Women in Combat: In Every Possible Sense a Joke

In this post I’ve already accepted that I am going to offend just about everyone. Conservatives for not being patriotic (aka flag worship). Liberals for being “anti-woman.” The meek for being blunt. The laconic for saying things in eleven paragraphs that could be said in one. Statists for opposing their will. Generic anti-authoritarians for seeking to impose my own (albeit through persuasion). Veterans and soldiers for not blindly thanking them for their service. Leftwing anti-imperialists for even (if only for the sake of argument) accepting the premise of a national military at all. Reactionaries for daring to say I believe in equal rights. Progressives for daring to say I see a distinction between moral duties and the law. To offend was not my goal at all, but the idea has grown on me. I relish the prospect of possible backlash.

I am of the opinion that a military should be the best it can be for the purposes it was intended to serve. This is mostly separate from my opinion as to what purposes that military actually should serve.

Given this position and the fact that women generally are not predisposed to the same things men are (I side with team 1 in the nature vs. nurture debate) it is not hard at all for me to conclude that putting women in combat is among the most absurd things imaginable.

Can some women beat the tar out of some men? Sure they can. Can some be stronger, smarter, more emotionally stable, and more adaptive? Sure they can. Those are all outliers. Besides, the vast majority of both men and women are nothing special in terms of combat skill. Nor do they need to be. Soldiers do not exist for the purpose of winning wars. Rather, they are, as Henry Kissinger allegedly said to Alexander Haig, “dumb, stupid animals to be used.” If the case was anything other our entire military would be made up of Sea, Air, Land teams (although perhaps not even they are above being used).

But if your goal is to fight wars to win, regardless of whether that war is just or not (was there ever a just war?), putting women on the front lines is plain stupid and should indicate to everyone that the United States military is nothing more than another idiotic social program.

But if one of your goals is to foist “equality” upon everyone, then by all means, send every available human being you can to the meat grinder. And when you run out of volunteers, like when the regime finally loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority, get yourselves some conscripts. Just make darn sure you don’t discriminate in favor of those who are more likely to deliver the goods. That would be totally unfair.

I’m all for equal rights for women, as a matter of law and ethics. But when you are talking about stealing and “borrowing” billions and then trillions of dollars to impose, through force, the will of one nation upon as many others as possible, against the will of a substantial minority and perhaps against the knowledge of a majority, law and ethics are already no longer of concern and the best you can hope to achieve is some measure of pragmatism. It is not pragmatic at all to send women to go be thugs and enforcers. It is also not pragmatic to send them to their own possible demise.

As a purely moral consideration, rights are not the common denominator, so it is perfectly acceptable for someone of the libertarian persuasion to oppose the exercise (though not the enforcement) of legal and ethical rights, even under the best of circumstances (like an armed forces that does not eliminate the choices, and destroy the reputation, of the entire populace of a nation, whether they were on board with the imperialism or not; an essentially privatized or localized armed forces).

Those crying for “equality” for women, in the context of furthering the goals of imperialism (see some of my thoughts on US involvement in World War Two, the last supposedly non-imperialistic US involvement, hereherehere, and here, and look for more to come), are entirely disingenuous (or ignorant). If they truly cared about equality they would do better to think of the equal rights of brown colored foreigners to live and self-determine before getting their panties in a twist over women [formerly] not being allowed in combat.

Oh! And since when did public servants have “rights?” Are they not under a contractual obligation (the terms of their hiring as well as their oath) to do the will of the people (channeled by the text and the intent of the Constitution)? As far as I am concerned there is not a public servant alive, not a single one, not even amongst the ones I consider paragons, that was not somewhere, at sometime, in breach of their obligation, until proven otherwise. Why should I give a flaming detritus about their “rights” when my assumption, from the start, is they have already trampled on someone else’s?

But for all this, guess what! I decided that I don’t even really care that women are in combat. Why? Because I hope they get what is coming to them. That is in no way harsh. It is just the most blunt way to put, “I believe in personal responsibility.” They made their bed. Let them lie in it. So if they kill some bad guys, great. If they kill some innocents I hope they feel remorse (actually, I hope they face some actual consequences, but since I know that is not as likely to happen, I’ll start out small). If they make it home alive I hope it wasn’t because they were cowards and that they do come to realize their mistakes. If they die, I hope it was in the context of defending their friends. If it wasn’t, odds are it’s not worth shedding a tear over. This sentiment applies the same, for me, to all genders, races, religious or philosophical perspectives, and sexual orientations. How’s that for equality?

6 thoughts on “Women in Combat: In Every Possible Sense a Joke

  1. Pingback: Women in Combat: In Every Possible Sense a Joke « Propagating the Philosophy of Liberty

  2. I think that overall, equality for women would be better represented in enabling and equipping women in the things that they are actually already better at than men, naturally, such as mothering, loving, nurturing, teaching children, running households, supporting other people, including the men in their lives. Those are things women excel at — things many men don’t like and can’t do — that is, if the women would even try; if they would just focus on their natural abilities and instincts instead of things that aren’t.

    Saying women have to do, and be allowed to do, and even required to do, manly, rough-and-tumble things in order to be equal with men is actually more of a slap in the face than anything. But women don’t even realize it.

    Women can be equal just in being women; trying to become men is the most chauvinist thing they can do.

  3. As a former member of the US Army (who just happens to be female), I applaud you for this article and agree with your assessment 100%. I really wish more women would start acting more like women and less like she-males. I honestly don’t know what they’re trying to prove, and it doesn’t help when governments push their pro-war agenda under the guise of ‘equal rights’…makes me physically ill.

  4. Pingback: One Year Later at PTPOL « Propagating the Philosophy of Liberty

Any thoughts?

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s