I’ve always hated the labels that redirect the responsibility of misdeeds from individual accountability to life circumstance. Sure we all go through struggles, but why does society categorize those who struggle as individuals who somehow deserve a permission slip?
She had a child out of wedlock at 16 – Yeah, but she has Daddy issues….
He’s a drug addict – Yeah, but he didn’t have many friends…
She sleeps around – Yeah, but she’s a child of divorce…
He’s a rapist – Yeah, but he was sexually abused…
I’ve known many wonderful and strong people who have overcome much, they know the statistics and refuse to be a part of the social expectations. They may struggle emotionally, but they’re determined not to let their suffering victimize someone else. I’ve also known many who let the social expectations dictate their life, it’s like having lifetime subscriptions to “but” and “because” for them. Those who are responsible shouldn’t feel like they have to prove their responsibility to the world because society tells them that their circumstances put them in the negative to begin with. Everyone is responsible for their own life. Which brings me to the meat of this blog post…
First and foremost, my heart goes out to those in Fort Hood. I’m heartbroken for the families that lost a loved one, those who are recovering in the hospital, as well as all of the families that experienced the terror of those life altering moments. Last Wednesday, we all watched the horror unfold like an all too common rerun of a horrific movie, the sudden stab of its reality reoccurring in our minds for days.
We are human, when such acts of horror invade our world like an unexpected enemy, our first response is always to question why. Closure becomes the holy grail of healing. We want to know what would cause someone to do such a thing, we want to know how we can prevent such acts from occurring. In some small way, leaving the act so fully unjustifiable seems to prove the existence of unmitigated evil in its darkest form. If we can just get a grasp on to the underlying situation we’ll feel a little safer, right? How do you stop someone from wanting to hurt innocent people? Could this particular attack be stopped? How can we make sure that this doesn’t happen again? How can we keep a wife from having to pick out a casket because a madman snapped?
Answer: We can’t. Period.
The sooner we accept this scary reality, the sooner we can make improvements that increase our ability to protect ourselves and our families.
Upon turning on the news this weekend I heard the term “PTSD” used roughly 10 times in 30 minutes by 3 different stations. I believe that doing so can be both unintentionally harmful, and sometimes meticulously orchestrated, dependent upon the deliverer of said news reports.
In an effort to answer the “why”, we’ve placed millions of people who suffer from PTSD in a category labeled “Unstable”. Millions of abuse victims, dedicated soldiers, missionaries, car wreck survivors, etc. suffer from PTSD every day, and they aren’t dangerous or unstable. They’re victims of circumstance, but they know they are responsible for their own actions.
PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can leave you in fear for your own life, as well as the life of others. It can cause you to feel like you aren’t in control of your surroundings, and oftentimes normal everyday activities serve as a trigger for your memory, causing you to relive the specific events. It leaves some unable to speak about the events, it can cause them to avoid situations that they fear, which can become all consuming. Hypersensitivity, as well as addiction, are also possible. It’s very common, and those who suffer are far from alone.
There are also those who suffer from brain damage and severe mental disorders, and I believe that we can do more to help them and prevent tragedies by doing so. But the point of this post is to make it clear that using PTSD to justify the slaughter of innocent individuals is not only ignorant, it’s irresponsible, and it vilifies those who come home from war. It encourages them not to seek help.
They’re heroes overseas, yet suddenly untrustworthy with a weapon on U.S. soil. We’ll send them to fight for our rights, but then question their own rights when they simply ask for help. In blaming PTSD, we also tell them that they’re not responsible for their actions, and we fail the very people that fight for us. Many feel out of control, and so we reiterate to them that they are out of control by placing their decision making process fully in the hands of an anxiety disorder.
So, to make this perfectly clear:
PTSD did not go on a shooting spree. Ivan Lopez went on a shooting spree.
A gun did not go on a shooting spree. Ivan Lopez went on a shooting spree.
Millions of people suffering from PTSD daily did not go on a shooting spree, nor will they. Ivan Lopez went on a shooting spree.
Which brings me to my next issue:
Danny Ferguson was engaged to be married. He’d just returned from Afghanistan, and he sacrificed himself while trying to save others. Danny obeyed the law and wasn’t armed on base.
Carlos Lazaney-Rodriguez dedicated 20 years of his life to serving his country, in seven months he planned to retire. Carlos obeyed the law and wasn’t armed on base.
Timothy Owens was a counselor and had also done time in Iraq. He planned to make the military his career. Timothy obeyed the law and wasn’t armed on base.
Ivan Lopez did not obey the law, and he took their lives before taking his own.
A common misconception that spread like a vicious wildfire after this recent attack is that Fort Hood, a military base, should be well equipped to protect itself. They feed the idea that we must control guns, that we need to control those with PTSD, that we need to have more restrictions, etc. Yet they fail to mention that our Military bases are GUN FREE ZONES.Fort Hood is the liberal utopia! Guns must be registered, no carrying permitted, only police are armed, etc… Yet what was the first response when these policies failed?
“We need more control.”
When are people going to realize that violence will always happen, and that the only response from leftist politicians will be to tighten the belt even more? I believe that even they know it won’t work. It’s the same across the U.S., they know the policies don’t work, we have the proof. Feeding the fear of guns is simply a glowing opportunity for Democrats to have more state control. Period. When it fails, they don’t care, they just push for increased control. The accompanying body count of defenseless victims is simply collateral damage for the common good.
My Dad served in the Army for 30 years. He was trusted in life or death situations, highly trained, level headed, etc… I hope I’m not the only one disturbed by the insanity that while he was willing to take a bullet for our country, our country turned around and put him in danger when he came back home. This fact is infuriating to me, and quite hard to stomach.
Is it just a lack of common sense? It’s simple: Those who plan to break the law and murder someone are not going to mind breaking the law to gain the weapon to do so. That’s right, out of the entire military, including millions of those that suffer with PTSD, .00007% went on a shooting spree this year, so that somehow justifies keeping the rest of our military in danger? Go back and recount those zeros so that we can bask in the unrivaled ignorance of gun control.
I often ask why law makers and leftists fight to unarm our military. The only answer I have is one that scares me: They are either dangerously ignorant, and are therefore incompetent to run a country, OR, seeing men and women in body bags is not a cost they’re not willing to pay for their propaganda and control.
I see people fighting all the time on behalf of military benefits, and I’m not asking you to stop…But I find it equally important, if not more so, for us to fight for their right to protect themselves. Our soldiers fight for the freedoms outlined in the Constitution, then come home and get gunned down because they’re not allowed to have those same rights, then survivors get labeled as ticking time bombs because they have PTSD.
Come on, America…We can do better.
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 women. Since I’m no stranger to controversial topics, I’ve decided to expand on a recently escalated arm of this topic. 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, 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 that 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 feminist 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.”
In my post entitled “Women, a National Treasure”, I talk about my issue with so called “equality”…I referenced a quote from Ravi Zacharias talking about how God commanded men to love women as He loves the church, Ravi goes on to say that in doing so, God called for men to love women as He has loved humanity.
So to my point: 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 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…Some were non military men that 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 that 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 frontlines 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 US, 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.