Skip to content

Is There Any Greater Abomination than the (Ideal of the) Female Soldier?

 

JILL FARRIS writes in response to the post on the Navy’s “Love Boat culture:”

Of course, the inevitable result of sex between shipmates under stress are unplanned pregnancies resulting in abortions. Women who undergo abortions have an increase in drug use, divorce/relationship problems, depression etc. In other words, these “love boat” conditions lead to an increase in ruined lives.

Whenever I read of women in the military or see any woman in a man’s uniform (ie., border guard, police woman etc.) I wonder where is her father and why didn’t he protect her? There is something so perverse about a woman acting like a man! And, apparently, underneath that uniform the hormones still do what hormones do and women still act like women!

—– Comments —–

Robin writes:

Mrs. Farris writes that she wonders where the female soldier’s father is, and why he didn’t protect her.  I submit that he is not allowed to protect her; his natural desire to do so has been annihilated by feminist society and worse, her mother.

Her father wasn’t allowed to guide or instruct her while she was in her toddler years through her high school years at home; at the slightest inkling of femininity or characteristics of the weaker sex arising in her, Mother would jump in and chastise her father for “controlling her” and “not teaching her to be empowered.”  He wasn’t allowed to teach her, or call her his little princess, or make decisions regarding her education or spiritual training.  He had no interest in taking her to religious services because they were all controlled by women.

Mother chose everything for her:  which church she would attend (likely one with a Christian-feminist message and leadership base), which schools she would attend (likely liberal public schools with an agenda), which friends she would have, which toys she would enjoy, and which extra-curricular activities she would try.  Mother chose her “likes and dislikes” for her, and told her that she could be anything a boy could be, only better!  She was steeped in the power of Matriarchy unknowingly from the youngest age.  Mother watched “Ellen” and “The View” in the presence of her daughter.

Mother valued careerism as an idol over her precious daughter, and thus taught her that the feminine character of being at home, being dependent on Father, being a mother as a high calling, and being domestic are things to be shunned.  Her father didn’t say anything, because he knew the chaos that would ensue if he disagreed with his wife about the cost of the McMansion, or the cost of the children’s wardrobes and playroom contents.  He worked and kept his mouth shut, knowing he would lose his home and children if he dared conflict with his wife.

If she didn’t grow up in this set of circumstances, it was worse: her father wasn’t allowed in his own home with his children.  Mother frivolously divorced him in order to be “fulfilled” and “happy”, or indeed, Mother was never married to her father at all.  She was married to the Matriarchal State, which stole from her father in order to keep Mother from living in abject poverty.  He had no say whatsoever in her life, no custody rights, only the right to have his wages garnished for her care.

This little girl saw her mother thinking so little of men – only that they were useful for sex and money.  She grew up in relative poverty because of her mother’s choices and thus decided to join the military, to be “empowered.”  While in the military, she felt powerful over her life and powerful in her sexuality, and used men just as they had “used” her mother, not  realizing the they were only using her.

She traded her beautiful femininity to become as aggressive as a man.

Laura writes:

She grew up in relative poverty because of her mother’s choices and thus decided to join the military, to be “empowered.”

She may also have been attracted to the military in the hopes of finding something she had never had: a real man.

Alyce writes:

You might be interested to hear from a woman who actually enlisted and served.

My name is Alyce. It was only two weeks after my 18th birthday when I enlisted in the Air Force, July 21, 1971.

It was quite a coup for the recruiter since I was the first woman from Creek County, OK to have enlisted.

He submitted a news story to that effect, but it was never printed, the public was very negative against the Vietnam war at that time.

I had a father who loved me very much. When I was 11 his back was broken in a work related injury. Even though my mother had a college degree, there simply weren’t jobs available to support a family with six kids.

We lost everything and were plunged into an abyss of poverty. My parents had to accept welfare while my father attempted to find work with his injuries, and was entered into a rehabilitation program, enabling him to return to college and get a first a Bachelor’s degree, then my Grandfather paid for him to continue on for his Master’s. My five year old brother, Bryan, was killed crossing the street while Dad was taking his final exams. I remember all my mother had to wear to his funeral was a pair of tennis shoes with holes in them.

I don’t know how my parents kept their marriage together through the poverty or the death of a child, but they did.

My father graduated from college the year I graduated from High School.

As a small child, I used go to the Post Office with my mother, and pick up brochures for the military branches, pretending it was my mail. I remember being horrified at a brochure of a woman in uniform, and hoping I would NEVER be so desperate that I would end up doing a last-resort thing like that!

A letter came in the mail shortly before the graduation day. My father was being sued by the hospital. The statute of limitations was up for my Dad’s former employer, who had promised to pay his bills if he wouldn’t sue the company. He was now being charged the full amount, plus 7 years interest. It would be years before they climbed out of that debt.

So I joined the Air Force. I was able to send every other paycheck home to help my family out, I got job training and went to College on my GI bill.

I’ve always considered myself a decent human being, and my family a pretty exemplary one. I am especially proud of my parents. I have been married over 37 years and have three lovely kids, three Grandkids. Not a bad one in the bunch.

I am proud to have served. It’s not something I would chosen if I’d had better options, but I sleep well knowing I chose the best option I had at the time.

Laura writes:

Thank you for writing. Women who have served have written in before, but I am glad to hear your story.

When I wrote at the top of this entry, “Is There Any Greater Abomination than the Female Soldier?,” I meant, “Is There Any Greater Abomination than the Ideal of the Female Soldier.”

Obviously, many women have served well and deserve to be proud of their hard work.

I think your attitude toward having been a woman in the military is admirable. You don’t uphold it as a great advance for women. You did it for the sake of others. Whenever society offers new money-making opportunities to women, many are going to take those opportunities not just for themselves, but to help support others. That doesn’t, however, justify the transformation of all-male fields such as the military. If you hadn’t held those positions, some man would have held them and his earnings would have gone to support others too. My point isn’t that his need would have been greater than yours. The most important issues are 1) what happens to the military itself when it becomes coed and 2) what happens to society at large when it approves of aggression in women. I don’t think anyone believes that the goal of equality in the military  has made the country safer. And, as Capt. Kevin Eyer reports, it has changed the whole military culture for the worse.

Terry Morris writes:

This is not a comment directed at Alyce (a fellow “Okie,” and former A.F. enlisted) personally, but one would be remiss in not pointing out that the 21st Century ideal of the “female soldier” is something altogether different than the 1971 ideal of how women could most usefully serve their country in a branch of the military. Indeed,

Alyce points this out in her post.

Also it is worth mentioning that it is never appropriate to govern according to the exception rather than the rule. Alyce’s unfortunate situation was an exceptional one, yet she was still able to find a place in the U.S. military, and to help support her family financially as a result. A non-combat, support type job, no doubt. Not the current abomination that is the ideal of the modern American female ”soldier/rescuer/combat-pilot/commander,” and etc.

Alyce writes:

I appreciate your printing my letter and your respectful comments.

One thing I would like to clarify, if I may, is that I served during the draft. My joining to keep my family from being turned out into the streets did not take a job from a more worthy man. There were thousands of men protesting, desparately seeking a deferment, deserting to Canada, or willing to go to prison to avoid serving.

There were plenty of men very happy to let women serve in their place.

 The 1970′s service woman isn’t all that different from the World War II service woman, or the 2012 service woman. Women certainly are capable of being patriotic. Women have participated in American wars since the Revolution, some dressed up as boys during the Civil War, World War I and World War II, Korea and Vietnam, predating feminism. When I served, 10 percent of military personnel were women. Today it is 14 percent. Why presume women today are so different?

 [Laura writes: I would refer you back to the article by U.S. retired Naval Capt. Kevin Eyer that began this discussion. The 2012 service woman is very different from those of previous eras. Women in World War I and II served in support roles. They were not Air Force pilots, sailors on submarines or carrying full packs on the front lines in combat units, as some women do in Afghanistan. There was no expectation that they would do everything men do. And, while most military women as you point out below do not want to achieve equality or serve in combat positions, there is a very aggressive cadre of military feminists who are fighting for radical change and have achieved significant gains toward their goals.]

In 1976, a feminist attorney came to speak to our Political Science class. She complained (to a roomful of returning Vietnam vets, no less) that the GI bill granting “preference points” to those who served was UNFAIR TO WOMEN. She claimed that women were being cheated out of police and fire department jobs because men had unfair advantage using their points.

I timidly raised my hand and said “But.. .I’m a woman and a Veteran…what about me?” After all, everyone one of those women complaining about the points COULD have themselves earned them, just as I had, just as men had.

“Everyone knows women just join the service to find a husband,” she dismissed me.

That was the day feminism and I went our separate ways.

You see, feminists do not really consider service women “feminists,” but a low echelon group to be ignored unless useful once in awhile. You’ll notice feminists showed very little interest in military matters until recently, with their “one in three” claims of sexual assault, rape being the feminist’s bread and butter, and ALWAYS a favorite cause.

Feminists do NOT want to explore the “equality” of signing up for The Draft, or actually being made to participate in taking responsibility for the rights and priviledges they “earned” by whining – not by fighting or dying, as men have.

There ARE foolish, fool hardy women, steeped in feminism who join the military, convinced they can be one of the boys.

When faced with actual “boy” stuff, like deployment, leaving husbands and children behind, and getting in the thick of battle, many respond with typical female backpedaling – getting pregnant, claiming rape or sexual harassment.

The military responds with more rules, sensitivity training, and deteriorating due process rights for the accused, which is feminism’s favorite bell ringer.

As I pointed out to a feminist on HuffingtonPost recently, how many institutions that made America The Greatest Country In The World have fallen to Third World status in the past 50 years since feminism?

We once had the Greatest (and affordable) Medical system in the world, the Greatest Justice System in the world ( now more corrupt than Mexico’s), the Greatest Educational system in the world ( now 46th,) the greatest technological, industrial and innovative systems in the world.

I pointed out that only our military system and our university (STEM only) were the last, greatest systems in the world America could claim, and THAT was because those systems are still largely dominated by men.

I challenged her to tell me what feminism has been responsible for making America the greatest, since everything else feminism touches was failing.

After MUCH nasty name calling and “misogynist” accusations, she had nothing to offer. The world was supposed to be “a better place if women ran it,” I reminded her. Where are the goods?

I know of one, however.

America now has The Greatest Male Prison System In The World. Our For Profit Prison System now incarcerates more American men than Russia, China and North Korea combined.

For all the excuses and reasons offered, the bottom line is – Rome is burning, and feminism has nothing to offer but another can of gasoline.

Mr. Morris writes:

Women can certainly be patriotic, Alyce, sure. No one is denying that, or even as much as implying that the opposite is the case, which would be … dumb.

But whenever one speaks of patriotism necessarily having a connection to military or some other form of government service, which is no more true than that non-military or other government service necessarily means non-patriotism or any lack thereof, I for one begin to question that person’s understanding of the term “patriotism.”

In other words, we do everyone a disservice when we equate military service (or other government service) to patriotism, since in doing so we’re essentially implying that one cannot be (fully) patriotic unless(s)he has served in the military/that military service automatically indicates patriotism. Neither of which is true.

Here is Webster’s 1828 definition of the term:

“Patriotism, n. Love of one’s country; the passion which aims to serve one’s country, either in defending it from invasion, or protecting its rights and maintaining its laws and institutions in vigor and purity.”

The last phrase in the definition – and maintaining its laws and institutions in vigor and purity – is key to a proper understanding of the term “patriotism.” As well as, incidentally, of distinguishing between traditionalism and the various manifestations of liberalism, left and “right.” Feminism is, by definition, unpatriotic and un-American, since it seeks to undo everything traditionally American.

During my enlistment I served with many women, and at the time – late ’80s-early ’90s – better than half of the women I served with were very open about the fact that they had not joined the military out of any sense of loyalty to the United States, its Constitution or its

institutions. Indeed, they often complained that America was/is a “racist, bigoted, hate-filled, male-dominated country” whose institutions, such as the military, merely represented these unholy characteristics. And they were out to do their parts in changing this.

I will say that the white women I worked with, as opposed to black women and other minority women, were much more patriotic minded as a general rule. But even most of them, and several of them in particular that I can recall who exhibited a near perfect and complete hatred for everything America had once represented, and that some of us were still clinging to, retained an element of the feminist ideology which had been firmly instilled in them during their most formative years. In short, while I agree with you that women CAN BE, and often are, patriotic Americans, I reject that patriotism, as defined above, is in general the chief motivating factor for female enlistments in the U.S. military today.

What makes us presume that women are so much different today is that the culture is so much different today, and feminism is so much more institutionalized and influential today. Indeed, the institutionalization of feminism in the U.S. military bears a direct connection to the introduction of open homosexuality in the military.

Plus, I’ve seen this first hand, so I know it to be fact, not just conjecture on my part.

The women you mention who’ve served in some of our wars “dressed as boys” was an anomaly that was certainly not encouraged. And that is the point when you boil it all down. If there is any greater abomination than the ideal of the “female soldier,” to answer the question posed to head this entry, it is the ideal of the “gay/lesbian/bi-sexual soldier.” And we may rest in the assurance that you do not get the one without eventually getting the other.

Share:EmailFacebook17Twitter2Pinterest0Google+0