Fighting is for men ("Feminists perceive the military as simply one more...social institution...")

Fighting is for men

Barbara Kay
National Post
Wednesday, November 09, 2005

As soon as Remembrance Day lapel poppies make their annual appearance, wars, old and new, occupy my thoughts. I am especially keen to see the film Jarhead, which tells the story of a U.S. Marine who fought in the first Gulf War. By all accounts, Jarhead follows on other classics of the war-movie genre by answering the timeless question of why young males are willing to face torturous training, brutal hazing, long-term celibacy, excruciating tedium, dust, mud and the risk of death (or worse) in war.

Jarhead will no doubt be seen as hate propaganda in peace-loving Canada, where pacifism is in vogue, and traditional military values are viewed with suspicion. Not coincidentally, our Canadian Forces (CF) are deeply demoralized; military historian Jack Granatstein predicts a mass exodus of 20% over the next few years.

Reviving a military with cruelly degraded mechanical resources -- with virtually no significant new funds available for use until 2009-10 -- will be a difficult job for recently appointed Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier. His most pressing task is to stem rampant attrition -- in 1993, enlistment stood at 80,000; in 2005, at 58,000. Re-masculating the Forces would be a good place to start.

Nothing better illustrates Hillier's uphill battle than political termagant Carolyn Parrish's reaction to his perfectly reasonable assertion, in July, that terrorists are "scumbags ... who detest our freedoms" and that it is the Forces' job "to be able to kill people." She declared Hillier "dangerous" and "testosterone-fuelled."

Parish's reflexive hostility to Hillier's personal manliness is, unfortunately, emblematic of the anti-male attitude behind the transformation of our combat forces into the integrated, "sensitive" New Military. Women have served in the CF since 1951, and today represent up to 14% of the CF. They were deployed in support roles until a Human Rights tribunal in 1989 struck down barriers to all service options, including combat.

This meant integrated training with men. Since then, it's goodbye testosterone, hello estrogen, PMS, pregnancy -- and lower, gentler criteria. The single-standard Old Military shaped recruits to meet fixed benchmarks. The double-standard New Military fixes benchmarks to meet enlistees' shapes.

To maintain the fiction of gender neutrality insisted upon by the social engineers who pressed for integration, and produce the appearance of equality of outcomes, co-ed physical training has been dumbed down to accommodate women's lesser strength and ability, an insulting disservice to male recruits. But women also have female reproductive issues that can't be similarly obscured, and that receive special treatment. Pregnancy, for example, allows women to withdraw from combat duty with honour, while men have no such combat escape hatch. Some "equity."

Feminists perceive the military as simply one more government or social institution in need of accelerated PC behaviour modification to ensure functional and numerical parity for women. Manliness as a virtue has already been eradicated from scholarship, early education, child psychology, family law, and social work. Now it is the military's turn.

But combat troops aren't like teachers or postal workers or bus drivers. The military is -- was -- a unique, genetics-dependent culture, as specific to males as midwifery is to females. Men don't fight for the feminist ideal of androgyny, but to protect the women they love -- wives, daughters, mothers, sisters -- and the values they represent -- normalcy, freedom and peace. Former U.S. infantry officer Brian Mitchell, author of Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster, points out that rather than shortfalls being a reason to recruit women, recruiting women causes shortfalls: "The more attractive you make the military look to women, the less attractive you make it look to men."

In spite of the military's ardent courtship, women leave the CF for domestic obligations or greener career pastures at double to triple the rate for men. Add extra expense for female-specific injury and medical needs, double those of men's, not to mention costly flights of PC-induced idiocy (our Forces once commissioned a pregnancy combat uniform), and you have an institution in denial. Sadly, according to Granatstein, "It will take a large number of dead female soldiers before we snap back to reality".

Rick Hillier's comments have been labelled "controversial." Nonsense. He's a breath of fresh air, a role model for young men seeking purpose and self-realization through the ultimate male bonding experience.

Apart from rear-service, medical and administrative functions, where they shine, women don't belong in the CF. Hillier would do well to take a leaf from the Jarheads' copybook. Unlike the other Services, the U.S. Marines enlisted women, but successfully resisted integrated training. Consequently, they are the only U.S. Service to have easily met their recruitment goals, ensuring their continuing capability to field the world's most motivated, cohesive and effective combat units. More power to them.

Time for my most flaming post ever. Women may have their place in the military, but with rare exceptions, I haven't seen it yet. I've served. I've been deployed. I'm an officer.

I have not seen one female officer who could cut the mustard. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Not one; in years of service. Fellow officer whith whom I've had this conversation feel the same thing. Female officers are either incompetent, have some sort of emotional complex, or both. Not one that I've met is an effective leader in any way. Every female officer I've known personally has tried to use their gender to their advantage when dealing with men. Almost every one has broken the basic tenets of leadership.

As for enlisted, I have run across a few very competent and sane females and can think of one who was just outstanding in almost every aspect; but generally female enlisteds that I come across are either incompetent, have a complex, or both. Generally, they will not follow orders. They will complain and try to weasel out of anything approaching hard work. They go to sick call much more often the guys and are much more likely to need a replacement for duties than guys who are sick. Females generally do not pick up spatial-mechanical tasks like driving and weapons as well as guys and have a hard time doing it under pressure.

I want to believe that females are great in the military and wonderful and can fight for and/or serve their country just as well as men, but my personal experiences have shown the opposite.

Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the women in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raider and the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.

It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.

This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. (Don't forget that the Soviets only did it because of the hugely staggering quantity of casualties that they suffered, on a scale that we can scarcely concieve of) That is not the case now as most personnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today's military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.

One of the problems in assesing the impact of this issue vis-a-vis the Iraq war is the fact that we handily defeated them with the forces that were already in place in the invasion phase. Due to a combination of the skill of our superbly trained, equipped, motivated soldiers; and the ineptitude of our enemy (but they are getting better) our casualty rate has been thankfully far lower than we should have been reasonably able to expect given historical precedents. Notwithstanding this the question must be asked as to what would happen should we face an enemy that could inflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? The United States Army was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program as technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality. While we can continue to pray that we will never again face an enemy that will be able to attrite us as the German and Japanese Armies did, we MUST not plan as though it will never again happen. The Iraq war as it is presently playing out IS NO TEST OF THIS PROPOSITION.

Many commentators are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG's and .50 cal HMG's, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted "dual physical training standards" was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements. My son, a reservist in a NG chopper unit, is contemptuous of what he describes as continual coddling of female soldiers. He is planning to transfer to an infantry unit.

In situations of full mobilization, women are essential. I believe that women are a militarily valuable asset, provided that asset is used in a manner that makes the military ready to fight, and subordinates feminist social engineering to that end.

Hundreds of thousands of women have served and are serving their country honorably and well. I honor them for their service and accept them as comrades and fellow veterans. We can only hope that their service will be continued in such a manner as to enhance the ability of the military to fight. The potential consequences for the individual soldier and the military's mission are too serious to subordinate to social engineering.

The present situation is largely impelled by PC and gender politics, and the defense establishment is yielding to that reality.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.