Discussion with Conservatives: Women in Military Combat!


nean

Patriotism, courage, and even death doesn’t know gender. And with that, 152 female U.S. troops have died along side their fellow male soldiers and counting. Yet their service and sacrifice in that role has not been recognized for what it is; THE ULTIMATE SACRAFICE! Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary of the United States, said it best “men and women have been fighting and dying together and the time has come for our policies to recognize that reality“. This was in reply to the newly adopted and soon to be implemented policy of removing the restriction on women to serve in a combat role in the military.

The new policy of eliminating gender based restrictions on all military assignments could not have come too soon. The US combat exclusionary policy was only in effect in regards to formal recognition; women have been dying along the side of their male counterparts for years. This restriction was a paper tiger of sorts and only served to continue an outdated stereotype of the great and vast divide of male and female capabilities in the art of war.

This policy does not remove any of the stringent physical and mental requirements for combat; it mere allows women a chance to qualify for combat roles. In my estimation, this move not only will allow qualified women to be recognized for their service, but it will also go a long way in leveling the discriminating practices that have put a wedge between men and women in the military.

With the announcement of the change of policy, there has been a rather surprising resistance coming from the right of the political spectrum. This blog is a recount of a conversation with some conservatives on this topic. Based on this conversation, one can only hope that this attitude and stance is the absolute bottom rung of the collective “We” ladder.

This cannot be representative of conservatives as a “whole”, brace yourself for the following (nothing has been edited).

Marc Schenker  (opened this with a post on the subject)

  • Good grief, I hate this RINO more and more. Can he not read what experts like Elaine Donnelly have to say about women on the front lines?!?! What a diversity pimp. McCain Backs Women in Combat — As Long as Standards Stay High » Sen. John McCain supports allowing women in combat, while saying it remains critical for the military to uphold the same high standards particularly the physical ones that have made it the strong..

Paris Brierley1:04 PM

  • Wonder if girls will have to register for selective service now? … lets wait for that train wreck!

John Pavao1:15 PM

  • Senator McCain, we thank you for your service and your sacrifice.  Please retire.

Marc Schenker1:18 PM

  • +Paris Brierley, When girls (18 to 25) are drafted in the worst case scenario, all the feminist groups that hailed letting women into combat are going to be bitching about “The War on Women!” Hahahaha.

Anthony Gaston1:28 PM

  • I am not a fan of Senator McCain (it even hurts to type it), but I think he is taking the correct stance on this issue (I am a issues person, party be damned). I assert that women are fully capable of making a conscious decision to put themselves in harms way. I also assert that women are fully capable of learning logistics of combat, fire a weapon accurately, and performing the duties that your average male can perform.
  • What exactly do you think is wrong with women being allowed to do full combat in the war arena? Men who are (18 to 25) are killing and dying in combat; is it just the idea that it is a woman?
  • You do realize that women have been dying in the combat zone for a long time now and many of them were armed and fired back at the enemy. This change merely recognized this fact. Kudos to McCain for supporting equality on this issue; now he needs to get over the whole “gay” thing.

Marc Schenker1:38 PM

John Pavao1:49 PM

  • There’s a difference between making a conscious decision and being able to lug 100 pounds of gear and drag a 180 pound injured soldier out of a firefight.  Combat support, maybe.  Direct combat, no.

Anthony Gaston3:06 PMEdit

  • Okay, now the light has been shined in my eyes and mind (note sarcasm). You are referencing the Center for Military Readiness who is also against gays in military; wrong again for their ilk. These are the same kind organizations that were against African Americans being treated equally in the military. Amazing that in the 2000s that such backwards thinking still has an audience. The fact is that your perceived thought that this is a matter of “insane and dumb liberal beliefs” is in complete opposition to the facts and is merely your opinion. I can reply that America needs to ignore the neanderthal knuckle dragging progress-resistant conservatives. As you know, the name calling doesn’t add justice or validity to an argument, but I have digressed.
  • The fact is that he Pentagon and military leaders at the highest levels support and signed on to this decision and it has been years in the making. Your statement about it being Obama’s agenda may have merit, seeing that he does support expanded equality in America, which I also support. The fact is women in the military have been calling for equal treatment in the military which cannot come true if they are treated the way that your words suggest. There are several pending law suits by female military for this very right.
  • I trust the decision of our military leaders over a right-wing conservative 501c (supposedly) educational organization every day of the week. We all know that the military never makes quick decision on any topic and they did not in this case either. You know the military saying “hurry up and wait”; this saying describes them well.
  • In regards to me “pushing an liberal agenda, I am a liberal (guilty as charged) but I don’t push an agenda. The changes that you are seeing in all areas of American society are that of PROGRESS. It was so in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and is so now. No matter how hard the lovers of the status quo beat their chest about “the way it was” need to understand that is not going to be the way it will be. Americans is a nation of progress and our democracy has more to grow; you can no sooner stop the growth of a child’s body as you can can stop our society from progressing. Too liberal for you? Probably.

John Pavao3:14 PM

  • Ok, so address what I said.  Liberal and conservative aside, address what I said.  All that garbage may be interesting to you, I’m talking about what actually might happen in actual combat in the actual real world.
  • And being a veteran myself, yeah, gays in the military sounds like a spectacularly bad idea for many reasons unless they serve separately.  You a vet?

 John Pavao3:23 PM

  • I mean, let’s be clear on something.  What exactly is the purpose of the US military?  If you see it as an equal-opportunity training and employment agency whose purpose is to make sure young people all get to have the same opportunities and experiences, then sure, do all these things.  But if it’s to fight, and to win wars, if it’s to kill the enemy, if it’s to be the best of the best, then we should do that.  But you have to be in idiot to think that both are equally possible outside academia and think tanks that have never laced up a boot.
  • The armed services will discharge you for being overweight.  And their version of overweight most people wouldn’t really even see as overweight anymore.  Should that be changed?  Well no, of course not, because that out of shape soldier is a liability in combat, right?  Are there some women who are stronger than some men?  Sure.  Do the weak men go to combat?  No, of course not, that would be… stupid.  So, unless you’re going to hold the women to the exact same physical standards the men are already held to, this entire idea in a sane world would be a complete non-starter.  And that’s just the beginning. style=’orphans: 2;text-align:start;widows: 2;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;word-spacing:0px’ oid=112716002831906227008 v:shapes=”_x0000_i1026″>

Anthony Gaston3:59 PMEdit

  • I am not a vet and that has little to do with it. I come from a military family, but again that has little to nothing to do with the topic at hand either. Are you really being serious with all this testosterone driven ranting of women in the military? Unfortunately, I think that you are serious,
  • I address what you said with this, you are aware that some men cannot carry the dead weight of an injured soldier and that there are some women that can? The purpose of our military is to defend this nation and if killing is required that is what they do. I am not an idiot and I think that both are equally possible outside academia. I am afraid that you may not be thinking in your replies.
  • Or are you trolling for a reaction out of me? Either way, what you said is stupid and primitive! Do you realize that you said that gays in the military should “serve separately” just because they are gay? Are you afraid the other soldiers may catch gay-flu?
  • What you are exposing is reminiscent of the same old arguments that were made about blacks in the military, society, and school back in the 19th and 20th century.  I suggest you take a breath, think it through, and then respond; this cannot be your best justification. I assert that women are not inferior to men, even in the military field!
  • Men may have some physical attributes that are superior, but that does not justify your surprisingly sexist remarks.

John PavaoJan 24, 2013

  • Sorry, you just disqualified yourself from this conversation.  Peddle your ignorance somewhere else.  You have no idea what you’re talking about and then admit it and THEN say that it doesn’t matter.  Amazing.  You literally don’t know the first thing about serving in the military, combat or anything we’re discussing, but you have the answers.  You ought to be in government.

In reflection, the general consensus on the issue of women in combat roles is a settled issue by those in power and possessing the responsibility to make a educated and researched opinion on the matter.  I assert that allowing qualified women in combat will strengthen the cohesiveness of our military and expand its combat numbers in general. Just as the role of African Americans changed in the military (by Executive Order) so has that of women. Our military will forever be a microcosm of our society. Institutional values of our military has evolved to accommodate and recognize the increasing number of women in the military and any/all intransigence on the subject will decay as women earn their place in combat with blood, sweat, and life. To deny women of the opportunity to fight in combat, given they pass all required physical and mental hurdles,  is nothing short of sexist, short-cited, and in my opinion Neantherthal-based anti-female mongering!

I have three words to all women in the military, YOU GO GIRL!

these two participants in this discussion leaned heavily on ad hominem rather than replying with rational and substantial retort.

 

Advertisements
  1. Joe
    January 28, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    This is the kind of silly stupid ass thinking that was at the foundation of the resistance to equal treatment of Blacks back in the day. I wanna say “you stupid as sexist Republicants really need to grow up and stop being stupid. I like the idea of women being given the chance to server in every way as long as they can hang on the physical level.

    John really showed that he is really stupid in terms of women and what they can handle. Man, I know some women that can handle all a lot more than me and I’m a tough guy. You are the 2013 version of a dinosaur. “Stupid is as stupid does” or in this case “sexist is was sexist does”, what’s up with this kind of thinking.

    • January 29, 2013 at 3:23 pm

      I agree with your reply in its content, but I would much rather have a civil sharing of ideals with people. It is rather sad that most, but not all, of my conversations with conservatives end with name-calling. The resistance to change and evolution is hard for some to digest mentally and therefore their replies are often in harden opposition to progress. Not to mention, that these two seem to lack an ability to reply to questions and just react and often outside the realm of the topic.

      These two Republicons (for lack of a better label) really seem to believe that woman are just physically unable to be in combat and I completely disagree. I also agree that women should be given the chance to pass any physical or mental requirements for combat. To say that they just can’t do it and there for should not be given the chance is juvenile, primitive, backwards thinking, and so yesteryear (to put it kindly).

      Great line at the end of your reply “sexist is was sexist does”; I should have used that as the title of my blog. Thanks for your reply, keep’um coming.

      • Joe
        January 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm

        I hear you. Good reply. I will work on keeping my replies chill in the future. Great blog on this one.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: