Catch some of the quotes in this article.
"Even today, studies of classroom interaction indicate women are interrupted more frequently than men."
A: Maybe its because they are talking too much and making too little sense.
"The main reason males are nine times more likely than females to commit violent crimes is not because of biology or superior morality – it's because women don't have our masculinity to prove."
A: Or maybe its because of biology.
"Look at serial sadistic and random killers. Every one of them is not just a male, but a white, non-poor male – the very group that this male-dominant, white-dominant culture hooks on superiority."
A: And I thought the movie "Monster" was based on a true story and Mary Bell, a prolific killer, was also a woman. Perhaps she should tell her theory to Wayne Williams (a black man) and Richard Ramirez (a hispanic). Many serial killers are gay men (Dhamer and Gacy) who were actually trying to act more like women.
"Women at war have had to survive bullets and bombs as well as rape and sexual assaults by their fellow soldiers."
A: If men and women are equal, you would think that men would be suffering from rape in equal numbers as women. Hmmm?
"I feel like I have grown up seeing that women could be as mediocre or evil as men – Margaret Thatcher was prime minister when I was a child, after all – but that didn't strike me as a defeat of feminism."
A: You let the cat out of the bag. Feminism is not about the advancement of women, but the advancement of liberal causes.
"...and some women are going to be just as mediocre or bad or abusive or conservative or short-sighted as some men are."
A: Ah yes, being conservate is akin to being "mediocre, bad, abusive, and short-sighted".
"The framework for abuse of prisoners was created by the derogatory, hot-dog language used by the Bush administration to describe so many Iraqi people as 'terrorists.'"
A: Yes, I recoiled at the photo of President Bush holding the leash around the poor Iraqi's neck. Oh the humanity!
I still say that sending women into combat is the dumbest thing anyone could do. I am a male chauvenist pig and also a right wing conspiracy contibutor.
Amazing how Abu Ghraib is the fault of President Bush when the feminization of the Army started under Pres. Clinton.
You have to love these writers that always see things as cause and effect rather than end result.
Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the womem in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raiderand the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.
It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.
This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. That is not the case now as most pesonnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today's military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.
One of the problems in assesing the impact of this issue vis-a-vis the Iraq war is the fact that we handily defeated them with the forces that were already in place. What would happen if we faced the sort of enemy that was able to afflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? Then the United States are he was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program has technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry men to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality.
Many commentators are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG's and .50 cal HMG's, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted "dual physical training standards" was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements. My son, a reservist in a NG chopper unit, is contemptuous of what he describes as continual coddling of female soldiers. He is planning to transfer to an infantry unit.
Nazi armaments minister Albert Speer said that a significant factor in Germany's defeat was the failure to mobilize German women in the same manner as the allies did in WWII. In situations of full mobilization, they are essential. I believe that women are a militarily valuable asset, provided that asset is used in a manner that makes the military ready to fight, and subordinates feminist social engineering to that end.
Hundreds of thousands of women have served and are serving their country honorably and well. I honor them for their service and accept them as comrades and fellow veterans. We can only hope that their service will be continued in such a manner as to enhance the ability of the military to fight. The potential consequences for the individual soldier and the military's mission are too serious to subordinate to social engineering.