A reader sent this riveting photo of Winston Churchill and General Bernard Montgomery reviewing the troops. It seems apropos of recent discussions here of boys and heroes. Look at the faces. Glancing at this, I wondered what Churchill would have thought about the statements made yesterday by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“I have served with homosexuals since 1968…  putting individuals in a position that every single day they wonder whether today’s going to be the day, and devaluing them in that regard, just is inconsistent with us as an institution.”

I could lend the admiral a few hankies if he needs ’em.

                                           — Comments —

Bruce, who sent the photo, writes:

The faces express a mixture of love and awe.

Christopher Michael Collins:

You can’t tell me that a certain percentage of today’s male population that might have, didn’t join previously all-male institutions, such as the army, navy, police force, priesthood, etc., because they failed to maintain their all-male nature. Priesthood, you ask? Of course I’m talking about effeminacy too.

Laura writes:

You mean that a certain percentage might have joined, but didn’t because these institutions were feminized? I just want to make sure I follow you.

Christopher writes:

Yes, you have me precisely.  I would wager a net loss, but even leaving aside the net vs. gross question, the feminization of these institutions must have caused some movement at the margins, e.g., why would I want to join a feminized institution; how does that get me away from mom?  Camille Paglia writes about this issue too; writes of it as a major problem.

Laura writes:

Yup, we’re talking Male Pscyhology 101. How can an entire culture deny the fundamentals of the male psyche? How can it deny the female mind as well? The individual must be given a powerful sense of freedom in order to get him to accept so much control.

Please follow and like us: