RK ARCHIVE - Why women are offended by James Webb

She was deeply offended when she heard some of Jim Webb's words repeated -- particularly the comment that the Naval Academy was a "horny woman's dream."

Thank you in advance for addressing the issue of Mr. Webb+óGé¼Gäós positions on women in the military, specifically those concerning women midshipman of the Naval Academy. As the one who initiated Wednesday+óGé¼Gäós press conference in Richmond, let me reiterate that it was my idea ALONE to approach the Allen campaign requesting assistance in getting our message out. For 24 years, as a midshipman, and later as a commissioned officer, I remained apolitical, following the orders of +óGé¼+ôthose appointed over me+óGé¼-¥, as I was sworn to do. Now, as a retired Naval Commander, I am free to exercise my First Amendment rights and it bothers me greatly that the press is spinning this as an Allen campaign initiative. Our story is one about James Webb, and I while I appreciate the assistance of George Allen+óGé¼Gäós campaign in making our story public, I want the focus to remain on Webb, for without his poison pen, I would not be writing you today.

I would like to further reiterate that in November of 1979, when +óGé¼+ôWomen Can+óGé¼Gäót Fight+óGé¼-¥, was published, I was still in high school. Yet, the following year, when I was a plebe or freshman midshipman, the article was brandished in my face by my upperclass and gave legitimacy to the sexual harassment experienced by me and my fellow women midshipmen. Worse yet, was the effect the article had on my own male classmates, to whom I found justifying my very presence.

It came as no surprise that Mr. Webb submitted a statement, which can best be described as a non-apology, following our press conference. As they say, it was too little, too late. Too little, because he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the CONTENT of his article, +óGé¼+ôWomen Can+óGé¼Gäót Fight+óGé¼-¥ was a scurrilous attack on women midshipmen. I simply cannot accept that as a graduate of the institution, Mr. Webb would not anticipate the widespread reaction to his article. As a +óGé¼+ôprofessional+óGé¼-¥ writer, he must have known full well the impact that his sophomoric use of the English language, eg, +óGé¼+ôa horny woman+óGé¼Gäós paradise+óGé¼-¥, would have on the Brigade. I would ask Mr. Webb if his attack on the women midshipmen, in any way added to his coffers. He personally singled out and attacked then Midshipman Liz Belzer, knowing full well that she and the other women at the Naval Academy would have no means of rebuttal. That is, until today.

His +óGé¼+ôapology+óGé¼-¥ comes too late. The time for Mr. Webb to apologize for the CONTENT of his article, would have been back in 1983 when he claims that he visited the Academy and called for +óGé¼+ôharmony among male and female midshipmen+óGé¼-¥. The time to apologize would have been as Secretary of the Navy, to publicly acknowledge that he was WRONG in what he wrote about women Midshipmen and their potential for leadership in the naval service. His recent statement concerning his support of women in the military rings hollow in light of his long history of negative writings concerning women in the armed forces and can only be attributed to his political aspirations.

Comments

To answer your question, Lowell..... (Roger A. Jarrell - 9/17/2006 8:48:52 PM)

I do not have a problem with women serving in uniform -- even in certain combat capacities.

The Israeli military necessarily placed women into combat throughout various conflicts. There is no question that women have become a vital part of our military effectiveness.

While some of my conservative allies may not support my position on this subject, I can almost guarantee that their support of Jim Webb's positions against women serving in combat will not translate into support of him at the ballot box.

Is that what you are implying?

I'm not going to get into the whole VMI discussion again because too many people assume that because VMI is a military oriented school that it is somehow a de facto arm of the our Armed Forces -- it is not. In fact, it is a state run school.

During VMI's legal fight, I supported VMI retaining its all male status. I did so because I believe at the time that single sex education was a viable and valuable form of education. In fact, all female private colleges have proven to be quite effective.

However, as a state sponsored school, VMI necessarily had to provide equal opportunity and equal access under the 14th Amendment.

I now believe that the Supreme Court was correct in this decision. As a law student, I could see quite clearly how the VMI decision was the correct application of the Hogan decision (an earlier decision written by Sandra Day O'Connor).

But, I knew then...just as I know now that to state that women could perform effectively as cadets was wrong. My only point then was that single sex education works in some situations.

As the head of VMI alumni chapter, I have met some of the first women VMI grads. As a group, they are exceptional. One of them in my chapter has recently graduated from med school.

It is obvious to me that they shared in my VMI experiences. At the time, many were concerned that the VMI experience would forever be destroyed. That hasn't proven to be the case.

This line of discussion, however, is entirely different from one focusing on whether women can and should serve in uniform, leadership position, and combat roles.

The bottom line is that women have proven themselves to be effective in uniform. VMI's sole mission is to produce citizen-soldiers who serve effectively all walks of civilian life and who can become citizen soldiers ready in every time of deepest peril to defend their Nation.

This is in stark contrast to the service academies because all grads of the service academies must serve in uniform.

Traditionally, only 33% of VMI grads serve in uniform.