Women and Children first! Oh, wait...

Recently, Australia decided that all people being equal and capable of making their own decisions, they would relax the prohibition against women serving actively on the battlefield, and make all branches of the military equal in terms of gender. I applaud their decision, and hope it's implimented everywhere.

And then I saw that some feminist groups are 'torn' on the subject, citing concerns about how women are more 'sensitive' and 'physically weaker' than men, and thus shouldn't be in active roles on the battlefield.

I cannot tell you how pig-biting mad this makes me.

Here we are, the feminists, the ones who are supposed to be tearing down the destructive, miserable, restrictive world of the patriachy, and these idiotic morons are propping it up! This statement that women should be restricted in their roles in active service, is as good as telling us that women can't be relied upon to make informed decisions about their lives and what they are capable of, and thus should be descriminated against for their own good.

Sound familiar?

Oh yeah, really damn familiar, I think we've heard this line something like ten million times where women's rights are concerned.

There will be limits on who can serve actively on the battlefield, of course there will be. You will have to be mentally stable, physically fit, be able to withstand the rigours of combat, to carry equipment and use it, etc. What it won't have is 'and you have to be a guy'. Yes, it will be harder for women to fulfill these criteria, our bodies do put us at a disadvantage. But we can do it, and if we want to do it, we should be able to.

This, really comes back to the unfair advantages given by the patriarchy. And yes, women do have them. Not as many as men do, but they do do exist. Just ask Fathers 4 Justice. I knew a guy who was a member, and he was only allowed to see his children once a year for a few days. When my parents divorced, my mother could have made sure we never saw our father again (she didn't, but that was here choice). But some feminist branches are curously silent on that front, because in this the patriarchy has given us an advantage. 'Women's roles are to be mothers', it trumpets, which given women who want to be mothers an advantage.

Look people, this isn't fair. Our aim is to make things fair, but that means we have to throw off our golden chains as well as our iron ones. If we want women to have equal representation in the workplace, we have to let women be free to choose where that workplace can be, even if it puts them in danger. If we want the option of have fullfilling careers, we have to give up the automatic custody of our children. If we want to be taken seriously as equals, then 'women and children first' will have to become just 'children first'.

Women and Children first! Oh, wait...

Recently, Australia decided that all people being equal and capable of making their own decisions, they would relax the prohibition against women serving actively on the battlefield, and make all branches of the military equal in terms of gender. I applaud their decision, and hope it's implimented everywhere.

And then I saw that some feminist groups are 'torn' on the subject, citing concerns about how women are more 'sensitive' and 'physically weaker' than men, and thus shouldn't be in active roles on the battlefield.

I cannot tell you how pig-biting mad this makes me.

Here we are, the feminists, the ones who are supposed to be tearing down the destructive, miserable, restrictive world of the patriachy, and these idiotic morons are propping it up! This statement that women should be restricted in their roles in active service, is as good as telling us that women can't be relied upon to make informed decisions about their lives and what they are capable of, and thus should be descriminated against for their own good.

Sound familiar?

Oh yeah, really damn familiar, I think we've heard this line something like ten million times where women's rights are concerned.

There will be limits on who can serve actively on the battlefield, of course there will be. You will have to be mentally stable, physically fit, be able to withstand the rigours of combat, to carry equipment and use it, etc. What it won't have is 'and you have to be a guy'. Yes, it will be harder for women to fulfill these criteria, our bodies do put us at a disadvantage. But we can do it, and if we want to do it, we should be able to.

This, really comes back to the unfair advantages given by the patriarchy. And yes, women do have them. Not as many as men do, but they do do exist. Just ask Fathers 4 Justice. I knew a guy who was a member, and he was only allowed to see his children once a year for a few days. When my parents divorced, my mother could have made sure we never saw our father again (she didn't, but that was here choice). But some feminist branches are curously silent on that front, because in this the patriarchy has given us an advantage. 'Women's roles are to be mothers', it trumpets, which given women who want to be mothers an advantage.

Look people, this isn't fair. Our aim is to make things fair, but that means we have to throw off our golden chains as well as our iron ones. If we want women to have equal representation in the workplace, we have to let women be free to choose where that workplace can be, even if it puts them in danger. If we want the option of have fullfilling careers, we have to give up the automatic custody of our children. If we want to be taken seriously as equals, then 'women and children first' will have to become just 'children first'.