Congress May Limit Combat Roles for Women

[Sandpiper]

This bill will be followed shortly by bills to restrict women from employment outside the home, and to make it mandatory that every woman have at least 3 children prior to age 30.

:sarcasm:


<snip>

The language would put into law a Pentagon policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four service branches from serving in units below brigade level whose primary mission is direct ground combat.

"Many Americans feel that women in combat or combat support positions is not a bridge we want to cross at this point," said Rep. John McHugh (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., who sponsored the amendment.

It also allows the Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to get congressional approval when opening up positions to women. The amendment replaced language in the bill that applied only to the Army and banned women from some combat support positions.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps currently operate under a 10-year-old policy that prohibits women from "direct combat on the ground" but allows the services discretion to open some jobs to women in combat as needed.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050519/ap_on_go_co/defense_bill_women


Barefoot and pregant, ladies, that's how our Congressional Republican men want you.

[Corgigal]

1. sounds like they are going to start up the draft

to include women too. Then they can say, well they can't go into combat or anything. Just don't use the wrong chow hall on the day the suicide bomber shows up. It's crap.

[sui generis]

2. there you go lil ladies, us manly men have got to protect you

for your own good of course.

Would you mind getting me a cup of coffee? NOw that's a good girl.

:evilgrin:

[Sandpiper]

4. The brave Armchair Warriors of Congress will protect them

And you forgot to give them a little pat on the tush when you sent them for coffee.

[jobycom]

3. People don't understand that history CAN and DOES go backwards

We teach history in schools as though it were one long progression towards where we are now. People don't understand that all that has been done since the 50s can be undone, including gender and civil rights. THAT is the explicit goal of many of the people behind Bush. Not just abortion rights, but the whole shebang. Title IX is under attack, any laws requiring fair treatment (such as Affirmative Action) are under attack--even sometimes by people around here.

It can all go backwards. We can't assume we've "solved" anything.

[sui generis]

6. but but but

they want to undo everything since the 50's. That really is the objective, because you know life was exactly like Ozzie & Harriet for everyone before the evil hoe-moes came along and made everybody queer and women got all uppity and minorities became the majority.

It's a scary scary world if you're republican.

[jobycom]

8. Childhood

Most people remember their childhoods as times of happiness and joy, and of better days. (Yes, obvious exceptions). They look back to "those days" as a simpler, happier time. Country songs pine for those days.

But they never existed. Of course things looked better when they were children. Parents took care of them. Their biggest decisions were whether to do their homework or play Gamecube (or swim, or whatever pasttime filled their era). Things were simpler because they were children and their parents did all the serious worrying.

That's what being a conservative is all about. They want to be children again. It isn't the era they miss, it's the gaurdianship, the lack of responsibility. That's why Republicans are so childish, and why they latch mindlessly onto the apron strongs of any leader who says "Don't worry, Mommy government will make it all go away."

Democrats are grown ups who understand hard work. Republicans know this, which is why they so often try to state the opposite. They're still stuck on "I know you are, but what am I" as a logical argument.

[sui generis]

9. you said that beautifully

I hadn't really thought to put that kind of context on it, but it sure does have the ring of truth.

[jobycom]

12. Ahhah, Geeee, thanks.

:-)

[HockeyMom]

14. My life as a kid in the 50s

wasn't anything like Father Knows Best or Leave it to Beaver. lol My family looked more like the Honeymooners (with one child), except my parents, after all the yelling and screaming, didn't kiss and make up. They would just stop speaking to each other until the next fight broke out.

Staying together "for the sake of the children" (don't divorce) is definitely not good for the children. Take it from me. Been there, done that. Kids are better off with just one parent in a peaceful home, than with 2 parents who never stop fighting. Sorry, RELIGION doesn't help either with two people who shouldn't be married to each other. My parents tried that too and it sovled nothing.

Bush and the religious right want to go back to that too. Make it harder for couples with kids to divorce. Bad, very bad.

[jobycom]

15. Yeah

Actually, the personal advice helps me as much as the political commentary. Thanks.

[Daphne08]

13. Yes, a study of history reveals that this is true.

[xultar]

5. Jenna and Barbara...saved just like their loser pappy.

:puke:

[TahitiNut]

7. So, women are in the UNARMED forces?

Every person in the armed forces is in a combat role. That's why they have weapons! The kind of thinking that creates the fiction of "non-combat" roles is pre-trench-warfare thinking. It's fucking nonsense!

[Ms. Clio]

10. But they will still be permitted to torture and kill prisoners

So that's okay.

[mzteris]

11. who's doing anything??

I expected to see some group organizing a response about this and have yet to find one! Moveon.org, PFAW, Feminist Majority???????? SOMEbody???? ANYBODY???????

I mean, I know the filibuster thing is a biggie right now, but let's keep an eye on the rest of what's going on.

Teri S.