Monday, May 21, 2012

US Military--Diversity Over Readiness

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

"This is a progressive way forward," Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters last week as the military explained their latest social experiment.

What is the new "progressive way" our military has embraced?

MARRIAGE UPDATE: As of this past weekend, R-74 is reporting 105,780 signatures in so far. Thank you to all those associated with Faith and Freedom in this unified effort. Please gather as many signatures as possible over the next few days and get all petition forms turned in by May 31.

We have 30 more days to collect signatures for I-1192. More on that in a few days.

The US military is now inviting women "to train for infantry battalions that engage in lethal ground combat."

The purpose?

To advance "diversity" and "equal opportunity for women to excel"--- not to improve military readiness.

I realize that for me to raise this issue invites NARAL to publicly declare, yet another time, that I am "anti-woman," as they have done in fund raising letters over the past 3 years, and for homosexual activists to point out that we are anti-equality and out of touch.

However, it is a woman who is speaking out on this issue.

Elaine Donnelly, Director of the Center for Military Readiness (CRM), has released a statement explaining the situation like this:
“The National Football League does not pursue ‘diversity’ by training female players for non-lethal combat on the gridiron. Even the best female athletes would not survive the grueling training and punishing clashes against aggressive male opponents. Social experiments that override recognition of individual merit are not acceptable in pro football. Every team wants to win the Super Bowl.”

"But in the case of the U.S. military, women now are being invited to train for infantry battalions that engage in lethal ground combat – violent conflicts in which lives and missions are at risk. The stated motive is not to improve combat readiness, it is ‘diversity’ and ‘equal opportunities for women to excel'."

Donelly references a report from the National Health Institute that cites that women are "approximately 52% and 66% as strong as men in the upper and lower body respectively." Men are also found to be stronger relative to lean body mass.

Why are we doing this?

“Instead of putting the needs of the military first, the Defense Department is taking incremental steps to implement the deeply flawed recommendations of the Military Diversity Leadership Commission,” CMR said.

Its report, “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century,” comes not from battle-scarred veterans but from “civilian military ‘equal opportunity’ professionals who assign priority to ‘diversity,’ not military effectiveness,” CMR said.

The recommendations concede “diversity” is not about “treating everyone the same,” but instead its focus is on “inclusion.”

We have lost our way.

Congress already has been warned of the problem. In a Congressional Research Service Report on women in combat, CMR reported, the authors point out: “Notably absent in this language is any mention of the effects of military readiness such changes may produce.”

CMR has said the Pentagon’s policy “is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.”

We are doing many wrong things for the wrong reasons. Experimenting with so-called gender diversity within the only military we have could be deadly. It not only compromises our homeland security, but reveals a broader cultural decline and disorientation.

On the present secular progressive path our culture is pursuing, not only are we attempting to redefine marriage, but the most fundamental social principles of gender roles in society. Men are calling other men their wife and women are calling other women their husband---and legislatures, such as the one in Washington State, are cheering them on and voting yes. And those who violate their own conscience to do so are called courageous.

America is on the wrong moral path. There is a way that seems right, but in the end it leads to destruction.

Mike Hatfield wrote an article a few years ago titled, "21 Reasons Why Gender Matters." The study examines Gender Disorientation Pathology and Social Policy.

The study is based upon four foundational principles: 1. Gender differences exist; 2. Acknowledging gender differences is the only intellectually honest response to this reality; 3. Gender differences are complementary; 4. Gender disorientation exists in a small minority of individuals. It is not normative and should not drive social policies.

Take a few minutes and read the study.

It is time to take an honest look at the flawed morality that is causing our foundations to crumble and realize that the solution is primarily moral, not political.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.


  1. Why do women feel they need to compete with men to find personal value? Each gender is uniquely made and complimentary to the other. What a plan.

  2. Just read the 21 reasons why gender matters. Wow. Makes sense to me. I think there is a small minority, mostly gays, that may be gender confused, who are driving these kinds of policies even in the military, to affirm their own gender confusion.

  3. While progressives wage war on the military and the culture they accuse conservatives of waging war on women. Good post.

  4. This entire post is basically justifying your desire to judge and put limits on entire classes of people because of the general tendencies of that class.

    I disagree, I think we should view each individual separately regardless of the tendencies of their peers.

    Let's use the NFL example from the post. Personally, I believe that while that vast majority of women couldn't physically compete in the league, there are some who could if given the opportunity.

    I also believe there are women who would be very capable soldiers, more capable than many or all of the men they would serve with.

    I'm not comfortable holding any individual back and forcing them into roles they wouldn't choose because I believe it suits them better according to my stereotypes.

    I'm old enough to remember the discomfort that even I experienced as women worked their way into occupations that had been exclusively male (including mine). I think back on those days and I'm ashamed of my own prejudice.

  5. Anonymous10:33 AM, May 21, 2012
    "This entire post is basically justifying your desire to judge and put limits on entire classes of people because of the general tendencies of that class."

    Are you kidding? Do you really believe there is no difference between men and women? I think we as women are diminished by being forced to prove we can do what men can do. Men and women are mutually unique. Each has special gifts and abilities which are mutually beneficial in life. This is why a man and a woman become one and create a marriage and a family. I thank God for His wisdom in creating each gender differently and complimentary.

    1. Please tell me where I said there was no difference between men and women. I think there are differences and that you're reading things into my statement that don't exist.

      I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. I'm only trying to afford everyone the opportunity to do what they choose with their own life. You have a definite opinion as to the role of a woman, but the problem comes when you try to force ALL other women to behave in accordance with your own religious stereotype by limiting their opportunities.

      It seems that you have a real problem using the words "woman" and "choice" in the same sentence.

    2. That one women is welcome to give the NFL her best shot. Even at 300 lbs., after getting thrown around like a rag doll, trampled on repeatedly every play by a defensive end going thru her like Sherman thru Atlanta on the way to the QB, she'll get the idea.

      I'd pay good money to see her give it her best shot. It'll help with the medical bills=)

      Craig in Lacey

    3. Which NFL do you watch? The NFL I watch has positions, like punters & kickers, protected from "getting thrown around like a rag doll, trampled on repeatedly every play by a defensive end going thru her like Sherman thru Atlanta". In fact, doing that to a punter would get a player ejected and fined in the NFL I watch.

      So, the question is, would you pay money hoping to see the woman succeed thereby breaking the stereotype you subscribe to? Or would hope for the injuries you predict thereby validating your views regarding the role of women?

    4. I watch the NFL in which punters and kickers need to be able to tackle a RB or WR returning kicks and fend off blockers to do the same. If she can do that, more power to her. I'm thinking not.

      If she can carry an 80 lb. rucksack, plus ammo and weapon and body armor and run up the side of a hill and hit what she's shooting at at the same time, more power to her.

      Like I said, I'd pay to see her try, before putting her in the field. Football or combat.

      Craig in Lacey

  6. Rev. Harry Knox, former director of HRC’s Religion and Faith program, a member of our Religion Council, and interim director for Integrity USA, writes about the connection between LGBT equality and women's reproductive rights.

    "Make no mistake: the attack on women currently underway in this country reflects a larger mission on the part of some to enshrine straight, white, once again as the law and practice of the land."


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.