July 29, 2008, - 10:42 am

U.S. Military Recruiting: Women Are the Weaker Sex, After All

By Debbie Schlussel
After all the militant feminist arguments for women in combat and more women in the military, looks like my gender is admitting that we are the weaker sex, after all. Women are shying away from Iraq and need a gentler, softer pitch . . . which kinda defeats the purpose of the word “military.”
This story isn’t rocket science or news to me (or you). But maybe to Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan’s ghost-ette. Oh and check out the photo of the recruiter supermodel in the story–they now need someone with “America’s Next Top Military Model” looks and make it look glamorous, to get women to join:

Military officials say female service members are expected to perform and be treated the same as their male counterparts once they’ve enlisted – but recruiters and academics who study the issue say the process for recruiting women, and their parents, is subtly different.

femalerecruiter.jpg

Army Recruiter, Sgt. Marietta Sparacino

In its recruiting efforts, the military “may try to reassure potential recruits and their families that women in the military don’t lose their femininity, even though they are joining an institution known for conferring masculinity and making men out of boys,” writes Melissa Brown in her paper, “A Woman in the Army is Still a Woman,” which evaluates the gender messages of decades of recruiting materials. Brown, a professor at City University of New York, took the title of her paper from an Army advertisement directed at potential female soldiers.
Brown found that females in military advertisements are often not pictured in uniform. . . and none were shown carrying weapons, as many of the men were.
The ad reflects realities Sgt. Marietta Sparacino sees every day in her job as an Army recruiter in Salt Lake and Davis counties.
“The males are much more into the range – shooting weapons and everything. The females, not so much,” Sparacino said. . . .
The number of females serving in the Armed Forces has fallen every year since 2003, the year of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to figures from the Pentagon’s Statistical Information Analysis Division.

There’s no NOW (National Organization for Women) in the military.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




20 Responses

There ain’t no NOW on the oil rigs, the iron workers on high bridges, coal mining, or anything remotely dangerous or strength specific either. The entire “movement” is for cushy desk jobs involving no risk or physical exertion with the side demand of ordering supposed men around.

Howard on July 29, 2008 at 11:20 am

[After all the militant feminist arguments for women in combat and more women in the military,]
The irony here is that it took a conservative Republican president to actually use women in combat.

Norman Blitzer on July 29, 2008 at 11:23 am

Having spent four years in the service, I’m very mixed about this. I knew a few ladies in the service who seemed like top-notch soldiers, but a lot of other girls seemed to treat the Army like it was a game. We had co-ed basic training, and for me, the toughest part of the watered-down training was trying to stay awake.
True story, Debbie: a friend of mine had a female in his squad. He told me that she was a good soldier, but that when he’d encourage her to further herself in her career, she’d tell him this: “Look. I only joined the Army to get my student loans repaid. Once they’re completely paid off, I’m going to throw away my birth control pills, get pregnant and get a medical discharge.”

richardzowie on July 29, 2008 at 11:53 am

Blitzer–
Not sure what is “ironic” about this. Reagan was simply the sitting president when the policy–already instituted by others–became realized in a particular deployment.
While Reagan did not agree with it, he said little or nothing. Sadly, that was par for the course for this man, who–IMHO–is overrated, mostly because he is compared to contemporaries.
He “supported” Bork but did zero to help his cause. and he did nothing about the KAL plane being shot down–to name only two items.
The last conservative was Robert Taft, unless you believe that spending gobs of money on social programs is wrong, but wasting tons on the military is OK.
The end result is higher taxes for everyone.

Red Ryder on July 29, 2008 at 12:08 pm

George Gilder was SO right.

poetcomic1 on July 29, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Back in 1973, as a young woman right out of high school, I enlisted in the Marine Corps. Things were a little different back then during basic training. We were given makeup classes and taught how to get in and out of a car while in our skirts along with physical training, drill and military history. Seems funny now to look back and know that as part of my training was makeup class. To be fair though, the Marine Corps had a different mission for women back then. The women of my era were at the tail end of the WWII era and thinking. Women during WWII served in a capacity to relieve a man to fight and to always be women. During basic we were always reminded that we were women.
I did not join the Marine Corps to become a man, I wanted to serve my country and felt the Marine Corps (still do) was the best of all the military branches. At the start of my service, women wore high heels and makeup while in uniform, most of us had long hair that we wore up off our collars as required. Yes Howard I had a cushy desk job and never sent to combat but I was a Marine and very proud of it. As I rose in the ranks I deserved to be treated with respect by those junior to me.
During my years of service I was happy to see many good changes for women in the Corps, such as more jobs opening up to women, and ending Women Marine Company’s which segregated women from men. All women were assigned to units for jobs, but still had to answer to a Women Marine Company. Women were actually pulling double duty and double inspections and had two chain of commands. Seeing WM companies go was a good thing.
With all that said, by the time I left the Corps, women were wearing cammies and combat boots to work and being required to do more and more things that only men had done in the past. I had no real problem with all this and felt it was good and to be honest I felt more like I was part of the BOY’S CLUB. However, I do have a problem seeing women perform in combat rolls but times have changed and I for one would have been in front of the line to go to Iraq.
[FWM: VERY INTERESTING COMMENTS. THANKS. DS]

formerwm on July 29, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Red Ryder,
I was referring to GW and the Iraq war. You probably knew that but I guess you don’t want to think of GW as a conservative. I know many of you don’t consider him a conservative but many do (Ann Coulter still loves him).

Norman Blitzer on July 29, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Young Israeli women are given military training but the kind of work they do in the army is to largely support the men so they can fight during the war. To put not too fine a point on it, they provide the IDF with logistical support. The reality of military life is very different from that envisioned by feminazis and very few women are as tough as men in a battlefield situation. Being in the midst of war time horrors where you might be killed is something that changes a man. It would change a woman too but the bad news for the NOW NAGS is gender isn’t interchangeable. If it was men, wouldn’t like women for their own reasons and refrain from seeking to protect them from danger.

NormanF on July 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Norman:
I know of at least one women in the IDF who ws assigned to an intelligence unit. She obviously could not tell me what she did, so for all I know she could have been a secretary, super spy or an analyst. I have no evidence for this, but I believe she was an analyst.
I have also heard of women getting some desireable roles training men, but that is very rare.
Lastly, on her blog, Caroline Glick states:
“From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, I served as Coordinator of Negotiations with the PLO in the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In this capacity I was a core member of IsraelĂ­s negotiating team with the Palestinians.”

I_am_me on July 29, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Women do not belong in the military and they have done nothing but weaken the military since they have been allowed into combat roles.
Do I need to remind you folks about what happened to Jessica Lynch in Iraq. She and her fellow female solders forgot to keep their guns clean and suffered for it when the enemy started firing at them.
When I was in Law Enforcement, it was the same thing. I used to tell the females that thought they could hack it let me field 20 guys against any 20 women and lets see who wins the battle.
It was so bad we had to have a roving male officer on duty at all times when a woman was on patrol to make sure she had back up real close. The powers at be did not want to have a female get her ass kicked on Patrol on the front page of the newspaper the next day. All this cost the taxpayers big bucks because of the extra staffing required.

ScottyDog on July 29, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Since that’s the case, maybe we can use women in the Military for entertainment, as strippers, hookers and so on.
And maybe NOW can provide us with the goods.
Is it true? Women who joined the Military had sex change to show more masculinity?
Hum, a girl with a bulged pants zipper, that’s scary!

Independent Conservative on July 29, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Norman Blitzer–
The currency has become so devalued on the word “conservative” that it is almost pointless to use the word anymore.
It *should* mean…
1. Limited government
2. Low taxes
3. Regulatory intrusion only on critical matters i.e. life and death
4. Supreme Court not acting as a super-legislative body
5. Limited foreign adventures
Everything else, including “family values” is not part of the original concept, although individual conservatives might hold an assortment of other positions.
And, let’s clear this one up: What is “conservative” about a “strong defense” exactly?
The strongest defense we ever had was built up under the king of the liberals–FDR. Sad to say, defense is just another govt boondoggle.

Red Ryder on July 29, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Maybe they can show the one-year recruits lounging in the maternity ward. It seems like more female service members wind up there than anywhere else.

c f on July 29, 2008 at 6:50 pm

I have no problem with military women being trained in combat so that they can protect themselves if the situation arises, but they should not be in combat units or sent to the front lines. When a female soldier is captured, we all are put on edge, much moreso than when a male soldier is captured. There’s just no point to having women in combat when there are so many other important roles they can fill which are more suited to their gender.
I will never forget Ahmadinijad (sp?) sneering at the British who “send mothers of toddlers to fight their battles.” It’s perhaps the only thing he said or will ever say that I agree with.

BanishThem on July 30, 2008 at 3:53 am

Debbie –
Over the last 25 years I have seen many changes in the military. Some I agree with and some I don’t. Gender is not an issue when it comes to poor performers in the military. Both males and females have equal opportunities to screw up.
But, the issue of women in the military is dead. there is no going back to an all-male force. so, for you to keep complaining about it is like beating a proverbial dead horse.
And if you need convincing that your gender can indeed hack it in the military, you only need to look to the Smith sisters: http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/archives/2008/07/072908-Families.aspx
I would be proud if they were my daughters.

rbb on July 30, 2008 at 8:08 am

rbb:
You said “Gender is not an issue when it comes to poor performers in the military.?
Really, I guess the fact that so many woman in the military are in the maternal wards has no effect on combat readiness.
I guess the fact they have reduced the physical standards so that woman can pass has no effect on unit readiness.
I guess that fact that woman in combat units have reduced the combat effectiveness of the units is a great example of gender having no effect on the military.
rbb, you have been drinking the PC kool aid.

ScottyDog on July 30, 2008 at 5:30 pm

ScottyDog –
Gender has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a person is a poor performer. In 22 years on active duty and 3 as a contractor, I have seen many screwups of both genders. How many years on Active Duty or in the Guard/Reserves do you base your opinion on?
The bottom line is that women are here to stay in the military and to be bitching about it is not going to solve anything.

rbb on July 31, 2008 at 7:42 am

I am way late on this, but it amazes me in 2009 so many people live in the Stone Ages. The fact is I can outshoot my husband who was not exposed to guns growing up and can outshoot many men I have encountered, hunted with, etc. When I work out, I have outlifted many men at my gym and some have outlifted me. It has to do with attitude and the individual, not the gender. The truth is some women join the military, as someone said, simply to pay off student loans or whatever. The military does not need these types of women, but on the other hand many males join simply because they do not want an education or are basically a thug and someone suggest they join the military. Not all females are cut out for the military without question, but not all males are either. My husband definitely is not and that is not intended as a putdown to him at all. He is good at a lot of things but fighting, etc are not one of them. What you have to do is use some common sense. Have the same requirments for everyone and make everyone prove they can live up to the standards. Does that mean that is going to eliminate some women because women usually (though not always) are the smaller, less aggressive sex? Of course it does, but there are some women who will meet the expectation as well as some, but not all men. To deny women altogether is sexist and stupid. Base it on the individual and yes women should be eligible for the draft just like men.

Katina Lee on January 7, 2009 at 2:46 pm

We are kicking this topic around on our blog at the following link:
http://www.surveymagnet.com/2010/03/should-women-be-allowed-to-hold-combat-jobs-in-the-military/
Come join the discussion.

SM on August 25, 2010 at 11:41 am

Clearly none of you have ever been to the military. Freaking losers hiding behind their monitors. I want to see you big strong manly man, go against a military woman. Let’s see how many seconds she will take to destroy you.

Lose weights fatties and join the military before talking crap about our sisters in arms.

O-5 on February 15, 2013 at 2:06 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field