On Tuesday June 14, the U.S. Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Aptly dubbed the “Draft our Daughters” bill, this version of the NDAA reauthorized the previous version of the bill and added this provision.
How uncivilized. The idea that we could be sending our young women to fight evil armies overseas is absolutely preposterous and dangerous.
And on what grounds? Why are we even having this conversation? How low has American society sunk that we now think it a good idea to send women into combat zones?
There are several major issues with this. Due to time and space, I can only address what I believe to be the main issue: an attack on the binding tie of society.
Recently, the Obama administration decided to open up all combat positions to women. The Editors of National Review wrote a scathing indictment of this move in February:
Men should protect women. They should not shelter behind mothers and daughters. Indeed, we see this reality every time there is a mass shooting. Boyfriends throw themselves over girlfriends, and even strangers and acquaintances often give themselves up to save the woman closest to them.
Ground combat is barbaric. Even today, men grapple with men, killing each other with anything they can find. Returning veterans describe countless incidents of hand-to-hand combat with jihadists. In his book about the Battle of Ganjgal, Into the Fire, Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer describes just such an encounter with a Taliban fighter. The Taliban tried to capture Meyer, and they ended up wrestling in the dirt. Meyer describes what happened next:
I pawed at the ground with my right hand and found a rock the size of a baseball. I clutched it and swung blindly at his face. The blow stunned him. Before he could recover, I pushed off his chest, lifted the rock high in my right fist, and smashed it down like a hammer, breaking his front teeth. He looked me in the eyes, the fight knocked out of him, his head not moving. We both knew it was over. I drew back my arm and drove the stone down, crushing his left cheekbone. He went limp. I pushed up on my knees and hit him with more force. This blow caved in the left side of his forehead. I smashed his face again and again, driven by pure primal rage.
This is war, ladies and gentlemen. This is where men are maimed, tortured, and brutally killed without regard for the sanctity of human life. This is where rage and brute strength rule. This is where the only rule is that there are no rules.
Women naturally are not designed for such situations (and yes, I said designed; feminazis, please rage as much as you want). Women are the fairer of the sexes and are the nurturers. Without women in society, there would be no civilization.
In Alexis de Tocqueville’s book Democracy in America, he wrote that it is women who make the mores (or customs) of a society. It is women who provide either moral restraint, or moral license. It is women who cause men to behave better than they normally do around other men. It is women who bind civilization together.
Why are we sending the binding ties of our society to be maimed, killed, raped, and tortured in combat zones? Why is this seen as a moral victory? It’s baffling.
THIS is the war on women; the idea that sending our women to war is a good idea. The idea that sending women with less physical strength than the evil men they will be fighting against is a despicable and barbaric one.
But why is this happening? This recent trend in Western politics is unprecedented in history. What is the root of this trend?
I once again refer to Tocqueville, and what he described as the “Democratic Passion for Equality.” In democratic societies, Tocqueville observed that populations gradually desire equality more than freedom. Anything that appears unequal becomes a kind of boogeyman, and populations cry out for the government to create more equal conditions, regardless of the consequences to freedom.
This chapter of the advance of the passion for equality is especially egregious though. This is not merely an attack on freedoms or on our bank accounts, but an attack on women as an entire sex. The result will be more equal conditions, but with equality comes a lower position for both.
I will conclude with a powerful description of the result of such a policy, as written by Tocqueville himself:
There may be people in Europe who, confusing the diverse attributes of the sexes, intend to make man and woman into beings not only equal, but alike. They give both the same functions, impose the same duties on them, and accord them the same rights; they mix them in all things—labors, pleasures, affairs. One can easily conceive that in thus striving to equalize one sex with the other, one degrades them both; and that from this coarse mixture of nature’s works, only weak men and disreputable women can ever emerge.