Not-so-funny Friday headline

allgirl.jpg
“Girls,” huh?

and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

22 Comments

  1. Posted June 29, 2007 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    And surprisingly enough, the “girls” are actually competant at and committed to their jobs. Imagine. Girls. Doing stuff. How adorable.

  2. Posted June 29, 2007 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Gee, shouldn’t those girls be dressed in pink instead of blue? It’d be so much cuter.
    Bah.

  3. Posted June 29, 2007 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    I think more important than the terminology is the news that they’re doing a great job. In the UK we have long known that women are better drivers than men because they are more cautious and double check their decisions before acting on them. We are also pretty tired of losing troops to “friendly fire”. Maybe we need more troops who don’t make snap decisions (and trolls out there – don’t bother telling me snap decisions are needed to save lives – a lot of friendly fire is airplanes shooting jeeps!). We could also use a bit less of this.

  4. Shinobi
    Posted June 29, 2007 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Wow, the way this peice was written really reflects the bias of the writer.
    They go straight into how much they miss home, and don’t bring up all their accomplishments and why they are necessary until the end. Them missing home is SO not the most interesting part of this story. (Additionally, I’m sure they aren’t the only troops to ever be homesick.)
    This quote makes me sad:
    “I do miss them and get emotional, but it’s not good for police to get emotional is it?” What kind of person would she be if she wasn’t sad about missing her family/kids? As long as she can still be effective at her job I don’t see why it is bad to occasionally cry because you miss home, and it makes me sad that she thinks there is something wrong with it.

  5. audrey
    Posted June 29, 2007 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    While I did like that it was mentioned at the end of the article, the idea of women soldiers being better equipped with dealing with the after effects of violence, particulary rape, the author then had to go and describe it as “softer, more people orientated work”. Cause there’s nothing hard the after effects of rape.

  6. Posted June 29, 2007 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    This isn’t the first time they were mentioned in the news. They also got mad props for selling the most cookies.
    /sarcasm

  7. sedmunds
    Posted June 29, 2007 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Ugh, I’m really disappointed that this was from the BBC.

  8. ponies and rainbows
    Posted June 29, 2007 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    Ugh, I’m really disappointed that this was from the BBC.
    Sadly, I’m beginning to realize that the BBC is a festering pus-pool of woman hate. They’re the ones who wrote that article a few months ago about how women are “getting themselves raped” by drinking, and they aired that reality-TV rape trial. It’s no wonder Brits are so angry about paying licensing fees to them — they’re not even a credible news agency anymore.

  9. sedmunds
    Posted June 29, 2007 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Ponies and Rainbows -
    Thanks for the info. I think I was drawn the the BBC out of my frustration with all the Ammerican major media outlets.

  10. Lisa27
    Posted June 29, 2007 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    when will the world stop being surprised when women actually accomplish something besides a baking a perfect cherry pie?

  11. Merletto
    Posted June 29, 2007 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    Well, I’m angry at BBC, but I’m really happy about the all-female unit. Not only is rape a problem among the people there and elsewhere, but UN peacekeepers sometimes rape the people they’re supposed to be protecting. I don’t know how widespread the problem is, but I read about a few instances of it in Haiti. And if I remember correctly, the UN can’t prosecute those men, they have to leave it up to their home countries. It’s just terrible.

  12. Itazura
    Posted June 30, 2007 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    The article (from BBC) seems to completely leave out the fact that these women could pretty much kick any body’s ass in a straight up fight. The opinion in the US military is that these women could probably carry their own against SEALS. They (the UN all female unit) are obvious well trained, highly skilled, and deadly intelligent. Brains are more sought after than brawn in a modern army.
    Apparently sisters at arms, are a lot more powerful than brothers at arms!!!
    I always thought it would be a great idea to organize an all female, totally legal, private, international mercenary army for that very reason. The biggest advantages of female soldiers is that they don’t chase prostitutes, drink little, don’t rape, and for the most part stay away from drugs, which were all areas of complaints that were hurled at the male UN soldiers in Liberia before the Indian women arrived.

  13. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted June 30, 2007 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    I don’t know about the “drink little” part. I know plenty of women who drink heavily, and I’d be surprised if the types of women who go into the army don’t sometimes do that.

  14. Peepers
    Posted June 30, 2007 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    “All girl UN squad” makes them sound like cheerleaders. I am used to hearing any group of UN peacekeepers called a “peacekeeping force.” Did “…girl force” sound too improbable or “…woman force” too disconcerting to use?

  15. Phlegmatic
    Posted June 30, 2007 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Itazura, while I think its great these women are doing their jobs really well (and also proving a point), I dont think that line of thinking is so great. It put me off when reading the article, that there was a suggestion that women make better soldiers. That kind of behaviour between men is what I believe is normally described as a dick-measuring contest. There is no need to compare their performance against male soldiers in general, or other, completely different army units. Its good enough to know that they are doing their job to the letter, if you ask me.
    And I dont think there is any point in comparing these women to other military units, particularly ones like the Navy SEALs. Mainly because I was under the impression units like Navy SEALs undertake completely different kinds of operations to what this UN unit does, since the rules change drastically between Peacekeeping and Counter Terrorism, etc.
    And also in reference to Cruella’s point about women drivers, I believe it shouldn’t be a question of gender, just good drivers and bad drivers, or good soldiers and bad ones. (One reason why Im putting off learning to drive, as I don’t want to pay to be fucked over, just because Im a young man, and other young men sometimes crash their cars). I didnt even need feminism to teach me that much, since I just dont like arrogance. (And for the record, Im not accusing anyone here of being arrogant, just speaking generally).

  16. Itazura
    Posted June 30, 2007 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t compare the All women peacekeeping UN unit to SEALs. I said it is the US military’s opinion that they could carry their own against SEALs (if the 2 every had t fight each other). Actually I should not have said that, because that is the unofficial opinion of personal within the US military, and not from the US military as a whole. I have been keeping tabs on the Indian peace keeping women every since they arrived, and the general opinion of them is that they are well trained, highly skilled, and deadly intelligent. They (the all female UN unit) have shown an impressive level of team cohesion, are extremely well disciplined, and carry out their assigned tasks admirably. Their extension to stay 6 more months was no fluke. They are heroins back home, and they have become the pride of the UN. And yes they have gotten into monumentally less trouble than their male counterparts did. The UN claims that the Indian all women unit was developed so that they could have a unit that was more approachable in troubled spots, but the real reason for their assignment was that the UN is tired of receiving rape, theft, drunkenness, and war profiteering accusations directed at their male service menbers.
    In short women are a lot less troublesome than men, and in the media age (where nothing goes unnoticed) a military unit that stays out of trouble is invaluable.

  17. Itazura
    Posted June 30, 2007 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t compare the All women peacekeeping UN unit to SEALs. I said it is the US military’s opinion that they could carry their own against SEALs (if the 2 ever had to fight each other). Actually I should not have said that, because that is the unofficial opinion of personal within the US military, and not from the US military as a whole. I have been keeping tabs on the Indian peace keeping women ever since they arrived in Liberia (no I have not been to Liberia, but I get a lot of news reports), and the general opinion of them is that they are well trained, highly skilled, and deadly intelligent. They (the all female UN unit) have shown an impressive level of team cohesion, are extremely well disciplined, and carry out their assigned tasks admirably. Their extension to stay 6 more months was no fluke. They are heroins back home, and they have become the pride of the UN. And yes they have gotten into monumentally less trouble than their male counterparts did. The UN claims that the Indian all women unit was developed so that they could have a unit that was more approachable in troubled spots, but the real reason for their assignment was that the UN is tired of receiving rape, theft, drunkenness, and war profiteering accusations directed at their male service members.
    In short women are a lot less troublesome than men, and in the media age (where nothing goes unnoticed) a military unit that stays out of trouble is invaluable.

  18. werechick
    Posted July 2, 2007 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    Well done for them. I wonder though, if similar plans can be used in the future in other places and by forces other than the UN. Maybe someday, with Iraq done, and US concentration on Afghanistan, it’ll be women doing the peace keeping. Maybe.

  19. Posted July 6, 2007 at 1:49 am | Permalink

    I agree with much of what’s been posted above.
    However, how come nobody has suggested the novel idea of GENDER INTEGRATED UN PEACEKEEPING UNITS?
    Why is the choice limited to either all male units, or all female detachments – why can’t gender integrated miltary units be used?
    It’s not like there aren’t qualified women soldiers – hell, it appears that this group of Indian Army Military Police Officers are probably OVERQUALIFIED.
    And wouldn’t the presence of a large number of women soldiers in a unit – and, in particular, the presence of female N.C.O.s and commissioned officers in leadership positions in a coed unit – work to prevent their male comrades from abusing female civilians?
    I’d also have to temper some of the sentiments here about how women soldiers would somehow be more moral than their male comrades.
    Admittedly, they wouldn’t be raping or sexually exploiting female civilians.
    But, I’m sure that women soldiers would be as prone to corruption, theft, drunkenness or drug use as the men, if they were given the opportunity.
    I’m also taken aback by this unit’s explicit orders to not associate with the civilian population when they’re off duty.
    Shouldn’t a police force in a democratic society be an integral part of the community they’re policing, rather than an alien force imposed from outside?
    In my experience, one of the major reasons that inner city youth of color here in the United States have such a high distrust level for police is that the cops do not live in the neighborhoods, but commute in from outside.
    They are seen as an army of occupation, and are viewed with hostility.
    Since this unit aren’t even from the same country they’re policing, it would be natural for Liberians to view them as an occupation force.
    That’s exactly what’s happened with the UN police force in Haiti.
    Does the UN want to repeat the same mistake here?

  20. Posted July 6, 2007 at 1:52 am | Permalink

    I agree with much of what’s been posted above.
    However, how come nobody has suggested the novel idea of GENDER INTEGRATED UN PEACEKEEPING UNITS?
    Why is the choice limited to either all male units, or all female detachments – why can’t gender integrated miltary units be used?
    It’s not like there aren’t qualified women soldiers – hell, it appears that this group of Indian Army Military Police Officers are probably OVERQUALIFIED.
    And wouldn’t the presence of a large number of women soldiers in a unit – and, in particular, the presence of female N.C.O.s and commissioned officers in leadership positions in a coed unit – work to prevent their male comrades from abusing female civilians?
    I’d also have to temper some of the sentiments here about how women soldiers would somehow be more moral than their male comrades.
    Admittedly, they wouldn’t be raping or sexually exploiting female civilians.
    But, I’m sure that women soldiers would be as prone to corruption, theft, drunkenness or drug use as the men, if they were given the opportunity.
    I’m also taken aback by this unit’s explicit orders to not associate with the civilian population when they’re off duty.
    Shouldn’t a police force in a democratic society be an integral part of the community they’re policing, rather than an alien force imposed from outside?
    In my experience, one of the major reasons that inner city youth of color here in the United States have such a high distrust level for police is that the cops do not live in the neighborhoods, but commute in from outside.
    They are seen as an army of occupation, and are viewed with hostility.
    Since this unit aren’t even from the same country they’re policing, it would be natural for Liberians to view them as an occupation force.
    That’s exactly what’s happened with the UN police force in Haiti.
    Does the UN want to repeat the same mistake here?

  21. Posted July 6, 2007 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Here’s a novel idea – instead of having single sex UN peacekeeping units, why not have coed detachments, with male and female soldiers serving side by side?
    I’m truly astonished that none of the other posters suggested that!

  22. GamesOnline
    Posted November 8, 2009 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    I dont think there is any point in comparing these women to other military units, particularly ones like the Navy SEALs. Mainly because I was under the impression units like Navy SEALs undertake completely different kinds of operations to what this UN unit does, since the rules change drastically between Peacekeeping and Counter Terrorism, etc.free online games

195 queries. 1.347 seconds