DATE: Sunday, June 22, 1997                 TAG: 9706190552

SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J2   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Book Review

SOURCE: BY ROSS C. REEVES 

                                            LENGTH:   78 lines

FRANCKE DOESN'T ALWAYS FIGHT FAIR IN ``THE GENDER WARS''

GROUND ZERO

The Gender Wars in the Military

LINDA BIRD FRANCKE

Simon & Schuster. 260 pp. $25.

Linda Bird Francke describes Ground Zero as her ``narrative of the cultural and biological forces at work within the military culture that divide the sexes and dictate women's harassment and demean their achievements.'' Measured by this stated objective, the book is a roaring success.

A journalist who has collaborated on the political biographies of four women, including Geraldine Ferraro and Benazir Bhutto, Francke is the epitome of both what is good and what is unsettling about advocacy journalism. Ground Zero is packed with information gleaned from official sources as well as compelling first-hand accounts from victims of sex discrimination and outright abuse in the military services. It is briskly and persuasively written, and Francke's points are clearly and forcefully stated: Although essential to an all-volunteer military, women are both mistreated and undervalued by the services. Neither condition will be ameliorated unless women are permitted to succeed in all roles, including combat.

What is troublesome about advocacy journalism also comes through: the a priori logic that crams square pegs of objective truth into the round holes of a preconceived agenda. The right questions do not get asked; contrary values are at best ignored and at worst ridiculed. Facts that do not fit the assumptions are contorted, avoided or misrepresented.

In this regard a few examples will perhaps be enlightening. The pro-combat women on the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services are ``lawyers, businesswomen, academics and public officials.'' But one dissenter who otherwise fits the description is dismissed as a ``marketing consultant to Kentucky Fried Chicken . . . and a director of the Kentucky Quilt Project,'' and the other as ``a lawyer from South Pittsburgh, Tennessee,'' who listed church activities in her resume. In other words, rubes.

According to Francke, women are not victimized by a ``military culture,'' a term that suggests military needs have a part in the debate. Rather, the culprit is a male culture ``driven by a group dynamic centered around male perceptions and sensibilities, male psychology, and power, male anxieties and the affirmation of masculinity.'' In support of this pop psychology she draws upon fiction, movies and reports of a ``legendary'' South American tribe to demonize male fixation with ``competition and graded contests,'' the ``almost erotic male worship between young men,'' hatred and fear of feminine virtues, ``shared male delight in publicly exhibiting their collective libidos'' through gang rape and identification with ``the national license to resolve conflict by violence.''

Taking to heart Georges Clemenceau's admonition that war is too serious to be left to the military, Francke blames all opposition to women in combat as part of a ``crusade to keep the best jobs'' for men and to defend the all-male club. She dismisses the effect of pregnancy on readiness by citing the irrelevant statistic that the pregnancy rate among servicewomen is no different from that of the general population, ironically the same rationale used by others to excuse appalling incidents of sexual assault and discrimination. She assumes without comment that the armed forces properly apply more lenient fitness requirements to women, and yet vociferously attacks claims that there has been gender-norming of tests to accommodate women.

Indeed, Francke belongs to a school of thought that holds that minimum attainment qualifies one for any task and that demanding further competence is unnecessary and discriminatory. Whatever its merits in civilian society, this vision of a Minimum Attainment Army mandated to ``look more like America'' is unsettling to many. Ground Zero has no such qualms and urges ``stepping up the numerical presence of women'' and ``altering the age-old hierarchy of military rank.'' Francke laments that ``nothing has been discovered yet to defuse the dynamic of men in groups and the collective necessity to subordinate women.'' Emphasis on yet.

A reasonably balanced exploration of the role of servicewomen - past, present and future - would be a welcome addition to the public debate. But even to readers sympathetic to the cause, Ground Zero doesn't have the right stuff. MEMO: Ross C. Reeves is a corporate attorney with Willcox & Savage,

P.C., in Norfolk.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu