T A B L E__T A L K

Would you give your kids Ritalin to calm them down? Join the debate in Table Talk

- - - - - - - - - -

Year-end round up:
The mother of all years
By the editors of Mothers Who Think
A mom's almanac of the sad, silly, serious and sublime stories that made news in '97

Family myths, family realities
By Stephanie Coontz
A string of lurid cases this year drew attention away from the real challenges that confront American families
(12/23/97)

- - - - - - - - - -

R E C E N T L Y

The Forgiven (Part 2)
By Michelle Goldberg
What do you call someone who befriends the man who tortured, raped, killed and cannibalized her daughter? Crazy? Or a saint?
(01/08/98)

The Forgiven (Part 1)
By Michelle Goldberg
Who would befriend such savage murderers? The victims' parents did
(01/07/98)

Time for One Thing
By Elizabeth Rapoport
Stop apologizing
(01/06/98)

Cyberspace: The final dating frontier
By Eve Glicksman
A cyber romantic discovers that the Web can bring doctors, bankers, engineers and old college boyfriends to your door
(01/05/98)

- - - - - - - - - -

BROWSE THE
MOTHERS ARCHIVES

- - - - - - - - - -

Mamafesto
By Camille Peri
Why it's time
for Mothers Who Think

BY DAWN MacKEEN | For some women, it was more like a sex ring than a military education. At Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, sexual harassment, rape and adultery allegedly became part of the unofficial curriculum for 50 women. In Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., a group of drill sergeants was accused of having sex with their female trainees. In the last year, training bases became known more as sexual proving grounds than as places where young men and women learn how to become good soldiers.

Last month a Pentagon-appointed panel released its recommendation to remedy the military's sexual-misconduct problems: Separate the men from the women in basic training. After interviewing 1,000 recruits and 500 instructors, the 11-member panel, which was formed in the wake of Aberdeen, found that mixed-gender training was hurting unit cohesion and that many men and women had become so concerned about sexual harassment, they avoided talking to each other unless a witness was present.

The panel, led by former Kansas Sen. Nancy Kassebaum Baker, stopped short of endorsing complete separation, and instead recommended single sex core units -- the platoon in the Army, the flight in the Air Force and the division in the Navy. Men and women would still be able to march together and train together in field and physical activities, which account for approximately 70 percent of their time. This, according to the report, would allow men and women to focus more on training.

Currently, the Marines is the only branch of the armed services that trains men and women separately. The Air Force instituted gender-integrated training in 1976, the Army in 1993 and the Navy in 1994. The panel's other recommendations include raising the physical standards for women in the military, hiring more women drill instructors and separating men and women in different barracks. The chiefs of the three branches have three months to respond to the report.

Salon recently spoke with Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent think tank that specializes in military personnel issues, about the Pentagon's recommendations, the physical differences between men and women and the risks of putting pregnant women on combat ships.

Do you think the panel's recommendations are a knee-jerk response to the recent highly publicized sexual harassment cases in the military?

I wouldn't say that the Kassebaum report was a knee-jerk response. I think it was well-written and had original conclusions that are grounded more in reality than in theory. A good sound personnel policy encourages discipline, not indiscipline. And to throw young men and women together in situations where they live and work and sleep together without any type of separation or privacy between the sexes is asking for trouble, and trouble is what we've seen. A sex club atmosphere developed at Aberdeen, and it exists at some of the basic training bases. There have been sexual tradeoffs between drill sergeants and trainees and sometimes abusive relationships. I see [the problems at] Aberdeen as a direct result of the gender-integration policies of the Army.

Many women's rights organizations say that the separation of the sexes is a step backward for women.

This is not a step forward, backward or whatever. The issue is, what is the best way to train men and women in military operation? And the evidence is overwhelming that the best way to train them is to train them separately. I just don't see it as a women's rights issue -- it's a national security issue.

What will separating the sexes at the basic training level accomplish?

It will do what it has in the Marine Corps and that is improve the training for both men and women. I visited a number of Marine bases myself as a member of the Presidential Commission in 1992, and I don't think I talked to a single woman Marine who would have training any other way, especially at the basic training level. Transforming civilians into military people is a very complicated, intense process as it is. To introduce the distraction of sexuality is something the Marine women don't want. This policy was changed under the Clinton administration.

N E X T+P A G E: Should women have tougher physical standards?