« | »

NYT Series: Women Fit In In Combat

From New York Times:


Women at Arms – Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

August 17, 2009

FORWARD OPERATING BASE WARHORSE, Iraq — There is no mistaking that this dusty, gravel-strewn camp northeast of Baghdad is anything other than a combat outpost in a still-hostile land. And there is no mistaking that women in uniform have had a transformative effect on it.

They have their own quarters, boxy trailers called CHUs (the military’s acronym for containerized housing units, pronounced “chews”).

There are women’s bathrooms and showers, alongside the men’s. Married couples live together. The base’s clinic treats gynecological problems and has, alongside the equipment needed to treat the trauma of modern warfare, an ultrasound machine.

Opponents of integrating women in combat zones long feared that sex would mean the end of American military prowess. But now birth control is available — the PX at Warhorse even sold out of condoms one day recently — reflecting a widely accepted reality that soldiers have sex at outposts across Iraq.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the first in which tens of thousands of American military women have lived, worked and fought with men for prolonged periods. Wars without front lines, they have done more than just muddle the rules meant to keep women out of direct enemy contact.

They have changed the way the United States military goes to war. They have reshaped life on bases across Iraq and Afghanistan. They have cultivated a new generation of women with a warrior’s ethos — and combat experience — that for millennia was almost exclusively the preserve of men.

And they have done so without the disruption of discipline and unit cohesion that some feared would unfold at places like Warhorse.

“There was a lot of debate over where women should be,” said Brig. Gen. Heidi V. Brown, one of the two highest ranking women in Iraq today, recalling the start of the war. “Here we are six years later, and you don’t hear about it. You shouldn’t hear about it.” …

Sexual harassment in a still-predominantly male institution remains a problem. So does sexual assault. Both are underreported, soldiers and officers here say, because the rigidity of the military chain of command can make accusations uncomfortable and even risky for victims living in close quarters with the men they accuse.

As a precaution, women are advised to travel in pairs, particularly in smaller bases populated with Iraqi troops and civilians. Capt. Margaret D. Taafe-McMenamy, commander of the intelligence analysis cell at Warhorse, carries a folding knife and a heavy, ridged flashlight — a Christmas gift from her husband, whom she lives with here — as a precaution when she is out at night on the base…

At the outset of the war, the introduction of women into outposts like Warhorse raised fears not just of abuse or harassment, but also of sex and pregnancy. The worst of those fears, officers say, have not materialized.

In fact, sex in America’s war zones is fairly common, soldiers say, and has not generally proved disruptive.

In April, the latest iteration of General Order No. 1, the rules governing the behavior of soldiers in Iraq broadly, quietly relaxed the explicit prohibition on sex in a war zone, though it still bars sex with Iraqis and spending the night in someone else’s CHU. Some commands, including Baghdad, retain broader restrictions, for example, on being in CHUs belonging to members of the opposite sex.

“The chain of command already has to deal with enough,” Captain Taafe-McMenamy said. “They don’t really want to have to punish soldiers for dating.”

Women do become pregnant — a condition that, intentional or not, in or out of wedlock, requires the woman to be flown out within two weeks, causing personnel disruptions in individual units.

The Army and Marine Corps declined to say exactly how many women left Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of pregnancies, but it appears to be relatively rare and has had little effect on overall readiness, commanders say. At Warhorse, the First Stryker Brigade, which has thousands of soldiers, has sent only three women home because of pregnancies in 10 months in Iraq, the brigade said…

The involvement of women in it has been a cultural shock for Iraqi men far less accustomed to dealing with women professionally, especially in the military.

Women spoke of inappropriate comments or uncomfortable flattery, and even gifts. “It was everything from candy to lingerie,” said Capt. Victoria Ferreira, 29, who spent a year with an 11-person squad training Iraqi officers. “How do you react to that? ‘Thank you?’ ”

For the most part, though, Iraqis seem to accept the role of women in the American military — they have even expanded their own ranks for tasks like searching women at checkpoints — even if it seems unlikely that women will be incorporated more widely into the Iraqi armed forces anytime soon.

“I think now, six years since the war started, they’ve learned to adapt or tolerate the fact that in the American Army we have high ranking positions that are filled by women,” said Capt. Violeta Z. Sifuentes, who commands the 591st Military Police Company…

Of course, given that this is an article from the New York Times, everywhere you see the word woman you should substitute ‘homosexual.’

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, August 17th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

28 Responses to “NYT Series: Women Fit In In Combat”

  1. catie says:

    I don’t quite get the point of this article. They want women in all front-line positions yet imply they’re all sexually harassed all the time. I was pretty cute when I was in and I never had that problem. I know women who claimed they did but it seemed like most of the time they were upset they weren’t getting “attention”, if you get my drift. Maybe I was just lucky but none of the women I know who are still in feel it’s that big of a problem.
    I know women have been killed but I’m not sure what the impact would be if 7 or 8 are killed in one day. Perhaps the time has come, but I still don’t think women need to be on subs.
    I know one man who better not be at the PX buying condoms. ;)

    • Liberals Demise says:

      A lot of “Door Kickers” (grunts) use rubbers over their flash suppressors and front sights to keep sand and dirt from getting in the barrel of their weapon. That probably explains the run on condoms at the PX!!
      Not to worry, catie.

  2. Liberals Make Great Speedbumps says:

    Personally, I’m glad that I got out of the Navy before women were integrated. Being underway is stressful enough without throwing women into the mix. I just think that this is asking for trouble. I don’t doubt for a second that women are perfectly capable of doing most of the jobs. However, being a white male I know all too well, that with today’s politically correct military, any male would be guilty until proven innocent of any complaint lodged by a female. Heaven help him if she was also a minority.

    Back to the point, I agree completely that you can just insert the word homosexual in place of women and decipher the true intent of this article.

  3. canary says:

    I don’t get the point that women should be substituted with the word homosexuals. One of the companies of 300, I estimated at least 1 out of 5 were gay. The main problem was when you had female upper rank and brass that were lesbians, because I feel I was discriminated by a gay female Lt. once, for being straight.
    When I was in the sexual harrassment was pretty extreme. One female soldier was gang-raped. She handled so great, and they treated her well.
    I had no desire to date any Special Forces (they were so arrogant) but alot of the women were attracted to them, and my room was beat, raped, and when she reported it, she was the one punished, and nothing to the green beret, because they were untouchable. The ones I knew hung one of their own at the barracks, and it was like nothing happened. I mean is an officer going to risk being hung, by disciplining them. I just played things safe. The worst was a top NCO that was not violent, but sexually harrassed me, and when a Captain found out, tried to get me to report him. The NCO typed up a letter, along with verbal threat as to what he’d do. And while the officers did everything to get me to tell, I did not. I gave up my cushie secondary MOS for my primary Medic MOS, just to get away from him. But, women won’t be happy for me to say this, but I did not let it get to me, because I felt that it was part of what to you had to deal with, if you were going to work with men. And so basically, me and the women I served with, it was no big deal, but constant.
    While, I did not serve combat, I and others were surprised ambushed.
    We were not armed. Two dozen shot, most died. This one whore that never had to do any hard work, had a weapon, but hid, and I great disliked her for not giving it someone who could have used and saved lives. It was really bad, and then we dealt with worrying about explosives waiting for someone to rescue us. This was treated as if it didn’t’ happen too. And that is why I have enormous respect for our troops in this war. I wish I could fight along with them. But, problem is, I’d shoot civilians if I felt there was an instant to make a decision. I tell my sniper buddy over there all the time. If in doubt don’t hesitate. I’d be so ready for any man or woman wearing those robes that should be outlawed while we are over there. lol. not. I was a very strong person, and do not feel that it was normal for me to become this way. Maybe some day good will come from things. So, anyways, I figure if we have a terrorist attack in this country, I can be counted on. And right now, I feel keeping Obama from ruining this country, so that our troops have a great country to come back to is important. Peaceful protests and taking a political stance for now. That darn Obama. I haven’t been able to watch tv or anything fun, because he’s at such a speed, and it’s intentional wearing down our Senators and Congressman.
    God Bless Sweetness and Light, for a place for truth, information, especially when the media is in the bed with the socialists.

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”I don’t get the point that women should be substituted with the word homosexuals……”

      I believe it was the other way around….homosexuals in place of women. Unless I’m losing my cognitive abilities, the inference is/was that, now that we’ve “proven” the no-women-in-combat thing to be wrong, the next social hurdle to surmount is homosexuals serving openly in lieu of don’t-ask-don’t-tell.

      Will somebody tell me if I read it correctly? Or did I miss a larger point?

    • proreason says:

      Personally, I’m 100% in favor of allowing Drooling Barney to serve openly as a degenerate pervert in the military….provided his job is to be a human minesweeper.

    • Steve says:

      “I believe it was the other way around….homosexuals in place of women.”

      Yes, John, that’s what I meant.

  4. Liberals Demise says:

    How much do you think that I wanted a woman (women) on my base @ An Hoa?

    Nothing against you ladies but I wouldn’t go outside the razor wire on a Op with you.

  5. canary says:

    Liberals Demise, You did not have to worry about women serving in combat. And don’t think it’s at all common in this war either. It appears you don’t like the idea of women in the military period.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Wrong-A-Mundo, canary!
      Women have a place in the military. Their job is to free up the rear echelon of men so they can serve on the Front Lines if necessary. As for women serving on the front, war is stressful enough without the added stress of noisy, clanging, PMS sufferers. It is not your fault for being female. Our culture teaches men to treat ladies a certain way. In a combat situation, testosterone levels are at a max and the two don’t mix!!
      Then there is the hygiene thing. Marines are doing without showers for months at a stretch in the ‘stan. Living like animals and loving it!!

      I have met a “few” women I would run from in a alley if confronted by them.
      BTW ……. women have served on the front lines during the American Revolution, Civil War, WWI and WWII (by a chance fluke). Please believe me ….. I am not a Macho “A” hole by any means. I’ve just experienced it first hand and those that say they weren’t scared are idiots!!

  6. canary says:

    Liberal demise”war is stressful enough without the added stress of noisy, clanging, PMS sufferers.”

    Excuse the cliche of a male chauvanistic, but since you pointed out such a stereotype.

    “It is not your fault for being female.”

    anymore than it’s not your fault for being a male.

    “Our culture teaches men to treat ladies a certain way.”

    Yeah, well that is a wide spectrum culture as I’ve noticed.

    In a combat situation, testosterone levels are at a max and the two don’t mix!!

    Once again, I have not made this an issue that women should fight combat. It’s something your think I’m insisting. Maybe I worded something for you to think that women should fight combat?

    Then there is the hygiene thing. Marines are doing without showers for months at a stretch in the ’stan. Living like animals and loving it!!

    Glad you loved it, I can’t imagine war being something that anyone does not find hellish. Such as your next statement.

    “I’ve just experienced it first hand and those that say they weren’t scared are idiots!!”

    I said not word that soldiers are not scared at war. I told of my deep respect of our soldiers, in just having one day of bloodbath, which has increased my respect for soldiers the hell, (didn’t know any soldiers loving not taking a bath. Thanks for telling me).

    What I was saying, is that after experiencing such a bloody slaughter, it left me hypervigilant to danger, and I would apt to shoot someone I thought was going to attack our soldiers, if I felt they were a pose of danger. Even if the soldiers might actually prefer a battle instead of preventing one.

    • canary says:

      Also, up til now, I have never had anyone think, or accuse, or ask if I’m gay. And I didn’t not know that most believe women in the military are all or even mostly gay. I guess woman should where some kind of signia to
      so that they are not mistaken over the issue.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      “didn’t know any soldiers loving not taking a bath…….”
      I said they were Marines……….living like animals and loving it!!

      It’s a MARINE thing ……… WARRIORS!!

  7. Liberals Demise says:

    WOW!!
    I touched a power chord, didn’t I?
    I was simply referring to your sentence,”It appears you don’t like the idea of women in the military period.”
    I’ll tell you the truth, canary. I didn’t read your long post before I posted below you. I have a daughter in the Army going through Basic right now and I worry about her. I don’t want her at the front but I want her to know how to handle a situation better than Jessica Lynch did.
    I may have stated myself incorrectly also. What I should have said women don’t have the physical attributes that men do. Please forgive this older Jarhead for his pointed and somewhat degrading remarks. I don’t speaky PC and have always believed that the military was no place for social engineering!!

  8. canary says:

    Well, God Bless your daughter. I was stuck with M-16 that always jammed, and that is what I thought of when Jessica Lynch thing happened. Military doesn’t care about this stuff. Luckily you will be able to share experience and advice with your daughter.

    As far as women not having the physical attirbutes as men, I agree. I did boot camp with all females, and later they started training the men and women together. Probably some liberal enforcing it. I felt this was not a good idea, and it didn’t last long, and they went back to separate training. I don’t know if they go through boot camp separately still. Again, thank your daughter for serving our country.

  9. Liberals Demise says:

    Thank You for your contribution to our “GREAT” Nation also, my friend!

  10. Celina says:

    I question the example they gave of “only” 3 women being sent home because they were pregnant at Warhorse. How many women were there to begin with? If it is primarily infantry based there, it isn’t likely that there were many.

    Also, sexual relationships complicate things. Period. There are enough complications out there without adding to the mix.

    And for what it’s worth, there are plenty of civilians who buy up the condoms. And, not to put too fine a point on it, many men I have heard of use them for, umm, solo activity because it means less clean up.

    During my husband’s last deployment, a female soldier became pregnant twice while they were gone (miscarried the first time). There are more than a few women who actively seek pregnancy because they know it is their ticket home. I am not saying they are evil but given the realities of war, I can understand anyone wanting to get home any way they can. Women are even given the choice to leave the military before their contract is up when they become pregnant stateside. Shouldn’t then men be offered the opportunity to blow off the rest of their contract when they become fathers, I mean if we are supposed to be equal and everything?

    • canary says:

      I always though how great if men were the men that got pregnant and carried the babys for 9 monthes and went through the labor. :) Celina, the 3 women may have been sent home to get abortions and may be back. I can see the women getting pregnant to go home from a war zone, but aside the abortion rate of female’s in the military is very high, they don’t want to do a strenuous job pregnant, aside the usual reasons women have them. I do agree the sex thing during war is demoralizing and causes alot of tension. And many women unlawfully fratenize with higher ranking to get it easy, just as we see in the public world.

  11. pdsand says:

    Well,
    I have heard plenty of stories going back to the first gulf war, and occasionally been in a position to know what’s going on over there. And if a professional fighting force is what you want, then having women around in the combat zone is not helping things. If you catch my drift.
    And the change in General Order Number One is shameful.
    Of course I have plenty of personal history with that word. Once at basic they asked for our personal opinions about the restriction of women in combat arms career fields. A lot of women stood up and made the basic equality argument, some of them were even kinda hot about it. Some folks said that women should have to register for the draft if they want into combat arms. I put it on the line, and said that if a country has to call upon its women to defend itself then that country ought to be ashamed of itself. Man, you wanna see some feminists get mad. The MTIs had to step in and enforce order and state the PC answer of a Soldier responding differently in an attack if women were to be protected, or of them lingering longer around while still under attack if a women had been killed. It was actually kinda funny.

  12. canary says:

    PD Sand. So, I think most agree the sex stuff is bad on moral. For a while I worked in military hospital, and can’t tell you how many got VD from their husbands sleeping with whores. Korea or the strip joints. One poor women that was pregnant and couldn’t speak English, and twice got the shot in the hip, and I raised heck with the doctor for not letting her know that her husband (not in Korea) was endangering her and the baby. (In the military they can’t fire you for raising cain about medical care. They can send you to hell. They own every breath you take.
    But, this sex problem happens in politics any job.

    fighting force is what you want, then having women around in the combat zone is not helping things. If you catch my drift.

    I kind of catch your drift. Boot camp, I was expert and grenades. Did best with grenade launcher and could hit 300 milimeter target with M-16.
    As far as the femine side of being a female,
    I get your drift.
    But, you see, men can be no better than a woman in war too. !!!! And men with assualt weapons can be cowardly too, when it comes to saving not just some “lingering woman” but wounded men and women, both!!!
    And guess what. I’ve saw big men, run and jump over their wounded “men” and “women” Nope as they were unarmed, and probably would have been gunned down too. I don’t judge them. I am little, and probably could not lift someone and carry them out of gunfire, like some of the “big men” could have. And I saw the bravest of men do just that, and die, and saved lives to allow other big men to run for cover!!!!
    Now I appreciate that you feel women should not fight. But, that might not be an option in America with the threat of terrorists, who at this rate, can come out of their homes. And so “big” men, would be good to have me, a little woman next to them. And guess what. Little me, got one of those adreniline freak things, that you do the inhumanely possible, which ruined my body, trying to save the man near me, who was also trying to save me.
    So, while as a law goes, I do not think women should be forced, or drafted, because I know most women, are not suited, and cry if they break a finger nail, or spend one minute in the bad weather, when I spent days in bad weather with no relief.
    And while I understand there is another problem with men and women together, in that some macho men, want the woman to fail. Want the woman to die, because they do not believe women should do what they do. I believe if I was not so bleeped up, that I should be able to go Afganistan or Iraq, and do what very little I might be able to do. But, as far as going out on combat missions, the law as it is, that women don’t have to, is fine with me. If the edit button works, I will try to correct my spelling. But, for now, I am going to take some deep breathes.

  13. pdsand says:

    Canary:
    “fighting force is what you want, then having women around in the combat zone is not helping things. If you catch my drift.

    I kind of catch your drift. … I’ve saw big men, run and jump over their wounded “men” and “women” Nope as they were unarmed, and probably would have been gunned down too. I don’t judge them. I am little, and probably could not lift someone and carry them out of gunfire, like some of the “big men” could have. And I saw the bravest of men do just that, and die, and saved lives to allow other big men to run for cover!!!!

    You missed my drift altogether. Basically, the PC position for probably half a century has been that if a combat unit incorporating women were to fall under attack, that a man with a gun would make fatal mistakes resulting in unnecessary combat deaths if women were wounded. Either his gentlemanly instincts would kick in and he would assume a suicidal position in order to defend the women, or he would be so distraught that he would linger around the dead body of a woman while still subject to hostile fire and likely be killed himself. The basic idea is that a man will save himself and not incur unnecessary casualties if a fellow man is caught and killed, but a man will go out of his way to save women and get himself killed when it’s unnecessary if women are fully integrated.

    Now whether you agree with this vision of American men is entirely up to you, and I suspect it’s probably pretty far off in most people’s opinion. However, I have known many people who fully intend to live up to it, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable.

    As far as women fighting our wars, there is a bright line in the sand which I belive in. There is a phenomenal difference between a woman saying that they love this country and will do anything they can to defend it; and our country drafting women to fill the ranks of infrantry. If we have a national defense crisis, I fully expect every man of fighting age to volunteer to protect us. If it ever becomes so bad that we can’t get enough volunteer men and drafted young men to protect and fight for this country, then we don’t deserve to survive. Regardless what anyone thinnks of “equality”, if we have to draft women, then we are pathetic and useless, and might as well surrender.

  14. canary says:

    PD Sand. Enough of insulting female soldiers or any U.S. soldier Period.
    I have said nothing in support about female soldiers fighting on the front line, or on mission. But, U.S. women have served in war zones for decades. At one time they were called WACs. Medics, mechanics, supply. If they want to serve their country during war they should be able too.
    pdsand “You missed my drift altogether. Basically, the PC position for probably half a century has been that if a combat unit incorporating women were to fall under attack, that a man with a gun would make fatal mistakes resulting in unnecessary combat deaths if women were wounded. Either his gentlemanly instincts would kick in and he would assume a suicidal position in order to defend the women, or he would be so distraught that he would linger around the dead body of a woman while still subject to hostile fire and likely be killed himself.”

    I disagree with you. A male soldier would do the same for another male soldier.

    It’s just many are painting “all” women as weak, delicate and a burden.
    And it’s an insult to be insulting our female troops.

    pdsand “The basic idea is that a man will save himself and not incur unnecessary casualties if a fellow man is caught and killed,”

    I totally disagree with you, and demeans heroic acts of men, who often ran out in fire several times to get wounded and try and get them to safety. Or a soldier who covers his body over a grenade to save his own men. There are many men who sacrifice their lives in order to save another man.

    ” but a man will go out of his way to save women and get himself killed when it’s unnecessary if women are fully integrated.”

    I disagree with you. There are men, there a men soldiers who believe a woman should be left to die, and deserve to die, for joining the service to begin with.

    I appreciate your concern for woman, and agree with you that women should not be drafted. And I have voted this way, and do not agree with the feminists. Such as becoming firemen. If a women is not good at passing the test, such as lifting heavy ladders, etc. they should get affirmative action, as women’s lib has fought for. The ones who should get those jobs are the ones that do the best. I suppose a large tall woman, might do better than a very small man. Tests are given. There seems to be a misconception that I am for the draft, and women on the front lines.
    There has always been field hospitals where women have served. And of course there is a danger, but the women also save lives. And if volunteers can prevent the draft of men who say “it’s against my religion”. I mean we have volunteers that say stupid stuff like I’m a peaceful person, I want out.
    I’m not sure what I’ve said, that gave the illusion I am for the draft or women in combat positions. I am for women that wish, to serve in the military as they have forever. I imagine during the civil war, women had to bear arms at times. I do believe that women who settled the west knew how to shoot.
    I would just hate for conservatives, prehaps a female soldier viewing this board, to feel she is a burden and threat to fellow soldiers. Again, men soldiers will give their lives to save men.
    Also one of my leaders was a gay woman. And she got both men and women to a place she felt they’d be safe in the situation, all were shot , only one barely managed to live. Miracle. And a male laid and played dead, as she spoke to him, checking on him. He knew she was going to get shot. And his behavior afterwards like he was better than everyone else and that’s why he didn’t die, caused everyone to loath him. Worse he major denied it, but he had admitted it in his statement. I thought the motto is LEAVE NO MAN BEHIND. Many times women soldiers end up working harder then the men, as punishment for trying to do a “man’s job”. They want the female soldier to regret joining, and to fail.
    Again, I do appreciate that there may be a few men, that would worry about a female soldier dying, but I just never saw it. Prehaps you are that type of gentleman. Peace out. God bless all our troops. Tonite the elections start. I’m hoping if alot of our soldiers aren’t slaughtered, this might be a sign, they are not as equipped. I just feel it’s our responsibility to pray for the troops. Obama has more important self-serving agenda’s, that pale in comparison and as to what our priority should be.

    • pdsand says:

      You know I suspect we’re probably in agreement. I too have seen many examples of men exhibiting the worst character in the military. I guess at a certain level I wish all men, and certainly those in the profession of arms were gentlemen like I try to be, but this is kind of a situation where we plan for the worst and hope for the best.

      “I totally disagree with you, and demeans heroic acts of men”

      Not at all, there is a fine difference between trying to save a life and saving your own life after your unfortunate comrade is dead. Greater love have no man than this, after all.

      Integration of women into the military in as many aspects as possible has been based on the premise that everyone behaves themselves, and that women will stay away from the front as much as possible. This article seems to be celebrating the fact that no one is behaving themselves and that women are all over the front. To me, that means that the whole situation needs to be looked at again from the beginning. NOT, as this article implies that anyone with my wrong-headed ideas needs to just get with the program.
      For instance, should a woman be in a support role in a combat infantry unit? Perhaps not. Do MOSs that are now plainly in combat that are not currently called combat arms need to be reclassified, such as truck driver? Should we make a “combat vehicle driver” that deploys and “vehicle driver” that women can join that stays in the rear? Perhaps. I definitely appreciate anyone who wants to serve their country, but I, like you, highly disagree with too many women being in the combat zone. Not only should women be protected from danger to the most practical extent, but also nobody is going over there to date. They’re there to kill people and break their stuff.

  15. proreason says:

    Eureka! There is a grand compromise here.

    As many of you know, proreason is 100% behind the femi-nazi agenda, so my only real regret is that we don’t have more female Seals….but as an extremely sensitive metro-sexual male, I’m also empathetic to the macho male side of this issue….plus i’m all over the Death Scare scam.

    So, the compromise is this. We should only use senior citizens in the military, and certainly in combat roles. Imagine the health care savings!!! Why haven’t the Emanuel brothers thought of this? Seniors only have a few marginably valuable years to live anyway, and their health care costs are enormous. Let them be cannon fodder.

    This will allow young males to pursue activities more suited to their skills…..like fighting each other, playing violent video games, and exercising their libidos on any object in range. And young women can concentrate on telling them how to do it!! You know….the stuff libwits want them to be free to do at somebody else’s expense.

  16. canary says:

    Pro-Reason, I’m a bit confused . They do not have female Navy Seals. I think it’s pretty insulting to say women in the military are femi-nazi’s.
    What is your experience in being empathetic to the macho male side of this issue.
    Not sure what you mean by your last paragraph, and the connection to libwits.
    I do agree on the Senior issue, that they should try and achieve what they want as they deserve it. I respect my elders.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Don’t you see the SATIRE in his wording?

    • proreason says:

      The connection to libwits is that they demand to have no limits on their personal behavior……while they seek to control everybody else’s behavior.

      And canary, I’m not calling you a femi-nazi either. I don’t take exception to anything you said in the dialogue above.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »