»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Walking Point and Taking the First Hit
| The Alley |
|
Walking Point and Taking the First Hit |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
“Under current regulations, women cannot be forced to serve in smaller direct ground-combat units such as infantry or armor battalions, or in companies that collocate with them. If the Defense Department wants to change these rules, law requires that the secretary must notify Congress no less than 30 legislative days in advance, when both houses are in session. Despite the "collocation rule" and the congressional notification law, the Army is unilaterally assigning women to previously all-male forward-support companies in its new "unit of action" land combat teams, which are key to the Army's "transformation" to a lighter, faster force. . . Forget feminist legends about Amazon warriors and push-button wars. The modern land-combat soldier carries weapons and high-tech equipment weighing 50 to 100 pounds, with body armor alone weighing 25 pounds. Such burdens would be disproportionately heavy for average female soldiers, who are certainly brave but shorter and lighter, with smaller hearts and bones, 25 to 30 percent less aerobic capacity for endurance, and 40 to 50 percent less upper-body strength. Politically correct group-thinkers and Clinton-promoted generals in the Pentagon apparently have forgotten certain realities affirmed by overwhelming evidence: In direct ground combat, women do not have an "equal opportunity" to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. No one's injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/donnelly200501070750.asp The right or wrong of the war in Iraq is being belabored on other threads. My interest here is how others feel about women being put in combat. We claim and strive for equality as a goal. So why shouldn’t a woman be equally liable in the Army to death and injury in the attempt to accomplish a combat mission? As an aside, it would seem to me that the prospect of women in combat would be attractive to a pacifist as a political deterrent to military activity. |
||
| © Copyright 2005 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I don't know, Huan Yi. It is indeed a very sensitive issue with strong points from both angles. I, personally, am a big fan of civil equality for all. Therefore, I believe a woman should have the right to choose the profession or life she wants to lead, and if a woman truly wants to serve in the military, it's her decision and should be respected. And before I make my next point, as a pacifist, let me say I do not believe this in any shape or form as a "political deterrment". I believe if a woman wants to be a doctor, then let her be a doctor. If a woman wants to be a teacher, then let her be a teacher. If a woman wants to join the military, and is aware she may have to serve in a battle scene and/or believes in a war and is willing to fight a war, then her decision should be respected, because each of these views is all about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Now, the greatest counter-argument to this is, of course, the Bible. The Bible clearly states that no woman should serve in combat. The only mention of a woman serving in the military in the Bible was Deborah in the Old Testament. She worked as a director of the war plan and only once visited the battlefield. They cite the reasoning in that, firstly, women are generally more emotional than men, and the men serve in the main purpose of protecting the women and children. Somewhere in the verses of Peter, I recall reading something about that God intentionally created men as stronger and women as the "weaker vessal" for a purpose, so men would do the fighting and women "heirs of the grace of life". Another argument I often hear why not is that women, of course, are at risk of being killed as well, and those with children would become orphans, which would devastate the family. I am sympathetic to what is said in the Bible. Who truly wants to be shot, who truly wants to be killed, who truly wants their child to be orphaned? That concern does resonate in me. But a deeper voice in me also believes in civil equality. As it is, we already have women in our military forces, and though I still dream for the day when no one would have to fight a war again, unfortunately the tragedies of history continue to be mirrored, and there actually are millions of women who support this war, and small pockets (much smaller pockets among the millions) of those who are eager to sign up. Do I support a woman's right to decide her life and choose her destiny, even if it is the military, and she really wants to do it?: YES Do I support the way the government and the military is promoting their word to low-income families who can't afford to send their children to college and thus is making them believe the Army is the only way to get college tuition, thus recruiting some young women by default: ABSOLUTELY NOT And, unfortunately, I believe many women serving are doing so under the latter case. I heard of one such story on NOW a few months ago with a Nevada family, who is now in Iraq and because of just that; her family is financially troubled and, living in a small town where she couldn't find a job, came to believe only the U.S Army could help her financially. I believe that type of thinking is NOT a deterrment. As it is, there are millions of American men who never served either, including Ashcroft and Wolfowitz, who resisted the service because they wanted to finish school, and Cheney. I respect their decisions then, even when I don't respect them now. In the end, if you are going to use this argument on me and other pacifists who have already declared we will not serve the military in any circumstance, you have to also consider those, like myself, who refused before themselves and yet are the ones you honor now. For, according to your angle, Wolfowitz and Ashcroft and Cheney could have very well allowed women to serve in default under their refusal to participate if more had served then. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I certainly wouldn't want anybody's life dependent upon my upper body strength (I don't have any). Geesh, I need my husband's upper body strength just to open a couple of our more stubborn windows! |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, my dad had to deal with this while he was working as a tower guard with the Texas Department of Corrections (now Texas Department of Criminal Justice). There was this lady who worked in the office who complained and complained that she was being discriminated against by not being allowed to work in the towers (aka pickets). So the state let her have her way and dad got picked to go sit the trustees. She went up on Number 2 picket and went through hell for two weeks. Not from guards, but from the inmates. They would gesticulate, yell obscenities, flaunt and waggle parts of their anatomy and approach the fence. They, of course, knew how close they could get to the fence, even how high they could climb it before they were shot. Now, since dad had single handedly taken over the cleaning of all firearms while he was on guard duty, for 2 weeks not a single weapon got cleaned and there were a few mishaps on the firing range from jams and misfires. All during this time, dad sat with the trustees, eating junk food and watching porn. Keep in mind all the trustees were lifers, the youngest in his early 60's. After two weeks, that lady had had enough and was more than happy to go back to her desk job. Dad was taken off trustee guard duty and put back in Number 2 picket, and lo and behold, the inmates behaved and firearms performed properly. Dad is a rather special person though. Even the inmates had great respect for Mr. Willie. Those that were disrespectful to him were quickly disciplined by their fellow inmates. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'As an aside, it would seem to me that the prospect of women in combat would be attractive to a pacifist as a political deterrent to military activity.' Huh? Do you mean because nobody wants to go out there shooting up women, or because women are useless on the bettlefield? I'm confused. If a woman can pass all the physical tests, why shouldn't she be allowed out in combat? Granted, these tests should include a weight carrying capacity equal to what men have to carry. If they can keep up, what's the problem? I recognize that there are certain things that are generally more suited to men due to them generally being larger and stronger. I don't think anyone's arguing for an all-female military force. But those who have the drive and capability should, by all means, be able to do it. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Those who serve do so, for the most part, with honor and distinction. And to each their ability. You don't often see women who are gunning for infantry, but those who do, more power to em. We do have more female pilots in the armed services, and Navy cremen. Army tankers and heavy artillery. Infantry and armored cavalry is still pretty much a man's game though, not from military doctrine, but from physiology. Not all males are phyically capable of infantry and AC, and by the same token, most females aren't either, simply due to the weight carried most of the time, especially if you are selected to carry the base plates for morts or heavy weaponry. Those suckers can easily weigh upwards of over 100 pounds, which is in addition to standard gear weighing roughly 75 pounds. Plus all the additional ammunition, rations, spare clothing (socks, socks, and more socks), and anything else the soldier in the field might need. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
You ain't kidding! Back when I lived in Colorado almost all my life to date, biannually I'd go to the Denver Museum of Natural History, and there they have a long-living exhibit called Hall of Life. It is an exhibit that monitors your overall health and well-being. Every single time I've done the grip strength test, I've always come out with the result "Poor". I have very small hands (smaller than my mothers) not to mention small feet. I have excellent agility and stamina when climbing up and down stairs, but I have never been much help in moving furniture into houses with lack of grip. Wow, I can only imagine what it must be like to wield all those accessories. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
