O'Beirne: Fighting wars "a job for men, not women"
SUMMARY: On American Family Radio's Today's Issues, National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne asserted that "fighting our wars, engaging the enemy in this uncivilized thing we call war is a job for men, not women," then suggested that having women serve in the military was the equivalent of "a man send[ing] his wife or daughter to check out" a noise that "sounds like a break-in."
During the March 15 broadcast of American Family Radio's Today's Issues, National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne asserted that "fighting our wars, engaging the enemy in this uncivilized thing we call war is a job for men, not women," then suggested that having women serve in the military was the equivalent of "a man send[ing] his wife or daughter to check out" a noise that "sounds like a break-in." She said that "internationally that's just what we're doing by sending our daughters and our sisters to fight America's enemies."
During an interview about her book Women Who Make the World Worse (Sentinel, December 2005), O'Beirne also maintained that "good men protect and defend women in the face of physical threat," and told host Jeff Chamblee, "I, for one, do not believe that America's defense rests on the shoulders of teenage women and single mothers."
From the March 15 broadcast of American Family Radio's Today's Issues:
O'BEIRNE: I, for one, do not believe that America's defense rests on the shoulders of teenage girls and young single mothers.
CHAMBLEE: Thank you.
O'BEIRNE: And yet, an awful lot of them have been deployed to Iraq. I have two fundamental problems. The most fundamental problem, to me, is my conviction that good men protect and defend women in the face of a physical threat. This in no way offends my sense of equality, because I think fighting our wars, engaging the enemy in this uncivilized thing we call war is a job for men, not women. Think of it on the domestic front. You know, if you hear a sound in the middle of the night coming from downstairs and it sounds like a break-in, what poor excuse for a man sends his wife or daughter downstairs to check out the noise?
CHAMBLEE: Yeah.
O'BEIRNE: And yet on a grand scale, internationally that's just what we're doing by sending our daughters and our sisters to fight America's enemies.
Don't listen to Kate O'Beirne. She doesn't have the temperment for serious political discussion. It is an obvious and God-given fact that woman are better suited to chores such as tatting or child bearing. Perhaps her husband should do a better job of preventing his wife from being seduced by the liberal temptation of speaking her mind.
I don't think it is a job for either sexes to be fighting wars for politicians but oh well, war is big business.
I happen to agree with O'Beirne here even though I see eye to eye with most modern feminist principles. My sister served in the airforce about 15 years ago, even with some time served in Turkey, and I thank God she wasn't in the service in the last 3 1/2 years.
I read an article not too long ago in which it was revealed that many many women serving in Iraq were suffering severe dehydration because they were too afraid to get water or go to the latrines at night. They were afraid of being sexually assaulted.
the women would not drink enough water during daylight hours, in the desert heat, for fear of needing to use the latrines at night
O'BEIRNE: "what poor excuse for a man sends his wife or daughter downstairs to check out the noise?"
The issue is men AND women fighting wars, not women instead of men, Ms. O'Beirne. No one advocates sending women into combat while the men stay home.
Someone should have thought of this before we started a pre-emtive war. Our military has a larger percentage of women than at any time in our nations history. Couldn't anyone think this thing through before we invaded?
The majority of the people supporting the war don't care if there are women in dangerous positions, they only care that the women in dangerous positions are not their relatives. Until the supporters of this war volunteer either themselves or talk their own children into fighting, then they are nothing but hypocrites.
That's ridiculous.......to suggest that to support our effort in War is hypocritical unless you either serve or push your relatives to serve. What do you say to those who are too old, handicapped, have no children, or are not in any physical shape to join the military? Somehow their support is hypocritical? And to say those that support the War don't care about those in harm's way is an incredibly callous and incorrect assertion, not only do you have no factual backup but it is just plain silly.
So, the next time you call a police officer or a firefighter to help you - don't! You're just being a hypocrite because you chose another profession.
Tommy,
I am one of a long line of public servants, police officers, fireman and combat veterans. The majority of people supporting this war don't have anything at stake. Very few people do. War is usually a time of shared sacrifice. This time no one is sharing except the families of the ones doing the dying. If the supporters of this war had loved ones in harms way, they might think twice before allowing our military to be used the way they've been for the last three years. The people of this nation allowed the troops to go to war without proper body armor, without armored vehicles and without a plan. They've allowed the Defense Department to rewrite the laws concerning torture and have allowed only enlisted men to be prosecuted for the systematic abuse of the prisoners we hold. We have allowed this administration and everyone who supports them to dishonor our veterans from past wars while those who have dishonored them never served. But then I guess it's silly and ridiculous to expect those pushing this war to step up and serve.
I was commenting about your assertions that most people who support this War don't care at all about those that are fighting.........and about unless you or your children volunteer that you are being a hypocrite.
I wasn't commenting about body armor, or armed vehicles or a war plan - that was not the point of my post, but you ignored what I wrote and went your own direction.
For you to comment about what supporters of this War care or don't care about and that their support is only valid if they suit up in a uniform is flat out nothing more than rhetoric and hyperbole - furthered by those who toss out accusations like this based on nothing.
If they cared, they'd see to it that those serving had what they need and that those who sent them to war had a plan. Supporting our troops means more than a bumper sticker on your car.
I agree that the plan this administration has undertaken in Iraq is sorry, at least it appears that way now after three years.......and that is a debate that will continue.
But I was referring to the public support of the troops and the War - just because they don't know any soldiers personally doesn't mean they don't grieve for their loss and support their mission fully. As for politicians, well, I can't speak for them.
So, the "debate" continues on wether the "plan" of the administration "appears" to be "sorry"?
And the "War" now takes a capital letter? You can perhaps remind us once more what is so respectable about this "War"?
By now, your Dear Leader has killed nearly almost as many Americans as the 911 terrorrists. Will you stop your support only when he reaches the official number (2986 I believe)?
I'm only asking about the American deaths, since the other side does not seem to count in your National media. I guess that 30.000 or 35.000 less iraqis cannot possibly ever compare with the loss of 2500 of your Brave Soldiers.
Just for fun, how about the wounded:
Let's see, officially 17000 Wounded on Your Side. If we assume a similar ratio, about 200.000 wounded on the iraqi side. But, hey, we wont count those, even the iraqi government doesnt count those anymore.
The thing that really brings solace over all this: Saddam is down. He has been replaced at the modest price of 11000 dead iraqis a year. Let's make it more attractive: I'll sell this to you for only 9.999 dead iraqis a year. What was Saddam's score, already?
Oh, and the best of all: by now, iraq does not have WMDs any more. Yeehaaaaw!
Three years of a war of choice, and still no shame...
As for your last sentence, well, at least you made me laugh!
are you saying that those who are against the war have something more at stake than those who are for it?
Tommy...by SUPPORT, whether public or private, the DECISION to go to war was made by people with no one of their own in harm's way. Also, by support, all service people SHOULD have all adequate resources available to be able to serve and fight. DUH!
FDR thought that our involvement in WWII was so important that all four of his sons served. If memory serves me correctly, 3 of them received merits for bravery in combat.
We're not seeing this kind of sacrifice from the likes of Dubya or his pals. It really makes me question just how much of a national security issue Iraq really was in their minds. At least his coporate buddies are getting rich from all the oil war contracts that my grandkids' grandkids will be paying for.
1. Cantseefade: Kate, in today's modern military, hand-to-hand combat is essentially obsolete. In your opinion. percentage term wise, what is the advantage of identically-trained male soldiers over female soldiers regarding combat with firearms?
2. You are aware that all women in the military voluntarily enlisted. Do you not believe that women should have that right?
3. What are your views on a President who would instigate an occupation that would create a dual-front conflict, spreading our military thin to the point where female soldiers are necessary to prevent the return of the draft?
4. Why is one of your eyes bigger than the other?
Uhmmmmm....I think that would be Mr. Bush and his fellow kitties?
doesn't tell this to the Russians. They would have lost WW II.
to the Israelis.
...I think that there are certain jobs that should be restricted not by gender, but by ability, such as firefighters, infantry, etc. Firefighters and soldiers have to carry a lot of gear. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be allowed to serve. But what difference does it make if a man drives a tank or a woman? If a man drives a Humvee or a woman? If a man pilots a plane or a woman? If a man is captured and tortured and raped by the enemy or a woman? If we can't bear to have our soldiers captured and tortured and raped, we shouldn't go to war.
I love what worrierking wrote. People care far less about their fellow Americans than they assert. People care about their people: their relatives. For us to sufficiently care about war, no Americans must be exempt from service. We should bring back the draft: with no exemptions.
As far as Ms. O'Beirne's analogy, I'm happy to go investigate a bump in the night if I'm sitting in the belly of an M-1 tank.
For backing me up once again.
I agree with you in principle but I also can tell you a number of stories that young men I knew conjured up to get out of the draft. Some were very creative. I agree with the equality that women should suffer the draft just like men but I am also a realist. Knowing that people that did not want to serve would aviod it. A women would just get pregnant to aviod the draft-- Then you open up another HUGE problem. All those babies who are born jus to get mommy out of the draft but little regard to just how they are going to be cared for... And this is just the tip of the ice cap.
Before we start a draft we have to deal with the equality issue and then we have confront the consequences of draft dodging in a whole new way. The draft may sound good but you really need to think that one through.. Do you want to do with the fall out he will come after.
I think it's easy to forget about this war. Like so many other wars, it's a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. That's why I want the draft. It would, ala Vietnam, amass protestors. Imagine a draft where everyone between 15 and 55 is eligible. There would be a few exceptions, such as blindness, paralysis, but no exceptions like bunions or flat feet or whatever Limbaugh employed to avoid his generation's war. I wouldn't make exceptions for motherhood. Motherhood is very, very important, but so is sisterhood. Daughterhood. Sonhood.
The only exception I might make would be for registered gay people. Of course, registered gay people would suddenly be a majority. I'm just kidding about this last thing, of course.
I agree with the draft principle Holly for the reasons you state, that the draft would cause uproarious protest for war, that rich and poor would be on level playing grounds and politicians would think twice about sending their sons and daughters to war. But I would be vociferously opposed to scaring young people to death to make such a point. And for women to be unallowed to refuse because of pregnancy is very oppressive in my mind. That is one equal right I can live without.
There is nothing wrong with women serving in the military, they are our heroes too. But I wouldn't want to be a woman in combat where you can hardly feel safe on your own team.
I do so agree with you. It should not matter what the sex is of the soldier driving the tank...no one actually gets out and pushes it...As a former Army soldier I know full well that there are female soldiers more capable of "doing the job" than some male soldiers. It is our country also...just as Molly Pitcher was in the Revolutionary War there have always been women in the military. I am quite proud of my service to my country and regret not one minute of it.
Ms O'Beirne states a few interesting things that are both old, and debunked in the '50s, '60s and '70s. First, that uncivilized things are things for men, and that women should not be part of that (thought of pureness). Secondly, that good men defend and protect, because a woman cannot defend and protect herself (women are the weaker sex). Finally, that fathers and brothers whould keep their daughters and sisters from enlisting in the army (male knows best).
Sometimes wars have to be fought, and everybody that wants to fight is important, be they men or women. The arguments that O'Beirne discusses here are basaed on assumptions and emotions, not on facts. Fact is, as pick of the litter said that women should be more concerned about their fellow soldiers than being in combat. However, I also agree that those that enlist should be physical en mentally fit to serve.
AFAICT, O'Beirne hasn't even mentioned the democrat running for Henry (Mr.) Hyde's seat in congress, who lost both legs after an RPG landed in her lap, blowing her legs off.
I wonder how many of O'Beirnes close relatives are getting shot at in Iraq.
Even money, none.
Doing political commentary is also men's work. Why? It calls for objective and rational analysis. Now, Kate O'Beirne, you just can't tell when she might be on the rag, so who should listen to her? When a woman gets her period, she just gets all weepy and emotional. Or worse, they PMS and get mean and deranged.
Gotta love 'em, but really, give a woman an IMPORTANT job like political commentary, which affects everyone's lives? Why would a chick worry her pretty little head? C'mon, leave it to the men! Right, Kate? Admit it; you're talking about YOURSELF, Kate, when you say women shouldn't have challenging, or hard, or dangerous, or important jobs. Women shouldn't defend their nation, or their families. It's about self-loathing, isn't it, Kate?
Stay off our airwaves, Kate. It's the kitchen or bedroom for you. That's not ME talking ... it's YOU.
Ya friggin' arrogant rightwing lapdog sexist hypocrite.
We gotta get Tex his own radio show. I got $50 on it, $100 if we can get O'Reilly as his first guest.
Good stuff, Tex!
You've debunked the right-wing silliness once again, but I must add that it's probably has been a long time since Kate O'Beirne has 'been on the rag'.
Yeah, well...it sure offends mine. And does she really have no concept of why teens of both genders go into service? It is a chance out of poverty for some, a personal choice of honor for many, a job that may help pay for education later on, etc..
i was wondering where the bush twins were in all this...but this is why!
ahhh. so much more clear now. They best stay home. It takes alot of testicular fortitude to stand on the rolling, pitching deck of one our Navy's finest and declare stuff. A true Billy Bad-Ass. Keep them women folk home!
While I can understand her point in the traditional sense where the woman cares for the family in the home, and the man defends it, there are too many variables now to label the sexes with traditional roles. And she's taking it to an extreme. She obviously has taken a women's studies course recently.
Hasn't she heard of the Celtic women warriors of old, who stood beside their men in battle, because the stakes were just as high for them as for their men? What about the Minoan women who were just as accomplished as men in wielding the bow and arrow after they sacrificed a breast?
Her labeling of the sexes is just as bad as the Arabs who force their women into a life of compliance (slavery) and call it God's will.