"Indeed, we see this reality every time there is a mass shooting. Boyfriends throw themselves over girlfriends, and even strangers and acquaintances often give themselves up to save the woman closest to them. Who can forget the story of 45-year-old Shannon Johnson wrapping his arms around 27-year-old Denise Peraza and declaring 'I got you' before falling to the San Bernardino shooters’ bullets?"
From "Only a Barbaric Nation Drafts Its Mothers and Daughters into Combat," an editorial in The National Review.
This is a traditionalist view of the female role, but it is deeply connected to physical and emotional differences that hold true for many (though not all) males and females. It's one thing to open the military to woman who, knowing themselves, choose to volunteer. But the many women who feel drawn to the caring, nurturing role should be allowed to hold their place back home, preserving the reality of home — a place with children and old people — and the idea of home — which must live in the minds of those who go far away to fight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
45 comments:
So the National Review views Israel and Norway as barbaric countries?
It's true, we are a barbaric nation. ergo...
Israel generally keeps women out of front line combat.
For many reasons.
For one, men cannot be stopped from going to the aid of wounded women when the priority is to get on with the mission.
For another, a woman captured by Israel's enemies, who are our enemies, will certainly be raped, and probably raped to death.
Men are having a difficult time dumping the chivalry.
Feminist women dumped the traditional roles for themselves, but they still constantly call out chivalry in men. That's how the demonic idiot religion succeeds. Dangling the promise of T&A in front of weak and stupid men is the bait.
Weak and stupid men cannot stop themselves from charging off to defend the Damsel in Distress from other men. Feminist women ruthlessly call out this idiocy in men.
My solution has been to refuse to deal with feminist women in any way in my private personal life, and to deal solely with women who abide honestly by tradition and religion. They do exist, despite Althouse's belief to the contrary. The women I deal with on a day to day basis never utter the word "feminism." This solution (taught to me by my late Filipina wife) has made me happy.
I am constantly chided by weak and stupid men that this is a betrayal of our womenfolk and that I should submit myself to the general misery and betrayal of fucking and defending feminist women. No thanks. You can have them.
When the barbarians finally blast down the gates, the feminists will get the all out gang banging they've been dreaming about for decades. They've earned it.
If the US was in a desperate situation with a lack of fighting men, maybe, just maybe, women could be on the front lines. We aren't.
Today, women on the front lines is a social experiment. Nothing more.
But this is what they voted for. Give them the equality they so desire. Some people have to learn the hard way. Alice's Restaurant will then be sung by a woman after Alro leaves us.
It's one thing to open the military to woman who, knowing themselves, choose to volunteer.
That is one side of the argument. Call it the "Civil Rights View". You can have it all baby. I married a female officer. I have nothing against women in the Army.
The other side is the "Force Effectiveness View". The military exists to keep us safe. It does so by killing people and breaking things. It is not a social engineering lab. The question is: Does adding women to line infantry units make them better able to function or worse. Anyone has has a modicum of understanding of ground combat knows the answer. and Yes, I fought in combat.
Your average day at the front
Unknown said...
But this is what they voted for. Give them the equality they so desire.
The problem is that bad PC decisions get other people killed as well and cause the mission to fail.
Sarge. In order to transform America it is first necessary to unmake America and all the important institutions. Including the military.
Which is OK, because every soldier is now a social justice warrior for the environment.
Hooorah!
I'm still wondering why the GOP candidates are getting grilled on this purely hypothetical issue--there will never be a draft, and if there is our bigger concern will be "how do we stop the hordes of Chinese shock troops from crossing the Rockies" rather than "when we draft women should we put them in combat or have them do noncombat work, which is the vast majority of what the military personnel do?"
We could be asking things like "what changes would you implement to make it more attractive for employers to hire?" or "how do you plan to keep Medicare and Social Security from swamping our economy?" We could be asking Hillary "what kind of feminist helps cover up her husband's rape?" or asking Sanders "what money fairy do you think will enable you to give everyone free stuff?"
Althouse: "But the many women who feel drawn to the caring, nurturing role should be allowed to hold their place back home, preserving the reality of home — a place with children and old people — and the idea of home — which must live in the minds of those who go far away to fight."
Why limit this statement to women? Can men not be "drawn to the caring, nurturing role"? Obviously, there is no draft currently, but we are talking about a hypothetical situation in which there may be a draft, and I still have not heard a compelling reason (based on current legal precedent) to discriminate between men and women for such a purpose. Most of the policy reasons apparently depend on recognizing different traditional roles for men and women. I wonder how the feminist contingent reconciles that.
Either drop the Selective Service requirement altogether or force women to sign up for it. This is pretty simple.
Keep writing stuff like this and they are going to take away your tenure! I am just kidding of course, I hope it's only a matter for joking.
Why limit this statement to women? Can men not be "drawn to the caring, nurturing role"?
Well, you have the problem of human nature and the problem that there are able bodied men who will try to shirk. You have to play the percentages at some point.
My solution has been to refuse to deal with feminist women in any way in my private personal life, and to deal solely with women who abide honestly by tradition and religion. They do exist, despite Althouse's belief to the contrary. - Shouting Thomas
There's lots of them and you don't have to go to the Philippines to find them. Honest. That's why I don't get the anger.
"how do we stop the hordes of Chinese shock troops from crossing the Rockies"
Tactical nukes. The real reason for having a large army anymore is to keep order when everything gets broken in a war. The only thing a large army can do anymore is keep order among its own people. Occupation is probably impossible anymore, for us, anyway. ISIS manages it by bringing sufficient brutality into the argument.
So the National Review views Israel and Norway as barbaric countries?
I actually think that if Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan were a bit more open-minded about sex roles, those countries would be less barbaric. Israel gets called barbaric while Saudi Arabia gets a pass?
I am not with Tim in Vermont. While I understand his point, and agree that using tactical nucs is an option, I think it is a bad option. Nuclear weapons represent a threshold that once crossed can not be recrossed easily. And, they can generate a lot of collateral damage.
As for those who say that there will never again be a need for large Armies, as did one person commenting above and one Presidential Candidate, that is a line heard a number of times in the last century, including in 1914 and the 1930s and after WWII. Given the number of people who actually meet the current requirements for enlistment (<50%), if we get into even a moderately large dustup we are going to need the draft, again.
THAT said, this issue could be the one in which we discuss what it means to be female in America. We can discuss the issue of child bearing and raising. We can discuss the question of if there is some degree of natural specialization, with women the more caring and nurturing. We can ask the orthogonal question if if being a "warrior" is a trait in both sexes, but not in all people in either gender. There are a lot of questions to ask and answer. Let us hope they are not buried.
Regards — Cliff
This is a traditionalist view of the female role, but it is deeply connected to physical and emotional differences that hold true for many (though not all) males and females
Why do these differenceies only matter when it comes to female privilege?
I reject Althouse's premise-- unchallenged in our society today-- that "tradition" is merely social construct designed to keep our I enlightened and technologically backward ancestors in line. We moderns may cast it aside and need not give it a passing glance. What if "tradition" is actually the accumulated wisdom of the ages? What if it's "tradition" that really speaks truth to power about that which is best suited to human flourishing? What if the particular gifts and characteristics that belong to male and female endure because they are embedded deeply in the souls of human beings? What if it's really, actually true that women possess greater receptivity and empathy....and that carrying a new life enables a woman to love another uniquely unconditionally? What if it's actually true that men tend to shoulder greater risk because they have a warrior heart for their families, because somewhere deep down, they know they are uniquely suited to protect and defend? It is a foolhardy civilization that ignores human nature. I don't know how ours will end....whether we will continue to retrain ourselves away from our natures, or if perhaps there may occur a great re awakening, and women will discover as though for the first time how holistic a home can be, and men will understand that they're better breadwinners than nurturers. We're living through a great revolution, brought on by the rejection of traditional femininity by women. Take a look at the previews for romantic comedies these days, ladies, and congratulate yourselves. Everyone's equally coarse, boorish and violent now.
"Women and Children First," the Chinese, John 15:13, Nietzsche, and survival of the species all neatly rolled into one:
Did Chivalry Go Down With The Titanic?
Yawn.
A woman appealing to a dead horse. Women wanted equality, and they ought to get it good and hard.
Female privilege is demanding all the rights of the protector class without having to do any of the protecting.
Nuclear weapons represent a threshold that once crossed can not be recrossed easily.
I think a massive land invasion of a nuclear power's homeland effectively crosses that threshold.
I have a better idea:
Assuming the Chinese built a blue navy and the fleet train to supply it, and then stocked this armada and started sailing towards San Francisco... we should nuke it at sea instead of trying to break a hole in the lines around Denver.
Problem solved.
But given the actual scenarios we face, I'd say the biggest problem facing a draft in America or Europe is this:
The native population is under siege from its own government. The most likely cause of unrest in Europe would, at the moment, require conscription of the native population in order to given the government an army with which to fight... the native population.
Seems less-than-likely.
One is also less likely to require being drafted in the first place when the war front is literally one's own hearth and home.
But as long as there is a threat that one day, however distant, a draft might be implemented, then all equals should be subjected to it.
Israel exempts religious women from the draft - not sure if that's the same as the ones who agree with "traditional sex roles". It also tries to keep them out of combat, as they found through experience that the men around them do stupid things to protect them, against any orders.
You can only have unserious policies when you aren't facing an existential threat. When it's nut-cutting time and the barbarians are at the gate, the stupid stuff like political correctness, climate change and women in combat will go out the window. Let's just hope the shit doesn't get that real.
The natural instinct for men to protect women, even women they don't know, is rooted in biology, probably hardwired to some degree. Historically, war kills off a larger percentage of men. After a major war, there's a natural reaction to repopulate. When a large portion of the population of women is gone, re-population is a slow process. There's a huge investment in time fora woman to become pregnant and give birth. OTOH, it only takes a few minutes for a man to do his part and move one to create another child. Unless you count all of the dinners and a movie.
Caring, nurturing? Can that be tested? And the women who fail get sent to the front lines? Any who are sterile or lesbian, no needed for breeding stock?
Althouse, I'm still not sure what the problem is, given others whom you tolerate, but couldn't you make the same point, instead of writing a thousand word post, simply type a thousand times, "Gimme?"
Assuming the Chinese built a blue navy and the fleet train to supply it, and then stocked this armada and started sailing towards San Francisco... we should nuke it at sea instead of trying to break a hole in the lines around Denver.
The Battle of Eisenhower Pass! It would be epic! Thermopylae redux!
But I suppose that the above scenario might happen at China's leisure after a successful surprise nuclear attack. One day they woke up and knew where all of our boomers were.
Seriously though, an EMP would require a massive response, even if there were no invading army. Way more than the National Guard could muster.
You see, this is what we would do (chivalry). However you spend the last century kicking is in the face. Now while still kicking, you again demand chivalry.
I am 100% against women in the direct combat arms, and based on experience I am also somewhat skeptical of their actual efficacy in the combat support roles. That said, women could still be required to register for the selective service on the understanding that any actual draft of women would not be the same as a draft of men. If the US were to find itself in a war and desperately short of trauma nurses and data entry specialists, could not the government draft women with those skill sets?
Soon, wars will only be fought by robots, so none of this matters.
This is not irrelevant.
One of my close friends, a Marine combat vet with a pile of combat decorations, believes that the greatest problem with women in combat will be that the men will instinctively be protective of the women, resulting in a break in cohesion, discipline and focus on objective.
He has a lot of experience with women too so I take him seriously.
Check out the Posleen series - Science Fiction about a near-future Alien invasion by John Ringo.
A lot of it is fairly clunky, and it is pulp fiction, but the US mobilization for the war is quite well done I think.
I recall it because of the "Battle of Eisenhower Pass" - there is a lot of that sort of thing in the Posleen books.
"Soon, wars will only be fought by robots, so none of this matters."
Actually, wars will be fought by men against robots. Shortly after they will be fought by robots against other robots.
See the works of Gregory Benford "Across the Sea of Suns", etc.
How long until the first female who is in combat is captured and then tortured to make the men talk?
It's hard enough for a man to watch his buddy get tortured and stay silent. But what if its a woman being tortured because of your silence?
Male instinct to protect comes in. We are fools.
This debate is pointless. Conscript armies are a creature of the past. I'm in favor of abolishing Selective Service altogether.
It's a natural view of gender roles established by the supreme matriarch, Mother Nature, but only for pro-life women. Pro-choice women are expendable in order to protect pro-life women and their Posterity. The chauvinist or transgender view is rebelling against both the matriarchal and patriarchal establishment.
The draft ended 43 years ago. Selective Service is an example of a government agency that has absolutely no purpose yet requires young men to register. How idiotic is that?
Women are so equal they have to be protected by men--they deserve to be protected by men. That's what equality means, obviously, that some people deserve to be protected and other people deserve to risk getting shot to provide that protection.
Ann Althouse said...but the many women who feel drawn to the caring, nurturing role should be allowed to hold their place back home,
Yes, absolutely, the most important thing is making sure women are able to make whatever choices they feel drawn to, feel most comfortable making, feel most. That's the imperative, preserving the feelings of women (and making sure their feelings and choices are always respected, always supported, always given precedence).
Now, some may say it's sexist to assume that women want to take on a nurturing role, but to them I say no, we're talking only about the subset of women who do in fact want to--choose to--take on that role. For the ones who don't, of course, we have to make any and all accommodations to them, naturally, so that their choice will be respected and given precedence, too. No matter what a woman chooses, see, it's right, and the rest of us had better just get in line and serve those needs.
Women have choices. Men have responsibilities. That, friends, is equality.
Women's different role in reproduction and/or possibly repopulating the nation means they deserve different treatment in terms of possibly being made to serve in a war. That difference, though, must have NO OTHER IMPLICATIONS w/r/t law, social custom, etc, unless that implication is to ensure that women's choices are given greater weight than men's.
That's what fairness means.
If the women were good snipers, the men could drape over them as if wounded and provide good cover and vantage points.
But that would take teamwork. No bicycles or fish. And the focus would have to be preserving the children.
Justice for Scott Bolig.
The natural instinct for men to protect women, even women they don't know, is rooted in biology, probably hardwired to some degree.
In general, I have a high opinion of men but I'm not sure this is true (men being just as variable in character as women). Is chivalry "nature"? Or "culture"? Or "sexual attraction" (and the hope of getting laid by a grateful female, to whom you've offered your strength)?
Or some combination of these (and other) factors? That seems likely to me.
We've seen in today's culture a truly distressing tendency in some minority of young men to act in ways I can only call predatory (filming gang rapes of drunk/unconscious young women and sharing them like trophies). Is this behavior "hard wired", too? And if chivalry is hard wired, what explains some of the more appalling ways men in past ages treated women?
Men have strong natural incentives to treat the mothers of their children (and their sisters and mothers) well. Yet some men *don't* treat their wives well, so I'm not seeing "hard wiring" here. And I'm not sure the chivalrous impulse applies across the board: casual sexual partners, "sluts", etc. Certainly I can't see chivalry (or hard wiring) in men who argue that all women deserve to suffer for the presumptions of a few hard core feminists.
Understanding the intersection of biology and culture is never simple. If biology rules (and men are hard wired to protect women and act in chivalrous ways), what in the heck explains the way Islam treats women? Are Muslims exempt from this supposed hard wiring?
Why not give culture its due? I would argue that it's Western culture that has raised men to subordinate their natural aggressive impulses to the extent that they're willing to die to defend women. That is a truly glorious, heroic (and tragic, in a way) achievement.
That said, simple justice requires that women be subject to the draft. Being drafted has NEVER meant draftees would end up in combat. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this idiotic mandate to open the combat arms to women to bring the fundamental sexism of our current draft policy to the fore.
Men are concerned with propagating their germ plasm. One Man, 1000 children, assuming average stamina if not our veterinarians' help - even 10,000 if you're the king of Vietnam using the tried and true, "old conservative" methods. One woman. ,maybe 20 (d2@mn moma nature nature making us unequal). assuming the victors are well organized impregnators. Germans could only do about 4 per soldier, communists about 10. Boko Haram maybe 10. And they seem to be able to do this while still at war. If that's a reason for war the U.S. is a "fertile" ground. After killing all the abortionists and pill dispensers. Will make us few uncastrated males wish for the old days. "it couldn't happened here!" Right. Name a leaser protected target. At least in Israel the women know what's at stake, and know how to hold and clean common weapons.
Post a Comment