A few months ago I wrote a blog post concerning the equality of women and the dramatic kick off the pedestal the feminist movement has brought upon the female populous. Since I’m no stranger to controversial topics, I’ve decided to expand on a recently escalated arm of this particular matter. It’s been a while since our last post, why not dive into the controversial deep end and get this year started off right?
I love a good debate, and in the last few days I’ve had some interesting debates both on Twitter and Facebook concerning women in combat. I have found that the majority of the left love the G.I. Jane mentality of women on the frontlines. But I have also found some on the right who feel women are just as capable, that a volunteer army provides the gift of choice for the men who would not choose to fight beside a woman. Also, that a woman is given the same choice and willingly puts herself in danger.
Is it sexist to say that you would not want to stand behind a woman with a gun?
Is it a feminist statement to say that you are just as capable of fighting with the guys?
Is it heroic for a woman to join in the battle?
First I want to bring up a few twitter posts from our ladies
embarrassing serving our nation:
Nancy Pelosi: “Lifting the ban on combat is a significant step forward for equality. Women will now be able to reach the highest ranks in the military.”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Valor knows no gender.” Another historic step in the march toward full equality.”
When the feminists preach on equality, they are not talking about pulling you up from the lowly levels of the supposed barefoot and pregnant doormat, they are talking about pulling you down from the pedestals of treasured entities worthy of the utmost respect and protection. Debbie and Nancy should just come out with a blanket statement of “Thank goodness we’ve gained ground in our fight to stop men from holding us in such high regard that they won’t let us die in the barbaric conditions of battle.”
What torture would a female POW face that a male POW wouldn’t? Do you honestly think that a demented, vicious, and brutal enemy would treat you both the same? Would a woman’s “benefits” not bring on a prolonged level of torture to a morally depraved regime that already finds women to be below the level of dogs? What honorable man would feel heroic allowing a woman into situations where she will possibly face those conditions, regardless of her willingness or her capabilities with a gun?
The social changes deemed as “appropriate” have only served to lower our level of human dignity. We assign a level of deserved degradation to countries that have the audacity and cowardice to place their armed women and children as shields. To treat them as a disposable entity unworthy of the utmost protection is seen as one of the lowest levels of masculinity known to man. My confusion then begins when our military places women on the frontlines, why does our position change to labeling this as a step towards equality?
Equality, thy name is Hypocrite.
Let’s give another example of this: Say your daughter is getting ready to walk to work at 1am, she will be walking in the dead of night with the possibility of shady characters lurking in dark shadows looking for opportunities. (This is where most Fathers would figure out a safer option…but let’s roll with this.) Would you REALLY feel like a man sending your wife to walk your daughter to work? I. Don’t. Think. So. If you didn’t deem yourself a coward, you would surely be a delusional coward.
Is chivalry completely dead?
I am happy to report that no, it is not. I posed the question on twitter and received DM’s as well as replies that men feel as though this is an easy answer. The majority of the replies came from men who were familiar with combat, they were veterans, men currently serving, etc., and some were non-military men who just knew what concerns they would have if on the battlefield with a woman. It was heartwarming. All gave a “nay,” women do not belong in combat. I did not receive ONE response on twitter from men (other than from liberals) saying that women should be placed in combat. While some women would yell “SEXIST,” I offer my sincerest “thank you” for seeing women as too precious to put through the hell that some of them have faced, or the hell they know exists. This feeds into my next position on why women being in combat is such a poor idea.
Since chivalry is NOT dead, honorable and brave men automatically have a sense of responsibility toward women. It’s not a prejudice. So what OTHER dangers are there?
SIDE NOTE: Women have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, on average. Honestly, I am one of the women who are probably WELL below that, I don’t mind the prejudice.
If men have this automatic sense of protection and responsibility toward women, why do we think that adding another distraction to the battlefield is a good idea? How many lives will be lost because the men are trying to fight AND protect the women? How many men and women will face emotional damage beyond the normal amount battle already creates? For a man to see a woman, someone he is wired to protect, in hygienically depraved circumstances and emotionally damaging situations comes with its consequences.
This is not equality. This is not bravery. This is not biblical. This is not safe.
I’ve heard many stories, many testimonies from women who have served tours. I’m proud of our military women, but as a woman, if I wanted to throw myself on the front lines for my country in an act of bravery and protection of my family, I would have to stop and realize that my choices could be putting others in danger, and could also lower the morale of men who have so bravely sacrificed so much for me already. The strengths of a woman are not measured by the vast amount of things they can do that are “better or equal to a man.” The strengths of a man are not measured by the amount of people he can kill or the awards decorating his chest. The measure of who we are is judged by our motives … If your motives stem from a dedication to your family and a love for the United States, that’s heroic. If that’s the case, ladies, THINK of the implications that your presence will have on your fellow soldiers and their ability to fight and protect your family.
Is it so bad to accept our limitations and flourish in our abilities? Call me old fashioned, but I find that the roles of women have strayed so far away from any position of being deemed “treasured.” I won’t go into detail on that since I already did in my prior post. There are differences between men and women (besides the obvious), emotionally, physically, and mentally. You may not like the truth, but the truth cares not if you like it, nor believe it. In Israel the women fight, not because the government wishes that upon women, but because they are constantly under threat or attack and NEED the help. BUT, the women are treated VERY different from the men. They serve half as long, and they are automatically exempt if they marry or have children.
The natural reactions and inherent responsibilities of men with a conscience will always be there. It is society that teaches the man that his natural response is selfish and sexist. It is society that teaches the woman that raising a family is not beautiful or heroic. It is society that tells a woman that being treasured is degrading, that being protected is oppressive, that being cherished is inequality.
It is evil that teaches a man to abandon his natural God given responsibility to protect and love women. It is evil that teaches a man to stand behind her while she is shattered with bullets. THAT is why good men will always feel the need to protect women, even if the women are willingly putting themselves in danger. That is why brave battlefield ready women will cost lives. The best way to make the monster of chivalry decimation grow, is to feed it. Put women in vulnerable positions, in torturous conditions, in the hands of barbaric men…Then teach men to treat them as they would fellow male soldiers – that is giving the “monster” a buffet.
Lt. Commander Kenneth Carkhuff was relieved of his duties after being promoted for his “unlimited potential,” He was “destined for command and beyond.” Why was such a decorated and honorable man relieved of his duties? He was relieved of his duties because he expressed to his commanders that his Faith was colliding with his orders to lead women into combat. So instead of doing what other countries have done after the morale of soldiers left them compromised once women were introduced to combat, which is remove women from combat, we in America have chosen to force men to abandon their decency, or their careers. Young men everywhere want to be heroes, and like Lt. Commander Carkhuff, they also would take a bullet before letting a woman come into danger, or avoid the career all together.
When will we stop letting feminist desensitize our men, and start demanding the respect that is God given. Jesus went out of his way; he did things deemed as shameful, brave, and startling just to show the woman at the well how precious she was to Him. He commanded men to love women as He has loved humanity. I don’t know about you, but that kind of love seems beyond equal, beyond beautiful, and beyond fair to me.