Saturday, April 14, 2007

Women's war (since they are very special, but same and idential yet different and superior to men)

This kind of article confuses me….. What do feminists want? On the one hand, they obviously want special treatment, focus, and privilege for female soldiers. On the other hand, if you treat them too differently from male soldiers, focusing on softer, gentler, feminine side of female soldiers, wouldn’t it actually weaken the case for the full integration of women in military, assigning women (officially and publicly, not in a current, tricky and sneaky way) into combat role and ultimately G.I.Janes?

It looks like women soldiers have found one convenient way to get away from of combat – just claim that you were sexually harassed or attacked. This is the easiest way out from tour of duty and of course, this privilege is for by definition female soldiers only. Not only this claim will provide them easy way out from combat, but also bolster gender-feminists case for creation of more gender-sensitivity programe and eventually overhauling of testosterone-filled alpha male culture in the military.

Furthermore, if you combine women’s one-sided story of current abuse or attack with even more one-sided and obscure “The specter of childhood abuse” it becomes nearly impossible to reject any women’s claim.

In a desperate attempt to establish case for rape where no statute exists to cover, feminists come up with a new version of rape – called “command rape”. If feminists could keep up with this pace of inventing new category of rape or sexual crime by men, sooner or later any sexual (heterosexual of course) acts will be duly covered.

This article is filled with other standard gender-feminists agendas. It tacitly calls for more gender-balanced military when it says “where the sex ratios tended to be more even. Several women credited their commanders for establishing and enforcing a more egalitarian climate, the women tended to feel more at ease among men.

It does not forget to reinforce PC image that vets are batterers when it describe vets in VA hospital as “some of whom were trying to work through sex crimes they committed during military service. Others came home from war and beat their wives”

Even an outright liar and fabricator of victimhood story Ms. Randall was given moral comfort when it says “It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness. If female soldiers who excel in playing gender-victim card can get a pass as seen simply as reacting to “some more generalized recollection of powerlessness”, no one can hold these female deserters accountable.

No comments: