(The following from Jim Baxter Sgt USMC WWII & Korea)
From: James Baxter <choicemaker@thegrid.net> Save Address Block Sender
To: Richard Gaines <gunnyg@hotmail.com> Save Address
Subject: [Fwd: A working definition of 'feminization']
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 19:33:14 -0800
From: "Gerald L. Atkinson" <atkinson@newtotalitarians.com>
To: Hacks List <atkinson@newtotalitarians.com>
CC: Hacks List:;
Subject: A working definition of 'feminization'
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:29:53 PST
Fellow RESISTER,
The debate on the 'feminization' of the U.S. military continues. COL
Collins, the author of the recently published report, 'American Military
Culture in the 21st Century,' for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) continues to
feign ignorance of subject term. That is because their survey and focus groups did not ask questions
using the word 'feminization.'
Here is my response (3/1/00). They will never find the TRUTH if they fail
to ask the right questions.
Best Regards,
Beak
Copy of my third reply to COL Collins:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
COL Collins,
Many of us are quite 'puzzled' at your insistence on a lack of knowledge
of subject definition in your Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS ) study entilted,
"American Military Culture in the 21st Century."
Maybe we can be of some assistance. I received a reply to my e-mail to
you of 2/22/00 (sent to a list of interested parties) from a member of the
radical feminist Minerva Network. Goodness only knows how they got a copy
of my reply to you -- but they are out there, working the hustings.
Her reply should give you an inkling of what the term means. It was they,
the radical feminists, who have 'feminized' the U.S. military. And now, since
they have succeeded, they object to the use of the word for fear that we will
see the damage they have wreaked on our once-proud, once-strong military --
and label it 'feminization.'
Could it be that your study's failure to address the topic is a subtle
recognition of this fact?
Please note that the primary objective of her reply is an attempt to
excise the word 'feminization' from my/our vocabulary. And please also
note that one of the primary means of 'controlling' the debate is to
dictate the terminology to be used. After that, it is easy to 'control' the
agenda of the conversation. And after that, to dominate and dictate the
outcome of the debate.
And if you don't remember who proposed just such a technique for carrying
out a world-wide revolution, please read any history book of the past century. And if you don't know
the names of leaders who used this same technique to invoke a totalitarianism over their lands, please
read more of the same
history. For example, Robert Conquest's ' new book, "Reflections on a
Ravaged Century."
For make no mistake about it, as Robert Bork reminds us in his seminal
book on American culture, 'Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism
and Moral Decline,' "...radical egalitarianism...radical feminism is
totalitarian in spirit...[It is] a Neo-Marxist movement which has an agenda
aimed at utterly destroying America's prized institutions."
Including our nation's military establishment.
So, we should utterly reject the attempt by the radical feminists to
determine the vocabulary of the debate. You will see in the text transcribed
below, that is exactly what is being attempted in the Minerva reply.
Also please observe that the Minerva reply 'puts aside a discussion of
sensitivity training.' Why should she want to do this? Because such a dis-
cussion would uncover the immoral psychological techniques by which her
minions have carried out their mischief on our military institutions. They
do not want us to find out about this. They do not even want to discuss the subject of 'sensitivity
training.' They will try to keep us from discussing
it, even among ourselves.
You guys should be asking why this is so?
Also observe that she would like our military to adopt New Age civilian
values. Does she mean those exemplified by our commander-in-chief? She
states, "The old [WWII] paradigms do not always work. We also live in a
time when the military has to adjust to an all volunteer force made up of
people who came from civilian backgrounds and have civilian values."
God help us if our military ever adopts such immoral and corrupt 'values.'
If you want to read how this situation came about and how it can be turned
back, please read my two essays entitled, 'Who Placed American Men in a
Psychic Iron Cage,' parts I and II on my Web Site at:
http://www.newtotalitarians.com
Go to the Essays page and navigate to the Psychic Iron Cage links. See you
guys there.
Best Regards,
Dr. Gerald L. 'Beak' Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret.)
P.S. After you have read the Minerva reply, the text of which is repeated
below, please return to this account of the situation by a school teacher
who served as a Commander in the U.S. Navy. His comments appeared in the
USNI 'Proceedings,' May 1999 in an article entitled, "The Recruiting Problem
We Don't Talk About."
"Exacerbating the recruiting problems resulting from the lifting
of the gay ban was the politically-correct decision to lift the
ban on women serving in most combat vessels and aircraft...since
allowing women to serve in combat roles, recruiting slowly has slid
in the tank...The Navy has countered this fall-off in recruiting with
ideas on how to recruit more females...It will take many years, if
ever, for it to be acceptable in our nation for teenage girls to fight
and die in the military...The last thing that many of our prospective
male recruits need is another matriarch...The perception in working-class
America [from which the Navy has traditionally recruited its enlisted
sailors]...is that the Navy is now a haven for gays and women...we owe
it to ourselves to discuss whether these changes brought upon the
heretofore almost exclusively male military have so changed the dynamics
of the recruiting process that we are in bigger trouble than we thought."
"One of my reasons for entering the military, was that it was different
from 'normal society.' It was a bastion of masculinity where young men
were encouraged to be a little wild if it contributed to combat readiness.
It was not a feminized culture like elementary school and high school
were."
Text of the Minerva reply:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Atkinson, I wonder if you and others who blithely use the term
"feminization" in regards to the armed forces are aware of how insulting
that term is to women (and to men, for that matter). Perhaps this is why
you are using it? Perhaps, also, this is why you are having trouble
being heard by the leadership.
I don't claim to be any kind of an expert on the debate, but I've read
my fair share of articles on the subject. The word "feminization" is
always used by the writers with incredible contempt to describe the
dissolution of the "warrior spirit" and the advent of various
civilian-like institutions in the military. It's also used to describe
demoralized military personnel and leadership which cares more about
political advancement than about the nation's defense.
Putting aside, for a moment, the whole question of whether the military
should be given sensitivity training and whether the officer corps is
selling out, let's look at the assumptions behind the use of the word
"feminization" to describe these changes. This term implies (and I
don't think that I'm reading too much into this) that women are weak,
men are strong, women are untrustworthy and likely to betray, men are
solid and reliable, women are full of "new age" insubstantial ideas, men
are practical and get the job done.
In this case it is your faction, and not "the feminists" who are
bringing the gender wars to the discourse about the military. I speak as
a feminist. Most fellow feminists I know recognize that qualities such
as warrior spirit, fortitude, sensitivity, practicality, courage,
cowardice -- all of these and more -- are human characteristics, not
limited to men or women. In fact it is partly the arbitrary assignment
or prohibition of these characteristics to one gender or the other that
propagates the patriarchal system in which we live. Why shouldn't boys
cry and why shouldn't women be warriors in a healthy society, after all?
We live in a different age than the oft romanticized WWII era. The old
paradigms do not always work. We also live in a time when the military
has to adjust to an all volunteer force made up of people who came from
civilian backgrounds and have civilian values. Finally, we live in a
democracy, where the people do, sometimes, have some say about how
public institutions are run. The military is one such institution and
women are half of the people who make up this nation.
Many of the changes brought about in the military in the last thirty
years are probably for the good. Some probably aren't. In any case, it
is appropriate at this juncture to have a public dialogue (both within
and outside the military) about how the military should be run. I
suggest, however, that this discussion would be more effective and less
polarized if we were to eliminate terms such as "feminization" from it.
After all, what are you trying to do, create an effective defense force,
or bolster the male ego and continue the subjugation and marginalization
of women?
If you are trying to achieve the former, then you should be speaking
about changes that lead to an effective and ineffective military force.
We should be discussing what place the military institution should have
in society, what job it should be doing and how it should be doing it.
"Feminization" should have no part in such a discussion. It should not
be a concern. If, on the other hand you are trying to keep the military
an all male club, well then, that's a whole different story.
Jonnie Pekelny <jonnie@access1.net>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Minerva Network reply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of my reply to COL Collins>
