The Beating a Woman takes Playing Football with Men won’t be as Bad as Hand-to-Hand Combat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 22nd, 2014

Week in Review

The NFL is coming under a lot of pressure because of concussions.  And the brain damage it may lead to later in life.  As players have never been bigger or faster.  And when they hit they hit hard.  The NFL has changed the rules to prevent the most damaging of these collisions.  Head to head contact.  There is even talk of eliminating the kickoff.  To prevent two ‘freight trains’ running into each other at full speed.  And those on the left are calling it a brutal game that we need to get rid of.  For it’s little better than gladiators fighting to the death in the Colosseum.  And we shouldn’t let our children grow up and play football.  Unless they’re gay.  Or women.  Then it’s a beautiful thing.  An openly gay man in the NFL.  Or a woman playing running back in the Indoor Football League (see Running Back Jennifer Welter Makes History By Playing In Pro Football Game by ThePostGame Staff posted 2/17/2014 on Yahoo! Sports).

Welter, who has starred at linebacker for a decade for the Dallas Diamonds of the Women’s Football Alliance, got her first carry midway through the third quarter. She took a handoff from two yards out of the end zone and scampered around the left tackle. But the 5-foot-2, 130 pound Welter was met by 6-4, 245-pound defensive lineman Cedric Hearvey for a one-yard loss.

Somehow, Welter was unfazed by the hit.

“I said, ‘Is that all you got?'” Welter asked Hearvey. “I didn’t want them to think I was intimidated…”

Welter had her number called twice more in goal line situations, but she wasn’t able to score either time.

If you follow the link you can see videos of her plays.  She looked like a child playing with men who towered over her.  And one hit just threw her like a train hitting something.  She got right up.  But with the men having a one foot height advantage and over a 100 pound weight differential these were traumatic hits.  A few more of these and she would be lucky to escape with only a concussion.  And these are the kind of hits the left wants to get out of the NFL.  Though I suppose they’re okay if it’s a woman getting the snot beat out of her.  It kind of reminded me of Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life where the boys played the masters in a rugby match.  As the grown men just beat the snot out of their students.

As tough as she is she is just not as big or strong as the men playing at this level.  And that’s because men and women are different.  Which is why we shouldn’t have women in combat roles.  For the hand-to-hand fighting in combat is worse than any football game.  And just like in football the bigger and stronger combatant usually wins.  But unlike in a football game when you lose your matchup you just don’t score.  Or lose the game.  In combat when you lose you die.  And you weaken your team.  Giving the advantage to the enemy.  Which will probably cause more of your team to die.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Women to Serve in Combat despite having Lower Physical Standards and Private Rectal Exams in Training

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 9th, 2014

Week in Review

Women are just as capable as men in combat.  According to people who say women should be allowed into combat roles so it doesn’t limit their chances for promotion.  Which would be all right if they went through the same training as men did.  But they’re not.  The Marines have lowered their physical requirements for women entering combat roles (see The Marines have Lower Physical Requirements for Women they’re Integrating into Combat posted 1/5/2014 on PITHOCREATES).  And the service academies have lowered physical standard for female cadets (see Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault posted 1/12/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  This unfairness to men even extends to the military physical exam (see Men, Manliness, and Being Naked Around Other Men by Richard Senelick posted 2/3/2014 on The Atlantic).

I was already in medical school when I took my military entrance physical for the doctor draft. It was high school all over again. Grown men of different shapes and sizes, lined up to be poked and prodded. No one ever forgets being told to “bend over and grab your ankles.” With the increasing number of women in the military, I decided to research the current military physical exam. The article contains a section, “For Women Only,” where it proudly states that, “your visit with the physician will be in a private room.” Not so for the men, apparently. Six paragraphs down under a section titled “Do”, it says “Wear normal underwear. You will be sorry if you don’t!” Once again, a man’s modesty is a joke.

Why can’t women line up in their underwear, bend over and grab their ankles like the men do?  Are they too dainty to have a rectal exam in front of other women.  Like the men have to?  If so perhaps they are too dainty for combat.

Part of the reason for this public humiliation in training is because of the lack of modesty in combat.  If you have to poop during an artillery barrage and you’re hunkered down in your foxhole guess where you’re going to poop?  In your foxhole.  Even if there is another soldier or Marine in it with you.  You may try to defecate in your helmet and dump it outside your foxhole.  If you want to risk getting your arm blown off.  And you’re probably not.  So when you feel the call of nature you are going to drop trou, squat and poop while close up and personal with someone else.  With that poop remaining in you foxhole with you and your buddy.  And the thinking is if you lose all modesty in basic training you’ll have no problem pooping while hunkering down in a foxhole with someone else.  Or doing other unpleasant and/or embarrassing things.

Will a female soldier or Marine who has her basic training rectal exam in a private room be able to do this?  Or does she think she’s just going to hold it in until she gets to a proper bathroom off the line?  Either women and men meet the same standards.  Or they should not serve together in combat.  For the enemy only makes one type of war.  Not one for men.  And another less strenuous and more modest one for women.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 12th, 2014

Week in Review

We have antidiscrimination laws in place to prevent employers from hiring based on skin color instead of ability.  We drug test in sports to keep poorer athletes from using drugs to become better athletes.  As that isn’t fair to athletes who play by the rules.  People rail about unequal pay for women doing the same job as men.  Saying if they are doing the same job as a man they should get the same paycheck as a man.

We do these things to keep things fair.  So the best job applicant gets the job.  The best athlete wins the competition.  And everyone is paid according to their ability.  Without a lower pay scale for women.  Of course, all these ideas of fairness go out the window when it comes to the military (see Sexual harassment in the military: what female cadets have to say by Anna Mulrine, Christian Science Monitor, posted 1/10/2014 on Yahoo! News).

A congressionally mandated Pentagon report, released Friday, gauges sexual harassment and assault at America’s service academies and catalogs comments made by students during focus groups….

The focus-group comments of the cadets offer some insights into why the cadets themselves think the problem is pervasive, and how to best handle it.

When sexual harassment and assaults are prosecuted on campus, they think it might be a good idea to publicize them a bit more, even while protecting the anonymity of victims.

“When these things happen, my concern is, Are they being at all like hushed up?” one West Point cadet told Pentagon interviewers. “I think if we wanted to raise awareness and like say that this is a problem, why isn’t it being publicized when it does happen, even anonymously..?”

A clear theme that comes through in the survey, too, is that cadets of both genders feel that because the physical standards for female cadets are not as strenuous as those for male cadets, the men may have less respect for the women…

Another female cadet noted that because the physical standards are different for men and women at the academies, it is possible for women to get higher scores than men – even though they might not have to do as many push-ups or run a mile as quickly. “That eats him alive,” said one female cadet of a male cadet friend of hers.

Sexual harassment and assault are unacceptable everywhere.  There are no excuses or justification for bad/criminal behavior.  Even if you create a hostile environment by placing men and women together in a competitive environment that makes the men work harder than the women to get a passing grade.

The bigger issue is that the military is now trying to integrate women into combat roles.  Like infantry units that actually use physical strength to survive in a life and death situation.  And the stronger you are the better your chances are of surviving.  Which means anyone getting through military training by meeting lower standards has a lower chance of surviving in combat whenever physical strength determines the outcome of a fight.  Putting these women at risk.  And reducing the fighting strength of the unit.  Which will lose fighting strength once the weaker members (those meeting lower standards during training) are killed off.  Which doesn’t seem fair to the women.  Or the unit.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Marines have Lower Physical Requirements for Women they’re Integrating into Combat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Women serving in the military in Iraq were issued rape whistles.  To protect themselves from their fellow soldiers.  They needed the whistle to call for help.  As they could not depend on being strong enough to fight off a rapist.  Or a gang of rapists.  Which illustrates a point about men and women.  They’re different.  Men are bigger and stronger than women.  So women were given rape whistles to call for help when a bigger and stronger man tried to rape her.

Of course, that whistle won’t do much good in combat.  Which is where the left wants to put women in the military.  In roles that have been until now reserved solely for physically strong men.  Who can do 3 pullups.  Or more (see Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail by AP posted 1/2/2014 on USA Today).

Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.

The Marines had hoped to institute the pullups on the belief that pullups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks such as scaling a wall, climbing up a rope or lifting and carrying heavy munitions.

Officials felt there wasn’t a medical risk to putting the new standard into effect as planned across the service, but that the risk of losing recruits and hurting retention of women already in the service was unacceptably high, she said.

Because the change is being put off, women will be able to choose which test of upper-body strength they will be graded on in their annual physical fitness test. Their choices:

• Pullups, with three the minimum. Three is also the minimum for male Marines, but they need 20 for a perfect rating.

• A flexed-arm hang. The minimum is for 15 seconds; women get a perfect score if they last for 70 seconds. Men don’t do the hang in their test…

Military brass has said repeatedly that physical standards won’t be lowered to accommodate female applicants. Success for women in training for the upcoming openings has come in fits and starts.

But you are.  If you have different requirements for men and women you have lowered the standards for women.  Which will not only put their fellow Marines at risk.  But it will put these women at a disadvantage with the enemy.  Because blowing your rape whistle won’t stop the enemy from beating you to death.

There are many roles women can serve in the armed forces.  Even in combat zones.  From pilots to sappers.  And they have.  So close to the combat that they’ve been getting killed and maimed serving their country just like men.  But putting them into infantry units will get a lot of them killed.  Imagine a wounded Marine outside a foxhole exposed to enemy fire.  Who can drag that Marine safely into the foxhole quicker?  The Marine who can’t do 3 pullups?  Or the Marine that can do 20 pullups?  If a man is in that foxhole he may be able to reach out and grab that wounded Marine with one hand.  And drag him quickly into the foxhole.  While if it’s a woman in that foxhole she may have to get out completely and expose herself to enemy fire as she uses both hands to slowly drag that wounded Marine to safety.  And likely getting shot in the process.

Soldiers need to be strong.  The stronger the better.  And the more likely he or she will kill the enemy before the enemy kills him or her.  There should not be different requirements for men and women.  There should be only one requirement.  For Marines.  If women want to fight in combat they should be as strong as men.  Or they shouldn’t be there.  Just like we don’t have women in the NFL.  Which isn’t as hard as being a soldier.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Uncle Sam wants You in Combat if you’re an Ugly Woman

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

Does a woman belong in a combat role in the Army?  If she is as strong as a man and as willing to get as dirty as a man, perhaps.  But if she is wearing makeup while deployed on duty in a combat zone?  I don’t know.  For it looks like  that woman is apparently more concerned about maintaining her femininity than the mission at hand (see U.S. Army told to advertise for recruits using ‘average looking women’ because they are perceived as more competent than prettier soldiers by Jennifer Smith posted 11/20/2013 on the Daily Mail).

A U.S. Army spokeswoman has said images of ‘average-looking women’ should be used in recruitment advertisement as photographs of more attractive soldiers confuse the reality of the roles in combat.

A leaked email that circulated revealed how a leading strategy analyst affirmed ‘ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead.’

Colonel Lynette Arnhart, who is heading a team of experts studying how best [t]o integrate women into service, condemned advertising images used in the past as they ‘undermine the rest of the message’…

‘For example, the attached article shows a pretty woman, wearing make-up while deployed on duty.

‘Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered a hazardous duty’…

Ms Arnhart cited a photograph used last year that depicted a female soldier with mud on her face as one which ‘sends a different message’ in the email that was obtained by POLITICO.

‘(It is) One of women willing to do the dirty work necessary to get the job done.’

If a woman is wearing cosmetics in the field there goes any arguments of equality out the window.  For men don’t wear cosmetics in the field.  In fact, they are prohibited from wearing cosmetics (see Army Regulation 670–1, Chapter 1, Introduction, Hair and fingernail standards and grooming policies • 1–8, page 3).

b. Cosmetics.

(1) General. As with hairstyles, the requirement for standards regarding cosmetics is necessary to maintain uniformity and to avoid an extreme or unmilitary appearance. Males are prohibited from wearing cosmetics, to include nail polish. Females are authorized to wear cosmetics with all uniforms, provided they are applied conservatively and in good taste and complement the uniform. Leaders at all levels must exercise good judgment in the enforcement of this policy.

That’s not equality.  Why is a woman even wearing makeup in full combat gear while deployed on duty?  Because she wants to be pretty when she’s killing the enemy?  Because she wants to be attractive to her fellow soldiers?  To her superiors?  Just to feel pretty?  If so, why?  Why is this an issue for women in combat?  It isn’t for men.

No judgment is needed with men in combat.  No makeup.  Period.  To borrow a word from President Obama.  For women it’s a different story.  It’s not an objective black and white issue.  It’s a subjective gray area.  Some makeup is okay if it’s conservatively applied.  It’s a judgment call.  Where different leaders may have different judgments.  And this isn’t good in a world where there are no individuals.

There are no individuals in the military.  They drill that out of you during basic training.  Everyone dresses the same.  Everyone marches the same.  Everyone salutes the same.  For there are no individuals.  Only positions of rank.  But women are treated differently.  And complicate things.  Which can’t be good for the overall mission.  Especially when top brass are writing emails discussing how women in combat gear shouldn’t be too pretty and should wear mud on her face instead of makeup to send the right message.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Bureaucrats running the Army waste $5 Billion experimenting with a New Universal Pattern Uniform

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 19th, 2013

Week in Review

The rollout of Obamacare has been a disaster.  Now we’ve learned that they used ten-year old technology for the big website.  They didn’t test it sufficiently before going live.  And there are political operatives working as navigators collecting our most personal information.  Some even with criminal records.  In other words, it’s a real cluster [deleted expletive].  Or business as usual whenever the government tries to do something (see The Army’s $5 billion waste by Caitlin Dickson posted 10/14/2013 on Yahoo! News).

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.

The left loves to point to the military as a government success story.  But it’s not the government that makes the military the best in the world.  It’s the people.  Patriots who love their country.  Especially the junior officers and the noncommissioned officers.  Those closest to combat.  Who learn at a steep price the art of war.  Those grizzled veterans of their late teens and early twenties who survive pass their craft on to the kids coming up behind them.  This is who landed at Normandy and fought their way through those beach defenses and went on to win World War II.  These old men in their late teens and early twenties leading the younger guys through the fires of hell and back home again.  Not government.  For all the weapons and all the planes and all the ships would not have done a damn thing unless they were in the hands of America’s finest.

Those noncoms and junior officers who advance through the ranks and the officer corps to leadership positions command larger units.  Turning from tactics to strategy.  Crafting our war plans.  That those noncoms and junior officers carry out.  But, again, it’s these combat veterans that make the military great.  Not the bureaucrats responsible for buying the uniforms.

We can expect more of the same with Obamacare.  For the same bureaucrats that waste $5 billion on a bad uniform design will be running our health care.  Of course under Obamacare we won’t just be wasting billions of dollars.  We’ll be destroying the best health care system in the world.  Which will put all Americans at risk.  Our health.  And our lives.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Women in Combat Zones have been issued Rape Whistles to Protect themselves from their Fellow Soldiers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Watch a realistic war movie.  Like PlatoonSaving Private Ryan.  Or Band of Brothers.  And study the scenes where the combat is so close that it devolves into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where brute strength and dirty fighting kills someone.  Where men are reduced to animals in the wild.  Snorting and grunting and gasping for life.  Until someone can stab another to death.  Snap a neck.  Or choke someone to death.  For when the enemy gets this close you can’t use your rifle.  All you have is your physical strength.  And whoever is stronger typically wins these horrific hand-to-hand encounters.  This is combat at its worse.  Where the killing is close.  You hear the dying breath of the enemy.  And look them in the eyes as they die.

Now there is a drive to put women in combat.  Up to now they have only served in support roles that engaged in periodic combat situations.  Serving valiantly.  And paying a heavy price in the wounds they receive.  But they end their day in a rear area.  In a base with beds to sleep in.  Hot chow.  And showers.  They haven’t ‘rucked up’ and gone on extended patrols with the infantry or Special Forces.  But some say it is now time that women do (see ‘No girls allowed’: Iraq war vet Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on opening combat missions to women by Rick Klein, Richard Coolidge, and Jordyn Phelps posted 7/3/2013 on Yahoo! News).

Ask Rep. Tulsi Gabbard why she supports the military’s new policy to allow women to serve in combat roles, and the Iraq war veteran speaks from experience.

“I can tell you during my deployment, there were missions that I– volunteered for and was not allowed to go on, simply because I’m a woman,” Gabbard, D-Hawaii, tells Top Line. “They said, ‘Sorry, no. No girls allowed…’”

Gabbard also brings a first-hand perspective to the issue of sexual assault in the military, saying she “heard and saw incidents” of sexual assault within her military camp when she was in Iraq.

“We got issued rape whistles so that as we walk out of our tent or walk out of our hooch, we’ve got our body armor, we’ve got our helmet, our weapon, and we’ve got our rape whistle,” Gabbard recalls. “It was an eye-opening experience to have to consider that fact when we’re serving overseas in Iraq and…this is a risk or a danger that exists.”

Women have different physical standards in training.  To help them complete training.  Because they don’t have the same strength of men.  And can’t do what men do.  There are some who can but by and large if they didn’t have these different standards we wouldn’t have as many women in the military today.  Or have to issue rape whistles.  For if a women met the same physical standards as a man she wouldn’t need that rape whistle.  For she would be able to defend herself from a would be rapist.  Just as she would be able to defend herself if the enemy penetrated their defensive line and the combat devolved into brutal hand-to-hand combat.  Where blowing a rape whistle wouldn’t cause the enemy to stop trying to kill her.

Sure, some will say, a woman may be able to protect herself if it was one on one.  But what if she was being gang-raped?  Then she would still need that rape whistle.  If it was that bad in the military then we shouldn’t have women there in the first place.  For it’s an obvious distraction to the mission if we have to focus so much on sexual assault in these rear areas of deployed troops.  And what would happen once these troops left these rear areas and entered combat?  There were a lot of unpopular second lieutenants who were ‘accidentally’ shot by their own troops in Vietnam.  For putting men on report.  Or just being incompetent in leading men into battle.  When the bullets started flying accidents happened.  Grenades get tossed around and accidentally end up in the wrong foxhole.  And if they happen to have an enemy rifle, why, they could say the lieutenant fell gloriously in battle under enemy fire.  Any gang of soldiers who would try to gang-rape a soldier in their unit would have no second thoughts about making their problem go away in the field.  You can’t put them all in the brig.  If you did you wouldn’t have enough to send into the field.  So soldiers will enter the field with some possible bad blood.  And scores to settle.

Is it this bad in the military?  Probably not.  Can it be?  Perhaps.  For you’re always going to have trouble when mixing men and women together.  Officers may be gentlemen.  But soldiers are cold-blooded killers in the field.  Who revert to their animalistic past.  Where it’s kill or be killed.  Thinking that we can flip a switch on them to change them from cold-blooded killers to gentlemen is asking a lot of them.  And distracts from the mission.  For the few women who can meet the men’s physical standards is it worth it to play with these social experiments on the best military in the world?  Will these women make the best military better?  Will they not change it?  Or will they degrade it?  None of these three options make a compelling case to tamper with the best military in the world.  So why do it?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

FT155: “We don’t blame boys for high school kids having sex but we will blame men in combat units once women join them.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The Left empowers High School Girls by Encouraging them to have Lots of Sex

The War on Women is all about trying to prevent women from having as much sex as they possibly can.  At least that’s what you’d believe listening to those on the Left.  For the only thing important to women in the last election was preserving their birth control.  And their access to abortion.  So they can have as much sex as possible without having babies.  For if Mitt Romney had won that election, the Left claimed, he would have relegated women to second-class status.  Forcing them into marriages against their will.  The worst fate that could befall any modern women.  Forcing them into loveless marriages.  Having nothing but babies.  And being a sex-slave for her husband.  While he goes out and lives life.

This is the message the Left tells women.  That marriage is horrible.  Unless you’re gay.  Then it’s the most beautiful thing in the world.  But heterosexual women are to avoid it like the plague.  Which birth control and abortion help a woman do.  So they can avoid sex in marriage which is little more than rape to those on the radical Left.  So they can enjoy sex outside of marriage.  A lot of it.  Because it empowers them.  According to those on the Left.  Being a sexual being.  Pleasing multiple sex partners.  Even if it objectifies them.  By allowing men to satisfy all of their sexual fantasies.  Where these men go from woman to woman.  Bedding them and then leaving them.  Using these women for nothing more than sex.  Allowing the modern man to have more sex with more women than ever before.  Without ever having to put a ring on it.  To quote Beyoncé.

Having lots of sex with lots of different partners is so important for women that the Left helps them at every level.  Even in high school.  By providing free birth control.  And access to abortion.  Even without letting their parents know if possible.  And trying to tell these girls to wait until marriage is just another way to try and oppress women.  Taking them back to the Fifties.  When life was horrible for women.  Because they were married and raising families.  A fate worse than death.  Unless you’re gay.  Then it’s the most beautiful thing in the world.  So we help high school girls have sex.  And don’t blame high school boys for encouraging these girls to have sex.  For this is how the Left empowers these girls. By giving them the tools they need to have as much sex as possible.  Because nothing we say will prevent these kids from having sex.  So the responsible thing to do is to help them.  By objectifying these high school girls.  So high school boys can give in to their surging hormones.

Men can Open their Fly and Quickly Urinate when Paused on a March in a Combat Zone

Before military personnel shipped overseas to fight in World War II they watched films teaching them how to avoid catching a venereal disease.  Because these men had just graduated from high school.  And had surging hormones filling them with sexual desires.  Just like high school kids today.  These boys were leaving home for the first time.  And they knew that they may not come back home alive.  A very dark and foreboding feeling.  A sense of your own mortality.  So a lot of these boys facing death in a combat zone thought about dying.  And these boys didn’t want to die as boys.  If they were going to die they wanted to die as men.  And there were women near these combat zones that could help them become men.  And the military bosses knew these men were going to have sex.  No matter what they said.  So they tried to educate these men on how to be safe.  So they wouldn’t catch something from these women.  Who were helping so many other boys to become men.

So what is life like in a combat zone?  It’s long periods of boredom filled with moments of absolute terror.  In the large-scale combat operations of World War II there were great battles.  A lot of marching.  And a lot of waiting to march.  As bad as the terror of combat was the long waits when they did nothing but think about the coming terror of combat were just as bad.  For your mind can wonder to all the horrible things that can happen.  But apart from this dread they were bored.  And looked for things to occupy that boredom.  And these were the times these boys became men.

While in a forward position these men leave propriety back at base camp.  If they pause in a march they can open their fly and quickly urinate.  And button up before the column goes back on the march.  Easy for a man to do.  For they can pee without dropping trou.  For there is nothing worse than having your pants around your ankles taking a squat when incoming mortars start raining down.  Or artillery.  You can drop down and take cover with your pants still around your ankles.  If cover is available.  But if you need to run to take cover you first have to pull up your pants.  The extra time needed may just be enough for an artillery round to find you.  Wounding you.  Causing another soldier to risk his life to pull you to safety.  Which a soldier won’t hesitate to do.  But thankfully men don’t have to poop as much as they pee.  So they don’t often have their pants around their ankles while in a combat zone.

Women in a Combat Zone will present an Alternative to the Unbearable Boredom when not in Combat

Of course, women have to drop trou to pee.  So while a man can turn to his back to the column, unbutton his fly and urinate a woman will have to pull her pants down and squat.  Will she do this in front of her fellow soldiers?  Or will she move off a little for some privacy?  Will other women go with her to stand guard while she pees away from the main body of troops?  Or will she pee alone.  And risk being captured by the enemy?  And what about her menses?  How will she address this while on the march during her period?  Will the column have to pause so she can dig a hole to bury her soiled tampon or pad?  Or will she just cast it aside and let it be discovered by the enemy?  If operating behind enemy lines something like that could tip off the enemy of her presence.  And her fellow soldiers.

But what about the time they are not in combat?  Or on a march?  Or behind enemy lines observing and evading the enemy?  What if they are in a rear camp?  Bored.  Men and women together.  Looking for something to do to kill time.  These men and women away from home.  Away from their sweethearts.  With a heavy sense of their own mortality.  After having recently been in high school where there was free birth control and access to abortion.  So high school girls could have as much sex with as many people as possible.  Where boys enjoyed this empowering of these girls.  Would all that change in a combat zone?  Will they stop having sexual desires?

Of course they won’t.  Only it won’t be like in high school.  Where kids were just going to have sex no matter what their parents or teachers said.  So we had to give them birth control and access to abortion to let these kids be kids.  But after teaching high school kids that it was okay to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible how do you un-teach them that in the military?  When they are but a few years out of high school?  When all of a sudden it’s just not boys and girls just being boys and girls.  But women presenting an alternative to the unbearable boredom when not in combat.  No, then these boys aren’t just being boys.  They become predators.  Who have to learn to keep it in their pants.  Lest these women end up pregnant.  This is the problem of having women in combat.  (Well, one of them.  Men are typically stronger.  Taller.  They don’t have breasts so body armor fits better.  They don’t need tampons or pads.  And the enemy is less likely to rape men if captured.)  For men and women are different.  As celebrated by the Left when these kids are in high school.  But once women move into combat positions women will have to fight two enemies.  The one the state is at war against.  And the one trying to get into their pants.  Men who will have to be reprimanded for acting like a base animal in a combat zone.  Normally a good thing when you have to kill people.  Which is what soldiers do in a combat zone.  But not a good thing when you have ladies in your platoon.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Veterans Day

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 11th, 2011

So few serve in the military.  And yet they do so much.  More than we can ever imagine.  These few share the worst of combat.  Fear.  Sorrow.  And death.  Many don’t come home.  Those who do carry these memories with them the rest of their lives.  Their worst memories.  And their best memories.  For the bonds they form with their brothers in arms during dire moments are bonds like no others.  It’s these bonds that get them through combat.  And the memories that follow.

It’s this brotherhood under dire moments that make these ordinary people do extraordinary things.  It’s what makes one expose oneself to enemy fire to pull a fallen comrade to safety.  Or not retreat when under fire by a superior force.  Or charge into a superior force.  They do these extraordinary things not for God or country.  They do it for each other.  For each other is all they have.  And they will sacrifice everything for their comrade.  Who will sacrifice everything for them.

William Shakespeare captured this well in Henry V, a fictional play based on historical events.  King Henry and his band were on the wrong side of the English Channel.  Trying to get home to England.  And outnumbered.  On the eve of battle King Henry gives the famous St. Crispin’s Day Speech to rally his men.  Here is an excerpt:

That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

King Henry and his band of brothers were victorious in battle.

Never forget what our veterans do.  Honor them today.  And every day.  Until the ending of the world.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #16: “The military part of the military has been a success story. The Big Government part of the military has not.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 1st, 2010

IN THE TUG of war between Big Government and limited government, the proponents of Big Government like to point to the military as a Big Government success story.  Now, the U.S. military has been a success story.  But not because of Big Government.  Unless you want to call paying $200 for a toilet seat a Big Government success story.

People are not perfect.  Anything man does, then, will be imperfect.  The same is true of the military.  Those doing the fighting are by necessity doing the absolute best thing to guarantee victory.  They die otherwise.  Those furthest away from combat tend to look more towards personal self-interest.  And, typically, the Big Government bureaucrats tend to be the furthest away from combat.  They’re never in any personal danger.  If they aren’t doing a stellar job, other people suffer and die.  They don’t.

The military is big business.  Which means big money.  Which means big graft.  And big kickbacks.  Military contracts are replete with pork.  It’s not necessarily the military contractors at fault, though.  When there is only one customer for your goods and services, you have to play by their rules.  Politicians have enormous power when awarding contracts.  And if you think pure merit is going to land you a contract on its own, think again. 

There’s a reason we’re paying $200 a toilet seat.  How else is a contractor going to get the money to pay all those bribes demanded by Washington bureaucrats?  High-end call girls don’t come cheap, especially if you want them to do the ‘weird stuff’ (to quote a little Dr. Bob Kelso from the television show Scrubs).  Private yachts.  Golf resorts.  Vacation junkets.  Campaign contributions.  These things are expensive.  And if they are the price of admission, how are you NOT going to pay to play?

SITUATION NORMAL, ALL F*cked Up.  That’s a SNAFU.  It implies a sense of hope.  FUBAR doesn’t.  F*cked Up Beyond All Repair (or Recognition).  That’s when things pass irreparably past SNAFU.  And usually when they do, it’s not the fault of the grunt with a rifle in his hands in the middle of the SNAFU.

These ‘military’ terms represent various degrees of incompetence of the generals/civilians above them that results with placing combat forces in very difficult situations.  Or simply what happens in the ‘fog of war’.  D-Day was a carefully planned assault on Hitler’s Atlantic Wall.  The generals and the politicians made their plans.  And when General Eisenhower gave the ‘go’ order, everything rested on the shoulders of the teenagers and young men far down the chain of command who would do the actual fighting.

Air power would soften up the defenses and isolate the coast from the interior, hindering the movement of German reinforcements.  Paratroopers and glider troops were to land behind enemy lines and take/hold key bridges and knock out specific gun emplacements.  A naval bombardment would further soften up the beach defenses.  Then the troops and tanks would hit the beaches.  They would open up beach exits to allow following troops and armor to pass through and break out of the beachhead.

Yes, that was the plan.  But the best laid schemes of mice and men go often askew (to quote the Scottish poet Robert Burns), don’t they?  And so they did.  The aerial bombardment fell too far inland.  When the paratroopers jumped they scattered in the wind.  Few landed on their objective.  Once the naval bombardment commenced there was so much smoke on the beach no one could see where their rounds were landing.  When the beach assault began, they shifted their fire inland to miss hitting their own men.  Which made them miss the Germans, too.  Still, of the 5 beaches, 4 went somewhat according to plan on D-Day.  One, though, was going from SNAFU to FUBAR pretty darn quick.

Omaha Beach.  The ‘softening up’ did little to the guns aimed on that beach.  Artillery and machine gun fire swept hellfire across Omaha.  It was raining lead and iron.  This is the beach at the beginning of the Steven Spielberg movie Saving Private Ryan.  The first wave of troops littered the beach with dead and dying.  The armor didn’t make it ashore.  These teenagers and young men were on their own.  And there is only one way to go on a beach.  Forward, into the enemy fire.

Close to FUBAR, the generals were considering abandoning the invasion.  Of course, they were powerless to do anything at the time other than to call retreat.  Nothing they could say or do would change a thing on the beach.  They were too far away.  They couldn’t see.  Or hear.  Or feel.  But junior officers and noncommissioned officers in the fight could.  And, using personal initiative, they took action.  Paratroopers gathered into fighting units and moved on their objectives.  A destroyer captain, closer to shore due to his shallower draft, could see the troops on the beach had no fire support. He took his ship in closer and ran up and down the shallow waters of the coast, providing some of the only effective fire support during the assault.  Junior officers and noncoms gathered shattered men from shattered units and led them inland and opened the beach exits. 

OMAHA WAS COSTLY, but we prevailed.  Not because of any general or governmental bureaucrat.  We prevailed because ordinary men did extraordinary things.  Nameless men.  Our fathers.  Our grandfathers.  They did incredible things.  Things that we cannot even imagine.  And we worry what would happen if circumstance once again puts ordinary people in a position like this again.  Could we do what they did?  We know a few who can.  They’re doing it today.  But could we?  Could we be as extraordinary as our fathers and grandfathers?  As those serving in the military today?  No doubt some have their doubts.

How, why, do they do it?  For God?  Country?  Family?  Perhaps.  Or is there another reason?

And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remembered-

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother

(St. Crispin’s Day Speech from William Shakespeare’s Henry V)

And so it goes in war.  Circumstance places ordinary men into extraordinary situations.  And they do extraordinary things.  And in the heat of battle, most thoughts flee their minds but two.  Survival.  And their brothers.  Alongside them in battle.  Who are as frightened as they.  Who are facing the same enemy fire as they are.  Terrified.  But standing fast.  He will not leave his brother just as his brother will not leave him.  This is courage.  And this is why American soldiers win battles.  This is what makes them give that last ounce of effort.  To go above and beyond the call of duty even.  To do the extraordinary.

SO THERE YOU have it.  The two parts that make up the military.  The military part.  And the Big Government part.  And the two parts couldn’t be more different. 

Big Government doesn’t make the military successful.  Kids barely out of high school do.  And we must never forget that.  We need to honor them on Memorial Day.  On Veterans Day.  And every other day of the calendar.  And we should never insult them by saying their actions are the result of a bloated governmental bureaucracy.  For nothing could be further from the truth.  Ironically, it’s their selfless service that enables that corrupt bureaucracy to become bloated in largess; a secured nation makes a safe place to turn public office into personal gain.

And Big Government will continue to buy their $200 toilet seats.  Because that’s who they are.  And, unless you’re part of Big Government, you don’t like it.  On principle.  And for the fact that if you have ever sat on one of those toilet seats, you know there just ain’t anything special about them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,