Neutered: Radical Feminism Hits the Military
Legislating away gender differences.
February 4, 2013 - 12:12 am
Men and women are different, plain and simple. No matter how society tries to obscure our differences, we can’t change the fact that we are different.
It’s time for America to embrace rather than challenge this obvious truth. The Pentagon does not, which is why they announced last month that women could now serve in active combat.
But can you blame the Pentagon? Society is trying to propel the fallacy that men and women are one in the same, only to be distinguished by their reproductive organs. You can observe this fanatic attempt to blur gender-distinguishing qualities in everything: from award shows, where Hollywood is now trying to ban gender-based awards; to literature, where books like The Dangerous Book for Boys are deemed sexist for suggesting a certain realm of facts are more pivotal for one gender; all the way to our military.
But as feminists push their radical agenda on all realms of society, they neglect to take into account the differences between our genders. In an article called “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal,” Captain Katie Petronio writes:
As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.
Petronio recognizes something that feminists do not — men are more equipped for the physical exertion that combat entails. I hate to state the obvious, but men have larger muscle mass and greater lung capacity. They have stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments. They are taller and bigger on average. And they’re better at sports that demand powerful bursts of energy.
When male Olympians line up to run the 1500, there’s a reason that there are no women beside them; the male gold medalist ran the 1500 in 3 minutes, 34 seconds, while the female gold medalist had a time of 4 minutes, 10 seconds. Women simply cannot compete at the level of men because men are stronger and faster.
Petronio reported that in Officer Candidate School (OCS) in 2011, women had an attrition rate of 40 percent, compared to the male rate of 16 percent. In cases like this where females cannot keep up with males, the inevitable lowering of standards quickly follows. We’ve already seen this happen in our military academies. The Candidate Fitness Assessment (CFA) for the United States Military, Air Force, Naval, and Merchant Marine academies mandates that men demonstrate their ability to do pull-ups. Women, however, are welcome to merely hang on the bar as “an alternative measure of muscular strength and endurance for women who are unable to execute one correct cadence pull-up.” Only three months ago did the Marine Corps change this requirement; they still mandate more capacity for the men. We would be naïve to think the same lowering of standards will not happen in our combat forces.
If I’m going to get evacuated and someone’s going to pull me out of a combat situation where I’m injured and something’s going down, I don’t want to be left there by someone who can’t pick me up and move me.
Sure, there may be exceptions. There might be a minute number of women equipped to perform at the level of a man, but these women are the exception, not the rule, just as there may be 16 year olds more mentally and physically capable of combat than some 18 year olds. The exceptions, of course, are not grounds for changing the rule.
I struggle to believe that women in the military are actually the ones pushing this radical feminist agenda. Captain Petronio wonders as well:
Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality.
This is simply part of a broader feminist push in all areas of modern life. Lynn Elber, AP entertainment writer, wrote this just last week:
In a society tilting steadily toward gender neutrality, the separate-but-equal awards that divide actors into one camp and actresses into another have the whiff of a moldy anachronism.
In reality, though, the only “whiff of a moldy anachronism” is trying to pretend that women are somehow still severely disadvantaged in comparison to men. Women have been on par with men for some time. It’s time for women to commend our feminist foremothers for a job well done, and to tell the feminists of the 21st century it’s time to pack up, go home, and find a new cause.