In defense of putting women on the offense
Posted at 4:00 PM Nov 06, 2009
By Andrea Grimes |
From Slate:
The question isn't whether men are physically stronger than women on average. Of course they are. The question is whether to translate that average into a rule against women in combat. The 2009 Navy policy, for example, states that women must be barred from jobs whose "physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members." Why should some women be excluded based on the performance of others? Would you tolerate such an average-based rule against any racial or religious group?Women in the military are already, for all intents and purposes, in combat--the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are all-over war zones, hardly separated into front lines and safe zones.
From Gawker:
But if a woman can storm into that place and save all those people, shouldn't she be allowed serve alongside them in a war zone, too? Yeah, sexual tension has a tendency to spook the Army (which is why there are no gays in the military, not even one!) and, oh, it'd be such a drag to deal with girl toilets and tampons in the barracks. But, guys, a chick just saved all your asses. Figure it out, already.Amen. There's no reason why well-trained women shouldn't fight alongside well-trained men in combat. Kimberly Munley--and a host of other honored women--have demonstrated this, time and again. Give up the sexism, make us safer.
Comments
Women who choose to join the military go throught the same training as men. The whole point is to remove your individuality and make you a soldier, an army of one. "One" has no gender. It makes no sense why, after going through boot camp the same as everyone else, you would not be allowed into a combat situation.
I say this to those who think women (or gays for that matter) are not fit for combat: If someone is willing to put on a uniform, strap on a gun and fight for your freedoms, then who the hell are you to judge them?
Posted 11/06/2009 at 03:28:36 PMI never got that "physically stronger" excuse. I've never seen a war won through arm wrestling.
Posted 11/06/2009 at 04:56:28 PMI SEE NO REASON WHY WM IN MILTARY CANNOT SEVER IN COMBAT ZONES. SAME AS THE MEN. WHAT ARE THEY TRAINED FOR?? SIT AROUND AND LOOK PRETTY. I THINK THE MAIN REASON, IS BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TO BE CAPTURE THE WORSE OF WORSE COULD HAPPEN TO THEM.BUT IT COULD VERY WELL HAPPEN TO A MAN. SO LETS GET OVER IT, AND LET WM REALLY FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM.I STILL BELIVE ARMY NEEDS TO GIVE UP THE SEXISM, KIM TOOK THIS GUY DOWN, I WONDER IF OB WILL HAVE A BEER WITH HER.
Posted 11/06/2009 at 05:25:31 PMI'd reword this a bit, Kimberly Munley is a police officer,and a firearms expert but is not a part of the military... This story makes it seem like she is American Military Personnel
Posted 11/06/2009 at 06:57:11 PMOk, I am a military man in combat arms from the SF area, and my views are much like you would think for one raised there. I have gays friends and I love women, and think that women are in most regards, complete equals with men. This is not one of them. Women in combat units is not a good thing. Now, one common misconception on civlians part is that women could somehow intergrate easily into combat army units, which would be incredibly difficult, from many standpoints. Also, men become protective of women naturally in rough situations and it would distract from the mission. I am not saying that its right, or in some cases can't be overcome, but just take my word for it, it wouldn't work out. Women can do many things in the military, and they can fight, but they will not be put into units where 'combat' is the main focus of that unit. Now, this is just ground units, we have women pilots who have killed more people then god, so they aren't left out of it.
Posted 11/06/2009 at 08:10:10 PMOh, and I know you won't like to hear it, but trust me, very few women could hang with the raw strenght needed for a lot of the stuff we do, not impossible, just very unlikely. Kinda like how striaght men don't usuaully make good florists (bad joke).
If I read the article right our hero is a vet. I say activate her for 24 hours give her the Medal of Honor, and sent her back to what she does best.
Posted 11/08/2009 at 06:24:49 PMbink544... Here's a thought: we women can do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING you can. On top of that, we also possess a higher pain threshold AND the ability to create life.
Posted 11/09/2009 at 04:31:13 PMIf you boys are the problem then perhaps we should just keep men out of combat and let us take care of business.
After all, there's no question that not only can we do it, we can do it BETTER.
I may be oversimplifying this, but I think the base level reason why women are not allowed in combat is because of their ability to bear children.
Posted 11/09/2009 at 09:42:08 PMMale POW's sometimes get raped. Women POW's would always get raped.
Posted 11/10/2009 at 11:33:46 AMI... I can't resist...
"bink544... Here's a thought: we women can do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING you can. On top of that, we also possess a higher pain threshold AND the ability to create life.
If you boys are the problem then perhaps we should just keep men out of combat and let us take care of business.
After all, there's no question that not only can we do it, we can do it BETTER."
Aaand, cue orchestra!
Adri: Anything you can do, I can do better! I can do anything better than you!
Posted 11/10/2009 at 06:17:50 PMbink: No you can't!
Adri: Yes I can!
bink: No you can't!
Adri: Yes I can!
bink: No you can't!
Adri: Yes I can, yes I can!
Look at the boys trying to be witty! Cue studio audience:
"AWWWW"
And The_Vig: do you really think women only face the possibility of rape in POW scenarios? Really?
Posted 11/11/2009 at 09:17:59 AMWhat an amazing thing! How lovely to know such violence only happens to POWs, as opposed to grandmothers, college students, mothers, babies, little girls, etc.