The “feminist” movement that plagued this nation based on “equal rights for women” neutered men in this country and pushed women down in the eyes of men. Regardless of sex, companies should pay individuals the same wage for the same work as long as each is pulling his/her own weight. This movement went further in their fallacious taunting of female “superiority.” As a result, some men developed a disparaging view toward women as these feminists pushed a disparaging view toward men — “a woman needs to do her part in financially supporting a household”; “women want to be treated equal, fine, they can be treated like a man”; “if women want to work, fine, I’ll stay home and do their job.”
Granted, life cannot exist without an “X” chromosome, provided only by females; however, it in no way should imply women are superior or are equal to men. It is clear women and men are unequal in physical characteristics and other traits, as intended by God, to fulfill the designated roles in society He established. While there are times women needed to step outside their role for various reasons — no available male to secure the role or an unwilling male to fulfill the role, there are some areas which women should be excluded altogether — namely, combat roles in the government military.
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
In a recent Marine Corp study, where women were placed in experimental units to assess their performance in combat roles, women were injured twice as much as men, were slower in completing tactical tasks and navigating obstacles, and less accurate with infantry weapons. Regarding being “less accurate with infantry weapons,” there are women who perform as accurately or more accurately with firearms than did men; however, infantry weapons are not limited to firearms. The study, conducted over a period of nine months at Camp Lejeune, NC and Twentynine Palms, CA, concluded a “comparative disadvantage in upper and lower body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels for most women ….” “Overall, all-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69 percent of tasks evaluated compared to gender-integrated units,” the study summarized.
According to Marine Colonel Anne Weinberg, Deputy Director of the Marine Corps Force Innovation Office in Washington, DC, the research conducted is “unprecedented” across the services. “What we tried to get to is what is that individual’s contribution to the collective unit. We all fight as units … We are more interested in how the Marine Corps fights as units and how that combat effectiveness is either advanced or degraded.”
In total, 400 Marines, including 100 women, participated in the voluntary Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, “the co-ed unit the Marine Corps created to compare the combat performance of male and female service members” in order to meet the 2012 order by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to integrate women into combat roles.
Some of us could have saved the government a lot of time and money on this study, but I digress.
The study proves significant “as the services prepare to submit requests for exemptions to Defense Secretary Ashton Carter this fall, barring women from specific combat roles.”
The study is not without criticism, especially from the civilian Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus. Mabus, whose department includes the Marines, calls for the Navy to open combat roles to women, “and said the latest report may have been tainted by negative attitudes from the beginning.”
In an interview with NPR, Secretary Mabus stated, “It [the study] started out with a fairly large component of the men thinking this is not a good idea and women will never be able to do this. When you start out with that mindset you are almost presupposing the outcome.”
While not declaring the study flawed, he said, “… I think that when you call it empirical standards, that it depends on what you put in it. And if you look at some of the analysis — some of the outside analysis of this — the Center for Naval Analyses, they’ve looked at these and they said there are ways to mitigate this so you can have the same combat effectiveness, the same lethality, which is crucial.”
Mabus claimed in the interview the experiment highlighted what standards it took for individuals to be in the infantry, the artillery, the armor and those standards are present now; however, the standards were not present in the past, resulting in men being posted to positions who were unable to meet standards as there were none except basic training. An individual with military experience commented on Mabus’ remarks claiming there were standards in the past, mentioning the ability of servicemen to pass the Tank Gunnery Skills Test.
The point in all of this is government wants women in the military in combat roles — roles that women have not previously held. This is the issue — women have no place in combat roles in the military. While there are men and possibly women who disagree, one questions where the feminists are in supporting, with guttural enthusiasm, the equality they fought so hard to obtain. Where is their outrage at this study Secretary Mabus believes is “tainted with negative attitudes?” From their resounding silence, one can conclude these “feminists” have bitten off more than they can chew.
Some men, like Secretary Mabus, support women assuming combat roles. No doubt in part due to the influence of “feminists” who want every role of man opened to a woman. Well, these “feminists” will get exactly that. However, at what cost? “Feminists” more than likely never thought about military combat while fighting so hard to disparage the traditional roles of women and neuter men while wearing their “hippie” get-ups, burning their bras, and screaming “equality.”
Why should the military refrain from placing women in combat roles? Women’s roles in society, determined by God, are not one of contention, aggression and physical altercation. Women are the caretakers, the nurturers, and the ones who make a house a home. Their role is a supportive one to their husband and family. It is concerning those roles and characteristics where women serve better in the government military — medical services and non-combat roles.
Women have served in the military as nurses and in non-combat roles. Many gave their lives in service to our country; however, it was not through their participation in direct combat. It was their presence in a war zone while providing ancillary services.
Has anyone thought about the mental stress placed on the entire military unit when women assume combat roles? Isn’t it enough our government uses our servicemen as fodder for their unconstitutional conflicts and “interventionist” stance, sacrificing our sons, husbands, nephews, uncles, fathers, brothers, and son-in-laws for their political fancy? Are we, as a nation, now to sacrifice our servicewomen, who are daughters, wives, nieces, aunts, mothers, sisters and daughter-in-laws to direct combat?
Somewhere along the line, the traditional role of women became “offensive,” associated with low intellect and depth, and viewed as a form of “slavery to men.” Granted, some men treated women in traditional roles, including their wives, as such despite the commands of God otherwise. “Feminists” invented some “superiority” of females, just as the homosexual movement has declared their perversion superior, over males. No longer was it acceptable for women to be “girly girls” or feminine in nature supporting a traditional view of women’s role in society. Women had to become more “tomboyish” or more masculine in demeanor, crossing the line from standing up for ourselves to exhibiting an aggressive nature, and criticize traditional roles. Our government capitulated to the “demands” of a few in declaring “equality” that affected more than a salary.
The chicken has now come home to roost. The Secretary of the Navy supports women who are in the military to serve in combat roles. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter champions women in combat. However, the branches of the military can still request exemptions for women in combat roles; otherwise, all service roles are required to be open to women. If the military branches request exemptions, will Ashton honor the requests? If not, will the military branches allow women to choose a combat role or assign a role like their male counterparts?
Hopefully, there remain both men and women with some sense to know combat is difficult enough when asking a nation to sacrifice its men. How much more difficult will it be when asking the nation to sacrifice its women to combat as well?
