Do you call this Opportunity?

A Stodghill Says So blog:



I see by the papers that Britain is considering the idea of allowing women to serve in combat units. It seems unfair according to rules of the European Union that females are denied the opportunity to kill the enemy face-to-face. This comes as a shocker to me because up until now I didn't realize it was called opportunity.
Brings to mind something I have mentioned previously, the job recommendation given to me by the Army following World War II. It was all summed up in one sentence: "Cared for and cleaned an M-1 rifle while living under adverse conditions and delivering direct fire upon the enemy."
That was it. An entire war condensed into nineteen words. You didn't need a degree from Harvard to see that when it comes to job recommendations this did not rate too far up on a scale of one to ten.
But now women in England are clamoring to have the same opportunity of perhaps getting their asses shot off. Perhaps they're confusing wars like WWII or WWI with something else. Perhaps they believe that in wars like those you go back to a base camp at night. They may be overlooking the complete lack of facilities when "I gotta go" becomes uppermost in mind. Or it could be they don't realize that animal-like behavior rises to the surface when men get serious about killing other men and that sometimes they fall into the hands of those they have been trying to kill. That brings to mind the dreaded word rape.
Maybe they've forgotten the protective feelings men develop for women who are with them. Israel found that had a disruptive effect when a woman was wounded so integration in the infantry was scraped. Then there is the development of affection for members of the opposite sex. That can lead to many things, jealousy included.
How about the back-breaking loads that have to be carried when exhaustion isn't far off? Could most females handle it month after month or would their loads have to be added to that of men already close to the breaking point?
Integrating the sexes is fine under certain conditions. If there are base camps and that sort of thing it can work. What happens, though, if something like either world war occurs? It's best not to even think about it under the best of conditions. Add women to the front line mix and . . . well, forget it.
So ladies, I assure you we are not talking about opportunity. Think major war, think the Somme or Verdun, think Iwo Jima or the Bulge, then be thankful for the opportunity to be somewhere other than an infantry rifle company on the front line when there really is a front line.

NO! NO! and NO again!

Unbelievably ridiculous!

These are not feminine women--remenber my continuim?

These women are closer to male than female.

You are absolutly right, Dick. However, women could serve behind the men in support positions, thereby freeing up some men who could go help the others. Like on KP or in offices, or as Marie's daughter, fixing machines. I presume many are already there. But on the front lines? Absurd. I think most women prefer to stay behind and worry. Not that they want their men to go.

A couple of days ago, at the Annapolis graduation, President Obama said,

"When a serviceman goes to war, the whole family is deployed."

That quote, which I do not believe needs permission, is going in the Cuba book and will be the focus as I rewrite taking out many of the needed permissions. I believe we all have a role, but only some go into battle, and their experiences are beyond the others.

Just now a TV show came on about The Medal of Honor.

Ann, they have already mentioned Audie Murphy.

Carol

Quote :

Just now a TV show came on about The Medal of Honor.

Ann, they have already mentioned Audie Murphy.

Carol

That's great. He was one of several hundred from that war. There is an excellent book called Heroes of WWII that tells the stories of many of them.

One it misses is another Texas MOH recipient named Jose Lopez. He died a couple of years ago, but had been interviewed on a PBS special about Normandy a year or so earlier. There is a new middle school here in SA that was named for him.

Personally, I don't think any more individuals should have to go into battle - men or women.

Ann

What would they do in the middle of a fire fight if they broke a nail? Worse yet, a heel...the whole damn war could come to a stop.

For most, the woman's job is to keep the home fires burning the best she can. Not an easy job. Top it off with the worry and trying to work, take care of children and the rest without her male counterpart. Yes, they too serve their country in war time, and peace time as well. It's not an easy task.

Domenic, I can't believe you are serious, and if you are not, this is not something to joke about. If the circumstances you spoke of brought the war to a halt, that would be a good thing, but that also makes no sense.

There are some strong women here. No one here, no woman I know, is in he category you speak of.

Carol

There are many women I know that I would want standing beside me in battle (if I had to be in a battle). These women are mentally sharp, physically strong, knowledgeable about machinery and strategy, but also know how to take orders and how to focus all of their energy into the task at hand. I know several men who don't fit that bill. If given a choice, I would choose the women I mentioned without question.

Domenic wrote:

Quote :

What would they do in the middle of a fire fight
if they broke a nail? Worse yet, a heel...the whole damn war could come
to a stop.

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/medals.html

Ann

Well, guess what!
You have turned me in favor of it.

I know it would have been much easier on my mother if she could have gone to Nam instead of my brother.

Come to thnk of it--why have the men die in battle?
There are fewer men born so why waste them--waste the women instead.

Therefore all of the men are out the women are in.

alj wrote:

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/medals.html

Ann

That is a great site, Ann.

Like most emotional issues around the differences between male and female, this one is rife with strife and very complex. First, I believe (my own very personal belief) that war and incarceration are archaic, barbaric representations of our inabiity to use the benefits of modern society and its plenty to resolve conflicts instead of sending our youth, male or female, to be shot and economies and civilians to be devastated.

I also believe that the penal system is barbaric and priemeval, so you can see I won't win friends and influence with my opinions on either subject.

Relative to women in combat; the archaic military system that exists provides upward mobility, honor and benefits to those who serve in combat. Therefore, to serve in the military and not be eligible for combat reduces one's chances for advancement in the chosen career at the same pace as those who have war experience for rapid advancement.

As some have stated, men and women make lifestyle choices that may be outside the divisions normally representing male and female choices. In every profession, the most able and talented should have the opportunity for the best use of those talents. Israel has long had women in their military and so far as I know, they have been very successful and have no shortage of children or marriages as a result.

Technology and communication have long changed traditional roles for men or women; brawn is seldom the divider. Women at the gym press as much as men and are still feminine. Men are nurses, teachers, and other helping profession workers with every bit the masculine traits with which they are born. Times have changed even though some opinions have not.

Some religious persuasions are the last to change and would like to keep women covered in cloth but for their eyes; but it's a last ditch effort for men to cling to their dominance in brawn and sexual freedom. Give a woman an education and give her a choice as to where her talents best meet her career aspirations. If it's at home and supporting a man in his chosen occupation; that is her choice. If it's in the forefront of professional excellence in whatever endeavor, that may also be a choice.

The world is too needy of creative intelligence for new sollutions, it can't discount 50% of the poplulation where these sollutions may well be born.

dkchristi wrote:

Some religious persuasions are the last to change and would like to keep women covered in cloth but for their eyes; but it's a last ditch effort for men to cling to their dominance in brawn and sexual freedom. Give a woman an education and give her a choice as to where her talents best meet her career aspirations. If it's at home and supporting a man in his chosen occupation; that is her choice. If it's in the forefront of professional excellence in whatever endeavor, that may also be a choice.

The world is too needy of creative intelligence for new sollutions, it can't discount 50% of the poplulation where these sollutions may well be born.

Very nice. I agree. This is the opportunity we all need. This to me is what our country should be about.

Carol

I agree too, but the guys can still hold the door open for me, help me on with my coat and leave the child-bearing to me.

Why?

I am better at it.

It's always amazed me that accepting women's intelligence is an excuse to eliminate courtesies of polite society, whether by choice of the woman or the man.

Men hold doors for women because it's a nice thing, a way of showing that they recognize that women may be wearing high heels or managing a purse or children or just a smile - that this gesture represents kindness and sometimes affection.

Just because a women uses her mind doesn't mean she has to hold doors for men or be angry when they are gentlemen. It works both ways. Any change in mental behavior sometimes takes an adjustment, but courtesy is always in fashion, and is often a mark of a specific cultural orientation.

I thought there ratio was 70 percent women and 30 percent men. Think about that.

Love,
Betty

Well said, Don.

As for women and men, they were different and it is the difference that creates the appeal. So long as women remain feminine, that appeal will continue. When the woman looks and acts like a man, they can expect to be treated as such.

I for one have never lost the courtesy of opening a car door, pulling out a chair, or standing when introduced to a lady. The appeal remains when I can see that they in fact are women. As for intelligence, many can put men to shame. Sometimes that intelligence is simply in making the man feel superior. No one can dictate what is proper in a relationship. We're all different.

I recently went to an Air Force Museum. There was an interesting display on woman pilots in World War II. More can be found at:

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/waspwwiiaviation/a/wasp.htm

Abe, I disagree. A woman is a woman no matter how she dresses or acts. It is something inside. I think opening doors is kind, however.

I remember thinking I didn't see much need for men to open doors for me, because I could open my own doors, and I have always had this mindset that if I could do something, I didn't need someone to do it for me. Well, I'm not completely recommending that mindset because I should have accepted more help through the years than I did.

Don, I hear your concern and that is nice.

I have no problem if women are kept from doing something out of concern for their well-being, but if it is just because they are women, then I have a big problem, as with the female pilots of World War II. They were doing what the men were but without the same recognition of military service to their country.

It is nice for women to be recognized for their intelligence, but I've never been smart enough to make a man feel superior, or too smart perhaps.

I never felt more devalued in my life than when my husband was in the Marines. The saying, "If the Marines had wanted their men to have wives they would have issued them," was embedded in our beings. Most of us gave support, but that was not considered worth much. I do not mean to sound disrespectful to the military because I am not. I was there for support, but that was not seen as valuable.

That has changed. My daughter's husband is a career Navy doctor and she has never felt as the Marine wives did long ago. (When I go to Marine reunions with my husband I am considered "an original issue wife," so it wasn't just my imagining.

Carol

I open doors for men and women all the time. I never thought of it as a "man" thing, simply a "courtesy" thing. I'll hold the elevator for someone who is heading toward it, too. Same as letting someone with only a few items in the cart ahead of me in the grocery store line when I've got an entire cart full.

For what it's worth, men can be raped, too. I know it's not a popular subject, but it does happen.

I have never been in the military, so do not have first hand experience of what that experience is like. I can only speak from my own personal experience with the people I know and the obstacles they have overcome.

Don,

In these changing times, where men and women fight side by side, it is up to the commanding officers to select the best soldiers for the job. As is the case with most women, some men are not strong enough to be part of special units. In danger areas the question should be: "Is this soldier up to the job?" not: "Is this woman up to the job?"

Outside of military life, women should be given the same equal opportunity. If they are up to it they get the job; if they are not, they don't. We have yet to see the first female President. This last election was a close call. Maybe, next time, a woman will make it to the White House.

A foxhole should never be home to a man, or a woman. War and death shows no prefrence for gender or age.

My original point, Nutter, was passed over: war is heinous, barbaric and archaic. You are right, no man or woman should be facing death while politicians make decisions. Politics today should have reached a level of sophistication where the distribution of resources, the end of hunger, and tolerence for differences make war a thing of the past: we honor those who have served and led the way to a more humane way of settling differences.

"Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me."

dkchristi wrote:

My original point, Nutter, was passed over: war is heinous, barbaric and archaic. You are right, no man or woman should be facing death while politicians make decisions. Politics today should have reached a level of sophistication where the distribution of resources, the end of hunger, and tolerence for differences make war a thing of the past: we honor those who have served and led the way to a more humane way of settling differences.

"Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me."

While I agree with every word you have written it is a dream. As long as there are Hitlers and Bin Laden's in the world makes reasoning an unattainable goal. These people had or have no regard for the sanctity of human life and believe others do not even have the right to exist. The United States has pumped billions and billions of dollars into forign countries in the form of food, rebuilding infrastructures and the list goes on. My question is what has it gained the nation?