The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America’s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?
Stephanie Gutmann
Scribner, 2000
First published in 2000, nothing could better illustrate the subordination of the military to the civil power than this account, by a woman journalist, of the submission of the male-oriented former to the feminist-dominated latter. Since it is modern political dogma that men and women are equal, the recruitment of women into the fighting forces becomes obligatory. This book is a description of how this is done, and what happens afterwards. As yet, the result has barely been tested in battle conditions, so the problems are being confronted in peacetime.
There is ample evidence that if physical equality was the criterion, few women would qualify – after training intensively, a batch of women, in it for the experiment (not recruits), reached the standard of the weakest males (p. 251). At the same time as trying to pretend that females could be the equivalent of males in tough fighting with enemies out to kill them, they were presumed so vulnerable that they needed protection from all forms of harassment by their comrades, which meant that the sexes couldn’t really interact – and when harassment changed into acceptable behaviour, that was just as bad – the pregnancy rate soared.
There is a long account and analysis of the notorious “Tailhook” party in 1991, post-Gulf (pp. 156-188) “when we had finally gotten over Vietnam” which led to numerous dismissals of top airforce brass and a greatly lowered morale of the rest, resulting in a haemorrhaging of disgusted qualified pilots, at a cost of $lm each for training. This was ostensibly about harassment, though most of the women present could either take care of themselves, expected what they got or went there to get it. Even during a rowdy “gauntlet”, when someone shouted “I’ve lost my pager”, everything stopped until it was found. The woman who led the complaints benefited to the tune of $5+m – and left the service. After Tailhook, everything was about gender, … [it was] the worst event for the Navy since Pearl Harbor.”
Of course, the whole burden of the book is that the US armed forces are not being treated by Congress and the media as a fighting force whose efficiency is paramount, but as a section of society which can be moulded into something with quite a different agenda from fighting and killing, though what that is is difficult to define – that men and women are basically equal and if it doesn’t always work out that way, it’s the men’s fault.
The book ends with a series of recommendations, granted that the forces should remain open to women:
- Eliminate recruiting quotas for women;
- Have separate-sex “boot camp” training;
- Have high and equal standards there;
- Restore “openness” and be frank about the problems, not just put them down to “sexism”;
- Exonerate the personnel victimised after Tailhook (“Witchook”);
- Separate the social service personnel from the fighting forces;
- Copy the practice of Marines, who seem to have fought through the “gender” nonsense largely unscathed.
It’s horrid how the feminist movement, which brought about a great deal of much needed change, has been hijacked. It’s no longer about equality of opportunity, with the same standards applying to both men and women. Now, it’s different standards for men and women that is to bring equality of result.
Growing up in the 60′, I never knew women in my family that did *not* work outside the home. Even my grandmothers did. My mother and aunts were very involved in the early feminist movement in the US. Now they have nothing but disdain for the current leaders and their ‘agenda’.
I’m all for anyone of whatever color, gender, etc. having equal opportunities for whatever jobs they wish to work at. I’m not for any different standards being applied to qualify for those jobs. I see the creation of different standards generating resentment.
Thanks for the letting us know about this book. It looks very interesting.
The kinder, gentler, warriors concept was instituted by – SURPRISE! – the Clintonista cadre.
To elaborate on Findlay’s comments, the US Marines’ response to the many absurdities makes for entertaining reading.
That men and women are in boot camp together AND are given two sets of physical standards is idiocy squared.
I just realised there is an interesting parallel between this equality nonsense in the US armed forces, and the historical facts about the political commissars who largely ran the Red Army during and just after Stalin’s great purges. Then, when the war started, and the country had to be saved, the commissars all retreated to the rear and the professional soldiers – or those of them who remained outside the labour camps – got on with the job, just about managing to win through despite a huge number of reverses many of which were caused by political meddling.
Why look in the crystal ball, when you can read the book?
A. Duffin:
Your parallel is not exactly correct- by 2 reasons
1. Comissars position and their training were never intended as professional soldiers, only as “political leadership”, which in fact gave then authority over Army officers
2. Their role @ the time of battles were to act as NKVD eyes and ears in addition to transmitters of current party message to the masses. I am sure in your book you will find a reference to so called SMERSH divizions, consisting of these party people, whose job was to guard army from behind lines and to shoot anybody to the back, because they had authority to pronounce one a deserter during the battles.
Whereas the article we are discussing deals with women soldiers given the same training in boot camp and in action being expected to perform as men soldiers. So we are not talking about any priviledged authoritative position or different job discription here.
Besides, if we already started on Russian wartime parallels, there were many women serving in the army but not in position of contact with enemy, with exception of women pilots, who were given the same instructions as men in regards to surrender situation, being: never surrender, but blow up the plane and herself in case of premature landing.
On the subject I personally think the Israeli model is much more close to common sense, women soldiers never given orders to serve in close interaction with the enemy. Does anybody have more info on the subject?
Sorry for a lenghty post
It’s the one size fits all mentality that has caused problems. Women will never be as adept as men at grunting 150 pounds of kit over miles of terrain. However, they most likely make at least as good spies and assassins, due to their ability to get close to a target without causing undue alarm. They would appear to be equally qualified snipers, as well, if trained properly. The Viet Cong certainly used them to great effect (sadly).
Another problem is that most soldiers are young, male and very horny. When I was in Navy aviation in the ’60s there was a condom machine in our barracks right next to the entrance.
Now we have males and females serving in very close proximity for long periods of time. The effect is a lot of complex relationships and sexual interactions, which is not a good thing in a combat unit. During Gulf War I (not all of this was started under Clinton – the feminists pushed it before that), one ship had to be sent home from the combat zone when too high a percentage of its crew became pregnant while at sea – even though sex between crew members was against the rules.
In other words, in many military situations, mixing males and females is a supremely dumb idea. And of course reducing the standards is absurd.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for women in the military. It does mean that it is a dangerous experiment with an organization that cannot afford to make big mistakes. It means that politically correct approaches are not likely to work, and will get people killed.
One would think that the experience of the Israeli military would have been enough to teach the feminists not to go overboard (the Israelis, who started out as wild eyed socialist idealists, of course had women mixed into all their units… at first. Not any more).