Women Vs The Front Line! Fight!

Jan 24, 2013 07:06

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-panetta-opens-combat-roles-women-203034238--politics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, ( Read more... )

military, women's rights

Leave a comment

notmrgarrison January 23 2013, 23:27:30 UTC
I expect Fox News to jump on the old line about how being on the front lines will make it more likely female troops will be raped by enemies.

Do you somehow think that's not true?

Reply

dv8nation January 24 2013, 00:39:55 UTC
No, but women getting raped by guys on the other side is hardly new.

Reply

mikeyxw January 24 2013, 01:15:13 UTC
Women in the military getting raped by guys on the same side isn't as rare as it should be either.

Reply

dv8nation January 24 2013, 01:21:37 UTC
True, but that's not where the objections are going to come for.

Reply

mikeyxw January 24 2013, 02:16:25 UTC
Yep, it does put those objections in perspective. There certainly is a theoretical possibility that women who become POWs will be raped, there may be a case or two of this happening.

However, if this is a real concern of folks, they should look at the huge numbers of women who are being sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers first. This is a real problem, not a hypothetical one, and should take precedence in the order of stuff to be fixed.

Reply

notmrgarrison January 24 2013, 03:29:50 UTC
Huge numbers of women being sexually assaulted by their fellow soldiers, but only a case or two of foreign soldiers raping. Strange universe.

And it's a bit easier to keep things from being changed than to change things.

Reply

rowsdowerisms January 24 2013, 04:55:24 UTC
Considering we had relatively few soldiers captured in Iraq, that isn't strange at all.

Reply

notmrgarrison January 24 2013, 05:12:07 UTC
Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in Combat

Reply

rowsdowerisms January 24 2013, 05:13:22 UTC
Right, and? We haven't had large numbers of POWs in any recent conflict.

Reply

notmrgarrison January 24 2013, 05:31:40 UTC
That would have something to do with a) we haven't had that many POW's in recent conflicts, and b) we've had a ban on women serving in combat. What's being talked about here is the future.

Reply

rowsdowerisms January 24 2013, 05:34:11 UTC
Ah gotcha, Iraqi insurgents really wanted to rape our women soooo bad. They were just deprived of the opportunity. ok....

Reply

notmrgarrison January 24 2013, 05:48:48 UTC
No, it's that there haven't been any female POW's to rape in the first place. If you'd like to also believe that soldiers won't rape, be my guest.

Reply

rowsdowerisms January 24 2013, 05:56:51 UTC
Stop trolling me

Reply

notmrgarrison January 24 2013, 05:58:23 UTC
You jumped in with the bad reading comprehension, and the usual irony.

Reply

rowsdowerisms January 24 2013, 06:00:21 UTC
Yeah no.

Reply

notmrgarrison January 24 2013, 06:10:06 UTC
The only other possibility is that you're saying since we didn't have many pow's recently, we won't have many in the future either. I missed that possibility, as it's a completely unfounded assumption. We haven't been in major combat war since Viet Nam. It would be nice if we never were again, but I see no reason to assume that we won't. But for now we can have women in combat positions, placing equality above all else. And other countries are doing the same. Then when a real combat war breaks out, and women prisoners get raped and killed by the boatload, we'll see if things change.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up