Readers comment on Webb, Malkin, women, and the military

An Indian living in the West writes:

[Y]et today’s “conservatives” are so delicate, so liberal, that they think Webb’s 27-year-old graphic description of this sexualized military, “horny woman’s dream,” somehow disqualifies him for public office.

The Gynaecocracy has triumphed. This proof, if proof were ever needed.

Gintas J. writes:

The dust-up over Webb’s statements over women in the military again shows that the Republican Party is not the repository of conservatism, but is the repository of…anti-Democratism. If Democrats started quoting Russell Kirk favorably, Republicans might start reading some Kirk again, but only to attack him. Of course I exaggerate, but it’s out of frustration.

Spencer Warren writes:

From a practical, political standpoint, Allen needs to hold down Webb’s moderate/liberal vote in northern Virginia (ie the liberal suburbs of DC). You may well be right that he also is reflecting the liberal world view, but even if it not, he would have to make the points he is using.

LA replies:

This logic would appear to justify attacking even one’s own most deeply held positions if they are held by an opponent, if such attack would result in electoral victory.

Van Wijk writes:

One of the biggest mistakes we’ve ever made in this country is to make the military just another job opportunity. A very liberal friend of mine recently discussed this topic with me. She told me that she resented the fact that women were restricted from certain jobs in the service because that would hamper their chances at promotion.

Liberalism aside, this shows me that we are a society already in an advanced state of decay. We have become insulated to the brutal and violent world outside to the point that war can’t really exist for us in any real sense. Perhaps our society in general, and not just Bush and his utopian visions, lacks the will to win a foreign war.

David B. writes from Tennessee:

Today I saw where Rasmussen had Webb over Allen 48-46%. When an incumbent falls behind a week before election, he usually doesn’t recover. If Allen loses, it will be because of his embrace of the most radical feminist ideas. His attacks on Webb’s novels make Allen sound like a prissy Boston bluestocking. The more conservative voters in Southern and Western Virginia are likely to see Webb as more like them (at heart, I’m sure he is) than Allen. Allen will richly deserve his defeat, if it happens. Like Mr. Sutherland, I am disappointed in Webb for saying he embraces a guest-worker program (and backing off on women in the military), but I suspect he will be good on this issue if elected.

Ben writes:

Most modern women like Malkin have no problem supporting “conservatism” (hell maybe even traditionalism) until you mention feminism. This is where most of them begin to break down and become far left liberals. This is where they break all friendship with traditionalists and why we have very few women supporters. They also begin to go into what I call smart ass mode, where instead of thinking and discussing about the issue logically and in terms of human history, they take it all as personal insults to them, make ridiculous statements such as “it was a male controlled world that wanted to keep women down or in the kitchen” and will usually start on a shut the man up contest labeling the person against choice feminism as the worst person on earth, the devil, a throwback, a monster, a “loser.”

Instead of thinking about why human civilizations all throughout the world with all their differences had one thing in common, most did not allow women in combat. They just in a very modern liberal way, dismiss all of human history (especially the West) and tradition as “silly, anti-women, or dumb.”

The only feminism that gets rejected is the NOW type. All other forms of feminism have become like breathing in the West. They haven’t seen the devastating effects of this yet because they have not felt it yet. It has made them feel good to see women and men lined up in uniform at some event without having to know the effects that it is having on the frontline’s. They can boast about our progress and superiority without having to face the music of what this will ultimately do to the U.S. Military. The feminists (whether far left or “conservative”) will keep advancing this (with a damn fight from us, I can tell you that) until women are on the frontline’s destroying any legitimacy America had left. It hasn’t occurred to them that feminizing one of the most machismo organizations in the world, the military, will destroy the ability of our men to fight. They don’t need to “think” about this issue yet. They foolishly don’t care, if it advances women, the hell with anything else. Yet, they “support the troops.”

Maureen takes exception to Ben’s comments:

Ben writes: “… feminizing one of the most machismo organizations in the world, the military, will destroy the ability of our men to fight.”

I agree with Ben that women should not be in combat—but I cringe at the machismo violence that seethes under his arguments.

So often in the past men have denied women the right to participate in a job, only to find that the women actually brought something to the table which improved the endeavor. All too often it wasn’t that women could not do the job, it was that men didn’t want to let women do it. After all, who willingly gives up the automatic advantage of feeling superior to fifty-one percent of humanity? Certainly not hierarchy-conscious men. In the 19th century, high school teaching was predominantly a male profession; now it is a female profession. [LA interjects: But is that really a good thing?] More recently, women engineers at NASA thought about problems differently than male brains and enabled innovative solutions. Police departments have found that female and male officers working together were better able to calm domestic disputes. Malkin has been effective on television in articulating the perils of open borders.

Ben’s generalized female-bashing emotions go beyond his sensible defense of military combat as a male preserve to include hatred of the changes in women’s roles over the past thirty years. This is as blindly illogical and shrill as the excesses of the man-hating feminists. The case against women in the military can be made without confining women to 19th century roles or blaming them for all the ills of the current political mess.

I often hope that there really exist such edifying soul-constructs as karma and reincarnation—and that the man-bashers and woman-bashers get to round out their spiritual awareness by being reborn as the opposite sex. In any case, a cruel and disdainful perception of the opposite sex is its own, self-fulfilling punishment.

Gintas writes:

On the women in the military, Maureen makes use of the fearsome “19th Century” (***VICTORIAN alert***) charge. She hauls out a few anecdotes completely unrelated to the issue of women in the military. Game, set, match: she is a feminist.

LA replies:

If I’m not mistaken, I think Maureen has always been upfront about the fact that she is a feminist, although an unusual one, with traditionalist conservative views in other areas.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 01, 2006 09:09 AM | Send