Gandhi once said: “To call woman the weaker sex is a libel; it is man’s injustice to woman. If by strength is meant brute strength, then, indeed, is woman less brute than man. If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man’s superior.”
Every man–if he is worth anything–will desire for others what he desires for himself. In the case of the dividing line between genders, every man should desire for women what they themselves are allowed to have. This has not always been the case, hence women’s suffrage. And in many parts of the world, due to cultural and religious posturing, women are not the social equals of men. In this striving for equality, however, remains limitations that are not man-made, but imposed by nature.
Yesterday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, after consulting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, decided to lift the ban on women in military combat. This ban has been in effect for many years, and has a purpose. However, though its purpose is clear, it is not necessarily effective. Here are the pros and cons:
- Lifting the ban will encourage more people to join the military, period.
- There are female attributes that could prove useful in combat scenarios.
- By nature, the majority of women are simply not strong enough to meet the requirements set by the military.
- Equality for equality’s sake accomplishes nothing. If inclusion fails to provide a benefit, it is simply affirmative action; which to me would be misogynistic.
So, there are pros and cons. What side should we fall on? The Liberal agenda has it that we should fall on the side of inclusion. Ask them why, and they will reply with: “For equality, obviously.” The Liberal mind, when faced with a challenge, doesn’t see pros and cons; it only sees the end-game. To weigh the potential hazards and benefits of anything requires a depth of understanding that is sorely lacking on the Left.
Here’s my opinion–admittedly parroting Charles Krauthammer, because I wholly agree with him–Just as women in the police force and the fire department should be subject to the same tests of strength as their male counterparts, so should women entering the military. It is that simple. There are benefits of physically competent women in combat, but they must match their male counterparts, or risk serious complications.
If women are allowed into combat simply on an affirmative action basis, the risks and dangers posed could be enormous. For the Left, the argument will simply be about basic, by the numbers equality. True equality is not considered, because it requires discernment and depth of thought. Personally, if a woman is as physically capable as a man in every required way, I believe she should be allowed to be on the front lines. If she is not, the dangers are too great; and the risk too high.
All it takes is a little thought.