|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 05:03 PM December 20th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
That the NY Slimes the Misandric Rag that is the home of the author "Are Men Necessary" Maureen Dowd, should impugn the Devil Dogs who were male comes as no surprise. Dowd who whines about how she is single no doubt had her share of Men including Michael Douglas. Gee Maureen a pleasant Hispanic Woman who is younger and Fertile or an Angry Feminista with a chip on her Shoulder? Gee I wonder.
Gents make no mistake about it. The NY Times hates Men and its Editor thinks Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, And Sailors are knuckle dragging subhumans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:40 PM December 20th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
This whole article is a textbook example of why the Israeli army, after experimenting with gender-mixed combat troops, intelligently decided to eliminate females from the forward deployment/combat-risk areas.
Reading between the lines of the excerpts, it is impossible not to conclude that females in combat-possible assignments drain resources, require males to take on unnecessary high-risk armed chaperone detail (nice bit of lethal chivalry that!), and when the inevitable happens and women die, you have the added guilt and demoralization of males who "couldn't save them..."
Interpret these snippets from the full piece --
* Cpl. Ramona M. Valdez, 20, who worked at the Statue of Liberty before joining the Marines in early 2002 to support her mother in the Bronx, regularly asked to be relieved from the checkpoint duty.
* There were no hard and fast rules on how many Humvees to use, nor were there any on how to position the women in the convoy. Often, the women would mix with the men in a second cargo truck, which Sergeant Bass said he preferred because it made them a less enticing target.
* Against orders, two men from the second cargo truck jumped out and raced ahead to help, including Cpl. Carlos Pineda, a 23-year-old from Los Angeles. When smoke from the flaming truck cleared for a moment, a bullet found the gap in the armor on his side and sliced through his lungs.
His widow, Ana, said she later received a letter he wrote the day before, saying he had narrowly escaped harm in another attack. "He said, 'I feel my luck here is just running out.' "
* The women took shelter at a storefront about 100 yards off the road and the few men who were present had to run back and forth carrying the wounded. In all, 13 women and men were injured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 07:25 PM December 20th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I have met and known Women that I would fight side by side with. But, having served in the Marine Corps from 1975 to 1979 I didn't meet any of them while I was on active duty. I believe that the current politics do not allow the military from picking and choosing those that they feel can "hack it". Because if they did they could be sued. I know when I went to Boot Camp at PI, SC that there were more than a few Men that didn't make it through Boot Camp, as the weak were weeded out. But of course they have less to worry about from the male rejects, as it is expected that not all of them will make it. If they want the pay and the duty they should be treated as a grunt, if they do not perform under fire do the same as if it were a Man, Court Martial them. Any womyn that disagrees can therefore prove what they say by serving on the front lines, and dodging bullets with the Men that they hate so much. EQUALITY doesn't start after a fire fight, it starts before. Just my opinion.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:15 PM December 20th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Your comments have me pondering whether the real problem is female warriors, who seem to be willing (if not ready) to show their stuff in combat; or if the unspoken monkey-wrench in a co-ed armed forces is the lingering code of male chivalry.
Has anyone done any research about how male soldiers relate to their comrades who happen to be female?
Do they feel a "special" need to safeguard GI Jane, born of socialized deference to the fairer sex, or projected and natural feelings of protectiveness for mom, sis, girlfriend, and spouse?
The Israelis did the psychological math and determined that the costs of gender-equality in combat far exceeded the benefits.
Actually, they computed that a co-ed army met certain defeat in a terrorist war.
What do they know that we have yet to learn and accept?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:14 AM December 21st, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
The only way to elliminate this is by coed Boot Camp. Sleeping in different barracks, and training together during the day. Same rules for both sexes without gender preferences. That is the only way Men will learn to respect Female Warriors as equals. No preferential treatment at all. The same minimum acceptance rule for both Male and Female, period. Of course, that would elliminate the weak of both sexes, but the only ones complaining about true equality is womyn. I have worked as a mason in my younger years. I have worked side by side with tough Women, not very many as it wasn't accepted back then, but the ones that were tough enough to handle the work, worked their asses off. There is no difference when I needed mortar or bricks what the gender of the person was, I was concerned with who heard me, and who responded. Yes, in part it could be discerned that male training is part and parcel of the problem. But, in reality the Women usually try and use that as a weapon against Men so that they can "get away with things". As I said, this could be niiped in the bud during Boot Camp, at least in Marine Boot Camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:42 PM December 21st, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your insights into the Marine culture and its grappling with the "gender-equality" swamp.
My personal conclusion is that, at least in Iraq, men are now both soldiers and babysitters.
I guess if the women "soldiers" they are protecting live out their tour of duty, then the men should be promoted to "escort 1st Class.?"
Is there a lavender heart for being an able escort-killed-in-the-act-of-protecting-Sgt. Cupcake?
I would not want to take a lethal bullet as a babysitter... my "honor" would have been robbed.
Of course, if the girlie-soldier I died for lived ... well then ?????
I must have died for a reason...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:50 AM December 27th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"WTF is she doing in the military?"
That Sir is a sexist statement. She is doing the same as any Warrior. If it is alright for a Man to be a Warrior, then it is alright for a Woman to be a Warrior, period. In this day and age when minimum wges are insufficient to survive, and most couples have to both work to be comfortable, I am sure she was doing her best to take care of her family. I would assume that she was also a career Military Person, or one of the ones that got called up from within the reserves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 04:25 AM December 29th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
>That Sir...
So formal! You can call me "Dittohd". Or "Ditto" for short. "Mr. Hd"? Too formal.
>If it is alright for a Man to be a Warrior, then it is alright for a Woman to be a Warrior, period.
I agree, with qualification. That's if she can be a warrior without the military having to make concessions so that she doesn't flunk out in order to meet female quotas. I don't agree that it's alright to be a single mother warrior or for that matter, a single father warrior.
>...most couples have to both work to be comfortable...
Bologna. Most couples work to get their desires. Persons who only make a little money have to pay all or almost all their second income on baby sitting expenses. Having children these days is a CHOICE. And no, she wasn't doing her best. She was doing what she DESIRED. She took the easy way out. Maybe she signed up for the reserve, as you surmised, to get some easy money not expecting to be called to duty, but if that's the case, she was looking for easy money and looking for the easy way out while keeping her fingers crossed that what she signed up for wouldn't really happen. Bottom line - she wasn't looking out for the best interest of her child(ren). That makes her a pig.
She was not only a pig, she was a selfish pig at that. The fact that she was a single mother means that she had primary and sole responsibility for the welfare of her child(ren). There are unlimited numbers and types of opportunities in this country that would allow her to make money and not be away from home for long periods of time and away from her child(ren) while expecting someone else to perform her responsibilities as a mother full time. The problem with this country these days is that women get all the choice but responsibility is a totally foreign concept (unless we're talking about men, of course, where it's just the other way around). Whatever women decide, everyone else is sexist if they don't all stop their lives to support all her choices, no matter how bizarre.
In this day and age when minimum wges are insufficient to survive...
Give me a break! Minimum wage is for temporary and starting out jobs for teenagers and has never ever been meant to support a family. When I started out at minimum wage back in the 1960's, I think I was making $1.65 per hour. Minimum wage is for people who need a lot of training and have no applicable experience. That's why you rarely see the same person twice when you go to a supermarket or fast food place. They've all gotten their initial experience and moved up to something that pays better based on that experience they received at the minimum wage job (in most cases).
By the way, do you think that your assumption that she could only get a minimum wage job might be sexist? Are you of the opinion that that's only what single mothers can qualify for? Or that all persons who join the military join because they can only qualify for minimum wage and this is the only way they can get a living wage? A few years ago I got a job at double the current minimum wage ($11 per hour) driving a school bus after a few weeks of learning how to drive one and getting the necessary commercial license.
Sorry, I still say she was a pig.
Dittohd
All anonymous postings on my screen are filtered. To talk with or debate me, a user ID is now required. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 09:20 PM December 20th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Chivalry isn't the only problem. There are all of the logistics issues of simply going to the bathroom while primitively bivouaced, inevitable fraternizing (of the most intimate variety -- think two scared kids with nothing to lose), etc.
Note that chivalry isn't the only reason that men are 'required' to protect women -- just imagine the need to organize a 'Take Back the Night' capability on the battlefield. Laughable if it wasn't so frightening...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:17 PM December 20th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
One would suppose that the practical "logistics" issues also include such trivial gender-equality challenges like upper-body strength (or lack of...), spatial targeting abilities (or lack thereof...), and oh, monthly ovulation cycles!
If our colonial fathers-revolutionaries had been constrained by PC-feminist idiocy-as-military-tactics, we would all still be singing "God Save the Queen" on July 4th .... the day of our celebrated defeat!
Free our military! Save our boys! Promote women soldiers into the rear guard ASAP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 11:02 PM December 20th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
To the Editors:
I read with interest the Dec. 20, 2005 article "A Mission That Ended in Inferno for 3 Women". Some glaring double-standards jumped out at me from the pages.
All of the Marines killed in this incident were valuable people, but all equally so as war-fighters. Why does this article drip with contempt for and lack of recognition of the men who served, and some of whom also died, in this same incident? Those who died fighting with and for their comrades know that war entails risk, loss of life, limb, sanity, and fairly anything else of value to a person. Both the author of this article and those who would object to how and where the dead or living female Marines served should understand that military service requires taking extraordinary dangers and is not a job for those who value their own lives too dearly, male or female.
Sincerely,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by robrob on 06:17 AM December 21st, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I just lose the will to live when I read articles like this. It doesn't matter what role the women do - it has to be portrayed as absolutely vital to the war effort. So in this case, searching Iraqi women is seen as a critical role. Only, since it offended the Iraqis so much, they tried to kill the women doing the job. Would it really have mattered then if it had been men, women or mixed guards doing the body searches? Evidently not. The Iraqis did not care either way for our Western standards of PC'ness.
The emotion of the article also means that paragraphs like the following appear:
"The military sent the women off that day with substandard armor, inadequate security and faulty tactics, and the predictability of their daily commute through one of the most volatile parts of Iraq made them an open target.
How many other US soldiers have been killed because of resources/armour not being available? There have been plenty, but it is seen as an unfortunate consequence of fighting a battle overseas with always finite resources.
And this:
"Some marines questioned whether they should have been traveling at all. Male marines also worked at the checkpoints, but did not have to face the dangers of the daily commute. They slept at a Marine outpost in downtown Falluja, but Marine Corps rules barred the women from sharing that space with the men."
The very reason for this is the government could probably not afford any more charges of "harassment" or "sexual abuse" that seem to manifest themselves anytime female soldiers share living space with male soldiers. This policy has been determined by the general belief that men are animals and the females need to be protected from them. But in this case, it is portrayed as the men having cushy well protected roles while the poor women are thrown to the lions as sacrifices.
Just how many female US soldiers compared to male US soldiers have died in the last 2 years?
This article is yet another disgusting part of future history which will attempt to show the suffering of females, perpetrated by males.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Alitax on 11:31 PM December 21st, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"Just how many female US soldiers compared to male US soldiers have died in the last 2 years?"
Numbers matter?
How many female soldiers ARE there in Iraq? because if you work in percentages instead of by total, the numbers may add up much differently anyway.
Love that you put sexual harassment in quotation marks as if it's never happened/happening. My cousin was a captain in Desert Storm, and she said women soldiers are typecast: either dykes or whores. Who are we to assume is making the stereotypes?
Probably plenty of soldiers have died from lack of equipment, but even the Corps admitted that the women were underprotected and tactically disadvantaged. They were walking targets. Perhaps the intelligent thing to do was wait for proper escort, but instead they were put at unnecessary risk.
It makes sense to try using women to search women; the article leads me to believe it was a recent initiative, being tested, not with a known outcome. Your being sickened arises from 20/20 hindsight, which is utterly unfair to everyone involved in that incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by robrob on 05:05 AM December 22nd, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I think numbers do matter. Proportionately, far more male soldiers have died in Iraq than female soldiers. That's just a fact. There have been many incidents (one in particular with UK soldiers in Iraq) where male soldiers have died from lack of proper equipment or support. It is not reported or analysed as a gender issue. This article implies that now it is because female soldiers have died. There is no substance to the implications in the article because it is disproved by the greater proportion of men who have died - many in similar circumstances.
Try reading what I wrote again about harassment and abuse. The quotes are round these words because I'm cynical of the army's interpretation and use of these words. Have you heard of the tailhook scandal? I love that your cousin is the expert on this. "Dykes or whores"? So if anecdotal evidence is allowed, my friend's views must be relevant. He was also in Iraq as part of Desert Storm. His view on the female soldiers was coloured by the "sensitivity" training that all the men received, taken by a woman, which started from the point of view that all the guys had automatic behaviour patterns towards all women which they would have to change. He felt that certain duties were "male duties" (dirty or arduous) and others were "female duties". There was a general feeling that the females received favourable treatment and duties. But that's just his view. Here is a female naval officer's view on SH training in the military which she observed:
"A female commander in the Navy Reserve told me the training included three videotapes that "[It]...cast the typical male service member as a brutish predator who at all times would stare at, look at, and suggest sex to any female in his vicinity. The man looked like a prowling tomcat. No woman ever did anything wrong." The men forced to attend this supposed sensitivity session, she said, were resentful and offended. "They just went blank. There's no avenue for the men to counter this."
My main issue with this story, to get back to the point, is that many male soldiers have been killed in similar circumstances. It is tragic, but it is nothing to do with gender.
Secondly, as someone else has referred to, this reinforcement of "woman as victim " and "man as protector" engenders a lethal chivalry in some men.
Women might want true equality and respect from men in the armed forces, but articles like this from the NYT don't help their cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:57 AM December 22nd, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Numbers matter?
If numbers don't matter, how come this article was about the deaths of three female marines rather than those of the three male marines who also died in the same incident?
...if you work in percentages instead of by total, the numbers may add up much differently anyway.
As for working in percentages, this is typical feminist antilogic. So, if ten women die and a thousand men die, but there are 200 men to every woman, that means (comparing percentages) that women are twice as likely to be killed as men are. So, we don't need to do anything for those bastard men (hell, a thousand dead men is a good start, right sisters?!), but we'd better do something about those ten women - oh, the humanity! Of course, we can turn a blind eye to the question of why there are 200 men to every woman doing this very dangerous job - I mean, it's not as if men matter, is it?
Love that you put sexual harassment in quotation marks as if it's never happened/happening. My cousin was a captain in Desert Storm, and she said women soldiers are typecast: either dykes or whores. Who are we to assume is making the stereotypes?
Oh, that'll be those evil men; you know, the one's whose deaths are considered so unimportant that they're barely mentioned (in one English newspaper it simply said "three other marines died in the same incident"). As for 'sexual harassment'; thanks to arch manhater Katherine McKinnon, this now has no meaningful formal definition. 'Sexual harassment' is anything any woman wants it to be. You seriously want to talk about 'sexual harassment' when three men's deaths are considered barely worth mentioning, while three women's deaths are treated like the worst thing that's ever happened in the whole history of modern warfare? Jesus!
Probably plenty of soldiers have died from lack of equipment, but even the Corps admitted that the women were underprotected and tactically disadvantaged.
And how many male soldiers are in the same boat? You're making out that the women were somehow especially disadvantaged - you even say "plenty of soldiers" rather than "plenty of male soldiers", but then, presumably, it isn't a gender issue when it happens to men.
Your being sickened arises from 20/20 hindsight, which is utterly unfair to everyone involved in that incident.
Even to the men (or 'sexual harassers', as you might better know them), who are kind of blamed for everything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:28 AM December 21st, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
By highlighting the lack of equiptment that the Female Marines had, perhaps this is an attempt to show once again that the Marines receive the least amount of financing and do the most work per numbers of People and actual statistics than any other branch of the service. As far as the rest, once again all of our military people over there are being hamstrung by politicians, just like in Viet Nam. The main goal is to draw this war out as long as possible so that the military industrial complex can make another fortune. Does anyone find it ironic that the Army Rangers are training the future terrorists in Afghanistan? Just like in Nam folks, just like in Nam. I for one believe that we should not play their sick game anymore. Terrorism, the new fear factor, you can't see it, you don't know where it comes from, and even when the truth comes out that they were trained and financed by U.S. tax payers dollars most People can't, or won't make the connection. Just my opinion folks........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 10:38 PM December 21st, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
It would be refreshing to have a major U.S. politician stand up and say ---
"Folks, it's time to clean up our own house! Take care of our own people. Stop passing laws that benefit only 2% of our richest citizens who already own 97% of our economy!"
That will happen when Jesus and Abraham Lincoln have a hit "new buddie" movie and a broadway play that celebrates martyrdom.
A little too dark for C-span, but with the right spin, who knows?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:18 AM December 22nd, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
It would be refreshing, but alas, I don't think that any politician will piss on the shoes that have made their life comfortable by standing against the system as it should be stood against. George Will once said, (paraphrase) "If anyone believes that a politician has gotten where they are without selling their souls first, they are sadly mistaken!) I happen to agree with him on that one! But, I think that the push for change will come from the bottom, grass roots if you will. That is my will anyway.....
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
This