Cross-dressing and the military.

Pastor Doug Wilson makes a biblical case against women in combat in Is Your God Scary?

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Dt. 22:5).

This verse is a prohibition for cross-dressing when it comes to men. But the restriction placed on women here is not simply the reverse of that. When a man is getting kinky in the way described here, it is a straightforward transvesite problem. But going the other way, we should notice a different problem. Notice the odd construction — “that which pertains to a man.” The Hebrew underneath is keli geber, and should be read as the “gear of a warrior.” Whether we are talking about a man in fishnet stockings, or a woman decked out in full battle regalia, we need to recognize that God finds it loathsome. So should we.

This is a simple, straightforward biblical case, and I can find no fault with it.  I can, however, understand why this wouldn’t be popular with the CBMW, since it has the problem of calling out bad behavior by women.  More recently in Carve Outs and Ghettos, Pastor Wilson explains that the prohibition can be read more broadly:

Women are told not to wear keli geber, the gear of a soldier. The phrase can be understood as the panoply of a warrior, but it could also perhaps be extended to include something like a telephone lineman’s tool belt. So, no. A Christian complementarian woman should not become a cop, especially when it involves riot gear. No.

In the last quote he not only answers the question Dr. Piper punted on, but he comes through with a clear “no” (twice).  The difference between the biblical argument against women in combat and the CBMW argument that “The boy goes down so the girl goes free” is night and day.  There is no reason to bother fashioning a palatable chivalric response in lieu of a biblical answer unless the desire is to avoid the Truth of the Bible while still sounding traditional.

I do however differ slightly with Pastor Wilson in that I think a woman wanting to put on a military uniform and go into combat is not that different than a man wanting to wear a dress.  Both are literal and figurative forms of cross-dressing.  Both also are expressions of envy, and they are equally twisted.  It also raises an interesting parallel for those modern Christians who are far more animated in their concern at the potential for women being drafted into combat than they are about a mass desire of women to have the right to to usurp men’s roles.  If we had the mass of Christian men so devoted to the idea of wearing women’s clothing that even the most conservative pastors were terrified of pointing out that men shouldn’t wear women’s panties, etc, a sudden outrage by these otherwise silent pastors at the idea of men potentially being forced to wear women’s clothing would be as ridiculous as what we have today.  Which is more troubling?  A Christian culture devoted to cross dressing?  Or a secular government which might in theory (but not in practice) force some of the very small minority of Christians who don’t relish the thought of a little cross dressing to do so against their will?

Interestingly Pastor Wilson is a part of The Gospel Coalition, although he does not prefer the term complementarian:

I began by saying that I am on the same team with Gospel Coalition complementarianism. I say that even though I don’t generally use the terminology of complementarianism because it seems to me too much of another -ism. As a friend said to me recently, why can’t we just call it common sense? When men are men, faithful women like it, and when women are women, faithful men like that. Anyhow . .

In the same post he makes a similar point to one that Vox Day often makes (emphasis mine):

In our corner of the Reformed interwebs, one of the points that has been made more than once is that I draw the animus of the egalitarian intoleristas because of the exuberance of my writing. If I would only tone it down, it would become evident that complementarians are thoughtful, engaging people, and that they do not use flamethrowers in debate. But please note. I have been making the point repeatedly that the thing that makes us the enemy is any kind of principled resistance to the sexual revolution. If you do anything other than offer full-throated support, you will be demonized. You can write with as many pastel adjectives as you like, and you will still find yourself in the same cattle car with me, being bundled off to the sensitivity camps. Now I do not mind different styles of opposition to the sexual revolution, and in fact welcome it. But never make the mistake of thinking that our enemies do nuance. In this post that RHE draws her inspiration from, no distinction whatever is made between those who are soft-spoken in their opposition to What Must Come to Pass and those who are flamboyant. What matters to them is simply this — are you effectively in the way? If you are in the way, they will try to take you out of the way, by whatever means necessary.

More recently Wilson even pointed out that SJWs always lie (emphasis mine):

But what if someone responds by agreeing that military standards must never be lowered, but argues that any woman who can meet those standards should be allowed in? There are a basic problem. It is that social justice warriors, of the kind that are driving this whole business, lie all of the time. They do not submit to the way God made the world, so why would they submit to accurate descriptions of the way God made the world? They are at war with the science as much as with Scripture, and their response to any obstacle is always the same. They lie about it. If you refuse to see the difference between a man and woman, why on earth would you be willing to see the difference between accurate data and politically-fudged data? Everything is always all the same except for the difference between “the agenda” and that which is “not the agenda.”

He also points out the fundamental problem with conservatism:

Once you have signed off on the nation/state conscripting your daughters to go serve in combat roles, whatever it was you thought you were conserving — thus allowing you to call yourself a conservative — has had a fork stuck in it and is done. Nothing really to conserve any more.

Where some of the quotes above sound much like Vox Day, this next one sounds like something Cane Caldo would write:

The standard looks like a simple application of the biblical requirement of “equal weights and measures.” But once you have affirmed the “same standard” approach, good luck applying it. The same measuring rod will get you a first rate man but a third rate woman, or a first rate woman and a third rate man. Why? Because a defensive lineman is not a quarterback, a china vase is not a backhoe, and a crescent wrench is not a hammer.

And this brings us to our evangelical sophisticates who, unlike John Piper, believe that crescent wrenches are only “not hammers” in the church and family. Outside in the world, where complementarianism is thought to be the height of SILLINESS, feel free to pound in the brads with the crescent wrench, which actually can be done, come to think of it. You might run up against the limits of  your theory when you try to get the lug nuts off your tire with a hammer though.

One last quote from Wilson on the topic of women in combat:

And last, let me make one quick appeal to the light of nature. The egalitarians who are pushing for this are not true egalitarians — they want the same access to the same positions for men and women, but they don’t want the same qualifying requirements. A true egalitarian would insist that all positions should be open to both sexes, provided they both were able to meet the same standards. But this whole (very rigged) joke depends on running two entirely different sets of standards simultaneously, and shouting down anybody who notices. So then, o ye treat-everybody-the-samers! When do you think you will start doing that? It’s your religion. Why won’t you practice it? It’s your temple. Why won’t you go in? Is your god scary?

If we eliminated the double-standard here, we would still have the theoretical problem, but we sure wouldn’t have a practical problem at all.

 

 

This entry was posted in Cane Caldo, Complementarian, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Crossdressing Theology, Dr. John Piper, Envy, Military, Pastor Doug Wilson, Social Justice Warriors, The Gospel Coalition, Traditional Conservatives, Vox Day. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Cross-dressing and the military.

  1. Pingback: Crossdressing and the military. | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: Crossdressing and the military. – Manosphere.com

  3. rugby11 says:

    Who defines Justice?

  4. Looking Glass says:

    At my local church, over the last few months the main pastor has used two phrases that seemed very much to come from our neck of the internet. This is the value of the work we do in these parts. The Truth outs, so keep speaking it. It gets filtered each step it takes from here, but someone reading it talks to someone else, who talks to a third person. The fourth person might be a pastor friend. You get the picture.

    Keep up the good work. Dalrock especially.

  5. The Question says:

    “I do however differ slightly with Pastor Wilson in that I think a woman wanting to put on a military uniform and go into combat is not that different than a man wanting to wear a dress. Both are literal and figurative forms of crossdressing.”

    Funny how it’s acceptable within the church for a girl to dress like a boy in almost every way possible, but at the moment it would draw stares if a boy walked in dressed like a girl (though trust me, plenty of them act like girls).

    This is simply females acting on their envy of men and cowardly (feminine) men in church leadership blaming other (nonexistent) men for it. Thankfully men like Wilson are willing to call them out for it.

    Something people on our side are starting to get into their skulls is that the enemy lies about everything and argues in bad faith and never says what they mean because in the end their only concern is getting what they want. They have their goal and objective and will do whatever it takes and say whatever it takes. They shouldn’t be debated or argued with. This isn’t a friendly discussion in a social country club amongst people of the same values and culture. This is a culture war for the future of our civilization, and our foes need to be fought and defeated. The metaphorical gloves have got to come off but nobody wants to do that because they know when it does it’s going to get very, very ugly.

  6. The Question says:

    “Thankfully men like Wilson are willing to call them out for it.”
    And of course you, too, Dalrock.🙂

  7. The Question says:

    Just saw this posted at the Chateau and the timing was impeccable.

    https://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/shitlordpsa3.jpg?w=1440&quality=80&strip=info

    This is what Roissy wrote: During the Victorian era, men would sometimes hand out spinster shaming cards like these to ugly and unfeminine women on Valentine’s Day (any feminists reading this ought to consult a head asplosion doctor before continuing further):

  8. quigboo says:

    @rugby11

    That is a misleading question. The word ‘justice’ has a meaning, a shared one. Though there is room for debate on countless situations, on the vast majority of cases there is not. The issue is not subjective, even in borderline cases the best arguments and weighing of the evidence wins.

  9. infowarrior1 says:

    Its important also to remember also that the passage cited as the biblical teaching of egalitarianism is not. The fact is galatians 3:28 teaches that all who are in Christ has citizenship in Christ. Not that they are all equal. Given also that the parable of the talents taught by Jesus of which all men are given unequally of God who are tasked with being faithful with what they had.

    God created all men unequal and those with more, more is demanded, those with less ,less is demanded.

  10. Well, Trump reluctantly went along with the women in combat narrative, except he was adamant that no standards should be breached merely to get a woman in. Presumably however, he’s for women gobbling up all the easy jobs in place of men. I have a special place in my heart for that position, that it’s wrong. I’ve had my say on this previously, except to reiterate, women don’t belong in, period. They aren’t taking the hard jobs, they oughtn’t be taking the easy jobs, period. Same for police, same for fire. Same for any of the dangerous categories of work where there is a line between the difficult/dangerous and easy/safe. They are not, will not and cannot do the difficult and dangerous and the heavy lifting and so shouldn’t be rewarded with the easy.

  11. Neguy says:

    Dalrock, nice one. Good to see a positive take.

  12. Dave says:

    God created all men unequal and those with more, more is demanded, those with less ,less is demanded.

    Preach it, bro. I once said this right here on this site, and someone had palpitations. Our “Declaration of Independence erred; God did not create “all men equal”. He did not even create men, in reality; he created the seed which eventually became men. Society made men. And women. That is why we have betas and feminized women. And that is why Dalrock and many folks here are trying to undo the effects of feminism on both men and women.

    God not only made men unequal; He treats them unequal as well.
    Out of all the families on the earth, He chose Abraham’s family, and Abraham in particular among his family members. Also, God chose Jacob, but rejected Esau, even before either was born. He decided that the elder shall serve the younger.
    Among Jesus’ disciples, there were those belonging to the “inner circle” (e.g. Peter, Andrew, James and John), and those who were kept at the periphery.
    But to a braindead liberal, both God and Jesus must have failed the “equality” test.

  13. Neguy says:

    I’d like to add that Wilson is based in Idaho. Easier to take controversial positions from there.

    These passages refresh my memory that he is a guy that justifies things based on old testament covenant law. IIRC, he uses things like Numbers laws around husbands approving their wives’ contracts. I personally think we should tread extremely cautiously in applying the Old Testament civil or ceremonial law as a universal moral law of God.

  14. Dave says:

    I personally think we should tread extremely cautiously in applying the Old Testament civil or ceremonial law as a universal moral law of God.

    Agreed. Even without the OT laws, the NT made it abundantly clear that wives are to subject themselves to their own husbands as unto the Lord, in everything, not just in signing contracts.

    For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything Ephesians 5:23-24

    To me, it looks like the NT has a wider scope than the OT when it comes to wives submitting to their husbands.

  15. Don Quixote says:

    Join these dots if you will:

  16. Pingback: Crossdressing and the military. | Reaction Times

  17. TomG says:

    Even if there is a “biblical case against women in combat”, I don’t even think its necessary to go there. There’s enough evidence that women should not serve in combat or in any capacity in the military, but here we are. As for cross-dressing, we are beyond that too.

    As for the photos above, China and Russia have robust approaches to equal rights of women to serve in the military.

    Via Wikipedia
    People’s Republic of China[edit]
    Female comprise an estimated 25.5% of the People’s Liberation Army forces.

    Russia
    The current tally of woman in the Russian Army is standing at around 115,000 to 160,000, representing 10% of Russia’s military strength.

    Via CNN.
    United States
    About 203,000 in 2011, or 14.5% of the active-duty force of nearly 1.4 million.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Neguy

    I personally think we should tread extremely cautiously in applying the Old Testament civil or ceremonial law as a universal moral law of God.

    It isn’t that cross-dressing wasn’t permitted in the OT, it is why the OT tells us cross-dressing wasn’t permitted (just like homosexuality). It says it is an abomination to God.

  19. Spike says:

    “I do however differ slightly with Pastor Wilson in that I think a woman wanting to put on a military uniform and go into combat is not that different than a man wanting to wear a dress. Both are literal and figurative forms of cross-dressing. Both also are expressions of envy, and they are equally twisted.”
    Agreed, Dalrock – twisted it is. It is also what you and others have noted here many times – the inversion of roles. Discussed in in “A woman’s sacred path to marriage”, a young woman gets to sample a bunch of different men on the carousel until she finds “The One” being an inversion of biblical norms, a husband ‘winning his wife over without a word”, an inversion of biblical norms, the wife in charge of the marriage an inversion of biblical norms, men and women crossdressing an inversion of biblical norms.

    Isaiah 5:20 has often been quoted here and rightly so. Yet Anton LaVey, author of the Satanic Bible says that many rituals contain inversions of the natural order of things, among them being doing things back-to-front or upside down, as in the inverted cross. Men dressing in women’s clothing has also long been associated with satanic rituals as a type of initiation in Hollywood satanic conspiracy theories. Consider how many actors have had to cross dress to get more movie roles with higher pay.
    All evidence, perhaps, that he fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree?

  20. feeriker says:

    This is a culture war for the future of our civilization, and our foes need to be fought and defeated. The metaphorical gloves have got to come off but nobody wants to do that because they know when it does it’s going to get very, very ugly.

    Exactly. Churchian TradCucks use the phrase “culture war” as carelessly as they use the phrase “have a nice day.” It’s a piece of empty rhetoric to which they give no thought. “War” means giving the full measure of sacrifice, even the “ultimate” one in extreme cases, to achieve victory. The typical UMC churchian doesn’t have the spiritual conviction, the strength of character, or the will to “fight” anything other than sleep.

  21. Dave (original says:

    Women will naturally destroy nations. This man explains why.

  22. Splashman says:

    Wow, great video — thanks Dave!

  23. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    One last quote from Wilson on the topic of women in combat:

    And last, let me make one quick appeal to the light of nature. The egalitarians who are pushing for this are not true egalitarians — they want the same access to the same positions for men and women, but they don’t want the same qualifying requirements.

    I was taking some first responder upgrading courses with some fireman, and one told me he was taking the test at a small Vancouver Island community. (May have been Lake Cowichan). There were two firefighter positions open and when the men did their test they did it in front of everyone. When the two women applicants did theirs, no men were allowed to watch. From what he told me, the women failed miserably. But guess which two applicants got the job. Better install a sprinkler system and make sure your smoke detector works.

  24. cynthia says:

    @TomG

    I’ve met a few Chinese military women. The CCP only keeps women in the service in order to prove to the rest of the world how forward and egalitarian they are. Male officers treat them like the hired help, with all the usual Chinese disdain and mockery. It’s not pretty.

  25. elmertjones says:

    I went to an Air Force base hospital with my retiree dad and was astonished at the number of pregnant female airwomen in camoflage maternity fatigues. Awaiting the inevitable ruling that military men will be allowed long hair if they keep it tied up in tight hairbuns. Samauri-style hairdos will become all the rage among the “spec-ops” set. Go ahead and laugh but there is no logical reason now to enforce short hair on military men while women in the same MOS can have flowing locks.

  26. Jim says:

    ” The Jack Russell Terrorist says:
    February 20, 2016 at 2:42 am”

    Ah, yes. Equality…..of outcome. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

    This is what I mean. Women are not equal. Period. If they were they wouldn’t need all of these extra special protections to help them out. They lower standards, put roadblocks in front of men so they lose no matter what, women have special programs in college to get them into STEM, only women can be abusive, the list goes on and on. How the fucking hell can people not see this? It’s as obvious as a volcanic eruption.

  27. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    I know Pastor Doug Wilson. I attended a Bible study he taught at a Christian bookstore on the Washington State University campus (where I received my undergrad). His church and Logos School are in Moscow, Idaho, just seven miles away across the border.

    I was about 25 at the time. Now at 40, I wish I’d paid a lot closer attention.

    Pastor Wilson is an exceptionally good man, and his book – Future Men – should be required reading for all parents of boys. He’s written many others I haven’t read yet.

    Logos School is the flagship for the Association of Classical Christian Schools. I’m looking into enrolling my kids in one of their schools in my area.

    @ Don Quixote says:
    February 19, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    If my country had been invaded, conquered and brutalized as badly and often as Poland, I’d hire that guy too. He looks like one mean, suspicious old cuss!

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    Off topic for this thread but not nearly as off topic as in the McCain thread:

    Some churchgoing college students I know are getting married. They have this book, I’m guessing that someone at their church suggested it: What did you expect? by Paul David Tripp. He appears to be a figure in the Protestant church world along with Keller, Piper, etc. So this may be a book with some circulation among Protestants.

    http://www.amazon.com/What-Did-You-Expect-Redesign/dp/1433530783

    I looked through the paper copy a bit, but did not have time to do a detailed examination, so I’m writing from ignorance. I asked what Bible quotes were in the book, and didn’t get a response.
    The intro and table of contents are viewable at Amazon, there are a few references but Ephesians 5 is absent from the available text. Interesting, that.

    I’ll try to borrow a copy and look it over, report what I find.

  29. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    Leslie Loftis, at PT Media, asks “why aren’t we discussing fatherlessness?”

    https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2016/02/16/why-arent-we-discussing-fatherlessness/?singlepage=true

    It’s a good question. Of course, she fails to ask: why aren’t we discussing the incentives government gives mothers to kick fathers out of their children’s lives?

  30. Oscar says:

    Oops. I meant “PJ Media”.

  31. ace says:

    “I do however differ slightly with Pastor Wilson in that I think a woman wanting to put on a military uniform and go into combat is not that different than a man wanting to wear a dress. Both are literal and figurative forms of cross-dressing. Both also are expressions of envy, and they are equally twisted.”

    By and large true, but there is a slight difference. Women dressing like men tend to be ‘ambitious’ – mathematically speaking an addition. Men that dress like women generally have cowardice and laziness in them – a subtraction. This is why effeminate men are more repulsive than manly women.

  32. jack says:

    How, though, do we ensure that these women who are protected from having to defend their nation in time of war do not decide to spend future ‘war years’ casually fucking the number of layabout bad boys who manage to avoid the draft?

    While in principle I do not want to see these young women go off to war, once I realize that they are likely to sit around facebooking each other and picking fuckbuddies up on tinder, I really question what exactly we are trying to preserve. Perhaps some foxhole religion may actually be a benefit.

  33. jack says:

    In other words, let’s not send the men either. Perhaps a little fear from allowing an enemy to close upon our borders might re-orient the value system of our dissolute female population.

    Can you turn Tanya the Twerker back into Rosie the Riveter? I wonder.

  34. Don Quixote says:

    Oscar says:
    February 20, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    @ Don Quixote says:
    February 19, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    If my country had been invaded, conquered and brutalized as badly and often as Poland, I’d hire that guy too. He looks like one mean, suspicious old cuss!

    He’s probably perfect for the job, unlike those cows ~defending~ western Europe. All over the western world our governments have betrayed our interests, and now we are on the cusp of a prolonged uprising of Muslim V Christian.

  35. Oscar says:

    @ Don Quixote says:
    February 20, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    “He’s probably perfect for the job… ”

    Exactly! You want your defense minister to be a mean, suspicious old cuss. Preferably one who fought a war or two in the combat arms.

    “All over the western world our governments have betrayed our interests, and now we are on the cusp of a prolonged uprising of Muslim V Christian.”

    Back in 2006, I was stationed in Germany and visited one of my German relatives. The conversation turned to war (because I’d recently returned from Iraq). I told my cousin that there was a civil war brewing in her own back yard because of the number of Muslims the EU was inviting into Europe. She was stunned that I would say such a thing. Keep in mind, this was 2006.

    She believes me now.

  36. Don Quixote says:

    Oscar says:
    February 20, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    Back in 2006, I was stationed in Germany and visited one of my German relatives. The conversation turned to war (because I’d recently returned from Iraq). I told my cousin that there was a civil war brewing in her own back yard because of the number of Muslims the EU was inviting into Europe. She was stunned that I would say such a thing. Keep in mind, this was 2006.

    She believes me now.

    Good call!
    I live a long way from Europe but even here [Australia] the same problem exists to a lesser extent. The government, military, media, churches and society in general is way too feminised and most aussies are blind to the problems, and go into denial if you point it out to them.

    Children are seen as liabilities not assets and the only ones breeding are Muslims and the odd Christian family. Our government offers all sorts of benefits to those with extra children, the Muslims think its great, and the Christians are stuck with women who refuse to even have sex. What a mess.

  37. Kaminsky says:

    @Oscar

    Driscoll is also a Coug.

  38. Barnabas says:

    I can stomach losing the culture but I hate that Evangelicals are falling all over themselves to run off the same cliff. The only (public) clergy I know of that qualify as alt-right chaplains are Doug Wilson and Voddie Baucham, though both are still tinged with a little too much classic liberalism. Redpilling clergy should be a major project in these parts.

  39. PokeSalad says:

    He’s probably perfect for the job, unlike those cows ~defending~ western Europe.

    Poland’s tragic history is recent enough to remind them of the consequences of military failure. Germany, Scandanavia, et al…..not so much.

  40. minuteman says:

    Sure women can serve in the army, just like children can work in coal mines and factories, but what does it say about a society where this is the practice?

  41. greyghost says:

    The question of the day.
    Is the stance taken for or against females in the military ,police, etc. based on protecting women for what ever reason or is it based on standards and effectiveness ? I think it is an important discussion for the big picture. The Churchians frame is protecting women. Me personally I think it is a good way to get rid of rebellious women.

  42. The Noticer says:

    I am commissioning as an officer in the USMC later this year. I’ve been through initial entry training and our instructors had a low view of the females in our unit. They had to be esoteric at times, but we all knew that women made worse soldiers and probably shouldn’t be there if we were being honest with ourselves. The standards were so blatantly different for women and men. The final endurance event for male officers is a must pass obstacle course run through a swamp. The maximum time for a female is the minimum time for a male.

    There can be no equality between men and women in combat. Those females who tried to be “butch” and manly came off as weak and ineffectual. They were some of the worst leaders and motivators when in billet. I was uncomfortable with what was required in order to militarize the women. They were called “whores,” “cunts,” and “grilled cheese” (unclean vagina) by their female instructor staff. Insults and verbal beatings are a necessary part of the stress of Officer Candidate School but the only way to get a woman partially “militarized” is by attacking her fertility and sexuality.

    When forced to fight in pupil sticks, the inner White Knights of my fellow men in arms came out, they wouldn’t attack women with the same strength they would a male. This kind of blatant double standard is so ingrained that it cannot and should not be irradiated. Women represent fertility and life. The only thing women as a whole do better than men is birth children and nurture them. Militarization attacks that foundation of life. The point about “cross-dressing” theology is excellent, but the actual results of military life on women are disgusting. But no one can say no. Even those of us who did want to, like my instructors, had to shut up. Diversity and The Other uber alles.

  43. Pingback: Sunday Morning Cartoons | Dalrock

  44. Oscar says:

    @ The Noticer says:
    February 21, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    I left the Active Duty Army (Combat Engineer Officer) about a 1.5 years ago. You’re entering the service at an “interesting” (in the Chinese proverbial sense) time. If you need a (much) older officer to talk with, I’m available. Follow the link to my email address. Scott is a regular commenter here and currently an Active Duty Officer. I’m sure he’d also make himself available.

    Hold the line where you can. Maintain your honor. Be humble and ask for prayer if you’re a believer. God bless.

  45. Oscar says:

    @ Don Quixote says:
    February 20, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    “Good call!”

    I’m no prophet. I just saw what was happening in France at the time, matched it with my experiences in Iraq and what I’d learned about Islam, and extrapolated. Mark Steyn, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and others were warning about this stuff years ago and few listened.

    Frankly, I’ve been shocked at how quickly the situation has devolved. I didn’t anticipate the flood of “refugees”. I thought we’d see civil war in Europe around mid-century. Now it looks like ten years tops.

    “Children are seen as liabilities not assets and the only ones breeding are Muslims and the odd Christian family.”

    I have eight kids and one on the way. You callin’ me odd? Them’s fightin’ words, sir!

    @ Kaminsky says:
    February 21, 2016 at 2:26 am

    “Driscoll is also a Coug.”

    Nobody’s perfect.

    @ PokeSalad says:
    February 21, 2016 at 9:05 am

    “Poland’s tragic history is recent enough to remind them of the consequences of military failure.”

    Eastern Europeans seem to have longer memories than Western Europeans. I seem to recall Hungary’s Prime Minister cited his country’s history of Islamic subjugation, though I can’t find the quote now.

    @ greyghost says:
    February 21, 2016 at 10:11 am

    “Is the stance taken for or against females in the military ,police, etc. based on protecting women for what ever reason or is it based on standards and effectiveness ?”

    Discover the healing power of “and”. The two are linked. People who see reality for what it is (and not what they wish it to be) realize that men are designed to provide and protect, and women are designed to nurture, and therefore the protectors should protect the nurturers and the nurtured. Realistic people also realize that – because women are designed to nurture – only a tiny percentage of women can pass the standards, and using limited resources to accommodate an infinitesimal percentage of the population is wasteful and counterproductive.

    This last part should go without saying, but such are the times in which we live. The man’s role as provider and protector is predicated on the woman’s role as nurturer. A good man will work himself to death – and/or fight/kill/die – for a woman who nurtures his children and honors his role as provider/protector.

    But he won’t do it for some fat, frigid, feminist harpy.

  46. greyghost says:

    Oscar
    Military matters should always be based on predictable effectiveness. The reason women are not and have not been in military ranks is do to effectiveness. I don’t think the romance of protecting pussy is the reason but it a “nice” thing to tell the little dearies to keep down the civil unrest. It also matches up well with bio male tendencies. For military purposes the spiritual and motivational foundation of the ranks has just as much bearing on the outcome as weapons and equipment. Soldiers must have a solid reason and motivation to perform and at this time it is lacking in the west. See Noticers’ comment above and the male reaction to what is happening in Europe. The men see no reason to save a society that hates them. Blue pill delusion has replaced truth in the west and the church. As Dalrock as shown new lies are being invented in the church to motive men to continue this madness. That kind of motivation is pleasant chest pumping when the lights still come on. When death rears it’s head and reality of real pain and suffering arrives truth and real sacrifice trumps that false foundation. The soldiers will do what it takes to survive and the big picture of the blue pill lie will be lost. .

  47. Pingback: Honor Dads

  48. Pingback: Honor Dads

  49. Lovekraft says:

    We may already be in the abyss, waiting for the final plunge, but haven’t yet reached it due to non-alignment of powers. There is the US/Saudi vs Russia/Iran, Israel vs Islam, Europe vs Islam, cultural marxism vs middle class vs corporate predators etc etc.

    I still see a healthy and somewhat free flow of ideas which is positive and this may be one reason the alignment towards chaos hasn’t emerged fully. So many lights shining mean fewer places to hide and scheme. While leftists insist on pushing identity politics, people like myself push ideas and principles.

  50. Pingback: Doing the job no American man would do. | Dalrock

  51. As a United States Marine I do not even to see or want any and all women in a foxhole or in combat all all.
    In mater of fact it is a big disgrace to even see a woman in a a combat zone.
    In 1974 when I volunteered to join my United States Marine Corps the motto was “A few good men” we were a brotherhood that cannot be broken.
    Yes we are the men of the United States Marine Corps. A woman would not even dare to be in a combat unit.
    Okay if a woman wanted to join my United States Marine Corps then she should do only the work in the rear non-combat units like doing and handing the paperwork and so forth.
    Okay if a woman was and wanted to be in one of my combat units I would not allow her to even be in a foxhole, or anything else as such. I would find duty or a job that she could do so that she would never be killed or hurt. Yes to protect her for harm or anything like that for a job for a “few good men” If I could I would in truth discharge her for the sake of safety on my unit. Again “a few good men”
    You see a woman is not a man and there are many concerns that I as man in charge I would have to think about if a woman even dare to be in one of my units that I would be in charge of.
    A woman’s safety and the respect and discipline it would take to care for a woman in one of my units. The biggest challenge is integrity. Well the integrity of the other men in my unit. Discipline and integrity would be the key issues that I would have the most. You see normally and traditionally a woman does not have the very same discipline as a man or as a United States Marine would. these are reasons why a woman is undesirable to be a United States Marine in a combat zone or unit.
    I am very sure i made my points very clear and to the fact no woman is to be allowed in any combat unit at all. “A Few Good Men”

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s