On Women In Combat

Awhile back, I reblogged a post from The Patriot Perspective about the problems with allowing women in the Marine Infantry School.  In the comment section, I mentioned learning that, for the time being, the Marines were not going to “gender norm” the physical standards, i.e., they will not make it easier for women to pass than men, based on each gender’s physical capabilities.

Short Timer has been kind enough to elaborate on the issue, and it’s worth sharing.  Beyond the basic question of “is she physically strong enough,” he details a few other reasons why women-as-combatants are problematic even if the answer is yes, she is physically strong enough:

• Chivalry is an innate male behavior which cannot be entirely eradicated, and it will interfere with mission accomplishment.
• Mixing young and healthy men and women together in will inevitably cause, um, distractions, and interfere with mission accomplishment (I discussed this issue regarding Navy ships here).
• Accommodating the personal, private, and hygienic needs of men and women in a confined and dangerous space is logistically difficult, and makes mission accomplishment more difficult.

Even more important than all of that, Short Timer says that the Marines will use something called “gender neutral” tests, and that quotas will be imposed.  In other words, the Marines will simply lower the standards for both men and women, and require the Infantry School to pass at least “x” number of women.

Huh.

You see, when I read over at Outside the Beltway that there would be no “gender norming,” i.e., no differing standards for men and women like we have in the Navy, I assumed that the standards would not be lowered at all.

Confirmation is right here:

“. . . there is a plan to evaluate male and female Marines against new physical fitness standards that are being developed.”

New physical fitness standards for both men and women are being developed.  Tricky.

Important, too, are the quotas Short Timer mentioned.  My own quick Google search does not unearth anything about quotas, i.e., requiring a military school to pass a certain number of females.

However.  I specifically remember an old friend complaining about “the quota” when he was an instructor at Officer Candidate School.  The requirement that at least 7% of the graduating class be female was a real source of frustration.  It was hard to find that many female candidates worth their salt.  (I think he said it was 7%.  Wish I could ask him now.)

So, thanks for the additional info, Short Timer.  And thanks for your service in God’s own Corps.

And read the whole thing, ya’ll.  He includes a little Rule 5 bonus.

CORRECTION:  My friend was an instructor at OCS (Officer Candidate School), not TBS (The Basic School) as I originally wrote.  Whoops.

Vintage Culture

Offend A Feminist week has sent me off to find vintage ads, because searching the ‘net is way easier than writing.  Here’s the best I’ve found:

I can’t help but chuckle at the use of “B.O.” as an acronym for something other than “Barack Obama,” which is no less odious as far as I’m concerned.

I also found this beautiful shot, which I’m assuming is sexist because women aren’t allowed to be on a pedestal anymore, are they?

Me, I’d be happy to be on that pedestal, looking all pretty. What is she wearing, anyway?  Daywear, sleepwear, evening wear?  I can’t even tell, frumpy ol’ me.

Then, I found this gorgeous image of a manly man.  Check out the fedora on this one:

Fedoras, of course, make me think of Da Tech Guy, who recently enjoyed a well-earned laugh over leftist anxiety about size . . .

Size of the crowd, that is.

Hah.  I remember fussing about the size of my crowd, too.

Da Tech Guy concludes his post:  “God these guys must hate the internet.”

Um, yeah.  They must.

Want to see what it was like when the left wasn’t threatened by the internet?  Check out this vintage news footage:

“Engineers now predict, the day will come when we get all our newspapers and magazines by computer, but that’s a few years off.  For the moment at least, this fellow (a newspaper seller is depicted) isn’t worried about being out of a job.”

A local station news babe continues, “Now, it takes over two hours to receive the entire text of a newspaper by phone, and with an hourly use charge of 5 dollars, the new tele-paper won’t be much competition for the twenty-cent street addition.”

Nope.  No competition at all, my pretty.

Offending Feminists Through Music

Participating in Stacy McCain’s fourth annual Offend A Feminist Week is both an honor and a pleasure.  I know, I know:  some folks will not find this exercise “helpful,” but let me explain why they are wrong.

Actually, let me allow Mr. McCain to explain, since he’s a man and therefore much smarter than me:

“The empowering message of feminism is that all women are victims.  Victimhood is synonymous with power. To deny women their victimhood is therefore to re-victimize and disempower them.”

Thanks so much for clearing my mind on this issue, Mr. McCain.  I was starting to wonder:  why in the world is making fun of my own gender so much fun?

It’s fun because, unlike the typical feminist of today, I’m not empowered by victimhood.  I am empowered by throwing off the shackles of political correctness.  To reject political correctness is to liberate one’s mind.  Even if it’s a feeble female mind.

Snort.

I participated last year with a post still worth a click if you didn’t back then.  Dunno if I’ll be able to wax as profoundly poetic this year, what with all the homeskooling, cooking, and house cleaning I have to do.

Sometimes, it’s hard to be a woman.

Which leads me to the musical portion of my post.  There’s something here for everyone, young and old, so just scroll down ’til you find your style.

Country?

Or good old-fashioned?  How about Andy Williams, singing a Bacharach tune to warn us ladies:

“Don’t think because there’s a ring on your finger you needn’t try anymore.  For wives should always be lovers, too.  Run to his arms the moment he comes home to you, I’m warning you . . .

Day after day, there are girls at the office, and men will always be men.  Don’t send him off with your hair still in curlers.  You may not see him again . . . .”

Speaking of classic, there is always Elvis:

If 60′s were your decade, scroll no further.  Mick Jagger will offend you now:

It’s down to me
The way she talks when she’s spoken to
Down to me, the change has come,
She’s under my thumb
Ah, take it easy babe

(Ain’t the women screaming with rapture an extra kick in the feminist pants?)

And check out this more obscure 60′s song, Be A Caveman:

Were you a teen in the ’80′s, like me?  If so, you might appreciate a little B-Boys.  This one’s dedicated to MCA:

And finally, I just heard this song on the radio yesterday, and I right like it.  Language warning, however.  Apparently, it’s a bluegrass-style cover of a rap song:

Happy Offending, everyone!

P.S.  Which song was your favorite?  Do you have one that should be added?

(Hat Tip:  I found several of these songs at drownedinsound.com.)

Cross-posted at Disrupt The Narrative

Time for a Random Link Post

. . . because my essays are not coming together lately.

Via Chicks On The Right . . . could it be?  Our very own Congress wants to go all Magyar on us?

“Capitol Hill politicians are assessing tax changes that could let the Internal  Revenue Service lay claim to a portion of the $18 trillion sitting in 401(k)  accounts and other tax breaks used by middle-class workers, including cutting  the mortgage tax deduction.”

Doug Ross says it all:  “I love the term ‘tax breaks,’ don’t you?  As if it’s the government’s money, and not yours.”

I’m suddenly reminded.  Once, I shared a worry about the federal government changing taxation rules for the Roth IRA.  Most folks on a particular investment website comment string scoffed at me.  Scoffed!

So, okay.  Let’s punish the most responsible among us.  Isn’t that what it is?  Just like student loan forgiveness, which would be fair only if students who paid for their education up front were given the same amount of money as the folks who went into debt.

Moving right along . . .

Let’s talk about defining a family.  I know, the whole “Dad, Mom, and kids” thing is so restrictive.  Flexibility would be best, no?  No.  Teaching My Two packs a punch:

“This is what happens when we start tinkering with a STRUCTURE that has been in place and worked for thousands of years.  When we embark in a DIY . . . it all comes crashing down on us, sooner or later.  And the children are the ones who get crushed.”

Read the whole thing.

Say that reminds me.  As long as we are talking about kids . . . did any of you have friends who went ape-sh*t about the ”GOP rape of women” via state law requiring an ultrasound before abortion?

I did.

All I could say was, well, the ultrasound wand-thingy is no more invasive than the abortion the woman is seeking.  Which is true, but . . .

Apparently, the ultrasound is not only “no more invasive.”  It is also something the abortionist does anyway.

Hear that?

The ultrasound is something the abortionist does anyway.  Put that in your Handmaid‘s pipe and smoke it.

Next, I might as well broach the subject of that awful Allen West and his awful defamation of the Progressive Caucus by calling them communists . . .

What? Yes, it’s true:  only one of them got a lifetime achievement award from the Communist Party.  Surely the other 77-80 have no beliefs congruent with communism . . .

Or not.

On the more positive side of things . . . if the WORM can warm up to Mitt Romney, then perhaps anything is possible.  Well, by “anything is possible,” I don’t mean the preservation of our union or anything drastic, mind, but at least the type of anything we don’t really expect anymore, and that type of anything is better than no type of anything . . .

Right?

Goodnight.

Female Marines to Infantry Officer School

Reblogged from The Patriot Perspective:

Via the insulting leftist social-engineers at  Gannett Marine Corps Times:

The Marine Corps school that produces infantry combat officers will enroll its first-ever female students this year, Marine Corps Times has learned.

As part of the service’s extensive research campaign to determine what additional jobs could be opened to women, an undetermined number of volunteers will attend the Infantry Officers Course in Quantico, Va., said Gen.

Read more… 511 more words

I found an interesting development and good analysis over at The Patriot Perspective. Saying that women don't belong isn't too popular a stance nowadays.  Still, it needs saying sometimes.  It doesn't mean women should have their opportunities limited because their gender is inferior.  It just means the constraints of reality can limit women's opportunities whether we like to admit it or not. Have a great weekend, everyone!

Feminism and Politics

The whole “female” aspect of politics sure is running strong lately.  First, it was the Sandra Fluke thing, about which I didn’t bother to post.

Then, I got all et up with the “Top 25 Political Moms” contest, which turned into a no-holds-barred, claws-out feminist v. conservative battle-to-the-death, or something.  (Like poor old Henry Gunther, I got cut off at the very end, landing in #26.)

Next came Hilary Rosen’s new and exciting mashup of Marxist class warfare with The Mommy Wars.  Then, I get this tweet about whether the gender gap in voting might be permanent.  (I know a solution to this problem, but a lot of you won’t like it . . .)

In the midst of all this, here I am trying to prepare for Offend A Feminist week.

This is my credulous face.

And preparation I sorely need, for although I am female and therefore qualified in at least some respect to comment on All Things Feminine, my view of “feminism” as a field of sociological thought is about the same as my view of “psychiatry” as a field of medicine, which is to say I view them dimly and from as far away as possible, wearing my credulous face all the while.

My understanding of “feminism” was no better back in the day when I fancied myself a feminist-type professional.  If the “old me” were forced to pull a definition out of her nether regions, she might have said this:  feminism is the political movement which gave women their due rights, requiring men to treat them as equals instead of as second class citizens.

Thanks to anecdotal evidence and additional experience, I am now more aware of the leftist underpinnings of the feminist movement.  Beyond that, I can’t say much more.  I’ve never taken a class, nor read a book on the topic.  Blog buds like American Housewife and Missy Sandbox clearly know more.  (Perhaps you kind ladies can gin up a “feminism for dummies” post for the likes of me.  Ha.)

As much as I might wish otherwise, the feminist movement is not relegated to the history books.  This movement is alive and well today.  So, I have made an effort to educate myself about what “feminism” means in the political landscape of 2012.  I used the “Top 25 Political Moms” contest site as a starting point.  Here’s what I found.

Over at PhD in Parenting (via Mamafesto), I learned that the Mommy Wars are not about different opinions on parenting.  Rather, the problem is we don’t have the right governmental policies in place to support mothers:

“As with real wars, these mommy wars are not truly about a clash between moms, but about a system that has let people down, poured fuel on the fire, and left each family to fend for themselves.”

If Congress would just subsidize day care, pay for all employees’ maternal and paternal leave, and fast track that universal health care (freeing folks up from those healthcare-covering jobs they hate), then maybe the Mommy Wars would just go away.  Don’t worry, the government will get the funds needed from those evil rich people, Insha’ Allah.

Over at Feminste, I learned that requiring a single mom to work in order to get federal assistance is really, really mean because:

“The crux of the issue is that Mitt Romney’s definition of ‘stay-at-home mom,’ like his definition of ‘good mom,’ is limited to women in his racial group and economic class. I would wager a lot of money that when Romney made those comments in January, he wasn’t even thinking of the term ‘stay-at-home mom’ — because a low-income mother who relies on state aid is not a stay-at-home mom. She’s a welfare cheat, or lazy, or a drain on society. She’s undignified.”

Of course, this quote is not based on Mr. Romney’s own words, but from the feminist’s interpretation of conservative fiscal policy.  Funny, how not wanting to pay an endless stream of federal tax dollars for an activity the government cannot control (motherhood) gets demonized as the act of a meanie who thinks moms are lazy, cheating, and undignified.

Over at The Radical Housewife, I learned that “FREE FEMALE LABOR PROPS UP OUR ECONOMY,” which is bad, because it helps prop up capitalism.  And capitalism is bad.  Apparently, the feminists of yore screwed up Big Time, because:

“The revolution should have demanded as many stay-at-home dads as female CEOs.  But it didn’t.  The goals of the movement became allied with making money, which is one reason why feminism gets accused of being anti-family.  Family is so precious is cannot be allied with something DIRTY like MAKING MONEY!  It’s the madonna/whore binary all over again.”

Okey-dokey, then.  Does anyone see why I try to stay clear of feminism?

Over at the Monologues of Dissent, mercifully no opinion is offered as to the wisdom or lucidity of Hilary Rosen, Sandra Fluke nor anyone else as of late (save Governor Walker).  Still, I learned that the stereotyping of girls as the ones who like to attend dances, and boys as the ones who could care less about dances, is a form of gender discrimination that should be combatted.

Okey-dokey.

If we humans don’t have real problems, we’ll just make ‘em up if we need ‘em, right?

Finally, over at One Flew Over The Playpen, I learned how the government is the entity that will resolve our “Mommy War” differences, if only we let it:

“The real story is that it IS a major problem that every mother does not have the ability to stay home for more than a handful of weeks when her children are born.  And by stay home, I mean the very hard job of providing the constant, grueling care that goes into raising a child.  Our government simply does not truly value the importance of giving women this time with their family, no matter what their economic situation is.

Stay-at-home moms – you know this.  You know you WANT every woman to have the ability to stay at home with their kids during the day if that’s right for them . . . .  So if for even a second, you are feeling compassionate for picked-on Ann Romney, think about whether her husband as president would do anything to make raising children easier for women.  Does he support extended paid maternity leave?” /italics added/

Ah, there you go.  American moms don’t have value unless the federal government recognizes them with cash dollars.  So. . . if Romney started touting extended paid maternity leave, would he then become a darling of the feminists?

/cue crickets/

Clever, too, is the insistence that I, as a stay-at-home mom, “know” that I want every woman to have the ability to stay at home with her kids.

I want every woman to have the ability to stay at home with her kids?  Well, sure.  That would be great, if possible.   Unfortunately, some women sabotage their own best interests, including their ability to stay at home with the kids.  Unfortunately, some men sabotage their partner’s best interests, including their partner’s ability to stay at home with the kids.

The government cannot fix these problems.

I want every woman to get exactly what they want out of life.  I want them to be smart enough to realize that libertarian and conservative policies will maximize their liberty.

I want them to have a pony, too.

The thing is, not every woman wants a pony.  Not every woman wants to marry wisely.  Not every woman wants to be a stay at home mom.

And that’s okay.  I’m totally cool with that.

I wish the left were cool with that, too.

Cross posted at Disrupt The Narrative

My Mental War

Recently, Missy and I debated whether Obama spoke out of ignorance or calculation when he said that overturning his healthcare law would be “unprecedented.”

Today I find myself mentally debating this question again, this time about Hilary Rosen’s “never worked a day in her life” schtick.

Was it a gaffe, in which she let the mask slip?  Or was it calculated to distract us from The Real Issue?

I wrestle with this mental debate a lot, and I can never truly make up my mind.  Neither answer satisfies my rather unfortunate urge to understand these people because either way, the truth is unsettling.

Take Ms. Rosen’s case, for example.  Either she is disdainful of women who (if they are “rich enough” to have the “luxury” of the choice) decide not to work, or she is willing to say anything with a straight face if it will benefit her political party.

Which is it?  And did you notice how clever that little limitation is?  The disdain is reserved only for the rich stay-at-home moms, ‘natch.  Disparaging the opinions of all stay-at-home moms would be beyond the pale, even for the most leftist of the left.

Of course, this limitation only works if it’s true.  First, it must be true that rich persons cannot understand the difficulties of the poor.  In other words, there is no such thing as empathy in Ms. Rosen’s world.

Second, it must be true that staying home is a luxury reserved for the wealthy.  And oh, looky, right on cue, the President enters stage left with his ridiculous claim that they couldn’t afford the “luxury” of Michelle staying home.  (Never-you-mind about the First Lady’s opinion.  That was way back in 2007 when she said that staying home makes her ill.)

Do you know what?

I’m tired of wondering whether these people are actually thick enough to believe the ridiculous things they say.

Is it purely partisan political hackery?  Or do they really believe that only the rich can live comfortably on one income?  If so, then the Obamas and the Rosens may as well live on the moon, they are so far out of touch.  Come on over to my house, guys.  Meet me and all my stay-at-home mom buddies.  We exist.  None of us are even the teensiest bit rich.

Oh, no.  See what I’m doing?  Mentally debating the “ignorance v. calculation” question.  Again!  I may need professional help.

It’s just . . . I’m confused.  I can’t even keep up with the various lines of reasoning.  Does the left believe there is a real Republican War on Women?  (In which women are dying!  Dying!  Because evil conservatives are killing them during childbirth!)

Or not?  Because we have Ms. Rosen saying the Democrats had actually never used the phrase “War on Women,” and that it was a Republican invention.

Wait.  Is it really . . . Obama’s War on Women?

Okay.  I guess I’m done.  I thought I’d have something more meaningful to say about The Left and The Right and The Staying Home and The Mommy Wars, which is normally like crack to my little brain.

Yet, here I am too far into a post to just delete it, and with nothing more meaningful to add than this:  it doesn’t matter what we say anymore.  We’d probably be better off not responding at all.

Ann Kane at The American Thinker says it best:

“Wouldn’t it be cool if he next time the Left entices us with some manufactured crisis, we just ignore it and continue on with exposing what’s really going on?”

UPDATE:  John Malcolm takes a stance opposite from Ann Kane, and his argument (via Red State) is quite effective:

“Contrary to what a lot of folks on our side are saying these attacks are far more important to defend against than obsessing over Romney’s position on Afghanistan or the capital gains tax because this election is not going to be fought over issues and ideas. . . .  Obama . . . doesn’t have issues and he doesn’t have accomplishments so all that is left to him is to tear down Romney.

If he can convince you that Romney is a cross between Scrooge McDuck and Moe Howard who adheres to a very strange set of religious beliefs then he wins.”

Cross-posted at Disrupt The Narrative.  Hop on over there, too.  You know you want to!

Missy S on Feminism

When Missy says she is going to do something, well she delivers.  Here’s a snippet:

“They have cartoonish ideas about traditional gender roles, actually.  Many times I have heard it said: ‘I’m not your typical housewife!!! I read books!!!’ as if that is anything new.  Bay Area mothers have something to prove.  If she’s selling her knits on Etsy, it’s because she’s still an artist.  Many remain career-minded overachievers at heart who view their children as projects and always try for extra credit.”

I wonder if those overachievers are the ones studied in the “parents are more unhappy” studies.

Go read the rest.  She provides an excellent peek into today’s leftist female views on motherhood.

Love Pads The Blog

When personal events interfere with blogging about political events, I like to remember Joel Hodgson’s sage advice in his ballad “Love Pads The Film.”

Today I choose to pad my blog with linky love to King Shamus.  Since he’s down with the nasty streptococci bacteria, he could use a little blog padding himself.  Just reblog this post and feel better soon, homey.

The reason I choose his Royal Shamus is his thoughtful comment to my Offend a Feminist post.  This comment is good enough to warrant a post of its own.  Citizen Tom noticed, too.  So, without further ado, here is the King on motherhood:

“I think feminists dismiss motherhood because they honestly do not understand the power mothers have in shaping culture.

For most of the 60′s and 70′s what did feminists–most of whom were ladies of the Left–focus on? Getting women into the workforce. I think they did that because they were convinced that once women had money independent of men, the sisterhood would bring on further reforms which would conform to their basically liberal ideas.

But what if it hadn’t worked out that way? What if feminists instead attempted to change the way that women raised their kids and ran their households? If the feminists had succeeded in re-educating women about their methods of care-giving and instilling family gender roles, they might’ve made far more progress than they did by focusing on employment and education.

The reason why they might’ve been more successful if they had adopted that strategy is because the power mothers and wives have is immense. It is a diffuse power, spread over many years and across innumerable households. It isn’t nearly as high-profile as, say, the founder of a feminist magazine or the department chairpersonship of gender studies at a well-respected university.

However, the women of the house has 24/7/365 access to infants and toddlers. That means she can shape the way that children think in ways that feminists in politics, media and academia can only dream about. Spread out over a generation of children, moms have the ability to fundamentally change a society if they choose to do so.

And interesting proposition.  If all the left-minded feminists had stayed home and focused on changing the attitudes/gender roles of their own children, would they have been more successful?

What say you?

Isn’t there a saying that sums up Shamus’ view of motherhood?  Something about the hand that rocks the cradle?

Later gators.

Time To Offend A Feminist!

The things you miss when you fail to make the rounds.

Lesson learned.  At least two days are left.

This is the third annual Offend A Feminist Week, created by none other than Rule 5 creator Stacy McCain.  His inaugural post decimates decades of feminist construct in the space of six paragraphs.  My favorite bit:

Nothing so offends a feminist as the idea that somewhere there might be a woman who considers it an honor and privilege to be “Just a Mom.”

Ooh!  That somewhere is here, in my house.  I’m a stay-at-home.  Worse than that, I had a professional career and dumped it.  Best thing I ever did outside of marrying hubs.  The next best thing after that would be having the kids.  See where I’m going with this?

Time to use the quote Bob Belvedere found:

As a male stay-at-home wifey, every week is National Offend a Feminist Week for me.  I accomplish it by breathing.

This week is celebrated mostly thru Rule 5 and vintage sexist advertisements.  I don’t have to tell you gents to see Mr. Belvedere for Rule 5.

Matt’s Hideout is the place for vintage advertisements, and they are hilarious:

Here’s Your Breakfast In Bed Dear, Please Don’t Beat Me Again!

Wives Belong In The Kitchen!

If You’re Fat It’s Because You Don’t Do Enough Housecleaning, Lazy Cow!

Oh My, Naughty Wifey’s Been Buyin’ Cheap Coffee

I had no idea this kind of humor used to be acceptable.  Or is it humor at all?

I’m at a loss.  The pre-feminist world is alien to me.  Any readers old enough, do tell what it was like.  I mean what it was really like, not what feminists tell us about the horrible old patriarchal order.  During my lifetime, our culture entirely absorbed the tenets of feminism.  Even conservative women usually have feminist beliefs of varying degrees.

Okay, I’ve used this word “feminist” several times, and I know that people disagree about even its most basic definition.  I don’t want to get into that.  I just want to get straight to the offending.  So here it goes.   

There is nothing wrong with this image of a woman being a man’s servant.

There, I’ve said it.  Servant.  Servile.  Serve.  We think it’s great when applied to military service, religious pursuits, or feeding the poor.  Why does it make us wince when it’s applied to a woman’s relationship with a man?

Perhaps the implication of force (he is showing her her place) makes us uncomfortable.  Perhaps the discomfort is increased with her place being so obviously beneath him.

But what if this image does not involve any force?

Ah, how can that be?  No woman with half a brain would choose to serve a man in this servile manner!  Would she?  And anyways, if she chooses to do so, then why does he have to show her anything?

Well, why would any woman with half a brain choose to serve an unmanly, unworthy guy?  It’s actually kind of quaint, this ad.  The idea appears to be that you’ll impress your wife by sporting these ties in bed.

Is it possible that our equality-obsessed culture could rob us of a great joy?

Here’s what I’ve noticed.  We are all serving something or someone.  All the time, every second of every day.  By blogging right now I am currently serving myself.  When I’m not serving myself, I’m serving the kids, or the hubs, or a friend by babysitting or hanging out.

When you work, you are serving a variety of things and people:  yourself, your boss, wealth, customers, clients, the public, the government.  Of course, there’s also the whole “serve God in all things” thing that the Bible throws in the mix.

The world I live in tries to tell me that serving my husband is demeaning.  It is not.  Of all the myriad people and things that I have served over the years, nothing has been more gratifying.