Women Should Not Be Allowed in the Military

Many people justifiably oppose the idea of women in combat, but you find far fewer who believe that women should be officially barred from military service in any capacity. I fall into the latter category. This article is written to explain my reasons, both scientific and moral, for holding this view. It is also written to encourage women who are interested in military service to reconsider.

First things first: Let’s dispense with the myth that men and women are the same. Men and women are not the same. They never have been, and they never will be. “But all people are equal!” a feminist might screech in return. Not so. Equality is one of the biggest myths ever foisted upon thinking people.

People are only equal in two ways: 1) in the eyes of God, and 2) under the law. In all other ways, people are unequal, different, and unique. Because men and women are equal in their rights and in the eyes of God, we should not extrapolate this equality to mean sameness or equivalency in other aspects of life. Just because two men are equal does not mean they are the same or have equivalent skill levels or even equivalent capacities. If two men do not even match one another’s skill level, then who can honestly claim that members of “the weaker sex” can match the skill level of men in the physical arena that defines military service?

Place any two people side-by-side, male or female, and you will find them to be different in their physical strength, their stamina, their work ethic, their proclivities and desires, their enthusiasm and attitude, their range of experience, their skills, their instincts, their comprehension abilities, their modes of learning, and their IQs. No two people are the same. Admitting this fact to be true, it should not be hard for people to then admit that it is not an injustice for men and women to be unequal to one another. It is just a fact of life.

Indeed, some men are unequal to other men, just as some women are unequal to other women. No one will dispute that. Extending this logic further, we find that women are unequal to men in many ways, and men are unequal to women in others. Women, for instance, are usually gentler, more compassionate, and more interested in the welfare of others. These qualities make them infinitely better at raising small children. Should men be jealous of a woman’s natural abilities? Of course not. These are the capabilities and skills God has fitted women with. Why? Because women were designed to fill certain roles, foremost among which is motherhood. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate with this inequality. It is right, good, and natural. And, by the same token, men have been appointed to be protectors and providers, and have been endowed with the physical and mental qualities necessary to fulfill these roles.


Before we delve into facts, figures, and moral arguments, let’s discuss the purpose of war and military service. Understanding this purpose will highlight the poignancy of men’s and women’s inequality – particularly their physical inequalities.

Why do nations have militaries? What is a military’s purpose? In a word, a military’s purpose is to destroy, to kill, to maim, to obliterate, and to defeat any enemy that threatens its people. War is hell, as has often been noted. It is ugly, savage, and unmerciful. It is fast-passed and high-stress. War is founded on force and aggression, and sheer strength, power, and brutality. A military’s aim is to destroy its nation’s enemies as quickly and completely as possible, so as to protect their own people. War is not a game, nor a social experiment. Only the most violent and efficient warriors should be involved.

Keeping in mind the fact that the purpose of war is to crush an enemy threat as quickly and effectively as possible, it is obvious that men make the best soldiers. Anyone who has ever watched little boys and little girls play, knows that males, by nature, are far better at breaking and destroying things. They are more rambunctious and are inclined to take risks and to do dangerous things. Observers also know that boys are inherently tougher than girls, and can endure a worse physical pounding. They observe that a boy’s mind works differently than a girl’s. Boys like sticks and mud and frogs and slingshots and knives and to play cowboys and Indians, whereas girls like dolls and flowers and tea cups and dresses and shoes and pretty things. Little boys are also more likely to end up in physical altercations than girls, and they have a knack for fighting, and an instinct for war, that girls lack.

One might counter with the absurd allegation that these differences are a social construct. Anyone with any shred of honesty, however, knows this to be false. And study after study has confirmed that boys and girls are different, that they like different things, and that they instinctively behave differently. For instance, multiple studies have shown that, when placed in a neutral environment away from parents, boys will choose to play with toys that we traditionally think of as boys’ toys (trucks, balls, etc.), whereas girls will naturally gravitate towards girly toys (stuffed animals, ponies, etc.). In a word, boys and girls have different natures. Our male microchip is coded differently than a female’s. And that is how our All-Wise Creator intended it.


Recognizing these inherent personality differences, let’s now discuss basic biology. Men are taller than women. Men are larger. Men are stronger. Men are faster. Men can lift more weight. Men jump higher and farther. Men have more stamina. Men can run for longer distances. Men have a firmer grip. Men hit harder. Men have more muscle mass and less overall body fat than women. Men have greater lung capacity. I could go on and on. Simply put, men are better physical specimens and excel more than women do in physical feats. And war is inherently physical. Thus, who makes the best soldiers? Biology dictates that men should fight, not women.

A clipping from the June/July 2000 edition of The Veterans of Foreign Wars magazine recently fell into my possession. It is from a blurb entitled “Is the Warrior Spirit Outmoded?” It reads:

“According to some women military officers, masculine traits are no longer necessary in the armed forces. “The muscle we use in combat today is between our ears,” claims Navy Capt. Barbara L. Brehn.

“That may be true when one is dropping bombs from 15,000 feet, but on the ground strength and aggression are still essential assets. Of course, with precious little ground combat experience for GIs in the past 28 years, such nonsense goes unchallenged.”

In actual combat, brute strength and savage competitiveness are indeed “essential assets,” and men possess these traits in abundance, whereas women do not.

While there are individual exceptions, your average man will beat your average woman in any physical feat of strength. Name any sport, and men excel beyond women. This is even true in sports generally considered female, such as volleyball. There is a reason why we normally segregate men and women in sports – because to put women in a man’s league would be inherently unfair to women. Everyone knows that.

Having played in multiple co-ed sports, and having coached both boys and girls, I can personally attest that men excel beyond women. Among other sports, I played four years of co-ed volleyball in Alaska during high school, and was quite successful, leading my team to a state championship in my junior year. It is interesting to note that the volleyball net is almost a foot higher in co-ed volleyball than in woman’s volleyball. Why? It is an attempt to lessen the physical advantages men have over women. To keep the net lower would have been ridiculously unfair for the women who would have to bear the brunt of hard spikes from male players.

Continuing with this point, I challenge you to name one woman, no matter how good by female standards, who can play basketball competitively with all-star NBA players. You can’t do it. The same is true in any sport. The matchups are inherently unfair, because men are inherently more physical, aggressive, competitive, and are biologically equipped for physical feats in ways that women are not. This natural inequality was recently brought into the news by the legendary tennis player John McEnroe, who said that Serena Williams, the #1 female tennis player in the world, would only play at about a 700th ranked level if she were in a men’s league. While the collective feminist blood pressure skyrocketed because of McEnroe’s comments, the fact is he was simply telling the truth. It is politically incorrect to say that women cannot compete with men, but it is nonetheless eternally true.

While your average man is better than your average woman at physical feats, it is even more poignant that your best man will beat your best woman in the physical realm. Military men traditionally are the cream of the crop. And in war, these men go up against the best men from other nations. Can a woman, no matter how good, expect to compete against the best men other nations have to throw into the fray? Of course not!


One of the best articles I’ve ever read about the drawbacks of women in the military was written by a retired female Marine gunnery sergeant with 20 years of experience. I suggest reading the entire article, but here I want to quote just a small segment. This woman wrote:

“The military isn’t being honest with women. All data shows that women are injured at twice the rate of men. Yes – TWICE the rate. In Army basic combat training women were injured 114 percent higher rate than men. These statistics are just in present combat support roles, not the combat/infantry units. Is the military disclosing this injury rate to women? Of course not, because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Even as engineers and military police, women have 108 percent higher injury ratings.

“Women are not as fast or strong as men. This is not a disputed fact, it’s basic biology. If a woman is able to even get through the training, what are the long term physical hardships they’ll face? Attrition rates are already higher for women than men – so what are the odds of a woman performing in the infantry for 20 years? Probably zero.

“Sustained combat operations are physical. Even if a female can meet the standards men currently have in place, she will always be in the bottom percentile physically. Women have less muscle mass and less lung capacity – this is common knowledge. So even the most physically fit women are not going to be competitive with physically fit men. And after serving 20 years in the Marines, I can assure you, Marines are physically fit. One of the greatest areas emphasized by the Corps is physical fitness for the simple reason: to sustain long term combat operations, a Marine must be in top physical shape. Bodies break that can’t maintain the immense stress and physical requirements carrying gear and weapons for long periods of time.”

There you have it, an honest analysis from a woman with experience in this field. Women cannot, and should not, compete with men. It’s just that simple.


Let’s now go over a few other facts that demonstrate the insanity of letting women serve in the military.

Fact: Women are more injury prone than men. Women are more fragile. Women’s bodies break down easier. And women have a lower pain tolerance than men. How many times have we all heard a woman bemoan breaking a nail? How many times has a woman asked us to open the pickle jar she can’t manage to open? How many times has a woman asked us to reach something from the top shelf because she can’t reach it? How many times has a woman run in fright from a bee or a spider? Training a woman who is physically weaker, and who is, thus, exponentially more likely to get injured than a man is a colossal waste of money, not to mention a very inefficient and short-sighted system. It is also not fair for a woman to put her fellow soldiers in a situation where a greater burden is placed upon their shoulders because of the high likelihood that she will be injured at some future date.

Fact: Women develop UTIs and cysts and other diseasesUTIs and cysts and other diseases that men normally do not, which restricts their effectiveness and reliability. While it is possible for men to develop UTIs, it is exponentially more likely for a woman to develop them. And in war time situations where soldiers have to crawl through muck and grime, and where sanitation and hygiene are not first on the priority list, a woman’s likelihood of developing said diseases and infections is far greater. In comparable situations, men are less likely to contract a UTI or similar malady. And it goes without saying that a soldier riddled with infections or diseases is less efficient than a healthy soldier.

Fact: Women get periods, men do not. We have all been around women who seemingly malfunction when they are on their periods. They often don’t think straight, get sick, have cramps, have bad attitudes, burst into tears for no reason, and have numerous physical and emotional limitations during that time. Now let’s use some logic. If you had a piece of hardware that you knew was going to break down and malfunction for several days each and every month, would you continue to use it? Would you invest in it? Would you trust your life with it? Would you use it for important jobs? Of course not. You would be foolish to do so. Yet, we are expected to believe that women on their periods can perform at peak levels! It is a feminist pipe dream. We might as well claim the sun isn’t shining while we’re looking straight at it. Women on their periods can’t perform at optimum levels. Period.

Fact: Women can get pregnant, men cannot. To ask a similar rhetorical question as in the previous paragraph, if you had a tool that you knew could potentially be out of commission for 9 months out of the year, would you invest in it and take the risk of losing your investment? Of course not. Yet, we put men and women together and apparently expect pregnancies not to happen. I am in full support of the Lord’s prohibition of sex before, and outside of, marriage. But in our fallen world, we understand that people don’t obey the Lord’s commandments against fornication – especially young testosterone-filled men and women of childbearing age. Sexual immorality is so rampant in the military that I once read an article, though I do not now recall the source, where a sailor in the Navy reported that ships with women on them are essentially floating brothels. And so it is that sexual relations damage cohesion within units, and inevitably lead to unwanted pregnancies, which further impair a unit’s effectiveness.

Therefore, to place women in a situation where, if they do become pregnant, they will be a burden on their comrades, and on taxpayers who wasted money for her to be trained as a soldier, is simply wrong and irresponsible. It is also wrong because these children all too often become wards of the state, and are educated by outsiders instead of by their own mothers as God intended. To avoid these complications, including the serious immorality that is so prevalent, it would be best for women to not be in the military at all.

Fact: I know this will be surprising, but men love women. Men have always provided for and protected their women. Millions of men have sacrificed their lives for their women. A man’s supreme motivation in life is women. Women are also a man’s greatest weakness. To place women alongside men – not only in combat, but in regular service – is distracting. The last thing any military wants or needs is to have distracted soldiers, or soldiers with divided loyalties. Yet, with women nearby, a man’s natural, inherent, God-instilled desire to protect and defend and take care of women, will kick in and a man will lose focus on his main objective, which should be to kill the enemy.

Imagine a firefight with bullets whizzing overhead. Suddenly, over the din of battle, an injured woman’s cries for help are heard. What is a man going to do? Is he going to sit there and listen to a woman cry in pain? No. He is going to risk his life, perhaps even abandon his mission, to save her. And this result is doubly assured if there had been previous sexual liaisons between the pair. However, if it was the cry of a man in pain, the urgency would be much less to go to his aid, and the focus would be, where it ought to be, on completing the mission at hand. Men do not have the same protective instincts toward other men that they do for women. This can be abundantly seen in mundane situations every day. A boy drops his books in school, who cares? A girl drops her books, fifteen men drop what they’re doing to pick up the books and escort her to class. Try as they might, the social engineers will never eliminate our natural gender-determined instincts.

Fact: To accommodate women, the military has been forced to lower its entrance standards. Because women cannot pass the basic physical standards that men have had to master for decades, the military has quietly lowered its standards for both sexes. Besides the fact that lowering your standards just so that you can pretend you accomplished something is a poor way to live life, of greater importance is that fact that lowering standards hurts overall efficiency. If the military continues to accept into its ranks both men and women who can only meet continuously lowering standards, it will not be long before the military is weakened to a danger point. Are women willing to weaken the military and thus endanger the nation, just to make a political point or to selfishly pursue a career? Yet, every woman who enlists in the military contributes to the overall lowering of military standards.

Fact: Women require different, and separate, logistics than men. Women require an amount of privacy that men do not. To guard this privacy, they require separate facilities, which requires additional manpower and resources to build and manage, which in turn is a greater drain on taxpayers who fund the military. From a purely economic point of view, women are a massive liability. Apart from forking out money for their injuries, infections, pregnancies, and child care, we now have to spend additional money to build female-oriented barracks, latrines, and medical facilities, hire trainers specifically for the female recruits, etc. Throwing women into the military upsets the tried and true dynamic that has worked for thousands of years.

Fact: Over 1/3 of women get raped during their military service. This is a conservative estimate. I have read official Pentagon statements that admit at least 25% of military women get raped – that’s one in four. However, all independent investigations conclude that the number is, as a minimum, one in three. Some studies suggest the number is as high as 70%. No decent person would want their wife, sister, daughter, or mother to be in an environment where the chances of them getting raped were greater than one in three.

If you are a woman contemplating joining the military, take note – your odds of being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted are greater than 33%. Is that a risk you are willing to take? Are you prepared, emotionally or otherwise, to deal with being raped or sexually assaulted? Are you prepared to be raped, and then to have no one care, and to have your superiors attempt to conceal this information from the public? And what if it was your superior officer who did this to you? What would be your recourse then? If you go AWOL, you could be arrested and tried. Or you might be discharged and accused of lying.

This is not a scare tactic on my part; this is reality. While, as I mentioned earlier, a man’s natural instinct is to protect women, as a society forsakes God, as ours is doing, more and more people will abandon all moral restraints and will indulge in every heinous crime imaginable. And, in a military that has officially banned God, and that punishes Christians, the rate of rape and other crimes will only increase. You have to ask yourself if that is a risk you are willing to take. Please don’t naively think that it can’t happen to you – because odds are one in three that it will.


Many other points could be raised to demonstrate that women are a liability and a distraction, but I want to shift gears to the moral and religious aspects of this question. But before I do, I will quote from Jude Eden, a female Marine who served in Iraq, by way of summary. She wrote:

“Even on lower fitness standards, women have far higher rates of injury, illness, non-availability, non-deployability and attrition than men. Commanders of coed units know too well the added burdens of trying to juggle sexual dynamics, accommodations, relationships, fraternization, rape, pregnancy, hygiene and much more while maintaining troop welfare and good order and discipline, let alone mission accomplishment. These are liabilities that can result in mission failure and high casualties in the combat units, all to satisfy a tiny group of women selfishly petitioning for their own career advancement.

“ISIS doesn’t care that our military has met its diversity quota and broken the so-called brass ceiling. They will see our self-imposed weaknesses and exploit them to cause as much damage as possible. That’s precisely what happened to the group of female Marines who served on entry checkpoint duty two months before I did in Fallujah in June, 2005. Insurgents targeted their convoy almost certainly because they were transporting females. They laid an ambush that began with a bomb and ended in a firefight. Three American servicewomen died (one was a single mother) and several others suffered horrendous injuries. They hadn’t made and maintained the infantry standards to be there — they were just attached to the infantry by day. Women are targeted as easy marks because their capture and torture devastate American morale, further hindering our ability to fight our enemies.”

Indeed, it throws off the delicate dynamics of military effectiveness, wastes precious taxpayer dollars, and shatters morale to have women anywhere near a combat zone. It is a supreme distraction, as I stated above, for men to have women nearby when they should be concentrating on killing the enemy. Women serving in the military makes men more vulnerable, for the reasons states above, and is inherently selfish on the part of women. Finally, it is also terribly detrimental for women to expose themselves to an environment where their odds of their being raped and assaulted is over 33%, where they will suffer a multitude of injuries in the course of everyday life, and where they will be at a gross disadvantage to their male counterparts.

In the end, the question brings us back to morals and values. Even if the statistics did not show that women get raped 33% of the time during their service, and even if the numbers did not conclusively prove that millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted in training women who get injured at high rates, and even if the reality was not that women cannot effectively compete with men, I would still oppose women entering the military on religious and moral grounds. It is unChristian for women to serve in the military. And it is unChristian for men to allow it.

Only a cowardly, degenerate, spineless, effeminate nation allows its women to go to war. From the beginning, God has appointed men to provide for, take care of, and protect their women and their children. Men are the patriarchs and the heads of their homes, and, as such, the duty for their family’s defense and upkeep rests on their shoulders. It is the man’s role to defend his family.

A woman has a complementary role; namely, to manage the home in her husband’s absence, to bear offspring, and to nurse and train her children. A woman’s entire mortal duty can be summed up in one precious word: motherhood. Motherhood is a holy calling, a sacred duty, a divine responsibility. A woman’s greatest influence is in the home – not in the workplace, and certainly not in the military. Numerous verses from the Bible could be cited to show that a woman’s place is in the home, such as Titus 2:5. And all of human history demonstrates that God’s way works best.

While exceptions to rules abound, particularly in a broken society like ours, it is important to note that in God’s economy, gender roles are fairly regimented. Heavenly Father’s laws are like guardrails to protect us from figuratively going over the cliff during our often winding and tumultuous earthly journey. When we leave the path He has outlined for us, we risk serious danger to ourselves and others. One of the greatest tools Satan employs to deceive women is pride. He whispers in their ear, “Men are oppressing you and holding you back. Go out there and show them you are an independent woman, and that you can do anything they can do.” Women thus walk around with a chip on their shoulder trying to be like men, all the while ignoring the fact that God did not create men and women to be the same. He drew careful distinctions between the sexes. It is when we attempt to abrogate His standards that we put ourselves in danger; in this case, physical danger from outside enemy forces.


In conclusion, the evidence clearly shows that women cannot compete at the same level as men do in military situations, nor in any physically-laborious setting in general. As such, they prove a liability not only to their comrades who cannot truly rely on them, but to our entire nation, which relies upon our servicemen to defend us. When Russia and China eventually attack us, as I promise you they will, do you want women in our military? Of course not. Nor will you want a military full of men who are distracted by women. And women themselves should not want to place themselves in the way of communist hordes who, historically, have committed the most horrific mass rapes on record. During the final days of WWII, and for years afterward, the communists literally raped millions of German women. I consider that dastardly act the greatest atrocity of the Second World War. Surely, if we Americans were pitted in a world war against the communists, we could expect to receive similar treatment. And women, as usual, will bear the brunt of this savagery – and none more so than women who wear the uniform.

I repeat, it is a cowardly and godless nation that allows its women to suffer the harsh realities of military service. It is a degenerate and wicked nation that lets women fight – and an even more debauched people that mandates, via the draft, that its daughters endure the hell of war. Thanks to delusional feminists, and the spineless men who acquiesced to their dangerous demands, women are allowed to wear our nation’s uniform. Thanks to feminists, at least 33% of military women get raped, while others are exposed to indecency of a thousand types, highlighted by the recent military’s “nude photo” and pornography scandal. Thanks to feminists and their ilk, our women will provide our enemies’ men with an outlet for their rage and sexual depravity in the next major war we fight. Mark my words.

When you really stop and consider the facts, it becomes abundantly obvious that we do ourselves a huge disservice to allow our women in the military. It is unfair to women, it is unfair to the children they bear which will grow up without a mother’s influence, it is unfair to other soldiers, and it is unfair to our society which is put in danger from having a feminized military. I urge any woman who might be interested in joining the military to stop and consider the detriment she will be doing not only to herself, but to her country. And I encourage men to man up and fight the feminist politically correctness which has allowed women to worm their way into the military. May God help us repair the damages that have been done to our military by the integration of women, and may we once more become the world’s leading fighting force.

By Zack Strong

July 1, 2017.

11 thoughts on “Women Should Not Be Allowed in the Military

  1. Pingback: Feminism is Not Fascist – It is Communist | The American Citadel

  2. Our Heavenly Father NEVER said that! You had Deborah when went with Barak and you had Jael which is blessed of women for killing Sisera in self defence and The Woman of Thebez for killing the weak and cowardly Abimelech for trying to kill her in the tower along with the other citizens of Thebez! And do not listen to Abimelech’s lie straight from Lucifer in Judges 9:54, it is not shameful for any man to be killed by a woman that he is trying to murder. Women have a right to defend themselves when war comes to them!


    • You clearly didn’t read my article well enough. I’ve always defended a woman’s right of self-defense. I’m very much in favor of women carrying weapons and training to protect themselves and their families. I have several articles extolling the virtue of self-defense for all people. But a nation that allows its women to fight in its military is a cowardly, weak, and sinful nation – not to mention idiotic, since all experience shows that women ar a liability in the field. Zack


      • The woman of thebez was clearly defending herself from that weakling Abimelech. And I believe that Jael killed Sierra because he tried to rape her.


    • You miss the point…Neither Deborah nor The Woman of Thebez were soldiers in ancient Israel’s all-male army. They did what they had to do because of the circumstances. In the Bible, men and only men were devoted to fight wars as a military force.


      • And it’s dangerouse to teach young boys, children and young men that being killed by a woman is shameful, just because Abimelech lied and said so in judges 9:54 as if that woman was making him look weak or it would have made him look weak to be killed by a woman that he was trying to kill. And it shows how unmanly he was because he wanted to murder her along with others in the tower. And it also teaches violence against women and hatred of women. In society I see both men and women in takwondo, law inforcement and the military. So if it was shameful for any a man to be killed by a woman, by that logic that means it would be shameful to teach a woman how to use a gun,knife,sword or anything else that they could use against us. In the story of Deborah war was coming to israel which explains why she went with Barak and unlike Abimelech, Barak was actually a real man who respected women and did what Our Heavenly Father asked him to do which was fight Sisera at the Kushion river. So he was a brave man which is why he was mentioned in Hebrews 11:32. And Jael (Like the woman of Thebez.) killed a man ( Sisera) in self defence for attempting to rape her or attempting to do it again, because why would dhe cover Sisera twice? So Siseraand Abimelech where not real men, because they showed weakness in trying to hurt women. And i know some people would try to defend that punk by saying that, ” He was fighting a war.” when reality he was trying to murder people and using the name of war to justify his evil/ Lucifer actions. So the book of Judges is proof that women have rights to fight and destroy thier attackers if necessary. And this is the truth of Our Heavenly Father.


  3. And all of this transgender nonsense is really all about legalizing voilence against women, which is why they are trying to sissify us and have us be like Sisera and Abimelech and not do our Heavenly Father given role which is to protect our women! And also they want us to be like Ahab and let our women control our household so that we will sit back and not try to protect our women! They want us to be the perpetrators in voilence against our women and they want us to allow our women to be attacked and raped! So it is very important that A MAN PROTECTS HIS WOMAN, other wise HE CANNOT CALL HIMSELF A MAN!


  4. And all of this men playing against women in women’s sports and men identifying as women so that they can use the women’s bathroom, is an all out attack and war on women! Voilence against women is against manhood!


  5. I agree with much of what has been said however, I think it’s wrong to suggest that women have to fit a certain mould or men fit a certain mould. I know some of the opposite sex who are by temperament very un-emotional and highly logical, so such an individual may rightly, and biblically become a scientist or mathematician, or engineer. I also know men who are very emotionally intelligent so if such an individual were to become a nurse, then that should be commended. God has made us different from one another, and we are given different gifts not necessarily according to traditional gender stereotypes. I agree that to be equal is not to be the same. The Bible shows us a clear distinction between man, and women, and their roles. A wife submits to her husband, and husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church and gave himself for her. Men lead in church services, and war is the tragedy belonging to man. These are undeniable truths, but to be biblically masculine is not necessarily to be always inclined to masculine stereotypes and vice versa for women. A biblical man is a defender of his family emotionally as much as financially. A Women whether a parent or not should be given freedom to pursue their passions in career within the confines of the diverse but distinct biblical framework.


    • First, you talk about stereotypes. I never once mentioned stereotypes in my article, so that’s a moot point. Second, I disagree with some of your other points. For instance, is “emotional intelligence” even a thing? That’s a nitpicky point, but Dr. Jordan Peterson has challenged the very notion of so-called “emotional intelligence.” Yes, of course, there are traits that can – and should – apply to both sexes. I never said otherwise. Next, you said “a woman whether a parent or not should be given freedom to pursue their passions in career.” That’s incompatible with motherhood. Let’s be really honest – it’s IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to be both a full-time mother and a full-time anything else. She can work in another career, sure, but, if she does, she can only claim to be a part-time mother. Full-time motherhood is a blessing and a gift that fathers provide by sacrificing at work to raise money and resources. Women squander that gift if they choose to work. I think it’s a great shame to any woman who decides to pursue a career unnecessarily when she can be a mother and raise children instead – as the Bible implores her to do. Note the word “unnecessarily” in that sentence. Yes, if there is necessity, then the opposite would be true – it would be shameful for her NOT to step up to the plate and provide, say, for example, if her husband died or was injured. But in a normal relationship and in normal times where the man provides, the mother – at least while children are in the home – should stay in the home where she is most needed and where God wants her. If, on the side, she wants to pursue something like writing a book, making and selling crafts, producing some lovely music, or something that won’t take her away from her priorities, then more power to her! But any time something takes away from being a mother – which any career or profession does – then it damages her ability to be a mother, which is the role God assigned her above all and for which she will give an accounting before His throne one day. Lastly, in terms of our context – about women in the military – it is a disastrous experiment to let women be in military service. They aren’t good enough, first of all. That fact should be enough. But then there are the moral and religious implications I explained. So, no, women shouldn’t be free to pursue whatever career they want. There are simply some things that are not intended for women.


Leave a Reply

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s