3 June 1997

The Strains Of Accepting Women In The Armed Forces

Anthony F. Milavic,
Major, United States Marine Corps, (Retired)

In the wake of the Lt. Kelly Flinn, USAF affair, a new and even more disturbing event has come to light. On 31 May 1997, I read in the Washington Post of actions that suggest that our government is taking on the trappings of the 13th century Inquisition or a totalitarian regime: ”Admiral, [and] Army Counsel Probed For Harassment.”  I am specifically referring to the allegations leveled against the Army’s general counsel, Mr. William Coleman III, that constitute “sexual harassment.” Reportedly, he has had three charges levied against him: [emphases mine]

1) ”TOLD offensive jokes in public”

2) ”LISTENED to rap music with offensive lyrics"

3) ”TOUCHED a subordinate in an offensive manner at an office luncheon.”

These are not reflective of a government that finds its roots in freedom of speech and expression; these are indicative of totalitarianism. 

Let’s look first at the behavior under indictment. The author of the Washington Post article, Dana Priest, writes: “...experts inside and outside the services believe it reflects the strains of a still-evolving acceptance of women in the armed forces.” Well, whoever those “experts” might be their observation is, at best, a half-truth. Women served in the U. S. Marine Corps during the two World Wars and became a permanent component in 1948. The other Services had similar experiences. During my 25 years service, I don’t recall any “strains” in accepting them; that is, accepting them as women. The “strain” came with the advent of a manifest hypocrisy camouflaged in a policy popularly known as “political correctness.” 

Central to this “political correctness” is egalitarianism staged through the neutering of the sexes--everyone is a person. The hypocrisy here finds its roots in the standard “first among equals” of totalitarian regimes; i.e, equality is defined by those in-charge. Today’s hypocrisy surfaces as we see that women and men are morphed into personhood. That is, they are gender-normed by replacing their labels of man and woman with the single label, "person." However, the gender norming--sameness--process ends with the label of, "person": The former women are given "assertive" training--an attribute historically associated with men; and, the former men are subjected to "sensitivity" training--an attribute historically associated with women. This is a transparent attempt to excise an inherent attribute from one group and transplant it in another group--male MACHO becomes, in a word coined by actress Katherine Hepburn and expressed during a "60 Minutes" interview, "FACHO." The neo-egalitarianism is then realized: female person superiority through assertiveness/aggression over the now emasculated--sensitive--male person.  However, brainwashing in and of itself, does not assure the subjugation of its target group; that’s how we get to the “strains.”

Federal legislation against “sexual harassment” was advertised as a means of protecting women from sexual coercion. In practice, as in the example of Mr. Coleman, it is a vise for squeezing off men’s constitutional freedom of expression. Once again, Mr. Coleman’s crimes were: TOLD and LISTENED; and, TOUCHED someone once in a public place. Ah, but they were “offensive” acts. Note: Ms. Priest does not suggest that the accused was attempting to sexually coerce anyone. She writes only that his actions were “offensive.” I ask, “How many ways are there to be offensive?” The more people counting the ways, the more ways there are! How can anyone function with the ever-present threat that someone will construe his words or what he listens to as offensive and subject to federal punitive action? THAT is strain!

Semper NO STRAIN,

Anthony F. Milavic

Major USMC(Ret)