In comparison to the Marines I mentioned yesterday, when confronted by the terrorist Moussaoui at his trial, a female U.S. Navy luitenant was crying on the witness stand. The things she had seen and people she had lost had an impact on her. But this was used against her by the terrorist, and no doubt played to the enemy’s glee over and over on Terrorist TV.
Is this another reason for not having women in combat roles? I’m sure there are pretty tough women out there. I’m sure that there are some wimpy guys. But in this case, and I’m sure that in many cases, women tend to emotionally relate to things with tears, and men tend to relate by being tough, grieving in private, and internalizing things. This would have allowed for our nation to not look week in the face of terrorists.
They already mock our armed forces (when they aren’t hiding from them) for having women in leadership positions. We have to modify our codes of conduct in their presence, and have to put on a show for them. They insult and have less respect for our Secretary of State being a woman– and I’m not suggesting that we bow to them. What I am suggesting is that maybe, in the field of combat where guts and glory are what’s at stake and our purpose is to kill people and break things, we should keep the women out.
Keep them out because, on the whole, they aren’t as physically able to do what a man can do. Keep them out because they are not equipped to handle emotions the same way as men. Keep them out because of the aid and comfort it gives to the enemy and how much we hate to have our little girls returned to us maimed and wounded. (Not that we like our boys coming home that way either!)