Eros and Estrogen on the Front Line

Do women–in–combat cheerleaders realize Lt. Ripley was only a movie?
Do women–in–combat cheerleaders realize Lt. Ripley was only a movie?

This December it will be 42 years since the last male was drafted into combat, but it looks like the fun is just starting for women. Not that they will be going to the post office to register anytime soon. Instead woman already in the military — who thought they were being all they can be by typing 130 WPM or checking PowerPoint presentations for typos — will find themselves assigned to combat arms to meet a quota designed by a wide–load Member of Congress whose most strenuous activity is the Pilates class she makes once a month.

Still, they won’t be seeing the elephant overnight. Right now only a handful of the 203,000 women currently in the military can pass the physical for combat infantry or Marines. When faced with the reality that women can’t pass the test, Congress and Pentagon paper–pushers will change the test until they can pass.

(For details see the shifting metrics that define Obamacare. Currently the administration has ruled that if a patient is able to get an appointment with the foreign–born medical professional she’s stuck with in the new, severely limited health care network — and the doctor doesn’t recommend bleeding as a cure — the program is a success!)

Unfortunately, when you lower standards by definition you get substandard material. This is not to say women as a group are substandard. I’m married to one that’s outstanding, but even in her twenties she wasn’t ready for combat.

The Marine Corps, which I was counting on to maintain standards, is showing signs of going wobbly. CNS News reports the Corps has delayed a requirement that female Marines do a minimum of three pull–ups. The postponement came after 55 percent of females in boot camp couldn’t meet the standard. By comparison, only 1 percent of the males failed.

This test is important for the future of our military’s combat effectiveness because upper body strength is vital both in combat and on the front line where soldiers carry ammunition, lift the wounded, manhandle sandbags and tote weapons.

I suppose we could allow women to push a shopping cart into combat or issue ‘spinner’ luggage. But that won’t work either because after she fills the bag with shoes there won’t be any room for equipment.

The deadline for degrading the combat arm is 2016 and as the date approaches, and the lack of qualified women becomes obvious enough for even a Democrat to see, that’s when the pressure to change the test will be the most severe.

Pentagon mouthpieces may continue to reassure an anxious public that physical standards won’t be lowered to pass females into the combat arm, but recruiters also telling female recruits they can keep their doctor.

What’s really strange in all this is the left’s inability to maintain a consistent story line. On one hand every female recruit is a potential Lt. Ellen Ripley. On the other, current female troops are already engaged in hand–to–hand combat with members of the opposite sex and they’re losing. The female that’s ready to put her life on the line in defense of her country is evidently incapacitated by a pat on the behind.

The Pentagon recently released the results of a survey that showed 6 percent of the women in the military (a total of 12,000) were victims of unwanted sexual contact. This covers everything from rape to following too closely in the chow line. (Maybe the left wants women issued rifles so they can defend themselves when they’re on the receiving end of sexual friendly fire.)

But as The Washington Times Rowan Scarborough has pointed out the Pentagon’s results are wildly out of step with overall US statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics survey showed that in contrast to the Pentagon’s 6 percent, only “one-fourth of a percent of women ages 18 to 34 had suffered such abuse in 2010. Preliminary numbers for 2012 show a rate of just over four-tenths of a percent.”

The difference in the numbers reflects methodology. The Pentagon survey, so beloved by sexual harassment axe grinders, used email for results. The Bureau survey used 146,570 in–person interviews and follow–up telephone sessions. In–person and telephone interviews are the gold standard of survey research. By comparison if cheap email surveys were accurate, politicians would use them in their campaigns, but they don’t.

The Pentagon survey even manages to have a larger total of victims than the total of completed surveys. One item that was particularly interesting is the 14,000 men that claimed they were victims of sexual assault, which means some men were evidently telling in spite of official policy not to ask.

Of course inaccurate results are no obstacle for leftist social engineers if the numbers can be used to advance an agenda. The Obama administration likes to depict our fighting arms as havens for macho cavemen that need to be curbed. One gets the feeling they are shocked the military, of all places, attracts men with a high testosterone count.

The Soviet Red Army had political commissars assigned to every unit, maybe the Pentagon plans on assigning sexual commissars to tell soldiers how much fraternizing is allowed with your battle buddy. I’m thinking commissars will prove invaluable during those unfortunate times when females are captured by the enemy and the captors are agonizing over the knotty moral question of whether a simple rape or the more inclusive gang rape is allowed.

Leftist social engineers never account for reality in their planning. The enemies we are most likely to face don’t have women in combat slots and they aren’t making the barracks safe for lavender. The fact that no successful military in history has put women in combat has escaped Pentagon HR planners completely. Brunhilde, and Ripley for that matter, were only a myth.

When conflict occurs armies aren’t matched according to brackets or seeds. If that were the case we could volunteer to fight the Isle of Lesbos and leave it at that. The obvious solution for sexual assault in the military is fewer females in close proximity to males or at least a more accurate survey, but with this administration neither is likely to happen.

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Michael R Shannon

Michael R. Shannon is a speaker and political commentator who has entertained audiences on four continents and a handful of islands. His dynamic, laugh–out–loud commentary on current events, politics, and culture has connected with audiences in a wide variety of settings including corporate meetings, association conferences, Christian fellowship, political gatherings, university seminars and award dinners. He is the author of "A Conservative Christian's Guidebook for Living in Secular Times (Now with Added Humor!)" available at: https://tinyurl.com/lcqs87c

Related Articles


  1. Politics and political correctness has taken over our military. The left has been playing social engineering with the military system for years and the results have been devastating. The idea of total victory and unconditional surrender have given away to the philosophy of winning the hearts and minds of the enemy. Telling our enemies that we are weak and lack the intestinal fortitude it takes to win. Is the feminization of our military really that big of a surprise when you look at our federal government today.”We the People” have elected the largest bunch of cowards and traitors in history, to run the greatest country on earth and look at all the damage they are doing. The Republic is gone, and we have the worst form of government since King George.

  2. You’re right, WOMEN DO NOT BELONG IN COMBAT for a myriad of reasons. However, in no way should this preclude their contributions in logistics, engineering,& other strategic areas to include helo & fighter pilots.
    “Shopping carts of shoes”?? Really now,…don’t you think this is just a tad bit chauvinistic?? Not all women are Barbies. And frankly, I was taken back by your implication & reference that our women (or those in other counties) in uniform are “Lesbos”, They are mothers, wives, daughter & Patriots.

    I DO AGREE that the lowering of standards is a very poor choice. It’s happening in our schools as well. It definitely lowers the quality as well and places us all in harms way. For those that may not have notices, man & women are different and never ‘equal’ in all…guess God had a different plan than man..& do believe His is the best…just as reasons for seasons, there’s a reason for differences and lower standards won’t change it. That just WEAKENS us.

    During Viet Nam when deployment was 18 mos or 2 yrs, as a military wife with 3 children “I learned” to change tire, repair leaky faucets, replace broken pipes & change the oil regularly in our car…& crawl up on the roof to replace pads in a swamp cooler…This was a NECESSITY…not choice. I’d love to fill my cart with shes, but our men just don’t get paid enough….

  3. Jan,

    I think you are confusing satire with serious argument, although I have seen shopping carts in some remarkable places. Pilots are often captured – see McCain, John – would you want women in the Hanoi Hilton?

    Same with Lesbos. It’s an actual island and in ancient times its military was said to be composed solely of women. Myth of course, just like putting women in front line today.

    1. Hmmm..perhaps, Michael, you are right. I’ve been a ‘fan’ of your for sometime now & follow your writing on this & other sites. I read the post again, and now that you’ve pointed out that it was meant as satire I do see where it might be. And while I was already aware about the Isle of Lesbos, the combination of that & the shopping cart still appear (to Me) rather demeaning & flippant when inserted in a serious article on a serious subject..We DO AGREE on the fact that lower standards lowers quality. Just ‘throwing hordes of bodies’ at an enemy only gets someone else that qualified killed. Our Military & their families that has & continues t0 give so much seem to be under attack from their own administration with the constant dismantling and de-moralizing ‘new’ standards of ‘take a knife to a gun fight’

      For the record: I don’t like to see the policemen partnered with females either…and I still really really really like reading your articles..always informative & thought provoking.

        1. Aha shucks, Michael…you don’t offend me, If you had, I wouldn’t bother to answer. If we don’t always see eye to eye….well that doesn’t stop either of us from being extremely intelligent… :)..and it’s the discussions that educate & entertain.

    1. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get the video to play, but I can only imagine what happened.

Back to top button