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.


THIS. IS. BLATANT. DISCRIMINATION.

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.

FUCK. THAT.

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

AMEN.

"Don't threaten MY manhood, missy."