Okay, the question is why? The Schlafly article is good at pointing to the issues that one should expect Bush to have changed - but hasn't. The only two reasons that make sense to me is 1) Lack of focus, or 2) Potential ransom issues for future liberal votes on other issues.
I find it hard to believe Bush is in accord with these seven issues. Anyone have any other justifications for his lack of action in these areas?
Why is President Bush continuing policies that were initiated by President Clinton? The voters elected Bush to change obnoxious Clinton policies, and the voters don't understand why Bush is keeping the following seven in force.
1. One example is the Clinton administration's abolition of the U.S. Army's Risk Rule, which had exempted women in support units from areas that involve "inherent risk of capture." That policy change, ordered by the Clinton feminists, is the reason why a single mother of two young children was killed in the Iraq war and another single mother of a 2-year-old was taken prisoner.
When asked if this policy might be changed, Bush said, "That's going to be up to the generals." When Ari Fleischer fielded the follow-up questions, he accused the reporter of "dealing with a hypothetical."
But Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, Army Pfc. Lori Piestewa and Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson are not hypotheticals. They, and Johnson's 2-year-old child and Piestewa's 3- and 4-year-old children, are victims of a Clinton policy that Bush could change with a stroke of his pen. But, according to Fleischer, this hasn't risen "to a higher policy level."
What's a higher policy level than defending mothers of infants against being killed or captured by the "axis of evil"? Keeping faith with a shameful Clinton policy? Fear of the frightful feminists who applaud our government's giving Lynch, Piestewa and Johnson their career opportunities on the battlefield, and who assert that mothers are fully deployable a few months after giving birth?
2. Why doesn't Bush terminate other Clinton rules that impose the feminist agenda on the military, such as coed basic training? The Army Training Command admitted that coed basic training, which is gender-normed to reduce female injuries, is "not efficient" and of no military value.
That gave Bush a great chance to liberate the Army from Clinton's foolish policy. Without presidential leadership, the generals are certainly not going to act on their own.
3. Nor, without a presidential decision, will the generals overturn Clinton's convoluted "don't ask, don't tell" enforcement regulations, which a U.S. Court of Appeals found to be inconsistent with the 1993 law banning homosexuals from the military.
4. Feminists in the Department of Education during the Clinton years engaged in aggressive enforcement of Title IX, using bureaucratically invented words and rules that were not authorized by the statute. They used Title IX to punish men by forcing colleges to abolish 171 wrestling teams and hundreds of men's teams in gymnastics, swimming, golf and even football.
Bush appointed a commission to study the distortions of Title IX, but he foolishly gave some of the commission seats to feminists.
They used the media to grandstand for their side of the controversy. Secretary of Education Rod Paige then announced he would not implement changes that were not unanimously recommended, so Clinton's anti-male policies about college athletics will continue under Bush.
5. The Clinton administration persuaded Congress to ban semi-automatic assault rifles in 1994. The ban will sunset next year. Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to continue the ban and, to the shock of the National Rifle Association, Bush announced that he supports the Democrats' bill.
Bush seems to have forgotten that his steadfast support of Second Amendment rights was the main reason he carried the Democratic states of Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia in November 2000. If he had lost any one of those, Al Gore would be president.
6. Then there is the matter of Clinton sending U.S. troops to Bosnia and its relation to the International Criminal Court Treaty that Clinton's emissaries enthusiastically helped to write and Clinton signed as one of his last official acts. Bush had a wonderful opportunity to withdraw our troops from Bosnia when the International Criminal Court impudently asserted jurisdiction over Americans even though Bush had "unsigned" the ICC treaty.
For a brief few days, Bush stood tall for the protection of American service personnel by threatening to pull our troops out of Bosnia unless the United Nations promised us immunity from the ICC.
But then he wobbled, accepting a lame compromise that left the United States with the almost impossible task of trying to negotiate separate immunity agreements with the 139 ICC countries.
This while at the same time keeping our troops on duty in Bosnia as a fig leaf to cover the ethnic hostility that is still as bitter and dangerous as ever.
7. Another Clinton policy, Executive Order 13166, requires all government agencies and all entities receiving federal funds, such as doctors and hospitals, to provide their services in any foreign language demanded by a client. The perfect opportunity to rescind this costly unfunded mandate was served up when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that no one has a right to demand government services in languages other than English.
But Bush chose to continue Clinton's pandering to non-English speaking minorities. Regrettably, Bush breathed new life into Clinton's executive order with all its follies and costs.
We're still hoping for a repudiation of these Clinton policies.
[This message has been edited by WmLambert (edited May 20, 2003).]
wow thats a lot o different points to argue. so instead i'll just address the first question.
bush isn't addressing these issues, i think, because he doesnt want his approval rating to slip in a time when he needs as much support as he can get. adressing these issues now would only alienate some of the democratic supporters of his "war on terrorism". i have no doubt that the issues will be addressed by the next republican president. but this ones busy right now.
Yeah, I guess that's a valid point, except that there have been some very appropriate times when Supreme Court rulings or suchlike things would've allowed a very gentle approach to changing the Clinton agenda back to more popular views. Also is the undeniable fact that Bush does not seem to be driven by results of opinion polls the way that Clinton was.
I can buy into the idea that he may not want to split attention away from the war on terrorism - but that is not sufficient to call a stop to all actions everywhere.
Point seven speaks directly to the demogogeury of the dems. If he denied non citizens medical services, the dems would use it as racial attack against hispanics, whether true or false is irrelevant, the damage woud be done. As it is, some of these "weapons" of demogogeury have been take away.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
1. He's blaming the US government for sending a single mother to war? I'm sorry, I must have missed something--was she drafted? How is this the fault of the army? It was her choice to go.
2. What he's really asking for here is for women to not be allowed in the military.
3. And how many times has the Supreme Court enforced Clinton's policy, despite lower courts not finding it constitutional?
4. "Anti-male"? Excuse me? I'm not even going to touch that one it's so insane.
5. The writer of this article seems to have forgotten that a law written two hundred years ago may not have the same validity when taken to its exact wording, considering the fact that the founding fathers were NOT psychics and couldn't have forseen AK-47s or nuclear bombs.
6. Hey, maybe Bush did futz up a bit on the first day of his job. (Wait, am I actually defending Bush here...? Oops...)
7. You know what? Why do we even need a real president--the Supreme Court can make all the decisions for the Executive Branch, and the President can just carry out their decisions. Where is this guy's argument? "Because the Supreme Court said so" isn't good enough.
This guy is a homophobic, anti-female, ultra orthadox bastard.
1: And these children's fathers? Where are they?
2: Dunno enough to comment.
3: Banning homosexuals from the military is inconsistent with American values, such as equal protection.
4: Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, football, la la la, basketball. The pres, whoever he be, tis not responsible for local choices on what to continue and what to kill. Take wrestling up with your local school board.
5: Cannot explain.
6: A president cannot unsign a treaty, any more than he can repeal a statute. They are the same.
7: Case cite, please. I suspect the author is misstating the ruling which, given that we have no official language and that the predominate language varies by locality, ought to be something like 'no one has a right to demand government services in any particular language.'
quote:1. He's blaming the US government for sending a single mother to war? I'm sorry, I must have missed something--was she drafted? How is this the fault of the army? It was her choice to go.
No - You're missing the point. The rules that were probably in effect when the current soldiers enlisted had exempted women in support units from areas that involve "inherent risk of capture." It was the Clinton abolition of the U.S. Army's Risk Rule, which changed the playing field and allowed a single-parent mother with two toddlers to die and make her babies orphans.
quote:2. What he's really asking for here is for women to not be allowed in the military.
No - the statement is about lowering the requirements so that individuals who are not warriors can act like warriors. The Army Training Command admitted that coed basic training, which is gender-normed to reduce female injuries, is "not efficient" and of no military value. If a soldier can't carry his/her injured partner off the field of battle then the rules that put him/her there don't work.
quote:3. And how many times has the Supreme Court enforced Clinton's policy, despite lower courts not finding it constitutional?
Not very often as it turns out. The "don't ask, don't tell" enforcement regulations fly in the face of current laws. It is used to get around the laws, not to abide by them.
quote:4. "Anti-male"? Excuse me? I'm not even going to touch that one it's so insane.
No, it's not insane, but it is arguable. There are many instances in Title IX where the baby got thrown out with the bath water. The main point here is that the committee is so constituted with some short-sighted rules that a militant agendized minority controls the outcome.
quote:5. The writer of this article seems to have forgotten that a law written two hundred years ago may not have the same validity when taken to its exact wording, considering the fact that the founding fathers were NOT psychics and couldn't have forseen AK-47s or nuclear bombs.
Actually, the founding Fathers did have the future in mind, but presumed that future citizens would be evolved enough to understand the need for modern weapons among its non-military to match the same weapons used by the military. The issue of whether gun ownership is an individual right or tied to some necessity to be part of a militia is bothersome because the founding Fathers did a poor job of writing it. There have only been about four or five major court actions regarding this, so it is not hard to step through them in an understandable way. First off, I think we all underestand the basic argument that The Amendment was put into place to limit the government from becoming tyrannical. The controversy is not about whether this is a realistic fear or not, because in the last half century several stable, well thought-of countries, that were sure their government was benevolent, took away the individual right to gun ownership - and immediately following that action, in each country up to 50 million people were then put to death by their own government. Because it did happen, there is no logical debate that it can't happen anywhere. The historical debate is unequivocal - but the social debate is about how to do it. One side sees no need for individuals to be armed when a National Guard, or official State Militia is present to safeguard things. Many of these people pile on by claiming individual gun ownership is a public danger. The other side says the individuals ARE the militia, and usually take the side that individual gun ownership is a positive thing.
If we throw aut all the issues about whether guns are positive or a danger for individuals, it comes down to which point of view is legal. The 1990 Supreme Court reference to the Second Amendment in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez that stated, "'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments ... refers to a class of persons who are part of the national community." Each of these rights are individual.
…Or the October 2001 federal court ruling from the Northern District of Texas, U.S. v. Emerson, in which the federal judge overturned a federal gun law on Second Amendment grounds and argued, "The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the bill of rights."
The nation's leading constitutional scholars such as Lawrence Tribe (Harvard), Akil Reed Amar (Yale), William Van Alstyne (Duke), and Sanford Levinson (Texas) ascribe to the concept of the individual Second Amendment right as the "Standard Model."
The conclusion of Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, of the University of Tennessee, that scholars adhering to an individual rights interpretation, "... dominate the academic literature on the Second Amendment almost completely," and that this view is "... the mainstream scholarly interpretation."
What all of this means is that an armed citizenry is legal, and that the arms, themselves, should be the equivalent of whatever is in use by the military. Sawed-off shotguns, for example, are handy weapons but are outlowed because the claim was not challenged in court that the guns had a legitimate military use. They were used extensively in WWI and WWII for both trench warfare and for hand-to-hand combat, so should also be legal. The argument that crimes are committed by automatic weapons is not statistically valid.
quote:6. Hey, maybe Bush did futz up a bit on the first day of his job. (Wait, am I actually defending Bush here...? Oops...)
Bosnia is a quagmire. The ICC is futzy, itself. The jury is still out on this one, though, because we have not signed on to the ICC protocols - regardless of entangling negotiations.
quote:7. You know what? Why do we even need a real president--the Supreme Court can make all the decisions for the Executive Branch, and the President can just carry out their decisions. Where is this guy's argument? "Because the Supreme Court said so" isn't good enough.
If you ate right, then Klingon-speaking social workers will get their paychecks.
quote:This guy is a homophobic, anti-female, ultra orthadox bastard
Phyliss Schafly is considered by most people to be one of the best examples of a brilliant mind used rationally. Look up her bio sometime and get a good idea of where she stands on most issues. You'll probably find yourself standing four-square behind her on most issues. She may be more conservative than you, but you can't mock her common sense.
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
For a fair analysis and balance of points: Schlafly is such a conservative extremist that she is against equal rights for women and was the chief member of the 'Stop ERA' movement. She, along with John Rosemond think that children need more physical discpline, should be jailed for disobeying their parents, and that children make up mental illnesses to get sympathy and get out of punishments and rules. Her Eagle Forum is quite astonishing if you read much of it at once.
Posts: 479 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry Lambert, I do agree with most of what you have to say. But the wording of this article is so repugnantly orthodox that I shudder when I read it. My main gripe about this writer is that she insinuates that homosexuals and women have no right to be in the military. When she writes this article, she's either preaching to the choir or she's throwing insults at the more liberal reader. Neither is going to give a persuading argument for what she really believes. And all of that underhandedness gets on my nerves.
Posts: 27 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Women should be able to do anything a man can do, however if a double standard is held, then can they really do what a man can do.
In the military women are not required to keep up the same level of physical intensity that men do. This raises the question whether physical intensity should be lowered because it is unnecessary, or that women should be required to meet the same catagories as men.
Women can do a lot of things, but in plain physical strength, a woman (given that she trains the same amount and with the same intensity as a man) just isn't as strong as a man and never will be. The muscular and bone setup is different in both genders, nothing "descriminating" about that.
Co-ed training in military, IMO, makes a lot of sense - plain and simply because males have to get used to their female fellow soldiers, and the other way around. I admit that my knowledge of military is quite limited, but aren't you trained to be a unit? Doesn't that mean that you have to get to know the other's strenth and weaknesses, just like they have know you?
As for sending women into a fighting zone... if you decide to become soldier, you take up a certain risk of getting captured. Why should a soldier woman carry a smaller risk as their male counterparts - "because she's female"? I'm fairly certain that the ladies from the article were aware of the job hazards...
The problem is more boot camp, which is just basic training: how to move as a squad, how to use your weapon, how to fight, etc. I would think that the actuall combat training would be co-ed.
Baldar's problem, if I understand him correctly, is that the standards have been lowered so that the women can pass. That is wrong. If there is a standard, make every one pass it, if they don't, they don't see combat.
Were the standards lowered during WWII? I mean if we need people on the front lines, lowering standards would be a way of doing it.
If people are horrified about the idea of young mothers sent to possibly die, then they should be also horrified about young father sent to die.
Why didn't that "high risk" law indicates that *single parents* shouldn't be placed in such risk, rather than "females"? Don't pretend this about their poor children.
Is an orphan less of an orphan if he's raised by a single father who dies, than if he's raised by a single mother who does likewise?
quote:3. Nor, without a presidential decision, will the generals overturn Clinton's convoluted "don't ask, don't tell" enforcement regulations, which a U.S. Court of Appeals found to be inconsistent with the 1993 law banning homosexuals from the military.
Then that 1993 law banning homosexuals should be flat-out abolished.
quote:They used Title IX to punish men by forcing colleges to abolish 171 wrestling teams and hundreds of men's teams in gymnastics, swimming, golf and even football.
Colleges should spent more time teaching, and less time wasting money on sports.
My point is that the same standard should be applied to the women and men. Otherwise you promote the view of a "weaker" sex. Its not just boot camp though, tankers who have to do field repairs require good physical strength when dealing with some equipment. I have no problem with women fighting, my problem is with people, for whom the standards have been lowered fighting at my side. My assumption is those standards exist to ensure my survivability and that of my collegues in combat, if I must guess who would meet the criteria to survive and who would not, then I have already deteriorated effectiveness of the squad.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I won't argue the sports issue because it is irrelevant. I will say that generally sports brings in more money to the university than the university spends on sports.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I was wondering when someone would pick up on this article. There are many more instances of things Bush should rescind, but won’t due to 1. Political considerations, or 2. There’s really no difference between the 2 parties and they are both heading towards the same ends, albeit with different means.
That said, I’d like to touch on the women in combat thing since I know a few things about the military.
A woman named Elaine Donnelly was asked to look into all this in 92 by former pres Bush.
Guess what happened? After really looking into it, the committee voted to keep the rules as they were because the idea of letting women in combat situations is asinine. However, Clinton was then in office, so the report was swept under the rug and the rules changed.
Before I get into it, don’t even pull the segregated/integration issue from post WWII out of your ass as similar to the women in combat argument because it is not the same thing. We’re talking physical and physiological differences, not skin color.
There are great problems with social engineering in the military by people who really don’t understand the intricacies of military training and fighting. Integration sounds great when you’re talking about your boardroom or a factory, but we’re comparing apples to oranges here and that argument is not the same for the military.
What do you get when you put a bunch of 18-22 year old male and females together in close quarters? You get them more worried about scrogging their buddy than learning to be effective soldiers. You also get lower standards so more females can pass (to avoid claims of discrimination) which lowers the overall training value.
I went through basic with all males, and it was stupid and easy enough with just a bunch of lame-ass guys. My wife went through integrated basic and says it was the stupidest thing she’s ever seen because most of the women were “whiny bitches who were more of a hindrance than anything else” – her words, not mine.
As for women in combat… I’m just thankful Jessica Lynch “doesn’t recall what happened”; there are probably several gang rapings that she’s better off not remembering.
When you are throwing out opinions that sound good when applied to your cushy civilian life and careers, just try to remember that some of those situations don’t make sense when applied to the military.
[This message has been edited by jm0397 (edited May 21, 2003).]
quote:Addressing these issues led the Commission to focus on, evaluate and determine the military significance of the many differences between the sexes and the ultimate purpose and mission of the Armed Forces. Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney restated the focus of the American military on March 26, 1992:
"[I]t’s important for us to remember that what we are asked to do here in the Department of Defense is to defend the nation. The only reason we exist is to be prepared to fight and win wars [emphasis added]. We're not a social welfare agency. We're not an agency that's operated on the basis of what makes sense for some member of Congress' concern back home in the district. This is a military organization. Decisions we make have to be taken based upon those kinds of considerations and only those kinds of considerations."
A Question of Priorities
COL Bryan D. Brown, USA, Commander 1/160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), Ft. Campbell, KY, spoke for many of the service members who testified before the Commission at hearings or out in the field:
"I in no way doubt the female officers' and soldiers' bravery, dedication, or capability, but I do believe their assignment would not enhance the combat capability of the 160th."
To many, COL Brown's statement would seem to present a contradiction. If female officers and soldiers offer bravery, dedication and capability, shouldn't they be assigned to combat on the same basis as men? Shouldn't we be looking for the best qualified individuals for the job, regardless of gender?
But this approach -- focusing on the best or most capable individual -- fails for a very basic military reason. In combat training and in war, an individual's desires, interests or career aspirations are totally subordinated to the accomplishment of the military mission. Strengthening the capability of combat units is the essence of military readiness. Moreover, for the military as a whole to function as a capable fighting force, each unit, from the smallest up, must operate cohesively and in harmony with other units.
The key question in preparing to win and survive in combat is not what is best for the individual, but what is best for the unit and the military as a whole. This is why the Commission spent considerable time seeking and evaluating testimony and studies on unit cohesion, including the expert work of Commissioner Darryl Henderson.
Military Service v. Civilian Employment
The fundamental issue before the Commission is whether and in what specific ways the assignment of women to combat would affect the combat capability of the United States to wage war. If the military were substantially the same as a civilian employer, a decision to promote equal opportunity as the primary goal would have been easy to make.
Civilian society forbids employment discrimination. But the military, in building fighting units, must be able to choose those most able to fight and win in battle. There is good reason for this. In a combat unit serving on land, at sea or in the air, the inability of any member of the group to perform at levels demanded by the battlefield can present a direct risk to the lives of others and to the accomplishment of the military mission.
This is one of several reasons why the Armed Forces differ in many important respects from civilian employers, including police forces that preserve order close to home. It is a separate society governed by a different set of rules and regulations because its principle purpose is to fight and win wars. While civilian workers operate on a "9 to 5" schedule, units in combat operate 24 hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week. For the deployed American fighting man, there is no home and family waiting at the end of the day. The home is where the soldier stands to face the enemy. Good order and discipline are crucial for morale, survival and victory in battle.
[This message has been edited by jm0397 (edited May 21, 2003).]
The only other option would be to set up two standards - which would push both, males and females, to their limits (just like you have a different 100 meter dash world record for males and females)... I guess that would make most sense in matters of preparing soldiers for the battle.
The question would remain, though - from an "equal" point of view, setting up two standards would be "unfair", maybe lead to complaints that the female soldiers don't have to train as hard as the males, or some other things. Maybe some female soldiers feel that a different treatment will make them look weak, that they aren't worth as much as the male soldiers?
The other way around, if a female would have to reach a physical level that is not possible by maintaining the previous standards, or the male doesn't get to train as hard as he should by lowering the standard (basically leading to a 100% trained female and a 80% trained male), it where is the equal treatment there?
Equal treatment works in most cases, but sometimes it's more sensible to set up different limits - for the benefit of both genders. Make them both 100% fit.
What assult rifles are, as defined by Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
1) Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as; Norinco, Mitchell, Poly Technologies, Avtomat Kalashinikovs. Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI, Galil. Beretta Ar70 (SC-70). Colt AR-15 Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC. SWD M-10, M-11, M-11-9, M-12. Steyr AUG. Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22. Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.
2) Any semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following features: a folding or telescoping stock. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. a bayonet mount. a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. a grenade launcher.
3. A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following features: an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned. a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
4) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of the following features: a folding or telescoping stock. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds. an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
This effectivly made it illegal to own military weapons, unless you have a Federal Firearms License. All this did was made it so weapons aren't made with bayonet plug or suppressor anymore. Most weapons aren't made with folding stocks and grenade launchers have been illegal since the early 80's.
Moosegirl your proposal simply doesn't work because it is what is in place now. A double standard.
It is the double standard which is unfair. If you want gender blindness then you must apply the same standards to each gender, otherwise you are just rearranging the deck chairs.
The military is not about being the most fit man or woman, it is about being the most fit to one single standard and ability to ensure survivability for yourself and your comrades. A woman that can get by with doing less push ups, running slower, lifting less, and meeting weaker requirements faces two things.
1-The men will know she has not met the standards. Standards that have been lowered for her benefit, not the squads.
2-Survivability and certain jobs in the field will not be available for her to fulfill because she is weaker. So the soldier that is supposed to be a jack of all trades (mechanic, rifleman, ditchdigger, trencher, builder) or whatever gruntwork that must be carried out, now becomes more exclusive of what can and cannot be done. It creates an entirely new layer of decisions, "how many women can I have before effectiveness is reduced". You are kidding yourself if you believe that thought doesn't go through a seargents mind, a leiutenents mind, and so on.
Me, I say have one standard, man or woman, if you meet it, then you are in, if you don't then you are out. Its how the men are treated, why not the women?
That being said there are many jobs in the military that do not require strength and physical ability as their primary needs. These could include nurses, clerks, coffee girls, USO dancers.......
quote: The case for assigning women to combat fails for the very basic reason that it is grounded principally in the concept of equal opportunity, which is an important American value. When national security is at stake, however, the need to maintain a strong military must take precedence over concerns about equal opportunity.
The American people must bear in mind that the advocates of women in combat are asking the military to conduct an experiment meaningful only under wartime conditions. Judging from the experience of other countries and the evidence presented to this Commission, it would be an experiment fraught with immense risks and foreseeable consequences, which is why it is incumbent on the supporters of women in combat to meet a high burden of proof for their case, particularly when lives are at stake…
The facts suggest otherwise. A compelling body of evidence and personal testimony reveals a variety of consequences and problems that might result from assigning women to combat positions. The proponents of women in combat argue that "leadership" is the answer. Unfortunately, the Commission learned, leadership did not solve these problems during the Gulf War. The unstated but very real argument of some Commission witnesses was that the military must pay any price and bear any burden to promote equal opportunities and career progression for an ambitious few.
But military policies must be based on actual experience and sound judgment, not doctrinaire notions of sexual equality unsupported by human experience and history. By necessity, the military must be free to pursue policies aimed at maximizing combat readiness, unit cohesion and military effectiveness.
The Commission learned that assigning women to combat would adversely affect these critical components of a successful military. It would leave women exposed to the possibility of involuntary assignment to combat and conscription. Most importantly, it would overturn two centuries of settled law and military policy based on deeply held and commonly shared cultural assumptions defining how men should treat women. Lastly, the Commission learned the military does not need women in combat units.
The Armed Forces should not assign women to combat.
From the 1992 PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF WOMEN IN THE ARMED FORCES
[This message has been edited by jm0397 (edited May 21, 2003).]
Liberal arguments are entirely too predictable. If you'd read through what I already said, and is addressed in the full presidential report (quote below), this is not the same thing.
quote: Some have suggested the issue before the Commission is a civil rights issue comparable to racial integration of the Armed Forces in 1948. That analogy fails for several reasons. Dual standards are not needed to compensate for the physical differences between racial groups, but they are needed where men and women are concerned. A proud history as successful warriors exists among men of different races, but not among women.
A couple of opinions for what they are worth …
1. In order to protect the freedoms of the civilian population it is quite necessary that the military give up some of those freedoms. My boss at Sprint cannot order me to die, but a Marine Sergeant damn sure has to be able to give such an order to his squad. It sucks, but it’s necessary. And they do it to protect their loved ones back home.
2. The Army has what, 60,000 combat troops out of almost 500,000 members? We don’t need to push women (or men) into combat, but if a woman chooses to relinquish her rights and be a combat soldier she needs to measure up to a much higher physical standard than the maintenance types. The same for men, not all of which are physically up to the challenges. I think that it should be a choice that you make when you are accepted for enlistment (of course, once the decision is made choice evaporates – see paragraph 1). With 8 years of Marine Corps service behind me I have seen plenty of women Marines who scared the hell out of me.
3. Homosexuality/heterosexuality should not be a criteria. When on duty or performing a mission nobody should not be screwing around, regardless of orientation. To do so is dereliction and that is what should be punishable.
[This message has been edited by ssci (edited May 21, 2003).]
"Dual standards are not needed to compensate for the physical differences between racial groups, but they are needed where men and women are concerned."
I disagree. I believe it's entirely possible to admit anyone of any sex who can meet a single physical standard; there's no need to apply a second standard to female candidates at all.
If this means that female candidates must be more exceptional than male ones, so be it.
Edit: I recognize that this deviates from current policy -- but I also recognize that many people opposed to women in combat roles would continue to oppose them even if they were required to meet the same physical standard.
[This message has been edited by TomDavidson (edited May 21, 2003).]
SSCI, the Corps, God bless 'em, still has gender segregated basic training. The other services, from my understanding, have "studied" their results and recommended adapting their "changes".
Tom, back to reality please. Equal standards will never fly because then you'll have times when no women graduate from a class or none in a unit, and we just can't have that because no women means they were discriminated against.
In addition, there are many factors, as laid out in the presidential report (please read all of it, it'll only take 10 minutes or so). Physical ability is only one of them. There's also physiological - as much as the militant feminists like to claim there are none, yes, there are differences between men and women. Sanitary issues with women Problems with guy/women buddy teams fooling around (not all that likely, but more possible than a guy-guy team) Issues with women POW's - anyone see the interviews with the gulf war female POW about all the beatings and rapes she endured?
It's not just about physical capability, and any of you who claim it is just don’t understand what life in the military and in combat is all about.
[This message has been edited by jm0397 (edited May 21, 2003).]
Personally, I always find it funny that people make it out of basic training having survived all the other "lame-ass guys" and "whiny bitches," but rarely ever claim to have been a whiny, lame-ass rookie themselves. Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Whiney rookie, guilty. As we say, if you're not complaining, you're not happy.
After more schools, missions, and operations than I can remember and never one fall out, failure or recycle, never a lame-ass.
And I find it funny that people who have never been two weeks without a shower, lived off MRE's, crapped in the woods, carried 80 lbs of gear many, many miles, and trusted a buddy with your life clam to know how the military should conduct its business.
Addition, FYI, the most difficult thing in basic was not the training, but putting up with the whiny bitches and lame-asses.
[This message has been edited by jm0397 (edited May 21, 2003).]
Never was a whiny, lame-ass, but then I’m not a complainer either. Since I was usually slower than most people that wouldn't have gone over very well anyway.
The biggest problem I have with women in the military is pregnancy. If a woman gets pregnant then she can get out much of what others do. Set a single standard and everybody who can pass it can join the military.
I am a woman in the Candian Military in the Combat Engineers. I am the second in command for my section, which means I supervise 5 guys under me.
All our training is co-ed and there are no seperate standards for women. I do everything the guys do, including building bridges. I have worked with the regular force. We have a female sargent right now who is deploying to Bosnia as a section commander.
I know that I have joined the military, and am aware of the risks involved in doing so. -gotta go will continue later
I do agree with the sentiment that a single standard is necessary for the military. Men and women fall into a wide ranging set of physicality and emotionality. There are many small men who are not as powerful or athletic as some women, and vice-versa. Denise Richards could be my spaceship pilot any day. The fighter pilot who crashed her plane on the aircraft carrier a few years ago had never passed the tests needed to validate her ability to land. Her numbers were "massaged" to allow her the "right" to do so. This is the kind of instance that disproves the Clintonian policy and begs for honest review.
The issue at hand is that the change in the policy was done purely for political reasons - and in direct defiance of the objective studies that were done to understand what was best for the US military. To undo the change would not be a drastic step, merely a balancing one.
At long last, a federal commission is trying to deal with the feminist regulatory outrages committed in the name of Title IX. The recommendations passed on January 30 by the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics are a timid start on the rocky road back from bureaucratic mischief-making, but we still have a long way to go.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a simple, straightforward federal law requiring that schools and colleges receiving federal funds not discriminate "on the basis of sex." The law says nothing about equal numbers of men and women, sex-integration, "proportionality," quotas, affirmative action, remedies for underrepresentation or past discrimination, or even about sports.
Reasonable people would understand this law as requiring institutions to offer equal educational opportunities to women, not as making it the federal government's business if more women than men enroll in women's studies courses, and more men than women play football. But now enter from stage left a feminist named Bernice Sandler who took over the Office of Civil Rights in Jimmy Carter's Department of Education.
She picked the innocuous word "proportionality" out of the dictionary (not out of the law), and turned it into a feminist code word for one of three tests by which college athletic departments would be judged as to their compliance with Title IX. She created a new definition for this word: if 56 percent of a student body is female, then 56 percent of the students playing on athletic teams must be female.
This rule is not only unfair but ridiculous because men like to play sports far more than women do. It's a fact of human nature that female college students do not seek to play on athletic teams in anywhere near the percentage that male students do.
Furthermore, a significant percentage of the female college population is made up of "re-entry" women. Those are older women who return to college after their children are grown or after divorce, and they surely aren't going to college to play basketball or soccer.
In the Clinton Administration, an even more aggressive feminist, Norma Cantu, became head of the Education Department's Civil Rights Office. She made "proportionality" the only test for Title IX compliance.
Using proportionality as her sword, she went on the warpath to investigate and threaten college athletic departments even when no one had filed any complaint. She used the power of the bureaucracy, and sometimes activist judges, to force colleges to enforce the proportionality ratio by a numbers count of male and female students on teams compared to students enrolled in the college.
During the Clinton Administration, Title IX was aggressively used to abolish college men's sports as well as to create women's teams. In line with feminist ideological goals, the teams abolished were those where men excel, i.e., men's wrestling, men's gymnastics, men's golf, and football.
Colleges have eliminated 171 wrestling teams (40 percent of the national total) plus hundreds of other sports in which men excel, many of them trophy-winning teams. The evidence is overwhelming that Title IX has been turned into a tool to punish men.
The effect on men's sports, and specifically on wrestling teams, is not an unintended consequence. The feminists' intention is to eliminate everything that is masculine or macho, and to pretend that women are equal to men in physical prowess and desire.
The feminist implementation of Title IX has nothing to do with equalizing the amount of money spent on women's and men's sports, as the abolition of wresting proves. Wrestling is one of the least expensive of all athletic teams; all wrestlers need to practice is a mat.
Further proof that money is not the issue is shown by the fact that wrestling teams have been eliminated even when completely financed by alumni and supporters. So have other men's teams that were quite willing to raise their own funds.
In 1996 the Clinton Department of Education feminists began requiring colleges to count "walk-ons" in figuring their proportionality quotas. A walk-on is a non-scholarship student who tries out for a sport even though he wasn't recruited and isn't subsidized, hoping he will get to play on the team anyway.
There are many times more male walk-ons than female, either because more men than women are much more eager to try out for sports, or are far more willing to sit on the bench day after day with little chance of ever starting in a game. Colleges have been forced to meet their proportionality goals by refusing to let non-scholarship males try out in soccer, baseball, tennis, gymnastics, track and field, dashing their dreams that they will ever be allowed to compete.
Since all this mischief was created, not by law, but by a stroke of the pen in the Department of Education, we hope the Bush Administration will use the same bureaucratic pen to terminate anti- male implementation of Title IX and return to the rule of the law as it was passed by Congress.
Now, the part where she says: "Title IX has been turned into a tool to punish men," may urge you to protest the article, but before you do, try to explain the use of the non-legal policy of "proportionality" as it relates to the closing of 40% of all intercollegiate wrestling programs - when wrestling is possibly the least expensive program to offer at a school.
I was a wrestler and a diver in high school, and a diver in college (hardest dive - back 1+1/2 somersault with 3+1/2 twists 3.2 degree of difficulty) Both sports are now harder and harder to find. colleges are eliminating wrestling (BYU, my alma later did) and public pools are removing diving boards, thanks to trial lawyers (my favorite people after teacher's unions - OK maybe its a tie) Will they cancel all rythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming, and interpretive dance programs because they are mainly women? Do they make men take women's studies classes or attend "the vagina monologues". That seems like sexual harrassment to me. Posts: 962 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Title IX is killing sports with its "proportionality" issue. Proportionality goes along these lines:
If a university if 45% female and 55% male all of the programs must reflect that proportionality. That means a woman's football team must be formed, paid for and so on, even if no one wants to play the sport or even if no one attends. Colleges don't have unlimited funds so they must full back on programs like wrestling because of the expense in providing for a sport few girls wish to participate in (down boys) and only males want to watch (maybe).