Stand Down by James Hasson

Author:James Hasson
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Gateway Editions

A Sex-Neutral Navy and Marine Corps

Mabus’s insistence on changing the makeup of ground combat units was part of his broader, ideologically driven quest for a “genderless” Navy and Marine Corps. He directed senior naval commanders to “ensure [that job titles] are gender-integrated . . . removing ‘man’ from their titles.”43 Traditional naval and Marine Corps job titles such as “yeoman” and “rifleman”—titles that date to the founding of our republic—apparently needed to be changed to reflect a “gender-integrated” force. (After substantial outcry from both active-duty and retired sailors and Marines, Mabus relented, and the traditional terms remained in place.)

Uniforms were to be changed as well. Mabus tweeted, “We are trending towards uniforms that don’t divide us male and female, but unite us as #sailors & #marines.”44 Mabus might have been surprised to discover that many of the fiercest opponents of “gender-neutral” uniforms were women. The Navy Times quoted one female helicopter pilot who said women in the Navy did not appreciate “the fact that they’re changing the uniforms to make us all look like men.”45

The absurd uniform changes demonstrate the senselessness of a “genderless” military. Male and female uniforms are shaped differently for the same reason many other military policies differentiate between males and females—the male and female physiques are different in important ways. Indeed, while Mabus was trying to eliminate the differences between men’s and women’s uniforms, Democrats on Capitol Hill, complaining that standard-issue body armor unfairly burdened the female physique, were pushing for distinct male and female versions.46 The Pentagon told the press that eight new body armor sizes would be designed for women, “tak[ing] into consideration their anatomy, which leads to a redesign of the way the gear would fit.”

In other words, senior Defense Department political appointees were telling Americans to ignore anatomical differences between men and women when evaluating the combat effectiveness of infantry units—and to ignore anatomical reality when determining which physical fitness standards transgender service members should serve under—but stressing the differences between male and female anatomy when designing the body armor male and female troops would wear downrange at the same time. The contradiction was apparently lost on (or ignored by) the politicians and political appointees in charge of the military.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.