War on Women

[Ubiquitous]

"U.S. military leaders on Thursday formally lifted the ban on women
serving in combat positions, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta saying
women have become an 'integral part' of the military and have already
demonstrated their willingness to fight during the wars of the last
decade," Fox News reports. It's the culmination of many incremental
steps:

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned
to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the
military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions
if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

He argued that women, who already make up 15 percent of the
force, have increasingly found themselves in the "reality of
combat" during Iraq and Afghanistan. He said not everyone can
meet the qualifications to be a combat soldier but that
everyone is entitled the opportunity.

Reader Kenneth Johnson argues that it's a bad idea:

As a Marine Corps veteran of three combat tours, the first as
a rifle platoon commander during the Vietnam War, my concern
is what this policy will contribute to further breaking down
the already-troubled relationships of men and women in our
society.

Friedrich von Hayek wrote that profound social knowledge is
embedded in tradition that has evolved through the millennia
of human experience. In "The Fatal Conceit," he taught that a
society breaks these traditions just because someone has a
"good idea" of what would be fair. When these notions are
enacted through legislation and court decisions, there is a
very real risk of wasting this profound knowledge.

In my view, traditions in the military and civil society are
severely broken and the embedded wisdom lost forever where
women have combat roles. Totally independent of whether women
can physically and mentally contribute to American military
effectiveness and efficiency, I am concerned about the broader
social implications of a civilization that believes that combat
is an appropriate role for women.

For the record, I have ordered men to undertake missions where
the entire platoon was at risk. During Operation Dewey Canyon
in 1969 (the real one, not the incoming secretary of defense's
one), I lost all seven of the Marine casualties I had during my
tour. One died five feet from me. We moved on. Others died
moments before I got to their position. We moved on. After one
firefight, we carried a gut-shot Navy corpsman, who knew how
much trouble he was in, for miles up a steep hill out of Laos.

How does a man not give special comfort to a wounded woman? My
last Marine died in my arms from a wound I thought he would
have survived. Could I have held her in my arms without
reservation?

I had to decide how to handle the situation where a new squad
leader beat a Marine who fell asleep on watch, the latter
punishable by death in time of war. The decision process I went
through is captured in a speech I gave to the Valley Forge
Military Academy almost a year ago.

My concerns:

What kind of a man is it who can send women off to kill and maim?
What kind of society does that?

What kind of men sharing a fire-team foxhole with a woman and
two other men don't treat the woman more gently?

What kind of society bemoaning that men don't seem to respect
women can't see that part of the respect they demand is
predicated on the specialness of the other?

Perhaps it is possible in a firefight to distinguish between
how one treats women and men, but I doubt that I could do it.
And if I am trained to treat men and women the same throughout
my career, can this have no significant effect on how I treat
women otherwise?

One way of defining feminism is as the pursuit of the mutually
irreconcilable goals of sexual equality and sensitive treatment of women.
You'd think that contradiction would be a weakness, but it's actually a
strength: Every advance for equality creates a demand for more measures
to promote sensitivity, and vice versa. Feminism's failures perpetuate
feminism, at the expense of other goals such as defending the country.


--
The old Soviet leaders had it right. Our destruction comes from within:
Moochers, parasites, and Obama.

[Joan in GB-W]

"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:kdtv15$f4m$3...@dont-email.me...

> "U.S. military leaders on Thursday formally lifted the ban on women
> serving in combat positions, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta saying
> women have become an 'integral part' of the military and have already
> demonstrated their willingness to fight during the wars of the last
> decade," Fox News reports. It's the culmination of many incremental
> steps:

I know. Women should be kept at home, barefoot, and pregnant.

[RichA]

Worst outcome will be if a group of men get killed in the battlefield
because a woman couldn't hack it, or morale will be hurt because men
will not have the stomach to see women getting maimed and killed. No
guarantee either will happen, but if it does, expect the liberal media
to paper-over it and the next person to replace Hillary Clinton to
declare, "I had no knowledge of it!"

[the man]

In article <kdtv15$f4m$3...@dont-email.me>,

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

> The old Soviet leaders had it right. Our destruction comes from within:

> Moochers, parasites, and Dick Cheney!

This just in; 9/11/01 was an inside job! Dick C. and his Neo-Cons
pulled off the greatest "False Flag" ever.
Analysis of The Pentagon Crash?

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

The following Analysis is primarily focused on the outside of the
Pentagon. When one takes this evidence alone it is very conclusive that
a AA 757 did not hit the Pentagon.
A CNN Reporter at the scene states that there is no evidence that a 757
hit the Pentagon.
CNN: 'No evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon'
The so called terrorists had only about 10 hours simulator flight time a
little bit of actual Cessna training and probably some played around
with a flight simulator on a home computer from what I have heard on
documentaries. The It is odd don't you think that the plan would swing
around and hit the side of the Pentagon where the aerial marker was in
the lawn. Also to steer a plane perfectly through 5 lamp poles just
skimming the ground is pretty tough for a real pilot let alone armatures
under a great deal of stress and chaos. There is no way in my mind that
they could have flown the course they did and the course they did fly
makes no logical sense. When you are determined to hit something like
the pentagon, you don't aim for a particular wall you come in from above
and you dive at it. To hit the pentagon the way they did is way beyond
their skills and abilities. It is so much easier to just dive in at the
Pentagon then to be slamming into Light Poles etc. With the total lack
of airplane wreckage, bodies and luggage etc. it makes no sense that a
757 hit the Pentagon at all. There are a number of other supporting
websites and theories that support this argument. Just a comment for
now. I'll keep working on it.
--
Karma ; what a concept!

[Tom]

Is there any evidence of that happening in military forces that have
put women in combat for years and years?

I will faint dead away if you ever post anything remotely based in
reality.

Tom

[Joan in GB-W]

"Tom" <drs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:813617dc-a7b8-4019...@rm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

---------------------------------------------

What ifs . . . occupy the minds of the small.

[cloud dreamer]

And of the armchair general. I served three years with a combat unit,
including a tour overseas and a further three years with a hospital unit
that became a combat unit during my time with them. All this bullshit
about women can't hacking it is exactly that...bullshit. What we *may*
lack in physical capabilities, we make up in endurance, organization and
a different kind of problem solving. We are also less likely to shoot
unarmed and non-threatening targets. I know I've worked with some men
who were physically smaller then me and some that were definitely weaker.

Quite frankly, it's not the enemy in the other trench that we have to
worry about. We have more problems with our own "brothers-in-arms" who
can't keep their dicks in their pants for a measly six month tour.

..

[Barry Bruyea]

I haven't done any research, but I'm curious why the Israelis no
longer have women in combat roles.

[PolishKnight]

In article <amfr68...@mid.individual.net>,

I chuckle at how feminists like to claim they "liberated" women from
such a horrible existence (home, barefoot, and pregnant) but in reality,
how many did they really liberate either from that existence or others?

What about the "undocumented" immigrants toiling away in career women's
homes cleaning and looking after the children? (Interesting how such
women are paranoid about rape on college campuses in their youth but
think nothing of allowing undocumented criminals to look after their
children... anyways) What about those women? Or the women slaving away
in Chinese factories to make cheap stuff such as poison baby formula and
cat food? There's a modern renaissance of "made in USA" among affluent
women as they don't want precious sucking on lead-tainted plastic
bottles.

Then there's the women on welfare, of course, who live squalid lives but
at least they don't have an individual husband. Instead, they're
housewives of the state. But then again, most career women never really
achieve actual independence anyway since they often rely upon quotas to
get their job.

And what do these women really accomplish? For a brief period of time
during the 80's, they could "Double dip" and marry up and spend their
mad money on lavish vacations. Now, thanks to problems that are
significantly due to feminism (though not entirely due to it), all
paychecks are worth a lot less so such women are no better than the
working class schlubs they treated with such contempt during the 1950's.
Now most women _have_ to work as compared to "have" to stay at home
barefoot and pregnant. Enjoy 60 hour work weeks but look on the bright
side: You'll be earning at least as much as a man (modern man that is)
before they yank away 1/3'd (if you're lucky) of the check to go to the
state. Welcome to equality!

A lot of women are realizing that the 1950's, all things considered,
wasn't that bad for women after all.

regards,
PolishKnight

[Giant Attitude]

On Jan 27, 1:46 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <amfr68Fjar...@mid.individual.net>,

Jeanne Douglas has authorized me to respond on her behalf to the icky
terrible horrid MAN that identifies himself as "PolishKnight".

Jeanne Douglas wishes me to say that because PolishKnight is one of
those terrible ugly hairy MEN who has one of those...those -- THINGS
-- between his legs (Jeanne Douglas almost faints at the mere THOUGHT
of one of those things), she regards him with more loathing and
contempt than she regards the dust between her toes and the occasional
mite that resides within it -- not that Jeanne Douglas would ever
allow the space between her toes to collect dust or mites (shudder).

Jeanne Douglas authorizes me to say on her behalf that because
PolishKnight IS one of those horrid MEN -- with that awful THING
between his legs -- she regards his commentary as just so much chin
music and of no more meaning and importance than the birds that chirp
inconsequentially in the tree outside her window while she -- Jeanne
Douglas -- gazes lovingly at herself in the mirror.

Jeanne Douglas wishes me to remind the world -- which, of course, is
waiting breathlessly for another dispatch from Mt. Douglas -- that the
1950's were, of course, a time of repressive fascism against American
women in which they resided -- as Betty Friedan once said -- in
"comfortable concentration camps" and that it would only figure that a
beast like PolishKnight -- who has one of those horrible THINGS
between his legs -- would seek to defend that era.

Finally, Jeanne Douglas wishes me to state on her behalf that women
are the equals or superiors of men in every way, including physically
and that women, of course, are perfectly suited for a combat
environment and that she, Jeanne Douglas favors the full and complete
integration of women into such an environment -- although she herself
-- Jeanne Douglas -- is too much of a goddess to be troubled to do so
much as break a nail for her country or for the world at large which
owes her unconditional adoration anyway.

[Tom]

On Jan 27, 10:06 am, "Joan in GB-W" <jjkr...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Tom" <drso...@aol.com> wrote in message

I think we need a microscope to find RIch's mind...

Tom

[Tom]

On Jan 27, 12:10 pm, Barry Bruyea <damnthetorped...@duck.com> wrote:

According to National Geographic, they still do...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/

...but this article states there are caveats...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/world/middleeast/looking-to-israel-for-clues-on-women-in-combat.html?_r=0

Tom

[Bill Steele]

In article <ZpydnbKApMNdypjM...@supernews.com>,

What's really scary to conservatives is that if we have women in combat,
there will be a motivation to have less war.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Thank you for the original post.
Here is a quote in support of the same:
"Metaphors are analogies,not equations, and on the collective level
this metaphor (The War Against Women) works more effectively in
reverse.
It could be argued that ideological feminists acting in the name of
women have declared war on men. The former are heavily armed, as it
were, with sophisticated political and academic weapons. They have
organized themselves politically in opposition to "the
patriarchy".More specifically, they have established a wide variety of
organizations to coordinate their efforts to achieve their goals. They
have leaders represent them. They raise money through both private
agencies and governmental bureaucracies. They are proud to acknowledge
their affiliations and goals. And one of these, for a particular group
of women, is to establish the idea that men are responsible for
virtually all human suffering. The parallels with the ideological wars
of the twentieth century, albeit metaphorical ones, are not exactly
hard to imagine.
The use of military language is dangerous, however, because it
encourages people to take extreme positions. Once war is declared,
people have no choice but to defend themselves. And once this rhetoric
is endorsed by the state, what had been a psychological and moral
conflict becomes a legal and political one.
But raising the stakes is a risky business. The women who proposed
this government study (resulting in The War Against Women rhetoric)
wanted to send several messages. To women they wanted to say, The best
way to defend ourselves as a class is to attack men as a class. To the
nation, they wanted to say, Women are justified in attacking men,
because we do so in self-defense. To men, however, they wanted to say,
We consider you enemy aliens, and if the best defense is to attack,
then so be it. In that context, why should men not take legal steps to
protect themselves? Do we really want to move into a situation like
that? If not, we will have to abandon the rhetoric of
war."( Legalizing Misandry-From Public Shame to Systematic
Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nanthanson and Katherine K. Young,
McGill-Queen's University Press, Ithaca, 2006, p. 72)