Small Wars Journal

How Not to Integrate Females into Combat Arms

Share this Post

How Not to Integrate Females into Combat Arms

Anonymous

So, now that the Pentagon has decided to integrate females into combat arms units, against the recommendations and opinions of the Marine Corps, 85% of Rangers and Special Forces personnel, and the majority of Army combat arms personnel, the question turns to how to do so in the best manner possible. “Best,” however, is a very interesting word. Depending on one’s views towards the purpose of the military and the greater issue of how to bring about greater equality for women, “best” can take on any number of different meanings. First, I’d like to highlight the four main groups and their opinions on this issue.

“Hyper Macho Male Combat Arms Types”

The vast majority of combat arms personnel are simply against women in combat, so their position is quite straightforward, if not always articulated very well. Women and men are different - mentally, socially, physically, sexually, and physiologically - this group’s thinking goes. Therefore putting women into close and intimately personal contact with men usually results in issues beyond the scope of mere personality. Depending on the task, women and men on the same team can have widely disparate effects, sometimes good, often bad.

Combat units, for most traditional tasks, would require such physical and emotional standards as to disqualify the majority of men and the vast majority of women. Combat unit teams and units below a certain level (normally brigade level- or any level that is closely engaged in the role of combat units: “to seek out and kill the enemy”) bond best through shared norms of the majority, which, in this case, is male. Called “hyper macho masculine culture” by advocates for female integration, this culture allows small combat units to overcome insurmountable obstacles in the heat of battle and the monotony of the “in-between” times. Attempting to change this culture and get teams to bond in other ways is at the least an untried theory that could result in the loss of combat power and small level unit cohesiveness. Added to the increased levels of reporting, monitoring, sexually related investigations, and sexually related training, the cost to combat arms units will be great compared to any theoretical gains, of which most are arguable.

“Second Wave Feminists”

The exact opposite of the combat arms personnel position is the so-called “second wave feminist” position on integration of women into the combat arms. Whereas “third wave feminists” are much more apt to disagree vociferously with each other about the ways in which women should be perceived by society (the group arguably includes Miley Cyrus fans and trans women who abhor the term “vagina” as an offensive word), second wave feminists are largely in agreement on the need to overturn social norms with regard to women. These feminists are, on average, older than the younger, third wave feminists who make up the majority of those currently in the active military. Second wave feminists are generally looking to transform society, and are convinced that most, if not all, obstacles to female equality are social constructions. Naturally, any problems associated with women being equal to men are not the fault of women, but the fault of the male-dominated system of oppression in which women operate.

Thus, second wave feminists, who make up the majority of those advocating within the Pentagon for integration, are likely to call for massive systemic change and not just for the opportunity for those who can pass the standards. They call into question all standards, want women to be specially trained to pass the standards, and want to assume that the force can reach at least 33% female representation, if not 50%. Worse, they call for very special monitoring and pressure to be placed on the leadership of the military until these percentages are reached. LTC Kate Germano and retired Colonel Ellen Haring fit into this group for the most part and say things like, “just hold everyone to the same standard, women will rise to the standard, and if there are any problems, kick the bad men out and re-educate the others.”

“Third Wave Feminists”

Third wave feminists and those of their generation argue for equal treatment as opposed to special treatment, although this largely reflects only the majority of female views within the military forces themselves. Some third wave feminists, mostly found in academia, argue for, among other things: the overhauling of the entire military system in order to allow a spectrum of genders and other identities to fully express themselves, the abolishment of the military itself (if nothing else, third wave feminists are often contradictory), and the establishment of a different society wherein the patriarchy and all of its supporting processes and systems are overthrown.

Within the military, however, third wave feminists and their allies are normally not the allies of critical theorists, but just want to be given the same opportunities as men. These I like to categorize as those who grew up on movies showing 110 pound women beating up 250 pound men. Although many seem at times to contradict themselves (as all humans are wont to do), generally they call for equal treatment, no special treatment, and nothing along the lines of systemic change of the “macho male culture” of combat arms. Indeed, most yearn to be a part of that culture, not to change it (although, arguably, by their very presence and our current PC culture, they will change it). They say things like, “I just want to be treated equally and be one of the guys.”

“Military Industrial Complex”

The only other group worth mentioning is what I will call the “Military Industrial Complex” group. This is a small group of men who operate at the highest levels of the military, academia (retired military), the contracting world, and in DoD civilian positions in which to show opposition to integration of females could jeopardize their future employment. A small portion of these men are also men who had few to no sons of their own and have pushed their daughters to do the things they would have liked to have seen their non-existent sons accomplish. A very few number of this group are actual “true” believers in the sense that they either see themselves as enlightened “progressives” and have bought into the “females equal males” dogma or just like to support those who do. Counted among their number are some higher-ranking military officers who simply harbor jealousy towards combat arms units. For the most part, this group thinks that very, very few women will make it into combat arms and, for those that do, very few of them will cause problems to the mission of the combat arms. This group says things like, “soon, things will return to normal and most of us won’t see any changes.”

The Military’s Plan

Unfortunately for the first, third, and fourth groups, the group that has the most influence on how to integrate women into the combat arms is the second group: the second wave feminists. This group has its objectives subordinate to the greater second wave feminist objective of re-working society so that women are seen as the same as men in all ways. That means, of course, that equality is measured by outcome and is a long-term effort, and much more systemic than simply an opening of jobs. Equality of opportunity is, as they have borrowed a term from academic third wave feminists, “a tool of the patriarchy” and is used to keep women “out.” Instead, the military must be transformed and none of this effort should be relaxed until the greater goal of social transformation is complete.

The signs of the second wave feminist control of the integration process are seen in the latest plans to integrate females:

  • Combat arms training and selection courses will have 4 unqualified female observers assigned to them in perpetuity until a cadre of female leaders is established in their higher units
  • Female observers will be assigned down to company level to ensure fair treatment of all females in training courses
  • Females will be assigned to operational units in such a way- called “pooling”- as to prevent the isolation of single female combat arms soldiers (for some units this will require females to be “pooled” arguably at the team or squad level if that is the level at which interaction is “favorable”)
  • Higher HQs (division level and lower) are tasked to specially manage and supervise female combat arms soldiers individually in operational units
  • A minimum of 3 pooled females in training courses is required in order to ensure an adequate population for training
  • Female packets for combat arms will be screened and expedited specially by HQs in order to expedite female leaders arriving to units
  • 1 female infantry officer must be assigned to a company before any female enlisted are assigned to that company, in order to ensure they have the best shot at being mentored and being successful
  • Commands must provide monthly reports detailing a host of measures specifically aimed at assessing female success in combat arms and units’ successes in integration
  • All units will conduct special sexual harassment and sexual assault classes, will establish reporting mechanisms and processes specially for all female-related incidents, and will establish pregnancy policies that address the unique circumstances of their career fields and any detrimental effects being pregnant can have on a female officer within the combat arms

Surprisingly, or not for that matter, special operations forces such as the 75th Ranger Regiment and the U.S. Army Special Forces are being held to even greater standards in order to ensure the success of women in those two units. The amount of reporting, sexual harassment training, and planning and preparation in advance of receiving women into these units is breathtaking, taking into consideration that these units continue to experience high deployment rates into combat zones and other places around the world. The pressure from the second wave feminists and their allies within the Pentagon is perceived as too grave a threat to higher-ranking commanders throughout the combat arms, but more so within the special operations community. The commanders’ intent of these organizations is clear and has had an adverse effect on the community- a community that is 85% against this in the first place: “we do not want to be seen as dragging our feet on this issue.” That the real issue is the threat to careers of these higher ranking commanders is the de facto conventional wisdom and has deepened a feeling of late that the command cares more about field grade, general officer, and sergeants major careers than they do about their forces.

One of three things will result in this integration effort: 1) there will be a backlash and/or regime change in DC and things will go for the most part like they have for our allies who have attempted this: very few women will get into combat arms, and that will be the norm, 2) this will continue into perpetuity until we get at least 33% of combat arms to be female, or, 3) we will get at least 33% of our force to be female and those in will be promoted and find success at the same rate as their male peers.

For numbers 2 and 3, the potential degradation of our combat arms fighting spirit, the loss of the “hyper macho male” cultural bonding, and the time spent on non-combat efforts (sexual harassment training, sexual investigations, special reporting, etc.), is hand-waived by the advocates. But, they are both a very real possibility and very difficult to prove with quantifiable methods as they have both non-linear and time delayed effects. Finding something with which to get teams of people to get motivated towards doing something like closing with and killing others other than through traditional male bonding rituals will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. To keep these groups focused on remaining at a high level of mental preparedness for combat arms units missions with the added distraction of male and female relationships, the intense interest from higher headquarters on female success, and all of the extra training and reporting requirements these units will have to take on will also be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

For all three of the potential results, however, there is another issue that is very likely. That issue is that fewer and fewer men might want to go into combat arms and even fewer will want to go into the special operations units. These units, like it or not, attract a certain demographic and that demographic is solidly heteronormative, traditional male, strongly conservative and religious believing (if not practicing). If these men decide that combat arms is no longer a collection of units that allows them to fulfill what they think it means to be an American man anymore, then the very difficult job of recruiting into these units could balloon into an even worse situation, one in which entire companies have to be mothballed due to not having enough personnel to fill their positions. Ironically, THAT could be the reason standards are lowered and more females eventually become combat arms qualified: because there aren’t enough strong men who want to be combat arms anymore.

The genie is, however out of the bottle. Even a regime change in DC and a shift to a more conservative outlook in general could still result in major changes to our combat arms units by sheer dent of momentum and the difficulty in rolling back the bureaucracy once it gets going. Once women get into these units- even in small numbers- the damage to the aura of these units and the allure they have within the population and in the minds of young people could be forever changed. That is why it is very disingenuous to compare ourselves to our allies, as their forces are very different and their cultures are very different than ours in many ways. Ignoring those differences, if we had gone about this integration in the ways in which our allies had, we would not be rolling out the red carpet in the way in which we are about to do. We would not be establishing requirements in perpetuity and aiming at 33% of the force to be female. We would simply have opened the doors of opportunity and, for those interested in being a part of the “hyper macho male” culture of combat arms who could pass the physical standards, they could have joined.

But, I could be wrong and the younger generations view women differently than us old fogies and men will have no problems bonding with women and treating them the same as they do men and women will not develop relationships with men on their teams. Looking at the experiences of co-ed units in the military, the military academies, and civilian universities, however, this author doubts it.

The author is an active duty officer who is not against women in combat or in assistance of combat arms units, when the mission requires it. The author is in favor of promoting more women to general officer, since obviously our general officers have not distinguished themselves in the last decade(+) and maybe some of that was the very narrow band of experience (combat arms for the most part) in which they are drawn. The author is in favor of allowing women more opportunities to serve, but thinks that treating them like men is a non-productive effort: either standards will have to change or we won’t get many in combat arms. The answer, instead of treating women like men, is to change the personnel system- which currently has a cookie-cutter approach to personnel management that helps no-one except for the risk-averse career person who knows how to check off things on lists and stay out of trouble, but does not help those who simply want to accomplish missions.

About the Author(s)

The author is an active duty officer who is not against women in combat or in assistance of combat arms units, when the mission requires it. The author is in favor of promoting more women to general officer, since obviously our general officers have not distinguished themselves in the last decade(+) and maybe some of that was the very narrow band of experience (combat arms for the most part) in which they are drawn. The author is in favor of allowing women more opportunities to serve, but thinks that treating them like men is a non-productive effort: either standards will have to change or we won’t get many in combat arms. The answer, instead of treating women like men, is to change the personnel system- which currently has a cookie-cutter approach to personnel management that helps no-one except for the risk-averse career person who knows how to check off things on lists and stay out of trouble, but does not help those who simply want to accomplish missions.

Comments

BattleHard

Fri, 01/01/2016 - 11:59am

Recently Ash Carter and his wife visited service members in Iraq. Mrs. Carter requested to meet a group of female service members on this trip. Someone I know very well was one of the female service members who met in a group with Mrs. Carter. Mrs. Carter asked questions such as how was the food and how was the mail service as opposed to how was the mission and did they have everything they needed to support the fight. She concluded the meeting by handing out make-up products to all the women. So, within two weeks of her husband announcing the opening of all positions to women, Mrs. Carter is handing out make-up in a war zone. What message is being sent here? Are these women supposed to be more concerned with their facial products, food, and mail service than their kit, equipment, training and mission? Others may determine that this was no big deal. I was and am appalled that this was the focus of the meeting and that the expectation was that these women needed to 'feel good about themselves' rather than, what else do you need to kick ass over here and be the best Soldier, Marine, Airmen you can be?

Move Forward

Thu, 12/31/2015 - 9:12pm

Will probably regret getting into this argument again.

<blockquote>“Hyper Macho Male Combat Arms Types”
The vast majority of combat arms personnel are simply against women in combat, so their position is quite straightforward, <strong>if not always articulated very well.</strong> Women and men are different - mentally, socially, physically, sexually, and physiologically - this group’s thinking goes. Therefore putting women into close and intimately personal contact with men usually results in issues beyond the scope of mere personality.</blockquote>

Mentally they are equal, sometimes inferior, often better or at least different in some cases offering alternative points of view. Socially—ditto. Physically and physiologically—some can come close or beat the average male and in most cases and combat arms it is close enough. Sexually—sounds like the combat arms types don’t want the same temptations that have done in many non combat arms leaders (and high ranking combat arms Generals/Admirals). Admittedly, this and the last sentence of the quote above probably have the most potential to cause problems but at times “boys” must learn not to be boys regardless of branch.

<blockquote>Thus, second wave feminists, who make up the majority of those advocating within the Pentagon for integration, are likely to call for massive systemic change and not just for the opportunity for those who can pass the standards. They call into question all standards, want women to be specially trained to pass the standards, and want to assume that the force can reach at least 33% female representation, if not 50%.</blockquote>

Don’t understand this group (if legitimate) or his assumption that it is a major element. Women have not reached 33% in aviation, engineers, or rocket/radar artillery and air defense. Why would there be that many who could achieve more physically-oriented standards and endure traditional physical training of foot infantry/SF/SOF? However, it really is hard to envision what armor (often smaller and more rotund men) or mech infantry Soldiers would require physically in terms of standards that would exclude many women—yet even then, I doubt we would ever see 33%.

<blockquote>”Third-wave feminists”…..generally they call for equal treatment, no special treatment, and nothing along the lines of systemic change of the “macho male culture” of combat arms. Indeed, most yearn to be a part of that culture, not to change it (although, arguably, by their very presence and our current PC culture, they will change it). They say things like, “I just want to be treated equally and be one of the guys.”</blockquote>

If this group is legitimate, what is wrong with it? This appears the group that acknowledges the need for physical standards in some jobs and weeding out women who cannot meet them. Is this group of women ever likely to be the hard-drinking/cussing type to be treated like one of the guys? Or will this group eventually civilize the men and cause them to behave better. The Naval aviator behavior that got some in trouble many years ago is one example of behavior in the military that perhaps should not be as acceptable as it currently is. Drinking appears to be problematic in ending careers of many a strong leader so perhaps the macho, hard-drinking military male is a dinosaur that needs to be extinct anyway?

<blockquote>“Military Industrial Complex”
The only other group worth mentioning is what I will call the “Military Industrial Complex” group.</blockquote>

Why should the author change his ways from his prior generalizations of questionable category groups of "supporters." When in doubt, cite the evil Military Industrial Complex and you are bound to gain support for an otherwise weak argument.

<blockquote>This is a small group of men who operate at the highest levels of the military, academia (retired military), the contracting world, and in DoD civilian positions in which to show opposition to integration of females could jeopardize their future employment.</blockquote>

Never reached anything resembling the highest levels of the military, despise academia for the most part since so many are liberal---guilty as charged of being a many-year contractor and current DoD civilian. The honest-broker in me might even admit to some truth in the fear of “jeopardizing of future employment” which is also why I will probably contribute less to SWJ in the future. Too many know who I am by deduction even though I never had admitted it to anyone. Yet there is also danger in taking the unpopular side of the argument so don’t call me a coward in that respect.

The part of me that embraces moving forward would say that we need autoloaders in tanks/howitzers and don’t need infantry carrying 85 lb backpacks in the future. We need more robots to get blown up on the ground instead of male and female Soldiers/Marines. Anybody can control a robot. Women are smaller targets, can fit in tanks/IFVs and in the back (or front) of helicopters with ease, and many have great endurance.

Personally, I have been too guilty in the past of thinking less of smaller male leaders, particularly the napoleanic types. I think this former enlisted combat engineer, former infantry and aviation officer, and 60 year old civilian could probably kick “Autonomous” younger ass in hand-to-hand but never would attempt it or think that makes me a better man. Likewise, lack of female physical strength or arguments about male-bonding are not legitimate points for excluding women implying that males are superior.

<blockquote>A small portion of these men are also men who had few to no sons of their own and have pushed their daughters to do the things they would have liked to have seen their non-existent sons accomplish. A very few number of this group are actual “true” believers in the sense that they either see themselves as enlightened “progressives” and have bought into the “females equal males” dogma or just like to support those who do.</blockquote>

Nope. Have a successful twenty-something executive son in the solar industry who is probably too macho and rejecting of authority for his own good. Not a true believer. Just believe that many of the physically fit women I have seen in the gym could hang with or exceed capabilities of many of the smaller chubby “combat arms” males as if that was the most important attribute anyway.

<blockquote>For the most part, this group thinks that very, very few women will make it into combat arms and, for those that do, very few of them will cause problems to the mission of the combat arms. This group says things like, “soon, things will return to normal and most of us won’t see any changes.”</blockquote>

We have a winner.

<blockquote>One of three things will result in this integration effort: 1) there will be a backlash and/or regime change in DC and things will go for the most part like they have for our allies who have attempted this: very few women will get into combat arms, and that will be the norm, 2) this will continue into perpetuity until we get at least 33% of combat arms to be female, or, 3) we will get at least 33% of our force to be female and those in will be promoted and find success at the same rate as their male peers.</blockquote>

Modify number 1 to exclude the backlash, forget the regime change if Trump gets nominated, and embrace that high physical standards <strong>if maintained</strong> will keep the number of women in foot infantry/SF/SOF to a reduced level.

<blockquote>The genie is, however out of the bottle.</blockquote>

The genie has been free ever since we survived, even thrived, over a decade of two wars with plenty of women on the ground in the military. Teamwork trumps individual strength. Future technology aids that we need anyway can overcome some physical shortcomings. Overall officer and NCO qualities are more critical than physical strength or “male bonding.”

Wolverine57

Thu, 12/31/2015 - 5:37pm

"These units, like it or not, attract a certain demographic and that demographic is solidly heteronormative, traditional male, strongly conservative, and religious believing (if not practicing)."
I wish to key on this combat arms demographic which is: heteronormative, traditional, conservative, and religious. The author has just described 70% of the population of this country that policy makers have chosen to ignore. And, this demographic is not divided by race. Leaders are so far out of touch with our Christian heritage, traditions, values, and practices they fail to see what is happening to the force. They fail to see why Christians are choosing to bypass the recruiting station. You see, Christians are everywhere. There are 320000 churches in this country with a membership well over 200 million. Seventy percent (70%) of the population of the country profess a Christian preference and they are probably armed. To ignore this is not smart. Heteronormative is a polite way of saying this group opposes gay behavior and marriage. Traditional parallels a conservative upbringing. Religious identifies family influence. Then, there is a figure of 71% of military age youth who can't qualify to serve. Lets see: 70% Christian and 71% unqualified. Our military is alienating one group and can't get enough qualified from the other. The women can't fix this situation. And, DOD conducts gay pride celebrations, addresses transgender, and nominates a gay man for Secretary of the Army. Yes, potential recruits are paying attention!

J Harlan

Thu, 12/31/2015 - 2:25pm

Since Canada is the state most like the US it's experience in having female combat arms soldiers might be instructive.

It's been about 20 years since the CF was ordered to have female combat arms soldiers by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Quotas were set for each arm of the two components- regular and reserve. The goals (except for reserve non-infantry) were never close to being reached so the CHRC was convinced to allow all combat arms to work to one quota. The CF is still far short but a bit closer as service in a reserve armoured unit (none have AFVs) isn't very strenuous- there is no rigorous fitness testing and individuals and not units go on operations.

What happens to the few female combat arms soldiers? Most end up as drivers or communicators in CPs. Fitness standards have been reduced across the military to accommodate a more female as well as aging force. None of this matters in Canada as it tailors token forces for the rare expedition and the idea that it may not be able to pick and choose who goes on operations is never discussed.

Madhu (not verified)

Thu, 12/31/2015 - 12:09am

In reply to by Madhu (not verified)

Here is the interview I was talking about:

www.e-ir.info/2015/01/31/interview-patrician-owens/

What's interesting is that she talks (in this interview or another?) about including non-western viewpoints into academic study and then she does that very British academic-setting thing of using the Northern Ireland experience as a catch all for conflict in non-European cultures. I think Shashank Joshi of RUSI (?) has an article about the British in Afghanistan that mentions the British wanted to show their diplomatic prowess off to the Americans (among other rationales for their policy in the region) and always come up with Northern Ireland.

But why is that a better format than understanding other regional insurgencies and proxy conflict, like Punjab or Kashmir or Baluchistan?

A strange "feminism of privilege" blind spot.

Madhu (not verified)

Wed, 12/30/2015 - 11:53pm

In reply to by Madhu (not verified)

I went to one of those private liberal arts colleges in the Oberlin-Grinnell-Reed-Amherst universe back in the 80s. I only went for two years, was incredibly unhappy, and transferred to a land grant university with ROTC and a more economically varied population.

I always remember how people tried to enlighten me. On the one had, I was a South Asian-American woman and therefore a minority and worth listening to. There were always questions about, "what is India like?" Like I knew.

But on the other hand, I was taking all pre-med classes and didn't attend out of town demonstrations and protests, so I "needed to broaden my horizons." That's our AfPak policy, that's its emotional milieu, that school sends people to the State department and similar environments regularly. They are always looking to save you, even when you never asked them to do that. They mean well but they don't understand how little they really know.

Madhu (not verified)

Wed, 12/30/2015 - 11:46pm

So quotas are on the way?

In looking up what Douglas Porch had to say about second generation feminism and expeditionary population centric counterinsurgency, I came across the following:

<em>Economy of Force</em> by Patricia Owen

Page 268 (in response to Douglas Porch and others on the "political correctness" of studying women's issues in counterinsurgency):

"The argument is partially correct. Counterinsurgency clearly relies on systematic divide and rule. However, dismissing the focus on women as some sort of political correctness overlooks the extent to which women are the objects of intimidation in these wars, governed through patriarchal logics supposedly absent in liberal 'society' and progressive counterinsurgency...."

It's the old "can tactics save bad strategy" back-and-forth again. That what Dr. Owen calls "the household character of counterinsurgency" has been ignored in the literature may be true, but it still represents one part of a complicated picture.

What's interesting is that second generation feminism has changed from Vietnam to the wars today. Where feminists had once highlighted the harm counterinsurgents can do, some second generation feminists have embraced liberal internationalism as a form of social change. Again, nothing new for anyone reading this site, it's just a funny blind spot in some contemporary feminist argumentation. When did that change occur and why did it occur? About the same time third generation feminism developed, academic feminism became co-opted by liberal internationalism. We cannot rid ourselves of the exuberant ignorance of 90s America, it's DC in a nutshell.

Some years ago, while still working at a Harvard teaching hospital, I was invited to a large book talk--a luncheon--by Madeleine Albright. It was an academic Boston-wide thing. I can't remember who sponsored it (some women's group) but the CEO of our hospital had a table and for some reason someone had nominated me to attend the talk, along with a group of other women.

I was too naive to understand that the new chairman of our department and related factions were trying to recruit me to their side in a game of departmental politics.

Anyway, it was the strangest thing. It was a talk meant to support women and with the exception of a few men, it was a women-filled audience. All those upper middle class professional academic Boston women. When she finally spoke about her book, after introductions and lunch, she sat on a chair on a stage and was interviewed by a local anchor. It was an Oprah set up and I found it strange, as strange as that funny rubber chicken lunch that was served.

She sat at a table not far from me, and, embarrassingly, I stared at her back until she turned and looked at me. I don't think my look was very nice because I kept remembering all these things about her. It wasn't such a nice stare. Finally, I looked down at my plate, incredibly embarrassed, and thinking how I had to "get out of here, I have to quit, I have to leave. I can't do this."

So, my aversion to the Borg is a lived thing: an unhappy, visceral, 'disappointed-in-my-betters' <em>lived</em> thing.

The rapt look on the faces of those women, so polished and educated and comfortable and unthinking. Faces upturned, listening to every word from Dr. Albright, lining up to get their complementary books signed after the talk. I didn't wait in line to have my book signed but it is somewhere on the book shelf.

And all this time, my own immigrant diaspora background was a better lens to look at AfPak than anything written by those kind of upturned rapt "faces".

They don't really know anything because they think they have the answers already, the world is revealed to them. I'll pull up the Owen interview when I get a chance.