Allowing women into combat situations is an incredibly stupid idea. The first and most obvious reason why this is so is simple: women,
as a group, simply don’t have the physical strength that men possess. Combat (especially combat infantry) is physically demanding, and requires strength and endurance that
many women simply do not have. The military recognizes this fact – the qualifying standards for men and
women for the military are very different. Allowing women into combat
positions dilutes the strength and integrity of the military, needlessly risking the lives of soldiers.
Let’s assume that women will only be allowed to drive
tanks, or fly planes, or whatever. Let’s assume that some semblance of sanity
prevails, and women wouldn’t be allowed into ground combat units, or would have to pass the same standards as men in order to enter those units. (I’m not holding my breath.)
But there are numerous other reasons why allowing women
in combat roles is foolish. There is the problem of facing enemies which
mistreat captured female prisoners. (Imagine how poorly America would have weathered the Vietnam years with female combat soldiers.) There is the problem of women getting pregnant before deployment. (Update: Read my comment for more.)
Is there really an urgent necessity that requires women to be placed into combat situation? Is there really a public outcry for women to join such units? Or is this just another push to assert the absurd myth of the "equality" (translation: sameness) of men and women?
Women can’t do everything men can
do. Men can’t do everything women can do. Men and women are not interchangeable,
despite a society that desperately tries to forget that fact.
The move to put women into combat roles is another assertion of the idiotic notion that men and women are “equal” – or more accurately, that gender doesn't matter. And America's military will suffer because some people want to make this point.
Your perspective is interesting, as it reminds me of the arguments used to deny women higher education or jobs in the workforce. Whenever I consider an issue, I simply think 'What Would Jesus Do?" In this case, I do not think he would condemn this new policy as you have. Yes, men and women are different and have their own gifts and positions. However, could not both genders contribute on the battlefield?
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, the U.S. Dept of Defense would not put the country at risk for the sake of 'equality.' In fact, if you actually read the article you linked to, you would have noted, "The senior defense official said the Pentagon expects to have gender-neutral standards for combat jobs." The physical and mental standards are going to be the same for every soldier in combat, regardless of gender. As there exist weak men unsuitable for battle, are there not strong women who meet the standards required for combat? The military has analyzed and studied the matter thoroughly enough to realize that allowing women to contribute on the frontlines will strengthen our national defense.
In answer to your first question, there might be some few select women who could effectively contribute in combat roles. That does not mean that it would be prudent to put women on the battle lines.
DeleteThe number of "strong women" who would be able to go into battle is small. The weak men that you mention who are unsuitable for battle don't make the front lines.
I would like to hope that the government would not water down standards for combat roles for women. Color me cynical that this actually would happen, and that there wouldn't be pressure from activists to water down standards for women who wanted into combat roles but couldn't meet the initial standards.
You also still doesn't answer my other points: the danger of capture and mistreatment and the resulting propaganda value, the problem of pregnancy before deployment, and things I didn't mention: the problem of "bad behavior" (to put it delicately) on the front lines, the problem of feminine hygiene in a war zone - and other problems I didn't mention.