Leon Panetta Ruining American Samurai Honor Code
Shit, guys, I'm pretty sure our secretary of defense hates women. Leon Panetta has lifted the ban on women serving in military combat roles. He hates them so much he wants them to be equal!
This is a travesty. We have abandoned all of our values — at the very least the ones where women are to be patronizingly excluded from demeaning or dangerous jobs, because they are flowers who should be treated with respect, except in beer commercials.
We cannot explain it nearly as well as former McCain staffer/Political Genius Michael Goldfarb, so we will let his super tweets do it for us:
So now we're going to ask our officers to send women to their deaths? Is that honorable?— Michael Goldfarb (@thegoldfarb) January 23, 2013
See — this is an honor thing. Men are supposed to die in the desert, for ambiguous reasons, by being car-exploded. Women are supposed to, whatever, do something else. Crochet? Is that still a thing?
@libertysspirit i don't think women are helpless or incapable. i think it's terrible to ask men of honor to send women to their deaths.— Michael Goldfarb (@thegoldfarb) January 23, 2013
It is men who get to decide these things. Men and their honor. No girls allowed. The only people "men of honor" can send to get killed are other "men of honor." (And poors.)
To liberals concerned about military suicides--how do you think troops will cope with seeing their female comrades killed in combat?— Michael Goldfarb (@thegoldfarb) January 23, 2013
Two points here:
1. Only liberals are concerned with military suicides. They might have hit all-time highs in 2012, but only pussies kill themselves.
2. Unless they are concerned about the women. Then that's Leon's fault. It's much more damaging to see a woman killed in combat than a man, because, let's not forget, women are not "human fucking beings," they are special and should not be allowed to do things because of specialness.
@benjysarlin yes--and that's wrong too. women shouldn't be in combat zones. the military should be in the business of protecting women.— Michael Goldfarb (@thegoldfarb) January 23, 2013
Exactly. The military is not in the business of "killing people who done need be killed," it is "protecting women," because, really, what is an Abrams tank if not a really heavy white horse with a 120-mm cannon and depleted uranium strike plates, he asked, reading Wikipedia?
Women have to be marginalized — they're just weaker! It's the honorable thing to do, really, to just set them aside as a Thing To Be Protected.
Whoa, there's... more?!
A lot of women getting pregnant in war zones--we're going to send them into combat too?— Michael Goldfarb (@thegoldfarb) January 23, 2013
Probably, yeah! They will made adorable maternity-size flak jackets, and just chuck the pregnant ladies out of choppers onto the Talibans! Newborns can fight too, right? Or at least clean the sand out of the guns?
The other important question: What about the women who aren't pregnant? Won't their periods make them shoot crooked? They will be so mad, they will probably be grenading everyone, with their uteri!
It is important to place women on pedestals — that way, we can better figure out which ones deserve respect! It's important to have clearly defined gender roles in a society, so that the ones who do not fit into them can be properly labeled as whores.