I thought about it.
No doubt a woman can be fierce.
But assuming that going into war is a duty, not a privilege, my sense is this:
Giving birth is enough done for the survival of our species.
I have been in attendance of nine births, one of which was my own son, and it seems to me that the power and courage it takes to give birth could well be equal to what it takes to deliver death.
And what does it say of a society that they send their women into battle?
We should all be equal, some argue.
I say, surely men do not want equal rights to birth babies, so why would a woman want the “right” to go into battle?
That aside, on a primal level, the reason men have most often gone into battle is to protect their women as well as their children, home and country. There is power and pride in that instinct, there is a sense of purpose and righteousness. If a man goes into battle with a woman at his side, he must change himself – away from his basic instincts to protect her more than others. He must also become willing to kill a woman in battle as swiftly as a man. When that moral ground is crossed, when a man looses that virtue where will he find it again?
Some say it is the future, and that having no differences between the sexes is part of evolution itself – a stage we must go through to become pure of heart.
I say, rubbish. The heart is always pure, and the man who looses his instinct to protect women is not the kind of man I wish to become. Giving birth is enough, besides – it’s men who create most of the wars anyway, so let men handle their own messes.
I say, that we are equal, yes, but not the same.
Let not War be where a woman goes.
