Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Sacrifices at the altar of Feminism

Australia lifts all restrictions on women in combat and the the immorality of sending women into the front lines while able-bodied cowards "men" sit safe at home watching the footie never occurs to even the opponents.

This is another flight from reality and those always end up, regrettably, with forgotten lessons relearned the hard way.

God help us.


eon said...

If the women can meet the physical requirements (with no "handicapping"), that's fine. I might add that I have personal experience, having served with female police officers, and because nobody in their right mind got in a fight with my six-foot, 160-pound mother who slung five-gallon cream cans, one in each hand, when she ran a dairy, and could outshoot most trained marksmen with pistol and rifle both.

But I also must point out that, barring the PRC getting delusional along the lines of the Imperial Japanese staff in 1931-41, Australia's most probable "local" adversaries are predominantly Islamic states, whose "holy warriors" will most likely not abide by the Hague or Geneva accords when it comes to male prisoners, let alone female ones.

Under such circumstances, the best advice I can offer to their military is- never mind not losing the war, don't even lose a single skirmish.

(Right. Good luck with that.)



David said...

eon: I agree about some women having the ability, but that isn't my dispute. History has more than its share of Boudiceas.

Never mind the practical drawbacks that still remain, of which there are many, it's the morality of it that I argue against. The immorality of making women legitimate targets of war can only be outweighed in times of total war when a nation faces a lack of able bodied men. And even then, women should be kept as far from hazard as possible. Australia certainly isn't engaged in total war and has more than enough men to fill the ranks many times over. The fact that the "men" in and out of uniform can sit idly by while their women fight while they sit safe at home is even more immoral and I would argue by an order of magnitude. It effectively legitimises cowardice, dishonour and the abandonment of chivalry.

eon said...


And I agree with you. On purely practical grounds, going back to E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman novels.

"Doc" held that the inflexible laws of evolution mandated that men do the dangerous work, simply because only women could bear children, thus guaranteeing the survival of the species. A nation can lose a large amount of its men in war, or other catastrophe, and still survive as long as there are enough women to bear the next generation; Japan, Germany, and Russia after WW II are cases in point.

But no nation or society can survive the loss of a substantial portion of its women of childbearing age. (Present-day China is at risk in exactly this way, not due to war but due to their "one-child" policy.)

This means that women must not be put in harm's way if at all possible. This will no doubt badly offend the feminists, but that's just the way it is.

This is especially true in the context of potential nuclear warfare. A man can recover from radiation injury with little or no somatic damage; a woman's reproductive system cannot.

Woman can serve in rear areas, support sections, etc. But unless one wishes to risk the future, even if they win, putting them in combat is a no-go.



Anonymous said...

It is not immoral to send women to front line duties.

It is just unwise.

Men are the expendable gender. Male life is cheap; men can be sent to be slaughtered ground to mincemeat at will and the nation will not be hurt to a bit. Nobody will miss those boys. But a nation which sends its women to war must be really desperate to do so - having the future childbearers killed is next to national suicide. Women should be send fighting only as the last, desperate measure.