Text:
Who Is Waging War On Women?
The real war against women is the announced plan of the Obama Administration, using outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta as the fall guy, to assign women for the first time in American history to fight our nation’s enemies in military ground combat. That’s real war, with real guns, real bullets, and real deaths.
This war doesn’t involve only women who have volunteered to serve in our military. It’s a real war against all 18-year-old American girls, because for the first time in our nation’s history they will be required to sign up for the draft and be ready for a letter from Selective Service ordering them to report for military duty.
That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981 that the gender difference in the law requiring “every male citizen” of age 18 through 25 to register does not violate equal protection or due process. However, there was a caveat.
The Court ruled: “The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.”
Congress must act immediately, before the May passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014, in order to preempt what Obama’s Department of Defense, without constitutional authority, is trying to do unilaterally. There is no demand from the American people to pursue this war on young women. The House has not had any hearings on women in combat since 1979, and the Senate has not had hearings since 1991.
Some U.S. military commanders’ disdain for our traditional civilian control of the military is insufferable. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said Congress can “legislate if they like” but “they don’t have to,” and Panetta said he didn’t know “who the hell” is in charge of Selective Service.
They should read the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, gives power to Congress “To raise and support Armies . . . ; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”
Demands from the feminists for 18-year-old girls to register for the draft are already appearing on the internet. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has reintroduced his bill to include women in the draft or at least to require them to perform some kind of compulsory service.
Assigning women to close ground combat against vicious enemy troops creates a war not only on 18-year-old girls who don’t choose to serve in the military. It creates a war on the courageous enlisted women who have volunteered to serve in the military but don’t want to be assigned to close ground combat with the Army pretending they are physically equal to men.
The new orders to achieve “diversity metrics” (i.e., female quotas) will change all requirements that women pass the same tests required of the men. The services will be required to introduce a “critical mass” or a “significant cadre” of women, expected to be 10 to 15 percent, into previously all-male units.
The mandate for diversity metrics will trump truth, honor, and common sense. The Defense Department has recommended that a new Diversity Czar (officially called a Chief Diversity Officer) be established to monitor “diversity management.”
This Diversity Czar and the Defense Department-endorsed Military Leadership Diversity Commission will be charged with the following mission: “To ensure that the diversity effort continues, demonstrated diversity leadership must be assessed throughout careers and made . . . a criterion for nomination and confirmation to the 3- and 4-star ranks.”
Men, do you get what that means? Your promotions will depend on giving the feminists whatever they demand and lying about so-called equal performance by males and females in order to demonstrate your “diversity leadership.”
Women, do you get that that means? There is nothing voluntary about it. Enough enlisted women will be ordered into ground combat to ensure a diversity quota; it won’t be women who volunteer or have exceptional physical strength.
Gen. Robert W. Cone, who heads the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, said, “I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army.” But ground combat with evil enemies is not fair or equal; it is not even civilized. So, what do you think of men who would send women into that?
And, here is more Cone nonsense: “Army officials will look at ‘traditional impediments’ — the attitudes regarding the acceptance of women into previously male-only jobs. . . . The Army will take ‘proactive measures’ to mitigate resistance to women going into these specialties.”
The only way to preserve tough standards for ground combat training, and maintain women’s Selective Service exemption, is for Congress to reassert previous regulations exempting women from direct ground combat units.
Suggestions for Defense Department sequestration cuts
by Heather MacDonald, National Review Online, 2-27-13
Ax the “diversity” bureaucracy:
In 2012, the Pentagon spent $570,000 on a Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan 2012-2017 that, as usual, replicated a chain of stultifyingly identical diversity efforts.
The 2011 final report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) on strategies for enhancing ongoing diversity efforts, From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century Military, contained such diversity chestnuts as “a new definition of diversity for the 21st century,” and recommendations regarding “metrics,” “diversity leadership and training,” “promotion,” and “recruiting.”
The 2011 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan.
DoD’s 2009 Report to the White House Council on Women and Girls.
A 2007 RAND report, Planning for Diversity: Options and Recommendations for DoD Leaders.
Put the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity (ODMEO), the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), and Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) on starvation diets.
Suspend the Women’s Equality Day and Women’s History Month celebrations, the Latina Style Symposium, and the Women of Color Technology Awards.
Halt the females-in-combat initiative, which will cost billions to implement. Some of these new expenses will include:
Devising new “unisex” entry requirements for each force to replace the existing double standards that were necessary to guarantee a satisfactory number of female recruits (the new “unisex” standards will of course have to perform the same role)
Finding and promoting female training instructors and commanders to serve as “role models”
Commissioning and buying new equipment light enough for females to carry
Paying out disability claims for injury in training and combat
Medical and family leave for unplanned pregnancies
Increased “family planning” services
Hiring more “gender equity” trainers and putting personnel through more “gender equity” training
Expanding DoD’s already massive Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) to manage the new flood of sexual-assault accusations
Reasons why women-in-combat diversity will degrade Tough Training Standards
by Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness,
P.O. Box 51600, Livonia, MI 48151
Pentagon feminists will not accept men’s high standards. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that if “a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain . . . why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?” Since the stated goal is to “set women up for success,” the answer will be “No.” Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen called “diversity a strategic imperative.”
“Critical mass” means many women, not the exceptional few. Gen. Dempsey admits the need to introduce a “critical mass” or “significant cadre” of women into previously all-male units. This phrase means 10-15 percent. This cannot be met with a few exceptional women. To achieve a “critical mass,” commanders will have to modify the male-oriented program of instruction so that females, including unwilling enlisted servicewomen, will “succeed.”
The Women in Combat plan is based on group rights, not individual rights. The Pentagon’s Military Leadership Diversity Commission report admits that the new “diversity management” involves fair treatment, but “it is not about treating everyone the same.” This concept is a radical departure from the military’s honorable tradition of recognizing individual merit. The “new diversity” is about gender-based group rights that will result in discrimination against deserving, well-qualified men.
At least ten percent of women in the military are pregnant at any one time. This is a significant problem for troop readiness. Whether the pregnancies are unintended or intended, the result of consensual sex or sexual attack, the military cannot deploy a pregnant woman into combat.
Gender-free training is not the same as gender-fair training, which demands unequal, gender-normed standards to make them “fair.” Gen. Robert W. Cone, who heads the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, said: “I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army.” Cone also said, “Army officials will look at traditional impediments — the attitudes regarding the acceptance of women into previously male-only jobs. . . . The Army will take ‘proactive measures to mitigate resistance to women going into these specialties.’”
Lowered standards will be “equal” but not the same. The mandate to achieve “diversity metrics” and a “critical mass” of women in combat guarantees that standards will be changed, modified, or gender-normed, thereby making ground combat training less demanding for men.
Compromised standards will increase resentment and harassment problems. When Pentagon officials compete with each other to please the feminists, the media, and diversity fanatics, nonsense is often passed off as wisdom. Women are already as close to combat as they can be and rates of sexual assault and abuse are soaring. According to a recent Army “Gold Book” report, violent attacks and rapes in the ranks have nearly doubled since 2006, and violent sex crime is growing at an average rate of 14.6 percent a year.
The plan creates a Diversity Czar who will monitor “diversity management.” She will ensure that diversity leadership is “assessed throughout careers” and made “a criterion for nomination and confirmation to 3- and 4-star ranks.” Military leaders at all levels will be held accountable for their diversity performance. Career penalties will drive standards down. The Diversity Czar will establish a new feminist power base in the Pentagon that will make career promotions contingent on “diversity leadership.”
Action Plan:
Write to:
Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
House Armed Services Committee
Washington, D.C. 20515
and
Senator James Inhofe
Senate Armed Services Commitee
Washington, D.C. 20510
We urge you to pass a law reinstating the exemption of women from close ground combat. We urge you to do this before Congress takes up the National Defense Authorization Act for 2014.
Glossary of Terms of the Debate
Direct ground combat (DGC) involves attacking the enemy with deliberate offensive action under fire. DGC goes beyond the experience of being in danger or “in harm’s way.”
“Voluntary/involuntary DGC assignments” There is no such thing as “voluntary” once you join the military. No matter what recruiters promise, women will go where they are ordered to go.
Polls/surveys are usually skewed by use of the word “allowed” in land combat, instead of “required.” (Support drops off dramatically when mandatory orders or a possible draft is mentioned.)
“Gender-norming” describes training techniques used to create the illusion of “equality” with different requirements or scoring systems for men and women. Gender-norming exists in all forms of military training, except in all-male units that engage in DGC. At his January 24 news conference, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey suggested that standards found to be too high will be questioned — incrementally lowering standards to accommodate women.
Gender-normed “equal standards” reward “equal effort,” not equal results or performance by men and women in tough training.
“Critical mass/significant cadre” — These terms, used by Gen. Martin Dempsey on January 24, suggest that women will be assigned in groups or with female “mentors” to protect their safety in formerly all-male units. This is the only way to achieve “diversity metrics” goals and a “critical mass” of many unwilling enlisted women in formerly all-male units.
Team/unit cohesion is not about being “liked” by others. In small “tip of the spear” DGC units, “cohesion” means mutual trust for survival in combat.
The Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) is a largely-civilian DoD-endorsed commission pushing for gender-based “diversity metrics” (read, quotas). The MLDC concept of gender-based “diversity” overrides recognition of individual merit — the key to successful racial integration in the military. Instead of assigning highest priority to military necessity, the MLDC and Obama Pentagon officials are pushing gender-based group rights and what former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen called “diversity as a strategic imperative.”
Career Opportunities: Defense Department records have shown that for decades, female personnel are promoted at rates equal to or faster than men. For the same reasons that there are fewer female CEOs in the civilian world, military women’s family choices contribute to gender differences in the number of high-ranking officers. Female officers do not speak for greater numbers of enlisted women who want to serve but do not want to be treated like men.
Sexual Assaults and Misconduct: Contrary to the unsupported claims of Gen. Dempsey, “advances” for women in combat since 1991 have worsened rates of sexual assaults and misconduct. Extending these problems to small fighting units will make the problem worse, not better.
