Being Principled is Not Insane

In my post on the death of Megan McClung I asked how a just society could send women and girls to foreign lands to fight and die.

One anonymous commenter stated my argument denying her the right to serve her nation as she wished was insane.

Well, I suppose I could attempt, as others have done, to rationalize the issue. For example -

Gary North argues: "The camaraderie and esprit de corps in a military unit or a police unit is heavily dependent on shared risk. When women are exposed to the same degree of risk of life and death, this disrupts the military-protective function, which is unquestionably masculine."

I could cite incidents of sexual assault - but the rationalist would simply say that the culture of the military ought to change to be kinder and gentler (less rough men standing on a wall and more politically correct bureaucrats).

I could discuss the 1992 Presidential Commission on The Assignment of Women in The Military's findings (the last major governmental study on the subject), but that would really miss the point.

The point is not whether some women can perform in the military and even in combat roles nor whether the military can be changed as an organization to accommodate women. The argument against women in combat specifically and in most military roles generally is one of principle and relates directly to philosophy.

Women do not belong in positions that place them in harms way simply because it is the function of a just society to prevent that. Women are charged in a good society with bringing beauty and elegance to an otherwise nasty world. They teach our children to appreciate elements of life that men - if men actually performed manly functions - are really incapable of passing along.

If you do not understand the paragraph above and instead paint me as -"insane", "chauvinistic", "archaic", or any other term you like - you simply do not understand the philosophical place my views derive from.

If you want to really know, and I suppose you have assumed it already - I do indeed believe the most important work a woman can do is in the home, raising good children. That is the nature of a well ordered society, a society that conforms to the natural order and natural law. My libertarian friends may scramble to remove our blog from their blogrolls - I know these views conflict with their philosophy that derives from the enlightenment and reason - whereas mine originate from lessons via a long history of good and bad societies.

Women are not inferior to men - in many pursuits they are superior. We are partners in a joint endeavor - we should celebrate our differences and stick with what we all are born of nature to do best.

I could and have argued against placing women in most military roles based upon reason and I believe a pretty good argument can be made using reason, facts and data. I no longer make such arguments.

The fact is, if a society wishes to abandon its greatest asset - ladies of strength and character - and replace them with generic persons and then send them into the world - abandoning our greatest treasure, children - that is a society in decline. It is unjust and unpardonable.

Darrell Dow puts it in perspective:

Christians who aren’t embarrassed by their Bibles should forcefully put forth the truth that there is a comprehensive pattern of differentiation between men and women outlined in Scripture. It is men who protect and lay down their lives for women, even as Christ died for the Church, and it is women who bear a responsibility as nurturers. In Joshua 1:14, we read that the “wives, young children, and livestock” of Israel remained on the other side of the Jordan River while the “fighting men” crossed the river to wage war against the Canaanites.