Obama’s Kind of Feminism Horrifies Pope Benedict XVI

“‘Women are already serving in combat [in Iraq and Afghanistan] and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground,’ said Wendy Morigi, Sen. Obama’s national security spokeswoman. ‘Barack Obama would consult with military commanders to review the constraints that remain’.”

In the same Pittsburgh Post-Gazette internet article of October 13, 2008 (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/919582-470.stm?cmpid=elections.xml), Obama highlighted: “There was a time when African-Americans weren’t allowed to serve in combat…And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we’re equal.”

Comparing sex to race is like comparing apples to oranges. Whether black men perform as brilliantly as white men on the front line is not the same issue as whether men are abdicating their roles by advocating for women to fight on the front line. Is our culture diminished by asking women to be front line killers? Women killing as well as men is not a promotion of real values and equality, nor does it underscore equality. It is as bad as advocating that abortion is good for women. Misled by seemingly Marxist egalitarian principles, Obama’s advocacy for women in combat roles demonstrates it is an issue just as far above his pay-grade as whether human life starts at conception. He should get straight the right-to-life, the foundational issue, before pretending to understand subsequent issues like women in combat.

Obama Should Learn from Ratzinger

In his God and the World interview Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) comments: “Personally it still horrifies me when people want women to be soldiers just like men, when they, who have always been the keepers of the peace and in whom we have always seen a counter-impulse working against the male impulse to stand up and fight, now likewise run around with submachine guns, showing that they can be just as warlike as the men.  Or that women now have the ‘right’ to work as garbage collectors or miners, to do all those things that, out of respect for their status, for their different nature, their own dignity, we ought not to inflict on them and that are now imposed on them in the name of equality.  That, in my opinion, is a Manichaean ideology that is opposed to the body” (p.82).

In other words, bodily difference of male and female are not insignificant factors.  The difference represents authentic diversity which should be respected as providing real complimentarity for fruitful relationships and enriched societies.  Beyond any doubt there have been abuses where the gifts of women were overlooked or suppressed in society, but denial that “persons are their bodies,” Ratzinger comments, is “a kind of egalitarianism that does not exalt women but diminishes their status.  By being treated as male, [women] are dragged down to being undistinguished and ordinary” (p.83).

Obama has said he knows how to treat a woman, as he jokes about ice cream dates with his future wife and comes across as a very likeable guy.  Deep down he seemingly knows women are special and to be treasured.  Why then the rush to send them in to slaughter and active combat?  Why the militant-feminist national security spokeswoman?  Why not advocate for men to respect women and to prefer that men should be willing to sacrifice in place of women?  Why not ask men to be men instead of asking women to be men?  Additionally, if he is going to advocate for women, why not advocate for a more just society within America and speak out against depersonalizing women… just using them for sex and putting them in that dangerous circumstance of pregnancy outside of wedlock, where children are fortunate if they are not painfully shredded in abortion by women who have been depersonalized, too?

Time to Resist the Culture of Use and Death

Instead of speaking in favor of sending women into active combat, why not speak out against a culture of pornography and fornication that puts women in compromising circumstances?  Besides being unfashionable, is it now un-American to speak out against fornication.  Does the American man equate American culture with the freedom to use women for sex?  Is this why ‘egalitarian’ men do not mind putting women in situations like combat since they already don’t mind seeing them in situations like fornication?  If we are going to compromise their gift of fertility, why not their lives?

Even were women as capable as men at wielding arms, we are lesser men for asking them to do it for us; just as we are lesser men when we willingly abandon them to raise our children without us.  Because women are not ordinary, but represent authentic diversity in the unity of humanity, they stand as witnesses to a culture of life.  What a diminishment to their dignity that they should have ever become submachine-gun-wielding poster-pin-ups for socialist guerilla movements!  What a diminishment that women should have been so used by men for sex that they march waving coat-hangers!

Unless marriage and family are respected as instituted by God for the promotion of the human race and real values, society will continue to degenerate in moral blindness and strange advocacies.  Without the light of Christ in politics, living will become more and more about selfish fulfillment and individualism instead of discovering who we are by making a real gift of ourselves for others in the image and likeness of Christ.  Distinction between male and female will be lost more and more as the lust for self-fulfillment will enslave even the light of reason.  Society will grow cold-hearted and incapable of real love.  And it will give women submachine guns to shoulder instead of shouldering its own responsiblity to give them the safety of commitment, homes, and children.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • SolaGratia

    Because, as the truly vicious attacks on Sarah Palin prove, the lefts’ support for women is really just lip service. A woman can be anything she wants to be – as long as it’s not a devoted wife, a stay at home mom, pro-life, conservative…

    I’ve always considered Ted Kennedy to be the poster boy for this lie – claiming equality for women from his political pulpit while using them like toilet paper in real life.

    The liberal version of feminism is precisely the kind of feminism that allows men to use & debase women without responsibility or consequences and then congratulates them on their “freedom”. And so many of us are too ignorant to recognize it for what it is.

  • mrteachersir

    There is nothing “seeming” about Obama’s Marxism. He spent 20 years listening to “black liberation theology” which is nothing more than racial Marxism. He has said at least three times since he threw his hat into the ring that he wants to “spread the wealth”. He is Marxist to the core.

  • vtanco

    Will somebody please explain to me why these radical positions are being overlooked by so many so-called intelligent people? I wake up each morning fearing what will happen to our society if he wins and spreads his ideology throughout the nation. Yes, I pray constantly, and at times I believe that God is allowing this crisis of morality to escalate to ridiculous levels to open our eyes and hearts and finally turn back to Him. It is a biblical story of sin and retribution all over again, yet I await the merciful God’s forgiveness and favor in the end. God have mercy on us.

  • dennisofraleigh

    True, the arguements for women in uniform and combat are often in feminist terms of “anything you [men] can do I [a woman] can do better.” But I think one big, unspoken motivation for the push for a greater role for women in combat situations is that the lefty anti-war crowd (Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc.) understand that with more women in uniform Congress (and the President) are much less likely to commit U.S. ground troops to combat situations (e.g. Iraq) if they know wives and mothers would end up in a free-fire zone (or worse, prisoners of war subject to unspeakable abuse).
    For as long as recorded history it has been the husbands and sons who marched off to war, whether to defend Athens from Sparta or Sydney from the Japanese. The wives and daughters have, until modern times when “leftist” movements “recruited” women to fight along side the men: Spanish Civil War, Soviet Union v. the Axis, Vietnamese “peasants” v. U.S., etc., remained home to tend the hearth and await the return of their men. Now, in an age dominated by Modernist ideology, the restraints on putting women in harms way is gone. I wish the Church spoke more forcefully on this issue, besides the standard “we must seek peaceful solutions to world problems” statement.

  • Mary Kochan

    I think that women being “in harm’s way” is really not the issue. It specifically is fighting that is the issue. Gayle Williams was in harm’s way, but she was serving according to the nature of women in caring for disabled Afghan’s when she was murdered by the Taliban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7681764.stm

  • elkabrikir

    I think a point of this article is that men don’t want to be men! This is reminiscent of Adam and Eve.

    Sometimes my friends who have a “super sized” family like I have sit around and discuss that our large families have forced our husbands to step up to the plate and become a man. They shoulder immense burdens for the sake of their families when they could’ve limited their family’s size through sterilization, the IUD, or the pill and used their wives as objects while they pursued personal interests.

    I can guarantee that my husband is a better man because both of us decided to respect my dignity as woman (in the full sense of the word that Popes Benedict XVI and JPII elaborated).

    ……….plus, I make a MUCH better chocolate chip cookie than my husband ever could!!! Although he’s a great tester. (joke everybody, even if it’s true)

  • momof11

    A woman is not physically suited to live in a combat situation/foxhole environment for long periods of time…The feminist answer…hormone shots to suppress the cycle of nature….oh yeah, and then when she’s raped she won’t get pregnant, so it won’t matter. The woman’s body still demands a higher level of hygiene to maintain health than a man’s does. And having a woman in combat will bring greater danger to the men in the unit, not only due to lower physical capabilities of the woman, but also because many men still have enough decency to be protective of a woman even at risk to themselves. Can a woman shoot a gun, throw a grenade, or drive a tank? Yes, can do the job quite efficiently. Should she be expected too? No! Woman’s nature is to be the peace keeper, the keeper of the home. Of course, if a woman’s home is attacked and her children are put in danger, watch out!

    I really think that men want to be men, but society is trying to prevent that. We don’t let little boys be boys. Why is ADD/ADHD diagnosed so much more for boys? Because they are being boys and can’t sit still like the little girls will in school. SO drug them into submission! Teach them they are bad. Men are afraid to open the door for a woman lest they be chastised for Chauvinism. The feminists and their sexual harassment threats at the drop of a hat have men scared to move or speak.

  • kirbys

    Not to mention the extra drama that whe commanders get to deal with when you have 18 – 20something year olds thrown together in tight quarters–affairs, jealousies, pregnancies, etc.–when I was in, it was a 75 percent divorce rate in the military. With the tougher, more frequent deployments, it can’t be better.

    I would like this spokeswoman to spend just one month, even just one week, deployed as a regular “grunt.” Not even overseas–she can choose any “Back 40” on any army post in the country. Let’s see her carry 100 plus pounds of equipment, ammo, supplies, on her back as the men do.

    I hope someone asks Obama is he is willing to sign his daughters up for selective service when the time comes, because we will assuredly come to that if we continue to walk down this road. (I will be in jail, because my daughters will sign up over my dead body!!!!!!)

  • Bruce Roeder

    “Even were women as capable as men at wielding arms, we are lesser men for asking them to do it for us; just as we are lesser men when we willingly abandon them to raise our children without us.”

    BULLSEYE! To be a man, you’ve got to see a man. (Hint: look at a crucifix)

    The USA now relies on women in our armed forces, since they are nearly 15% of a force at war and stretched very thin. The USA also now relies on single mothers, since they give birth to nearly 35% of the babies born in our country (after nearly 33% are murdered in the womb).

    Seeing self-centered, immature teen-aged boys rationalizing women in combat or justifying single motherhood with an argument of “equality” is sad.

    Seeing fifty-year old men in positions of authority doing so is pathetic.

    Seeing women agreeing with such a Peter Pan view is a tragedy.

    We have forgotten what it even means to be a man. God, forgive us!

  • Andrew James

    I served in the military, first in an all-male combat arms unit, and then in an integrated combat support unit. In the first situation, there was a high espirit de corps, pride, enthusiasm and desire to excell. In the latter situation, all of these things were “leveled out” due to the inclusion of women. For example, in my first unit we would go for 6 or 7 mile runs, and it was considered shameful to fall behind and not be able to keep up with the unit. When I served alongside females, due to basic differences between men and women, the level of training was reduced significantly. Instead of 6 or 7 miles, we would run 2 or 3, and when the females fell out of formation we would swing around and pick them up. As a non-commissioned officer, I once attempted to “persuade” a young female to stay with the unit instead of her usual half-a$$ level of commitment. I was chewed out by a senior female NCO for doing that, and I made the decision to leave the military that day.

    This is the same thing that happens on America’s “inclusive” school yards, where all bioligical differences are ignored, and the boys must be held back so as to not hurt the self esteem of the girls. Later I served in the Army Reserve and attended drill sergeant school. Instead of “shoot and salute” we spent most of our time learning the homosexual policy and what not to say to recruits lest their feelings and civil rights be offended. This was during the Clinton years mind you, and Obama is much more radical in his Marxism.

  • SolaGratia

    Don’t want to sidetrack or anything & I agree with you completely in the main, but I have 5 kids – 4 boys, 1 girl – and they all have attention problems to varying degrees. One of the boys has the hyperactive kind. We have always homeschooled. There is more to the problem than just energetic little guys.

    An increase in garbage nutrition with a simultaneous increase in toxic exposures is definitely a factor in the increase in neurologically challenged kids. Kind of like our culture is doing physically what we’ve been doing spiritually and getting similar results! Which then brings us back on topic… 😉

  • We still have the Marines. Unfortunately, I believe Obama plans to send most of our marines into where ever he can(like Afghanistan) to get slaughtered to get them out of the way.

    That or he could always resort to Gulags.


  • If Obama signs it to law that abortions are available in the military it is conceivable that women in the military will be pressured into abortions. 80 percent of women already are.

  • rickettsfamily


    God Bless the Marine Corps!

    As a Marine Wife I think I can say that if Obama ever tried to get ‘rid of the Marines’ Chesty Puller would rise up out of the grave and command a revolt so huge it would have that liberal-man-child asking his wife to protect him…….which brings us around to the actual discussion again…..:-)

  • kirbys

    I agree with you, Andrew. When I was in (as a junior officer), it didn’t even occur to me that the PT scores were dumbed down for the women–I mean, I know it was a lower standard for the women, but I didn’t equate that to women being less physically capable on the battlefield. Dumb, eh? It took be being out of the military for a while to see how I had been deceiving myself.

    I think there is a place for women in the military, but at a strategic level, not tactical. Also, it is/was shameful the way the combat rating scale (don’t know the official name for it) was manipulated to push more and more women into “P-1” slots. (I don’t know how it is now, but “P-1” was closest to the front lines, P-4 in the rear.) It was shameful how those single moms died during the first part of the war–supply, or mechanics. On paper, that looks like a rear detachment. But, duh! They travel all over the battlefield!

    I wonder how much money the government wastes accomodating women on board ships, etc., as well.

    It is difficult to get of that military mindset, too, as a woman. I was actually ashamed to be at home, “making babies” and taking care of the house and husband, because I felt like I wasn’t contributing the way I was in the military. It took me a good two years to get over that. I think that it can really confuse the whole maternal instinct for some women, and that is a tragedy.

  • James

    These comments (and the article) are fascinating.

    May the power of the cross be felt in this country, and may God visit his people.

  • Now, the Men can spend their time and attention protecting the Women, while

    poorly protected in harm’s way. A high price to pay for being “fashionable”.

  • And, by the way, we are not “equal”. Women are physically weaker, in case one

    hasn’t noticed. While of equivalent value, the propaganda that Men and Women

    are “equal” is patently absurd. The African-American red herring is inapplicable.

  • Gary Gibson

    Obomber’s advocacy of women in combat just highlights his utter moral bankruptcy and underlines the obscenity of the US war machine.