The United States Air Force has removed posters that long have been displayed at Langley Air Force Base following sexism complaints – which is a viciously circular argument, since the complaint is sexist in and of itself.

The initial complaint was filed by Mikey Weinstein, of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, about two of the posters that referenced faith:

“Men cannot live without faith except for brief moments of anarchy or despair,” one poster read. “Faith leads to conviction – and convictions lead to actions. It is only a man of deep convictions, a man of deep faith, who will make the sacrifices needed to save his manhood. … It is obvious that our enemy will attack us at our weakest spot. The hole in our armor is our lack of faith. We need to revive a fighting faith by which we can live, and for which we would be willing even to die.”

The Air Force dismissed this fallacious complaint because the Air Combat Command said that the display did not “endorse, disapprove of, or extend preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief.” The USAF rightly dismissed Weinstein, since his complaints are propelled by his enmity toward God and his love for cash. This was a victory for religious liberty – but unfortunately, the story did not end here.

It was not long after the initial complaint was dismissed that the National Organization for Women (NOW), demanded the posters’ removal, not because they displayed inflammatory rhetoric toward women but because the organization did not like language that referenced men.

The president of NOW, Terry O’Neil, wrote to the Air Combat Command and called for the posters’ removal, by asserting several contradicting and perplexing questions:

“What do you say to the women in your command who make the same sacrifices to protect their country as do men? General, there is simply no compromise when it comes to fighting the bigotry of sexism nor the prejudice of religious triumphalism. Women are just as patriotic, just as dedicated and just as worthy of our nation’s trust as their male counterparts.”

O’Neil’s discursive request is a fallacy since she is not able to prove that women are being treated less equal, or are considered not worthy, patriotic, or dedicated enough – since this was never the issue. O’Neil’s request only proves that she is a feminist who does not like gendered language that refers to men.

O’Neil’s response also implies that the Air Force should remove all gendered language that refers to “men” and “gentlemen” because she does not like it, which is a sexist complaint that violates her own standards of bigotry, sexism and prejudice. O’Neil seems to forget that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence also cite gendered language that refers to men. Does she want this removed, too? Hopefully, the federal courts will not surrender to NOW’s demands, as others have.

Instead of ignoring O’Neil’s bigotry and feminist complaint, the Air Combat Command spokeswoman, Maj. Malinda Singleton, responded in an email:

“With additional time to review all seven posters outside the narrower, primarily religious context of the original complaint about two of them, we concluded the gendered language used in the display interfered with intended messages about personal integrity.

“We’ve chosen to update the display with something that reflects the diverse and inclusive force we are today. …”

An observer may wonder what message is the USAF sending when it rightfully dismisses Weinstein’s complaint, but when a feminist, homosexual-supporting organization complains, it yields and obeys the request. An observer may deduce that this message implies that all a God-hating, feminist organization has to do is make absurd and cavalier complaints and eventually the world’s greatest air force will surrender.

According to

The desire to scrub “man” from history because it is “sexist” or “gendered” language is, as demonstrated above, both ridiculous and an exercise in futility. Neil Armstrong didn’t think a woman’s place was in the kitchen just because he used the word “man.” Nor did any of the other people or publications cited above intend to or in fact slight women by using the word “man.”

Just because an irrational person had an unreasonable reaction to something does not mean the government or the Air Force did something wrong.

It is a demonstration of post-modern hypersensitivity to become agitated and offended about the use of “man” – particularly when the context of the word was a time well before the recent practice of listing out all the divisions and different categories of a subject or audience.

The next time a God-hating or feminist organization makes a demand, observers may wonder if the Air Force will focus on its true mission, which is to fly, fight and win, and not worry about the ever-present whining. Only time will tell. Lord knows.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military, or religious organization. Sonny Hernandez wrote this article as a civilian on his own time on an issue of public interest.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.