During the discussion of Women in Combat - I along with many other women made comments. Dagoddess took it upon herself to suggest my comments displayed sheer stupidity. I take exception to that. Opinions are opinions. You don't have to agree with my opinion but damn it have a little respect.
Calling me stupid is the nastiest insult next to calling me a liar. I will not tolerate that.
So...
It's Go Time.
My actual comment to Dean's question was longer but I was being fisked for this apparantly asinine part:
I don't think that the public could handle seeing women in bodybags. And it could jeopardize the men fighting because it is almost instinctive for men to protect women. It would be an unnecessary risk to our fighting force.
The obviously well thought out retort:
Listen here, the public sees women in bodybags all the time. Turn on the news. Take a look at some of the images that you see. Whether we're talking about a war zone in another country or the war zones we have here in this country, women die as the result of violence every day. Our war zones may look a bit different: low income housing, the ghetto, the shopping center parking lot. All places where women are killed by stray, or intentional, gunfire, knives, or those big, strong men who beat them to death.
Great answer! I guess I must be wrong. The public shall embrace seeing shitloads of dead young girls in bodybags during wartime - CUZ they are USED to it! Please save that liberal whiny 'poor' women bullshit for someone who's buying cuz I ain't.
When Jessica Lynch was taken prisoner that was hardly newsworthy because people are taken prisoner all the time, right? Low income housing is certainly a prsion and gosh we have actual prisons filled with women...nah, still sounds stupid - I ain't buying the bullshit.
Nice touch - let's not forget to mention the brutality of MEN. It really helps selling the combat fitness of women.
Almost instictive for men to protect women? In general, we, as humans, are conditioned to protect each other - regardless of gender. On the battlefield, looking out for another soldier, male or female, isn't an issue. You just do it. In camouflage, we're all the same.
Honey, YOU may not elicit a protective response from a man but I assure you that many men feel that way. Big brothers (and little ones too) usually feel protective of their sisters and in the service it would be the same. If you think for one minute that - that feeling wouldn't jeopardize the troops in some way - you are fooling yourself. If you are thinking snottily that that is his problem - you are wrong - it becomes all of their problem. "In camouflage we are all the same" - what planet are you living on - surely not earth. It's a nice sentiment a bit naive but nice.
This last comment was a tongue-n-cheek response to someone else. But boy did it put her panties in a knot.
Women in charge of wars -we would be fighting somebody about every three weeks. When that PMS kicks in - LOOK OUT! And yes - they would be far nastier and cruel - with that I agree.
That is why I will NEVER vote for a woman to be president - unless she is a post-menopausal Republican!!!!!
I'm shocked that a woman is playing the PMS card. Really. That reduces each and every woman to a cauldron of raging hormones. Honey, I hate to tell you this, but not all of us are like that. And, to use that same argument when discussing who should be president....why, that's sheer stupidity!
Honey, I hate to tell you this but your response proves that you are definitely LIKE THAT!
I was mostly kidding. The fact that you can't tell that I was kidding proves that you lack humor or that you were obviously PMS-ing that day.
JOKE YOU if you can't take a FUCK.
You select a president based on what you truly believe that candidate will do for you and the rest of us while in office. This makes me think that too many Americans are still selecting a leader based on physical attributes. I think we need to put every candidate behind a curtain, engage voice-altering devices, and force people to choose their leader based on the strength of the candidate's platform.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Explain 8 years of Bill Clinton to me again...
********************************\
In Conclusion:
Please do not try to lecture people because their opinions are different than yours. You are neither superior in intellect nor are you a qualified expert. You are a woman delivering an opinion - equals with the rest of us. Your rant makes seem rather intolerant and undeservingly smug.
You disagree - great. You were mocking, rude and disrespectful. Those of us you disagreed with didn't deserve that kind of ridicule.
Alas, we are all bitches 1 week a month...
So, I forgive you.
This really pains me to write this in support of Rosemary, but I have to speak my opinion. I am probably the most tree-hugging, Bill Clinton-loving rainbow coalition make peace not war liberal in the U.S. Army, and I want Hillary to be president, but as I instruct new recruits in Army intelligence (we're usually in the rear, with the gear or REMFs) I see the paternal instincts in our young men (boys) surface everyday in class. These young guys are highly protective of the female soldiers even in garrison and peace-time situations. SURE as shit (south Georgia dialect - see other posts on linguistics) these boys would go out of their way to protect females in combat. I'm not saying that's right or wrong or not sexist, I'm just saying "that's the fact Jack!" Ultimately, it would jeopardize the mission and cost lives.
I've no doubt that the trauma of combat will bring out the base instincts in all of us (along with training) and men instinctively protect women.
There, I went and had to agree with Rosemary....how can I forgive myself?
Still, I'd take 4 Clintons over 1 Reagan
Tim
The Israelis did experiment with mixed male/female combat units, and found that the instincts that Tim talks about were a serious impediment. They no longer put females in those roles, although they still use them in all sorts of combat specialties. Like snipers.
Rosemary, I responded as I did on MY site, as opposed to in the comments, out of respect. I can be outrageous and rude on my site if I choose. That's my right. However, I did state, in Dean's SECOND post about this, that I respected all points of view and was more than a little surprised by the old fashioned response that you and others gave.
I think you completely missed my point. But, that's okay.
As for me being hormonal and the like, that's the furthest thing from the truth. PMS isn't an issue for me. It's called a hysterectomy. Hormone replacement therapy. I'm a bitch 100% of the time.
Tim:
You know you LOVE IT!
Dagodess:
I got your point completely. My point is you called me asinine and stupid - for comments I made that were well reasoned.
You want to be a bitch 100% of the time - that's great - I am too. But I don't call my sistas stupid for having a differing opinion - ever.
I know also that it's your right to do whatever you want on your site - that is why I responded to you here...IN MY DOMAIN.
BTW, I'm not old fashioned at all nor am I a soft willowy woman. I have kicked ass in my day literally (some were men), I am an expert marksman with medals to prove it. I know that I would be capable of fighting on the frontlines - I just think that the risks to the troops outweigh the benefit. You don't want to believe that - fine.
I do. So far, so does the military.
I must be on an RAH kick right now...
Rosemary, you sound like the prototypical "Heinlein woman." Scary. Heh.
She actually is, Casey. Except she's not a redhead.
Rosemary,
"You want to be a bitch 100% of the time - that's great - I am too."
Forgive the question, but I'm merely trying gain a better understanding of the dynamics of marriage (which I can't do by inspection since I'm not married):
Dean obviously loves you very deeply and thinks the world out of (which I gathered from his having said so a few times, especially around valentines day, but I think also on his FAQ about online dating). Is it not therefore unkind to insult yourself in this fashion and consequently the object of his affection? (this of course presumes that you were speaking in hyperbole, which I gather that you were since you seem quite nice from others posts of yours.)
Again, I apologize for the silly question, but it's been my experience that the best way to learn in this world is to ask questions of people more likely to know than myself. You are of course entirely free to not answer if you dislike the question, and I won't pester about it.
Chris,
You are assuming that I was insulting myself. I find calling myself a bitch to be not an insult more of a liberating term. I am a take charge, no-nonsense kind of woman and that comes across as bitchy to some so in a way I am taking the word back. Kind of like fat people calling themselves fat...owning the word makes it not insulting.
I am brutally honest and very opinionated and I am proud to be that way. Dean likes that about me and I don't think he is insulted by my saying I'm bitchy - he probably would however be insulted if someone referred to me that way in a derogatory manner.
I will always answer any question asked of me - if I can. I never find any question silly - even if the answer is...
:)
Yes, the only silly question is the one not asked.
Bravo Rosemary!
ilaik bag waman