Throw Mama under the Tank

Let’s be clear about one thing:  Radical feminists’ groups on the left hate the military. They would like to eliminate it, but since they can’t, they are hellbent on controlling it.  A major milestone toward that end was reached on Monday when a military advisory commission recommended our military end the policy that prevents women from serving in ground combat units.

Placing women in combat makes about as much sense as putting them in a shark feeding tank but radical feminists have been browbeating Congress and the Pentagon for the last several decades to make this a reality.
Why?  It’s quite simple.  Few officers make it through the ranks without combat experience.  Of those that do reach the rarified air of general or admiral without this experience, a surprising number are women. However, the chance of one of these female officers being appointed to lead an entire branch of the military is nil. That’s what this current push is all about.

What is the name of this “important” commission that issued the report?  It’s the Military Leadership Diversity Commission and the name says it all.  It was created by an act of Congress in 2009 – when Democrats controlled everything –  and signed into law by President Obama.  The commission included some retired military offices.  However, it was lean on those with infantry and Special Operations experience and top-heavy with those with an “equal opportunity” background.

Elections have consequences!   Now that this predictable report has been issued, the skids have been greased to make this long-sought feminist’s goal a reality.

For the last several decades, the military has been bogged down with equal opportunity and diversity issues. However, the military was never intended — nor can it function effectively — as an equal opportunity employer.  That’s why we don’t have tanks with wheelchair ramps.  It would be a needless expense.

Nevertheless, we have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars putting power steering on military motor pool vehicles so women can drive them and retrofitting combat aircraft so that women can fly them.  More recently, we spent an additional  $4,000 per bunk to allow women to serve on aircraft carriers and an additional $300,000 per bunk to allow women to serve on submarines.

But what about the costs in women’s lives?  It may be unfair that the average man is six inches taller and posses 42 percent more upper body strength than the average woman but it is a reality.    The dirty little secret is that double standards have been employed and laws have been ignored in order to help feminists achieve their goal.  As a result, many women have died needlessly.

In 1994, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin eliminated the “risk rule” which blurred the lines between combat and combat support and placed many more women in harm’s way.  Still, there is a huge difference between combat and combat support. Serving in a military supply, escort or police unit is vastly different from serving in a unit whose mission is to seek out and engage the enemy, kill or be killed.    In that environment, clearly women do not have an equal chance to survive nor do their male comrades who must depend on fellow soldiers to survive.

Do the vast majority of enlisted women in the military want the honor of serving as cannon fodder so a few women officers can work their way up the Pentagon ladder?   The polls of these women have consistently shown that “thank you very much” they do not!

Over the years, women in the military have served this country with honor and distinction.  As a result, one hundred and thirty-four have died in Iraq or Afghanistan and many more were seriously injured.  Many of these women were mothers with one or more children under the age of 18.  In contrast, we lost only 16 women in Vietnam and six in the first (short) Persian Gulf War.

Many women in those combat support units have found themselves in fire fights and they have displayed great courage.  Feminists hail this as a victory and they are willing to step over the bodies of their fallen comrades to achieve their goal of running the military.  President Obama and many of our elected representatives in Congress are willing to sacrifice enlisted women in order to advance this feminist’s goal. We must not allow that to happen!

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.   Let us not forget that.  It is not about achieving diversity on the battlefield and equality in the Pentagon.

9 thoughts on “Throw Mama under the Tank

  1. If women want to be equal in the military they should start by having the same physical fitness standards as males. Right now in the Marines, 26yo and younger males physical fitness test (PFT) standards are: run 3 miles in less than 28 min, do at least 3 pull-ups, and do 50 crunches in two minutes. Females in the same age group have 31 minutes to finish the run, do a flexed arm hang instead of pull-ups, and 50 crunches to pass. Males can have up to 18% body fat for that age group while women can have up to 26%. If you look at our combat fitness test standards the difference between what is expected for the two sexes is even more dramatic. 18-26 YO females’ minimum passing in one even is half of what 40YO and older males minimum passing is.


  2. An interesting article by Jane. If Jane is right and it’s difficult for soldiers to work their way far up the ranks without combat experience, then this provides an incentive for ambitious young soldiers to lobby for more and more foreign intervention. This might be a little dangerous. Wars should be avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary.


  3. This old ‘Nam vet says that our Kenyan Marxist “leader” is working hard to create a country not worth fighting for and a military less capable of fighting for it. It’s a “perfect storm”in our enemies favor.


  4. I agree completely with your blog Throw mama under the Tank. After nearly 31 years in uniform (active and reserve) anyone who believes American women should be in front-line combat units needs to watch the two HBO series “Band of Brothers” and “Pacific”, and the movie “Saving Private Ryan” (particularly the first 20 minutes of the movie). No turning away – no closing their eyes. If they still believe women should be in combat they must be insane. They might also go to a VA or military hospital and visit the wounded. . . .
    Best regards.


  5. Well said! What is most fascinating is your final comment that “The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.” For the feminists isn’t it their purpose to do this as well; although only to kills and break the male gender and everything that it has been known to be?

    Nothing about the movement of these women is about them as people but more about the power and control that they believe will be the outcome of their ridiculous ideas and actions! It is pure rebellion in the most simplistic form! Does Jezebel ring a bell?

    With all of these said it is very clear that their behavior is only symptomatic of the root problem. For those women who were loved as children by their mothers and fathers, who didn’t need to be in control of anything; and were happy growing from girls to ladies there wasn’t a need to use a personal agenda or persecution of others to gain internal bliss. It isn’t necessary for such a lady.

    It is ever more clear that until the root of this issue is properly dealt with it will continue. Women who are hurt will only continue to hurt people. Women who are unhappy with themselves will continue to try to be men and feel the power that doesn’t and can’t exist. Women who reject themselves as women will only cause more grief upon themselves and the future generations of girls who may simply want to be ladies.

    Regardless of what women think, no real man is attracted to a woman who spends more time trying to be like him over the woman that God created her to be. Not only this; a real man would probably lay his life down for the feminist who fought to be next to him in combat when in reality; he should be fighting for her freedom that she enjoyed at home!

    Does anyone have any suggestions for solutions?


  6. Well put Jane. Personally, I have always appreciated the differences between men and women. Particularly the….well maybe we won’t go there.

    On the other hand I have met and worked with some women who are well suited to combat.


  7. I am a former AF Captain (an AF Academy Grad), a woman, who left the military to raise my child (I now have 6). I was a feminist who believed women can do anything a man can…and should. It has taken 10 years for me to realize the lie I was fed throughout my school years. Whether women can do something, does not mean they should. Yet, society has so blurred the lines between men and women, that, unless there is a complete reversal, there is no way to avoid women in combat. With significant changes to our military (homosexuality, an open and direct assault on Christianity, a declining budget, etc) and a declining pool from which to get recruits (an increasingly obese, drug-addicted, psychologically impaired youth), a draft is inevitable and women will have to join in. Women wanted to be seen equal to men and so they must be treated so.

    Yes, I am appalled by this. More military families (from which we get many of our recruits) no longer encourage their sons to join (including me). A more feminized male population does not lend itself to a lean, mean, killing machine. Frankly, I see more male qualities in our women than our men. Men (especially white men which make up the majority of our military) will lose their interest as the “men’s club” becomes predominantly women (as a Catholic, I saw the same result in altar boys…let the girls in…the boys leave). Of course, add what the report states about Hispanics and blacks in the upper echelons, and white guys need not apply.

    In sum, I do not want my sons joining an organization that is more concerned with homosexual sensitivity training, affirmative action promotions, and anti-Christian policies. Ten years ago, I would never have believed our military would decline so fast, but I suppose it only reflects the decline of our society. Let the women enter combat…let them be drafted. Perhaps, only through this horror will people see how ugly this is and reject it. I do not want to rely on another woman to save my life nor that of my sons. These women and sons have parents who will have to live with the wreckage they wrought. As far as I am concerned, once homosexuals were allowed to openly serve, the argument against women in combat became absurd. Feminists knew this.

    I appreciate your article and am pleased to know there are women who understand the damage. I just wish more men would speak openly, but I suppose they risk being labeled a sexist if they do.


  8. “The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things”. This is of course true. And you advocate that type of behavior? If a private citizen or group of private citizens were to go around killing people and breaking things, they would surely get sent to prison and roundly condemned by any rational person.

    However, when death and destruction come at the hands of trained gunmen in government uniforms, they are hailed as heroes, and to speak ill of them is treason, and “un-American”.

    I don’t have a problem being labeled as “un-American”, because the America I know is a country that spreads destruction, oppression, and terror all around the world in the name of “spreading Democracy” and “eliminating terrorism”, failing to realize that the U.S. military is the largest and most well-funded terrorist organization in the world.

    Wake up people, because it won’t be long before the U.S. military is pointing its guns at you, demanding that you do things like relinquish your firearms, vaccinate your children, don’t protest the government, don’t go to that website, don’t question anything!!!

    Instead of worrying about the status of women in the military, why don’t we question the legitimacy of the military period???

    Conservatives are so funny. They claim government is incompetent or even oppressive, and therefore should not get involved in certain areas of life (healthcare, education, etc), and I agree with that wholeheartedly. But, why is the military an exception? We don’t trust the government to take care of our health, and yet we will give them guns and missiles and let them run wild all over the world, imposing their will at gunpoint?

    Like I said before, it won’t be long before those government guns are pointing at you, and you won’t have one to point back.


  9. I haven’t read the report Jane analyzes and I’m not a soldier, but I’m surprised at bloggers’ frequent statements like the military is “more concerned with homosexual sensitivity training…” and “social experimentation”. This might be easy to write but is obviously false. If that military was distracted by anything, it was its aggressive outing and dismissal of gays. It seems to me that the military can finally get BACK to military matters now that it’s letting go of its obsession regarding homosexuality.

    I respect the many service people who say “I’m a soldier, I don’t care about the sexuality of other soldiers”. These are the service people who strike me as committed soldiers. People like J C, above, who whine, obsess and complain seem to delight in their perception that the military is “declining”. I think the military is better off without them.

    I also have to say that Julie’s comments that reduce the differences between men and women to a “women who need to be on control” versus “ladies” paradigm win today’s laughable award.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s