Why the US army declared war on sexism, racism and global warming

МОСКВА, 30 декабря 2021, Институт РУССТРАТ. In the United States, a scandal is breaking out around another crazy idea of the new leadership of the Pentagon — to check a good half of its own servicemen for ... misogyny. The questionnaire, distributed to almost a million American soldiers and officers in the first half of December, is full of formulations such as "Many women are more blameless than men" and "Men are inferior without women”. All this is already being discussed on social networks. "It’s a good thing the military has their priorities in place. Racism, sexism, and climate change. We’re all safer now,” read the sarcastic tweet of Katie Phipps Hague - the wife of a former US Army lieutenant colonel who resigned this autumn due to his refusal to vaccinate against COVID-19, expressing the point of view of many Americans on the initiative of the Department of Defence in the best possible way. The misogyny test has become another drop in the sea of ideas of the new Pentagon leadership, executed in the spirit of tolerance and political correctness. Moreover, many of them are painfully perceived by American society, already traumatised by the shameful flight of its army from Afghanistan. "Don't stop! Russia and China are already trembling with horror!" the audience bitterly ironises, convinced that all this "cultural Marxism" will not lead to good. However, more far-sighted observers find a completely different explanation for the flirtation of the Department of Defence with the "agenda". "The generals just want to get even more money for themselves," they say. How exactly? Let's figure it out. "Folks have something to say" A forty-page survey on the topic "Workplace and gender relations" has become available for responses on the website dodsurveys.mil on December 9, 2021 and a few days later it leaked onto the Internet. One of its sections, "Social perception and experience", contains a whole list of provocative statements about the role of women in society, which respondents must confirm or deny. A number of judgments are openly misandrist (man-hating, to put it simply) in nature, for example: "Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess”, “Women should be cherished and protected by men”, "Men are incomplete without women”, "Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility" and "Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores”. Other theses, on the contrary, are emphatically misogynistic: "Women seek to gain power by getting control over men", "Women exaggerate problems they have at work", "When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against", "Many women get a kick out of teasing men by seeming sexually available and then refusing male advances" and "Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash". These and other statements have to now be evaluated by 750,000 American servicemen, as well as 230,000 National guardsmen and reservists who randomly received an invitation to the survey. But they can be joined by hundreds of thousands of other army men whom the Pentagon also invited "to share their opinions about sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the army”. It is promised that participation in the survey is voluntary, and the answers are confidential. However, from the phrase "We suspect a lot of folks have something to say”, which was uttered by Dr. Rachel Breslin, chief of military gender relations research within the DOD's Office of People Analytics, the curiosity of the interrogator winnows. Meanwhile, in the previous similar study of 2018, there were no such formulations. Another novelty is the "transgender" column, which can now be filled in by the "GI" participating in the survey. All of this together, but above all the controversial content of the questionnaire, caused predictable bewilderment not only among the military, but also in the feminist community. Note that the authors of the study call their brainchild "the only official source of data on the topic of gender relations in the army”, although it has no scientific significance. For example, Brian Cox, a professor at Cornell University Law School, left no stone unturned from the Workplace and Gender Relations survey, criticising it not only for bias, but also for its ridiculous methodology. It is clear that a person who has been sexually assaulted or experiencing other sexual problems is more likely to spend time and effort on participating in such "sociology" than someone who is fine. This leads to huge distortions in the results, says Cox. But it is on their basis that US officials rant, for example, about 20,500 annual cases of rape in the American army… So why did the Pentagon need to waste time on pseudo-research? "Urinate standing up without taking off your clothes" Before answering, we will give other characteristic examples from the life of the American military department that raise the same question. What did the first black US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin mean when, in early 2021, he announced the suspension of the work of all Pentagon structures for 60 days in order to eradicate "white supremacy and other extremism" in their ranks? Why does the recruitment video clip of the US Army talk about a girl with two LGBT mothers (she, by the way— is the only white one in the corresponding propaganda series of videos) - and even in such a manner that it was necessary to turn off the comments below the video? Why did Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby in November actually equate China and climate change as the main threats to US national security? How far will it go to follow the recommendation from the Georgetown University report for the Department of Defence to reduce the emphasis on the physical fitness of military personnel in order to overcome the "culture of toxic masculinity rooted in beliefs about the physical superiority of men"? Was it really necessary for the US Air Force to introduce a policy of gender-neutral pronouns in internal correspondence so that everyone could call themselves "he", "she" and even "they" in documents? Why on earth would a transgender person be invited to break a bottle on the side of the launched tanker-refuelled of the US Navy "Harvey Milk", named after an American gay activist? What was the leadership of the US Military Academy thinking when agreeing to the course “Understanding Whiteness and White Rage” as a part of Critical Race Theory for their cadets? Is Admiral Christopher Grady, who is applying for the post of deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, extolling the role of gender advisers in combat units, in his right mind? Why did the Pentagon need to create special women's body armour and uniforms for pregnant pilots, as well as special Female Urinary Diversion Device kits that allow one to urinate standing up and without taking off one’s clothes? And did allowing women to wear ponytails with any outfit, including a helmet, in addition to earrings and painted nails, help the American army much? Perhaps there are enough examples. It's time to answer, finally, what is the reason for all these oddities. "Give more money" Some analysts believe that all this appealing to women, gays and transgender people is largely a forced measure in conditions when there is simply no one to serve in the US army. No wonder at the end of 2020, a letter from almost 800 retired senior officers to the then Secretary of Defence Christopher Miller caused a great resonance, stating that 71% of Americans aged 17 to 24 were unable to serve in the military due to obesity, drug abuse, poor education or criminal past. Among the right, the more popular narrative is that the Pentagon simply surrendered to the mercy of the left agenda - although the corresponding plans were developed during the presidency of Donald Trump. It was under precisely the former President that it was decided to significantly increase the number of women in the army, including at senior levels. But perhaps the real reason lies elsewhere. The flirtation of the US military establishment with minorities is caused by its cynical desire to get more funding and privileges from those political groups in Washington that are now on the horse. Especially in conditions when there are no real threats to America's security. Many American experts adhere to the same narrative. "So, by pushing wokeism, the Pentagon and the CIA win either way. The conservatives will never actually endanger the military and intelligence budgets, and the Left will embrace the new ‘tolerant’ military-industrial complex all the more," writes, for example, Ryan McMaken, senior editor of the Mises Institute. And he says the same thing about the CIA. It remains to add that the new US defence budget for 2022, already approved by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and submitted to the president for signature, amounts to a record $777 billion - this is 25 billion more than Biden requested, and 5% more than the defence budget for 2021. For such a lot of money, other American generals will probably agree to change their gender and even become Marxists themselves. So why wouldn't they please democratic ideologues by turning the US army into a hotbed of "new normality"?