An exchange about Medved and women in the military

A reader responded to my attack on Michael Medved for his comment about female soldiers:

“Perversion” is an odd choice of words. Is he or is he not stating a fact, that women with guns are indeed fighting selflessly for their country? You forget the pilots on aircraft or officers on Naval vessels may be female, and they have “guns” of a sort.

To ignore the reality would be an inversion of the truth. Perhaps it is better for women not to be in combat roles. Has President Bush ever shied away from referring to our brave “men and women”?

My reply:

By perversion I mean something specific: putting things together that don’t belong together. And that’s what the feminization of the military is.

As for its being a fact, first, Medved was not stating a fact, as women are not using guns, except for the tiny handful who may be flying fighters or manning guns on ships.

Second, to the extent that it is a fact, he was not merely stating it, he was celebrating it. He was celebrating and approving the idea that women ought to be armed violent killers.

As for Bush, I of course oppose Bush on this. He kept the policy in place and has allowed it to be expanded. But even Bush never had the tastelessness to say “men and women with guns.” There is still a policy against women serving as soldiers in combat units. Bush knows that. Medved through his use of language is positively wishing for women to be placed directly in combat.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 01, 2005 12:05 PM | Send