Sometimes all you need is a headline and an opening paragraph to come to the correct conclusion that the “news” article (and even an “opinion piece”) is full of errors, lies, twisted facts, crazy claims, and generally spouting a particular worldview. Often a worldview that is wrong.

It is not just liberal or Regressive writing. It is not just conservative (neo- or alt-con) pieces. Articles and commentary by libertarians and other so-called “fringe” groups also can have this problem. The Alt-Media is not immune.

An example of this is The Hill’s recent article debunking SecWar’s supposed idea that women do not “play an essential role in the military.”

Anyone who has read the SecWar’s speech to flag officers understands that Hegseth’s position is not that women do not have a role in the military. Whatever service they are serving in. Contrary to this and many other articles by the lamestream press and many so-called Woke, “Progressive” writers, Hesgeth (like any good military officer, a student of history) clearly knows the role of women throughout American (and pre-American) history. He understands what these people (and the politicians who pander to them) do not: that the military role of women is of necessity limited. And should be. Not because of prejudice against women. Not because of misogyny, male chauvinism, or authoritarian political beliefs.

And Hesgeth, and his boss, The Donald, certainly are not trying to drive women out of the military. Nor is he disrespecting their contributions then and now. He is simply stating military necessity. But he is also throwing their own rhetoric in their faces. The rhetoric of those who claim that men and women are interchangeable. That basic standards that most men meet but that few(er) women meet are not evil, not wrong, not denying the essential equality of all humans.

And facing the truth, biological and physical. Courtesy of nature (and of course, nature’s God, the Creator), men and women are different. The average man, compared to the average woman, has greater physical strength. Greater upper body strength, in particular. And women, because of the nature of their bodies, have certain vulnerabilities that male bodies generally do not. And (much as this idea is derided) women think and respond differently than men do. Yes, there are certain women who are as strong or stronger than the average man – and than those men who are weaker. Just as there are certain men who are not as strong as the average woman. But overall, on average, males are stronger than females.

We are, of course, speaking of biological men and biological women. Not those poor, misguided and ill (or opportunistic and immoral) people who claim or even sincerely believe that they are of the opposite sex to the genetics of their body. Or of those even more unfortunate souls who have a body that is mutated in some way or disabled due to disease, injury, or heredity.

The article makes many false claims about what Hesgeth said and believes, provides many irrelevant examples from history, and also falsely states what past and recent history proves about the role of women in military forces. We don’t need to go into a detailed refutation of these things – read the article for yourself. Anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of military history will see the falsehoods.

The most egregious statement is that by specifying male standards for combat arms, Hesgeth is demonstrating his evil. The demands of combat and of duty in the field under the wide range of conditions are used to determine the physical, mental, and emotional standards which must be met. Those are, and have been, embodied in the male standards for physical fitness and mental attitude and responses. The SecWar is stating that if a woman is able to meet the same standards as her male counterpart, she will be able to take on the same role as the male. Just as a male candidate for a role, an assignment, a duty, must meet those standards. One standard, regardless of sex. Pass or fail. No bonus points for being one sex or the other.

Again, this commentary is not long enough to completely or even in summary address this issue. And there are side issues also very important: the necessities of service in various conditions require restrictions which are vastly politically incorrect. Like same-sex units and assignments. Men and women are not only always interchangeable, and conditions must be taken into account. Including not just the hazards, but the risks these hazards may present to one sex and not to another.

And the realities of human society – both in peacetime and wartime, in combat and in garrison – must be understood. For decades we have ignored too many of these realities. Americans in particular have been blessed for over a century in not having the effects of war here at home (except for isolated and relatively small incidents), and so we are not intimately familiar with the impacts. Successful human societies have always protected their women and children – including the women because of the children and the need to care for them.

Whether you believe in evolution or creation, you can recognize that thisneed to protect women and children is hard-wired into human males. (We suggest that there is a mental lack – an illness – in men that do not have this automatic response.) It is not a result of sexism or other unacceptable beliefs and practices, but hard reality: the survival of “the people” (society, tribe, civilization) depends on functioning, healthy, and safe women who produce and nurture children. Today, we see many nations, many societies, where that role has been greatly reduced: fewer and fewer women produce and raise to adulthood fewer and fewer children. These societies rapidly approach collapse or destruction at the hands of outsiders.

Until media – and media’s consumers (readers, viewers, listeners) stop promoting and accepting lies and false claims, like those about Hegseth, matters will only deteriorate.