The case of Holly Graf, the Navy captain relieved of command of a guided missile cruiser for abusing the crew with curses, insults, taunts and minor physical assault, is the subject of interesting discussion among military insiders here. A retired Navy captain writes:

WOMEN ARE 100% CAPABLE OF SERVING IN COMMAND OF NAVY COMBATANT SHIPS!! DO NOT DOUBT THAT FOR A MILLISECOND. 

Many of his readers express a different view. One writes:

I know Holly and her career… Holly was a Navy Poster-child for advancement of women…at any cost. Her poor-temperment is well known and she was advanced regardless. Shame on the Navy for continuing given (sic) these opportunities to individuals who have not earned and do not deserve…especially several women. Look at recent flag selects. It seems that a sex-change operation makes you more promotion worthy than a successful career…more than most deserving men are willing to do.

One tyrannical commander is not proof of the folly of women in command. But the manner in which Graf’s behavior was handled arguably is. The Navy overlooked complaints about her for years. One Navy chaplain reported her aggressive treatment of her crew in 2003.  The pursuit of a coed military leads to favoritism for women in some cases.  The question arises as to whether Graf was over-reaching to prove herself in a male world.

The widely-reported accounts of her managerial style – she told one junior officer she hated her and threw ceramic coffee mugs at subordinates – puncture the myth that women soften the rough edges of power.

Fitzgerald writes:

Two lessons can be learned from this.

First, feminism and fear of reprisals from feminists and their male cohorts throughout all level of society, and now even the military, push unqualified women into posts out of fear or displaced attempts at “fairness.” To stand against this tide means putting career and potentially freedom on the line. Most just hope to stay clear of the wreckage and preserve their positions and ride out the wave.

Second, females in power can become extremely vindictive and prone to reprisals. Just look at how women treat each other, they are merciless. Frankly, women are actually meaner than men. In primitive cultures, the Mohawks for instance, women were most often the cruelest and most persistent tormentors and mutilators of prisoners. Here is some background.

Matriarchies are ruthless and cruel. Men can surely be just as cruel and ruthless but not for prolonged periods. Men are unable to sustain this without wearing down. It’s well known that most male abortion doctors quit the procedure after a decade or even less, Bernard Nathenson being the most famous case, yet women can seemingly continue in perpetuity. Women seem to have an enduring emotional capacity to justify even ruthless and immoral reprisals and behavior that men do not. Men can be stirred to action and there are few men who are exceptions, but in almost all cases a man’s ethereal side begins to wear down their resolve. Men can compartmentalize even very horrible experiences, and keep going. We have a capacity when focused on a task or enemy to harness enormous amounts of focused energy enduring immense privations even, but this state of intense warrior-like focus can only be sustained for short periods. Women seem able to keep a slow burn going for years with outbursts at regular intervals often when least expected. As it was said so aptly by William Congreve, although regularly attributed to Shakespeare, “… nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.”

 Society is churning out cohorts of angry, vindictive women with pre-made axes to grind against the supposed evil patriarchy. Feminist ideology now riddled throughout society is propelling many well beyond their capacities where many of them wreak havoc on their co-workers. A larger portion are reasonably talented, but often ineffectual or incompetent and, worse, mercurial. There are of course exceptions, and I know personally a few women, who were quite capable and effective leaders. They are by far the exception.

Lisa writes:

When my plebe class of 1986 arrived at the U.S. Naval Academy, the girls in my class quickly noticed a hard edge to the upperclass women, and we wondered what caused it. We determined to try not to become the same. I left after nearly two years, but to this day deal with a biting sarcastic wit that others have noticed in USNA alumni as well, particularly in the men. Most of the women I knew in the military, before and after my days at USNA, still had a generally sweet or feminine edge and did not have constantly disgusting foul mouths or an attitude that seemed to need to dominate all underlings. This has been more than a decade ago though.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

If I may add a couple of points to your discussion:

1. It is so often forgotten that the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib prison—perhaps the most shameful case of officially-sanctioned sadism in the long history of the United States Army—happened under the watch of one General Janis Karpinski, pictured below:

Note the subtitle of the book—the Commanding General tells her story. As if the really interesting thing about that episode was her personal story! And notice also that she chose to wear her slovenly-looking fatigues rather than her dress uniform for the cover shot, communicating not only the dangerously silly fantasy of the woman-as-combatant, but also a complete lack of reverence for the office she holds. Say what you want about Wesley Clark, but I never saw him appearing on the morning talk shows wearing a flight suit (our current Eloi Army COS, on the other hand…). Abu Ghraib was a perfect example of the breakdown in discipline and even ordinary martial honor that traditionalists are constantly predicting will happen under female command, and which no one is willing to acknowledge even when it happens.

2. One reason this breakdown is inevitable is that, of course, an ideologically fanatical feminism is required to bring such a state of affairs about in the first place. The consequence is that women are encouraged to revel in their power, to celebrate and beat their chests over the mere fact of having power over other human beings. Such braggadocio, while obviously not unknown among men, is nonetheless considered extremely poor form for a man, a sign of extreme insecurity and, quite simply, low character. A military man is not expected to brag and celebrate the fact that he has achieved power over someone, and to lord it over him and to remind him of it in ostentatious ways as a kind of personal victory. Everyone realizes this is a breach of discipline, and such men are considered a blight on their offices.

But the US military has established a system whereby the acquisition and promotion of female officers is a thing to be celebrated in and of itself, even though those same officers rose through the ranks under an obviously rigged system of favoritism and special pleading (think of it—she cannot complete the same morning run as a man, but one day she’ll be in a position to command them to march to their deaths). The insecurity and psychic confusion this must breed in female commanders must be truly intense. I have long believed that it was precisely this system that led to the horrifying abuses at Abu Ghraib—perpetrated, in no small part, by the Pvt. Lynndie England, who was also famously involved in orgiastic sexual escapades with the male soldiers at the prison.

The bottom line is that occupying a position of power and authority over other people is not the same temptation to abuse as it is for women, who are much less at ease in their own skin under such circumstances, and who are pressured by society to herald the acquisition of personal power as a grand historic victory. I am more than a little dispirited that the men of our armed forces put up with it.

Sage adds:

This women in the military business is a difficult subject. I obviously have strong opinions-and yes, strong feelings-about it. What I hate most, though, is that it makes me feel ungentlemanly. This is just one more way in which feminism tears down what is good and honorable in both sexes. Faced with such absurdities and outrages, men are forced to argue vehemently for women’s unfitness for certain positions. We are forced to bang on about women’s lack of physical prowess, to assert women’s inherent inferiority in certain spheres, and contrary to liberal belief, decent Christian men hate doing that. I hate being forced to play the part of the chauvinist, to gripe about women’s inability to do this or that thing as well as a man.

It’s possible to make the same points in a genteel way in discreet circumstances, and where the problems are not so radical in scope. But feminist society is passing a certain line of egregiousness, such that a chivalrous attitude is no longer possible. Pointing out female inadequacies, in short, is a thoroughly unpleasant and increasingly necessary business. Quite apart from the concrete issues at stake, we are all poorer for this coarsening of men’s verbal handling of women. (Relatedly, it never occurs to feminists that in order to show super heroines like Buffy the Vampire Slayer triumphing over her male adversaries, they first must show her being savagely punched and kicked by a man, as though this were normal. But such really is the price of “equality.”)

I only wonder what protection feminists will flee to when they’ve finally crushed the last vestiges of Christian chivalry under heel?

Laura writes:

As I said in the previous post on patriarchy, deference to feminism is the modern equivalent of chivalry. Men are naturally inclined to some form of deference to women and this instinctive tendency was gradually perverted into what we have today. While men once flung their cloaks on puddles as women walked the street, they now grant them admiralties and warships.

Greed, materialism and just plain ungodliness are part of male capitulation to feminism. But there is also this unspoken code of honor, the natural expression of male competition for female attention and of masculine protectiveness. This does make it hard for men to stand up and complain about these outrages and about the greedy takeover of traditionally male fields.

It has taken an amazingly long time for men in any significant numbers to begin to speak out, rather than simply grumble to themselves.

Of course criticism is not the only way to skin this cat. It’s also possible to praise and defend the feminine ideal.

Lisa writes:

I receive the USNA Alumni magazine, “Shipmate,” and have watched in amazement as the main goal of USNA has become, according to “Shipmate,” overtly and proudly “diversity.” Public relations photos with admirals shaking hands with reception rooms full of young female and minority midshipmen, talking about boosting the minority engineering performance and percentage, are standard. How can anyone think that an affirmative action military unit with less and less in common can function better than a competent group with much in common to bolster inherent cohesiveness? (We female midshipmen were included in the “minority” category.)

Gail Aggen writes:

One of your readers asked, “I only wonder what protection feminists will flee to when they’ve finally crushed the last vestiges of Christian chivalry under heel?” They’ll either need to head for the hills or dive back into their petticoats (and say they were only kidding about wanting to be the boss) because there will be Hell to pay.

One thing I’ve noticed about men: they may be longsuffering, but when they’re done, they’re DONE.

One only hopes that men’s natural ability to take the lead and sort things out will quickly re-establish itself, so that we can all relax and get on once again with decent, sane living.

Lydia Sherman writes:

This strange behavior was observed at our local aiport, where women were elevated to supervisors for homeland security, called the Transportation Safety Institute. One woman sadistically delighted in targeting well-dressed businessmen to delay deliberately with many security restrictions. She would ask them questions and request so many things that they would miss their flights. She was reported by the rest of the staff several times, but she was never removed. The reports told how she deliberately made normally easygoing passengers angry enought to become impatient, and then would mark them as security risks and put them in room to be interrogated further. Only the very brave would approach her for her behavior and if they did, she figured out a way to get them fired.

Jake Jacobsen writes:

Several of the previous commenters note the vital subject of chivalry, it occurs to me that women can have competition or chivalry from men, but not both. So if women feel that pushing their way into the professions is the thing they must do I do believe it will be at the cost of male chivalry toward women.

Of course that still isn’t a good solution because men are uncomfortable competing with women. I was on the wrestling team in grade school and we had a young lady sue to be able to compete, think about that for moment, teenage boys grappling with a young lady, if that’s not the definition of modern liberal madness I honestly don’t know what might be?

Nonetheless several of the boys quit immediately saying that they would never wrestle a girl. And any honest man will tell you that he does not and will never feel the same satisfaction besting a woman, whether in sport or the workplace, as he would a man. The differences are simply too great and men and women, for the most part, are never playing on the same field or even playing the same game for that matter.

Jake adds:

While we’re on the subject, this thread reminded me of something I read some time ago. There is a reason for the doctrine of “Kill the Women First” in serious anti-terrorist and sniper units. For when a woman becomes a terrorist, she turns against her very nature and becomes infinitely more dangerous than any man. Hence, Special Forces Units facing armed terrorists, mixed male and female cadres, are trained to kill the women first.

And I have to wonder, does this only apply to female terrorists? What about female cops? Who are five times more likely to be involved in a fatal shoot? Or how about female execs who are constantly being told to enhance their ‘killer instinct?’

Or, say, Navy captains?

Kristor writes:

Surely this is the apotheosis of the “Captain Holly” oxymorony you noted. Dig the haircut. She does seem like a really nice person.

Laura writes:

Yes, she does seem nice. And, I think this brings up another important point about women in command. They tend to extremes, too nice or too mean. Does this smiling woman seem as if she could inspire obedience in hundreds of men?

Women are more empathetic than men by nature. That’s proven in countless psychological and intelligence tests. When in positions of authority, women have to either go against this tendency, a violation of their inmost temperament, or work with it, leading to a more maternal approach to leadership. There were always be a tiny minority of women who can manage this, which is why the leadership style of women is not sufficient reason to deny women leadership.

Jake writes:

Laura said, “There were always be a tiny minority of women who can manage this, which is why the leadership style of women is not sufficient reason to deny women leadership.”

Actually, in my experience, I worked with one woman who could honestly hang in the kitchen, and she was literally a bull dyke lesbian. She was in essence a man with lady bits. God will have his little jokes.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your point but I have a feeling if you peel it back you will find some inconvenient details like the one I just related.

Charles writes:

Based on what I have read about her command performance, Capt. Graf mistakenly believed that leadership is based on yelling, insulting, and belittling of subordinates. Her behavior is a telling display of ignorance about leading people in general and about the male psyche in particular. Males will put up with good-natured insulting and ribbing from people they respect. However, generally they do not like it coming from a woman and from one they do not respect. And, again, from what I have read, her insulting behavior was not even good natured. It really seemed to be for the purpose of insulting. And further, she seems to be too stubborn to see that her methods were not working. 

Leadership is learned and respect is earned. She accomplished neither.

Poor Holly. She wanted to be a man and never could figure out how to do it right. I am sure, someday, some enterprising metro-sexual male will start a charm school for females who want to be male. He could clean up in today’s culture.

Please follow and like us: