Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Women in Combat?

Check out this interesting article on the idea of whether women should be allowed to serve on the front lines in battle and also in specialized forces such as the Rangers and SEALS.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-women-be-allowed-in-the-special-forces-this-female-soldiers-response-may-surprise-you/

I think its interesting that the article points out the fact that it wasn't until the 1970s that the Women's Army Corp was disestablished to "eliminate distinction between men and women in the US Army." That says a lot.

This question of women on the front lines in battle has been a controversial topic over the past 40 years. Some people argue that a soldier is a soldier, no matter male nor female. Others say that women become a liability by their natural composition and it just gives men in battle yet another problem to worry about.

The truth is that there IS a distinction between men and women. Society would have us think that there are profound differences, only some anatomical differentiations. This is untrue. The make-up of mind, body and soul are dramatically different in men and women. Does it mean that women should not serve in the military? Absolutely not. But we should serve where we are best suited.

I just finished reading two of former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell's books and they both blew me away, I thought they were incredible (Mr Luttrell, you are in my prayers! I hope our paths cross one day!). As I was reading about the BUD/s training and the missions and what the SEALS face on the battlefield, I was thinking how glad I was that men were serving in these areas, for they are indeed well-suited for this type of battle. They are biologically, emotionally and spiritually suited for this type of battle.

Does this mean that women aren't suited for battle or are somehow lacking because men are more well-suited for this type of combat? No. Men and women have different gifts. Why should I as a woman have to take on masculine characteristics to serve in a certain area? Wouldn't I be better off serving in an area where I can use my feminine characteristics to their utmost capacity? Wouldn't I be better off using my capabilities to heal, attend to the individual person and bear and bring life? I think these would be be much better uses for my feminine body, spirit and soul.

Women are incredibly strong, fierce and courageous. Our gifts flow most efficaciously when we use them as designed.

3 comments:

mark said...

i think the elites can not for either sex, they see all humanity except themselves as expendable, hence why they are promoting female combatants. It is also, from a spiritual point of view, a great satanic plan to destroy the beauty and distinction that God has made between men and women. I expect more perversions as our country drifts farther and farther away from God and His laws.

Jimmy the Pacifist said...

Great observation, Mark! the elites see all humanity except themselves as expendable

It is not just female combatants who are seen as expendable and asked to die for the elites. Nor is it a perversion to include women in combat roles where suitable. (If we are not fighting for the damsel in distress then what are we fighting for?)

The 'great satanic plan' is to twist God's will to justify spilling the blood of the brave and innocent who trust the Elite to choose wisely. The Elite of course, mourn the loss of our youth all the way to the bank.

Jimmy the Stick said...

2nd Comment if I may

I also believe that Men and Women should serve equally. Both should be assigned according to their individual capabilities regardless of gender or other irrelevant considerations.

That doesnt mean that they have the same capabilities regardless of gender! In theory I think women should have the opportunity to serve in the SEALS or Rangers if they have the right stuff. And be equally excluded from this service if they dont. If a fair and objective assessment results in different levels of acceptance for different groups of soldiers - such as women - then so be it.