Hi there, it's been a while, hasn't it? I've been occupied. And I haven't really had a lot to say that couldn't be summed up in one or two sentences on Facebook.
But, someone on CNN has pulled me out of my lethargy. Also, I just had a good cuppa joe.
Leon Panetta announced the end of the ground combat exclusion rule for women. If women can meet the qualifications, they can serve in front-line combat positions. This announcement has all sorts of meanings, as the mainstream media has shown this week, but, to me, the main meaning is that, in the military, jobs will be open to women based on their qualifications and not closed to them because they are women. Before, women certainly had battle experience, but it didn't count toward their promotions and pay.
Now, despite the visibility of two Iraq-war veterans now serving in the House of Representatives, despite 150 women who have died in combat and 800 women who have been wounded in combat, Iraq-war veteran Ryan Smith had this to say on CNN this week:
"So, if you had to go to the restroom, if you had to pee in a bottle inches from your...the comrade next to you, if you had to go to the, uh, if you develop dysentery, you had to poot in a bag, in an MRE bag, inches from your comrade's face. Now introducing women into that environment, uh, can be really traumatic and humiliating and combat's already difficult enough, you don't need to add this other layer."
It appears to me that he is conflating his real or imagined discomfort with pooping in front of woman with all women's supposed discomfort.
This part is the comedy part of the discussion: I would like to point out to Mr. Smith that women pee every day, many times a day. Often while another person is talking to us. Often while another person and/or animal is looking at us. I have peed and pooped with three pairs of eyes on me. No, it wasn't comfortable, but it had to be done. Women have and will poop in bathrooms that make MRE bags look desirable. Even prissy little old me has pooped in the woods with just a shovel and toilet paper. And not just regular poop, but yes, diarrhea.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to play this card, but women deal with messiness every month, for decades. Blood and gore, boys. Some women push 6- to 12-pound humans out of their vaginas. I was too delicate for this duty, so I had a C-section, praise the Lord. And praise that little breach baby of mine.
And I'm way too squeamish and Southern-Belle-ish to delve too deeply into this subject, but sex is not the most, shall we say, sanitary exercise in the world. Well, as Woody Allen would say, not if you're doing it right.
There's also "women's work" like cooking. If we can debone chickens, we can serve in combat. If we can make meatballs, we can serve in combat. When I make my super-delish meatball recipe, as I squish the ingredients (add nutmeg!) together, I am not unaware that I am touching the skinned, desanguinated flesh of another animal that lived and had thoughts and may have even loved. And then I put that thought out of my mind and make my meatballs. Just as I imagine a soldier puts similar thoughts out of his *or her* mind and does his or her job.
So, Mr. Smith, don't you dare say that women are too prissy for combat. 'Cos I'm thinking that's on you.
This part is the meat of the discussion: He seems to be unaware that women who will be in combat will have volunteered to be there and so, presumably, have thought about exactly what that means. A woman like me, who can't even think about the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan," will not volunteer to be in combat. A man like me wouldn't volunteer to be in combat, either.
Now we've dealt with Mr. Smith, let's talk about Tucker Carlson, who tweeted, "Feminism's latest victory: the right to get your limbs blown off in war. Congratulations."
Women already have had their limbs blown off in combat. Let me introduce you to Rep. Tammy Duckworth, who, as she said this week, didn't lose her legs in a bar fight. To think that Tucker Carlson has daughters. To think that he thinks so little of them.
Mr. Carlson also tweeted, "The administration boasts about sending women to the front lines on the same day Democrats push the Violence Against Women Act."
Ahem, that would be two different things. Combat is not violence against women. Or, perhaps it is. It's violence against human kind. And that's a whole 'nother liberal blog, isn't it?
If he's making a point about equality with that tweet, I'll give him that. I guess it should be the Domestic Violence Act. Because apparently even men as manly as Levi Johnston can be victims of domestic violence. (http://www.showbizspy.com/article/256459/levi-johnston-beaten-by-wife-sunny-oglesby.html)
So, yes, I'll give Mr. Carlson that point, even though I doubt that was the point he was making. I think what he's saying is that women try to have it both ways--we want to serve in combat and have special status. Or perhaps he's saying that Democrats don't really care about women because they'll let them go in front of a gun. Hello, they will also be behind a gun.
If either of those points is what he's trying to say, let me point out again: the women who volunteer to be in combat have done so so that they can have the same promotions and rank and pay as men who volunteer to be in combat.
Tucker Carlson's ignorance brings up my last point--whether women should be required to sign up for the draft when they reach the age of 18. Well, duh. Yes. We're equal.
But, someone on CNN has pulled me out of my lethargy. Also, I just had a good cuppa joe.
Leon Panetta announced the end of the ground combat exclusion rule for women. If women can meet the qualifications, they can serve in front-line combat positions. This announcement has all sorts of meanings, as the mainstream media has shown this week, but, to me, the main meaning is that, in the military, jobs will be open to women based on their qualifications and not closed to them because they are women. Before, women certainly had battle experience, but it didn't count toward their promotions and pay.
Now, despite the visibility of two Iraq-war veterans now serving in the House of Representatives, despite 150 women who have died in combat and 800 women who have been wounded in combat, Iraq-war veteran Ryan Smith had this to say on CNN this week:
"So, if you had to go to the restroom, if you had to pee in a bottle inches from your...the comrade next to you, if you had to go to the, uh, if you develop dysentery, you had to poot in a bag, in an MRE bag, inches from your comrade's face. Now introducing women into that environment, uh, can be really traumatic and humiliating and combat's already difficult enough, you don't need to add this other layer."
It appears to me that he is conflating his real or imagined discomfort with pooping in front of woman with all women's supposed discomfort.
This part is the comedy part of the discussion: I would like to point out to Mr. Smith that women pee every day, many times a day. Often while another person is talking to us. Often while another person and/or animal is looking at us. I have peed and pooped with three pairs of eyes on me. No, it wasn't comfortable, but it had to be done. Women have and will poop in bathrooms that make MRE bags look desirable. Even prissy little old me has pooped in the woods with just a shovel and toilet paper. And not just regular poop, but yes, diarrhea.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to play this card, but women deal with messiness every month, for decades. Blood and gore, boys. Some women push 6- to 12-pound humans out of their vaginas. I was too delicate for this duty, so I had a C-section, praise the Lord. And praise that little breach baby of mine.
And I'm way too squeamish and Southern-Belle-ish to delve too deeply into this subject, but sex is not the most, shall we say, sanitary exercise in the world. Well, as Woody Allen would say, not if you're doing it right.
There's also "women's work" like cooking. If we can debone chickens, we can serve in combat. If we can make meatballs, we can serve in combat. When I make my super-delish meatball recipe, as I squish the ingredients (add nutmeg!) together, I am not unaware that I am touching the skinned, desanguinated flesh of another animal that lived and had thoughts and may have even loved. And then I put that thought out of my mind and make my meatballs. Just as I imagine a soldier puts similar thoughts out of his *or her* mind and does his or her job.
So, Mr. Smith, don't you dare say that women are too prissy for combat. 'Cos I'm thinking that's on you.
This part is the meat of the discussion: He seems to be unaware that women who will be in combat will have volunteered to be there and so, presumably, have thought about exactly what that means. A woman like me, who can't even think about the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan," will not volunteer to be in combat. A man like me wouldn't volunteer to be in combat, either.
Now we've dealt with Mr. Smith, let's talk about Tucker Carlson, who tweeted, "Feminism's latest victory: the right to get your limbs blown off in war. Congratulations."
Women already have had their limbs blown off in combat. Let me introduce you to Rep. Tammy Duckworth, who, as she said this week, didn't lose her legs in a bar fight. To think that Tucker Carlson has daughters. To think that he thinks so little of them.
Mr. Carlson also tweeted, "The administration boasts about sending women to the front lines on the same day Democrats push the Violence Against Women Act."
Ahem, that would be two different things. Combat is not violence against women. Or, perhaps it is. It's violence against human kind. And that's a whole 'nother liberal blog, isn't it?
If he's making a point about equality with that tweet, I'll give him that. I guess it should be the Domestic Violence Act. Because apparently even men as manly as Levi Johnston can be victims of domestic violence. (http://www.showbizspy.com/article/256459/levi-johnston-beaten-by-wife-sunny-oglesby.html)
So, yes, I'll give Mr. Carlson that point, even though I doubt that was the point he was making. I think what he's saying is that women try to have it both ways--we want to serve in combat and have special status. Or perhaps he's saying that Democrats don't really care about women because they'll let them go in front of a gun. Hello, they will also be behind a gun.
If either of those points is what he's trying to say, let me point out again: the women who volunteer to be in combat have done so so that they can have the same promotions and rank and pay as men who volunteer to be in combat.
Tucker Carlson's ignorance brings up my last point--whether women should be required to sign up for the draft when they reach the age of 18. Well, duh. Yes. We're equal.
I cannot imagine suffering (and that is what I used to do) my period while on the front lines, in the armpit of the world. No way, no how. Which is why I would NEVER willingly be in such a situation. Plus, I like to brush my teeth and wash my hair every day. However, if I were the kind of woman who wanted to go into combat, I would also dry-swallow (if necessary) a pill every day to prevent the need to worry about it. It's always touching, how these big, strong, men worry about us delicate women.
ReplyDeleteWhile *I* am a delicate flower, that does not make all of us delicate flowers. And while I say that, I actually don't think I'm a delicate flower. But that's a whole 'nother blog, too.
Delete