That's not chauvinism.

That's downright sexism.

And as a man, it's simply not my call nor any of my business.

 

And yet the military would do well to prevent or resolve the many cases of sexual assault and rape against enlisted female soldiers.  The data I've seen shows a serious problem.

 

 If EVERY mother's son/daughter stood an equal chance of doing a tour in Afghanistan or Iraq, these stupid wars would never have happened.  Bring back the draft to stop the wars.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

Agreed.  An outstanding answer...

...if only the govt-hating freedom-humpers would get on board.  Any mention of general community service organizations gets many on the right-wing all bothered and huffy.  I wonder why....

 

 

This post has been removed.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

 

Nevermind that....imo at least....women serving in combat have bigger stones than men not serving in combat. Said men simply don't have a place saying anything about whether women should serve in combat, whether or not the view is sexist.

If someone wants to get shot at so that I don't have to, all power/praise/respect for them.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

But, it was fine when we were drafting kids into the military, or when we passed a law that said kids must be in school up to a certain age.

POTUS had a proposal that offered students tuition breaks in exchange for a year or two of community service - programs like City Year or Americorps...and the frothy right went ape-s**t over the thought of "Obama's Citizen Army" and, in their godwin-esque way, images of jackbooted thugs.  

So, you see how people get up in arms over the supposed loss of their perceived "freedoms".  It does no good to pretend the right-wing hasn't mocked POTUS endlessly as a "community organizer" as if it's a bad thing that he wasn't working on wall st. or making millions in private equity markets like R-Money.

My high school also had a community service requirement to graduate, and it led me to going on 25 years of volunteer work.  Mandates aside, it's simply selfish not to help one's neighbors in need and might just pick up some slack in lieu of other social and charity spending.

How is that a bad thing?  To me, it brings together the best aspects of both liberalism and conservatism.  But it's a double standard to honor a soldier for their "service" while not also respecting the volunteer for theirs.

 

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

But, it was fine when we were drafting kids into the military, or when we passed a law that said kids must be in school up to a certain age.

POTUS had a proposal that offered students tuition breaks in exchange for a year or two of community service - programs like City Year or Americorps...and the frothy right went ape-s**t over the thought of "Obama's Citizen Army" and, in their godwin-esque way, images of jackbooted thugs.  

So, you see how people get up in arms over the supposed loss of their perceived "freedoms".  It does no good to pretend the right-wing hasn't mocked POTUS endlessly as a "community organizer" as if it's a bad thing that he wasn't working on wall st. or making millions in private equity markets like R-Money.

My high school also had a community service requirement to graduate, and it led me to going on 25 years of volunteer work.  Mandates aside, it's simply selfish not to help one's neighbors in need and might just pick up some slack in lieu of other social and charity spending.

How is that a bad thing?  To me, it brings together the best aspects of both liberalism and conservatism.  But it's a double standard to honor a soldier for their "service" while not also respecting the volunteer for theirs.

 

[/QUOTE]

Well said.....Reminds me of a few years ago when President Obama wanted to speak to students in our public schools VIA closed circuit television and encourage them to stay in school, study hard, and go to college. The reaction by the far right was as if Stalin himself had come back from the dead and was going to read The Communist Manifesto. Numerous parents were asking to opt out and keep their children home that day.......Try governing a country like that.

This post has been removed.

How bout having them register for Selective Service?  The NOWers get real quiet on that one.

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

I think the circumstances matter very much. If as in WWII, the literal fate of the civilized world hangs on it......    

 

 

I must be a real ratzu rizo because I believe in the notion of Knights and Ladies.

PFT standards for troops are lower now than they were when I was in the service.

There were no females assigned to combat units when I was in the Corps during the late 70's and early 80's. Females were allowed in Motor T , to fix our weapons, do admin etc. I don't ever recall seeing a female pilot , co pilot or crew member in a Hueys, a CH47, a CH 53, a mite boat or a amtrac during my time in the Corps. I don't ever recall seeing a female repelling from a hovering coptor with over 50lbs of gear on, humping at about a pace of 4.5 mph carrying weapons, full pack for miles and then when we arrived at our location perform the duties of a rifleman, corpsman, machine gunner, motarman etc. The female body isn't made for that and the male psyche wasn't made to see a female blown to bits or to leave them dying as a male had to carry on with the mission. I don't care what the US Military has got themselves in to NOW.

I don't want to be known as the generation of MEN who would allow our country's women to go From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli to fight our country'd battles in the air ,on land and sea.

As for females in the Fire Service if I not mistaken but I might be, I don't think there was a female firefighter KIA  on 9/11.

 

In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

We're forced into all kinds of things, especially if we wish to preserve a certain way of life.  I consider "community service" to be a fairly broad term...to the point where I think most people volunteer for something or other during the course of their lives, whether through work, church, government, etc.

Yesterday, we were talking about obese people who don't take responsibility for their health and instead shift the burden of paying for care onto the rest who do.  Isn't the principle the same...?

Look, I agree that it's generally better to reward good behavior than it is to punish bad behavior, which is why I'm all for incentivizing health care outcomes from both the doctor and patient sides.  But the fact is that we get tax breaks for some things, like owning a home, but not necessarily for helping build one for a needy family.  The default is (forcefully) paying taxes in full.

We subsidize student loans without consideration for the outcome, whereas if we subsidized student achievement on behalf of the community, the benefits would multiply.  But the 'choice' to do nothing - no work, no military, no school - isn't a choice at all

 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
[QUOTE]

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

I must be a real ratzu rizo because I believe in the notion of Knights and Ladies. PFT standards for troops are lower now than they were when I was in the service. There were no females assigned to combat units when I was in the Corps during the late 70's and early 80's. Females were allowed in Motor T , to fix our weapons, do admin etc. I don't ever recall seeing a female pilot , co pilot or crew member in a Hueys, a CH47, a CH 53, a mite boat or a amtrac during my time in the Corps. I don't ever recall seeing a female repelling from a hovering coptor with over 50lbs of gear on, humping at about a pace of 4.5 mph carrying weapons, full pack for miles and then when we arrived at our location perform the duties of a rifleman, corpsman, machine gunner, motarman etc. The female body isn't made for that and the male psyche wasn't made to see a female blown to bits or to leave them dying as a male had to carry on with the mission. I don't care what the US Military has got themselves in to NOW. I don't want to be known as the generation of MEN who would allow our country's women to go From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli to fight our country'd battles in the air ,on land and sea. As for females in the Fire Service if I not mistaken but I might be, I don't think there was a female firefighter KIA  on 9/11. 

They might not have been firefighters but the women first-responders who died in 9/11 were no less brave.

 

Jim Smith is now a retired NYPD officer, but on the morning of 9/11 he was an instructor of law at the police academy. His wife, Moira, was a patrol officer assigned to the Thirteenth Precinct on Twenty-first Street, around the corner from the academy, and she responded to the World Trade Center. Moira helped one person out of the South Tower to safety and had returned to help others in the evacuation when the building fell.

[/QUOT

I'm not saying women aren't brave. My mother was one of the most courageous and clear thinking person I have ever met.

Women have all the psycholigal abilities and aptitude to do any job in the world . My point is that they don't have the physical abilities to get the job done.

Excuse me , I'm sorry . I meant to state to get some jobs done.

In response to Sistersledge's comment:

Well, if they made the standards the same for women in combat as for men, then they would have the physical abilities.

 

They'd have to work a lot harder to build up to them, what with the lack of testosterone. But some can do it.

This post has been removed.

To 12-Angry-Men I repsect your opinion but I do disagree with you. I myself wouldn't allow women in combat units under any conditions but hey what do I know .

BTW I'll leave the discussion of a female soldier becoming pregnant for another day !

 

This post has been removed.