|
 ews of a pregnant
woman choosing to live in barracks and continue her military training
at VMI is by now barely
noteworthy,
a "reasonable accommodation" in a nation committed, above all, to
the ideal of civic equality.
Likewise, soon-to-be governor of Massachusetts, Republican Jane
Swift, will likely take office, then give birth to twins, in that
order. Ms. Swift assures all doubters that telecommuting will enable
her to fulfill her obligations as a mother of three and a governor
— though she seemed to struggle with this balance after the
birth of her first child, receiving public condemnation for using
her official staff as babysitters.
In the VMI case, the now four-months-pregnant cadet will stay enrolled
at the military institute, with the option of "medical leave" if
(or more likely when) her "condition" interferes with her military
duties. In a press release, VMI explained the three options offered
to the woman: "1) An administrative leave of absence until her personal
circumstance permits resumption of full participation in the VMI
experience, 2) Provision of separate living quarters on post rather
than continuing to live in the Barracks, and 3) To remain in the
Barracks." So far, the school reports, "the cadet has elected to
remain in the barracks."
As if offering a disclaimer, VMI says it is doing what is required
"pursuant to Title IX," which orders that a school "not exclude
any student from its education program…on the basis of such
student's pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of
pregnancy or recovery therefrom." The fact that military training,
by its very nature, is incompatible with pregnancy makes no difference.
The law is the law.
What's more, the military institute, while bending over backwards
to meet its legal obligations to provide the mother-to-be with every
opportunity to continue her training, has made no indication that
it will release the cadet of her oath not to be married. Presumably,
husbands are a distraction from training; pregnancy and children
are not. The woman's right to participation is protected; the child's
"right" to a father is not.
Surely, VMI has not had an easy four years since the
| “The
fact that military training, by its very nature, is incompatible
with pregnancy makes no difference. The law is the law.” |
|
Supreme
Court decided U.S. v. Virginia, the case ending the
school's all-male military-style instruction. This latest development
is the direct result of Justice Ginsburg's confused reasoning in
that case — in which she maintained in her majority opinion
that no modification of VMI's "adversative method" of training would
be necessary to make the school co-ed, then in a footnote asserted
that alterations would be required "to accommodate women."
v
More deeply, the novelty of pregnant cadets (at VMI and the other
military academies) results from the grave inadequacies of modern
feminism — which prizes autonomy over duty, rights over responsibilities,
self over sacrifice. (Of course, the same could be said of the
modern crisis of manliness.)
In the VMI case, women's groups advanced the standard line of feminist
reasoning — claiming that gender is no different from race;
that the characteristics that make good soldiers, such as bravery
and courage, are as readily found in women as in men. But this ignores
the more important, more difficult, post-feminist question of whether
equality means sameness. This riddle — how to balance the
civic equality of women and the natural differences between the
sexes, including the obligations those differences impose —
is the very thing most feminists refuse to confront. Instead, we're
left treating pregnancy as a "temporary disability" and preparing
pregnant women for the frontlines.
Feminist writer Naomi Wolf argues that pictures of women in combat
have helped Americans get over their stuffy and traditionalist ideas
about feminine aggressiveness. About this important fact she is
right: Women have made great contributions to the military; they
can, should, and will continue to do so. But are we really better
off as a nation if we see photographs of pregnant "rats" (as VMI
upperclassmen refer to first-year cadets) doing push-ups while their
"superiors" stand over and scream at them? Of course, the truth
is that we are unlikely ever to see such pictures — but only
because the physical requirements of the curriculum will most likely
be altered "to accommodate" our pregnant soldiers.
The irony is that the role of generals and mothers alike is to put
the good of the "other" — the state, the child — ahead
of the desires of the "self." In this case, neither is served, only
the imagined good of the "equal" and "empowered" cadet. Such frivolities
are the luxury of an affluent nation in peaceful times. Perhaps,
tragically, it will take some real hardship to restore our sanity.
|
