“Yes or No!” Houlahan Exposes Hegseth’s Truth About Women in Combat

🚫 The Obsession with Gender: How Pete Hegseth’s Nostalgia Limits Military Lethality

The exchange between Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was a masterful, devastating takedown of a profoundly outdated and self-limiting worldview. Houlahan, a veteran from a family of service members, used cold logic and undeniable facts to dismantle the myth that integrating women into all combat roles has somehow weakened the U.S. military. The refusal of a high-ranking defense official to acknowledge the lethal capability of half the nation’s fighting force exposed a deep, debilitating flaw in the current administration’s strategic thinking.

The Tyranny of the “Yes or No”

Houlahan’s opening was simple: she defined lethality as the “capable of causing death” and demanded direct “yes or no” answers. Hegseth’s immediate, frantic refusal to comply was the first sign of intellectual panic.

Is a man or woman capable of causing death? Hegseth: “It depends on the context.”

Are men and women capable of pulling a trigger? Hegseth: “Sure.”

Are men and women capable of operating an unmanned combat drone or launching a missile? Hegseth: “I know what you’re getting at, ma’am. Yes.”

This initial, farcical dodging exposed the heart of the matter: Hegseth’s anti-woman stance is so ingrained that he couldn’t even state the obvious truth—that a person, regardless of gender, can operate a weapon—without immediate resistance. He quickly retreated to physical differences, mentioning that men and women carry a $155\text{-mm}$ rucksack differently, a deflection that was irrelevant given Houlahan’s questions about drone piloting and missile launching. This demonstrated his desperate attempt to reduce modern warfare to an exclusively physical, front-line infantry problem that represents a tiny fraction of the total force.

The Math of Modern Lethality

Houlahan delivered the undisputed statistics that completely shattered Hegseth’s narrow, antiquated definition of a “warfighter.” She pointed out that the hyper-physical combat he describes in his books and on podcasts accounts for only $10\%$ of the military personnel.

The $90\%$ majority of the modern military is composed of roles that are equally, if not more, crucial to lethality:

Technical Skills: Cyber experts, intelligence analysts, drone pilots.

Cognitive Problem Solving: Logisticians, engineers, strategists.

Lethality in the 21st century is not measured solely by the damage a “$6’3\text{, } 225\text{-lb}$ Christian male with a rifle” can inflict. It is about the ability to utilize technology, manage complex supply chains, and gather intelligence—jobs where gender is entirely irrelevant, provided the individual meets the standards. The insistence on viewing women as weakening the military is a strategic liability, prioritizing an outdated nostalgic mold over the actual, demonstrable capabilities required to win modern conflicts.

The Shame of Sexism in Service

The most unforgivable part of the exchange was when Houlahan quoted Hegseth’s own public statements: the idea that women are “lifegivers,” that “moms put the training wheels on our bikes,” and that “we need moms, but not in the military.”

These statements are not just politically insensitive; they are a direct, intentional insult to every woman who has served this nation for over two centuries. They are an institutional voice telling every female soldier, sailor, airman, and marine that their sacrifices are illegitimate because they do not conform to an archaic, chauvinistic vision of gender roles.

The final, climactic refusal to answer the simplest question—“Do you believe military women should be in all roles in the military [if they meet the standards]?”—was Hegseth’s tacit admission of guilt. He hid behind the empty slogan of “standards should be high and equal” instead of simply affirming the policy of equal opportunity. That silence is the real answer: an admission that his ideological commitment to an antiquated, gender-exclusive military is stronger than his commitment to military effectiveness, equality, and the truth of what women have already accomplished in service to the nation.