Gender equity is coming to the military. As a parting shot, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has opened all combat positions to women.
This implies that the primary mission of the United States military is no longer winning wars. That goal has been superseded by the goal of pretending that women are the same as men.
Heather MacDonald calls out Panetta in this post:
Any claim that our fighting forces are not reaching their maximum potential because females are not included is absurd. The number of women who are the equal to reasonably well-developed men in upper-body strength and who have the same stamina and endurance is vanishingly small. Because the number of women who will meet the military’s already debased physical-fitness standard will not satisfy the feminists’ demand for representation, the fitness standard will inevitably be lowered across the board or for women alone, as we have seen in civilian uniformed forces.
Feminists routinely deny Eros — except when it suits them to exploit their sexual power. Only someone deliberately blind to human reality could maintain that putting men and women in close quarters 24 hours a day will not produce a proliferation of sex, thus introducing all the irrational passions (and resulting favoritism) of physical attraction into an organization that should be exclusively devoted to the mission of combat preparedness. Reported “sexual assaults” will skyrocket, and of course it will only be the men who are at fault. Any consensual behavior leading up to the “assault” — getting in bed with your fellow grunt drunk and taking off your clothes, for example — will be ignored, since in the realm of sexual responsibility, women remain perpetual victims, at the mercy of all-powerful men. Expect a windfall to the gender-sensitivity-training industry, which will be called in both before and after the entry of women into combat units to eradicate endemic male sexism.
In other words, making the military gender neutral raises more problems than it solves. Thanks to a dumb policy the military wastes time dealing with the fallout.
Jed Babbin also offers a salient commentary:
The problem with this statement of the issue is that the military “glass ceiling” is streaked with blood. If women are to be warriors — and thus earn the right to command other warriors — they have to train like men, live like men, and be able to survive the intense dangers of the modern battlefield as many men do. If they don’t, they cannot gain the respect and admiration that commanders of warriors must have to be effective. Should they be permitted to do that?
There are two components to the question. First and foremost is whether the presence of women will add to or detract from the readiness and capability of the unit to perform its mission. The second is a moral question: Will having women serve in harm’s way benefit our military and society at large?
I grant MacDonald the last word. At the end of her post she raises the most important issue: why isn’t there gender equity in the National Football League? Why aren't feminists militating to allow women to play football? Isn't it demeaning to their dignity as feminists to be relegated to the role of cheerleaders?
In MacDonald's words:
I am not aware of any comparable crusade to create gender-integrated football teams. At least America knows what’s really important.