|
Viewpoint Military women do not benefit from
mixed-gender duty
By MARIE E deYOUNG
Can a Catholic feminist support Lt.
Ryan Berrys request to be removed from midnight silo duty when his
assigned co-worker happens to be a woman? As a feminist and a former
active-duty Army chaplain, I am compelled to lend unequivocal support to
Berrys refusal to work in isolated conditions with one person of the
opposite sex.
Lt. Ryan Berry is a 20-something conservative Catholic who values
his monogamous relationship with his wife at a time when the media touts his
generation as a bed-hopping, callously self-interested group. Short of an
occasion that could lapse into sin, what are the practical reasons for
Berrys commonsensical refusal to bunk alone with a woman?
Three good ones:
- The occasion of improper perception. Any wise professional will
scrupulously avoid inappropriately close contact with members of the opposite
sex. Rumors and perceptions can be just as destructive to ones
professional image as to ones private relationships. No smart female
executive would share a hotel room with her male co-worker or boss; yet we
think it reasonable that military personal do just that for 48-hour stretches.
Female soldiers should be smart enough to refuse to live in such close
proximity to male co-workers and bosses. Their reputations are as much at risk
as their supervisors. No credible soldier can afford the perception that she
slept her way to the top.
- The occasion of career-stopping false allegations. If Berry
bunks alone with a woman whom he supervises, he will never be safe from an
allegation of sexual harassment, sexual assault or even consensual adultery
should he choose to discipline her for legitimate reasons and should his female
co-worker refuse to accept his authority. The occurrence of false allegations
is too commonplace. No married soldier should jeopardize his career, let alone
family stability, by working in isolated living conditions with someone of the
opposite sex. In every branch of service, an accusation against a male soldier
is tantamount to a conviction. His career is effectively over, and he may spend
time in jail for charges that cannot be proven beyond he said/she
said. The military expects spouses and children to make inordinate
sacrifices on behalf of soldiers. But when soldiers are destroyed by false
allegations, their families are not protected by the system. The family loses
primary income, retirement, hospital, medical and housing benefits, not to
mention the personal dignity and privacy lost when sexual allegations are
investigated.
- The occasion to squander thousands of defense dollars as a
consequence of inappropriate relationships. The obtuseness of media
broadcasters who belittle Berrys fear of lapsing into a sinful
relationship is stunning: What makes you think that dirty, greasy
mechanics would want to have sex? They are there to work! The fact is the
military is plagued with sexual misconduct cases that are alleged in such
unromantic, unappealing circumstances every day. The fallout costs taxpayers
plenty. One Fort McClellan adultery case tried by the Army resulted in
conviction that cost taxpayers $40,000 -- this, despite a television
broadcasters observation there was no evidence to convict the
man. That was just the price for litigation. We seldom factor the price for
family counseling, psychiatric hospitalizations after suicide attempts,
treatment for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, time spent handling
divorce proceedings for the two couples compromised by the lapse. Not to
mention moving costs for discharged soldiers, and the $40,000 to $100,000 to
train the discharged or jailed soldiers replacement. When a soldier
commits suicide (the most common behavior of male soldiers who experience
relationship loss after infidelity), taxpayers wind up paying lifetime benefits
to survivors. Then we must pay a full complement of benefits for the new
soldier replacement.
The vast majority of American women do not benefit from some of
the militarys mixed-gender assignment policies. Women soldiers do not
benefit from being bunked with their male bosses and co-workers. Women spouses
and children do not benefit from the occasions of sin and false accusations
that inevitably arise out of prolonged intimate contact with the opposite
gender. Women taxpayers get no return from their investment in the perpetuation
of these policies.
There is no other industry in America where men are required to
live in situations that are as professionally and personally compromising as
those imposed on military service members today. There is no other industry
that will pick up the tab for the psychological and social consequences of
stupid policy without exhaustive attention to risk management and prevention of
negative outcomes. Yet, the American taxpayer foolishly wastes billions of
dollars each year in health care, social work, litigation, wasted leadership
time and destroyed careers trying to make policies work that will simply never
be free of economic, social and psychological consequences.
If we paid closer attention to the real cost of misguided
mixed-gender bunking policies, we would see the problem clearly for what it is:
a thoughtless evil lurking inside missile silos and the small tactical vehicles
sported by mixed-gender dyads in the mixed-gender military.
Marie deYoung is the director of the Center for Women in Church
and Society at Our Lady of the Lake University in San Antonio. She is author of
This Womans Army: The Dynamics of Sex and Violence in the Military
and Sexuality: Histories, Behaviors and Lifestyles that Impact on
Military Readiness, in Women in the Military.
National Catholic Reporter, October 1,
1999
|
|