i believe that the meat popsicle part
goes without saying.
Yeah, I like that opt-out part.
Participation without participation!
I want to say that icon is from a Van Gogh painting, but I'm not sure.
2005-05-13 12:28 am (UTC)
it's from his "Wheatfield with Reaper".
If they want to bust gat, let 'em bust gat, lol.
I'm not sure why they went this way.
I caught it in brief while my mom was watching news in the other room. I went online to check for more.
I'm not really sure what the proponents of this recent push-back have as a reason.
This was from the article form the post below:
"The American people have never wanted to have women in combat and this reaffirms that policy," Hunter said in a statement.
What's Chairman Hunter trying to get at, here?
How is he so sure of what the people think?
Can women handle the rigors of war?
just as much as men could.
but does that mean anybody really wants to?
Right now, I think they serve in support roles, and they don't fight on a 'front line' on the ground.
I don't think women would rush to serve . . . however, it's a way of life for some families, and to deny them the responsibility sends a message of . . . separate but equal, perhaps?
There are unique difficulties for women in the military and in combat.
personally, i find it total bullshit to say that a woman is any less capable in combat than a man. if women want to run around getting themselves killed just like men, let them; this is what feminism is all about. equal opportunities and treatment between the sexes. you will certainly not see me in the armed forces anytime soon, but it isn't because i'm female.
what "unique difficulties" are you talking about, exactly? the only thing i can imagine being different for women is that they menstruate, which is not a horrible disease that renders them physically incapacitated or anything, so.
Well, in an arena, if captured, a woman could be raped.
Torture of prisoners is inevitable in certain situations, but that's clearly a unique difficulty facing women on the front line.
I'm on the side of the women in this case. It doesn't seem fair for the smaller but capable percentage to go out there and give 'em hell.
so can a man! remember a little place called abu ghraib?? sexual assault is certainly not an issue solely affecting women.
Yeah, that's true.
I don't think women have ever been allowed as front-line combatants.
they haven't. i think the only point of this new thing was to say "yeah we're still against that, mhmm".
There probably will always be a large percentage of military population among the straight males, but there are capable women who can do the job.
To deny it would be a rude and ignorant gesture.
i was reading a magazine last night, and in it, a former (female) corporal or something wrote that if the enemy knows there are women in a certain regiment or whatever, they'll think the men in that regiment will be trying to protect those women and be preoccupied, so they would attack those more. i can see that being a good and bad thing.
Attack the men or women?
The thought-pattern of the assailants matches the generally-accepted inferiority assumption of Middle Eastern traditional culture.
uh, it matches the generally-accepted inferiority assumption of traditional united states culture as well.
We might as well include the world at this point.
They attack the regiments with women because they feel the integrated regiment will feature common distraction from the integration?
yes, and that is what she had written, yes.
Only weak-minded men and women would let attention become distracted.
It's an assumption based on their rules of culture.
Much like . . . the same differences of culture we struggle with in this occupation/transition over the Iraqi region.