I doubt it.
While “women in combat” may be the latest cause célèbre of liberals, what are the chances the majority of them have actually thought the whole thing through? (Pick “zero.”)
Granted, liberals seem to think the U.S. military should serve as some sort of societal 8th-grade science project, but this social experiment might just turn out to be one of those “be careful what you ask for” (or demand, as it were) situations.
Now that the Regime has lifted the military’s ban on women serving in combat, how ’bout we help the loons think it through a bit, shall we?
Let’s start with Selective Service registration. As we well know (as men, or parents of men), when that 18th birthday rolls around, America’s males are required by law to register with Selective Service – whether a draft is currently in force or not. Reason being, the government must be assured of the ready availability of an adequate number of combat-capable bodies at a relative moment’s notice.
So, given that the Regime has declared that women are indeed combat-capable, logic dictates that 18-year old girls should also be required to register, right?
If one were to poll 100 liberal college coeds, what percentage of them do you suppose would be in favor of compulsory Selective Service registration for 18-year old girls? (Pick “zero” again.)
I can hear it now: “I just meant that I should be allowed to fight on the front lines if I want to – not that I should be required to! Daddy, do something!”
For that matter, how many bleeding-heart liberal parents are in favor of their daughters being eligible for the draft? (Um, still pick “zero.”)
Herein lies the quintessential problem; liberals fail to grasp this basic concept:
Along with equal rights, come equal responsibilities.
This is not to be confused with the unequal social responsibility given to those of us who can afford to help those in need who cannot help themselves. In this instance, “inequality” is not only appropriate; it is necessary.
It is analogous, however, with the proper assumption that those of us who can help must do so equally (relative to income) without excuse or discrimination based on gender, race or religion.
Does it not follow, then, that since the Regime has deemed women to be fit for combat, all young women who are equally healthy and equally able-bodied should now be required to register for the draft? If not, why not? And, why is this not discriminatory against young men?
Hey, libs – you got your way. And, hey, girls – Uncle Sam may need you to serve your country at some point in the near future – equally, of course.
Isn’t “progressivism” exciting?
The Conservative Citizen 
Nothing has been thought through. Not a darn thing. And the experiences of the Israeli and Soviet armies, where women were put in live combat have not been given a read through. It was a disaster of such proportions that they won’t consider putting women in front line situations ever again. They’re not even looking at the empirical evidence of our own women’s repetitive stress injuries just from carrying the equipment in the Marine Corps. Yeah,women have been close to the fronts with all the gear and many of them reach 30 with a mess of compressed discs, leg problems, shoulder issues and having destroyed their fertility. In my post on this last week, I linked to a disturbing piece from a woman Marine who laid it all out. My brother’s wife is very much in the same situation. To compete with the men she’s done some serious damage. They’re not the only ones. I really would like to see all the medical data on Marine women toward the fronts compiled to see just what women are looking at.
Blissful ignorance might be fun in one’s head, but in real world combat situations with not just rifles, but mortars, tanks, large projectiles of all sorts it’s not like a hunt. Military women know that. Panetta’s council of ladies doesn’t.
The interesting thing is, of the 15% of the military who are women, none, and I mean zero, have put in for infantry units this year. The two that signed up last year washed out. In the end, this one might be like when Clinton lifted the ban on unborn child killing in military hospitals and no doctors would do them. The policy says one thing. The practice is something else.
We all know (or at least should know) that Panetta and others on the liberal left who have advocated for this and pushed for this, clearly have not thought this through. Nor do they care to. From where I sit, the decision to place or “allow” women into combat situations has nothing whatsoever to do with “equality.” The decision was nothing more than pandering to liberal feminists, and strengthening that section of their voter base. That and nothing more. If a woman soldier is killed on the front lines (or if a hundred women soldiers die in combat) it means absolutely nothing. In fact, if this does happen, I am sure the socialist left will manipulate such a tragedy to their benefit (just as they used and are using the deaths of the Sandy Hook students), and to advance their agendas. It’s a “win-win” situation for them, and as with all soldiers, sailors and airmen, to the socialist left they are nothing more than fodder to them, completely devoid of all humanity. Just like the millions of infants they murder through abortion. If you take away the victims humanity, their death is easier to accept, and that is what they do.
Personally, I do not think women should be in combat situations. To be sure they have (and have always had) an important and invaluable role in the military – but not on the front lines in a combat situation as a combatant. Call me a “male chauvinist pig” if you must, ladies, but hey, it is what it is. As CL noted above, women are not equal to men in all areas, nor will they ever be. And at the same time, men are not equal to, or even superior to women in all areas. We all have our roles and they are not always the same.
As is usually the case, TP, your comments are not only on point – but well conceived, as well. Appreciate your contribution.
The one fact that keeps getting omitted is that the entire United States military is an all volunteer force; so, those choosing or requesting assignment to combat units are doing so because they see such an act as in their own rational self-interest as well as an act that fills a void in an essential billet. If a woman wishes to serve in harm’s way, then, by what natural right do men gain the power to step above the concept of equal rights and equal protections to infringe upon any other person’s right to choose their unique path toward happiness and self-fulfillment? Furthermore, to tie this act to abortion is nothing short of building a hypocritical straw man for supporting policies that trample on the rights of the living in deference to the potential rights of a potential person.
I wonder what the argument will be when physicians propose to begin transferring embryos from a women who does not want a child into one who does, or into a government paid surrogate who is compensated to carry a transplanted fetus to term with the legal stipulation that at birth the surrogate must then surrender the child to a government run or overseen orphanage or baby store for the infertile to shop at?
It’s time to end this notion that a patriarchal driven democratic republic is the be all and end all of efficient and judicious governing and begin insisting that women be granted their full share of core inalienable liberties, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – even if that means the right to live free of the limits imposed by religious dogma and other mythologies.
It’s time for people who claim to be on the right in the sense of a desire for small government and the promise of liberty guaranteed by the constitution are, in many cases, not what they appear to be.
This group of self-identified “conservatives” are more accurately described as brothers and sisters of the left than they are supporters of equality and the equal exercise by all of their inalienable, individual rights. These are the rights that constitutionally include legal protections from zealot interlopers who would trample the rights of anyone who does not believe as they believe. Those inhibited are those who dare chose for themselves a framework that considers what is real, existing and factual over the mystical markers determined by others as indisputable requirements that must be universally accepted, at times on faith alone, according to the words of persons long dead whose books have been rewritten on multiple occasions by power brokers of a specific faith.
The fact that there are other faiths that call for distinctly different actions and self-sacrifice is of no importance for these zealots to consider as they are convinced, but cannot prove, that their religious faith is superior to all others, eg. Catholicism is a cult, Protestantism is a perversion of the ‘true faith”, Jews are decent people in the world of Christianity, but they could benefit by a bit more perfecting – such as believing in Christ – and in the Muslim faith, Jews are dogs in need of extermination…then, there are Sikhs, Hindus, Wickens and other polytheistic groups, all of which are unacceptable in the eyes of the larger, less tolerable religious groups. Christians and Muslims comprise the largest religious entities in the world and yet, they prescribe diametrically opposing views as to how all people should live and agreement that no person should live according to dreams or on equal footing with all others either those living or those dictating terms from the long dead past.
In order to agree with the content of this article one would have to agree with Napoleon the Pig’s assessment that all are equal, but some are more equal than others..
My pithy view on a topic that is perhaps more expansive than it may seem on first glance.
Rick,
I would have to disagree with your assessment that in order to agree with the content of this article, one would have to agree with Napoleon the Pig. His assessment that all are equal, but some are more equal than others equates to the attitude of the elite – whether liberal or conservative, who outwardly say that all are equal, but inwardly believe that they are more equal or more deserving than those whom they view as somewhat less than they. A good example of this would be atheists, who proclaim that everyone is equal, but then disparage believers of all religions as being ignorant and believing in mystical fairy tales that cannot proven. In other words, they set themselves up as somehow better, or “more equal than others” in their own minds. Without getting into a debate about Christianity or religion in general (in spite of your dangling that bait, as it is not the topic of this article), I will say that there is ample evidence to support the reality and the truth of Christianity if one is willing to examine that evidence with an open and unbiased mind. Something atheists are rarely willing to do.
Nor will I get into a debate on abortion (in spite of your dangling that bait), and the “potential” rights of a “potential” person. I can discern by your language that you are going to believe what you believe in spite of any evidence to the contrary. You seem to be of the school which teaches that truth is relative and subjective, whereas I am of the school that teaches truth is absolute, and as they say, never the twain shall meet.
As to the subject of the article (and my comments), however, the equality of individuals and equal rights and protections, you cannot seriously believe that each and every person is equal in each and every way. Such thinking is completely at odds with rational thought. As I pointed out we are all individuals, with strengths and weaknesses that are unique. I can do things that others cannot, therefore they are not equal to me in those areas. There are things that others can do that I cannot, and I am not equal to them in those areas. The same is true between men and women, young and old, experienced and inexperienced, etc. I trust I do not have to give examples, as they should be obvious.
Your comment regarding the “all volunteer” aspect of the United States military also does not hold water, as it fails to take into account the requirements the military imposes on those who “volunteer.” As with any employer, the employee does not have the right to do as they please. They are required to do as they are told. This is even more true within the military. In the private sector, one can always quit and find another job, but not in the military. In fact, the concepts of equal rights and equal protections are not the same in the military as they are in civilian life. When you voluntarily join the military (or are drafted) you become the property of the United States government, you are no longer free to do as you wish, and you voluntarily relinquish some the rights you had as a civilian. Anyone with any military experience can tell you this. If, as a member of the United States military, your “right” (as you call it) to choose your “unique path toward happiness and self-fulfillment” involves any violation of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), then the military, in the form of your superiors and others, have the right to infringe upon your rights. This “right” is granted to them by the government of the United States. The same is true in civilian life. (Again, I trust it is not necessary to provide obvious examples).
In the military, you do as you are told, or you are disciplined. Period. Officers have rights that the enlisted are not entitled to. Certain MOS’s have rights that others do not have. This is the way the military functions, like it or not. And this is the way life itself functions. We are all different, with different skill sets, different abilities, different opinions, different levels of education and intelligence, etc., and when we all work together that is what makes us strong and unique as a nation.
The problem that arises, however, is there are always those who will insist that they know what is best for all, that their way is the best way (or the only way), and they will refuse to accept any who do not accept their “way.” More often than not, they are completely intolerant of those who do not accept their “way.” You will notice that I am not pointing to the left (although I find them the least tolerant of others), nor to the right (who also have their share of intolerant people), nor Muslims (the most violently intolerant of all others), nor any other specific group. This is because each individual must themselves learn tolerance and acceptance of others, before there can be tolerance and acceptance in any of these groups. As Jesus Himself said, remove the board from your own eye, before trying to remove the dust speck from someone else’s eye.