Cringe

Spackerman points to this embarassing statement by press secretary Dana Perino:

"Some of the terms I just don’t know," Perino told Fox News's Chris Wallace. "I haven't grown up knowing the type of missiles that are out there: Patriots and Scuds and cruise missiles and Tomahawk missiles. And I think that men, just by osmosis, understand all of these things. And they’re things that I really have to work at — to know the difference between a carrier and a Destroyer, and what it means when one of those is being launched to a certain area."

Most men I know, particularly (non-defense) journalists, can't lovingly detail the differences between missiles. But you know who can? My Aunt Cathy, who's been working on security and defense issues since the sixties. Somehow, that second X chromosome did not prevent her from learning enough about defense to get a PhD and serve in places like the NSA, the Defense department, and the Naval War College.

Women are certainly underrepresented in defense, but they aren't absent, and neither they nor the men they work with learned their craft by osmosis. They learned by hard work and study, the same way that other difficult trades are mastered. Presumably that list does not include White House press secretary.

Comments

I find it refreshing that someone will admit they don't know everything about everything.

We have a lot more problems caused by clueless people who believe they know more than anybody about everything. They seem to be overrepresented on C-SPAN.

Posted by MarkD | July 9, 2008 10:10 AM

Math is Hard.

Posted by JDav | July 9, 2008 10:17 AM

Well, she didn't know about the Cuban Missile Crisis, either. Why should she be expected to know anything about modern-day missiles?

Posted by Matt B | July 9, 2008 10:18 AM

MM,

do you have any Relatives that aren't ensconced in Government sinecures? :)

no wonder you're Pro-State, sure must make Family Reunions easier, even if it does makes you look feckless for calling yourself a 'libertarian'..

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | July 9, 2008 10:25 AM

"and serve in places like the NSA, the Defense department, and the Naval War College."

Both NSA and the Naval War College are in the Defense Department. Perhaps there should be an American Girl series dedicated to the military industrial complex.

Posted by Eddy Elfenbein | July 9, 2008 10:44 AM

"They learned by hard work and study..."

And also by playing "Battleship." Seriously, I thought everybody knew that carriers require five pegs to sink, while destroyers only need three.

Posted by Tel | July 9, 2008 10:45 AM

Hoffer@10:25:

Yea it's outrageous that so many of her family serve the government, thus the people. They should all quit and make you less snippy. I suppose you are anti-state?

And apparently now the occupations of our relatives determine what we can call ourselves politically?

Posted by Finn | July 9, 2008 10:53 AM

FWIW, when I was about seven, I was astonished that my parents could not distinguish the difference between a Mig-29 and an Su-27, or a AIM-7 and a AA-12. All it took was one family trip to the Air and Space Museum, and the museum gift shop.

I remember expressing concern that the SS-18, which impressively larger than the American Minuteman system, had a 18MT warhead, while the American missiles were equipped with "only" 300kT RVs, to a bemused father.

Anecdote not data, et cetera ... but absorbing vast volumes of data, be it sports stats or weapon systems, can come very naturally.

Posted by altoids | July 9, 2008 11:19 AM

Yes, it's the "I think that men, just by osmosis, understand all of these things." that bugs me most. It implies that other's expertise is not valuable, because they didn't have to work for it.

It's almost as bad as having my hard-earned skills and experience at work described as "magic." That really grinds my gears.

Posted by BobW | July 9, 2008 11:52 AM

To be fair, do you think she was referring to people who study defense issues for a living, or just the average man or woman?

I have no trouble believing that the average man remembers more of the information about missiles that pass by his brain than does the average women (but I don't know this to be the case).

Posted by Scott Wood | July 9, 2008 11:54 AM

It's not by OSMOSIS, of course. That was a silly thing for her to say. It's by genetics, the knowledge of missiles is actually carried on the "Y" chromosome, one of its few useful functions.

And not only can we - from BIRTH - tell you the difference between a Tomahawk and an Exocet, we can distinguish between a bodkin point and a broadhead on arrows, fully understand the virtues of flint edges compared to depleted uranium, and actually have an encyclopedic command of all missiles that will ever be used in the future, from the photon torpedo to the quark spritzer.

Most guys won't admit this to you - just like you might be reluctant to confess your mastery of diaper changing techniques - but they are just trying to catch you off guard.

Props to that aunt, though, who acquired by hard work and study what we men are given by nature!

Posted by Jens Fiederer | July 9, 2008 11:54 AM

Anyone who has spent much time around young children will be flatly amazed at the propensity for young boys to take the most innocent and mundane of toys or kitchen utinsels, and convert them into combat-ready weapons. Or to convert the most mundane and ordinary of tasks into a competitive game. Or to respond readily to large machinery that makes loud noises. That's a Y-chromosome and testosterone for ya.

There are exceptions as always, and I imagine somebody's Aunt Cathy was a truly excellent security and defense analyst, but you can hardly fault a woman who finds the subject non-intriguing for observing that the men around her have an inexplicable ability to assimilate and recapitulate that information even when it isn't their field of study.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | July 9, 2008 12:14 PM

being launched to a certain area

Argh. Ships are deployed to a certain area, Ms. Perino. Launched means they've entered the sea at the shipyard for the first time.

Having to work at knowing the difference between a carrier and destroyer bothers me much more than the sexism. It's not like their apppearance or roles are even remotely similar aside from being very big boats. A mildly interested five year old could understand the difference in minutes.

Posted by SeanH | July 9, 2008 12:32 PM

It's by genetics, the knowledge of missiles is actually carried on the "Y" chromosome, one of its few useful functions.

Precisely. And most women will probably never grasp the sheer profundity of the moment a man exclaims, "You da bomb!"

Posted by MarkG | July 9, 2008 12:34 PM

The damage from Feminism continues unabated. When are American Women going to realize that their never-ending quest to usurp MEN is a threat to National Security?

When are American Men going to snap our of their politically correct, socially engineered stupor?

Feminism & Political Correctness. Those are the threats to National Security.

Just like College, National Security & Defense will become another area that Men lose interest in because it's been infiltrated by Women.

But, the USA has morphed into a matriarchal country that caters to Women in all things, so I can't say I'm surprised.

No wonder the US Military is a weak, Feminized Mess.

What's next? Men trying to convince themselves they're pregnant?

----------------------

The Men Have Left the Building.

Posted by thomas walker | July 9, 2008 12:39 PM

I propose that the problem is not Dana Perino, per se -- though she's plainly far too ignorant to hold her job -- it's her boss. Shouldn't a manager be judged by the quality of his hires? Especially when he's got essentially the entire country to choose from? Remember, this is the person hired to replace that shining exemplar, Scott McClellan. (Well, OK, there was the intervening Tony Snow era of competence, but it was brief.)

Posted by Lorenzo | July 9, 2008 1:56 PM

Ms. Perino may be appallingly ignorant -- although at least she has the grace to admit that she doesn't know something.

But her use of "osmosis" may be closer than most of the commenters are giving her credit for. The culture tends to encourage boys to become familiar with military stuff, and to discourage girls from doing so. There's no genetic mandate, but there is definitely a social one. As a result of that social pressure, far more boys than girls will tend to play war games. And, as a result, be at least somewhat familiar with weapons systems -- including missiles. Given that foundation, they will find it easier to pick up bits of knowledge about new systems. Girls (or boys!) who didn't grow up with that foundation will have a much harder time.

Posted by wj | July 9, 2008 2:23 PM

> There's no genetic mandate, but there is
> definitely a social one.

Rather than some endless debate on this point, we should settle it quickly with a duel.

Using missile weapons, of course.

Posted by Jens Fiederer | July 9, 2008 4:49 PM

"But her use of "osmosis" may be closer than most of the commenters are giving her credit for. The culture tends to encourage boys to become familiar with military stuff, and to discourage girls from doing so. There's no genetic mandate, but there is definitely a social one.
Posted by wj | July 9, 2008 2:23 PM "

This is (I thought, rather obviously) what Dana meant.

Although Megan might be right about this "Most men I know, particularly (non-defense) journalists, can't lovingly detail the differences between missiles," the average knowledge of men about weapons systems and military history/science is going to be much much higher than than of the average women. Which I can't imagine is a controversial thing to acknowledge.

Posted by Jeff | July 9, 2008 5:10 PM

I'm with the other Jeff here: I think this is one of those times where your anecdotal data has failed you.

"Most men I know" not withstanding, I would wager a lot of money that if you asked a truly random selection of 1,000 Americans about the differences between Sidewinder missiles and Tomahawk missiles, the correct answers would overwhelmingly come from men, not women.

Of course exceptions on both sides, but the percentages wouldn't even be close.

That said, still probably not the best interview quote.

Posted by Geoff | July 9, 2008 6:23 PM

They learned by hard work and study, the same way that other difficult trades are mastered. Presumably that list does not include White House press secretary.

This interview came out about month ago and this issue was overblown then. God knows, I have no love for media or political hacks (and she's both), but *it was a joke*. The context was indeed 'i need to work hard and spend extra time studying this stuff, because I (personally) have no background in it.'

Posted by Kolohe | July 9, 2008 6:34 PM

They learned by hard work and study, the same way that other difficult trades are mastered.

Actually, most of the people I know in difficult trades learned most of the relevant stuff because they found it *fun*. I'm a computer geek, and I'm certainly well aware that I eagerly seek out knowledge that others would consider work.

And, yes, at a certain age (about 16), I would have been able to lovingly tell you the difference between missile systems.

I don't know why it's offensive to acknowledge that some people naturally gather certain information that for others would be considered "work".

Of course, if it's incredibly relevant to her job, then she should spend the requisite amount of time to know what's required. But to be honest, I strongly suspect the information is in the "nice to know" category, in which case natural proclivity is probably going to determine the amount of knowledge *any* press secretary is going to have.

This applies not just to military information, but any field. I'm fairly certain that for her position military knowledge is less useful than knowledge about how to deal with difficult reporters, which she probably has in spades.

The culture tends to encourage boys to become familiar with military stuff, and to discourage girls from doing so. There's no genetic mandate, but there is definitely a social one.

Um, do you have kids?

The magnetic draw of weaponry knowledge starts early for many (like memorizing all the pole-arms in the Dungeons and Dragons manual) :-)

Posted by Tom West | July 9, 2008 6:57 PM

Jens Fiederer,

I would criticize your post if I didn't know, instantly, every example you gave. Even the photon torpedos.

Posted by doctorpat | July 9, 2008 11:35 PM

Tel, you must be young. When I was a kid, destroyers only took 2 pegs. Cruisers had 3.

Posted by Epstein's Mother | July 9, 2008 11:47 PM

Women are certainly underrepresented in defense, but they aren't absent, and neither they nor the men they work with learned their craft by osmosis. They learned by hard work and study, the same way that other difficult trades are mastered. Presumably that list does not include White House press secretary.

Not true, and Megan's attempt to shit on the White House press secretary for saying she does not know all about everything (which certain journalists fear admitting) was refreshing.

And certain things are indeed learned almost through osmosis by interacting with your peer group. Women who never studied fashion know 100 times more about fashion, who is in or out of it at the office, and picking up "whoah! expensive shoes!" than any men but the homosexuals. And the average man knows 100 times more about sports teams and jets than the average woman - and woman have about as much inclination to "learn recoil-operated submachine gun blowback assist and muzzle braking as men feel compelled to learn if Macundo shoes are appropriate with pin-striped pantsuits in May.

Dana Perino is a generalist, she has to be in the White House where any and all issues could come up, and it is fatuaos to suggest she should either learn everything or leave so a "expert defense study woman could talk about all military matters"...Great. Same woman would also have to be a prime rate expert, a gas price one, know everything about mining safety, hurricane paths, childhood obesity, etc...

Megans criticism would be more appropriate, instead of just silly, if Perino was the Pentagon press secretary talking about a bombing raid done with "those big black flying thingies" (B-52s).

But Perino is not Pentagon briefer for DOD Secretary.

Posted by chris ford | July 10, 2008 12:17 AM

Pete Williams, now of NBC news, who was the Pentagon briefer for DOD Secretary Cheney during Gulf War 1, has iirc*, admitted he is a homosexual. NTTAWTT.

*he might have been outed. there is something wrong with that.

Posted by Ironic, or Matrimonial Inclement Weather? | July 10, 2008 2:13 AM

Born in 1980 here. Unless I'm totally misremembering, it went like this: Carrier 5, Battleship 4, Submarine 3, Destroyer 3, Patrol Ship 2.

Posted by Tel | July 10, 2008 9:36 AM

The official (2002) rules are at:

http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/BattleShip_(2002).PDF

I suspect the toy companies change the rules, the names of the pieces and all at random, because they can.

I still resent the reference to "osmosis". Even in jest it belittles the others' knowlege and skill.

Posted by BobW | July 11, 2008 9:55 AM

I learned about depleted uranium munitions, anti anti-missile missiles, the importance of logistics in military campaigns, and much more via osmosis.

Of course, it may have helped that my father attended the Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth and was working for military intelligence when I was a child.

BTW, Patriot: an anti-missile missile. Sidewinder: Air-to-air missile, a tactical weapon. Tomahawk: medium range surface-to-surface missile. Cruise missile: generic term for medium and long range missiles.

Carrier: a ship that carries aircraft. Actually several types, including helicopter carriers, but generally thought of as hosting fighters and occasionally bombers (and of course AWACS planes). Destroyer: the smallest of the big ships, intended to destroy patrol torpedo boats (PT boats, like what JFK commanded in World War II). Destroyers serve as escorts to protect capital ships from small but quick threats such as PT boats or submarines. Cruisers are larger and better armed and armored than Destroyers, and Battleships are even larger, better armed and armored than Cruisers - but with size comes a lack of speed. Of course, battleships are no longer useful except for an occasional bombardment from offshore, and have been retired from service. Cruisers have generally been re-equipped with missiles instead of guns - missiles such as the Tomahawk. The most important ship in the modern navy is the Carrier, but that is likely to change in the next ten to twenty years, as smaller ships and drones become more important (and as aircraft ranges are much greater than they used to be).

Of course, I've probably got a few details a little off, but considering that I haven't studied any of this. . . .

Posted by Alan | July 13, 2008 2:14 AM