Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Kathleen Parker, arguing against allowing women to serve in combat situations:
My favorite bumper sticker remains: “I’m out of estrogen and I have a gun.”
That’s her favorite bumper sticker. So, naturally, you can’t question her feminist credentials. Or something. Who can tell with these morons?
It’s interesting that the situation depicted by her favorite bumper sticker would make a woman a little bit more like a man. That is, no estrogen.
Personally I think only those from families earning over $200K and with net worth greater than $1M should be allowed into combat. After all, those who have gained most should be asked to make the greatest sacrifice. They also have more skin in the game.
This would have two key advantages:
I would even allow conscientious objection – provided the family in question were prepared to pay taxes sufficient to being their income below $200k and net worth below $1M.
Do you think my idea would fly?
In a rational world, that’s how it would be. Unfortunately we live someplace else. Interesting to recall, though, that at least the kings, emperors, and despots were generally expected to take a personal role in the battle. I guess American oligarchs reject the idea of taking up the tradition of their forebears.
Or as someone said to the suggestion that Generals perform personal combat, “That would not stop war. It would just lead to Generals with more guts than brains.”
During the Vietnam War when my generation was in direct line of fire of the draft the common chant was to change the elligible draft age to 65 and see how fast the war got closed down.
In observational defense of poor Kathleen, I will say that in my old office I worked for a kindly boss who was a wee bit inclined to overlook things from time to time and there were a group of ladies who jokingly talked about taking their estrogen meds or they would become pretty damned aggressive.
Demonstrated by an afternoon where boss was coming down stairs chased by accounts payable manager who was a tiny spitfire on a normal day, who leapt down the stairs onto his back and began pounding him about the head. She was screaming, “I told you we had to ….” well you get the picture. And yes, after she came back to terra firma she muttered that she’d forgotten to take her estrogen pill, so never mind.
Perhaps a female soldier who qualified physically and psychologically for a front-line combat spot would be more disciplined (and younger!) than the woman in your anecdote.
Let’s assume she would but Parker on the other hand is exactly the age where her bumper sticker may have meaning. Per usual with her she views things through her own age bracket. btw, I’m not sayin the ap woman wasn’t effective at her job, she was widely regarded as someone at the top of her game.
O/T: Scary video.
the *** is taking testosterone treatments.
She’s already booked her flight to Amsterdam
I don’t know — most of her arguments at least make a coherent case for a traditionalist view. I suspect deep in our hearts many liberals/leftists feel discomfort pretending there is no other reasonable side to this issue. Maybe equal rights have to prevail, but there’s nothing so terrible about expressing the moral squeamishness that goes along with it. Her conclusions may be wrong, but I don’t see that they deserve the “moron” award.
I think the “moron” part comes in when she tries to pretend opposing women in combat makes her a feminist.
Otherwise she’s merely wrong. The basic answer to the argument that women aren’t up to the physical rigors of combat is that not all men are either. So you apply the same standards to everybody, and whoever makes it makes it. (Woody Allen had a joke that he was qualified 4P by the draft board–in case of war, he’s a hostage.)
In cases where men’s physical advantages really do matter, then presumably more men will pass the test. But that doesn’t mean that no women will pass the test, if given the chance.
But the traditionalist view here is discriminatory and intentionally avoids consideration of its assumptions, and of the full consequence of its effects. An example from Parker’s column:
“Fact: Females have only half the upper-body strength as males — no small point in the field.”
The DOD change will not place females in front-line combat positions in equal numbers to men. That is the typical intensely stupid misinterpretation the Right gives to many subjects. The ordinary armed service member, male or female, does not pass the tests necessary to qualify for front-line combat positions in the Army, Marines, Navy Seals, etc. Front-line combat positions in the U.S. military are earned by merit; only those who meet top standards are accepted.
So, let’s reconsider Parker’s claim, while bypassing its linguistic errors. If females in whole have half the upper body strength of males, does that mean that EACH woman has half the upper body strength of EACH male? To suggest that is true would be truly, deeply wrong, and stupidly so. Yet Parker strongly infers that here, and there is nothing in the column which moves from that offensive inference.
Among the other disappointing concerns of Kathleen’s column is wrapped within the Right’s ongoing obsession with the subject of rape. It is necessary for Kathleen to wrap her concern in a scenario where American soldiers are captured. It is extremely rare for a member of the U.S. military to be captured; that would already be a sign of an extremely failed mission. Yet this rare circumstance moves to the front of the line in Parker’s world.
Her conclusions are not significantly stupider than many arguments which have been made “…for a traditionalist view.” Yet, Parker’s conclusions are moronic.
I don’t see a legitimate “moral squeamishness” we should feel about this DOD decision.
What nonsense! (Upper body strength B.S.) I’m a male Postal Mechanic. I know lots of female Mail Handlers (job category) whose daily job is to physically lift and carry heavy mail tubs. They could crush me in a game of arm wrestling. One of the most startling things I saw when I started the job was women with arms like Arnold Schwarzenegger. (yeah, I know I have the singular and plural mixed up. Teacher Toni, Help me.)
Yup – should be were women.
I had to read it twice to catch it 🙂
Actually I think it’s “was women.” One (of the things) was women. You wouldn’t say “one of the things were women,” would you?
I won’t read her, I refuse.
But most arguments seem to be; “Yes, women have been in combat for years, but I am against this change in policy”.
Can it be any more clear? What they are REALLY saying;
“I am against anything the black usurper is in favor of”
.
It appears that in American political culture the route to full citizenship only occurs through serving in the military in combat. Frederick Douglass seemed to understand that. Those who insisted on expelling homosexuals from the military clearly understood that. And the sons and daughters of undocumented workers understand this.
So if you go down the list of Phyllis Schlafly’s objections to the Equal Rights Amendment, you have:
Unisex toilets – there is a trend to single-person unisex toilets in business establishments. Check.
Gay marriage – Check.
Women in combat – Check.
OK, Phyllis, now that the worst has happened in your opinion and the Republic still stands, can we finish ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment?
That, folks, is what this stupidity is all about. Waving away the obvious implications.
So, now can we stop having combat as the sine qua non ticket to full citizenship? Can we stop having wars just to provide a lottery for new classes of citizens?
And the big fear of those who oppose this move? That combat-trained women will frag their rapists.
I imagine Parker’s “Pretty In Pink” to “Teen Magazine” psyche of young women has her grossly misdiagnosing her ideas of what women need today compared to todays woman. Her South Carolinian opinions void others out without an afterthought like most tyrannical columnist aspire for only their America. Kathleen, we have an all volunteer army these days, women or men do not have to participate in any US Armed Forces. Sometimes playing with plastic pretend ponies in Pretend Land was never serious enough for some ladies to exercise their liberties and freedoms!