One of the generational divides within conservatism is the perception of women in the military. Older generations are more favorably disposed towards women in military service, while the younger generations are more sharply opposed. There are many generational divides rooted in egalitarianism, so the egalitarianism of the older generations once again manifests on this issue.
The grand irony is that the recent case in question is a man who let his daughter join the Marines. That man is Pastor Ben Glaser, who wrote the anti-white ARP Statement to enshrine antiracism as Christian dogma within Presbyterianism. Ostensibly, Glaser is part of a more liturgically rigid denomination, and his church is far from contemporary in style. He is himself a former Marine, yet somehow, despite his history and traditionalism, he permitted his daughter to enlist in the Marines. This was largely mocked back in April, and going into Independence Day, he celebrated her graduation from Parris Island. This post was even endorsed by Dan Darling of the ERLC.
Every veteran who served during and after the Obama era knows the reputation of women in the military. Every such veteran knows a story of at least one of these women being a whore or “barrack bunny.” There is a popular conception that men in the military view women as one of two things: a sister or a mating option. They are not physically capable, and they are then fast-tracked for promotion in the military’s pursuit of DEI initiatives. Pregnancies will conveniently happen to avoid deployment. In a recent interview at the Nathaniel Greene Society, two Marines discussed how the commodore’s list would be rigged to be more “inclusive” and “diverse” rather than select the best candidates. This designation goes on someone’s record and is beneficial towards their career advancement.
One of the reforms of DOW Secretary Pete Hegseth has been to create a single standard for combat roles, since women had lower physical standards than their male counterparts. He has also begun purging various DEI officers from the ranks. It should be noted that women are categorically DEI, especially in the military.
Deuteronomy 22:3 clearly states, “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” St. Paul would apply similar prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 11 pertaining to hair.
Pertaining to women, this verse has historically applied to women adorning military garments. Josephus briefly paraphrases this interpretation in Antiquities. John Gill also affirms this interpretation, citing others in agreement. Calvin goes so far as to cite Juvenal, “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?” (Sat. 6:252). The general trend in the historic interpretation of the verse is that violations thereof promote immodesty and licentiousness while disturbing the distinctions between the sexes. The historic Church desired the distinctions between gender to be actively maintained, not violated by viragos.
The tolerance of women in the military by their parents is egalitarian in nature and it was championed by the communists, especially the Soviet Union. In America, the push for women in the military was predominantly by progressive forces, with President Obama accelerating the inclusion of women in the military. If conservatism is liberalism driving the speed limit, this then extends to “conserving” women in the military. Creatures like Nancy Mace will champion being the first woman to graduate from The Citadel while pretending to care about the issue of transgenderism. A woman in The Citadel was the camel’s nose entering the tent, just as men like Calvin warned against. The erosion of distinction leads to further sexual sins, which women in the military have a reputation for, and then eventually the erosion of distinction between the sexes altogether.
When a man lets his daughter into the military, it is his endorsement of spiritual transgenderism and a reflection that he fails to uphold the sanctity of the sexes. Such indulgence is even worse coming from a pastor, especially one who claims to be an adherent to the Scottish Presbyterian tradition.
