“Over 14 months, 2,750,000 tons of bombs were dropped, destroying 20% of the property in Eastern Cambodia, forcing 2 million Cambodians to become refugees.” “From 1961-1971, the US sprayed 80,000,000 liters of Agent Orange to deforest land to prevent hiding … Continue reading
10. Because we need men on the home front to dictate what women should and shouldn’t do, especially regarding life (reproductive rights) and death (combat participation).
9. Because men are far too unemotional: they kill people and don’t come back with PTSD.
8. Because men are too strong: they will kill the entire country, including innocent civilians. We need women who are weak because, “The average female soldier does not even have the arm strength to throw a grenade far enough to keep herself from getting blown up.” (-Bryan Fischer, “Women Are Emotionally Unfit for Combat”)
7. Because men are too much of a distraction during combat.
6. Because if men die, then that’s one less kid without a father. And we all know men’s primary role is to be a father.
5. Because a man could get raped. And women are never raped in military situations, so clearly this would only be a problem for men.
4. Because men pee standing up. And everyone knows you can’t stand up and pee in the middle of a combat zone; you have to squat.
3. Because men can’t handle blood and dirt. That’s why there are no male nurses, especially not on newborn wards, and men don’t handle dirty diapers: they’re just too dirty!
2. Because we had foremothers, not forefathers!!
1. Because we would be too inclusive. Like Canada, New Zealand, Norway, France, Australia. What next? We allow gays to serve? And equitable healthcare? Forget this. I’m moving to Canada. Oh wait…
“In addition to questions of strength and performance, there also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women being killed in war.”
If it’s so “intolerable” for women to die in war, why does that make it “tolerable” for men to die in war? We have standards for how women should live, and now we have standards as to what are acceptable and unacceptable ways for women to die?
Up until today, I didn’t know the Women in Combat law existed. Maybe I live in a rabbit hole, but I actually thought that women and men could equally serve in the military. Apparently that just wasn’t true. One more way in which the sexes are valued differently in American culture, and one more battle won, I suppose.
But what if the issue at stake is not whether females are suitable for actively annihilating other human beings, but what if the real issue is war? How can we minimize it? How can we become blessed peacemakers? Perhaps we can view this as nothing more than a rally cry to “beat our [Ak 47s] into ploughshares?” (Isaiah 2:3-4) Maybe this is our time to “learn war no more.” If we can’t accept women dying in combat, perhaps we shouldn’t accept combat either.
Too simplistic, eh?
Just ask Ghandi. And Rosa Parks. And Martin Luther King.
And they will tell you that equality, nonviolence, and peace can not only coexist, but are entirely indispensable.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/women-in-combat_n_2535954.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
A blog by PeacePlayers International
Scholar of coaching science and human interactions
Two bikes, one life, and the whole world to see
The thoughts of a random Burundian woman
The absurd, the ironic, and the faithful.
O4HA Seeks to Address Global Challenges Through Academic Diplomacy Alliances, Applied Knowledge & Data-Driven Olympism for Humanity Actions
Guitarist Extraordinaire
We each have a voice. It's time to hear and be heard.
Melissa Otterbein 