JOHN T. REED, a graduate of West Point, argues that military women will always be subject to sexual exploitation by their superiors, even at top military academies. He writes:

Fundamentally, the military cannot handle having women integrated into male units. Civilian colleges can handle it, as can civilian grad schools and civilian police and fire. But the military cannot handle it and anyone who votes to continue the current situation is complicit in the ongoing rapes, harassments, and retaliations against females who spurn the advances of their male superiors. Any parent who countenances their daughter going into the military is complicit in the rape or harassment of their daughter.

You have been put on notice repeatedly—not by me—but by the stories in the media. Only a willful suspension of disbelief can explain a parent today letting their daughter join the U.S. military. Initially, I figured it was due to the fact that too many U.S. military personnel are cretins of the drunken sailor/MASH “Major Burns” stereotype (although he was the same rank as “Major Hot Lips Houlihan”). But the service academy cadets and midshipmen are mostly non-cretins. They are disproportionately class presidents, Boys State Delegates, team captains, honor Society members, Eagle Scouts, and so on. The student bodies of the service academies are significantly better citizens, on average, than the student bodies of all but the most elite civilian colleges. If the service academies cannot handle having female cadets and midshipmen, and they clearly cannot as 37 years of experience show, forget about it.

— Comments —

Alex writes:

I am confused. If male military personnel are disproportionally non-cretins in comparison with civilian colleges, grad schools, police and fire, why is there a higher threat of rapes, harassments, and retaliations against females in the military?

From John T. Reed’s article: “Fundamentally, because of human nature and the extreme power that military commanders have over subordinates, it is not possible to combine female and male military personnel in this manner.” (His emphasis.)

Really? We are supposed to believe that while everywhere else men’s lives are being ruined as a result of a baseless accusation by a woman, in the military men can rape their female subordinates, or upperclassmen – female freshmen, at will and the women can’t utter a peep? Now, when the military is being remade into a place where women have more rights than men like everywhere else? This would take a willful suspension of disbelief.

The author seems to believe that there is indeed an epidemic of rapes in the military, based on whatever overblown numbers the feminist activists present. He also greeted the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, as a review of his web site shows.

If the author is against the feminization of the military, that is only, it seems, because he believes it puts women at a danger of being raped, not because women are inferior soldiers (even though he begins his article with a description of female cadets’ troubles caused by physical weakness).

To the extent that there are rapes in the military, here is my simple opinion, and if it means I’m heartless, so be it. Women who go into the military are the vanguard of the revolution conquering the last remaining great institution of traditional society for the new feminist-progressive order. (The second group is typical public employees taking advantage of the newly available taxpayer-funded patronage jobs for women (lots of minorities among the latter group).) Call me a monster, but if they find that their revolutionary mission comes with certain job hazards, I’m not trying too hard to fake a high degree of concern.

Laura writes:

Any man who attempts to extort sex from a woman in a military academy, or even becomes involved with an inferior, is taking an extreme risk and is very stupid. He stands to lose everything. The issue of sexual assault in the military is part of the feminist war against the military. It just doesn’t make sense. How is a woman supposed to defend her country if she cannot defend herself? Also if a woman is refused promotion if she does not agree to a sexual relationship that seems like a good thing.

The dynamic is dangerous for all kinds of reasons.

Laura adds:

However, I do not share Alex’s indifference to women who join the military and who may end up essentially accepting sexual bribes. How common this is, I don’t know. It seems probable it does happen despite the immense forces against it. I feel sorry frankly for any woman in the military, however much she may be a victim of her own choices. Many women are misled.

Roger G. writes:

GOOD HEAVENS! GREAT SCOTT! What a pleasant surprise to see John Reed of all people quoted at THW!! I can’t recommend him highly enough.

I first became acquainted with Mr. Reed from his sports instructional articles. He is an absolute, complete expert at coaching youth football and baseball. I believe that he’s also a very successful self made businessman, and I suspect his works on such matters, or anything else he cares to write about, likewise are superb. I just went to his site and read (and enjoyed) his expose of Gen. Schwartzkopf. Anyone interested can scout around there and find his athletics (and other) articles.

James P. writes:

I would take issue with Reed’s description of the integration of women into college dorms as a “success”. There is just as much “rape and harassment” taking place in coed college dorms as there is in the military. Parents who let their daughters live in coed dorms are just as much “complicit in the rape or harassment of their daughter” as parents who let their daughter join the military. As this article notes,

Parents send their children off to college to learn and prepare for adulthood. Many have no idea that universities have become Ground Zero for the anything-goes sexual culture. An 18-year-old student entering college is likely to soon face bowls of condoms at freshman orientation, coed living, sex fairs, and courses where students “study” pornographic films. It is common for students to not hear a single conservative viewpoint on sexual morals at their school in four years. Without a voice of reason, many students begin to question and sometimes reject the values they were instilled with growing up. Outrageous sexual behavior quickly becomes the norm for many young people.

A culture of wild promiscuity is accepted and encouraged by colleges. This culture has led to a health crisis, leaving young people both physically and emotionally scarred. At the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, we work closely with students — particularly women — on college campuses, and many of them tell us when they turn to their campus health centers or college faculty with concerns, they are rarely told of the physical or emotional dangers of this kind of promiscuous lifestyle. Many university administrators are more concerned with being politically correct than with the health and well-being of their students.

Reed writes that colleges “have been able to handle the integration of females into the dorms”; how they have handled it is by openly encouraging total, unlimited sexual immorality and ignoring rampant promiscuity. Anything goes, let the kids do what they want!

Also, the fact of the matter is that once your daughter is 18, she can join the military whether you like it or not. Therefore, Reed’s opinion that you should not “let” or “countenance” her doing this is beside the point. You can advise against it, but you cannot prevent it.

Jeff C. writes:

You wrote:

“Also if a woman is refused promotion if she does not agree to a sexual relationship that seems like a good thing.”

Laura writes:

It’s a good thing that she would refuse. And it’s a good thing that she would be discouraged from a career in the military. That is not to say it is good for a woman to be placed in such a position or to be pressured in that way.

The important point is that it is impossible to avoid all kinds of improper scenarios and liaisons when men and women are  side by side in the military. And neither sex is immune from behaving badly.

Paul writes:

We men have urges that only women and Catholicism can control. Mr. Reed’s excerpt is the way it always has been and always will be unless we are in the year 2525, when we might have no bodies. Mr. Reed’s main point is that these are not dregs committing these awful acts. And no, I never have been nor will I ever be tempted to commit the acts that Mr. Reed describes just because I have these immense urges. But apparently, many men do have these acts in mind. And I expect the acts will become more frequent as promiscuity grows.

Yeah he is wrong about the idiocy of co-ed dorms. It makes one wonder whether he has the psychiatric symptom of inappropriateness.

Please follow and like us: