Wednesday, January 30, 2013


     Apparently, chivalry is not only dead, but is was brutally beaten, gang-raped and sexually mutilated on the battlefield before-hand.  But hey, let's not allow a little fly like "reality" to get in our politically correct ointment...right?  Like most progressive ideas, it seems that either no one has taken the time to "workshop" the likely outcomes of allowing women in combat roles in the military, or simply no one cares.  As someone with a mother, wife and daughter, I would like to be put into the "I care" column.  In any case, our "Forward" thinking leaders have decided that they will be forgoing all that messiness of considering the possibility of tragic disaster, and gone ahead and opened the door to females in the theater of combat.  What's the worst that could happen?

     Well...rumor has it, that a certain "religion of peace" has a long history of sanctioned sexual abuse of women.  You might recall the "rape rooms" of one Saddam Hussein.  Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the same folks who traditionally mutilate the genitals of their own civilian female children, might actually consider treating female U.S. troops captured on the battlefield in a less-than-kind manner?  Not as conservatives, or leftists, not as Republicans or Democrats, not as pot-smoking hippies or moonshine-swilling rednecks, but as men, are we ready to have this on our conscience?  When it is one of our wives, mothers, or daughters that come home in a condition that I dare not think about, that's if they are even lucky enough to come home alive to begin with...what will we say to them?  "Gee, sorry we allowed you to be subjected to horrors that you will never heal from, but look how we advanced political correctness!"  "Yeah!"  "You go girl!" 

     Then there are the slightly less tragic, but still just as real consequences of this little sociology experiment gone awry.  Things such as pregnancy, P.M.S., and the since-the-dawn-of-man-but-only-until-last-week problem of the "love triangle" on the battlefield.  Consider this, men and women have been driven by love, lust, and jealousy to do some of the most diabolical and depraved things to others and themselves since Adam first layed eyes on Eve.  The names Van Gogh, OJ Simpson, and Lorena Bobbit come to mind.  But whether you're severing ears, heads, and "wedding tackle", or just innocently infatuated with someone in your platoon, does it strengthen our forces to have drama in the ranks?  It's one thing to have two guys at the office competing for the affection of the receptionist, but what happens if two infantrymen are competing for the same woman in their squad, and one is "supposed" to lay down some cover fire as the other takes the hill?  Accidents happen...right?

     Not that a married man such as myself would know anything about this next question...but.  What happens to a woman's performance in a combat situation on one of those "heavy" days?  I'm just asking!  What happens to a unit's continuity when one of them has to be taken off the field due to pregnancy?  Are there some who would play that card on purpose?  It's probably easier than shooting yourself in the foot like men have to do when they want off the battlefield.  Would an increase in pregnant troops strain medical units who are relied on to treat the wounded?

     And finally, has anyone taken the time to consider the next draft?  How can we possibly think that if there is ever a draft in the future, the same liberals won't be making the same arguments to demand women be included?  After all, if women are to be treated "equally" when they volunteer, then it stands to reason that they will have to be treated "equally" when they don't.  Will we be so ready to sacrifice our mothers, wives, and daughters then?

     Our founding documents have certified that we are all created equal.  The Bible says that we are all equal in the eyes of God.  But nowhere is it written that we are created "identical".  There are differences between the male and female of all species.  This may not be a popular fact, but it's a fact none the less.  And when we try to dismiss, ignore, or deny these differences, we shouldn't be surprised when human nature does not comply with our demands.  When males and females get together, it is a natural likelihood that things will probably happen.  And when marriages are destroyed and lives are lost unnecessarily, all for the sake of checking another box on a list of liberal agenda items, the blood will be on the hands of those who helped make it happen.           

1 comment:

Dan O. said...

I agree with everything you brought up here, Terry. And I also would like to mention the obvious thing that is brought up whenever this subject has been broached in the past. That being does equal = equal? Are they only going to let those females into combat who can meet the current requirements held for males? Or will the requirements be lowered for the females (or for everyone) in order to meet quotas of females "making the grade"?