- The Washington Times - Monday, September 25, 2000

Who needs women in the military?

I am incensed that letter writer Daphne D. Sahlin calls columnist Fred Reed a "coward" and says The Washington Times does its readers "a disservice" by printing his column about the feminist destruction of the United States military. ("Column an insult to women who have served in U.S. military," Letters, Sept. 21).

Miss Sahlin, like most women raised on decades of feminist propaganda, has it exactly backward.

If Mr. Reed were a coward, he would do what our blow-dried male politicians have done: silently cave in to every female demand. Feminists, along with these blow-dried eunuchs, at least one of whom is a draft dodger, conveniently ignore that women stayed home and burned their bras during the Vietnam War while men like myself and Mr. Reed were being drafted. It is farcical for that generation of women to call any man a coward. Let these women put their rears, not just their careers, on the line before they start using the word "coward" to describe men who have faced lead and steel.

I agree with Miss Sahlin that The Times does its readers a disservice, but not the way she thinks. I can pick up any newspaper in the country and find any number of female writers calling men names while proclaiming the wonderful achievements of women against the overwhelming opposition of male sexists. In her heart, every woman knows that is a lie. The truth is just the opposite. Everywhere women go, we men give them a pass. Just as we used to do in grade school, we smile and let the girls get in line ahead of us. The only difference between grade school girls and their supposedly grown-up counterparts is that the older but no wiser girls push their way into line with an attitude, never saying "thank you" and always daring us not to let them in. Only occasionally, as with Mr. Reed, can we find men with the courage to call this nonsense by its right name.

In short, Miss Sahlin's opinion is dime-a-dozen drivel, a waste of newsprint and a waste of your readers' time. If you want a unique and worthwhile contribution from women on the topic of the military, find a woman who knows what it means to be drafted in wartime, not just another affirmative-action beneficiary who regards a peacetime military career as just another place to cut in line, just another female right with no responsibilities.

WOODROW F. DICK. JR.

Springfield

I support Fred Reed on everything he writes, especially when it comes to the latest flap over women in the service. They don't belong, period.

The women who have served were there in fulfillment of a liberal social experiment. Our defense is not the place to play games with this sort of nonsense. There used to be an expression, "Don't sent a boy to do a man's job." Good. Now they send a girl. Madness.

After the 1991 Tailhook affair, an admiral noted that when his operational readiness inspection team went to a West Coast helicopter squadron, it found that of the squadron's 14 female aviators, 11 were pregnant but only one of them was married. The Navy came up with two poster girls who got their wings. These vestal virgins in blue would not have made it through training had they been men. Their instructors were told to get them through at any cost. One crashed on a carrier approach after missing the deck on the first three approaches. The second woman was grounded for lack of proficiency.

The Air Force had its own poster girl, a woman who made it to the left seat of a B-52. She was court-martialed for having an open sexual affair with an enlisted man. Who needs women in the military?

EDWARD J. TONER JR.

Brick, N.J.

Fred Reed's column on women in the military was close to the mark but there are those who are far too politically correct to admit it.

Yup, I served 24-plus years in the military as an Army aviator, including two tours in Vietnam, and my daughter was an Army captain in ChemCorps for about six years and one of the most squared-away in her outfit.

I have served with many women, and there's only one with whom I would go into combat (well, two). She, like my daughter, got out after her second child was born. Why, one asks? To raise her family. It seems to me that's how the feminine instincts function and I'm glad. And yes, I have seen all the wiles and tricks used by those who want to "play" with the boys but don't want to have to "do" as they do. Do men do the same things? Sure. They wouldn't be soldiers if they didn't but the rub is that the men know why they're "doing," but the girls don't (won't) admit it and expect special treatment. Examples abound.

Bottom line: women do an excellent job in their traditional jobs in the military, as in combat support/ combat service support. This frees men for the more rigorous combat duties. Why is that so difficult to understand?

The feminist state of mind will disappear only if (God forbid) there is another shoot-em-up and the unloading docks are full of body bags containing little Susies and Marys. Then it will be too late to ask, "Why?" Or, God willing, the Democratic socialists will not get elected in November.

JAMES P. FAZEKAS

Windsor, N.J.

Refusal to allow religious exercises in schools establishes secular faith

In his Op-Ed piece of Sept. 18th, "Liberals for school choice," Christopher Prawdzik cites the proposition of those who oppose it that school choice is an instrument "by which conservatives impose their religious sentiments upon a gullible public."

But not once does Mr. Prawdzik indicate the corollary of this that "no choice" is likewise an instrument by which liberals impose their religious sentiments upon a gullible public.

Liberals are popularly deemed (particularly by themselves) to have no religion. This is perhaps the grossest fallacy, the darkest blind spot, of our time. It has so muddled our thinking about education that a kind of false "stealth religion" has actually been fastened on our schools, with scarcely one American in a hundred being aware of it.

Let Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart sort out the muddle. In his brilliant dissent in Abington vs. Schempp, 1963, Justice Stewart wrote, "A refusal to permit religious exercises (in school) thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism."

In removing the Christian religion from the state schools, then no God, no prayer, no Bible, no Ten Commandments, and an anti-Christian curriculum in general the Supreme Court has thereby unconstitutionally established in our schools, not "neutrality" (which is impossible), but an opposite faith, that of "secularism" or, more fully, "atheistic secular humanism" (ASH).

As Plato put it succinctly, "The rejection of a dogma itself implies a dogma." And, interestingly, the Supreme Court itself has long declared this dogma of ASH to be a religion (Torcaso vs. Watkins, 1961).

The situation, then, is this. Our ASHist left-wing friends, a tiny extremist minority, have judicially hijacked the state schools. From them they have banished Judeo-Christianity. In its place, they have established by default their own unprovable religion of ASH. They continue to entrench this in the state schools, both by masking it as "neutrality," and by "warnings" against the "Christian religious right," who, they "warn," are "trying to take the schools over." One can only admire their magnificent chutzpah.

More seriously, Americans who are not ASHist in religion, the great majority of us, are thus being taxed to support, in the monopoly state schools, the forced indoctrination of our own children and grandchildren and teachers in what we may call the "stealth religion" of ASH. In theory, Thomas Jefferson called all such taxation, "cruel and tyrannical." And in practice, we need not dwell on its horrific academic and social results over the past two generations, lately including shootings in the schools.

The answer? Clearly, not the existing, failed, "no choice," state monopoly. Rather, democratic school choice, backed by no-strings-attached parental vouchers, funded from our own taxes. With these, we parents can freely choose the schools we desire for our children whether ASHist, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, etc., etc.

Simple. And democratic school choice is not merely a "good idea." It is in truth the only mode of education fit for a free people. Once in place, American education, exactly like our record-shattering free-choice economy, will quickly skyrocket, out of its present socialist havoc, into its former realms of spiritual, intellectual and moral achievement.

GEOFFREY H. SHAW

President

Americans for School Freedom.

Charlottesville, Va.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide