Pentagon: Bible, Constitution Perpetuate Sexism | The Daily Caller

According to a Defense Department approved “sexism course,” the Bible, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence all contribute to modern sexism.

Those three cherished texts all count as “historical influences that allow sexism to continue,” according to a presentation prepared by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, whose mission is to give a ”world-class human relations education.”

via Pentagon: Bible, Constitution Perpetuate Sexism | The Daily Caller.

Just a head’s up that this will be the subject of CDR  Salamander’s DivThu post later this week.

10 thoughts on “Pentagon: Bible, Constitution Perpetuate Sexism | The Daily Caller”

  1. You know, I took my commissioning oath pretty seriously, and even though I’ve been discharged for years now, I don’t recall anything releasing me from that oath.

    If I was still on active duty, though … this right here would come perilously close to the edge of putting conflict between the part about “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic” and the part about “obey[ing] the orders … of the officers appointed over me.”

  2. Since the US Constitution is “sexist” according to the Pentagon, might I suggest the following to replace the current “outdated” Oath of Enlistment?

    “I swear by Gaia this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Barack 0Bama, the Führer of the American Reich, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.”

    1. Yeah sorry but under Gaia and by general Dianic Wiccan practice Obama is out because he’s male – not that that is sexist of course. Wait ’till next year and you can swear to Hillary though.

  3. Unless you take an extreme hippy dippy granola reading of the Bible, it is sexist especially the old testament but then are many religious texts like oh say the Koran. Perhaps though we shouldn’t just single out the Bible then?

    The rest are only problematic because some people don’t like it because in English, the gender neutral pronouns are the same as the male ones. I doubt that Glen Armstrong was intentionally trying to leave out women in his “One small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind.” speech.

    The great man theory of history has been rightly criticized not because of it’s focus on men but because of its focus on prominent individuals. To talk about Elizabeth the First and her conquest of the New World is to ignore the contributions of all the peons male and female alike who helped open up the new continent to European expansion. And can we really talk about Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir and ignore the contributions of the peoples of India and Israel? And of course let’s not bring up Maggie and the Falklands.

    Constitution and Bill of Rights – see pronoun usage above. I am not sure about US law but for a very long time being considered fully a “person” also carried a property or wealth requirement. And let’s not to mention that it wasn’t until 1929 that women were considered persons up here in Canada. Let’s also not mention that in another, let’s call it “culture”, women are still considered to be worth half the value of men while American and other western women and members of minority groups have some of the widest ranging rights and privileges yet seen in history. Like it or not, the US has a minority president Hillary Clinton has a pretty decent shot at taking the office herself. All of which pretty much shoots down the whole “allows sexism (and racism) to continue” argument.

    1. We mustn’t forget that as sexist and oppressive as our country is, there was a distinct chance of a woman being elected Vice President in 1984, over 30 years ago. Also, reading about that also shows how much things have changed since then!

  4. If you’re going to condition your armed forces to fire upon the citizenry in a “domestic” situation one would introduce such nonsense as this.

  5. I’m in favor of special legislation to de-fund the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.

  6. Wow, I just read the whole article. The course, which has now been taken down “for review” is like a Social Justice Warrior handbook.

    Yes, the white son of a dirt-poor alcoholic some-time coal miner who grew up on food stamps “inactively contributes to discrimination” because he doesn’t acknowledge he is “privileged” by virtue of being white.
    Meanwhile the wealthy black son of an orthopedic surgeon, who went Exeter/Harvard has no “privilege” at all, simply because of his skin color.

    This nonsense makes me crazy.

Comments are closed.