Did you notice that one of the sailors captured and humiliated by the Iranian Navy was a woman?
Heather Mac Donald points out that the capture of a female sailor reveals feminism's foolish double standard. She begins:
As cable news chewed over Iran’s capture of ten American sailors in the Persian Gulf just hours before President Obama’s final State of the Union address on Tuesday night, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews pointedly observed that one of the captured Americans was female. Now, perhaps Matthews was just being comprehensive in his reporting. But the all but unmistakable implication of this detail was: The situation was all the more urgent.
Why is it more urgent because a woman was captured?
The enemy capture of female soldiers during a hot war will in fact provoke even greater than usual political pressure to quickly rescue them, if necessary overriding sounder but more time-consuming strategies.
The prospect of a female soldier being raped by her captors or, say, “merely” being beheaded will sideline all other military considerations. If two platoons are captured, the one with females in it will undoubtedly take precedence in any rescue effort, thus jeopardizing unit morale and cohesiveness.
And don’t expect feminists to object to this military double standard. They revive traditional norms of chivalry on a moment’s notice in order to play the victim and sexism cards. Indeed, it was feminists who screamed the loudest at Donald Trump’s scuffle with Fox News’s Megyn Kelly during the first Republican debate.
Despite all their talk of men and women being alike, feminists are not above playing the victim and demanding special privileges:
And so it will be in the military. The feminists have browbeaten our armed services into a suicidal attack on combat effectiveness, mostly out of careerist self-interest (combat service is a prerequisite for the highest reaches of the Pentagon hierarchy) but also out of a preening, fictional ideology.
They insist, against all evidence, that the female frame is equally physically suited for the grueling, skeletally punishing ordeal of long military sorties as the male one, and that a 130-pound female will be able to drag her wounded 200-pound comrade, weighted down with 40 pounds of equipment, out of enemy fire. They deny the inevitable destructive force of eros in integrated combat units.
But it will be the feminists who push the hardest to protect female soldiers from any risk of rape or other uniquely female abuse, a prospect all the more real in America’s future theaters of combat: the Third World and Islamic territories.
And with Mac Donald's conclusion I particularly agree:
However galling such a double standard is, it would be worse for Western civilization if males actually took feminists at their word and snuffed out any last vestige of chivalry in themselves. A proper respect for female difference is one of the great civilizing disciplines; a society that truly treated males and females as equal, interchangeable parts would be not worth living in.
Until and unless we relearn this, however, the military likely is going to be less combat-ready and we are likely to see women held captive and subjected to unspeakable actions.