Thursday, January 13, 2011

Women Are Too Sexy For Combat

I heard this story on NPR’s "Morning Edition" this morning about a Congressional panel being put together to look at changing a policy that bars female military service members from serving in active combat.

Excuse me. WHAT?

Forgive me, I had no idea I was so ignorant. I thought women did serve in active combat. I may have gotten this impression because of these women I see coming back with gunshot wounds.  Shrapnel.  Missing limbs. Dead. If women aren’t in active combat already how are they coming back home in such conditions?

From what I understand, the policy says women can’t officially be assigned to combat duty.  But plenty of women serve in "support to combat units," often close enough to the kill zones to warrant these injuries and funerals.  So basically women can take the hits but they can't get the jobs.

I have some questions.
Why are women STILL being relegated to "support" roles? 

Why are we continuing 10,000 years of male-dominated human history where the men say, "We get the honor, valor and excitement. You get the laundry..."?

Why can’t my military sisters get honor, valor and excitement too if they want it?

Pictured:  The epitome of female valor and excitement.

Additionally, the military is set up so that the fastest way to get promoted or rise up through the ranks to becoming an officer is through completing combat missions. But...but...but women are not allowed to be assigned combat missions! This is a fundamental reason why many women are simply barred from achieving an officer rank without sucking a lot of metaphorical (and presumably, actual) desk-job dick.

Waiting for her promotion.


I have some more questions:
Why is there not a march for this?

Why is no one screaming about this?

Why am I only hearing about this now at 29 years old?
On that same NPR segment, I heard a clip of an exchange between a high-ranking male military leader and a female former-Apache-helicopter-pilot missing both her legs from an explosion while she was "supporting" a combat mission. I don’t have the exact quote verbatim but my extremely accurate paraphrase goes like this:
COL. DICKHEAD: You women want to serve in combat? Okaaaa-aaay, but you have to sleep in the mud with no hygiene and no TV.
MS. FUCK YOU: (calmly) Done that, bitch. Is that all you got?

Visual representation of how the conversation ended.

This raised my hackles like you would not believe. Seriously? Col. Dickhead thinks that television matters to a woman who wants combat missions? His biggest concern is that women won’t be able to change their tampons in the trenches? That there are no women or girls anywhere that ever played in the mud and liked it?

 *GASP!*  You're right!  She HATES it.

I would expect that if a woman enlists, then she knows that she may have to go into combat zones. Some women even seek out a military career for this specific reason. If I had any desire at all to enlist, I would be enraged to find out I couldn’t fight, couldn’t get the hazard experience and couldn’t earn that officer rank. And then I’d be stuck in the military, "supporting" a male combat troop and a war I don’t believe in for a country who segregates me, away from my family, and without being able to work off my frustrations in the war trenches, all while being denigrated and possibly raped by the "brothers" I’m supposed to support and depend on.

Military Manual for Female Service Members
"Serving Your Men in the Field"

And don’t even get me started on the "women in the trenches are distractions and liabilities to male service members" debate. To me, this smacks of the blame-the-rape-victim argument.

Oops. Too late. I got started.

The supposed debate is two-fold.

Firstly, they say that if a woman is injured in combat, then a man would simply be compelled to rescue her or tend to her injuries, despite others being injured worse, putting himself at risk, and possibly jeopardizing the mission and the entire team...because he’s a man and can’t help acting on the damsel-in-distress principle.

Yeah.  She looks like she needs your help.

Secondly, they say that if a woman is in the dirty, muddy, primal trenches with dirty, muddy, primal men she is just too sexy for these over-stressed and under-fucked heros of the day that they can’t help but ogle her, touch her, make sexual comments to/about her and try to put their penises into her, thereby compromising the mission because they can’t keep their eyes (and penises) on the road.

"I found her in the trenches.  She's MINE.....huh?  What war?"

In a nutshell:
Chicks are just too weak and sexy for combat.
Those poor dudes can’t help having their instinctual buttons pushed.


The toughest people I know (besides my dad) are female. We have had to wade through crap, and I mean CRAP, for thousands of years. We have been enslaved, ensnared and excluded. We have been beaten, sublimated and ignored. We have raised families, run households, and started businesses. We birth 10-pound children through 10-centimeter cervixes, for chrissakes!

Like so.

I found a great comment on this issue here that sums up perfectly what kind of jackasses our military is composed of:
"...I think it's more [than] some men [getting] threatened. I've posed this before - why do men fantasize about women being in control of them or in power over them but if it happens in real life, they feel like [their] manhood is threatened and they have to overcompensate?"                                                                                        - candycane3482


"Don't threaten MY manhood, missy."


Anonymous said...

That was hilarious, and well written. Thank you!

Christina Boykin said...

@ Anonymous: I appreciate you reading! Pass me on to your buddies, would ya? Thanks for stopping by! Come see me tomorrow!

Oh and.....

i love you.

Anonymous said...

Hilarous AND (sadly enough) true.
Another argument the macho men use is that we get pregnant, as if that happened out of thin air. Do they know that to get pregnant it is a biological requirement to effectively have sex with a fertile man??

Ananda said...

Excellent points. /applause

Christina Boykin said...

@Anonymous: RIGHT! Such a huge liability these female service members who get *gasp* PREGNANT and can't deploy! What WILL we do?! All these pregnant soldiers...we're sure to lose the war now! (note: DRIPPING SARCASM)

@Ananda: Glad to see you again! Thank you, thank you. /bows

Anonymous said...

Enjoyed your post, but there are questions marks about women being in the infantry, no none that the General mentioned.

The biggest problem is the weights that grunts cart, I dislike PT tests for infantry they proove nothing.

A fair test a normal ruck, weapon,ammo, rations plus a camel back of water etc which will take the load up to 90lb, plus a 81 mm mortar tube which will take the load up to 130LB.

That is what we hunped in the Mortar platoon.

Now there is one problem, most of us in the infantry weighed in between 180LB and 230lb, where most women will be fifty lb lighter.

Leave some gear behind, ok but what ?
Should women in the infantry be expected to take a full part in trining including taking part against men in this sport ?
Yes it is brutal

Christina Boykin said...

You make a good point. This is something that I hadn't thought of. I will admit that I have never served in the military so I am making my argument from a civilian who is active in the equality movement.

I have to wonder what sources you used to make the statement "...the infantry weighed in between 180LB and 230lb, where most women will be fifty lb lighter."

Women come in all sizes, as you know, and I would think that we would only want the strongest people at our frontlines, men and women alike. If a 130-lb woman couldn't hack it carrying the necessary equipment (assuming ALL that gear you mentioned is necessary), then I would hope she would understand that infantry might not be for her.

However, I myself am 236 lbs and would KICK ASS in infantry, I imagine. I think the training for infantry divisions should be composed of only the gear absolutely necessary and only the minimum regimen needed for the job. A big woman like me might easily pass it, just as a small man might not.

My (and your) genitalia has nothing to do with our muscles.

Anonymous said...

Stina, I felt exactly the same when I heard. I said WHAAAAAT?!?! we aren't doing that,... NOW?!?!? Why have I never heard about this inequality? It infuriated me, I almost started the phone tree to march in the middle of the night with anyone that would join. Thanks for making such a well written blog about it :) Its about the choice. Women may not want to be in front line combat, but that is for the WOMAN to decide. Don't make the choice for her! -Jsis

Christina Boykin said...

@Jsis: Agreed. Choice is everything. Apart from combat and abortion, what other choices are women being denied?