The political correctness of feminizing combat

It’s political theater to ignore obvious gender-related realities to justify a need to have women serve in aggressive combat roles. Photo: Associated Press

CALIFORNIA February 2, 2013 ― Few things agitate feminists more than the reality that gender differences may limit what someone can or should do. The “it’s all about me” mindset sees reason, personal experience, and thousands of years of cultural norms as having little relevancy today.

This isn’t surprising given the trends over the last generation: the debasement of women through widespread pornography; the mainstreaming of unnatural same-sex attractions; and the demeaning of home-oriented nurturing.

Let’s face it, the push to open up combat roles for women is another step in diminishing the God-given dignity that womanhood should have.

Though not true in almost all other endeavors, gender-related strengths are a significant factor in physical combat. In general, men are physically stronger and have natural instincts to lead and aggressively protect family and country (1 Timothy 5:8).  

Women, on the other hand, are universally identified with the home and children. Why? Because they’re created with nurturing instincts focused towards a home and the raising of the next generation (Genesis 2:18; Proverbs 31:10-12;27-28).

Are there exceptions to this general pattern? Of course there are. But for politicians to use rare exceptions to justify unnecessary public policy only undermines deeply held values important to our society’s well-being.

Government’s role is to promote what’s best for society ‒ not to create artificial problems demanding solutions for a small minority trying to bend everyone else to their personal ambitions. Wouldn’t our country be better served to incentivize and protect the natural affinity of the feminine nature to care for a home, a husband and children, and providing balance to the masculine presence in society?  

For that matter what overwhelming injustice is being corrected by trying to accommodate a few women at the possible expense of combat effectiveness? What higher purpose is served by promoting the use of women in ways that are counter to the dignity and worth they have as the feminine counterpart to man’s maleness? Why, when national survival is not in question, would we purposely allow women to serve in a brutish, violent environment that goes against a God-given nature to protect and nurture life?  

Why would anyone want to glamorize this role for women?  

Can a woman pull a trigger and aim a gun as well as a man? Absolutely. Can a woman serve in combat zones to support on-going operations? They already do. Are women just as patriotic as men? Of course! But to purposefully engage women in mankind’s worst brutality, for no compelling warfighting reason, speaks to political expediency instead of national imperative.  

Now, what about physical standards? Have strength and endurance requirements for police officers and firefighters changed since women have entered their ranks? Indeed they have, so why wouldn’t combat training eventually go down the same path? With the reality of increasingly violent enemies, physical and emotional standards for combat warriors should actually become even more rigorous to ensure mission success and the preservation of life. 

What about career ladders for women currently in the military? Not serving in combat can be a disadvantage in career advancement. Justified or not, any inequity in advancement for both men and women resulting from a lack of combat experience may be more rooted in undervaluing combat support compared to combat itself (see 1 Samuel 30:24-25; Numbers 31:25-27 for interesting treatments of this issue).  

Finally, impacting combat readiness and unit cohesion to accommodate women will either result in the feminizing of combat, or the hardening of the feminine nature. Purposely placing women in violent combat situations will not only impact combat morale, but will also create unnecessary costs to accommodate separate personal hygiene, berthing and potentially even equipment changes. Are these changes truly justified?

Because men and women are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), they reflect equal worth and dignity (Galatians 3:28). But a secular worldview that ignores the different gender natures can only create more gender confusion. Not surprisingly, this same worldview promotes a woman’s disregard for the sanctity of an unborn child, and equates unnatural same-sex partnerships with natural ones designed into the human race from the very beginning.  

For social engineering activists, fighting to allow a few women to serve in combat may yield some hypothetical gain, but the eventual loss for God-designed womanhood may be incalculable.

 



This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Biblical Politics
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Frank Kacer

Frank Kacer has been writing and lecturing on the applications of a Biblical worldview to the contemporary issues of the day since the mid 1990s. Besides his regular Biblical Politics column with the Washington Times Communities, Frank has authored over 100 op-ed columns for Good News Etc. and the popular Christian Examiner. Frank can be reached at frankkacer@hotmail.com

 

Contact Frank Kacer

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus