The decision by the secretary of defense to expand the roles of women in the military to include more direct combat exposure is a disaster, and will contribute to the erosion of our military strength and readiness. Anyone who promotes or endorses this idea, or believes it will benefit our military and enhance its capability in any way, is naive, even delusional. Unfortunately, as with other recent policy changes regarding personnel issues, we will soon begin to witness dreadful negative consequences from this weakening and loss of effectiveness in our military.
The feminists who pushed for this policy change have not done women in our country any favors either. Coming next will most likely be a mandatory Selective Service registration requirement for all women 18 to 25, as we have now with men.
Comments
The kitchen is a terrific place, for men or women who like to cook. The battlefield is a terrible place, but it should be up to the male and female volunteers of our military to decide whether they will face it in defense of our country, not someone who is doing panty checks to make sure only the relevent body parts make it there.
Like gays in the military, women are already on the battlefield, as I'm sure there are plenty of men--and always have been--in military kitchens. I prefer to honor and admire their service, and express my gratitude, rather than telling them they don't belong there.
I realize this makes me naive and delusional. But there are enough soldiers who have come home from battle only because a woman held a gun--or a turret--and saved their bacon that I suspect I'm not the only one to be glad they were there.
I've worked with and served on active duty with people like the writer of this baroque period letter. They're seriously threatened by the "unexpected" capabilities of talented and "aggressive" women who either seek career opportunities or demonstrate knowledge in a variety of skills that were traditionally reserved for men. Other countries, notably Russia, (and high visibility Isreal) employed women not only in combat on the ground, but in the air as fighter pilots during World War II. My guess is, the writer wasn't born back then. I'll bet he sits on his @$$ and watches NFL/NBA/NHL games on TV while his wife cleans up the kitchen year round (and especially during holidays).
This has to be the most blatantly and overtly sexist letter I have read in awhile.
Yes, the content of this letter is so incredibly insulting to all women, one has to wonder why the Globe would publish such a thing. But it does serve the important purpose of letting the good majority of people, who are smart, reasonable, intelligent, and kind, that there are people out there with such appalling sentiments.
What the writer of this letter doesn't seem to be at all aware of--what stone has he been living under?--is that a vast majority of women have encountered sexism in some form and a great proportion of women have experienced sexual violence, whether in the form of domestic violence or rape or incest. So, NO... women, all women, have long known that even the kitchen can be a bad place to be...
Well, actually, I suspect the writer of letter doesn't seem to be aware of much of anything, not even the extent of his own mysoginy, his own hatred of women. Poor guy.
I can only presume this letter was written by someone who SUPPORTS allowing women in combat roles and wishes to make opponents of that policy look like troglodytes.
Oh, you mean "à la" Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal???
oops... my last paragraph should have read:
Well, actually, I suspect the writer of this letter doesn't seem to be aware of much of anything, not even the extent of his own misogyny, his own hatred of women. Poor guy.
WOW!!
excuse me, was the date of this issue 9/21/2013 or 9/21/1953?
9/29, I mean...