The left can’t handle Hegseth’s combat stance
Motherhood is the foundation of all civilization. A movement determined to dismantle society would inevitably target women’s femininity to disrupt the natural male-female dynamic, leaving behind an androgynous, gender-blurring culture that struggles to reproduce itself. In other words, the culture we largely see today. This explains why the far left is so fixated on advancing the “women in combat” agenda and why Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense has left leftists furious and discombobulated.
The media’s predictable criticism of Hegseth’s credentials, persona, and ideology began the moment Trump selected him to lead the Pentagon. However, the most surprising aspect of the backlash was the intense outrage directed at one of Hegseth’s less prominent beliefs. NBC News published a dramatic headline that read: “Pete Hegseth’s remarks about women in combat are met with disgust and dissent.”
As society debates protecting female-only spaces from male intrusion, perhaps it’s also time to re-evaluate the invasion of women into traditionally male spaces.
The “disgusting” comments came up during a podcast Hegseth appeared on last week. During the episode, he made what the left apparently considers the most scandalous claim imaginable. Hegseth said the military “should not have women in combat roles” and argued that “men in those positions are more capable.”
Pass the smelling salts.
It’s astonishing that, of all the “controversial” opinions Hegseth has expressed over years of cable news appearances, his opposition to sending women into the most grueling and physically punishing roles has drawn the most outrage. Dozens of hit pieces and angry responses from Democrats have focused on this position.
Follow the science
In today’s post-truth society, it might shock some to hear that women’s bodies are not designed to endure the physical demands of jobs that permanently injure even the strongest men. While debates about the physical toll of military roles often fixate on upper-body strength, the anatomical differences between men and women extend far beyond muscle mass and genitals.
Women’s wider thigh bone angles align their legs — from the knees to the ankles — in a way that makes them more vulnerable to stress and injury. This structural difference subjects women’s knees to more pressure, contributing to significantly higher rates of ACL tears among female athletes compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, women’s ACLs are not only smaller, but the intercondylar notch in the femur, where the ACL passes through, is also narrower, further increasing their susceptibility to injury.
Why would national policy automatically treat men and women as equals in combat roles? While popular culture may glorify “girlbosses” who strive to prove a point and criticize those who oppose “their right to serve,” the reality remains unchanged: Women face a greater risk of injuries, which can compromise their performance and unnecessarily endanger combat units. This is not speculation but established science.
In 2015, as the Obama administration pressured military branches to open all combat roles to women, the Marine Corps, under Gen. Joseph Dunford, conducted an extensive study to evaluate the impact of mixed-gender infantry units. The months-long study, which cost $36 million, compared the performance of all-male units to mixed-gender units. Unsurprisingly to those outside elitist political circles, the study found that mixed-gender units were not just a net liability — they were an absolute liability.
Here are some key findings, according to a summary of the report:
All-male teams outperformed mixed-gender teams in 69% of tasks, excelling in 94 out of 134 assignments.In every tactical movement, all-male teams moved faster than mixed-gender teams, particularly when carrying heavy crew-served weapons. This trend was consistent across all military operational specialties.All-male teams demonstrated superior accuracy across all weapons systems, including male Marines trained as infantrymen and those from non-infantry MOS roles participating in the testing.Male teams outperformed integrated teams in routine combat tasks. For example, male Marines easily tossed their packs over an eight-foot wall, while female Marines frequently needed assistance. During mock casualty evacuations, all-male teams worked significantly faster unless using a fireman’s carry, where male Marines often carried the evacuee.The study found major differences in anaerobic power and capacity. The top 25% of female Marines overlapped with the bottom 25% of males for anaerobic power, and the top 10% of females matched the bottom 50% of males for anaerobic capacity.Female participants experienced notably higher injury rates and fatigue levels compared to their male counterparts. In the Infantry Training Battalion, women sustained injuries at six times the rate of men.
The Marine Corps report highlighted that even the strongest and most skilled female Marines, all graduates of the Infantry Training Battalion, struggled to match the performance of their male counterparts. Combat requires the most resilient and physically capable individuals, which is why placing women in infantry units defies logic.
The results revealed that while a few exceptional women might possess the ability to serve in infantry roles, they would still lag their male peers. This disparity could slow down units or create unnecessary risks for themselves and others.
Unfortunately, military leaders ignored these findings. As efforts to integrate women into combat roles intensified, reality began to catch up. By 2021, the Army faced significant challenges, including a staggering 65% failure rate among female recruits on its gender-neutral Army Combat Fitness Test.
None of this should come as a surprise. As a 1992 report from the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces correctly observed:
Unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.
Why is the left so obsessed with women in combat?
At first glance, the left’s obsession with placing women in combat seems uncanny, given its general disdain for military service and criticism of so-called toxic masculinity. Social engineering to promote women over men in professional settings might align with their goals, but brute warfare?
When viewed through the lens of the transgender agenda — which seeks to unravel the natural distinctions between masculinity in men and femininity in women — the push for women in combat begins to make sense. This agenda aims to extinguish feminine energy in a generation of young women, fostering a childless, confused society where men no longer understand how to approach or regard women. Hyper-masculinizing women has stifled their innate nurturing tendencies over the past two generations.
The left has groomed an entire generation to believe it’s normal to idolize women cosplaying as warriors. But this is no less absurd than men competing in beauty pageants. In both cases, some individuals might blend in at first glance, but closer inspection reveals the disconnect. Neither scenario aligns with biological realities, and both ignore the long-term consequences for a society that has lost sight of what it means to be a woman.
This context explains why the loudest criticism of Pete Hegseth isn’t about his broader political views, his stance on Ukraine, his military strategy, or even his position on abortion. Instead, critics focus on his belief, shaped by his combat experience, that women should be protected and cherished as nurturers of future generations — not thrown into the blood-soaked chaos of the battlefield. As society debates protecting female-only spaces from male intrusion, perhaps it’s also time to re-evaluate the invasion of women into traditionally male spaces.
