I was just browsing through the political cartoons at WORLD magazine when I ran across this one from earlier in the week.
It immediately struck me that no one has been talking about what would happen when one of our women combatants gets captured. How would that be used to compromise the morale of the soldiers in the field? How would that be used to compromise the political will of our government? How would that be used to compromise the morale of a nation who speaks out in support or against a war?
What will be our response when we see American women raped, tortured, battered, and killed?
In the mad dash to be seen as “enlightened,” “open-minded,” or whatever other term you want to use, we are becoming a nation that does not want to protect and provide for the women of this nation, which is contrary to a man’s natural desire (see Thoughts on Chivalry). But that’s hardly surprising since we don’t want to protect them anymore in any other way.
We have basically told men that its okay to use women as tools (pornography), are easily replaceable (hooking up/friends with benefits), and are valueless if they become pregnant (40 years of legalized abortion leaving a legacy of over 55 million dead babies and countless women dealing with the aftereffects). Now we’re letting men off the hook again and throwing our women into the lion’s den of front line combatant.
To follow up on my recent post about women in combat, I read a post by Judithann Campbell on her blog, Why I Am Not A Feminist, and wanted to share it with you. She asks the simple question: do men like women?
Recent polls show that most American men don’t have a problem with women in combat. Which causes me to wonder; do most men even like women? And if they do, then why are they supporting a measure which requires women to become like men? If most women stated that they found men who wear high heels and makeup just as attractive, if not more attractive, then men who dress like men, I would wonder whether those women really liked men. And when I hear that most men have no problem with putting women or even forcing women into combat, it causes me to wonder what is going on their minds.
Campbell asks some good questions and I think we should all think about this since American women, women who are supposed to nurture and bring forth human life, will soon be serving in positions where they will be expected to and required to kill other humans.
You can Campbell’s entire post by clicking here.
I was recently directed to a blog called Feminine Mystique because of an entry entitled “On Chivalry.” It was an interesting read which contained some thought-provoking statements, such as:
… Chivalry is necessary for patriarchy to function; chivalry is an intrinsic part of patriarchy. Chivalry is the male expression of patriarchy; it is the man’s role in patriarchy. The fundamental ethic of chivalry is that it is a man’s duty to provide for and protect women. …
Chivalry is an inherited duty on the part of men and it is an inherited privilege on the part of women. Women do deserve chivalry in the sense of the woman’s role and purpose being something honorable and something desirable and something generous and kind and deserving of respect. However chivalry is not something that is “deserved” in the sense of it being earned or based on superior merit or it being an expression of preferential treatment due to the woman’s good conduct. …
Chivalry is not done for the purpose of pleasing or gaining the approval of women. Pleasing and gaining the approval of women is a side benefit that often accompanies chivalry but it is not its purpose. The purpose of chivalry is the man maintaining his honor as a man. Chivalry is meant to provide a benefit to the woman but it is not based on the desires of the woman. …
I’m not saying I agree with everything she wrote, but it quite interesting. Click here to read the entire post.
P.S. – Thanks to “Why I Am Not A Feminist” for sharing the post.