Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Feminizing the Military

This story, reported by The Daily Caller, deserves far more attention than it has received. Then again, if it is not receiving attention, that itself is a symptom. A symptom of the willingness of the public to accept the degradation of the military… through the imposition of feminist ideology.

Don’t you think that the best way to create a mean, lean fighting machine is to follow feminist principles?

It seems that the Obamafied military, led by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is no longer concerned about winning wars or even battles. It has a new goal: gender equity. Now the military, even the Marines will dedicate its efforts to help women to fulfill their true potential. By giving them special privileges in order to foster diversity. Better yet, by putting them in combat.

Who talks this way?

Feminist firebrands like Sheryl Sandberg.

As you know, Sandberg is the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook. And she is a widowed single mother of two children. Apparently, she has extra time on her hands, so, from her perch in the Lean In foundation,  she has taken to lecturing the Secretary of Defense on the composition of military units.

How much does Sheryl Sandberg know about military readiness, effectiveness and readiness?

Nothing. Zero. Truth be told, she does not care.

Why is the man in charge of the world’s greatest military organization taking advice from a feminist? And why, God forbid, is he implementing her suggestions?

If this does not show that the inmates have taken over the asylum, it certainly shows that feminist ideology has infiltrated the national culture to a frightening extent.

Surely, this should make serious people very angry, but it must also make them very afraid. The people tasked with defending the nation are indulging in mindless social experiments. If ours are so far superior to other military forces that they can win with both hands tied behind their backs, one knows that it will not always be this way. And, what do you think leaders of other aspiring hegemonic powers are going to think when they see that American forces are being led by women? Fear and trembling or encouragement? And what will the world’s brigades of terrorists be thinking when they discover that American military bases have lactation stations? Fear and trembling or a sign that they are on the side of strength?

The Sandberg-Carter reforms show a complete lack of concern for the true goals of the military: winning wars. They are willing to sacrifice combat readiness and efficiency for an ideological illusion. They want new mothers to take parental leave and to be able to return to their units, with whom they have not been training, and to take up their old positions.

What does Sandberg want?

She wants women to receive preferential treatment in the military. Worse yet, Carter was receptive to the plea. The Daily Caller reported:

Newly released emails from Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s private email account show detailed correspondence with Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, who pressured an enthusiastic and receptive Carter to give preferential treatment to women in the military

We know how well preferential treatment has worked in university admissions, so why not try it in the military.

What evidence does Sandberg present?

For Sandberg, not enough women are represented in the military and that problem only compounds when examining high-level positions across the services.

What the military really needs, she adds, is diversity. What really matters is women reaching their true potential. As you know, when you are fighting a war, you get extra credit for diversity:

The first proposal Lean In recommended was to restructure and reform promotions in the military to “counter biases that are preventing women from reaching their full potential.”

This proposal includes carefully examining promotion criteria to see if they “filter out a disproportionate amount of women and/or minorities.” The implication seems to be that if too many women are filtered out, then the standards practically by definition cannot be gender neutral, and so should be scrutinized and potentially reworked.

One might ask how many minority executives there are at Facebook, or throughout Silicon Valley. And, how many women executives are working at those firms? If Sandberg wants to play ideological games with her company, she is free to do so. If she wants to offer an opinion, she is free to do that also. Ash Carter has no such excuses for his own dereliction.

Sandberg thinks that we should have more women commanders. As for the pesky problem of pregnancy and childrearing, Sandberg believes that women should not be penalized for taking time off. And naturally they should be able to bring their babies to work. She even wants bases to have lactation stations:

Additionally, women in the military often take leaves of absence, due to issues like pregnancy, which naturally hurts their chances at promotion. For Lean In, the discrepancy seems unacceptable. Instead, the career track should allow far more flexibility to make sure that in spite of pregnancy, women still comprise a much larger portion of military leadership.

The military’s obligations, according to Lean In, are not concluded after a female servicemember gives birth. Rather, the military should shift the hours of child care development centers to open 15 minutes before duty reporting.

There should also be lactation rooms on all bases.

“Pregnancy is a top driver of female attrition across all branches,” the report notes. “We suggest that the DOD find ways to offer female service members who are (or who are thinking about becoming) pregnant assistance with planning their next career moves.”

Increasing maternity leave and helping women every step of the way during pregnancy is necessary to lower female attrition rates in the military and make sure they get into leadership positions in the military.

Of course, Sandberg is trying to change the culture overall. She obviously believes that men and women are not just equal, but the same. Therefore any institution that treats men and women differently is necessarily prejudicial. If she believes that women will be as effective as commanders as men she is clearly delusional. Again, if she wants to try it at Facebook, by my guest. If she cannot figure out why in the highly competitive world of warfare men have always been singled out to lead the charge, then she is simply ignorant.

But, what is Ash Carter’s excuse:

Sandberg sent another email September 21, 2015, applauding Carter and saying, “Your commitment to creating a force as diverse as the nation it serves is something that will change our military—and our culture overall.”

“I truly believe that together, we are making the world a bit more equal,” she said.

Carter was ecstatic at the praise.

“I thank YOU Sheryl for your inspiration,” Carter said. “It is easy to fall in behind the strong and persuasive way you help me make the case. I learned a lot…I am so pleased that this gives you some happiness. I wish you strength every day. Please call me Ash.”

For my part, I will accept all of it at precisely the moment when the government forces all professional football teams to have an equal number of men and women on the field at all times. That would be true equality, don’t you think? If women can't hack it in the NFL what makes you think that they can  hack it in combat?


Ares Olympus said...

I don't like propaganda on either side of the argument.

Certainly "gender equity" in the military is a preposterous goal given physical differences, but I doubt anyone is promoting this. You might as well have "90lb weaking equity" among men, and see where that takes us.

And the only serious question is what the proper standards for military service should be, and how different jobs within the military could have different standards of physical ability.

And if we have "lower standards" for women for the same jobs then its reasonable to also say "Do we want lower standards for 90lb weakling men?" And if the answer is "no", then we're probably lying to ourselves.

On the other side, thinking about Abu Ghraib prison torture programs, I remember there was at least one woman in many of the photos, and so this should break the illusion that there's any special morality for women.

Its sensible to imagine people who go into the military may have a higher than average measure of sadism, and if we're going to have diversity, it is clear we don't want standards of will-to-violence so high that everyone who has a personal morality is eliminated from military service.

If we say "Muslims hate us for our freedom", I do think we're lying to ourselves. If we say "Muslims need to be humiliated in order to break their confidence that they can fight back" I think we're lying to ourselves and stupid.

But people brought up on abusive households will surely do their duty to humiliate the enemy to prove their patriotism. All it takes is proper endorsement and/or looking the other way, when someone needs "roughing up" or whatever imagined fantasies people make to push their shame onto people not like them.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

With Mark Zuckerberg's wisdom, we won't have to worry about our military anymore:

Everything will be safe.

Savages who crucify priests just need to "feel the love."

Sam L. said...

Yep. Lower the physical standards. Feminists are leftists, and leftists do not want the US to have a strong military. Not to fight communists, not to fight Islamists. Nor anyone else.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

This advocacy is okay, because I'm certain Sheryl Sandberg will encourage her daughter to enlist or be commissioned in our nation's military. I'm sure it's very important to her. Just ask her. Encouragement for military gallantry and glory will be part of her daughter's upbringing. Ms. Sandberg will eschew dolls and get that toy M4 in her daughter's hands to broaden her career perspective. I just know it.

Yet Ms. Sandberg is a very smart, accomplished lady in the field of business... of the high-tech variety. So I know if having women in combat compromises combat unit effectiveness, someone as logical and rational as Ms. Sandberg will analyze the data in an objective way and put her own beliefs, dreams and interests aside for the benefit of our nation. That's just what Silicon Valley executives do. Nation first!

After all, most Harvard graduates serve in our military, and encourage their children to serve as well.

And billionaires like her send their children to wear the uniform in droves. It's hard to keep up... recruiters are just turning them away!

And once lactation stations are in place... LOOK OUT! They'll be advertising military careers on "Real Housewives" as an indirect way to the hearts of daughters everywhere, tugging at the dashed dreams their mothers have always had of wearing fashionable BDUs and getting sweaty in a mud pit under barbed wire with machine gun blanks going off overhead. Makes you want to kick off the heels and just jump into those combat boots.

We need to listen to Sheryl Sandberg. She's a deep thinker. She's written a bestseller. She wants to ban the word "bossy."

And after all the time Ash Carter has spent defending Obama's stupid policies, I'm sure he's vulnerable to a little flattery.

And yes, Stuart... certainly it is time for the archaic NFL to open its ranks to the more "balanced" future Ms. Sandberg envisions for the multitudes of women who are breaking down glass doors to play professional football. It's time.

This is why I cannot stand activists. Of all stripes. They are so monolithic that they see the entire world through the prism of their cause, while the rest of us have to go on living our lives.

Dennis said...

Unfortunately this rot is working its way throughout the military. It is demonstrated by the general officers who are far more political that professional down through the ranks of graduates from all the service academies. The emphasis is not on winning wars, but on every thing else. A military not unlike every organization is affected by the strength and courage of its leadership.
It would not be so bad if the DoD was not rampant with political correctness and every activists dream. The DoD is now a social experience that is weakening our very survival from failures to maintain first article testing, factory acceptance testing to best industry practices. If they could they would do away with sea trials. Would you buy a new car without driving it? Now take that same example with something as complex as a submarine. I could go on with the damage the administration and the DoD is doing, but would like to keep the friends we have who still are doing their jobs to provide the best possible equipment, manpower, and material for those who are at the "point of the spear."
I cannot overemphasize the damage that many women college graduates are doing to the military. They have little concept of the differences between electronics and ordnance, between classified vice unclassified, and management vice "Kumbya" as a form of leadership. This is not to cover the concept of the hows, wheres, whats, et al of the requirements of a military. If one thinks I am being sexist here much of my comments are backed by women who are in the upper echelons of dealing with these people.
The one question everyone should ask is, "Why are so many former officers and enlisted people challenging that which calls itself the military leadership?" I fully expect that the military as it is presently constituted might be used agains't the citizens of this country.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Dennis @March 31, 2016 at 6:05 AM:

"I fully expect that the military as it is presently constituted might be used agains't the citizens of this country."

I still have confidence this would not work. Thankfully.

I'm not sure what it might look like in two generations. I also have no illusions about soldiers being drugged to neutralize their conscience, and then being turned loose on the people.

Authors used to write of dystopian scenarios that seem increasingly plausible.