Adopting the Wrong Perspective
In response to the rising clamor for gender equality and getting rid of double standards, officials are trying hard to incorporate a gender neutral approach to several aspects of the American society. Their recent target is the military.
On January 2013, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced that the Pentagon will lift the ban on females serving in combat roles. Apparently, this move was prompted by the bravery of more than 150 female soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (Londoño). Panetta further explained that the aim of the decision was to provide the best soldiers for the country without setting limitations due to gender differences (National Women’s Law Center).
President Barack Obama fully supports Pentagon’s decision. In fact, he believes that the lifting of the ban is a monumental event in history and that it will unlock all the previously suppressed talents and skills of the American citizens (“Obama backs women in combat”).
However, this paper believes that the transition from the traditional male-dominated combat grounds to the introduction of women into the said grounds can only cause detrimental issues such as destructive pressure towards women and low performance for both genders. Before we go to the argument, however, it is first important for us to understand what ‘women in combat’ really means.
The term ‘women in combat’ is different from the term ‘women in military’. The idea of women in military is not something new because since the 1948 act of Congress women have been serving in the military. On the other hand, the concept of women in combat is something new. This is because once the agenda takes effect it will be the first time female soldiers will be allowed to take on ground-combat jobs (Lerman).
Now that we have clarified that, we can now go on to our argument. There are two main reasons why this paper does not support women-in-combat. The first reason is that there is doubt that military will be able to maintain its standards once women comes into the picture. This doubt leads to a question of what happens when the military does fail to maintain the standards for the soldier’s training. In an article by Mark Thompson, Robert Maginnis mentioned that the result is the creation of a lower standard military force.
Maginnis’ argument is backed up by several evidences. One of the strongest evidence however is the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission wherein the priority is in the diversity instead of military readiness. By putting the emphasis on diversity, there is political pressure to consciously include women in the combat arms even at the expense of lowering the standards.
If truth be told, there are physical restrictions for women that are beyond anyone’s control. Women may have the will to be better or equal to men when it comes to physical exertion but the reality is that men are biologically equipped with more physical strength and endurance capabilities than women. This was only proven in the simulation test performed by both women and men soldiers. U.S. Marines discovered in that simulation test that for every man failing a lift and carry test, 28 women fail (Unruh). There are of course exceptions to these limitations but we cannot rely on that since this is the military and one mistake or weakness can prove to be fatal to the whole unit.
The simulation test mimics the actual training that men in combat go through and the fact that most of the women failed in the said training means that they are not ready at this point of time to be put into combat units. However, since there is much hype about this issue and because the president himself supported the decision, the military cannot just continue the training as it is because as seen in the simulation test. Chances are that few women will be able to finish the training with their morale intact. The only way this would work in favor of what the Pentagon wants is for the military to set the bar lower.
Obviously, lowering the standards will result to a weaker combat unit which would then be inefficient and dangerous for the soldiers themselves. This is not to say that women cannot compete with men, of course. The argument is just that, at this point of time, the process will most likely be rushed because of the political and media pressure to deliver a diverse-gender unit.
The second reason for the opposition to the women in combat agenda is that women are not given a choice in the matter. While the government make it seem like that the act is a liberating experience for women soldiers, the truth is that women soldiers are not just ‘allowed’ to join the combat units, they are forced to do so. By 2016, women will be integrated into combat units regardless if they actually want to be in it.
The agenda is basically a command because it would not look good on the legislators and the military if few women actually get in the combat units by their own will. It is a valid possibility especially because a lot of women soldiers that has experience with battle are not eager to be in the combat battalions. To prevent that possibility of them losing face, the government had made it mandatory for women to be in the combat units.
In the interest of fairness, we will also include in this paper two reasons of the stand for women in combat. The main argument of people supporting the women in combat agenda is that the act promotes gender equality.
One of the reasons for the argument of the pro combat agenda is that ability is not dependent on gender. They said that many women can do the job of men and in some cases, even do it better. They said that the line between what a woman can and cannot do is rapidly disappearing.
However, according to article by James Miller, that is not the case. Women now may be more strong willed than women in the past decades but the fact still remains that a 120 pounds woman with full combat gear on the ground will not be able to carry a 200 lb man to safety in the event that the man is injured. What happens is either of two things – the man gets left behind or the woman stays and tries to help and in the process gets herself killed as well.
The second argument for the proposal of women in the combat is that women can do double jobs. They can handle both the tough battle as well as sensitive and delicate jobs because women are nurturers by nature. This argument, however, brings about another problem – the act will make these nurturers to focus on killing, going against their very nature.
People always forget that the military is a high functioning society of its own and being that society, it is expected for the military to have their own set of rules and own way of living. It has, in a way, its own culture. Included in this ‘culture’ are hierarchies as well as compartmentalization. A soldier knows and understands that it would be dangerous for everyone in the military if everyone knows about everything. Moreover, it would put unnecessary strain on the soldiers if jobs are not compartmentalized because then they would have to learn every skill. As such, the very foundation of the military banks on the distinction of the roles and jobs assigned to men and to women.
Works Cited
Londoño, Ernesto. “Pentagon removes ban on women in combat.” The Washington Post.
Katharine Weymouth, 24 Jan. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
National Women's Law Center. “Pentagon makes women in combat rule change official.” USA
Today. Gannett Company, 24 Jan. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
Thompson, Mark. “The Cowardly Push to Get Women Into Combat.” TIME. Time Mag., 25 Jul.
2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
Miller, James. “Inside the Feminist Agenda: Just because we CAN put women in combat roles
does it mean we SHOULD?” Freedom Outpost. N.p., 1 Feb. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
“Obama backs women in combat.” USA Today. Gannett Company, 24 Jan. 2013. Web. 14 Nov.
2014.
Lerman, David. “U.S. Military Vows to Put Women in Combat Roles by 2016.” Bloomberg.
N.p., 25 Jul. 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
Unruh, Bob. “U.S. Marines' Tests Undermine Women-In-Combat Agenda.” WND.com. N.p., 6
Oct. 2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
