"The more I read the New Age literature, the more I am struck by several facts. Almost none of it seriously wrestles with the historical and textual arguments put forward by serious Christians. New Age thought is insufferably fuzzy and inconsistent. Anthing it likes or can use, it rips out of its historic context and redeploys with new content, often made out of whole cloth. It almost never deals with evil, because it is most commonly pantheistic -- and religions that do not wrestle with the problems of human evil are blind beyond words. Worse, almost all of this multiplying thought is irremediably selfish. The aim of the exercise is self-fulfillment, self-actualization, serenity, productivity, power. God, if he/she/it exists, exists for me. And from a biblical perspective, it is this profound selfishness that lies at the heart of all human sin."
- D.A. Carson
Friday, January 25, 2013
We are the unmanliest nation ever.
We are a nation of wimps and cowards. We kill the weakest among us on purpose.
And we now we will let our women fight our battles.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has decided to lift a ban on women serving in combat, a senior defense official said Wednesday.
Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, "are expected to announce the lifting of the direct combat exclusion rule for women in the military," the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters.
"This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the Secretary of Defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," the official said in an email.
In February last year, Panetta opened up about 14,000 combat-related jobs to female troops for the first time in an incremental move.
I think the best response to this was written by John Piper 5 years ago. (Yup, that guy again.)
If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea. Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women.
Here's his whole article. It's great.
I am deeply, deeply disturbed by this. I have never served in the military but God has blessed me with some close relationships with many. I was raised a military brat. I have been around soldiers all my life. Over the past 30 years, I have spoken to many, many, many of them about the reality of combat. Some of what you are about to read comes from things I learned from them.
It is wrong for women to be in combat. This will not be an exhaustive list. I'm just getting started. The very idea of this disturbs me to the depths of my soul.
1. What happened to a society that said, as they did on the H.M.S. Titanic, "Women and Children First"? Now we say "Women and Children First" but we mean, "Women, go fight and die in combat before me" and "Children, die before me because I am not willing to put an armed guard at their door." The average office employee has better security than the very child they dropped off at school that day.(As an aside on another topic, but not unrelated: if we were a manly nation, every dad who sends his kids to school would volunteer to take regular shifts of guard duty at his child's school.)
2. What will happen to a society that allows its women to fight its battles? What's next? Are you ready for your daughters, yes, your daughters, to register for selective service when they turn 18? Because that's what's coming. It's inevitable.
3. What will happen when a woman is captured in war? Rape. Almost a guarantee. She WILL be sexually assaulted. The very people who condemned someone for talking about "legitimate rape" and now support this move are condemning every future female POW to rape.
4. What happens when a woman is put under the command of men in her own military from her own country? Rape. Sexual Harassment. Abuse. This is already happening. It will continue to happen. And it will only be worse in combat situations. (I am NOT excusing the behavior of our own men in this case. What I am saying is that we are putting our women at unnecessary risk. If you send your ten year old out into the night in a large downtown city where there are untold dangers and your child is harmed, the bad guy is responsible...but so are you.)
5. What happens when women in combat are required to relieve themselves or shower in the same areas as the men? I don't even have an answer for that question. But if this idea doesn't bother you, then nothing else I say will either. Oh, and you have no decency. (And because I have decency I won't mention the hygiene issues related to not being able to actually get clean for literally weeks or months at a time.)
6. Will the women in combat be required to have short hair as their male counterparts for reasons of cleanliness and discipline? I don't know the answer to this one either. (There is no way to brush your hair free of critters when you are in the field for months.)
7. What happens when a woman gets her face blown off while charging an enemy compound? Will the male soldier nearby get distracted because her womanly screams make it impossible for him to carry out his mission? (Answer: Yes. Yes, he will. If he doesn't, it's only because it will have to be conditioned out of him at bootcamp.)
8. What does it say about us that we are somehow OK with even the risk that our daughters, our mothers, our sisters will have their guts spilled in a battlefield? This one makes me speechless.
9. What happens to unit cohesiveness when two men start fighting over the same woman in their unit? Or when two woman start fighting over the same man in their unit? Don't tell me sexual politics won't happen. Have you ever been in an area where men and women spend a lot of time together. Come on. Get real people. But office politics and gossip don't result in death. (Not normally). Combat is not an episode of "The Office" or "L.A. Law".
10. Are we absolutely certain, that physical requirements won't be reduced? No marine wants to be carrying 160 pounds of gear because the woman in front of him can only carry 80. And none of us wants our soldiers to be left unarmed because there wasn't a man available to lift the 50 Caliber machine gun into place. (OK, the new ones are lightweight and only weigh 41 pounds, but you know what I mean.)
11. Can a woman sneak up behind a guy, pull his head back and slit his throat? Would you want your daughter or your son's wife to be the kind of woman who could?
12. When a squad leader is deciding which man or woman to send over the wall or into the enemy occupied building first, is he going to be influenced by the pretty face amongst the ugly ones? Is he really going to be able to send her in, instead of a man? With all due respect to the professionalism and courage of our soldiers, it's hard to imagine gender not influencing command decisions on the field of battle. I'll tell you now, I couldn't send a woman in. If I were a soldier in the army this is going to become, I would be unable to carry out my orders fairly to the best of my ability if a woman were under my command, because I would NEVER put her in harms way before me. And I would shield her body with my own. AT least, I hope that I would have the courage to. If I wasn't willing to sacrifice myself to protect her, then I would be a coward.
And now, with every single woman that enters into combat duty, I'll wonder if I'm a coward for not taking her place. American women in combat means that I am raising my sons to protect and defend women who will not want to be protected.
I could go on and on. But I weep for us. I really do. I'm crying for your daughters. I'm crying for my granddaughters yet unborn and for their daughters.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/6770.
Comments on "Women In Combat":
2. Neo
- 01/25/2013 11:01 am CST
If there is ever a draft, and they want to take away one of my daughters to die in the front-line fighting a country we have no business fighting with, then it's "O Canada" for our family.
A draft of daughters to me would be the final mark of the failure of the American experiment, when the Government takes your daughters away to kill them overseas...
3. Karl
- 01/25/2013 11:17 am CST
"it was pointed out that their are support roles, ie Military Police, fighter pilot that women currently are allowed, with support combat roles and they can find themselves in a fire fight already."
That is definitely true. As a look at the casualty lists will tell you, women have been in the combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan in many roles that subjected them to significant danger. Being front-line fighters is a step to a different place, though.
4. Really?
- 01/25/2013 3:58 pm CST
I assume none of you served in the military. Let along served in war time operations. I'll take this one by one:
1. That is just stupid
2. Like the Israeli, Canadian, Australian, German, Denmark and New Zealnd comabt forces. Yes, it isn't pleasant thought send our daughter to war. It shouldn't be for our sons. And if we had this im place 12 years ago, maybe our wars would have been avoided.
3. As a military brat, you didn't pay attention to the local news. How many domestic rapes where conducted by U.S. military men stationed overseas? Do your research. Will rape and assualt happen? Yes, but it happens more on american-to-american than does war time from the enemey. That is a FACT!
4.Like Joan of Arch, Elizabeth Newcume, Artimisa of Caria, Nandi, Ahhotep I, yadda yadda. You mention rape a lot. But in fact as a fact, rape happens more under male command than women, in cultures that have women combattant commanders.
5. Since the start of integrating women, showering together has never been mandatory nor a hardship to create seperate showers for the military, any military.
6. Yes, depending on your job in the military, you may be required to cut your hair. They are fine with that, Ask them. Geesh!
7. Well, gee, anybody who gets their face blown off will be a distraction. Try visiting a veterans hospital and ask someone who has experience this and say "if you had 2 buddies, 1 male and 1 female, and they both got their faces blwon off, which will capture your attention first?" I've visited them. From personal experience from their accounts, it sucks regardless.
8. I guess in your eyes, women are more valuable than men? Unless they are gay, then it's Men, Women, gay men, gay women.
9. They are already adjusted today. They are also adjusted as you age. So a 30 year old male does not have the same requirement as a 20 year old male. Women as well.
10. Yes. And yes.
11. You've never seen a woman 3 days out, down range have you? If you did you would have asked this question.
By far this is the most ignorant post on this topic I've read. I mean, not in ignorant like lack of knowledge, but lack of thought, consideration, and reasearch. It is riddled with lazy supositions, bound by no fact, and mired with a 1920's elitist mentality. You've never been raised on a farm or a working ranch. It clear as a bright day you've never served. You neither honor our military nor add credibility to the democracy it defends other than your freedom of thought.
It is in your face. But manly,far the opposite.
5. Bill
- 01/25/2013 4:11 pm CST
"That is just stupid"
Unlike a lot of online forums, you don't have to start out that way here. We prefer to avoid the food-fight mentality.
I hear your passion, and I don't doubt you have thought about this a lot and probably make some good points.
But it's hard to engage with someone who is already throwing tomatoes in his/her first sentence.
Hang around awhile.
6. Quaid
- 01/25/2013 10:37 pm CST
From what I understand, the physical standards to become a combat soldier will remain consistent, regardless of gender.
If it were up to me, women wouldn't be fighting in the military at all. But since they are, if a lady in the military desires to serve as a combat troop and she can meet the standard set up for all troops, then I have no greater problem with her serving in combat than I already do with women fighting in the first place. (I should mention that my aunt spent years in the army and she was, by all accounts, a good soldier. I greatly appreciate her service, as I do all women who have served and are serving.)
Although I would appreciate a more diplomatic tone, I resonate with much of "Really?"'s rationale. If there is a silver lining to this cloud, it's that maybe we'll think twice before jumping into combat, knowing that some of our nation's daughters are out there. But, as "Really?" also mentioned, it's not as if the women serving thus far have been immune to casualty.
Frankly, I'm tired of war. I grew up in the 80s with a constant threat of Cold War (although I had no idea what that meant, as a child). I transitioned into the early 90s with the first Iraq war and then skirmishes in Europe. Of course, 2001 triggered the war on terror. There has been just a small amount of time in my 30+ years of life that have existed as times of peace for this country. I'm tired of it. (And I have the incredible blessing to not even live where the guns are being fired. I can't even imagine living with a consistent threat of gunfire nearby.)
I realize that war is sometimes necessary. I'm not a pacifist. But I'm tired of it. I don't want our women in combat and I don't want our men there, either. If we have to be there, I'd rather just the men fight. If that makes me a 1920s elitist, then call me Gatsby.
7. Tony
- 01/26/2013 7:02 am CST
If it were up to me, women wouldn't be fighting in the military at all.
Quaid, Since woman are currently in specialties that have strong combat support roles, you could make this argument. There is the idea that if a war/crisis was big enough, all troops, whether you are a clerk or work in the supply depot, would pick up their M16 and fight back. So just by being in the military, one could be called to battle at any time, if there were a 'Red Dawn' type incident. So I agree with your statement from this aspect, however since that type of all out war is hopefully not likely, woman do play an important role in many occupations within the military currently and our military wouldn't be as strong without them.
I don't like war either, but isn't that why we have an army? So that we don't have to go to war? Kind of like the Karate Kid scene:
Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi: So?
Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.
Gotta love the wisdom of Miyagi :)
8. Tony
- 01/26/2013 7:15 am CST
Yes, it isn't pleasant thought send our daughter to war. It shouldn't be for our sons. And if we had this im place 12 years ago, maybe our wars would have been avoided.
I entirely disagree with the premise that woman in combat forces will make us think twice before going to war. There is too much big picture things going on for our leaders to think about then to think about the details of who they are sending into war. Or you could say, the devil is in the details, but no one wants to talk or think about the devil. The more elite you are, the more this is true and guess who decides whether we go to war or not? Our elitist friends in Wash. Just like they didn't think of the details of allowing woman in front line combat roles a couple of days ago, they won't think about the details so much when deciding to send troops overseas.
9. Tony
- 01/26/2013 7:57 am CST
Really?
Strangely, what I like about the Internet is how honest we communicate today. As a male, I have some of the same thoughts about a woman being put in the position of a combative nature that Phil pointed out above.
I was in the military, served 4 years as an MP in the Army. I went through basic training with a platoon of all females within my company. I've been through combat training courses within basic training that left me physically exhausted - to the point where I passed out at the end of one once. Overall, I witnessed how less effective the females were in these same courses. It is what it is. You make a good point about how the physical fitness test is adjusted by age for males but big picture, you have to be intellectually honest in the physical differences of males and females. It is obvious, generally speaking that males are more effective in a combat role. So, therefore, the standard should be males only in combat. (political jab) ah, but the left so desires to govern by emotion and compassion.
11. Quaid
- 01/26/2013 11:06 am CST
I don't like war either, but isn't that why we have an army? So that we don't have to go to war?
Firstly: Tony, thank you for your service.
If only all of our country agreed with you. Unfortunately, our electorate seems to believe that an army exists to exert force more than to keep peace. (Sure, they say it's for the sake of peace, but if that were so, wouldn't we be more peaceful, as a nation?)
I am not arguing that we should not have an army, nor am I arguing that our army shouldn't be the best in the world, within reason. I also recognize that women in the forces has strengthened our military and we are better for their presence. I also realize that it is difficult to separate those who fight and those who do not fight within the military. (BTW, if Red Dawn does happen, I'm perfectly okay with anyone picking up a gun to defend the homeland.)
Having said this, I get that my ideal scenario (women in the service, but never fighting) is not really possible. But if there is a military in the world that could get close to this ideal, it is the military of the United States.
But to the original question, I think it is possible to have a strong military and strong military presence without actually fighting in a war. Over the last century, we have made it pretty clear that attacking our country invites an exacting retribution. We can bring the troops home, draw down our forces, stop policing every single world matter (only when politically convenient, of course) and still remain steadfast in our ability to defend our country and keep the peace. The force would exist, but the wars would not, unless absolutely necessary.
On another note - while having women in combat might not make our elitist washington friends think twice about going to war, I disagree with you saying that it wouldn't make us (the average private citizen) think twice before going to war.
12. Flyaway
- 01/26/2013 12:46 pm CST
I think it is all about money. Women want the chance to make as much money as men. I think that when more men began teaching children in schools salaries went up. When men became nurses salaries went up. When women became pilots salaries went down.
13. AbhorredAtIgnorance
- 01/26/2013 4:42 pm CST
I am a man and I have mixed feelings about women in combat. However, I accept that those feelings are mostly likely to be largely cultural. There are numerous historical examples of women in combat roles (the Celts are just one of many war-like cultures that allowed women in combat) as well as modern ones (Israel is the prime example of this). There are practical issues, I suppose, many of which you have discussed, and all which have been necessarily addressed by other cultures that have had women in combat.
In any case, women are free thinking adults and are allowed to make these choices for themselves. Who are you or I to tell them that they can not offer to make the same efforts and sacrifices as men are? As of now, nobody is forcing them into these roles. This is supposed to be a country that exemplifies freedom, and what greater freedom is there than to determine your own destiny?
Tony, I agree that there are physical differences in the performance of men and women. That said, there are certainly women who can outperform the average man. Not all, but some. Not to mention the under-performing males being surpassed by exceptional and non-exceptional women. It should also be noted that the standards, and physical expectations, are also typically lowered for officers. Now, let us suppose that the standard is not lowered, in that case, should females who meet the standard be considered equally as qualified as males who meet the standard?
Flyaway, that is ridiculous. People are willing to put their lives on the line for a small amount of money? It's about patriotism and duty and honor and equality. You can disagree with the practicality, but doubting the intentions is downright offensive. I would hope that everyone, especially the veterans here (Tony and Really?, I think), would agree with me that these women that volunteer for combat are, at least, earnest in their desires and deserve respect for being willing to step up.
On a side note, I just found this site. I came across a post from here, on a tangent, and it lead me to a bit of a personal insight. Let me explain...
I wound up here because of a discussion about upcoming movies, in which someone mentioned "Angus" in relation to Superman. Having no desire to watch "Angus" any time soon, I hit Google, and wound up at your 'Movie Quotes That Changed Your Life' post. I was looking forward to reading the post when I saw it, and was quite let down by its banality. Then I moved on to the comments, where I was stunned at the utter lack of insight. Of course, it wasn't long before I noticed there was strong thread of superstition amongst the posters. It really shocked me that so much nonsense was read into such empty quotes, and that such empty quotes were chosen in the first place. Then it clicked, that's just like the attachment to what you would call "scripture" (whereas I would call it the 4 books, arbitrarily chosen from dozens, of second hand [if not twelfth hand, or greater] accounts of supposed events that just so happen to line up closely with events that were already mythological in that time, meanwhile the later each book was written, the more supernatural events it would contain, and then the books were assigned meaning arbitrarily by people completely disconnected from the describe events and originating culture while similar books are discounted out of hand just as arbitrarily).
I was so taken aback by the emptiness of the quotes that I saw (seriously, one of these "meaningful" and "life changing" quotes was the cry of "Freedom!" in "Braveheart", which carries exactly zero useful information), that I felt compelled to comment. However, since that post was eight years old, I figured I look at some of the newer posts. On the front page, I found an article about cloning neanderthals, and being a scientist, I weighed in there as well.
Speaking of movie quotes... "The Karate Kid"? I am still astounded by the things people here find insightful. Wow.
Anyway, I am always surprised when people throw out random, and meaningless, bible quotes in ways that make no sense. Now I see that it may be a general theme in life for such people. They just lack a generalized ability for reading comprehension and linking what they read to real life. As surprising as it is, it never occurred to me that functional adults could have such issues.
I presume I will not be a regular here, as I find it quite frustrating and expect that my input will not be appreciated. However, I may check in on the threads in which I have posted in the next few days, in case I can provide any clarity for anyone.
14. Bill
- 01/26/2013 5:01 pm CST
Hi Abhorred (and, by the way, you aren't abhorred by us. I think you meant to say you abhor ignorance).
You are welcome to comment here, of course. I'm not sure how much headway we're going to make since you are approaching us with nothing but insults. Such as this:
Now I see that it may be a general theme in life for such people. They just lack a generalized ability for reading comprehension and linking what they read to real life. As surprising as it is, it never occurred to me that functional adults could have such issues.
If I may say it, I don't really think this is the way to change hearts and influence people. I see more and more this kind of talk lately - this trend of coming onto faith sites and acting like you can't believe we are even alive since we possess such low brain function may be fun for you, but - again - it doesn't really advance the conversation or shed any light.
We have other atheist friends of the site who know how to have a respectful conversation. And I'm sure there are LOTS of people who come by here, think it's dreck, and then just move along ;-)
Anyway, you're welcome to hang around, pull up a chair, put a steak on the grill, and get to know us a bit.
15. AbhorredAtIgnorance
- 01/26/2013 5:48 pm CST
You are correct in pointing out my poorly worded name. I had something less friendly initially, and changed it at the last moment. Believe it or not, I was trying to be nice and went with a general abhorrence of ignorance. Of course, it is obvious that I'm still being confrontational, taking a decidedly opposite worldview on a site with a pretty unified readership. In any case, it was a poor choice, and I accept the blame on that.
I would like to correct you, however. The paragraph of mine that you highlighted, which was the heart of my message, is not an insult. It's a simple statement of straightforward observation. This really was a bit of a revelation for me, and I felt the strong need to share it with others, particularly with those who lead me to it. It explains quite a bit and is something I really had never considered previously. I was not attempting to convince anyone to let go of their superstitions (although I hope you all do that), I was just sharing my newfound insight.
I did not say anything about low brain function. In fact, I said the opposite. That's what is most amazing about this. Clearly, people here are able to think and reason and debate pretty rationally, to a large extent (the emotional side of the women in combat debate, which drove many of the "non-emotional" comments here, aside). Yet, there's a complete disconnect when it comes to drawing insight from the written word and especially when trying to apply said insight. It's a very specific phenomenon. I hesitate to call it a malfunction or defect, despite its negative effects on society as a whole. I assume it is the same characteristic that leads to various conspiracy theorists and the lure that some find to the less popular cults. Some otherwise normal people are just off in this one way, which ultimately leads to believing in things that are clearly untrue.
As for people coming to "faith sites" and causing a stir, that was not my intention, even though I realized that was a likely outcome. And that is not a new thing, people have been trolling each other, from both sides of religion/superstition and many other issues, for a long time. It's a symptom of humanity, I suppose, our need to argue. Maybe it's more of a need to be seen as correct or victorious, actually. It sure can be fun, at times, but rarely is it productive.
I do thank you for your positive and polite reply. Despite how it may have seemed, I was not looking to start trouble.
16. Brian
- 01/26/2013 6:03 pm CST
Are we as a society so progressive that we are ready to see daughters, sisters, and mothers brutally dismembered and killed in much larger proportions than ever before?
Victor Davis Hanson said it well:
In a larger sense, with the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and women in front-line combat units, we have decided that the military is one with all other civilian institutions and without a particular code or caste. Fair enough — in the past, there certainly have been excellent male soldiers who were romantically attracted to one another (cf. the Theban Sacred Band) and plenty of brave and effective female pilots, snipers, and infantrywomen (cf. the Russian front after 1942), and we shall soon discover whether our more recent reluctance to follow those clear examples was absurd.
One way or another, we have now apparently made a number of assumptions: that in the next war we will see overtly gay men and women fully integrated in small ground units amid firefights and carnage at the front; that this will not affect negatively, but more likely improve, U.S. combat efficacy;and that those intolerant reactionaries who object and feel less safe or simply less comfortable will shun the military — and that the military will not suffer as a consequence of their absence, but more likely improve. If all true, then we are onto the brave new world!
17. Tony
- 01/26/2013 9:38 pm CST
Abhorred, FYI - flyaway was tongue-in-cheek with her comment. It was hilarious.
Also, I'm not a 'movie quoter' and I don't watch many movies, so for me the Karate Kid quote was brilliant ;) I have a pretty serious tone sometimes, so I have to make a feeble attempt every now and then with some humor.
Quaid, You got me thinking a bit...but I'll have to reply tomorrow sometime. Thanks btw.
18. Karl
- 01/31/2013 12:31 pm CST
In that article Piper also says:
Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency.
I'm sorry but that just sounds nuts to me. Not that the only option has to be for the guy to passively watch as the girl with the blackbelt takes on the assailant. But Piper's apparent assumption that it is the small, wimpy guy's DUTY as a man to force a more-competent woman who could kick his butt, to watch while he "lays down his life" getting knifed by a dude who the girl could have disarmed . . . I'm sorry but that is doing his argument no favors.
Leave a Comment:
Phil, Another man-card is in the mail :) Wow, another "in your face", brutally honest post.
The Israeli army uses women in their army. In fact, it is mandatory over there for women to serve in the military. Last I heard though, they are all female units (for the most part), with female commanders and they are not front line combat units, why? Because their enemy (Muslims typically) will not surrender to any female soldier.
In talking with coworkers in the office about this topic, one of whom is a career reservist, and it was pointed out that their are support roles, ie Military Police, fighter pilot that women currently are allowed, with support combat roles and they can find themselves in a fire fight already.
Also, I doubt this would spill over into special operations: Seals, Rangers etc...too physically demanding and let's be intellectually honest - their cycle couldn't be tolerated in situations that spec ops run into. It is what it is.