Women stepping into combat roles. Who knew the right wing would freak out this way? This is, well, women already do that. Been doing ‘war’ for a while thanks. But until now I don’t suppose conservatives had the chance to complain about it properly. They could really use some time to work the whole thing through in their heads:

Regarding sex, what’s going to happen if a leader appears to show preferential treatment to his lover? What if he has to pick a few soldiers for a dangerous mission – will his lover be included? What happens to morale and cohesion if some soldiers are receiving love and sex on a regular basis and some are left out? What if some soldiers are extremely jealous or show stalking tendencies? What happens if soldiers are willing to literally fight for their love interest?

That last bit works for me. But, generally, if you’re furloughing soldiers two-at-a-time for honeymoons you’re not doing combat readiness any favors.

James Taranto at Wall Street Journal gets a note from a Marine Corps veteran about this. It’s such a leveler he reprints it for his column.

As a Marine Corps veteran of three combat tours, the first as a rifle platoon commander during the Vietnam War, my concern is what this policy will contribute to further breaking down the already-troubled relationships of men and women in our society.

That’s a new one. After seeing front line action, women aren’t going to like men any more. Have I got that right?

My concerns:

What kind of a man is it who can send women off to kill and maim? What kind of society does that?

What kind of society does that to anybody? A sick one. But as long as women don’t have to do it, they won’t complain. And that way we just keep on keepin’ on, which is nice.

What kind of society bemoaning that men don’t seem to respect women can’t see that part of the respect they demand is predicated on the specialness of the other?

Better to have the specials sitting at home fretting if their boyfriends and fathers are still alive and breathing. Wondering if they have the use of their arms and legs. That’s better for everybody.

Perhaps it is possible in a firefight to distinguish between how one treats women and men, but I doubt that I could do it. And if I am trained to treat men and women the same throughout my career, can this have no significant effect on how I treat women otherwise?

Like when some random guy at the hardware store tells this guy to shoot someone, he does it. Men are officers, remember? Countries have for the most part sorted this problem out I think, with the uniforms and such. Taranto then throws in his civilian pennies:

One way of defining feminism is as the pursuit of the mutually irreconcilable goals of sexual equality and sensitive treatment of women.

Let’s take it for granted James means “gender equality.” Sexual equality is too mind boggling an idea to consider. Can you imagine the numbers of male prostitutes society would have to provide? Not sure how that “Plushy” thing would work, either.

You’d think that contradiction would be a weakness, but it’s actually a strength: Every advance for equality creates a demand for more measures to promote sensitivity, and vice versa.

And to wit: Every demand for more measures to promote sensitivity would create an advance for equality. Have I got that right? Or is that meaningless?

Feminism’s failures perpetuate feminism, at the expense of other goals such as defending the country.

As I mentioned before, the Israeli Defense Forces had women in combat roles from the beginning. They haven’t lost any wars yet.

I think the nuts are getting panicky because the portrait of the American Warrior comes tightly bound with the notion of Ultimate Authority. That’s no place for women, or so they thought. It’s already bad enough that so few of them obey The Bible.