Sisters-in-Arms: women in combat

By Clint Archer - Posted at The Cripplegate:

"The real issue isn’t can a woman cope with combat, but should she have to? Women can and do competently step in if and when men neglect their duties. But do we really want to make this the norm rather than a sad necessary exception?"
News from America fascinates me. Living in South Africa affords me a vantage point of detachment from local US news. But I nearly choked on my newsfeed last week when I heard President Barack Obama commend the Pentagon for opening all combat military positions to women. So now my two little girls, who are US citizens, will one day in all likelihood be required to register for the draft. (If you don’t think that’s the next station this equality train is heading for, you’re not following its trajectory closely enough; see this New York Times article on drafting women)

Objections to the announcement that we will soon have lady SEALs à la GI Jane have focused mostly on pragmatics and physiology. For example studies have irrefutably proven that unit cohesion will be diminished, and that male platoons have 69% more success in completing combat tasks than their co-ed counterparts, and that the 40% less upper body muscle mass of women will impede their ability to drag 200 lb wounded men from a burning tank, etc, etc, etc.

Comments

  1. The writer of the post above doesn't seem to see any connection between the demand that women be allowed to serve in the military and Feminism. Feminism is determined to blur the differences between the sexes and their goal is an androgynous society. Any Government that allows or forces its women to serve in the military is a government that is sacrificing its women on the altar of feminism. Women, in general, are 40-50% weaker than men. There are exceptions i.e women who damage their bodies by extreme exercise such as the weight lifter the writer shows in his post. Such women look more like men and develop unnatural, masculine-like strength because they engage in physically dangerous exercise. The writer of the post, Clint Walker, is too PC for my liking and he obviously believes that women COULD serve in the military but feels they should not have to. So he thinks that women could defend him but he would rather they didn't have to! Why is he so weak on this matter? Is he afraid of Feminists calling him "sexist?" He has no condemnation for feminism. He mentions the story of Deborah in the Bible but Deborah going with Barak in to battle is in no way related to women serving in combat roles in the military. If I can find a way to comment on his blog "The Cripplegate" I will. I don't want to sign up with Disqus to do so unless it is unavoidable.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Susan! I'm so glad you found the blog after moving from Wordpress to Blogger. :) I decided to feature Pastor Archer's article because he isn't arguing from a biological viewpoint as so many others are; I don't think he's PC, but he might be trying to keep his words to a minimum with the plan to revisit this issue in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Angela, I had no difficulty accessing your twitter and the link you gave to Pastor Archer's article, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you are glad I found your blog. Have you moved from Wordpress to Blogger? By the way, I mistakenly referred to Pastor Archer as Clint Walker, instead of Clint Archer in my first comment on his post (see above) so apologies for any confusion. I regret to say that I do not agree with you when you say he is not PC. I believe he is, and his website and Church have the appearance of "New Calvinism" about them. He obviously believes that women are capable of combat service in the military. His argument seems to be that women can be soldiers but they should not have to be. I totally disagree with him. I do not believe that women were ever intended by God to be soldiers and I don't think they are as strong as men. There are always the exceptions of course, such as women weight lifters etc who damage their bodies and look abnormal and are not how God created them to be. There are physically strong women in the world such as athletes etc but some of them have taken dope and some have pushed their bodies beyond the point of no return and they look like bodybuilders. I don't believe they should be in the military either because they are an aberration among women, and because of them and because of feminism, normal women could be forced to become soldiers. I hope to contact Pastor Archer personally to discuss these matters with him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Editor's Note: I deleted my previous response in order to update it with more information regarding my switch from Blogger to Wordpress late last June. The Wordpress administration celebrated the Supreme Court ruling affirming same-sex marriage by placing a homosexual banner on all bloggers "dashboards." So, while the banner wasn't visible to our readers, it was thrust upon the bloggers without any opt out. I was not the only blogger to object and finally leave WP - there were several of us complaining behind the scenes. However, when WP News ran an article praising their homosexual bloggers, it was the final straw for me. I moved to Blogger not because they are more moral than Wordpress, but because they have not yet thrust their ideology upon their community of bloggers. I had planned to leave my blogs at WP as an archive, but eventually deleted them due to not wanting my conscience to become dull and violated by the association with WP. Now, as far as criticism against Pastor Archer - I have none and will continue to read his work. In the future I will not be approving critical comments such as the one above. Pastor Archer isn't part of this blog - I featured his article because he presents a different viewpoint and it is one that should be heard, IMO. - AW

      Delete

Post a Comment

Please feel free to comment, but profanity, anti-Christian or argumentative comments will not be published. Thank you, ed.