Women in combat, another irreconcilable philosophical difference between conservatism and libism?

Politics
1

I know there’s a thread with the Senate hearing regarding Pete Hegseth, but I wanted to discuss this issue separately after hearing a particular exchange, which I’ll provide this link:

First off, it must always be noted that libs can’t even define a woman so one can never be to sure what they are talking about. Nonetheless, does this issue also represent one of the many areas of irreconcilable philosophical differences between conservatism and libism? I’m sure we all accept the LEGAL reality that women can serve in combat. Be that as it may I’m certain most conservatives are not in favor of it for various reasons which can be discussed in this thread. This comment by Kirsten Gillibrand though I think really distinguishes the two sides:

What’s wrong with a mom, by the way? Once you have babies, you, therefore, are no longer able to be lethal. I mean, you’re basically saying women, after they have children, can’t ever serve in the military in a combat role.

So if one were to draw a line is it wrong to draw the line at not wanting mom’s being sent off to combat? As I think about it further, what kind of mother would actually leave her baby to go off to combat? It just seems like a bizarre type of world that libism has become.

1 Like
2

I see it as a female’s ability to meet the minimum standards. The standards shouldn’t be lowered to accommodate females.

There are some really tough females out there who could challenge an average male and likely beat the crap out of him. Those females would easily meet and exceed even the toughest male standards. I see no reason to deny them a combat role if they so choose.

1 Like
3

Why would dads leave their babies? Guess they shouldn’t go? What kind of dad would leave their babies?

4

I don’t see a problem with it if there is a stay at home dad raising the child/children.

However, being a mom, I can say the last thing I’d ever want to be is separated from my child. Mom’s play a crucial role in early development.

I’d be heartbroken not to hear the first word, see the first steps. All of the firsts that are imbedded as heartwarming memories etched into the eternity of my mind.

I’m not sure if men have the same level of emotion attached to these things?

Hegseth’s issue isn’t with women, it is with the lowered standards set to accommodate women. We’ve seen first hand how transgenders in women’s sports show the differences. Military readiness is of utmost importance. Compromising can put both women and men in danger.

1 Like
5

But before his confirmation he literally said women shouldn’t be in combat roles. That’s the disconnect.

6

And guess what, even in WW2 married men with children were not drafted. So we as a society even then did want to avoid that as well.

7

That’s what Hegseth seemed to be arguing although apparently in his book (which I have not read) he was opposed to women in combat roles. Clearly on can come up with valid reasons like a woman being captured, then repeatedly raped by the enemy, etc.

8

Unless they can pass the same standards as men can without the standards being watered down, I agree with him. I feel the same about men who can’t pass the standards. They have no business being on the battlefield.

1 Like
9

But that’s not what he said before confirmation hearings. It was straight up, women should not be in combat roles.

10

There are a lot of reasons that I can agree with that they shouldn’t be. :woman_shrugging:

11

It has been this way for thousands of years. Even ancient scripture considers a mother abandoning her child as an example of extreme abandonment.

3 Likes
12

Married men were exempt from the draft initially, but were eventually drafted in late 1943.

2 Likes
13

But that’s literally what he said. Women should not be in combat roles. He’s backstepping in his confirmation hearings. Which is not unusual. Happens all the time. I honestly don’t care about this. He won’t be able to change policy in this respect. My actual concern is his ability to manage a 3 million person organization just because Trump liked what he said on Saturday mornings on Fox. That’s my concern. That senate hearing was worthless. I don’t give a good god damn about his kids or if he says “Jesus Christ” or if he ■■■■■■ around with women when he was married. I DO NOT GIVE A ■■■■ ABOUT THAT!!! That senate hearing was a disgrace on both sides. I want to know how he feels about Ukraine, allies in Asia, our future fighter development, how he sees drones in our military, the IndoPacific pivot, our relations with the Phillipines(a fragile one), where we see possible military intervention…these are things I care about. Unfortunately…I feel like he’s just a guy on TV that Trump liked because he said nice things about him. I hope I’m wrong.

14

Yup. They tried to keep fathers out of the dangers of war. But tough times dictated violating that effort.

3 Likes
15

This all day. Add to that, if you’re surpassed by a man, don’t get your panties in a wad. If a man outperforms another man, no one blinks an eye at who should get the position.

2 Likes
16

But our probably new Secretary of Defense made it pretty clear(before walking back things in senate hearings) that no women should be in combat roles. That’s what he literally said.

17

Could have been worse. The Soviets were drafting anyone who could hold a rifle.

“Oh you have heart problems? Hold this rifle. Ok you can hold it, good enough.”

18

Yet just about every third post in this thread is you saying:

Not sure what you’re looking for here.

2 Likes
19

I’m looking for an honest Secretary of Defense. It’s not gonna happen though. I wish people would just be honest. He’s a guy Trump liked watching on Fox and Friends. And that’s why he’s going to be Secretary of Defense. And that’s pretty sad. I mean seriously…you all understand that right? Trump watched TV and this guy said good things about him. And now he will be Secretary of Defense. You all get that right?

20

Tell ya what, start with your side first.

2 Likes