January 12, 2017

"The idea of putting women in there is not setting them up for success... "

"It would only be someone who never crossed the line of departure into close quarters fighting that would ever even promote such an idea.... Some of us aren’t so old that we’ve forgotten that at times it was like heaven on earth just to hold a certain girl’s hand...."

Said James Mattis (in 2014), quoted in The Hill in "Mattis's views on women in combat takes [sic] center stage."

119 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Killer Women. Why not?

Brando said...

Geez, they're going to have a field day with him. Unfortunate, because he seems to be one of the best qualified nominees considered.

Generally, I'm fine with the idea of women in combat but I'd weigh heavily an experienced general's (like Mattis)'s opinion on it. And certainly not hold his thoughts on it against him as a disqualification for the job.

Gilbert Pinfold said...

Gillibrand's questioning of Mattis was all on women in combat, openly gay military members, and accomodations for LBTGQ millitary; in short, trendy social engineering of our armed forces. Mattis instead talked about increasing the lethality of our armed forces so no nation would want to take us on. A senator focused on the trivial, and a warrior focusing on getting a job done. Sums up our current state of affairs.

traditionalguy said...

Speaking of women in combat, Happy Birthday to LaAlthouse.

rhhardin said...

Whores de combat.

Mick said...

It's stupid to have women in combat for a number of reasons. Of course the left is just doing their usual "identity politics". Logic means nothing to them because there are no absolutes in their feeble minds.

Unknown said...

"Whores de combat."

An effeminate man in shorts and stupid hat denigrating women in combat.

Drago said...

What if the women in the military who want to serve in combat but don't meet standards simply identify as strong, virile combat standards-meeting males?

Everyone knows that human biological "truth" bends to whatever whims of the left happen to be so this should be an easy fix.

Brando said...

"Gillibrand's questioning of Mattis was all on women in combat, openly gay military members, and accomodations for LBTGQ millitary; in short, trendy social engineering of our armed forces. Mattis instead talked about increasing the lethality of our armed forces so no nation would want to take us on. A senator focused on the trivial, and a warrior focusing on getting a job done. Sums up our current state of affairs."

Ugh--at least Mattis is staying on point. I'd like to see our Senators asking things like "if you had to cut the military budget in a way, free of any political influence but in a way that maximizes its ability to do its mission, where would you cut?" or "what do you see as our most likely types of mission in the next decade". And if the nominee has any weak points better to bring those up too.

But political preening and crap is exactly why hearings should be conducted by committee lawyers, not politicians, because then it's less an audition for nightly news clips and more focused on getting answers.

Expat(ish) said...

Analysis: True.

I've not fought in the military, but I grew up fighting (tough school systems, crappy apartment complexes full of bored kids) and can tell you that I've never seen a woman who could, pound for pound, beat up a guy without a handy tool (bar, brick, spray).

I've never watched female MMA or boxing, so I could be wrong. But I suspect that's like watching the WNBA after seeing a mens game.

-XC

PS - I do not *ever* remember seeing a boy break the barrier and full on whomp a girl, but I saw plenty of girls kick/hit boys as hard as they can. Unless the guy got it in the goolies it wasn't nearly as painful as the jeering we heaped on.

Michael K said...

Gillibrand has been one of the worst offenders in Congress on feminizing the military.

The Kurdish women snipers could tell her a thing or two.

David Baker said...

Mattis is extremely impressive. The ultimate Trump warrior no country will dare challenge. (Although I'm hoping Iran continues to play its Obama game in the Strait of Hormuz)

Michael K said...

"What if the women in the military who want to serve in combat"

I examine and interview military recruits, including women. Very few are interested in combat. Almost all are officers who want a combat arm ticket punch for promotion. Women can be good pilots, although they were rushed through early in the Clinton administration, killing a couple. They can be snipers, as some in the Middle East are doing. The Israelis kind of gave up on women in infantry units as I have read.

Most young women I talk to are interested in office jobs and do fine. A few who are very bright are interested in language school or intel.

I have talked to a number of nurses and a few engineers. They are not interested in combat roles.

Bob Ellison said...

It's a long battle and a different war. The folks pushing women-in-combat aren't doing it for equal rights or anti-sexism or anything like that. They're doing it because they hate the military and want it dead.

That's what we did to Germany and Japan.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott McGlasson said...

I don't want to hear a THING about women allowed into combat roles until 1) Selective Service is repealed or 2) Women are forced to register for Selective Service. Anything short of that is just hot-air bullshit.

n.n said...

Send in the abortionists. Send in the confused.

It's very important for female chauvinists to nurture women's Pro-Choice instinct.

That said, the paternal instinct was nurtured and developed by generations of mothers and grandmothers in a matriarchal society. The best that can be said, is that women and men are equal and complementary, that we should close the abortion chambers, and curtail our adventures in social "justice" (which are "legal" while self-defense is notably "illegal" including the Second Amendment).

Drago said...

David Baker: "Mattis is extremely impressive. The ultimate Trump warrior no country will dare challenge."

And only a Trump as President would have ensured his nomination.

Dems and "lifelong republicans" hardest hit.

James Kahn said...

"Most young women I talk to are interested in office jobs and do fine. A few who are very bright are interested in language school or intel."

Unfortunately nowadays one isn't even allowed to suggest that women may not want the same things as men. Larry Summer found that out when he was president of Harvard.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bay Area Guy said...

In WWII, Women did some fine work in the Women's Army Corps (WACS), but, just being factual, the DDay landing on the Normandy Beach to liberate Europe from Hitler was done by the men.

William said...

I've seen all the Hunger Games movies. There's no doubt in my mind that Jennifer Lawrence can handle any combat role she is asked to perform. She's a natural leader and athlete and has mastered the art of fast edits when in close hand to hand combat. I was less convinced by the star of the Divergent series. Perhaps the soon to be released Wonder Woman will help to settle this issue. My own opinion is that with proper training and film editing a woman can perform any feat of strength a man can.

Unknown said...

Kurdish women in combat.

Rick said...

I'd like to see our Senators asking things like "if you had to cut the military budget in a way, free of any political influence but in a way that maximizes its ability to do its mission, where would you cut?" or "what do you see as our most likely types of mission in the next decade".

Republicans should ask these questions, then Fox should spend all night alternating between clips of these Republicans and Gillibrand. Democrats think the most pressing concern in the military is having a transgendered General but the public doesn't agree. Keep hammering them with their own bullshit.

Big Mike said...

If I was in a close combat situation I'd rather have Julie Golob next to me than just about any man (Jerry Miculek is about the only exception). The IDF seems able to figure out how to use women effectively -- maybe Jews really are smarter than the goyim.

readering said...

Unfortunately the military brass resisted integration of the races and resisted gay personnel so that top brass opinion on women in combat gets discounted more than it should.

Unknown said...

11 Women Warriors of WW2

Is there even a remote possibility that these sorts of blog posts don't always end up denigrating women by the Althouse commentariat?

Brando said...

"Republicans should ask these questions, then Fox should spend all night alternating between clips of these Republicans and Gillibrand. Democrats think the most pressing concern in the military is having a transgendered General but the public doesn't agree. Keep hammering them with their own bullshit."

That'd be smart if the GOP committee chair (not sure who it is for Armed Services?) stages it that way--solid, lawyerly questions getting to the heart of DoD, vs. "how much social justice will our Army have?" questions. Campaign fodder for any future Senate challengers to pick up.

Bob Ellison said...

"denigrating women"?

You must have a point. I can't see it under your hat.

Larry J said...

As I've written before, women have served honorably in the US military for decades. The majority of military specialties can be performed equally well by men and by women. However, combat arms (infantry, armor, artillery) aren't the case. The physical, mental, and psychological demands of combat arms are unique. It isn't a matter of whether a few women want to be in combat arms. The important thing, in fact the only thing, is whether or not adding women to combat arms units will increase their combat effectiveness. History, as in the case of Israel's 1948 war, suggest otherwise.

FullMoon said...

Unknown said... [hush]​[hide comment]

11 Women Warriors of WW2

Is there even a remote possibility that these sorts of blog posts don't always end up denigrating women by the Althouse commentariat?


Nope, not possible, because we all hate women, queers, colored folk, liberals, and animals.
But, we all love Trump, guns, red meat, big trucks large bosoms, and red sportscars.

Any other questions?

Unknown said...

Bob Ellison, you aren't a careful reader, are you?

Blogger rhhardin said...
Whores de combat.

1/12/17, 12:32 PM

Oso Negro said...

General Mattis is right. Fuck the PC bullshit. Women should be in combat ONLY as an utter last resort - that is when the homeland is about to fall to an invasion. An exception can be made if the woman in question is Joan of Arc, and we only get such women about every millenium or so.

Unknown said...


I am certain General Mattis would not call women in combat "whores".

Gahrie said...


I am certain General Mattis would not call women in combat "whores".


It's a riff on the expression "hors de combat" which is pronounced the same way.

Unknown said...

Gahrie,
It's word play that has the purpose of insulting women. Don't make excuses for rhhardin who routinely denigrates women in these comments sections.

Big Mike said...

I do like the phraseology Mathis used: "not setting them up for success." Finishing second in a close combat situation means a zipped up body bag, if you're lucky.

Big Mike said...

@Unknown, go f**k yourself.

Unknown said...

I wonder how many men here realize that women military members have been caught in areas when the shit hit the fan and have been found to have comported themselves bravely and honorably

tcrosse said...

As a man who was deemed unfit for combat, I don't feel the least bit denigrated. I was in harm's way and served honorably and well. I was not in a position to demand another posting. In those days the Service did not cater to our Egos.
Incidentally, the roots of the word 'denigrate' are Latin, meaning to blacken. Some (not I) find its use offensive.

Unknown said...

Big Mike, you first, go FUCK yourself first. Did you hear me yell that word you're too much of a pussy to spell out?

rcocean said...

I don't know what the Althouse knuckle-dragger's are talking about.

Listen, I've seen plenty of Hollywood movies and Women Warriors Kick ass! Plus, Combat experts like Senator's Boxer and Feinstein have stated again and again that women infantry soldiers are/will be a Yuggee success.

Also, I'm believe some social scientist has proven the same thing, using science!


rcocean said...

I think NOW should start its own National Guard/Army Reserve Unit. Let's see them in combat.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Unknown said...
I wonder how many men here realize that women military members have been caught in areas when the shit hit the fan and have been found to have comported themselves bravely and honorably


Fuck you. I saw my son off to war three fucking times. I have no intention to do the same with my daughters, even though they are meaner by nature than my son, better athletes, and shoot well. Send your own daughter.

Unknown said...


Fuck you too O.N. I saw two of my kids off to serve deployments. One in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. My daughter was in Afghanistan during the Camp Bastion/Camp Leatherneck attack by the Taliban. Do not tell me women can't handle combat when they have to.

Yancey Ward said...

Unless you are really willing to take the average 18 year old woman into a two on two fight to the death against two average 18 year old men, then you probably only want to allow women who can meet the same physical requirements made for men in combat, which are going to be well beyond the physical capabilities of most average men of the same age. Otherwise, you are simply creating units that are going to be in more peril going into combat. Diversity for the sake of diversity isn't free in this case, nor does it make any rational sense. Seriously, if you think it makes no difference at all, why not have all female combat units to ensure that the men aren't put in added danger by the presence of women in their units?

eric said...

Unknown said...
Gahrie,
It's word play that has the purpose of insulting women. Don't make excuses for rhhardin who routinely denigrates women in these comments sections.

1/12/17, 1:55 PM


Shorter Inga, "That's not funny!"

Unknown said...

Eric
Let's see how you take it when your daughter is called a whore. How about when your son who has autism, would be called a retard? How would that go down with you? Would you think it was " funny"?

Unknown said...

How about African American soldiers Eric, should we think it's funny to call then Ni**ers? How about Asian soldiers, should we call them chinks? Lots of Hispanics in the military, should we refer to them as beaners? Ohhhhh yes Eric, you might think it's funny until your son with Autism is called a "retard".

Drago said...

Unknown: "Let's see how you take it when your daughter is called a whore. How about when your son who has autism, would be called a retard?"

How about when a politician makes a joke about the special Olympics?

Or when a politician refers to the "extra chromosome" wing of a party?

Yes, yes Unknown. We have heard you and your astonishing hypocrisy and lunacy has been noted by many. Hence the election results.

Well played!

Carry on!

Drago said...

Unknown: "How about Asian soldiers, should we call them chinks?"

Certainly not. Especially if they are gooks.

It's important as a cracker to keep these things straight.

BTW, if you've never served in the military (and Unknown clearly hasn't...but something tells me she will regale us with tales of her 37 daughters who are all serving and providing background info! Got to get that street cred going) then you have no idea how much of this name calling goes on.

And yet these individuals bond into cohesive and effectively lethal units despite the effort of the leftists.

Unknown said...

Drago, my dear man, you are a retard, not Eric's poor son with autism.

Susan said...

Unknown apparently feels that unless a woman is seen to be as physically capable of doing anything whatever that a man can do they have lesser worth.

Why?

My 5' 1" daughter is just as valuable as her 6' brother. As a human being. But she wouldn't be as a soldier.

We aren't all cut out to be soldiers. But that's okay there are OTHER things people can do.

Drago said...

Now whatever you do, do not let any lefty chick overhear you criticize muslims for their "peculiar institutions" like Female Genital Mutilation, honor killings, real (not lefty fake) rape culture, mass beheadings of females, sex slavery etc.

Because criticism of that might appear insensitive.

Mustn't have that.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Drago, my dear man, you are a retard, not Eric's poor son with autism."

LOL

Yes, of course!

I must say you are as effective as your hive queen Hillary! I daresay I wouldn't want to dissuade you from carrying precisely as you are, therefore carry on!

Unknown said...

Drago, I don't believe for a moment you ever served in the military. Now, carry on. Regale us with stories about your heroic combat missions. I'm making popcorn. I only mentioned my two children in response to Oso Negro bragging about his son's deployments. I don't make it a practice to reveal anything about myself here, because of retards like you.

Drago said...

Unknown is attempting to achieve "lifelong republican" chuck levels of persuasion.

I fear that herculean task is far above her skillset. All she can do is contribute to the zeitgeist that has led to democrat party decimation.

Still, that IS something.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Drago, I don't believe for a moment you ever served in the military."

I know, and it's okay.

Facts scare you.

I don't want to contribute to your acquiring more cats.

Unknown said...

"Unknown apparently feels that unless a woman is seen to be as physically capable of doing anything whatever that a man can do they have lesser worth."

Excuse me? Would you like to point out where I said any such thing?

Rick said...

My daughter was in Afghanistan during the Camp Bastion/Camp Leatherneck attack by the Taliban.

Inga must have forgotten she's pretending to be pseudonymous.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Regale us with stories about your heroic combat missions."

Well, once I had to walk near an Occupy Wall Street area and the rapes, defecating on police cars, head and body lice victims along with murders certainly scarred me for life.

I hope that once Obamacare hits the s***can that counseling is still available and that your weekly meds dosage is not cut.

If you'd like I'd be happy to vouch for your obvious need in that area to your doctor.

Drago said...

Rick: "Inga must have forgotten she's pretending to be pseudonymous."


Shhhhhhhhhh

Unknown said...

Drago, I have no cats, but I have a poodle that I gladly would sic on you if I had the chance. She's pretty ferocious.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Unknown said...I wonder how many men here realize that women military members have been caught in areas when the shit hit the fan and have been found to have comported themselves bravely and honorably

I wonder how many people here spotted your silly false equivalence right away, Unknown. I bet it's almost all of them. Hint: "being caught in a combat situation" <> "having full time front line combat as one's job."

If we're going to rely on logically weak means of persuasion I think I'll go with an appeal to authority on this one, Unk--Gen. Mattis' opinion on the topic carries a hell of a lot more weight, for me, than does yours (or some Senator's).

Drago said...

Unknown: "Drago, I have no cats,..."

Hey hey, calm down.

There's still time to complete your bucket list.

Yancey Ward said...

This goes on long enough, you will have Unknown claiming that she is descended from the goddess Enyo who led the Greeks to victory in the Trojan War.

Drago said...

Unknown: "...but I have a poodle that I gladly would sic on you if I had the chance. She's pretty ferocious."

Sounds like a compensation issue, but then again I'm not a Dog Whisperer.

Unknown said...

Drago, do you speak to this Inga often? Does he/she reside in your head too? As I said upstream, women in combat blog posts always devolve because there are so many men here who feel threatened by women, it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Drago said...

Yancey Ward: "This goes on long enough, you will have Unknown claiming that she is descended from the goddess Enyo who led the Greeks to victory in the Trojan War"

No, but without question one of her daughters did.

I can't wait to see what the major topic of discussion pops up later today. It's always fun having "Unknown" (wink wink) pop another fully grown child out who is heavily involved in precisely that area.

It's one of the more interesting online phenomena.

Drago said...

Unknown: "As I said upstream, women in combat blog posts always devolve because there are so many men here who feel threatened by women,.."

Hmmmm....



de·volve. [dəˈvälv]

VERB
1.transfer or delegate (power) to a lower level, especially from central government to local or regional administration:

"measures to devolve power to the provinces" ·
[more]

(devolve on/upon/to)
(of duties or responsibility) pass to (a body or person at a lower level):
"his duties devolved on a comrade"

formal (devolve into)
degenerate or be split into:
"the Empire devolved into separate warring states"

Would you like to try again?

Rick said...

Drago said...
Unknown: "As I said upstream, women in combat blog posts always devolve because there are so many men here who feel threatened by women,.."


Actually they devolve because a certain hysterical harpy exists.

Drago said...

Unknown: "... it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic."

Nonsense.

Pathetic can be funny and is often hilarious!

See: Hillary Campaign Supporters; Reasons for Hillary Loss

Drago said...

Man, I hope some chick service members show up so we can "devolve" them!!

I have no idea what that is but it has to be better than reading "lifelong republican" chuck missives!

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Unknown said... Do not tell me women can't handle combat when they have to.

Again! It's almost a verbal tic. "When they have to."
See, Unknown, that's an argument no one is having. We're not arguing about what anyone is capable of doing in extreme circumstances. We're discussing whether it's a good idea, as a blanket policy, to allow certain people to choose to put themselves in difficult situations as a matter of course. Being a combat infantryman is a full time job, right, and one someone takes by choice, yeah? That's what we're talking about. You keep trying to change the discussion to terms you think are better for you...but it's not working.

Person: "I think women are generally less physically capable than men are, and on that basis I think opening combat MOSes up to women is a bad idea (plus doing so will eventually lead to overall physical standards dropping, etc)."
Unknown: "So you're saying that women can't be brave and that the examples I can cite of women in non-combat MOSes who found themselves under fire and did well don't exist?! You're sexist."

See? It doesn't follow, Unknown. Do a better job of arguing, please.

James Pawlak said...

When those "feminists" (Including castrated ex-males" are featured in a broken terrain run as requires them to carry an 82mm mortar or its tube plus 8 bombs, please let me know. As a sadist, it would be "fun".

Unknown said...

Rick, don't call yourself a harpy. Self loathing is pathetic.

Gretchen said...

He's right, unless a woman can pass the exact same tests male soldiers who are in combat pass they put themselves and everyone else in danger. Women can still fly planes, drones, etc, and perform support operations.

Guess what, no no one is guaranteed certain jobs, everyone can't be a supermodel, or a brain surgeon, a jockey, or a pro athlete.

eric said...

Blogger Unknown said...
How about African American soldiers Eric, should we think it's funny to call then Ni**ers? How about Asian soldiers, should we call them chinks? Lots of Hispanics in the military, should we refer to them as beaners? Ohhhhh yes Eric, you might think it's funny until your son with Autism is called a "retard".


I don't mind generalized jokes. For example, if someone makes fun of me for being white, like, "White guys can't jump". As an example. I also don't mind jokes that generalize the issues of anyone's race or ethnicity. I don't think Asians should be the only ones who can make Asians, blacks mocking blacks, etc.

But I'm opposed to personal insults. If someone mocks my children, specifically, they may find themselves getting a punch in the nose.

So, there is your rule of thumb, Inga. Feel free to say retard, mock the races in a generalized way, mock the sexes for their shortcomings, etc. You realize men are mocked for stupid men things we do, right? And it's OK.

Just don't be a bitch and make it personal and all is well in comedy.

JaimeRoberto said...

Let me get this straight. The Dems want to fight Russia, and they want women to do the fighting. Sounds legit.

Drago said...

JaimeRoberto: "Let me get this straight. The Dems want to fight Russia, and they want women to do the fighting. Sounds legit"

Looks like Putin has completely infiltrated the western feminist movement!

Larry J said...

Bay Area Guy said...
In WWII, Women did some fine work in the Women's Army Corps (WACS), but, just being factual, the DDay landing on the Normandy Beach to liberate Europe from Hitler was done by the men.


From this source:

"By June 1945 the number of Army nurses in the European theater of the war reached a peak of 17,345. The first nurses to arrive in Normandy were members of the 42d and 45th Field Hospitals and the 91st and 128th Evacuation Hospitals. They landed on the beachhead four days after the initial invasion in June 1944."

Lest we forget, there were also the Angels of Bataan.

Rick said...

Unknown said...
Rick, don't call yourself a harpy. Self loathing is pathetic.


I refuse to believe this is the best you can do. Even second quintile IQs must have enough pride to achieve more.

Unknown said...

Hoodlum, what you're missing is that I never argued for women in combat roles. I said IF need be, in a combat situation, they can conduct themselves with honor. Mostly I decided to push back regarding the insulting of women in the military, by calling them "whores".

Alex said...

'Yo momma wears combat boots.

Alex said...

Actually Israeli women serve as infantry now in combat units, some elite level too. They are just as good as the men. Of course they are not special snowflakes like American 'women'.

walter said...

beyond the training

John said...

Michael K said

Women can be good pilots, although they were rushed through early in the Clinton administration, killing a couple.

Like Kara Hultgren:

Kara Spears Hultgreen (5 October 1965 – 25 October 1994) was a Lieutenant and Naval Aviator in the United States Navy and the first female carrier-based fighter pilot in the U.S. Navy. She died just months after she was certified for combat, when her F-14 Tomcat crashed into the sea on final approach to USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen

At that time I was teaching at Roosevelt Roads Naval Station and usually had Naval Aviators in my classes. They were PISSED about Karen Hultgren. They felt that Clinton more or less killed her by putting her into a position where she was not competent. Not not competent because she was a woman but not competent because she could not fly a plane well enough to land on a carrier.

Could she have become more competent with more training? Maybe, maybe not.

The Naval Aviators were also pissed that the Clinton admin would put so many other people at risk by having her fly. Had she crashed into the ship instead of the sea she could have killed dozens and put a major ship out of commission.

They were convinced that a man with her qualifications and records would never have gotten qualified.

For most of us it is a theoretical argument. For my students it was intensely personal since flying, or even being on ship, with an incompetent pilot can kill you.

John Henry

MountainMan said...

I was not in the military and so have never been in combat, but I grew up around a lot of WWII veterans, including my late father-in-law, who nearly had his lower left leg taken off by German shrapnel in the hedgerows in Normandy in July, 1944. He went on to have a successful 30-year army career, including combat in Vietnam. In two tours in Europe in the 50's and 70's, though he took his wife and daughter all over Europe on vacation, he never once went near Normandy again nor did he ever talk about it. After my mother-in-law passed away two years ago we came across a V-mail she had saved that he had written from a cold, wet foxhole on June 14, and all it said was "Things here are tough." I don't think he could ever bring himself to talk about what he saw and experienced, it was too difficult for him.

Whenever I see these articles and comments about putting women into combat I am always reminded of that great line from Paul Fussell's "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb": "The greater distance from the carnage the easier the talk." And that's just what we have here. All the politicians who have pushed for women in combat have no idea what they are doing. This will only get a lot of women and men killed. If you want to see how bad combat can be the HBO series "The Pacific" provides a pretty good idea, mainly the 3 or 4 episodes depicting Eugene Sledge's service on Peleliu and Okinawa. It is pretty realistic, I think. Just like someone mentioned above, Sledge's mortar crew has to run across an open airfield on Peleliu carrying all their equipment while being shot at, mortared, and shelled all the way. It is pretty gruesome, as are the scenes of the the deadly, yard by yard, slog across Okinawa through the mud and rotting corpses. That anyone thinks women have any role to play in such an environment is just crazy. I hope Mattis will reverse all this women in ground combat nonsense.

John said...

Blogger Unknown said...

11 Women Warriors of WW2

Is there even a remote possibility that these sorts of blog posts don't always end up denigrating women by the Althouse commentariat?


11 out of how many million?

Doesn't that make them what we call an "exception"? There will always be exceptions to anything.

And I know it was many more than 11. Probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands.

Still out of how many millions?

Doesn't that still make them exceptions?

You don't build a military around exceptions. Not unless you want to lose battles and wars.

John Henry

Unknown said...

I've had a woman think I made fun of her (I didn't) and hit me on the shoulder 4 times as hard as she could. I didn't even flinch. I'm just average size. Women in combat is an insane idea. Why is it that few women can fight off a rapist but we think they can fight off the enemy. They can't even carry the equipment they would need into the field (food, ammo, etc). It is like the instructions to female fire-fighters: just drag the person down the stairs by their feet if they are too heavy. Yeah, i want her to rescue me. bump bump bump
BUT: those advocating these policies don't think of these are real people who will get themselves and others killed, but as abstractions of social justice.

Anglelyne said...

Gahrie: It's a riff on the expression "hors de combat" which is pronounced the same way.

Well, it's not pronounced the same way - that "s" is silent - so it doesn't really work. Being a lover of puns, though, I appreciated the effort. rh has far more hits than misses.

Inga: It's word play that has the purpose of insulting women. Don't make excuses for rhhardin who routinely denigrates women in these comments sections.

No, plays on words on ends in themselves, and are pretty much irresistible to anyone with a weakness for punning.

No one's posts in this comments section are more denigrating to women than yours, since every single one seems to be posted for the express purpose of providing confirmatory examples of everything any misogynist ever said about the stupidity and irrationality of women.

John said...

Blogger Larry J said...

They [nurses] landed on the beachhead four days after the initial invasion in June 1944."

And where was the battle line on D+4? Probably 10-15 miles inland. They were not on the front lines.

And yes, sometimes they wound up on the front lines. Not just in Europe but in pretty much every war the US has ever been in for the past 200 years.

They have served bravely and well in a vital war. They deserve every ounce of respect we can muster.

But they served as nurses, not as combatants. I really don't understand your point.

Bay Area Guy said...

The goal of the military, in the past, was to beat the bad guys. In the past, these bad guys have included the Kaiser, Hitler, North Korea, Soviet-backed regimes, the Vietcong, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Afghani warlords, and many other genuine "deplorables."

Historically, to do this, we needed really, really, really strong men with guns. God Bless 'em.

Historically, was there a role for women in all this war-making? Of course. The nurses in WWII mentioned by Larry J above, is a good example. God Bless them too. Nobody, says women can't or shouldn't serve our honorable war efforts.

But, we do draw the line at this weird Leftist push to foist bullshit "equality" principles on our military, because it strays from the objective -- to beat the bad guys. Marine Recon training is impossibly hard for 99% of men on the planet. Only the best survive. And, if this means no women or transgender or LGBTQRXYZ self-identified "ze" folks get to join Marine Recon, well, too damn bad.

The bottom line is that the Left pretty much wrecks whatever institution it infiltrates. We can tolerate the slow wreck of the Universities, but not the military. Too many lives are at stake.

So, to the women who serve in the Military -- we salute you. But you still gotta meet some very hard standards, which we will not lower.


mockturtle said...

Women can be warriors but it isn't, and shouldn't, be necessary.

Drago said...

John: "The Naval Aviators were also pissed that the Clinton admin would put so many other people at risk by having her fly. Had she crashed into the ship instead of the sea she could have killed dozens and put a major ship out of commission.

They were convinced that a man with her qualifications and records would never have gotten qualified."

You don't know how right you are.

But hey, just chalk Hultgren up as another necessary death on the march to a leftist paradise.

Bay Area Guy said...

Do y'all remember that Demi Moore movie, G.I. Jane?

I hated that movie at the time. I didn't fully appreciate it as a blueprint for the future.

By generally excluding women from their elite ranks, the Navy Seals aren't being "mean" to women. It's just a fact that 99% of women can't meet the physical standards (probably similar number as men). Only the the best of the best make it.

Hypothetically, somewhere is there some kick-ass woman who swims like Katie Ledecky and shoots like Annie Oakley? Perhaps. And even if she can't make it as a Navy Seal, certainly there is a healthy role for her in the Navy in some other honorable capacity.

But this leftwing concept that everywhere, at every stage of life, at every institution, there has to be a 50-50 male-female split, even in the Navy, and even in the Navy Seals, is just epic stupidity. No sane person buys this, yet the Left pushes this.

harryo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madAsHell said...

It would only be someone who never crossed the line of departure into close quarters fighting that would ever even promote such an idea....

When the simple elegance of his statement speaks volumes of his character.
Mattis is a statesman.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I saw two of my kids off to serve deployments. One in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. My daughter was in Afghanistan during the Camp Bastion/Camp Leatherneck attack by the Taliban."

Ah, ha, so you really are Inga, Unknown, despite your repeated denials. Good for your kids, who I am sure served bravely. It's unfortunate their mother is an idiot.


"No one's posts in this comments section are more denigrating to women than yours, since every single one seems to be posted for the express purpose of providing confirmatory examples of everything any misogynist ever said about the stupidity and irrationality of women."

Not to mention the stereotype of feminists as being humorless scolds.

I agree with Gretchen.

Rick said...

But this leftwing concept that everywhere, at every stage of life, at every institution, there has to be a 50-50 male-female split,

They don't believe this. If women are over-represented in desirable positions it's a recognition of their innate superiority. Only when they are under-represented in desirable positions is discrimination the only possibility.

Fritz said...

The next time we have a war we can afford to lose we should recruit (draft?) a brigade or two of only women soldiers and turn them loose.

Jay Elink said...

John said...
Blogger Unknown said...

11 Women Warriors of WW2

Is there even a remote possibility that these sorts of blog posts don't always end up denigrating women by the Althouse commentariat?

11 out of how many million?

Doesn't that make them what we call an "exception"? There will always be exceptions to anything.
*************

I've been watching an 18-part series on the Soviet War in the East.

I've seen literally tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airman, and only about TEN females in uniform, in massive campaigns requiring superhuman endurance and suffering.

Almost all Russian women were in factories and on arms, supporting the war effort night and day. The soldiers knew they relied on them for their food, tanks, weapons and materiel.

Why is it that the leftnoid bloviatariat consider pointing out human differences, and the appropriate differentation of roles they logically lead to, as "denigration"?

Lucien said...

Female soldiers already serve in combat situations when attacked, but not so much in combat roles (I'm thinking mostly Army/Marines, but if you are on a ship or in an aircraft that is hit by enemy fire, it doesn't matter too much what your MOS is). For tank crews (as was also the case for ball-turret gunners) small size can be an asset, so long as the crew are robust enough to lift and load ammunition. For most artillery and rocket/missile crews, nobody expects the crew to carry 60 pound packs around too much.

I don't know what the casualty data are for hand-to-hand combat, but I bet there are not to many stab wounds, etc. suffered by or delivered by, U.S. infantrymen. Concerns about a single female soldier's ability to lift and carry a larger wounded male comrade wearing gear would seem to be pretty well-grounded though.That problem could be ameliorated if we could bring ourselves to have some female only units.

Given the success of the 442nd RCT, Tuskegee Airmen, etc., putting women in sex-segregated units might lead to superior performance, given what they would have to prove. Same thing could go for gay soldiers too, but we're probably a little too PC for that.

As to the folks who landed on D-Day, they were mostly in racially segregated units, and there were plenty of soldiers with combat experience who thought racial integration was a bad idea, so the idea of always deferring to folks with combat experience has some flaws.

Bob Ellison said...

Look at the cops and firemen around you. They tend to be big guys, men, >6ft, big enough to pick a guy like me up and carry him to safety or to the ambulance.

It's pretty basic.

Big Mike said...

@Bay Area Guy, the only woman who can swim like Katie Ledecky is [drumroll!] Katie Ledecky. However there are plenty of modern women who could shoot like Annie Oakley -- Julie Golob, Randi Rhodes, Sarah Harp, Kim Rhode with her shotgun to name just a few. Leigh Ann Hester earned a silver star in Iraq on a tough, very close quarters firefight. The low recoil and light weight of the M4 makes it very feasible for female soldiers to fight effectively when they must.

But!!! Modern infantry soldiers are expected to go into combat humping a fifty pound load. Not all that hard for a fit male in the 165 and up weight range, but it strikes me as a lot for a 95 pound woman. Am I wrong? Maybe it's past time to reconsider what a proper combat load ought to be for a ground soldier.

Birkel said...

UnknownInga synthesized:
All the armies in the history of the world that had a choice to exclude women were wrong and I am correct.

The Drill SGT said...

I've been traveling and am late to the fight, Let's try this one more time. Women can serve well in combat. Women can NOT serve well in the "Combat Arms" e.g. Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, SF...

Women truck drivers got ambushed and fought well (some of them). Women served well as MPs and Helo pilots.

Women are not capable of serving in light Infantry, over any period of time.

Here again is a study that was done in 2003 about combat loads in combat. Combat load consists of three categories: Fighting Load, Approach March Load, and Emergency Approach March Load. The short version is that the average weights for these loads were about 65 lbs, 100 obs and 130+ lbs. If you think that any women is going to, on a regular basis, be able to carry 130 lbs, up hill at altitude, while potentially being ready to fight, yo're crazy.

http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf

Quals. I worked for the organization that did the report, though years earlier. I understand the methodology. I was a regular army combat arms officer. I served in ground combat (vietnam). My wife is a retired Army officer. I have no problems with women in the Army.

Go watch "The Pacific" again.

The purpose of the Army is to kill people and break things, not be a career enhancement program. Women in the infantry would make the Army worse at its mission.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Unknown said... Hoodlum, what you're missing is that I never argued for women in combat roles. I said IF need be, in a combat situation, they can conduct themselves with honor.

OK, so...you're saying that your earlier comments were not intended to address the point most here were discussing (namely the proper US military policy w/r/t allowing and encouraging women in roles designed to engage in combat) but were instead just point out that "some women have done well in combat when they were forced to engage in it, and women in the future in similar situations will probably do well, too?" That was your entire point? No one is arguing against that point, Unk.

The Drill SGT said...

Lucien said...Given the success of the 442nd RCT, Tuskegee Airmen, etc., putting women in sex-segregated units might lead to superior performance, given what they would have to prove. Same thing could go for gay soldiers too, but we're probably a little too PC for that.

exactly how many women do you think you are going to be able to find? Let's do some envelope math.

The Army is about 500,000, about 15% are female.

So you are at 75,000. I think, and this is the big knob in the model here, that only 1 in 1,000 of those women are both physically capable and desire to serve in the Infantry.

(PS: Those Artillery jobs that you don't think involve heavy loads, involve carrying 98lb shells for hours on end). Men serve the guns. And the guns are never in reserve. )

So now we are down to 75 women who are willing and capable. Now half that group will be in schools, non-troop assignments, etc. So you have 40 women left. Enough for 1 woman infantry person in each 4,000 man BCT or one infantry platoon of 40 in a 4,000 person BCT.

Think there is a positive result for the Army effectiveness in that farce?

PPS: of your 40 women, capable and willing of meeting the minimum standards, 20 of them are officers. But officers must be the best in their units, not the worst.

Smilin' Jack said...

Meh--who cares? We could've sent an all-female army to Vietnam and gotten the same result. We could've sent an all-female army to Iraq and gotten a better result--in hindsight, Saddam wasn't all that bad.

MaxedOutMama said...

Putting women in most ground combat positions is a really, really bad idea, and if Mattis is willing to say that, he's the right man for the job. IMO.

readering said...

No one questions women as police officers. But they have a more limited role in fire departments. The difference is the amount of physical exertion with weights involved. One side effect of increasing the role of women in the armed forces would be to accelerate the trend of reducing the amount of exertion with weight that goes on in the armed forces. Means defense costs accelerate even more, but the separation between US and other armed forces increases too.

boycat said...

Michael K @12:45

They are not interested in combat roles.

Per US DOL stats 94% of all on-the-job deaths in America are men, so this isn't something limited to the military. Women want supposed equality, but when it gets down and dirty risky, they head for the tall grass. Which is their nature.

damikesc said...

Does having women on the front lines IMPROVE military effectiveness?

I seriously doubt it.

Our military has been obsessed with nonsense that does nothing to improve our efficacy. Want to save the lives of troops? Make them so effective that people are scared to death of us and limit our engagements to ones where a loss of 200,000 troops would be worth the sacrifice. If 200,000 is too many...then the mission is not worth it, either.

holdfast said...

Are we still conflating "combat" with "infantry" or even "combat arms"? Still? Really?

Women has served as MPs for decades. Among other tasks, MPs provide traffic control and some convoy escort behind the front lines. In Iraq and Afghanistan, there really are no front lines. If a female MP is crewing a machine gun and her convoy gets bumped, she's in combat - i.e. getting shot at and fighting back. If a women is at a forward operating base serving in whatever capacity, then she may very well be engaged in defending the base - getting shot and and shooting back - i.e. combat. That's been going on for decades - since at least the First Gulf War, and nobody serious is looking to change that.

The recent controversy concerns women in the INFANTRY - you know, the folks who load themselves up with an obscene amount of gear, weapons and ammo, and then wander around the boonies for a couple of weeks looking for people to fight and kill. The vast, vast, majority of women are unsuited for this task. Also, a lot of males soldiers, maybe even a majority, are unsuited to this task, mentally and/or physically.

BUT most of the Army's leadership is made up of officers who have served in the "combat arms" (Infantry, Artillery and Armor), and so ambitions female officers who want to get promoted want to serve in these branches, to maximize promotion to high rank - truly selfless souls, putting the national good before their own petty ambitions - Kennedy would be so proud. No, John (Ask not. . . ) Kennedy - not Ted Kennedy, though I guess dating him was sort of like SERE training - except in SERE school they only pretend to drown you . . .).

holdfast said...

"For tank crews (as was also the case for ball-turret gunners) small size can be an asset, so long as the crew are robust enough to lift and load ammunition."

Ahem - every tried breaking, repairing and remounting a track on a tank? I used to have to do it on APC, and those were much smaller, and still a mean, heavy bitch. I know some Canadian tankers who said that it was ok to have one or at most two females in a tank crew, but you needed at least 2 guys to be able to handle the heavy maintenance tasks, mount the .50cal etc. Some leaders in the armored recce units actually thought that female soldiers had better concentration and observation skills, good for when you spend your nights staring into a thermal imager - but again, only 1 or 2 per crew.


For most artillery and rocket/missile crews, nobody expects the crew to carry 60 pound packs around too much.

Um, what about humping the ammo? Moving guns around? Digging in the guns? Digging in the fire direction center and CP?

"That problem could be ameliorated if we could bring ourselves to have some female only units."

The Amazon Battalion. Pretty useless most days, but for about 3 days per month they could go through the enemy like a hot knife through butter.

JML said...

I was in AF pilot training in 1982 - the AF was gong thru a purge of pilots at the time and my class washed out 62%. I was the next to last guy to wash out and it was well into Phase II when it happened. While I was waiting to go on to Nav training, I did casual duty with a gal who WANTED to wash out. Something happened on her last flight - a minor emergency of some sort-and she lost her nerve. They would not hold a Flight Elimination Board for her -- they kept hoping she would change her mind. No way was she going to change her mind. As you can imagine, there was considerable resentment about this. Not many of us could go to Nav training (two or three out our 32) and unless you were an engineer (and one meteorologist-degreed guy) you were out of the military. She had been on casual status for four months when I met her, and when I left two months later she was still there. The unlucky guys were civilians two weeks or less after their board. BTW, the meteorologist dude also had an inflight emergency and he and the Instructor Pilot had to jettison their canopy. He decided he didn't want to be a pilot after that. He was out real quick. I've flow with some good females. I don't have a problem with that. But don't lower the standards and don't coddle them.

T. A. Hansen said...

The only people who are fine with women in combat are those that have never been in combat, thinking it's some kind of surreal video game or maybe like a movie. Absolutely crazy!

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Unknown said...

Fuck you too O.N. I saw two of my kids off to serve deployments. One in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. My daughter was in Afghanistan during the Camp Bastion/Camp Leatherneck attack by the Taliban. Do not tell me women can't handle combat when they have to.


You are an irredeemable moron.