feminine-genius

Women in combat

Responding to the decision to allow women to try for front line positions is no easy matter, because it is the result of a confluence of a long list of deplorable events and wrong-thinking. Thus, I am outlining my thoughts in a series of articles, the first of which can be found here.

Simultaneously, I'd like to offer some links to important commentary. First, the most important voice is that of a woman who was highly qualified--the epitome of female training and readiness, Captain Katie Petronio:

As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test).

So far, so good. She outlines the trajectory of her career and mentally and physically, she was at the top of her game. But then reality set in:

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment.

That's an extraordinary price to pay, and she isn't grumbling about it -- just being honest. Furthermore, she says, not only was it the months of rigour and strenuous demand, but the thought of sustaining it for decades, since her career would require only more of the same as she climbed the ladder.

Interestingly, a powerful comment was left below her article -- from another woman who did her best but couldn't overcome the hurdles with her fellow soldiers:

As a former Woman Marine, I strongly disagree with women in combat. Not because of the physical requirements, and not because women could not handle the job. When there are ratios of 100's of men to a few women, there are going to be problems. I experienced these first hand in the early 80's. Everyone knows what I am talking about. There are those men who will be angry, there are those who want to protect, and then there are those who want sex.

I think she has put in a nutshell the categories of men, since not all are chauvinists, not all are on the make. There are those who still have a particular regard for femininity. All three groups make the social experiment impossible in the end, even if the women are capable of doing the job. This is not like integration of different races, but the gender norming of two very differentlly-abled sexes. 

Finally, regarding the argument that if women can meet the men's requirements, then why not let them give it a go? Because the requirements appear to be changing:

When a reporter mentioned that the Pentagon’s stance appeared to keep open the possibility that some occupational specialties would be off limits to females, Gen. Dempsey responded: “[I]f we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”

Inevitably, it would seem that with the lack of rational thought, all we need now is for the men to sue in order to meet the women's standard, no? And one cannot forget that there are those who are fundamentally opposed to the mission of the military, which seems to be an outgrowth of masculine aggression:

On her MSNBC show today, Melissa Harris-Perry stated that the U.S. military is "despised as an engine of war by many progressives." 

So those who seem to promote androgyny (that there is no real difference between the sexes) simultaneously hold the belief that women would create a kinder and gentler military that wouldn't be so aggressive.  When one factors in that component, and discerns that the latest tinkering with the troops may distract them, disorient them, and undermine their primary mission, one cannot help but wonder if this is really about equality and opportunity.

So when social experimentation and questionable ideologies supercede the primary mission of the military, then the mission will be adversely impacted. It only stands to reason. And who loses? The women like Captain Petronio, those killed or wounded in combat (who serve as fodder for grrl empowerment campaigns*) and the women who may be subject to a draft in the future because of the new policy.

Finally, Elaine Donnelly is a tireless researcher on this important topic:

As the CMR Special Report explains, direct ground combat involves more than the experience of being "in harm's way," which all deployed troops share.  It involves deliberate offensive action against the enemy − an environment in which women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.

Liberal media and feminists are trying to use the military as a laboratory for the testing of a controversial twentieth-century social science theory − that men and women are interchangeable in all roles, and any differences that do exist are primarily, if not exclusively, due to socialization.  Pentagon-based ideologues are likely to use "perception management" (PM) techniques to achieve pre-determined results; i.e., implementation of the MLDC agenda and affirmation of beliefs that should be called Amazon Warrior Myths.

Our women in the military, who have served with courage and commitment before and during the wars since 9/11, deserve better than this. 

The Center for Military Readiness will continue to follow this issue closely, and to advocate high standards and sound priorities in the making of policies affecting our women and men in the military.

* We now have the bizarre standard that if we don't move forward to integrate women into the outer reaches of military service, then these women have suffered and died in vain. In that regard, the only way to "honour" them and their service is to let more women die. That passes for rational thought presently.

Let brothers be brothers

While the military has seen politically-driven encroachment of women into myriad all-male enclaves, Stephen Kilcullen makes and excellent case for keeping them out of the Rangers.

It is this culture of excellence and selflessness that attracts young men to the Ranger brotherhood. The Ranger ethos is designed to be deadly serious yet self-deprecating, focused entirely on teamwork and mission accomplishment. Rangers put the mission first, their unit and fellow soldiers next, and themselves last. The selfishness so rampant elsewhere in our society has never existed in the Ranger brotherhood.

And that is the secret of the brotherhood's success. Some call it "unit cohesiveness" but what they are really describing is a transition from self-interest to selfless service. The notion of allowing women into Ranger School because denying them the experience would harm their careers makes Ranger graduates cringe. Such politically correct thinking is the ultimate expression of the "me" culture, and it jeopardizes core Ranger ideals.

In his piece, he uses the key arguments that have the most weight:

• there is a warrior cult (a brotherhood) that is hard to define;
• this brotherhood is key to the cohesion of the unit;
• the cohesion of the unit is critical to the success of the mission;
• the military mission cannot defer to the private interests of any individual.

This has been the problem with political tinkering for many decades: individual "rights" (that have little/nothing to do with the military mission) have undermined the ability of our armed forces to do their job. Just as the politicians in Washington DC who tried to fight the Vietnam war (by imbibing the daily news and gauging public opinion) proved disastrous to the mission, so has using the armed forces as a social networking guild and means of advancing the sexual revolution.

The military has changed many policies in recent years, based on individual self-interest masquerading as fairness and antidiscrimination. As we debate new policies, decision makers need to ask two simple questions: Is a proposed move good for the majority of service members? And does it improve or hinder our ability to execute our mission?

After all, the military does not exist to provide careers. It is a responsibility, a way of life and a higher calling that only 1% of our citizens choose to follow. A top-notch fighting force composed of dedicated and strong men who are the very best at what they do is what defines our armed forces—and the Rangers as among their best. Let's not destroy this small but incredibly important culture under the banner of "me."

Either the US has enemies or it doesn't. Either its mission is to prevail or it isn't. If women (and persons with same-sex attraction) distract a unit from performing its tasks, then the mission should take precedence over these games. Perhaps the Rangers will succeed where other groups haven't, but there's no guarantee.

This may be prove another confused battle where political correctness invites women into situations where their very presence (no matter how sincere and well-qualified) weakens the team in incalculable ways. And it undermines the core feminine vocation: which is to give life, to nurture it, and sustain through their physical and spiritual motherhood. Anytime that we forget that truth -- and the man's call to protect it to the extent of laying down his own life for it -- we've poisoned our very culture and reason for living.

Like, um, shot at?

The military has tried a different strategy in Afghanistan, with mixed results:

They expected tea, not firefights. But the three female Marines and their patrol were shot at late on a recent day, when a burst of Kalashnikov rifle fire came from a nearby compound. The group hit the ground, crawled into a ditch and aimed its guns across the fields of cotton and corn.

In their sights they could see the source of the blast: an Afghan man who had shot aimlessly from behind a mud wall, shielded by a half-dozen children. The women held their fire with the rest of the patrol so as not to hit a child, waited for the all-clear, then headed back to the base, survivors of yet another encounter with the enemy.

“You still get that same feeling, like, ‘Oh, my gosh, I’m getting shot at,’ ” said Lance Cpl. Stephanie Robertson, 20, speaking of the firefights that have become part of her life in Marja. “But you know what to do. You’re not, like, comfortable, because you’re just — ” She stopped, searching for how to describe her response to experiences that for many would be terrifying. “It’s like muscle memory.”

So here we have female armed forces pushing the envelope, training for battle, engaging in it and yet pretending that they're non-combatants.

As new faces in an American counterinsurgency campaign, the female Marines, who volunteered for the job, were to meet with Pashtun women over tea in their homes, assess their need for aid, gather intelligence, and help open schools and clinics.

They have done that and more, and as their seven-month deployment in southern Afghanistan nears an end their “tea as a weapon” mission has been judged a success. But the Marines, who have been closer to combat than most other women in the war, have also had to use real weapons in a tougher fight than many expected.

Here in Marja — which, seven months after a major offensive against the Taliban, is improving but remains one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan — the female Marines have daily skirted the Pentagon rules restricting women in combat. They have shot back in firefights and ambushes, been hit by homemade bombs and lived on bases hit by mortar attacks.

None of the 40 women have been killed or seriously injured, and a number have worked in stable areas where the shooting has stopped, but many have seen good friends die.

And yet that last fact is due to sheer dumb luck. Men in their units have died along side of them on patrol, proving that they've crossed the line on a regular basis. It's a clever strategy that is meant to prove that women can handle combat stress, respond accordingly and push policy makers back home to lift the restrictions. The larger fallout, many worry, is that if the draft is ever imposed in the future, it will include both men and women.

I've written about this numerous time, each time dealing with data that trickles in beneath the radar, painting a conflicting picture about current policies. Kingsley Browne and Stephanie Gutmann have written compellingly about the problem, including the fraternisation and pregnancy rates that are causing grave problems in the field.

Q: You say we're not getting the full picture of women's military performance in Iraq. What information is being withheld?

A: The mainstream press in general seems favourably disposed toward the service of women, so we get stories only of their good performance, we don't hear about their bad performance. But you do hear anecdotal reports, not so much about women's performance under fire as much as about slack discipline in the mixed sex support units, because the members are often devoting too much of their attention to the opposite sex. There's too much monkey business.

Q: I was surprised that a central command officer told you no one is collecting information about the number of soldiers who get pregnant in Iraq.

A: I cannot believe the U.S. military is so unconcerned with the causes of personnel loss that they aren't keeping track, but releasing it is another matter. They don't see any advantage in saying that even a small number of women are leaving because of pregnancy. A statistic that you see frequently is that at any one time, about 10 per cent of the women serving in the military — not just in Iraq, but in every part of the military — are pregnant. So far, 155,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan altogether, so I'd guess that hundreds, and likely more, have become pregnant and returned home, or weren't able to deploy in the first place because they were pregnant.

All well and good, unless you really need troops in top fighting form. And that means more than meeting with local women to see if their wells are in good shape. Furthermore, if we're going to convince those women to shed their burkas for greater opportunities, we may want to show them that the West offers women something other than bikinis and combat boots. Between what they hear of our pop culture and who's knocking at their doors, they might wonder what infidel women are all about. I'd like them to have another image to consider.

UPDATE: The worthy Elaine Donnelly (linked above) weighs in the same article, ending with this sad comment --

At the CMR website, there is an article on the 115 women who have given their lives in service to our country in the current wars in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Iraq. The most recent female soldier to die was Army Pfc. Barbara Vieyra, 22, of Mesa, Arizona. She was killed by an IED/RPG attack in Afghanistan on September 18, leaving behind a young daughter, Evelyn. We mourn the loss of any soldier, but it is troubling to see so many single mothers being sent to fight our wars.

Swerving into politics

I've long nursed a pet theory about the political landscape in America and a recent alignment of the stars gave me a chance to vent it in a completely secular arena. For those who understand the faith, just extend the argument I outlined to those in the Church working at warp speed to deconstruct the hierarchy and the doctrine entrusted to it. The problem with any sort of father-issues is that they cloud the image of our dear Father-God reaching out to His children. He would be the ultimate enemy of those highlighted in the article. It's all of a piece.

UPDATE: Just in from NARTH --

The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) published byAmerican Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) offers the following conclusion: "Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment (p. 28)."

 

Authors Gartrell and Bos generalize their findings to the lesbian population at large, claiming their research offers "implications for --same-sex parenting" (p. 28). Making an enormous scientific leap, they conclude that their study provides scientific proof that there is "no justification for restricting access to reproductive technologies or child custody on the basis of the sexual orientation of the parents" (p. 34-35).

 

Implied, though not stated, is the notion that fathers are not necessary or important for the healthy development of children. This implication is a throwback to an article published in the American Psychologist in 1999 titled "Deconstructing the Essential Father." Like the authors of the American Psychologist article, Gartrell and Bos are on record as activists seeking public support for homosexual parenting.

 

However, a cursory review of this study (funded by the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay, Lesbian Medical Association) demonstrates significant flaws that most first-year graduate students would quickly recognize.  Any reasonable observer would easily conclude that the authors overstated their findings and that in this instance, whatever external review process was utilized, was inadequate. Consider the following:

 

1. The problems inherent in any self-report study.  The lesbian mothers' own reports that their children were well-adjusted were accepted by the study's authors uncritically. The authors should have clarified the limitation and usefulness of such qualitative, self-reported data in light of the fact that the lesbian parents knew that the study would be used to further their political cause; in contrast, the control group had no idea how their reports would be used. In addition, most mothers, lesbian or not, would likely report their children's adjustment in a favorable light. Outside observers such as the child's teachers or counselors, if consulted, could have offered a different perspective.

 

2. The lesbian parents were hardly typical parents: 93% were Caucasian. Most were college-educated (67%). Most were middle/upper class (82%). Eighty-five per cent were in professional or managerial roles. The control sample, however, had significantly more minorities; many more children from the South; they were very different in race composition and socioeconomic status; and the educational level of these mothers was unclear. A statistical adjustment for these differences could have been easily addressed.  Had these differences been controlled, they might have been reduced, been proven negligible, or perhaps reversed.

 

3. The sample was far from random.  Participants were recruited from gay and lesbian venues (i.e., lesbian pride events and lesbian newspapers in three major metropolitan areas--Boston, Washington. D.C. and San Francisco).  Although the authors acknowledge the non-randomness of their subject pool and the potential problems this situation could pose, this limitation did not seem to limit their conclusions. As a result, a very strong case could be made for selection bias having invalidated the findings.

 

Despite the obvious study flaws, the authors offer the following generalization:  "The NLLFS adolescents are well-adjusted, demonstrating more competencies and fewer behavioral problems than their peers in the normative American population (p.34)."

 

Notably absent was data about the sexual orientation of the adolescents or the preferences or expectations for the adolescents' sexual orientation (some of this data was, in fact, collected for the 10-year study). Was this data collected and simply dismissed?

[I'm waiting for them to put up a dedicated link to this article, which was written by A. Dean Byrd]

A compromised mission

While gays in the military currently have the spotlight, a more urgent issue is the problem with many women in the ranks who are either pregnant or single mothers, both of which deeply impact the ability of America’s military to achieve its mission. The case of Alexis Hutchinson, who refused deployment last year because she had no plan in place for her young son, was just settled:

A single-mom soldier who says she refused to deploy to Afghanistan because she had no family able to care for her young son will be discharged from the military instead of facing a court-martial, the Army said Thursday. Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, an Army cook stationed at Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, was arrested in November after skipping her unit's deployment flight. Hutchinson, 21, said she couldn't leave her son because her mother had backed out of plans to keep the child a few days before the soldier's scheduled departure.

So here we have a difficult situation—our tactical strength depends on a military force that consists of a large number of pregnant women and single mothers. It has hit the Navy particularly hard.

Navy Times recently reported that pregnancy rates in the Navy spiked by 50% in two years. Ship crews suffer when pregnant sailors are unavailable for deployment or require early evacuation. Instead of re-assessing misguided policies that worsen the problem, the Navy plans to extend them to the submarine service.  Never mind that short-handed crews and mid-ocean evacuations due to female medical emergencies would compromise undersea missions and put everyone at greater risk.

There is the logistical problem that they cannot meet their responsibilities, but an added morale problem when the pregnancy is the result of the wide-spread “fraternization” in the ranks. This widespread behavior both flouts regulations and weakens unit cohesion, and yet the feminist  response has been two-fold: to have ready-access to the controversial “morning after” pill and abortion (both on the tax-payers’ dime) and when necessary to place charges of sexual assault against the father of the child to protect the mother’s career. This plays havoc with troop cohesion and can easily spiral into emotional circuses.

We should all be concerned about how feminists are playing games with the armed forces -- especially since we all know families with loved ones already serving in dangerous settings. One must dig to know that many gender feminists have clearly tipped their hands and posited that war itself is a natural extension of patriarchy. These women (and men) believe that gender mainstreaming is a good way to “de-militarize” the military, and to that end, pregnant soldiers and disobedient young mothers are the poster children for a castrated force. The problem is that many fine young men and women will pay the ultimate price for a social experiment gone mad.  

Commitment crunch

My husband was an officer in the Navy so I understand military discipline. I am a mother of five so I understand the demands of young children. I also recognise that there is an inevitable clash between motherhood and the military -- especially when the mother is single and the one being deployed.

An Army cook and single mom may face criminal charges after she skipped her deployment flight to Afghanistan because, she said, no one was available to care for her infant son while she was overseas.

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, 21, claims she had no choice but to refuse deployment orders because the only family she had to care for her 10-month-old son — her mother — was overwhelmed by the task, already caring for three other relatives with health problems.

Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said Monday that one of Hutchinson's superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care.

It's not fair for her to get a pass when deployment is rough on everyone, but what to do when a large component of our fighting forces is comprised of single parents? This is where the rubber hits the road and Army as "jobs program" rather than Army as "fighting force" has taken precedence. The military makes sure that each soldier has a plan in place for dependents (especially for situations like this) but the grandmother of the baby was overwhelmed -- being caretaking for her own mother, another elderly relative, a special needs daughter and a housing a day-care for 14 children in the home.

I blame this fallout on the feminists' demands that have shredded families and insisted that mothers caring for their own children is oppressive. Sure -- but someone has to raise the next generation. Alexis has found that delegating that task while slopping chow overseas isn't such a good deal afterall. Any ideas, Betty Freidan?

Reality, then legal recognition

With the recent court case on marriage in CT, the judge said basically, "You've acquiesced to domestic partnerships, civil unions, and sodomy in general. Why not just allow marriages to include same-sex couples and call it a day?" It was an example of legal wrangling finding traction in everyday realities.

On another topic, we may be looking at a co-ed draft, if not a blanket permission for existing female troops to serve in combat roles:

Under U.S. military guidelines, female soldiers are not supposed to be placed in direct ground combat. Like so much else about the war in Iraq, that didn't play out quite as planned.

"Lioness," a 90-minute Independent Lens documentary by Meg McLagan and Daria Sommers, talks with a group of women who found themselves in precisely that situation, and who came out of it with pretty much the same range of aftereffects as their male colleagues.

Mostly they were glad to have come out of it at all, since thousands of their comrades did not. "Lioness," a name given to units of female soldiers sent to Iraq in 2003, shows how women function as equals in a situation as extreme as armed combat.

Well, they're equal as far as PR goes, and the party line that is spoken before the cameras. This book tells an entirely different tale, but with or commander-in-chief-elect making all sorts of pandering promises to the feminist wing of the female race, I wouldn't be too sure that Change.com wouldn't one day change the rules of conscription overall. Because if the reality is pegged as a success for women in combat, then the legal recognition follows as a matter of course.

Nota bene: I'm appalled that the book is selling at "bargain basement" price already, but do take advantage of it. It's grating to those who want to experiment with our defense by integrating the troops. Perhaps a good gift for a grandfather or military enthusiast on your Christmas list. Btw, I was supposed to review it, but no one would take the review with women serving on the front lines at present.

Deconstruction continues apace

Spain ushered in a new government in 2004 (which it confirmed by election this March). There was never any doubt that Zapatero would shake things up.

IT'S AN image Spaniards will not soon forget: their new defence minister, reviewing trim, crisply uniformed soldiers, with her belly plump from seven months of pregnancy.

The appointment of Carme Chacon, 37, and with no military experience, is the boldest statement yet from a Socialist government that has made gender equality a priority.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the prime minister, who won re-election in March, unveiled a cabinet this week that not only includes the first female defence minister but also has nine women to eight men.

Pictures of Ms Chacon reviewing the soldiers ran on the front page of seven national newspapers the next day, and footage of the event dominated the television news.

Now, as those Spaniards (and the rest of the world, for that matter) second-guess themselves and ask why the pictures grate so intently, will they have the framework to understand why? Does it really matter whether a man or a woman heads the armed forces, and more importantly -- does it matter whether the person has any experience?

Well, second question first: what is the point of the military? Is it a force to safeguard the safety of its citizens? or is it a showcase for social experimentation? If there is no real enemy, then the latter answer will do, and the experiment will be broadcast to the world to show that we can tinker with all sorts of elements because the army simply doesn't matter. Of course, if there were legitimate threats to a nation, it wouldn't mess around with such things -- but inane thinking in the deconstruction crowd leads them to believe that they can alter reality if they close their eyes (and click their heels) and wish really really hard for a new world.

Now, can a woman lead the armed forces? In a word, no. Not effectively -- and especially one with no experience. The men who are called to lay down their lives, to charge into enemy gunfire, to be heroic for heroic ideals cannot do so if they do not respect their leaders. This is a documented fact.

The only way that a body of soldiers can do their job effectively is if a "warrior cult" is established, in which they lose the ego for the whole, they lose rational, independent thinking for the moment for the sake of docility to the mission. That cannot be done under these circumstances because the men will always second-guess the orders and calculate how to save their skins despite the games all around them. The bond of trust is impossible with an inexperienced woman at the helm.

Carme Chacon is lovely -- she reminds me a lot of Audrey Raines in the series 24 (but of course that was a series that showed that no matter how competent folks were in their duties, emotional entanglements were a disaster for national defense). Even without the impending delivery of her child, this stands as a mockery of the armed forces. With the child, it may just enrage the citizens of Spain to see once and for all what socialist deconstruction is all about.

Addendum: It should be noted that Zapatero is essentially a communist. He adopted socialism as a more practical application of his pet principles. The Marxist ideal at the heart of his thinking supports feminism as the next phase of the dialectic, which pits the oppressed (women) against the oppressive class (men) in order to arrive a new synthesis: androgyny. The peaceful application of this principle is Deconstruction by Fiat. This is a classic example.