The pro-feminist bias of the media can clearly be seen in any coverage of the topic of women in the armed services. If you keep a file on news stories and features on this subject, the editorial message leaps out at you: women now perform equally with men, and a fully-integrated coed army is the army of the future.
When reporters and feature writers cover this subject, they simply don’t interview those who think that the coed army has produced major problems and, indeed, is highly discriminatory to men. These articles simply omit telling the truth that men and women in the army are NOT held to the same standards of ability or performance.
For example, the current physical fitness standards reveal widely different requirements for men and women in the 17-21 age group. Men must do 42 pushups, women only 18. The minimum time for men to do the two-mile run is 15 minutes, 45 seconds, but women are allowed to take 18 minutes, 45 seconds. Pull-ups have been eliminated from the physical fitness chart, probably because few women are able to do even one pull-up.
To look at another differential in treatment between men and women, I will share with you a typical letter I’ve received from readers. You won’t see these views expressed in news or feature stories, or even in letters-to-the-editor columns, because they are contrary to feminist dogma.
“I’m writing you about the benefits which are enjoyed by many active-duty women in the military. All of these benefits, of course, are paid for by the taxpayers. Since when is the military supposed to be Big Brother to thousands of women in uniform who choose to have babies and expect the government to accommodate them in terms of long-term paid leave, not only after the child is born, but also before! After the child is born, these women demand that their units accommodate them so they can have their cake and eat it, too.
“I am talking about the demand to relieve them of guard duty, overnight field training, and other duties which would prevent them from going home at 5:00 p.m. sharp. This, of course, forces the active-duty males to take up the woman’s slack as well as do their own work. In effect, the male’s workload is increased twice as much.
“This governmental pampering of active-duty women has really caused a morale problem in the services. My husband, a platoon sergeant and military instructor, tells many horror stories of taxpayer-paid abuses committed by these women.
“Not only is it unfair, as well as a drain on the taxpayers, but I believe the fundamental issue is this: What are these men and women in the military for? Is it to fight for our cherished freedom and way of life, or is it because there’s a big daddy out there who will always take care of them no matter how much time they take off, thus shirking their duties and shifting them to another soldier or sailor?
“Not only that, but there is no decrease in their paycheck. So, what it boils down to is that the military person whose responsibilities are increased does not get any extra rewards for this imposition, while his female counterpart is getting the same rate of pay while shopping at the PX or watching soap operas.
“Isn’t it about time that taxpayers should be relieved of this unfair burden? Isn’t it time that the military should go back to the business of defending American freedom and interests, instead of turning the American military establishment into a pseudo-socialized form of paternalism?
“America has a military force to be proud of, as recruitment and retention rates are very high. But if we continue to pamper those who have very little interest in carrying out their number-one mission and use the military as a means of subsidizing their lifestyle, even when immoral, then the services will become nothing more than a glorified welfare system.
“For benefits, the government should stick to cost-of-living increases and basic medical benefits. Taxpayers’ monies should be spent on the essentials, and quit expecting them to subsidize illegitimacy and leisure time.
“Forget spending millions of dollars to build army child-care facilities. It is tragic to see tiny infants in cribs hoping for a little maternal affection from the daycare workers. Incidentally, in the child-care field, the turnover rate of personnel is extremely high, so these poor babies will never be able to form an attachment to any of these workers. Should we be subsidizing this?
“I say that it’s time to stop babying active-duty women, and if they choose to bear children, then they should be forced out of the army. We used to do that years ago, but thanks to the liberal feminists, the government changed its policies.”
The American public deserves to have these issues discussed in the media instead of swept under the rug and given the silent treatment.
