Why Women Should Not be Allowed in Active Combat Duty - Essay Example

?Here's Why Women Should Not be Allowed in Active Combat Duty Women have been fighting for equal rights with men for more than century and I must saythat the feminist fight has won huge battles in terms of equality of the sexes. Women have proven that they can play hardball with the best men in various career fields. They are admirable in the way they acquit themselves in times of conflict and split second decision making and maybe, just maybe -- we might even have a female president some day. Women still have lofty ambitions when it comes to more things that they hope to do in terms of male equality and, along with the presidency, fighting alongside men in active combat is still one glass ceiling they cannot break. Although there already exists cracks in that particular ceiling, I do not believe that women should ever be allowed to see active combat for a number of valid reasons. There are two main reasons that women should not be allowed in combat according to Robert Bork (qtd. in Sowin). Those reasons are: 1. Putting women in combat is crucial to women’s self-esteem and to men’s respect for women. (That has never been true in the past and it is impossible to see why it should be true now.) 2. Combat roles are important to military advancement. The above arguments are all based upon the way that women are traditionally viewed in our society. Women's rights activists protest the idealization of the female role in society because it makes them seem like fragile, emotionally weak people who do not have any desire or capability to defend themselves or others. By joining the military and joining active combat, women feel that they are an equally strong sex and are capable of fighting the good fight also. This is one case wherein the intentions may be sound, but the execution will always be weak. The reality of women in the military is that they are given preference and leeway in most streneous and taxing activities because women do not have the same stamina as men. In fact, women who train in West Point and other military institutions are not made to compete against other men or by male standards, they are only measured in terms of capabilty against other women. This can prove to be detrimental on the battlefield where they fight alongside men who are faster and stronger but are then held back in order to allow the women to catch up. (Sowin Why Women Should Not Be Allowed in Combat). Gender norming and lowering the training standards in order to allow women to pass is a disservice to our world class soldiers who are expected to lead on the battlefield. Women are still thought of all over the world, most specially in the Muslim territories as being weak and dependent on the male species. Majority of the modern women have managed to change that idea by proving that they can be emotionally and physically strong in various ways. I take my hats off to those women. However, fighting in an active battlefront requires much more than just marathon training and endurance tests. There are those who take on the point of view that : Women are not suited by temperament or by physical characteristics for the highly aggressive, ultra-violent pursuit of victory in battle. Much of an army’s success depends upon intimidation of the enemy. A force composed of women is far less intimidating than one consisting of macho men. Intimidation of the enemy saves lives in wartime. (Women Should Not Be Allowed in Military Combat). Consider if you will, that the enemies of our nation field burly, scary, and brainwashed men into battle. They live to intimidate the weak. The simple glare of of their eyes, flare of the nostrils, or clearing of the throat is designed to instill fear into any enemy be he male or female. Fighting a war does not allow for segregation of the sexes in order to effectively fight the battle. It is man vs. woman in most cases and, no matter what Hollywood says about G.I. Jane, a woman can easily be taken down by a well trained and strength enhanced enemy. This will then pose a problem for the team who will need to go and retrieve her while trying to fight a war. Throughout the evolution of the planet, women have always served in the role of nurturers while men have always traditionally gone out to fight. This clearly defines the roles of men and women in society. Men, are the protectors and conquerors while women, are the nurturers who make sure that family units remain intact while the men are off fighting or, are the people who nurse the soldiers back to health after battle. According to Terkel (Ban On Women In Combat Is Discriminatory, High-Level Military Panel States) : Women currently make up 14.6 percent of the active-duty military. Since 2001, 137 female service members have been killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When women are allowed in active combat, we put their traditional roles at risk. If they die on the battlefield, they will most likely have left behind orphan children owing to most of the females in the military being single moms. According to Jelinek (Military Commission: Lift Ban, Allow Women in Combat), the Department of Defense has already allowed thousands of women to serve in the active battle front in less life threatening roles. Our brave female soldiers have already seen action in Iraq and Afghanistan in the hugely important roles as medics, ligistics officers, and others. They do not need to see active combat duty since they already perform an integra service by simply being on the sidelines of the battlefield. There is no need to women to seek more. The equal rights groups often argue that women need to be better represented in the military because that is the only remaining sector of employment where the gender is still under-represented. Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez has declared (qtd. in Jelinek) that: Women generally make up about 14 percent of the armed services. Of the roughly 2.2 million troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 255,000 have been women. Even with such impressive statistics on women in the military, their career advancement remains low due to the lack of opportunities of women to present themselves in the best light while in active combat. Lory Manning of the Women's Research and Education Institute (qtd. in Jelinek) argues that allowing women to have active combat duty is a woman's right whose time has come. She explains: It's something whose time has come ... a logical outcome of what women have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Army and Marines have been essentially ducking the policy...They come up with the (term) 'attaching' someone to a unit as opposed to 'assigning,' but they've been doing it for nine years now. Females on the warfront never see battle because they are attached to a unit, not assigned. This is one way that the military prevents too much casualities from piling up on the female side. It is their way of protecting the women for their own good. Women like Megan Locatis (qtd. in Should Women be Allowed to Serve in Combat-Based Units? )who is a senior at Allegan High School argues that barring women from the combat lines is simply male chauvinism at its finest. She believes that: To deny women the right to serve their country in any way they wish reaffirms male chauvinism, reinforces traditional gender roles, and destroys the epitome of American values: equality. It's time to start looking at each other not as male or female, but as human. Females are seen as human beings by the military. Whether they want it or not, their traditional roles as women will continue to be respected and held in high regard by the military establishment. There may be those who consider such a belief arachaic, but it is a tradition that has not changed for centuries and is not about to change just because a handful of women want to pretend that they can flex their muscles on the warfront and actually make the enemies cringe. We all know what goes on in the battle front. Our soldiers, duck, roll, and hide while carrying their equivalent weight in supplies on their backs. The battlefront requires a high degree of upper body strength which women are not physically capable of emulating. This is not because they are not given a chance to do so, but because the female physique is built differently from the men. That is the belief that Grant Walters, a senior at Portage Senior High School (qtd. in Should Women be Allowed to Serve in Combat-Based Units? ) espouses when asked if he believes if women should be allowed to served in active duty. With Congress recently allowing women to fight in active combat, people such as former Marine Captain and executive director of the Service Women's Action Network Anu Bhagwati believes that the breaking of a portion of the remaining glass ceilings for women is a step in the right direction because keeping women from the battlefront is: is archaic, it does not reflect the many sacrifices and contributions that women make in the military, and it ignores the reality of current war-fighting doctrine. (Report: Women Should be Allowed in Combat) I find it very hard to believe that there are military officers and personnel who believe that women are being shortchanged and unrecognized in their field of military service. Even the mere mention that the role that the military allows the women to undertake does not reflect the current war-fighting doctrine makes me cringe. Just because wars are now basically fought in auto pilot by drones and long range missiles does not make the battle any easier. Instead, it has made it more dangerous because the existence of remote controlled war machines have turned the battlefront into a gray area. There are no safe zones. There are no actual battlefronts. Where women are working in their assigned capacities, once assigned as a target area by the enemy, becomes a warzone. So how does the current warfare technology make war battles any less dangerous for the females? I thought so, it does not. In order to further and more reasonably argue my case in favor of not allowing any females to be allowed in active combat duty, one must merely look back into our current war history to understand why it is just not feasible to allow women to participate in active combat. For even in a non-active role, their lives are already in clear and present danger so to speak. I speak of course of the first American prisoner of war since World War II and the only woman soldier so far, Pfc. Jessica Lynch. Lynch was serving in an active non-combat duty as a clerk within the 507th Maintenance Company when her convoy was ambushed during the Battle of Nasiriyah on March 23, 2003 in Iraq. She never got to fire her gun which malfunctioned when she needed it. So she was easily overpowered and knocked out by her Iraqi captors. The only survivor of her team, Pfc. Lynch is one of the lucky soldiers who received humane treatment and was respected by her captors. Possibly because she was a wounded woman. They did not consider her any enemy and instead, respected her as most traditions dictate. Her team was never supposed to be part of active combat. They were not even a battle active unit. They were just foot soldiers with maintenance duties to perform. But they found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, and for some in Lynch's troop, they paid with their lives. For Jessica Lynch, her life had changed forever. Her serious injuries broke her back and damaged most of her major organs. She might never be able to conceive in the future either. Her accidental participation in a battlefront clearly shows that women were never made for high caliber combat and unlike their male counterparts, they cannot just shake it off and go on to the next battle. When interviewed by Anna Mulrine for USNews, Pfc Lynch, now, Civilian Lynch recounted that she to immediately seek psychiatric help upon her return from Iraq, In her own words : I put it all in perspective, and I've learned to deal with it. I'm just happy I survived... I still have nightmares, a fear of being alone, and all of that stuff. But when I feel myself getting depressed, I distract myself"—usually by baking. Anything chocolate and sweet. I love to mess around with stuff like that. After having faced death in the face, she is no longer interested in fighting for the American way. She does not even follow news of any of the wars America is fighting anymore. That is how weak the female make up is. The females are incapable of recovering from a traumatic experience and then using that experience as a source of strength while continuing to fight the battles required of them in the name of Freedom. That is what our male soldiers are called upon to do and that is what they do each time they are called into an active tour of duty, time and time again. Major Judith Webb (retired) of the Royal Army used to think that women should be allowed to serve in active combat duty at all times. She has recently changed that belief because according to her women are not inferior to men but instead, are of a different pyschological make up. she explains that women are (Webb Why Women Should Not be on the Frontline): ... different physiologically, mentally and emotionally to men and there are some roles for which we are simply not suited. Yes, we may be capable of incredible mental and physical toughness, but there is no getting away from the fact that we are the more compassionate sex; instinctively more nurturing and lacking the thirst for aggression that drives our male counterparts. Women are admittedly not capable of the same level of aggression as their male counterparts. Women are not physical fighters by nature like men. Which is why it takes a lot more to provoke them into violent action than men. Women are not aggressive by nature and those female soldiers who have babies waiting for them back home tend to be overly cautious in dangerous situations because they fear dying and leaving their children orphaned. As a soldier, a woman cannot serve two masters. When a woman signs up for the job, she knows that her life is on the line and that it can be taken from her in an instant. Overly cautious actions on her part could result in problems for her team in hazardous situations. There is no time to think of personal safety when you are a soldier. That is something that female soldier have a hard time understanding. Women need to concentrate and focus on the mission on hand. She needs to acquit herself as seamlessly as the men on the team because even the smallest mistake on any of their parts could result in a catastrophe. But the opposite of that happens once a male soldier sees his female comrade wounded and lying injured. He instead tries to come to her aid and forgets all about the mission on hand. The dangers of the warfront cannot be predicted. A women could either die on the field of become a prisoner of war. Since modern warfare is also all about propaganda, having a woman on the team becomes detrimental if she also happens to be a mother. She becomes a target, a hostage pawn for the enemy once they get wind of the information via news media. It is almost like the military served her up to death on a silver platter in such instances. But men who are capture, though they are fathers do not carry the same hostage weight as the female. Another issue to consider when defending the stance of not allowing women to particiapte in active combat is the biological make up of women. While men can “do their business” inside a fox hole and stay there for weeks on end if necessary, imagine what it might be like for a woman who might be having her monthly period during the battle? Where would she turn to and how would she get changed? Imagine the discomfort that the women will have. It will not be possible to treat women differently from men in the battlefield in such instances. There are no portalets or tampons on hand to take care of business. Having a woman in active combat would require a total overhaul of our battlefield supplies as we know it to be now. They would not be helping their male counterparts in instances when the female is suffering from stomach cramps and the like. Instead, they would be hindering their team and requiring special attention from the males who need to nurse them in a disguised way while trying to fulfill their own missions. Imagine having a female going through that while carrying 150 pounds of supplies and ammunitions on her back while going on night time patrol as well. No, having the women undergo a forced menopause using drugs or operations are not acceptable methods of helping them cope with the demands of the battlefield either. Women tend to be dreamers. They are the romanticists who see war as a part of an intricate story of life. They do not see it as a reality because all they know of war is what they see in Hollywood movies. They are not forced into the draft like men are. They are not forced into ROTC training in college either. They have in reality, an idealized version of what fighting in a war truly means. We already see some of our women come home in body bags from Iraq and Afghanistan. Do we really want to see more of that over time? This time in more violent forms and possibly with no body to be brought home at all as is the case with some male soldiers? No. Women were never meant to serve on the battlefield and they should therefore be kept off it. The female soldiers must understand that knowing how to fight a battle in theory is totally different from having to overpower a crazed terrorist hellbent on blowing you up because you represent a country they wish to destroy. We lose our men to battles that should never have been theirs to fight. The men fight because they are traditionally expected to be the defenders of the American ideology. Women are not. Women need to stay at home or in the non-active units and help fight our country's battles where they can be safe and of true use to the military. On the battlefield, they shall always be nothing more than a liablity. Therefore, women should not be allowed to join the military in active combat duty mode. There is just too much going against their desire to fight on the battlefront to say that they can effectively handle themselves on the field. There has been no actual proof that women can be trusted to deliver what is needed while in on the firing line. If I am ever presented with any actual proof of their effectivity while under fire, then maybe I will change my mind. But until then, I remain steadfast in my belief that women do not belong in active combat duty on the warfront. Works Cited Jelinek, Pauline. “Military Commission: Lift Ban, Allow Women in Combat”. Life. msnbc.com. 14 Jan. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. Kalamazoo Gazette Staff. “Should Women be Allowed to Serve in Combat-Based Units?”. Our Turn Column. mlive.com. 26 Nov. 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. Mulrine, Anna. “Former POW Jessica Lynch Recalls Her Captivity in Iraq”. Politics and Policy. USNews. 18 Mar. 2008. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. Odd Citizen. “Women Should not be Allowed in Military Combat”. Uncategorized. An Odd Citizen's Search for Vanishing Freedoms. 26 May 2007. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. “Report: Women Should Be Allowed in Combat”. Politics. CBS News. 15 Jan. 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. “Should Women be Allowed to Serve in Equal Combat Roles in the Armed Forces?”. Debates: Society. Juggle debates.com. 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. Sowin, Joshua. “Why Women Should Not Be Allowed In Combat”. Fire & Knowledge Home. Fire & Knowledge. 21 Mar. 2005. Web. 10 Dec. 2011. Terkel, Amanda. “Ban On Women In Combat Is Discriminatory, High-Level Military Panel States”. Huff Post. 5 May 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2011. Webb, Judith. “Why Women Should Not be on the Frontline, by Major Judith Webb”. News. Mail Online. 7 April 2007. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. Westbrook. “Should Women Serve in Direct Combat Roles? An Opinion”. Opinions. NewsFlavor. 19 April 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. Read More