DEFENSE Secretary Leon Panetta will announce later this week that thousands of combat positions will be opened to women, starting this year, according to senior officials at the Pentagon who informed the Associated Press of the news. The AP reports: “This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.”

This is the Obama second term, hitting its stride. The Pentagon has been preparing for placing women more prominently on the front lines for years, at the urging of a small minority of military women, but the process will now be speeded up. For all their rhetoric about the interests of women and the war against women, liberals are happy to see women at war. Mothers who leave their children to go off to war, something all civilized societies have rejected, receive their approval. They have no instinctive revulsion at the sight of a woman in uniform wielding a gun. In fact, the idea of a woman with a gun — and a fantastic military career — is exciting. One can only assume, given this new freedom for women, that they will never be excluded from the draft again. There is absolutely no working principle left for excluding them from mandatory service.

This is the American woman. The effect on the national psyche is immense. Even women who will never serve in the Army will be affected. We are a nation of women warriors.

Scott Olson, Getty Images

—- Comments —-

Daniel S. writes:

I thought that the feminists assured us that women were infinitely more peaceful and opposed to violence then man. So why have they been so insistent that women receive the same opportunities to shoot Iraqis and Afghans as their male counterparts? Another feminist lie has been exposed. We see that these women have the same lust for violence and murder as any male they would deride and revile.

Perfesser Plum writes:

Jill Farris writes:

I look at all the girls in that picture and think, Oh poor unloved girls whose fathers didn’t care enough to protect them.

I would like to know what percentage of those young women are from divorced homes. Yes, our divorce laws have been warped to favor women and infringe on a father’s rights but I will bet that the majority of the fathers of those enlisted girls have no contact with their daughters.

Yes, angry women are behind many of these horrible changes in our society but weak, abdicating men have allowed them.

Bruce B. writes:

I don’t believe that women will be drafted anytime in the near future. I wouldn’t bet against it but I think it’s unlikely. I think “choice” will rule in this matter. Contemporary liberalism sees “choice” (particularly when exercised by anyone but white Christian males) as a great thing. Women will probably be allowed to choose to serve in combat roles or to choose not to serve in combat roles.

Laura writes:

Kevin M. writes:

New combat roles = body bags. Mom is the new paraplegic. My sister has PTSD.

All of the horrific inflictions men endure via warfare are now invited upon the “gentler” sex.

This civilization is tunneling at rocket speed to the core of Planet Stupid.

Kevin adds:

Perfesser Plum writes:

“They’re going to be slaughtered on the altar of leftist vanity.

I don’t have words for this.”

I’d say those words are absolutely perfect. I’ll wager they will be chiseled onto the base of a large statue in Washington, D.C., sometime soon.

P.S. You recall those horrific beheading videos the Muslims are so good at making? Now imagine your daughter starring in one. Just who do you think our future wars will be against? The French?

Wheeler MacPherson writes:

Paul writes:

I am astonished.  Even when I was only 162 pounds, I could have torn through multiple women at once.  Now they are thinking that maybe only women who can meet the same standards as men will be allowed into combat.  Since that is the case, why uproot rational tradition to satisfy a tiny number of freaks and a significant number of people ignorant of what traditionalism is all about?

This allowance of women is much less harmless when it is applied to activities such as auto racing.  Danika is a freak and should be relegated to competing against women only, as almost all other female athletes (if auto racing is athletics) are required to do.  But of course few are interested in the relatively awful performance of female basketball and baseball players.  The greedy sport Media wants a star to increase ratings and to reinforces its own obvious liberal hackism.  That Media, along with the grotesque Nancy Grace, savaged the innocent Duke Lacrosse players.  (All of her prosecutions should be suspect.)

There is a better example of liberal sports hackism.  At the beginning of the 2012 college football season, ESPN (which dominates the sports Media) was insisting that no one-loss SEC (Southeastern Conference) team should be allowed into the National Championship game while there were two other undefeated Division I teams.  The unstated reason was the SEC has won eight of the last ten National Championships, and the liberals insist we must have parity, equality.  They almost got their wish until the great and wonderful Kansas State and Oregon lost.

So then the hacks were left with undefeated Notre Dame, which Alabama (a one-loss SEC team) predictably (by all of Vegas) demolished.  (To brag, it would have been my LSU—another SEC team—had a freshman LSU cornerback, in the last seconds against Alabama, simply stayed where he was told to stay.)  Notre Dame and members of other conferences simply do not have to run the SEC gauntlet year in and year out.  Unlike other conferences, SEC teams are devoted to their conference.  We pulled for Alabama even though the great majority of the nation wanted the SEC defeated. And that is the lesson.  Armies must be able to run whatever gauntlet it takes to win, and it can’t be done with division.  Putting women in combat divides us in a visceral way.  Moreover, the men and women are screwing one another’s brains out.  What kind of father would support their daughter joining that culture?  Liberals are not going to jail women who get pregnant to avoid a bloody conflict.  So why should men join?

People don’t realize many women join the military, stay just long enough to qualify for veterans’ benefits, get pregnant, and get discharged.  We should not like to think about what is happening to the unborn children.

Pete writes:

Pete adds:

On a side note, I should add that years later when I was around twenty-one I briefly dated another girl who ALSO was the daughter of a rabbi. This one of the Hasidic variety in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Looking at and talking to her you would never guess that she came from a Hasidic family. After we split up I later came to find that she moved to Israel and had attained the rank of an officer with the IDF. It makes me wonder if there is something about rebellious daughters of rabbis that attracts them to the military. It also makes me wonder what this gentile was giving off to attract the daughters of rabbis? :- )

Fred Owens writes:

I’m working on slogans for Leon Panetta’s New World Army. Here’s one:

“To my American sisters: You’re Bad-Ass Killers now. Equal in Victory, Equal in Death.”

How does that sound?

Please follow and like us: