Hi, folks, the link that I provide is from an article written by Patrick Buchanan, not one of my favorite guys. He is blunt in his opinion and I think just as wrong.
http://news.yahoo.com/pentagons-surrend … 00599.html
I believe women should be allowed to compete for the same roles as men. Having said that I am not in favor of changing the requirements or qualifications simply to include women. I'm more concerned about the fact that in a country which prides itself on equality has a military where 30% of the women in it are raped or sexually harassed. They're in more danger of being attacked by their fellow soldiers than by the enemy.
They sure are. The military is a dangerous place for women to be in. This is sad and egregious. Women in the military are subjected to acts of male aggression including rape. Even when they report this, the issue is ignored and swept under the carpet. To return to the subject of this post, yes, women soldiers have the right to enter combat. There are women who are fiercer fighters than men.
Not to be facetious for this subject is a serious matter, there are female gangs whose horrifically destructive energy could be channelled more positively. These young women posses the fortitude for combat duty, instead of attacking innocent people, they could be of service attacking problematic threats and enemies. However, such women have to be psychologically diffused and deprogrammed before returning to civilian society.
Credence2, Pat is really not in his right mind. He says many inappropriate things about so many subjects. One of his pet peeves is not America "is not what it used to be" and is becoming "multicultural." Yes, Pat has a totally atavistic philosophical approach to life that I find sickening. Pat and Rush-uhh! Two subconsciously miserable misogynists who want women to be utterly submissive, barefoot, stupid, and pregnant.
I hear you, Grace. That column that he wrote is an example of inappropriate things. I did not think that anybody in this day in age would be so brazen as to write it, but again thats Pat. Just another reason why I do not see him much mentioned in conservative circles as he is the 'bull in the China shop'. Some of his positions of populism and libertarianism deviate from the standard GOP line which is another reason I don't hear more from him. Both Rush and Pat are fascist pigs at heart, it is just that Rush gets a bath every now and then and is more presentable. Thanks for weighing in.....
Not only should women be allowed to enter combat roles but many of them excel at them, whenever people claim women can't be good soldiers I point them to Lyudmila Pavlichenko, she was a soviet sniper who fought throughout the battle of Stalingrad and Kursk she scored over three hundred Nazi kills most of them officers and artillery commanders which is about three times more than any American sniper has ever been able to accomplish and she did it against the toughest army of her time not poorly equipped militias and insurgents.
Any woman that can meet the current requirements to serve in a combat role should be allowed to, tens of millions of our women could.
There should be no bar to women doing any jobs, all problems can be solved with a little thought and ingenuity.
I think if a woman wants to and is capable of doing the job, then okay.
But the thing with the "women's rights movement" is partly this----------if women want all the same rights to engage in roles that men are generally more capable in, then they should be prepared to accept the full responsibilities and rules as the men have done, and do.
The draft, for instance. If the draft were ever to be needed again, and women have attained all the "rights" that the liberal women activists want, then women should be drafted also. BUT that cuts away at their natural roles as mothers and wives. So.........it would make sense that the military would of course choose women who either aren't married, or aren't mothers yet, and etc..........
But in truth, for women to demand the same access to roles that are naturally more suited for men, and for those women to try to make it into law and cause ALL women to be under that legality, is doing a huge disservice to those women who do NOT want to engage in roles that are intended for the masculine gender. I personally would be mad as heck if my granddaughters, when they become young adults, were to be drafted into the military just because a minority group of women's libbers pushed it into law. Women's libbers don't speak for all women, and they need to stop acting like they do.
You make it sound as if all men are willing to be drafted!
"BUT that cuts away at their natural roles as mothers and wives".
That is the rub, maybe many women are tired of being defined by these "natural roles". These cost them in the struggle to advance and survive in a world where no one is going to open the door for them just because their women. Again the mid 20th century and the world before no longer exists, and we got to get with the 21st century. The reality is this, you give foundation to bias against women in the workplace and everywhere else, when you fail to realize that equal rights require the assumption of equal responsibility. If I were of that age again, I would resent the fact that I have to be available for the draft while women my age are exempt. The use that advantage to promote their careers at my expense, while I am out defending the country. My age old adage, 'you cant have your cake and eat it too"......
Oh well, then hecky darn! Just make all women, even the 70-year-old grannies, and the 25-year-old with a baby on each hip, desert their families and go fight on the front lines! Would that be fair to you? LOL.
My point is that making the distinction of whether one serves or not based solely upon the gender of the individual is a non starter in this day and age.
Exemptions from service are made on an individual basis and not some gender based blanket.
I would like the same consideration given 70 year old men or guys that have to raise children alone.....
No 70 year-old men are expected to fight and wouldn't the 25 year-old be exempt on medical grounds?
The 25-year-old mother would be exempt because of her necessary role as a mother to her kids!
The point I was trying to make was that if the women's lib movement wants to put all women in the same category as men, then they're doing women a disservice by requiring them all to be held to the same responsibility as a few individual women who want to cross gender lines just for the sake of their personal agenda.
Then you have no right to insist on equal opportunities and rights par with men if you are not willing to handle your side of the log on an equal basis. If you become exempt from bearing responsibility that I as a male am required to bear why should I allow you to compete with me on a equal basis anywhere? You ought to think about that a little bit as to how that going to play with women in this day and age.
Like I say, nobody gets their cake and eats it too!
Pretty much with you right up to the point of "is doing a huge disservice to those women who do NOT want to engage in roles that are intended for the masculine gender"
You're setting up a special group that aren't subject to the laws everyone else is because of your interpretation of their "role" in life. Men have (oh so graciously) given the right to vote and help run the country to women; let women accept the duty to defend the country they vote in as well.
Now that makes perfectly good sense to me!
I believe women were drafted in to do jobs that were of vital importance during WW2, especially in the UK. It would make sense that those who can take up front line positions do so and those more suited to other roles are chosen on their ability whether they are male or female.
Anyway i doubt the next world war (if there is one) would be a conventional one, it will be fought at computer consoles by statisticians and strategic experts.
If they can get the job done, what possible reason would you have to stop them?
...Just keep the tents separated, kids.
This is really a tough question. A lot of people have already mentioned the horrors of rape that some women have had to go through, but I think there are a whole lot of other issues, too.
There are times in war, that a mans strengths are needed. If someone is wounded and needs to be helped to safety, I think a man could do a better job of it. Women just don't have equal strength. I know there are people who would argue about that, but as a woman, I know it is true. I wouldn't want to be responsible for my fellow soldier dying because I couldn't throw him over my shoulder and carry him to safety.
That's just one of the reasons I can think of, but the list goes on and on. Of course, it's just my opinion, and I know a lot of women would get angry at me for it.
Hi, KT, nice to see ya!
Considering your position, I beg to differ a bit. Woman express concern of rising to the top of the ranks in the military on an equal footing with men. There is always going to be resentment when men think that women rise to these positions without paying the dues that they themselves would have the pay. It is nasty, messy business that chivalry has gone by the wayside but such are the times that we are in. This is the message that women now having to successfully compete are sending...
The way to properly screen eligible people for any endeavor is through qualifications and not gender. There are plenty of amazons out there that could give any man a run for his money as there are many men who could not carry their own weight, let alone the weight of others in a crisis.
Thanks for participating.....
Would it not be just to say that on average men are physically stronger than women so it would be more advantageous for a women, if she chooses to go into the army, to not play a combative role?
What's physical strength got to do with anything?
Surely stamina is more important.
"Sometimes even the best of us must eat our words"
Perhaps you are right, Mr Holden,I was not considering all the factors,physical strength is largely irrelevant when considered alongside factors like stamina in combat.But aren't women rather limited on these types of things?
Okay, my opinion on this is plain and simple.
Women should be permitted in any and all combat roles as long as they can fulfill the physical and mental conditions needed for the role.
For example, not many women can be GIs. I'm a feminist, but I don't refuse to acknowledge the mental and physical differences between the sexes. Infantrymen need to be large and they need to be strong. Plenty of men can't do it either. As women average smaller, fewer women are going to qualify. However, any woman who CAN manage a 20 mile march wearing a 120 pound pack should be allowed to do the job.
On the other hand, the navy benefits strongly from having female sailors - for *exactly the same reason*. Because we're smaller, we can fit in gaps that are more challenging for men, climb in places they find harder, etc. (The US navy now treats women equally as women are now permitted to enter the submarine service if they can pass the tough aptitude and psych tests - I'm told the psych test for the silent service is really tough from people who've done it).
Additionally, women have higher G tolerance than men and often higher stamina. I'm talking all else being equal here.
In other words, the differences between the genders are disadvantages in some roles and advantages in others. There is, therefore, no reason to keep an arbitrary bar. If a woman can't keep up then she won't make the cut any more than a man who can't keep up will make it.
For some combat roles straight strength is still a valuable attribute, as is size. Women do tend to have slightly more stamina than similar men, but the problem with women as infantry is the amount of gear that has to be carried.
Infantrymen are required to be able to lift 100 pounds on an occasional basis and lift 50 pounds regularly. Not all women are physically capable of developing that level of strength and neither are all men, but men have an advantage. I cannot lift 100 pounds, I can manage fifty providing I don't have to do it for very long, am fairly comfortable with 30. I am a very typical female in good physical condition. I might be able to get to those standards, but it would be far more of a challenge because men are, quite simply, stronger and larger. That's a basic biological fact that can't be changed and, as much as I'm in favor of equality, lowering the strength requirements to allow more women to qualify would damage the readiness of our fighting force. But there should be no hesitation at allowing a woman into MOS 11B (Infantryman) if she DOES meet those requirements.
While I do agree with the concept (pass the test and join the army), there is another side to that.
As you say, with diligent work you might well raise your physical prowess enough to pass. Then, in your first combat, a roof beam falls on your partner, pinning them to the ground, and you must lift the 150 lb beam off. Or carry your injured 200# partner 30 yards to safety. You can't.
The point is that meeting minimum requirements does not show any ability to be able to take care of much higher requirements on an emergency, very unusual, basis. Should we care?
I'm reminded of a night in my local pub where the discussion was whether women should be allowed into the fire service.
One raised the objection that he did not want a woman trying to rescue him and carry him down a ladder.
A serving fireman in the discussion told him "listen, you fat b******, if I had to rescue you from a burning building, there is no way I could carry your weight down a ladder, I doubt if two of us could"
Oh, *I* would never make an infantryman - nor would I try. Far too small. But I have definitely known women who could do it. That's the point. It should be about whether you can do it, not your gender or other characteristics.
However, there are combat roles in other services I could do...or could have done if it was twenty years ago (A little old now). Surface navy, I could do. Submarine service I only couldn't do because I have mild claustrophobia - I went on a museum sub once and knew within two seconds that I could never handle being on a boat under the water...nope, not at all...but that has nothing to do with me being a woman. Pilot I don't have the vision for but, again, that has nothing to do with me being a woman.
Personally, I doubt there will be another draft - but I feel that selective service should either be extended to women or (my preference) eliminated completely.
by LiamBean4 years ago
Should combat roles be opened to women?
by HuntersWhitt4 years ago
With all of the uproar over gun laws lately, I'm curious to see what HubPages thinks. So here's the question:A) What guns, if any, should be allowed?B) Do "gun laws" actually accomplish anything?
by road2hell5 years ago
Why all the criticism about making money from the "green revolution"? If this is supposed to be a capitalistic society, shouldn't the alternative energy sector be able to make money as well. I...
by Lgali7 years ago
How many hours kids should be allowed to play any electronics games e .g DS etc,
by Gnostic Bishop2 years ago
Women. Religion’s longest running victims.Here we are in civilized and enlightened societies and cultures in high tech times and we are not smart enough to recognize that the world will continue in strife as long as...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
According to both MSNBC and FOX, 70% of those serving in the military favor the repeal of DADT. According to FOX's Shep Smith, it's the generals who want to keep it - not the enlisted men and women. Shouldn't these guys...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.