The Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, is understandably distressed at the behaviour of some officers who have, on the evidence presented, allegedly sent emails around of them having sex with other women in Defence and the public service.
Obviously, officers should not be sleeping around and then boasting about it.
And this is where the Chief of Army’s good intent fails the logic test.
He is not upset about the first part, sexual promiscuity, just the bit that comes next. It’s perfectly acceptable, apparently, for officers to engage in robust consensual sexual activity with all and sundry. It’s just off limits for them to publicise it.
Now, I accept that sending around emails of women going at it without their consent is not on. What I don’t accept is the logic that if the women involved okayed the emails then it would all be hunky-dory.
So, if the Chief of Army is really interested in building a military force that respects women, then he needs to address the first part as well – sexual promiscuity.
And the Chief of Army really must be cut some slack here. We live in a society where sexual promiscuity is promoted. It’s going to be hard for the Army to rise above the lack of respect men and women show for themselves and others all over Australia.
So the message is this: don’t be surprised that officers and soldiers in the military commit sexual offences if society doesn’t really believe in sexual morals anymore. In fact, disappointing as this is, you should expect more to come.
It’s the only logical conclusion.
Especially if the Army is intent on continuing with policies that actually encourage perverted sexual promiscuity and ignore the basic fundamentals of human nature.
Take the Mardi Gras. You’re probably sick of hearing about it from me. But the truth is that at the Mardi Gras the Army marched proudly along with busloads of topless women and men dressed in leather g-strings. It supported groups who promote perverted sexual activity (their words, not mine). And children watched.
It’s kind of difficult to reconcile the Chief of Army’s intent for his soldiers to respect women when he thinks it’s cool to allow them to parade with topless sheilas who have no respect for themselves at all.
It’s impossible to understand how the Chief of Army can lend uniformed support to groups that campaign for sexual perversion and then get upset when his own soldiers commit their own version of perversion.
Then there’s the actual warfighting part the Army is supposed to focus on. The Chief of Army wants more women in uniform and he wants them on the front line.
I’ll say it right here. This is a recipe for disaster.
It will destroy warfighting capability. It will destroy cohesion and morale. It will destroy families. And it will only increase, not decrease, sexual offences committed by men in uniform.
That is because this stupid plan goes against every fibre of human nature and common-sense.
The military will always be a male-dominated environment. Anyone who wants to change that wants an army that cannot defend Australia.
I don’t think we are so politically correct yet that I cannot state this fact. Women are not as strong as men and, mostly, they don’t want to join up. Those that do are the exception.
Changing recruiting practices to accommodate for a minority of women who do not meet the physical standards of men is, to put it bluntly, a brainless waste of the recruiting dollar.
At most, it will result in reduced standards and a quota-based increase of women in a male dominated environment.
It is an environment where men are sent away from their families for long-periods in stressful environments.
If you don’t believe that this will increase sexual tensions and reduce morale amongst the team, then you don’t understand human nature.
If you don’t believe this will result in battlefield pregnancies, then you haven’t been paying attention to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
If you don’t believe this will result in battlefield abortions, then you don’t understand that this will be the crowning glory of the rabid feminist movement.
If you don’t believe this will destroy families when husbands have affairs on operations, then you lack any common-sense.
And if you think this will increase the Army’s ability to wage war in any way, shape or form, then you are simply delusional.
If the Chief of Army really want to show some respect for women, then he might start by taking measures to look after the wives of soldiers. They want their husband’s team to be strong, so he will come home alive. And when he does come home, these wives don’t want it to be with another woman’s arm around him.