Chilling View from the Joint Chiefs (Part II)
Despite the genuine good will of many of those who work to create equal opportunities for men and women, it cannot be ignored that there are more insidious ends in play by feminist ideologues. Historically, there has been a close working relationship between Marxist and feminists, and thus the dialectic used to understand economic history has also been applied to culture. Just as workers are encouraged to overtake capitalists, ushering in a just socialist state, so women are urged to rise up against the patriarchy and establish a society which finds peace through androgyny. With these ends in mind, it makes sense that unrestricted access to birth control and abortion are non-negotiable elements of liberal social policy.
Indeed, the “equitable” society in which we live would be impossible without women’s ability to control the “means of reproduction” (to use a crude, Marxian idiom). For decades now, the lives of most women—married or not—have been arranged around that premise, as the majority opinion in deciding the 1992 court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey indicated. Considering the importance of the precedent of the 1973 case legalizing abortion, the judges wrote: “An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe’s concept of liberty [sic] in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions.”
Decades of unrestricted access to birth control and abortion have allowed promiscuity to flourish without censure. Furthermore, with sky-rocketing divorce rates and widespread cohabitation, no stigma remains for single-parent households—for choice is not restricted to abortion, but applies also to household structure and family arrangements.
Keeping in mind this cultural anarchy—deliberately provoked by social Marxists—we now turn to the military. As increasing numbers of women joined the armed forces, there arose the reasonable assumption that their sexual availability (a given) would not affect troop strength or unit cohesion. That is, it was expected that women would be open to sex—but not pregnancy.
Since the dawn of time, soldiers have been notorious for relieving stress through sexual antics. This being the case, a particular sort of “camp follower” has been a perennial fact of military life. Away from their families, sailors in foreign ports and soldiers in distant lands have often fallen prey to lust, and nothing in modern society indicates a resurgence of virtue. In fact, we are more vicious than ever before.
The presence of sexually-available women in the ranks will certainly make this morally unfortunate situation into a very real, and potentially lethal, disaster. Casual encounters between soldiers and “camp followers” will give way to a non-stop flesh-and-blood soap opera—mostly in the enlisted ranks, but no doubt the officer corps will be tarnished, too. Even beyond widespread consensual “fraternization”—which has now been mainstreamed and accepted—there are hundreds of charges of rape and sexual violence each month—both hetero- and homosexual in nature. The integration of women into combat roles will only fuel the culture of sexualization, which will inevitability increase the number of rapes.
Despite access to birth control (and regular presentations to the troops on “safe sex”), a large number of female soldiers and sailors are pregnant at any given time—whether married or not. In this, of course, they reflect the wider population, and yet unlike most jobs, a deployment is most incongruent with the whole process. As one Rear Admiral wrote in a detailed report, any pregnancy leads to a 20-month loss of the service member, which wrecks havok with schedules and training.
Already, the presence of women and homosexuals in the military has led to sexual intrigue, jealousy, coupling, break-ups, and staggering rates of pregnancy. None of this helps readiness or morale. In fact, all branches of the military have been accused of masking the true situation in order to continue the politically-correct blending of women into the ranks.
Since it cannot be ignored that those pushing for women in combat roles are the same who decry “cowboy diplomacy,” “the evils of patriarchy,” and “military aggression” around the world, one is left to wonder at the end-game of deliberately creating a situation that distracts, disorients, and demoralizes the armed forces. Since we know that, paradoxically, the same feminists who insist that women are interchangeable with men also believe that wars are caused by too much testosterone, is it unreasonable to suggest the diminution of our military prowess would be a welcome outcome to some?
Ideology cannot be ignored—even if the rank and file are unaware of the way in which they are being used. The next installment will look at women who have actually attempted to integrate into the armed forces, and the unfortunate outcomes of their efforts.
