by Roxeanne De Luca | January 23rd, 2013
Yes, women in combat. Women, who can’t figure out how to go to the Target pharmacy and $9/month birth control, will be gunning down terrorists. Women, who think that telling them to buy their own birth control, cupcake, is a “war on women,” will be seeing actual combat. Women who complain about a “rape culture” want girls out into the front lines as rape-bait if captured by the enemy (and those front lines will be six thousand miles away from the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic). The same people who think that it’s a right wing nutjob idea for women teachers to be ready to use force to defend their pupils against school shooters also believe that there those same women can use deadly force to defend their country against the Taliban.
I would be cracking up if the consequences to this absurdity were not so deadly.
Seriously, chickies, you can’t have it both ways. You’re either wilting wallflowers who can’t be expected to figure out how to bargain-shop for condoms, or you’re a big strong woman who can gun down the Muslim Brotherhood like a boss.
It would also be nice if we could do a quick primer on why women have historically not been allowed in combat; if you answer “the evil patriarchy,” then you have issues. Our generation, and even Da TechGuy’s generation, has not seen a war that wiped out most of the young male population. But those exist and tend to crop up with frightening regularity - WWII, WWI, the Civil War, the American Revolution. Hundreds of thousands of young men dead in all of them, but the country kept going strong.
You can kill half of your young men and repopulate your country in relatively short order. You can go all Old Testament and men can take multiple wives; old men can marry young women who are desperate for a husband; men whose wives pass away at a young age can remarry. But when you kill your young women – and make no mistake, it will be young women in combat – your country has no future. Liberals salivate over The Handmaid’s Tale, the premise of which is that most women have become infertile. What insanity has to possess you to create that situation by leading young women to their slaughter in combat?
Bad enough, too, that many children lose their dads in wars (and some lose their mothers); do we really need an entire generation of war orphans, with both Mom and Dad dead on the front lines? Bad enough that many women at home and abroad are raped; do we really want to subject young women to that particular form of intel-gathering torture? (On the plus side, waterboarding is about to be vindicated.) We saw what happened to Lara Logan; what sort of psycho do you have to be to deliberately put young woman in the way of that harm?
Let me know, America, how you will look young women in the face when they arrive back in America, finally released from capture, violated in every way a woman can be violated, and bearing the children of our enemies. Let me know how that’s gonna work out for you.
And be well-aware, this is aimed directly at attacking the constitutionality of the Selective Service Act, so we will either draft women to the front lines, or we’re going to end the draft entirely and become some neutered, declawed nation incapable of defending itself. I shall leave you, gentle readers, to guess which will happen.