Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Lynch Says G.I. Jane Propaganda by Military Were Lies
Submitted by Roy on Mon, 2007-04-30 00:24
On her latest speaking tour including an appearance before Congress, Jessica Lynch says she’s still confused about all the lies that the military's P.R. flacks ginned up about her supposed heroism."...
Lynch put up no resistance because she was immobilized in what amounted to a massive car accident. “I didn’t even get a shot off,” she told Newsweek.com this week, explaining that her Humvee was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, causing the driver to lose control and slam into the back of another truck in their convoy. “My weapon had jammed. And I didn’t even get to fire.” She blamed the military for not setting the record straight and the media for spreading the bogus story. At the hearing last week, she said she was “still confused as to why [the military] chose to lie and try to make me a legend.”
Well, where is the mea culpa op-ed by N.O.W.’s Kim Gandy, now that the obvious consequences of females in combat have been outted? The rad-fems cannot politically afford to admit that women are a liability in combat theatre. It would upset the myth of female supremacy...
- Log in to post comments
Comments
As long as men go to war, so should women
I disagree that women have no place in combat. Sure they do. The problem is, the armed forces and the culture at large is very uncomfortable with it. Lynch was a casualty like any other. She got wounded in the line of duty. She was made into a hero because she was female and attractive-- that's all. Thy tried to use her as a marketing tool. To her credit, she hasn't gone along with it, probably giving up a great deal of compensation for doing so as well as incurring the anger of her superiors.
As long as men serve in combat so should women-- as far as possible, in equal numbers. Men and women can both be as easily killed in modern warfare. The days when physical strength mattered since almost all combat was hand-to-hand are gone. Most combat is now done at a distance, and in Iraq, attacks on US troops often happen after the enemy is long gone (most of our deaths and injuries are from IEDs and the like, with the actual enemy nowhere in sight).
Coddling women and placing men disproportionately in harm's way by keeping women from combat is unfair-- to men. That is what needs redressing.
Will Fathers Sacrifice Their Daughters?
Or, will CHIVALRY have to die?
That is the only question.
mcc98, remember though, the
mcc98, remember though, the modern equality movement isn't about equal opportunity (men and women serving combat roles in similar numbers), it's about equal results. That means you keep putting women in harms way in military roles until their death and injury rates are equal to men.
Don't forget
This isn't just a pro-female propaganda campaign that went sour. This is a pro-war propaganda campaign that went sour. The ex-football player that became a soldier died because of some dumbass accident and they spun that around like he was killed in combat. I agree that the Lynch thing was total BS, but the fact that the military has to spin its stories reminds me ever so much of Vietnam...
Re Don't forget
blaze4metal wrote: I agree that the Lynch thing was total BS, but the fact that the military has to spin its stories reminds me ever so much of Vietnam...
I've seen some reports that the military didn't do the fabricating. They allegedly reported the facts and it was the media that did the exagerating and fabricating. I'd be interested to know exactly what the military reported to compare against the GI Jane-style story we heard.
ItsDan, you forgot something yourself..
Equality of result only applies when it HELPS women. Remember, all gender issues are defined from the female perspective.
-ax