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.