Stephen Green has a post up at Instapundit on the US Submarine force’s failure to meet the needs of women. Not all women who want to serve on submarines are given slots, and thus the Submarine Community Can’t Meet Demand From Female Sailors. Green half jokingly suggests that this means the US needs to build more attack submarines. Commenter Chris Lutz responded with the old conservative position, that women shouldn’t be on ships:
Clearly, in order to address this iniquity, we need to build more attack subs.
No, we need to put women back into truly rear echelon support positions. Women on ships has been a disaster.
Commenter Southern Man wanted to agree that women shouldn’t be serving on ships, but pointed out that kickass conservative gals made him feel good:
Part of me agrees with this. But my daughter is in the US Navy and I’m pretty d*mn proud of her. Her second deployment was on the Harry S. Truman, CVN 75. I asked her “did you ever see the Bridge?” She rolled her eyes as only a daughter can do and said “Dad, my station was <redacted>, I was on the bridge all the time!”
Commenter evilsandmich reconciled the conflicting positions by pretending that the change we are witnessing isn’t due to feminists shoving their way in, but by men forcing women into harm’s way:
She’s great, the nation that would intentionally put its women in harms way, eh, not so much…
This is all of course very common, but this is the point. This is how conservatives respond to feminism across our society, and is why conservatives are such reliable allies of feminism despite the widespread belief that the opposite is true.
Related:
- Why Game is a threat to our values.
- The day chivalry killed chivalry.
- Complementarianism on women in the military.
- Do our Social Justice Warriors deserve the best money can buy?
