The glamorous warrior: a fixture of propaganda for women soldiers

NOT THAT long ago, the idea of a man “marrying” a man was unthinkable. But in a very short period of time, it went from unthinkable to reality with the help of a barrage of sympathetic, entirely one-sided articles in the media.

Not that long ago the idea of women serving as soldiers and being drafted into combat was unthinkable, and now we are being prepared for it. Since the Pentagon announced in December that all combat roles will be opened to female recruits, there is no longer any good reason for not having women register with the Selective Service and be drafted in the event of a major war. A men’s group has filed suit in federal court, arguing that the requirement for men to register with th Selective Service is discriminatory. They are right; it is discriminatory.

In December, there was a whole raft of articles about the possibility of the female draft. This piece in The Christian Science Monitor, which says that most women want to be drafted, is one example. Teenagers lecture us about the importance of women at war.

On this point, many women, both in the military and out, say they tend to agree.

“I know a lot of women, including myself, turned 18 and found out that women weren’t a part of the draft, and we couldn’t believe it,” says 1st Lt. Jill Mueller, a fire support officer commanding a Bradley tank crew. “That should be opened up. The women in our country are so strong, and if the draft were to happen there are so many jobs that women can do.”

Articles about women in combat often show attractive women in military gear. It looks kinda cool, and it’s thrilling when human beings transcend nature. But we are never shown photos of women whose facial combat scars are so serious they will never attract a man again or of women trying to relieve themselves in the desert or of lonely babies in military daycare stalls. As time progresses, this story will be covered in much the same way as “gay marriage” was covered. In other words, it will be a question of what is popular, what people want, not of justice. The fact that some children will experience the horror of having their mothers sent to war and killed, an experience which is fundamentally different from having a father killed, or the fact that women are demonstrably less able to withstand the challenges of military combat or that men demonstrably feel uncomfortable fighting alongside women won’t matter.

What is going on here? Why doesn’t common sense matter?

This is not simply a matter of feminism run amok. Surveys of military women have shown repeatedly that most women in the military don’t want combat roles opened to women. Why don’t we encounter the stories of these women in the media? There is something more sinister at work here than extreme liberalism. No matter how much the foolishness of this move is proven, no matter how much evidence emerges that this will not improve military effectiveness, the program for military women is pushed through. Once again, I can’t help but see a shadow government at work and view this as part of a sinister program to create social chaos and confusion so that a determined minority can seize power.

— Comments —

Thomas F. Bertonneau writes:

You write, concerning the extension of “registration” and military induction to women, that, “There is something more sinister at work here than extreme liberalism.”

During the last three or four years of Lawrence Auster’s View from the Right, the contributors Kristor, Alan Roebuck, and I carried on a long-term conversation with Mr. Auster the gist of which was that liberalism is an antinomian suicide cult and an ideology of active nihilism.  The “more than” that you intuit in the inevitable levying of young women to fight and die in combat is entirely and wickedly consistent with the argumentative conclusion to which I have just referred.  Killing off young women is an excellent method of genocide.

Laura writes:

I think the “more than” that I intuit is simply a Jewish dictatorship.

All people of good will who cherish basic freedoms — including Christians, Jews, Muslims, whites, blacks, Asians, leftists, conservatives  — should join together to disempower this totalitarian and criminal control of our economy, politics and culture.

This “suicide cult” is the product of psychological warfare, not simply some sick death wish.

Pan Dora writes:

I hope the men’s group is aware this issue has been litigated once before.

Laura writes:

Litigation, schmitigation.  It won’t make a dime’s worth of difference.

Terry Morris writes:

“Surveys of military women have shown repeatedly …”

As Zippy writes at the Orthosphere, “every day is opposite day, … in the land of lies.” (See here.)

Were I betting man, and in spite of the fact that it’s supposed to be off limits for us men to have an opinion about the proper roles of women in society, and its institutions, I would be willing to wager, without ever looking further into it, that the vast majority of military men are, too, opposed to women serving in combat or being subject to the draft.

So to add to Zippy’s excellent summation, majority rule means creating policy based on the exception to the rule, in lieu of society catching up to the right-thinking minority. Whether it is probable society ever will catch up, thus forming a real majority, is irrelevant.

Please follow and like us: