"Be a man" no more

Then...

Then...

Now...

In an absurd move, the Pentagon opened the doors today for women to serve in combat positions, which, according news reports "allows women to serve as infantrymen or in special ops, like Navy SEALS, if they pass physical tests". This is a joke. Women cannot pass the physical requirements of special operations training; that is, unless that training is severely altered, which will necessarily make it less lethal, less effective. It's not sexist to say this, it's simply recognizing biology. Obama praised the move (big surprise) with an asinine statement: 'Valor knows no gender.' Sure. But completing SEAL and Special Forces training certainly does. Is the president's idea of valor so narrow that it is only limited to battle on the front lines? (And how about the NFL? How would a woman hold up to a hulking Clay Matthews behemoth barreling into her?)

I am so incredibly tired of nonsensical, liberal Hallmark Card pablum that everyone takes as doctrine emanating from the oracle at Delphi. It is ironic that, in attempting to break through various gender 'ceiling' roles, feminists have conceded that only roles which males have traditionally filled are the most important in society. They ignore their natural strengths and powers and accept the premise that it is a man's world after all.

This move from the Pentagon represents yet another obeisance to the god of political correctness by yes-men disciples of Obama. Our nation's martial culture (which emphasizes authentic masculinity) has already been ravaged by the demands of liberalism, egalitarianism, political correctness and social experimenting.

I will end this post with an excerpt from an article by Kate O'Beirne, which appeared in National Review in 2003.

Overplaying women's exploits permits proponents of gender-integrated combat to discount the masculine traits that the history of warfare shows to be vital to military success. In an article for the Buffalo Law Review, Wayne State law professor Kingsley R. Browne examines the historic link between masculinity and warfare: "Be a man" was the core value by which combat soldiers judged each other, according to Samuel Stouffer's classic study of soldiers in WWII; as Browne notes, Northwestern professor Charles Moskos--America's leading military sociologist--explains that one of the few ways to get men in combat to behave so irrationally as to risk getting killed is to appeal to their masculinity. A study of the Spanish Civil War found that the greatest fear of men facing combat for the first time was that they would turn out to be cowards. Historian S.L.A. Marshall found that a man in combat will overcome his fear and do what's required because he risks losing "the one thing that he is likely to value more highly than his life--his reputation as a man among other men." Browne concludes: "If the need to prove one's manliness is an essential motivator of combat personnel, what motivates women?" 

A 1985 Navy study found that large majorities of women were unable to perform any of the eight critical shipboard tasks that virtually all men could handle...In her 2000 book, The Kinder Gentler Military, Stephanie Gutmann recounted how the harsh demands of basic training have been largely eliminated to make the experience more female-friendly. With basic training now gender-integrated in all the services except the Marines, the emphasis is increasingly on self-esteem and positive motivation. Recruits are shown videos that reassure them that "anybody can get through boot camp" and that it's "O.K. to cry." A commission appointed by defense secretary William Cohen...concluded that basic training should be separate because integrated training resulted in "less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training programs.