"As we find ourselves on the cusp of women on the front lines of combat, we must ask some important questions about how we will raise boys in the future....if we as a country insist on pushing through [natural barriers] and throwing our women at the enemy by placing them on the front lines in combat, some important cultural and sociological changes will need to occur. We will need to raise a new generation of men who will be willing to stand by and watch women being shot, stabbed, tortured, raped and battered. They will need to be desensitized to the realities of harm befalling women. Additionally, once the United States crosses the barrier of women in combat, other countries will likely follow, so our men will need to learn to stand face to face with a woman, look her in the eye, and kill her in hand-to-hand combat.To these questions, the answer is overwhelmingly "yes". I don't think the Gen X or later male is socialized to treat women as a whole with the sort of kid gloves that Ms. Boylard and Ms. Parker (be sure to click on the link to Ms. Parker's WaPo article and feast upon the naked and empirically illiterate fem-supremacy--e.g., "women...smarter/stronger/wiser/wilier"--found there) apparently think we should. Instead, we know Woman as a tough workplace competitor, a ruthless exploiter of advantageous rules and laws and social conventions, half the time a loving companion, the other half the time a mortal enemy with no moral truck with using the machinery of the State to sell their male counterparts into chains. "Rough[ing] the girls up a bit"? I'm sorry sister, you get what you dish out.
"To accomplish this radical change in the psyches of male soldiers will require massive re-education. Will it fall upon parents to teach boys to stop playing gently with the girls? Will they teach their boys that girls must be treated the same - that it's now OK to rough the girls up a bit? Somehow male soldiers are going to have to learn to stop protecting women." Perhaps it will fall upon the churches to stop teaching the biblical mandate: "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7).
More than likely, I suspect the military will be in charge of the re-education, requiring lengthy brainwashing sessions to teach men to cease to care about women as anything more than faceless, genderless soldiers.
Kathleen Parker pointed this out in a recent Washington Post piece:
"We can train our men to ignore the screams of their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create? And though some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy men. It will kill us in the end."
In addition, this bleating from aging Boomers over the equalist world they hath wrought strikes me as a bit ironic: isn't this the world they wanted, where women were the equal of men? They've been supra-equal in life for decades, enjoying all the advantages that net female social supremacy has had to offer; now that equality in duty and responsibility and obligation and suffering and death approaches--the equality the Seneca Falls feminists and the Suffragettes sought whether they realized it at the time or not--all of the sudden we have a problem that must, must, be fixed.
Left unsaid in Ms. Boylard's PJM article is how it is somehow acceptable for men to be "shot, stabbed, tortured, raped, and battered", but not women. Are men's lives less valuable in Ms. Boylard's and other socon's eyes? Are men expendable..have we become desensitized to male suffering to the point that we no longer notice it? If so, why does she think this? Surely it can't be for reasons that women are the only sex that capable of bearing children; that ship has long since sailed in a society where the native-born American woman can't be troubled to replace herself and her mate(s). That 4-bdrm colonial and two-income family is just too important a merit-badge when The Herd isn't passing out medals for mere mommyhood.
Fourth, Ms. Boylard cites the Gospel of Peter and its exhortation for husbands to honor wives as the weaker vessel and grant them grace for their differential nature. I'm glad she did, for in doing so, she provided me the opportunity to make mention that all of Scripture applies, not just the portions one finds convenient. Thus, since we're talking about husbandly duty, something I accept, let's whip out Ephesians 5:22 or Colossians 3:18 and watch female heads explode at mere mention of the Biblical requirement for wives to submit to male marital / familial authority. For the former to apply, the latter must as well. Besides, this sort of proof-texting is a waste outside of trad-con/socon circles, really...what fraction of American women claim to be Believers and, of these, what fraction *really* practice what Paul preaches in Ephesians, anyways? Or even attempts it?
Last, yes, the military is in charge of re-education of teh menz and teh womenz. What is diversity training, sensitivity training, and sexual harassment law and policy, if not a vehicle to teach men to treat their female colleagues as sexless Soldiers who just happen to be (generally) shorter, slower, and physically weaker, and not women to be protected and covered? Furthermore, some tenets of Christianity are practically hate speech in the US armed services these days; watch how fast mere mention that Scripture casts homosexuality as sin and / or that the Bible prescribes a particular hierarchy in the family lands one on the wrong side of an EO complaint. Press the Unitarian / secular humanist system hard enough, and one invites punishment by UCMJ, maybe even involuntary separation and an other-than-honorable discharge. Put simply, equality demands women and men be treated the same despite their differences. If one has problems with this, one needs to reconsider their entire post-Enlightenment outlook, something that I don't think Ms. Boylard or Ms. Parker are quite prepared to do.
We collectively made the decision to watch women be "shot, stabbed, tortured, raped and battered" on foreign fields the instant the 19th Amendment passed. Bed. Made. Lay down and enjoy.