The Military Betrays WomenThis is the reduction-ad-absurdum of equalitarian philosophy. Ideological consistency demands that feminist purists seek to put women in combat positions and become eligible for the draft, thus setting men and women on equal planes as full-fledged citizens of the republic. While I applaud the intellectual honesty and integrity required to put their and their sisters' derrieres where their mouths are, were they to not do so, their putatively equalitarian movement would be exposed for the fem-supremacist ideology that it is. However, in doing so, the radical feminists threaten to undo the pretty sweet deal women have going at present...whether or not they acknowledge the feminist label ...and threaten to finally make women "pay up" (woman up?) for their myriad choices (de jure or de facto unavailable to men) and political agency with political responsibility.
Even if there were a "war on women," the answer would not be to send unwilling women to war.
By Elaine Donnelly
According to the New York Times, Hagel got an earful. Staff sergeants worried that if women were assigned to combat, the high standards of the Marine Corps would have to be lowered, "family lives would suffer," and rates of sexual assault and harassment would increase. When Secretary Hagel asked whether it was right to deny the opportunity to a woman who wants to join, a fearless captain replied, "I haven't met a female Marine who is standing up and shouting, 'I want to be infantry.'"
This must have been a shock, since the 15 Marines speaking to Hagel were not men; they were women. Similar opposition was registered when Military Times recently conducted an online survey asking active-duty female readers whether they would take a land-combat position if it were offered. Only 13 percent of the military women said yes, 9 percent weren't sure, and a whopping 77 percent said no, they would not take a combat job.
Secretary Hagel and the Obama administration nevertheless are pushing forward with incremental plans to revoke all of women's combat exemptions by January 2016. Once women are eligible for direct ground combat, federal courts are likely to force women into Selective Service registration and a possible future draft.
No wonder that women's self-identification as feminists is so low and continues to decline, and that several data points (here are three) suggest that most women reject the now radioactive feminist label.
It is fascinating to witness the outright lifeboat feminism--in a so-called "conservative" publication such as National Review, no less--at work in this very article. Clearly the authoress has an established history of deploring the specter of women in combat, yet I seriously doubt she would be so vocal in her challenge to other social changes for which political feminism can reasonably take credit. Like, say, unilateral divorce. Or default mother custody. Or chalimony. Or serial polyandry. Or female suffrage. Or (mostly) shame-free freemounting. Or unrestrained female sexuality. Or abortion. Or wives owning property independent of their husbands. I simply can't see women of Ms. Donnelly's stripe manning the barricades to reverse these Gramscian attacks on patriarchal social structure and wholesale conversion of the whole of society into something that more resembles the social pattern of a grass-hut matriarchy than a modern industrial society. No, their answer appears to be to preserve the benefits that benevolent sexism proffers to women, to include sending unwilling men to war (is that evidence of an ongoing war on men?) so that unwilling women may remain home, safe from harm, free to vote themselves benefits underwritten by the lives and labor of men.
What will be interesting to see is what camp will end up at the helm of Western organized feminism. Will it be the hothouse intellectual feminists, with their evil-yet-admirably-consistent ideology? Or the far larger group of cognitively dissonant accidental feminists, comfy in the preferential goodies their less agreeable sisters have won for them?