Once again, the armed services are engulfed in a “scandal” involving female service members. Beginning in the Marine Corps and now spreading to the rest of the services, it involves servicemen passing around pictures of servicewomen in various states of undress. It all sounds quaintly Edwardian, yet the services’ leadership, terrified of appearing politically incorrect, will treat it like a second Rape of the Sabines. Why they remain frightened of political correctness, a.k.a. cultural Marxism, when they have a commander-in-chief who was elected in part because he defied and rejected PC, I do not know. It might help if President Trump asked to see the pictures.
Such “scandals” are certain to rise again and again so long as official policy insists on ignoring human nature. For the purpose of continuing the species, that nature decrees young men will take the initiative in seeking sex with young women. They will climb every mountain, slog through any swamp, and break all regulations to do so. King Canute knew he could not command the tide; he tried to do so only to show his courtiers he could not overrule the forces of nature. DOD’s leadership, along with too many politicians, apparently believe they can.
Generations of human history, as far back as you want to go, tell us there is only one way to keep young men from hitting on young women: keep them physically separate. That is what we did with the WAVES, WACS, etc. of World War II. The women’s barracks were not only off limits; they were under armed guard. Of course, at that time young women knew they were the objects of men’s desires. Most of them welcomed the fact as useful in finding a husband.
So why do we attempt the impossible, mixing young men and young women cheek-by-jowl while saying, “Now now, no hanky-panky, boys?” It is part of feminism’s (and cultural Marxism’s) war on men. More specifically it is an attempt to destroy the male culture of our armed services. That is the same thing as destroying the services themselves, because any military that does not have an aggressively male culture will not fight. It will come apart at the first touch of real war.
Here’s how the game works. First, mix young men and young women in intimate situations (our submarines now have women in their crews). Then, empower the women over the men by allowing them to charge men with “sexual harassment” for any reason or no reason at all (giving a woman an order she does not like is often cause enough). Then, rip the man away from his chain of command, put him under a commissar system (with all the commissars loyal cultural Marxists) and presume him guilty until proven innocent. Faced with this, the kind of men who want to fight–who are a rare and precious resource in any military–first become discipline problems, then get out. Many of them will go on to find other ways to fight. The rest of the men either hate their lives or–what the feminists want–accustom themselves to being ruled by women.
Why this game is allowed to continue under a Trump administration I do not understand. Probably it has not yet come to the president’s attention; perhaps the latest scandal will prove helpful in that regard. Secretary Mattis surely understands that armed services must have a male culture if they are to fight. Is he merely going to sit back and let the cultural Marxists launch their latest assault on our servicemen?
Again, if we want to have women in our armed services–which is overall a mistake, beyond limited, non-deployable clerical and medical roles–we have a model for doing so, the way we did it in World War II. Was there still some bunga-bunga back then? Of course. But it was presumed women knew how to say “no”, and men were not punished for showing sexual interest in women. That was considered, on the whole, preferable to the alternative. It is only in a world gone mad that our armed services welcome gays while sending men who dare show an attraction to the women around them on their way to the gulag.
“Secretary Mattis surely understands that armed services must have a male culture if they are to fight.”
The Department of Defense primary mission is not to fight and win wars, its main mission to spend money.
The military has always had sexual discretion regulations.
For example, officers could be dismissed for adultery.
If some people in the military cannot follow its regulations, they should be dismissed, men and women alike.
PS. Putting men and women in the same units is probably a stupid idea. However, citing temptation as an excuse to disregard the rules is justifying insubordination on flimsy grounds. You might as well just not have regulations.
Precisely. Even if they have to invent wars or conflicts in order to spend money.
Mr. Lind must know this. He has been critical of the Pentagon for years – decades even. It depressing to think that he is unwilling or unable to state the true mission of the DOD.
Re: “Why this game is allowed to continue under a Trump administration I do not understand. Probably it has not yet come to the president’s attention; perhaps the latest scandal will prove helpful in that regard. Secretary Mattis surely understands that armed services must have a male culture if they are to fight. Is he merely going to sit back and let the cultural Marxists launch their latest assault on our servicemen?”
General Mattis, for all of his strengths, has marinated in the same culture of oppressive political correctness as the other general/flag officers of his generation. He is therefore probably reluctant to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy – or has been brainwashed as to the importance of women to the military.
Lind does not mention – it is probably outside the scope of the article – that disentangling women from the armed forces after being entrenched there for some forty years isn’t going to be easy. Nor will it be politically-palatable, since removing the demographic slice of women who fill slots in the armed forces will immediate create a vast manpower .. or should I say, ahem, “personpower” – shortage throughout the ranks. Such a shortage could only be made good, at least in the near-term future, by reinstituting the draft – something the deep-state and its denizens do not want. Why? The American ruling class once sent its sons into uniform in times of need, such as both world wars. Today, however, the members of the ruling class do not have to dirty their hands or otherwise have any skin in the game whatsoever, since they have all of those “dirt people” from out in flyover country to do their fighting and dying for them. And that’s just the way they like it.
Perhaps breaking the lock feminism and politically-correctness (cultural Marxism) now have upon the armed services will require some new blood, i.e., appointments from outside the ranks of the military, since the current crop of flag-general officers doesn’t seem to be up to the task.
To whomever the job falls, it won’t be easy. Even dysfunctional systems are difficult to change, as people loathe anything that upsets the status quo and disrupts routine. Legal challenges from enraged feminists and their supporters will surely follow…
Of course, we can see now from this late date – that all of this could and should have been nipped in the bud, if only enough of those guys with rank on their collars had simply used the word “No” – and meant it.
“It interferes with unit cohesion and disrupts male bonding” is a better argument.
Yes, a much better argument.
Womyn in combat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unMCKlLFMe4