Inside the Feminist Agenda: Just because we CAN put women in combat roles does it mean we SHOULD?

"A country is not just what it does—it is also what it tolerates." Yad Vashem, Jerusalem

I wrote an Op Ed published in the Air Force Times in early 1993 reflecting on President Clinton’s decision allowing women in some combat roles. President Clinton had stated in his 1992 campaign that he would abide by the congressional committee’s recommendations. The committee ruled in a close vote, 8-7, that women should not be in combat roles. Once elected the President summarily disregarded his campaign promise and succumbed to the feminist’s desire to allow women in harm's way, although limited to certain positions. My Op Ed entitled "What Would Billy Mitchell Do?" was appropriately titled asking military leaders to stand up against the feminist agenda that desired to put women in combat positions. No one stood up in 1993.

The connection to General Billy Mitchell is important. General Mitchell was one of the last Generals unrestrained by political correctness. In 1921 Mitchell declared that "the first battles of any future war will be air battles." When the Navy and War Departments failed to develop an air service, Mitchell accused the military of being incompetent and criminally negligent. For this unforgivable sin of prophetic insight and speaking the truth General Mitchell was court martialed by the War Department. In other words, he was the one of our last Generals who spoke the truth to the bureaucrats and refused to play politics with superiors who were weak bellied and politically expedient.

My Op Ed then, and now, was and is not intended to be a sexist attack against the ability of woman to serve in the military. Women have served proudly in the US Military for most of America’s history in many roles. Rather, my Op Ed asks the bigger question of the wisdom of allowing women in certain combat roles. Twenty years later Pentagon Chief Leon Panetta is now almost completely removing the military’s ban on women serving in combat. But the question remains:

Just because we CAN put women in combat roles does it mean we SHOULD?

A little history is needed in the feminist agenda relating to our military. In the 1980s-‘90s Pat Schroeder, Democrat Congresswoman and radical feminist from Colorado was extremely vocal in attacking a "patriarchal military" and instrumental pushing woman into more combat roles. Disgusted by the male Generals and Admirals that appeared before her congressional committees during the fallout from the infamous Tail Hook scandal in 1991, Schroeder wrote that sexual harassment “is the symptom of a larger problem: institutional bias against women.” Schroeder was never a fan of the US military advocating deep reductions in overseas troop levels and sympathetic to Soviet aggression into Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Schroeder also knew that to be promoted to the rank of General or Admiral requires distinguished performance in combat conditions at the lower ranks. you understand the radical feminist agenda: Get women in combat at the lower ranks so that they would one day become Generals in charge of the military. In Schroeder’s feminist vision, future congresswomen would only be talking eye-to-eye with female Generals. Placing women at the top ranks in the military would once and for all atone for all the sins of the past by this flawed "patriarchal institution."

My main objections then and now to women serving in direct combat:

• Physical strength requirements will be impacted which will cause people to die in combat. A 120 lb lady with full combat gear on the ground will not be able to carry a 200 lb man to safety if injured. Instead of “No man left behind” on the field of battle the new motto might become “Hope you stay alive while I go get help.”

• Women get pregnant and men don’t. Following Clinton's 1993 decision, follow-up studies showed that "on average 15 percent of female personnel became pregnant each year," said Elaine Donnelly, an original commission member who in 2005 served as chairman of the nonprofit Center for Military Readiness. If a woman has had $10 Million dollars spent on them to become a qualified war fighting asset (example: pilot) and then gets pregnant, you have just wasted $10 million and have to spend an additional training costs to train a high value replacement. That is fiscally irresponsible.

• Sexual relations will occur in close quarters. If we were in an all-out conflict how quickly could we replace massive numbers of troops who choose to get pregnant so they can be removed from the combat zone?

• Dovetailing on romantic relations in close quarters is the other problem of loyalties and jealousies that will always occur. Eros is a powerful emotion that will cause soldiers to naturally try to protect their lovers, even in a combat situation. Efforts to protect a lover may endanger everyone else in the unit. Jealousies over rival mates will diminish unit morale breakdown and cohesiveness.

• Women bring life into the world and are nurturers by nature. Does our society really want nurturers focusing on killing people in combat leaving the men at home to play mommy?

• Remember Mogadishu in 1993 where our male Army Rangers dead bodies were dragged through the streets after being slaughtered? Do we really want women raped and brutalized by Islamic militias on live TV? I don’t think the enemy will abide by political correctness. In the Vietnam conflict the North Vietnamese held our POWs for up to 8 years. What about the shock value of a rape produced child being born in a POW camp? Even worse, the Islamists might choose to slice the female open and abort the child on live TV for propaganda purposes.

• Will women be drafted? Does that mean President Obama is willing to allow his daughters to be conscripted if a draft was ordered? In 1993 I corresponded with Senator Sam Nunn and he assured me that women will never be drafted in these United States. Has the Senator’s reassurance been devoured by the feminist agenda?

But the question remains: Just because we CAN put women in combat does it mean we SHOULD?

Woman and men are fundamentally different despite what the feminists preach. If this new policy remains unchanged, then war fighting capability has now become a secondary goal of the world’s greatest military. Gender equality now becomes the primary goal of the US military regardless of operational, fiscal, or social impact. Once again and twenty years hence, do we have any Generals today that will stand up and tell President Obama and Secretary Panetta that they are dead wrong?

The Progressive Left in this country continues to assault Judeo-Christian values and are intent on taking down the institutions one-by-one that have been the bedrock to Western society and culture. The common theme never mentioned by the Left or the media is that all these attacks against Marriage, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion, and pro-woman in combat are at the root god-less attacks against the God-ordained unique differences between men and women and His creation. In the godless Left, we are all equally evolved organisms with no moral compass, no duty to God, and no difference between men and women. According to the Progressive Left, all is permissible because there is no ultimate standard of right and wrong.

Future historians may look at America’s history and weep over our demise but may not understand the moral decay that undermined our freedoms. America started out honoring God in its founding documents. Now, His name is being purged from the public square and the barbarians are tearing down all the institutions that have advanced Western society. Alexis de Tocqueville is reported to have said these prophetic words in the early 19th century: "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Those words seem more appropriate every day.

Once again, it is a matter of the heart.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

39 thoughts on “Inside the Feminist Agenda: Just because we CAN put women in combat roles does it mean we SHOULD?

  1. Teriqua Jones says:

    When a woman is physically fit, she will not have as much body fat as other women. When I was 5'6" and 118 pounds, I worked out daily. I had just under 11% body fat. I ceased to have my period because of my low body fat. No period = non-fertile, which negates the pregnancy issue brought up here. And yes, at that time I could have lifted a 200 pound man.
    I am not a feminist, I just felt some balanced facts should be added to this story. Many girls graduate high school and are unable to go to college. It is not fair that this option should be removed from their lives.

  2. If we actually put our young ladies in the front lines under combat, can you imagine what the enemies are thinking? Are you ready for gang rapes, within each and every body orifice, until they, the enemy is spent, then to protect themselves from criminal prosecutions, they make sure there's none left alive to testify!
    How think this will not happen?
    Look at Berlin's females when the Russian troops entered the city, even old ladies were fair game to them, and think you the fanatic Islamist s, will behave any better? They kill women, their ladies, for much less! THINK if you are able!

  3. I think we should put our great politicians on the front line and save the lives of our military those loves America

  4. It is a disgrace that we are willing to put our women into harm's way in the front lines of mortal combat. It is a sign of the decline our once great republic. As a man, I am embarrassed and ashamed of our country for this stupidity. To send our Daughters, our Sisters, our Mothers, our Wives to die for us is appalling! As soon as the first women is captured, raped, tortured, murdered, and has her naked body drug through the streets of our enemy, there will be a hue and cry... of why!? How low can we possibly sink?!

  5. Douglas W. Rodrigues says:

    I wonder how many of those feminists wanting women on the front lines would themselves put themselves on the front lines? My guess is none. Those feminists are functioning like the rear echolon pukes who have someone else stick their necks out to accomplish their academic arguments and social experimentation.

  6. Of course we should. They want blood, guts, gore, give it to them.

  7. The solution was discovered in WWII. The questionable group, the Japanese,
    were placed in their own platoons and battalions. The 442 battalion was
    organized with White officers. The 442 became the most decorated regiment in all
    the war. The Japanese Americans had something to prove and they did. Their moto
    was "Go for Broke". A movie was made called, I think, "Gung Ho". Therefore, put
    gays, women and Muslims in their own groups. That way it is fair to all and
    we'll see if they can hold under pressure. At the same time our best warriors
    are not at risk or compromised in social experiments. Win Win situation. Pass
    it on.


  8. Let's be honest here... I was in the army as a fit 160lb male. I served with guys who weighed as little as 120 and as much as 220. I wasn't going to carry any of the 200 pounders for any distance, my 120 pound bbuddy wasn't carrying a 200 pound guy; hell soem of teh 200 pound guys couldn't carry another 200 pound guy.
    While I agree there are certain roles that women are just not for, ranger units, even general combat infantry, there are others they are well suited for. Women are physically better able to handle g-stress as fighter pilots, they have a better sense of balance, handy for piloting a helocopter, they arer smaller so fit better in tanks.
    As for the nuturing thing, you obviously don't know some of the women I do!