The Right Opinion

The Women's Annihilation Movement

By William Murchison · Feb. 5, 2013

Male or female, those of us who've been around for a while can recall clearly the objectives of the feminist movement as it geared up in the early 1970s. Workplace fairness was the goal.

A lot of manufactured indignation attended the feminist rising; e. g, who says we have to wear bras? Basically, nonetheless, what the rebels said they wanted was opportunity too long denied them by chauvinistic males. Opportunity they received from government, and in a larger sense, from the hand of a culture they prodded or embarrassed into agreement with most of what they said. Jobs opened up; power, avenues to self-determination, rights galore, culminating the other day in what I guess we might call the right to be blown to smithereens or take a burst of machine gun slugs in the abdomen.

The craziness of our present age is well recognized. The craziness of the new Pentagon policy opening combat duty to women is yet to be appreciated, least of all by the alleged beneficiaries.

Ambiguities peek through the text that lays out the new policy. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Officials are divided about whether women will ultimately serve as infantry troops or in elite special operations units. Some military officials, citing the difficulty of completing infantry training courses, believe that most women would be unable to meet the physical requirements.”

Let us avoid putting much stock in momentary reservations about the propriety of imputing to women soldiers and pilots less capability than their male counterparts. Four decades ago, the aim of the very determined movement that brought us to this place was “ women's liberation.” We've now pushed beyond that – to women's annihilation. Onward, ladies! Just what both sexes everywhere have yearned to see: female carcasses strewn around the field of battle. Really inspiring stuff. In certain circles.

To this we've come from the old equal pay brouhahas? Evidently so. Feminism never was long on appreciation of biological and chemical distinctions between the two sexes. In the age of equality, distinctions are arbitrary social constructs: lies and maneuvers meant to keep one group or another in “its place” while privileging another.

Male monopoly of the military professions is founded on several realities however blind to such we might have become in our era of political correctness.

Reality No. 1: War requires strength, even in the high-tech, push-button age. Men really are physically stronger than women. Generally this means they fight – and kill – better.

Reality No. 2: Women, not men, bear children – a task central to the survival of civilization, not to say the human race. There's no taint or shame in the historic division of sexual labor – women working to preserve and maintain and build and grow, men also deputed to build and grow but specializing when necessary in the job of destruction. If that's not how we're constituted, how come nobody ever noticed before?

Reality No. 3: A fundamental male instinct is to protect women at all costs, to keep them out of harm's way when possible, when not to take a bullet for them. The instinct is embedded in human nature as revealed by the testimony of centuries. No honorable, generous, decent civilization would want to remove such an instinct even if it understood the surgical means.

Reality No. 4: We don't maintain a military for “workplace opportunity” purposes. We maintain it to defend the country. Social goals take a backseat to the goal of walloping our enemies, through the deployment of those most qualified to wallop them.

Ideologues, as the 20th century surely taught us, love to substitute the imaginary for the real, calling down up and up down, in service of their goals. Well, here they go again, deploring history's implication in a male conspiracy against the women's annihilation movement. If only they'd come up with some proof, but I guess it's too late for that. They just won the war.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM

10 Comments

jeff in texas said:

william,
i agree with you here 100%. but keep in mind who is the real force behind the destruction of Christianity, which destruction is the root cause of most of todays ill(in fact all).
it is satan and his minions, those folks that asked that the blood of Christ be upon their heads and the heads of their children. ie the jews.
how did Jesus put it when "the jews" told him that their father was abraham ?? he stated in john 8:43(i think thats the right citation), that ther jews father was a liar and a murderer from the beginning and that as his children they would do as he did, ie lie and commit murder.
be assured that Jesus was right, as He ALWAYS was/is. simply google rachel corrie and then notice that our savage cowards in the congress did not so much as a peep make when the israelis murdered this fine american girl in cold blood. so who will we serve here at the patriot post ?? the Truth or the children of the devil ??

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 5:03 AM

Brian in Newport News replied:

Jeff, you are totally misconstruing the meaning of that passage. Jesus was talking to a group of scribes and Pharisees, relgious leaders of the Jews in that day. He was NOT speaking to or about Jews in general. Try reading the rest of the Bible. The Jews are God's chosen people. Do you really think God would choose a people who are the children of Satan?

Yes, Satan was behind the call for Jesus' crucifixtion. Believe it or not, so was God. If it were not God's will that Jesus should die on the cross (as payment for all of mankind's sin), it would never have happened. If you think it was all Satan's doing, then you must think very little of God.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM

jeff in texas said:

i forgot to add that if you want to read more truth, go to "realjewnews.com" which is hosted by an honest jew, or to "the occidental observer" hosted by professor kevin macdonald

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 5:04 AM

Brian in Newport News replied:

A man is known by the company he keeps. He is also known by those who honor him. Professor MacDonald is an anti-semite.

"MacDonald, who is beloved by major American anti-Semites including former Klan leader David Duke, believes that Jews are impelled by genetic factors to undermine the majority populations of the societies they live in. In fact, MacDonald put it like this in journalist Jon Entine’s recent book, Abraham’s Children: “Jews do not act in the best interest of society. We need to systematically put in place some controls, call it discrimination if you will, to restore parity with other groups.” Since the turn of the millennium, MacDonald has also become a white supremacist activist. He has held leadership positions in several white supremacist groups, and in 2004 he was honored with a $10,000 prize for his work on the Jews by The Occidental Quarterly, a white supremacist publication on whose editorial advisory board he sits."

If you are also a white supremacist, you need to go elsewhere. Your views are NOT welcome here.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM

jo neace krause in nashville, Tennessee replied:

Professor Kevin MacDonald does not hate Jews, he hates what they are doing to this country, draining it with wars for Israel, which is exactly what several very strong Jewish voices are saying, only it is the women who are saying it the strongest. Alice Walker: (We hear you, Gaza! We hear you!) Yoko Ono(I gave a fat grant to The Rachel Corrie Foundation),Media Bejamin on Donald Rumfield as he shopped in a high priced store (Oh, here he comes! That war criminal! Look at him! Look at him!). or the woman who wrote "Old Land", a poem. about Palestinians (WE chew our own dark crust of hope).

Monday, February 11, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

Conservatives know when demokrats have GONE TOO FAR, Mr Murchison. After John F. Kennedy, the Dems went too far.Clinton sent American troops into Serbia, willy-nilly, to do just what? And Jeff, in Texas---Christ set the example of Love, Grace, and Mercy, other than that--A Great Salvation!

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 6:20 AM

wjm in Colorado said:

Obamao couldn't have made the military more of a joke, than by putting women in combat. The rest of the world must think he is nuts. I think he is pure evil in the destruction he is waging on this country. Next step, pure islamist units, sworn in with the vile Koran, in allegiance to Sharia, just to be fair you know.......

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM

JJ in WV said:

Someone else who has looked around at the subject of violence in humans has come to much the same conclusions. I recommend a dated book -

The Dark Side of Man – Tracing the Roots of Male Violence
Author - Michael P. Ghiglieri
Library of Congress Card 99-60682
ISBN 0-7382-076-X
Copyright 1999

You have to get it from Amazon on Paper back. He does a great job on the analysis of society and the value difference placed on things between women and men. The two are - as he puts it - at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to violence - to the point he hypothesizes that the human male could potentially be biologically hard-wired for violence and that only common society restraints curtail this violence.

Get a copy and read it - of the people I know that have read it the comments are:

Females - it explains a lot of behavior.
Males - damn depressing book.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Army Officer (Ret) in Kansas replied:

I wouldn't give much credence to Michael P. Ghiglieri. He's a misandrist with an axe to grind and a third-rate academic pedigree.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 2:35 PM

jo neace krause in nashville, Tennessee said:

The military is, of course, an employment opportunity. People who serve in the armed forces gain considerable awards in pensions, tuition, & medical care., and it was the institution which picked up the slack in society's failures, like unemployment and undereducated dropouts. Liberal leaders are determined to weed out certain "undesirables "in the military by rejecting those with Confederate tatoos, and raising the bar to attract college educated men from the cities. In other words, the liberals see the military as a southern dumping ground for half educated racists, and should be replaced by high paying jobs for others.

Monday, February 11, 2013 at 10:54 AM