Army, Navy remove web pages highlighting women’s military service

[rangerrebew]

Army, Navy remove web pages highlighting women’s military service
By Claire Barrett
 Feb 10, 2025, 11:30 AM
 
A page devoted to women's service in the U.S. Navy was removed in February by the Navy History and Heritage Command and replaced by a "page not found" message. (Screenshot/NHHC)
In an effort to align with President Donald Trump’s recent executive order that terminated diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives across the federal government, the Army and Navy have taken down web pages that highlight the history and myriad contributions of female soldiers and sailors.

While webpages on the history of female service remains intact on the U.S. Army Reserve website, the Army’s link to its “Women in Army History” page has been taken down as of Monday and leads readers directly back to its homepage.


Similarly, last week, a page devoted to women’s service in the U.S. Navy, as well as a page entitled “Navy Women of Courage and Intelligence,” was removed by the Navy History and Heritage Command, replaced by a “page not found” message.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2025/02/10/army-navy-remove-web-pages-highlighting-womens-military-service/

[Smokin Joe]

While I am not familiar with the content of the pages (and whether or not it was overblown to the point of being DEI propaganda beyond ordinary recruiting sort of material), this seems like overkill, perhaps intentional to generate the impression that the service could no longer give the credit due to women who have served or are on active duty.
In the event this is just a case of overdoing (complying to the point of absurdity) to make the administration look bad, it won't play well, and will be used against the initiative to end DEI. How about we just get rid of the check boxes and consider suitability (including merit, especially) for the job?
I think there needs to be some balance or the administration will doubtless be accused of scrubbing the accomplishments of those who deserve some credit as part of the anti-DEI campaign.

[rangerrebew]

Why don't the media have coverage of defensive backs, ends, linebackers, etc. which extol only the virtues of that group instead of the team?  Obviously, it would destroy team unity and create groups working against each other.  Now, I agree this has to be approached with reasonableness but as I've looked at military pictures in the past two or three years, I've noticed a very high percentage of them include women and/or blacks, every now and then Hispanics, and on a rare occasion, Asians.  But humans being humans, that will eventually create animosity.  The military is supposed to be your family no matter the skin color.  If such isn't done carefully, it will eventually ruin the unity of purpose.  I've been watching a Band of Brothers documentary and that is the ultimate goal.  Members would do anything they could to get back to that unit if injured or wounded because that was their family.  But today that kind of thinking has largely been driven from the American ethos and replaced by the me or my group mind set.  It's a slippery slope.

[rangerrebew]

How Women Enlisted as Men to Fight in the Civil War
 

Anywhere between 400-1,000 women fought in the Civil War as men.
Military.com | By Blake Stilwell
Published February 11, 2025

In April 1861, just three days after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to fill the ranks of the Union Army and end the rebellion in the South. Albert Cashier, an Irish immigrant who came to America sometime before the Civil War, watched the 15th Illinois Infantry Regiment march off to join Ulysses S. Grant and what would soon be called the Army of the Tennessee. In less than a year, Cashier would enlist as well.

By 1864, Lincoln had called for 300,000 more to help tend to the wounded and fill shortages in the Union Army and Navy. At its height, the Union had more than 600,000 troops in uniform, almost 3.25% of the Union population. But while both sides of the war needed bodies to fill the ranks, they were still limiting who could enlist, barring Black men for most of the conflict and women for the entirety of it.
 
Albert Cashier was a Union soldier that would not be deterred from enlisting for any reason -- even if that reason was because he was really Jennie Hodgers, born a woman. The National Museum of the U.S. Army refers to him as a man because of "his desire to be known as a man" and his "dedicated service to his country in its most trying hour."

https://www.military.com/history/how-women-enlisted-men-fight-civil-war.html


Things like this are great.  Just like the movie, "Glory."  It gives historical backdrop while identifying particular groups who have served their country honorable without making it an obvious recruitment ploy.

[Timber Rattler]

While I am not familiar with the content of the pages (and whether or not it was overblown to the point of being DEI propaganda beyond ordinary recruiting sort of material), this seems like overkill, perhaps intentional to generate the impression that the service could no longer give the credit due to women who have served or are on active duty.
In the event this is just a case of overdoing (complying to the point of absurdity) to make the administration look bad, it won't play well, and will be used against the initiative to end DEI. How about we just get rid of the check boxes and consider suitability (including merit, especially) for the job?
I think there needs to be some balance or the administration will doubtless be accused of scrubbing the accomplishments of those who deserve some credit as part of the anti-DEI campaign.

Malicious compliance to try and embarrass Trump.  There was no need to remove those historical pages from the NHHC site since they were in fact part of the U.S. Navy's history.  WAVES in World War II, Black service in the U.S. Navy through history, Dorie Miller, etc.

Poking around there are still a lot of Navy.mil websites with pages dedicated to Black History, so this may be a nothing burger.

For instance:

https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Blogs/Detail/Article/2508888/black-history-a-sailors-perspective/

https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/civil-war-archive1/african-americans-in-the-u-s--navy-during-the-civil-war.html

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/fall/black-sailors

As for the WAVES, these links are still up:

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/artifacts/uniforms-and-personal-equipment/uniforms0/waves.html

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1102371/remembering-navy-waves-during-womens-history-month/

https://usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil/Recent/Article-View/Article/3859171/us-navy-waves-on-top-secret-duty-in-americas-heartland/

 

[GtHawk]

Malicious compliance to try and embarrass Trump.  There was no need to remove those historical pages from the NHHC site since they were in fact part of the U.S. Navy's history.  WAVES in World War II, Black service in the U.S. Navy through history, Dorie Miller, etc.

Poking around there are still a lot of Navy.mil websites with pages dedicated to Black History, so this may be a nothing burger.

For instance:

https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Blogs/Detail/Article/2508888/black-history-a-sailors-perspective/

https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/civil-war-archive1/african-americans-in-the-u-s--navy-during-the-civil-war.html

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/fall/black-sailors

As for the WAVES, these links are still up:

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/artifacts/uniforms-and-personal-equipment/uniforms0/waves.html

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1102371/remembering-navy-waves-during-womens-history-month/

https://usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil/Recent/Article-View/Article/3859171/us-navy-waves-on-top-secret-duty-in-americas-heartland/

I have an idea on how to deal with the POS’s that do this malicious type of thing in order to embarrass their CIC, don’t boot them or cut their rank, transfer them to the most isolated, miserable duty station possible for the rest of their enlistment. Hopefully they would have just reenlisted.