Prisoners of political correctness


April 3, 2003, 06:47 AM

Prisoners of political correctness

Posted: April 3, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003

Thank God Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch has been rescued from an Iraqi hospital where she was being held as a prisoner of war!

Jessica was part of the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Co. that fell into an Iraqi ambush, which led to the deaths of some of her fellow soldiers and the capture of a least five others, including Spc. Shoshana Johnson. The fate of Pfc. Lori Piestewa and several others still is unknown.

If your heart wasn't in your throat when you saw the pictures of Jessica on a stretcher, or a wounded Shoshana being interviewed by her captors, then it's time for a reality check.

Something is terribly wrong when the most powerful country on earth is assigning women service members to units where they are subject to capture, rape, torture and death, while able-bodied men are stationed out of harm's way or, worse still, at home in the comfort of their living rooms.

Guys, do you hide under the covers and send you wives downstairs if you suspect a burglar is in your home?

We look down our noses in disgust at Saddam Hussein's disregard for human life – and his brutal treatment of women – but we are deliberately sending our young women into combat zones so that they can be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Time for a reality check!

The feminists celebrated the news that Johnson had been taken prisoner and put on public display. Alas, another trophy on their road to prove that men and women are interchangeable fungibles!

"The capture of this woman," they croon, "proves women are just as brave, capable and well-trained as men and have just as much chance to survive."

That, of course, is rubbish!

It may not be fair that a man is, on average, six inches taller, 30 pounds heavier and – more importantly – has 42 percent more upper body strength, but it is reality. The dirty little secret in the service academies and our boot camps is that women are passed right along with the men because of "gender norming" – where the emphasis is on "equal effort," not equal results.

While the numbers are fudged to make everything come out equal in these controlled environments, these same women will not have an equal chance to survive on the battlefield. That is why women are not supposed to be assigned to ground combat units.

So, how is it that Lynch and Johnson – who were trained as a file clerk and cook, respectively – were assigned to a unit that was ordered into the heart of Iraq?

A lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of our serial philandering former president, Bill Clinton, and his secretary of defense, Les Aspin. In 1994, Aspin redefined direct ground combat by eliminating "inherent risk of capture" as a factor in deciding whether a unit was judged to be "close combat" or merely "combat support" in order to open up more "career opportunities" for women.

This was a cold, calculated political decision. Enlisted women like Lynch, Johnson and Piestewa were considered expendable in order to serve the needs of women officers, who would use their deaths and capture as stepping stones on their way to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The important thing to remember is this: There was no shortage of opportunities for women to serve in the military then – and there is no shortage of men who can serve in battle zones today. This is not about giving Army women the choice of whether they want to be assigned to units in battle zones. Soldiers cannot pick and choose their assignments. If women can be assigned to these units, they must be assigned to these units.

However, it is Congress that makes the laws governing our military. Therefore, the blame must be laid squarely at the feet of these lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, who find it a lot easier to sacrifice enlisted women than undo the damage and have to face the ire of a handful of radical feminist lawmakers they see every day on Capitol Hill.

It is time our lawmakers forget about political correctness and face the realities of keeping the men – who must do the heavy lifting in these units – alive, and keep the women, who are providing invaluable support services, out of harm's way to the greatest degree possible. To do anything less is mere cowardice.

If you enjoyed reading about "Prisoners of political correctness" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
April 3, 2003, 07:17 AM
Although there is some truth to that article - namely the strength differences - I did read today that Jessica didn't stop returning fire, killed several iraqi's - even after being shot. Tough girl if you ask me.


Ol' Badger
April 3, 2003, 08:37 AM
Men can be raped :barf: too.
Just can't get us preggnant thou :D
As for fighting to the end. She is from WV! What else would you expect form a country girl like that.
As for the Iraq's she shot? To heck with'em. I hope the ants are eat'n the eyes out!

April 3, 2003, 09:11 AM
Ah, yes.

It is good for women to take action to protect themselves in their private lives. We want them to be willing to carry a gun and to know how to protect themselves and their loved ones from hostile others.

But it is bad for women to take action to protect themselves in their public lives. We don't want them to have anything to do with carrying a gun and we want them to have nothing to do with protecting themselves and their loved ones from hostile nations.


Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirit. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practised at spare moments; it is a whole-time job. -- W. Somerset Maugham

April 3, 2003, 09:37 AM
keep the women, who are providing invaluable support services, out of harm's way to the greatest degree possible.

They WERE in a support service, behind the front lines, but war is war and unfortunately they got in the wrong spot and got ambushed. But even the typewriter jockey and supply clerk has to be able to fight if necessary.

I don't like the idea of women in combat (just because I am the protective sort) but this article stinks!

April 3, 2003, 09:45 AM
Equal rights for all.
If anyone want to live under this countries protection they should be willing to fight.

In fact Pax is signing up right now, to set a proud example for women in combat. ;)

April 3, 2003, 09:50 AM
I don't have any problem in combat areas. As far as the writer of this saying that they only serve the purpose of women officers in promotion, I say he should talk to these enlisted women and ask them. I served with women in the Navy and as for the majority of them did not want any special treatment and wanted to be allowed to do whatever jobs their male counterparts did. And I say we should SALUTE and HONOR them.

April 3, 2003, 09:50 AM
The USA has been exposing women to combat and capture for centuries -- but in the past, we just made them wear nurse's caps instead of the same lids as the men and we didn't let them fight back. ;)

April 3, 2003, 10:02 AM

Does every man who thinks war is "A Man's Job," volunteer to fight?


If one puts forward an idea to a true Englishman -- always a rash to do -- he never dreams of considering whether the idea is right or wrong. The only thing he considers of any importance is whether one believes it oneself. -- Oscar Wilde

April 3, 2003, 10:04 AM
I did Pax, you gonna put your money where your mouth is? :D
Talk the talk, but will you walk the walk?
I doubt it seriously.

April 3, 2003, 10:05 AM

You did -- but do all of them?

Why or why not?


I cannot divine how it happens that the man who knows the least is the most argumentative. --Giovani della Casa

April 3, 2003, 10:12 AM
Not all do, because talk is cheap.
People talk a good game, but when it comes time to play they don't follow through.
It all boils down to courage, or the lack of courage.
Now some do have medical reasons, but most simply don't have the courage to risk anything for others and prefer to leech off of society.

So ya gonna join up or not? ;)

April 3, 2003, 10:14 AM
Of course not. I'm overweight, out of shape, over age, and have too many children.

Overweight and out of shape are fixable.

Over age isn't.

The kids will grow up, but by then I'll be really over age.

Now that we've got that out of the way, can you answer my original post? -- What, if any, is the difference between expecting a woman to take responsibility for her own defense in her private life, and refusing to allow her to take responsibility for her own defense in her public life?


I have never met a steadily logical person. -- Martha Gellhorn

April 3, 2003, 10:27 AM
There is no difference for me, I expect all citizens of either gender to be able to provide for defense in private and in the military.
I don't make the rules the military does.

If one want the benefits of our society, they should be willing to take the risks involved in defending it.

Thanks for taking my harrassment lightly, getting old and overweight sure is a pain in the patooty.
Oh, to be young again. :D

April 3, 2003, 11:10 AM
This article is for the most part crap in my opinion. The only thing I do agree with is the lowering of standards so that more women can make it through basic is wrong. I think that it actually hampers a women's chance of servival if the SHTF. I'm all for women surving in the military, and if they can meet the standards of men, then they should be allowed to serve in the infantry.

I used to play rugby back in my college days, and we had a women's team that could hold up with the men's team most days. I would mind having a platoon of those women in combat. I bet they'd kick mucho rear.

George Dickel
April 3, 2003, 11:18 AM
The article was a bit too critical but the part about the upper body strength issue and overall body strength is very important. Their desire and drive to perform is no different than that of a man. You have the lazy as well as the hard workers.

Where the difference comes in is the physical abilities of the soldier. I supervised women soldiers as a squad leader and platoon sergeant while in the Military Police and later in the Field Artillery in a target acquisition battery.It would take two to three women to perform the same physical task as one man. When you are in a tactical situation and have only a few minutes to load your equipment and get out of an area you can't afford to have 3 people trying to do one persons job. It slows you down too much and could result in death, injury or capture.

My son-in-law was with the 101st. He was a SAW gunner and when in the field and later in Iraq in 91, he had to carry his weapon, 80 lb ruck, helmet, body armor and the rest of his equipment. 15 - 20 mile marches were the norm for his unit during field training exercises while at Fort Campbell. There are very few women capable of that effort.

Even a supply clerk is required to perform some physically demanding tasks. Try changing a flat tire on a 5 ton truck, it will bust the hump of a big man. Supply units have large crates/boxes/whatever that have to be loaded and unloaded. Again many women are not physically capable of doing this.

Look at it this way, what is a 100 year old man going to do with a 20 year old sweet thing? The spirit is willing but the body is weak. Same situation with most women soldiers. It is not their fault they were designed the way they are but why let political correctness force the military to accept women into jobs they can't handle physically. All this will do is degrade operations and get someone killed. There is a place in the military for women but let's make sure they are physiclally capable of doing it not just because they want it.

What PFC Lynch did was outstanding and took guts, and I'm not trying to take anything away from her. Just don't use it as an example of what women could do in a combat unit. There is far more to it than laying in a fighting position and shooting a rifle no matter how much determination they have.

April 3, 2003, 11:32 AM
none of your points are correct, much less relevant to the article. No one implied that women can't shoot, fight, defend themselves. No one implied that they aren't capable of bravery or ferocity.

It's a cheap dodge I encounter all too often on this topic: we who oppose women in combat do so out of contepmt, condescension, or out of a desire to oppress. And if we haven't served (I have), then we're unqualified to have an opinion.


Can does not equal should. It is possible to oppose women in combat out of love and respect. I'll admit right here and now that my opposition is not founded on logic, and is not utilitarian. But logic has nothing to do with men being men, women being women, and how they feel about each other. If I didn't care about women, I wouldn't care about sending 'em into battle. And I have absolutely NO problem with them enjoying our freedoms without going into battle. Otherwise, children would have to go.

April 3, 2003, 11:37 AM
The bottom line is this young woman will receive combat decorations for fighting the good fight. The military is just trying to figure out which ones. Not too many women now or in the past have ever done that and she deserves to be honored for her efforts same as the men.
May she, as all men so honored for their stuggles, wear the with pride.
Wish she had not run out of ammo!
End of story.

I wonder if she will stay in the military after she has a chance to reflect on it.


April 3, 2003, 12:05 PM
It's a cheap dodge I encounter all too often on this topic: we who oppose women in combat do so out of contepmt, condescension, or out of a desire to oppress. And if we haven't served (I have), then we're unqualified to have an opinion.
You got it wrong, man.

I assigned no motives, either to you or to anyone else. I didn't even assign a motive to DeltaElite, though he tempted me to do so (you troublemaker DE~! ;) ). I am not interested in motives.

I asked for a logical explanation. That's it.

You say you have rejected logic in this case, in favor of the emotional argument. Emotional arguments are very nice, but I'm not interested in emotional arguments at the moment.

To reiterate: I want to know what the distinction is which allows RKBA activists to believe that it is good for a woman to defend herself and her loved ones in her personal life, but bad for her to defend herself and her loved ones in her public life.

No cheap dodges here. Just a simple question. If you read carefully, you may even note that I have taken no position -- merely pointed out a contradiction and asked for a distinction which eliminates the contradiction.

No one has given me one yet.

The closest we've gotten is the claim that women are not capable of doing the job. That may be true for most (not all!) women, but it doesn't answer the underlying question of whether those who are able should be kept from doing the job.


Men love war because it allows them to look serious. Because it is the one thing that stops women laughing at them. -- John Fowles

April 3, 2003, 12:12 PM
For those who say that women have no place in the military, a very simple question:

What would a man have done differently in the exact same situation?

April 3, 2003, 12:17 PM
love your kids?

Give me one logical reason why.

April 3, 2003, 12:19 PM

I love my kids, but I don't expect anyone else to do so -- nor even to live as if they do.

Hope you followed that.


Argument with one who has rejected reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -- Thomas Paine

April 3, 2003, 12:23 PM
What would a man have done differently in the exact same situation?

Run out of ammo sooner ...?

Missed faster ...?

:D :neener:

Just imagine, some of those Iraqi "squirrels" last sight was being shot by a WOMAN. Maybe they will be rewarded in heaven with 72 West Virginians. :p

April 3, 2003, 12:30 PM
Enlisted women like Lynch, Johnson and Piestewa were considered expendable....Got some news for ya, Burpie.

Enlisted men and officers are considered expendable too. EVERY member of the military is expendable, and that's just ONE of the reasons WHY the U.S. military is so formidable.

Every member of the military learns that on or about day 2 after entering military service. But the author wouldn't know that....

April 3, 2003, 12:34 PM

ROTFL. But it would only be 71 West Virginians -- they already were met by the first at the threshold. ;)


I disagree with you, but I really admire your self-awarness and honesty about your reasons :)

April 3, 2003, 01:08 PM
sorry. Didn't follow that at all.

My question was: why do you love your kids? The answer, of course: because they're your kids, and you're their mom. No logic needed or possible.

Why do I hate seeing women in combat?

Because they're women, and I'm a man. Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't like seeing MEN in combat either, but I accept that sometimes it must be done. But we don't HAVE to send women into battle.

That's all there is to my position. I'm not asking anyone to like it. Just don't tell me I feel that way because I'm a (insert epithet here: hater, sexist, patriarchal, condescender).

My position says exactly zero about women's capabilites. I can rob a bank, but it doesn't follow that I should.

April 3, 2003, 01:27 PM
sorry. Didn't follow that at all.
Then I'll spell it out for you.

I love my kids. No logic needed or provided (though there are logical reasons -- such as the logical reason that instinctual love for one's children keeps us from killing them the day they are born because of the noise & mess they produce, thus human mothers possess an instinct which furthers survival of the species. But I digress).

My love for my children is a personal thing. I neither expect nor demand that other people love my children, nor do I demand that they behave as though they do even if they don't.

If I expected other people to behave as though they loved my children, I would also expect to supply reasons that they could accept. I could not expect them to simply love my kids, with no reason given nor required.

Translating this to women in combat. You "hate" to see women in combat, just as I love my kids. That is reasonable. But to demand that others behave as though they "hate" the sight just as you do, without providing a reason, is to expect what is unreasonable.

Make more sense now?

As for the rest of your message: I still haven't called you any names or assigned any motives to you, and I don't intend to do so.

Oh, and I share Cuchulainn's admiration, too. Honesty is rare.


Man is a reasoning rather than a reasonable animal. -- Alexander Hamilton

April 3, 2003, 01:34 PM
I thought it was pretty clear why women should not serve in combat- because they are inferior to men in every way.

April 3, 2003, 01:35 PM
Bet that got your attention :D :neener:

Just kidding, you know.

April 3, 2003, 01:38 PM
2dogs, you slime!

Made me spill my tea all over the desk. Durn you! :cuss: :D :cuss: :D



Talking with a man is like trying to saddle a cow. You work like hell, but what's the point? -- Gladys Upham

April 3, 2003, 01:42 PM
2dogs, you slime!

Low down, ain't I?:D

Sorry about the tea.

April 3, 2003, 01:43 PM
I thought it was pretty clear why women should not serve in combat- because they are inferior to men in every way.If you add "with regard to the exigencies of combat," I agree with that, joke or not.

I don't want to serve with women in combat because I don't want distractions or to be distracted, and I certainly don't want the rest of my soldiers to be distracted either.

April 3, 2003, 02:06 PM

So your position is that,

1) women can't do the job of protecting the country in combat, and

2) the presence of women in combat would distract you, and

3) keep you and other men from doing your job?


The big mistake that men make is that when they turn thirteen or fourteen and all of a sudden they've reached puberty, they believe that they like women. Actually, you're just horny. It doesn't mean you like women any more at twenty-one than you did at ten. -- Jules Feiffer

April 3, 2003, 02:09 PM
sorry. Answer doesn't scan. I think we are swinging past each other.

Neither of us has any influence on whether women are sent, so it's a non-sequitur to say I demand anything. Someone raised the matter of women in combat, and I gave my position.

Oh, and you bloody well WOULD demand that others love your children: you're their mom, after all.

Anyway, it'll all be different when I'm King.

Cuchulainn: Thanks. Pax, too, for that matter.

April 3, 2003, 02:24 PM
ME? A troublemaker? Never. :neener:

April 3, 2003, 03:37 PM
Not even close, pax.

There's very little shooting going on in combat. It's mostly waiting while staying alert and bored at the same time.

Embedded women are distracting and they cause distractions. They can't help mingling with the men and vice versa.

A man going into battle has to think that his peers are as or more capable than he is. Otherwise, he "has" to take care of the perceptibly weaker ones. A man is just another soldier, but a woman is a girlfriend, wife, aunt, sister, mother, etc., who "must" be protected and who can't heft a combat load when necessary. BTW, the combat loads of the present are between 70-120 pounds that's never evenly distributed like that much fat.

One of the fastest ways to die in combat is to be distracted. Distractions have no place there whether they're women, children, pets, or whatever.

I don't have any problem with all woman aircrews, etc., if they can meet all the other requirements to get the rides. I also have no problems with all woman infantry or armor units if they can pull it off. I just think it's stupid to expect men in combat to perform optimally if women are mixed in with them.

April 3, 2003, 03:49 PM
IMHO, Pvt. Lynch kicked ***, took names, (To put on Allah's tablet) and did her job. She performed as well as any man in that situation. Had she and her unit had as much ammo as a front line unit, they might all have come out a lot better. She kept shooting until she was out of ammunition. Sounds verrry tactical to me. She may very well have fixed her bayonet and stuck an enemy during her capture.

FNC reported that her injuries included two broken legs, gunshot wounds and a stab wound. "Tough as nails" said one of the medics who helped treat her immediately after her rescue.

YOU GO, GIRL!! ( Sorry, politically incorrect)

This gender thing is blown way out of proportion. The physiological differences between the genders is obvious. However, the heart, spirit and fury of a woman can be just as great or greater than that of a man. How many guys in the military are 6'4", 240lb and tough as nails. When I served, ('71-74) we were a bunch of ordinary guys of all shapes and sizes.
The draft made no distinctions. Everybody gave their best regardless of any type of limitations.

Maybe it will be disheartening to the Iraqis that our women are kicking their butts.

April 3, 2003, 04:39 PM
Gotta admit, I respect Pvt. Lynch and all the women (and men) over there. I'm not surprised at all that she held out to the end like that. Futher, I'd say most any reasonably well trained woman would put up just as ferocious a fight, given the probable consequences of capture.

I've no doubt in my mind that when it comes down to M16's at 200 meters, the gender of the person pulling the trigger is pretty far down on the list for final effectiveness.

All that said.. I think I've finally come to agree with the men that say women have no place in ground combat, excepting last ditch "throw everyone that can hold a rifle at 'em" defenses -- as in Stalingrad, as mentioned.

Partly for the distraction issue already raised (already an issue in quiet times, so much the more if one is surrounded by death and scared crazy).. and partly because well... y'all are on average better built for it. Anyone who's slogged through backcountry in a mixed group, or sparred hand-to-hand across gender lines knows that those strength, hygene, and endurance issues do add up, and they do make a difference.

Besides.. you guys can hit hard... owwww.. :p


George Hill
April 3, 2003, 05:16 PM
The subject is women in combat... Not PAX in Combat. Pax has chosen the path of motherhood. An HONORABLE path in spite of DeltaElite's chest pounding.

PFC Jessica Lynch is a good argument that women can fight side by side with men.
However women can't do 100 pushups and pack around 120 pound rucks.
Is that really so important? I am sure there are members of the Republican Guard that can crank out over a hundred pushups in the 2 minute time limit. Doesn't make them any better soldiers does it?
Real fighting is about Spirit and Mindset. PFC Lynch has both in spades. I'd take a PFC Lynch over any "Just barely passed the entrance tests" redneck that joined up because he couldn't land a regular job.
I think the arguement of Men vs Women is outdated.
When I was in, I observed 2 women in combat situations... MP's. One was fireplug of a woman that could do dang near everything a man could do save pissing while standing up. The other was a younger Officer. She was very attractive and the subject of many discussions involving romantic settings. She looked awesome in BDU pants... WOW! Was this a distraction? Not when it came time to do a job. When something had to be done, it got done. She could dish it out just as good as anyone else. She was a Pro. Not only that, she was ferocious. More importantly she was smart. I didn't talk to her, but I was told she could plan and execute an Ambush to rival that of any Infantry squad. She had loyalty of all the other guys under her. In fact, they are proud of her. I'm even sure they would have fought harder for her.
But women are too weak...
Go watch 1/2 the new recruits when they go into Basic... many can not even do 10 pushups when they get there. Strength can be developed in Men and Women.

I think if a woman has the grit to pass Infantry AIT - they should be allowed in. However if they want in - they have to be integrated. They have to be able to put up with hanging out with the Men. Same Barracks. Same Latrine. Same shower. In an Infantry Squad they have to be all the same. If they can handle that, then they can be "IN". And yes, I have thought of all the other "Problems" that would be included with letting them "In". I don't think it really is a problem. Men and Women have been together for ever... I don't see the issue.

April 3, 2003, 05:37 PM
Chest pounding? Me? Never. :neener:

Actually Pfc Lynch's dad says she wasn't shot or stabbed, sounds like the story is falling apart under the light of truth. The story was made up by the media, not the military or Pfc Lynch.

She is still a brave lady and has my respect, as does Pax, regardless of what George thinks. :D

Oh George, did Pax ask you to come to her defense?
Highly doubtful since she handles her own quite well.
So you must be intervening out of chivalry, that's so sweet. :D

George Hill
April 3, 2003, 07:10 PM
No... No request for covering fire.

I volunteered. And your right... she was handling you just fine.

April 3, 2003, 07:12 PM
Yes she was, that is why I like her.
BTW George, got any aspirin?
I seem to have this crushing pain in my forehead. :D

April 3, 2003, 07:55 PM

If you insist on :banghead: and then irritate George ... well, the headache should go away in a day or two, and the bruises will eventually fade.

I doubt aspirin will help much. Just make the bruising that much worse. :D


If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. -- George Carlin

April 3, 2003, 08:11 PM
I do seem to have masochistic tendencies, don't I? ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Prisoners of political correctness" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!