i thought this was interesting:

[vraiblonde]

Phyllis Schlafly column

The reason these sorry things have happened is that the men in our government and in our military lack the courage to stand down the feminists and repudiate their assault on family and motherhood.

I like Schlafly because she's such an anti-feminist (and so am I). But I'm not sure how I feel about women in combat.

Someone help me make up my mind.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Phyllis Schlafly column

I like Schlafly because she's such an anti-feminist (and so am I). But I'm not sure how I feel about women in combat.

Someone help me make up my mind.

Maybe I am a little dense, but haven’t women been screaming for equality for years. I thought that women wanted to be able to carry the rifle, drive the tank, or fly the fighter to help support their nation. Not to mention that they have wanted the opportunity to do any and every job a man can do.

Why is it more of a tragedy for a woman to be killed or captured while in service to their nation? What about the women that are firefighters, prison guards, police officers, and others in equally hazardous operations. Should they not be allowed to work in these positions too?

What is this woman’s (Schlafly) message? That women shouldn’t be allowed to do things simply because they want to or are capable of doing them. That they shouldn’t be allowed to hold dangerous occupations.

 

[pilot]

Right now I don't have any issues with this because we have a volunteer military. Nobody is being FORCED to serve. But it would be interesting to see what would happen if we ever reinstated the draft as some have talked about.

It's one thing to say that a woman who REALLY WANTS TO SERVE should have the opportunity to do so. It's another thing to say that ALL women must serve, including the traditional ones. But the alternative (men must serve, women have a choice) would sort of defeat the purpose of equality.

Right now Shaffley just sounds like she's blowing a lot of hot air, since this is about people making personal choices. But reinstating the draft would sure open up a major can of worms.

 

[vraiblonde]

Not to mention that they have wanted the opportunity to do any and every job a man can do.

What I understood Schlafly to be saying is that, when women gripe and complain that they want to do what men do, it's the man's job to say, "Too bad...you can't."

I, personally, like gender separation - I think men and women are vastly different and should have different places in society. I truly think a woman's first commitment should be to the children and home, and any career that gets in the way of that should be abandoned. And I definitely don't like the idea of single parents being separated from their children.

 

[Hello6]

Originally posted by vraiblonde


I, personally, like gender separation - I think men and women are vastly different and should have different places in society. I truly think a woman's first commitment should be to the children and home, and any career that gets in the way of that should be abandoned. And I definitely don't like the idea of single parents being separated from their children.

I would HATE only working with women. I have great working relationships, in the military, with men and they are very professional. Women are just as capable as men doing the same jobs, otherwise they don't get selected for those jobs, be it combat or paperwork. The military is a VOLUNTARY force. We chose this life, chose to put the defense of our country before our families. Some may have only done it for the benefits (medical or education) but go into this with no misgivings. Single parents are required to fill out dependency care certificates stating who will take care of your kid if you are called to duty. If you can't do that, you get the boot.
I like having the right to be treated equally in the workplace, and I absolutely refuse to be expected to poop out babies just because I'm a woman. Some women just aren't cut out for motherhood or housewifery.
JMHO

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
What I understood Schlafly to be saying is that, when women gripe and complain that they want to do what men do, it's the man's job to say, "Too bad...you can't."

I, personally, like gender separation - I think men and women are vastly different and should have different places in society. I truly think a woman's first commitment should be to the children and home, and any career that gets in the way of that should be abandoned. And I definitely don't like the idea of single parents being separated from their children.

No, it is not the man's job to say what any woman can do. If it was there certainly wouldn't be a 19th Amendment.

Single parents signed specific documents (when I served) stating that if deployed, due to need of the service, that they had arrangements made for the care of their children. They provided the contact information and if they didn't they would be separated. I'm sure it still applies today. No one is forcing single parents to serve. It sucks that they can be away from their children for so long, but it is their choice.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Ken King
but it is their choice.

That's what I'm saying - it shouldn't be an option to abandon your child. I just think it's wrong.

However, the flipside is that single mothers a lot of times have no real options when it comes to providing for their families. If they can hack it, the military is a great way for them to learn a skill while feeding and housing their children. I'll take this over welfare any day of the week.

Told you someone needs to make up my mind.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
That's what I'm saying - it shouldn't be an option to abandon your child. I just think it's wrong.

They aren’t abandoning the children. The single-parent military members, and those families where both parents serve, just don’t leave the kids in their quarters and head off to war. They make arrangements with family members (or others they trust) to care for their children while deployed. They have this well planned out and while a major inconvenience for some it is a workable situation. It has been part of their military life right from the get-go. They couldn’t take the little ones to basic training so they experienced what the separation would be like early on.

However, the flipside is that single mothers a lot of times have no real options when it comes to providing for their families. . . . . I'll take this over welfare any day of the week.

While you might think this is true, I don’t. They have a ton of options, but probably not as many that provide the immediate usable benefits that the military offers (I’m thinking health care and housing here). There are schools, training centers, and plenty of Federal Aid out there to be had, but they chose to serve in the military and knew what they were getting into.

Told you someone needs to make up my mind.

Don’t fret it. It’s a tough way to live but it is what these people have decided to do. It will work for some and won’t for others, such is life.

 

[Bruzilla]

I usually agree with Schlafly, but not on this one. I for one am getting pretty tired to the whole "woman on a pedestal" thing. That she tries to make the case that it's worse for a mother to be killed in combat than a father just nauseates me.

Women do need to be in combat positions if they are expected to advance. No forward-deployed combat unit, male or female, is going to want to be led by some duffus who's spent 20 years shuffling papers from one side of the Personnel office to the other. The purpose of senior military officers is to lead the troops in combat, and unless you have a first-hand knowledge of what the troops are, or are not, capable of you have no business being in command.

The only thing that bothers me about Johnson and Lynch were the bullet wounds to their ankles. If you watched the video of the attack site, you can see the truck that they were in. I can only see one way that these women would be getting shot in the ankles... it was because they were standing behind the truck and were struck by bullets passing underneath. And if you look at that truck, and factor in the height of these two women, it's obvious they weren't standing behind it and shooting over the hood or the truck's rear.

My guess would be that when the shooting started, the men pushed the gals behind the truck to protect them. That took at least two guns out of the equation, which wouldn't have happened if there were only men. That's the real danger of having women in combat... men will always be protective of them, which places the men in increased danger of injury.