Pentagon opens up combat roles for women.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Seems fair. Most opposition to this move has always been centered around "You'll make the boys uncomfortable!"
Tough! They'll have to learn to deal with it!

thaluikhain:

dmase:
OP: I also share Iron Ruler's fear of rape, women will have to have separate barracks at all times or the problems associated with rape or even just pregnancy from intercourse could be an issue for our military. I assume that military has thought through this though. Unlike what most people think there isn't just some machismo act to always be protecting women there are legitimate concerns that start with basic training and end with rape.

Those already are serious issues. A while ago, the US military made it an offence, I think courtmartiallable, for a male soldier to get a female soldier pregnant in Iraq.

I imagine all pregnancy's overseas are unplanned, there might be an agenda on behalf of the soldiers sometimes(there are a lot of benefits for having children and for military personal to be married to each other), but overall I doubt it would raise the amount of condoms or birth control overseas.

Gorfias:
They are working on the training. Not to worry. I understand a big initiative is to teach young men to be less sensitive to women and their issues:
Example of the matter being reviewed:
http://nailinthehead.hubpages.com/hub/Should-women-join-the-military
That way, for instance, men will be less likely to talk if a sister in arms is raped in front of them in an effort to torture the men into surrendering such information.
Hmmmm. Teaching men to be less sensitive to women's needs. I think it will work! I just don't think it is a good thing.

Yeah, because entire US army units have been getting captured all the time... ^_^

As for that silly blog... different standards: not true. Health: bullshit. Sexual intimidation: a problem of discipline, not a problem of women. Never believe conservative blogs.

Women serving and doing so effectively has been the case far years in much better armed forces than those of the US, so why wouldn't it work for the US as well?

Allows women to earn combat medals for what they're already doing and advance through ranks that in general require combat experience. Good move. I think Tammy Duckworth said it best, "I didn't lose my legs in a bar fight. I'm pretty sure I was in combat."

Lilani:
but it's remained roughly the same size for a very long time, and it hasn't hindered front-line operations. Perhaps when it starts affecting those on the front lines, they'll take it as more of a threat and start being more proactive about it.

I'm not going to lie: I couldn't keep a straight face while reading that. Context is everything, eh!

Ravinoff:
I'm not approving of this until the draft is extended to women as well. Currently, all males age 18 or over in the US have to register with the Selective Service, but of course women don't.

Lolwut? Do people really have to bring up the draft when it makes no sense? "How dare women be allowed on the front lines when they can't be drafted!" As if the second has to come first for some magical yet unspoken reason.

Good. Now let's hope they don't fuck it up implementing it.

Ravinoff:
I'm not approving of this until the draft is extended to women as well. Currently, all males age 18 or over in the US have to register with the Selective Service, but of course women don't.

Well previously they were excluded because they were not being used. However, wouldn't you rather have nobody in the draft, or is it something you approve of?

Seems to be if women are being used in combat roles you could now attack the draft as discrimination and be much more likely to succeed and have the draft removed.

itchcrotch:
Seems fair. Most opposition to this move has always been centered around "You'll make the boys uncomfortable!"
Tough! They'll have to learn to deal with it!

Actually, most opposition to this has been 'they'll alter the standards to let them in'

the clockmaker:

itchcrotch:
Seems fair. Most opposition to this move has always been centered around "You'll make the boys uncomfortable!"
Tough! They'll have to learn to deal with it!

Actually, most opposition to this has been 'they'll alter the standards to let them in'

Yeah, only cuz their first argument failed. There will probably always be more men in the military, because... you know, nature. But if there are a few women who want to enlist and who can match the men, then hoorah!

itchcrotch:

the clockmaker:

itchcrotch:
Seems fair. Most opposition to this move has always been centered around "You'll make the boys uncomfortable!"
Tough! They'll have to learn to deal with it!

Actually, most opposition to this has been 'they'll alter the standards to let them in'

Yeah, only cuz their first argument failed. There will probably always be more men in the military, because... you know, nature. But if there are a few women who want to enlist and who can match the men, then hoorah!

Nooooooope. That is what is has always been from those that I have discussed it with.

This is how it is going to go, first things first you will see transfers from non-combat units to combat units, about one in eight women who wish to go from being a clark to a rifleman will pass and make it it, so we are looking at relatively tiny numbers so far.

Next up we will get the influx of civilians who suddenly want to join, and very few of them will pass.

Next we get the politicians a few years down the line who want to pat themselves on the back on how their little project went and they are going to be surprised how few women are in arms corps. We will start to hear things like hostile environment and 'women make up fifty percent of the population, why aren't they fifty percent of the infantry'

So the government is going to go into damage control over the whole situation and try to shoehorn in more women to seem equitable. SO we will see reduction of standards, mostly around physical strength and endurance and attempts to 'cure' the culture of the army into being a civilian workplace.

We will also see recruits and trainees pushed through because their instructors don't want to seem sexist, so we will have soldiers who physically cannot, for example, cock the section/squad's support weapon, cannot carry their pack or cannot drag a wounded mate.

And 'hoorah' really, when civvies say 'army' things it really sounds like fox news talking about video games.

the clockmaker:

itchcrotch:

the clockmaker:

Actually, most opposition to this has been 'they'll alter the standards to let them in'

Yeah, only cuz their first argument failed. There will probably always be more men in the military, because... you know, nature. But if there are a few women who want to enlist and who can match the men, then hoorah!

Nooooooope. That is what is has always been from those that I have discussed it with.

This is how it is going to go, first things first you will see transfers from non-combat units to combat units, about one in eight women who wish to go from being a clark to a rifleman will pass and make it it, so we are looking at relatively tiny numbers so far.

Next up we will get the influx of civilians who suddenly want to join, and very few of them will pass.

Next we get the politicians a few years down the line who want to pat themselves on the back on how their little project went and they are going to be surprised how few women are in arms corps. We will start to hear things like hostile environment and 'women make up fifty percent of the population, why aren't they fifty percent of the infantry'

So the government is going to go into damage control over the whole situation and try to shoehorn in more women to seem equitable. SO we will see reduction of standards, mostly around physical strength and endurance and attempts to 'cure' the culture of the army into being a civilian workplace.

We will also see recruits and trainees pushed through because their instructors don't want to seem sexist, so we will have soldiers who physically cannot, for example, cock the section/squad's support weapon, cannot carry their pack or cannot drag a wounded mate.

And 'hoorah' really, when civvies say 'army' things it really sounds like fox news talking about video games.

Er, sorry. I meant "hoorah" strictly in the celebratory sense.

well i suppose congratulations are in order (for all of us in a way) because at the end of the day its a thing that can only be afforded when you're in no real geopolitical danger of fighting a lengthy "total war".

if that judgement call has been made and those that can go through the same selection/training regimes and are judged to fully measure up alongside the men in combat roles let those who can do so i guess.

a professional army is usually fairly strictly meritocratic in principal after all.

i would however be less than happy if the selection/training regimes made "allowances" or imposed "quotas" in some way because ultimately you want the best person the army can put in any given job so there's less chance of them (and others) dying due said jobs level of execution.

i get the feeling it would get flung out the window if there ever was "a draft" again tho...

itchcrotch:

Er, sorry. I meant "hoorah" strictly in the celebratory sense.

Oh shit sorry mate, I guess I'm just paranoid these days after all of the kids who played call of duty started thinking that they were the next Ben Roberts-Smith
My bad.

the clockmaker:

itchcrotch:

Er, sorry. I meant "hoorah" strictly in the celebratory sense.

Oh shit sorry mate, I guess I'm just paranoid these days after all of the kids who played call of duty started thinking that they were the next Ben Roberts-Smith
My bad.

Don't sweat it. Probably a poor choice of words given the forum subject;D

Ravinoff:
I'm not approving of this until the draft is extended to women as well. Currently, all males age 18 or over in the US have to register with the Selective Service, but of course women don't.

I think it would be far better if we abolished the draft entirely. If you can't get enough people to volunteer to fight your war, perhaps that is a sign that the war shouldn't be fought.

the clockmaker:

Next up we will get the influx of civilians who suddenly want to join, and very few of them will pass.

Next we get the politicians a few years down the line who want to pat themselves on the back on how their little project went and they are going to be surprised how few women are in arms corps. We will start to hear things like hostile environment and 'women make up fifty percent of the population, why aren't they fifty percent of the infantry'

So the government is going to go into damage control over the whole situation and try to shoehorn in more women to seem equitable. SO we will see reduction of standards, mostly around physical strength and endurance and attempts to 'cure' the culture of the army into being a civilian workplace.

We will also see recruits and trainees pushed through because their instructors don't want to seem sexist, so we will have soldiers who physically cannot, for example, cock the section/squad's support weapon, cannot carry their pack or cannot drag a wounded mate.

That sounds incredibly unlikely. I'm fairly sure no one will care if women aren't 50% of the general infantry. If they say there is a hostile work environment, they might address things, like, you know, the hostile work environment. Not entrance requirements. Women in combat specializations is not some conspiracy to weaken the military.

Lilani:

When you say "Many will suffer dreadfully," do you mean rape and sexual harassment like Iron Ruler was talking about?

That's a big part of it. But when such a rape occurs, there are two things that should concern us:
1) The victim for obvious reasons
but also
2) The perp. Sure I want him strung up, but I also am concerned that he is placed in the situation that would not exist if the woman was not there in the first place.

One way we can help that guy: desensitize him regarding women: their needs, their very presence. I think that will work for him. A society of desensitized men? Not very good.

And what makes you think women have so much to do with the US's involvement in Libya and Kosovo?

Obama invaded Libya and there was a gender gap that got him re-elected anyway. With women serving in combat, I'm not so sure they'd have voted for him. (My problem with Republicans... did their standard bearer offer any different?) Not sure how gender divided on Juan McAmnesty, hero of Kosovo.

itsthesheppy:

If you're worried about our women in uniform being targeted for sexual assault, turn your crosshairs on male US soldiers, and don't worry so much about their performance in combat.

I think men can be desensitized to sexual differences. It may take a lot of conditioning. I don't think it will be very good for society.

From you and Lilani's responses, are you happy about women in combat? If so, why?

Blablahb:
Yeah, because entire US army units have been getting captured all the time...

Are you writing it never happens? It isn't a concern? If you're just writing that we can deal with this, I agree. What we'll need to do to deal with it is unfortunate.

Gorfias:
That's a big part of it. But when such a rape occurs, there are two things that should concern us:
1) The victim for obvious reasons

Yes, and as I said to Iron Ruler since rape is already such a big problem in the military, it's obvious keeping them out of certain roles isn't helping one bit.

2) The perp. Sure I want him strung up, but I also am concerned that he is placed in the situation that would not exist if the woman was not there in the first place.

One way we can help that guy: desensitize him regarding women: their needs, their very presence. I think that will work for him. A society of desensitized men? Not very good.

I believe prison is also a place where men are completely taken away from women and "their needs," and under the great stress of the situation rape also occurs at an abominable rape.

What makes you so sure the presence of women would have such a great effect on the men in combat? Do you have statistics or anything from other armies who have integrated women? To me it doesn't seem like a problem of women being there, but rather one of discipline and respect. Taking away the situation doesn't raise discipline or respect, it just forces the truly desperate and deranged to find even worse alternative outlets. Rape isn't about sexual needs being fulfilled, it's about dominance and power. And when you've got a soldier who is trying to force his dominance wherever he goes, he's a risk whether or not women are around.

Obama invaded Libya and there was a gender gap that got him re-elected anyway. With women serving in combat, I'm not so sure they'd have voted for him. (My problem with Republicans... did their standard bearer offer any different?) Not sure how gender divided on Juan McAmnesty, hero of Kosovo.

Oh I have no doubt more women voted for Obama than for Romney, but I think the answer is a little more obvious--the GOP managed to scare the shit out of moderates, minorities, and women throughout the campaign. I could go on all day about all they did to lose the election, but in the case of women they did have a run of bad luck. The people who came out of the woodwork during the election mortified not only women, but people who initially were ambivalent on the subjects of abortion and contraception (and believe it or not, there are people like that). Akin and his "legitimate rape" thing, that one guy from I think Iowa who came out and said "rape babies are a gift from God..." I know Romney denounced Akin, and even went so far as to say he should drop out of the election, but I'm afraid guilt by association was inevitable because they share the same party name. With how much Romney flipped and twisted after he became the GOP's candidate, it seemed there wasn't a direction he wouldn't twist to make the extreme right happy. And throughout the rest of the campaign, he avoided the subject too much and let people's imaginations run wild on how he'd handle it as president.

Lilani:

What makes you so sure the presence of women would have such a great effect on the men in combat?

You do make a great point. I have to wonder what male on male sexual assault rates were like before exploitable men were found cheek by jowl with women in close combat area quarters. Probably hard to determine. Were I such a victim, I don't know I'd report it. The same credibility issues women experience might be a problem for men, or worse (ie, you're a guy, you should have been better able to fight the other guy off).

Oh I have no doubt more women voted for Obama than for Romney, but I think the answer is a little more obvious--the GOP managed to scare the shit out of moderates, minorities, and women throughout the campaign. I could go on all day about all they did to lose the election, but in the case of women they did have a run of bad luck. The people who came out of the woodwork during the election mortified not only women, but people who initially were ambivalent on the subjects of abortion and contraception (and believe it or not, there are people like that). Akin and his "legitimate rape" thing, that one guy from I think Iowa who came out and said "rape babies are a gift from God..." I know Romney denounced Akin, and even went so far as to say he should drop out of the election, but I'm afraid guilt by association was inevitable because they share the same party name. With how much Romney flipped and twisted after he became the GOP's candidate, it seemed there wasn't a direction he wouldn't twist to make the extreme right happy. And throughout the rest of the campaign, he avoided the subject too much and let people's imaginations run wild on how he'd handle it as president.

Yeah, I'm exiting the GOP and registering Libertarian ASAP.

Gorfias:
Are you writing it never happens? It isn't a concern? If you're just writing that we can deal with this, I agree. What we'll need to do to deal with it is unfortunate.

If such a thing happens maybe once a century, so it's not a concern and I don't see a point in basing policy upon it. Got to stay realistic.

What horrible timing. The War in Afghanistan is over and all remaining soldiers are either tearing down bases or training the ANA. The military is transitioning to peace-time operations and shrinking. They're freezing recruitment to cut thousands. Truly, an idiotic decision made at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.

Cav Scouts were already pushing towards being relabeled as special forces specifically as a contingency to this. It'll be fun being in a SOCOM unit, I guess.

Gorfias:
2) The perp. Sure I want him strung up, but I also am concerned that he is placed in the situation that would not exist if the woman was not there in the first place.

Yeah, if women just stayed in the kitchen, they wouldn't be raped.

Sleekit:
well i suppose congratulations are in order (for all of us in a way) because at the end of the day its a thing that can only be afforded when you're in no real geopolitical danger of fighting a lengthy "total war".

Er, no, it's something only usually introduced only during a total war. The idea that women need to stay safe because one man can impregnate multiple women doesn't hold true, because people generally don't suddenly support polygamy after a war ends, even ones with terrible casualties.

Gorfias:

Lilani:

When you say "Many will suffer dreadfully," do you mean rape and sexual harassment like Iron Ruler was talking about?

That's a big part of it. But when such a rape occurs, there are two things that should concern us:
1) The victim for obvious reasons
but also
2) The perp. Sure I want him strung up, but I also am concerned that he is placed in the situation that would not exist if the woman was not there in the first place.

[...]

I think men can be desensitized to sexual differences. It may take a lot of conditioning. I don't think it will be very good for society.

From you and Lilani's responses, are you happy about women in combat? If so, why?

It's deplorable, and you should be ashamed of yourself, for suggesting that men can become "desensitized" to "sexual differences", somehow halfway excusing them for committing rape. Painting it as though they are, in some small way, victims themselves. That we are somehow at fault. A ridiculous thing to say, and you should feel ashamed for uttering it in a public place; to suggest that it's not his fault, that he was put in a situation where a woman was around him and was therefor sorely tempted to sexually assault her, is a complete abdication of moral responsibility and I honestly, truly think you owe us all an apology for saying something so completely ignorant and callous.

Females have been a part of our military for decades. The threat of rape is, of course, omnipresent for women, but the statistics don't lie. I'm pretty sure a woman in the army suffers a greater risk of choking on her lunch than she does being raped by an enemy fighter, whereas the risk of being sexually assaulted by her fellow soldiers is statistically way too high and that is not anyone's fault but the aggressor and the lax sensitivity training we give our troops towards their female comrades. Allowing women in combat isn't so much a "good" thing as it is a "necessary" thing. They were already in combat, given the ever-shifting amorphous nature of guerrilla warfare; now they can start being properly trained for it, as they will not be expected to participate, and that can only lead to a heightened awareness and training.

But this make-believe world you live in, where enemy soldiers sexually assault women in order to compel information from male prisoners or some other ludicrous sexual fantasy of yours is utter nonsense. As usual, Gorfias, you outdo yourself in reminding everyone that Poe's Law exists for a very good reason.

Gorfias:
You do make a great point. I have to wonder what male on male sexual assault rates were like before exploitable men were found cheek by jowl with women in close combat area quarters. Probably hard to determine. Were I such a victim, I don't know I'd report it. The same credibility issues women experience might be a problem for men, or worse (ie, you're a guy, you should have been better able to fight the other guy off).

...

Yeah, I'm exiting the GOP and registering Libertarian ASAP.

Oh. Well, this is probably the most amicable argument we've ever had Gorfie, lol. We could go into the disparities between how many rapes are reported and how many are investigated/lead to indictments, but I don't really see a need to. That's sort of a whole other discussion that has more to do with the justice system and resources for sexual assault victims then women being in combat roles. So...have a nice day, lol. Stay warm if it's cold where you live.

Also, I just realized I made a terrible Freudian slip in that last post, saying rape in prisons occurred at an abominable "rape." Oh dear, lol.

Seanchaidh:

the clockmaker:

Next up we will get the influx of civilians who suddenly want to join, and very few of them will pass.

Next we get the politicians a few years down the line who want to pat themselves on the back on how their little project went and they are going to be surprised how few women are in arms corps. We will start to hear things like hostile environment and 'women make up fifty percent of the population, why aren't they fifty percent of the infantry'

So the government is going to go into damage control over the whole situation and try to shoehorn in more women to seem equitable. SO we will see reduction of standards, mostly around physical strength and endurance and attempts to 'cure' the culture of the army into being a civilian workplace.

We will also see recruits and trainees pushed through because their instructors don't want to seem sexist, so we will have soldiers who physically cannot, for example, cock the section/squad's support weapon, cannot carry their pack or cannot drag a wounded mate.

That sounds incredibly unlikely. I'm fairly sure no one will care if women aren't 50% of the general infantry. If they say there is a hostile work environment, they might address things, like, you know, the hostile work environment. Not entrance requirements. Women in combat specializations is not some conspiracy to weaken the military.

Trust me, I have seen the issues that I have outlined in non-combat positions in fact those examples are some of the ones that I have specifically seen, and it will only worsen once women take up arms corps positions. I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed in, just that the interest groups need to stay the fuck away from it and let the military integrate it in the most operationally effective manner. However, due to the gender-politics charged nature of the issue, you will have many groups trying to have their two cents on shaping a world they do not understand.

And you are doing me a gross disservice by implying that I think this is some sort of conspiracy. Everyone involved has the absolute best intentions, however, when people who have no understanding of how the military works or what the uniformed world is like attempt to shape that world, issues arise at the differences between a civilian and military workplace.

A lot of what could be considered a 'hostile work environment' in the civilian world is simply necessary for the military to function, to give an example, the screaming of commands, while considered harassment in an office, is necessary to convey the urgency of an instruction in an operational environment. Now in the next few years, as women filter into the arms corps, we will see an increased weighting given to complaints against events of that nature due to the politically sensitive nature of a time of transition. This will lead to operationally detrimental and artificial civilian limitations on military operations.

Blablahb:
If such a thing happens maybe once a century, so it's not a concern and I don't see a point in basing policy upon it. Got to stay realistic.

Women are just getting into combat and its already been happening. That girl that got rescued from the hospital? What was her name again. I worry this will be much more prevelent than you think.

thaluikhain:

Yeah, if women just stayed in the kitchen, they wouldn't be raped.

And if men were taken from the womb to prison, we could better control them that way too. We should be looking for a more perfect justice for everyone. Whose nightmare reality is closer happeneing? Women are a monied political majority. Men are in prison in the uSA in record numbers and every reason to think that will radically increase. Where does it stop?

itsthesheppy:

It's deplorable, and you should be ashamed of yourself, for suggesting that men can become "desensitized" to "sexual differences", somehow halfway excusing them for committing rape.

Leap of logic not in evidence. I wrote I want rapists strung up. Should we cut the hands off of theives or excuse them? Can't we have a middle ground that holds them accountable for bad actions, but recognize we are all a part of a larger society that impacts our behavior? As written above, can we not look for a more perfect justice than putting more and more and more men in prison or shackling women in the kitchen? There has to be a better way.

thaluikhain:
Er, no, it's something only usually introduced only during a total war. The idea that women need to stay safe because one man can impregnate multiple women doesn't hold true, because people generally don't suddenly support polygamy after a war ends, even ones with terrible casualties.

ye because if people were at it like bunnys during or after a total war there'd be some huge surge in the birth rate figures round about the second would war and after its end, a whole abnormally large generation, how preposterous...

Sleekit:

thaluikhain:
Er, no, it's something only usually introduced only during a total war. The idea that women need to stay safe because one man can impregnate multiple women doesn't hold true, because people generally don't suddenly support polygamy after a war ends, even ones with terrible casualties.

ye because if people were at it like bunnys during or after a total war there'd be some huge surge in the birth rate figures round about the second would war and after its end, a whole abnormally large generation, how preposterous...

I see, an increase in prosperity after the war ended and economy picked up leading to higher birth rates is exactly the same as polygamy as a societal response to a gender imbalance. Right.

Gorfias:
Women are just getting into combat and its already been happening. That girl that got rescued from the hospital? What was her name again. I worry this will be much more prevelent than you think.

You're talking about Jessica Lynch, who was in a non-combat unit, a supply unit, that got ambushed by Iraqi militias.

The sensationalism surrounding it however are courtesy of a lying journalist who wrote I Am a Soldier Too, and a disgusting propaganda movie made about it that was wholly untrue. Lynch herself never said any such thing and denied it when asked about it, and there's no medical evidence of sexual assault either.

The only reason Lynch wasn't returned to the US forces by the Iraqis themselves, is because the undisciplined US forces opened fire on the ambulance carrying her. Something which is a war crime, but the perpetrators were never punished.

Basically the Pentagon and Hollywood took that story and distorted it to a degree that puts North Korean News to shame. Iraq needed to be demonized and the US army glorified, but what really happened is that the Fedayeen destroyed a unit of the US army in accordance with the laws of war, took a prisoner and provided her medical treatment, and the US army perpetrated war crimes in shooting at the ambulance sending her back (not even required in POW treatment) and then storming a hospital.

Sleekit:
ye because if people were at it like bunnys during or after a total war there'd be some huge surge in the birth rate figures round about the second would war and after its end, a whole abnormally large generation, how preposterous...

The babyboom was caused by people whose family planning was postponed by the war coming home and the economic and societal situations starting to look up while it looked bad during the war.

Thaluikhain correctly observed that needing to protect women because otherwise you can't keep a population level is not true; people don't suddenly look different upon sex after a war. During the time most babyboomers were made, women who slept around were still sluts, men who slept around just as much a stud as before, and adultery was still equally questionable before and after the war. Sexual morals didn't change during that time.

My only issue is that the physical requirements are not the same for men and women in most countries http://www.topendsports.com/testing/forces-army.htm (and a few others including Denmark where women have to do ~10% less of everything) and although it doesn't start out like that in the US it could change http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/24/women-in-combat-briefing/1861887/

Gorfias:

Leap of logic not in evidence. I wrote I want rapists strung up. Should we cut the hands off of theives or excuse them? Can't we have a middle ground that holds them accountable for bad actions, but recognize we are all a part of a larger society that impacts our behavior? As written above, can we not look for a more perfect justice than putting more and more and more men in prison or shackling women in the kitchen? There has to be a better way.

So you're equating with imprisoning rapists to "shackling women in the kitchen"? Even as you engage in a fighting retreat you manage to wedge your foot firmly in your mouth.

We are part of a larger society, and in some way it is our responsibility to fight the rampant problem of sexual assault, not just in our military but in every corner of our civilization. But the path to that is not by treating rape as though it is an inevitability and restricting women's movements and choices. It's about recognizing that men who sexually assault women are criminals of the worst sort - full stop.

Saying "I want rapists strung up" and then going on to spew ignorant foolishness is like prefacing a sentence with "Now I'm not racist, but..." Everything that follows is sure to be ignorant nonsense. I'm unconvinced of your morality in this case.

Blablahb:

You're talking about Jessica Lynch...
The sensationalism surrounding it however are courtesy of a lying journalist who wrote I Am a Soldier Too, and a disgusting propaganda movie made about it that was wholly untrue. Lynch herself never said any such thing and denied it when asked about it, and there's no medical evidence of sexual assault either.

The only reason Lynch wasn't returned to the US forces by the Iraqis themselves, is because the undisciplined US forces opened fire on the ambulance carrying her. Something which is a war crime, but the perpetrators were never punished.

A lie goes round the world while the truth is getting its shoes on! I did not know (or recall anyway) that. I tried a search on the over-all issue and came up with some hits, but after that, hard to know what is true (again).

Not really sure if I want to claim the issue will be minor, but this sure was eye opening. Thanks for that.

EDIT: interesting http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/us/female-pow-is-abused-kindling-debate.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Dunno if this was also shenanigans.

itsthesheppy:

Gorfias:

Leap of logic not in evidence.

So you're equating with imprisoning rapists to "shackling women in the kitchen"?

The point of "keeping women in the kitchen appeared to be akin to this.

it is our responsibility to fight the rampant problem of sexual assault

If there is ONLY individual responsibility for crimes, all crimes (and Jean Val Jean should have done lots of time for stealing a loaf of bread) why, I ask rhetorically? Because. No person is an island. Individual crimes must be met with forms of justice, etc. But you appear to be writing that it is ignorant to NOT accept that society has a role to play in reducing crime. It too often, has a role in creating the environment that causes crime (unless you think unemployment never causes someone to steal?) I am sorry if I am wrong and you do not see that.

thaluikhain:

Yeah, if women just stayed in the kitchen, they wouldn't be raped.

Sorry if inferred wrongly from this you didn't just mean women just hung out in kitchens due to preference but were instead mandated to stay there.

Gorfias:
EDIT: interesting http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/us/female-pow-is-abused-kindling-debate.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

"Major Cornum, a 37-year-old flight surgeon and biochemist from upstate New York, had broken both arms, smashed her knee and had a bullet in her right shoulder as a result of the downing of her Army helicopter. She screamed in pain when the Iraqi tried to pull her flight suit down over her untreated and swollen arms. Before the ordeal was over, she told a Presidential commission on women in the military this month, she was "violated manually -- vaginally and rectally."'

I don't know about that, but one sentence in that story stood out:

"Major Cornum expressed concern that her mistreatment had been blown out of proportion and would be used by those who want to keep women out of combat."

It doesn't seem to be a logical statement for a victim of severe abuse either, so maybe that story is also being exagerated. After all it was from a congressional committee right, and we already know the US government was actively leading the media in the direction they wanted during the Gulf War.

Whatever the case I'd say it's a rather powerfull statement if a victim of 'what could happen' (which is the main argument against female soldiers right?) says that women should be in combat roles.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
EDIT: interesting http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/us/female-pow-is-abused-kindling-debate.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

"Major Cornum, a 37-year-old flight surgeon and biochemist from upstate New York, had broken both arms, smashed her knee and had a bullet in her right shoulder as a result of the downing of her Army helicopter. She screamed in pain when the Iraqi tried to pull her flight suit down over her untreated and swollen arms. Before the ordeal was over, she told a Presidential commission on women in the military this month, she was "violated manually -- vaginally and rectally."'

I don't know about that, but one sentence in that story stood out:

"Major Cornum expressed concern that her mistreatment had been blown out of proportion and would be used by those who want to keep women out of combat."

It doesn't seem to be a logical statement for a victim of severe abuse either, so maybe that story is also being exagerated. After all it was from a congressional committee right, and we already know the US government was actively leading the media in the direction they wanted during the Gulf War.

Whatever the case I'd say it's a rather powerfull statement if a victim of 'what could happen' (which is the main argument against female soldiers right?) says that women should be in combat roles.

Good points. Her statements that her mistreatment should not effect our judgement on this matter rings a bell with me. I seem to recall this statement making the rounds.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked