Turning women into cannon fodder

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | April 11, 2003 | Robert Knight

[cherry]

"It would be great if the females were tested as rigorously and held to the same high standard as males, instead of being allowed to slide just because they're "a girl"."

is it just possible that women bring differant yet still valuble talents to the table?....is it just possible that women's natural tendencies....reflection, patience, team-oriented, stamina, and adaptability are perhaps as useful as total body strength and physical size?

afterall, a large percentage of military jobs nowadays are in support systems and technology....something done without super strength...

I just can not get over how much animosity there is against women on these war boards....

I get the impression that some freepers would like more women dead just to prove their point...geesh...

[TalBlack]

Dude, get a look at the film (History Channel)of her getting herself killed. She had an eternity to eject and she din't eject till it was too late. Not a surprise when you consider he lack of qualification for the equipment!

[TalBlack]

Sorry, but the introduction of a woman to a male enviroment neccessarialy feminizes that enviromrnt. this has NEVER failed to be the case. No man in the military can tell a female "soldier" what he thinks of her performance if it is sub standard. he may even wind up on charges. Equality is the basis for morale. As for the idea that there are woman who can meet the standards, that is THE OLD HONEST standards, it simply isn't true. The BEST woman could do, that is the top single digits was only as good as the BOTTOM forty percent of the males but with this caveat: the woman couldn't get any better but the men COULD! iN SHORT there will always be a male better qualified next in line. If you believe anything else you have bought the line and should resume watching CNN.

[William Terrell]

Are you in favor of putting women in combat? You seem to be saying you're tied up with psychological innuendo you see in the article, yet with odd side comments carefully phrased. Why don't you just declare your position, take an honest stand and see how you do?

[TalBlack]

So are you saying that the women are incapable of doing the jobs that they have been assigned to because their physical standards in boot camp are lower?


NOW YOU'RE GETTING IT. This is a doirect ouote from the NY Times magazine: "They can't do the jobs." They couldn't in Desert Storm and their male fellows had to do them for them. Now you're getting it!

[TalBlack]

Utterly Moronic.

[Lorianne]

Women can't create babies by themselves. Parthenogensis isn't possible with humans.

Only a father can render a child 'fatherless'

[Blue Collar Christian]

You are asking me the question that everyone should be asking you. I have given you a good solid reason, whereas your opion is "I can't help but think.." and you think your shrinkspeak is intelligent. I believe you are mistaken.

Do you like to keep asking the same already answered questions like Al Gore demanded for recounts until you hear what you want?

You bore me. Goodbye.

[Blue Collar Christian]

"And I am even more sorry yet for all the future fatherless children feminism will create while insisting it's a woman's business to do so."

You gotta give feminism credit though, where credit is due. If it weren't for feminism, all those aborted babies would be hanging around doing whatever bad things, or living however badly the murderous parent(s) thought allowing them to live would have brought us. I guess we have to thank them. (sarcasm, just in case BenLurkin is reading)

[victim soul]

When America sends young women off to war, watching them kiss their toddlers goodbye, we are making a moral choice that children are just not important anymore. It is much more important to drive a military truck.

[patriciaruth]

They could not fight to the degree deemed necessary by combat experience.

TalBlack, that may or may not be, but when I support the troops, in time of war especially, that means I do not countenance people calling them baby-killers or printing doctored photos on the front page of the L.A. Times that gives the impression to the casual reader that the soldier is pointing his rifle at civilians.

It also means that I do not indict a soldier as a nitwit, a liar, a coward, or an incompetent without facts, as a knee-jerk reaction because it promotes a political position I hold.

This is the same garbage that the Democrats are doing, salivating at every angle of a story that seems to vindicate their political position -- in their case against the war and against the military (read against a conservative President and against conservatives in general.)

I do not respect anyone at this site who is slandering/libeling a U.S. soldier in time of war. The opinion about women in the military can be respected; however, IMO it should be discussed after the war is over and then it should be discussed with FACTS, not with SLANDER before the FACTS are known.

Right now, "supporting the troops" to me means supporting ALL of them, and not singling out a particular group and lowering their morale with nasty comments.

And if you think I'm just defending PFC Lynch because she is female, then you should go to my profile page and find my threads for care packages for the troops that I started before 9/11 as well as my prayer thread for the troops. My position here is because I practice what I preach when it comes to supporting the troops.

[LibWhacker]

In 1948, the Israelis put women soldiers into the front lines, but had to pull them after a few weeks. Discipline broke down, morale plummeted and men ignored orders, rushing instead to protect the women.

Doesn't anyone else recognize the evil liberal genius of putting women in combat? During combat, the more heroic-type men (i.e., Republicans) will rush forward and get themselves killed trying to save the women, while the liberal weenie-men will hold back and survive. Therefore, after the war is over, all you'll have left in society is a bunch of traumatized, psycho bulldykes and liberal weenie-men who either served or didn't (the latter having dodged the draft), and this population of pervs will henceforward elect democrapic presidents until the end of time . . . Genius . . . Sheer genius. We've got to stop these people.

[Non-Sequitur]

Your gender neutral view does not coincide with reality.

What do you mean? They weren't competent? They weren't dedicated? They didn't do their job well? What?

[Non-Sequitur]

In what capacity did you and these competent women serve?

I served with women in the Navy, both in my reserve unit and during my active duty time.

[usmcobra]

After such a blistering diatribe what can I say?

"war is dangerous so we want to remove women from danger, so we'll keep them out of the military"

There are many dangerous things in this world of ours, for instance driving a car is dangerous, but where is the outrage over allowing women to drive especially with children in the car?

Where is the outrage over the limp and broken bodies of young mothers cut out of their vehicles in while their children cry out for their mommy strapped into the child protection seats?

Flying dangerous, again where is the outrage over burnt and torn bodies of women pulled from the wreckage of airplane crashes, surely by denying women the right to fly their deathes can be avoided?

and what about marriage, where women are routinely beaten and murdered by those that promised to love cherish and keep them safe? should we also abolish marriage because it is unsafe?

Need I go on, because I can. The truth about women in the military is realtively simple, it is no more dangerous the getting into a car, or flying or even getting married. But the precieved risks are greater, because we all look at war as dangerous. We don't look at driving flying or marriage as even more dangerous then war, but they are.

It's time for a reality check, women that join the military know the risks they are taking and do so willingly, they know they are choosing in some small way to defend this country, and that perhaps they will have to defend this country by laying down their lives. As of yet none have demanded to be placed on the front lines and directly in harms way, but if it were availible only a few would, and if it were those that would want to serve in combat know the risks and would prepare for them.

In fact they'd be much better prepared meet the dangers of war then those women firing up their mommymobiles and heading off into traffic oblivous to the dangers of our highways and byways.

I suppose we could prevent their deaths by putting women in their place, you know, one ankle chained to the bed and the other chained to the stove, babies at their breast, barefoot and pregnant,

but then again they are at risk from common everyday house fires
and those chains are so heavy...

[clamper1797]

Others may disagree with me, and that's OK, they're just wrong.

VERY WRONG ... I would like a show of hands of the combat vets out here that would like to have a woman with them on frontline patrol or in a frontline foxhole ... I sure would not (except for that occasional long lonely dark night)

[William Terrell]

Actually, your analysis is good. This may not be planned but I can certainly see it happening.