Sat 25th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

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.

  • Jonathan West

    Dies that mean that you think men are better at taking life than giving it?

  • Jonathan

    Probably… it all forms part of the absurd “complementarian” understanding of the human person.  Men have specific roles such as wearing trousers, fathering children, taking responsibility…etc.

    (Sorry: unless you’re a member of the clergy, in which case you can wear something akin to a dress; not worry about fathering children; and tell other people who to take responsibility for all sorts of things that you don’t dirty your hands with… on the whole).

    Be nicer to see a genuine argument being made to bring peace everywhere and obviate the need to prepare for war.

  • Maccabeus


  • Maccabeus

    The knock-on effect – which has been confirmed by the Pentagon – is that all women, mothers and daughters, will be liable to any draft in the future should full scale war break out. In other words, a radical change in society has been effected without any political debate or public discussion. A relatively few military careerist women have therefore won the dubious freedom for the rest of their ‘sisters’ to be shunted off to the front line as yet more fodder for the guns. And what the US does today, the UK does  a little further down the line. 

  • Maccabeus

    Peace will never be achieved because – as every five year old has already understood – man is inherently fallen, wicked and evil, he loves war, he loves killing, and the killing will not stop on planet earth until Jesus Christ (remember him?) makes his return. 

  • Jonathan

    Peace isn’t something you achieve… it’s a path you tread.

  • Jonathan West

     But it appears that Francis believes that much of this does not apply to women.

  • Jonathan

    Oh good, another comment demonstrating that your concern for the difference between men and women is greater than your concern for loss of life generally.

  • Mark

    The elite have promoted women’s lib in order to tax the other half of the human population and therefore enslave them too and to dismantle the family so kids can be easily indoctrinated in state schools. See “Trading Places”  producer Aaron Russo interview on youtube for exact details of why the elite have promoted this. It was never about equality and always about their control over us.

  • OldMeena

    Line 6:  “pugilistic scenario”.  You mean “boxing match”.

    As the popular G Orwell advised: (I paraphrase) Never do this.

  • Jonathan

    Aaron Russo again!  Excellent.  Such an attractive and well-thought through set of coherent arguments… who can resist?

  • Jonathan

    “man is inherently fallen, wicked and evil”

    Respectfully, I suggest you that revisit your understanding of the human person, either with the Bible in hand, the CCC, through prayer – or all three.

  • Parasum

    “[About] 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.”

    ## Let’s get this straight:
    men hitting women = bad, chauvinistic, sexist, etc.

    women in army = equality with the masculoids
    women knocking the stuff out of one another = equality with the masculoids

    IOW, violence is OK: provided it is the work of a feminoid. But masculoid-supplied violence is evil. Maybe that is why abortion is so important to some of them: at least they have someone to kill.  Why should that possibility not be entertained ?

    Some feminists already try to engineer language, by inventing barbarisms such as “ovarimony”, instead of that horrid phallocentric abomination “testimony”. What’s wrong with “gonadimony” ? It’s equally barbaric & absurd, but entirely menschenfrei.

    That the harpyhood is “better at giving life than taking it” is shown by the hatred & fury recently vomited on Julie Burchill. It is impossible to improve on Rod Liddell’s analysis  (which is very educational BTW: he tells the reader what cissexism is):

    It’s even funnier than his demolition of Rachel Cusk (& that is saying a lot):

  • Parasum

     That’s not a reason not to try to make peace.

  • scary goat

    Women have already been “brutalised” by “equality”.  This is just one step further.

  • Jonathan

     As someone who will undergo a sex change soon I resent the Catholic limitation upon what I should do in life; why can’t I do as a woman what I once did as a man?

  • JabbaPapa

    Such procedures are objectively destructive of health.

    And of course any factual limitations upon what one can or cannot do are not decided by Catholics ; but Catholic spirituality includes a basic and very straightforward acceptance of these realities.

    It sounds to me as if you are transferring some of the necessarily extant anxieties and doubts over such a project onto an external fetish object, the Catholic Church, in order to objectify those qualms and psychologically distance yourself from simply facing them.

  • JabbaPapa

    the absurd “complementarian” understanding of the human person

    Rather than being “absurd”, the difference between a man and a woman is a biological and physiological and psycho-neural FACT.

    The notion of any radical interchangeability is an ideological construct, based on a combination of lies, political activism, and bad science.

  • Agent Provocateur21

     Jonathan, please don’t do it. You will harm your body, soul and spirit. No matter what is your motivation, it is a wrong decision. Live your life as your heavenly Father created you. He loves you more than you can imagine and he prepared a place for you in heaven. The only thing he is asking of you is love. That means to keep His commandments, do act of penance and live faithfully to your calling as a man.

  • JMunro

    Suddenly it all makes sense. 

  • scary goat

     Ok….woooooow…..what am I supposed to say to that? Referring back to my question on the other thread, are you sure you’re not just a teensy-weensy bit Catholic?  As in lapsed?  I am really confused now.  Of course, a lot of your views don’t coincide with mine, but nevertheless I have found your way of discussing to be very pleasant….you seem like a nice person to me….I sort of thought you were “secular” but open-minded and fair, quite sympathetic to Catholic views….then last night I picked up on the “us” and thought, no, he’s either a lapsed or very liberal Catholic.  Now it looks like obviously it is a bit more complicated than that.  Jonathan, please, at least delay it.  Make sure you get plenty of decent counselling, (not just the sort of counselling that will encourage you to do it.  Get both sides of the argument and think it through some more.)  You are just fine the way you are. I don’t know what your religious beliefs are, but prayer can be very helpful.  I really hope you wouldn’t try to change your nature.  Can’t you find peace in being as you are?  The way God (or nature) made you?  This modern age has encouraged people to think everything is a “choice” irrespective of reality, of nature.  Will changing your nature really make you happy???? I really think there is more peace to be found in finding your place within nature rather than defying it.  And getting a change like that is only “cosmetic”…’s not “real”… can’t become a “full” woman because you cannot have children.  I am female, in case you didn’t realise….and probably the greatest joy in being a woman is being a mother.  Otherwise, believe me, there’s nothing very exciting about being female.  I’m just an individual human being…..just like you are.  Please don’t take offence….I suppose it’s not my business….except in a way it is, because you chose to tell us. Delay it Jonathan, please. Come back and talk some more. 

  • whytheworldisending

    The “Equality” agenda is intrinsically incoherent, as it demands that we ignore reality. The sport of boxing depends on good matchmaking, which presupposes inequality – of weight, age, skill, speed, and strength. Matchmaking is only possible if inequalities are recognised and balanced against one another, but fly weights do not seek “Equality” with Super Heavyweights. Why would they? Its about taking part in a fair fight. “Fairness” is omething worth pursuing, but “Equality” is about one thing and one thing only – winning – and at ANY cost.

  • Jonathan

     Er… somebody has posted this as a “joke” of some kind.

    I appreciate the concern of many of you, but another “Jonathan” has posted this.

  • The Catholic Herald

    Just to say, we’ve deleted that comment.

  • scary goat

     Phew….thank goodness for that.  You (whoever) had me seriously worried there.

  • Jonathan

     The post you’re referring to was not actually made by me.  I appreciate the concern though!

  • Jonathan

     Appreciate the amateur psychology, JabbaPapa, but the post that prompted your post was not made by me.

  • Jonathan

     Thanks – appreciate it. 

  • a consultant psychiatrist

    sometimes a pipe is just a pipe, dr fraud…

  • Jonathan

     …and I appreciate your concern, scary goat.

  • JabbaPapa

    OK, that’s a relief !!!

    What a sick tactic !!!

    (possibly “phil” engaging in his bloody trolling again ?) :-(

    Deleting my response now …

  • Jonathan

    I appreciate it, JabbaPapa.

  • a consultant psychiatrist

    although it may have been a joke, JabbaPapa’s cod-psychology response (now removed) was serious…

  • scary goat

     Moderators can you please delete my post above as it is not necessary.  I don’t know how to delete it.  Thanks.

  • The Catholic Herald

    No problem – that post should be deleted now.

  • Heiz

    This tired old piece of junk again! Sure women give life, my God, they give life, bloodily sacrificing their own lives, ripping themselves open to have that life, that child– you can’t ever imagine what lengths women would go to to protect that life. A new mother could beat the crap out of anybody, tear them to pieces with their ochre burnished french nails. That is truthfully a large part of a woman’s make-up: protect. Not run cowering behind a man, but standing in front of her children in protect mode. And it is inborn. It isn’t with men.
    If women want to do this, and are capable, let them. I know women who could beat the @#&% out of most recruits I’ve seen. Your  cited works, like those from the heritage foundation, should be automatically discounted– they are politically biased and filled with mission-statements, as is this one. And then ther’s retired general Volney Warner– he was alright with everything, until his granddaughter was killed in Iraq. Sorry, that is biased.
    If the women want to do it, let them. The guys will just have to ‘get over’ their deep pain and guilt feelings when a woman is killed in action. Isn’t that a feeling we all should have for any person dead in combat– male of female.

  • scary goat

     Thank you :-)

  • scary goat

     “…. standing in front of her children in protect mode. And it is inborn.”

    Can you please go and tell that to Majorcalamity on the other thread.  He/she seems to think a mother’s child belongs to “all of us”………”Over my dead body” comes to mind.

  • Jonathan

    I don’t really get this discussion about who a child belong’s to… I know that in language, we use the possessive “my mother”, “my son”, “my family”.  We don’t really mean though that mothers, sons and families are possessions.

    I don’t think that Majorcalamity means to say that children belong to the state – or all of us.  I guess that you, scary goat, don’t mean that our children our are possessions, even though they are indeed “ours”.

    Isn’t it the case that children are persons (and if you care for religious language, then they are each unique persons, each created in the image of God).  Parents have the primary joy/ responsibility/ duty/ privilege of their care and upbringing.

    If that fails for any reason then society or the state will step in (we hope).

    In the case of children awaiting adoption… that’s where society/ the state has had to step in, precisely because the natural parents have been unable (or sometimes unwilling) to raise the children themselves.

    I think that where the disagreement really comes is at this point: should “society” have an opportunity before the state involves itself?

    My libertarian instincts suggest the following hierarchy for the care of children: Parents first.  Failing that: society.  Failing that: the state.

    Catholic adoption agencies were, to my mind, a good example of “society” at work.  Extended family might be another.

  • Jonathan

    Are you alluding – for example – , scary goat, to the way we have expected women to step into the working pattern and culture of men, without any genuinely significant adjustment to those working patterns and cultures?

    To my mind there’s been no proper attention to how working patterns, cultures, regulations and laws should be transformed if we really want both men and women to thrive in the workplace and raise families.

    We just seem to have said to women: here you go: equality.  Come and join the working world of men.  No adjustment needed.

  • scary goat

     Not really, although in part maybe.  In modern life women have become pseudo-men. Their roles are now competitive rather than complimentary. The “Cosmo” culture.  Women are no longer respected and protected as mothers and home-makers.  If we are not bringing in the cash-money we are useless.  Because of the sexual revolution, “dating” has become a minefield. Pre-marital sex is now expected as the norm.  The idea of marriage as partnership has changed.  Women work and earn money but they have also become more aggressive. Young women engaging in the “ladette” culture….drinking, sleeping around.  Divorce culture…people don’t have much faith in marriage any more.  Children farmed out to nurseries. Overworked women trying to balance work, home and children.  Contraception makes women “sex toys”. I’m not saying it’s men’s fault….men are victims of this culture too.  I think the feminist movement started out to combat some injustices but it has snowballed out of control and to the detriment of the natural woman.  (and men). Sorry, not a very good post, too late at night.  Just stuffed some ideas down quickly.

  • Acleron

    Ah, so we should treat half of the human race as unequal. And let me have a little guess as to who decides just how unequally they are going to be treated. It’s probably not most women, so it’s more likely to be men, but which men? Could it possibly be those most invested in keeping the status quo or rather their status above everyone else’s? Yup, I think I’ve got it, the catholic church will decide, despite the feelings of women and a fair number of men.

    I was perturbed at the last article on women’s inequality, not by the article as nothing much here surprises me but by the thought of women fighting. But what concern is it of mine? If that is what someone wants to do and it doesn’t materially affect me, my feelings are irrelevant. It is up to me to either ignore this or to accept it, not to prevent others from pursuing their wishes, and Francis Phillips might just do the same.

  • scary goat

     Again too late for a very coherent reply.  A few days ago someone said if Catholic adoption agencies are only giving children for adoption to Catholic families they should be shut down.  Also Catholic adoption agencies being forced to accept gay couples as adoptive parents against their own beliefs. Of course a child is not a possession. But a child is not a neutral entity either.  Blood is thicker than water.  My Children are genetically half me.  And they have been raised in a loving Catholic environment.  They are happy.  If something were to happen to me I would want my children to be happy.  Of course children are individuals in their own right but also they are helpless.  They need growing up, care, education, it is natural that the family provides this.  If the family fails, the children need a home, but they also need a compatible environment.  They are not neutral.  When they are mature, then they can make their own decisions, what they believe, or not, but that comes with maturity.  I agree that (for me) first choice would be extended family, second choice would be an adoptive family that would provide a similar environment. I know some children come from unfortunate backgrounds….but these are the most vulnerable of all. They are not commodities.  Also the Catholic schools…majorc. said they should be shut down.  I have had my children in state schools before waiting for a place at a Catholic school.  They were unhappy in the state schools.  They do better in a Catholic school, educationally, emotionally, everything.  They learn about other religions too. In the state school religion was “excluded”.  A Christmas play about aliens.  People thought they were weird because they made the sign of the cross and said grace before meals.  Children are people.  God-given or nature given to their parents. They are not neutral robots. If something happened to me, imagine sending my children to an atheist family.  They would be completely disorientated. They would want their school, their friends, their church, their priest, the parish community.  Equally, I think if gay people or atheists had a child (I don’t quite know where the gay people would get a child from…not a natural child) but wouldn’t they want the child to go to a familiar environment?  Wouldn’t they want the child to go to a family who was accepting of gay relationships? What the child grew up to think about that in adulthood is up to the grown up child, but it’s a big scary confusing world for a child. I know it’s all complicated. We each have our own views about what a perfect world would look like, but don’t we have some right to ensure that our children get the best chance in life as we understand it? Personally I don’t agree with gay adoption…but if that’s what the law says, ok.  There are secular adoption agencies who comply.  Why shouldn’t we run our adoption agencies as we see fit? Also regarding Catholic schools….I know personally a child who went into foster care from an abusive home. The foster parents are not Catholic.  The child was so “messed up” he got thrown out of every school within weeks.  Finally he got a place in our school and he has been there ever since and stabilizing nicely.  He himself chose to go on to our secondary school.  Doesn’t that say something?

  • JabbaPapa

    If that is what someone wants to do and it doesn’t materially affect me

    How “tolerant” and “liberated” and Modernist of you !!

    In fact, the moral values of atheist secularism concern every single person who is exposed and subjected to them. Which, in the current climate, means : everyone.

    The very nature of ethics and morals is the opposite of your presentation of these things.

  • JabbaPapa

    Really, just read Le petit prince/The Little Prince by Saint-Exupéry for a simple and easy explanation of how two people will come to “belong to” each other.

  • Maccabeus

    I respectfully suggest you obtain a bible and read it. The following are just a few quotes that clearly state man’s inherently evil nature as a result of the fall. Moreover, if man were not inherently evil and lost in his sins, why on earth would he ever need a Saviour to save him? Or are you taking the Pelagian line and advocating the possibility of man pulling himself up to heaven by his own bootstraps? That heresy – rife in today’s society – was demolished by none other than Augustine, back in the early fifth century. 
    Here are a few quotes for you to mull over:
    The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth – Genesis 8.21
    The hearts of men are full of evil – Ecclesiastes 9.3
    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? – Jeremiah 17.9
    Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me – Psalm 51.5 (Note: David is not accusing his mother of fornication).
    The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually – Genesis 6.5
    For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man. – Mark 7.21-23
    Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Eccles 7.20
    What is man, that he can be clean? Or he that is born of a woman, that he can be righteous? Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not clean in his sight; how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, man who drinks iniquity like water! – Job 15.14-16
    I could go on, the bible hammers home the bad news, extremely bad, that man is damned in his sins and hopelessly lost, only to then deliver the good news, that salvation is of the Lord, through repentance of evil, faith and grace – for man, of himself, is dead in his sins, and can do nothing to save himself. This is nothing more than orthodox Christianity, taught for 2000 years, save the last 50 years or so. And this is the tragedy: the Church no longer teaches the extremely bad news – Sin, evil, damnation and hell as the inevitable and deserved lot of man – counterbalanced by the very raison d’etre of our Faith: the Salvation won for us by Jesus on the Cross which gives us the chance, if we are willing to take it, of Salvation. And we cannot move to take up that chance of salvation until first we recognise the depths of our individual depravity and sinfulness, deserving damnation, and the free gift of faith and grace, won for us by Christ on the Cross.Hence the assignment in Christianity of Humility as the mother of all virtues. Until we recognise and repent our radical inherent evil, we cannot even begin to move towards the light of truth and salvation. We remain dead in our sins and, unless we change, we are deservedly consigned to damnation in hell by a just God. And if any man thinks God is unjust to send anyone to hell then he offers proof positive of the fact that he has not even begun to undestand the depth of depravity in his heart and therefore remains, in essence, a rebel to God, rooted in pride and self-righteousness, the satanic sin of sins.

  • Maccabeus

    Of course, but paradoxically we have a far greater chance of achieving peace if we first, in all humility, acknowledge our own inherent evil and sinfulness. At least, this is the Christian way. The modernist way is to assume that basically we’re all fundamentally good and if only we can manage to talk things through with our opponents – who are also fundamentally good – then peace will break out. It won’t because today’s christianity has bought into secular society’s ‘feel good’ philosophy – ditching the biblical truth that we are not fundamentally good with a possibility of evil but are on the contrary fundamentally evil with just a glimmering possibility of good. It used to be called Christian realism. 

  • Maccabeus

    Thank you for the sanctimonious elucidation.

  • Jonathan

    Thanks, scary goat.  It seems to me that you and majorcalamity have far more common ground than either of you realise. 

  • Jonathan

    Difficult to disagree with most of that… scary goat…

    “In modern life women have become pseudo-men”   Indeed.

    There are so many areas of society – you’ve listed several – in which somehow (I’m less sure that it’s the feminist movement) “equality” just seems to have made things worse for the typical woman.

    That is not to say that I think that women are not equal to men and should be treated as anything other than equal to men.  Rather, society just seems not to have bothered to adjust itself to this revelation of the twentieth century.

    If you’d asked me in the 1960s (no, I wasn’t born then!) what the future effect on society of equality for women would mean, I’d have guessed it would be things like: more emphasis on co-operation, less on competition; far greater support for families; a diminishing sexualisation; greater compassion; an unlikeliness to go to war; blah, blah, blah… I’d have been totally wrong, of course.

    It seems to me that, bit by bit, we’ve totally messed up a great opportunity to re-assess much of what our society is all about.