Feminists: Warriors and Victims

Recently at a Pentagon Press Conference, General Patton announced that women would now be allowed to play a more combative role in war. What exactly this means for servicewomen is unclear. Vague language was used to articulate a slight increase in the risk-factor of the jobs available to women; More specifically, women will be allowed to serve in battalions--a group of 800 units--as non-combat personnel (i.e. radio operators, medics, and tank mechanics). The nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already necessitated that women serve in these roles due to shortages in personnel. Therefore, this seems to be a situation in which policy is finally catching up with the realities of war. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are conflicts fought in guerilla style; there is no clear "front" or "rear" line. No one serving in this kind of a conflict is completely safe. As of this moment, 140 women have died in the Middle East conflicts. This begs the question: why the announcement, and why the uproar?

Many of the RNC candidates have come out against this move, even though it merely announces what has already been going on. Rick Santorum (poor guy, his last name refers to a frothy fecal-lube mixture that is sometimes a byproduct of anal sex) came out and declared this an abomination because men have a "natural" inclination to protect the "weaker sex." In other words, women would only be a distraction to "missions." Here is a video where he alludes to the emotional frailty of women. In it, he speaks of women as if they are simply hanging out: "a good, important addition." Newt and friends took similar unsurprising stances on this issue. These kinds of statements undermine the sacrifices being made my all military personal in addition to perpetuation gender stereotypes that simply have no basis in fact. Each one of these fools has essentially declared war on Iran in the build up to the presidential elections. It seems to me that they should be supporting this move that gives women more responsibility and respect (Of course, there is still quite a ways to go towards any semblance of equality in the armed forces).

Participating in the infantry is one prerequisite to advancement. The current system prevents women from serving in the infantry which, not surprisingly, inhibits to some degree their military careers. How is that fair, or just? Liz Trotta, a correspondent for yes, you guessed it, Fox News Corp, came out and accused "Feminists"--from the video it is unclear who exactly she means--for assuming the position of the victim and warrior. She sites a statistic about sexual assault: "since 2006, instances of sexual assault have increased by 64%." She then goes on to blame women for these attacks. It makes me sick, so I will just let you all check it out for yourselves.

I cannot begin to understand these comments. I included a lighter clip from the daily show mocking Trotta and her idiotic comments attempting to characterize the inherent natures of both men and women as a consequence of their anatomical compositions. While it is in jest, note all of the phallocentric language ect. They are kidding, but not really which is why it is so depressing. Check it out:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
V-Jay Jay Day - Samantha Bee's Apology
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

With each class, I become less and less convinced of the so-called "differences" between men and women. I believe that anyone should be allowed to enlist, fight, and advance in the military if they so choose. But, I would love to hear what everyone thinks.