Bearing Children Versus Bearing Arms

Bearing Children Versus Bearing Arms

Saga of Warrior Princess

from

Arms holding Children to Arms Holding Weapons

Every society and subculture has identifiable divisions of labor between the sexes with its sole objective being to foster nurturing family units capable of procreation, child rearing practices that promote pleasant interdependence and survival of the species.

Traditional values as spoken in phrases like: “Keep the home fires burning,” in a time when no matches existed to easily rekindle warmth for cooking and comfort and its context is assumed in reference to the absence of men gone to war close by or distant is well understood. “A woman’s place is in the home,” raises the blood pressure of the modern liberated woman, but in most instances the female gender does a better job of making sure all the logistics of home life are attended to and making sure that little Johnny and Jane have brushed their teeth and picked up their room’s clutter.

Women should celebrate their genetic and learned abilities to juggle multiple dimensions of responsibility while pursuing some semblance of happiness during their over burdened journey through life from carefree adolescence to aging grandmother with lots of presents to be picked out and given at Christmas, birthdays, weddings and flowers sent in mourning of dead loved ones. From taxi drivers to Presidents, men without women gracing their daily presence to prompt, encourage and manage details, all men great or small would be overloaded with the complexities of daily living and their ability to focus on the least and most grandiose schemes could be eclipsed by the mundane without such support.

“Great men are supported by awesome and strong women,” fact or fable? The test of time confirms its validity. Without their loving, attentive guidance and emotional support, many men would end up self centered, living as bums without any strong sense of purpose or direction. The responsibilities of raising a family tends to keep a man focused and he accomplishes far more than he would have without such driving motivators.

So how did our nation’s female military personnel change from traditional supportive non-combatant roles as clerks, supply officers and nurses to warrior princesses in full body armor touting macho weapons and directing a deadly rain of serious machine gun fire atop mobile vehicles?

Wasn’t the risk of death while bearing children sacrifice enough; blood loss at childbirth versus bleeding to death on the battlefield and the risk of losing one’s own life for the life of another the most noble gift of all? The most recent approximate statistics from the CDC indicates that 1 woman in 1000 live births dies during or shortly after the child bearing process as compared to an estimated 2 female military personnel per 1000 in the Iraqi theater of war dying from March of 2003 to March 04, according to estimated DOD troop numbers and reported female fatalities.

Men have been dying at the rate of 1 in 100 over the approximate same period when the 1,354 total fatalities to date minus about 24 females is analyzed and compared. Obviously if one looks for confirmation and reasonably credible statistics, there appears to be differences in presented statistics, so the ratios presented in this article are just a general guide for understanding the comparative risk that females take when they bear children and bear arms in wartime.

525 women died in 1999 according to the CDC’s latest available pregnancy related maternal morbidity statistics. Multiply that times the twelve years since combat operation Desert Storm and that gives one a more comprehensive understanding of the sacrifice women make in our culture and there are other countries with lower maternal death rates.

Approximately 6,000 women died related to pregnancy from 1991 to 2003 without ever making the front page or the primetime evening news. No CDC statistics could be found regarding young fertile men dying of complications related to vaginal ejaculation and if it had been documented beyond a shadow of a doubt, that single event and or multiple deaths would have been on Entertainment Tonight.

Interdependency and teamwork is essential to the survival of the human race and even in the act of procreation, the sperm represents a very small contribution in material, time and risk compared to the women’s role of carrying in utero a fetus for nine months with significant risk of complications and death at bearing of man’s offspring into the air of life.

Man’s role of protecting his immediate family, at risk of losing his own life and joining forces with other men to cooperatively fight in defense of a community or nation is expected, but traditionally represents a lower risk statistically over a span of time than what the female gender may face multiple times over the span of her fertile years.

More women have died in America over the last fifteen years in support of bringing new citizens to life than men have died related to military actions at home or abroad to include the two major conflicts in Iraq and all those men and women who died on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center.

The arts to include illustrated comic books, video games, primetime broadcast and blockbuster cinematography have portrayed titillating images of women in various stages of combat readiness and undress, engaged in macho defensive and offensive maneuvers in an attempt to upstage male counterparts.

Agent OO7, licensed to kill has met his match and she is as beautifully gallant as he is handsomely brave.

Women have always died in times of war while serving formally or informally and now warrior princesses trained in the art of war have acquired a taste for blood and petitioned the American military establishment for the “right” to engage the enemy with deadly fire power. Full metal jacket in the new century requires modification to fit the female form and she claims to be willing to die proudly in combat zones for her country’s political purpose in foreign wars.

The persistent clamoring of this female minority has won this democratic victory and only if a woman is pregnant is she not allowed to be assigned to duty in combat zones. Mothers with children are not exempt and must make arrangements for the care of their children, even if no father is available to care for them in her absence. Let me restate again in no uncertain terms, as I understand the military’s policy; women in the armed services that have children are forced to serve in a combat zone as assigned. There have been reports in the popular media, of mothers with children at home, serving in Iraq under less than safe conditions related to exposure to the insurgency and exposure to the potential of rape by friendly forces and or the enemy when taken captive to serve as sex slaves to jihad man gods. Whether or not rumors circulated through the ranks of the twelve to fifteen thousand women now serving in Iraq are true about rewards being offered by the insurgents for captured American women to serve as enslaved sex objects, perception is reality and this adds to the psychological impact of war on women in unsecured combat zones.

These women had to leave their children in the care of extended family members or with husbands, embarking on dangerous military operations abroad in the most historic fighting faction infested region on the planet, partly due to the unspoken pressure of feminists that sought this right without seeking the opinions of many of the women already in the military at the time that policy was devised. Men and women in the military are immersed in organized peer pressure and that dynamic can dictate actions that run counter to personal values. Submission to the local commander and the Chief is paramount and extensive resocialization resources are used during basic training to achieve that end. The Armed Forces could not exist nor be effective in any small or great way without this expectation to submit and be ninety-nine percent compliant with orders.

If the armed services culture was any other way, chaos would ensue and all could lose their lives unless this principle is followed. That’s the Army! Draftee or volunteer, the expectation of unquestioned service is foremost and necessary. Whistle blowers in the Army could be blown away. Who’s going to complain or tell? Silence just might be the only safe ticket home in country. Once a woman hits the ground in Iraq, recourse is limited and core values that might have found an audience at home, no longer apply. War is hell, not safe haven in heavenly homes.

American core values dictate some sense of responsibility towards even the unknown neighbor and certainly we could agree not to support cultural events that model overtly aggressive behavior in children as witnessed in the hoards of stone throwing Palestinian adolescents and gun touting children of third world countries.

Women’s unique ability to bear children, nurture them and launch adolescents into adulthood, by default empowers them with the title of supreme being, ranked just a little below the angelic host itself as if you could taste the pleasures of Heaven in her arms. American women modeling the trappings of the warrior princess culture to the world’s young impressionable adolescent girls is a dangerous policy for all mankind.

A formal precedent has been set allowing women to serve as combatants in Iraq per their petition, but maybe the larger American public should reconsider the role of female volunteers in any capacity where there is a high risk of injury and death. Even driving a supply truck in convoys is obviously high risk in Iraq where guerilla warfare is the method of choice used by extremists who avoid the formal trappings of well marked enemy war machines and uniforms to assist with identification and annihilation by Coalition forces.

Sometimes decisions made based on what feels fair or seems the right Democratic thing to do, can not stand up to core principles that have withstood the test of time and are reaffirmed based on new experiences gained by those participating in this grand and enlightening era. Like God, the generals of men sometime allow humans to experience the folly of their errs in order to learn lessons that have been made to appear old fashioned and out of touch with the modern woman. The survivors of battle learn lessons not taught in classrooms or books.

American soldiers will come home, the smoke of conflict will dissipate, allowing us to reevaluate our present policies regarding the role of strong women in society and use wisdom in preserving this unique resource; lifting her role as mother and spouse higher than the fabrications of Hollywood’s best spin for a fantasy “Warrior Princess.”

Inspiration for this article comes from viewing the picture of a mother cuddling her three small children, ages 2, 3 & 4, prior to leaving for duty in Iraq as a truck driver. Her disabled vet husband cares for the children in her absence and he experiences many sleepless nights worried about his wife “womaning” a machine gun, arms exposed atop a moving vehicle. Her ill fitting body armor may spare her vital organs, but will she have arms to hold and fingers to caress the children of her womb if she makes it home?

Remember the veterans of childbirth and the countless women who gave their life so a child could live.

Grave stones mark the graves of brave warriors past and present, but no bugles sound or flags adorn coffins of mothers who have died giving life at birth to a child.

Approximately 6000 women died related to pregnancy and childbirth in a twelve year period between the first and present war in Iraq. Is not their willingness to risk life itself in this manner, noble enough to win accolades and be awarded medals for extreme bravery in extraordinary circumstance far beyond what the typical man could endure?

Larry E. Park, The Questioning Dreamer

Email: TheDreamer@OceansRest.com