A Modern Woman's Perspective On The Kingdom of God on Earth

February 4, 2013

Women In Combat: My Opinion

     I'm sure I'm going to be excoriated over this post, but I'm just going to come out swinging on this one!  The idea of women on the front lines of combat is not only illogical, it is dangerous.  I've had a front row seat to the whole gender equality battle over the last few decades, and I am not shy about saying that it has not served my gender or our society well.
     Before you think that I am denigrating the skills and intelligence of women, I unequivocally deny that charge.  Women are more than capable of running businesses as CEOs, and deserve equal pay for equal jobs.  I have a profound pride in seeing women astronauts, women Supreme Court judges, and yes, even women serving in our military.  Our minds are as capable of strategic planning as any man's, and I would even venture that our attention to detail and ability to multi-task are oftentimes superior to a man's.  
     But let's be honest, we are not physically equal.  We never have been and never will be.  That is a fact and one that was designed by our Maker.  I believe that God deliberately and intentionally created man and woman for different purposes.  He shaped our bodies for specific and separate tasks and developed our emotions to be distinct and dissimilar .... on purpose!  You see we each have individual roles that uniquely support His plan for proliferation.
     We can all agree that women's bodies are designed to give and support life, while men are engineered, both physically and psychologically, to protect the female species.  Women view circumstances and events through an emotional lens, while men approach situations through reason and just want to "fix" everything.  
     I suppose the feminist movement had its roots in the restlessness of the 60s and 70s, when women thought "the grass was greener" in the corporate world.  Perhaps they were tired of dirty diapers, endless loads of laundry, and an inability to share in their husband's day.  Or maybe they listened to the lies of the propagandists who told them that being "a housewife" was an unimportant and menial position.  So they turned the raising of their children over to substitute mothers; hired people to clean their homes; abandoned their natural state of nurturing for a harsher, competitive edge; and denied their womanly, delicate and gentle qualities.  Women no longer celebrated their softer side.  Little girls grew up wanting to be baseball players, race car drivers and, yes, soldiers.  
     In the meantime, our society and the structure of our families fell apart.  Divorce rates skyrocketed; both men and women engaged in affairs because the carrot was dangled before them in greater numbers at work.  I know it sounds draconian and old-fashioned, but I am convinced that it is the innate makeup of men to be the defender and protector; to guard and shield his mate from harm and injury.  Men still want to be the knight in shining armor, and I think if most women were honest with themselves, they long to be safeguarded and secure; to know that they have a champion defending their honor and their physical safety.  Who doesn't want to feel cherished?
      That brings me back to the battlefield.  I must agree with Executive Director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, Ron Crews, who believes that this is not a matter of courage, desire or ability.  He was quoted in a recent Christian Post online article: "God created inside of man the honor to protect the women around them.  Men in combat will have that innately inside of them. This will cause a distraction in combat."  Then there is the obvious question of physical strength and ability.  Will the average woman ground combat soldier be able to carry an injured male comrade-in-arms to safety?  And if you have any question about her capabilities to perform that duty, how many of our fathers, brothers and sons are we willing to sacrifice to give her that opportunity?
     And can anyone besides me picture the testosterone that will be on display when you have a company of alpha males, (who just happen to be in warrior mode on the front lines), competing to be not only the dominant protector of their soldier sister, but the conqueror?  And don't tell me that their professionalism will take precedence over their hormones.  History is full of armies that have been compromised by the female influence.
     Lastly, is anyone considering who we are fighting in far-off lands?  Does anyone in the military hierarchy really think that a woman combat soldier is going to be treated with any degree of respect, should she be captured by the enemy?  The Middle East hasn't exactly been the poster child in the human rights department -- especially for women!
     I am all for women in the military, and in key administrative positions.  But due to their physical limitations, the potential for sexual tension, and their predisposition for nurturing, they just do not possess a "warrior mentality".   Therefore, I think it is inappropriate to push women in the military beyond the current boundaries.  And if this becomes policy, what's next?  Are you ready to sign up your 18-year-old daughter for the draft?  Don't laugh.  Look around you.  Everything is upside down and spinning out of control.

Hosea 14:9     "Who is wise? Let them realize these things. Who is discerning? Let them understand. The ways of the Lord are right; the righteous walk in them, but the rebellious stumble in them."


  1. Yes, another wonder social-engineering effort from those enlightened leaders who have so successfully lead our nation into...mediocrity.
    It never fails to amaze me that the same pointy-headed intellectual crowd (and I've been a member of them during different jobs) who tout how wonderful "Nature" is and how "Man needs to understand and embrace the lessons of the natural world, and respect how life on Earth has evolved," are the first ones to completely disregard human biology and nature in our own society for the sake of a progressive ideology.
    Pure cognitive dissonance.
    And I share your observation about Selective Service. Strangely, that consideration has been completely absent in discussion from our 5th Column media sources. A (liberally-leaning) neighbor asked me what I thought of the new policy for women in combat yesterday at our neighborhood Superbowl shin-dig...she thought it was "great that men didn't have a monopoly in the military any more." I asked her if she was ready to sign up her two daughters for the draft. Too bad I didn't have a camera, because the look was priceless -- it was clear she had NEVER even considered that angle of the policy. After a sputtering, "they would never do that..." I just smiled and said, "Well that will have to part of men giving up our 'monopoly,' right?" No more conversations with her after that.
    Be careful what you wish for...

    1. I was anxious to hear your response, because I knew you would have an opinion "from the inside", based on military experience and common sense (both of which, sadly, are lacking in our current leaders). Thank you for being willing to take a stand, and I'm sure your neighbor thinks that the Patriot Act applies to everyone else but her. That photo would have been priceless!

    2. I went home last night still thinking about this post...it's one of those things that is just too close to who I am.
      As you know, I spent 27 years on Active Duty in the Navy, in submarines, on 4 different continents, finishing as a very "Joint" counter-terrorism planner type at 5 different Joint military commands. I once had the honor to have a student who was a female Army officer that had earned the Silver Star -- who if you met her, you would never assume she was a lean, mean killing machine, yet within 5 minutes could command the total respect of anybody she worked with. I met my wife while we were both still Active. She transitioned to the Navy Reserves and is still with them -- heck, she out ranks me now! And I'm getting ready to send my #1 Jinni off to join the Navy, where SHE is seriously considering submarine service, following in the wake left by her old man. So I "GET" women in the military.
      Here is the main consideration that any true military professional will have, for ANY policy enacted by our civilian leaders: what is the MISSION impact? If it positively contributes, new policy will be jumped on with enthusiasm. If policy is more or less neutral, it will be received the same way. But if it's negative, push-back will be immediate and the troops will quickly find battlefield expedients that actively work around it. And only narrow-minded, ladder-climbing officers will enforce those negative policies, all-the-while wondering why their troops hate them.
      I absolutely want women in our military. The number of jobs and mission contribution provided by a mixed-gender military is tremendous. But it is disingenuous to say that women can do "all jobs, just like a man." If all men were fit for every job just because of biology, then anybody could be a Ranger, SEAL or Para-Rescue jumber. But they aren't -- and there are standards. Not every young person who wants to enlist is eligible. Because there are standards. And every standard that must be met supports the MISSION of the military. I fully agree females can drive ships essentially the same as men. And females can generally operate aircraft the same as men. And I know a bunch who are great medical professionals, logisticians, maintenance specialists, and in a few personal cases from my experience, certainly BETTER staff officers than men. I "get" that.
      So the primary question I have for President Obama and Secretary Panetta is here: does the new policy on women serving in combat-specific specialty units of the military enhance their mission capabilities or detract? Straight up, does it make these combat units more lethal to our enemies? If the only thing that has to change is mental attitudes, then any good Sergeant/Chief can fix that with a little line/deck-plate leadership in a month or so. I specifically refer to the integration of non-whites into line units during WW II (with a grateful nod to those who went well before during previous conflicts in specialty units) -- the US military led our nation into equal opportunity well before the civilian population because it served the military MISSION. If the answer for enacting new policy involves a lot of hand-waving and politically correct mumbo-jumbo, then the conclusion is obvious. If women can be incorporated with reasonable, practical force alignments, then fine and they are (and have been) welcome and equal. But the moment somebody says a female infantry marine or soldier only has to carry 60% of the pack weight as a man, or be able to march only 70% of the required distance, or be exempted from hauling the mortar plates and ammo, or the unit has to offset its mission equipment for some support equipment related only to females, or, or, or...then the standards have been lowered, the capability of the unit reduced, and the lethality to our enemies arbitrarily submitted to a political "good idea." And that's where it would be wrong.
      Just my 2 more cents from some long and hard-won experience.

    3. Your experience and opinion are worth considerably more than 2 cents, my friend. And I think you hit the nail on the head when you asked if the mission of this decision (to send women into combat) is to "make these combat units more lethal to our enemies". I don't see any leadership at the top that wants to "take it to the enemy". They seem (to me) to be more concerned with undermining our military's capabilities and leveling the playing field among the world players. Which is another way of saying I fully expect the standards to be lowered. This does not serve our military, or our country, well! I, too, applaud women in the military -- we should be using them to their fullest and best abilities! Combat is not one of those areas, and I fear that exposing the entire military to this poor decision, depreciates their amazing contributions.

  2. Very well said! It's hard for the competitive nature inside of me to not want women who pass the EXACT same physical requirements of the men to be able to have the jobs in the military that they want, but the reality of the situation is the emotional/hormonal factors are going to play a bigger role. I also feel sorry for the men of the military who's opinion on the matter is getting taken out of context. They are not sexist or disgriminating, they know the battle field better than any of us. If they say women don't belong there, then they don't belong there for many reasons.
    I don't understand why women get offended by the fact that we ARE different from men and that's okay!

    1. I know your competitiveness and what a strong woman you are, but I also know your tender and nurturing side, which better suits our society here at home, rather than on a far-off battlefield. You can teach the ambition and strong desire for success that you possess to your son. We need strong mothers to raise a generation of young men who are MEN; and who will value the principles that made this country great. And it is self-assertive and determined mothers like yourself that can make sure we don't lose either our competitive edge on the battlefield or the sense of what makes an honorable man. Those are the strengths and power of being a woman! And there's nothing wimpy about that!

  3. I'd like to comment and also wanted to let you know Belle that agree with you, everything that you said. The bottom line is, women, no matter how smart they are and how capable they are physically, they still aren't as capable as a man with strength, at least not for any length of time if it is needed. Having been a naval officers wife years ago, when this thing about having women possibly coming on ship and being out to sea for months at a time, well, it upset many of the men and officers, some wives too, only because, their place and strength isn't meant to be there. My ex had stated that they had enough issues and problems on board and bringing that type of situation onboard was only going to complicate and cause problems among the men and in his opinion, could be dangerous not only for the woman serving on board, but also for her fellow companions who were serving. Not only that, women who went out into the field or onboard a ship, well, what about the children who are left behind or if she becomes pregnant. Who will care for those children? Husband, boyfriend, parents? I can tell you that I know fights would break out and tensions for these women's attention and would end up breaking the morale of these guys and when that happens, who would you be able to trust with you life. As you said, other countries where we're fighting our wars now, they certainly don't have respect for women in general and let me tell you, if it was an enemy and a woman on top of it, I'd hate to be captured as to what I can only imagine what would happen to them. Many of these young people sign up for the service believing they will be able to get help with schooling later on, only to find out that, yes, it's there, but you better think about the reality of being part of the ranks and what it could cost you as young woman, young mother. I don't think the cost for that is worth it. That's just my two cents. If women want to serve our country, there are many other ways to do it. If for any reason this country calls a draft and they will include women in that, this country thinks they have problems now with unwanted children, let me tell you, there will be lots more. We have to think of the children and their best interests! Personally, I think the government would be more than happy to take our children off of our hands so they can brainwash them some more, use them for their own personal agendas.

    1. You've made some very good points, and I hope your arguments become part of the national debate over this issue. The consequences of such a decision are far-reaching and potentially devastating to entire families.

  4. I'm in favor of women in combat.
    But only in their own divisions and separated from battlefields of our men.
    No heroic rescues of embattled feminine divisions by gallant men, you rescue your own and we will rescue our own as we did at Bastogne and Mogadishu.
    When enough of you come back without legs or with a face like so much strawberry yogurt from a "bouncing Betty" you will change your tune and the bulk of fine liberal independent woman will demand to be a CEOs but not grunts.
    As a matter of fact, lets have all combat positions female and see how long the Republic lasts against aggressors.
    Change "Fight and Die" to "Fight and Cry".

    1. Your tongue-in-cheek analysis is spot on! The whole idea is absurd and supported by policy wonks who've obviously never served on the front lines.