WOMEN IN COMBAT: ARGUMENTS THAT DON'T MATTER TO ME

There are some arguments against women in combat that I view as legitimate, and which I will examine in a subsequent post.  There are also a number of arguments against women in combat which always get trotted out but which I think are basically just cultural prejudices.  I will address these cultural prejudices first:

1)  Women are not as brave as men, or as psychologically tough as men.  Oh yeah?  I just don't buy it.  See my post entitled Heroism Knows No Gender.

2)  It's worse when women die or suffer hardship than when men die or suffer hardship.  Not true.  All human life is equally valuable.  My husband's life is worth just as much as mine.  Many years ago, I saw an elderly southern general argue on the "Today" show that people who advocate women serving in the military just don't know what it's like.  He said he wouldn't want to HIS daughters to have to bathe in muddy water or go to the bathroom in the woods or not be able to brush their teeth for days on end or whatever.  Not convincing -- I wouldn't especially wish all that on anyone but why would it be worse for me than for a man? (And don't people know what women go through during childbirth? It's not for sissies as far as I can tell.)

3) Women might get raped if they are captured during war.  Yeah, so?  Bad stuff happens in war.  That's why it's war.  Again, rape isn't something I want to minimize, but I don't buy into the notion that women are somehow more vulnerable to brutality than men.  Male prisoners of war can also be raped, or they can be brutalized in other ways.  Recall the physical and psychological torture inflicted on Senator McCain when he was a prisoner of war.

4) Male soldiers will put themselves at risk to protect female soldiers.  This argument is based upon the supposed protective "instinct" men have towards women.  First, I doubt this is a deep seated instinct given the statistics showing the prevalence of crimes of rape and domestic violence by men against women.  I think men are socialized (with varying success!) to be protective towards women but that doesn't mean that they will behave inappropriately during battle once they are trained to view their female comrades as fellow soldiers.  The much vaunted protective instinct was also used within living memory as an argument to keep women out of litigation -- the idea being that male lawyers might feel they should let women lawyers win.  As a woman litigator, I can assure you that that hasn't turned out to be a problem. 

5)  If women are in combat, men will no longer feel the need to protect women in other areas of life.   So that means men are stupid?  They can't tell the difference between a fellow soldier who does not need special help and a woman who needs some sort of protection?  In any case, a gender-neutral code of "chivalry" is more useful: it should be a given in our culture that the strong protect the weak regardless of gender.  Again see Heroism Knows No Gender.

6)  A variation of the above:  Allowing women to be subject to violence by the enemy is tantamount to a cultural endorsement of violence against women generally.  Again, men are stupid? They can't understand why it is okay to send an armed and trained female soldier into combat but not okay to beat up a civilian woman?

7)  Women will be vulnerable during combat because they need more time to go to the bathroom.  Uh, no.  I don't want to get too gross, but give a woman a flap in the right place and it's not that tough to go to the bathroom.  During menstruation, I think women can take care of what needs taking care of more efficiently than men may believe.  And even if there is some impediment to a woman's ability to take care of her sanitary needs because of the combat situation she is in, she can still fight.  Remember when Uta Pippig won the Boston Marathon while bleeding heavily and openly during her period?  It was gross and messy but she got the job done. 

So that leaves the only three arguments against women in combat that I think could potentially have some merit:  1)  Women weaken military effectiveness because women are generally physically weaker than men; 2) Mixed gender units are less cohesive due to love affairs and sexual attractions among member of the unit; and 3) Women are often unable to deploy due to pregnancy.  My challenge for tomorrow (at some point I hope) is to address these more legitimate arguments. 

Comments

[Jessica]

I got my Vision Forum catalogue in the mail. Talk about stereotypes...

[Ann]

Jessica, you subscribe to that hooey? I'm impressed. I wouldn't want it anywhere near my mailbox.

Anyway, you forgot one. Women don't look pretty and feminine when they're wearing fatigues, combat boots, and helmets! Remember that article about why women shouldn't play sports... that was their primary argument, was it not? Call me crazy, but a muddy, bleeding, sleep-deprived woman who hasn't bathed or brushed her teeth in days would probably be less attractive than an enthusiastic soccer player, so it's WRONG and UNGODLY. Come on, HF, I thought you were more thorough than that. ;-)

[Alice]

LOL, Ann!

HF, this post is just one more reason that I love your blog. Looking forward to the next installment.

[Jessica]

My curiosity is killing me. My boyfriend took one look at it and said he wanted it out of the house. He said it was killing the good vibes and karma in our house. So now it's here with me at work.

I've razored out pictures and am creating a little battle scene with the kids in cosume. I've thoughtfully added well placed holes and red magic marker to the images.

[Alice]

Jessica-- you MUST post the results of your artistic endeavor, PLEASE!

[Jessica]

I feel like a little heathen tearing up the magazine...I will post pictures

[ginmar]

Where are these guys that want to protect women? When I was getting sexually harassed back as a civilian, they were nowhere around. When I joined the Army, I saw guys who were determined to make it has hard as possible for me, even while they were all buddy/buddy with the guys. When I was in combat, I was the one doing the protecting. In short, I've never met a guy worth knowing in the service who had that attitude. Then again, maybe I'm not the sort of 'girl' who arouses this feeling. But if they don't feel it toward every woman in every situation, then it's not real, is it?

[ginmar]

So that leaves the only three arguments against women in combat that I think could potentially have some merit: 1) Women weaken military effectiveness because women are generally physically weaker than men; 2) Mixed gender units are less cohesive due to love affairs and sexual attractions among member of the unit; and 3) Women are often unable to deploy due to pregnancy. My challenge for tomorrow (at some point I hope) is to address these more legitimate arguments.

These are all ludicrous stereotypes without merit.
1. All men are not stronger than all women. Furthermore, combat no longer depends on strength---well, that type of strength that excludes female strengths.

2. ACtually, love affairs and things tend to occur more often amongst the people who buy into sexist myths,both male and female. The guys whine that they can't live without sex, and the 'girls' feel they have to please men. Meanwhile, you're living in close quarters with these people. Frankly, I liked the guys I served with, but it would have been like fucking my brother, frankly. The only people I could imagine attractive were people out of my unit.
3. A standard lie put out by sexists, basically. We had one pregnant female once in my unit. Everybody---everybody male, that is----remembered her to the point of forgetting the fifteen other females who did their jobs, and of course to the point of ignoring the guy who got her pregnant.

These myhts reflect and sometimes contrast with myths about civilian women. There's always the idea that women get pregnant irresponsibly, but because the woman gets punished for it in the military, the standard addendum of 'to trap a man' gets left off. If unit cohesion suffers, it's not beause of women it's because of men and women, and poor discipline. How much of unit cohesion suffers when it's men harassingwomen?

[The Happy Feminist]

I agree, Ginmar. The more I look at the pregnancy/physical disparity/unit cohesion arguments the less valid they seem. In my more recent post on the pregnancy myth I characterize them as "arguments that appear AT FIRST BLUSH to be the three strongest arguments against women in combat." They're the kind of arguments that sound like they make sense, especially for those of us who haven't served in the military, until you stop and really think about it or look at the facts.

[Andy Ternay]

Re: point number 4, that men will put themselves at risk to protect female soldiers...

I had always thought that soldiers were supposed to be willing to put themselves at risk to help one another. Isn't that part of the whole reason for trying to create cohesive units? Military history is replete with soldiers risking their lives to help other soldiers. Heck, Kerry got a medal for doing just that. I imagine that soldiers will always seek to protect fellow soldiers, regardless of gender.

That excuse has always grated on me.

[Scott Lemieux]

Yeah, you know how Israel got a gender integrated military, and then they could get their asses kicked by the Wyoming National Guard? Oh, wait...

[Zan]

Your post title made me smile. I don't agree with all your reasons. I think that there are some places women just shouldn't be. My friend who is somewhere flying b-52s (atleast that is what I think she is doing) would probably disagree with some of your points. Her father would not let her join the marines which was her first choice. He was a marine and did not think it was a place for women. In her survival course the men DID protect her. She was the only women in the wilderness with them and they made sure she was getting what she needed to do, done. They even killed a rattlesnake for her to eat. She would be the first to admit that she was not up too a lot of the challenges. Of course the Air Force is the country club of the military, according to her. On another note she has regretted her entry into the military. She told me that all she wanted to do was get married and after the first year of the Air FOrce she wanted nothing more than to be a mom.

I would like to hear what some men say about women in the military or atleast in some areas of the military. There is nothing wrong with men having a protective instinct over women. My stupid rooster is always protecting his hens and watching over them. SO is the tom turkey I used to have. In fact a lot of the animal kingdom have the male animals protecting the females. Look at sperm whales. They have been known to attack whaling ships that are hunting their females. I don't know why some of you can't swallow the fact that women are better at some things than men and men are better at some things than women. To me, it seems like you are ashamed of you sex and trying to change it. I am proud of my sex. I am proud that I have the ability to bare children and exhibit my natural feminine abilities. I am not trying to change who I am but simply embrase my strenghts and limitations. You all know that I am not like Crystal in many ways but I do not let culture deceive me into what and who I really am.

BTW, why are you making fun of Vision Forum? I don't subscribe to it but I am sure there is a lot of truth to it. Does it make you feel good to make fun of it? If you ask me it is pretty immature. Maybe when I am mad at feminists I will go get Oprah's magazine and make paper dolls out of it or whatever. Maybe I will draw long dresses on pictures on Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. I know! I will draw a gag over Clinton. That will make me feel much better. I mean, how old are you?

I'm sorry but after reading that you subscribe to a magazine just for laughs, I cannot take anything you say with a lot of seriousness. I don't agree with a lot of Vision Forum. I think they take some scripture out of context but they should be respected. The people who believe like VF do a heck of a job at raising young people to be good citizens. And your boyfriend who isn't man enough to marry you but take all the benefits of marriage must feel pretty convicted if he can't even have an innocent Christian magazine in his house. I think most of the feminists on here are just plain mean and rude and have a lot of growing up to do. HF, in my opinion is the only one I have met on here with a logical thinking brain and some curtesy.

-Zan

[Mrs B.]

WOW Zan! Good job! I also agree with your last statement about HF.....

HF: Although I do not agree with most of your views, I TOTALLY respect the way you express your views.....I bet you're an excellent attorney! You express yourself with class, even when others are rude to you.

[Mrs. B]

I just re-read your post and I wanted to add something about point #3. Yes, I guess that they could rape a man too but it's not as likely....if you think the United States is a sexist country, take a look at countries in the Middle East. To them, women are nothing more than property to be used and a woman captured in that country is going to get treated WAY worse than a man would. Yes, both sexes would probably be tortured but the woman will be used over and over and over until they're done with her.

[The Happy Feminist]

Gosh -- lots to respond to here. I want to follow up at some point about Zan's comment about feminists sometimes seeming as though they are ashamed to be women, and also the use of humor in political discussion.

My fantasy when I started this blog was that it could turn into a place where feminist and traditionalist women could have a dialogue. I don't know if that's realistic are not but I am glad that both feminist and non-feminist women are reading!

[Ann]

I think making fun of a magazine is a lot less offensive than telling good people they are out to destroy society and that they will be doomed to hell. That, to me, is bordering on violence.

[Essa]

I've been told by a man who says he was in Vietnam that they could track down female soldiers by smell, that the smell is what gave away the presence and location of the group. This sounds ludicrous to me. It is bs, right?

[Haida]

I've been told by a man who says he was in Vietnam that they could track down female soldiers by smell

It is indeed, BS. In the field, members of a patrol or field unit are not permitted to wear cologne, perfume, deodorant, etc. Those scents WILL lead the enemy into you. It is much better to smell bad. The human sense of smell is not acute enough to detect a human at any distance.

[Jennifer]

Well I am opposed to women in combat, sure there may be some women that CAN do it but is it really worth all the trouble is it really necessary? Is it preparring us militarily or are we just doing it to shut up the feminists and be politically polite? First things first, while under oath Col. Patrick Tffler addmitted that during West Point training, they separated the physical requirments and activities so it would be easier on the women. And yes women have been serving in places like Israel in ground combat but even they have abolished women in combat because it was more of a hassle and it was ineffective. And one of the military men from Israel said that yes "men moved to protect the women members of the unit instead of carryng out the mission of the unit."-heritage.com So you see women arn't as equal as many feminists wished we were. We were created and designed for different purposes, I think women have done an amazing job serving our country, just not on the front lines. What is so wrong with doing all the other jobs? You see the militaty is a team, or a band. sure the singer gets all the publicity but what about the drummer and the guitar? All these other jobs are serving the country. It's not about what team player you are it's about what you contribute to serve.

[The Happy Feminist]

Hi Jennifer --

Thanks for your comments. Although I personally have no military experience, I cannot imagine that the military would do something that it knows would weaken its effectiveness in life or death situations just to "shut up the feminists" or to be "politically polite." As a feminist myself, I do not advocate lowering standards or effectiveness for the sake of equal opportunity. However, I do not assume that placing women in combat necessarily means lowering standards or effectiveness -- that's one of the issues I am studying right now. As you can see from this post, I am only addressing the cultural arguments rather than the arguments related to the physical differences between the sexes.

As far as men moving to protect women in the unit instead of carrying out the unit's mission, I don't know the circumstances the Israeli officer was addressing, but it strikes me that better training would solve this issue as well as making sure that all soldiers whether male or female are qualified to carry out the unit's mission.

I have posted previously on why I care about this issue (http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2005/11/maybe_i_am_miss.html) and also I have posted more recently on why pregnancy is not the issue people think it is.
I hope you keep reading. I am going to be posting more on the issue of women in combat shortly.

[Zan]

Ann,

Telling people that they may go to hell is not violent. It is part of a Christian's belief system. If you are not saved than you are lost and you will go to hell. I am not personally sending you to hell you are sending yoursself by not believing in Christ. Before you accuse Christians of being violent by believing that unbelievers go to hell, do a little research on why they believe this. I am not happy that people go to hell. I am a nurse and have taken care of people who I was convinced were not Christian. It was not pretty. Believing in hell and trying to warn fellow human beings of hell is not violent. If you think it is than you have never experienced violence. What ever happened to freedom of speech? I guess by warning people of hell or by discussing our views of how we think society should be run is violent in your small world.

-Zan

[alex]

First I would like to address the staement the vietnam vet made regarding "smelling" female soldiers. From my experiences in the military it is absolutely true. After spending 5 weeks in the jungles of the Philipines, I'm sure we all smelled pretty bad. But because I smelled just as bad I could not distinguish between myself and other males. But the females with us had a distinct smell and after a while I could tell when a female was near. I'm guessing it's because of our different chemisrty. You must remember though that the only hygiene products any of us had were soap and a toothbrush with toothpaste. Because of the nature of our excercise we were not permitted deordorant. Nor were we able to shower everyday. So no perfume and cologne.
I agree with Ann in most of the replies. But one thing about the physical differences. Women are right when they say a female would have no problems operating a weapon that a man can. A child can and does in Sierra Leone(unfortunately.) But the physical factors lies not in operation of a weapons system but by other demands of a infantry soldier. Such as carrying heavy loads for long periods of time, carrying a wounded soldier and gear alone, or climbing over tall obstacles with heavy gear on. I have had to do all three and have never met a female in the military that could do any. In combat I need to rely on my fellow soldiers to do all of the previous mentioned task. I'm sure that there are women out there who are capable of performing those task just as I know for a fact there are male soldiers who can't. But we are talking of women in general, not the exceptions.
I don't mean to offend anyone in even the slightest way. I respect all women who serve and am proud to be part of a mixed sex military. I do not look down on women for not serving in combat units because I know that if it was't for the physical limitations, then I would have to push myself to keep up with all the female soldiers with their strong spirits.

[The Happy Feminist]

Alex, thanks. I do think that the physical issues are probably the only legitimate argument for women not being in combat. I haven't yet examined that angle, and I am a bit hampered by the fact that I have never served in the military, so I don't have a clear sense of what's required or the limits of women's ability. I am hoping to look at that and write about it at some point in the future, but comments by people who have actually served are very helpful.

As for the smell issue, it sounds as though everyone smelled pretty foul in the situation you were in. So someone who wanted to track down human beings could just as easily find the men as find the women, right?

[Bob]

Dear Happy Feminist,

I am thirteen years old and i just so happened to bump apon your website for a school project on military women in combat. One question that would really help my project is...

Can you list some of your OWN stances that you have on this particular topic [military women in combat] and not other people's stances that you disagree with? [It would really help since i need a feminist's stance on this topic in order to get a good grade]

Thank you~

Best Regards,
Bob [this isn't my actual name because i feel that i shouldn't give this out. Sorry. ]

[The Happy Feminist]

Hi Bob--

I have given my own opinions on the issue of women in combat in other posts. If you go to the sidebar under categories it says "Women in Combat." If you click on it, you will find all my posts on the subject.

My position is that I tend to favor women in combat. I think the only legitimate argument against it are the physical disparities between men and women-- i.e. in light of the differences between male and female musculuture, can women perform the physical aspects of combat adequately? I don't yet know the answer to that question and am a little hampered by the fact that I don't know that much about combat nor do I know the limits of women's capability (which has historically been underestimated.) The answer may depend on what kind of combat we're talking about. The solution also may be to have certain physical standards and if there are women who can meet those standards great and if not that's fine too. I don't think anyone, no matter how feminist, is arguing that we should weaken our fighting force just for the sake of equality -- but we shouldn't take it as a given that women are not capable of performing well in combat without really examining combat roles and women's capabilities.

Good luck with your paper! (And I think you're smart not to give out your real name on the internet. I don't either.)