Thinking as a Hobby

Get Email Updates
Email Me

Admin Password

Remember Me

3477199 Curiosities served
Share on Facebook

Women in Combat
Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Read/Post Comments (4)

Instapundit remarks on women in combat in light of the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch. He quotes others noting the nauseating and disrespectful way she's being referred to as simply "Jessica" and "Jessie" in the media.

And he wonders if the more active role of women in this war is helping increase support for it at home. I honestly don't know, but it's interesting to think about.

Actually, this topic has always interested me. My first editorial back when I wrote for the Daily Texan was about women, the military, and the draft. This was right after Gulf War I, and women, for the first time, had flown combat missions for the U.S. in enemy territory.

I argued that the increase in the military role of women was a good thing, that women should not be excluded from military roles on the basis of their gender, any more than from any domestic job role (police officer, firefighter, etc.), but that in the interest of fairness, women should have to register for Selective Service (and yes, you'll notice if you click on the link that Samwise Gamgee is now a spokesman for the U.S. Selective Service, but that's a whole other blog).

Anyway, that editorial drew my first hate mail. I was called "myopic", "fascist", and lots of other mean stuff (as you can see, I haven't been much deterred by negative reactions).

And in the twelve years since, my views on women in the military really haven't changed much at all. If you truly believe in gender equality, then arguing that women can serve in any other job role in the private sector, or any government job, but not serve in the armed forces? I wouldn't see how that position is anything but sexist.

Read/Post Comments (4)

Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Back to Top

Powered by JournalScape © 2001-2010 All rights reserved.
All content rights reserved by the author.