The recent graduation of two women from the US Army Ranger training course has once again ignited debate. Women have been banned from combat in the US military. This ban was lifted by the Department of Defense in 2013. Leon Pennetta who was secretary of defense was certain that women could perform well enough to serve in ground combat. While it is clear prohibiting participation is discrimination, there are particular considerations that should be examined. There are social, political , and qualification aspects that cannot be ignored. If this integration process is going to happen certain steps must be taken. Some commentators hailed this as "historic" and a demonstration of women's advancement. Upon further investigation, there are ulterior motives.
The political impact of women in combat presents challenges. The first problem is with the selective service. Young men are required to register with the selective service. Now that the ban on women in combat is lifted, there is no reason not to extend this to women. The unusual amount of silence on this from feminist groups is more revealing. Women have a choice, but men do not. Allowing this unequal burden to remain is a clear double standard. A reverse scenario would result in numerous protests by feminist organizations.Besides that issue, there remains political opposition to the decision. This comes from American conservatives and people in the army themselves. Conservatives who are extremely militaristic do not support women in the armed forces. This seems almost contradictory considering their willingness to use military might against other nations. They still believe that a woman's pace in in the home and out of the public sphere. American liberals do support US military aggression, but disguise it in the form of humanitarian intervention. They are only supportive of women in the army when it presents them as "progressive." Although the debate on women in combat has been present for several decades, this could gradually become a major wedge issue. Abortion, gun control, same-sex marriage, and immigration are just a few examples of wedge issues that divide the American public.The reason the ban was lifted was not because of some revelation of wrong doing, but necessity. The US has been losing wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and it makes no sense that able bodied people not be allowed to fight.
Women account for at least 14% of the armed forces and in a way already have been fighting. There are no front lines, but wars of attrition and insurgents resisting occupation with guerrilla warfare tactics. The reality is this has nothing to do with women's empowerment, but the continuation of never ending wars. It will not be just poor men who will fight, but poor women. The elite upper class will then gain the rewards from the deaths of the socioeconomically disadvantaged.
Another dynamic that needs examination is the social transformation of the military institution. The US Army has been for a longtime viewed as a male only affair. Women who go into male dominated fields often face discrimination, prejudice, and harassment. The US military tends to view women as a liability rather than an asset. There is some form of institutional sexism that exists in the army. The evidence is clear when revealing the high level of sexual assault in the US military. So far little has been done to stop the thousands incidents of rape. Detractors of women serving in combat positions often claim that women would be more vulnerable to rape in the battlefield. Statistics prove that women soldiers are more likely to raped by their peers, rather than by enemy combatants. Women who attempt to expose such crimes are either bullied into silence or removed. These criminal acts must be punished and attitudes must change. Men must learn to work with women as a cohesive unit.
This means a level of integration in training and other tasks. Another problem is that some myths must be discredited. The idea that women disturb unit functionality seems ludicrous. Detractors state that men would do dangerous actions in order to protect women. Chivalry they believe is instinctual. When an extremely precarious situation arises it is dubious if you can depend on your fellow soldier. The fictionalized Hollywood version of a soldier is a man bravely going into bullet fire, with no sense of fear. He safes his comrades drags them off to safety and is a hero. Real warfare is less glamorous. Nearly 6,600 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that the casualties are high and the chances people being saved are diminutive. The first priority of people in danger is self- preservation and no amount of training can unravel that.Many men still believe that women are beneath them. They look at their female peers as inferiors. There is also the conviction that women soldiers are less competent. Even if this is proven false, their presence is unwanted. The social structure formed in the army is modeled like a college fraternity organization. A machismo culture combined with misogynist beliefs. This seems unfitting for an institution that considers itself professional.
Qualifications are pivotal. When discussing qualifications the argument shifts to physical fitness . Women have less upper body strength compared to men on average. Seeing as women produce more estrogen their total body composition would consist mostly fat. Men produce more testosterone allowing for a higher amount of muscle mass. This means men would be on average stronger than women. Hormones also influence total bone mass. Women have less bone density as compared to a male. Endocrinology and sexual dimorphism explain the differences in physical fitness levels between males and females. However, it is not impossible for women to build up their physical strength. There was a controversy in 2013 about the three pull-ups requirement. There was talk of lowering the standard for women recruits when a large number failed. This was a mistake. Lowering standards would only create resentment among male recruits and give cogency to detractors. The another problem is it reinforces the notion of female physical inferiority.Women need extra training and improved nutrition if they are going to be successful on the Army Physical Fitness Test. Weight training can improve women's physical strength. Any woman would not be able to these training courses. That is why the army should seek to recruit women with athletic skills. A woman who is exceptional is the only one capable of passing.
Kristen Greist carries soldier in US Army Ranger School
Certain health considerations need to be addressed. Women can suffer stress fractures higher than their male counter parts. Women must build up bone mass to avoid such hazards. While exercise can build up strength and endurance, nutrition can also help. Protein is essential for the muscles, just like fruits and vegetables are for overall health. For both men and women, there is the issue of obesity. A majority of the US population would not be able to combat ready due to weight management issues.Fitness programs for women should designed specifically to increase upper body strength.
Through out history, there have been women who fought in war. Women during the American Civil War incognito as males fought for the Union or Confederacy. The Soviet Union allowed women to engaged in combat mostly as snipers and bombers. Women have seen combat, so this is nothing new. The amount of backlash seems like a new phenomenon. Men's and some women's objections to women serving seems reactionary. If a woman is qualified to perform all tasks, there is no legitimate reason to ban her from combat. Gender biases are not a reasonable excuse to exclude women from the military. There is an urgent concern. Women's inclusion could be part of an agenda for greater military expansion.Seeing as women can apply for combat positions this would mean an increase in troops. The US realizes that if its empire is to continue, every able bodied person has to fight. What ever the true motives are for a reverse in a long term policy will only reveal itself decades later.
No comments:
Post a Comment