Losing My Fear of Falling on My Face
From: Debra Dickerson
To: Stephanie GutmannPosted Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 8:03 PM ETWho are these people?
Dear Stephanie,
At the risk of quibbling (a serious source of demerits in Officers' Training School), I sniffed at the military's PC, pseudo-feminized rhetoric versus the much more complicated reality of gender relations in the military. I have yet to read your book, but I did, however, read a lot about it. I have no doubt that—remarkably, in these days of lazy-ass, pretend-your-latte-buddies-are-legitimate-sources, never-leave-your-office "reporting"—you wore out your journalistic shoe leather on this. You are more than qualified than to be taken seriously on this issue. You're wrong, of course. But not unqualified.
But seriously … I come away from my admittedly abbreviated perusal of your ouevre wondering if you hang too much on basic training. It's the easiest case, isn't it? But Jessica Lynch went through it, right? It's not clear to me what more could we have asked of her.
Take my career. You're right that the Air Force (AFSCs not MOSes) is less physical than some of the other services. (Unless you go pararescue or the like. Those guys are insane.) That's why I chose it. I suspected that I could never rise to the top of an Army or Marine pool so based on bayonets and Bradley fighting vehicles.
But I started out as a Korean cryptologic linguist. I spent two years in training learning another language and how to handle the technology needed to exploit it. Guess what the attrition rate was. Guess who was a Distinguished Graduate and a star on the job. Before that, though, I fell in the water obstacle when I ran the obstacle course (my bad, now it's called the namby-pamby "confidence course") and took nearly the whole 12 weeks to master push-ups at Officer's Training School. Which matters most to you? Do you argue in your book that women, once in combat situations, bring dishonor on themselves and their country? Here's the real question: If, as you say, you were in charge and reduced the number of women in the services, how would you fill the many empty slots that would leave?
But does that mean I support gender-segregated basic training? Sure, why not, though neither is without perils. My basic (in 1980) was female-only. OTS (in 1985) was the most gender-neutral experience of my entire life. Given that, both enlisted and commissioned, I had to lead men (some of whom were not feeling it). I have to think I was better off having lost my fear of falling on my face in front of them. (And they, losing their fear that all women are made of glass.) Once I realized that falling down was no problem as long as you could A) get right back up and at it again and B) laugh at the "clutz" jokes at your expense, I looked at my duties in an entirely new way. I took the corner of a football right in the eye at squadron officers' school. Forever after, everyone clutched their eye and bent over double when they saw me. I just took it in stride. Why? Because I finished the game bleeding and blinded.
Couldn't I have learned that among women only? Dunno. I can't help thinking I would have thought I "had" to go to sick call. I also made a Hail Mary catch that had all the men goggling; I will forever bless the man who took a chance on throwing it to me. He lead, and he got the best out of what he had to work with—that, my friend, is the military's secret weapon. Believing and investing in even the unlikely candidates. I could never have gone for that pass had I not lost my fear of actually trying all the stuff that women in my day (I'm 44) were most definitely encouraged to avoid. (Like football—leads to lesbianism, you know.) But sure, segregation can work, too, if it has to.
I have not reported much on the military; I get my numbers and policy information from folks like you. Just this past December, the Washington Monthly ran an interesting piece called "War Dames" that directly addresses these issues of the female GI's mission creep. According to it, "This new role for female U.S. troops is the product of three different forces. ... [One] is the ongoing enlistment shortage; the military remains reluctant to admit women yet is unable to recruit enough competent men to staff an all-volunteer Army." Note the word "competent," a category all too often applied only to women and minorities, it being assumed with everyone else until disproved. To those who actually have to protect this country, an empty billet is not preferable to a woman who can't do boy push-ups but is otherwise competent. Is that a price we're really prepared to pay in the name of martial purity? That would seem to be throwing out the baby of national security with the bathwater of detested feminism.
If I recall correctly, men, with all their upper body strength and lack of need for frequent showers, were captured along with little Shoshana and Jessica. Also, if you truly fear "open[ing] ourselves up to a Supreme Court ruling which would require a female draft for combat positions," why do you fear it more than the prospect of female exclusion creating a need to draft males? Less societal upheaval?
We're out of space so I'll stop here but I want to mention that I was on active duty when Tailhook happened. Most of the men I served with were as appalled as Patricia Ireland could ever hope to be. As one male (enlisted) officemate put it while perusing a photo of the groping, "That's a officer tit he's grabbing!"
One final piece of red meat: One Googled reviewer quotes you as saying, "if 10 years from now the U.S. gets 'utterly whipped' in a war ... Americans will know who to blame: presidents Bush and Clinton, as well as the Congress that authorized today's integrated armed forces." Your book only came out in 2000, but does the conduct of women in Operation Iraqi Freedom make you less sure that women in combat portend the end of American national security?
I am soooo far over my space limit. Cut me a break and let me get to women in the combat arms tomorrow, OK?
Hoping there were no hidden insults this time,
Debra
Losing My Fear of Falling on My Face
From: Debra Dickerson
To: Stephanie GutmannPosted Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 8:03 PM ETRemarks from the Fray:
I, like Debra Dickerson, was a female military linguist, and, for Stephanie Gutmann's benefit, the washout rate at DLI when I attended was estimated to be 60%. Six out of ten did not make it. I was one of the four left standing at the end. Many men were not. I guarantee--Gutmann's views not-withstanding--that the military would be sorely put to find good linguists if they excluded women, and there are plenty of other military positions where brain power counts for much, much more than brute strength. With the current shortage of Arabic linguists, I'm surprised that anyone would doubt what women are able to contribute, and the fact is that there are plenty of positions where a shortage of brain power would mean more lives lost. Simply put, we want the best people we can find in those jobs, and axing women from the services would guarantee that we would not get them. I intend no disrespect to the members of Private Lynch's convoy, but they saw battle--not because it was inevitable, but because somebody made a wrong turn. It surprises me then that Gutmann would use that particular example to advance the idea that brawn is the only thing that should really count in the military. We need both brawn and brains in the military, and while the two qualities are not by definition mutually exclusive, it's a mistake to think that in taking care of one, we will luck into the other. A cursory look at a Bell curve should convince anyone that, without women, the military would lose half of its brightest potential recruits.
--IWonder
(To reply, click here)
I am an Army Officer. I am a male. I have spent the predominance of my military career in Combat Arm's units, which remain segregated. Recently I have been assigned to my first integrated unit since ROTC, and I must confess that my fears have for the most part been confirmed. To begin with, it is myth that there are no females in combat roles. As a young 2nd Lieutenant, I was shocked to find a female officer in the track positioned opposite my own on the perimeter. She was one of our chemical platoon leaders, and had been attached to my company for a high risk operation that would require her platoons support. While her military role may not have been one of direct action, she was none the less as far forward as I was, and therefore subject to the same dangers… My current battalion is roughly 30% female. Of that 30%, half are pregnant or on maternity leave right now. If you do the math, we're at 85% combat power before we even get into the fight… To further complicate the situation, there are no 'filler' jobs in my battalion, every individual is a critical piece of the pie, and each individuals role is highly technical. That 15% of combat power lost off top is composed of mission critical personnel. Their loss will significantly impact the effectiveness of our unit… While I will be the first to admit that there are exceptions to every rule, women, as a whole should have a limited role in deployable military forces. They certainly have a place in the military, but that place is in a non-deployable position stateside. As for the exceptions. I have on two occasions served with females with whom I would have trusted my life to without a second thought. Most of the females I have worked with have been technically proficient, but the two exceptions I am referring to, had a warrior ethos. They would, and could fight. Ironically enough, both had older brothers. A warrior ethos among our female soldiers is almost nonexistent. As the potential of our current deployment increased, I noted a strong, angry even, resistance to the possibility that they would be expected to deploy, and potentially fight. I can not justify a military standard on exceptions. In general, the females I have served with, while highly intelligent, lack the physical strength required for daily operations, and the mental fortitude necessary for high intensity combat operations. Violence is simply not in their blood. God bless them for that… Not one to offer problems, without solutions, I have the following recommendations. First pregnancy must be dealt with. Either female roles should be limited to non-deployable support roles, or females should not be permitted to have children while in uniform. While the pregnancy issue is a sensitive one, it must be addressed. Political correctness should be checked at the recruiting office. If you're offended by my language, or by me peeing on a tree in front of you, you shouldn't be in the Army. There are limits to acceptable behavior granted, but short of physical abuse, or extreme sexual advances, political correctness should be left for civilized society. Women certainly have a place in our military. They are intelligent, and capable of working in a male environment, however, social and physical limitations must be acknowledged, and can not be allowed to reduce the efficiency of our armed forces.
--Sherman
(To reply, click here)
(4/10)
I am surprised that Debra Dickerson, who informs us of her service as an intelligence officer, does not point to the example of Lt. General Claudia Kennedy, the first woman to achieve three-star rank, who was also an intelligence officer. I had the privilege of meeting General Kennedy (who is a sorority sister of my younger daughter) shortly after her book Generally Speaking was published, and was delighted to later receive an autographed and personally dedicated copy. General Kennedy feels strongly that ALL military specialties should be open to women. Certainly her opinion is influenced by her own experience in the Army, when she was continually confronted by obstacles to career advancement on the grounds that she "lacked combat and command experience." Well, she finally got that command experience, but still was barred from combat. Who knows, she might have made an excellent chief-of-staff, but her gender alone precluded that opportunity. Neither General Kennedy nor I will argue that relevant standards should be lowered to accommodate persons who are otherwise unqualified for a particular role, but neither should artificial standards be imposed which exclude some of the most talented and dedicated people in uniform. Current Army policy is entirely arbitrary, and it should be changed. If a woman cannot meet physical requirements for some positions, let it be the PT test which disqualifies her, not a policy of gender exclusion.
--1-2-Oscar
(To reply, click here)
Ms. Gutmann, I'm having problems with your characterization of the facts. You wrote: 'indiscriminate use of phrases like "died in combat" (when they really mean "died in a combat zone") or "fighting for their country" (when they actually mean something like "supporting the war effort")' If a woman, in the line of duty, is being fired upon by combatants, she is IN COMBAT. If a woman, in the line of duty, is firing on the enemy, (whether she started it, or the Iraqis did), she is FIGHTING for her country. By profession, I am a nurse. But that does not limit my day to giving medications and closing after surgery. If I find myself in a kitchen preparing meals on a hot stove, I am COOKING.
--Catnapping4444
(To reply, click here)
As a former Navy servicemember (female, 1 ea.), I agree that there's entirely too much PC-ness going on, and I'm tired of it. Too many folks took a semi-good idea and completely ruined it. But I have to just say thank you to Ms. Dickerson. I learned to "back door" a lot of the things that I wanted to do very early in my career. And many of the things that I wanted most I never got because I don't have a penis. You do learn to settle. On the plus side, most of those things are now available to women. So, should women soldiers participate in combat or have combat MOSs? I don't think so, but not because I don't think we can handle it. I don't think the male soldiers would be able to handle it. Therein lies the rub.
--Cissy
(To reply, click here)
Stephanie's coments seem a facile take on the question. Every service has as part of its definition of "combat" exactly those things that Stephanie cites as distinguishing the Army & Marine combat arms, and those things she cites distinguishing the Navy & Air Force combat arms. So, what's the difference? Fighter pilots close with the enemy during arial combat, close air support and bombing missions, while exposed to enemy fire. Naval warships in places like the Persian Gulf may spend lots of time in close with opposition naval units. Certainly, both of these services are stand off capable, but so are the Army & Marine Corps — just ask an American tanker 'bout fighting from beyond the range of opposition armor. By the way, every Marine is primarily an infantryman notwithstanding the servicemember's specialty.
--Tony Adragna
(To reply, click here)
(4/8)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Obama's Small Masterpiece of a Speech at Fort Hood
Can Death Row Convicts Have Whatever They Want for Their Last Meal?
Does Rupert Murdoch Really Hate Google?
The Crops That Are Secretly Terrible for the Planet
The Three Kinds of Liberals Who Could Bring Down the Health Care Bill
Short Sayings That Make Me Happy
Remarks from the Fray:
I, like Debra Dickerson, was a female military linguist, and, for Stephanie Gutmann's benefit, the washout rate at DLI when I attended was estimated to be 60%. Six out of ten did not make it. I was one of the four left standing at the end. Many men were not. I guarantee--Gutmann's views not-withstanding--that the military would be sorely put to find good linguists if they excluded women, and there are plenty of other military positions where brain power counts for much, much more than brute strength. With the current shortage of Arabic linguists, I'm surprised that anyone would doubt what women are able to contribute, and the fact is that there are plenty of positions where a shortage of brain power would mean more lives lost. Simply put, we want the best people we can find in those jobs, and axing women from the services would guarantee that we would not get them. I intend no disrespect to the members of Private Lynch's convoy, but they saw battle--not because it was inevitable, but because somebody made a wrong turn. It surprises me then that Gutmann would use that particular example to advance the idea that brawn is the only thing that should really count in the military. We need both brawn and brains in the military, and while the two qualities are not by definition mutually exclusive, it's a mistake to think that in taking care of one, we will luck into the other. A cursory look at a Bell curve should convince anyone that, without women, the military would lose half of its brightest potential recruits.
--IWonder
(To reply, click here)
I am an Army Officer. I am a male. I have spent the predominance of my military career in Combat Arm's units, which remain segregated. Recently I have been assigned to my first integrated unit since ROTC, and I must confess that my fears have for the most part been confirmed. To begin with, it is myth that there are no females in combat roles. As a young 2nd Lieutenant, I was shocked to find a female officer in the track positioned opposite my own on the perimeter. She was one of our chemical platoon leaders, and had been attached to my company for a high risk operation that would require her platoons support. While her military role may not have been one of direct action, she was none the less as far forward as I was, and therefore subject to the same dangers… My current battalion is roughly 30% female. Of that 30%, half are pregnant or on maternity leave right now. If you do the math, we're at 85% combat power before we even get into the fight… To further complicate the situation, there are no 'filler' jobs in my battalion, every individual is a critical piece of the pie, and each individuals role is highly technical. That 15% of combat power lost off top is composed of mission critical personnel. Their loss will significantly impact the effectiveness of our unit… While I will be the first to admit that there are exceptions to every rule, women, as a whole should have a limited role in deployable military forces. They certainly have a place in the military, but that place is in a non-deployable position stateside. As for the exceptions. I have on two occasions served with females with whom I would have trusted my life to without a second thought. Most of the females I have worked with have been technically proficient, but the two exceptions I am referring to, had a warrior ethos. They would, and could fight. Ironically enough, both had older brothers. A warrior ethos among our female soldiers is almost nonexistent. As the potential of our current deployment increased, I noted a strong, angry even, resistance to the possibility that they would be expected to deploy, and potentially fight. I can not justify a military standard on exceptions. In general, the females I have served with, while highly intelligent, lack the physical strength required for daily operations, and the mental fortitude necessary for high intensity combat operations. Violence is simply not in their blood. God bless them for that… Not one to offer problems, without solutions, I have the following recommendations. First pregnancy must be dealt with. Either female roles should be limited to non-deployable support roles, or females should not be permitted to have children while in uniform. While the pregnancy issue is a sensitive one, it must be addressed. Political correctness should be checked at the recruiting office. If you're offended by my language, or by me peeing on a tree in front of you, you shouldn't be in the Army. There are limits to acceptable behavior granted, but short of physical abuse, or extreme sexual advances, political correctness should be left for civilized society. Women certainly have a place in our military. They are intelligent, and capable of working in a male environment, however, social and physical limitations must be acknowledged, and can not be allowed to reduce the efficiency of our armed forces.
--Sherman
(To reply, click here)
(4/10)
I am surprised that Debra Dickerson, who informs us of her service as an intelligence officer, does not point to the example of Lt. General Claudia Kennedy, the first woman to achieve three-star rank, who was also an intelligence officer. I had the privilege of meeting General Kennedy (who is a sorority sister of my younger daughter) shortly after her book Generally Speaking was published, and was delighted to later receive an autographed and personally dedicated copy. General Kennedy feels strongly that ALL military specialties should be open to women. Certainly her opinion is influenced by her own experience in the Army, when she was continually confronted by obstacles to career advancement on the grounds that she "lacked combat and command experience." Well, she finally got that command experience, but still was barred from combat. Who knows, she might have made an excellent chief-of-staff, but her gender alone precluded that opportunity. Neither General Kennedy nor I will argue that relevant standards should be lowered to accommodate persons who are otherwise unqualified for a particular role, but neither should artificial standards be imposed which exclude some of the most talented and dedicated people in uniform. Current Army policy is entirely arbitrary, and it should be changed. If a woman cannot meet physical requirements for some positions, let it be the PT test which disqualifies her, not a policy of gender exclusion.
--1-2-Oscar
(To reply, click here)
Ms. Gutmann, I'm having problems with your characterization of the facts. You wrote: 'indiscriminate use of phrases like "died in combat" (when they really mean "died in a combat zone") or "fighting for their country" (when they actually mean something like "supporting the war effort")' If a woman, in the line of duty, is being fired upon by combatants, she is IN COMBAT. If a woman, in the line of duty, is firing on the enemy, (whether she started it, or the Iraqis did), she is FIGHTING for her country. By profession, I am a nurse. But that does not limit my day to giving medications and closing after surgery. If I find myself in a kitchen preparing meals on a hot stove, I am COOKING.
--Catnapping4444
(To reply, click here)
As a former Navy servicemember (female, 1 ea.), I agree that there's entirely too much PC-ness going on, and I'm tired of it. Too many folks took a semi-good idea and completely ruined it. But I have to just say thank you to Ms. Dickerson. I learned to "back door" a lot of the things that I wanted to do very early in my career. And many of the things that I wanted most I never got because I don't have a penis. You do learn to settle. On the plus side, most of those things are now available to women. So, should women soldiers participate in combat or have combat MOSs? I don't think so, but not because I don't think we can handle it. I don't think the male soldiers would be able to handle it. Therein lies the rub.
--Cissy
(To reply, click here)
Stephanie's coments seem a facile take on the question. Every service has as part of its definition of "combat" exactly those things that Stephanie cites as distinguishing the Army & Marine combat arms, and those things she cites distinguishing the Navy & Air Force combat arms. So, what's the difference? Fighter pilots close with the enemy during arial combat, close air support and bombing missions, while exposed to enemy fire. Naval warships in places like the Persian Gulf may spend lots of time in close with opposition naval units. Certainly, both of these services are stand off capable, but so are the Army & Marine Corps — just ask an American tanker 'bout fighting from beyond the range of opposition armor. By the way, every Marine is primarily an infantryman notwithstanding the servicemember's specialty.
--Tony Adragna
(To reply, click here)
(4/8)