New armed forces scandals revisit the question of why women are in them

The Report ^ | Kevin Michael Grace

[robowombat]

An interesting view of the question of pc warriors reom our northern neighbors. Not flattering to the NOW approach to women in uniform.

[aardvark1]

The transition to a coed combat force has been smooth, says Lieutenant-Colonel Diana Hope, Canadian Forces director of personnel policy, who is responsible for "gender integration."

What else is she going to say..."Of course it hasn't worked because I don't have a clue what I'm doing in this job that was created for me to fill." Right!

[CatoRenasci]

I didn't realize Canada still had any military forces.....

[yendu bwam]

We should take a cold, hard look at what kind of gender integration (if any) leads to a most deadly and efficient armed forces. It's preposterous for most to believe that the best solution is to have women in combat. Anyone with any common sense knows that when you mix sexes, all sorts of sexual attraction distractions, sexual attraction competition and sexual attraction jealousies arise. Surely that does not make for the strongest armed forces possible.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

[Little Bill]

Would you want a woman in your foxhole that stank as bad as you, after a month in the field, and you dug most of it?

[machman]

Of course to anybody with a thinking, rational mind, the outcome of all of this is obvious. But like I said.............

[Maximum Leader]

I read somewhere that the Canadian military numbers 36,000.
To put that in perspective, the New York City Police Department has 40,000 officers.

This article was depressing. I found the story of the female marine prostituting herself worse than the two female POWs being raped and sodomized. I mean besides the whole matter that rape victims (and POWS in general) have no choice in what happens to them, its the fact that even in peacetime deployments, you hear stories of soldiers whoring themselves.

Supply and demand being what that is, thats probably the least jealously inducing behavior. Its curious that this article says that 30% of unit should be female for integration to work. I suspect that thats because if many of the men in the unit are either happily married, have a serious girlfriend back home or well, not asking and not telling... 30% female population is enough that the remaining soliders who want a girlfriend can get one.
When only a small percentage of the guys are getting laid, thats a recipe for sexual jealously.

In the civilian world, any man who wants a girlfriend can meet one out in the world... but on a ship or out in the desert, good luck finding a singles bar (or a church singles club).

[expatpat]

'according to Lt.-Col. Hope ......."all of the units are reaching out and touching." '

From the remaining comments about pregnancy and prostitution, it sounds like Ms. Hope was correct.

[ReadMyMind]

As the father of two girls, I sure hope they don't end up in the military, combat or non-combat.

[Grut]

What else is she going to say...

On the other hand, what would a male in the same position say that was any different? The basic problem the military has... any military... is that policy is truer than truth so that anything official is a howling success until it's abandoned as a catastrophic failure....

[bat-boy]

My experience tells me that a large contingent of military women are....how should I say....ummm....whores. I can't count how many single and married women went hog wild while overseas. Especially the married women. I lost ALL respect for military women during my first tour in Korea, and my second tour was no different. The stories I could tell of the goings on down in Seoul would make Larry Flynt blush(and I'm sure I'm not the only one). The women at Ft. Benning were not all that diffeent either, just a little more discreet (probably because their husbands were their).

Since that is the case, put 'em to good use. Use them like the camp followers of ancient times. Let 'em service combat soldiers that come back from the front. Then again, I guess we could put one in each platoon and go that route, but it would be harder to keep them clean.

The above statements will probably make a lot of the PC freepers angry and I'm sure I'll get a lot of grief, but after reading the article above and thinking back on what I witnessed, I can't see where there would be a whole lot of difference. They wanna be ho's, treat 'em like the ho's they are. Make it an MOS (69H for instance)!

[aardvark1]

what would a male in the same position say that was any different? BR>I agree. It's not the fact that she's a woman saying it, the point it she's nothing but a desk-occupying, air-wasting, bureaucrat in a uniform. This is one of the main reasons I left the US military in 1994 after 14 years of service. Klinton the Malfeasant was on the throne not asking and not telling.

[KineticKitty]

Had experience in this area, or are you just generalizing ALL women? < /sarcasm>

[mamelukesabre]

HAHAHAHA!

I thought it said:


new armed forced SANDALS revisit the question of why women are in them.

So...the armed forces are putting women in sandals nowdays, eh?

[Ohioan]

The denial of reality is a contageous social disease.

The most important reason that women should not be in combat units has to do with the Chivalric code, that has brought out the best in Western Warriors for over a thousand years. Men are supposed to protect women. You trash that ethic, you destroy the call for courage and sacrifice above and beyond the mere orders of the moment. (For a more detailed look at the Feminist Absurdity, just click on the link.)

It was President Clinton, of course, who really used the American military to make social statement. And it was for that that he really should have been impeached (an removed from office). (See Abuse Of Power.)

We are at a point of cultural crisis in the West. And we are in very real danger of losing the non-material fruits of the upward struggle of a score of generations. If we lose the spiritual and philosophic aspects of that achievement, the material ones will not be long in flowing down the same drain, as the whole social infra-structure collapses.

William Flax

[Lorianne]

Morality is difficult for women to maintain in military situations.....

During the Vietnam conflict American male soldiers were irresponsibly impregnating the women of South East Asia. As a result, the United States decided to "take care of" the Amerasian children fathered by the U.S. male soldiers. Consequently, the 1987 Amerasian Homecoming Act was passed by Congress. To date over 20,000 Amerasian children have been brought to America along with over 65,000 of their extended family members and all have been given extensive relocation benefits... The United States has paid dearly for the irresponsible consequences of male soldiers.

In addition US military personell and contractors have been implicated in the sex trafficking trade in the former Yugoslavia.

In addition a number of US male soldiers have created embarrassing international incidents over rape and murder of locals and other criminal behaviour in foreign military bases.

In addtion, how many male US soldiers have fathered children out of wedlock I wonder? That information shouldn't be too hard to dig up if we have to get into a "morality" war.

This piece was a hack job with misogyny as its only premise. Incidently, I don't necessarly favor females in combat, at least not on a quota basis. But our military women, most of whom have served honorably deserve better than this type of hack job.

[Lorianne]

Calling our military women whores is despicable.

[A. Pole]

"A lot's happened since then," according to Lt.-Col. Hope. [...] There has been a changing of attitudes and "all of the units are reaching out and touching."

Touching? Interesting.