CNN Video: Military Women and Eating Disorders

Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2006-10-11 14:01

Add this (embedded video) to your list of ridiculous spins on poor-dearism. At this point I put nothing past the feminist hooey machine. The story talks about how some women join the military to help with their weight-loss regimen and how it often doesn't work.

What is one supposed to conclude? That the military (ie, men) isn't doing enough to help them? That they are victims?

How about this: I am going to join the Army so I can get a scholarship to a college after two years in. When after reading the enlistment contract and fully knowing that I could be sent into battle one day, six months later a shooting war starts and I have to go fight in it. Now, should you feel sorry for me?

The point here is that joining the Army to do anything other than to serve as a soldier, with all its attendant risks and liabilities, is clearly not a good idea and never has been, given the risks involved, assuming you don't want to take them. Why then should women who make this decision with wrong-headed intentions be treated any differently from men who do the same?

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I was in the Navy for 6 years when in my 20's, so I speak in what follows from experience and observation. The military does advertise (very heavily) that with the idea of enlisting, you will later go to college, using military benefits. That is how they dupe a lot of people into joining - the military will not actually have to pay out benefits, since
the far majority of enlisted do not go on to 4-year colleges when they get out; or they do so for maybe one semester, then realize they (still) don't like school. Then when they find out that their military experience in their 'specialty' does not count for squat in the civilian world, they either re-enlist, or have to get vocational training or equivalent to get jobs on the outside. Also many start families while in the military, and do not have the time to devote to college. But the point I want to make, is that now that WOMEN are raising the issue, of 'oh gee, you mean there might be a war', it will no doubt come into the public spotlight and something will be done about it.
I am not pro-war, but in my opinion anyone who joins the military, even the reserves, and later goes to great extremes to avoid combat, is a coward - and I use that word sparingly.
For example there was a news story about some guy who went to Canada when he got called up for Iraq, and then complained on TV that he 'hadn't really expected to have to fight'. So again, althought it is true that both some men and some women will keep resisting combat, I suspect that if it gets in the limelight that it is 'affecting' women, the powers that be will come up with something like special programs, or alternatives, for women who find themselves in this position. And of course these programs will probably not be available to men. (One card the women can play is pregnancy, i.e. 'I really had planned to raise a family, without traveling around every couple of years'. Actually, I think there already is some sort of allowance for this.)
-Axolotl

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Wed, 2006-10-11 19:53

I can fix the pregnancy issue. As long as a woman is in active duty, she should have her tubes tied. The excuses must stop now.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by blaze4metal on Fri, 2006-10-13 02:08