Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Manly Women & The Girly-men Behind Them


Today, every American can be proud that our military will grow even stronger with our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters playing a greater role in protecting this country we love. ~President Barack Obama

As an American man, I can’t imagine being less proud of anything, than sending my mom, wife, or daughter into harm’s way to protect me. (If I hear something go “bump in the night” and I enlist my wife or daughter to check it out, in what sense is this a proud moment? I wouldn’t do this personally, so why would I desire this nationally?)  

Granted, if in some bizarre, alternate universe I was confronted with physical danger and needed help in a fight—without hesitation—I’d take Mrs. Obama over Mr. Obama any day. Wouldn’t you? (You know you would!) 

But this is the real world and we’re not dealing with hypotheticals. Do we really want to live in an America where the official policy is to purposefully send our wives, daughters, and mothers into combat? I don’t. 

Some interject at this point that women are already in combat situations and have been for years. I don’t dispute this. Yet what does this have to do with whether or not it is morally right for them to be there? Yes, they’re there. But should they be? 

Please understand: I’m not speaking of capabilities. I’m talking about the ethical, not the physical. Just because a woman can do something doesn’t mean she should.  

Call me old-fashioned but I fail to see how hurling our women into battle is good for the country. How is resolutely marching our females into situations where they will be undoubtedly killed, captured, and mutilated—in the name of “equality”—good for women?  

It certainly doesn’t seem good for the men who’ve done this since the beginning of time. Does anybody take the position that war is good for men? (I’m talking about the men who actually fight the wars, not the warmongers who profit from them.) 

Some argue that allowing women to serve in combat is good for the advancement of women. Obviously, they are referring to “career” advancement. (It is inconceivable how any other kind of “advancement” can be found by warring women.) 

As combat duty is usually regarded as necessary for promotion to senior officer positions, denying female personnel this experience ensures that very few will ever reach the highest reaches of the military and so further entrenches sexism.

When exactly did it become the military’s responsibility to wage war on sexism? (Did I miss an Executive Order or something?) 

The proper role of the military has nothing to do with advancing the cause of women, and the proper role of women has nothing to do with the forward advances of the military. Nowhere in scripture do we find women enlisting as soldiers for war.  

Some, in their misguided feminist notions, appeal to Judges 4 as examples of women “serving in combat;” but nothing could be further from the truth.  

In this chapter we see Deborah acting as a judge of Israel, not a warrior of Israel. She accompanies Barak but she does not fight for him. The same goes for Jael. Jael is a heroine to be sure, but she’s no military woman. 

Women warriors are foreign to scripture. Rather, men biblically and naturally view themselves as protectors of women and children. Women biblically and naturally see men this way as well. No amount of feminist propaganda can change this. 

You may be thinking: “Aren’t you concerned that all this talk of ‘feminist propaganda’ will enrage the feminists?” No, not at all. One cannot make a feminist angry. Feminists are angry. “Angry feminist” is a tautology. “Angry feminist” is a lot like “wet water” or “indignant liberal.” But I digress. 

I’ve often thought: Feminism is killing women. Thanks to Leon Panetta and our Commander-in-Chief, this is now literally true. As the President observed, 

Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, including more than 150 women who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan -- patriots whose sacrifices show that valor knows no gender.

Indeed. Valor knows no gender. And feminism knows no shame. So let’s send our valorous mothers, wives, daughters and sisters to engage in more unnecessary wars. We’ll call them patriots and tell them it’s for their own good. 

God help us. 

As I consider the horrors of war and the differences between men and women, the God-given gender roles clearly displayed in the Bible and in nature, my mind goes to the manly oration of Nehemiah: “Remember the Lord, great and awesome, and fight for your brethren, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses” (Nehemiah 4:14). 

This was a man leading men. 

We need more Nehemiahs, not GI Janes.

4 comments:

  1. Oh, my, Steve. I'm sure you've stirred up the pot this time.

    "When exactly did it become the military’s responsibility to wage war on sexism?"

    Good question. Seems we've decided the military is a place for all sorts of sociological experimentation. I can't help but think of the decaying Roman empire, which was once the mightiest military power in the world, by far. By the end, they'd become soft and complacent, couldn't even defend Rome itself.

    I don't think there's any doubt this is the direction we're headed, at breakneck speed, accelerated by this administration and the country that put them in power.

    It's said we get the kind of government we deserve.

    God help us.


    Thanks for a thoughtful post.
    Rick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I concur with your assessment of the military and our decaying culture. And the "change" does seem to be accelerated.

      As always, thanks for reading, brother.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Thank you for reading and thinking with me.
      Blessings to you and yours.

      Delete