Jessica’s lucky rescue: A soldier called her name and without answering she peeked out from under the sheets where she was hiding. "Jessica Lynch, we’re United States soldiers and we’re here to protect you and take you home." She replied, "I’m an American soldier, too." The response to her should have been, "No you’re not, you’re a young American girl lost on her quest for mythical equality."

Later, the fragile teenager’s reported statement to a doctor, "Please don’t let anyone leave me behind," sounded like a far cry from her recruiter Sgt. Grady’s promise that she’d "see the world."

Jessica’s father, like many men today, has been so intimidated by political correctness and its "identical roles for women" rhetoric, that he almost senselessly lost his daughter. In more sane times he would have been able to convince her that she wasn’t just a female facsimile of a man, and that physical, emotional, psychological and sexual orientation differences do matter in a combat zone. Our society is foolishly ignoring the reality of men’s and women’s different physiology and its practical purpose for both our personal and societal well-being.

Most people have been deceived by feminism’s equality popularization to the point of being in bio-denial. Training women for combat when there are enough able-bodied men makes about as much sense as preparing men for childbirth. As far as women like Jessica volunteering to serve in the military and combat zones for patriotic reasons, they would serve our country better if they were assigned more traditional female duties letting the more physically and emotionally suited male soldiers do their job. You don’t help your team when you’re a substandard player who insists on being included.

Putting it even more bluntly, an Afghani POW held in Guantanemo Bay said to an American female soldier who was guarding him, "You wouldn’t act so brave if you were on my side of the fence." [Poster] This WW I poster was from a more pragmatic time, when women supported and not hindered the war effort.

The physical disparity: The difference in average physical ability between men and women is easy to prove to any rational person. The armed services actually have different standards on their physical fitness tests. The U.S. Army fitness standards: 80 pushups for men vs. 56 for women, 87 sit-ups for men vs. 85 for women, and 12½ minutes for a two-mile run for men vs.15½ minutes for women.

Today the Marines maintain segregated, but supposedly equal, training for men and women. They insist that women Marines become as combat-capable as men. If this was true, why do they need to train separately in the first place? Even former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, a major proponent for women in combat, condemned the separate training of the Marines stating, "Separate is inherently unequal." Remember, in war there is no women-only competition. If the fighting becomes hand-to-hand combat, we can’t ask the enemy to pair off women like they do in the U.S. Army and Marine training camps.

While some women can regularly pass the tests and training, even in 2003 men still grow bigger, stronger and faster on average than women as evidenced by the separate protected categories we have for women in all sports and athletic competitions.

Naturally more emotional: The average woman would have a hard time dealing with the horrors of ground combat as proven by the recent study that after the Twin Towers attack, many more women sought therapy for emotional problems then did men. Additionally, the Arts & Entertainment special exposed many female recruits getting emotional merely because they had completed their training.

Crying Marines who haven’t even witnessed the horror and sadness of war are a huge insult to Marine history. Accordingly, women soldiers in an active combat zone would be only tolerated and never fully relied upon by the male soldiers. Even if the first reports about Jessica Lynch’s heroism were true, she only would have done what many men have done before in that situation. But it’s just like that old saying, "When a dog walks on its hind legs you’re so amazed it’s doing it, you don’t notice how poorly it actually is doing it."

Cultural misdirection: This could be sub-titled: "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." Women like Jessica are setting a very dangerous precedent. They are not acting in the best interests of most women by portraying a superficially tough appearance. They’re making it harder for women who aren’t or don’t wish to be considered that way. Most Americans consider women the gentler caregivers and nurturers of a society. Now that some women want to be seen capable of coldly killing on command, what will women’s image become when they’re not considered unique anymore? The bearers of life should not become the takers of life lest we all lose our maternal mooring.

Damsel in distress: Because Jessica was a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, pretty young girl, her rescue was easier to sell to those in charge, considering the good public relations. Conversely, if it was only a male POW, they wouldn’t have made such a quick and risky effort. After all, the last time they took such a chance to rescue soldiers held by the enemy was the rescue of 514 male POWs in WWII. You could then deduce that one Jessica Lynch is worth 514 male POWs.

Jessica naively put herself in peril and then reportedly said, "Maybe this minute the American Army will come and get me." Why wouldn’t she expect to be rescued? Don’t women rely on their husbands, brothers and sons to help them in time of trouble? Don’t women victims expect policemen or firemen to save them? Lets be honest--most of the time when a woman is in desperate need of physical help or a soldier needs military leadership, they both would have more confidence in masculinity than in mammary glands.

Remember all the fuss made over Capt. Linda Bray leading troops and capturing a dog kennel in the Panama invasion? As it turned out the reported battle was mostly untrue. Although there were shots fired, no enemy soldiers were killed, wounded or captured. Then, the sad story of Lt. Kara Hultgreen who was given priority over male aviators in the naval training program, only to have her crash and die while incorrectly trying to land her fighter jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.

And, although it was an unconfirmed story, the Washington Post still headlined Jessica Lynch’s heroic tale, "She was fighting to the death." The story of her fighting to the death which originated from an anonymous source has still not been totally disclosed by the military at this time. She was injured when her truck overturned, but a doctor who treated her said she was not shot or stabbed.

The rape issue: Susan Brownmiller, who wrote the feminist staple Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, said that "Women being raped in war was proof that all men consider rape a form of manhood, achievement or conquest." Wrong, Susan--women get raped in war for two basic reasons: the sexual personal satisfaction of men (bearing no consequences) and the political humiliation of the defeated country’s people.

Ultimately it’s mostly men who die, and mostly women who get raped in a war zone. In Jessica Lynch’s case, she should have a mandatory rape test performed by American doctors because it was common practice for women to be raped in Iraq for punitive reasons. How likely is it that Jessica, playing combat soldier, was spared being gang-raped by angry ravaged Iraqi soldiers after nine days in captivity? Maybe this is the reason there’s so much secrecy about her capture and condition. Additionally, the results of her rape test should be published because other women considering joining the military have a right to know exactly what risks would be expected of them.

Women don’t normally take sexual advantage of confined men, because, as stated by Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin in their book The Psychology of Sex Differences, man’s greater sexual aggressiveness is one of the best established and most pervasive of all psychological sex differences.

Legal aspects: I charge the United States military with violating federal law: The Violence Against Women Act, Title III, "Sexual Assault Prevention" section by negligently exposing women to the danger of being raped if captured. Unbelievably, the U.S. can be perceived as providing women as sex partners to our nation’s enemy soldiers! Also, by volunteering for combat support positions, Jessica Lynch and other female volunteers reveal their casual attitude about the possibility of being raped. In accord with them was Major Rhonda Cornum, the POW from the Gulf War who stated about being "violated manually, vaginally and rectally, that it should be considered no big deal. An occupational hazard of women going to war."

Additionally, feminist politicians who advocate for women in combat must consider women soldiers being raped by their captors "acceptable collateral damage," and therefore are guilty of reducing the cultural seriousness of rape. It makes you wonder if rape shield laws, which conceal a woman’s past sexual history in our courts, are really necessary anymore with these women’s flippant attitude.

Male POWs/female hostages: The folly of co-ed combat--where captured female soldiers can be held as hostages by the enemy, forcing American soldiers to change their battlefield tactics to rescue them--is irrational and dangerous. "Women as hostages" has long been a clever ploy by criminals, terrorists and now possibly enemy soldiers.

In the 9/11 hijackings, the terrorists gained access into the cockpits by abusing and cutting the throats of the female stewardesses. The pilots gave in rather than hear the women’s screams. All passengers and crew were lost because of this vulnerability. And yet our military is voluntarily sending women into these situations where American men, because of residual chivalry, will try unorthodox rescues, putting their unit in greater jeopardy.

An Air Force POW training program actually tried to address the problem of men overly protecting women by training male pilots to ignore the pain and suffering of female pilots as potential prisoners of war. Even Israel eventually removed women from combat roles because when numerous women were killed during a battle it sent too many Israeli citizens, especially family members, into shock.

Rush Limbaugh’s insulting remarks: Mr. Limbaugh states that women’s groups passed up praising Jessica Lynch’s reportedly heroic fighting story because of who she was: a West Virginia country girl. Wrong, Rush--The feminists didn’t praise her because her accidental capture, uncorroborated heroism story, and rescue by an all-male special ops team was nothing to brag about. All it shows is a woman not knowing where she was driving, possibly lying about how she was captured, and dependent on men or the government for her safety, as usual.

In response to Rush Limbaugh’s insults to men who dared question Jessica’s combat role as being members of "The Two-Inch Crowd," I refer him to his own book, The Way Things Ought to Be, page 200: "Frankly, I don’t believe that women should be in combat roles even if they can do the job." and, "I just don’t think that we have to subject women to the horrors and rigors of war."

Is Mr. Limbaugh a "Two-Inch Crowd" member himself, intimidated by tough women, or just a man expressing a very practical viewpoint as his callers tried to do? And because his callers showed more courage than him in voicing an unpopular opinion, I bet any one of them would be able to satisfy his woman better than he can.

Unfit for duty: When a male soldier is not ready for duty because of being too drunk, sunburned, or unprepared in another way, he can be given an Article 15 of court martial law as punishment. Yet women can voluntarily get pregnant, be excused from duty, sent back home, and given time off without penalty. The high pregnancy rate aboard Navy ships, female soldiers getting pregnant just before they’re deployed overseas, and the high pregnancy rate in Bosnia so female soldiers could go home makes their military readiness a real joke. Remember the USS Acadia, which was quickly dubbed "The Love Boat," during the Gulf War that had to deactivate because 25% of the women on board got pregnant?

"Woman as Warrior" myth: If women were serious about joining men in the violence of war, they should first relinquish their sanctuaries of segregated schools, health clubs, and sports categories. If women are tough enough for combat duty, why are all these battered women’s shelters, rape crisis shelters, and sexual harassment lectures necessary? Don’t all these protections prove a contradiction?

Bucking biology: Debilitating and unhygienic menstruation, inconvenient method of urination, exploitative romantic fraternization and preferential treatment for pregnancy, make women in a combat zone much more of a liability than an asset.

In conclusion, considering all the drawbacks of co-ed combat mentioned, especially the permitted engagement of sexual relations between soldiers, it seems the only practical reason for having women in a combat zone is to sexually satisfy our men during a lull in the action.

As with any MensNet program, if you would like to comment send your responses by any of the following methods.

For more on this subject refer to Brian Mitchell’s Women in the Military.

I’m Anthony Nazzaro saying thanks for watching MensNet, and good night.