Feminists Finally Admit Women Don’t Belong In Combat


By R. Cort Kirkwood

A top flight pro golf caddy recently published this interesting piece in Golf Digest: Veteran looper explains the practical differences between men and women in pro golf. Upshot: Men hit the ball farther and generate greater club speed, and so play the game differently.

Meanwhile, in the weeks before that piece appeared, feminists exploded in fury that a “transgender woman” — a mentally-ill man who thinks he is a woman — landed a spot on New Zealand’s Olympic weightlifting team. They said permitting such a person to compete against real women, surgery and hormone treatment regardless, is unfair. Men are stronger and can lift more weight. Feminists also complain about “transgender women” who now dominate women’s track events.

So the caddy and feminists tacitly agree with those of us who, for years, have said women should not be assigned to combat units in the armed forces because women are weaker and slower than men. Yet the tacit admission that women are the weaker sex didn’t stop leftists and feminist on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee from adopting a measure to draft women into the military. 

The feminists and their anorchic colleagues are determined to get your daughter killed, and if you have a son in the combat arms, his death will do just fine to appease the goddesses of Enlightened Thinking.


Golf Data, Transgender Women

What the caddy told us about the difference between men and women who play golf professionally is hardly news. Men generate far greater club head speed, which in turn puts more spin on the ball and stops it on the green. Women don’t get as much spin and compensate by hitting approach shots differently. And of course, men hit the bill farther. The difference in distance off the tee is remarkable, about 31 yards for the longest hitters on the two tours. PGA players consistently outdrive LPGA players by about 40 yards. The top LPGA player drives the ball only as far as PGA pros way down the distance list at about No. 150 of 200 listed players.

As for playing with men, two of the top women golfers of the last 30 years, Michelle Wie and Anika Sorenstam would, we were told, show the men how to play the game. They failed miserably when they tried PGA tour events. Neither made the cut to play the weekend in a PGA-sanctioned event. 

The average course length for a PGA tour event is 7,200 yards. Average for the LPGA: 6,200-6,600. The latter is the average length that a retired, arthritic, 70-year-old duffer plays on Sunday after church and a two-Bloody-Mary brunch.

Point is, women don’t play with men for a reason.

Despite the feminist propaganda we have endured for 50 years, particularly after Bobby Riggs threw his match against women’s tennis champ Billie Jean King, we now hear from some strong real women that permitting “transgender women” — again, a man who pretends he is a woman — to compete in women’s events is “unfair.”

Feminists howled when New Zealand put a man on the women’s weightlifting team. He didn’t medal in the event, but he made it to Tokyo by knocking out a woman contender. His failure might well have been due to this age. The big oaf who calls himself “Laurel” is 43 years old.

Two years ago, when tennis champ Martina Navratilova complained that “transgender women” in women’s sports is “unfair,” an “LGBTQ” sports group booted her off its board. Navratilova, as her Twitter feed shows, is no right-winger. Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional acorn, but Navratilova’s view isn’t just a matter of common sense breaking through ideology. She knows first-hand why “transgender women” should not compete in women’s sports. When she played Wimbledon and U.S. Open champ Jimmy Connors in 1992, he crushed her. The rules restricted Connors’ serves and permitted Navritilova to hit into half of the doubles alleys. That doesn’t change when men take women’s hormones and “transition.”

For the record, women don’t play any serious professional sport with men. If they can’t compete in the PGA, they certainly can’t compete in the MLB, NHL, NBA, or NFL. We can ignore the woman amateur champ who recently bested a man in a senior amateur event. She played at her home course, and she beat a fellow you’ve never heard of. It means nothing.

Women don’t even play professional pocket billiards against men.

Women In Combat

Now, consider what feminists so upset about “transgender women” are implicitly confessing: Women are not little men; men are not big women. By opposing “transgender women” in women’s sports, they are admitting that a woman can’t do anything a man can do, even when the man hired a butcher to chop off his cojones, and after witch doctors crippled him with hormone “therapy.” Even “transgender women” overpower real women.

That truth goes to what Marine Capt. Katie Petronio wrote almost a decade ago about women in combat [Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal, July 5 2012, Marine Corps Gazette].

A college hockey standout who scored 292 of 300 on her Marine Corps fitness test, Petronio offered the unvarnished truth about what women can do … and what they can’t. “Five years later,” she wrote after her time in a combat zone, “I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry.”

Long, grueling deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan wrecked her health:

[D]ue to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. …

The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

By the fifth month into [Afghanistan] deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions.

Petronio lost 17 pounds and her fertility. “There is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside,” she concluded. Petronio worried that her career would not end with retirement, but with a medical discharge.

And by the way, women Marines, she wrote, are not clamoring for combat assignments.

The Obvious

Here’s how the professional golf data on driving distance relate to assigning women to combat units. Recall that the women who are longest off the tee hit it only as far as the men in the bottom quarter of their tour. That difference comports with what the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services, for which I served as media liaison, learned in 1992: The most physically fit, strongest women perform at the level of least physically fit, weakest men.

An ROTC physical fitness test back then showed that only 3.4 percent of women met the mean score of men, and only 7 percent could meet the pushup score that 78 percent of men surpassed. Those differences are important because the women who perform at the mean for men are performing at maximum and cannot improve. Men who meet the mean score can easily improve. In other words, recruiting women for combat is purposely recruiting weak men. Another fact: A 20- to 30-year-old woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year old man. So as lung power goes, recruiting a woman is tantamount to recruiting a man nearing retirement. Those differences haven’t changed since 1992. In 2016, six of seven women failed the Marine Corps Combat Fitness Test. In 2019, the Army Times reported that 84 percent failed the Army Combat Fitness Test.

Yet the military continues to push women into combat units, and the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, again, wants to draft women. Those of us who opposed assigning women to combat units when the ridiculous debate began earnestly almost 30 years ago warned about this development; i.e., if women are assigned to combat units, they will be drafted. The reason: The law exempted women from the draft because they don’t fight.

Now that leftists and feminists have nagged and hectored weak politicians and the bemedaled bureaucrats in the Pentagon to put women in combat, they must be subject to the draft.

When women are drafted and sent to fight, they will die unnecessarily. National security does not require women in combat. But men will die too, because women aren’t cut out for war-fighting, just as they aren’t cut out even for the PGA tour, NBA, or NFL. If they can’t play golf or football with men, surely they can’t fight to the death against them.

So on the one hand, the infinitesimal cohort of feminists who haven’t lost all their marbles admit the truth: Women are weaker than men. On the other, feminists in Congress, as the Chiffon advertisement said, think they can fool Mother Nature.

The feminists who have pushed this agenda for nearly half a century won’t be drafted. They don’t care if your daughter is drafted or killed. Most women draftees can’t and won’t join a combat unit because they lack the ability and strength to fight. But some will, either because they volunteer or because their superiors mandate it for fear of inviting the wrath of the broom-riding harpies on Capitol Hill. It’s worth observing that military commanders, not draftees, decide where draftees serve. That means your daughter might wind up in or close to combat after she is drafted even if she doesn’t want to be there.

Or you can thinking about this way: Your son might be killed because a “transgender woman” in the Pentagon put a 100-pound girl in pigtails in his unit.

The feminists don’t care about that either. Because equality.

When your son or daughter returns home in a body bag because of it, you’ll know who to blame.

About the author

R. Cort Kirkwood

Add comment

By R. Cort Kirkwood

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com