Women in Combat and the Undoing of Civilization

Our civilization just took a gigantic leap backward today, though I’m wondering if anyone will notice. Today Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta removed a rule that restricts women from serving in the front lines of combat. The U. S. military already has women serving in various roles in forward areas, but this latest move crosses another line. Here is the report from the Associated Press:

Leon Panetta is removing the military’s ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

I understand that we are living in times of tremendous social change. Americans have by and large cast aside the “quaint” view that men and women are different and that they ought to have roles and responsibilities that correspond to those differences. So for many people, I’m sure this news merely appears as the next stage of progress toward equality in our society. I have a different view.

Are the fortunes of women in our country really enhanced by sending them to be ground up in the discipline of a combat unit and possibly to be killed or maimed in war? Is there a father in America who would under any circumstance risk having his daughter shot or killed in battle? Is there a single husband in this country who thinks it okay for his wife to risk being captured by our enemies? To risk becoming a prisoner of war? Is this the kind of people we want to be? Perhaps this is the kind of people we already are. I would sooner cut off my arm than allow such a thing with my own wife and daughters. Why would I ever support allowing someone else’s to do the same? Why would anyone?

What kind of a society puts its women on the front lines to risk what only men should be called on to risk? In countries ravaged by war, we consider it a tragedy when the battle comes to the backyards of women and children. Why would we thrust our own wives and daughters into that horror? My own instinct is to keep them as far from it as possible. Perhaps this move makes sense with an all volunteer force, but what if the draft is ever reinstituted? Are we really going to be the kind of people who press our wives and daughters to fight in combat?

I cannot improve upon John Piper‘s 2007 article for World magazine in which he writes:

If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea. Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women.

Everyone in America ought to be scandalized by this news, but I’m wondering if it will even register on the radar of anyone’s conscience. To the extent that it doesn’t, we reveal just how far gone we are as a people. God help us.

121 Responses to Women in Combat and the Undoing of Civilization

  1. Akash CHarles January 23, 2013 at 5:38 pm #

    well It shows how weak American men our when they need their wives to physically defend them!!!

    now SSS should be made for women as well to make all things equal-their will soon be a lawsuit as lawyers will want to make money!!!

    I wonder now how many men will be distracted during war??
    Israel realized this and removed women from such positions.

    Anyways I guess this is good new for the islam/terrorist world-the opposition is now weaker-also when the NZ female soldier Jacinda Ardern was killed-the terrorists supposedly were told to focus on killing a woman as the believed killing a woman was a greater prize!

    Now soon their will be lawsuits to ensure 50% women in all positions!!!
    there are going to be heaps of sexual harassment claims!

    What happens to women during menstruation??!!-will they be held to the same standards as men-I hope they are otherwise it is unfair
    also the military claims the standards will be the same but they always make exceptions for women-so women will be doing lesser work for same pay/recognition!!!!

    I suppose all military men who think only men should be on the front lines will be fired??

    I find it interesting that we are becoming more and more like Greek society in Paul’s time.

    it all makes sense though cause the military does not care about God-obviously they would have made this decision-it was inevitable

  2. Akash CHarles January 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm #

    Nice picture btw

  3. Matthew Kirkpatrick January 23, 2013 at 6:09 pm #

    “Is there a father in America who would under any circumstance risk having his daughter shot or killed in battle? Is there a single husband in this country who thinks it okay for his wife to risk being captured by our enemies? To risk becoming a prisoner of war? Is this the kind of people we want to be?”

    I would contest that I would not only not want my daughter shot at or killed in battle but I wouldn’t want that for my son either. Of course I would rather risk my own life than my wife or daughter, but I would also rather risk my life than my father or my brothers. Not to play the “spiritual trump card” or even be that arrogant, but Christ laid down his life for all, not just women. I don’t think there needs to be a distinction there.

    • Denny Burk January 23, 2013 at 6:15 pm #

      None of us wants any of our loved ones to go. That’s not the point. When wars happen, someone has to go. Who we decide to send says a lot about who we are as a people. We have a special responsibility to provide for the welfare of our wives and daughters, and that does not include sending them to war.

      • buddyglass January 24, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

        So exempt women from the draft. Or, if they’re subject to the draft, don’t assign them to “dangerous” roles unless they express a preference for them and can meet the gender-agnostic physical standards.

        Perhaps also worth noting we haven’t had a draft in 40 years.

    • Akash CHarles January 23, 2013 at 6:17 pm #

      considering the fact that men who want women to defend them cause they cannot-believe in evolution(generally) they are contradicting themselves-cause ideally the higher the number of living women the better the survival chance

      I wonder if this will lead to “equality” in life spans

  4. Mary Burbrink January 23, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

    Unfortunately, this is only making official what has been going on for quite some time. It really isn’t all that scandalous to those that have served within the past decade. When I served ground combat units were officially “closed” to women, but women would get attached to these units anyway. Women who participate in this program are part of “Female Engagement Teams” and their specific mission is go out on patrols with infantry units and search the civilian female population. I am not at all surprised by this.

  5. Don Johnson January 23, 2013 at 6:49 pm #

    Most people in the military do not want to be in an infantry squad, but there are a few who do, including a few women. The linked article suggests that no woman would be forced to do so, but only if she wanted to do so. As we saw in the 2 recent wars, the front lines are often just lines on map and supposed rear areas can see fighting.

  6. Akash CHarles January 23, 2013 at 6:53 pm #

    the whole irony is that America now cannot have a say against countries that oppress women-cause even their men would never send their wives to defend them unlike American men who have mostly become wimpish.

    the reason the draft was not made for women was because all roles were not allowed for women-this changes it

  7. Frank Trascritti January 23, 2013 at 6:55 pm #

    Dr.Burk, I respect you, but I have to completely disagree with your view on this. I was in the Army, and the women I served with were eager and willing to go into combat; they resented the fact that they were not allowed in combat units.

    The biggest problem is promotions. Women were not allowed in the Army Rangers program and Infantry training. Any man who completes “Ranger school” or serves in the Infantry has a leg-up on his competition, and that meant women were easily passed up for promotion when the time came. With this ban on women seeing combat, they were unable to earn medals for valor and distinction while their male counterparts were promoted twice as fast as they were.

    These women volunteered. If they’re in a combat arms unit, it’s because they volunteered for it. They were already serving in support capacities and both received small arms fire and explosions from IEDs because of that, and now they’re allowed to be on the other end of the weapon.

    I was in when they took away the ban on women serving in the combat arms of the US Army, and they performed just as well as any man could. There were women in my unit who could run circles around me, punch my lights out in Modern Army Combatives, and shoot an apple off my head with their M-4; you don’t have to worry about the female soldiers… worry about their enemies.

    • Akash CHarles January 23, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

      then why don’t they make the draft for women??-if they are just as good?

      also during war are not the situation and emotions different?

      If anything the military should focus on getting more young men into the military as most of them do not even work-one men perceive the military to be a female thing and all the affirmative action policies begin fewer men will join-king of like Medicine-men have moved away from it to Engineering.

      Also could it be that those women were better than you because you by natural instinct refused to hurt them?

      Anyways I see this as Good news in a sense-the Israeli’s realized the problems with training and working together (they became weaker) now men and women are separated-this allows a woman to perform all roles if she likes and prevents men from protecting them and the various sex-flings soldiers may have.

      and since it has proven to have made the military weaker hopefully America will stop interfering

    • Mary Burbrink January 23, 2013 at 7:41 pm #

      Unfortunately, those women you served with are the exception to the rule. I served in the Marine Corps and understand your point about men having the advantage when promotion time comes around. Unfortunately, from experience in almost all instances women in ground combat units become liabilities because they are more prone to injury and cannot physically handle the prolonged stresses that comes with a deployment. Also, whether you want to admit it or not throwing a woman into an infantry unit will almost always have a negative effect on morale.

      • Akash CHarles January 23, 2013 at 7:43 pm #

        Interesting – its rare for a woman to admit such a thing!!

        I fear the standards will be lowered to fit a future Quotas etc??

    • David Thomas January 23, 2013 at 11:50 pm #

      Frank, you’re just wrong. I usually argue, make my case, etc. But now I’m just going to say it: You’re as wrong as wrong gets. To speak of “promotions” when we are putting women in harm’s way like this (I don’t give a rip /what/ some of them /say/ they want) is simply absurd. It is sobering to think that ancient pagan, decadent civilizations like Greece and Rome would /never/ do such a thing to their women.

      The legal beagles are already looking at this and saying that it is a matter of time and legal gravity that young women will have to register for Selective Service just like young men do. This means that my little girl, when she turns 18, will have to register for the draft. My heart fairly bursts with pain at the thought of my child as a young lady, standing in the U.S. Post Office, filling out her Selective Service card. Then, if war breaks out and the (then) president deems it necessary and enacts the draft, she’ll be given a rifle and tossed into combat whether she wills or no–along with hundreds of other young women like her. God help her if she is taken prisoner fighting terrorists. God help her because our government won’t.

      I’m ashamed–ASHAMED–of our country and the turn it has taken. I am a direct descendent of six Revolutionary War soldiers. English, Scotch-Irish, German, Dutch–they fought for freedom and dignity, they fought for a new nation. My ancestors up to my siblings, nephews, and my son have fought in every conflict since then including 1812, Black Hawk, Mexican American, Civil, WW1, WW2, Cold War conflicts, and current War on Terror fights. They fought to defend their women and children. Now the country the fought to free is putting women in the field.

      Shame, shame, shame.

    • Marsha Hodges January 24, 2013 at 7:42 am #

      Women in military only have to do half the rigorous physical demands the men do. Is that fair? Can a woman carry a wounded soldier on her shoulder out of the line of fire? Would you want a woman in a fox hole next to you? God made men and women different. Women are not as strong as men. Women are not as combative as men. Women are nurturers. Women are softer then men. God made us that way. Why are we always trying to mess with God’s original design?

    • Sydney White January 24, 2013 at 9:59 am #

      Frank, just because women “can” doesn’t mean they “should”. I am almost 70 years old, and over that span of my life I have seen women give up protections prevously afforded us in the name of women’s rights. It is truly a sad, sad day.

    • Leslie Hand January 24, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

      Leslie Hand -
      Thank you for this comment. Anyone who doesn’t think women do well in warfare should look at the the old Soviet Union during WWII. Women served in tank divisions, as machine gunners, manned most of the anti aircraft guns at Stalingrad, served as Partisans and especially did well as snipers…yeah, that’s right, snipers. Ahem…killing people. One woman killed over 300 Germans this way. In the old Yugoslavia, there was an all women sniper unit called the Bluebirds that was enormously effective.

      I think too many people (men) decide for themselves what they think women should and should not be able to do. It appears obvious to me that many women probably actually enjoyed what they were doing, and felt like they were contributing to their cause. Personally, as a woman, I would have no problem taking out Talibani or anyone that was trying to take away what I consider to be my rights…and I would have no problem killing anyone trying to harm my children, husband or family. I don’t think that makes me perverse in any way…just perverse to someone that has a preconceived idea of what woman are and are not capable of.

      In that case, the problem is with the person who holds the preconceived idea.

    • David Pearson January 25, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

      Sorry Frank – but no woman could make it through Ranger school without the physical requirements being dumbed down to accommodate, The scale it back in other spots just so they can qualify, but the LAST pace they need to be doing social engineering is in front-line elite combat units

  8. David Thomas January 23, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

    I view this differently than from the “American men are wimps” angle–although I don’t deny that is in play. I see it as an other erasure of the boundaries of respect and nobility Western Civilization had previously granted to women. A civilization that allows its women to go into combat (or fight each other for sport–another item) is a civilization that is in its death throws.

    I believe as a country we are in free fall. The dominoes are falling so fast in so many different fronts at the same time it is hard to keep track of them all.

    • Leslie Hand January 24, 2013 at 8:58 pm #

      I would say that any civilization that thinks it confers boundaries on any of its citizens should be in its death throws. My natural rights are the same as any mans, it is nature’s God that confers that equality on me, not some degenerate civilization that thinks it is “noble” granting them to me. I say to you that there are women who make great warriors…Joan of Arc at 15 comes to mind…and that it is my natural right to defend myself, family, country and liberty if I so desire.

    • Mary Burbrink January 23, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

      This is a well-written, well-researched article from a female captain in the Marine Corps who served in a ground combat unit.

      • Akash CHarles January 23, 2013 at 7:47 pm #

        oh yeah I saw her interview once-it is kind of sad and unfair to these women who are given no warning-in a way our society is becoming more primitive and anti woman

        China /Russia and the Islamist terrorist must be eager for this to be put in place as swiftly as possible!

  9. Elizabeth Anscombe January 23, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    Denny, a big consequence of this is that young women may be forced to register for the draft when they get their license if the court is pressured to remove the inequality between men and women there as a result of this ruling. Technically the rationale for not having women register was that women would not officially be allowed in combat. Now that this is likely to be no longer the case (officially, though in fact we know they’ve been putting women in combat for years), we could be facing this. Christian women must decide if they are willing to potentially give up driving/voting and officially break the law if it comes to that.

    • Lydia McGrew January 24, 2013 at 4:53 pm #

      I have a post on this subject here; http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2013/01/conscience_feminism_and_the_dr.html What I am considering is that Christians might consider forming societies similar to pacifist societies that would document a young woman’s objection to serving in the military on anti-feminist grounds. In that case, _perhaps_ a young woman could follow such a law by registering for the draft while documenting her sincere objections well in advance, ready to mobilize them should she be called up. This is what pacifists do now. Of course there is no guarantee at all that a conscientious objector status would be granted for non-pacifist reasons to a woman who objected to serving in the military because she is a woman. This is something we need urgently to be talking about now, because it is an area in which _perhaps_ likeminded individuals can help one another–for example, by providing ways for young women to document the fact that even though they registered for the draft they will demand to be exempt from actually serving on conscientious grounds.

  10. James Stanton January 23, 2013 at 11:38 pm #

    I am an actively-serving male in the U.S. Army. I expected this decision to come down eventually and we spent a good deal of time discussing it today.

    The consensus largely echoes what Frank mentioned above.

    I would say that the main thing is that standards should not be diluted. Regardless of gender, meeting a certain standard ensures effectiveness a mission. Not everyone is cut out to be a grunt, even among the males.

    I have no doubt that there are women who can and will excel in direct combat roles. I have met some of them who have great potential. But the truth is that few women will probably meet the standards it takes to be an effective Infantry soldier, Ranger, member of the Special Forces, or a Navy Seal.

    Denny’s post clearly shows the gender and cultural lens he’s looking through in approaching the issue.

    I think I’m glad that this change will at least stop some people from blindly supporting immoral wars of choice. That’s the real scandal. I say that as someone who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution and obey orders from the President and on down the chain of command.

    Akash in particular is misinformed. If you’re not willing to compete against all comers then you don’t belong in the game. Affirmative action policies? Please.

    • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

      agreed you have to compete

      you see-affirmative action policies and lower standards are on their way!!!

      i guess when you do not get a promotion in spite of being better you will understand

  11. James Stanton January 23, 2013 at 11:53 pm #

    I should probably address Piper’s comment about masculinity, or lack thereof, of men who support women in combat.

    I’m inclined to agree that men should bear this responsibility in a world that operates according to tradition. We no longer live in such a world.

    Over one hundred women have died in our two main wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade.

    I don’t recall John Piper calling WH policymakers in the last administration cowards.

    • Akash Charles January 23, 2013 at 11:56 pm #

      that’s irrelevant-they are still cowards-make sense considering the way boys are raised today where they depend on girls to do everything for them

    • Christiane Smith January 24, 2013 at 12:29 am #

      It would be fitting indeed if the first woman who volunteers for combat duty is named ‘Deborah’, or maybe ‘Jael’, or perhaps ‘Judith’ . . .

      something biblical there is about women of God going into battle in a just war

      My husband tells a story about a neighbor who recently went aboard a USNavy ship to do contracted repairs for his company. The neighbor looked up and saw a young girl armed with some heavy fire power standing on an upper deck. He said to her, ‘strange to see a pretty girl with such a weapon’ and he was taken aback when she quietly replied, ‘and I know how to use it, too.

      The times they is a changing?
      or maybe we are just now remembering that some of the greatest warriors of the Old Testament were women, and they served their people and their God honorably and justly

      • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 7:01 am #

        times have also changed since then!- I also recall godly men and kings not allowing women in combat
        I also recall Deborah was forced cause the men around her wimps which is what we are progressing towards

      • David Thomas January 24, 2013 at 10:24 am #

        Christiane, your appeal to biblical personae is troubling as a point apart, because it demonstrates how easy it is to fall into syncretism and romantic thought instead of soberly letting the Bible speak its message to us.

        For starters, none of the women you mention fought in combat. The modern analogy to Deborah /might/ be a Margaret Thatcher–but probably even that parallel falls well short of the truth. Deborah was a seeress–a prophetess leader who led Israel by vision. When fighting had to be done she summoned a man, who summoned other troops who were all men. Deborah did more singing than fighting. Jael and Judith (the latter being apocryphal, by the way) both killed men on /their/ terms–while the men were caught unwares. Slaying sleeping man because a crisis demands it and going into combat are vastly different realities, and the fact that I would have to point this out means that you either haven’t read those stories or you aren’t thinking about this issue beyond the end of my six year old daughter’s nose.

        As for that cute girl your husband saw, my son served a tour of duty on a carrier, and told me that having women there was sheer chaos. He basically admitted (as a married man) that a month out to sea and a /bulkhead/ starts to look sexy; when you have men and women in such close quarters things can and do happen between them, and I’m not referring to all night games of checkers. Morale was also severely affected, as a female marine herself has confirmed on this blog. No one is questioning whether a woman can be trained to use modern weaponry. What is in question is the wisdom of the matter, all things considered.

        What we have is the tail wagging the dog. Feminist nonsense (yes, nonsense) in the civilian realm is driving military polity–not sound principles of combat. Beyond that, if you think that the USA in /any way/ is parallel to the covenant people of God in the Old Testament, you have some thinking to do.

      • Noelle Thomas January 24, 2013 at 11:18 am #

        Do you even know what you’re talking about? Deborah led the war but she did not fight on the front lines nor did Jael, she just defended herself when man came into her tent. That is not the same thing

  12. Sean DeMars January 24, 2013 at 8:01 am #

    To Don Johnson: They will be forced to. It doesn’t matter if you’re infantry. Once you’re at war, any position is “infantry”. When I was in Iraq women were already going on door kicking missions. How much more so now that there is no legal restriction.

  13. Daryl Little January 24, 2013 at 8:40 am #

    This has nothing to do with a woman’s ability to perform under fire or to deal with the stress of combat. This has everything to do with men as protectors/providers. I would be proud to send my sons into combat, even while being terrified of what may happen. But I would be even more proud were they to die protecting a female member of their platoon, even if it meant failing to accomplish their mission. This is crazy, cowardly and wrong…by any measure.

    • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 8:46 am #

      I guess this is the way we Christians should respond-I feel sorry for the thousands of christian men in service who may be fired for their beliefs or really confused on how to respond.

      I am sure Al Qaeda can’t wait for these women to reach the front lines

      • Leslie Hand January 24, 2013 at 9:12 pm #

        The best thing to face a Talibani or Al quaeda member is a well armed American woman soldier. Know why? They won’t surrender to the women, they think it is shameful. Good. Let them face her until they die, or kill themselves. They and their backwards beliefs regarding women are what is shameful. And too many of you on this board sound very similiar in your beliefs to these backwards people.

  14. Daryl Little January 24, 2013 at 8:43 am #

    BTW, Jael and Deborah were not warriors, by any definition…

  15. Paul Reed January 24, 2013 at 9:12 am #

    For liberals, more rights always means a higher status for women. If you question these rights, then you’re being anti-woman. Considering the military, what happens when women are forced into combat because of a draft, because after all there’s no difference between a man and a woman? Same goes for abortion. You sometimes get forced abortions. And people will still make fun of conservatives for questioning whether women should be working outside the home or voting, but the realm of the workplace and economics can be a very ugly one, as many women are slowly finding out.

  16. buddyglass January 24, 2013 at 9:33 am #

    “Americans have by and large cast aside the “quaint” view that men and women are different”

    This is an exaggeration. Even those who support Panetta’s move acknowledge that men and women are, on the aggregate level, different. Men are, on average, stronger, faster, etc. Women tend to live longer. There are other obvious physiological differences. I would even venture to say supporters of women in combat acknowledge that there are psychological differences that render the average women less suitable than the average man.

    “and that they ought to have roles and responsibilities that correspond to those differences.”

    Here’s where there’s disagreement. Only, even here, it’s not as slam-dunk as you suggest. Even secular liberals who support allowing women in combat roles would agree that women who aren’t capable of serving in those roles should not be put into those roles. The trick is that these folks focus on differences at the *individual* level as opposed to the *group* level.

    The opposition’s argument is that because women are *as a group* less capable of performing adequately in a combat *no women* should be allowed in that role. The supporter’s argument is that despite women *as a group* being less capable of performing adequately in a combat role there are still *individual women* who are capable of adequate performance, and these select few should be allowed to pursue those roles if they so choose.

    “Are the fortunes of women in our country really enhanced by sending them to be ground up in the discipline of a combat unit and possibly to be killed or maimed in war?”

    Servicewomen who want to pursue combat roles but are barred from doing so sure seem to think it would enhance their fortunes. It does provide rapid advancement in terms of one’s standing in the military.

    “Why would I ever support allowing someone else’s to do the same? Why would anyone?”

    Possibly because you recognize that the women pursuing these roles, while wives and daughters, are also adults capable of making their own choices.

    “To the extent that it doesn’t, we reveal just how far gone we are as a people.”

    We’re now as “far gone” as Israel has been for some time.

    • Karen Butler January 24, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

      “We’re now as “far gone” as Israel has been for some time.”

      Time to explode that myth:

      …”it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.

      Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”
      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/#xMH86AmPPX3AkA4H.99

      “Servicewomen who want to pursue combat roles but are barred from doing so sure seem to think it would enhance their fortunes. It does provide rapid advancement in terms of one’s standing in the military.”

      Perhaps their personal fortunes are advanced, but it is at great cost to the morale and effectiveness of the fighting unit. From that excellent article Mary Burink linked to written by a female captain in the Marine Corps who served in a ground combat unit, both in Iraq and Afghanistan:

      “The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?” http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

      • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 2:28 pm #

        hmm so the American army is actively trying to weaken itself?!!!-I think that will do a lot of good for the world

      • buddyglass January 24, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

        “Time to explode that myth…”

        You’ll forgive me if I view WND with extreme skepticism as a source. Some googling turned up this page maintained by Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs:

        http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Israel+beyond+politics/Integration_women_in_IDF-March_2009

        It states, “Eventually, in the year 2000, the Military Service Law was amended, stating that ‘The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.’ … Women represent a significant portion of manpower in the combat units that they serve in; in the Anti-Aircraft Division and in the Artillery Corps, women represent 20 percent of soldiers, 25 percent of soldiers in Search and Rescue units, 10 percent of the Border Police, and the Caracal Battalion – a combat battalion – is made up of 70 percent female soldiers. In addition, this year marked the first year in which women are eligible to serve in the Field Intelligence Corps.”

        “Perhaps their personal fortunes are advanced, but it is at great cost to the morale and effectiveness of the fighting unit.”

        This is disputed. Here’s another article from the Marine Corps Gazette that takes the opposite view:

        http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/demystifying-%E2%80%98feminine-mythtique%E2%80%99-or-women-and-combat-can-mix

        If the service branches can make a credible case that women should be excluded from certain roles out of effectiveness concerns then I support barring them. I can’t support barring them *purely* because they’re women, i.e. barring them from these roles even were it the case that their inclusion would not negatively impact effectiveness. At the risk of misconstruing him, this seems to be Denny’s position.

        • Karen Butler January 24, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

          You are correct that the IDF is slowly introducing women again in combat roles. But less than 3% of women serve in areas considered ‘combat’. It is on a strictly volunteer basis, they are very carefully integrated because of the greater incidence of stress fractures. Here is the results of a “lengthy study carried out by the IDF Medical Corps in conjunction with the United States Army Medical Department, {which} states that the physical stress demanded of women in combat roles must be limited.”
          http://www.israeldefense.com/?ArticleID=544&CategoryID=411

          And I read the “demystifying” article you linked to, and found it mystifying. The evidence for women’s effectiveness in combat seems very thin — seems strictly anecdotal and is not linked to any studies in the notes to the articles. Also, the authors describe women who have served in combat support roles, not those who have endured actual infantry experience, or describe women in extremely dubious circumstances: “There is also evidence to suggest that mixed-gender units may perform even more effectively than single-gender units in some cases—as they did in North Vietnam and El Salvador, for example.” We are to believe the evidence coming from the propaganda machines of communist governments? The authors are really reaching.

          You have not convinced me that women in infantry positions will not reduce effectiveness.

          • buddyglass January 24, 2013 at 7:15 pm #

            “You are correct that the IDF is slowly introducing women again in combat roles.”

            So the WND article is both wrong and misleading.

            “But less than 3% of women serve in areas considered ‘combat’.”

            Sure. I never claimed they were plentiful. Just that, as will soon be the case in the United States, they’re not categorically banned from combat roles altogether.

            Note that the directive from Panetta lifts the general ban, but doesn’t stipulate that the service branches accept women into every single role. They’ll have the opportunity to seek exceptions, presumably based on effectiveness concerns.

            “We are to believe the evidence coming from the propaganda machines of communist governments?”

            It’s not clear to me that she was basing that statement on information released by Viet Nam and El Salvador.

            “You have not convinced me that women in infantry positions will not reduce effectiveness.”

            If there’s a credible case to be made for certain roles then I assume each service branch will make it.

          • buddyglass January 25, 2013 at 12:57 am #

            Another perspective (that I appreciated) in the Times today:

            http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/how-to-make-womens-service-in-combat-roles-a-success/

    • Daryl Little January 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

      Perhaps we are that far gone. And shame on us.

      The Israeli army is not, nor will it ever be (nor has ever been), the standard for all that is good and right in the military.

      It’s a silly argument.

  17. Adam Shields January 24, 2013 at 10:08 am #

    You know I heard very similar things when I was working as a legislative aide in the Oregon legislature when they were considering a law allowing people to pump their own gas. “Would you want you wife or mother to have to pump their own gas?” “Where has the world gone when women have to pump their own gas?” It just seemed silly to me that at the time (1995) that there was a debate about women pumping their own gas when most of the rest of the county everyone (men and women) pumped their own gas. But the law didn’t pass and as far as I know no one can pump their own gas in Oregon still.

    • David Thomas January 24, 2013 at 10:32 am #

      Adam, have you considered the difference between holding a gas pump nozzle in the hail and holding an M-16 under a hail of enemy gunfire? The difference between a Shell station and a foxhole? The difference between dealing with the guy at the cash register and dealing with an Al-Qaeda warrior?

      One last question, do you have daughters?

      • Adam Shields January 24, 2013 at 10:41 am #

        Of course there is a difference. But the policy prior to this was that women were not in front lines, so they were not trained for front line fighting. The problem is that the wars we are fighting do not have lines. So it was actually worse to prevent women from having front line combat training because they are subjected to it anyway.

        Most of the rest of the world allows women in front line combat. I am not interested in advocating for women in combat. But I also find it inappropriate to say women (at least some women) cannot handle combat, when in fact they do handle combat. (Most men cannot handle combat either.)

        Having children (daughters or sons) is not the issue. The issue is asserting that women cannot do something that women actually are doing.

        Making an argument that they should not is something different from making the argument that they cannot. The reality is that some women can.

        • David Thomas January 24, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

          I strongly beg to differ about “having children not being the point.” Having children doesn’t cloud your vision, it clarifies it. The fact that you speak of policy and practice without reference to the simple realities of the matter (such as the physical and psychological differences between the sexes) shows the irony of your position: In citing “policy” you fail to see that once a rule is in place–especially in the military–that rule is practiced with machine-like, emotionless efficiency. In other words, the fact that some women “can” (and want to) will now dictate that ALL women of age WILL should the situation demand a draft. Your statements about “women [heretofore] not being trained” and “men not being able to handle combat either” are vacuous and meaningless given this discussion; no one wants war–the question is taking the least painful route as a society given that war is a reality.

          I also take issue with your statement that “most of the world” allows women in combat. Some do, but certainly not “most.” I would also argue that such a statement begs the question–looking at the rest of the “world” to determine our policy means we conform to the lowest denominator instead of determining what is most noble and best for our own people.

          Women in combat is barbarian. If and when you have a daughter, you will be less inclined to adjust your spectacles and lay down remarks about “policy” and think for clearly about what is at stake.

          • Adam Shields January 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

            Clearly we are not going to agree. Here are my basic points.

            1) the policy prior to this placed women in combat situations, but prevented them from being trained for combat. That was dangerous and needed to be changed.
            2) a policy should be the policy that right regardless of whether a person has children. I don’t believe that having daughters enhances or clouds your vision. I believe good policy should be good policy regardless of whether if affects you children or not. (I do not have my own children but I have been a nanny for my two nieces for the past five years and I very much consider them as if they were my own daughters.)
            3) It would be pretty easy to clarify most vs some. Right now Australia, Israel restrict women in combat. New Zealand, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Poland, Russia, Norway, Ireland, Turkey, UK, and Canada all allow women in combat. So yes, most of the world’s armies allow women in combat.
            4) I am not suggesting that we base our policy on some ‘lowest common denominator’. Rather, suggesting that if women want to be in combat, and women in other countries have proven that they can be in combat, then asserting that women can’t do it is arbitrary.

            • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 2:34 pm #

              Russia/China do not btw atm

              the chinese have separate armies for women-but never allowed into combat positions in spite of them not having any religion

              you know christianity is leaving America when non christian countries do a better job of protecting its women and the men are more like men (i.e behaving as christians should)

              • Adam Shields January 24, 2013 at 2:48 pm #

                You are right. I was wrong. The Chinese military restricts women to support roles. But according to several different sources Russia does allow women in combat roles. There are only about 10% of the Russian military is women and most of those are in support roles. But the rules allow for women in combat according to all the sources I could find.

                • David Thomas January 24, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

                  You are correct that we will not agree.

                  My problem with your argument is that the first thing I had to do is peel away a spurious “parallel” (gas pumps in Oregon) to get you to say anything of substance. Saying what we or other nations have done is not an argument sustaining the legitimacy of women in combat.(And naming a dozen or so nations, two of the most prominent of which you had to recant on, does not qualify as “most”–we are speaking of cultures and countries here, not boots on the ground.) Beyond that, you refuse to acknowledge the simple reality that by allowing the very few women (perhaps less than 5%?) who want to fight into the front lines, you are thereby creating a mandate for the other 95+% that cannot fathom it. Please think past the end of your nose, Adam. Very experienced, qualified legal minds (i.e., law school profs) are already stating that now that the prohibition is lifted, it will be legally /impossible/ to exempt women from registering for (and therefore responding to, given the right circumstances) the DRAFT. (If it isn’t automatic, it will only take a few wimpy 18 year old men screaming “It’s not fair!” while filling out their Selective Service cards to force the issue.)

                  Our society has long argued that justice towards the few innocent that might be unjustly sentenced mandates a high bar for conviction–even if that means we have to swallow the fact that some guilty will escape justice. But in this case, we are reversing that, albeit in another arena: We are saying that because a few are willing to go into combat, the resent button has to be hit for all–opening the very real eventuality that all will have to whether they will or no. Why? Because the philosophical root behind all this is not “equal opportunity” for women but the idea that men and women are equal/same in all things.

                  Whether someone believes that or not, it is now being imposed upon them perforce. It is the tyranny of the few imposed upon the many.

                  Others have very eloquently made the case about the physical and emotional inequality between men and women elsewhere, so I’ll let that one go. But in summary, this idea works only in the political halls of power and on Sunday morning news talk shows. It does not work well in action and practice.

        • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 2:30 pm #

          yeah most of the rest of the EUROPEAN world allow women in combat-now I wonder why the always needs the U.S help??!!!

      • Karen Butler January 24, 2013 at 1:45 pm #

        Or an even better question, Adam, do you have a son enlisting in the Marines who might be deployed next to a woman? Next to evenan exemplary one like this description, a woman who really is the best of the best? “5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. .. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test).” But then she details the rigors of being deployed in two tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan as a commanding officer setting up Patrol Bases in remote areas, and the toll it took on her. She says, “The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen…. ” (http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal)

        Would you want this woman serving in command over your son? I respect this Captain so much for her honesty in admitting she is not qualified to lead combat troops. Or would you want who would probably not be as well qualified physically and mentally serving next to your 6 foot, 200 pound son? Would you want that five foot something female to try to wrest the wounded body of your son off the battlefield?

        My son is enlisting in the Marines. This is a real and personal question for me. I don’t want that kind of jeopardy for my son, or for that matter, for anyone’s daughter. With your support of this foolishness, you are putting my son into a social experiment, that is doomed to fail, that will put his very life in jeopardy.

        • Adam Shields January 24, 2013 at 2:19 pm #

          Why is it foolishness to suggest that there are a lot of women already currently serving in leadership in other countries. Is being a leader hard work? Of course it is.

          These are the same arguments about African American in the military, about gays in the military. The reality is that yes, not all are capable. But because some are not capable does not mean that none are capable.

          That is just a fallacy.

          • Karen Butler January 24, 2013 at 3:53 pm #

            “same arguments about African American in the military, about gays in the military.”

            Not. The. Same. I am making fallacious arguments? You are making a category error. The arguments about women in combat are about the physical challenges, not about someone’s sexual preference or skin color. The experiment with women in combat already failed in Israel. They cite extensive research for withdrawing women from combat roles. None of the countries you cite allowing women in combat are through with their interesting foray into social engineering, nor have they experienced any intense level of continuous warfare.

            Please read the excellent article by Captain Katie Petronio before you comment further. http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

            • Adam Shields January 24, 2013 at 7:07 pm #

              For every negative article like the one from Petronio there is a positive one. Personal examples should be considered, but not exclusively considered.

              As to the African America and gays in the military I think I was not clear.

              My point isn’t that gender and race are the same category. My point is that the primary reason people fought against gays and African Americans in the military isn’t about capability of the individual but cultural assumptions of how people interact.

              In terms of African Americans there was a fear of African Americans being higher rank and giving orders to (socially superior) Whites. In the case of gays, there is a concern about distraction, sex and and lack of unit cohesion.

              But really the arguments are about cultural understandings not about physical capabilities.

              All I am trying to say is that some women are physically capable. And that the argument about should is a cultural argument and separate from can.

        • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 2:38 pm #

          Give it up-I think
          Mr Shields would rather send his wife to war to protect him because of her better “leadership skills etc”
          I am willing to bet there are heaps of women far superior to men in so many aspects that are required in the military/workplace yet they choose to be at home with the kids and not fight wars.
          as John Piper said such men hate women and are cowards-it is no use discussing with them

          • Adam Shields January 24, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

            Akash, clearly you have no desire to have a conversation. Instead you want to just make fun of people you do no know.

            • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 4:20 pm #

              I was not making fun of you-was stunned at your response

              It makes me sad-will women have the ‘right” to say No if the draft is made for them ??

              • Adam Shields January 24, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

                So you suggest that everyone that disagrees with you must have a wife with ‘better leadership skills’? You intentionally tried to emasculate me to win an argument. But I will respond anyway.

                The point isn’t that all women that are skilled in things would instantly go into the military. Many highly skilled women choose to stay at home with children. But they have a choice of which one which they believe they should do.

                The draft argument is a red herring. There has not been a draft in 40 years. We have fought two simultaneous wars without a draft. It is almost impossible to imagine an actual need for the draft. And if it was really needed, one of the first things that would happen would be to draft women anyway.

                The likelihood of a draft is very low.

                Even if it occurred, there is still physical requirements. The vast majority of women will not meet those requirements for combat teams.

                This isn’t about about the ability for women to fight. You are arguing based on cultural assumptions about whether women should fight. That was my point earlier about African Americans. It was not about whether they could fight. The push back was about cultural assumptions about whether African Americans and Whites could fight and work together in the same teams.

                As I said above. Arguing about whether women can fight is a different argument about whether they should fight. I am arguing they can (or as least some women can) fight.

                The argument about whether they should is a cultural argument (and I am sure Denny would say religious) argument. Which is a very different argument than the ‘can they’ one.

                • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

                  I am not so sure about cultural assumptions-even the most patriarchal countries train women to fight on the front lines-the fact that we are copying them astonishes me.

                  Sorry If I offended you was just a bit sad and agitated-the worst thing will be when the quotas etc come into place due to various discrimination lawsuits which will come up-thus leading to a weaker army.

                  well it did not work for Israel and it will not work here so as shown by israel’s example so America will have a weaker military

                  • Adam Shields January 24, 2013 at 7:35 pm #

                    The lawsuits are one of the reason this is happening in the first place. They are already here.

                    • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

                      so the military is going to become weaker !!!-cause in order to make the workplace safe and secure for women

        • John Chester January 24, 2013 at 5:39 pm #

          Those physical numbers – squatting 200 lbs benching 145lbs while they may sound impressive in reality those numbers would make her the weakest member of most high school JV football teams.

      • Leslie Hand January 24, 2013 at 9:21 pm #

        I have two daughters, both who served in Afghanistan, and were engaged in firefights, even though they were in supply units. They both registered kills…and I am very proud of them for that. Women can do it and I am very glad to be in their capable hands. If they were so incapable, why even “allow” them to own a gun? Poor dears, they may shoot themselves…better let just the men handle those rough weapons…women are not fit for such things.

        • David Thomas January 24, 2013 at 10:43 pm #

          You are caricaturing your opponents–not dealing with what they are really saying. As long as you do this, you make yourself ridiculous.

          Are you the only one with children in combat–or daughters? I’m glad you are proud of your children, but I daresay there’s another side to the story; there always is. To be blunt: Unless a woman–your daughters or those of another–can do EVERYTHING that a man can physically, they have no place in combat. To allow it is the create a weak link.

          Anyone can spew anecdotes. My son filled my ears with ‘em from his tours of duty. And it didn’t sell me on women serving together with men in a combat situation.

  18. Kevin Bullock January 24, 2013 at 10:43 am #

    It is a cold atheist state that will send it’s daughters to be shredded by bullets and artillery shells.This is not what America was intended to be.

    • buddyglass January 24, 2013 at 12:01 pm #

      It’s a patronizing, theocratic state that forbids its women from volunteering to serve their country to the fullest of their ability solely because they’re women (as opposed to concerns about effectiveness).

      *If* a given woman meets the existing physical requirements for a given combat position and *if* a way can be found for her to serve such that effectiveness is not degraded and *if* the decision to serve in a combat role is entirely her prerogative then what is your basis from *forbidding* her from serving in that capacity?

      • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

        all these “if’s” translate to lower standards for same work and recognition-sorry but this is unfair for men

        as for effectiveness the israeli’s tried it and failed-they had the guts to admit it

        Newsflash-men like to protect women-and men and women together for long periods of time establish relationships!!

      • David Thomas January 24, 2013 at 3:05 pm #

        Buddy, the simple truth is women cannot measure up to the standards of physical fitness imposed on men. Period. This is a physiological fact that approaches being a truism. What to do?

        I’ll tell you. Create a sliding scale. Make the standard for women lower than the standard for men–grade on a curve. Why do I say this? Because it is already being done–my military son has told me precisely how it is done to make it possible for women to serve in these roles.Our society has become so politically correct is daren’t say the obvious: that the average woman is shorter, slighter, and weaker than the average man and has been since, well, pretty much always.

        Unfortunately, enemy combatants don’t grade using that same curve. Game over.

        • buddyglass January 24, 2013 at 3:48 pm #

          “the simple truth is women cannot measure up to the standards of physical fitness imposed on men. Period.”

          I don’t think this is true. The number of women who can meet the physical fitness standards may be vanishingly low, but what you’re saying is there’s no woman alive who can measure up. Do you really believe that?

          “Our society has become so politically correct is daren’t say the obvious: that the average woman is shorter, slighter, and weaker than the average man and has been since, well, pretty much always.”

          Nobody’s disputing that. But we’re not talking about “the average woman”; we’re talking about individual women, some of whom may be several standard deviations larger/stronger than the mean.

          • David Thomas January 24, 2013 at 4:28 pm #

            The problem here is that I feel you need schooling in the basics of critical thought.

            Don’t you see you are making a rule for the whole based on the exception? Of course there exists this or that woman who could be stronger or more agile than this or that man serving actively as a soldier. That is not the point. The point is to argue that since we may anecdotally point to an exception, we make a rule as if that exception were the norm. My statements about the physical inferiority of women for combat, broadly speaking, are so sound as to be self-evident and I stand by them. You do too, you know very well I spoke truth, yet you fight for the sake of “equality.” When it comes to battle readiness, men on a whole are battle ready and women are not.

            Compounding this is a given woman’s /self-perception/. So, IF IF IF the identical physical testing, training etc. is given to both of our hypothetical soldiers (man and women) and the woman can measure up–well, let’s talk then. But the fact is, that is not being done now. Many have argued–indeed, part of the justification for the change–is that it “merely reflects realities of practice over the last 10 years.” Oh really? Tell me, straight faced, that women are not graded on a curve, by their own standards of fitness and not on one common to all. I’ll call you mistaken or worse. My son told me blow by blow about how they get breaks, have to do less push ups, pull ups, etc. from boot camp on. If they cannot even handle a few cals under ideal conditions, what of the trenches?

            Stop talking theory, Buddy It isn’t being done and it can’t be done.

            Furthermore, stop with the “voluntary” talk. This opens the floodgates for drafting women, as several legal; experts have noted. By allowing this, we are precipitating that. You dismissively wave your hand and say, “So exempt them…” If only it were that easy. But in so saying you show how naive you are about the societal forces that have brought about this change.

            I’m against this, period. But I go on the record and say that IF a woman who WANTS to fight CAN do EVERY LAST THING a male soldier can do AND there is a 100% guarantee that there would NEVER be a draft for women, I would dial back my assessment from us being a civilization of cowards to merely being barbarians.

            • buddyglass January 24, 2013 at 7:26 pm #

              “Of course there exists this or that woman who could be stronger or more agile than this or that man serving actively as a soldier.”

              Then why should she be denied the opportunity to serve, supposing her presence wouldn’t reduce effectiveness for reasons other than physical ability?

              In other words, why is it important that the *average* woman is less strong/fast/etc. than the *average* man when we’re considering *individuals*?

              “Furthermore, stop with the “voluntary” talk. This opens the floodgates for drafting women, as several legal; experts have noted.”

              I’m not sure I understand how this increases the likelihood of women being drafted. For instance, prior to 2000 the IDF drafted women but put them in non-combat positions. Given we currently bar women from combat positions, what’s stopping us from drafting them now?

              • David Thomas January 24, 2013 at 7:35 pm #

                http://news.yahoo.com/women-combat-register-draft-225900518.html

                ‘Nuff said. For you, this stuff is academic and you’ll keep talking in circles out of “principle.” But you fail to address the obvious and truly answer my observations of the obvious, nor have you acknowledged what you know is true, viz., that women in the military now are NOT held to the same rigorous physical standards as men. Tell me, Buddy, why is that? I’m tapping my foot here. UNTIL you admit that, and demand that such “grading on a curve” is stopped, your words are hollow.

                • buddyglass January 24, 2013 at 9:19 pm #

                  “nor have you acknowledged what you know is true, viz., that women in the military now are NOT held to the same rigorous physical standards as men.”

                  I’m not in the military so I can’t comment. I’ll take your word for it. If that’s the case then I oppose it. Hold everyone to the same standard. If we deem the current physical standards to be unnecessarily high for a given role then lower them. Regardless, give the few women who can meet the sex-agnostic standards the opportunity to serve instead of categorically excluding them.

  19. Nell Parker January 24, 2013 at 10:51 am #

    The Israelis have had women serving in combat for years. They have a draft as well. Their military is well respected.
    I agree with one reader who said any woman serving in such a manner must meet the same standards that men must meet.
    There are some women who are stronger and more agile than some men and who wish to serve in this capacity.
    Women have always been subject to harm’s way in combat. Female nurses and doctors have risked their lives to save the lives of others and have done so in the direct line of fire.
    Have any of you ever seen some of the famous medical tents set up next to combat?
    If a woman wishes to choose such a path, and is qualified, who are we to prevent her from doing so? There does not seem to be a commandment in the Bible preventing women from doing so.

    • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 2:19 pm #

      the israelis however realized it is not good and their army was inefficient so men and women were completely separated!!-king of like China

    • Kristen Rosser January 24, 2013 at 8:45 pm #

      As far as the Bible is concerned, there are some women mentioned in the roster of Israel’s armies when fighting for the promised land.

  20. Mama of 9 January 24, 2013 at 11:23 am #

    I was horrified when I read that news yesterday. I have five daughters! I cannot imagine them in combat. Some of them are still young, and I fear if we ever go back to a draft that they could possibly be drafted. This is just another indication of how our country is going downhill fast. May God have merecy on us.

  21. Wayne Wilson January 24, 2013 at 11:41 am #

    My son just got home after 4 years in the infantry. his view of women in combat is very different. They can perform some roles, but they are simply not strong enough…not to mention the obvious problems of romances in the unit destroying cohesion and the natural tendency of men to protect women. Frank, didn’t you feel an extra need to protect the women in your squad?

  22. Jennifer Schwartz January 24, 2013 at 11:44 am #

    As a woman, I see how wrong this is.

    First, women are mothers by nature… what are going to happen to their children? No offense to men but women were meant to raise the children otherwise God would of allowed men to have them (Not women). How many families are going to sue the military because of the loss of that life??? How many women are going to get pregnant so they don’t have to go to war?

    Second, I served in the military and mixing men and women was a bad idea. I seen too many that “got” together when they were suppose to be working. I was disappointed about what I saw. How many women are going to get pregnant when they decide to be sexually active with someone in the field? Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. I have heard of too many cases where on a ship, fraternization occurred. How many families were destroyed from that? Its not like every man in the military is single.

    Third, What happens in the field when the “cycle” happens? Sorry men, you have no idea what it feels like to be on the cycle… it is not fun and I don’t see how that would work. Forget the hygiene aspect, some of us ladies have a painful week of cycle… Does that mean I get to take a week off once a month?

    If a woman is going to act like a man and want the same options such as front lines combat, they should be treated as such and I don’t personally see how that will happen. That means they give us their other rights such as being a mother.

  23. Jay Ryder January 24, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

    And I think the issue that those women who have historically served in combat have never been able to be recognized (such as receive the medal of honor) due to a technicality is problematic. Read about Mary Edwards Walker, who was awarded the Medal of Honor in the Civil War, but then had the medal rescinded in 1917 due to political pressures. http://ngeorgia.com/ang/Mary_Edwards_Walker ..

    I don’t see this as “the end of civilization” as Burk frames it. Rather, I think that if we keep drawing our lines in myopic quicksand, it will only actually get worse. We need sanity, not these knee jerk, shock jock, fundamentalist commentaries to help us navigate our way.

  24. Dave Santiago January 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

    The factors that separate combat and non combat jobs has largely diminished in the modern era of warfare, already requiring this in ‘non’-combatant jobs to be combat ready and protect their post, which in the war on terrorist cells is much more the norm, many women in non combat jobs have already preformed in combat just as much if not more in some cases then the all male infantry, no matter where you comes down on gender equality, the policy was practically a moot point.

    • Kristen Rosser January 25, 2013 at 2:28 am #

      Agreed– but I think the policy was necessary because women who have been in combat have not been recognized for what they’ve already been through, because they were only in combat “unofficially” until now. It’s my understanding there can be differences in pay and other things for combat vs. noncombat soldiers. A woman who has been in combat should not be unfairly denied these things.

  25. Daryl Little January 24, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

    Anecdotal, I know, but while working and living in Germany, the number one complaint I heard from the soldiers, regarding women in the ranks, was that they had lower standards for the physical work which directly affected promotion, and, in their minds, safety in the field.

    • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 2:41 pm #

      who cares about safety and military performance though-we have to eliminate any distinctions between men and women to be a truly equal society

      I wonder why they do not apply this to different cultures and ensure everyone behaves the same way?

  26. Mike Carmen January 24, 2013 at 2:07 pm #

    It’s on my radar and I completely agree with your position on this matter. If I had children of my own I could not encourage my daughter to join the armed services knowing that she may be put on the front line to do a man’s job knowing what the consequences of that decision may be. Likewise, I could not encourage my son to allow a woman to go before him in combat knowing that she may take a bullet for him or suffer unthinkable consequences if she were captured.

    I believe as a Christian we are well past the time in this country’s history when the response from the Church of Jesus Christ is simply “NO!” to the immoral ideologies of a government who will not honor God or honor the rights of those who do.

    Mike Carmen

  27. Rob Hickok January 24, 2013 at 3:54 pm #

    Next we’ll be shacking up together in our barracks and dorms and berthings. And Dads will have to become moms for real. And, funny enough, I bet the haircuts will change for women too – Can’t have them looking out of regs, right?

    I sure don’t see how we’ll ever back off from this avalanche. Lord come quickly. This stuff makes me sick to my stomach. Sick with guilt, fear and disappointment. Mostly fear that my wonderful girls may well be in line for the Draft by the time they graduate from high school (only 10 years away. And guilt that I probably won’t be able to do much about it.

    And I’m not even speaking in regards to the culture they’ll be entering if they join. I would not wish that on any woman. I’ve seen it on the inside and it is miserable.

    • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 4:26 pm #

      I sincerely bet China ans the islamist terrorists are laughing at this

      yeah it is kind of weird the whole dad become mom thing

      In Norway the man loses his parental leave if he refuses to be a stay at home dad-Interesting that they need to mandate men to be at home!!

      I am sure God will protect your daughters- women have been sent of to the front line before yet God has still protected his daughters!!, they have lived for a long time in oppressive cultures,-this is what differentiated America from the Taliban who use women as shields-now that difference does not exist.

      I guess this ruling kind of makes us need to depend on God more-which is a good thing!

  28. John Chester January 24, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

    Before coming to Christ I worked as a bouncer & occasionally a woman would want to fight w/ me and I will never forget the look of shock and resignation that washed over them when they realized they were so overmatched physically that they could be simultaneously controlled & treated gently. Unfortunately on combat they wont be treated gently just easily over powered.

  29. Lauren Brown January 24, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

    Well, I’ll say one thing and one thing only:

    Thank the good Lord that I have flat feet.

  30. Kristen Rosser January 24, 2013 at 7:55 pm #

    It’s the word “allow” that I find problematic. As a parent, I may “allow” my children to do something, or I may forbid. But allowing and forbidding is not language that my husband and I use about one another’s activities. Instead, we make choices together. Is it really all that awful if a man decides it’s not his job to allow or forbid a grown woman’s choices? If my husband wanted to enter combat, I would hate the very idea, but I would know better than to think I had the power to allow or forbid him. Fortunately he treats me the same way. If I had the desire to go into combat (which I don’t) and the military thought I was able (which they probably wouldn’t), I stll wouldn’t do it unless he and I were in agreement. And neither would he.

  31. Sandra Smith January 24, 2013 at 10:50 pm #

    The possibility exists that women, given the opportunity to be credited for what they are already doing, will have more recognition for their service than they presently now receive.
    Women have been serving.

    Also a possibility exists that removing the ‘stigma’ that ‘it’s not a woman’s place’ is somewhat threatening to the male status quo. This seems to be the cause of some of the content of these comments . . . when ‘the place of women’ in the work world or the military changes, the effects are going to be felt throughout our whole society, and some are not ‘ready’ for that to happen.

    But it must happen . . . single mothers must earn. One fifth of America’s children live in poverty, and their mothers must earn. To deny the mothers of these children fair opportunities for advancement is to aggravate existing hardship for themselves and their children.

    Women on submarines is here. Women in combat is here. I would rejoice with the women who rejoice, and I would be sorry for any woman who felt that her private world was threatened as things change around her so dramatically. I think the time has come for women to take their place, because as they demand equality, it involves equality of responsibility also. My neighbor told my husband about going on board a Navy warship to do contract work and seeing a young girl on an upper deck holding some heavy fire-power . . . he teased her by saying ‘you don’t often see a pretty girl with a weapon like that’ and she calmly replied,
    “I know how to use it, too”

    I don’t think that the women going into combat IS the real ‘problem’ . . . I think the problem lies elsewhere, and that is being shown by the ‘reaction’ of many to the announcement.

    • Akash Charles January 24, 2013 at 11:29 pm #

      right so lets weaken the military in the name of equality and the ambition of some women-so much for these women’s big ego’s

      you right the problem lies elsewhere-with men where we have failed -resulted in single mothers

      where we now do not want to defend our families but desire for our wives /daughters to do so.

      ultimately our society is basically set up to shatter the ego of men(a good thing) and protect the ego of women-quite ironic actually

      newsflash :100% of rape crimes have been committed by evil men-not women

      • Joanna Garland January 25, 2013 at 9:38 am #

        News flash: that statistic is bogus. It’s not 100% men, there have been women. Two, you keep talking draft but let’s stay on topic. Three, how much physical strength does one need to pull a trigger or toss a grenade. Four, do we even use foxholes like in the past? Five, even though men have failed in other aspects of life, this does not have any correlation to your argument, other than a plea to human emotion. Consequently, you are standing on antiquities like the draft, hand to hand combat, and foxholes. Well those arguments are horrendous. Truthfully, I want people to tell us why women should not be in combat purely through the lens of scripture.

        Also as a side note that needs not to be addressed: you make men out to be evil and so corrupt, however keep in mind EVERYONE is.

        • Akash CHARLES January 25, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

          alright then please show me evidence/cases of women raping men

          the bible calls men to protect their wives-your wife going to war instead of you is disobeying that.

          also why are the horrendous??-cause you cannot actually make an argument!!?- cause other new channels , military men keep mentioning foxholes etc

          anyways future wars are going to be less on the ground and more computer controlled-so gender is irrelevant.

          also the military keeps saying same standards but in reality it is different so women have not even been meeting the standards!!!-yet get recognition etc just to grow the female ego

        • Rob Hickok January 26, 2013 at 1:47 am #

          Antiquities? Selective service is still in. Hand-to-hand combat is still taught across the board in all services (I just completed a course ths year, one of several in my 20 years). The holes are still dug and uniforms still jump into them. Read up on the conditions on the battlefield and find out just what antiquities are still laying around.

    • Rob Hickok January 25, 2013 at 9:32 am #

      On the contrary it certainly is the problem of women in combat.

      What’s missing is the understanding that the ends is again justifying the means. We have legitimized a wrong because our women need to earn and then even put up posters to tell them they need this opportunity to earn. And then they go get killed, rendering the whole thing tragic and pointless.

  32. Homeschool on the Croft January 25, 2013 at 8:01 am #

    “Perhaps this is the kind of people we already are.”

    Sadly, I fear this is the truth of it :/

  33. Rob Dwythe January 26, 2013 at 5:05 am #

    What’s wrong with sending women into combat? If anything it’s better that they start picking up some of the slack and “defend” the nation just as the men are doing so (that is, of course, if you are under the impression that the current combat in Afghanistan is in some way defending America).

  34. Ali January 29, 2013 at 9:26 am #

    Sorry Mr Burk, but where are your scriptural arguments? As I read through many of the comments below, it correlates directly to where the church in America is today…lost to the personal morals of its people and not its God! Why Biblically should women not be in combat? I certainly sympathize with your stance that a country’s military should not necessitate the need for women in combat, but standing on opinions that you would never let your wife or daughter go into combat does little to prove that this is a moral failing of the country. As the church, we need to be cleaning our own house, the house of the Lord, and stop questioning why the world is falling apart. It is SIN-Our sin, God’s people, who fail again and again to put him first in our thoughts, words and deeds! I am sick and tired of listening to “christians” cry about the state of our world and never look to the root cause. While we sit around crying about failing financial institutions, women in combat and Presidents we don’t approve of, Satan is in the house of God destroying not just the bodies of our women and children, but their eternal souls as well!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. News of Note | Santa Monica Church Blog - January 23, 2013

    [...] “Women in Combat and the Undoing of Civilization” – Denny Burk comments on Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s removing a restriction [...]

  2. Two By Two: Links Roundup for Thursday, January 24, 2013 | In the Days of Noah - January 24, 2013

    [...] Women in Combat and the Undoing of Civilization - “Our civilization just took a gigantic leap backward today, though I’m wondering if anyone will notice. Today Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta removed a rule that restricts women from serving in the front lines of combat.” [...]

  3. Denny Burk on Women in Combat | For His Renown - January 24, 2013

    [...] case you missed you, you should read Denny Burk’s post on the lifting of the ban on women being on the front lines of combat. Here’s a [...]

  4. Women in combat: bad for women, our military, and our culture « Strengthened by Grace - January 24, 2013

    [...] really improve upon the words of Denny Burk who has [...]

  5. What should Christians think about women in combat? | Fill Up - January 24, 2013

    [...] Burk laments the development, calling it a sign of the undoing of [...]

  6. The reality that awaits women in combat | Denny Burk - January 24, 2013

    [...] raise again the question that I brought up in my previous post. What if the draft were reinstituted? It’s one thing for women to volunteer for this. [...]

  7. Female Heroes in a New Kind of Combat - Gadsit Radio – iGadsit, Do you? - January 24, 2013

    [...] news quickly spread across the web, with bloggers on one side declaring victory for women and the undoing of civilization on the [...]

  8. Another thought about protecting the girls in your life. « Words to my Son - January 24, 2013

    [...] http://www.dennyburk.com/women-in-combat-and-the-undoing-of-civilization/ [...]

  9. Religious Right Angry over ‘Dangerous’ Decision to End Ban on Women in Combat « Radical Right Thugs: assassins of gay soul and spirit - January 24, 2013

    [...] help us,” lamented Denny Burk of the Southern Baptist Convention, who seemed to suggest that women shouldn’t be [...]

  10. Women in Combat and the Undoing of Civilization | Army Chaplaincy - January 25, 2013

    [...] Women in Combat and the Undoing of Civilization | Denny Burkhttp://www.dennyburk.com/women-in-combat-and-the-undoing-of-civilization/Our civilization just took a gigantic leap backward today, though I’m wondering if anyone will notice. Today Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta removed a rule that restricts women from serving in the front lines of combat. The U. S. military already has women serving in various roles in forward areas, but this latest move crosses another line. [...]

  11. Women in Combat | A Byrd's Eye View - January 25, 2013

    [...] I think Denny Burk at Southern Seminary hit the nail on the head when he said, [...]

  12. Links I like (03-02-2013) | ChrisMacLeavy.com - January 28, 2013

    [...] I’m reminded again about the difference in God’s design for men and women through this new article by Denny [...]

  13. Links I like (29-01-2013) | ChrisMacLeavy.com - January 28, 2013

    [...] I’m reminded again about the difference in God’s design for men and women through this new article by Denny [...]

  14. The Goods « Core Fellowship – South Shores Church - February 1, 2013

    [...] Women in Combat: “Our civilization just took a gigantic leap backward today, though I’m wondering if anyone will notice…Are the fortunes of women in our country really enhanced by sending them to be ground up in the discipline of a combat unit and possibly to be killed or maimed in war?” [...]

  15. (Don’t) Fight like a Girl – My Thoughts on Women in Combat « justaylored - February 2, 2013

    [...] From Denny Burk [...]

  16. Blog Casserole – 02/01/2013 « The Passionate Follower's Journal - February 3, 2013

    [...] Last week the United States of American, in the name of being “progressive” and “enlightened” took one of the largest, most heinous, most ridiculous steps BACKWARDS in the history of our nation.  Do you know what it was? Find out here. [...]

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes