Turning women into cannon fodder

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

[TracyLynn]

Whats wrong with holding women to the same standard as men?
The only reason they don't do it now is because they know that most women would not pass,because we are different than men.By not having the same standards across the board people are still buying into the notion that women are not equal with men,and only are equal when legislation gives them the advantage.Women and men ARE EQUAL... but different, and its time that people cherished the differences instead of trying to make us something we are not.The feminists idea of equality is ridiculuos anyway.It views women as smaller versions of men and this argument simply does not hold water.There are significant biological differences between the sexes that feminists refuse to accept.
Scientists are now discovering that men and women do better when treatments are tailored specifically to each sex rather than just a one size fits all approach.There are also some good shows out that point out the differences between male and females,
One is Science of the Sexes.You can most likely obtain a copy of the series from the discovery channel store.
Another is the Human Sexes by Desmond Morris.
There are also a number of books out on the subject.
Fascinating stuff,if your interested.

IMO,Women should beware what we wish for,we are already besieged by a notion that we should all somehow look like super models,we don't need the added burden of trying to live up to some kind of super hero image which most of us would fall miserably short of.

"is it just possible that women bring differant yet still valuble talents to the table?...."

Not in an infantry unit.Infantry units are not push button units.They are on the ground,killing units.They bear the brunt of enemy attacks.If need be they use hand to hand combat to subdue or kill the enemy.Infantry recruits spend an average of 3 to 4 weeks longer in basic training than recruits who choose jobs such as supply clerk or mechanic.And as we've seen in this war groundpounders are important.They have the nasty job of taking out the enemy who cannot be taken by air superiority.They don't have time to reflect on what they are doing ,and there aren't many different angles you can bring to killing someone.If your gun fails (as the 507th POW's said theirs did)you had better be able to defend yourself.Because sometimes the enemy is not going to take POW's,they are just going to kill you outright if they can.

[Paul C. Jesup]

It is not about surrendering. It is about being a realist. When my father, a good, honest man, who has been happily married for over 20 years, told me in that in this day, in this country that it is not wise for me to get married because of the laws and narcissistic girls (they are not mature enough mentally to be called women) out there, I knew this country was beyond salvaging.

You are old, this is NOT the same country you grew-up in, at least I am sane enought to realize that.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Sorry, but the introduction of a woman to a male enviroment neccessarialy feminizes that enviromrnt. this has NEVER failed to be the case.

That is because political correctness have forced the organizations to bend to the womens' wishes when it comes to standards. If this were not allowed then the women would be forced to bend to the organizations' standards and feminization would NOT occur.

[William Terrell]

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.

Have you ever been in a war, that is to say, actually patroling, ambush sitting and firefighting? When you drive or fly, are other drivers and flyers purposfully trying to kill you? Being married is a dangerous as being in armed conflict?

You realize, of course, that your position is just as liberal/progressive/socialist as is possible to get.

[cyncooper]

Pfc Lynch is the first POW to be rescued in this manner since World War II.

So?

I am not interested in arguing for women in combat, but what is the point of people bringing up her rescue when the subject is discussion of women in combat?

I see one person saying, well the rescuers are men, but still, am I wrong at the hints by some that the rescue would not have been done if she were a guy? I fail to see why this is brought up in this manner when supposedly the discussion is on another aspect of service.

[William Terrell]

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?

No, it's not possible, as proved by throusands of years of male/female interaction. Only liberals/socialists think that humankind has changed. It hasn't.

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

Women have traditionaly held military jobs in rear support, to release men to fight, and have served well in that capacity. At any time one faces the enemy, one has to have the physical strength to do so and aid their comrades in battle. Superstrength? No, just normal male strength, with the musculature, dense connective connective tissue, and massive bone structure thereof.

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

That's a strawman. People out here have no animosity against women at all; their animosity is directed toward policies that put women in danger needlessly.

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

Think clearly here. What gets more women dead, combat or clerical roles in the rear?

[cyncooper]

People out here have no animosity against women at all;

Oh, some certainly do.

(I am not arguing for women in combat, but you'd best realize there is hatred for women in some quarters here, and not deny it.)

[MEGoody]

Brutalization is brutalization, whether the victim is male or female. Instead of ranting and raving about the armed services allowing women to participate, why don't people rant and rave that the perpetrators of this brutalization be found and brought to justice?

[MEGoody]

"When I get behind the wheel of a car, I don't endanger the other passengers on the road."

Pardon me? Sure you do. If you have an accident, it will likely involve at least one other car.

[MEGoody]

"Whats wrong with holding women to the same standard as men?"

You're absolutely right. If women want to be in the armed services, they should be allowed to do so. However, they should also be required to meet the same standards the men have to meet.

[William Terrell]

Oh sure, there are misogynists out there, especially among the male homosexual population, but it isn't more that the vanishingly tiny percentage that any whacko group is.

[William Terrell]

I think she's trying say that other drivers' purpose is not to kill you, like enemies are in war.

[alisasny]

Neither of the released female POW's will talk about if they felt they ever would be captured as they will then have to admit they were not trained for front line duty.


I would think a cook or mechanic would have a lot less survival training than say a pilot....

I could be wrong.

[BSunday]

Liberalism has a remarkable record for worsening any situation.

Couldn't have put it better myself

[BSunday]

A single mother of 2 babies has no business being anywhere near a war zone

I agree, but let us take this where it logically follows: if women have no business being anywhere near a war zone (which they don't) then therefore it follows they have no place in the military except in a support position. Nurses (not in battle zone), cooks (not in battle zone), etc.

[iranger]

"We're supposed to believe that someone's mother being killed is worse than their father being killed."

That would be the norm but not necessarily the rule.

[iranger]

"Only a father can render a child 'fatherless'"

Given that God has given women the sole priveledge to bear fruit, it is incumbant upon women to use wise judgement in the procreation because they are the ones who will be left with results of their joint actions. Too often, men are only interested in one thing, self gratification. Coupling with someone out of wedlock leaves women at risk to being left alone to raise a child. For whatever reason, God gave an unequal balance of responsibility to women in this regard.

[iranger]

"First off women are still not allowed in combat positions"

From the article...'The loophole is that they are serving as military police, and those squads have been ordered to do dangerous cleanup work that looks a lot like combat. In fact, it is combat.'

[CharacterCounts]

have never seen a man(though I have heard of it)cry in front of everybody when criticized sternly, but every woman I have seen has cried.

It's obvious you haven't run across my daughter.