The Dilemma of The Lady-Soldier

Women have been serving their country in many ways through out history even before being allowed in the military. From spying, to smuggling information, to even posing as men and fighting, many women have wanted to answer their country’s call to bravery the same way as their male counterparts. I don’t dismiss in the least the bravery and sacrifice those valiant women made.

Women in the army as official soldiers is still a relatively new thing, only a few decades old. However, they weren’t in direct front line combat roles. Now though, the US government decided to let women join the ranks in elite male units, such as the marines, and in direct front line combat. I think this goes too far. Unlike the denials of the feminists, and politically correct crowd, it is plan and simple that women are physically weaker than men. Women do not have the physical strength and endurance demanded of male soldiers, in which all men are not invited either! Many men do not make the cut into the armed forces, especially elite units, so why must we delude ourselves that women can? Look, no one likes admitting women cannot do things men can, or that they are inferior. However, the cruel reality is: women are not fit to be in direct combat and only endanger their male comrades. Not to mention, many men will be distracted by seeing their female comrades injured in battle, as many men were taught to protect women. Men are traditionally the defenders of women. Wartime propaganda is rife with the call to arms to defend women! The military has lowered standards of physical fitness so women could join in too. This PC invasion of our military’s standards only makes us laughable to our enemies, and us look like a slave to societal whims than objective truths. We need our military to be based on tactical advantages, not social desires for egalitarianism. Not to mention, the sexual tensions brought up by many as a concern in coed units. Officers, and military wives alike dread such an occasion. Some criticize the military for being too macho or a “boy’s club”, but that’s what has made it so efficient in the past. The comradeship between soldiers is likened to being brothers in arms. Should they be walking on eggshells not to make some insensitive joke about women because of PC liberal feminist soldiers among them? The military has enough issues with sexual harassment/assault of female soldiers within the army, taking away focus from our enemies. Can I just say this bluntly? The military is NOT a female space! It traditionally was for guys to be guys without PC feminists freaking out at their every word. If it makes more morale, and unit cohesion leading to a better military if men do “locker room talk”, so be it. What’s more important, a well-defended country, or feminine sensibilities? If women truly had the strength and endurance needed of a solider in combat, I’d have no problem with them having a place in the army, if in all-female units. However, the reality is, women in direct combat is a danger to our military’s fighting force, and our image as a society who lets women fight while men stay home comfortably.

However, I’d be naive to think that combat troops are all our military is made of. Indeed, modern warfare has created more roles than the usual battlefield soldier. Now, we must have military engineers, scientists, espionage, people who can win the “hearts and minds” of a people as some examples. It is naive to think, in modern warfare, which often is not on a battle field, but in a community, women don’t have any place. When our enemy hides in the community, anyone including civilians like women and children could be the enemy too. A man may not be able to access the part of society women and children inhabit like a woman can. A female spy might pick up intelligence from enemy women that the men aren’t talking about. Also, a woman might be less likely to be seen as a threat, thus more discreet. There are units of soldiers whose jobs are to try to relate to the community to gain an ally against the enemy. Perhaps women can have a part to play in there. Or, perhaps in non-combat roles, such as the military engineer, who designs technology, or the scientist or medic. In modern warfare, brains has begun to be just as important as brawn. Women could help in the “brains of the operation” albeit not suited for the”brawn”. While I disagree with women being allowed to be in say, fire teams storming a building, or on the front lines killing and being killed, women may have a place in less dangerous areas of the military. The military used to realize that not everyone has the same strengths, and used to put people in the role that best suited their strengths. Women in the military should be no different. Women can add their own advantages to our military without having to be identical to their male comrades in arms. We are deluding ourselves as a country to have physically weaker women in combat alongside the strongest of the strong! We delude ourselves to think that men and women in the same unit won’t lead to scandals, pregnancies and disgrace. Why do we have women in elite marine units, for instance, when most men cannot make the cut? When will the military realize not to be “defeated” by some PC snowflakes? Look, I don’t decry women occupying more intellectual and peaceful roles in the military, but women pretending they are as strong as men is insane! Women can serve their country too, but not when it endangers everyone else! Ladies, let’s not let our pride and ego get in the way of admitting when our weaknesses make a job better suited for someone else.

Image result for aus dem frauenstaat

Conservative Positions Can Be Justified: No Religion Required

Many of my fellow conservative readers may have noticed, that unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I have never, invoked religion as an argument for my positions here on A Lady of Reason. Indeed, the whole point of this blog is to give non-religious/secular minded women who have conservative views an outlet. This is where I disagree with many of my conservative peers. While we share many views on many issues, I feel like i do not need to invoke God for justification for my views, my opinions are backed up on strictly secular grounds. Many conservatives who in most matters I agree with, think that secularism is bad, or a trait only the liberal snowflakes ought to embrace. Some, have written articles about how secularism drains the purpose or joy out of life, or impedes traditional morals and values. Many conservatives feel like a huge part of being conservative requires religion! I digress. Here are some issues which I generally agree with my fellow religious conservatives on, but justify from a secular perspective.

Modesty: Many religious traditions have embraced modesty, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam. However, the merits of modest dress don’t necessarily have to involve religion. Modesty in dress signals an attitude of shunning detrimental hook up culture and hypersexualization and unladylike vulgarity and promiscuity. Modesty conveys the image of a lady of standards, not one who will throw herself at any man who passes by! Modesty does not have to be about pleasing some god, it can be about resisting a culture that wants women to be cheap and easy. Not to mention, the role of provocative action and dress and its correlation with sexual assault.

Gender roles: Women and men are different by nature, it has been proven scientifically that male and female brains are wired different. The societal denial of the inherent differences in gender is detrimental to men and women alike, in that each tries to be forced into the other’s role, to no avail. Now, women and girls are being told they have to be more like men to be worth something, to be equal to men, and to denounce their own womanhood. Men and boys are being feminized, and turned into soft sheep afraid of their own shadow! While religious people can say that God ordained certain roles, the secular minded can acknowledge the scientific evidence for the differences in genders, and the societal implications for a society that denies them.

Traditional Family: “Any family is a real family” is the new slogan in town! However, dysfunction and unfulfillment plague these so called families such as divorced and broken homes, single parent homes, same sex parent homes, children raised by other relatives. God doesn’t have to get involved. Religious or not, an unhappy dysfunctional home that lacks what it needs to raise well rounded children is detrimental, period. The decay of the nuclear family is spreading every day, and reflects an “anything goes” society, where marriage is dishonored, children are not the priority, and “alternative” lifestyles take precedence over what has been the family structure for decades. In this “hook up” culture, the traditional family, one of loving parents and generations of stable marriages are going away. The impact on society is a generation of children without real families and stable homes, and in therapy!

The Institution of Marriage: Marriage was once a deep promise, a lifetime of commitment to your partner. Now, it’s little more than dating 2.0! Promiscuity, infidelity, divorce, and such are rampant! Younger generations are forsaking marriage for “live in” situations, and hook ups! In this hook up culture and anything goes society, marriage symbolizes the lost sense of commitment and devotion to one’s partner in life. One doesn’t need God to decree marriage is the only way to be in a relationship. One simply has to witness the cheapening of love, commitment and devotion in favor of flings and hookups and treating people as disposable commodities, instead of life partners to see the benefits of a society that embraces marriage.

Abstinence and Chastity: Sex has been cheapened so much by society today. Once, sex was reserved for wedlock, but now, it’s an anyone can join affair! For young ladies, the choice to save yourself for marriage is not just about whether or not God decrees you must. It can be a secular based choice as well, like for me. I will admit this is more of a personal preference, but for good reason. Abstinence before marriage practically, will prevent many “accidents” such as unwanted pregnancy by some random guy, or an STD from a guy who isn’t committed to you nor told you. Sex within wedlock is the “safest” form of sex, even with protection, as you and your partner are committed to each other, they won’t just leave you after the “fling” is done. More abstractly, I personally believe that the greatest gift a young lady could give a man is trusting him with her sexuality. A lady of standards does not just sleep with any man, and give herself away like a handshake. True, men often have more sexual freedom, but I argue women are not suited to emulate the sex drive of a man, by her biological nature. Women evolved to be selective with mates since she has more to lose if she slips up and gets pregnant. A man can just walk away, she is stuck with a child for 9 months. Waiting until marriage is a choice that gives sex its due reverence, and not just a hook up. A lady used to have her first time be a milestone, now it’s merely a handshake…

Traditional Femininity: More specifically within gender roles, I feel that women should become the ladies women of past generations were raised to be. Ones who wished for marriage, not hookups or live in boyfriends. Ones who embraces elegance and grace, instead of vulgarity and promiscuity to get their way. Girls should be taught to be what our grandmothers were: ladies, not tomboy male wannabes, or rude and vulgar “Nasty Women”. Women should be unashamed to act and dress as women. Wear dresses and skirts, do more traditionally feminine things, wear a gown to their prom instead of a tuxedo. Young women should become ladies of standards, not some cheap sleaze bag who hands herself on the street corner and hooks up with any guy who asks. Such detrimental behaviors, vulgarity, promiscuity, aggressiveness under the guise of “being a man”, being a “Nasty Woman” as the current radical feminist movement puts it, all have negative affects for society and women that do not need a religion to know they’re detrimental!

Yes, I am an atheist myself. I embrace science and reason, yet also embrace traditional morality from the religious. I just don’t have the religious part in my reasoning. Just because I’m secular, doesn’t mean I think an “anything goes” society is a good thing. I don’t believe secularism will lead to unchecked morals and anarchy! I base much off my moral code and what I feel is right or wrong off ethics and evidence, what I see to be good or bad for society. I don’t need arbitrary pronouncements on what should be right or wrong. I can reason for myself and these are my conclusions. I also feel like my secular world view is mutually exclusive with shunning political correctness and the snowflake hype of the left. While many secular minded people are highly liberal socially, the two are not contradictory if one can be conservative without religion. My blog title reflects this fact. We are Ladies, women of standards, elegance and grace who embrace their femininity, women who do not have to emulate men to feel noteworthy, but also people who use reason, logic and evidence to support their views and guide their morality. I don’t need religion to be socially conservative. The evidence is right in front of me!

Related image

Inspiration in Conservative Dress: How Tight is Too Tight?

Inspiration in Conservative Dress is a reoccurring series of posts of various modest and feminine outfits to inspire other women to dress modestly and resist society’s pressure to dress provocatively and subscribe to “hook up” culture. Through conservative dress, A Lady of Reason sends a message of resistance to the “sexual revolution” and radical liberal feminism, and the upholding of feminine virtue. Arguably, this could also extend to the support for social conservatism in general. How we dress signals who we are in society. I also want to state that this idea is not mine originally, but done on another religious blog called The Catholic Lady. I was inspired by hers to make a secular version for A Lady of Reason. 

In this installment of Inspiration in Conservative Dress, I ask the question, While the hemlines and necklines are conservative, does the tightness take away from its modesty? How tight is too tight? I’ll make an important note too, this is NOT about bashing and tearing down other women’s choices as I believe that each individual women can define her own modesty standards, it’s the spirit behind it that counts the most. I ask this to make everyone think about evaluating their own choices in modest dress, and to support and provide gentle and lady like critique of clothing that might be in the middle ground between conservative and indecent. Not so immodest that it is provocative, but not so conservative that immodesty can be ruled out. All examples are from generic models, or myself. Like I said before, this isn’t a place to tear down and bash other women’s choices, but to give everyone a new perspective.

Image result for jcpenney junior dresses Related image

Image result for bodycon dress Related image

(This may be a controversial stance for some, but my judgement says that all can be acceptable in settings such as a party, or with a modest top for everyday for the top two pictures. The length and coverage make up for some of the tightness. However, I’d recommend leaning towards a looser fit for a professional environment. The red dress’ bottom is a bit too tight though in my opinion… When in doubt, find ways to make up for more suggestive parts of your outfit.)