Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 80 | Equality Through Homogeny

Episode Date: February 26, 2019

The latest move toward including women in the Selective Service shows how successful progressives have been in redefining gender. I discuss the dangers and implications of pretending men and women are interchangeable.    Copyright Blaze Media All Rights Reserved.

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. I hope that you guys had a great weekend. As you know, my husband and I were on our baby moon last week. We were in Colorado. We really enjoyed it. We really did nothing except for sit around, finish an entire season of the office. We finished actually the series all the way through. I think it's probably the seventh time at least for me.

And we ate a lot of food, a lot of room service. It was probably seven degrees outside. And so we didn't do a whole lot of activities. just kind of relaxed, which to me is the perfect kind of baby moon. So we really enjoyed ourselves. Last week, we kind of did on the podcast more topical, non-time sensitive subjects because I was gone. I got a lot of great feedback from that, but there was so much that I wanted to talk about in the news. Obviously, the Jesse Smollett thing was like, oh my gosh, I was just bursting wanting to talk to you guys about it because it's so ridiculous. at this point though, I feel like I don't want to beat a dead horse.

It's been analyzed, talked about so much. I've been on TV talking about it. It's crazy. It's what happens when you make victimhood a virtue. And also when you demonize people who wear red hats and have white skin as racist rednecks, things like this become believable. And you run with the story without knowing the facts because it fits into the left-wing media narrative. I'm glad that justice was served.

I hope this serves as an example to other people who would do the same thing as Jesse Smollett did. That's not what we're going to talk about today. Today we are going to talk about a very controversial topic, as if the Jesse Smollett thing wasn't controversial. This is probably even more controversial. We are going to talk about a case that was decided by a federal judge in Texas about the draft, including women. You probably have a lot of questions about that.

Like, do we even have a draft? I had no idea we had a job. draft and wait, women, they're not drafted? Should they be drafted? Do women serve in combat? I'm here to answer all of your questions. And then we're going to talk about how this points to a greater trend, especially among the left, but honestly adopted by some people on the right of equality through homogene. That's what I call it. Equality through sameness. Equality through pretending that there are no differences whatsoever between the genders and what that means for society and why that's something that we need to push back on despite that we are going to continually be called bigots in old fashion for doing so.

So let me catch you up to speed on this particular story. Like I said, a federal judge in Texas ruled that a male only draft is unconstitutional. He said that in 2019, there is no reason to discriminate between men and women when it comes to the draft. This is a Bush appointee, by the way, Judge Gray Miller. It was a case called National Coalition for Men versus Selective service system. So the national coalition for men is an organization, I think maybe based in San Diego, who fights for the rights of men who believe that there is discrimination against men because men are the only ones who are drafted. And if they don't sign up for the selective service system, we'll get into that in a second. There are consequences to that. And they see

this as gender inequality against men. So this particular case, Judge Gray Miller disagreed with a 1980s case saying that actually that said the opposite of what he said, which is that only men were meant to register for the draft and that it wasn't unconstitutional because only men at that point were eligible to serve in combat. But that's no longer the case. As of 2013, Obama's Department of Defense lifted the ban on women serving in combat. So this judge, Judge Gray Miller, technically correct on his assessments, perhaps, of the unconstitutionality of it, perhaps in light of the fact that women are now able to serve in combat. There's not really a legal reason.

I don't see maybe some scholar can come along and refute me on this. There might not be a legal reason anymore that they should not be drafted. But the question is, I think, are there other common sense, social, practical, sexual, reasons that women should not be drafted, particularly into combat. Are there reasons that women should not be in combat at all? I think so. But first, let us back up just a little bit. The question is, do we have a draft? That's a big question that I've seen on Twitter a lot. When this story has been circulating is, do we even have a draft? I thought we didn't have a draft. We do have a selective service system. So right now, all men between the ages of 18 and 25 have to register for the selective

service system within 30 days at their 18th birthday. If they fail to do that, they could lose various forms of federal aid, including Pell Grants. There are other consequences that could ensue if you do not sign up for the selective service system within 30 days of your 18th birthday. Men can be drafted in times of crisis that requires more troops than have already volunteered. It's authorized by the president and by Congress. It's a lottery system. That was something that was put into place under Richard Nixon.

but the draft has not been used since 1973. So it's been a really long time since it's been used. It's very unlikely that it'll be used again. Of course, you never know. We live in crazy times. So of course, the draft could be used again, but it hasn't been. We have had sufficient people serving in the military on a voluntary basis that we have not had to use the draft.

So at this point, with this court decision, it would be up to Congress to actually to talk about legislation in this regard, various attempts, bipartisan. attempts by the way so Republicans and Democrats have attempted to to allow women to be drafted or to make women to sign up for the selective service system proponents of this on both sides of the aisle say hey this is equality this is the gender equality that you women said that you wanted which by the way I I resent being included in that because I'm not a feminist but they say proponents say this is gender equality this is this is what we need to do they say there are lots of ways for men and women to serve in our country doesn't have to necessarily be combat.

And so they're saying there's no reason that we should not use women's talents to serve. It just doesn't make any sense, they say. But opponents, like myself, but opponents like Ted Cruz in Congress, for example, say, no thanks, no thanks. I don't think that our daughters should be drafted. I'm sorry, it's just different. And the big intention really is that since combat is now open to women, this might require women to serve in combat units.

and opponents are saying, well, that should not be forced. Women should not be forced to serve in combat. But let me give my take. I'll take that a step further and say that women should not be in combat at all. Women should not be in combat at all, not just forced to serve in combat at all. Combat is not for women. And I'll get to why. They shouldn't be drafted for other reasons because of what it could mean to the American family.

when women are demanded to be everywhere except for the home. And I know that seems bigoted and archaic. But gender roles are existent for a reason. The only way that I would get on board with women being required to sign up for the selective service system is if a Trump's Department of Defense reinstated the ban on women in combat. So if I were to, well, I'm too old now, I'm 26, but my daughter, when she turns 18, This is why I don't like this, by the way. I don't want my daughter to be drafted.

But if my daughter had to sign up for the Selective Service Committee, 30 days within her 18th birthday, I would want to know that she is at least not being drafted into combat. If there are other areas of service that she can serve in, okay, don't want her to be drafted into combat. So if A, Trump's Department of Defense reinstated the ban on women in combat, and therefore, if a woman is drafted, she will be drafted into non-combat forms of service.

okay, but that would have to be coupled with me for to ever, well, I don't ever want to get on board with the draft period. But in order for me not to think that this is a complete and total moral travesty, the second caveat that I would require is that married women and mothers are all exempt from being drafted. They don't have to sign up for the Selective Service Committee if they're already married by the time they're 18 and they are exempt from being drafted if they are married or mothers. And that includes pregnant women, obviously. which would require us to define an unborn child as a person, which is another problem that we seem to have in this country. We have very fundamental moral issues in this country if you haven't noticed.

We also need to think about the biological and social reality that the left and some people on the right just don't want to accept in all of this. They want to talk about equality. They want to talk about this utopia where there's really no difference in the roles between men and women. What they don't want to accept, what no one seems to want to accept anymore. is the basic reality that men and women are different. It's not just a social construct, but we are different. I do not believe in forcing a woman into combat or into any kind of military service during her educational years and her prime child bearing years. Now, you guys have talked or have heard me talk about before. I don't think that a woman is

reduced to just having kids. I don't think the biggest and best thing that you can do in your life is necessarily only having kids, not even from a Christian perspective. And I don't mean only, that's a small thing. But I mean, that is not our number one goal. Our number one goal is to do what we're good at for the glory of God. And if God calls you to singleness and ministry, that might not mean having physical children. And that's okay. Christ fulfills you outside of that. But from a practical social perspective, if we're talking about taking at the time between 18 and 26 years old or 18 and 25 years old for a woman, her prime not just childbearing years, but also when she's going to go to college when she's going to get her first job, when she probably will find the

person that she's going to end up with. You're talking about delaying that by a few years if in the rare occasion a draft would ever actually happen. What does that actually mean for society? You also have to think about the sexual implications, which we're going to get to in just a little bit with some data, the sexual implications of men and women serving together in close quarters if women are allowed to be in combat units, which, like I said, I don't think they should. the reason why I don't think that they should be in combat unit. So we're talking about not just being drafted, which I've already explained why I don't think they should be drafted. The main reason being is because I don't think that they should be drafted into combat, which right now they are allowed to be.

And the reason why I don't think that women should be in combat is because they are categorically not as lethal as men are. They're just not. We do not have the same strength. We don't have the same capabilities as men. There are lots of things that women are better at the men. We just, we are just, we are Just in general, we are better communicators than men. In general, we are better at doing multiple tasks. In general, we are better at handling crises than men are. In general, we are better at calming people down and assessing a situation and figuring out a plan and moving forward with that when there are a million different people commanding

our attention. There are a lot of things that women are better at than men. Lethality and military is generally not one of them. This is not just me talking. This is not just an opinion I have. I am going to cite a study by the Marine Corps that was conducted in 2015. It was a study to understand gender integration in the military after that 2013 order that required women to be allowed into combat unit

that happened under President Obama. This was a comprehensive study, and you should go online and read it. You could just Google Marine Corps study 2015. It'll show, or gender integration. that'll probably give you a more specific search. And it was very kind towards the women. And I, too, want to reiterate that I'm very thankful for the women who have served in military. And I'm very thankful for those who have put their lives on the line no matter what gender they are.

But when it comes to military, we should be looking at lethality much higher or much more than we should be looking at equality. So like I said, Marine Corps conducted this study in 2015 after the 2013 order that required women to be integrated into every part of the military, including combat units. It was a large study, and it looked at combat effectiveness. So that was the thing that they were testing for, and they mostly looked at two qualifications for combat effectiveness. It was speed and focus. So the findings were, or the findings were looking at,

were comparing all male squads versus gender integrated squads. And so they looked at speed. And what they found is this. All male squads performed faster on every single task compared to gender-integrated squads. The study says that differences were even more pronounced in the specialties that carried the assault load and the additional weight of the weapons and ammunition.

So in tasks where the crew had to carry more weight, the differences in speed were even more stark. The all-male crews were that much faster when heavy weight was involved. When it came to lethality, all-male squads showed better accuracy on every single task compared to gender-integrated squads. The study says there was a number,

notable difference between genders for every individual weapon system. They also looked at males with less training had higher hit percentages, so better hit percentages than females with more training than them. So if you need evidence for inherent gender differences, this is about it. And I'm going to read another little section from it. All male squads, teams, and crews and gender integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs on top

of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were noticeable differences in execution times between all male and gender integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one Marine fireman's carry of another, in which case it was most often a male Marine who evacuated the casualty. And then it also looked at the health and the welfare of Marine. So who actually got injured more? Who was okay after they had to perform these tasks?

They said there is a well-documented comparative disadvantage in upper and lower body strength for females that resulted in higher levels of fatigues, which contributed to greater incidence of overuse injuries as well, such as stress fractures. It talked about the body composition, where males averaged 178 pounds with 20% body fat. Females averaged 142 pounds with 24% body fat.

An aerobic power of females possess 15% less power than males. The female top 25% of this is cut up overlaps with the bottom 25th 25th percentile for males. And so the best females, we're comparing with the worst males consistently. Anorobic capacity, females possess 15% less. capacity. The female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males. So we have also 10 percent lower capacity and aerobic capacity or, oh, sorry, aerobic capacity. So in general, women simply do not have the same capacity or strength or power or endurance or ability to perform difficult tasks in which speed and focus in carrying weight so

strength is needed. that's not a knock on women. That's simply how women were made. Like I said, women have many, many strengths that men do not have and that I quite frankly think are enviable. But being in combat isn't one of them. Female Marines also says were injured at more than six times the rate of men during preliminary training.

This is mostly because men's testosterone levels produce stronger bones, stronger muscles. Even the fittest woman, this is from the Wall Street Journal, must work at maximal physical capacity when carrying a hundred pound pack or repeatedly loading heavy shells into a cannon that wasn't true for a man. So whereas I might be operating at 100% doing something, my husband might only be operating at 20 to 50%. And so you have to think about that when it comes to accuracy and your ability to carry out subsequent tasks. If I'm using all of my energy to do the task that I was doing before. That's probably going to take away from my effectiveness.

Heather McDonald in the Wall Street Journal said that ignoring this large marine study, then Defense Secretary, so back in 2013, 2015, Ash Carter opened all combat rules to women. Rather than requiring new female combat recruits to meet the same physical standards as men, the military began crafting gender neutral standards and the hope that more women would qualify. So we're not even talking about women trying to reach the same standards as men. We're talking about lowering the standard so more women would qualify. So what we've seen, particularly in the Obama DoD, that the military really became a social experiment, that it became more important to be equal than to be lethal.

And when you're talking about not only winning wars and protecting whatever cause we are fighting for, but also reducing the number of casualties, saving American lives, we are prioritizing a social experiment, not hurting women and transgender people's feelings over the safety of our own citizens, over the combat effectiveness of our own troops. I really don't care about equality. I really don't care about feelings.

I really don't care about social studies. I really don't care about social experiments when it comes to the military. I really don't. I really could not care any less about equality when it comes to the military because it's not about equality. It is about letality. It is about how effective we can be, how quickly, how efficiently, how effectively we can reach our goals. Unfortunately, you have a lot of people on the left and some people on the right who simply don't see that. They see equality. Yeah, let women be drafted. And okay, women can be in combat. They might be drafted into combat. That's fine. Equality. Well, let. let's just take the progressive blinders off for a second and think about things practically. The question is not whether or not, I'm going to say this for the millionth time, is not whether or not the military is equal. It's whether or not the military is lethal. But the moral revolution that has been carried on by the left that says there's no

difference between men or women whatsoever. It is all a social construct ignoring the fact that a group like the Marine Corps has brought to our attention that scientists have literally been saying since we've known anything about biology. And they have simply just said, no, no, no, no, no, it's fine. We're all the same. men and women should do the same thing. And this is what I mean by they are trying to carry out an agenda of equality through homogene. And this is what, or homogene. It's, I always say that wrong and then it means something else. Homogene. So equality through sameness. They believe that in order for men and women to be truly equal and to have equal rights, they must have equal responsibilities.

But the reason why men and women should not be expected to have equal responsibilities is because they do not have equal capabilities. And a lot of people on the left know that. And that's why they just obscure the difference of capabilities and say, oh, no, no, women can do anything that a man can do. But as science tells us, as the Marine Corps study tells us, as basic logic tells us, as any biology teacher can tell you there's a difference between men and women. And there's also a point that we really don't want to talk about in the difference between men and women is the sexual component to allowing women to allowing women in combat and drafting women into combat as a consequence of that. So Heather McDonnell with Wall Street Journal also said a Marine commander who served in Afghanistan

described to me how the arrival of an all-female team tasked with reaching out to local woman affected discipline on his forward operating base. Until that point, he said, rigorous discipline had been the norm. But when four women, three service members and a translator arrived, the post-atmosphere changed overnight from a stern business-like place to that of an eighth grade dance. The officer walked into a common room one day to find the women clustered in the center. They were surrounded by eager male Marines. One of them was doing a handstand. And then she gives some other examples about the same thing happening, how the dynamic between men and women, that's, a lot of progressives want to pretend isn't a very natural thing that mostly,

mostly, even in this country where we're told that gender doesn't matter and that sexuality is fluid, it's mostly the opposite sexes are attracted to each other. Hormonally charged close quarters is going to cause sexual attention to happen. And you have to ask yourself when it comes to the military how that affects our effectiveness. That should be the only question that we're asking. But we're not even allowed to talk about the natural sex. sexual dynamics between men and women because we're supposed to pretend like that's not natural. Like a man should just look at a woman like he looks at any other dude and a woman should just think

of a man as she thinks about any other girl and we should just be able to direct our sexual energy to whoever we want to direct it to. I'm sorry, God didn't make us that way. That's how humankind has perpetuated from all of history because boys like girls and men like women. So in the New York Times said, despite all of this, despite all of these studies that show, that show contrary to what the left wants to believe, that men and women are different, that when they're in combat, it doesn't really work very well. Ash Carter, who was the department or the defense secretary under Barack Obama said there will be no exceptions.

Mr. Carter said at the news conference, he added they'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as army rangers and Greenbreds, Navy sales, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force, Parajumpers and everything else that was previously open to men. I mean, this is just an illogical utopia. That doesn't make any sense. And it certainly does not better our country. The same goes for transgender people serving in the military. You know that Trump tried to institute a ban on transgender people, but he really made it, he made it more about that we should not the American people, the American taxpayer should not be a pain for their gender reassignment surgery, but it's really not about that. It shouldn't be

about that. It should be about lethality. It should be about their effectiveness. So if you are a biological man who identifies as a woman, but your hormone therapy has weakened you to the point of not being as lethal as your biologically male and identifying male counterparts, then I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's not a right to serve in the military. If you're a biolode, woman who identifies as a man, you will never have the strength or the biological abilities that, or the strength abilities that a biological man has. So I'm sorry, like I've said over and over again, lethality trumps equality. The military is not a social experiment. You do not have the right to serve in the military. I say, let us end the draft altogether. That's what I would want.

I don't want a draft woman. I don't want women to be in combat. I think that we should end the draft all together. But, you know, that's getting to be a harder and harder case to make when we have such warped views on men and women have such warped views on gender roles, that we aren't even allowed to say anymore that only women can have children. We can't even say anymore the anatomical parts that correspond to men and women. India Moore, I guess she's some transgender, he, she is a transgender activist. I don't. I don't. actually know her gender her his gender identity what they go by what their pronouns are i don't even know so that's the confusion she he tweeted if a woman has a penis it's a biologically female penis i

i don't i i don't know i don't know what do you do with that what do you do with that at least before back in the good old days when transgender people would just say okay you're biologically male to identify as a woman. I was just now starting to be like, okay, I'm kind of understanding to break down, or I'm being able to break down that logic in my mind is insane as it is. I'm able to kind of wrap my head around that.

But now we're told that your anatomy is not even allowed to be male or female anatomy, that biologically. And so now instead of biology dictating society, we're saying that society should dictate biology. And that just makes my brain explode. Like, I'm not, I'm not even a really a science person. I didn't even do well in science in high school or in college. I hated science classes.

But I think I remember enough from Biology 101 in my anatomy class to know that there's a difference between male and female, at least on a biological level, right? No. But now we have social studies and postmodernism, taking over even science. so we're not even allowed to say things that are scientifically, biologically true anymore, which is why you are going to see, you're going to see male domination of everything, even in women's sports and women's categories. So thank you, feminist, for being so great at your jobs that you've actually secured

male domination for the rest of history. And we see that, we see that a lot in sporting events, but the latest headline that I saw transgender sprinters finished first and second at Connecticut, girls indoor track championships. Well, duh, the headline should be men beat women in a sport that they are much better at than women. Duh, duh, men are always faster than women. They're always faster than women. And so now we've seen this in wrestling, we've seen this, and lots of other sports where transgender women, I'm still very confused on how to say that, transgender women. So biological males that identify as women, where they are dominating biological women, which you can't even say that

anymore. It's so confusing. Biological women in sports. Well, yes, because they still have testosterone. Yes, because their bones are different. Yes, because their muscles are different. Yes, because their anaerobic and aerobic capacities are different. As we saw in the Marine Corps study, there will always be an inherent difference because

of hormones, because of chromosomes, because of how your brain works, because of how your body works. There will always be a difference between men and women. and feminists have laid the groundwork for this. By saying there's no real difference between men and women, there should be no difference in responsibilities, no difference in roles. Women can do everything than a man can.

By obscuring the differences in gender, you have made it possible for a man to identify as a woman and a woman to identify as a man. And therefore, for a man who identifies as a woman to dominate biological women in every realm in which women were allowed to compete against one another. So congratulations. You've outplayed yourself.

there was this article in the Wall Street Journal called About Gender Neutral Clothes, and it was talking about how fashion is even moving in the direction of being gender neutral, how men are going to start wearing, quote, lacy shirts and pink suits and dresses and skirts, and women are going to start wearing things that are typically cut for men. I'm sorry, I just don't think that that's going to happen. I just don't. I just don't think that's going to happen. because again, you're erasing that there might be some kind of inherent preference in men and

women for certain kinds of clothes. You are denying that there might actually be a natural inherent difference in men and women that makes them prefer to dress and look and act a certain way. And so I'm just not buying that. I'm okay with like gender neutral clothes in some ways, mostly like for women. I don't have a problem with that. And I think that's a pretty non-consequential issue because I don't think it's actually going to matter. I thought there was an interesting post.

A Christian blogger, influencer, author that you guys know posted an Instagram post about her child, her son wearing makeup and how it was actually for theater. But she goes on to say that, you know, boys can wear makeup and we need to stop putting boys in boxes and girls in boxes they can be however they want to be and we should all celebrate that. And it's pretty expected at this point from this particular person. She leans to the left, it seems like, on a lot of social issues.

But I do want to use that to have. I know I've been pretty harsh and black and white in this conversation about men and women. I do think there is room for nuance when it comes to the gender conversation. Because I do think that there exist harmful stereotypes when it comes to men and women. I do think that at one point, probably not anymore, that boys who maybe did like theater or boys who did like to dance or boys who maybe didn't like to like play in the mud and play football and go hunting and ride four wheelers, that maybe they were seen as more feminine. They were compared to a girl that when a boy cried, it was because he was girly or when a girl didn't like the things that traditional girls like that they were maybe seen as a tomboy. I do think that having too strict of categories for boys and girls can be harmful to their psyche and actually saying that, oh, you're girly if you like theater, you're girly if you like ballet

and you're boyish if you like baseball. That I think is harmful. I think there could be more openness to, hey, if you're a guy who likes theater, you're a guy who likes theater. You're not a girly guy. And the same thing for a girl. if you're a girl who like sports, you're a girl who like sports. You're not a tomboy. I do think that those names can't be harmful. But as long as, as long as we keep sure and we keep distinct the responsibilities and the social, societal, familial roles of boys versus girls,

that at the end of the day, the boy goes down, the girl goes free in the sense that men should be protecting women. Boys should be protecting girls. It should be boys that are looking out for girls. It should be there should be a difference. The boys are supposed to be when it comes down to it, especially in a familial role, the hunter gathers, the warriors, the fighters, the protectors. Women are supposed to be the nurturers and the nourishers and the builders and the beautifiers. That does it mean that men are better than women? It means that they're different than women. It means that they're meant to compliment one another. So I do think it can be a nuanced conversation and that some gender stereotypes can be harmful.

They are too strict. They are too archaic. And they don't allow for boys to have interests outside of just liking blue and football. I think that's stupid. But as long as we make sure that our boys know that one, also being an aggressive, super, super masculine boy, or if you even want to call it masculine, liking traditional masculine things, is completely fine. But also, no matter what their interests are, what their social, familial,

and moral responsibilities are as a boy versus that of a girl. They are different and they should be different and we should be promoting that. And if you want to call it traditional or bigoted, whatever, that's completely fine. It's how human history has perpetuated and how it's how men and women have been able to work together to make societies thrive and function. And as I've said before, raising passive boys does not create strong men. Raising passive boys creates weak men. And where men are weak, where men are afraid, where men are passive, where men step back and don't step into their role of responsibility and provision and protection, not only families fail, but societies fail because women have not been proven to be able to take that role and lead that alone well. They just haven't in a larger sense. I'm not talking about the single mother that can't lead her family. She absolutely can. But I'm talking about it on a community, on a society, on a national level.

You have to have men step up or else society falters. So that's it for today. Differences between men and women. Women shouldn't be drafted. Shouldn't be in combat. And we should be celebrating the differences between men and women and how we complement one another. And we shouldn't be obscuring them because biology is never going to change no matter how

much society wants to make it. So thank God for that. I'm very thankful that he made us, that he made us different and he made us with different roles and different strengths and different responsibilities that make this world not only function, but also really fun. Okay, I will see you guys on Thursday for Theological Thursdays.