Originally posted by Thruster
Of course there's also those, of which I am one, who feel that as much as it pains some, it's not noble or smart to place women not only in harm's way but put them in a position to have to compete while at a substantial disadvantage. It's unfair to their fellow combatants who deserve the best we can provide. It seems that those who have weighed in who posses some real life experience with these issues tend to agree. As I understood before posting to this thread and have read here, those who have served in combat roles value physical resilience first and foremost. They've been there, their answer makes sense to me empirically, therefore I concur.
But I also feel it's not just a pragmatic issue. Its a moral one. In case it's not apparent, I'm not of the mind that gender roles we have developed over the centuries are all of a sudden obsolete or irrelevant. I think we are beginning to see that. Time will tell if we are able to regroup socially and not implode due to our collective desire to do what's "fair" as opposed to whats right.
Thruster,
I think this isolated pair of paragraphs gets to the heart of your stance regarding men and women.
I view your stance as exceedingly patriarchal, patronizing, condescending, and dismissive, and typical of assumptions about men and women that dismiss women as male property or children or lower life forms relative to men.
Fortunately whether women are present in combat zones is not up to you and men and women of your ilk, dear.
It's up to the Joint Chiefs, and the US Congress which is populated overwhelmingly by
men elected by
We the People to represent us all.
Women serve the USA in combat zones because
We the People choose for it to be that way if these women so choose; not if you so choose.
The Armed Forces of the United States employs people, not children.
Presently, one in six people in the armed services is female.
With that said, you have a right to your opinions and I applaud your candor about them, as misguided and assumptive as I view them to be.
I have reviewed the posts to this thread and find that the core of your dismissive attitude is in a minority.
Even I agree that from a physical standpoint, the job and the individual must realistically match. Also that 95% of the jobs in the military can be done by human beings of either gender thus are being done by human beings of either gender.
Whether or not a female has children and is present in a combat zone is her decision and the decision of Congress and the Joint Chiefs.
A woman and her reproductive organs is not property of the State nor is she the property of her husband or her Father or anyone else, including you and people of your ilk, Thruster.
The days of male ownership of females of like race and males and females of differing races are
over in this country.
Got it??
Otherwise, I recommend you consider becoming a Muslim and prehaps relocating to Iran.
No offense intended nor implied, if you or any other man or woman who does not agree with or like the fact that women serve in combat zones then I say to you "write your congressional representatives or get over it.
Additionally, you are free to resign from the military or stay out of the military; we don't need your personal services to get the job done because people of both genders are in the military and combat zones to stay."
How about showing some respect for the dedication, work, and sacrifices (which includes loss of life and limb) of
EVERYONE in the all volunteer Armed Forces of the United States?
TIGERESS
