Natural law is very powerful and each time we defy it with man made laws, we invite disaster. This is not to say that we can't learn to cope with some of these laws which endanger us or prevent beneficial progress, but wholesale, in-your-face violations should be avoided.
No one, if truthful, can deny the inescapable reality of the purpose of male and female genders. It is the instrument which ensures the continuance of the species. Each has differing qualities which contribute to the propagation, rearing and protection of new generations. While each can perform some of the necessary responsibilities, each also is uniquely superior in others. This in no way diminishes the other but does indicate a separation of qualities, each of which can be performed better, sometimes only, by one or the other.
When the question of whether or not women should serve in combat situations comes up,some believe we should all have that opportunity. Since we now have an all volunteer service, those women who want to serve in that capacity should be allowed to but if there should be a need to conscript military, should all women be drafted? Once shown they can serve, would they be REQUIRED to serve? Could men charge discrimination if the women were not?
Most military men, I'm certain, would prefer that they serve in combat with an all male unit. If women are really able to serve equally with men, they should serve in all female units. This would relieve the natural anxiety most men would have for the safety of female combatants. I know this could never happen but the reasons why underline the reason they shouldn't serve in the first place.
The objection to women serving in combat is not that they can't, it is that they should not. It is not discrimination but concern and respect for them. Men defer to women naturally, most men, and don't want to see them in harms way. There are plenty of non-combat positions women can fill that would give them as much opportunity to defend and protect their country while at the same time freeing up men for combat.
What do you think?
P.S. I recently learned that if I did maake up the word "naturality", it is a neoterism.
No one, if truthful, can deny the inescapable reality of the purpose of male and female genders. It is the instrument which ensures the continuance of the species. Each has differing qualities which contribute to the propagation, rearing and protection of new generations. While each can perform some of the necessary responsibilities, each also is uniquely superior in others. This in no way diminishes the other but does indicate a separation of qualities, each of which can be performed better, sometimes only, by one or the other.
When the question of whether or not women should serve in combat situations comes up,some believe we should all have that opportunity. Since we now have an all volunteer service, those women who want to serve in that capacity should be allowed to but if there should be a need to conscript military, should all women be drafted? Once shown they can serve, would they be REQUIRED to serve? Could men charge discrimination if the women were not?
Most military men, I'm certain, would prefer that they serve in combat with an all male unit. If women are really able to serve equally with men, they should serve in all female units. This would relieve the natural anxiety most men would have for the safety of female combatants. I know this could never happen but the reasons why underline the reason they shouldn't serve in the first place.
The objection to women serving in combat is not that they can't, it is that they should not. It is not discrimination but concern and respect for them. Men defer to women naturally, most men, and don't want to see them in harms way. There are plenty of non-combat positions women can fill that would give them as much opportunity to defend and protect their country while at the same time freeing up men for combat.
What do you think?
P.S. I recently learned that if I did maake up the word "naturality", it is a neoterism.
No comments:
Post a Comment