If we had equality, would this matter?
Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that if we had equality would death matter or not, what I am wondering is that by reading this article, it is almost like the newspaper people are trying to get some sort of reaction from the Canadian people. First Canadian woman killed in Afghanistan was killed in action at 6:55 p.m., May 16th, 2006, 24 kilometres west of Kandahar city in a 'fierce fire fight'. Apparently this is also the first Canadian woman soldier to have been killed in any combat zone since the second world war.
Granted, it is a great loss when a soldier dies in battle (but also it could be said that is a great loss since in that same fire fight that claimed the life of Capt. Nichola Goddard, there were also numerous taliban insergents that were killed...but, then again, since we are 'we' and they are 'they' it really doesn't matter how many of 'they' are killed, but it hurts us when one of 'we' are killed in battle). But I digress and back to my point. There have been 17 Canadian deaths in Afghanistan since 2002, but all of sudden this death is really news worth. First woman dies in battle. If she is a soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces, and she is an equal (since she has raised in rank to Captain and not just 'head nurse' or something chauvanistically feminist restricted) then shouldn't the caption be reading "18th Canadian dies in Afghanistan". Does it really matter that the 18th is a female? Do we have different body counts now, Male and Female lines? Is the media trying to get a certain feeling of bravado and hatred from Canadians for the fighting enemy in Afghanistan? "you can kill a diplomat and 16 male soldiers, but you are now killing our WOMEN??!!!??! you bastards...quick, Martha, get my shot gun and boots. I am going over there now to kick some Afghannie ass!" Or are they trying to get us to feel so enraged that women are dying that we are going to insist that the gov't send over more troops to help protect the soldiers. After all, male soldiers die, big deal...men are born and raised with courage and stupidity (more one than the other in some cases) so therefore they are meant to be killed in battle. That is the way it was, and that is the way it shall be forever. But when women start to die, well that just means that there needs to be more protection.
Or, is this a ploy to get the people to take sides against Canadian presence in Afghanistan? Yeah, men can die playing soldier, we dont mind...but you dont go killing our women. 16 men die, no big whoop, but one woman dies, this is not a game anymore, this is damn serious...pull out and stop the blood shed. But then again, when it comes to the media, their only main objective is to report the news and then let the people dece what to do with it.
Then my other question, to go with the headline, is do you think that this being said and the articles written in this fashion, that the feminist movement will raise a stink and say "she is not a female that died in battle, she is a soldier that died in battle..how DARE you single her gender out in the article...you should mention a captain died, a canadian died, the name of the soldier and her age if it is applicable but you should not DARE make a fuss about her gender..she is a human being, not a mascot or martyr to put forth in your damned papers". Personally, I will say 'no, the feminist movement will not raise a stink or raise a fuss about her gender being reported and displayed'. Why? you ask...I am glad you asked. It is because by mentioning her gender and making it known that she died, first female Canadian to die in a combat zone since WWII, that only shows that woman are becoming a driving force in the military. If she had been a nurse that died in battle, a Canadian female bystander/journalist or even a receptionist in the field office, then they would drive a stink about it because that only displays that women are being kept in 'female provicient' male chauvanistic jobs. But a CAPTIAN in the army! a woman, moving up in ranks, in charge of men under her and can bark orders to a group of soldiers and they have to jump to those orders without a 'oh yes ma'am, now show us what is under those fatigues!'. A woman gaining influence. I bet the only thing that the feminist movement wants now is a female general or admiral or someone of much higher rank to die so that they can point to the papers and say "damn, us women are moving up in the world! we are becoming a force...see girls, dont let men keep you down, you too could become a captain in the army and get shot at!" These articles that report her gender so highly are only helping he feminist cause, and when something helps the cause, no matter what the reason, it should be upheld and never shunned.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n0517137A.xml
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/05/17/1585138.html
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2006/05/17/1584678.html
Granted, it is a great loss when a soldier dies in battle (but also it could be said that is a great loss since in that same fire fight that claimed the life of Capt. Nichola Goddard, there were also numerous taliban insergents that were killed...but, then again, since we are 'we' and they are 'they' it really doesn't matter how many of 'they' are killed, but it hurts us when one of 'we' are killed in battle). But I digress and back to my point. There have been 17 Canadian deaths in Afghanistan since 2002, but all of sudden this death is really news worth. First woman dies in battle. If she is a soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces, and she is an equal (since she has raised in rank to Captain and not just 'head nurse' or something chauvanistically feminist restricted) then shouldn't the caption be reading "18th Canadian dies in Afghanistan". Does it really matter that the 18th is a female? Do we have different body counts now, Male and Female lines? Is the media trying to get a certain feeling of bravado and hatred from Canadians for the fighting enemy in Afghanistan? "you can kill a diplomat and 16 male soldiers, but you are now killing our WOMEN??!!!??! you bastards...quick, Martha, get my shot gun and boots. I am going over there now to kick some Afghannie ass!" Or are they trying to get us to feel so enraged that women are dying that we are going to insist that the gov't send over more troops to help protect the soldiers. After all, male soldiers die, big deal...men are born and raised with courage and stupidity (more one than the other in some cases) so therefore they are meant to be killed in battle. That is the way it was, and that is the way it shall be forever. But when women start to die, well that just means that there needs to be more protection.
Or, is this a ploy to get the people to take sides against Canadian presence in Afghanistan? Yeah, men can die playing soldier, we dont mind...but you dont go killing our women. 16 men die, no big whoop, but one woman dies, this is not a game anymore, this is damn serious...pull out and stop the blood shed. But then again, when it comes to the media, their only main objective is to report the news and then let the people dece what to do with it.
Then my other question, to go with the headline, is do you think that this being said and the articles written in this fashion, that the feminist movement will raise a stink and say "she is not a female that died in battle, she is a soldier that died in battle..how DARE you single her gender out in the article...you should mention a captain died, a canadian died, the name of the soldier and her age if it is applicable but you should not DARE make a fuss about her gender..she is a human being, not a mascot or martyr to put forth in your damned papers". Personally, I will say 'no, the feminist movement will not raise a stink or raise a fuss about her gender being reported and displayed'. Why? you ask...I am glad you asked. It is because by mentioning her gender and making it known that she died, first female Canadian to die in a combat zone since WWII, that only shows that woman are becoming a driving force in the military. If she had been a nurse that died in battle, a Canadian female bystander/journalist or even a receptionist in the field office, then they would drive a stink about it because that only displays that women are being kept in 'female provicient' male chauvanistic jobs. But a CAPTIAN in the army! a woman, moving up in ranks, in charge of men under her and can bark orders to a group of soldiers and they have to jump to those orders without a 'oh yes ma'am, now show us what is under those fatigues!'. A woman gaining influence. I bet the only thing that the feminist movement wants now is a female general or admiral or someone of much higher rank to die so that they can point to the papers and say "damn, us women are moving up in the world! we are becoming a force...see girls, dont let men keep you down, you too could become a captain in the army and get shot at!" These articles that report her gender so highly are only helping he feminist cause, and when something helps the cause, no matter what the reason, it should be upheld and never shunned.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n0517137A.xml
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/05/17/1585138.html
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2006/05/17/1584678.html
posted by Capt_Canuck at 8:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home