The Death of Reality: Women in Combat?

The Pentagon has announced that it is opening all military combat roles to women. This applies across the spectrum, from grunt infantry to the Navy SEALs. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has hailed this as “groundbreaking”:

“When I became secretary of defense, I made a commitment to building America’s force of the future,” Mr. Carter told reporters. “In the 21st century that requires drawing strength from the broadest possible pool of talent. This includes women”

Many women hailed the decision. “I’m overjoyed,” said Katelyn van Dam, an attack helicopter pilot in the Marine Corps who has deployed to Afghanistan. “Now if there is some little girl who wants to be a tanker, no one can tell her she can’t.”

The dark comedy of it all is tangible. “Now if there’s some little girl who wants to kill people and get her head blown off in one of the US Government’s pointless wars, no one can tell her she can’t.”

Gee. What little girl hasn’t dreamt of doing this? Daddy will be so proud.

This has been an interesting one to follow. I’m sure that if you ask any feminist about this, they’ll tell you it’s a great victory for women in America. Yet I haven’t seen any photos of wild celebration parties on the college campuses. Facebook has not done any sort of “solidarity filter” for profile pictures like they did with the ruling on gay marriage. This seems to have passed with little pomp or fanfare.

I suspect many feminists have realized that the issue of women in combat pushes their cause to levels of absurdity, which accounts for the rather subdued reaction. This question needs to be asked to a Feminist: “What are you really in this for?” Do they even know anymore? Are they trying to improve the lot of women, or are they trying to turn women into second-rate imitations of men? The two concepts are opposite. As far as I’m concerned, trying to pigeonhole women into being second-rate versions of men is as poor as trying to pigeonhole men into being second-rate versions of women.

What does making it easier for women to get killed have to do with improving their lives? I had always thought the desire to protect women from violent combat was a mark of civilized society. Apparently, it is a great injustice to protect women from situations where they’re being shot at or blown up. It puts a new perspective on female suicide bombers. Islamic terrorists are apparently at the forefront of cutting-edge feminism. Each exploded woman is a blow against the patriarchy. Allah be praised!

I have never hit a woman. This is based on principle: I will never hit a woman unless I think she presents a legitimate physical threat. But there have been a few tempting situations. There have been women who have said or done things to me that might have elicited a fist fight had they been male. Not often, but it’s happened. According to modern feminists, this is apparently an injustice. In the interest of gender equality, I should’ve punched their lights out.

“This black eye I’m about to give you is a blow to the patriarchy. Eat the cake, Anna Mae!”  POW!

…But I digress. Walter Williams has written a good article detailing why this whole thing is stupid. I agree with him. I shouldn’t have to go into the matter of biological differences (strength, fragility) which Williams discusses in detail. If you have a problem with the biological differences between men and women, that is not something I can help you with.

If you don’t think the matter of differences in strength and endurance are important, there are further matters to consider. In 2011, economist and libertarian theorist Gary North wrote these 10 non-hypothetical questions for a 4-star military officer to answer.  I have included my own commentary, interspersed:

1. Do sexual liaisons within the ranks create jealousy within the ranks? In all other institutions, they do.

2. Does jealousy within the ranks undermine loyalty within the ranks? In all other institutions, it does.

3. Does the reduction of loyalty within the ranks affect performance negatively? In all other institutions, it does.

As a 6-year military veteran who enlisted as a teenager, I can assure you: there is no better way to get a bunch of 18 to 24-year old males madly competing with each other than to introduce a good-looking female into the mix. This is even worse in the military, where a scarcity of females exacerbates the tension. The young males step all over each other in a mad rush to curry her favor and douse the competition. And if you think marriage will prevent a lot of men from engaging in the “great game”, think again. Infidelity is an epidemic in the military.

4. Does the phrase “rank has its privileges” apply to the establishment of sexual liaisons within the ranks? If it doesn’t, explain how rank does not have this particular privilege.

5. Would sexual liaisons between commissioned officers and non-coms create jealousy among non-coms? If not, please explain why not.

6. Would sexual liaisons between commissioned officers and non-coms lead to suspicions of favoritism, both among commissioned officers and non-coms? If not, please explain why not.

I was once stationed in a unit where male officers and NCOs were rumored, and in some cases known, to be sexually involved with some of the lower-ranking officer and enlisted females. It makes sense: the females were attracted to men of relatively higher status and power, while the males were attracted to girls in submissive roles. The effect of this was an immediate and almost irreversible loss of respect from the other males.

“All’s fair in love and war, bro.” *wink*

At least until the amorous officer is supposed to lead those other men in a combat situation. When lives are on the line, an irreversible loss of respect can mean the difference between life and death (or the accomplishing of the mission, at the very least). Dealing with this in the office is one thing, but dealing with it on the front lines of combat is another thing entirely. It goes from being an annoyance to being deadly.

…And favoritism? If anyone claims that favoritism does not become a regular problem in male/female military units, then that person is either a liar or totally naïve. Favoritism when competing for favors, awards, or promotion is annoying; but what about favoritism in a life and death combat situation? A bit more than annoying.

7. Does the traditional military “buddy system” apply to male-female relationships in ways different from male-male relationships? If not, please explain why not. If it does, please what the implications are for military discipline.

8. Will a man’s role of protecting women affect his battlefield performance if his buddy is female? If not, why not?

Want to activate a male’s foremost protective instincts? Introduce a distressed and crying female into the mix. There is nothing wrong with this, in itself. But is this the best situation to purposefully put male troops into when mission priorities might dictate otherwise? I say, “No”. The presence of a distressed and crying female has a strong influence over the priorities of most men, a presence that is quite frankly unnecessary on the front lines.

9. Do these issues also affect male-male sexual liaisons? If not, please explain.

The sound of a crying man certainly does not carry the same weight as a crying woman. But as far as same-sex relations between superiors and subordinates are concerned, the same issues of favoritism and a loss of respect still apply.

10. Technology aside, is today’s military better prepared or less prepared for combat than the military in the Korean War or earlier? Please explain.

In some ways, this is an empirical question that would require study to answer. The US military is certainly more prepared for certain things; namely, titillating left-wing sensibilities regarding gender.

An interesting note: the Selective Service System, from which the US government could draft males into military service if so desired, has not yet been modified to include females. As it stands, only males are required to register. Strangely enough, I haven’t yet heard any calls among the progressive elite to produce legislation including women. That’s one boys club they’ve yet to crack. It will be a glorious day in America when women are just as at-risk of being involuntarily drafted into combat as their male counterparts. What father wouldn’t want that for his daughter?

Polls often show an overwhelming trust of the military by conservative voters. It is a trust misplaced. What they do not realize is this: high-ranking military officers are no less political buttkissers than high-level bureaucrats of any other organization. The military has become a little social engineering playground for progressive elites. Ladder-climbing officers eager for money and prestige are happy to play along. These are the officers who most often make General or Admiral; during peacetime, at least.

What is currently going on in the military shows that it is controlled by people less interested in combat readiness and more interested in titillating political sensibilities. Some have tried to speak out on the issue; they have been actively silenced by the top levels of the military. Empirical studies clearly showing the disadvantage of women in combat have been stuffed down the memory hole in favor of feel-good rhetoric about the magic of diversity. The great revolution cannot be stymied by petty interference from bourgeois facts.

Bottom line: the facts have demonstrated repeatedly that women are not well-equipped for combat in comparison to men. This isn’t an insult to women. It’s not a potshot at Susan B. Anthony. It is simply a demonstration of the Division of Labor in action; people being good at different things, and focusing on what they’re good at. Women tend to have many valuable skills – fine motor function, attention to detail, social fluency, organizational aptitude – but physical combat is not usually one of them.  Men and women are, in general, inherently good at different things. There is nothing wrong with this.

What people need to realize is this: the issue of women in combat is part of a larger nihilistic trend in modern American society which eschews Western culture in favor of a bizarre fun-house mirror distortion of reality. Just as much as calling Bruce Jenner “Caitlyn” and referring to him as a “she” is a denial of empirical reality, pretending that women are well-equipped for combat and ignoring the contrary facts is also a denial of reality.

I reject this affront to the existence of empirical reality. I will never pretend that Bruce Jenner is a woman, and I will never pretend that placing women in combat is a good idea. It’s not because I hate Bruce Jenner or have a “boyz rule, girlz drool” attitude; it’s because I refuse to castrate myself in submission to false interpretations of reality. Personally, I have a soft spot in my heart for reality.

“But don’t you see? Our strength comes from diversity!”

Can you explain that for me, please? It is a phrase I hear continually which seems to have utterly zero meaning.

I do not want to be protected by a military which operates on the basis on denying reality. Insofar as I pay for the existence of the US military, I want the best damn military that money can buy. The lickspittle idiots currently running the show at the Pentagon are not trying to give us the best damn military that money can buy. They are trying to appease wacky left-wing politicians in order to get into the history books and retire on fat pensions. This is decidedly lame.

 

Tags: , ,

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: