Advertise on the Tentacle


| Jennifer Baker | Guest Columnist | Harry M. Covert | Hayden Duke | Jason Miller | Ken Kellar | Patricia A. Kelly | Cindy A. Rose |


As Long as We Remember...

January 28, 2013

G.I. Jane gets her wish? Or does she?

Steven R. Berryman

There’s good news, and there’s bad news; women are now slated to work in front-line military positions due to a change in Pentagon policy by outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.


Reviews are still coming in – women have been notably silent thus far – but tentatively. This is good news for the emancipated “feminist” hell-bent on full equality. It’s bad news for many traditional women concerned about unwilling death in combat, perhaps after conscription in a future Selective Service draft.


This latter part was completely skirted by a Frederick News-Post editorial on January 26, 2013, “Welcoming women to combat.” It was but a liberal cheerleading for female-male equality without dissertation on consequences!


After my preliminary comments on Facebook along these lines, I was reminded by a Jewish friend about women in the Israeli military, and separately was admonished that I was only semi-qualified to weigh in on this issue, as I had no vagina. Really?


Well, absent the plumbing issue, I do have a daughter, and also sons who could be impacted at some point due to some State Department-inflicted disaster with North Korea, China, or Iran, etc., so here goes some expounding.


The “Law of Unintended Consequences” has not always well served the National Organization for Women and the women’s movement in general. Feminism has wrought consequences, many unforeseen and unwanted already. The inclusion of women in the workforce has resulted in hardships in the American family, as women compete with men for the same jobs, lowering the income of men. This – in turn – has resulted in the necessity of the two-income household in order to make up the difference! Latchkey children, divorce over money issues, and lack of marriage “maintenance time,” are all direct consequences thereof.


It’s a beware-of-what-you-wish-for kinda thing…


When the hand-clapping about the feel-good aspects of military-equality is complete, some real consequences will then need to be examined. Will a woman need to prove capable of the physical requirements of the job, such as carrying a 185 lb. wounded comrade (male or female) 15 yards to safety in a firefight? Or will the physical requirements simply be reduced to a ‘more fair” standard out of Political Correctness?


The obvious result of this concern would be a less capable, less formidable fighting force.


Will male soldiers be emotionally incapable of leaving a female behind should the success of a desperate mission require it? Years of societies programming about feelings and worth based on biological and hormonal considerations will be heard and felt, and not conveniently overcome.


Will the Geneva Convention need to be rewritten to require separate prison camp and toiletry for each gender in case of capture and incarceration?


The controversy surrounding women at the front-line is not simply resolved; of course women can and do fight just as dirty as men. Sometimes within a relationship they even chose!


And I have heard women comment about their own attitudes shifting as a consequence of monthly ovulation. Would a female commander, weighing lives in a potential assault be extra-likely to be bold during unwise circumstances at certain times of the month?


Once upon a time the U.S. Navy actually experimented with all-female ballistic missile submarine crews and nixed the program for this reason. [The reasoning was that they did not want mixed gender crews during long deployments.] Women working together for extended periods of time underwater, and at the office as well as on duty have been proven to have coordinated cycles after adjustment; this a function of a heredity that forced women to compete equally among themselves to win over males going back to the hunter-gatherer days.


My column on the above was to be “No semen in submarines,” but sadly, the issue went away.


So, as we return to final thoughts on this very interesting topic, I can really see two very good sides to the argument about (some) women’s equality desires vs. dangerous military duties.


Of course, the law about who must register as required by The Selective Service Act was supposition on my part. How this issue is treated, and whether women weigh-in, will be most fascinating to witness in the next few weeks.


Woodsboro - Walkersville Times
The Morning News Express with Bob Miller
The Covert Letter

Advertisers here do not necessarily agree or disagree with the opinions expressed by the individual columnist appearing on The Tentacle.

Each Article contained on this website is COPYRIGHTED by The Octopussm LLC. All rights reserved. No Part of this website and/or its contents may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems, without the expressed written permission of The Tentaclesm, and the individual authors. Pages may be printed for personal use, but may not be reproduced in any publication - electronic or printed - without the express written permission of The Tentaclesm; and the individual authors.

Site Developed & Hosted by The JaBITCo Group, Inc. For questions on site navigation or links please contact Webmaster.

The JaBITCo Group, Inc. is not responsible for any written articles or letters on this site.