Women given better odds of dying in the military

It seems all the government has to do to make some people happy is ensure that more women will be given better chances to die.

From the NYT:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is lifting the military’s ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them, senior defense officials said on Wednesday.

The groundbreaking decision overturns a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles, even though in reality women have found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, where more than 20,000 have served. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died.

Some feminists cannot wait for for women to die in the name of equality:

“This is an historic step for

US solider

How long and how would a 125 lb. woman would last with such a load? [Image Credit]

equality and for recognizing the role women have, and will continue to play, in the defense of our nation,” said Democratic Senator Patty Murray from Washington, the outgoing head of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

I am sorry. The purpose of the military is to demonstrate equality? I thought it is to provide for the national defense.

Another is content for women to swim–or sink–so long as no one keeps them from it:

Susan Farrell, who served on a Department of Defense advisory committee that recommended that more jobs be opened to women, lauded the decision as representing “a chance for women to sink or swim on their own merits. That’s all women have ever asked for: a chance to be as patriotic, as giving of themselves, as the men are.”

It sounds like Susan is ready for more women to die.

WSJ notes this is merely the last in an ongoing progression:

Twenty years ago, Congress lifted the ban on women flying in attack aircraft, and now the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force all have women pilots—although women don’t serve as special-operations pilots.

Female officers now serve on large submarines, and the Navy has plans to add female enlisted personnel on those vessels. The Navy also will allow women to serve on smaller classes of submarines.

I am not of the opinion women cannot serve or serve with distinction in the military. It is clear they have and can.

I do, however, question the wisdom of putting females, who are, in almost all cases physically weaker than men, in hand-to-hand combat situations. One struggles to fathom repeated instances in which a platoon of females, each carrying 40 pounds of equipment and facing an equal number of enemy males in close combat, emerging victorious time and again.

Certainly my egalitarian friends may cry foul; some may even call me “sexist” or “chauvinistic.” That is fine. I, however, do not consider it a remnant of faltering patriarchy that I am moved, even called, to protect my family, especially my wife and daughters. If we meet a gun or knife wielding mugger on the street I will put myself between them and the attacker until my lifeless body is prone on the sidewalk.

Contrariwise, if I happen to be walking down the sidewalk with a female who, owing to a need to demonstrate equality, inserts herself between the mugger and me, I might consider myself freed and run to live another day. Hey, equality is equality is it not? If she wants to be dead is that not “giving of herself”? Should I also be lifeless so “equality” is clearly demonstrated?

Yes, I delve into hyperbole. A little. Perhaps the logical, non-exaggerated conclusion should, in the end, be considered by those who want to be “equal.” Equal must be equal in the glory and the blood, in the show and the shame.

As the military considers sweeping changes for women in combat, the ongoing epidemic of rape in all branches of the service continues almost unabated. Repeated promises of “zero tolerance” are decreasingly believable with each new scandal. Reports the L.A. Times:

As of this week, 32 basic training instructors at Lackland are under investigation stemming from sexual misconduct allegations and 59 alleged victims have been identified by the base.

woman soldier

Maybe some of those idiots should be in her sights.

A report in mid-November found that a fractured command culture and “leadership gap” at Lackland helped fuel the scandal. Six basic training instructors at the base have been convicted of sexual misconduct dating to 2008 and nine trials are scheduled. Staff Sgt. Eddy C. Soto faces a possible life sentence at trial next week for the alleged rape of a female trainee.

Gen. Mark Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee, Obscene images, songs and stories “will not be accepted as part of our culture.” Uh, huh. Tell us more, General.

The truth is only by devious intent or a full scale ground war could more women die in combat than currently are raped in the United States military. Estimates place the total number of female rape victims from all branches of the military at half-a-million. As in civilian life, many rapes are not reported and many that are reported are not prosecuted. Until early last year a significant number of victims had to report their attack to the very person who had raped them. That is not so much like civilian life. (Oh, and by the way, what better way to get rid of a potential witness to rape than to re-assign her to the front lines. Bible students might remember a guy named Uriah.)

Although some men are raped as well–usually by heterosexuals–women bear the brunt. If you have not yet seen The Invisible War you simply must take the time to watch it. There are several places to rent or buy it online. It may be available on Netflix now. The trailer is below.

Marty Duren

Just a guy writing some things.

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Pingback: Female Marine captain speaks out on equality [VIDEO] | Kingdom In The Midst()

  • Ray Wilkins

    As a minister and combat veteran I oppose this on two grounds; theologically this is another move in the attempt to eradicate gender distinctions. The “social justice” movement is committed to overcoming the design differences between men and women. As one female remarked (Tammy Duckworth) this is about leveling the playing field. Unfortunately, the combat field is neither a playing field nor level. Second, females do not know nor have they ever met the same physical standards as the men. Their standards are less than half those of males. As any soldier from the 80’s and 90’s can affirm, when they started allowing females into more jobs, the military was under tremendous pressure to ensure that some graduated no matter what. I personally witnessed a changing of the rules in one school so that some females could graduate.

    • martyduren


      Thanks for your comment. I’m concerned as well about the physical standards. If “equal” is desired it should be, well, equal.

      I’m interested in your use of “social justice.” There is a biblical basis for seeking justice–that would not cover women in combat zones, I don’t think. How do you understand that concept?

      • Ray Wilkins

        I view social justice as that movement, driven primarily by the political left, to create a society of not just equal opportunity but equal results. Encompassed within this movement is the eradication of gender distinction. How is social justice different from biblical justice? the definition of justice within the SJ movement is fluid, constantly changing as the moral compass of humanity changes. Biblical justice is static and relates to the will of God. Whatever is in accord with God’s will, is just.

  • I am sure this paragraph has touched all the internet users, its really
    really good article on building up new web site.