What is wrong with these pictures? On the left shows how things may start out; on the right shows how women soldiers in combat get hurt.
Perhaps the photographs depicted above (Courtesy of Google Images) seem extreme, yet what is the alternative to reality? On January 24, 2013 as reported by the an article in the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild “Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the military would finally lift the ban on women serving in frontline combat roles, overturning the 1994 rule that limited the roles for women in the armed forces to units below brigade level away from direct combat” (“Women in Combat, History and Future”). Ever since the controversial federal decision heated debates over the issue has captivated the American imagination. Some agree with allowance of females to fight in potentially mortal combat military positions during war scenarios argue that female soldiers should be treated equally, and to bolster such a position four women filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense for that reason. According to the same source just mentioned, during the fall season of November, in 2012, the lawsuit claimed not allowing women in combat positions to represent an “inequality” since women had already endured a stint in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This paper holds the position against allowing women in military combat jobs, for several particular reasons. The reasons include that women compute a higher ratio and risk of getting hurt and wounded, the application is impractical, and plainly condones immorality. The counter-arguments immediately follow to explain why the proponents of women fighting in combat positions should proceed and be allowed, supported by what they consider to be valid evidence to advance such a supposed justification.
First, a main reason why a pro-stance is given by proponents that women should be allowed in military combat occupations stems from a viewpoint of legality. They argue that sex discrimination is at play, and that the whole exclusionary policy contributes to a so-called military culture in which females are deemed only as second-class citizens in the militarized world (“Women in Combat, History and Future”). The logic stems from a female military member, Major Mary Jennings Hegar, who after being shot down in a helicopter over Afghanistan and wounded did not receive permission to seek a combat leadership position. Another component of the argument for women to engage in military combat often uses the excuse that women are often raped or sexually assaulted by their own fellow male soldiers. In fact, statistics do show as reported by The Military Law Task Force in 2011something astonishing happened. Over three thousand cases reported that women had been raped, or otherwise sexually abused. Thus, women already were sustaining these kinds of physical dangers and abuses. Were they deemed worthy to receive even more physical abuse – by serving in combat positions in the military? One can easily see the weakness and hypocrisy of this part of the argument. Perhaps not surprisingly, one of the biggest supporters of allowing women to face brutalities on the frontlines of war comes straight from military sources.
Whether military officials truly believe women should be allowed to fight in combat positions remains unclear. After all, they categorized under the auspices of the federal powers of the United States government like anyone else. Nevertheless as far back as decade military entities were arguing for women to be appointed to military combat positions. An article in Military Review highlights a discussion by Coppola, LaFrance, and Carretta (2002) as expressing that “female soldiers are almost taken for granted in today’s Army,” and looking into the future predicted that “the time will come when women may prove themselves in combat units” (p. 55). The article continues to argue for allowing women to be exposed to dangerous combat situations referring to the facts of women’s inadequate strength as a “perception” (Coppola, et al., 2002, p. 55). Yet the same article according to Coppola et al. (2002) admits that the top women contenders, in terms of physical fitness from a study of West Point cadets, showed “only 7 percent of the females met the minimum score of 60 of 100 points for upper body strength for push-ups” (p. 55). Common logical sense, and other rational facts however, fly in the face of these ridiculous and skewed claims which in reality are counterproductive to sound military practices.
Although the excuse is often given in the example of women in Israel’s Defense Forces are given so-called combat roles, the casual observer may note that these females are not groveling through the dirt, on the ground in undeveloped bush territory – they are standing up, armed, holding their gunnery weaponry. The personal view of one woman, Major Hegar has been heard. The voice of Laura Nichols emerges from her experience as a Vietnam War veteran, whose personal account makes her opinion valuable. While it is true Nichols (2013) does not seem to object to the allowance of women in combat, she suggests that one third of women placed in combat positions are sexually assaulted, references the 3,192 victims “out of 19,000,” that is “roughly 52 a day” (p. 8). Nichols claims it is the military-combat culture that forms a bad situation for women in combat, and fails to acknowledge the body-strength needed for infantry jobs. How practical is it for women to fight in combat situations?
In Orbis, the online science journal, Anna Simons’ article entitled “Women Can Never ‘Belong’ in Combat” makes excellent points why women should not be enlisted into military combat occupations. The article begins with a sharp criticism of Demi Moore’s depiction in the Hollywood movie ‘G.I. Jane,’ whose character throughout the film seeks to prove her physical worthiness, and tries to win the respect of the male soldiers. As Associate Professor at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Simons (2000) brings up several cogent points, such as “Lost in most of the arguments is common sense, both regarding the purposes and functions of the U.S. military – deterrence and defense – and the potential consequences of mixing men and women together – sexual attraction and pregnancy” (p. 451). Also, Professor Simons (2000) argues that the proper and realistic culture of combat has not been accurately depicted, and that it is a culture of men, and furthermore a combat unit of men. Casting the issue of women’s lack of adequate physical strength aside, introducing individual women into combat units damages the mental cohesion of the unit. Some would argue that this move of assuming women can handle combat undermines men’s masculinity, thereby effectively serving as a slap in the face to emasculate them.
However, returning to the perspective of group morale the logic functions as thus. According to Simons (2000) “any human group’s cohesion and moral depend on a chemistry utterly impervious to external decrees” (p. 452). In other words, laws can legislate all day long by instituting women’s legal ability to be included in combat military occupations but in fact, their inclusion undermines the morale of the unit. Therefore on this basis alone, women’s inclusion in field military combat is extremely, and illogically impractical. The physical strength issue aside, women have other physical needs. Without getting overly graphic, women have a monthly situation in their bodies known as the menstrual cycle. The gender reality, noted by Simons (2000) posits that “Likewise, allowances would have to be made for women’s physiological needs” (p. 454). Having noted these impediments, still the physical imbalances and disparities between men and women cannot be ignored – particularly in a combat zone situation.
For example, beyond the factors of women’s menstrual cycles and ability to get pregnant during combat episodes as huge detractions impeding the safety of a military combat unit’s effectiveness, women cannot fight through war battles and ignore pain. Whereas a man soldier may be able to bear an injury during war combat, a woman “cannot simply ‘suck it up’” especially in the case of pregnancy or having her monthly period – out in the elements with no place to change – also, since “soldiers and Marines in ground combat units routinely experience time together in such close and unyielding quarters” (p. 455, 456). Also, besides the factor of ground troops needing to carry literally 130 pounds of equipment on their backs or more, feminists are wrong in their assessment that women should be allowed into combat jobs. Ahlert (2013) refers to ground combat as “arguably the most physically grueling activity in which once can be engaged, and despite what the feminists would like Americans to believe about equality, science says otherwise: men have almost twice the upper-body strength as women” (“Obama Ignores Deadly Risks, Women in Combat”). Furthermore, Ahlert (2013) quotes the president of one military organization as stating “Soldiers know that there is no gender-norming on the battlefield,” because nothing can eliminate “the natural differences between men and women” (“Obama Ignores Deadly Risks, Women in Combat”). To top things off, whether or not sex between a male and female is consensual on the warzone field is irrelevant. The insane possibility (probability?) of sexual activity during combat dangerously detracts from completing a serious military mission.
The impracticality of this egalitarian agenda propelling women to fight in military combat is ludicrous. Burk (2013) argues that “our civilization just took a gigantic leap backward” on the day the legislation passed to allow women in combat, also asking “Are the fortunes of women in our country really enhanced by sending them to be ground up in the discipline of a combat unit and possibly to be killed or maimed in war?” (“Women in Combat Undoing Civilization”). Another question Burk (2013) asks is which American father wasn’t his “daughter shot or killed in battle?” (“Women in Combat Undoing Civilization”). Would Leon Panetta – the party responsible for lifting the ban against women in combat – want his wife, daughter, sister, mother to become endangered in the frontlines of a vicious war? The hypocrisy of proponents wishing to establish the placement of women soldiers in military combat, frankly, is stunning. The policy of allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military is one thing, and certainly is not on equal to the legal allowance of women on the frontlines of combat. Allowing women in combat therefore, is unacceptable. Consider what would happen to a female if she became a prisoner of war? The outcome of such a scenario is unthinkable.
References
Ahlert, A. (2013, January 24). Obama ignores deadly risks to women in combat. Frontpage Mag.
Retrieved from http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obama-ignores-deadly-risks-to-women-in-combat/
Burk, D. (2013, January 23). Women in combat and the undoing of civilization. Denny Burk –
Commentary on theology, politics, and culture. Retrieved from
http://www.dennyburk.com/women-in-combat-and-the-undoing-of-civilization/
Coppola, M.N., LaFrance, K.G., & Carretta, H.J. (2002). Women in Combat!. Miltary Review,
82(6), 54.
Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild. (2013). Women in combat: History and
future [Data file]. Retrieved from http://nlgmltf.org/military-law/2013/women-in-combat-history-and-future/
Simons, A. (2000). Women can never ‘belong’ in combat. Orbis, 44(3), 451-461.
(2013, February 21). Women in Combat, A First-Hand Account. Between the Lines (10807551).
p. 8.
