Common sense

The U.S. Marine Corps opened its Infantry Officer Course to women in September.

The distaff response has been underwhelming, to put it mildly, and that speaks well of female intelligence.

Women have no business in the Marine Corps infantry, or in the Army infantry, or working as firemen or police patrolmen either.

So far, only two women Marines have volunteered. One washed out the first day, and the other dropped out two weeks later.

The reason women should be barred from certain occupations is simple: They are physically weaker 99 percent of the time. Letting women be infantrymen, firemen or police patrolmen endangers the lives of others.

This silly notion that women should be allowed into all occupations comes from the Political Correctness Mafia, of course.

Women should earn equal pay for equal work, but that’s a separate issue.

Any woman who wants to join the Marine Corps infantry clearly should be on a psychiatrist’s couch instead of out in the field trying to hoist a 72-pound machine gun over her head while wearing a 71-pound rucksack.

That’s one of the requirements.

I’m sure there are some occupations ill-suited to men, although I cannot think of one at the moment. I’m open to suggestions.

Aha! Here’s one. Wet nurse.

Men and women are not equal, and physical strength is the major factor. Few people complain that sports are almost always separated by gender.

This is done so we can have women champions, a good thing.

Women do many things excellently, but lifting 72-pound machine guns over their heads while wearing 71-pound rucksacks is not one of them.

Thank goodness.

* * * *

(Note: Here’s a Washington Times story if you want more details.)

32 thoughts on “Common sense

  1. I knew a lady back in the day who was a pretty good arm wrestler. She dodged no one. She challenged me. I was a bit apprehensive about the thought but sat down and banged the back of her hand against the table. She was still good enough to beat most men that came against her. My point is that we men come in different sizes as do the ladies. If the ladies want to train as fighting military, let em.


    1. Norm: As I wrote this piece I wondered who would be the first to come up with the “I know a big, strong woman” justification. And it was you!

      A gold star coming at you in the mail.


      1. I have known a good number of strong ladies and even more little skinny fellas that would have trouble picking up their own weight. I took a job a few weeks ago. My duties were to act like someone who had been in a civil disaster, National Guard training thing. I was supposed to have a broken leg and needed carried. I told the young man that I was heavy and he laughed,he said, “you’re not that heavy” and proceeded to join the other three men with the stretcher in picking me up. His knees buckled under my weight and I fell out on the ground. A lady guardsmen who was a bit bigger rolled me back on the stretcher and picked up the young man’s load with nary a grunt. I have many stories from the field about people who were not up to task but few that have any bearing on gender.


  2. “Men and women are not equal, and physical strength is the major factor.”
    If they are equal as every woman believes, then they should not separate the athletes, period. No double standards.


  3. Disagree on the firefighting and police patrol…I’ve seen some pretty hefty ladies in both…but a female Marine doesn’t seem like a good fit…let ’em join the Navy!


    1. Charles: We have all seen photos of firemen physically carrying someone out a smoking window down a ladder from five or so stories up. These things actually happen. Best to have a man doing that. Firefighting, I have read, is the most dangerous of all occupations. It is also very physically challenging, and the ability of firemen to deliver means life or death for others. It’s no place for precious social experiments.

      One night I was driving home from work about 2 a.m. in Houston when I passed a strip mall. All the stores were closed, of course. The passing traffic consisted of just me.

      In the parking lot was a police car. Standing outside was a lone policewoman, not very big, questioning some questionable-looking fellow who was far larger than her. He could have cold-cocked her in a nanosecond had he chosen to do so, long before she could have pulled her pistol. She had no partner. It was dangerous for her, and absolutely ridiculous. Again, no place for feminist social experiments.


  4. During WWII in the Soviet Union women fought in large numbers in front line roles. Over 800,000 women served in the Soviet armed forces in World War II; nearly 200,000 of them were decorated and 89 of them eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. They served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members, medics and partisans. The Russians found that sniper duties fit women particularly well, since good snipers are patient, careful, and deliberate.

    It is written that the German soldiers feared the women partisans more than the men.


    1. Andres: The Soviets were desperate during the Nazi invasion. They were throwing every breathing body against the Germans. Same goes for how Israel got started using women soldiers in the 1948 war of independence. It was an issue of manpower, and the new Jewish state’s shortage of it. Israel is famous for women in the military today, but almost all now are support folks, which is where they belong.

      Opening American infantry positions to women (especially in the Marines) has squat to do with a manpower shortage or desperation in the face of an invasion. It has everything to do with powerful political pressures of the PC Mafia and silly left-wing ideology of “everybody’s equal.”

      Big, big difference.


  5. As a former combat Marine in Vietnam, I am in complete agreement with you as far as combat is concerned. You have touched on few of the reasons why. Have you considered the confusion at the field latrine, in the shower, fights over the harem, or even who gets to be med-evaced when a hormonal imbalance occurs. You make good points regarding other professions, but I am open to limited participation. There are things that women can do that men cannot and vice versa. That was determined by mother nature and not some liberationist pendejo.


    1. If we had more women in combat we might decide to only to engage in wars defending our homeland, instead of insane wars in Asia/Middle East. We might also decide not to use depleted uranium ammo which causes cancer and birth defects for our troops and their children.


    2. Carlos: Liberationist pendejos. I love that.

      One thing I did not make clear. Regarding other professions, many positions in police and fire departments (though few in the latter, I imagine) should be open to all. The military too, even the Marines, needs support personnel that women can do.

      They just should not be in positions that jeopardize the safety of other people.


  6. Señor Zapata has opened another tasty can of worms. I have enjoyed all the comments so far. IMHO there is room for women in combat, but they should be paired with duties that reflect their physical ability, and that should apply to men as well.


    1. Peter: I have never been in a combat situation, but from what I have read, it gets pretty disorganized and messy very quickly, to put it mildly. Pairing women with duties that reflect their physical ability sounds nice. It also sounds like you have never been in a combat situation either.

      Women should be nowhere even near the area.


  7. Women on submarines soon. Physical strength not an issue. Hormones in tight quarters for months at a time is. Not necessary except for the PC crowd.


    1. Patzman: Women on subs is another matter altogether. Physical strength would not, for the most part, be an issue there. But other issues make this a colossally dumb idea too.


  8. I read the article in which the ACLU argues that excluding women from combat based solely on gender is unconstitutional. Applying their argument to separate public restrooms based solely on gender must conclude that they are also unconstitutional. There is some business that is best left separately to the genders. Combat and calls of nature are two of them.


    1. Carlos: Again, you are right on the money.

      Were it not for the fact that we live primarily on Social Security, I would be content — gleeful even — to kick back and watch the increasing cultural rot totally envelop the United States, a nation that’s full of spoiled, ignorant and selfish people.

      Alas, I do need the cash, so I cannot kick back so casually.


  9. My husband is Peter, he is Dutch , they do not fight. Our son, however, is going to Afghanistan next year. This is a child who age 3 was in an army display and expressed the thought, I want to do this. This I saw as riding a motorcycle, no mom THIS!!!! At age 6 he tried to join the air cadets. No way, you have to be thirteen. Well, he got in at age 12 1/2. He was top in air studies, got a glider plane licence at 16, and at 17 his power licence. Yada yada. He has been all sorts of things and now is a sergeant as well as a realtor. He has trained many to go overseas and has some return but not all. He will leave his job in January or February to go to Alberta to train and deploy in April or May for nine months to Kabul. He tells us the roads are paved so laying IEDs is more detectable than in other places in the country. This is small comfort to me. I wish with all my heart he wouldn’t go, but he will and we will worry every minute of every day he is there. I really wish he could just be like the old Dutch army, just for show, like his dad remembers.
    Sorry for the long-winded response.



    1. Celeste: How right you are! But two wrongs don’t make a right, as they say.

      Our Mexican federal police, on the other hand, are quite a good-looking bunch. Local cops are another matter.


Comments are closed.