Pete Hedgseth for Secretary of Defense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how he can lead the military when he doesn’t think women belong in it.

When did he say, "women don't belong in the military"? Please provide a citation.

He said, “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.”
https://apnews.com/article/pete-hegseth-background-defense-secretary-confirmation-hearing-e160e10c86385a8beff110d9190fb34e

He also said this:

“I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated,” he said in a podcast hosted by Shawn Ryan on Nov. 7.

Women have a place in the military, he said, just not in special operations, artillery, infantry and armor units.

In his book, he said women have performed well in dangerous support roles during war, but “women in the infantry — women in combat on purpose — is another story.” He adds, “women cannot physically meet the same standards as men.”

Asked about the issue on the “Megyn Kelly Show” in early December, Hegseth said he cares only that military standards are maintained. Women serve in combat, he said, and, “if we have the right standard and women meet that standard, roger. Let’s go.”

Questioned aggressively about his stance on women in combat by senators Tuesday, Hegseth said he supports women in the military but wants to review military standards to make sure they are not lowered to accommodate women.

He's absolutely correct about this. His objection is to women in COMBAT roles.

+1

My 21 yo daughter is taller and stronger than my wonderful father who served in combat in WWII—and was only 5’3” and very scrawny.

PS. The ban on women in combat in the U.S. was removed in 2013.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how he can lead the military when he doesn’t think women belong in it.

When did he say, "women don't belong in the military"? Please provide a citation.

He said, “Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.”
https://apnews.com/article/pete-hegseth-background-defense-secretary-confirmation-hearing-e160e10c86385a8beff110d9190fb34e

He also said this:

“I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated,” he said in a podcast hosted by Shawn Ryan on Nov. 7.

Women have a place in the military, he said, just not in special operations, artillery, infantry and armor units.

In his book, he said women have performed well in dangerous support roles during war, but “women in the infantry — women in combat on purpose — is another story.” He adds, “women cannot physically meet the same standards as men.”

Asked about the issue on the “Megyn Kelly Show” in early December, Hegseth said he cares only that military standards are maintained. Women serve in combat, he said, and, “if we have the right standard and women meet that standard, roger. Let’s go.”

Questioned aggressively about his stance on women in combat by senators Tuesday, Hegseth said he supports women in the military but wants to review military standards to make sure they are not lowered to accommodate women.

He's absolutely correct about this. His objection is to women in COMBAT roles.

+1

What irritates me about Hegseth and the right is that his argument regarding female soldiers is that he “just wants to be sure women meet the same standard”. However he wants to lead an organization in which extramarital affairs violate military law and excessive drinking particularly on the job would also result in consequences. Without even considering whether someone with his experience would be considered qualified for a position anywhere near sec of defense, he’s saying the bar should be lowered for him. I wish we could hear more thoughts from those he will command. Having children and family members who serve is stressful in normal times, I can’t imagine the worry associated with a commander lacking substantive geo-political knowledge much less actual military experience in leading and organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how he can lead the military when he doesn’t think women belong in it.

The crazy thing is that every man who votes for him has to answer to his wife or daughter or niece. How are women not enraged by this?

Do you think women could have withstood the conditions and torture sessions of a Hanoi prison for 8 years like some of those poor guys endured?

Do you really not know that there were some women who were prisons of war. Do some research before posting asinine and offensive nonsense. Start with Eleanore Arden Vietti.

Of course, you can find a few women who were POWS and survived or died in captivity. I don't think most female war fighters could withstand year after year the physical tortures dreamed up by their captors.

Not one of the PP in this conversations but I think it’s crazy that folks think women can’t endure. Right now in the world are women enduring, mutilation, burning of villages, domestic violence, etc. Throughout history they been burned at the stake, been beat, berated, rape, faced chemical acid attacks, etc. They have and continue to endure everything thrown at them while still managing to build coalitions to fight for humanity, build up community, and teach the young.

Women enduring isn’t and never has been a problem. It’s the fact that they do so and still move forward that scares so many.

PP here. I don't disagree that women have endured all kinds of abuse.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

The idea of sending the rare unicorn of a woman into combat units has never bothered me but it does seem like a spectacular waste of resources given the vast majority have no chance at handling it physically long term, even if they can squeak by the initial PT tests or early training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea of sending the rare unicorn of a woman into combat units has never bothered me but it does seem like a spectacular waste of resources given the vast majority have no chance at handling it physically long term, even if they can squeak by the initial PT tests or early training.

What resources? They administer the same tests to men. If some women also take them, and done portion pass, in what way us that a waste of resources? They are just performing the sabe screening they did before women were allowed to apply as after.

It's not as though scores of unqualified women apply, wasting everyone's time. Women are unlikely to apply for combat positions unless that are fairly certain they can pass the required tests, because they do not want to waste their own time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

😳

No patriotism or courage, whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So we've just learned that 14 members of the Armed Services Committee are incompetent.

[Anonymous]

Gillibrand claimed there were no "quotas."

Did she see this memo?


https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2022SAF/Officer_Source_of_Commission_Applicant_Pool_Goals_memo.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gillibrand claimed there were no "quotas."

Did she see this memo?


https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2022SAF/Officer_Source_of_Commission_Applicant_Pool_Goals_memo.pdf

Those are GOALS for the "applicant pool" - not final quotas. Please learn how to read and think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You send us the "abuser of women" for our secretary of defense, armed services committee? You should all find another job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The idea of sending the rare unicorn of a woman into combat units has never bothered me but it does seem like a spectacular waste of resources given the vast majority have no chance at handling it physically long term, even if they can squeak by the initial PT tests or early training.

Plus rates for injury are much higher. Lots of back, neck and skeletal injuries due to the physical stress over time. Women’s bodies aren’t made to withstand the kind of physical weight labor combat units have to endure for several months/years at a time. Bones are less dense, upper body frame is proportionally much smaller, less muscle mass to support their frame..It’s a huge waste of resources and just asking to pay out a lot of disability

[Anonymous]

How about if you include committing sexual harassment and assault against your co-workers. Which gender fares better by that metric?

[Anonymous]

A new affidavit has just been submitted against Hegseth, for threatening or abusing his former spouse. That goes neatly with toxic masculinity , susbstance abuse and misogyny.

So much for his rehearsed response of “anonymous smears” (which is very different than saying you did not do what you witnesses claim they saw).

The woman who came forward is much more courageous than Republican members of the Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You send us the "abuser of women" for our secretary of defense, armed services committee? You should all find another job.

You send us someone totally incompetent! But Dems screwed up the hearing. They focused on moral issues and didn’t grill Hegseth on competency: how will he address threats from China, how will the military address cyber attacks, use AI? Etc. They could have AT LEAST forced Rs into an uncomfortable position.

No one cares that a nominee is a drunk or sexual abuser. Yeh, I know some care but we as a society are so passed caring… if we did, Trump wouldn’t be president.