The MILITARY is no Place for a WOMAN

Format for printing
Submitted by realitycheck on March 10, 2006 - 10:36am.

The Military is no Place for a Woman

Jessica Lynch was almost a house hold name in 2003. Jessica was a girl who signed up for the military to get tuition money and ended up getting raped mercilessly by Saddam loyalists.
She was an Army Clerk who was taken captive after a shoot down between Iraqis and Americans. She was rescued by American troops from an Iraqi hospital The entire ordeal was taped and sent the media, government and citizens into a frenzy.

In a recent survey by the General Accounting Office whether they agreed with the statement, "I think that women should be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like men," the overwhelming majority of the enlisted ladies of the U.S. Army replied that they did not so think. Only 10% of the female privates and corporals agreed with the statement.

The problem is that not all women are capable of doing the same tasks asked of man, but they demand "equal treatment".

These regulations are still in effect. But the U.S. Army has violated these regulations without the notification required by current law, which requires the secretary of defense to provide formal advance notice to Congress of policy changes regarding female soldiers, accompanied by an analysis of proposed revisions on women’s exemption from Selective Service obligations.

On http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200505120814.asp, Mackubin Thomas Owens protests,

Those in the health industry bring up an interesting point. One doctor says, "People forget that since the begining of time woman were biologically designed to be nurturing; raisng children and caring for their spouses. Man was made to hunt. Higher levels of Testosterone was one element that seperated man from woman. If you consider this, you will realize that it is not appropriate to send women into combat. Not to say that women shouldn't be in the forces, there are other jobs."

All Right, here's my opinion -
Men are naturally physically stronger than women. I have read many articles in which male soldiers claim that having female soliders is not only a distraction but also a danger. I can understand this. I do feel that if a woman wants to fight for her country she should be allowed to BUT only if she is 100% capable of doing the same work as a man. If she is not capable she should be given a different job in the military.

Posted in Air Force · Army · Combat · debate · government · Iraq · Marines · Military · Navy · war | Make Money Online Without Spending a Dime! · delicious · digg · reddit · 561 reads »

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Interesting - there should be quite some debate on this.

#51538 On March 10, 2006 11:35am Tottie said,
Tottie's picture

I'm in two minds about this. I agree that if a woman wishes to be in the armed forces and can do the job required as good as a man, she should be allowed to. I also agree that it is a distraction for the men. I do believe that women have the potential to make a big difference - but the culture of the forces is not ready to accept a change.

login or register to post comments

And now for a completely different take

#51547 On March 10, 2006 11:54am o ceallaigh said,
o ceallaigh's picture

Which seems to be my specialty around here :) :(. I wrote about this in a somewhat different context awhile ago.

In few, women have been protected from deadly peril throughout history - and that history extends to the dinosaurs and back - less because of any "weaknesses" of body and mind, which mostly don't exist, but because they carry something extremely precious. Eggs. And the equipment to turn the eggs into people. This is a matter of statistics, not gender stereotypes. Men are expendable. One (admittedly busy) guy could repopulate the planet. One gal ... you get my drift. The high voice, the relative hairlessness, all are, sorry ladies, preserved juvenile characters there to remind everybody that what women carry is more precious than, hell, Arabian oil and needs to be safeguarded.

Modern technology and population density have to some extent obscured the imperative to protect the most fragile reproductive resource. These circumstances, unique to our time (though not unrepresented in the sexual behavior of other animals), have permitted folk even to think of exposing women to combat.

*   *   *   *

"The years between fifty and seventy are the hardest. You are always being asked to do things, and yet you are not decrepit enough to turn them down." - T. S. Eliot

O Ceallaigh's Felloffatruck Publications

login or register to post comments

My next blog (probably

#51710 On March 12, 2006 6:23am IntricateGirl said,
IntricateGirl's picture

My next blog (probably tommorow, maybe today) will be about this very thing you discuss, O'Ceallaigh. When I have a link I will post it here.

On the topic of women in the military, it is a nice thought to say that women can do anything. It's entirely different to try and put that into practice. While I think there are a few women who can do the same job as men, and that they should be allowed, the reality is that most women are not cut out for it. They are fighting against not only centuries of tradition that says women don't belong on a battlefield, but often, they are fighting their own "training" that says they should act like a "girl". Girls are not given toy soldiers to play with, they are given baby dolls. It is a powerful thing to try and overcome the role that you have been prepared for over the first 20 years of your life.

http://www.surfjunky.com/?r=Intricategirl

login or register to post comments

boys and toys

#51714 On March 12, 2006 8:05am o ceallaigh said,
o ceallaigh's picture

Girls are not given toy soldiers to play with, they are given baby dolls.

By women, as often as not. Crede expertum. I tried to buck the trend. Once. Caught hell.

Depends where you live, too. Maine, you betcha. Berkeley? Nobody gets guns (that's Oakland).

Besides, give a boy a Kewpie and presto! she's a Browning Automatic. I can't say whether the reverse applies. Scientists are still working on the "training" vs. "genes" part of gender identification, and probably will still be working on it when the sun explodes and consumes our planet (chill, that's not for a couple billion years or so yet). The best answer to date to "which one is it?" is "yes".

Look forward to reading your post! Might be awhile if it's today, I'll be away from my computer and my pad.

login or register to post comments

Yep. All of the above, yep.

#51720 On March 12, 2006 10:29am IntricateGirl said,
IntricateGirl's picture

Yep. All of the above, yep. I think you will really enjoy the post, because you practically could have written the book on which the post will be based.

The post will not be today. I need to refresh my memory to some concepts first. That leaves me about 24 hours to get through a lot of pages. It's like college all over again! :)

http://www.surfjunky.com/?r=Intricategirl

login or register to post comments

I lied. I found some time

#51726 On March 12, 2006 2:56pm IntricateGirl said,
IntricateGirl's picture

I lied. I found some time today.

http://bloggerparty.com/war_the_superorganism_and_why_men_are_utterly_useless

http://www.surfjunky.com/?r=Intricategirl

login or register to post comments

Wow

#51553 On March 10, 2006 1:44pm realitycheck said,
realitycheck's picture

That's really good O'C!

login or register to post comments

Thanks Reality

#51561 On March 10, 2006 2:33pm o ceallaigh said,
o ceallaigh's picture

Your tax dollars at work. Understanding sexual behavior, its costs and benefits, is one of the most active research areas in the field of (dare I say it) evolutionary biology.

With this understanding, partial and frequently contentious as it is, I find that a lot of the issues of dating and sex roles make sense. While many of the arguments over them do not.

We are now free (or at least free-er) for women and men to find their best roles in society. Such as military police, Amish. I would be a horrific MP. Or soldier, for that matter. But just a century ago, 1 in 100 women in America died from childbirth-related illness or injury (compare that to 1 in 400 soldiers killed in Iraq since 2003), and 20% of children died before their 1st birthday. We now lose 1 in 10,000 women, and maybe 1% of children. Technology liberates ...

I remember somebody telling me once that childbirth to a woman is what warfare is to a man. The numbers sure make that line seem sensible ...

login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.