit pointing out this double-standard.  ALL women will have to register for the Selective Service just like men, and ALL women age 18-25 will be eligible for the draft just like men are.  If you want to have “full equality,” you also get to have full responsibility.  I don’t support the idea of women in combat, but since that’s the road we’ve elected to go down as a society, I fully support the idea of women being forced to register with the Selective Service.  No more picking and choosing of “rights.”  If women in America want to pretend that they are men (as many do now in regards to sexual promiscuity, etc.), then they can carry the same responsibility that men have to carry.  If they deliberately get themselves pregnant to avoid a military deployment, then they should face the same charges that a man would face if he deliberately shot himself in the foot.  The government has to prove that the act in both instances was deliberate, but both are a desertion of duty, and both should face equal condemnation.  Do I think that will likely result in abortions?  Yes.  Do I think abortions are morally reprehensible?  Yes… and the point of all of it goes to show that men and women ARE NOT THE SAME, and should NEVER be treated as such.  They should ALWAYS receive equal dignity (something that men did NOT do correctly in the past), but to claim that the genders are the same is just as stupid as saying that 1 equals 2.

And no Liz, it’s not a decision that women should make for themselves. No company should be forced to hire someone without the qualifications to do the job, or who has some feature that would cause a severe problem in the workspace. This is why children are no longer considered work force capable - they are too easily hurt. You don’t hire someone who can’t read to be a teacher, you don’t hire someone who doesn’t know how to use a computer to be in IT, you don’t hire a 5’1 petite woman to be a linebacker in the NFL.

That is essentially what they are doing. It’s like saying that it’s not fair that women can’t play football, insisting that you allow women to play on your team, even at the cost of loosing the game when she gets tackled. Only in the military it’s NOT a game. When you loose a battle you don’t just go off to sulk in the locker room. When you loose a battle lives have been lost, more people will die and your country is at risk.

Actually, women have been participating in and around combat for decades. I have read these women’s stories in Glamour magazine. Women have been signing up volunarily, not drafted, for operations once reserved for men. Most men aren’t up to the task today because they don’t have the stomach to defend their faith, much less our country. If not for these women volunteers, the draft would have to be reinstated.  Many have been maimed and permanently disabled for freedom. Moreover, when asked if they’d do it again, they said they’d sign up for another tour. I think that’s admirable, not shameful. We owe these women our support and allegiance, not condemnation.

I could explain what the phrase originally meant, but it is not terribly appropriate for a Catholic Forum. 

I would caution some here, to be careful about painting everything that has happened since some theoretical golden age, that there was some real progress with respect to women’s rights.  Don’t get me wrong, there have been many evil developments too.  Obviously this falls under the latter category.

How long before our daughters and granddaughters are required to sign up for the potential draft (“Selective Service”) at 18 years of age just like our sons?

We need to stop treating the term “patriarchy” like it’s a four-letter word.  It means “rule by fathers”, that’s all.  And ruling isn’t an unalienable right: keeping some people away from the ultimate position of authority is not denying them any rights.  If ruling were an unalienable right then we’d all have to be leaders, which means in practice none of us would be because we’d have no one to lead!  I’m not jealous of the fact that Benedict XVI is the Pope and not me, why should women be jealous of men’s place in society?  Who said it was better or more important than women’s place?  Women are in charge of the entire next generation at their earliest stages—that’s a huge responsibility!  Not to mention that it’s women who traditionally decide how many children there will be in the next generation and who their fathers will be.  Men may have horizontal authority but women have vertical authority.

Liz, competence has absoltely nothing to do with it.

Human nature is a given—it isn’t something we change at will like a new hat.  A country that systematically endorses and promotes the perverse and unnatural concept of women as killers has become a country no longer worth fighting for.

We never see women in the role of Secret Service - protecting the President.  I am quite sure there are very highly capable trained women who could fit the billet.  Start with the SS.

hatlady, would do you mean by, “Most men aren’t up to the task today because they don’t have the stomach to defend their faith, much less our country?” I understand that women have served in the background, and that is commendable. But they were not fighting hand to hand combat, firing weapons, killing the enemy, correct?  Just want clarity.  Thank you!

Robert Waligora,  I appreciate the honesty of your comment.  Look at the history and you can see he is right.  Following WWI, there were more women in the workforce, due to casualties in much of Europe.  That led to women adopting male habits, like smoking and drinking in mixed company.  Then fashions change, first becoming shorter, and preferring a boyish figure for women, then in the thirties, pants outside of work or riding clothes. As more men experienced women as colleagues in the workforce, competition between the sexes increased, culminating in the rabid feminism of today, which essentially advocates for the chemical castration of women and the ultimate destruction of any fruits of her womb.  Now this completely spade woman is not only going to be ‘free’ to kill her young, but to get killed herself in combat.  You’ve come a long way, Baby!

Having been in the military, in war and peace, like it or not, there is a tendency among most males to defer to and defend females, irrespective of their ranks.  Our military culture reflects our American values, not the politically correct ones that this administration tries to impose. This administration has also created an atmosphere that is not conducive to how we fight and the repercussions will catch up to how we fight down the line.

Don’t also forget Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, telling chaplains they must marry same-sex couples, and imposing the Maoist-style reeducation session within the military to justify administration actions. No one compelled Panetta to be SecDef (and the political generals) to assist this president in the destruction of moral values of the military and our country.

J J posted on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 12:24 PM (EDT):
“How long before our daughters and granddaughters are required to sign up for the potential draft (“Selective Service”) at 18 years of age just like our sons?”

Given the integration of women into the armed services over the last thirty years, it’s very odd that women aren’t already required to do this, even with women not allowed in combat positions. The only reason this hasn’t happened is the volunteer army. Young men would be foolish to go along with being drafted if their female contemporaries weren’t subject to the same risks and career interruptions entailed by the draft. As another poster pointed out, with equal rights come equal responsibilities.

So the admin has gone from “War on Women” to “Women at War”.

I say if a woman wants to go to war, she should have that choice. I do agree with Patrick that it is not a positive step. I believe men and women are equal but equal does not mean same. I shudder when I hear a woman in our military has been raped. I know these women make a decision to be in the military, yet it still hurts me to hear that deeply. You’ve come a long way baby. remember the cigarette slogan? How did that work for women? We are now surpassing men in the number of lung cancer diagnoses. Equal does not mean same.

As a 20 year military wife, retired Navy, and the mother of a son-in-law with extreme PTSD, who has mentally, physically, spiritually, emotionally and in every way possible, abused and abandoned his wife and children, I say, I cannot believe what the Aftermath of these women will be. After 4 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan my 3 grandsons and daughter are so blessed to have the love and support, of myself and Holy Mother Church, to imagine what will come into the hearts and minds of these women as acceptable and wholesome for our country, I do not want to imagine. Every evil will be accepted and who will their children turn to???  The master of deception is wanting to rule!!  I will continue to pray my Rosary and implore God for protection and peace in our country and world for everyone!!  For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world!!  Jesus, I trust in you!  Mary, Our Mother of Medjugorje and Queen of Peace, Pray for us, every man, woman and child.  We are God’s children!  Keep us from every evil as we face these days ahead!!  Go to Marytv.tv to pray for the Triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart of Jesus!!  For the Greatest Glory of God to prevail in everyone everywhere and in every heart!!  Amen!!

Birth control pills gave women the freedom to behave just as badly as men on the sexual front and now women have the freedom to be just as savage as men on the war front.  Isn’t freedom great?

Catholics, as a group, have no right whatsoever to complain about this.  Obama received over 50% of the “Catholic” vote.  Catholics, as a group, vote no differently than the pagans.

bill - that’s like saying “Americans, as a group, have no right whatsoever to complain about this. Obama received 50% of that vote.” Ya know what - a lot of us Catholics worked hard to get our neighbors to see the truth. We can only hold so much responsibility for their stupidity. I’m going to complain as much as I want and you can just take your jerky self somewhere else.

HOW DARE YOU EQUATE CATHOLICISM WITH YOUR SICKO SEXISM?! Not is MY church! God bless women in the military!

EWTN, YOU ARE NOT THE VOICE OF AMERICAN CATHOLICISM. YOU’VE SUNK LOWER AND LOWER INTO DISCRIMINATORY, SEXIST, DANGEROUS HATRED. STOP CALLING YOURSELVES “CATHOLIC.” ALL YOU ARE IS A BUNCH OF REACTIONARY HATE-MONGERS.

BOYCOTT EWTN.
BOYCOTT EWTN.
BOYCOTT EWTN.

I’ve heard the boycott action directed at EWTN & Whole Foods in the same 24 hrs. Who’d of thought?
:)

Kell… you’re welcome to your church.  Last time I checked, there was only ONE Catholic Church.  It’s not MY Church, it’s not YOUR Church, it’s not anyone’s Church… except Christ’s.  Also, it’s the Catholic Church, also known as the ROMAN Catholic Church.  There is no such thing as “American Catholicism” or the “American Catholic Church.”  You’re free to split from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church if you like, and call it the “American catholic church” (please use a small “c” when you leave), but please make sure that you clearly identify yourself as separate from Rome when you do so, so that there won’t be any confusion for others.
I can’t speak for everyone else that’s posting here, but I actually put my money where my mouth is.  I currently serve in the United States Air Force and have done so for the last 10 years.  I’ve seen combat, albeit from the air, where I made it my life’s mission to protect the guys on the ground.  I understand the desire to serve one’s country, but there are many ways to do that.  A woman does not have to pretend to be a man in order to love her country.  I’ve seen the damage it’s caused, the affect it’s had on moral.  I’ve literally had conversations with women in the military, in combat zones, about base defense, etc., and these women, WHO JOINED THE MILITARY, said things like, “I hope I never have to do that… You mean I might have to man a bunker?!?  I don’t know if I could shoot someone.”  I respected the fact that they left their families to serve overseas, but a person SHOULD NOT be a member of the military if they can’t understand the fact that the military’s job, once unleashed by the government, is to “kill people and break things” until the enemy decides he’s had enough and quits.  Are all women the same as the one’s I encountered?  No.  Are most women that way, though?  Yes, and that’s a good thing.  Women on the homefront is a noble thing, not something to be looked down upon.  It reminds those of us off killing and being killed that there is still something good and pure in this world.  Allowing some women to serve in combat, but not requiring all of them to do so (i.e no draft for women) will never stand the legal challenge, and thus women will become eligible for the draft… ALL women, not just the brawny few.  On a purely logistical note, I’d also like to point out the money we are going to spend to adapt our military equipment for a very small percentage of the military population.  Body armor, combat latrines, etc., etc., etc., are designed for men.  Women in combat will never be anywhere near the same numbers as men, even if they are drafted.  MOST women lack the physical strength and emotional fortitude for combat.  The military is not a cool club to be a member of.  It’s about killing the enemy in the most efficient way possible.  Instead of increasing that efficiency, though, we’re going to divert funds to “female specific” modifications, etc., to allow a few women who want to do so to play war.  It’s idiotic, and it’s all being done in the name of political correctness.  You can call me a “reactionary hate-monger” if you want, but there’s nothing untruthful about calling a spade a spade.

Perhaps we should pray to St Joan of Arc for guidance on this matter?

Pray that Kell finds his meds again.

@Kell Brigan, I’d be interested in your take on this article: http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/testimony-of-col-john-w-ripley-to-the-presidential-commission-on-the-assignment-of-women-in-the-armed-forces.html

It seems to be that the colonel has some very good points.

The Christian men I know are raised to protect women, to place their lives on the line for them, much like the men did at the shooting in the theater a few months ago, saving the lives of their wives/girlfriends and being seen as heroes.

Perhaps the message sent to us now is only NON-Christian men and women should apply for military duty.  Then, whatever happens, happens: men losing respect for women, not protecting them, each with a “Me first” attitude, no matter what the circumstances.  Soldiers will be soldiers.
That fits the evolutionary belief to a tee, as it will be survival of the fittest.

No Christian or Orthodox view of a Creator means no objective rules regarding male/female roles, no moral or behavioral standard.  Just let the best man (or woman) win.  It could be dog eat dog, or they can be on the same team, every situation would be different with no one making a judgement call about it being right or wrong, among the sexes.

Of course, this is totally against what God’s word teaches us about male/female roles, which is why only non-Christians need apply.  The men in the movie theater that died saving women would not be considered heroes in the “new world” we are seeing in the USA now because of an overall attitude change among the population where men no longer protect women.

This move may be really good for psychologist’s businesses.  It will likely cause a lot more mental issues in soldiers that are already committing suicide and being traumatized by poor decisions our leaders have made in the recent past, the military’s version of Going Postal.  Ignoring God’s directive has consequences.

Sorting out essential functions and demographics in the military has nothing to do with this discussion. The military has routinely screened out people based on height for certain duties, for example. The decision today may result in stronger definitions of essential functions for combat. So. What?

Archbold’s “protective” totalitarianism, where he presumes to decide women’s lives for them “for their own good” is NOT Catholicism. Nowhere does Scripture or the Vatican say anything but positive things about successful, employed women. (Look it up. Start with St. Bonifacia Rodríguez y Castro and Proverbs 31.) There are no specifications anywhere in Catholic dogma barring anyone of either gender from military service. This bizarre prohibition against women serving fully in the military is something Archbold made up in his own head. It is NOT Catholic in any way, shape, or form. Just because some pathetic men are clinging to misogyny and childish mythologies about “protecting” (aka. imprisoning) women doesn’t mean their fantasies are legitimately Catholic.

Archbold should be thanking women in the military, in all roles, for risking their lives for his freedom, instead of throwing around disgusting, unpatriotic, childish myths and insults.

“Of course, this is totally against what God’s word teaches us about male/female roles…”

Where on earth did you get the idea that Scripture teaches that women can’t be soldiers? How many Saints in armor do you need to see?

You’re living in a complete, total, NON-CATHOLIC fantasy!

Men sending off women to fight their battles for them.

I call them cowards.

Kell, there aren’t that many female saints in armor.  The primary example would be Joan of Arc, as previously mentioned by another individual.

Let’s look at Joan of Arc.  Why did she take up arms in the first place?  Because the men of France, the leadership, were not willing to do what had to be done.  She stepped up because men weren’t fulfilling their God-given duty.  How did she win battles?  Because, when she put herself in harm’s way, men reacted in a visceral way.  They saw that they had to follow her, that they had to protect her, and thus they charged into the fray.
Joan of Arc would never have had to have been Joan of Arc if the men had done what they were supposed to do in the first place.
Heck, we wouldn’t have original sin if Adam had done what he was supposed to do in the first place.  God’s command to Adam, to “till and to keep” the Garden, in Hebrew is to “abad and samar.”  When abad and samar are used together elsewhere in the Old Testament, what do they refer to?  To the Levitical Priests “servicing” (abad) and “guarding” (samar) the Temple.  What did the Levites guard the Temple from?  From anything unclean entering.
What was Adam tasked with doing, then?  Guarding the Garden from Satan, the serpent (in Hebrew, “nahash”).  What do we find when we see how nahash is used elsewhere in the Bible?  It refers to the Leviathan, the great beast (see especially Job 41.. or Revelation 12).  In other words, the “serpent” isn’t some simple little snake, but a huge menancing beast, a “dragon” as it’s often translated.  Adam was supposed to take that on in guarding the Garden, AND IN GUARDING HIS BRIDE.  He failed in his God-given task, and we all suffered.  Read Isaiah 27, about how, in the days of the Messiah, God Himself will cast down Leviathan and guard his “vineyard” (Garden imagery).  Adam should have laid down his life in defense of His bride (the bride that God brought forth from his side), defending her and the world from Satan.  He failed, but the New Adam, Christ, did just that.  He died for His Bride, the Church, the Bride that (as all the Early Church Fathers noticed) came forth from His side on the cross (water and blood… i.e. Baptism and the Eucharist).
Everyone’s called to be selfless in this life.  God calls men to it by laying down their lives, either at once (heroic act resulting in death) or a little at a time (working day in and day out to support his family).  Women are called to lay down their lives as well, but in a different way - through the pain of childbirth, where they have the holy honor of bringing forth new life… through sacrificing for their children, etc.  Both methods are equally selfless, both deserve dignity and respect, but the two different methods are not the same.
This change in policy is just another step in the wrong direction for our society, moving away from God’s plan and toward one of our own making.

What is interesting is what is not mentioned.  Women have been serving in direct combat since 1998.  And to a lesser extent, all the way back to the Revolutionary War.  Second, they have a choice whether to serve in that particular field or not.  I do not fully agree with the policy, however, going on with 20+ years in both combat support and combat arms, I’ve seen woman MPs, Clerks, Chaplain Assistants, Mechanics, do a better job than their male counterparts and many of them asked for the opportunity.  Now to see how it goes.

This is bad for women generally and not just those who will go into battle in the place of men. It will obviously be very harmful to the army which uses women as soldiers; it will demoralise and weaken the army; it will lose its integrity. If a soldier is to treat female soldiers simply as fellow soldiers (which will be the aim), it will damage their proper relationship to women as men, and moreover as soldiers. Denying the natural attributes of male and female diminishes both men and women, and interferes with the establishment of healthy, life-affirming relations between the two inter-dependent and complementary sexes.

It used to be that the highest dignity of being a woman was to be a mother.  Society was structured to protect and support that.  The Cost of living was affordable.  The husband could handle that alone. Mom could take care of the children. Contraception and abortion were not legal and recognized and treated as harmful to the dignity of the woman, harmful to her person, even by the medical field. So, I guess this is the “you’ve come a long way baby” world of women.  It is sad.  Many women are so far along this “way” that men don’t have much respect for them, if any.  Our bodies are on display and our feminine mystique is crushed.  Chivalry is something of the past.  So, I guess the next step is to put a gun in our hands and tell us to “go get um”.  So sad.

Justin posted on Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 5:32 PM (EDT):
“. . . a person SHOULD NOT be a member of the military if they can’t understand the fact that the military’s job, once unleashed by the government, is to ‘kill people and break things’ until the enemy decides he’s had enough and quits.”

Yes, but that kind of honesty won’t convince teenagers to sign away their autonomy for a period of years. Perhaps if this honesty were incorporated into the recruitment process, young women wouldn’t see the military as an appealing career.

Thank you for saying this.  The whole thing makes me uneasy…the military can be great for discipline and advancement, but I am not convinced that women are supposed to be trained killers.  It’s bad enough that men have to.

How are they going to handle that time of the month in the barbaric wilds of darkest Afghanistan or wherever?

Posted by lucky louise on Friday, Jan 25, 2013 2:53 PM (EDT):

How are they going to handle that time of the month in the barbaric wilds of darkest Afghanistan or wherever?”
*********************************
I expect service women already are dealing with that.

With “protection” like this, who needs (more) rapists? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-14-2012/v-jay-jay-day—-samantha-bee-s-apology

It’s time to rock this Church!

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/01/26/new-combat-policy-ignores-biological-realities/?subscriber=1

“It is the wrong policy because it ignores fundamental biological differences between the sexes, and the natural implications of those differences. While much is made of new “high-tech” forms of warfare, we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan that ground combat still requires levels of sheer physical strength, speed and endurance that are relatively rare among women. If current physical standards are maintained, few women will be able to meet them, and there will be demands that they be lowered. If those standards are lowered, the effectiveness of the fighting force will be directly compromised.

In addition, troops in ground combat are often in sustained operations for extended periods. Their living conditions offer no privacy for personal hygiene functions or sleeping. This places an undue burden on small-unit leaders to find ways to provide privacy for the separate sexes during high stress and dangerous operations.

Women in the military already serve with courage, putting their lives on the line. However, it is neither in their interest, nor the country’s, for them to serve in front-line combat positions”

Retired lieutenant general Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, served in the Army for 36 years. He was an original member of the Delta Force and a Green Berets commander.

Read the words of a general that does not have to be worried about being fired by Obama for speaking the truth.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/01/26/new-combat-policy-ignores-biological-realities/

“It is the wrong policy because it ignores fundamental biological differences between the sexes, and the natural implications of those differences. While much is made of new “high-tech” forms of warfare, we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan that ground combat still requires levels of sheer physical strength, speed and endurance that are relatively rare among women. If current physical standards are maintained, few women will be able to meet them, and there will be demands that they be lowered. If those standards are lowered, the effectiveness of the fighting force will be directly compromised.

In addition, troops in ground combat are often in sustained operations for extended periods. Their living conditions offer no privacy for personal hygiene functions or sleeping. This places an undue burden on small-unit leaders to find ways to provide privacy for the separate sexes during high stress and dangerous operations.

Women in the military already serve with courage, putting their lives on the line. However, it is neither in their interest, nor the country’s, for them to serve in front-line combat positions”

Retired lieutenant general Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, served in the Army for 36 years. He was an original member of the Delta Force and a Green Berets commander

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s decision to open virtually all positions in the military to women, including those in infantry and front-line combat units, is the wrong policy, adopted for the wrong reasons and implemented the wrong way.

It was adopted in the wrong way because such a significant change in longstanding military personnel policy, with potentially serious implication for the effectiveness of the fighting force, should not be made without holding congressional hearings in advance to explore all the issues involved.

It was adopted for the wrong reasons because it was driven by political and social considerations. Some women have complained that their chances of career advancement within the military are hampered by their exclusion from ground combat positions, and the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on their behalf.

The Obama administration probably does not want to be in the position of arguing against expanded opportunities for women. However, the Supreme Court has always granted great deference to Congress and the military in the operation of our armed forces. Maximizing combat effectiveness, not career opportunities, must always be their top priority.

It is the wrong policy because it ignores fundamental biological differences between the sexes, and the natural implications of those differences. While much is made of new “high-tech” forms of warfare, we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan that ground combat still requires levels of sheer physical strength, speed and endurance that are relatively rare among women. If current physical standards are maintained, few women will be able to meet them, and there will be demands that they be lowered. If those standards are lowered, the effectiveness of the fighting force will be directly compromised.

In addition, troops in ground combat are often in sustained operations for extended periods. Their living conditions offer no privacy for personal hygiene functions or sleeping. This places an undue burden on small-unit leaders to find ways to provide privacy for the separate sexes during high stress and dangerous operations.

Women in the military already serve with courage, putting their lives on the line. However, it is neither in their interest, nor the country’s, for them to serve in front-line combat positions.

Retired lieutenant general Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, served in the Army for 36 years. He was an original member of the Delta Force and a Green Berets commander.

(c) Copyright 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/01/26/new-combat-policy-ignores-biological-realities/

Long gone are the days when men made all the decisions for women (thanks be to god).If a women has received the training and is considered to have the qualities to take part in front line combat and that is her wish then that’s all that matters.The decision on who qualifies to be involved in combat should be made on ability and not gender.

The only way this will work is if they lower the standards - and that is what they are going to do. Some poor tank crew is going to be saddled with a woman, who will stand “guard” while they do the heavy lifting. Then when they get shipped into combat, she will either physically break down, get pregnant, mentally break down, or some other variant. It happens to men (except the pregnant part, of course), but will happen to women quicker.

This isn’t to say that women don’t belong in the military. I served with many women who were terrific soldiers - but not in Infantry, not Armor and definitely not Special Forces.
For every one female that deserves a place at the tip of the spear there are probably a couple of thousand who don’t. They will be allowed to slide and when the lead starts flying they will be sacrificed on the altar of Progressiveness. That means there are thousands of little girls growing up right now who are being sentenced to rape, mutilation and death by this line of reasoning. It’s not their fault but because of their genes they don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell in combat. Lying about it changes nothing.

Hug your daughters and granddaughters.

Our military is getting weaker by the day.

Thanks to all of you who voted for the Marxist Obama or didn’t bother to vote.  He is trying his best to destroy the military, and along with it, the country.

I loved the old cartoons, the ones where the prince comes and saves the day, or mickey rescuses minnie, or popeye, his girl. It wasnt that girls are helpless, but that they are worth saving. It was like our culture was telling us, even in our humor that we are worth it, worth rushing in front of a coming train for, getting into a fistfight with a burly fat guy for, braving dragon fire, jumping from the boat, swiming through the rapids, battleing evil armies, climbing high heights, decending the steepest clifts, looking silly, losing it all, worth it. Always worth it. But no one sees those shows anymore. No wonder other girls have problems with selfworth.