Saturday, May 20, 2006

Women in Combat

This week another Canadian soldier was killed in Afghanistan. This time it was a woman, Canada's first woman in a combat role to be killed in action.

The press is making a big deal of making a small deal of it. They're keeping up the story that the differences of sex are a social effect. They tell us we should treat this like any other soldier's death. I think a man who believes this must not be a proper sort of man.

In fact, I can't quite grasp how any intact man could hear of women in combat and not immediately know it's not okay.

But they're mostly playing along, the gutless half-men. They say things like "Women are equal to men so if they want to go into combat, who are you to stop them?".

Who are we? We're the right-thinking people. Hadn't you realized? It's okay. Being right thinking isn't for everybody.

Just try to keep the really ugly wrong thinking to a minimum. Don't push it out into society and we'll all get along just tickety-boo.

An example of really ugly wrong thinking would be something like, say, "Men and women aren't fundamentally different" or like "Everything will be okay if we can just make women every bit as cold and brutish as men".

Another good example of hopelessly wrong and ugly thinking might be "It would really help our culture out if our fighting men, and all men for that matter, would just learn to see the agonizing suffering, cruel torture and grisly death of a woman and regard it as run-of-the-mill".

As I've pointed out before, it's almost come to that already. Scan a newspaper and see if you can't find ten headlines showing that men don't know anymore how to treat women.

How much more horrifying do the consequences have to get? We have abdicated responsibility and masculinity quite enough already.

Anyway, say a prayer for the soul of Captain Nichola Goddard, who died with honour.

5 comments:

hilary said...

I'm with you on this one Carriere.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06051809.html

Anonymous said...

I'm not quite aure what you're getting at with the comment about 'intact men'. what has being circumcised or not have to do with it?

J D Carriere said...

My apologies for the confusion, Mr. Anonymous. I meant intact in the sense of dogs. Intact male dogs being the ones without their testicles having been removed. I thought that would have been plain from the context ("proper sort of man", "half-men" and whatnot).

J D Carriere said...

Thanks Hilary. I read your lifesite piece too. A victim of feminism indeed. Feminism being the social infection that grows in the void left when real masculinity goes missing.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Carriere. I am relieved that foreskin-less men like my good self, are still classified as whole-men; and it is only lack of testicles which causes the concern. Yours, in perfect whole man-ness, Mr very Anonymous.