2396. Women in Combat?????

At 2389 Her Highness My Husband’s Wife inquired of my take on women in combat. By now you’ve heard many pros and cons, so I offer a new view or two.

For many cultural and political reasons, I oppose women in combat. Anytime female interest is brought into the male workplace, anti-accomplishment troubles erupt. It’s not the women’s fault; it’s the mixing and constant remixing of differing and usually opposed emotional interests that surround strategy, tactics, and how to organize and achieve an  organization’s mission.

Women are born to proactively favor compassion over conflict, assertiveness over aggression, and peace over violence. The military is programmed to maximize advantage from conflict, aggression, and violence. Men fit that model much better than women. Because of natural interference while working together on strategy, tactics, and missions, combat capability suffers when women are made influential by virtue of rank. Combat effectiveness is close behind.

Men seek to avoid competing with women, except for first-time sexual conquest. It’s a strong preference, almost a restriction they are born with. OTOH, women by virtue of birth seek to cooperate, which of necessity is subordinate in a command-oriented organization. In combat, their natures become opposed and coordination harder at all hierarchical levels.

By their nature, women seek to avoid violence; they may be trained to overcome their natural resistance, but one very natural pause, slow reaction, or hint of compassion can get one—or worse, teammates—killed.

Women are the weakest link in preserving combat effectiveness. They are inculcated by Nature to find ways not to fight. Also, being the strongest link for shaping the American culture’s future and homefront, they are the strongest influence to shape the military toward being more peaceful, which is contrary to what’s needed for combat effectiveness.

Female leaders in battle face the enemy in both surprise and emergency situations. Their nature springs forth under the inevitable adrenaline surge and responds by instantaneously looking for the no-conflict, compassionate, gentler, or cooperative way out. After that, their military training enables them to turn to aggression and violence as path to follow. However, men instantaneously and naturally respond with aggression and violence necessary to reduce surprises and emergencies to their control, regardless of who or what they face.

The core of combat effectiveness is respect for leaders, especially one’s on-scene leaders when facing danger. If female combat leaders are not respected for their proficiency at the same level as male leaders, both combat capability and effectiveness suffer. Respect enforced by rank and policy do not convince men to respect female leaders at some effective level, regardless of bureaucratic intention. Only raw talent, superior knowledge, and admirable skills earn masculine respect. The law of averages says that few women have or deserve it when the fit hits the shan.

I’m not saying women can’t lead in battle or on the bureaucratic front. Women have a much more powerful role in society when they don’t copy masculine ways or upstage male leaders in matters that require conflict, aggression, and violence. Women are extremely more qualified than men in pulling people together in common but peaceful effort, while men are the opposite by virtue of their different nature.


Women in combat is another leftist, feminist, political, and purposeful step at alienating men from home, family, children, and female-desired loving relationships. Progressives, who dominate today’s political class, seek to sustain male-female animosity and unpleasantness in order to grow the need for bigger government and spending to resolve what government broke.

Combat is the latest indirect method of blaming men so women can escape responsibility for relationship troubles. That is, feminists taught women to act less feminine and more masculine, which pits the genders in direct competition, which men seek to avoid. It works against the direct interest of women. Consequently, women reach for excuses at men’s expense to compensate for not feeling comfortable with and grateful for themselves.

IOW, they don’t like themselves for who they are and so they blame men and adjust by duplicating masculine behavior—that is, more of the same. If you don’t like the gender to which you belong, how can you ever truly enjoy life as God or Nature makes it possible? (Enjoyment, incidentally, in which Progressives and political class elitists have no interest.)

Men have and work with the short view, the present. Women have and work with the long view, the future. Men are best able to control the present and shape human events. Women are best able to match up the future with female hopes and dreams and patiently work out the details for making it happen in female-friendly fashion. To do that, each woman does it best by using her man’s castle as her place of employment.

I’m not against women in the workplace; they deserve such freedom. It should be an individual choice, however, and not based on political propaganda that makes relationships malfunction and society unfriendly for females and children. As does government mandates to please minorities and override majority opinion, such as women in combat does.


Having examined for 65 years how people are motivated and for well over a decade how the genders are born differently, I conclude that American greatness flowed from feminine influence empowered by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Men conquered the West, but wives civilized it. That is, wives told husbands what they didn’t and did want society to look like. Responding deliberately but proudly pleased with whatever they achieved, each generation of husbands continued to weave all the threads together to produce what American wives (not singles) desired to make society more family-, female-, wife-, mother-, and children-friendly. Husbands shaped human events to please their wives, who in turn pleased husbands with castle-building. Wives encouraged husbands to better satisfy themselves at their work, which helped improve prosperity for all.

The naturally developed outcome—our Judeo-Christian culture—empowered men as best able to dominate the workplace and society (i.e., what we all do), while women were empowered as best able to dominate the home and the culture (i.e., wives-developed values and standards that guide and we all predominately follow in shaping society into whatever it becomes). However, political activists smothered the process after World War II.


Nowadays, self-identified elitists empower themselves to control others with elitist-identified political pressure from which highly destructive political correctness has emerged as most noticeable weapon. Having been made fashionable to please feminists, political pressures now make society unlikeable to both genders. Society now operates contrary to mutually respectful acceptance of both genders, and it extends to combat capability and effectiveness.

Feminists and supporters want to dominate both workplace and shaping of human events, which means they presume to know best what men have felt responsible to do for millennia. So, they act like men and mistakenly presume men will accept it as women expect them to—hah!

Radical feminists set out to eliminate patriarchy; the unannounced implication being that matriarchy will soon replace it. They sought to reverse 7,000 years of history by putting men down, blame them, and expect them to acquiesce to feminist thought. The result has been the opposite; disrespectful male dominance increases, which doesn’t bode well for matriarchy or modern women and children. Men just shape human events in more aggressive and anti-female ways rather than the more polite ways they displayed with patriarchal dominance before Feminism.

Women deserve and can lead men. But their natures are compatible only when women do it indirectly and patiently and leave direct, impatient, and often offensive leadership to men. Wives of the past few centuries led husbands that way and together they generated several centuries of cultural progress and economic prosperity. The wives thus turned two male-dominated religions, Christianity and Judaism, into our female-dominated Judeo-Christian value system. The acceptance of women in combat crucifies the memory of those stubborn wives who insisted that society be shaped by men as women envision it, which enabled each woman to promote peace in her nest, harmony in husband’s castle, and successful development of all their children.


Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Feminism: OOPS!, sex differences, Sociology 101

11 responses to “2396. Women in Combat?????

  1. anon...

    This is very dangerous for a nation.
    IMO, the more masculine women act, the more feminine men act, and won’t be able to be protectors and providers.
    Lately, I have been seeing women FIGHT EACH OTHER… which we should not do.
    When men fight, they could become friends later…not so with women😔

    Your Highness Anon…,
    You’re right on all counts.

    • Magnolia

      Youza! Yes, many modern women are very controlling and domineering which makes men be repelled them. Also, many modern men are very weak and whiney which makes women feel contempt towards them. Polarity is gone and everything goes downhill from there.

    • Eric

      It’s gotten worse than that: the Marxist Naval Secretary has declared an end to ‘the Culture of Masculinity’ in the USN/USMC and has instituted a huge recruitment drive to bring more homo & trans-sexuals. We saw lately unarmed Marines in Chattanooga shot down by a lone Moslem gunman; crawling under their desks and calling the police for help. Then we saw Naval personnel so ‘traumatized’ by being held prisoner for 12 hours in an Iranian hotel that they knelt and apologized to their captors on video.

      Contrast that with the Korean War where not ONE Marine POW broke in a prison camp; or WW2 incidents like the PT-109 where John F. Kennedy rescued his crew in shark-infested waters for three days with a broken back. Men will follow someone like Kennedy; but Bruce Jenner, not so much.

  2. Cinnamon

    Sir Guy,

    Do you have any tips on how a woman should lead men effectively in the workplace if she is put in a role of authority?

    Many, many years ago a retired U.S. military man and veteran of Lebanese (Maronite Catholic) descent told me the reason he opposed women in combat. He said he couldn’t focus on the enemy when a woman was wounded, or at risk of being wounded or captured, in the nearby vicinity, because his instinct to protect her would preclude such focus. Although I was a feminist at the time I could not argue with his reasoning. I have never forgotten it. I have been against women in combat ever since.

    Your Highness Cinnamon,

    1st para: Dress very feminine, modest, classy, and unique re other women. Stand alone, smilingly proud, but not loaded with hubris. Neither complain nor explain to subordinates; keep her problems to herself except for need of others to know.

    DO NOT copy the leadership styles of men including executives. Lead with a very feminine persona. That’s how a woman earns the respect of men, and men don’t mind following women whom they respect highly. Male subordinates’ morale goes up easily, except for a few men who might be jealous, covet, or begrudge her authority, responsibility, or suspected level of pay. The more feminine she conveys herself, the fewer men in that jealous/covetous group.

    Her biggest problem other than gaining sufficient knowledge while new on the job is this. The less she adopts a masculine leadership style, the more ‘foreign’ and thus less effective she appears to seniors. Consequently, she’s not as quickly promotable as her peers who duplicate masculine leadership techniques.

    2nd para: I agree with your Lebanese veteran. Men are born that way. Instinct pushes a man’s attention more diligently toward an endangered female than keeping a constant focus on an enemy who may be or become a threat to him.


  3. Miss Gina

    Dear Sir Guy,

    What a powerful and well-written piece–one of your best, in my opinion.

    Each of the sections (due to space limitations) would make brilliant op-ed pieces or letters to the editor somewhere.

    Sharing on my Facebook page.

    Your Highness Miss Gina,
    I love it when pretty women say nice things. Very feminine.

  4. Sir Guy,

    I love when you encourage me to be feminine and give me such logical reasons for support. I will search for a castle to build per your recommendation.

    Thank you

  5. Eric

    A good example of the difference between a masculine and feminized military can be seen in the Middle East. The US spent billions training a so-called ‘pro-Democracy’ Army in Syria for four years and did things like leafleting Jihadist areas before an airstrike. The Russians sent an Expeditionary Force in September and have liberated 2/3 of Syria in less than 6 months. In Iraq, the US military ran away from ISIS and pundits were claiming that ISIS would become a superstate with advanced weapons and capability of invading the US. Iraq called in Russian and Chinese advisors, and they’ve since driven ISIS out of three major cities and currently have the remainder surrounded in the northwestern desert region.

    • My Husband's Wife

      Yes, Eric—it does seem quite “feminized.” Do you think part of the problem is our government for many years back to the 80s using proxy armies (paid mercenaries) to get the job done—such as what originally happened with al-quaeda in Afghanistan? The idea being: “The enemy of our enemy is our friend.” Doing so, there has been no control of the outcome—and even anticipated “blow back” which military advisors had warned about happening as a result of doing so in newly released Freedom of Information docs.

  6. My Husband's Wife

    Dear Sir Guy,

    This article is even better than imagined! I agree with Miss Gina on it being one of your very best. I’m definitely better equipped now with the “why” women shouldn’t be in combat when discussing this issue with others. This is one quite complex topic that has so many layers and implications when breaking it down.

    After hearing two of the presidential candidates support women in combat, the only thing I could think of was that they were either passive, feminized men or just saying the “politically correct” thing to get votes. Neither of which earn my respect…or vote for that matter. It was governor Christy that said he would allow his daughters to be in combat if that’s what they wanted and met the criteria. How sad! His precious girls! This was on the heals of watching “American Sniper” and “Flags of our Fathers”—which really got me thinking about this subject and if women had been interjected into the scenario.

    • Miss Gina

      Completely agree, Lady MHW. In my opinion, it reveals that these individuals 1) don’t really understand what combat is like, 2) don’t really understand women, and 3) would be at great risk of being too subject to political correctness to make the best wartime decisions. Finally, I just pity them and their families, for clearly femininity is not playing its proper role in their lives, and there is a lack of protectiveness there that their daughters greatly need.

      Your Highness Miss Gina,
      I like your logic and reasoning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s