I remember this exhausting march we did in 1 PPCLI during a winter exercise in 1989. We were all huffing and puffing and sweating from pulling toboggans through the snow on our way to the next bivouac. Then the order came down the line for all men to unzip zippers to let cold air freshen up the vitals. I was astonished at the relief and vigor that resulted from this. What if we had had a woman with us? If a woman had been with us, the officer would not have given the order. He would have been too scared of it being interpreted as a threat—what today the feminists call a ‘micro-aggression.’ When women are where they are not supposed to be, it makes it harder for men to do what they are supposed to do.
Would the same people who are offended by my opinion that women should not serve in combat roles, be offended about a debate about whether men are obsolete or not? That is the kind of thing being discussed by socialist radicals who push women into occupations that they do not function well, much less excel, in. That debate, consisting of two women on each side, actually took place. It was a prestigious Munk debate. It would be better to call it a likeminded interchange because both sides of it were against men. We know that both sides were on the same side in this debate even without watching it because any person willing to debate a question like that must be, ipso facto, against men. So it’s okay, somehow, to debate whether men are obsolete or not. But it’s not okay, somehow, to question putting women into roles that they are not physically and psychologically suited for. Some of us resent the fact that it is acceptable to call men useless while it is unacceptable to question the usefulness of women in roles that only men are fit to fill.
During my dispute on Facebook, I reproved a former soldier for asserting that he would ‘go shoulder to shoulder with women on the front line.’ I said that he would not go at all. This was not just an angry remark. I have anecdotal proof to back that claim up. For the sake of sparing him shame, I did not mention what that proof was, and I won’t mention his name in this article. During this dispute I told two persons to ‘shut up.’ And I called another person an ‘ignorant moron.’ This is not unchristian behavior, necessarily; and this behavior is much more respectful than flinging false accusations and foul expletives at a person just for disagreeing with a feminist cause. When an injustice is done to a Christian, like an insult or a false accusation, that Christian may copy the apostle Paul’s conduct: “Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” (Acts 23.3.) Again, if the apostle calls Cretans ‘liars, evil beasts, slow bellies’ (Titus 1.12), the Christian may call a person an ‘ignorant moron’ when the nickname fits. If the apostle tells Christians to be followers of him (1 Corinthians 11.1), it is not wrong for a Christian to obey by imitating apostolic behavior.
Soldiers are used to taking orders. It is no surprise, therefore, though it is regrettable, that soldiers who once opined that women should have no place in combat arms trades now assert that it is wonderful progress to have them serve in that capacity. Soldiers have been commanded to adopt this view. One soldier that I served with calls battlefield women, ‘shield maidens.’ Maybe he has a point, for Captain Goddard may have shielded someone from flying shrapnel. But she was meant to be a comfortable haven for a husband, not a shield maiden for soldiers.
Feminism has caused men to be oppressed by the state; and it is causing them to be increasingly oppressed as the years pass. Women are favored for jobs because of their gender; they sinfully appropriate the resources of men by court order; and by court order they prevent men from seeing their children. For such reasons, it is tempting to celebrate the fact that some women may be put on the front lines to die. However, I prefer to press towards the ideal: women being virtuous but not prudish, intelligent but not imperious, classy but approachable, religious but not fanatical, industrious but playful, gentle but resolute, fit but delicate, nurturing but protected. If we were to make progress towards this ideal, the oppression of men through women by force of the state would begin to lessen. Soldiers, even after retiring—even after the military pressure to conform is over—seem to be on board with women serving in combat arms trades. What has convinced them? Nothing has convinced them. They have merely moved with the ‘progressive’ current. Some soldiers may still believe that women should not serve as fighters. But my guess is that most soldiers, both serving and retired, who think this way, are too afraid to say so. It is not pleasant to be reviled for stating and then maintaining what ‘progressive’ radicals call a ‘backward’ view. Men would rather go to actual war than to be hated, slandered, and ostracized.
No comments:
Post a Comment