Judith Stiehem wrote a disgusting book about how the Air Force Academy was forced by wimps in Congress to admit women. Her books title, Bring Me Men and Women: Mandated Change at the U.S. Air Force Academy, is a play on the words "BRING ME MEN" that appear prominently on a building there. Notice the words on the building in the picture below above the young woman who is standing attention on her first day there.
Steihem's book shows how pathetically ignorant women like her are today about what masculinity and femininity mean. She disparages men by saying, "Is it not possible, moreover, that men's aversion to women's suffering is based on their feeling that a suffering woman implies men's failure to be protective? Thus the pain men feel may derive not from sympathy but from a feeling of failure." The whole concept that men care for women is dismissed and men are really low life's who just feel macho pride. How sad it this? I don't have the words to express how sad it is that men and women have degenerated so far in their view of each other. Her opinion of men is why so many men have given up on being gentlemen and chivalrous. The atmosphere is filled with feminist nonsense that women are not to be protected and therefore men feel less protective every year.
DISGUST FOR CHIVALRY
This ridiculous feminist continues her male bashing and disgust of chivalry saying:
The fact, of course, is that in war men on both sides terribly and regularly hurt women on the other side. Half the victims in any war are "noncombatants"-- largely women, children, and the elderly. Quite obviously, a desire to avoid hurting women does not control men's behavior. At best, men do not want "their" women hurt. In fact, men do not object to having women in combat so much as they object to having women on their side. This is important. It means that even if some women are physically able and are so moved by logic or by their sense of justice as to insist upon sharing war's risk, their offer will probably be refused. Men do not want women's assistance in the waging of war.
But chivalry is not the only reason men are reluctant to have women fighting by their side. In extremis they do not want to depend on individuals whom they perceive as small and weak. Probably everyone in combat would be comforted by compatriots larger and stronger than they, and men's chances of having a (physically) bigger "buddy" do increase if women are eliminated as combatants. Nevertheless, physical size is not required for combat effectiveness.
DAVID AND GOLIATH?
The last sentence is one of the most idiotic sentences that has ever been written in human history. And yet on the back cover of her book is a glowing review from a man, the governor of Colorado -- the state where the Air Force Academy is. "Physical size is not required for combat effectiveness." Yeah, right. She then gives what she thinks is a logical example to prove her point -- little David and big Goliath. It would be laughable if it weren't that more and more people progressively live in a fog of feminist logic. She writes:
We have been taught this fact by the biblical story of David and Goliath and by the small enemies of our past (the Japanese and Vietnamese for example); this we know, too, from the technological nature of our warfare. At present, women may be less competent than men to handle some military equipment, mainly because it is now built for a male "standard." A redesigning of military equipment, then, might greatly enhance women's performance.
More important to victory than size is organization, cooperation, pooled effort. Relatively small and weak but well-motivated men have always fought effectively. One might think that women, too, if properly equipped and integrated into military units, could be effective as combatants."
She says in her book that all arguments against women in combat are "silly." The reverse is the truth. She begins her book with three quotes of what she sees as dinosaur thinking, but they are the only words in her book that are true. She begins her saying:
The kind of women we want in the Air Force are the kind who will get married and leave. --A major at the U.S. Air Force Academy
I disagree with the admittance of women to the academies. This is just another step taken for political reasons that will tend to weaken our combat capability. -- An Air Force general stationed in the Midwest
Maybe you could find one woman in 10,000 who could lead in combat, but she would be a freak, and the Military Academy is not being run for freaks. -- Gem William Westmoreland in Family Weekly, September 25. 1976
Thus spake the brass -- in private and sometimes in public. The 1975 federal legislation mandating women's entrance into the service academies displeased them; in fact, among senior officers the decision was widely deplored. For once again (the obvious analogy is school integration) important governmental institutions were told by the federal government to change themselves in a fundamental (some said revolutionary) way. Moreover, they were told to do so at a specific time and they were under close public scrutiny. There was little hope that their change or failure to change could go unnoticed, nor was there much about the change that would be voluntary. It was required, and most of those charged with implementing it were opposed.
Feminists always mix the apples and oranges by equating the discrimination of race with ability. Her book is about the integration of women into the Air Force Academy. Comparing black men and white men versus men and women at our elite military colleges is done constantly and most people nod their head like people used to believe that the earth was flat.