A Woman’s Work? Behind a Gun

(Previously posted at Mere Anti-Statism)


Two days ago, the Stateside military lifted its ban on females assuming combat roles. According to The Guardian, Pentagon Defence Secretary (and civilian-assassination-endorsing piece-of-shit) Leon Panetta, together with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, scribbled away the 1994 prohibition in the ostensible interest of equality, no doubt eliciting cheers from feminists and “gender egalitarians” everywhere.

Per se, I have no real problem with the concept of females fighting on the frontlines in a combat force. Sure, most double-Xers lack the inclination to pursue a martial career, and a considerable number of the inclined lack the tenacity expected as a baseline for the male recruits, but I’ve never seen the sense in categorically prohibiting any population from an opportunity on the basis of statistical probability. As long as the criteria required to enlist doesn’t get eased for the sake of bullshit PC notions like “proportional representation”, where’s the fucking harm in giving the best of the underrepresented a *ahem* fighting chance? If women can fight in the jungles of Latin America, why not elsewhere?

(Some more conservative elements argue that the presence of females on the frontline could have a deleterious effect  on the morale and cohesion of their Y-chromosome counterparts, what with blokes rushing to play Galahad whenever a member of the fairer sex meets with existential danger. It’s a fair point, but not one that can’t be mitigated by sensible policies like segregated barracks et al.)

All that said, things take an altogether less inspiring shape in the context of a 21st Century US military. As pleasing and progressive as the embrace of women (and queerfolk) seems, it takes place against a backdrop of imperialistic interests setting their sights on the next juicy Middle Eastern slab. On the same day, one-time presidential candidate (and Panetta-replacement nominee) John Kerry declared he would do “what [he] must” to ensure Iran wouldn’t enjoy the nuclear insurance de rigueur in his own homeland.

Having secured some support for their interventions in Libya, Obombya and co. can’t go wrong in allowing the Officially Oppressedthe chance to play oppressor overseas. After all, if you want to wheel your next aggressive adventures through the gate, what better Trojan Horse than a fresh flock of female fighters? If “anti-war” Leftists became passively drooling Obamatards upon the election of Dubya the Darker, they’ll morph into full-on troop-worshipping faggots when they see cuntingents (alongside the usual columns of cock) culling Kurdistanis in the name of liberté, equalité, sororité



To the chickenhawk cheers of many a latte Leftist, these newly empowered GI Janes will hone in on whatever target the Empire sees fit to point them toward at any given moment: today, Syria; tomorrow, Iran; and perhaps the days after that, Sudan, the Congo, Nigeria…

As for the reserves, they can always kick back in the relative safety of a drone console, zapping Pakistani villages with a videogamer’s detachment.

As is often said, a woman’s work is never done.


This entry was posted in America, Gender Issues, News, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

2 Responses to A Woman’s Work? Behind a Gun

  1. Ann Sterzinger says:

    Jeez, when you put it that way, spattering civilians’ brains all over the desert sounds so much less liberating. Spoilsport!

  2. Gen says:

    I am a proponent of total government segregation. As few people as possible should be allowed any position, or access to any benefits, from the state. Let’s make sure that welfare and government jobs are available only to white men from south of the Mason-Dixon and West of the Mississipi over the age of 75. Let’s not have a coalition, please.

Leave a Reply