GI Jane Jive–Women in Combat

Women In Combat: Feminism Goes to War

by Mark C. Atkins

Shotwell Publishing, Columbia, South Carolina

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”

— Dresden James

It is hard to overstate the damage the concept of egalitarianism has done to Western civilization. If Mr. Jefferson could see what the social justice warriors of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have made of his phrase, “all men are created equal,” I am sure he would go on record clarifying what he privately conceded in his later correspondence with John Adams. That is, that those bardic words meant to be narrowly restricted to the matter at hand with King George were never intended to dispute the “natural aristocracy” that intrinsically exists among God’s creations.

The most compelling argument against the theory that equality of man can be achieved is that it is simply untrue. As I have often related, if “all men are created equal,” then I would possess the ability to throw a football like Peyton Manning, or run like Jesse Owens, or to lie as convincingly as Bill Clinton. I cannot and never have been able to do these things, and lack of trying is not necessarily to blame.  God simply did not give me such ability.

Of all the areas of our lives negatively effected by this absurd doctrine, perhaps few could be construed to be as dangerous as the move to institutionalize women in combat. Tennesseean Mark Atkins explores this in the recent release from Shotwell Publishing, Women In Combat: Feminism Goes to War.

Hollywood continuously produces films showcasing nature-defying feats of diminutive women who have the ability to grapple in one-on-one combat with men two or three times their size and emerge successful. But these fanciful characterizations are as real as Santa Claus. As Atkins explains at length, aside from unusual exceptions, the God of nature has not endowed women to be combat warriors. 

A sane society would be one in which its members paused occasionally and performed genuine reflection and assessment on how it got where it is. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why women today are so different from those of previous generations. We men cannot escape our own culpability and must confront the question of what we have done to them to contribute to our current situation. What kind of people have we become? 

Women are designed to complement a man, not compete with him. The second chapter of Genesis explains that the Almighty created woman to be a “helpmeet” to man, and that the blessed institution of marriage was ordained so that the two complementary partners would “leave” their parents and “cleave” to each other, the two becoming one flesh.

The complementary nature of the union served mankind very well for many millennia. Women are designed to produce and nurture life, not destroy it. It is apparent that many men and women today refuse the role God has assigned them, thereby eschewing His sovereignty and making gods out of other things, like notions of “equality” and “democracy,” neither of which have any place in the church or a people’s military.

Imagine if Nick Saban, arguably the most successful college football coach of modern times, held a press conference tomorrow declaring he had seen the light and was determined to make his football team “reflect the society it serves and represents” by instituting women players. Assuming he could field a team comprising a sizable female contingent, what would one expect to be the team’s success on the field? Of course, this will never happen, because Nick Saban and his colleagues are paid the ridiculous amounts of money they are because they win football games, not because they are good at engaging in social engineering. And, at least in football, those things are still not compatible. Like we have seen elsewhere, rules would have to be changed to “level the playing field” (read, lower standards and handicap talent) in order to even begin to make such an endeavor possible.

Yet, those who advocate institutionalizing women in combat in essence disregard what a combat unit is primarily tasked with (killing other people and winning battles through brute force and unspeakable violence) in favor of indulging the whimsical fantasies of those who choose dreams over reality.

Oh, but it’s not fair!, the bayonet bunnies protest. As if our blockheaded notions of fairness can begin to comprehend the complexities of the will and plan of God. I can almost hear Paul now asking the Romans, “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” See, God granted each of His children with certain special, specific gifts that He did not grant to others. He did this with individuals, but He also did so with the two sexes. How much better off would we be if we understood that, accepted it, and moved forward accordingly?

Atkins posits that the least important argument against women in combat is given the most attention in the media by proponents and opponents alike. That is man’s extreme advantage over woman in endurance and physical strength. While certainly true overall, he asserts that the most important reason against women in combat is that it is morally wrong. It devalues woman and man. Putting a woman in the hellish role of combat warrior is an ultimate form of degradation. It is an affront to the historical gallantry in Christendom of the lady and the gentlemen. We degrade not only women by inserting them in this role, but also men, who are forced to attempt to view the fairer sex indifferently — indeed, as just “one of the guys.” This goes not only against most men’s inclinations, but against their very ability. Contrary to transgender phenoms, men and women are innately different in a myriad of ways.

Atkins calls the institutionalization of women in combat “the most horribly misguided idea in the history of the world.” It coincides with the steady decline of the U.S. military throughout the past several decades that has resulted in unprecedented rates of suicides, PTSD, and security breaches. The presence of women changes male behavior. It impairs the cohesiveness and bonding of a fighting unit and the necessary lowered physical standards erodes the quality of service. 

Atkins draws on history and the testimony of renowned military veterans who expound on the long list of reasons why institutionalizing women in combat is a horrible idea. Included is an appendix of the stellar testimony of General Robert Barrow before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1991 on the subject. Atkins also uses Biblical principles, of which I wish he had done more. But I believe he was trying to reach a wider audience by appealing not only to God but “nature” (“or accident, if you prefer,” he writes throughout the book).

There seemed to be some deep psychological issues at hand when this issue first emerged around thirty years ago. Our failure as a society to properly deal with them has led to the declining degeneration that now gives us such repulsiveness as “transgenderism” and cross-gender “competition” in sports. 

Merciful heavens. What shall the next thirty years bring us?

Shotwell Publishing is the brainchild of Clyde Wilson, and its activities are directed by Professor Wilson and his colleague Paul Graham.   This book is available directly from Amazon

Josh Doggrell

Josh Doggrell

1 Response

  1. Frank Brownlow says:

    It was perhaps the greatest achievement of the Irish St.Adamnan, one of the abbots of Iona, that he persuaded the Irish kings to adopt what is now known as Adamnan’s law, forbidding women to fight in wars.