The Feminist Campaign To Make Weaklings Of America’s Warriors
 

This OpEd ought to stoke the boilers of controversy in this on-going debate...

Timid generals seem afraid to challenge efforts to emasculate our fighting men and objectify our women

Mackubin Thomas Owens, a Marine infantry veteran of Vietnam, is editor of the quarterly journal Orbis and author of “U.S. Civil-Military Relations After 9/11: Renegotiating the Civil-Military Bargain” (Continuum, 2011).

And so it goes...

Richard

OWENS: The Feminist Campaign To Make Weaklings Of America’s Warriors
WaTimes, 17 Nov 2013

Feminism is trying to yank the U.S. military in two directions at once. While claiming that women have no problem meeting the rigorous standards of the SEALs or infantry, advocates of opening these branches to women argue that female members of the military must be protected from the male sexual predators that, we are assured, are widely represented in the military. However, they can’t have it both ways. Are women “hear me roar” Amazons, or are they fragile flowers who must be protected from “sexual harassment,” encouraged to level the charge at the drop of the hat?

In her 2000 book, “Real Politics: At the Center of Everyday Life,” the late American political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain identified the two extremes of modern radical feminism: the “repressive androgynists,” who contend that there are no real differences between men and women, indeed that the idea that there are differences is an illusion fostered by a repressive patriarchy; and the “feminist victimization wing,” which paints the relations between the sexes as a continuous train of abuses by men who victimize women on a daily basis.

For two decades, these wings of feminist ideology have worked in tandem to sustain an attack on the culture of the U.S. military, culminating in the recent decision by the Pentagon to open infantry and special operations to women. In light of the argument that women are capable of performing these elite missions, it is indeed ironic that the wedge issues driving the military toward this end have come from the victimization wing, stretching from the “Tailhook” episode in 1991 to the recent moral panic over alleged rampant sexual assault in the military.

Let me be clear: There is absolutely no excuse for sexual assault. Period. There is no excuse for a superior who pressures a subordinate for sexual favors. Period. The data cited by the Pentagon creating widespread panic within the military are rendered suspect for two reasons. The first problem is methodological: The numbers — some 26,000 active-duty service members out of a population of 1.4 million claim to have been sexually assaulted in 2012 — are based on an anonymous survey. This number far exceeds reported cases of sexual assault.

The second and more significant problem is that the survey uses the term “sexual assault” in a way so broad as to render it nearly meaningless. Indeed, much of what is now covered by the Pentagon’s sexual-assault rubric represents the de facto criminalization of normal relations between the sexes of the sort that come about when young males and females are thrown into proximity.

The charge of rampant sexual assault is only the latest campaign in a war on military culture. The opening shots for the most part were fired by feminist academics who decried a “masculinist military construct” that favored the “hypermasculine male.” For instance, in her article, “By Force of Arms: Rape, War and Military Culture,” for the February 1996 issue of the Duke Law Review, Madeline Morris wrote that there was much to be gained and little to be lost by “changing this aspect of military culture from a masculinist vision of unalloyed aggressivity to an ungendered vision.”

If feminists were really concerned about merely opening the infantry and special operations forces to women, they would stress the ability of women to meet the high physical and mental standards necessary to survive in the demanding environment of close-in ground combat. Instead, they have focused on the alleged vulnerability of women to male (though not female) sexual predators, illustrating that military culture is their real target.

The feminist attack on military culture is enabled by general officers and Republicans who are terrified of being accused of waging a “war on women.” For example, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno stated during testimony earlier this year before the Senate Armed Services Committee that “combating sexual assault and sexual harassment within the ranks is our No. 1 priority.” Gen. John Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, talks of little else at a time when some are attacking the necessity for a separate Marine Corps.

In the Senate, we see the sad spectacle of Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky joining Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut in support of the proposal by New York’s Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to “combat military sexual assaults by taking the decision of whether to prosecute out of the chain of command.” Such a step threatens both justice and military effectiveness by undermining trust and confidence in military leadership.

One of the ironies of the focus on sexual assault in the military is that it serves to objectify women, not as sexual objects but as weaklings who have no place in the military. It diminishes the significant contributions that women have made to the nation’s defense, serving honorably, competently and bravely during both peace and war. The fact is that the vast majority of women in today’s armed forces are extremely professional and want nothing to do with Elshtain’s two wings of feminism. Yet they are being infantilized by the Pentagon’s focus on sexual assault.

If the United States insists on opening infantry and special operations forces to women, the focus should be on upholding high standards, no matter the outcome. Instead, those who want to open these heretofore restricted military specialties to women insist on stigmatizing males as sexual predators and women as childlike victims whose only protection is to charge sexual assault. The result will be a less effective military, rent by dissension.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2l6GDsaof

What difference at this point does it make anyway?

I have opined before and will again, everything stems from leadership good or bad. Put any organization, business, society, or group under stress and in the absence of leadership, people will revert to tribal behavior.

Look at the issues we have discussed just on this Board - gender discrimination, class warfare, racial tensions, red states v blue states, conservatives vs progressives. We are divided into 'tribal' groups.

Our strength as a Nation has always come from our diversity and an ability to rally around a common goal, a common core value, a common national purpose. Communicating those goals, values, and purpose and acting with self-consistency has always been the function of Leadership.

We need inspiration. We need to aspire once again to greatness as one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All!

We need Leadership! Everything else will resolve from there.

Leadership or Decentralization
 

If there was true Leadership, then this great nation would be UNITED. The People would rally for the common good.

By continuing to quantify the evils of our past, many people maintain employment. Imagine a work place without Human Resources to cry with, or a world without someone to complain to about being treated unfairly?

As long as all of these distinctions exist, there will continue to be separation, which is what they want. The real war on the American Fighting Man, Conservatism, Religion, and Smaller Government ultimately will reduce everything to below Tribal levels.

The Family is the smallest Tribal unit there is, and the only thing that ties that together besides blood is Religion and Ideals. Elimination of even the Family, so reliance on Government, is the goal.

Unfortunately you are absolutely correct in that assessment. :(

I disagree. Wow, Trapper John -- how did that happen? :p Leadership is at all levels. I agree with the points in the article, and every day in small ways each decision we make makes a difference. IMHO, there is no real war on "the American Fighting Man, Conservatism, Religion, and Smaller Government." There are verbal skirmishes in each and not everyone lines up all of these topics as interchangeable and equal in definition or approach. There is a boatload of ineptitude, but the greatest thing about the far left is its absolute inability to execute anything consistently. The middle and middle left do not agree on much, except wariness of the far right. The right are not sure what they agree on. A war? I dunno...

I can look at our past and see good and bad. The real war is hyperbole. Enough ranting and no one sees a way forward. OK, my rant out. Back to the horrors of the American feminist.

Agree with everything you said, Doc, up to the last point. It would appear that you are correct, however, I think the USMAs produce some of the finest caliber leaders in the world. The issue is, IMO, a barrier to entry issue that has arisen by the emergence of the permanent political class. The truly great leaders we produce cannot enter the political arena to the degree that they should. Of course this may be a matter of choice, but I think it's more to do with selection process than anything. This is one of the chief reasons I advocate for campaign finance reform and term limits.

Break the back of the permanent political class and the real leaders will emerge.

My point is (was) that this and most of the divisiveness we are facing are straw-man issues hoisted upon us as a consequence of being on a rudderless ship. Just basic human behavior, IMO. Fix the core problem (Leadership) and everything else dissolves into the background feminism/anti-feminism included.

Silly wabbit :D

What's up, Doc?

If that is what you agree with, then i agree with you. Every time someone raises a narrow but divisive issue I wonder what is really going on while the nation chases its tail arguing minutia.

For instance, I would make all of the same arguments the article did, as a female, without the extreme feminist references. I would simply bring it to a broader group and ask where they see the line. Everything is not a feminist or left wing conspiracy. Some of it is just stupidity. I think we discount stupidity way too much as a force in this country. It crosses party lines and belief sets. :D

The main point in the article on this subject is the total numbers are off of something called the survey monkey. It is anonymous. I doubt it is accurate. I strongly doubt it. As a female, I suppose I was harassed. I say "supposed" because it comes with the territory. You stand your ground, they back off. Yes, it is alienating. Yes, it sucks. However, from the school of "what doesn't kill you makes you…" I survived it and thrived. Early in civilian life, my job was threatened if I didn't sleep with my boss. I didn't sleep with him and was not given the planned promotion. I took a promotion in another division and 3 months later he was fired for something completely unrelated. I did not report him. If I would have reported it, I would have been "that woman" … "Don't tell a joke around her… that's harassment!" No one would know the whole story -- just that I ran to HR. So I didn't run. People (male or female) who administratively harass for sexual favors have other serious issues in performance (double entendre there). Spot it in someone and you know they are a screw up.

But seriously, if you think women are administratively bullying men in the Army and that it is a problem, well, those are some poor examples of both sexes and may just deserve each other.

Finally, leadership is looking after unit cohesion and creating an environment that doesn't tolerate dumb acts. People get the message. There are unfit women out there and unfit men. I don't have an answer to women in combat because the number who would do well and actually thrive beyond training probably don't justify the changes to integrate them. But I would argue for better training for CA and PSYOP women so that when they are tacked onto a mission, they are fully capable. This may apply to the men as well, but I am thinking here specifically of the sometime mission need for a female interrogator.

Okay, I'll say it.

A large percentage of the reported sexual harassment and sexual assault complaints are found to be false. I believe that the number was between 35-40%, but don't quote me on that. This was not briefed during the annual training, but was depicted on the slides. They also showed a huge increase in the number of homosexual sexual harassment and assault complaints, which are not being discussed either.

This harms the real victims, as well as those falsely accused.

There are also many victims who fail to report the harassment or assault.

There is a process for handling complaints. There are reporting requirements and time lines (weeks, not hours). If you break the time lines, etc., you may not be able to prosecute.

Sexual harassment and assault are corrosive to the good order and discipline of the unit. Of course, when you put several dozen young men and women together, despite our best efforts as leaders, both welcome and unwelcome advances will occur. With the military definition of sexual harassment including unwanted looks and puckering or licking your own lips, there is a lot of behavior by both genders that crosses those lines. The military sexual harassment and rape prevention theme seems to be that a pin-up calendar or a copy of Maxim in the workplace leads to rape. I am not sure I buy that, but the troops need to understand that sexual harassment is career damaging, if not ending, and that convicted rapists go to jail. Frankly, it would probably be better if they were terrified of servicemembers of another gender, but that unlikely due to hormones and has problems of its own. I am not sure how civilian companies (and courts) treat someone who complains they were leered at, or groped, but I suspect that employees are warned, terminated, or sued in civil court. That is not how the UCMJ directs our justice be done.

IIRC, in the military non-judicial punishment system, commanders are judges. Courts martial get military judges. The juries are NCOs and officers. There is little training provided, other than the commander's JAG, who has functions similar to the civilian prosecutor and helps the commander. The defense gets counsel as well, normally a junior attorney from the trial defense service. In this role, he is similar to a public defender. Soldiers can hire civilian attorneys, but I believe that they keep a military defense attorney as well. There is an appellate process. Senior commanders cannot comment on untried cases with their opinions, even the Commander in Chief, as it is viewed as undue command influence.

I am glad that in several years of command in my career, I never had a sexual harassment complaint against any of my troops. Of course, I never had a female soldier assigned to my units, either.

I am concerned that pushing females further down into smaller units, and into combat arms particularly, are going to open the veritable Pandora's Box of sexual complaints, and damage the units far worse than being shorthanded would have.

That is just my .02 as an old soldier, YMMV.

TR