Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military

National Review, Oct 13, 1989 by William Hawkins

Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military

MISS KRISTIN BAKER was recently chosen First Captain of the West Point Corps of Cadets. Is this a great step forward for both women and the military? Or is it a step forward for feminist ideology, with dangerous consequences to national security? Miss

Baker is the daughter of an Army colonel, so her desire to be a soldier may be part of a noble family tradition. Yet when interviewd by CBS News, Miss Baker said she thought of her father as just having a job like everyone else. If this means she sees her own Army career as a job, not an adventure (to reverse the Navy's recruiting slogan), it supports one of the many damning charges leveled against women in the military by Brian Mitchell's Weak Link.

The high command in all the services, although full of private doubts, is under intense political pressure to promote career equality between the sexes. To do so, they employ double standards that make civilian affirmative-action plans pale in comparison. Few politicians in either party will support the military against the feminists.

First Captain Baker may be a splendid soldier, but the erosion of standards raises suspicions about her promotion. Take one of the many examples cited by Mitchell of cdual standards" and "normalizing requirements" (Newspeak for obtaining equal results from unequal performance): West Point's "Enduro" run, a timed 2.5-mile jog in full combat gear. For the class of 1980 (the first to include women), it was decided that women could run, but their performance would not be counted in evaluations for awards. This was so obviously unfair (and caused such discontent among the male cadets) that in 1981 men and women were evaluated by the same standard. As expected, the men did much better and won proportionally more awards. When feminists complained, the Enduro was simply eliminated from training.

Mitchell argues that double standards for women and the subsequent cushioning of lowered standards for men are responsible for the negative attitude of male cadets toward their female classmates. Surveys found that while males were initially neutral about women in the ranks, they turned hostile with time and experience. The response of the academies? Courses on how to overcome sexism!

Women, with equal standing as citizens, do have an equal duty to contribute to the "common defense," but the question is, How best can they contribute? War is not the place for social engineering and abstract ideology. The only rule must be: do what works; and Weak Link argues that, as a rule, women do not work as soldiers.

To begin with, asks Mitchell, what is the proper concept fo equality in the military? "That all individuals can fulfill all requirements of all jobs regardless of sex? Or that some individuals can fulfill the requirements of some jobs regardless of sex?" The first is an ideological position, the second a matter of practicality. But the first has come to guide policy, and has resulted in units riddled with women who cannot perform their jobs even under peacetime conditions--a weak link that could break in war.

A common mistake of those unfamiliar with battle is the belief that modern "push-button warfare" has rendered physical factors obsolete. In 1982, an Army review group classified each job on the basis of required physical strength, using a Department of Labor system. Sixty-four per cent of Army jobs fit the "very heavy's category--a category only 3 per cent of Army women achieve.

Yet pressure from those who felt such restrictions would impede the careers of women derailed the imposition of new standard physical testing for job assignments. As a result, in the Army women who are unable to lift shells are assigned to artillery-supply jobs. In the Air Force, women who are unable to carry their own tool kits, let alone dismantle a jet engine, serve as aircraft mechanics. In the Navy, where 84 per cent of shipboard jobs are considered "very heavy," most women are unable to secure watertight doors. Feminists may oppose any discussion of physical fitness, but military women know the truth: nearly half of those assigned to "very heavy" duties leave the service.

Clausewitz noted that "the end for which a soldier is recruited . . . is simply that he should fight in the right place at the right time." Yet servicewomen are more than twice as likely as servicemen to be unavailable for duty because of medical complaints. Women have more medical problems in all areas, but by far the most important is pregnancy. About one in seven servicewomen is pregnant at any given moment. This used to be grounds for dismissal, but no more. One-third of these women do resign, but another third are granted maternity leave. What about the last third? Why, they have abortions.

Pregnant women are excused from a variety of duties. In peacetime, this is simply an inconvenience. In wartime, it is potentially crippling. Most servicewomen with children are single parents, and the majority of the rest have husbands who are also in the military. So, what happens to the kids when mom is called to the front? An answer, not a pleasant one, can be gleaned from an incident in Korea in the mid-Seventies when U.S. forces went to full alert. Some women actually brought their children with them to their posts; others simply headed for the rear, abandoning their posts and sekking evacuation.