By Douglas V. Gibbs
I recently came across, again, a video of Senator Elizabeth Warren drilling Pete Hegseth during his confirmation hearing for Defense Secretary. The questioning revolved around women in the military, and more specifically, women in combat roles. The questioning revealed the methods in which Democrats use to try to trap their opponents, and ultimately their anti-American views without actually saying it.
Senator Warren gave a number of examples of Pete Hegseth in numerous interviews, and a couple passages from one of his books, about how women do not belong in combat roles in the United States Military. When asked if he stood by these statements, Hegseth began to explain what he was talking about was standards, and also how men respond to women on the battlefield. Senator Warren talked over him arguing that she wasn’t in the mood for the same arguments, she wanted a “yes” or “no” answer. Then, thinking she was springing a trap, she referred to one statement in which Mr. Hegseth had said that some of the best warriors he knew were women. In the absolutism world of the hard-left Democrats, you can’t have it both ways even though through their insane methodology that is exactly what they try to do.
The questioning was designed to attack based on emotions. If you say women are not biologically equal, you are causing emotional harm to the women you say that to. If you say women are not capable of handling duties related to combat roles, you are causing emotional harm to the women you say that about. Then, to prove you are wrong, the Democrats will bring up exceptional cases that defy your argument even if they are only a small percentage of the whole situation. Then, you are, in their argument, proven to be a sexist, and that your goal is male superiority, which hurts people’s feelings and plays right into their argument about the male “patriarchy.”
Now, before we get too far down their rabbit hole where it seems there is no way out, let’s look at the whole situation a little differently. Rather than apply feelings, let’s apply basic logic and our common sense analytical skills as human beings which are directly connected to our ability to reason – something that separates humans from animals, and non-lefty-commie Democrats from people like Elizabeth Warren.
I served in the United States Navy. I went to Basic Training in Orlando, Florida. At the time, the Navy had three boot camps: San Diego, Great Lakes (near Chicago), and Orlando, Florida; the latter of the three was where women went to boot camp. My company had a sister company, and that company was solely comprised of women. The only time we had anything to do with that company was while in class. In the classroom, the female company sat in the back half of the room, the male company sat in the front. This was done in that manner because men are more visual than women, so it ensured the men weren’t gawking at the women during classroom time.
When marching on the “grinder” whenever a female company was going to come in close proximity, the practice was always for the male company to come to a “halt,” and then the men were instructed to avert their eyes in the direction away from where the women were. For example, if while marching in formation a female company was approaching and once near they would be marching to the left of our company, we would be instructed to “halt,” and then the command was given “eyes right,” which meant we were to turn our heads to the right so as not to be visually distracted by the female company approaching. We would not be instructed “eyes front” until after the female company had passed, and the danger of being distracted by the women marching by had passed.
These measures taken during basic training were based on basic biology:
- Men are visual more so than women
- Men are distracted when women are present
- Both of these issues are directly related to human sexuality
Lesson? When women are present men are distracted because of basic human sexuality, therefore if men are going to perform at their best on the battlefield in combat situations, which requires full attention to one’s duties without distractions in scenarios that punish hesitation or distraction with death of the military member and the others in his unit, the most reasonable and logical solution is to remove the distraction – women – from the battlefield or combat scenario.
Now, let’s tackle Hegseth’s attempt to get Senator Warren to understand the “standards” application.
In order for most women to achieve succeeding in the military standards required in order to reach the level of combat readiness and participation they must be exceptional and a rare specimen. Most women are not physically capable of achieving those standards because of basic biology. Women have less bone density than men, generally have less muscle mass than men, have less lung capacity than men, and have less staying power than men. While there are exceptions to that statement, and some women are capable of achieving the rigorous standards set, those women tend to be rare. With only the most exceptional making the grade, from simply a standards perspective, very few women would “make the grade” for combat readiness and standards achievement. Since women are roughly, according to the Democrats, 50% of the population, than any less than half of the fighting force being comprised of women proves that the military is rejecting the concept of “equal rights” and “equal opportunity,” which then in their opinion makes the military “sexist” and proof that America operates as a “male patriarchy” with an unfair “male-dominated” mindset. So, in order to ensure enough women succeed in order for women to achieve combat standards, the standard must be lowered so that as many women make the grade as men. However, if the bar is lowered, then more men will also achieve those standards and the results being sought are not met because the quality of the overall fighting force has been diminished due to the reduction in standards. Therefore, the men’s standards must remain higher, and the women’s must be lower – different standards because women are not biologically as strong, as fast, or as durable as men so that equality can be met. Of course, that is not “equality” at all, and the obvious difference between women and men remains to be a glaring reality.
In either case the quality of personnel on the battlefield is reduced. If the standard for women is decreased to allow more women to qualify, then you have in combat personnel who achieved a lower standard in order to be out there which is an overall reduction of the quality of warriors in the field. If the male standards are reduced to make it look more equitable, then the quality of male warriors is also reduced, compounding the problem. On top of that, the men may be distracted by women on site, causing a reduction in battle readiness and capabilities. The enemy also is aware of these truths, and may take advantage of it by exploiting the reality in their battle plans.
Often, when I talk about this, I am reminded that some other countries use women in combat, Israel in particular, and “it doesn’t reduce their ability to fight.”
That’s false. It does reduce their ability to fight overall, and while they may have reduced the affects of women on the battlefield when it comes to the biological realities concerning men, the influences remain even if at a level less than what it was. And those women might be great warriors, but they are not at the physical and effectiveness level of their male counterparts. In the American military in particular, some women have learned to exploit that reality as well, using their sexuality for favors, benefits and even money while intermingled with male combat scenario counterparts. In my own case, once basic training was complete and we were sent to our A-School destinations and the females and males no longer had to adhere to such strict anti-fraternization measures as had been in place in boot camp – well, let’s just say the hotels and motels at those A-School destinations were doing very well on the business side of things once the new recruits arrived.
I would also point out that no other country’s battlefield results come even close to those by American warriors – largely because of our heightened standards, and history of women not being on the battlefield.
There is also one other thing I think we need to point out. Durability. The realization regarding this issue was actually revealed to me in a conversation with a constitution class student of mine in Temecula, California who was a fireman. The issue of women in workplaces where the physical standards tend to be higher and the physical demand is greater came up, and he told me that it is true that some women can handle the physical rigors of the job, but typically the arrival of such an individual was rare.
He quipped, “besides, what are you, 220 pounds?”
“There about,” I responded.
“Okay, you are on a second floor in a building burning and you need to be carried out of the window by a firefighter on a ladder. Which do you prefer, a large guy like me? Or a woman?”
The answer was obvious. Of course, I would want a man to carry me out because he would be more physically capable of carrying my weight.
“But, he said, there may be a woman capable of carrying you out of that window in the department. And she may be a very good firefighter when she arrives. But when a capable man is hired, he’ll be good for about twenty years. That rare specimen of a woman? About three years.”
I hadn’t thought about the durability factor. With greater muscle mass and bone density also comes longevity.
Even with everything I just explained, the final verdict from a lefty progressive Democrat will still be that everything I put down here was simply the result of my “toxic masculinity” and “sexism.” Feelings. Emotions. They are willing to reduce the standard of our fighting force, and other physically demanding occupations, in order to fit their narrative.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I do not wish to diminish the reality that there are women who love this country and wish to serve in our military honorably and for the right reasons. Wonderful. There are positions in which women can fill, and are badly needed. And yes, some women, as Hegseth said at one point, can be some of the most incredible warriors out there and outshine a majority of men. And if they can meet the standards set for men, and if we are able to set aside our manly sexual biology to be able to serve with those women (and I am sure for many men that is possible if they aren’t surrounded by a lot of women, and the ones they are around are, to say it nicely, about as manly as them) in a manner that is befitting of our military standards and might; then have at it. But to reduce our standards, to reduce our effectiveness on the battlefield to try to increase the numbers of women out there or to try to be “fair” and “equitable” is not only stupid, it is anti-American suicide. Peace through strength means not only that you have a lot of personnel and equipment out there, but that the force that exists is capable of practicing high standards and that the force is capable of maintaining those standards in the battle arena.
Or, at least, that’s my opinion.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
