Posted on 12/18/2004 1:34:07 AM PST by huac
BUT IN THE BOOOOSH ECONOMY HOW ELSE ARE THEY TO MAKE A LIVING?????
In the past, the Pentagon was 'the Pentagon' and the Senate was the Senate and the President was the President.
Now, it is BUSH'S PENTAGON, even though this alledged policy change in one branch of the military is likely being done without the President's knowledge or approval.
If it is being changed to limit the women and the cost of fixing it, then their would obviously be an equal rights issue, and therefore it is not something you tell your boss. It is something you thought that could be claimed as only a technical rewrite by the legal branch, and go unnoticed.
Well, I think it's probably different women who are doing the whining in each case. Many of the ones pushing it, I suspect, are not the ones who are going to have to suffer the consequences.
Tell that to the women of the WWF.
Limitations are in the mind, not the body.
There are just as many weak kneed, spineless, easily frightened men. They just don't volunteer for the military. (Remember, most of our current forces are volunteers)
I suspect the reason some strong framed, healthy, agressive females don't volunteer is that they want the same opportunities and want to be held to the same standards as the male soldiers. If not, why bother.
(OK, you can play war, but we don't want you carrying a gun, or any other sharp instruments. You never know when you might have a high heel break on you, then you'd fall on the sharp instrument and where would we be then?)
I am fed up with PC. Standards have already had to be lowered to allow women in- the idea of them being in the infantry is frightening.
There are few enough places in our society where men can be left alone by us- a fighting unit where lives are on the line is not the place for a social experiment. Enough is enough.
I'm the mother of an infantryman so I don't speak from ignorance.
Has ANYONE talked abouth the "draft." Nixon ended the draft in 1974. The President of the United States cannot legally institute the draft. I t has to be written and passed by the Senate of the United States of America, and passed by the American Congress of the United States of America. Anthese Bills need to be presented to The President of The United States of America.
Read you 6th grade social studies book sonny.
The democrats have. But Bush and his Chiefs of Staff are doing everything in their power to avoid a draft and get the job done.
Read you 6th grade social studies book sonny.
I read a 6th grade S.S. book nearly a decade and a half ago when I was in the 6th grade, it is nothing to brag about, I got more information from a day on FR than I did that entire book.
I afraid I just can't agree. There are some very basic physical differences between men and women. Sports exemplify these differences very well. In the Olympics, they segregate the marathon, shot putting, sprints, skiing, basketball, et al based on sex. These athletes are some of the most physically capable people in the world. They segregate male and female events because females, even the best in the world, can't compete with men physically in the same event. In professional sports such as football and basketball, women don't compete with men. Not because there is a prohibition against it. If a women was actually better than Michael Jordan, if she could actually step on a court and play to the NBA standards better than a man, she would be allowed to play. All anecdotal arguments of predjudice aside, there is not a single person who has suggested that the best female player in the WNBA could compete with the worst male player in the NBA. There are women who play football. Not one has seriously attempted to compete as an NFL player by walking on and trying out. In combat activities such as wrestling and boxing, there is no question of men and women of the same weight competing against one another. These are extreme examples to make a point. At the high end of athletic performance, men are simply physically superior to women. The military has determined that men must meet a minimum physical standard to be in the military and combat ready. This is the weakest that a man is allowed to be and still serve. This standard recognizes that some men are too physically weak to serve and would be a hazard to themselves and others if they were in combat. Think of this as the bare minimum standard in an activity where lives hang in the balance. Before women were ever considered for combat, there had to be some standard to guarantee that men who were not physically capable would not be allowed into combat and endanger themselves and others. They have such a standard for men today. The bare minimum standard I speak of above. A standard which the military acknowledges that women can't meet. I can say with certainty from first hand experience that combat situations and violent confrontations do not recognize gender. In the end, they are resolved with force. The stronger party prevails.
Don't get me wrong. I love women. But just based upon their biology, there has to be a more logical, logistical role for women in the military. The TV show, JAG is a good example. Let these smart women work on logistics, computers, flight assignments... and keep near the Ladies Room. Just in case there is a leakage issue.
Advil, Bayer, Anacin, DimeaTap, Robitussen, Ammodium-AD, and MOM. JUST KIDDING!
I worked with a AF lifer who was a mechanic for on the WartHog. She was one tough daughter-of-a-bitch (she was cute too). She knew more about that A-10 than the pilots. Lots of fun talking to Sgt. Baker. She was in Gulf War I in 1991.
"Aren't they in the line of fire all the time like the men?
Aren't they expected to handle tough situations with the same training and know how the men have?"
Know any male cops? Ask them. My experience is that their answer will may well be no.
ME TOO. That's what got us here in the first place. (women are the weaker sex. It wouldn't be PC to have them sleep in a coed tent. And what if they had to, you know, deal with some female problem? Women get scared and we just don't let em have guns. We let them into the military, but make excuses for them. we let them be nurses and stuff, so they feel good, like they have equal rights or something.)
Standards have already had to be lowered to allow women in- the idea of them being in the infantry is frightening.
Standards being lower is why the idea of them being on the front lines is frightening, not because they are female.
There are few enough places in our society where men can be left alone by us-
One the front lines, in a war zone, being left 'alone' is not desirable. An equally trained female soldier is just another soldier. You wont be worrying about the right perfume to attract a guy and interfering with his concentration on the enemy.
a fighting unit where lives are on the line is not the place for a social experiment. Enough is enough.
It is not a social experiment. It is an avoidance of the truth. We have lowered the standards for females, we have made excuses for them, we insist on EQUAL RIGHTS and OPPORTUNITIES for females, but continue this unspoken mindset of believing they are weaker than men, therefore they only have the equal rights and opportunities we men say they can have.
It means we are being TWO-FACED.
We have a society that wants to be PC about not picking on the weak, and then making excuses for them, instead of helping and inspiring them to be strong.
We encourage acceptance of the weak, the lazy, and then find their numbers grow. (Black people are lazy, and not as smart as white people) Neither of those is true. We 'think' they are, we make excuses for them, but we don't insist they toe the line or give help vs. excuses because it is not PC to mention it. Since we accept lower standards, they perform basically at that level. They 'act' lazy, because we accept and ignore it. They don't worry as much about education, because we expect that, and give them breaks.
Weak men want weak women. Someone they can protect and take care of. Someone who will be dependent on them. Someone they can dominate. Someone they can attack without fear, because they fear something else.
Real men want real women. Don't make excuses for women. You only deny them their chance to participate, accomplish, and succeed in whatever plans God has for them. We are both made from the same things. A human is a human.
In the bible, God didn't say he made women to be liabilities for the men. He made them to 'help'. A partnership, not a pet.
"policy that will soon force young unprepared women—many of them mothers—to fight in land combat."
And with one arm tied behind their backs, they'll do a much better job than any pencil necked lib Dem wannabeguy.
Army says number of black enlistees is way down. Women are needed to fill the ranks, and this is rather odd. Rummy and Bush say we have plenty of troops.
So I assume you would be in favor of making the military physical fitness standards the same across the board for both sexes...and then kicking out the women who can't pass the test? Otherwise you're just spouting feminist BS.
A rifle fires with the same speed and does the same damage, whether it is shot by a male or female.
Most of our 'combat' in Iraq has not been hand to hand.
Most has not required tremendous physical exertion, days without food or water, climbing mountains and hacking through dense jungles.
The enemy considers females equal. A bomb around he waist of a female kills just as many as it would around a male.
This is the type of fighting we do anymore.
If, in the Olympics, all European competitors only had to score half as well as Americans to win, then that is the level they would achieve. The only reason we have separate events for men and women is because we have had a history of beleiving women are weaker. A self fulfilling prophecy.
It's like believing all gay men are weak because of their feminine behavior, or because they aren't a 'real man'.
..but what's with Elaine Donnelly blaming the Bush administration?!
It was Clinton who pushed & promoted this....
Also, I agree with many of you......when a woman signs up, she has to know it will disrupt portions of her life ....including family life and babies.
...but we don't have a draft, so the choice was hers.
I'm not hardhearted, but the feminazis have been beating this drum for years.....women in combat....women in the military doing the same job as men....
..and the Elaine Donnelly's have tried to counter this movement the best they can...
...but I repeat, why in the world is she hammering on the Bush administration?
I believe that women and men should be held to the same physical standards. Not gonna happen though...
They also are different for age groups, over 40 year old males are not held to the same standards as under 25 males. Not right in my opinion, but the way it is...
So, having lower standards allows women in the military who would be a hazard. So they shouldn't be there.
In order to be PC, we allow women in the military, even though we know they are too weak to do the job.
If women really are the weaker sex, and not fit for combat, and not fit for this, and not as capable as a man, then all this Equal rights stuff is mumbo jumbo.
Again, I say, women perform at a lower level, because we only require that level, and not because they can not achieve the same. People stay on welfare and don't get a job because they can get welfare (an excuse). Why bother if they won't make you. If there is not a penalty for failing to provide for yourself and family, then many will take that easy road.
Women do not play pro basketball, because there are no coed teams. Because it's a 'man thing'. Because it's something established by society, and not by ability.
Mainly it's caused by a lack of openness about sex in our history. We can't have men wrestling women. They might touch a breast or something. And then what if she started crying?
Another thing. Mental attitude. A guy might not pull the trigger on a female enemy. Women would have no such similar problem.
But the duties of a soldier, and the rigors of combat don't require HIGH END ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE for a minimum. The guy in the war movies that carried the radio, did so because he probably wasn't good at shooting a gun.
The reason there was such a push to have women in combat positions is that a combat ticket needed to be punched to get women promoted. Problem was, the feminists didn't think that they would be in combat in an actual war. Now that we are in a real war they pull out the petticoats and motherhood card and whine how it just isn't fair. Can't have it both ways babe!
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.