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.
Washington Post: Full participation for our 'sisters-in-arms'
Submitted by anthony on Tue, 2009-12-15 19:26
Article here. Excerpt:
'Is it possible we are seeing the beginnings of a top-down campaign to end the 1994 policy that has excluded women from assignment to direct, sustained ground combat?
If so, we are likely to hear much chatter soon about sex on submarines and alternate use of limited bathroom and berthing space on notoriously cramped vessels. Common sense and courtesy should go a long way toward resolving such issues. And why should anyone object that those are unreasonable expectations of sailors? No one who cannot deal in a civilized manner with female comrades-in-arms and shipmates needs access to a rifle, much less torpedoes or nuclear weapons.
...
"Servicewomen long ago earned the right to be treated as our sisters-in-arms. To that end, we urgently petition Congress to drop all remaining restrictions against them. As for the men within our ranks who disapprove of this: The man who hurts or disrespects our sisters-in-arms, excuses their rapes and harassers or collaborates with their assailants is not our brother."
Our century will become only more violent. American women and gays have a stake in the survival of our republic, and the military will continue to need to draw on their strength, intelligence and courage. It is time the military acknowledged them and welcomed them into the profession of arms, rather than using, ignoring or discarding them.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Women and gays?
Um, how are the two groups -- gay men and women -- inextricably linked re this issue?
I would like to point out gay men have been serving in the armed forces for millenia now. It's only recently in the history of warfare that anyone has cared one way or another if a man at arms is gay (near as I can tell, it started in the Roman army, possibly because of the very close quarters Roman soldiers had to endure due to the modern style of fighting and movement they used. (The numbers of men in armed battles also became much greater as well, perhaps requiring a more stringent approach to how interpersonal relationships were to be handled. Any Navy captain understands this). Gay men while not officially recognized as such nonetheless have been well-identified by their comrades for the last century in modern armies and for the most part allowed to server without harassment. Indeed if you count the number of men harassed by their less-mature colleagues for "being different" you will surely find the vast majority of them to be heterosexual.
Another thing is that implicitly, any brother-in-arms who is opposed to women (and gays.. again, huh?) are not their brothers in arms. So men at arms in Iraq and Afghanistan are violently opposing women going out there and going on patrol ad acting as bullet-stoppers? I believe this? In today's day and age? No.
But I do believe agree with this: yes, women should be out there stopping bullets in equal numbers as men. And just like any man who voluntarily signed away their rights to do it, she ought now be forced to do so, just like any man, and upon pain of court-martial and execution, for failure to obey.
Oh yeah, not surprisingly - comments for this editorial are closed. Seems the Post continues in lockstep with the many other MSM outlets that don't like it when comment threads don't seem to be toeing their editorial line. Down and down and down they go...
Great. So if women are
Great. So if women are physical equals to men, then women don't need billion dollar laws to protect them from men. If they can fight and kill against men, in some cases fighting hand to hand, then they surely can deal with a punch or slap from a husband/boyfriend at home. No more talk of being "scared to walk the streets" no more being overpowered and raped. Or maybe the violence against women act applies to war also? I can see it now, feminists proclaiming that they we need to take special measures to protect women during battle, a new amendment to VAWA. The Taliban must be quaking in their boots:
Taliban 1: Hey look it's female American troops coming to fight us.
Taliban 2: What? Those same females that need protecting from men in their own country but at the same time can be employed to protect their country by same government that acknowledges they are weak and need protecting?
Taliban 1: Yeah! I can't believe it, a bunch of victims are coming to fight us, we better run.
And what about..
"The man who hurts or disrespects our sisters-in-arms..."
And what about the "sisters in arms" who can't chuck a hand grenade far enough so it doesn't kill herself and her "brothers in arms?"
I suspect America's military will have to do some serious redesigns of America's killing apparatuses so America's female stone killers can live up to their true potential for violence, a potential that many men who've experienced female domestic violence already know they fully posses.
Let her fight.
As long as the woman in question is strong enough and brave enough she should be allowed to die for a living just like the blokes, after all, why the hell should we be the only ones who die uselessly? Hell, given how gynocentric America is, putting women on the front line will probably make woman worshiping American politicians less likely to start these stupid wars.
----------------------
Rise, Rebel, Resist.