G.I. Jane Is a Role-Model for Evil
September 10, 1997
"G.I. Jane," directed by Ridley Scott, is a fitting sequel to his 1991 movie "Thelma
and Louise." Both movies try to idealize the macho victim, the tough, gun-toting woman
who triumphs over the perceived discriminations perpetrated by an unfair male-dominated society.
But sic transit gloria! Thelma and Louise freed themselves from an oppressive
patriarchal society by driving their automobile off a cliff. Their double suicide proved
they were liberated women because they made that death decision independently from
G.I. Jane (Demi Moore) proves she is a liberated woman by getting herself beaten
to a bloody pulp, almost raped, and subjected to extreme bodily harassment. To the
feminists, this is okay because her goal is to be treated just like men.
This is the kind of equality the feminist movement has always sought (and why
they remain a ridiculous subset of the left wing of the Democratic Party, far outside of the
mainstream). The feminists' legal oracle in the years before Ruth Bader Ginsburg
emerged, Yale Law School Professor Thomas I. Emerson, described the goal of gender
equality in the Yale Law Journal (April 1971): "As between brutalizing our young men
and brutalizing our young women, there is little to choose."
"G.I. Jane" is a movie with a message, so it's not real entertainment. It's a
psychological lesson designed to abolish the stereotype that men and women are
different, and to make Americans believe the myth that women can perform in combat
just like men, even in the toughest branch of the services, the Navy Seals.
The movie really doesn't help the feminist cause because the villain is a loud-mouthed Texas female Senator, whose sport is to humiliate military officers for not fully
integrating women into combat jobs. In order to keep her Senate seat, she spikes G.I.
Jane's career in the Seals by falsely accusing her of lesbianism. So much for sisterhood
among the feminists!
G.I. Jane proves that women can take a beating as well as a man, but so what? The
movie shows that she lacks the upper body strength to pull herself out of the water into a
boat, a rather elementary test for anyone seeking to be a Navy Seal.
We could talk about how dishonest the movie is in pretending that G.I. Jane could
do everything the Seals do. She couldn't; that's a Hollywood fiction created with tricky
photography, make-up, and a stand-in for the star.
We could argue about whether a woman can do as many pull-ups as a man (she
can't), or use the same gutter language as men (she can, and G.I. Jane did). We could talk
about what nonsense it is that a young man talks to a young woman in the shower and
doesn't notice she's nude.
We could talk about the gender-norming (i.e., scoring females higher than males
for the same performance), and about how officers tolerate sassing from their
subordinates if they are female (like G.I. Jane). We could talk about how the military lie
about all of the above, pretending to the public and to Congress that women are
performing equally with men.
But more important than all that is what the feminists are doing to America and to
the relationship of men and women.
The release of "G.I. Jane" coincided with the entry of women into Virginia
Military Institute (VMI) and the Citadel. On the slow news days of the last week of
August, the viewing audience was treated to many pictures of these turn-in-the-road
events ordered by the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court.
On television, it was hard to tell the girls from the boys in the VMI "rat line." The
girls had their heads shaved, and the VMI upperclassmen started their verbal and physical
abuse of the now-genderless "rats."
When G.I. Jane is being beaten and almost raped in the movie, we can see the
horror in the faces of the Seals who watch, and their contempt for the Master Chief who
performs this exercise. They joined the Navy to become real men, and now they are
being trained to be passive while watching a woman beaten and raped!
It's called sensitivity training to desensitize men about the abuse and mistreatment
of women. Such courses are now part of U.S. military training.
Will VMI and Citadel cadets now be given sensitivity training so they will get
used to abusing women in the rat line? VMI's superintendent pledged equal treatment to
all "rats" because now "VMI does not care if you are female or male."
Training civilized young men to suppress their inclinations to be protective and
courteous toward women is not merely wrong and stupid, it is evil and wicked. We have
no respect for the men who participate in the evil of programming men to treat women as
though they are men.
Civilization is on the chopping bloc. The feminists have not given us progress for
women; they are turning men into the stereotype of the caveman who drags his woman by
When the Promise Keepers gather in Washington in October, we hope they will
lead us on the long road back from feminist madness.