A MALE READER writes:

I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea of women in combat. It horrifies and saddens me no end that a nation has decided to send women to the front lines of combat. Women are the procreators and help carry civilization forward with children who will become upstanding, law-abiding and contributing citizens to the country. Why on earth has this decision been taken to further masculinize and dehumanize women when there is enough manpower to fill those positions?

Furthermore, what about maintaining physical standards so as not to dilute quality of the future warriors of the country? Can these women ever be able to adjust to civilian life and become nurturing mothers let alone have normal relationships with men? I shudder to think what a female SEAL/Delta Force/Green Beret/Infantryman will be?

All this is so counter-intuitive and goes against the fundamentals of human nature!

—- Comments —-

James N. writes:

Your Male Reader wrote: ” I shudder to think what a female SEAL/Delta Force/Green Beret/Infantryman will be?” Presumably, he is referring to physical appearance after meeting the standards for SEAL graduation.

I don’t think he needs to worry.

Male high school athletes routinely break women’s world records in all kinds of sports. A man who passes the SEAL screening test (remember, that’s just a short status evaluation) is already in the top .001 percent of all men. He then goes through BUD/S (the SEAL basic qualification training) that has a failure rate of 80 percent. The resulting SEAL trainees are extremely, extremely unusual – for men.

There are no women on the Earth who will succeed in this paradigm.

Now, he should shudder (as I do) to think what a female SEAL/Delta Force infantryman will be, in the sense that she will be incompetent, unable to protect her teammates, and will likely cause rapid loss of combat effectiveness followed by the death of her unit. That’s worth worrying about.

But I would not be too concerned that the women who are passed through SEAL or Ranger training will become like the men, physically. That’s not possible.

Scott H. writes:

This is the newest Ranger class. To me they look well rested and a little plump. (I remember the “Dachau” look in my class.) My son and I have had numerous discussions on “women in combat.” He’s going on his fifth combat deployment with Special Forces soon. He’s of the opinion that they will lower standards and women will be graduated from Ranger and SF schools and that will ruin those units (I share that opinion). Though the officers and senior enlisted will say otherwise. I have noticed that there have been zero resignations, that I’m aware of, over open homosexuals or women in combat.

Love your blog. Keep up the good work!

Steve writes:

Your correspondent writes “Women are the procreators and help carry civilization forward with children…” But men are also procreators–it takes two, after all–and men also help carry civilization forward.

The most important role that women play in civilization, as women, is to embody the feminine. This is not only something men cannot do (just as women cannot embody the masculine), but something women need no help in doing. The problem with putting women into combat roles isn’t so much that they are physically and emotionally not up to the rigors of combat (which they aren’t), nor that doing so will inevitably lower the combat effectiveness of the units involved (which it will), but that it tends to leach femininity from the world, and at the same time diminish masculinity.

In the name of “gender diversity,” liberals are doing their utmost to remove sex differentiation from the world entirely. Their aim in integrating combat units isn’t to enhance effectiveness, as they claim; or even to promote their perverse idea of fairness, as their opponents claim. It is to destroy civilization. They mean to commit suicide and take everything else down with them.

Laura writes:

The problem with putting women into combat roles isn’t so much that they are physically and emotionally not up to the rigors of combat (which they aren’t), nor that doing so will inevitably lower the combat effectiveness of the units involved (which it will), but that it tends to leach femininity from the world, and at the same time diminish masculinity.

This is a very important point. As I said before, all of us are affected by the integration of the military because it destroys maternal values and feminine identity.

Please follow and like us: