Manpower demands have largely justified women’s right of entry into military forces of sovereign states. All across the world, countries that currently recruit women for combat roles were prompted by a need to boost the number of boots on the ground. But it should not just be numerical necessity that drives us as thinking citizens to advocate for combat roles to be open to women. Rather, our collective concern about the insidious social messages we propagate by passively accepting the exclusion of women should also push us to change the status quo.
Aren’t we all tired of sexist messages in our world? Yes, we can now laugh at our parents’ childhood anecdotes: young, sweet girls played with tea sets, while boys were allowed, and in fact encouraged, to be physical with each other. But we still hear phrases like “girls shouldn’t be so aggressive” or “a good girl would never that.” Just over winter break, I told a friend that I was considering the military as a post-graduation option, and he said: “See? That’s your problem—you’re not a good girl. That’s why I like Sherry. She’s sweet.”
What messages reverberate throughout our society when we deny women combat roles in the military? The tyranny of “good girls are sweet and kind” continues to spread socio-cultural messages about what sort of occupations women should have as well as the sort of occupations men should not have.
When we go to war, we fight for principled values that we deem worth protecting, and the socially-endorsed system of military roles for men and women should be aligned with those values.
Gaille Teo ’15 is a government concentrator in Quincy House.
The Military In An Age Of Equality
It seems that the objections to women serving in combat roles can be summarized into three basic arguments. First, it is a much beloved statement of those opposing an inclusive policy for combat positions that women are “biologically” less capable of aerobic endurance or muscular strength than men, a difficult fact to deny on average. However, we are not attempting to compare men’s and women’s capacities for strength and endurance. Instead, the question is whether a woman would be able to complete the physical requirements needed for a combat position, which should be set by necessity, not by a discriminatory stipulation of gender. While fewer women might achieve such levels, as Jon Soltz, notes: “There are women who can meet these standards, and they have a right to compete."
A second, more quaint, protectionist argument is that women would be incapable of matching men in managing the realities of being in a combat zone for an extended period of time, including handling “lack of hygiene” or the risk of gender-specific mistreatment if captured. This argument forgets that the women who are vying for these combat roles often have experience with this in their current roles and understand that the miserable conditions they will be exposed to will be no more difficult than that of their male colleagues. They accept the danger that, if captured, they will be subjected to tortures that specifically target females and yet are willing to face them in service of their country. I certainly would not be the one to deny such a sense of duty.
Third, there are concerns that the effectiveness of a combat unit would be psychologically impaired by the presence of a woman, either in the form of sexual relationships or an altered team dynamic. Although it is difficult to deny that men and women interact differently while on a team together, that is not to say that such a team would be the worse for it. Bringing women into combat roles would be a revolution to the military’s mode of operations. Currently, women are mere footnotes in an otherwise male-dominated community. They already occupy combat roles in all but name, but they are kept back by their lack of equal consideration. Granting women equal status would require completely integrated training, which would create the close but professional relationships that define a team. That training will break down the psychological impact of having a woman present, an oft cited in the debate today.
As far as sex is concerned—it happens. You could draw a similarity to women in any other profession, where the ability to have sex is not considered a disqualifier. The only difference in this case is the close proximity associated with a combat team. What is needed is the ability of all members of that team to act professionally, as already required by all those in any military positions. Pregnancy would be undoubtedly undesirable while in a combat role, but it is also highly preventable. Working women who do not want to become pregnant are able to prevent it. Why, then, should it be any different for women wishing for a career in combat?
It seems to me that every one of these arguments is riddled with a view of women that is becoming increasingly out of date every day. It has happened quickly, yes, but there is no reason that the military should be exempt from changing with the times.
William Locke ’15 is a government concentrator in Winthrop House.