"All the social engineering in the world cannot change the fact that men treat women differently than they treat other men."
"The United States military is in the throes of . . . a social revolution that is corroding the very foundations of soldierly excellence," charges Mackubin Thomas Owens, professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College. A primary objective of this revolution, he says, is to expand the role of women in the military, ultimately to include combat duty. The revolutionaries include "a small coterie of female officer careerists, mostly pilots, who see the ethos of the military as an obstacle to their career goals [and] radical feminists and their allies who simply desire the destruction of that ethos."
Owens reports that "the advocates of the revolution are now using the sexual misconduct charges leveled against a number of Army training personnel . . . to advance their agenda." They claim that alleged abuses are "symptomatic of an institutionalized disrespect for women in the military, rendering them 'second-class citizens.' Women," these radicals assert, "will not achieve true equality until they have the opportunity to serve in the combat specialties that constitute the core of the military."
Owens warns that "the likely consequences of this revolution will be a U.S. military failure of some magnitude in the future." That's because success on the battlefield depends on "unit cohesion," the stick-togetherness of soldiers who share feelings of comradeship, or brotherly love. That all-important camaraderie "depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism." Owens notes that "the presence of women in the military has already created a series of undeniable double standards. Such double standards generate resentment on the part of many military men."
Owens argues that "the desire for equal opportunity is, in practice, usually translated into the demand for equal results. The consequence," he contends, "has been the watering down of standards to accommodate the generally lower physical capabilities of women. In fact, every service has lower physical standards for women than for men. No one can deny that 'gender norming' is widespread in the military." Owens points out that the U.S. Military Academy has "identified 120 physical differences between men and women, not to mention psychological ones, resulting in an overall program of physical training less rigorous in order to accommodate female cadets. There is immense political pressure," he observes, "to prevent women from failing to meet even these watered-down standards."
Even worse, says Owens, the presence of women "in the close confines of a ship or a combat unit" provokes amorous feelings incompatible with comradeship, feelings that lead to "sexual competition, male protectiveness, and favoritism."
Why court disaster? "The ethos of the United States military has served the Republic well," says Mackubin Thomas Owens. "The burden of proof is on those who would use such events as the Army training scandal as an excuse to expand the role of women in the military. They must prove that the changes they advocate will not further undermine the very purpose of the military -- victory on the battlefield."
