UK debate raises question about killing and the nature of women
In the UK, although women are allowed to perform almost every role in the services, I understand the jury is still out on whether the last taboo should be lifted: to allow them to serve in close combat units where they would have to kill the enemy face to face….
Yet it struck me that it is not a coincidence that this debate crops up only 40-odd years after the Abortion Act of 1967.
Once it has been conceded that the nature of women is no longer simply to give and nurture life, and that, through legal abortion, they have the right to choose to destroy it, why should they not serve and be prepared to kill alongside men in close combat units?
~ Francis Phillips, Catholic Herald, September 5
[Photo via homepost.kpbs.org]
Sep.06, 2011 6:00 am |
Feminism, Post-abortion |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The answer to this is that front-line combat in the infantry requires a physical body that the vast majority of females do not possess.
It also puts the men serving with them at risk. Studies have shown that in a POW situation, men are more likely to crack and give out vital information if they hear a woman being harmed rather than another man.
Which is entirely unsurprising when considering the fact that God put it in the nature of man to protect women.
I didn’t even know they weren’t allowed to do that! That’s news for me.
I don’t think it has anything to do with abortion whatsoever, but I can see how having a female member of the group might distract the guys and cause other issues (eg privacy etc).
“Once it has been conceded that the nature of women is no longer simply to give and nurture life”
Is the nature of women that “simple?” That premise seems tailor-made for later concessions that it is at least incomplete.
“the nature of women is no longer simply to give and nurture life”
I take issue with the word “simply” being used here. Women do give and nurture life, but that isn’t ALL we do. I do see, however, that the author was quoting someone else and using their terminology in her statement.
And plenty of women are capable of killing – not just in abortion. While female murderers tend to be less common, they’re not exactly rare.
I would support women in combat just for the sheer delight of further enraging jihadists who just totally respect women, after all.
Kel says:
September 6, 2011 at 9:59 am
“the nature of women is no longer simply to give and nurture life”
I take issue with the word “simply” being used here. Women do give and nurture life, but that isn’t ALL we do. I do see, however, that the author was quoting someone else and using their terminology in her statement.
And plenty of women are capable of killing – not just in abortion. While female murderers tend to be less common, they’re not exactly rare.
(Denise) OF COURSE women are “capable of killing.” The number of female murderers is probably extremely underestimated because many murder through poison. Some homicidal females might hide pregnancies, kill newborns, and successfully hide the bodies with no one suspecting.
That’s not the issue. The fact is that females on average possess only 60% of the male upper body strength. The sexes are more equal in lower body strength but the shape of the female pelvis slows us down.
You just can’t win wars with females in front-line infantry combat.
You just can’t win wars with females in front-line infantry combat.
You never know until you try. I’m sure women would do pretty great and would have other skills to compliment the ones that the men might be lacking, it’s not all about physical strenght.
That’s not the issue.
That was the topic of the article, which is why I commented on it.
“You never know until you try”? Really Vita? That statement is just… well I won’t even go there. But of course you think its crazy for a person to want to own a gun to protect themselves with. Self-defense and defense of country just doesn’t seem to make sense to you I guess. Let me be clear Vita, IN COMBAT it IS all about PHYSICAL STRENGTH. Good grief. Are you also one of those people who thinks we can just hug out problems with jihadists and avoid war altogether?
My brother is a Major in the USMC. He HATES the idea of females in combat just because as Denise pointed out, they can’t cut it! If you are in combat and you are wounded do you want some 5 foot 2, skinny weakling woman responsible for pulling you to safety? Chances are that you won’t be making it home to see your family. And she probably won’t either. Political correctness kills people.
I have no problem with women in combat IF they can meet the same requirements as the men. The problem is the huge majority can’t. And just like with law enforcement, they dumb down the standards so physically smaller and weaker women can join. If women want to do it they should have to be just as strong as a man. Otherwise go home, because good men should not have to die because some feminist believed she was “just as good” as the men when it comes to carrying heavy equipment and other physical exertion even though she is a foot shorter, 100 pounds lighter and has muscles the size of a 10 year old boy’s.
Sydney M. says:
September 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Sydney, it was just my own little personal opinion about one specific subject. There is no need to attack me for it or make further (and clearly false) assumptions about what else I might or might not believe in.
And I also didn’t claim anywhere that any and every woman now should go to war, but not every woman is short, light and as weak as a 10 year old boy and I’m sure there would be some (not many at all, but some), who would do a job as good as the next guy. And ONLY after they proved in their training that they CAN cut it. So no, I wouldn’t be against it, if these particular woment were allowed to take part in combat.
Sydney M. says:
September 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm
“You never know until you try”? Really Vita? That statement is just… well I won’t even go there. But of course you think its crazy for a person to want to own a gun to protect themselves with. Self-defense and defense of country just doesn’t seem to make sense to you I guess. Let me be clear Vita, IN COMBAT it IS all about PHYSICAL STRENGTH. Good grief. Are you also one of those people who thinks we can just hug out problems with jihadists and avoid war altogether?
My brother is a Major in the USMC. He HATES the idea of females in combat just because as Denise pointed out, they can’t cut it! If you are in combat and you are wounded do you want some 5 foot 2, skinny weakling woman responsible for pulling you to safety? Chances are that you won’t be making it home to see your family. And she probably won’t either. Political correctness kills people.
I have no problem with women in combat IF they can meet the same requirements as the men. The problem is the huge majority can’t. And just like with law enforcement, they dumb down the standards so physically smaller and weaker women can join. If women want to do it they should have to be just as strong as a man. Otherwise go home, because good men should not have to die because some feminist believed she was “just as good” as the men when it comes to carrying heavy equipment and other physical exertion even though she is a foot shorter, 100 pounds lighter and has muscles the size of a 10 year old boy’s.
(Denise) Women don’t have to “go home.” There are many support positions in which they are just as useful to the military as the men are.
Front-line infantry combat isn’t one of them. Women should serve in the areas which do not require male strength and speed.
I don’t want women OR men in combat!
I think if they started the WACs up again it might work. I wouldn’t want women in the same combat units as men for a few different reasons. Gender-segregated units are worth a try, though. I’m not the type who thinks all women can do everything that men can do, although I used to feel that way. I think that there are some strong women who can handle something like combat, or being a police officer, or other tough jobs. Not every woman can, or would want to – and not every man is cut out for that type of work either. And I’d have to agree about women in combat having to meet the same physical standards as a man.
I think we tend to forget this, but there already have been women in combat. Due to the changing battlefield (insurgents who blend in with civilians, IEDs, snipers, ambush attacks on convoys, etc.), many rear units are at times having to deal with combat now. Combat isn’t just for the infantry, combat arms, and artillery type guys anymore. The particular wars we’re involved with at the moment don’t have a clearly defined battlefield – two opposing uniformed armies aren’t meeting, fighting it out, and seeing who “wins”. Urban combat with non-uniformed insurgents is a horse of a completely different color. And it’s even more difficult when your opponent is not operating by the same code of conduct as you are.
3400 years ago the Hittites (lived in part of modern day Turkey) were painting pictures on the walls of fortresses – woman warriors carrying axes and swords.
In India, an old sacred poem, the Rig-Veda, tells the story of Warrior Queen Vishpla, who was in a battle and lost a leg. So the old girl got an artificial leg made of iron, went back to battling.
Well, if women are allowed to kill their unborn children as close as their own bodies, it would seem perverse to disallow their killing enemy combatants within range of a rifle.
I’m old school. Leave combat to men. No particular reason. It’s just my nature to think that way. Some people are born gay, right? Well I’m born to believe combat’s for men.
I anticipate liberals will soon be celebrating my genetic wiring with parades and hate crime legislation to protect my viewpoint from paternaphobes.
Rasqual, war is getting more “video-gamey” all the time. Some pretty good women gamers out there…
Interesting study: stay-at-home drone pilots who commute between remote Idaho operations centers and their domiciles but do battle in Afghanistan, actually have much higher stress levels.
The theory is that they don’t “flip the switch” into being a combatant. As commuters, they remain suburban professionals — which is not consistent with warrior activities. The disjunct apparently freaks out their brains, leaving them with even post-traumatic stress despite being surrounded by susurrant sprinklers and comfortable chairs.
The juxtaposition of incommensurables seems to be problematic. So the question remains — is it juxtaposing incommensurables to pair women with close combat — or even distant?
Bigger question: Should being a killer be deemed a sacrificial role? We often speak of the sacrifice servicepeople pay in being gone for a long time, or in dying. But what of the sacrifice of doing what no human really would prefer to do in an ideal world — kill others? If this role is to be deemed something we would prefer to insulate most of our citizens from, then, would it be proper to be discriminating in various ways? Say, by age? Gender? Whether one is pregnant or not? If a woman is pregnant but is scheduled for an abortion, should her pregnancy be counted against her for combat if one of the rules of combat is that you can’t be pregnant? “It’s my body, dammit!”
rasqual, do you have a link for the study?
I have no idea — it was a long time ago. A quick Google provides a link that’s either after the study I mentioned or . . . something: http://conflicthealth.com/whiplash-transition-and-stress-of-drone-wars/
Thanks for the link… interesting article.
Rasqual: Interesting study: stay-at-home drone pilots who commute between remote Idaho operations centers and their domiciles but do battle in Afghanistan, actually have much higher stress levels.
The theory is that they don’t “flip the switch” into being a combatant. As commuters, they remain suburban professionals — which is not consistent with warrior activities. The disjunct apparently freaks out their brains, leaving them with even post-traumatic stress despite being surrounded by susurrant sprinklers and comfortable chairs.
Interesting indeed.
Maybe we all need to get the Tank Girl movie….