Fox News reports that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta just allowed women in combat roles. Prior to this women could not serve in the military occupational skills such as infantry, special operations units, be fighter pilots, etc. We as a nation did not want our women on the front lines. While I’m sure there is celebration among the feminist movement over this development I don’t believe this is something we should celebrate.
This isn’t to say that women are not capable of combat roles. Women have performed admirably under fire when the situation has called for it… being in non-combat roles does not keep female soldiers and Marines out of harms way. This is certainly a first move in President Obama’s agenda seen in his inaugural address.
So the question that needs to be answered is not whether women can be in combat roles, but should they? Call me old fashion, but I balk at where our culture is going. Equality does not equal sameness, but that is what feminist groups and our current President seek to achieve.
I don’t say this to diminish women in any way. I support women in a plethora of roles, but the one of protector I balk at.
I’m sorry I don’t want to send my wife or daughters to the front line to protect my freedom. That goes against every instinct that I have. I’m to protect them. I will lay down my life, if necessary, to protect them. We’ve raised our son to be a protector as well, to watch out for his sisters.
With a stroke of the pen we see the advancement of modern day knights quelled. I can’t even fathom what the consequences will be for our children.
So again this isn’t a question of whether a women can perform these roles, but whether they should.
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- Ernst Will Work to Add Hyde Amendment Language to Alexander-Murray Bill (Update) - October 19, 2017
- Three Follow-Up Comments About the Ames High School Band Protest - October 19, 2017
- The First Amendment Protects Student Protest We Disagree With - October 16, 2017