Replies

Your post only tells me what is in your imagination.

It is not proving to be the case that allowing women to serve their country is destroying the effectiveness of the military. I assert that they are in fact serving with honor and have been for years, and you tell me that you just don't think they *should* be and repeat your unfounded fears about the effect. The decision has been made. Women do serve. And I haven't seen evidence from you that men are hurting because of it.

I would argue that the women growing up to be voters today are not going to be satisfied with the roles your conservatism would offer them. Some of them may look to be Martha Stewart, but some would look to be Jessica Lynch. Some would like to be Condi Rice. Your brand of conservatism will cost you votes and relegate you to the fringes.

Conservatism of smaller government and more freedom to the individual is absolutely not in conflict with women sharing in that freedom. I believe in that kind of conservatism that allows me the freedom to do what I will. A woman's role in the home is a personal decision based on the needs of a family... not a political platform either party is gonna win votes by dictating.

Spoken like a true equality feminist.

May brand of conservatism is that of Christian conservatism. So what brand of conservatism do you subscribe too, feminist conservatism? Is that not an oxymoron?

We are of course, discussing women on the battlefield, not women in the military, but you knew that. Nor am I referring to women in combat. Which, as an equality feminist, I’m sure you would like to see, irrespective of the consequences, unless they can be proven.

I’m sure the feminists have a study already to go to support the hypothesis of putting women in combat. Since feminism is devoid of truth, it relies on studies. Thank God for the little bit of conservative common sense that keeps women from combat and that the lives of American men are not needlessly being put in any additional peril for feminism.

Feminism is very much like liberalism; it ignores traditional wisdom for the politically correct, and does not consider the consequences of its actions until they are upon us.

Do you not agree that it is a man's nature to protect women and that it is a women's nature to be protected? That this combination on the battlefield could be counter-productive and could cost lives needlessly? You say not yet. But why risk America lives, for feminism? Because, that is the way it is, seems to be your response.

American women can thank the American men who are fighting and dying - men who have honored their responsibility as men - that American women have the freedoms to do whatever they want.