The Thinking 
Page 1 of 11

How “Equality” in the Military Leads to Gross Inequality

January 25, 2013


AT VFR, Henry McCulloch writes:

I have had many years to think about what role women should have in the armed forces. I was a Marine infantry officer and Air Force Reserve fighter pilot in an active capacity for over 16 years. Now, mercifully, I am completely separated from the U.S. armed forces.

During my active service and in the years since it ended, I have seen women over-preferred and over-promoted at every step. Inevitably their presence in any numbers is burdensome to the force and detrimental to combat readiness—even when serving only in support units. No matter what promises about high standards Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey may make, standards will be lowered until enough women qualify that this great social experiment can be declared a success. But the truth will be otherwise and, should the U.S. armed forces have to fight a serious adversary that does not engage in this nonsense, very quickly obvious. Men, and some of these ladies, will pay for this social engineering with their lives.

In the 1970s, I saw the service academies thrown open to women, and male cadets and midshipmen at all three academies ordered not to tell the press anything about the blatant dual standards that prevailed thenceforth—despite command assurances to the public that no standards were being relaxed to accommodate women. Read More »


January 25, 2013


Esbjörn, Carl Larsson; 1910


Women in Combat: A Grave Offense Against Children

January 25, 2013


AS I SAID in the previous post, there are so many unexamined consequences of the Obama administration’s decision to place women in combat — a decision that has been in the works for many years and that is the logical extension of the radical equality embraced by most Americans — that one barely knows where to begin. But here is perhaps the most serious consequence: Children will lose their mothers in war.

Not only will more young children stand at military airports waving their mothers tearful and uncomprehending goodbyes, but more children will receive the news that their mothers have died violent deaths. Some will learn that their mothers were raped or dismembered.

It is a great hardship for a child to lose a father in war. But when he loses a father who has fought for his country, he at least gains a hero. A heroic, absent father can give strength. A heroic, absent mother weakens. No normal child will be comforted by a mother’s medals. Every child wants a mother who is a loving presence. The idea of a mother as a warrior is an unthinkable abomination. Given the high rate of illegitimacy, women soldiers will not always have husbands, which means that some children will lose their only parent in combat.

The woman soldier represents perhaps the supreme offense against the values of maternity. Thus, leaving aside the fact that some mothers will be killed, the approval of military aggression in women will further damage these values in general, turning women who will never see combat into poor, unfit mothers.

In hailing the novelty of sending mothers to war, Obama has advanced by one giant leap his ongoing war against the young and civilization itself. A country with women soldiers will create children who feel betrayed. A country with women soldiers will create feral, dehumanized children.

Read More »


Two Presidents on the Role of Women

January 25, 2013


Theodore Roosevelt, March 13, 1905

No piled-up wealth, no splendor of material growth, no brilliance of artistic development, will permanently avail any people unless its home life is healthy, unless the average man possesses honesty, courage, common sense, and decency, unless he works hard and is willing at need to fight hard; and unless the average woman is a good wife, a good mother, able and willing to perform the first and greatest duty of womanhood, able and willing to bear, and to bring up as they should be brought up, healthy children, sound in body, mind, and character, and numerous enough so that the race shall increase and not decrease.

There are certain old truths which will be true as long as this world endures, and which no amount of progress can alter. One of these is the truth that the primary duty of the husband is to be the home-maker, the breadwinner for his wife and children, and that the primary duty of the woman is to be the helpmate, the housewife, and mother….


Barack Obama, January 24, 2013

Today, by moving to open more military positions—including ground combat units—to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens. This milestone reflects the courageous and patriotic service of women through more than two centuries of American history and the indispensable role of women in today’s military. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, including more than 150 women who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan—patriots whose sacrifices show that valor knows no gender.

Earlier today I called Secretary of Defense Panetta to express my strong support for this decision, which will strengthen our military, enhance our readiness, and be another step toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals of fairness and equality. …. Today, every American can be proud that our military will grow even stronger with our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters playing a greater role in protecting this country we love.


The Sun Sets on Masculinity

January 25, 2013



Sometimes a picture does say it best. Here is a photograph of Gen. Martin Dempsey and Leon Panetta shaking hands after consummating the feminist conquest of the U.S. armed forces. Note who has been carefully selected to oversee the two old white men as they do their duty; there is nothing coincidental about photo-ops such as these. ‘Nuff said.


What Kind of Man Sends a Woman to War?

January 25, 2013


WESLEY PRUDEN blames Pentagon careerists whose primary objective is not military.


Michelle Obama: Militant and Girlish

January 25, 2013


AT Camera Lucida, Kidist Paulos Asrat critiques the inauguration outfits of Michelle Obama. Kidist writes:

It is interesting that these [fashion] designers want a powerful, militaristic Michelle, yet also want her to look innocuously feminine (almost like a small girl), as though to sartorially dampen the former with the latter. And Michelle obliges.

Women who embrace aggression often instinctively resort to the ultra-feminine to temper it. The modern woman is both hyper-man and hyper-woman.

Read More »


The Brave New Army

January 25, 2013


THERE ARE so many unexamined consequences of the full integration of women into the military that one barely knows where to start, but one of the obvious places is with the fact that the Armed Forces will be increasingly in the business of population control. Pregnant women cannot be deployed.

See this article at Reuters about the many “unintended pregnancies” of servicewomen. According to the piece:

Just over ten percent of women in the military said in 2008 they’d had an unintended pregnancy in the last year – a figure significantly higher than rates in the general public, according to a new study.

Of course, the designation of “unintended” is entirely absurd. All pregnancies are in some sense intended. Human beings cannot reproduce without some degree of intention. However, in this case, “unintended” is simply a term assigned by the woman herself. It essentially means “inconvenient.” But what is inconvenient for a career is not necessarily inconvenient for a woman personally. In other words, the woman’s designation of “unintended” can never be entirely clarified or known by a survey. From the article:

Dr. Daniel Grossman from the University of California, San Francisco, who worked on the study, called the rates of unintended pregnancy “really shocking.”

“Women in the military certainly deserve more than that. This needs to be addressed across all branches of the military,” he said.

So the pregnant woman is now a victim of the military. In addition to providing rations and equipment, troops in combat will need ample supplies of contraceptives — and under this mentality, it will be the military’s responsibility to prevent pregnancy. Given that pregnancies can be, even in the best of circumstances, “unintended,” a woman who becomes pregnant on tour after her unit runs out of birth control pills or condoms will now have cause to blame the military for her offspring’s existence. We will almost certainly see women suing the Army for damages after “unintended” pregnancy. And as a consequence, the military will need to become more and more involved in the effective sterilization of their female troops.

As I said before, women don’t join the military as equals of men in order to defend their country. They join it to destroy their country.  An egalitarian military must embrace socially destructive ideals. What can be more emblematic of our times than a military unit equipped with guns to destroy the enemy and contraceptives to destroy future soldiers?  We have lost both the will to fight and the will to live.

Read More »

Page 1 of 11