Conservatives are up in arms over the fact that female soldiers can now get up in arms. Wonkette has already noted Michael Goldfarb’s epic Twitter poem about how this marks the end of American honor. But other conservatives think this is part of a greater Obama scheme to destroy the US military. Here are some comments on a National Review post about the news.
Subterfuge to make it harder to garner public support for going to war. Go ahead and call me a war monger, but sometimes wars have to be fought. This is bad policy.
Open homosexuality in the ranks and women on the front lines.
I’m sure Patton, MacArthur, and Schwarzkopf are looking down on all of this with great pride.
The Left has been plotting to destroy the U.S. military for decades. It’s finally succeeded.
As everything does, it gets worse when you go to Breitbart.com:
.ummm… miliatry needs em… cause recruitment is being impacted by lack of leadership… and maybe women won’t mind firing on their own countrymen… you know… same gals who support late term abortion… they make good killing machines…
They will head for the hills first time they hear gunfire. Scream at the top of their lungs if they see a spider while sneaking up on the enemy. No thanks.
There is so much more after the jump and it is all so terrible.
Women will not be able to fight like a man. Whole thing is a joke.
They’ll have to reduce the standards. Trust me. Women can’t hack it in general.
Combat is no place for a woman, sorry to break it to you, but it isn’t.
what does this say about the whimps not only amung us, but those in command, up to the commander in chief? will anybody feel great about heavy casualties of women killed in combat, because metrosexuals were too worried about thier hair? what is wrong with us? it is not that i believe women are not capable of fighting, it is that i believe women should not have to fight!
Good Send Hillary in!
Women can’t hack it.
They couldn’t hack being firefighters in Los Angeles either.
They are not built for that.
What they ARE built for will become evident in fighting holes on the front line.
When men go to dig those holes, they’ll dig two and use two different kinds of tools.
And then the ladies will be expected to cook and to serve and dress combat wounds.
They’ll be expected to administer sponge baths to the “wounded.”
I am a former infantry Marine, and I joined at the wrong time, apparently.
(I’m only kidding. I would never do that. My wife was my first.)
Damn shame when a GRUNT on an operation can’t whip it out to take a leak!! ;-))
Wow, they even sneaked a rape “joke” in there! Why am I not surprised?
Anyone at all concerned about “the troops” should be demanding that they be returned home to their American families, not cheering on further follies overseas or being proud that more young Americans can return home broken or ruined.
My mother actually pioneered a lot of this, back in the 1970’s she was one of the first female paratroopers in the US Army, and she trained to be artillery (but couldn’t serve in that duty). Plus, I’ve met dozens of female veterans who were engaged in firefights or otherwise were making life and death decisions as a part of their service. So, none of this is really new, contrary to how the headlines are spelling doom and gloom. The concept that woman can’t handle combat is patriarchy and misogyny at its finest.
Like I said in the previous thread, this is going to lead to more violence against women. It’s not a positive development for anyone, it’s just horrible. Absolutely fucking horrible.
^^Really good post, agree 100%. Agenda’s and counter Agenda’s are really making me sick now. We need to end the conflicts we are involved in as soon as possible. I do not have any issue with woman in combat as it has happened throughout the previous century. As you said it’s hardly news
Fidelity, so do you think it was bad to end the ban on gays serving in the military, because instead we should just bring all the troops home (easier said than done because both political parties are essentially imperialist) and because it led to more gay people getting hurt or killed instead of just heterosexuals getting hurt or killed?
It’s possible to work to oppose war and bring the troops home and at the same time oppose gender-based discrimination in the military and everywhere else it exists. Where has anyone in favor of this move cheered for rape or war, as you’ve been claiming? The majority of people are not doing what’s needed to end our permanent state of war, but that’s a different problem—a much bigger one.
And if none of this is really new, as you say, then how can it be so “absolutely fucking horrible”? You make no sense.
@Geyser – No, I don’t think it was bad to end the prohibition of homosexuals serving in the military. I worked along an openly gay male during DADT, the treatment of homosexuals varied by unit. Plus, lots of women were clearly lesbians. That discrimination was unnecessary.
I oppose the integration of females into front line combat because it will inevitably cause a huge surge of Military Sexual Trauma (MST – rape, sexual assault, and sexual harasment). However, if I were a war-mongering general, I would probably just create all-female battalions to work on their own without men. Our military is nowhere near ready for integration of units on battle fields, as the MST rate suggests, and ignoring the horrible abuse of women in arms in order to support “equality” is just disgusting. It will not promote equality, it will put more boots on the ground, and increase the unnecessary danger of women (not due to enemy forces, but due to our own soldiers).
I absolutely support the equal treatment of women, but I also oppose unnecessary risk that is exclusive to women.
If you can’t plainly see how this is a move to increase combat troops, then you’re a moron. The military has never, ever, cared about pursuing equality.
People who cheer on these policies are in fact going to cause more warfare and rape, even if the cheerleaders are ignorant that these policies will result in more rape and war. That’s the horrible part of it, moron.
“I oppose the integration of females into front line combat because it will inevitably cause a huge surge of Military Sexual Trauma”
Prove it. Back up your claims with something factual. You say “inevitably” as if there’s no way to stop rape and sexual harassment in the military or anywhere else except by restricting where women can be. That’s what is really disgusting here: that from your whole argument it’s clear that you don’t support actually doing anything to address the deep-seated causes of all the MST, even though we both know it’s a widespread problem throughout the military, not just on the front lines. So obviously far bigger steps are needed that go far beyond the ineffective policies of “protecting” women by discriminating against them.
I’ve asked you to show the connection of increases in MST and gender discrimination re: combat and you haven’t, because you’re full of hot air. You just like having strong opinions on the internet, but you can’t back them up. What else should we expect from someone who raves about Portland planning and “European-style socialism” and raves about how we should let the entire federal government fall apart while we hole up with guns?
If you “absolutely” supported the equal treatment of women, as you say, then you would not favor a policy of discrimination in keeping them out of combat due to their gender, by definition. No two ways about it.
And I never said that this was not a move to increase combat troops, so stick your lame insults up your ass.
What am I, your google?
How about you disprove me, ya blowhard jerk off?
I highly doubt a study has been done, and I’m nearly certain the military hasn’t done a study. Under what obligation am I supposed to prove shit to you, when you’re not even supplying a cognitive disagreement? Are you trying to say that there is no higher risk of MST for front line combat? “Prove it.” Prove me wrong, moron.
But OK imagine this situation: 80-200 combat hardened soldiers with no accountability and no oversight, surrounded by hyper-violence, and everyone is armed and living with a constant fear of death. I think the risk of rape in that situation is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than, suppose, 80-200 soldiers in a supply depot in Virginia. Further, I don’t think many women fear using the bathroom at night while working in Germany. I don’t know how the fuck this doesn’t make sense to you. I obviously agree that there is risk of rape everywhere, but my inclination is that the risk of rape is significantly higher on the battlefield, and I’d bet my entire paycheck that the majority of female veterans would agree with me.
Maybe I’m wrong. I’m only conveying the personal experiences I’ve had, having been an organizer of veterans of all ages and types for the last 5 years.
Here’s something for you to ponder based off your alleged military experience. Did you come across much racism within the military? I sure as shit did, lots and lots – and yet the military pioneered racial equality. I think promoting “gender equality” will have similar outcomes.
Like I said in my above comment, if I had to pick a solution, it would be female-only units on the front until there’s significant changes to our culture. The military uses misogyny, patriarchy and racism to support violence, so major changes would need to be made.
Confused. Should I be more worried about “lady soldiers be menstruating all over everything” or “all of our male soldiers are likely rapists?”
I never said anything about my “alleged military experience.” That’s something else you just pulled out of thin air, you sad, dishonest troll. Your reading comprehension skills are about middle-school level, and you respond to none of my points explaining your logical failures or request for something factual. So yeah, just keep calling me a moron over and over. I already showed in the other thread how you grossly misrepresented statistics to make some point with no clear relevance to the widespread problem of sexual trauma in the military as an alleged reason for maintaining gender inequality.
No you’re not my google. But you made a claim about something that will “inevitably” happen about the future, based on nothing, apparently. How am I supposed to disprove some imaginary claim about what the effects of this are going to be, which doesn’t make any sense in the first place. You’re contradicting yourself left and right: saying that this is really nothing new and yet it’s going to be oh so disastrous (because you say so!); that widespread MST is a already a huge problem in the military, and yet maintaining the existing gender discrimination policy is necessary to prevent rape and sexual assault (yeah, it’s worked so well this far that an alarming number of women already face these traumas). And putting women in harm’s way is so much worse than the status quo of putting more men in harm’s way — but oh, the sexes are equal, right?
@geyser – to clarify, I made my statements based upon my own experiences and education on these topics.
Yes, I believe it will be “disastrous” for women in battlefield conditions & “that widespread MST is already a huge problem in the military”, I don’t think the existing discriminatory policy prevents MST, though I believe removing this policy would increase MST particularly in battlefield conditions. I’m OK with both genders serving in combat positions (I train men and women equally in defensive shooting), gender integration works fine in Israel, but I think the American military in particular has cultural issues.
@Colin – Not all soldiers are rapists, I hope I haven’t conveyed that. We certainly don’t need another stereotype. It’s a very small number, but they’re rarely punished or even investigated while in the military for a combination of reasons.
The U.S. military has a lot of “issues” that need to be addressed systematically whether women officially are in combat or not. What’s seems to me like a barrier to that is a view of cynicism and resignation represented by something you said in the other thread: “There’s no way to stop rape in the military.” Probably no way to absolutely get rid of it 100% forever, but a lot could be done to prevent it and to hold those accountable when it does happen. Same with other offenses that people commit from a position of power. And I don’t see how any experiences or education could be the basis for a statement about whether the status quo of MST (or an increase in it) is inevitable. Views about what is or isn’t possible to achieve in reforms are often just subjective, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I guess we should all be excited that now woman can also be exploited, killed or maimed and treated like garbage when they return home. Say, did our President not promise to “end ongoing conflicts”?