Replies

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.

All I can tell from your post is that you think by adequately labeling something, you have solved it. I don't see anything that is interesting about that kind of discussion. I don't care what you label and categorize things *as*.

I am trying to get you to be real. The women are there now, whether they should have been there is only *so interesting* because it is done, over, decided. It is going to take a compelling reason to get them out, and I am not seeing that compelling reason developing. Women are performing well in a lot of roles.... Not many are front line troops, only one in a thousand would be near strong enough. Jessica, in fact, was not tasked to be in the battle she was. But they are serving well according to their talents as troop support, pilots, drivers, sailors, and many other roles that take skills women are no less likely than a man to have. But in war anyone nearby can become part of the battle, so we need to be prepared for that. She appears to have done OK for her part given the cards that were played to her. She is not proving to be that compelling reason you are looking for.

As for the 'protection and need for protection' argument, I think members of units have a needed and necessary drive to protect each other. These women are not dressed in pink pinafores, they are soldiers with guns and training. They are pilots with skills, or they are sailors communicating with aircraft or calculating courses. They possess the drive to protect their comrades and their country as well. That is not a solely male trait.