One of the arguments against having women in combat positions is the likelihood of rape if they are captured. To those with an ounce of normal human sensibility, this is a horrific brutality, a special kind of torture. To those who have pushed for the homogenizing of the sexes, this is at best an unforeseen result and at worst an expected and accepted effect.

But homogeny is not equality. Those who pushed for this “equality” are either fatally ignorant or maliciously narrow-minded.

It can be accepted that many of these left-wing activists are ignorant. My favorite example of late is the contention that Bush is more dangerous than Saddam. Another is that if we all just close our eyes and channel good thoughts, the really bad guys will go away. Just as anti-war protestors offer no viable alternative to war, militant feminists have not yet offered a practical reason for having women in combat positions, other than “just because they can.”

If not dim-witted, then those who fight, I mean argue, for blanket sexual equality are maniacal. In order to bring their dream into fruition, they will accept whatever fallout their delusion begets. This fallout comes into full manifestation with the taking of a female prisoner of war by combatants who do not play by the rules.

Col. Rhonda Cornum, a Black Hawk pilot taken prisoner and raped during the Gulf War, believes this emphasis on female sexual abuse is primarily cultural. “While I was subjected to an unpleasant episode of sexual abuse during my captivity, it did not represent a threat to life, limb or chance of being released, and therefore occupied a MUCH lower level of concern than it might have under other circumstances.” Col. Cornum is correct. Compared to death, rape is better.

Her chilling clinical opinion continues. She insists that a female who chooses to join the military is not your “average” woman. She claims that such a woman exhibits a “willingness to take risk [more] than women in the general population.” As proven with the Iraqi capture of Spc. Shoshana Johnson, a member of the 507th Maintenance Company, all women entering the military, either for combat positions or not, shall have to acquire Col. Cornum’s mentality in order to be a fully prepared soldier.

This speculation of course leaves out the male perspective. Not only will women have to accept rape as par for the course, but men will have to, as well. No problem, since there is no difference between men and women, correct? Wrong. Even Saddam Hussein realizes the special kind of horror that rape is for those who are victims and those who must witness the act. He enjoys having wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters raped in front of male relatives.

Of all the other horrors in war, can soldiers not be spared this one? Can we not make an exception and agree that there is a difference between a man and a woman, and that there are some things left on this earth that remain sacred?

To the militant Left, nothing is sacred. The lives of people living and dying under despots’ regimes are not worth any effort at rescue or liberation, as it would “violate” the despots’ “sovereignty.” It follows then that rape is “not that bad,” either, at least for a member of the U.S. military.

Hood is an editorial intern at Carolina Journal.