Subscribe via RSS Feed

“No, I don’t know why women are fleeing the Republican Party in droves.”

[ 63 ] January 25, 2013 |

Shorter Bill Kritsol: “Biology proves that the IDF is a hopelessly deficient combat force, what with all those unfit women and all. You’d have to be a grade-A moron to think that women are capable of serving in combat roles. Ask this scientician. In conclusion, gender equality is contrary to common sense, decency, and honor.”

…also, this.


Comments (63)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. bill says:

    “This is therefore a moment of opportunity. The political leader who takes on this fight will be mocked and scorned–almost as much as was Ronald Reagan in 1977, when he challenged the bipartisan elite consensus on the Panama Canal Treaty. As it happens, I suspect this fight will prove more winnable in Congress than the fight against the Panama Canal Treaty.”

    Reagan was truly a man of infinite foresight- just look at the multitude of disasters that have followed the handoff.

  2. Warren Terra says:

    Lacks the vivid imagery of Gingrich’s 90s bloviation on the same topic, which as I recall involved infections, trenches, and gazelles.

  3. JMP says:

    The IDF, with female soldiers, are good fighters? Please; next you’ll be claiming that the French ended up winning the Hundred Years War thanks to the intervention of a woman warrior whose military leadership turned the tide against the English. Silly ladies can’t fight, they don’t have penises!

  4. herr doktor bimler says:

    Tell me more of Bill Kristol’s expertise about military service.

  5. Sly says:

    Also, more: “We can’t let women (officially) serve in combat roles because macho men just can’t handle it” in 3… 2… 1… Liftoff.

    • Bill says:

      Well at least we won’t have to worry about any increase in sexual assaults–only “sexual assaults.”

    • Linnaeus says:

      From the linked article:

      “Chivalry is one of the great civilizing forces, taming men and introducing social graces and nuance to what would otherwise be a brutish social world.”

      I can’t think of any feminists, at least not any who participate in mainstream discourse, who claim that men need to be “tamed”. Yet it’s feminists who “hate men”. Right.

      • STH says:

        The right wing needs the whole “taming” thing because it helps them along with the “blaming the victim” thing. You know, if women are going to wear short skirts, those barely-tamed men are going to lose sight of the “civilizing forces” and rape them. Built-in excuse for all sorts of shit.

  6. SV says:

    Shorter Jessie Jane Duff: “You girls know soldiering is, like, hard, right? Also, men’s sexism and rapeyness means that the presence of your vaginas will interfere with them killing people. Trust me, I’ve been doing it for years.”

  7. BethR52 says:

    Where have the forces of gender correctness been all my life?

  8. Mac says:

    “Israel is to be supported without question at all times, until something progressive they do that I dont agree with begins to be used as an example for the US.”

    My conservative veteran friends are losing their minds right now on FB – end of the infantry, we’re the best what will this do?, etc.

  9. Manju says:

    Well, if we put the women in harness, what are we going to do with all the binders?

  10. bradP says:

    Shouldn’t the argument that bans on women in combat roles prevents incompetent soldiers from making it to the battlefield be really, really insulting to present combat soldiers.

  11. Manju says:

    When Obama let the gays fight, I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a gay. Then he let the women in, and I didn’t speak because I was not a woman. By the time he asked me to serve, there was no room left in the Texas National Guard.

  12. The Dark Avenger says:

    Here’s a comment I found at NRO and my response:

    “Wow. Who knew the Israeli Army has been so wrong for so long.”

    “What else did you expect from a country that lacks Christian values?”

  13. Chris Campbell says:

    Criticizes President and Panetta for making a public policy decision without evidence. Says it’s a bad idea and “won’t someone think of the wimmenz” and step up to fight it. Offers absolutely no evidence of his own why this is a bad idea.

  14. adolphus says:

    Quoting David Frum in the Serwer article: ” In Iranian prisons, rape is a frequent practice.”

    Um, yeah. In Iranian prisons. All the prison rape is in Iranian prisons. I guess that stuff in US prisons isn’t “Rape Rape.”

  15. rea says:

    He has a point, though. We don’t know how this will work out. It’s not as if we’ve sent tens of thousands of women into combat over the last 25 years or so.

    Oh, wait . . .

  16. Slocum says:

    Ok, let’s compromise. No women in combat; no men in combat.

  17. CashandCable says:

    Don’t forget this amazing effort from some Bush 41-era DUSD:

    Did you know that the only thing holding our military together was a common ability to sign their names in the snow?

  18. Leeds man says:

    Was the same fuss made about women police officers?

    • CashandCable says:


      And when women tried to volunteer for support roles during WWII.

      And when women tried to preserve those role after WWII.

      And when women joined the service academies in the 1970’s.

      And when women became fighter pilots in the early 1990’s.

  19. No arguments are provided. But public policy arguments are supposed to be based on reality. The president has no interest in a debate about the biological, sociological, psychological or physiological realities of combat. So it will be up to the rest of us to make the arguments against this irresponsible act of liberal social experimentation.

    Oh please oh please oh please. By all means, proceed, governor.

    Take all the time you need to express your thoughts in as detailed a manner as possible.

  20. herr doktor bimler says:

    the biological, sociological, psychological or physiological realities of combat
    Anyone talking like this, you know straightaway that they have a history of pacifism for themselves.

    Those Scandiwegian countries that allow women in combat positions, only do so because they have no historical experience of invasion, right?

  21. Suffern ACE says:

    Really, Chivalry? I believe what we ask for is courtesy and dur the lack of courts, manners will do. Do soldiers really think they would be knights?

  22. HTTP:// says:

    Good day! I could have sworn I’ve been to this website before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it’s new to me.
    Anyways, I’m definitely happy I found it and I’ll be bookmarking and checking back frequently!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.