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.