Comments on: Rosie the Riveter has come a long way since she first raised her hammer in 1943!

By: marile

marile — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:37:23 +0000

Rebeccca wouldn’t it be great to need no war. just building schools and educate people. In Afghanistan schools were built to let girls study together with boys, but the ruling men would not allow girls to attend school. I’ m sure you heard about the acid attacks on girls faces, the other attempts to harm female students who attended school. Force is needed sometimes. or think of the war in former Jugoslavia, where it took years until the US got involved, Nato stood by and the horrors of the Serbs just kept going, raping, killing pregnant women, a genocide right in the middle of Europe. there was not oil or other attractive incentives to get involved and without the US war involvement the atrocities would not have stopped. the current terror coming from islamic extremists is essentially a war against our rights as women ( as i see it). and particularly shocking even some self described moderates participate in “honor killing” as the recent case in New York taught us.

By: Rebecca Cantrell

Rebecca Cantrell — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:01:44 +0000

I’m against all war unless it is absolutely necessary to defend yourself or to defend another country against someone like Hitler. I think we could do a lot more in both Pakistan and Afghanistan by guaranteeing free liberal education for all children so that parents are not as tempted to send their sons to the madrassas because they can’t afford to feed and educate them. Radical Islamism, in my opinion, is being fueled by real injustice suffered by people in that part of the world. Their governments are often corrupt and abusive. Often their only solace is in religion. Unfortunately, some of their clerics are manipulating the situation and the people are caught in the middle. For me, the goal isn’t that women be better soldiers. The goal is that society be more compassionate and reasonable. Then we will all be more able to pick and chose the sex role characteristics we feel comfortable expressing.

By: Nancy Kallitechnis

Nancy Kallitechnis — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:01:28 +0000

World War II was the first war in which women played an “official” – read: directive – role in the war effort.

Actually, before WWII women played leadership roles in the military. For example, Joan of Arc led an army into battle. Also, in the United States women fought alongside men during the Revolutionary War. About 7% of our army was women who performed a variety or roles ranging from traditional nursing duties to direct combat (America and Its Peoples: A Mosaic in the Making).

I’m reminded of that line in “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” where the wise Greek mother says: The man may be the head of the family, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she wants.

I believe that’s a sexist statement because it’s the brain that does the thinking, so by saying men are the brains and women are the neck it implies women aren’t smart. Also, the brain is part of the nervous system that controls movement so it is actually the brain that directs the neck to move.

Nevertheless, I agree that women are helping the war effort in unique ways. The Baltimore Sun wrote a great article about this subject:

“I don’t know a single Marine combat service support unit in Iraq who could operate without their female Marines,” says Lt. Col. Jeff Goodes, a Marine officer who recently returned from his third tour in Iraq. When asked, Staff Sgt James Baker responded, “We didn’t look at them as females serving. … We just saw another Marine.”

Commanders in al-Anbar Province expanded the role of the Lioness Program – originally intended to provide a culturally sensitive option for searching Iraqi women at checkpoints – to attaching the specially trained female Marines with the Army Operations Team and Civil Affairs Group on missions that interact with the local populations.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne.....4667.story