In War...
Lieutenant J. Stevens, U. S. Navy— Everyone has an opinion on a woman’s place in the military service and in combat. Remarkably, the most emotionally charged opinions come from men who have little experience with women in the workplace, no experience with women in combat, and whose lives will be affected very little by their words. My opinions arc those of a female who has worked in a predominantly male environment for nine years.
In relating his opinions on women in the service, Lieutenant Golightly focuses on the emotional issue of integrating women into ground forces.
The closest I have been to a ground combat situation was at Air Force Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) School near Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. (The Navy SERE School won’t take women.) We made the three-day evasion trek through waist- deep snow, wearing snowshoes and carrying packs. I won’t bore you with the details, but I will say that the 19-year-old E-3 assigned as my partner was far more interested in my skills with a map and compass than he was in what I was doing behind my tree during our two-minute breaks. I didn’t need the “dignity and safety of private sanitary facilities.” Accomplishing the objective was worth suffering through "barnyard expedients. ’ ’
Under the heading “Cultural Tradition,” Lieutenant Golightly talks about how the Mongol hordes and Greek hoplites fought, crediting only males with aggression, power lust, territoriality, and dominance. What he doesn’t realize is that the hordes and hoplites didn’t have the pill, which allows women to decide when or if they will become pregnant. Women have always been at least as territorial as men and society is quickly showing that women are able to acquire aggressiveness, power lust, and dominance.
When Lieutenant Golightly suggests that sexual liberation will result in an androgenous state, he does not realize that there is a male’s way of achieving an objective and a female’s way. They are different but equally effective. Women don’t lose their femininity in a predominantly male environment; they simply develop its stronger side.
Under the same topic. Lieutenant Golightly states that a male wouldn’t fight as hard if he had the girl next door fighting next to him in a foxhole. Now, I must admit I have never been in a foxhole, but I doubt that Golightly has either. If I were in one, however. I believe I would fight tooth and nail for my country and the people I love, regardless of the sex of the person next to me— although I would be happier if he/she/it were good with a machine gun. If fighting next to a female pushes a male to the end of his “psychological tether,” his tether wasn’t long enough to begin with.
Under “Biology,” Lieutenant Golightly states that “there is no advantage that women bring to the front line that is worth the expense and encumbrance of providing private facilities, creating ‘mil spec’ tampons, and keeping the ship stocked with feminine hygiene needs.” He also says that a women’s “unique physical requirements would impose unreasonable strains on the military logistical system.” I went to sea for six months and took all my hygiene needs for nine months in a shoe box. I didn’t ask the ship for a thing, but I’m sure the commanding officer would have traded a space in the ship’s store next to the shaving cream for tampons in exchange for the efforts I put toward helping his ship through the deployment.
I flew more than 300 hours in the Western Pacific. When I came up on deck to preflight the ornery pile of 20-year-old nuts and bolts that I would be flying, I found I was far less concerned with the sex of the aviation machinist’s mate, the aviation electrician’s mate, or the aviation structural mechanic than I was with his or her abilities to fix the aircraft. I’ve had males and females say that they would rather fly with me than with a pilot I know who is the epitome of a “primitive machismo phenomenon.”
I remember one particularly black night that closed in after ten solid hours of vertical replenishment. I was bone tired and a little panicky as I completed my final approach to the deck. I got the aircraft out of the dark to the lighted deck and just couldn’t seem to make it through the last 18 inches. I made three shaky attempts before I heard a voice in the back say “OK, Lieutenant, let’s put it on the deck.” That same voice had, over several months, talked me through hundreds of loads. We were signalling for chocks and chains seconds later. I believe I formed a bond with the guys in the detachment over those months and if we were to take our talents into a combat area, I believe we’d fly it just as we practiced.
If the Navy finds some men or women who cannot handle an integrated environment in some combat outfits, that’s fine. After he or she has given it an honest try, a unit commander can make a decision that operational effectiveness is adversely affected and that his or her unit needs to be all one sex. But don’t deprive the Navy of a valuable resource that many Navy commanders will use. In the final analysis, successful warfare depends less on “manual or mental skills than on an amalgam of intangible human qualities, including cohesion, morale, efficiency, esprit, and aggressiveness,” none of which are gender specific.
Master Seaman Catherine M. Butler, Canadian Naval Reserves—As a female who could find herself in a combat situation, I believe that centuries of male military dominance will never be overcome. I cannot dispute the actions, excuses, and mistakes of a few bad apples. I have served with the good, the bad, and the unacceptable of both sexes. As a supervisor I have heard it all. I have been put down by chiefs and petty officers, but have also delivered more than my fair share of discipline to incompetent males-
Having women in combat will not be an ideal situation. But what is an ideal situation? We are obviously in trouble to be considering this as an option.
I don’t particularly want to go to war. I am not a feminist. I was allowed to join a navy because I wanted to contribute to the safety of my country. I know that it may entail war. I am not here to chase men or to rely on rude behavior once a month as an excuse.
The problems Lieutenant Golightly raises about female “problems” are valid. It will take a special kind of woman to go to war, to put up with the daily grind of innuendo, insult, and embarrassment from male counterparts and superiors. And it will take a special kind of man to look beyond and accept the differences while applauding the similarities and being professional enough to get on with the job at hand.
Since few men are born with this superhuman ability, it will fall on the various training facilities to erase stereotypes and to establish and enforce a nonpartisan framework in which to operate.
A rigorous program such as that already instituted for the so-called elite forces should be established to select the most mature and competent women so that spaces can be filled with the best, rather than just the hordes. Women should also be allowed to fill combat positions in case the lines of battle suddenly fall back to encompass their positions (as occurred in World War II).
Combat on board a ship is different from fighting on the ground. Through smoke and flame on a ship, a figure dressed to fight a fire cannot be distinguished as male or female.
The bottom line is that if a country decides that women shall fight, the men can count on their partners who signed exactly the same contract and who take their commitment just as seriously.
And gentlemen, if you find yourself at war, it better be with the enemy, not with the woman serving beside you!
Lieutenant Commander John T. Broglio, U. S. Navy (Retired)—Lieutenant Golightly’s article is excellent and should be carefully digested by all who wish to make policy for our fighting forces. A major—and often overlooked—point is that most proponents of women in combat have no actual combat experience.
It is not enough to have experienced the military or to have seen combat from a distance; to be able to judge the physical and emotional effects of combat one has to have been there. Before my tour of duty in Vietnam, I would have supported a woman’s right to any assignment in the military. My first 18 years in the Navy were a typical mix of ship and shore assignments, any of which could have been performed by a woman, since there were no unusual physical or emotional strains. I was not a bright-eyed young charger when I had my first experience putting the body of one of my shipmates into a body bag and finally realizing that this was what it was all about—killing and being killed. I was a 37-year-old experienced naval officer.
No amount of training or simulation, no lengthy peacetime tour of duty, can prepare one for actual combat. Death in the military by accidents in training or otherwise is not the same as death caused by an enemy military action. Those who base their opinions on analyses by scholars who can only assess testimony and unemotional data will never reach the proper conclusion: “combat is no place for a woman.”
I am sure that Lieutenant Golightly will be faulted by many who view his article as an offense against the rights of women. Before anyone judges the validity of a detractor of the article, the question should be asked: has the detractor seen actual combat?
Major Connie L. Reeves, U. S. Army— The argument for women’s “right to fight” is a valid one, but it is of very little importance to me. I am, like Lieutenant Golightly, ultimately concerned with the defense of this country. Unlike Lieutenant Golightly, however, I vehemently believe that men should not have to spill their blood while women stay home. No one has it easy during wartime, but one who dies certainly has it worse than someone who becomes a widow. If people have to die in war, men and women should have to share the burden equally. Why should children have to lose their fathers if single women could go in their place? Such a situation nearly arose in this country at the end of World War II. Public opinion at the time was in favor of conscripting young, single women, and such an event might have occurred had the war not ended.
The real point of Golightly’s article is not too cleverly disguised. He would probably prefer it if women weren’t in the military at all, particularly since he questions the “advantage that women bring to the front line.” Since women currently make up 10% of our U. S. military force, I think the advantage is very clear, except to the most obtuse individual: the more women who are in the military, the less men who will have to be conscripted. And the more roles that women can perform, the more choice men will have.
Emotional, intellectual, and physical standards can all be developed and used to determine who is best suited for which military specialties. Not too many women could change a tank tread alone; but neither can many men. It takes teamwork in this military to accomplish the mission. As long as someone can do the job, their gender is irrelevant.
I would be interested in knowing if Lieutenant Golightly has ever served with women. Most men who have done so have found that their keep-the-women- out attitudes changed drastically in the opposite direction.
Women have been in the U. S. military forces now for a very long time. And in years to come, women are going to play a more active role. I, for one, am going to help make that happen.
... and in Peace
Captain D. B. Streich, U. S. Marine Corps—Lieutenant Golightly’s article is nothing less than a substantive, significant contribution in the ongoing struggle of common sense and accepted truth against terminally trendy “progressivism.” He presents irrefutable justification for opposing the relentlessly increasing sexual integration of the military.
Former Navy Secretary James Webb’s recent decision to open 9,000 billets to women in combat service support ships constitutes yet another retreat before the latest political offensive of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), whose report alleges pervasive sexual harassment in the Navy and Marine Corps. Superb irony is present here. Lieutenant Golightly’s article reads very much like one penned by a Mr. James Webb a few years back, an effort that the prospective secretary was almost forced to tear up and eat, piece by figurative piece, in the face of hostile “progressive” congressional interrogation.
Of course, Lieutenant Golightly’s article will not receive the attention it deserves, either from within the military or from the civilian media, because it is— dare we say it?—reactionary. Certainly captains of current sexually integrated ships (commonly known as “Love Boats”) will refuse to endorse the logic; to do so would risk their career aspirations and in the present peacetime military, loyalty to one’s career displaces courage as the desirable martial virtue. Nor will legislators accept Lieutenant Golightly’s arguments, and not simply because only a few can claim military experience. Publicly recognizing the absurdity of coercively changing the military mission from fighting wars to conducting social experiments risks disenchanting half of their constituencies—or so they believe.
In contrast to DACOWITS’s solemn asseverations and sweeping indictments. Lieutenant Golightly’s experience and personal observations are refreshingly different. Mine corroborate his. As a first class midshipman and company commander at the Naval Academy, I frequently sat at different tables in the company’s area during the meals. What struck me was the tangible difference in personal interaction encountered at all-male tables and those populated with women.
All-male tables exuded the camaraderie characteristic of masculine groups, the phenomena of male bonding that so arouses the feminist ire. Social competition was friendly in nature; sarcastic deprecations uttered and forgotten; and an instinctual, almost imperceptible undercurrent of commitment to each other characterized the interaction. A vague feeling existed that despite individual personality incompatibilities, the men at the table would stand together in the face of adversity.
At the sexually integrated tables, however, I observed an entirely different atmosphere. The men went to unusual lengths to gain the approval of the females, whether that approval was a laugh, a wink, a giggle, or a smile. Male friends who were otherwise inseparable exerted every effort to gain that attention at the expense of each other. Sarcasm was no longer ignored or answered with a retort in kind, for now, rightly or wrongly, male ego was at stake. Male psyches may not have been permanently bruised in the sexual competition, but neither was there even a nuance of male bonding. Consequently, there existed no overriding sense of unity and purpose, no feeling of collective destiny. Rather, those tables were mere collections of individual men and women, some of whom scrupulously avoided interaction with each other while others persistently engaged in sexually flirtatious behavior. And this occurred with relatively mature, highly intelligent, purportedly handpicked young men and women. The lack of cohesion is even more pronounced with junior enlisted personnel.
Feminists, not surprisingly, deny or downgrade this gender impact, for it not only endangers their agenda but, through their own convoluted logic, denotes an inferior status. Their misinterpretation of human nature as unenlightened and obdurate dooms them to continued tilting at perceived windmills of imaginary sexism. All of this would evince sympathy more than animosity were it not for their enormous potential for mischief in the area of national security.
In the meantime, I will continue in my profession as an officer of combat Marines. I will also continue to search the ranks for females who hold doctorate degrees in sociology, education, or psychology, and who chair liberal think- tanks. I have yet to find any among the Marines under my charge, and I don’t expect to find any in the future. So why in the hell are they calling the shots?
Lieutenant Commander V. L. Starzy, U. S. Navy—A recent DACOWITS (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service) visit to the Pacific area revealed that women felt they were being discriminated against, not experiencing the same opportunities as men. Why, the committee asked. The answer to that question could be found in Lieutenant Golightly’s article.
If Lieutenant Golightly’s opinion represents the prevailing attitude among men, I can understand why I sometimes feel the tide turning against me and feel helpless in this organization consisting mostly of men.
Lieutenant Golightly definitely unearthed some old graves. His article is based on bias and obsolete stereotypical attitudes of women. The footnotes he uses to substantiate comments on how men form bonds are mostly old and used out of context. On the other hand, his statements on women are based solely on his own attitudes and ideas of how women affect the workforce. I would have thought, at first glance, this article to be written in the 1920s.
Lieutenant Golightly doesn’t give his male counterparts much credit when he says: “Men among whom the threat of battle has produced uncommonly powerful bonds will react to sexual integration in a variety of ways.” The reactions that followed were all negative. Is this really true, men? What about those who have kept their sights on the main objective and expected all of their troopers (whether male or female) to carry their share of the load?
The problems (rape, sexual harassment, love triangles) Lieutenant Golightly says result from integrating women into a predominately male environment are not symptoms of male reaction, but lack of firm leadership. Leadership is necessary to set firm guidelines and expectations. Leaders must make it known that all members will be required to carry their share of the load and that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. They should also make it known that everyone will be accountable for their actions so that these problems will never arise—and if they do, they will be resolved at the lowest level.
Finally, it is obvious Lieutenant Golightly has not supervised many women. Yes, there are problems with having women serve on ships, just as there are with having us assigned to shore facilities. However, placing women on ships has never been an “experiment in coeducation.” It is a fact of life, and we have learned to handle it very effectively-
Commander T. P. Schlax, Supply Corps, U. S. Navy—As the husband of a naval officer, I am disturbed professionally and personally by Lieutenant Golightly’s emotional tirade. While I have no more desire to see my wife in combat than she. or any spouse, does to see her husband off to war, I do not accept that the presence of women in any way detracts from a unit’s war-fighting capability. I have observed U. S. Navy coed crews in action and have read the reports of U. S- Coast Guard and Danish Navy coed combat ships’ performance. I see nothing to support Lieutenant Golightly’s contention that women increased the “friction" in a combat or near-combat environment. On the contrary, the actual effect was to moderate the violent mood swings that Lieutenant Golightly attributed to all-male crews.
Women and men must be considered as individuals, not as representatives of their sex. How many combat ships have sailed less than fully combat capable because of shortages of critical ratings that women could have filled? Because a male sailor jumps ship, is using drugs, or is a homosexual, should all male sailors be banned as undesirable or increasing “friction”?
Any leader who makes disparaging remarks about the makeup and potential of his unit is hardly going to command their respect. By stating that a coed unit will function less well than an all-male crew. Lieutenant Golightly is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, at least for units under his direction. Lieutenant Golightly’s low opinion of professional sailors, both male and female, is an indictment of his abilities, not theirs.
Midshipman Third Class Lillian A. Shimer, U. S. Navy, University of Pennsylvania NROTC Unit, Bryn Mawr College—Lieutenant Golightly implies that if the laws barring women from combat billets were repealed, delicate feminine ladies would be forced to become grunts. Especially evocative is the photograph of a mother cuddling her child next to a picture of two dirty footsoldiers with their M-60s. This kind of emotional blackmail is what prevents women from reaching their full potential in the Navy.
First, can we lay the tired biological argument to rest? I compare menstruation to shaving. Most men have to shave every day, some twice a day. Shaving generally takes at least five minutes. On an all-male aircraft carrier with a crew of 5,000, the time wasted by shaving amounts to 417 hours a day. If the crew were composed of all women, 17 less people would be needed. Somehow we cope with the terrible supply problems of providing these men with razors, mirrors, shaving cream, and time to shave. On the other hand, a tampon takes a maximum of ten seconds to insert and is only necessary for a few days each month. And— surprise!—it’s smaller than a candy bar or disposable razor. I mention these figures solely to point out that to restrict women because they menstruate is as ridiculous as it would be to order men to have their facial hair removed as a prerequisite for combat duty.
His implication that females lack “fighting spirit,” and that “no other country has as many women in areas so near to actual battle positions as the U. S.” is also fallacious. For example, the Viet Minh had a female commander, Nguyen Dinh, who held up under three years of French confinement and torture without betraying her comrades. During the U. S. involvement she was vice commander of all communist guerrillas in South Vietnam.
As a student at both a mostly male NROTC unit and a women’s college, I have had the opportunity to observe both “male” and “female” bonding. Women do bond. And what is more, we do it almost exactly the same way men do. Women who live and work together do become “emotionally synchronized” and even physically synchronized. And women are just as vulgar and randy about it as men are, although we may not admit it.
Although I disagree with most of what Lieutenant Golightly has to say, there are two points he mentions that seem to be serious problems. One is the need to balance a naval career with childbearing. One possible solution is to allow for more options in career paths for both men and women. If it were considered to be widely acceptable, or even commendable, to take a few years off to have children—perhaps to go reservist or pursue higher education—with the guarantee that you could come back with no penalty in rate or time-in-rating, then the childbearing period could be planned for more easily. This might lessen the number of women that become pregnant during sea tours. Men ought to have the same privilege, both to give a flexible option as to who would care for the child, and to allow them the same advantages for higher education.
In considering the problem of sexual relationships between Navy personnel on board ship, it must be noted that the Navy has never tolerated homosexual relationships. Such activities are considered punishable by court-martial. The same policy is appropriate for sexual relationships between opposite sexes on board ship. If it becomes proven that men and women cannot co-exist on a combat ship without both sexes being afflicted with “love triangles and adolescent emotional crises,” then it might be appropriate to have a few all-female combat ships. An all-female carrier, for example, would allow both sailors and aviators to gain the training and experience they need for their careers, and would allow the female graduates of Nuclear Power School to do something besides teach. And finally, it would give women a chance to demonstrate whether or not they perform well in combat conditions, once and for all.
Chief Personnelman Robert E. Bryan, U. S. Navy—Lieutenant Golightly’s article was by far the most realistic portrayal of the nature of females in the military. He did not attempt to slander females, as a group, or individually. His belief that any foreign power, allied or hostile, would view the inclusion of women in combatant forces as potential for weakening our strength rings true.
His statement that females may be considered mascots and patronized is also true. I do not believe that anyone who has been in the military for any period of time has not seen this happen. War and the military are based on a machismo image of the strong vanquishing the weak. A pecking order is normally established between strong (of mind or body) and weak individuals in any military unit. Mixing women into this equation would only complicate matters by adding natural competition among males for attention, whether actual or imagined attention.
When I reported to my first command where females were stationed, I received the same lecture on fraternization as women. Just as women have observed males gawking at them, I saw the same type of action from the female community. Intentional flaunting of femininity to attract attention (of an individual or a group) exists in today’s Navy. Both sides have aggravated the situation.
Recent directives regarding discharge or transfer of pregnant females assigned to Navy ships is most discriminatory. The Navy does not transfer a male crew member from sea duty whose wife is expecting; it just grants leave for the period immediately prior to birth. Such transfers would undermine the operational readiness and strength of the Navy. Who is being discriminated against now? What of males who serve on a destroyer tender? Do they receive credit for sea duty? Even though they work side by side with women, the women are on sea duty and the men on either neutral or shore duty. Is that fair?
Editor’s Note: For other comments see N. G. Golightly, pp. 46-49, December 1987; R. M. Hixson, pp. 26-28, January 1988; M. A. Walker, G. A. Bleyle, H. Sage, D. I. Hewitt, L. Melting, and J. R. Gentry, February 1988; J. Perez, pp. 17-19, March 1988; N. F. Caldwell, J. J. Kennedy, B. A. Bell, and A. A. Balunek, pp. 31-32, April 1988 Proceedings.