To follow up on the three-part analysis of women in combat and the problems the change in policy will create for our armed forces, I found this absurd commentary by a US Colonel:
An Army officer writing in a prestigious journal says the services should not overemphasize physical strength when deciding whether a woman qualifies for direct ground combat.
Col. Ellen Haring, on the staff of the U.S. Army War College, says commanders need to downplay obstacle courses and judge a service member’s ability to stay calm and think quickly.
“Perhaps it is time to take a hard look at what really makes a competent combat soldier and not rely on traditional notions of masculine brawn that celebrate strength over other qualities,” Col. Haring says in the current issue of Armed Forces Journal.
In focusing only on physical strength in violent situations, she said: “We diminish the importance of what are probably more important traits in soldiers: the ability to remain calm, focused, creative and quick-thinking in times of extreme duress. These are the traits that we should be measuring as we assess soldiers for combat specialties. Physical strength is important, but it shouldn’t be the most important trait that we assess, and it certainly shouldn’t become a way to filter out the Audie Murphys of our population.”
We'll leave aside the vile comment about the size of the Vietnamese race and concentrate on Audie Murphy, who used all of his 5'5" frame to the greatest physical prowess possible:
As part of Operation Torch on November 8, 1942, the United States seized Port Lyautey in French Morocco. The 3rd Infantry Division was sent to this Port Lyautey on March 7, 1943, coming under the command of Major General Lucian Truscott, who took them through rigorous training at Arzew, Algeria, for an amphibious landing at Sicily. Private Murphy participated with his division in 30 mile (48 km) 8-hour marches, known as the "Truscott Trot". For the first hour, the men marched at a pace of 5 mph (8.0 km/h), and slowed to 4 mph (6.4 km/h) for the second hour, taking the final 21 miles (34 km) at a pace of 3.5 mph (5.6 km/h). They also performed bayonet and land mine drills, obstacle course training and other exercises.
Having taken part in numerous campaigns, Murphy had persevered amidst hardship and danger, winning the admiration of his men, which led to the next phase of his military career:
From its peak of 235 men, disease, injuries and casualties had reduced Company B's fighting strength to 18 men. Murphy being the only officer remaining on January 26 was made the company commander. The company awaited reinforcements as Murphy watched the approaching Germans, "I see the Germans lining up for an attack. Six tanks rumble to the outskirts of Holtzwihr, split into groups of threes, and fan out toward either side of the clearing. Then wave after wave of white dots, barely discernible against the background of snow, start across the field. They are enemy infantrymen..." Other eyewitness accounts also attest to the counterattack consisting of artillery fire, six Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf.E tanks pulling 88 mm anti-tank artillery guns and hundreds of foot soldiers. The Germans made a direct hit into a M10 tank destroyer, setting it on fire and causing its crew to abandon it. Murphy ordered his men to retreat to positions in the woods. He remained at his post alone shooting his M1 carbine and relaying orders with his telephone, all the while the Germans aimed fire directly at his position. Murphy mounted the abandoned, burning tank destroyer and began firing its .50 caliber machine gun at the advancing Germans, killing a squad crawling through a ditch towards him.
It was like standing on top of a time bomb ... he was standing on the TD chassis, exposed to enemy fire from his ankles to his head and silhouetted against the trees and the snow behind him.—Eyewitness account of Pvt. Anthony V. AbramskiFor an hour, Murphy stood on the tank returning German fire from foot soldiers and advancing tanks, during which he sustained a leg wound. He stopped only after he ran out of ammunition.
As if under the influence of some drug, I slide off the tank destroyer and, without once looking back, walk down the road through the forest. If the Germans want to shoot me, let them. I am too weak from fear and exhaustion to care.—Audie Murphy, To Hell and BackHe rejoined his men with complete disregard for his own wound, leading them back to successfully repel the Germans. Only afterwards would he allow treatment of his leg wound, and still insisted on remaining with his men.
...during his indomitable one-man struggle, Lieutenant Murphy broke the entire attack of the Germans and held hard-won ground that it would have been disastrous to lose.—Eyewitness account of Sergeant Elmer C. Brawley
Colonel Haring might suggest that a female soldier could command troops by means of sheer intellect and tactical calm, but that's not the way that wars are fought. And the troops wouldn't follow such a leader into battle--not a leader who couldn't carry her weight or keep up with them as they slogged from battle to battle.
Unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult for career officers to call this feminist bluff--either to speak plainly about homosexual troops or women being attached to their numbers who have benefited by lesser standards. And the fact that this unserious opinion was published in a serious journal shows how far we've gone along the path of farce.
Comments
“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.