Female prisoners of Saddam Hussein less than equal

The simultaneous news coverage of the war in Iraq and the rape scandal at the U.S. Air Force Academy exposes again the feminist double standards and hypocrisies.

Feminists complain about sexual harassment by American men, but if committed by ruthless enemy men, feminists applaud it as progress made toward a gender-neutral military.

Most Americans were shocked to learn that at least one U.S. servicewoman, Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson, 30, of Fort Bliss, Texas, is a prisoner of Saddam Hussein. One more servicewoman, Army Pfc. Lori Piestewa, 22 of Tuba City, Ariz., is listed as missing in action. Another, Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, 19, of Palestine, W.Va., was held captive for several days before being rescued.

Feminists see this as proof that women are advancing toward equality with men on the battlefield. In point of fact, women under Saddam are not equal, whether they are Iraqi women or U.S. prisoners of war.

Johnson is a single mother of a 2-year-old daughter. She was part of an Army maintenance unit ambushed and captured after the convoy she was traveling with made a wrong turn. Johnson had enlisted to be an Army cook and never dreamed she would be sent into a situation where she could be captured in combat.

This is not only a tragedy for Johnson, it is a humiliation for the United States and a step backward for civilization. No crisis or threat requires our government to send mothers of 2-year-old babies across the seas to fight brutal terrorists.

Army regulations have always exempted women from direct ground combat. But the feminists in the Clinton administration opened up more "career opportunities" for women in 1994 by getting the Pentagon to eliminate the "Risk Rule," a regulation that had exempted women in noncombatant positions from assignment with the "inherent risk of capture."

I wonder if the recruiting officer explained this to Johnson when she enlisted to be a cook, or if the sales pitch was confined to Army job opportunities and day-care benefits.

A New York Times editorial brags that Johnson's capture shows how the U.S. military has "evolved" and "the case for equal footing is gaining ground."

But, the Times bemoans, the military is "a laggard on the topic of women in combat" and still retains "glass ceilings" that bar women from direct combat.

The editorial writer must have been a fan of one of the feminists' favorite fantasy films, "G.I. Jane," in which Demi Moore proves she can take it like a man by getting herself savagely beaten and almost raped. Her fellow servicemen are required to watch this travesty as part of sensitivity training to accustom them to abuse of women by the enemy.

This is the kind of equality the feminist movement has always sought and why the movement remains outside of the mainstream, although it does control the Democratic Party. The feminists' legal oracle in the years before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emerged, Yale Law School professor Thomas I. Emerson, described the goal of gender equality in the Yale Law Journal in 1971: "As between brutalizing our young men and brutalizing our young women, there is little to choose."

This callous attitude toward women in the military, contrasted to the warm-and-fuzzy silence about Bill Clinton's treatment of women, proves that the feminists' goal is not to protect women from sexual assault, but to force the United States, including the military, into a gender-neutral society. The feminists' goal is not about achievement for women, or else it would be lauding President Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., as role models, which it does not.

Those who seek to understand the peculiar ideology and goals of the feminists would find it instructive to ponder its current favorite award-winning movie, "The Hours." It is a dreary and depressing tale that makes heroines out of three women who cynically put their own self-fulfillment above every other goal. They betray marital promises, flout moral standards, walk out on the duties of motherhood and trample on everyone unfortunate enough to come into contact with them.

It is amazing how feminists fail to learn the lessons of their own choices and fail to see how their propaganda movies actually prove the reverse of what was intended. The movie "G.I. Jane" proves that Jane is ridiculous in trying to be a Navy SEAL. "The Hours" proves that the narcissistic pursuit of personal happiness by author Virginia Woolf and by the movie's two main female characters, Laura and Clarissa, can produce only loneliness and suicide.

The tragic capture of Johnson shows U.S. citizens that the feminist agenda is an attack on the family, marriage, motherhood and common sense. Where are the male politicians and military commanders who will stand up and say out loud that feminist ideology, like G.I. Jane standing naked in the shower, is an empress who has no clothes?

"This is not only a tragedy for Johnson, it is a humiliation for the United States and a step backward for civilization"

But the feminists in the Clinton administration opened up more "career opportunities" for women in 1994 by getting the Pentagon to eliminate the "Risk Rule," a regulation that had exempted women in noncombatant positions from assignment with the "inherent risk of capture."

Who are the female officers who allow this feminist, socially engineered political correctness to prevail? Ask the captured women who make it back if this is “gaining ground”.

These military women are a long way from the Air Force Academy students who are also being socially engineered but for a different reason – sort of – the feminists want to stop all tradition of all male bastions even down to Augusta National; they want to stop all things traditional though they never wanted to attend the academies or play golf themselves. They had a hissy fit when one of their all female schools was about to be made co-ed. Some of the the AF co-eds were involved in illegal drinking parties, remember Tail Hook? They not only broke the Academy rules about alcohol, both male and females were partying when they weren’t supposed to be. The ladies in the latter case weren’t so innocent, if you want to go to an all male establishment, then you have to be above board at all times and that means acting and behaving like a lady and obeying the rules. Being captured by known terrorists is a whole different story. No woman should be on the front lines in a country that deplores the western woman. Political correctness? Ask your congressman and Senator why he or she approved the feminists agenda, don’t blame the Military, they are doing as told!

No woman should be on the front lines in a country that deplores the western woman. Political correctness?

If so, then we had better also exempt young Jewish male soldiers from duty in or around Arab countries, lest their possible treatment as POWs resemble that of Daniel Pearl.

But you likely are not so personally familiar with some of the other young men and women volunteering for military service, not as cooks or maintenance techs, but for combat arms positions, or, in the case of the women, as close to it as they can get, to include the half-dozen or so now flying as A-10 warthawg pilots.

Unlike those joining the military services for the supposed benefits, most of those I've run across are more interested in the service they can render to their country, feeling that they owe a debt of service that needs to be repaid as fully as possible. Sometimes I can convince some of them that they can best do so by offering their existing skills in jobs less interesting or personally fulfilling, but critically necessary, and demanding in their own right. And sometimes I cannot, and they go on to serve as they choose; it is their decision and their enlistment; I'm only advising and counseling.

But I have seen some durned good ones, male and female both, and for the most part their expectations are both realistic and pragmatic, and if it ever happens that I have to serve again with them- unlikely, but not at all impossible- I'd be glad to have most either slaving away under me or bossing and administratoring me to the worst of their abilities. It would not be pretty, but one way or another, we WOULD accomplish our assigned mission and tasks together.

Guess what: the role of the military is to get the job done despite enormous pressures and methods used to prevent that from happening, including having someone try their best to kill you. Just because the job is a little harder because some social experiment is ongoing in the middle of your parade ground does not mean the parade will not take place. Granted, a lot of things could be rearranged to make the personnel aspects of military recruiting and retention MUCH simpler and more efficient; I'm real glad my own job is as an S3 and not in S1 [Administration/Personnel]

But the quality of the people coming in is excellent, and certainly better than when I was their age. Perfect? Certainly not, if they were, we wouldn't even have to train them in everything from how to wear a hat to how to tie their boots. But they're not bad, not bad at all, and too often really impress me sufficiently, as recently in Iraq, that I'm really convinced this country may well do better in their hands tyhan it has in those of my own generation- as per the last decade.

Well, we will see. Though terribly poisoned by half-thought out ideas and propagandization from television overdosing, they're a sharp bunch and their bull$hit detectors work just fine, having been well-tested through most of their young lives. They'll do to ride the river with, if it comes to that.

And I'd much certainly rather soldier with or for most of the female troops I've seen pass my way since 1992 than about half of the draftees I served with on my own first enlisted tour, 1966-1970. They'll do.

-archy-/- -archy-/-

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.