Please login to continue
Having Trouble Logging In?
Reset your password
Don't have an account?
Sign Up Now!

You are now logged into your account.

Sign Up for Free
Choose Password
Confirm Password

Posted on Dec 1, 2005 Print this Article


Episodic sex scandals have swept through the military with the fury of Category Five hurricanes, destroying careers, depressing morale, and altering the cultural landscape. What appears to be an endless cycle of storms with names such as Tailhook, Aberdeen, Abu Ghraib and alleged abuse at the Air Force Academyhave been painful, but useful reforms have been made.

The situation could worsen, however, if Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld invites civilian “women’s advocates” to “fix” the male-dominated military from a new power base in the Pentagon. Sexual assault should be punished promptly at the local level, but the military does not need an “Office of Male Bashing”in the Pentagon.

For more than a decade, feminists have sought to exploit sex scandals as an excuse to eradicate “masculinist” influences that, they say, contribute to rape and abuse of military women. At a National Press Club news conference on March 5, 2004, the left-wing internationalist group Amnesty International USA joined with Christine Hansen of the Miles Foundation in demanding that Congress appropriate $10 million for an Office of the Victim Advocate (OVA)in the Department of Defense. The target of the OVA would be sexual abuse of women in the military, except for violence against women in combat, which feminists demand as a “career opportunity.”

CMR recently learned that the Office of Military Community and Family Policy, which reports to Defense Under Secretary David S. C. Chu, has a contract with the Wellesley College Centers for Womento study “prospects” for an OVA. The research contract, mentioned on the Wellesley website and reeking of insider conflict of interest, calls for a report this fall. CMR has formally requested but not received a copy of the contract and report.

Given the feminist and internationalist agenda of Wellesley’s Women’s Rights Network, it is likely that the college’s OVA report will promote a prestigious jobs program for Women’s Studies graduates who are schooled in man-hating ideology that is commonly taught in such programs. 1 

American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism?, notes that while misogyny or women-hating is politically incorrect, misandry or men-hating is socially very acceptable and promoted by feminists who relentlessly portray women as “victims.” Sommers has described Women’s Studies programs that teach radical “gender feminism” as a “magnet” for hypersensitive and chronically offended people who believe that “…women remain besieged and subject to a vicious male backlash.”

Secretary Rumsfeld must understand the temperament of civilian misandrysts before he decides to favor them with a cushy Pentagon office. The OVA would start small by “helping” women, but quickly extend into the serious business of harassing and punishing men.

A Pentagon OVA would fulfill the dreams of hard-core civilian feminists, who would have tax dollars and resume-enhancing Defense Department credentials to pursue the ultimate feminist challenge: “transforming” the culture of that despised bastion of masculinity, the United States military.

Feminist Pork and Power

Gen. George Patton famously beat Desert Fox Rommelby reading the German general’s book. With the military’s gender war escalating to a new phase, Secretary Rumsfeld would be wise to read the “book” on what feminists plan to do with a new power base at the Pentagon.

That would be a 95-page bill, sponsored in 2004 by liberal Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), which spells out expectations for the OVA in tendentious detail. The Slaughter bill did not pass, but its blueprint for $218,600, 000 in pure feminist pork presages feminist intent. A stripped down $10 million version of the bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick(D-MI) in 2005. Even though Congress rejected it, Secretary Rumsfeld could make the mistake of starting an OVA administratively, with existing DoD funds.

That would be only the beginning of a feminist boondoggle that would quickly assume bureaucratic eternal life. Members of Congress would welcome the chance to “fight violence against women” by throwing money at the OVA. What they shoulddo is take a serious look at the violence being inflicted on female soldiers in or near land combat.

Overbearing OVA Business

According to Rep. Slaughter’s legislative wish list, the OVA Director and special investigators would have subpoena power and a license to meddle in distant, highly emotional personal conflicts. Complaints would trigger referrals to military commanders and Department of Justice prosecutors. Official “sex crime counters,” in a position to hurt the careers of anyone who does not share their zeal, would apply pressure to punish “offenders.” (SEC 101, to amend Title 10, Part II of subtitle A, Sec. 818-819)

OVA officials would be authorized to communicate privately with self-described victims, have access to law enforcement and court records that are subject to subpoena and copying, and to “request from any commanding officer an order for the relocation or reassignment of an alleged offender during an investigation, disciplinary action, or court-martial in order to ensure the safety of the victim.”(SEC 101/1816) Since the OVA Director would report directly to the Secretary of Defense, any such request probably will be granted. (SEC 101/1814)

Buried in the Slaughter bill is an authorization for the OVA to obtain for victims of domestic violence “reproductive services, including prenatal care and abortions”from military facilities or any other source. This controversial option would be subject to current law, which bans the use of DoD dollars for abortions on military bases. (SEC 101/Sec. 1812).

The legislation also would have labeled a man guilty of aggravated sexual assault for causing a person to engage in a sexual act “by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.”(SEC 101/920) It is not clear what this would mean to field commanders with the power to order female soldiers into dangerous combat conditions—or to hold them back.

Crisis Contracts and Domestic Violence

Incidents of wife beating, child abuse, neglect, and family violence are deeply troubling, and people want to help the victims of such incidents. It is important to understand, however, that the civilian victim advocates likely to receive contracts from the OVA are more likely to advocate punishment for accused offenders, and separation rather than reconciliation to repair families broken by stress.

The OVA will seek at least $20 million per year to dole out in contracts of as much as $300,000 to civilian “crisis intervention” experts who are deemed “culturally competent;” i.e., “politically correct.” (SEC 1301) Subsidized services would cover hotlines, seminars, nurses, and social workers, but specifically exclude “couple counseling or mediation”efforts to reconcile marriages and restore families. (SEC 1301)

The OVA definition of domestic violence mentions physical injury and pain, but also the threat of such conduct, as determined by the complainant. Empowered with Defense Department credentials and OVA grants, local victims advocates would handle domestic violence complaints by requesting mandatory protective orders from courts. Arrests of persons perceived to be primary aggressors “[would] not be based on the consent of the victim.”(SEC 302/1567)

Since [alleged] victim representatives could not be compelled to provide testimony or records concerning confidential communications for any purpose in criminal or disciplinary proceedings, they would be effectively absolved from professional responsibility for the consequences of their actions. (SEC 403)

Couple counseling would be barred, but presumptive offenders would have to undergo “treatment” and sign a release of thier personal “violence history” to military commanders and law enforcement authorities. (SEC 1301)

The Secretaries of Defense and the military services would not be allowed to approve promotions for any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense involving domestic/family violence or sexual assault/misconduct, or “stalking.” Promotions would also be denied to persons receiving any other disciplinary action or adverse personnel action due to these offenses—effectively ending their military careers. (SEC 501)

“Military Male Bashing” News

The OVA plan includes mandates for frequent reports from the OVA Director and other officials tracking numbers of arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and categories of offenses. (SEC 101/1819) An additional Interdisciplinary Council of the various services, which would include civilian victims advocates, would be authorized to visit military installations and issue more reports that would feed the prejudices of media people (SEC 201). Even “good news” stories are routinely turned into anti-military “hit pieces.” Any headline that includes the words “Sexual Harassment” and “U.S. Military” is alwayshurtful to morale and possibly recruiting for the armed forces.

New Crimes and “Stalking”

Slaughter’s OVA bill would have created a range of new offenses in the UCMJ, in order to criminalize behavior already subject to severe penalties. The Department of Defense rejected most, except the proposal to add “stalking” to the list of offenses. The change is not necessary, since military members already are subject to penalties for disobeying orders barring personal contact. And commanders are easier to reach than civilian courts. The purpose here is pleasing feminists, and creating jobs for civilian victim advocates.

Stalking would be subjectively determined by someone who fearsabuse. The offense would be hard to eliminate on small, remote military installations, including Navy ships, but convicted “stalkers” would be reported to the FBI and labeled sex offenders for life. Penalties for conviction of any sexual crime would include mandatory restitution of court and other costs, regardless of economic circumstances. (SEC 1104/1561b)

Slaughter’s bill called for millions of dollars for surveys, summits, conferences, legislative activities, and research into subjects such as ways to “collect information beyond self-reports of intimate partner violence,”whatever that means. Given existing resources available to complainants, not a dime of the total price tag¾$218,600 million over four years¾can be justified.

If a “starter” OVA is set up in the Pentagon administratively, who would stop it from demanding all of the above and more? Not Secretary Rumsfeld, a tough guy with terrorists, who meekly said nothing in 2001 when the leaders of the old Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services used his autopen to re-appoint DACOWITSmembers, without his authorization.

The civilized concerns of men about violence against women are being used in a clever bit of psycho/political ju jitsu. Feminists are manipulating the protective instincts of men in order to obtain a new power base for themselves, even though they are doing everything possible to force otherwomen into violent situations, as long as it happens at the hands of the enemy.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld should not permit his legacy to be marred by shrewish termagants who terrorize the Pentagon long after the Bush Administration is gone.



1. The Wellesley Womens Centers website supports several controversial initiatives adopted at United Nations conferences in places like Beijing, plus treaties that would infringe American sovereignty, such as the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

2.  108 th Congress, 2nd Session, H.R. 5391, introduced by Rep. Slaughter on November 18, 2004,



Posted on Dec 1, 2005 Print this Article