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

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. And.

63 comments on this post.
  1. bill:

    “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. Dan:

  3. Dan:

    Er lets try again–

    http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/98/2012/08/27/117595_600.jpg

  4. Warren Terra:

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

  5. DocAmazing:

    Kristol manages to be wrong even about events that are already well in the past. How does he do it?

  6. JMP:

    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!

  7. bph:

    It was actually giraffes. The whole set of quotes are hysterical as they offend everyone.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/19/us/gingrich-s-piggies-poked.html

  8. herr doktor bimler:

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

  9. Sly:

    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.

  10. SV:

    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.”

  11. commie atheist:

    The fucking Panama fucking Canal fucking Treaty? That was Reagan’s “moment of opportunity” to show what big-balls leader he was? Seriously?

    Christ, what an asshole.

  12. Tom Renbarger:

    A man, a plan, a canal–Reagan!

  13. c u n d gulag:

    His expertise was in avoiding military service – which was smart, because I think even the Doctor, after checking him to see if he was physically fit for service, would have “fragged” him, saving some poor battle-weary grunt the trouble.

  14. N__B:

    He has masturbated to the battle scenes in every Star Wars movie.

  15. BethR52:

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

  16. TT:

    There are conservative performance artists. And then there is Newton Leroy Gingrich.

  17. Mac:

    “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.

  18. Manju:

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

  19. bradP:

    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.

  20. Manju:

    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.

  21. c u n d gulag:

    +1

  22. The Dark Avenger:

    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?”

  23. Chris Campbell:

    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.

  24. adolphus:

    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.”

  25. rea:

    I believe the term for which you are searching is “legitimate rape”

  26. rea:

    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 . . .

  27. Woodrowfan:

    even the ones with Jar-Jar Binks? eww, wayyy too kinky…

  28. N__B:

    Me-sah…me-sah…me-saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

  29. Major Kong:

    Wait, aren’t the Chinese supposed to have missiles based in the Panama Canal Zone by now?

    That was the cause of much conservative bed wetting pre-9/11.

  30. olexicon:

    Ah the internal contradictions of Conservative dogma

  31. Slocum:

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

  32. Kurzleg:

    Yeah, mine too. Big issue is perceived (and perhaps actual) double standards in physical fitness requirements. Not so worried about the nonsense that National Review and others are chattering about.

  33. Uncle Kvetch:

    Harrumph.

  34. c u n d gulag:

    The American inmates body has a way of shutting down, in the case of legitimate prison rape.

  35. DrDick:

    He has the unique talent of always being wrong abot everything.

  36. DrDick:

    Gingrich is his own conservative art form.

  37. jack:

    NSFW

    Movie night at The Weekly Standard

  38. Brandon:

    There are lower standards for women, but I think I read that the standards for combat roles will be uniform.

  39. CashandCable:

    Don’t forget this amazing effort from some Bush 41-era DUSD: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/24/the-blood-smeared-glass-ceilin

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

  40. Leeds man:

    Was the same fuss made about women police officers?

  41. CashandCable:

    Yes.

    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.

  42. joe from Lowell:

    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.

  43. Bill:

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

  44. Origami Isopod:

    I saw enough cross-sections of Reagan’s canal on TV in the early ’80s, kthx.

  45. Adam Bradley:

    You’re forgetting that God told Jeanne d’Arc what to do. And He does have a penis.

  46. herr doktor bimler:

    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?

  47. Njorl:

    Maybe we should only let Jewish women fight?

  48. Linnaeus:

    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.

  49. BobS:

    Now probably isn’t a good time to tell them about the relatively restrictive gun laws in Israel.

  50. STH:

    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.

  51. John Protevi:

    We can be sure it will be a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

  52. DrDick:

    The Neocons have never gotten over the fact that the canal was returned to Panama.

  53. Tehanu:

    N_B, a shiny new Internet for you!

  54. Suffern ACE:

    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?

  55. Jewish Steel:

    Take my wife. Please.

    hiyo!

  56. Anna in PDX:

    Nice.

  57. Dave:

    And, we burned her.

  58. Dave:

    Well, actually, Sweden is one of the very few countries in the world never to have its [current] territory invaded in modern history. But that is merely a factual addendum, and irrelevant to the discussion.

  59. Emma in Sydney:

    Well that was due to a little matter of collaborating with the Nazi invasion of Norway. It isn’t an invasion when you let them use your railways. Can I suggest you don’t use that one of argument on a Norwegian ?

  60. Emma in Sydney:

    * line of argument

  61. herr doktor bimler:

    I believe that the Swedish experience of not being invaded is central to my point.

  62. herr doktor bimler:

    Ah, that 1986 breakthrough in medical science when surgeons found the one part of Reagan’s body that was not malignant, and successfully removed it.
    [/Waugh]

  63. HTTP://arduino.org/:

    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 comment