Death toll of female troops 'troubling'

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | December 26, 2006 | Rowan Scarborough

[commish]

"But deliberate exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to acceptance of violence against women in general."

This article is here for no other reason than the existence of this sentence. They don't give a fig about how many women have died, or about what jobs they serve in the military.

This entire article was made up to be able to put this sentence out there and more importantly to PLAY POLITICS.

The only message this entire thing is trying to convey is : REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED PUTTING WOMEN IN POSITIONS WHERE THEY FACED COMBAT VIOLENCE -- ERGO REPUBLICANS SUPPORT VOILENCE AGAINST WOMEN

The rest of the article is just filler to make it look like there was a real issue they were commenting on, rather than a completely assinine statement.

[albee]

Equal opportunity means equal pay, equal rank and the equal opportunity to get killed in combat zones.

Isn't this what the Women's Movement was all about?

[Steel Wolf]

They're just not ground pounding trigger pullers, by natural design.

A little light reading might be in order.

Why? To read some study the Armed Forced ran to justify what they were going to do anyway? I was in one of the earlier mixed basic training units, and spent over a decade in the Army, including a trip or two downrange to OEF/OIFville. I've worked with hundreds of female troops under every condition, from boots on the ground to high pressure, senior level staff functions. There isn't any aspect of women in tactical environments I haven't had to deal with.

If you think that a "little light reading" is going to change my firsthand knowledge, and assessment of, the utility of female troops in combat conditions, allow me to disabuse you of that notion.

[Ben Mugged]

And in hand to hand combat I would how she would have done? Or if she had to carry the wounded how would she do?

Let's drop the pretense. This is not about ability. For every scenario you can name where a woman is not physically able to perform combat (or fire, or police) duties I'll show you 5 studies proving you are wrong. This is about a woman's role in society as defined by religion and social mores.

[TEEHEE]

This is about a woman's role in society as defined by religion and social mores.

False. It's about natural impulses of men to protect women and behave differently towards women. Who gives a rip if the studies find women just as physically competent (let us all laugh uproariously)? If the men feel different toward the women in their units, less inclined to get over it if a woman gets her face shot off, more distracted by sexual tension, then the men, who will always make up the bulk of the force, are compromised as warriors. Period.

[freespirited]

This is a very short article wherein the author concludes that based on two new studies (US and UK), women are just as capable as men of similar size for training and enduring the rigors of combat.

LOL. Just as capable as men of similar size! So a woman who is 5'8" and 200 lbs is just as capable as a man of that size and weight. WOW. Now how about the author deal with the reality that most men are larger in size than most women.

The lengths some people will go to in order to demagogue this issue are amazing.

[JayAr36]

If the purpose of the military is to kill the enemy and break their things, would someone explain to me how women improve on that????????? It is nothing more then a social experiment and nothing more.

[donna]

Marine Corps Physical Fitness Standards

Males
Age	Pull Ups	Sit Ups	3-Mile Run
17-26	3	50	28 MIN
27-39	3	45	29 MIN
40-45	3	45	30 MIN
46+	3	40	33 MIN

 

Females
Age	Flexed Arm Hang	Sit Ups	3-Mile Run
17-26	15 Secs	50	31 MIN
27-39	15 Secs	45	32 MIN
40-45	15 Secs	45	33 MIN
46+	15 Secs	40	36 MIN

[donna]

If you were killed right away you wouldn't be there to protect your family.

[CDHart]

My father died in 1956 as a Lt. Col. in the Army. I remember he always said that the military was no place for women, except as nurses etc. I think he was probably right.

Carolyn

[brytlea]

I said probably. I don't think the odds would be in my favor, but I would make the attempt.
susie

[brytlea]

I'm sorry about your Dad. But thank you and your family for his service.
susie

[CDHart]

You're welcome!

carolyn

[Plains Drifter]

Well said,from a Vet.

[Billthedrill]

That's Molly Pitcher...

One of my favorite historical characters who has been sadly if perhaps inadvertently maligned by PC historians. If you check her entry in the Britannica you will find that she is famous for bringing water to the wounded under fire. That wasn't quite it, nor would the British have been shooting at her if it had been.

Mary McCauley was the wife of an artillery officer and insisted on accompanying him to war. She was also an intelligent and curious young woman. One thing she learned was how to operate a cannon.

The Battle of Monmouth took place on one of the hottest days of the year. And the troops did run out of water, and she did run the length of the lines for it to a nearby farm, where she couldn't find a bucket but did find a pitcher, hence her sobriquet. She didn't just do this once, and when the British caught on, she ended up doing it under fire. Were they cruel men trying to keep the wounded thirsty?

No, they weren't. The artillery manual of the time referred to the person as the "number one" who swabbed the recently-fired piece's barrel out with water to kill remaining sparks so that the number two, the loader, wouldn't kill himself ramming the charge into place. That's what Mary was after - she was fighting alongside her husband. And the pictures - not the one you posted, but others - that show her "loading" a cannon aren't showing that at all, they're showing her acting as number one and swabbing it out with the water she'd brought.

You won't find this in any article on the incident of which I am aware, most of which were written after the fact by persons who assumed she was acting in the "proper" role for a woman of caring for the wounded, which she certainly did do after the battle. But Mary - Molly - was a fighter, and ought to be honored for it. As anyone ought to, male or female, who takes fire for our freedom.

I am not enthusiastic about women in the front lines, nor would I expect any man to be so. But as someone pointed out earlier, there are very seldom front lines these days. Most of the women killed in the first Gulf War were rocketed in barracks by a Scud well behind the "lines." We don't have to like it to do it, and in fact there isn't a great deal about war I do like.

[Texas_shutterbug]

Oh, please!

I have two daughters in graduate school as we speak!

If a woman can't load her own gear onto a helicopter, then obviously she's not as strong as a man. I thought we were talking about war, dangerous situations, unexpected situations.

[Tax-chick]

So a woman who is 5'8" and 200 lbs is just as capable as a man of that size and weight.

But the man still can't have a baby :-). (And I'm only 5'4".)

[Texas_shutterbug]

And...ummm....you can show me all the studies you want.

And then I'll ask you how many women firefighters died in the towers?

Would you want a man or a woman carrying you in that situation?

[Tax-chick]

I assume those running times are in uniform, boots, and carrying gear? If not, I could beat the 17-year-old man by two minutes, and I'm a 40-year-old part-time couch potato with eight children!

[antiRepublicrat]

Call me a chauvinist if you like, but I see no reason why my wife or daughters should (conceivably) be called away to fight for me. The very idea is is offesnive. I am supposed to fight for them.

Chivalry is often mistaken for chauvinism in these PC days. Telling a woman who is ready, willing and able to serve her country that she can't is probably chauvinism. Wishing that she wouldn't and volunteering (or wishing you could volunteer) to go in her stead is chivalry.