The Mother of All Blunders - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #1 04-10-2007, 04:29 AM

I think it's fine and good that women work in any occupation they wish to. A big part of our progress in the west has been due to finally recognizing and rewarding the skill, talent, and hard work of women.

However, I can't for the life of me understand why we send women with toddlers at home into combat.

Kathleen Parker, Orlando Sentinel

The Mother of All Blunders

Monday, April 9, 2007

ON ANY GIVEN day, one isn't likely to find common cause with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He's a dangerous, lying, Holocaust-denying, Jew-hating cutthroat thug -- not to put too fine a point on it.

But he was dead-on when he wondered why a once-great power such as Britain sends mothers of toddlers to fight its battles.

Ahmadinejad characterized the release of 15 British sailors and marines, including one woman, seized at sea last month as a gift to Britain. In reality, the hostages were the West's gift to Ahmadinejad.

When a pretender to sanity such as Ahmadinejad gets to lecture the West about how it treats its women, we've effectively handed him a free pass to the end zone and made the world his cheerleaders.

Not only does the Iranian president get to look magnanimous in releasing the hostages, but he gets to look wise. And we in the West get to look foolish and weak.

Just because we may not "feel" humiliated, doesn't mean we're not. In the eyes of Iran and other Muslim nations, we're wimps. While the West puts mothers in boats with rough men, Islamic men "rescue" women and drape them in hijabs.

We can debate whether they're right until all our boys wear aprons, but it won't change the way we're perceived. The propaganda value Iran gained from its lone female hostage, the mother of a 3-year-old, was incalculable.

It is not fashionable these days to suggest that women don't belong in or near combat -- or that children need their mothers. Yes, they need their fathers, too, but children in their tender years are dependent on their mothers in unique ways.

There's not enough space here to go into all the ways that this is true, but children (and good parents) know the difference, even if some adults are too dim or ideologically driven to see what's obvious.

Why the West has seen it necessary to diminish motherhood so that women can pretend to be men remains a mystery to sane adults. It should be unnecessary to say that the military is not a proper vehicle for social experimentation, but a machine dedicated to fighting and, if necessary, killing.

Women may be able to push buttons as well as men, but the door-to-door combat in Fallujah proved the irrelevance of that argument. Meanwhile, no one can look at photos of the 15 British marines and sailors and argue convincingly that the British Navy is stronger for the presence of Leading Seaman Faye Turney.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that women are as capable as men in any battle. If our goal is to prevail, then shouldn't we also consider other ramifications of putting women in combat and/or in positions of risk?

Those ramifications include women's unequal vulnerability to rape and injury, as well as cultural attitudes toward women that may enhance their exposure to punishment or, alternatively, to make them useful to our enemies.

Iran wasted no time dressing up Turney in Islamic garb and parading her before television cameras. More than her fellow male captives, Turney was required to apologize for trespassing in Iranian waters. This was not, needless to say, Churchill's Navy.

Rape, though not a likely risk in this case, is a consistent argument against putting women in or near combat. While advocates for women in combat argue that men are also raped, there is an important difference. Women are raped by men, which, given the inherent power differential between the sexes, raises women's rape to another level of terror.

What kind of man is willing to allow his country's women to be raped and tortured by other men of enemy nations? None that I know, but our military is gradually weaning men of their intuitive inclination to protect women -- which, by extrapolation, means ignoring the screams of women being assaulted.

At the point when our men can stand by unfazed while American service women are raped and tortured, then we will have no cause to fight any war. We will have already lost.

Positioning women to become pawns of propaganda, meanwhile, is called aiding and abetting the enemy.

Botnst · #2 04-10-2007, 05:57 AM

In the interval between the ramp-up to invading Afghanistan to the interval marked by, "Mission accomplished" something like 80% of the female sailors deployed to the region became pregnant.

If we stick 19-25 year-olds in a confined space under a lot of stress, they will find relief where it is available.

If we allow young fathers to be sailors why not young mothers?

If we allow single young men to be sailors why not young women?

Who will be the first to jump-up and say that women should not be in combat zones? How about in the military at all, since combat zones are so fluid?

In my generation, women in the military were mostly clerical with some technical jobs. Times change.

One thing the Navy taught me and retaught me: with privilege comes responsibility.

B

A264172 · #3 04-10-2007, 08:02 AM

It offends the sensabilitys of my grandfathers generation for sure.

The question today is: how much protection comes with how much freedom?

aklim · #4 04-10-2007, 08:10 AM

Can you understand why we send men with toddlers into combat?

Zeus · #5 04-10-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Who will be the first to jump-up and say that women should not be in combat zones? How about in the military at all, since combat zones are so fluid?

In my generation, women in the military were mostly clerical with some technical jobs. Times change.

One thing the Navy taught me and retaught me: with privilege comes responsibility.

B

I certainly would. I cannot understand why a woman would want to go into combat period. Put your average woman against your average man and the man will have the advantage, all other factors equal. Strength, weight, endurance, speed, etc. Biological factors like menstrual cycles and even bladder control.

Then there's the entire rape thing.

Then there's the children of rape thing.

It's a mess any way you want to look at it.

If I had a daughter and she wanted to go into the military, I would do everything in my power to prevent it. Perhaps I would not succeed, but I would certainly try.

I think many such decisions are made without the requisite wisdom and/or experience.

Just my $0.02.

jlomon · #6 04-10-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

However, I can't for the life of me understand why we send women with toddlers at home into combat.

I'll give you a flip-side to consider. On Sunday 6 Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan when an IED exploded under their armoured personnel carrier. Yesterday on the news they had video footage of one of the soldiers, a man in his mid 30's, playing with his wife and two young children (maybe 2 and 4) at the base the day before being shipped out. It was absolutely heartbreaking to know that was the last time those kids saw their father, and that those two boys will have to grow up without his guidance and love. If you were to ask those kids when they grow up if they would have preferred to have lost their mother or their father in that roadside bomb I haven't got a clue how they would answer it. A dead parent is a dead parent.

Why send women? Because they volunteered. Nobody forced them to sign up. Respect their choice and allow them to serve.

Benzadmiral · #7 04-10-2007, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

In the interval between the ramp-up to invading Afghanistan to the interval marked by, "Mission accomplished" something like 80% of the female sailors deployed to the region became pregnant. . . .

Whaddaya wanna bet that 75% of that 80% did it on purpose to avoid combat?

Women like that want the pay and the perks, just not the chance of getting their nails chipped or their heads shot off.

raymr · #8 04-10-2007, 10:07 AM

Even George Bush has the occasional rare nugget of wisdom to offer. But lets face it, both countries, Iran and the USA, are saddled with idiot leaders.

pj67coll · #9 04-10-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

But he was dead-on when he wondered why a once-great power such as Britain sends mothers of toddlers to fight its battles.

This line asks's and answers it's own question. The salient point being "once great".

Because Britain like all has been western nations is no longer a great nation. It has the technological capacity to project strength in terms of machinery but not the basic warrior instinct necessary to accompany this technological strength projection. So it' takes volunteers whereever it can get them and political correctness being what it is nobody would dare suggest women should not be in a combat zone. In my opinion a countries greatness can be measured inversely to it's tolerance for political correctness.

The reality of combat against primitives is allowed to be subsumed by the requirement for PCBS and this handicaps the west severely in my opinion.

Personally I'm all for equality. But I reqire a dose of reality as well. I have no problem with women being in combat roles if they are volunteers but I have no sympathy for them when that situation turns nasty either precisely because they are volunteers.

- Peter.

AustinsCE · #10 04-10-2007, 11:35 AM

I just wish they'd stay home more often and quit driving up the price of everything when the norm is 2-incomes.

aklim · #11 04-10-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

I just wish they'd stay home more often and quit driving up the price of everything when the norm is 2-incomes.

Why women and not men? Why can't men stay home then? It would still achieve your said goal.

Would YOU want to stay home then? You do realize that the drawback of that all is that you have no career and you are totally at the mercy of your wife if she decides to leave you or whatever, right? Would YOU want that? If not, why would others wish that?

AustinsCE · #12 04-10-2007, 12:22 PM

Because I make more money.

aklim · #13 04-10-2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

Because I make more money.

Would you want to put your future in the hands of someone else? Making more money has nothing to do with it. If you make NO money, you are vulnurable. If the spouse cheats on you, you put up with it. They beat you, tough. Now, what would make you want to live a life like that? I wouldn't.

AustinsCE · #14 04-10-2007, 12:28 PM

If you need to be told the general and common responsibilities of the head of a household, you need to talk with your parents....

aklim · #15 04-10-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

If you need to be told the general and common responsibilities of the head of a household, you need to talk with your parents....

What makes me the head of a household? The fact I have a penis? Why can't she be the head? Because she has a vagina? If you haven't noticed, the world has changed since that time of "Me Tarzan, You Jane."