A few weeks ago I wrote a column on intelligent idiots. One of the
chief idiocies listed in the column was that of putting women into
combat. To make my point, I ridiculed the idea of the female warrior as
depicted on television. Not too surprisingly, some of my readers took
offense. They wanted me to apologize for such an insulting and
insensitive commentary. And they are right. I regret my insult to the
idiots of the world. Even idiots know better than to put women into
combat. I was wrong to blame idiocy. The blame in this case belongs to
a category of evil. It belongs to the egalitarian left.

The idea of women in combat weakens the military efficiency of our
republic. It also epitomizes our modern nihilism. It signifies a
rebellion against nature, against traditional usage and common sense.
To put women in combat is uncivilized. At the same time it is worse than
savage (for even savages know better). And those who disagree with this
common-sense assessment are but pebbles rolled and rounded by the
politically correct
stream that flows about them.

If the father of our country, George Washington, were brought back
from the dead, he would denounce the idea of women in combat. He would
cry shame at our indecency — which consists in putting mothers,
daughters and sisters into warships and regiments, into bombers and
missile silos.

But even stern words from the father of our country would not affect
us. Despite the verdict of ages, despite the ongoing demoralization of
our armed forces, there are people in this country who think that women
should be admitted into combat units, trained for war, and sent into
battle. As it now stands, anyone who objects to this madness is labeled
a reactionary. Political correctness has become our new God. And
political correctness teaches that the sexes must be equal in every
sense. Therefore, to mock the female warrior — as I have done — is no
ordinary error.

It qualifies me as a pig.

But before I emit a squeal or an oink, I’d like to thrust my snout
into the leftist muck by asking a question. Why should feminists want
to place women into the previously all-male fraternity of mass

The answer lies in the basic facts of our political existence. The
modern state has emerged from the dark and bloody womb of war. Our
nation, like most nations, was founded by a military hero and refounded
after a civil war. In other words, history shows us that the military
thing is father to the political thing. In this context, a female
incapacity for war stands to weaken claims of absolute political
equality between the sexes. After all, how can women claim an equal
share in state power if they cannot shoulder the state’s military

The feminists therefore anticipate the following argument: that men
have fought and bled for a thing that only a warlike spirit could have
created. This same warlike spirit must stand at the ready if the state
is to survive. And if that warlike spirit is compromised or diluted, the
state and the nation could not long survive. Therefore, the radical
feminist must push for women in the military. Even more, she must push
for women in combat.

To achieve an undisputed political equality, women must be given an
equal shot at heroism on the battlefield. They must be permitted to fly
combat aircraft, to command warships and perform other military duties.
If it was openly acknowledged that women are unequal to these tasks, the
admission could unravel the left’s program of social rearrangement and
gender-confusion. In that event the modern egalitarian movement would
be compelled to admit the wisdom of human tradition, which calls for a
sexual division of labor

It must be understood that the revolution of the left is not merely
against the rich. It is against nature and nature’s God. It is a
nihilistic doctrine, which denies the given order of things. It
conceives of man and woman as entirely plastic and infinitely alterable.
In taking this position, the left denies the very essence of woman even
as it denies the nature of man. The left’s quest for “liberation” is
therefore misguided and destined to meet a tragic end.

Those who are familiar with military reality as opposed to feminist
fantasy know this to be true. Soldiers are beasts of burden who must be
able to carry heavy loads over great distances. They must possess
sufficient strength to navigate obstacles, to crawl through barbed wire,
to climb steep inclines. They must be able to dig trenches and foxholes
on short notice, to carry wounded comrades to safety, to throw grenades
from a prone position, to withstand fear and pain and the loss of

It is time that we men stopped being nice about this. We need to
tell the ladies to get out of our business — the business of war. The
female body is not equal to the male body in performing the tasks
demanded by combat. To say otherwise is to admit one’s ignorance of
military life.

When I was in boot camp more than twenty years ago, my platoon
sergeant told of his experiences training women Marines. The idea, at
that time, was to subject the best and most motivated women to the same
training as men. “They were great women,” he said, “but after a few days
they were all in tears.”

Women cannot endure the same training that men endure.

The United States Army was created for one purpose — the defense of
our country. It was not created as a laboratory for social
experimentation. It is not an arena for correcting nature’s inequities
We already know from common observation that women lack upper body
strength. Furthermore, the very advantages that women possess over men
— emotional intelligence and sensitivity — work against them on the
battlefield. At the same time, the very emotional cluelessness and
blockheaded insensitivity of men serves them well in the most brutal of
all human activities.

Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me
that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a
grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its
blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a
much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men
carry. Worse yet, it is unacceptable for military personnel to complain
about the danger that women pose to the combat readiness of their
units. According to the sergeant, the imperatives of basic military
toughness and discipline have been sacrificed in the U.S. Army so that
women can get through the training. This cannot fail to have a negative
effect on the male troops. Sexual harassment is another difficulty that
arises. Disruptions of all kinds mount on every side. In addition, women
cost more than men do. Health costs for women are greater and injuries
are more frequent. In truth, the military budget is taking a colossal

I know that some readers will be offended by these comments, but they
should stop and think. Imagine an essay opposing the insertion of wombs
into men. Imagine an essay opposed to men who nurse babies from their
own breasts. In other words, imagine that I have opposed offering
motherhood to men.

Then ask yourself: If motherhood is not a man’s right, why should
manhood be a woman’s right?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.