It is galling that on the centenary of the Battle of Gallipoli the Australian Army is facing an existential threat from its own leadership. This threat is for the very soul of the Army comes in the chilling form of political correctness and the dead hand of orthodox feminism. It appears Clemenceau was correct when he observed that “War was too important to be left to the generals.”
Many astute readers of A Voice For Men will be aware of the fraudulent White Ribbon Australia campaign (as opposed to the legitimate WhiteRibbon.org, which is not affiliated with the Australian group–Eds). They will be aware of how not a cent of the money the campaign earns has yet to go near anything remotely connected to domestic violence. They will also be aware of how the figures about domestic violence the campaign quotes were simply made up out of thin air, as they inevitably had to be, in order to support the equally fanciful myth that underpins the entire campaign, namely that only men are perpetrators of domestic violence. And if that was not enough, to add insult to injury, the name of the campaign itself was stolen from Erin Pezzey the founder of the first shelter for victims of domestic violence in the UK, who created the White Ribbon that actually cares about all victims of Domestic Violence. (1)
What readers outside of Australia may not be aware of though is that the Australian Army is, as an institution, closely associated with the dubious White Ribbon Australia and great pressure is placed upon serving members to participate in it. The Chief of the Australian Army, Lt. General David Morrison, who self-identifies as a feminist, has even publicly stated that it is his hope that the Army will be the largest single organization associated with campaign. But how did it come to pass that Australia’s beloved Army, custodians of the ANZAC heritage, come to tarnish its hard won reputation by being associated with a transparent and outrageous fraud?
Part of the answer is that in 2013, just when Lt. General Morrison the now notorious “Jedi Council” scandal broke. This involved male soldiers filming female soldiers having sex and posting the footage on the Australian Army’s internal internet. Lt. Morrison responded by famously posting a video statement in which he tells those soldiers involved that there is no place for such actions or for them in the Australian Army. The video became an overnight viral sensation and the General a national personality.
So far so good. So where did things go wrong? How could a crucial western nation in the middle of the War on Terror be afflicted by an ideology that threatens to completely destroy its morale, discipline and effectiveness. Lt. General Morrison claims that as result of this and exposure to the problems of sexual harassment faced by women soldiers by members of his staff he decided that the solution was the adoption of the feminist ideology not just personally but as the governing philosophy of the Australian Army. This was entirely in keeping with feminism’s self-presentation as the sole defenders of women rather than a ruthless political programme responsible for the ruthless politicization of rape as means of leveraging power.
However in adopting the ideology of feminism Morrison did not get real about the issue of women in the military and the issues they face. He got ideological which is a denial of reality which in turn for an Army is a recipe for disaster. In self identifying as a feminist Morrison identifies himself as an ideologue and a partisan of an ideology that is based upon demonstrably false premises and can only be sustained through the industrial scale generation of false data and the ruthless suppression of even the slightest dissent through smearing anyone who would question its assumptions as rapists or rape enablers.
Such a mindset informs the (dishonest, unethical) White Ribbon Australia campaign which Lt. General Morrison has fallen for hook, line and sinker. Through Morrison and his immediate predecessor, Lt. General Gillespie, who is listed as one the campaign’s paid board members, feminism has been able to enlist the prestige and authority of the Army to its service. Young male Australian soldiers have been, and one suspects are still today, led by Generals who regard soldiers innocent of the rape or abuse of women themselves, but who do not sign up to feminism as the enablers of such things. This is a terrible and unwarranted opinion for any officer to have of the troops under him but it is especially deplorable in the Chief of the Army. In such an environment could any soldier really exercise a free choice not to participate in the White Ribbon Australia campaign?
Feminism is a particularly intolerant ideology and within a military framework this aspect is only exacerbated. A sour, intolerant climate of fear for stepping out of line with the new doctrine and atmosphere of political correctness has taken hold in the Army. In a recent interview posted on the Army’s Facebook page, Lt. General Morrison stated that there is also apparently no place in the Army for those soldiers who do not agree with this dramatic change of martial culture. At the end of his interview Morrison especially singles out young male soldiers, who have borne the brunt of the fighting in all Armies from the dawn of time and always will, for special hostile attention as being amongst those who need to get with, not just the new feminist agenda, but what Morrison himself describes as a feminine culture he wishes to see prevail throughout the Army. (2)
That there might be sound reasons, and not just sexism, why Armies have always been predominantly male and governed by a male ethos seems to have eluded Australia’s senior soldier. More than at any other time in our history Australia has desperate need of the traditional, cheeky, irreverent Digger and his contempt for overbearing, pompous authority to keep the Army grounded in reality, true to itself and a safe and fit institution for freemen and women to serve.
Feminism is a deliberately divisive ideology, it being largely a product of the Frankfurt School’s campaign to subvert Western society from within and achieve what the Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci described as , “the long march through the institutions.” Feminism is not about gender equality but is a radically illiberal and anti-enlightenment ideology. Having Feminism as the guiding philosophy of successive Chiefs of the Army represents a dangerous politicization of the Army. This in itself represents a fundamental challenge to the social contract that renders a regular Army compatible with democracy. In feminism the Australian Army faces a more serious threat to its continued existence that that posed by any foreign enemy. They simply sought to kill as many Diggers (Australian soldiers) as they could, not destroy the Army’s soul.
As the name implies, is inherently chauvinist and inevitably demands special privileges for women at the expense of men whilst still being celebrated as victims no matter what their personal circumstances or achievements. Although it clearly regards women as superior to men it oxymoronically lacks confidence in their ability to achieve success without marshalling the full power of the state. Under such circumstances women who do achieve have to endure having their accomplishments permanently second guessed. Ironically, contrary to the intent, the grandstanding of women in the Army by the High Command actually undermines their acceptance as soldiers as an unremarkable and normal state of affairs.
Feminism rejects equality of opportunity, or as we say in Australia, “a fair go” which is liberalism. Rather it promotes equality of outcome which is Maoism. If the Australian Army was, like many European Armies, only ever involved in Peacekeeping Operations then it could get away with this. However the Australian Army is deeply involved in the War on Terror and such a policy will simply get people killed. There are many roles in the Army in which women can make a real contribution including combat support roles especially in Counter insurgencies. Because there is no frontline in these types of conflicts the difference between these roles and what used to be known as the “teeth arms” (Infantry, Artillery, Armour) may at times seem somewhat academic. However insisting that women be integrated into these corps can only be achieved by lowering standards thus degrading performance and needlessly putting lives, and indeed the nation, at risk.
Unlike the Olympics there is no special women’s events in war run parallel to those of men. Its demands are absolute and failure is fatal. As the British Army found out the hard way during trials in the 1990s when men and women had to meet the same physical standards it resulted in over 60% of the women being unable to continue training due to injuries. (3) Women cannot be integrated into combat forces, certainly not at levels that would satisfy feminists without lowering standards. Of course women ought to be able to achieve all they can in the Army but it ought to be kept in mind that all soldiers are there to serve the Army, not the other way round.
Lt. General Morrison’s revulsion at the abuse of women soldiers was commendable but, in reaction, to adopt feminism as an ideology was to embrace ignorance and prejudice. In doing so he showed himself to be easily led and intellectually unsophisticated. These are hardly characteristics one wishes to find in a Chief of Army. Although obviously painfully well intentioned Morrison is at best a gullible ideologue who was clearly unsuited to high command. Using Feminism as his primary organizing principle and politicalizing the Australian Army through association with the White Ribbon Australian campaign Morrison, despite his life time of devoted service, has done much reputational damage to it as an institution. To be of any use in protecting Australia, the Army is the one institution above all others that must remain both apolitical and ruthlessly meritocratic rather than making it the plaything of feminism.
References:
1. Elam P, “White Ribbon Fraud Exposed, A Voice For Men; Nov 23 2014.
2. Anne Summers in Conversation with Lt. General David Morrison A.O., Australian Army Facebook page, 2015.
3. Injuries Among Female Army Recruits; A Conflict of Legislation, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Jan 2002.
Interview Lt. General Morrison
JRDM
