For Female GIs, Combat Is A Fact

When American women start coming home from Iraq in body bags, it’s a victory for the Culture of Death.

The essence of femininity, its miracle, is to nurture and sustain new life. A female soldier trained for combat is a woman denied her most treasured posession. She is made into a man, only without the physical strength of a man.

Dad,

Wrong. Here’s the correct quote:

When American military personnel start coming home from Iraq in body bags, it’s a victory for the Culture of Death.

The rest of it my sister the recently retired Air Force colonel (pilot/navigator) would tell you is garbage. As a veteran myself and the son and grandson of veterans, I say whoever wishes to serve our country in whatever way they are capable must be permitted to do so.

John

The problem is not with women but men. A man’s innate nature is to protect a woman. Bad enough when a guy’s buddy’s guts are splattered in front of him. When men see women hurt, they lose it–a bad thing for unit cohesion. Many will never get over it. I suppose the services could desensitize 18 year old men so when a women is injured along side them in combat, they would react the same as if a guy were hurt.

Not a very good idea however. Not for the men and not for the women they will come home to.

[quote=John Higgins]Dad,

Wrong. Here’s the correct quote:

When American military personnel start coming home from Iraq in body bags, it’s a victory for the Culture of Death.

The rest of it my sister the recently retired Air Force colonel (pilot/navigator) would tell you is garbage. As a veteran myself and the son and grandson of veterans, I say whoever wishes to serve our country in whatever way they are capable must be permitted to do so.

John
[/quote]

FWIW while I agree and admire anyone who makes the sacrifice to serve in the armed forces, I think the operative word here is CAPABLE. I would not want to see women in the service in any capacity unless they were held to the same standards as men. We can’t tell opposing forces ‘no fair shooting at girls!’ or not expect them to shoulder their load. I think there are clearly areas that they can serve very well and their lack of physical strength would not be an issue. But if their gender becomes an issue or compromises their fellow soldiers, it’s unacceptable. I guess I’m a bit jaded being in a family of police where female officers are put into positions where their size and lack of strength compromises both themselves and their fellow officers. I wouldn’t like to see this on a battlefield. But I do not think for one second that women lack courage or desire to serve.

As to coming home in body bags, they are already. Even soldiers who are away from combat are hardly out of harm’s way.

Lisa N

[quote=David_Paul]The problem is not with women but men. A man’s innate nature is to protect a woman. Bad enough when a guy’s buddy’s guts are splattered in front of him. When men see women hurt, they lose it–a bad thing for unit cohesion. Many will never get over it. I suppose the services could desensitize 18 year old men so when a women is injured along side them in combat, they would react the same as if a guy were hurt.

Not a very good idea however. Not for the men and not for the women they will come home to.
[/quote]

That must be why we performed so poorly in Iraq…oh wait, no we didn’t. Even people opposed to the war on moral grounds, such as myself, know full well that our military is the best performing in the world. I don’t want our women dying in Iraq…or our men either.

The rest of it my sister the recently retired Air Force colonel (pilot/navigator) would tell you is garbage. As a veteran myself and the son and grandson of veterans, I say whoever wishes to serve our country in whatever way they are capable must be permitted to do so.

i totally agree but women **are not **as capable as men in leading and obviously in fighting. i was in the military too and thought women in leadership positions cause problems. there should be a distinct women’s corps like during WWII. women should only be nurses, doctors, and other staff positions and never should women be in charge of men in combat.

Could someone please explain to me why women should not be in leadership over men in combat? Also, if this applies on the battle field does it also apply in my corporation’s board room?

I am not in the armed forces, nor do I have any desire to be. But am I wrong in assuming that in most combat situations if women and men are both able to perform to the same level that they should be allowed to fight at the front lines? I am not saying standards should be lowered in order to allow women in, what I am saying is hypothetically if there is a woman who is every bit as capable physically to be in a combat position what should stop her?

I think men should be just as concerned about their male buddy getting injured as their female buddy.

Yes, some women have the calling to be married and have children but women who aren’t should not be held up higher than a man b/c they are supposed to be the “nurturing” type. Heaven knows I’ve known some men that have a greater potential to be nurturing that some women I’ve known. I just can’t buy this line of reasoning.

[quote=oat soda]…but women **are not **as capable as men in leading …
[/quote]

WHAT??? Is this 1505 or 2005? Give me a break.

[quote=Steph700]I think men should be just as concerned about their male buddy getting injured as their female buddy.
[/quote]

Not a matter of degree of concern, the nature of the concern is different. Men are programmed to protect women. When they fail, it messed them up.

Israel studied this. The psychological damage to men was so clear they pulled woman back from front line ground duty.

WHAT??? Is this 1505 or 2005? Give me a break.

obvioulsy st. joan of arc, mother angelica, mother theresa, …etc. were great leaders. but women shouldn’t be involved in combat. perception is reality in the military and men generally will not look at women in the same way as men for better or worse.

Heaven knows I’ve known some men that have a greater potential to be nurturing that some women I’ve known.

men want women to take care of them if they are in the hospital, especially after combat injuries. this is a fact and is why women are better suited for certain jobs.

I think woman who get involved in combat are doing a disservice to themselves. I don’t want men to do either, I don’t want anyone to die, but when you have BOTH men and woman dying who will be at home with the children or caring for family?

It’s just as how both men and woman work today, look at how the family structure suffers. Having a few woman thrown in with all those men is dangerous.

They better not expect every woman to join the army. The day they start forcing woman into the military is the day I dig my grave. Just because a few woman are strong enough to do it doesn’t mean all want to or are capable of it.

Here is an American hero: Major Tammy Duckworth.

She flew Blackhawks (even when an RPG came up through the floor of her craft and took off one leg at the hip, one leg above the knee and part of one arm). Maj Duckworth was on C-Span. An amzing lady. She is going to fly choppers again. The only question is if for the military or in civilian life.

A Warthog pilot was on TLC a while back. Good grief. She was more intense than the male pilot on the show.

But that isn’t the same as having a coed squad on the ground. Men will instinctly try to hang back to protect a woman. If they do override their instinct and the woman is messed up, they do not recover well.

[quote=David_Paul]Not a matter of degree of concern, the nature of the concern is different. Men are programmed to protect women. When they fail, it messed them up.

Israel studied this. The psychological damage to men was so clear they pulled woman back from front line ground duty.
[/quote]

The other part of the study found that it was ultimately disturbing to the Israeli population when women with missing limbs and psychological scares were out in society.

I believe that women are superior to men; so why do we want to drag them down to mens level. Combat duty is not a career choice it is a dangerous situation where people put their life on the line.

I of course no why there are so many people who want to see women in combat. They somehow see this as the only way women can achieve equality to men. Let see where this equality has gotten us:

-The situation at Abu Gharib where you had female soldiers walking prisoners around on leashes for a photo op, also we have male and female guards performing in live sex shows. Gosh, I hope mom and dad were proud…

-How about the Mud Wrestling exhibition that some of the Female soldiers have put on for their fellow soldiers in Afghanistan…

-How about stories about female sailors deciding that the deployment they are on is not that fun so they intentionally gotten pregnant. When they were sent to shore duty their pregnancies suddenly disappear…

Divorce is probably fairly high in the military, but I can tell you from experience that it is rare to find a female officer who has not had a divorce. I am dumbfounded that people think that women in combat is such a great thing. In my opinion it will further bring down society because it seems to do is degrade women, not exalt them as some people on this thread intimate.

[quote=oat soda]obvioulsy st. joan of arc, mother angelica, mother theresa, …etc. were great leaders. but women shouldn’t be involved in combat.
[/quote]

St. Joan of Arc led the French military. I don’t think you meant to have her on your list.

[quote=Shinobu]They better not expect every woman to join the army. The day they start forcing woman into the military is the day I dig my grave. Just because a few woman are strong enough to do it doesn’t mean all want to or are capable of it.
[/quote]

If they have a draft, they ought to expect women to join, too. That’s the whole idea of a civilian army - that it’s harder to have wars because the people have to agree to it and can’t just be sent off by their leaders. I’m all for having all of society share the burden of war. Unless we are all truly willing to pay the price, we should not be willing to force others to.

[quote=Cubsfan]The other part of the study found that it was ultimately disturbing to the Israeli population when women with missing limbs and psychological scares were out in society.
[/quote]

God forbid we’re disturbed by what war does to people. You know, seems to me the question we ought to be asking is not “why were they disturbed at seeing women with missing limbs and psychological scars” but "why AREN’T they disturbed by men with missing limbs and psychological scars.

Really, this is all somewhat disgusting. We’re apparently completely ok with OTHER people paying the price of war, but not us or our families. If women in combat disturbs you all so much, perhaps you ought to consider your strong support for men in combat, too.

Boy…where is Gilliam or Scott Lafrance when I need them…I just don’t have the energy.

[quote=dumspirospero]Boy…where is Gilliam or Scott Lafrance when I need them…I just don’t have the energy.
[/quote]

YEP! :rotfl:

Fitz…you have the mettle…take care of business

[quote=Fitz]YEP! :rotfl:
[/quote]

Looking at some of these posts makes one realize how thoroughly feminism has insinuated itself in the culture, and, therefore, the military. No wonder Pat Schroeder retired. Her work is done.

I remember a quote from a book written by Malachi Martin some years ago. A priest was making a profound philosophical point about the nature of birds, of all things, and he said a bird doesn’t fly because it has wings. A bird has wings because it can fly. Apparently, judging from some of the responses here (*it makes no difference who comes home in a body bag - man or woman; everyone who wants to serve in the military should be given the opportunity, etc) *a depressingly large number of people have bought the feminist error that men and women are basically the same being with interchangable body parts and functions. Is a woman a nurturing being because she has a uterus, or does she have a uterus because she is by nature and its God intended to be a nurturing, loving being?

I don’t think anyone here is prepared to argue that the military exists to foster the feminine virtues. Rather, its function, as succinctly put by Rush Limbaugh, is *to kill people and break things. *These are things best done by men, and of course, these things at times are necessary.

When I look at some of the quotes from the link I posted, I can’t help but think these women have lost something of the essence of their nature. They have allowed themselves to be turned into “men” who happen to have a uterus.

Lt Col Cheri Provancha, commander of a Stryker Brigade support battalion in Mosul:

The Army has to understand the regulation that says women can’t be placed in direct fire situations is archaic and not attainable.

You can’t tell me I’m not being shot at. You can’t tell me I can’t handle combat…that was pretty frickin’ direct fire if you ask me.

Army Specialist Jennifer Guay, 1st female combat medic:

I refuse to have my right as a soldier taken from me because of my gender…it’s my right to defend my country…I am well aware of the danger…let me (us) do our job.

One wonders whether Ms Guay has any children here at home wondering where mommy is, like thousands of other women on deployment.

What about all the daddies out there? Aren’t they just as important? Of COURSE they are.

Maybe I’m way off base here, but I think that it’s a problem with society that we view men as somewhat more disposable than women. That somehow it’s ok for them to go off and “break things and kill people” and come back in body bags. Some may ask why is it not ok for women to go off to war, another question is why is it not questioned that ANYBODY goes off to war?

I think part of the reason our society- and many, many societies- are failing is b/c men and women are treated so differently as parents. It’s ok for men to work 70 hour weeks and never see their kids as long as mom is a stay-at-home mom who homeschools the kids. Yeah right. Kids need fathers! Especially young boys! What is lacking in our society is fathering. Good, consistant fathering. Men cannot easily be caregivers for their kids, our companies are set up most of the time to give benefits such as maternity leave to mothers… paternity leave is rare and often only a fraction of the length of time mothers are allowed off from work. And job sharing or flex scheduling? Forget about it unless you want a low paying job (read: a “woman’s” job) or you are lucky enough to work for a company that cares about families.

The division of work and home and therefore men and women is a huge problem. It results in sons not having godly male role models- except on weekends!-, daughters not knowing how they should be treated by men (and we all know how important that is by the time girls are dating), women being forced to stay at home and sometimes literally losing their sanity, men being forced to work long hours and be away from their families. And that’s just in the home. What about the work place? Speaking as a 24 year old female, I am viewed as somewhat of a liability now and if I get married then I am an all-out no go in the eyes of employers. In the words of the VP at my office when considering hiring a 20-something woman “Well, how old is she? Is she married? Ya know, she could get pregnant”. Yeah, and heaven forbid we give fathers the opportunity to be caregivers alongside mothers.

Long story short, I think this problem is a lot deeper that just the military. It’s a problem with us thinking that the 1950’s model of a family is the “good” method, even though this method doesn’t historically match up with how families have functioned throughout the centuries.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.