Battles are Ugly When Women Fight
January 24, 2013
Joe Carter
In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Father Christmas issues weapons to the Pevensie children. Peter receives a sword and a shield, Susan receives a bow and arrow and a magical horn that will summon help whenever it’s blown, and Lucy receives a dagger and a magic vial that restores the health of anyone injured. Later, before the White Witch’s army, Father Christmas tells the sisters that he has given them these weapons only so that the girls can defend themselves “in great need . . . for I do not mean you to fight in the battle.” Lucy is offended, believing her bravery is being questioned, but he tells her, “That is not the point . . . battles are ugly when women fight.”
Throughout history, most men and women—and even children—have recognized the wisdom of not sending our mothers, daughters, and sisters to the battlefield. Yesterday, though, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced he would lift the military’s ban on women serving in combat, a move that will allow hundreds of thousands of women to serve in front-line positions during wartime.
In response to the news I won’t offer an argument, only a lament. The arguments against allowing women in combat have for decades been made with force and vigor, but to no avail. Because the rational common sense of the arguments cannot be effectively rebutted, they are dismissed and ignored. Long ago, we made equality our end, and this is the inevitable next stop on our long march. If that requires the sacrifice of our sisters and daughters, say the egalitarians, then so be it.
The debate is being framed in the language of “choice.” The Obama administration, we are told, is “opening” combat roles for women who would “choose” to serve in them. We know, though, that eighteen-year-old girls will soon have to join their brothers and boyfriends in registering for the Selective Service. We know that when the standards are lowered to accommodate women (as they must be, since few women are physically qualified for combat), almost all healthy young women will be eligible to pick up a rifle and go off to war.
Of course when the government begins to draft our daughters for combat roles—and that day will certainly come—the children and grandchildren of the egalitarian elite will be the ones to get deferrals. Most of the men and women championing a woman’s right to choose combat have never served in the military and would certainly not want their own daughters to join the infantry. They are concerned only with choice and equality in the pristine abstract, rather than in the bloody, concrete world of warfare. What they favor is an equality in which our daughters get to join our sons in marching off to war.
I see little to do other than to start preparing our little girls. For instance, one of the realities they need to be aware of is that American society is filled with men who are anti-woman cowards. As pastor-theologian John Piper has said,
If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea. Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women.
Piper’s statement is hopelessly out of touch with modern America’s views on gender roles. My views are too, I’m afraid, and I suspect there are others as well, both men and women, who think that when the Creator made us “male and female” he meant for there to be some distinctions in roles. Men, for example, were created to be self-sacrificial protectors of the family, and by extension, of the nation. Forcing women into that role will not lead to more freedom but rather to less equality, more violence toward women, and a general degradation of humanity. As Lewis said, battles are ugly when women fight. But societies that send their women off to war are even uglier.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
RESOURCES
“Pentagon to remove ban on women in combat”
John Piper, Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice
Capt. Katie Petronio, Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal
Lydia McGrew, Conscience, feminism, and the draft
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
1.24.2013 | 6:09am
Richard says:
There is a reason that men and women play in different sport leagues. The Israelis have conducted extensive research on using women in both modern ground and air combat and have nixed it, in general. The Vietnamese used women as light infantry with some success, but that was because they were scrambling for warriors. You cannot cancel reality by fiat. God help the American woman soldier that falls into the hands of fundamentalist muslims (or any troops, for that matter). Some of those ladies are going to be raped to death. And let's not even think about the menstrual cycle. God help us all.
Even this has a role to play in the Divine economy. When the Devil persuaded Eve and Adam to define morality for themselves they produced a world so ugly that the Loving, Living God becomes overwhelming attractive, even to such benighted creatures as us.
Best,
Richard
Even this has a role to play in the Divine economy. When the Devil persuaded Eve and Adam to define morality for themselves they produced a world so ugly that the Loving, Living God becomes overwhelming attractive, even to such benighted creatures as us.
Best,
Richard
1.24.2013 | 7:34am
JamesHope95 says:
Those of us who have served in the military knew this day was going to come, and we welcome it with open arms. Why? Because official physical fitness standards will now have to be relaxed for everyone, since it is impossible to require women to meet the same physical standards as men, and it will be blatantly unfair to require men to have higher fitness standards for the same occupations. Whether the results will be good, bad or indifferent, only time will tell.
1.24.2013 | 9:10am
Thomas Murray says:
JamesHope95,
I have met very few in my 22+ years in the military who will welcome this "with open arms". I fail to understand why anyone who actually cares about success in battle would want physical fitness standards to be relaxed. Even serving women who are up to the physical standards required (and in better shape than me) have gone on record to state that while they are capable of performing, even they fall short over the long haul as their stamina eventually wears down. Granted, this is true for some men as well, but as a whole, there are dramatic differences between men and women, whether the feminists want to admit it or not.
Knowing first hand the bruhaha surrounding the capture of a female truck driver during Desert Storm, I can only imagine with horror the machinations that would surround any large scale capture of female combat personnel.
I have met very few in my 22+ years in the military who will welcome this "with open arms". I fail to understand why anyone who actually cares about success in battle would want physical fitness standards to be relaxed. Even serving women who are up to the physical standards required (and in better shape than me) have gone on record to state that while they are capable of performing, even they fall short over the long haul as their stamina eventually wears down. Granted, this is true for some men as well, but as a whole, there are dramatic differences between men and women, whether the feminists want to admit it or not.
Knowing first hand the bruhaha surrounding the capture of a female truck driver during Desert Storm, I can only imagine with horror the machinations that would surround any large scale capture of female combat personnel.
1.24.2013 | 9:15am
Joe DeVet says:
Once again, sameness is masquerading as equality. It's a fundamental error, and a heavy price will be paid (is being paid already, in the culture at large) for this error.
1.24.2013 | 9:15am
GAZokal12 says:
I agree that Piper’s statement is “hopelessly out of touch with modern America’s views on gender roles.” Yet, I also believe wholeheartedly that Piper is right. The world seems to have almost entirely forgotten that being “equal in dignity” does not mean “exactly the same.” As Fr. Thomas G. Morrow has written, “Some feminist goals were great, for example, equal pay for equal work. But when they started to insist on being just like men they shot themselves in the foot. They ruined a great thing: Femininity.”
1.24.2013 | 9:20am
Richard Greydanus says:
Battles are ugly when anyone fights. I think, though, the admission of women into key combat roles speaks to the changing nature of combat. Let's not pretend, as difficult and deadly that they are, that a combat mission today even compares with spending 4 years in a trench in northern France, like some young men might have done in WWI or WWII. When the USA sends troops into a combat zone, it very rarely faces enemy combatants that can seriously threaten an established, defended military position. When was the last time American's actually lost ground to an enemy offensive on the battle field. Regrouping, sure. Retreating?
So the nature of military engagement changes; so does the sort of personnel required.
So the nature of military engagement changes; so does the sort of personnel required.
1.24.2013 | 9:22am
Mick Lee says:
Many Americans may reduce this issue into an abstract "fair is fair" equality. But most Americans are simply not prepared (nor will they ever be) for their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters to come back in body bags in numbers equal to that of men nor to learn that they were sadistically raped and humiliated after being captured.
For those who have never been in the lawlessness of combat and combat regions: why do enemy soldiers rape women unlucky enough to fall under their control? Because they can.
For those who have never been in the lawlessness of combat and combat regions: why do enemy soldiers rape women unlucky enough to fall under their control? Because they can.
1.24.2013 | 9:27am
J. Bob says:
Seems to me, not very good things happened to women soldiers captured in the Iraq war. Media seemed to ignore that situation.
1.24.2013 | 10:16am
JamesHope95 says:
@ Thomas Murray,
Actually my observation is partly ironic. Relaxing standards for everyone cannot possibly augur well in the long run. It is however true that over time, standards have been gradually watered down to accomodate females in the military, starting with basic training, (at least in the Navy), where some of the more rigorous events have now been "feminized", due to higher injury rates for females. In reality, I suspect that we won't be seeing women volunteering for the front lines in any meaningful numbers in the foreseeable future.
Actually my observation is partly ironic. Relaxing standards for everyone cannot possibly augur well in the long run. It is however true that over time, standards have been gradually watered down to accomodate females in the military, starting with basic training, (at least in the Navy), where some of the more rigorous events have now been "feminized", due to higher injury rates for females. In reality, I suspect that we won't be seeing women volunteering for the front lines in any meaningful numbers in the foreseeable future.
1.24.2013 | 10:29am
David Nickol says:
Most of the commentators I have heard say that this is just a recognition of what is already happening "on the ground." Talk of women on the battlefield is anachronistic, since wars nowadays generally do not have battlefields. I simply don't buy the idea that standards will be lowered because, on average, women have less upper-body strength than men (except, perhaps, if standards are unnecessarily high). Each service has been given the authority to make its own standards. I simply don't believe those in charge of our military are willing on making accommodations that will hurt our fighting abilities.
The lives of both men and women are precious. Why should it be any more tragic for a woman to be killed in combat than a man? I think many of us (including, I acknowledge, myself) *feel* it is worse, but I think that feeling needs to be carefully examined.
The lives of both men and women are precious. Why should it be any more tragic for a woman to be killed in combat than a man? I think many of us (including, I acknowledge, myself) *feel* it is worse, but I think that feeling needs to be carefully examined.
1.24.2013 | 11:04am
jason taylor says:
Yes this feeling needs to be CAREFULLY examined. Not dismissed as to many people seem to think it means. Just because feelings are feelings is in no way a reason to reject them as clues. They can be a sense, like sight and hearing.
And your statement invites the rejoinder, "Why should it be tragic at all for anyone to be killed in combat"? In both cases you are guided by "feelings".
And your statement invites the rejoinder, "Why should it be tragic at all for anyone to be killed in combat"? In both cases you are guided by "feelings".
1.24.2013 | 11:12am
Thomas Aquinas says:
If I were the enemy, I would rather fight a 1000 women than a 1000 men, all things being equal.
1.24.2013 | 11:17am
Mel says:
I will be sure and tell my son that spent a year in the hills of Afghanistan that the battle field has changed. I'm sure he will be glad to be told that.
When he came home with video shot from the camera on his helmet. I noticed that they had a woman in their unit and so I asked him about it. She was there in a medic capacity. He said she was a good person but that there were still problems with her being there.
1. She was a distraction
She was a distraction because they felt they had to look out for her more than they did their buddies.
She was a distraction because they felt protective of her just from the other guys in the unit that weren't as cool.
She was a distraction because some of the guys would compete for her attention.
2. The physical anatomy was a problem. He and the guys could go out into the fields for weeks at a time and not take showers. Women get their periods and they have to deal with that.
As for believing in our military leaders, watching it on TV is not the same as knowing first hand what military life is like. The people on the top do not associate or do the same things as those on the bottom. Some of them have never been on the bottom. They are not the ones that are in harms way either. Anyone that has been on the inside has listened to the guys talk about idiot commanders that put them in precarious situations because they do not know what they are doing or they have some personal goal. The soldiers have to do what they say regardless.
The good ones are few and far between. The bad ones listen to the political voice and work on furthering their career at the expense of lives.
Please stop romanticizing something that you have no experience in and ask someone that has been there. If our military minds were so great then they would not be sending men over there three and four times when their minds and souls are wasted from the trauma.
When he came home with video shot from the camera on his helmet. I noticed that they had a woman in their unit and so I asked him about it. She was there in a medic capacity. He said she was a good person but that there were still problems with her being there.
1. She was a distraction
She was a distraction because they felt they had to look out for her more than they did their buddies.
She was a distraction because they felt protective of her just from the other guys in the unit that weren't as cool.
She was a distraction because some of the guys would compete for her attention.
2. The physical anatomy was a problem. He and the guys could go out into the fields for weeks at a time and not take showers. Women get their periods and they have to deal with that.
As for believing in our military leaders, watching it on TV is not the same as knowing first hand what military life is like. The people on the top do not associate or do the same things as those on the bottom. Some of them have never been on the bottom. They are not the ones that are in harms way either. Anyone that has been on the inside has listened to the guys talk about idiot commanders that put them in precarious situations because they do not know what they are doing or they have some personal goal. The soldiers have to do what they say regardless.
The good ones are few and far between. The bad ones listen to the political voice and work on furthering their career at the expense of lives.
Please stop romanticizing something that you have no experience in and ask someone that has been there. If our military minds were so great then they would not be sending men over there three and four times when their minds and souls are wasted from the trauma.
1.24.2013 | 11:26am
G says:
A number of commentors are talking about the terrible things that can and do happen to woman soldiers when captured. Richard, for example, says: "God help the American woman soldier that falls into the hands of fundamentalist muslims (or any troops, for that matter)".
These comments seem to imply that rape and sexual abuse are unique to women war captives. But rape in times of war seems often to be simply a psychological weapon, that can be deployed equally against men and women. I don't know much about this, and haven't looked into any statistics. But the wikipedia page on 'War Rape' says: "The rape of men by other men is also common in war. A 2009 study by Lara Stemple found that it had been documented in conflicts worldwide; for example, 76% of male political prisoners in 1980s El Salvador and 80% of concentration camp inmates in Sarajevo reported being raped or sexually tortured. Stemple concludes that the 'lack of attention to sexual abuse of men during conflict is particularly troubling given the widespread reach of the problem'. Mervyn Christian of Johns Hopkins School of Nursing has found that male rape is commonly underreported."
See also, the following article from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men
Of corse, this fact does not make the prospect any less horrific for women. But it seems peculiar that the sommentors seem to thik that the prospect of rape and sexual abuse is a reason that specifically speaks against woen becoming combat soldiers.
These comments seem to imply that rape and sexual abuse are unique to women war captives. But rape in times of war seems often to be simply a psychological weapon, that can be deployed equally against men and women. I don't know much about this, and haven't looked into any statistics. But the wikipedia page on 'War Rape' says: "The rape of men by other men is also common in war. A 2009 study by Lara Stemple found that it had been documented in conflicts worldwide; for example, 76% of male political prisoners in 1980s El Salvador and 80% of concentration camp inmates in Sarajevo reported being raped or sexually tortured. Stemple concludes that the 'lack of attention to sexual abuse of men during conflict is particularly troubling given the widespread reach of the problem'. Mervyn Christian of Johns Hopkins School of Nursing has found that male rape is commonly underreported."
See also, the following article from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men
Of corse, this fact does not make the prospect any less horrific for women. But it seems peculiar that the sommentors seem to thik that the prospect of rape and sexual abuse is a reason that specifically speaks against woen becoming combat soldiers.
1.24.2013 | 11:30am
John Hinshaw says:
Aside from the upgrading of weaponry needed to raise a woman's fighting capacity to match the man on the other side; aside from the numerous children (aborted or not) which will result from prolonged stationing on the battlefront (they can't segregate the units can they? - that would be discrimination.); aside from the compromising of the naturally protective inclination the male members of her unit will experince on her behalf - thereby unnecessarily jeapordizing their role in the fight; aside from the concerns a society should have for its prisoners of war, held by the enemy --there is Chesterton: "the history of women in combat is already written - they will either be angels of mercy on the battlefield or demons of torture" - Enough Abu Gharib said.
1.24.2013 | 11:32am
Chelsea says:
As the first woman to comment on this page, and as someone who knows a woman who has sacrificed her time and energy to serving this great nation, I think this article is laden with extremes that belie a fundamental conviction in a complementary view of men and women. Aside from disagreeing with this strict bifurcation, I think that a soldier (whether male or female, gay or straight, should I dare to say, transgendered!), should never be denied the right to fight in the front lines for their country if they so choose. Why NOT women? Is it a matter of strength? If I found a woman (there are plenty) who was stronger than an average man, would that be okay?
I simply cannot make sense of this statement: "Men, for example, were created to be self-sacrificial protectors of the family, and by extension, of the nation." Can a woman not also fulfill this "role?" Women have been and continue to be strong protectors of their own families and have dedicated their lives to their family. Sometimes, I feel like these statements are not helpful because they don't seem to be based upon anything more than a sentiment (that so many people happen to share) that women shouldn't be doing these "manly" activities. My question is all too simple: why not? Where does God tell us (so clearly as it has been presented) that women should not be fighting in combat?
I simply cannot make sense of this statement: "Men, for example, were created to be self-sacrificial protectors of the family, and by extension, of the nation." Can a woman not also fulfill this "role?" Women have been and continue to be strong protectors of their own families and have dedicated their lives to their family. Sometimes, I feel like these statements are not helpful because they don't seem to be based upon anything more than a sentiment (that so many people happen to share) that women shouldn't be doing these "manly" activities. My question is all too simple: why not? Where does God tell us (so clearly as it has been presented) that women should not be fighting in combat?
1.24.2013 | 11:35am
daisy says:
They want to be in battle? Okay, let them be in battle and once and for all let's settle this. The average man is stronger than a strong woman. It will be a slaughter and maybe that's what has to happen for people to see sense. A Muslim terrorist is not going to go easy on Western women. He's going to be even more savage than he would be with a male opponent just on general principle I predict a quiet exodus of women from the armed services.
1.24.2013 | 12:21pm
John Hinshaw says:
I was unaware of a "right" to fight in the front lines for one's country. I just can't keep up new "rights' being created every day.
1.24.2013 | 12:29pm
M. Gilbert says:
I lament with you and as a former feminist. It is not equality they strive for, it is uniformity. When culture and society tells us that taking on the roles of men will make us equal, it implicitly tells us we are unequal. It tells us that we must deny all the things that make us women if we are to be "equal." With every decision there comes a cost. I'm not sure anyone is prepared for the cost that comes with this decision. Women will arrive at the great once-forbidden "opportunity" and realize it is not what they asked for nor does it fulfill what they thought it ought. Even in a light-combat scenario, that woman still has to be prepared in her heart and mind for the possibilities inherent to the task. She has to be in the mindset that it is not okay to be vulnerable or weak. With that must go the instinct to nourish and comfort. In all of biology, across all organisms, nesting and reproduction occurs in a safe and prosperous environment (as a PhD in Biology, I can speak to this). So, the nourishing and comforting part of her must die because battle is different than just falling on hard times. Consequently, even in times of peace this part will not be resurrected apart from Christ. What of general society then? If God ever blesses me with a daughter, shall I begin to prepare her for battle? For her best interest, as she's playing with her dolls and throwing tea parties, am I to place a sword in her hand and tell her that she must not entertain dreams of tea parties because she is not safe? Lament. Yet there is hope, because Jesus redeems the worst of messes.
1.24.2013 | 12:35pm
Mel says:
If women want to serve in that way so badly then they should make all female units.
Then they won't be at risk of being raped by a co-soldier and they can protect each other from the enemy.
Of course women put together in large groups end up on the same cycle so it could either be used to annihilate the enemy or they will kill each other. Hard to know which way it will go until you try it.
Then they won't be at risk of being raped by a co-soldier and they can protect each other from the enemy.
Of course women put together in large groups end up on the same cycle so it could either be used to annihilate the enemy or they will kill each other. Hard to know which way it will go until you try it.
1.24.2013 | 12:39pm
Steve S says:
There are certainly jobs in the military that women are capable of doing without any difficulty whatsoever (everything from supply clerk to pilot). However, there are many other jobs that women cannot do, or at least not do well and to the standard. As a former artilleryman, I am not holding my breath that a woman is going to be able to load 95 pound howitzer rounds at the sustained rate of fire. Similarly, the physical requirements of a light infantryman are beyond the capablities of the female physique. This is to say nothing about the psycho-social and cultural effects of this new policy (increased fraternization, pregnancy, hygiene requirements, etc). My hope is that this is a political victory that will amount to nothing much in reality. Given the fact that the Marine Corps recently opened their infantry Officer Basic Course to two female volunteers, who subesequently dropped out, reinforces my confidence that reality still has the final say over political correctness. (By the way, no other females have since volunteered for that.)
1.24.2013 | 12:49pm
JamesHope95 says:
It is a false argument to posit as many have done in support of this policy, that there are many women who are physically stronger than an "average" man. Good policy is not made with outliers, but with the mean or average. In other words, the average man will be stronger than the average woman, all things considered. Our civil and criminal laws, as well as the rules of sports, etc, all take these realities into consideration. But that is not the sole justification for the exclusion of women from the battlefield. We must consider further the fact that we have spent a lot of effort combating violence against women in the society, both within and outside the home. Must we now dilute that message by sending them into direct combat, which is, if anything, the very definition of violence?
1.24.2013 | 1:58pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
Not having ever been in the military, but knowing those who have been, and reading widely about war, stories of war, pop culture portrayals of war, it seems to me that those who fight on the front lines are trained to become ruthless killers. "As Patton supposedly once said, 'No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Turning women into ruthless killers, because that's what our warriors need to be when the chips are down, is just wrong, and everyone knows it. But almost everything the modern liberal does, driven by blind ideology, seems to be counter intuitive and harmful. Just add this one to the list.
1.24.2013 | 2:27pm
Michael PS says:
At least it should strike terror into the enemy, if Kipling is to be believed:
"When you're lying half-dead on Afganistan's plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Just roll on your rifle and blow out your brains..."
"When you're lying half-dead on Afganistan's plains
And the women come out to cut up what remains
Just roll on your rifle and blow out your brains..."
1.24.2013 | 2:35pm
Richard says:
If I were an enemy of the United States, I would pray that this policy go forward.
Women are now being put on submarines. This service can require great strength, especially in times of crisis. I would hate to lose a two billion dollar boat and the infinitely more valuable lives of all on board because a woman at the critical point didn't have the strength to turn a wheel to open or close a pressure door or valve.
Women are also being used in air combat roles. I have heard that the first woman to fly an F 14 was killed when her plane experienced mechanical problems and she had to eject. She died because her skeletal structure was not robust enough to absorb the shock of rocket ejection through a canopy and she broke her neck.
There are places for women in war. Their voices are easier to understand than a man's on average and they do well as dispatchers. I also understand that they make good Apache pilots. Some say that women fighter pilots fighting for Russia had superior combat records against German pilots who refused to believe that they were being outflown by women. But jet combat is a whole nother animal.
Physiology and anatomy rule. The Israelis experimented with women ground soldiers and found that they couldn't stand up to the physical demands of ground combat and they had a lower blood platelet density than men, and hence less stamina and strength. The Israelis also trained women pilots and matched them against men in simulated air combat in fighter jets. The women's failure rate was 100%. The analyst concluded that the male pilot was just a hair better at four dimensional fighting and in air combat tenths of a second count.
This is not a matter of intelligence. It's not a matter of courage. If you are playing for keeps it is a matter of boots on the ground, and there, I'm afraid, men do it better.
When the strength element is completely eliminated from combat we can revisit the matter, but as long as long as might makes fight, I'll put my money on the silverback.
Best,
Richard
Women are now being put on submarines. This service can require great strength, especially in times of crisis. I would hate to lose a two billion dollar boat and the infinitely more valuable lives of all on board because a woman at the critical point didn't have the strength to turn a wheel to open or close a pressure door or valve.
Women are also being used in air combat roles. I have heard that the first woman to fly an F 14 was killed when her plane experienced mechanical problems and she had to eject. She died because her skeletal structure was not robust enough to absorb the shock of rocket ejection through a canopy and she broke her neck.
There are places for women in war. Their voices are easier to understand than a man's on average and they do well as dispatchers. I also understand that they make good Apache pilots. Some say that women fighter pilots fighting for Russia had superior combat records against German pilots who refused to believe that they were being outflown by women. But jet combat is a whole nother animal.
Physiology and anatomy rule. The Israelis experimented with women ground soldiers and found that they couldn't stand up to the physical demands of ground combat and they had a lower blood platelet density than men, and hence less stamina and strength. The Israelis also trained women pilots and matched them against men in simulated air combat in fighter jets. The women's failure rate was 100%. The analyst concluded that the male pilot was just a hair better at four dimensional fighting and in air combat tenths of a second count.
This is not a matter of intelligence. It's not a matter of courage. If you are playing for keeps it is a matter of boots on the ground, and there, I'm afraid, men do it better.
When the strength element is completely eliminated from combat we can revisit the matter, but as long as long as might makes fight, I'll put my money on the silverback.
Best,
Richard
1.24.2013 | 3:09pm
M. Gilbert says:
If we're talking ideology alone, there is an important debate to be had that underlies this issue, gay marriage, and abortion. Please, someone with a wide audience, raise this issue. Let's entertain for a moment that women fighting in battle (equal opportunity), abortion (right to choose), and gay marriage (civil right?) is a right. What happens when those rights come in conflict with another person's rights? In other words, does the right of the individual or couple trump the right of the community or of another person? Which one takes precedence? Does the woman's right to choose trump the child's right to live? Does the woman's right to choose battle trump the safety of her co-soldiers or the safety of the country/efficacy of the mission? What if it has been shown that heterosexual households are better for the children being raised than homosexual ones? Does the couple or the child and greater community's rights prevail? Again, approaching these issues from this perspective I think would nullify many of the arguments put forth by liberals and feminists. It is a comfort to read previous posts and know that reality is a great nullifier of bad ideas.
1.24.2013 | 3:11pm
SteveP says:
Long ago, we made equality our end, and this is the inevitable next stop on our long march. If that requires the sacrifice of our sisters and daughters, say the egalitarians, then so be it.
Well said. The god named Choice has been filling its belly with blood these 40 years and is still not sated.
My shallow reading of history seems to recall that a nation is in extremis when its women take up arms for defense. Should we be concerned the minimum enlistment age will be lowered?
Well said. The god named Choice has been filling its belly with blood these 40 years and is still not sated.
My shallow reading of history seems to recall that a nation is in extremis when its women take up arms for defense. Should we be concerned the minimum enlistment age will be lowered?
1.24.2013 | 3:50pm
Paul says:
No one seems to have addressed Mr. Carter's point about the draft. Although there has not been a draft for many years, it remains the law of the land that all males between the ages of 18 and 26 register with Selective Service. Shouldn't this requirement also be gender-neutral, according to the prevailing philosophy of egalitarianism? I know, I know, there won't ever be a draft again, but curiously we keep that selective service agency going, just in case. I agree with Mr. Carter that the logical corollary of this gender neutrality is the extension of the draft to women.
1.24.2013 | 4:14pm
patricksarsfield says:
So long as this issue is presented as a matter of gender equality (as it is being presented), the US Public will favor women in combat roles. Yet the Democrat politicians have a delicate task because their portrayal of it as "gender equality" risks panicking the vast bulk of women who would not "choose" to be subject to the Draft, which is where "gender equality" inexorably should lead. So, a whole lot of mendacious double talk is coming out of the Pentagon.
Clearly, the US Public would not favor women being drafted and dying in the tens of thousands in a real war where the women are used more or less as cannon fodder, just like any other "11 Bravo" (i.e., an infantry person). So: we ought to portray "real gender equality" in a "modest proposal," which is that men and women should have the same obligation to serve in combat roles whether they want to or not, and women should be equally subject to the Draft. Gender equality demands no less. It should not be up to a woman to "choose" to serve in combat or not; guys don't get that choice when "Uncle Sam wants you." To confer a "droit de la dame" on women in which they could decline to serve would be "gender fair" only if men had a similar right to opt out of combat. That might put a real crimp in the US's war-fighting ability.
Another thing that is being said is that the Pentagon needs to draft regulations ensuring that females should have rights to privacy when serving in a unit that has males in it given the sexual differences. But--in a world where heterosexual males have to serve with homosexual males given their sexual differences and without any concern for the heterosexual's rights to privacy--concern for female privacy seems so "20th Century." If women want to be grunts just like men are, they ought to be made to realize that "they're in the Army now."
Clearly, the US Public would not favor women being drafted and dying in the tens of thousands in a real war where the women are used more or less as cannon fodder, just like any other "11 Bravo" (i.e., an infantry person). So: we ought to portray "real gender equality" in a "modest proposal," which is that men and women should have the same obligation to serve in combat roles whether they want to or not, and women should be equally subject to the Draft. Gender equality demands no less. It should not be up to a woman to "choose" to serve in combat or not; guys don't get that choice when "Uncle Sam wants you." To confer a "droit de la dame" on women in which they could decline to serve would be "gender fair" only if men had a similar right to opt out of combat. That might put a real crimp in the US's war-fighting ability.
Another thing that is being said is that the Pentagon needs to draft regulations ensuring that females should have rights to privacy when serving in a unit that has males in it given the sexual differences. But--in a world where heterosexual males have to serve with homosexual males given their sexual differences and without any concern for the heterosexual's rights to privacy--concern for female privacy seems so "20th Century." If women want to be grunts just like men are, they ought to be made to realize that "they're in the Army now."
1.24.2013 | 4:47pm
Christina says:
The argument that "there are women stronger than the average man" doesn't hold water. Men training for battle are not average. They at least have passed basic training, if not more advanced training depending on their assignments. The "average" man includes the overweight couch potato and pencil thin nerd who wouldn't survive a day in basic. So you have to argue that there are women stronger than the strongest men, which is just stupid. There might be one or two women in any population who fit the bill, but are you really going to make policy on those outliers?
1.24.2013 | 4:58pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
Chelsea: "Turning anyone into a ruthless killer is wrong." Really? OK, what words do you want to use? Whatever they are, the point of an army is kill people and break things. Period. Killing people does not come natural to most of us, thus those who will go into combat must learn to kill. Whatever you want to call it, I don't think it's a fantastic idea to turn women into that. Men have testosterone for several reasons, and a more natural aggression is one of those. Men and women are not the same, and they should not be treated as such, especially when it comes to war.
1.24.2013 | 7:31pm
JohnM says:
In a lower level college speech class,long, long ago, I made one of those to no avail arguments against women in combat. I got an A for it, but I'm sure the speech was sophomoric - I was a sophomore after all. But I still think I was right.
Anyway, here's where I am now: I don't care anymore. Bad for women? You've come a long way baby and what you've demanded you've gotten. You can have this too. Bad for the men who serve along side them? Gentlemen, it's an all volunteer military. Bad for the country? We reap what we sow.
Anyway, here's where I am now: I don't care anymore. Bad for women? You've come a long way baby and what you've demanded you've gotten. You can have this too. Bad for the men who serve along side them? Gentlemen, it's an all volunteer military. Bad for the country? We reap what we sow.
1.24.2013 | 9:55pm
Michael Umphrey says:
In Gulag, Solzhenitsyn noted that when trains bearing prisoners to Siberia stopped in small towns to get water for the steam engines, guards were posted to prevent any contact between locals and the thirsty prisoners in the cattle cars. It was always old women who ignored the soldiers and their guns and did what they always did--responded to immediate human needs--,who took water and food to the prisoners.
I reminded James Billington of that story once after he told me about being in Moscow when the Soviet regime collapsed. He said that as the Soviet army surrounded the Kremlin with its tanks, no one knew how the story would end. He said that what really happened, that went unreported, was that the Russian babushkas, the grandmothers, went out among the tanks and told the young men to "go home." He said, "a different moral order asserted itself and the crisis passed."
Such women were not tamed by long obedience to the dictates of the workplace or the military. They were somewhat subversive of ideology. It's bothersome, for ideologues, to see anyone outside the ideology.
I reminded James Billington of that story once after he told me about being in Moscow when the Soviet regime collapsed. He said that as the Soviet army surrounded the Kremlin with its tanks, no one knew how the story would end. He said that what really happened, that went unreported, was that the Russian babushkas, the grandmothers, went out among the tanks and told the young men to "go home." He said, "a different moral order asserted itself and the crisis passed."
Such women were not tamed by long obedience to the dictates of the workplace or the military. They were somewhat subversive of ideology. It's bothersome, for ideologues, to see anyone outside the ideology.
1.24.2013 | 10:14pm
sphnxh says:
"Men, for example, were created to be self-sacrificial protectors of the family..."
So somehow women are not self-sacrificial or are self-sacrificial to a lesser degree?
So somehow women are not self-sacrificial or are self-sacrificial to a lesser degree?
1.24.2013 | 10:20pm
Thomas R says:
You know I believe in gender differences and some form of complementarity even, but this absolute prohibition on women in combat rarely or never hit me right.
Didn't Judith kill Holofernes? Or for Protestants what of Deborah in the Book of Judges? And outside the Judeo-Christian world there was the Mino or "Dahomey's Amazons." Things like this make it different than same-sex marriage which has no support in Western history with same-gender marriage being virtually unheard of in all cultures.
The notion that women are to be protected, never to protect or defend others, almost strikes me more as an Islamic notion. Muhammad did, I believe, nicely tell a woman who wanted to fight for the Muslim cause "I'm pleased by your enthusiasm, but it would be better if you help in other ways."
That said I don't favor lowering standards. If few women few women qualify. And if a woman in the military considers women in combat to be against her faith I'd definitely favor her right to opt out. And lastly I don't personally "get" wanting the right to combat. Still I think this is one of those areas where I respect the argument of other conservative Christians without entirely agreeing.
Didn't Judith kill Holofernes? Or for Protestants what of Deborah in the Book of Judges? And outside the Judeo-Christian world there was the Mino or "Dahomey's Amazons." Things like this make it different than same-sex marriage which has no support in Western history with same-gender marriage being virtually unheard of in all cultures.
The notion that women are to be protected, never to protect or defend others, almost strikes me more as an Islamic notion. Muhammad did, I believe, nicely tell a woman who wanted to fight for the Muslim cause "I'm pleased by your enthusiasm, but it would be better if you help in other ways."
That said I don't favor lowering standards. If few women few women qualify. And if a woman in the military considers women in combat to be against her faith I'd definitely favor her right to opt out. And lastly I don't personally "get" wanting the right to combat. Still I think this is one of those areas where I respect the argument of other conservative Christians without entirely agreeing.
1.24.2013 | 11:42pm
John C Wright says:
"I simply don't believe those in charge of our military are willing on making accommodations that will hurt our fighting abilities. "
Indeed. It is because of that naive belief that this madness has reached the point it has. Political Correctness is both an abortive religion and a mental disease. It sees believing things that are false as meritorious, and the more outrageously and obviously false it is, the greater the merit.
This has several advantages. One is that gullible people will continue to believe that the Political Correctoids do not really, deep down, believe the madness they are speaking. The gullible are wrong. They do mean it.
The gullible believe reality will correct the Political Correctoids when the bill comes due, the evils foretold come to pass, and that they will be shocked back to reality by the horror. The gullible are wrong. They are immune to reality. Look at the way they protected the Ground Zero Mosque, or the way all the deaths on 9-11 mean nothing to them, and did not change their minds about the heroism of the Jihadists and the evils of America and Israel.
They will die rather than change their minds, because death is what they are secretly seeking. They have suppressed their conscience, and it seeks to punish them by driving them to suicide.
Unfortunately, we sane people are in the way.
The rape of women soldiers, the lowering of standards, the death of young women, and the institutionalization of a cowardly and effete eunuched version of manhood are not undesirable side effects of the women in combat policy. They are the goals.
JCJW
Indeed. It is because of that naive belief that this madness has reached the point it has. Political Correctness is both an abortive religion and a mental disease. It sees believing things that are false as meritorious, and the more outrageously and obviously false it is, the greater the merit.
This has several advantages. One is that gullible people will continue to believe that the Political Correctoids do not really, deep down, believe the madness they are speaking. The gullible are wrong. They do mean it.
The gullible believe reality will correct the Political Correctoids when the bill comes due, the evils foretold come to pass, and that they will be shocked back to reality by the horror. The gullible are wrong. They are immune to reality. Look at the way they protected the Ground Zero Mosque, or the way all the deaths on 9-11 mean nothing to them, and did not change their minds about the heroism of the Jihadists and the evils of America and Israel.
They will die rather than change their minds, because death is what they are secretly seeking. They have suppressed their conscience, and it seeks to punish them by driving them to suicide.
Unfortunately, we sane people are in the way.
The rape of women soldiers, the lowering of standards, the death of young women, and the institutionalization of a cowardly and effete eunuched version of manhood are not undesirable side effects of the women in combat policy. They are the goals.
JCJW
1.25.2013 | 12:35am
Beth says:
Women in combat will not be allowed to have periods. They will be required to take hormonal birth control drugs such as Lybrel that eliminate menstrual flow. This, of course, would also reduce the danger of female troops getting pregnant (or staying pregnant) while on active duty.
Women at the Air Force Academy are already facing this as the Air Force has made such an investment in their training that they can't afford for them to get pregnant during their tenure of required service.
Unfortunately, many women entering the military are probably unaware of this control that the military will have over them. During the Gulf War, I received many phone calls from breastfeeding mothers who were called up to active duty. They essentially had no options since they gave up many of the rights civilians enjoy when they joined the military.
Women at the Air Force Academy are already facing this as the Air Force has made such an investment in their training that they can't afford for them to get pregnant during their tenure of required service.
Unfortunately, many women entering the military are probably unaware of this control that the military will have over them. During the Gulf War, I received many phone calls from breastfeeding mothers who were called up to active duty. They essentially had no options since they gave up many of the rights civilians enjoy when they joined the military.
1.25.2013 | 2:47am
Big Ben says:
Breastfeeding is a rare privilege accorded only to the ladies. it's a noble, most beautiful thing and i am grateful to my mother for that. Maybe in the name of equality men should start clamouring to breastfeed their children? (with their breasts, of course)
1.25.2013 | 6:03am
Sue Sims says:
Even the warrior culture of Sparta didn't permit women to fight in their army (though they were, it's believed, trained to wield a dagger): and sources agree that women had more power and equality in Sparta than in any other ancient society of which records exist.
Whatever the culture, there was always a very sensible physiological reason for armies to prohibit women fighting in the front line. A man can impregnate numerous women over a short period; a woman only bears one child a year or so, even if she's kept more or less continuously pregnant. Women soldiers can't bear the next generation of male fighters. Thus, quite apart from questions of ability, strength and fitness, it's rather stupid to waste women in this way.
For exactly the same reason, in mediaeval and early modern cavalry warfare, war-horses were always stallions or geldings: mares were used as hacks and for breeding, not for fighting - too valuable for that.
I suspect that our modern assumption, that a woman 'chooses' to have or not to have children, as opposed to our ancestors' taking for granted the connection between marriage and children, is at the root of this latest move, as it is at the root of many other contemporary innovations. Contraception and its offspring, abortion, have much to answer for.
Whatever the culture, there was always a very sensible physiological reason for armies to prohibit women fighting in the front line. A man can impregnate numerous women over a short period; a woman only bears one child a year or so, even if she's kept more or less continuously pregnant. Women soldiers can't bear the next generation of male fighters. Thus, quite apart from questions of ability, strength and fitness, it's rather stupid to waste women in this way.
For exactly the same reason, in mediaeval and early modern cavalry warfare, war-horses were always stallions or geldings: mares were used as hacks and for breeding, not for fighting - too valuable for that.
I suspect that our modern assumption, that a woman 'chooses' to have or not to have children, as opposed to our ancestors' taking for granted the connection between marriage and children, is at the root of this latest move, as it is at the root of many other contemporary innovations. Contraception and its offspring, abortion, have much to answer for.
1.25.2013 | 10:35am
Mick Lee says:
On its face, it would appear that rationally a rape of a man should be no more horrifying than a rape of a woman. But, in the emotions and fellow feelings in the concrete world, the rape of a woman strikes a deeper cord of shock, terror and desperate compassion. A good part of this centers on the fact that women are more intimately connected as bearers of our children and the future for those who follow us. Gang rape potentially can exterminate a woman’s ability to have children if not resulting in a torturous murder. In addition, rape of female shoulders (as well as civilian women) is not just intended as an insult to their nation and degradation of our generations to come, it is a contemptuous mutilation of the most helpless of our own. The devastation raped women experience is well known if not fully appreciated. For the men closest to that woman, there is a debilitating sense of shame from the failure to protect her—a protection called the sacrifice of one’s life in order carry out that duty and responsibility well before it got to this point. That shame is worse than the shame one feels when one is confronted with their own cowardice. It is a perceived disgrace for your sister in arms was raped yet you lived. There is also an intense grief and anguish male carries when any woman so close to him is sadistically abused and raped.
One can glibly dismiss all this saying it just shouldn’t be that way. Maybe in some imagined, more “perfect” world, that’s how it could be. But for most men and women found in this world, that abstract world would be unwanted and unloved.
One can glibly dismiss all this saying it just shouldn’t be that way. Maybe in some imagined, more “perfect” world, that’s how it could be. But for most men and women found in this world, that abstract world would be unwanted and unloved.
1.25.2013 | 1:42pm
ken says:
Many here seem to be arguing genetic differences, but there arguments to be made from Scripture, as this Protestant pastor has.
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/01/president-obama-and-secretary-defense-panetta-place-women-combat
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/01/president-obama-and-secretary-defense-panetta-place-women-combat
1.25.2013 | 5:37pm
Charlie Collier says:
Looking on the bright side, perhaps this will move Joe Carter (and others who agree with him) one step closer to a principled anti-war position. Surely, by his own logic, it's more manly to defend women than the "patria", especially if the latter is willing to throw the former under the bus.
1.26.2013 | 12:27pm
Bubba says:
Chelsea, you have no earthly clue about the nature of combat, I'm afraid. Not trying to be mean, but you are completely uninformed and projecting what you *want* to be true for what is *actually* true. It is dirty, brutish and in your face. It does not care whether you have been raised in a self-esteem culture that brainwashes its youth with the siren utopia of complete gender equality.
Likewise your convictions about the physical differences inherent in men and women. I graduated the Air Force Academy and never met ANY female cadet, officer or enlisted who could carry me even 1/4 mile if I were incapacitated. Contra a West Point friend who at ~150 lbs carried his dead radioman for 2 miles out of the jungle of Vietnam. Comparing against the average man does no good - that is a fallacy of analogy. The military is about how the *group* performs, and it is not merely a summation game. See Capt Katie Petronio's firsthand account from Iraq: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal.
Likewise your convictions about the physical differences inherent in men and women. I graduated the Air Force Academy and never met ANY female cadet, officer or enlisted who could carry me even 1/4 mile if I were incapacitated. Contra a West Point friend who at ~150 lbs carried his dead radioman for 2 miles out of the jungle of Vietnam. Comparing against the average man does no good - that is a fallacy of analogy. The military is about how the *group* performs, and it is not merely a summation game. See Capt Katie Petronio's firsthand account from Iraq: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal.
1.26.2013 | 12:29pm
Bubba says:
As an aside, the physical (double) standards at the Air Force Academy were so low for women there that the byline became "A double standard is better than no standard at all." Try 7 vs. 1 pullups (minimum) for men and women, respectively. [And btw, we used to give the guys who could hit only 7 a hard time for being weak, to try to spur them into being at least average (~12).] Even our NCAA female athletes couldn't hit the male minimums, candidly, with one exception - a gymnast who weighed 95 lbs could hit some male minimums, but she couldn't carry a ruck of even 50 lbs without collapsing in exhaustion in even a few minutes. Morevoer, not one female cadet ever volunteered to get in the boxing ring against men in their weight class for intramurals. And these were the so-called toughest females in the nation. So, out of the 200 women I knew personally at USAFA, not one could do the job.
One more thing of great importance, in hand to hand combat if you are even 10% less of a fighter than the other guy, you virtually always become a casualty (probably 95% of the time). And women, due to their physical/emotional wiring are much, much, much less skilled in this arena. Doing the math... I'd venture 99.9%+ of women will die in hand to hand engagements with men, and probably 80% will become casualties in firefights (worse probability when there is an extended march prior to the fight). No way around it. But it's even worse - your buddy in the next room will likely also get to die too if you are covering his flank!
One more thing of great importance, in hand to hand combat if you are even 10% less of a fighter than the other guy, you virtually always become a casualty (probably 95% of the time). And women, due to their physical/emotional wiring are much, much, much less skilled in this arena. Doing the math... I'd venture 99.9%+ of women will die in hand to hand engagements with men, and probably 80% will become casualties in firefights (worse probability when there is an extended march prior to the fight). No way around it. But it's even worse - your buddy in the next room will likely also get to die too if you are covering his flank!
1.27.2013 | 11:32pm
Laurie Davis says:
Thank you for this illuminating article in a day when the cry of 'rights' drown out common sense. Sometimes I wonder if I’m alone in thinking the country is being destroyed by extremists who mean to do just that I found the comments educational, since as a female I have not experienced military service and don’t know what to believe in the press anymore.
When feminists determined in the 70's that the only way to become recognized as equal was to be exactly like a man, they 'established' that being feminine put you in a lessor position in society. Raising children was put on the back burner and even ridiculed as less than progressive and undesirable. What a mess they have created and like most messes from the left, they will never take responsibility for it.
I remember the draft for Vietnam. I also remember the words to “I ain’t no Senator’s son” and knew in my heart, that for the most part, only the families that were middle class or poor, and unconnected went to sacrifice their lives in a war that the country didn’t even support. They were called ‘baby killers’ and accused of ‘Genghis Khan behavior. Now the man who made those accusations will be the Secretary of State of the US. How much more crazy can this become?
I believe, as the author, that when the next draft comes, it will not be the academic elites’ young daughters that will be expected to register or go to war. Like all “Progressive liberals” who create such messes, it will be directed at others, in the name of equality.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C.S. Lewis
When feminists determined in the 70's that the only way to become recognized as equal was to be exactly like a man, they 'established' that being feminine put you in a lessor position in society. Raising children was put on the back burner and even ridiculed as less than progressive and undesirable. What a mess they have created and like most messes from the left, they will never take responsibility for it.
I remember the draft for Vietnam. I also remember the words to “I ain’t no Senator’s son” and knew in my heart, that for the most part, only the families that were middle class or poor, and unconnected went to sacrifice their lives in a war that the country didn’t even support. They were called ‘baby killers’ and accused of ‘Genghis Khan behavior. Now the man who made those accusations will be the Secretary of State of the US. How much more crazy can this become?
I believe, as the author, that when the next draft comes, it will not be the academic elites’ young daughters that will be expected to register or go to war. Like all “Progressive liberals” who create such messes, it will be directed at others, in the name of equality.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C.S. Lewis
1.28.2013 | 6:10am
Brennan says:
It's good to see common sense from previous commenters. Men and women are by nature different (if you don't know this yet, I suggest you spend some time around women). There is a genuine callousness (not to mention cowardice) about even thinking of putting women into combat. It is a complete and total dereliction of duty of "men" who are actually supposed to protect women, not throw them into combat.
The callousness primarily at first has manifested itself in men's willingness to use women for their own sexual gratification regardless of the consequences (you got pregnant? Hey, just have an abortion!)
Now the callousness extends to once more hardening our hearts towards women and allowing them to be put in harms way. And yes, combat can be and is just as tough as it was in WWI, WWII or Vietnam. Just listen to the testimonies of soldiers that have been involved in hand to hand urban warfare in Iraq.
This policy will not only allow a great deal of harm to come to women, but also to men, as it will train them to once more be cold and indifferent to their plight.
The callousness primarily at first has manifested itself in men's willingness to use women for their own sexual gratification regardless of the consequences (you got pregnant? Hey, just have an abortion!)
Now the callousness extends to once more hardening our hearts towards women and allowing them to be put in harms way. And yes, combat can be and is just as tough as it was in WWI, WWII or Vietnam. Just listen to the testimonies of soldiers that have been involved in hand to hand urban warfare in Iraq.
This policy will not only allow a great deal of harm to come to women, but also to men, as it will train them to once more be cold and indifferent to their plight.
1.31.2013 | 1:52am
Ben h says:
I wouldn't worry too much about women being drafted. The nuts who put these sorts of proposals forward really do want 'choice' and only 'choice' and would never consider anything that would couple rights and responsibilities so they would never consider registering females in Selective Service.
Also, you don't need to fear that lots of women actually going to join combat units. In reality very few women who have the mental stability to join such a unit would be interested in doing so. In addition a lot of people in the service find that there is a mini baby boom on the base right before a deployment which makes the number of women who will actually deploy in the field attached to combat units that much less.
The real aim of this policy is to destroy the masculine character of the military. There is a feminist mania in our country that is against all manly non-gay friendships or contact and demands female supervision of all men all the time.
Also, you don't need to fear that lots of women actually going to join combat units. In reality very few women who have the mental stability to join such a unit would be interested in doing so. In addition a lot of people in the service find that there is a mini baby boom on the base right before a deployment which makes the number of women who will actually deploy in the field attached to combat units that much less.
The real aim of this policy is to destroy the masculine character of the military. There is a feminist mania in our country that is against all manly non-gay friendships or contact and demands female supervision of all men all the time.
2.18.2013 | 11:29am
Lee says:
"I agree that Piper’s statement is “hopelessly out of touch with modern America’s views on gender roles.” Yet, I also believe wholeheartedly that Piper is right. The world seems to have almost entirely forgotten that being “equal in dignity” does not mean “exactly the same.” As Fr. Thomas G. Morrow has written, “Some feminist goals were great, for example, equal pay for equal work. But when they started to insist on being just like men they shot themselves in the foot. They ruined a great thing: Femininity.” "
Ha. I think too many of you guys seem to forget that women don't want or need your patronizing pity.
It's funny how women are vindictive, nasty, low-minded, etc, when it suits your purposes, but in need of patronizing and protection when you are sore they make choices your egos can't handle.
Women handle femininity fine, boys, just move along and try to understand why your mothers never bothered to teach you how to really RESPECT women. Feminists aren't your problem, your own insecurities are.
Ha. I think too many of you guys seem to forget that women don't want or need your patronizing pity.
It's funny how women are vindictive, nasty, low-minded, etc, when it suits your purposes, but in need of patronizing and protection when you are sore they make choices your egos can't handle.
Women handle femininity fine, boys, just move along and try to understand why your mothers never bothered to teach you how to really RESPECT women. Feminists aren't your problem, your own insecurities are.
2.18.2013 | 11:33am
Lee says:
Chelsea, you have no earthly clue about the nature of combat, I'm afraid. Not trying to be mean, but you are completely uninformed and projecting what you *want* to be true for what is *actually* true. It is dirty, brutish and in your face. It does not care whether you have been raised in a self-esteem culture that brainwashes its youth with the siren utopia of complete gender equality.
Likewise your convictions about the physical differences inherent in men and women. I graduated the Air Force Academy and never met ANY female cadet, officer or enlisted who could carry me even 1/4 mile if I were incapacitated. Contra a West Point friend who at ~150 lbs carried his dead radioman for 2 miles out of the jungle of Vietnam. Comparing against the average man does no good - that is a fallacy of analogy. The military is about how the *group* performs, and it is not merely a summation game. See Capt Katie Petronio's firsthand account from Iraq: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal.
I think your misogynism and insecurity are getting in the way of FACTS. We don't need Mr. Big Man teaching us about the big, bad world. Wow, nice how you down your own colleagues in order to feel superior and self-righteous. That doesn't strike me as moral strength.
Maybe you need to step back and get an education about some matters, eh?
Likewise your convictions about the physical differences inherent in men and women. I graduated the Air Force Academy and never met ANY female cadet, officer or enlisted who could carry me even 1/4 mile if I were incapacitated. Contra a West Point friend who at ~150 lbs carried his dead radioman for 2 miles out of the jungle of Vietnam. Comparing against the average man does no good - that is a fallacy of analogy. The military is about how the *group* performs, and it is not merely a summation game. See Capt Katie Petronio's firsthand account from Iraq: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal.
I think your misogynism and insecurity are getting in the way of FACTS. We don't need Mr. Big Man teaching us about the big, bad world. Wow, nice how you down your own colleagues in order to feel superior and self-righteous. That doesn't strike me as moral strength.
Maybe you need to step back and get an education about some matters, eh?
3.27.2013 | 11:32am
DEEP says:
For those, who want to play with fire, let them and be burned if that is what they want. Who are we to stop it.
"Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad."