Thu 2nd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Wed 1st Oct 2014 at 15:58pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Women are being brutalised by ‘equality’

Women are better off giving life than taking it

By on Monday, 4 February 2013

Women in Combat Milestones

I got some stick last year when I wrote in a blog after the Olympics that the thought of women punching each other in a boxing ring depressed me. This view has nothing to do with the characters of the young women so engaged; it is my battle (using words rather than fists) against these latter decades of feminism which has made such a pugilistic scenario possible. Over boxing I wrote, “It might seem a victory in the on-going feminist struggle of women’s complete equality with men, but it strikes me as a hollow victory; a blow against the nature of womankind; indeed, a step backwards for civilisation.”

Last week we larned that in the US women are going to be allowed to engage in front-line combat duty alongside men. I see it as a further downward slide; what will be next?

Soon, as Yeats wrote in the context of the Great War, “mere anarchy” will be “loosed upon the world.” I am not being alarmist; nor am I alone in my opinions here; Robert Reilly in a good article in Mercator Net, challenges US General Martin Dempsey who has proclaimed that “The time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.” As Reilly comments, it is ideological pressure that has created this supposed requirement – not military necessity.
He points to research in 1994 for the Heritage Foundation which has shown that “the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle.”

Why? Because it is a natural male instinct to protect and assist women when they are in danger rather than continue with their attack. This in turn further jeopardises their own lives and also the survival of the whole unit. “The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed or maimed on the battlefield.”

The article refers to the late Israeli Defence Minister, Moshe Dayan, who also thought that women reduced the effectiveness of male units because men took steps to protect them “out of fear of what the Arabs would do to the women if they captured them.” All this makes complete sense. War is horrible. It is bad enough that men sometimes have to engage in its brutalities. Why now include women in combat roles?

Retired US General Volney Warner strikes a note of common sense (unlike President Obama who, not surprisingly, sees the ending of the combat exclusion as “appropriate”). He states, “I remain convinced that women are better at giving life than taking it.” That says everything about the difference between men and women and why they should not be considered “equal” on the battle-field. Reilly asks rhetorically, “What kind of society seeks to put its women, its life givers, directly in harm’s way… The answer is, a society that no longer knows what women are or why men fight to protect them.”

Where America leads, we follow. What a gloomy prospect.

  • Maccabeus

    Good for Francis.

  • Nicola

    If male soldiers are overprotective of their female colleagues, then this should be addressed in their training.  If men can be trained to kill, they can be trained to treat women as human beings rather than super-delicate flowers in need of their heroic protection.  What “brutalises” women is the patronising idea that they need special treatment. 

    If men’s morale is damaged by seeing women die, but NOT by seeing men die, then this is an appalling indication of harmful inequality in modern society.  Men and women should be considered equally valuable, their lives equally precious.  If soldiers cannot view all human life as valuable, they are not fit for the job.

  • Jonathan

    Well, I shan’t get into a heresy-exchange with you, Maccabeus, but to say that man is inherently evil is different from saying that he is fallen.  He is created in God’s image.

    To deny that man is inherently evil is not to assert that he is inherently good.

    Happily, the Church has considered all that the Bible has to tell us, and from that, formulated what is required to be believed by the faithful.

    The church I belong to would also disagree that man is inherently evil.

  • JabbaPapa

    Protestantism.

  • JabbaPapa

    What “brutalises” women is the patronising idea that they need special treatment.

    Feminism is a brutality against women ?

    Wow !! What a surprise !!!

  • JabbaPapa

    BTW, do women boxers lactate ? I’d have though that would be difficult, if the mammary superstructure is being pummelled

    Women = breasts ???

    LOL

  • scary goat

     I doubt it.

  • Jonathan

    You might be right, of course!

  • JabbaPapa

    Can you please just completely block that horrid individual’s IP address ?

    Particularly if that IP happens to be : Phil Broadhurst (IP 87.114.143.109)

  • Maccabeus

    No Christian denomination disputes that man is inherently evil, only the degree to which he is inherently evil. There are those who hold that his evil is grave but does not entirely override his remaining potential for goodness; and there are those who hold that man’s evil is so radical that his remaining goodness is incapable of establishing any kind of meaningful relationship with God. Of course we are talking about spiritual and moral good and evil here as measured against God’s holy and perfect standard – not everyday acts of goodness such as providing food for one’s children, helping someone cross the road etc.etc. which all men and women are capable of. In all denominations, however, regardless of the degree of inherent evil, the evil is regarded as sufficiently heinous and God-hating that it effectively prevents man from saving himself by establishing a true and righteous relationship with God. Hence the need for a Saviour, to save man from his hopeless plight, a plight that leaves him doomed to damnation. This is the very raison d’etre of Christianity: Christ’s atonement on the Cross for man’s inherent evil, radiating grace from the sacrifice of his body such that man, or at least some men, can find it in themselves to repent and enter the household of faith. It is the tragedy of all denominations that in recent decades they have played down the ‘bad news’ of the bible i.e. man’s hopeless and damned status without Christ, and hence have rendered the Good News nugatory. In effect, the  denominations have offered a lifejacket to people who they depict as merely paddling on the beach. Not surprisingly, people are  uninterested and the message fails to hit home. In the past all denominations were much more brutally honest and faithful in presenting the Gospel. They offered a lifejacket to people they accurately and honestly depicted as adrift on the ocean, unable to swim (i.e. unable to save themselves), or at best only able to tread water, and hence inevitably fated to drown and be lost forever. Now that second kind of lifejacket, in those desperate circumstances, was Good News indeed. And those desperate circumstances, with the life of man hanging by a thread, was and is a faithful reflection of how the bible depicts man’s fallen state. His only hope lies in his Saviour, Jesus Christ, because in and of himself he is lost. Unfortunatley, in attempting to appease modern man, in trying to tone down the ‘scandalous’ message of the bible, a message that has always offended man’s pride, enraging him (hence the inevitability of persecution suffered by those who deliver this message), Christianity has failed to inform man of his true and appalling spiritual condition. It has failed to carry out its Great Commission: to preach the Gospel, neither adding nor subtracting a word, to this generation of men and women, alerting them to the true nature of their desperate plight: damnation in hell if they do not repent and mend their ways. And no figure in the Bible, no prophet, is more graphic and ruthless in starkly and bluntly telling man that he is doomed to eternal hellfire if he does not repent than Jesus Christ. The notion of Jesus as some sort of peace-loving pacifist is rankly unbiblical and unchristian. It is Jesus himself who warns us of our desperate plight. And it is Christianity’s mission to faithfully repeat that message down the ages. Over the last 5 decades Christianity has failed to carry out that scandalous and ever-unpopular but absolutely vital mission for mankind.

  • Maccabeus

    You clearly do not have daughters.

  • Paulo Augusto Lacaz

    Please know the emails that discuss this topic in the blog  SCCBESME HUMANIDADE. 
    http://sccbesme-humanidade.blogspot.com.br/2013/02/joint-call-with-president-obama.html