by Jack Lee
There’s no rule forbidding women from playing in the NFL, but we don’t see women on the playing field because of the competitive selection process, it’s nothing personal. Women are physically different from men. That’s reality and political correctness is going to change that reality.
I’ve seen quite a few women who look like men and deliberately so, but no matter how much that ”butch” woman may like a man, she’s still not a man and lacks the physical attributes (especially in upper body strength) that average male has that makes him far better equipped to physical needs in the NFL or even in combat. Granted, it’s unfortunate that women are not in any number of other male dominated sports earning the big bucks men do, but it’s not because of an infringement on their human rights! A man measuring 5′ 2″ is not going to be playing in the NBA and a one legged guy is not going to play pro-soccer…this is just reality.
Women in combat:
While the majority of jobs in the armed forces are 100% open to men and women there are some which women are not physically suited for and the infantry is one of them. It’s a medical fact that women’s bodies begin to degrade under prolonged combat stress much faster than their male counterparts. In a few days of field combat a women’s physiology is already starting to break down and within a very short time after that, it’s to the point that they are no longer an effective combat force. In combat the first thing a women encounters is the lack of adequate female hygiene and discomfort begins and takes a toll on performance. The required combat load is so heavy it breaks down ankles, tears at tendons and stressed the spine to the point of intolerable pain.
USMC Officer, Katie Petronio writes, “Infantry is one of those fields we need to leave alone.” Petronio was just back from Afghanistan last year — where she worked shoulder to shoulder with infantrymen — when she heard people arguing that it was a violation of rights to restrict women from combat. “The rights advocates missed the point,” she said.
“It would just keep me up at night when I’d heard these bleeps or opinions,” Petronio said. “I felt if I didn’t do anything about it that my silence was consent and if this would’ve have passed, I wouldn’t have done my due diligence in getting my point across.”
She was compelled to write what became a widely cited article in the privately published Marine Corp Gazette titled “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal.” In that article she wrote… “By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change,” she wrote. “My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions.” She lost 17 pounds on an already lean body.
“Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations,” she wrote, “and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?”
Even though she was a standout Bowdoin athlete and could bench press 145 pounds and squat 200 pounds, was ranked 4th out of a class of 52 in Officer Candidate School and excelled at Marine Corps fitness tests, Petronio’s deployment in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan took a brutal toll on her 5-foot-3-inch body.
I think we can agree that integration of women into the military service is perfectly acceptable so long as they are competent in their selected role. Performance is all that matters, especially in combat where soldiers lives often depend on their weakest link. Even if a women could meet the physical standards, which has never been shown to be the case, what about sexual harassment, moral and unit cohesion? Can you see the potential for problems here and with sexual assaults or gender specific special treatment that might create jealousy? Do you think soldiers place themselves at high risk to defend the female soldier or their assigned position? Common sense tells us these answers.
The military demands readiness and pregnancy can sure affect the deployability of a unit when they have a disproportionate number of women or is understaffed thanks to women on pregnancy leave. And what about abuse by enemy? Today our enemy is radical Islam and prisoners are at grave risk of torture, but misogynistic Islamic societies are willing to abuse, rape and torture women prisoners without much restraint. When women are integrated into a combat unit, it’s easy to lose sight of the unit’s objectives and focus on protecting their women from a barbaric and cruel enemy.
Women can have a role in the military and thanks to high technology deployed on the battlefield, technical expertise and decision-making skills are increasingly more valuable than simple brute strength. Women can participate effectively at the command level, but not effectively at the field level and that’s just a reality some people can seem to grasp, even in the Pentagon.
It’s true that career advancement in the military is aided with combat experience, but this is based on logic as it should be. Advance should not be influenced political correctness for fear of being called sexist. However, it’s fair and it’s right that advancement is based on proven experience and ability…period.
The bottom line…. women are unsuited for field combat, they are a liability not an asset. Use them where they can do something appropriate to their talents and abilities, but keep them out of direct combat or we will be taking uncessary risks for the sake of politics.