Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘national defense’

women fighter pilotsTwenty years ago on April 28, then Defense Secretary Les Aspin first authorized female pilots.  Women aviators have claimed a series of “firsts.”

Now, female pilots like retired Air Force Col. Martha McSally are offering advice to women’s advocates and the Pentagon on how best to integrate women into the all-male world of ground combat.

Col. McSally has a distinguished career.  Of course she was challenged.  Women don’t easily enter the “man’s world.”  But, said Col. McSally, “I have three older brothers.  I’m Irish.  I’m fiesty.  This wasn’t my first rodeo with these kinds of dynamics.”  Hurdles included the ready room where men were not used to women and proving that she could meet the same standards as men.  She sued the Defense Department to contest a policy that required women personnel to wear the Muslim head scarf while off-base in Saudi Arabia.  Col. McSally was awarded the Air Force’s Distinguished Flying Cross for her heroics in Iraq and Afghanistan.  (The Washington Times National Weekly, 4-1-2013)

I have never doubted that women are equal to men, but we are different.  I admire so many qualities about men but that doesn’t mean I covet their vocation or role.  I often prefer activities and conversations with men more than women just because I find our different abilities and perspectives so fascinating.  At the same time, I mourn what happens when men don’t have the help of a woman.

I believe in serving my country, but I know a woman does this in a myriad of ways.  And, the best way might not be to become one of the “brothers.”

As we prepare to integrate women into the all-male world of ground combat — infantry, armor and special forces operations, I am compelled to ask: Who is asking for this change in policy?  Is it the young women who may have to face the enemy?  Is it the men who have been taught to be chivalrous and respectful of sisters, mothers, girlfriends, and wives?  Is this departure from time-honored tradition for the good of the nation… or on behalf of “women’s rights?”  Is distraction on the gridiron or the battlefield a good thing?  As enemies grow all-male armies a million strong, will we regret tampering with our defense during a time of relative peace?

“The ancient tradition against the use of women in combat,” writes George Gilder, “embodies the deepest wisdom of the human race.  It expresses the most basic imperatives of group survival: a nation or tribe that allows the loss of large numbers of its young women runs the risk of becoming permanently depopulated.  The youthful years of women, far more than of men, are precious and irreplaceable.”

He continues, “Beyond this general imperative is the related need of every society to insure that male physical strength and aggressiveness are not directed against women . . . All civilized societies train their men to protect and defend women.  When these restraints break down . . . the group tends to disintegrate completely and even to become extinct . . . military services, however, are unanimous in asserting that successful use of women in battlefield units depends on men overcoming their natural impulses to treat women differently and more considerately.”  (Men and Marriage)

In all of my years, I have found great joy in working beside men and dialoguing with them.  I could linger for hours in a room of gentlemen.  But, there comes a time when I am wise to give them some space.  To let them breathe.  Work.  Communicate in their own way.  Do what they do the way they do it best.

I am usually happier for it.

Read Full Post »

Mr. President, isn’t it your duty to do all you do in the best interests of the future of this country?  Aren’t children the greatest natural resource this country has?

Pentagon officials, isn’t it your duty to guard the citizens of this country from those who would bring harm to us?

School administrators, isn’t it your duty to respect the role of parents and instruct their children in ways that will build a vibrant and thriving society?

Then, why o why, do you celebrate gay pride?

There can be no pride in any behavior that endangers health, marriage, home and family, the nation’s security, or the lives of children — America’s greatest natural resource.

There can be no pride in immoral gay behavior any more than there can be pride in immoral heterosexual behavior.

In what way does “it’s my right,” “I’ll do as I please,” “I just have to be who I am” behavior help develop sound character in children?

Are those who insist on teaching “tolerance” for homosexual – or heterosexual – behavior to children K-12 interested in guarding the innocence and well-being of this nation’s sons and daughters?  Or are they more interested in some other agenda?

Mr. President, you have celebrated “gay pride.”  You see it as an expression of diversity.  At what price?

Pentagon officials, you have celebrated “gay pride.”  You see it as, well, I’m not sure how you see it.  I don’t know how messing around with issues of “sexuality” makes for a stronger national defense.

School officials, you have opened the door to ideologies and agendas that have nothing to do with nurturing stronger minds, healthier bodies, and hopeful futures.

It isn’t too late to apologize… and do better for the sake of the children.

Read Full Post »

Thomas J. Vilsack is the former governor of Iowa.  My governor.  He drifted away from Iowa in a bubble of political correctness to land in the chair of U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.

Vilsack, apparently still in the bubble, is pushing for an intense brand of homosexual sensitivity training.  The Washington Times (6-19-2011) reports that this training would include a discussion that compares “heterosexism” to racism.  People who view marriage as being between only one man and one woman are guilty of “heterosexism.”

The “push for the training” is coming from Vilsack.  Why?  Does he have too much time on his hands?  Is there not enough work to be done with farm service agencies?  Food and nutrition?  The forest service?  Rural development?  Food safety and inspection?   What does agriculture have to do with homosexual sensitivity training?

Vilsack has launched a department-wide “cultural transformation” that includes a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Special Emphasis Program.  It appears that this program goes far beyond any training now being done by the Pentagon.  The USDA’s program is called “groundbreaking [and a] model for other agencies.”  It “delves more into gay issues and terminology.  It also justifies pro-homosexual political positions.”

Rowan Scarborough, writing for The Washington Times, explains that if the Obama administration accepts this kind of homosexual sensitivity training “it could mean more sessions for military service members already undergoing gay-sensitivity indoctrination.  Critics fear additional gay-oriented training would add an unnecessary burden for combat troops and encourage some to leave.”

Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, has long opposed the repeal of the military’s ban on acknowledged gays.  She told the Washington Times, “There are disturbing implications for national defense in the USDA’s development of  a ‘groundbreaking’ training program that is to become a model for other federal agencies.”  She notes that “thousands of experienced troops, starting with chaplains and people of faith who do not support LGBT ideology and activism” would be driven out of the military.

Vilsack’s bubble of political correctness will burst.  Of that I am sure.  But, before that happens, I wonder.  How many people and institutions — including the family — will his “cultural transformation” affect?

Why is it more important for the USDA to be a leader in gender-identity diversity training than growing food to feed the world?

Read Full Post »