Females now allowed combat roles in military... Jan 26, 2013 22:39:35 GMT -5
Post by X factor on Jan 26, 2013 22:39:35 GMT -5
I have a few points about this.
1. Is it really a good thing that more women will come home disfigured and in body bags?
2. The widening role females are allowed to play in society verses the narrowing role males are allowed to fulfill, without being considered 'gay'.
Let's start with the first view, is allowing women to serve in combat infantry a good thing?
Not sure if that's something to celebrate or not...war is not pretty, or fun, neither is being fired upon or injured.
It's hard enough seeing injured male vets come home missing legs and arms and disfigured do to combat mishaps...is society really ready to see females come back the same way?
Not sure how that is a victory for females...not sure what the victory is here...equal footing?
Not every male even wants to be placed directly in the line of fire.
Good luck with that one.
This decision, further widens, broadens, the roles that female get to play in society...all within the range of being 'female'...and or 'straight' or 'hetrosexual'.
Women, in modern day society, can now experience the FULL range of roles...from front line combat positions, and all the bravado that comes with it, to 2 hours later, changing into a dress, high heels, and embracing the other extreme or role of 'feminality'.
Basically, in modern western society, a woman is now allowed to mirror a man in every way, shape and form...while still being considered a woman or straight...
Where as a man cannot do the same...
Males still have to behave, act and dress within this ever narrowing definition of what it means to be 'straight' or 'hetrosexual'.
And if a male deviates from that narrow role, he's automatically tagged as 'gay', or 'gayish'.
In a way, that gives women an unfair social advantage that will grow over time.
Females have adapted everything male, including clothing, jobs, and even attitude, while not facing the same gender identity stigma that a male would face if he did the same.
Females are allowed a much greater swath of cultural and behavioral range, than are their male counter parts.
As such, I believe you will see more and more males begin to 'crack'...do to lack of emotional outlet, that women are allowed.
Basically all people, genders, are the same on the inside, life forms...life forms that need attention, love, concern and care.
Everyone needs that whether male or female, but traditionally, females have played the softer more vunerable role...like in the older movies where women always scream, and the guy shows up to save them.
Where as if a guy screams...no one shows up, or really cares if he's in trouble...so guys learn early on that as a male or man, you're basically on your own.
That's why many male victims, of all sorts of abuse, keep silent, cause their taught early on that no one really cares what happens to you, and expects you to be the hero, not victim.
Females are allowed to hug, and comfort other females in distress, but a male isn't really allowed to do the same with another male without others questioning their orientation.
It's really a blatant double standard...and now with this new military directive, basically women have stretched their roles to be as far and wide as men...while still retaining their feminality.
Yet men or males, are still expected to stay within this narrow box of behavior and roles, to be considered 'hetrolsexual'.
It gives females a big social advantage...cause they can play macho soldier one minute, and then the next minute break down in cry, and recieve comforting hugs from everyone...
Where as the male can't do that...without having his manhood questioned.