Check it out! (the website won't let me embed it so you'll just have to click on the link...grrr.)
The video addresses the rules against women's participation in ground combat situations. The news correspondent interviewed a couple of women serving in the military who live under this restriction, and their responses shocked me. Some seemed upset with the seemingly sexist rule, and others supported it by acknowledging the weaknesses of male peers when it comes to women captives.
Personally, if I were a woman in the United States military, I would be outraged at any kind of restriction based on gender. That is not what our country is about, and it's unconstitutional. Having just recently talked about the Constitution in class, I was left asking, What happened to equal rights? Equal opportunities? I'm aware of the dangers surrounding it, but I don't understand how a generalization could be made about an entire gender with no experience to base it off of. Is restricting women from certain military positions unconstitutional or intelligent?
10 comments:
I think that the rules that separate tasks as being either for men or women are outdated for how war has evolved. For example, fighting on the frontlines of combat--the only example I really know anything about-- is still reserved for men only. However, due to changes in war strategy and technology, our limit on what sex serves where on the ground has become pointless.
The type of wars we fight now often are against guerrilla groups, which are very decentralized groups that often use surprise tactics. Battle scenes can change drastically in very short amounts of time, and as a result, women fighting anywhere can end up on the frontlines, anyway.
What interests me are future drafts. In a draft, the main worry is that you have men coming in to the army and fighting with relatively less training. Excluding women from a draft has many benefits, for the American population in terms of reproduction and for women's roles, but should gender be the deciding factor? What if women were to undergo a bit more training than men if drafted, wouldn't that even things out? Right or wrong morally I wonder, how would the public react if things laws that differentiate between men and women's roles were to be removed?
I only learned about this restriction last week, and it really shocked me. From what I understand, good soldiers should respect authority and be smart, athletic and brave. Women can do all of that; one of my teachers from last year was in the reserves for several years,and she embodies those charecteristics more than most people I know. Although I have bias because I am a girl, I believe I am perfectly qualified to say that this rule is unconstitutional; America strives for equality, and equal rights for the army should be a no-brainer.
Ruchi (or anybody),
What did you think about the argument regarding the "brother-sister" relationship established between men and women soldiers?
It seems kind of like a non-issue to me. Women are technically not allowed to serve on the front line, but they do. It seems like a frivolous and frankly unimportant argument to make whilst your country is in the middle of a recession, two wars, and a very heated healthcare debate.
If you want to talk about an outdated military policy, talk about don't ask don't tell. Some of the most important (and hardest to find) personnel during a foreign war are translators.
Daniel Choi was discharged after graduating from westpoint (by far the best military college in the country and one of the best colleges in the country). Discharging based on sexuality seems not only unfair to Choi but hurtful to an army that is having a real recruiting problem. According to the Washington post the pentagon themselves (who would most certainly want to spin the facts in their favor) state that 9,501 gays were dishonorably discharged between 1994 (the start of the program) and 2003.
I think that these men and women who are forced to serve under false pretenses are some of the greatest heroes, reminiscent of the African-American soldiers of WWII.
I found, thanks to New Trier's subscription to History Resource Center, a great article concerning this topic:
http://ntesx01-lic.nths.net:2108/servlet/HistRC/hits?docNum=BT2318000063&tab=1&locID=winn16583&origSearch=true&hdb=US&t=RK&s=1&r=d&items=0&secondary=true&o=&sortOrder=&n=10&l=dR&sgPhrase=false&c=1&tabMap=119&bucket=gal&SU=women+in+the+military.
sorry it's huge. The most interesting parts, as I see it, are "By the 1970s, women had become so essential to the U.S. armed forces that it would have been next to impossible to build a high-quality active and reserve force of volunteers without them. Women became so integrated into the military, at all levels, that the United States could not go to war without them, and they served in combat even though not officially designated combatants. That was the message of Operation Just Cause and the reality of Operation Desert Storm." The military has now recognized that American women can do more than sit at home and send packages to their husbands and sons, they can be self-sufficient and actually go into combat. The article mentions that "women have fought and died in every war in American history". So, if women want to fight like men, who's to stop them? Girls can be tough, too.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you Sam, this is an issue. And very relative. Don't Ask, Don't tell, is also a problem with the military, but certainly most would agree that, because sexism is one of the most current and large issues in America, present in the glass roofs of corporations as well as unspoken decrees of domesticity, and now inability to serve in the military, how can you say that something that is such a problem to about half of America is a "non-issue?"
Though it is most certainly a problem that such a law exists, the report stated that (if I interpreted it correctly) for the most part these "rules" aren't actually followed on the battle field. I fully understand that woman in the military want to be seen as equals to the men who they work with. I just think that in a time when our country is in so much Peril (echem) we should be able to put aside our desire for credit. There are so many problems, the public, elected officials, and military can only handle so much change.
I think, if anything, woman in the military are greeted home by greater examples of courage and bravery as they are seen as overcoming some sexism that doesn't exist as much as people say.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of feminism, I support tittle 9 (though it gives me a disadvantage when I apply to colleges). It is unquestionable that woman in the workplace or in politics are held to unfair standards (think of any sexist term, ie the b word or c word). However in the high intensity world of combat (and the free time at base camp) the woman are held to an identical standard as men (this comes from my male cousin, currently serving in Fallujah, Iraq)
I would never dream of calling someone who tries blindly to protect this nation as selfish, but this is the closest I've ever seen.
Sam- I really didn't mean for this post to compare the issue at all to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. While I'll admit that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a very important issue, I really do believe that this is just an important an issue (which is why I blogged about it...). It doesn't really matter if women are held to the same standards as men; if they're not given equal opportunities, it's not fair. As far as I can tell, these women are not looking for military "credit," they just want to be recognized as equals in the fight for our country. In my opinion, it doesn't matter that the US is in a time of "Peril"; now is as good a time as any to update our military policies and show the world and our enemies the extent of our country's freedom. I am actually personally offended that you would call these women "selfish" for asking for equal rights; gays are doing the same thing in their pursuit of legal marriage, and African Americans did the same thing during the Civil Rights Movement. I would never accuse you of being sexist, but I do think that your opinion would be swayed if this was an issue concerning men.
"I think, if anything, woman in the military are greeted home by greater examples of courage and bravery as they are seen as overcoming some sexism that doesn't exist as much as people say."
While I think that's an interesting argument to make Sam, I just read an article about women who fought in the military and their role/view in society once they come back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01trauma.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&em
The article talks about how women have a harder time coping with PTSD once they get home due to way they are thought of and think of themselves both in the battle field.
Essentially, because women are not technically considered to be 'in combat' the same as men are, they feel like they have less reason and right to seek the same help men do, or feel the way they do about their experiences. Because of gender roles and behaviors that are typically considered more masculine or feminine, women also feel limited in how they are allowed to express their frustrations, despite the fact that they're having the same feelings as men, because of their different responsibilities and expectations.
I think this goes beyond a desire for credit. This is acknowledging what is. The rules may change on the battle field, but before the battle field, the way men and women are compared with each other is not equal at all. The article talks about a lot of different interesting things I'd never heard of.
Whoops. Sorry! The link I posted goes to page 3 of the article because that's what page I was on when I linked it, it should start on page one, otherwise it won't make any sense.
I think that these are all great comments, I would definately NEVER call anyone who fights blindly for me selfish ( I want to get that out there now) and I wish to apologize for the way that my last comment may have sounded.
However, there is a precedent in this country to not care about the message of laws. If a woman feels less important after leaving the battlefield that is a very sad occurrence, but not something that one can hold a pentagon policy fully accountable for.
In the article that you linked to it stated that 19,084 women are currently listed in a VA treatment for post traumatic stress. There are about 200,000 women in the army, that's about 10 percent of returning women complain of PTSD. Compare that to the 1.5 million people in the army (minus the 200,000 women gives us 1.3 million) The Iraq war has produced about 50,000-150,000 cases of PTSD, subtract the 20,000 women from the average (75,00)and we have 55,000/1,300,000 which is about 4 percent. I believe that women can do anything men can, so I'm going to assume that women are not more prone to PTSD, therefore, for the most part, women feel more comfortable telling the truth about their stress. I think that I could easily find a story of one woman who had trouble telling others of her PTSD, but then I could probably find ~2.2 or so men for that woman.
I am a huge fan of equal rights (who isn't), but it seems a lot like this story is the news media bringing attention to a vocal minority in order to move some paper. The two women of the army that I've spoken with on this say that it is a non-issue. Even the article spoke of a "brother-sister" relationship.
Overall, it seems like this article was written because the paper needed a filler, and they went out and looked for one female soldier who disliked the policy. It is the sort of thing that sounds really easy to agree with, "I like equal rights... I'm enraged," but try to read a little closer and consider the motives of the magazine.
My stats:
http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Topics/WomenInTheMilitary/
http://collegetimes.us/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-iraq-war-casualties/
http://socyberty.com/military/us-military-size-and-spending/
http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/Iraq%20War%20hidden%20stats.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Post a Comment