Women in Combat Positions: Women Should Be Respected as Women, Not Because They Can Emulate Being a Man - Essay Example

Running Head: ETHICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT Women in combat positions: Women should be respected as women, not because they can emulate being a man Name Class University Women in combat positions: Women should be respected as women, not because they can emulate being a man Women are currently barred from serving in more than 220,000 positions in the United States military. This is due to policy that was revised 17 years ago in which women are barred from serving in infantry positions, special forces, tanks, combat engineering and other specialized ground combat positions. Support positions such as logistics, medical, intelligence, and administrative are also not allowed to be filled by women when in combat sectored zones. Although women are unofficially fulfilling these positions on a regular basis in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are not allowed to be assigned positions that “regularly collocate with ground combat units” (McSally, 2011). Through being banned from these types of positions, women are impeded on progress through their military careers, unable to gain rank through experience in combat situations and therefore unable to be given promotions due to inexperience in these levels of military duty. According to Fenner and DeYoung (2001), “Most of the jobs that remain closed to women are in specialties that the Services consider likely to engage enemy forces in direct combat (or that serve in close proximity to those that do) and those in which members run a higher risk of capture” (p. 3). There are a great number of reasons why this policy remains in effect. The first reason given by Fenner and DeYoung (2001) is that there is a resistance by men to the idea of women in combat. Military men feel their own combat capabilities will be compromised if women are allowed to participate in ground missions. The public is uncomfortable with the consequences of women being captured in combat situations. As well, the dynamic of combat, capture, and imprisonment changes when women are brought into the equation. The second argument presented by Fenner and DeYoung is associated to the first in that these social issues that arise with women in combat have and will affect military readiness when faced with an action that needs a military response. The roles become clouded and too much effort is taken away from other problems in focusing on who and how roles should be fulfilled. The first argument that is proposed suggests that women present a change in the dynamic of combat. This change affects the way in which men face the enemy and the way in which the enemy response is interpreted. The International Debate Education Association (2009) reports that only about 200 women per year can meet the physical requirements that are defined for men, thus integrating that few women into the combat zones, allowing for gender differences and the accommodations that must be made for having women in the combat zones is not justified. In addition, the added pressure on men to both watch each other in a fraternal culture complicated by the social imperative to take care of women through a still active sense of chivalry would further impede the focus needed to engage in successful combat. Placing women in combat areas puts an unneeded pressure on men already in a complex and difficult position. The second aspect of that first argument is that women are more vulnerable in situations where capture is a possibility than are men. The capture of women in combat situations puts added pressure on the men who are captured with them as they are considered to be more vulnerable to torture and the elements of capture than are men. Whether or not women are more vulnerable than men is immaterial, but the perception of women being more vulnerable is enough to be a serious distraction to men who are in a precarious and difficult situation (Fenner and DeYoung 2001). The threat put to a woman is more difficult to endure for men in this situation than is that put on men when witnessing one of their brothers being put to the test. The first argument, then, for not putting women into combat is that socialization still consists of women being the responsibility of men under a sense of chivalry. Since few women can endure the physical tests at the pace that men endure in order to qualify for combat, the needs of women on the ground would hamper the military as they tried to cater to a very few women. This combination between socialization and inconvenience makes the placement of women on the ground a hindrance to effective military control over combat. Combat is a life or death situation and the social pressures that currently exist do not allow for the integration of women at this time. The second argument is supported by the first argument. The fact that few women can qualify for ground combat positions would place an undue burden on the system to accommodate their segregated needs. The idea that women would be in combat places administrative pressures on those controlling the troops that is not vital to the missions that are being undertaken. These types of distractions and unneeded details would create more problems than are necessary when the development and organization of combat is a life and death situation. Therefore the argument against women in combat is based upon the needs of the mission over the needs of a liberated and equal military. The myths of the idea of women in combat rule the policies that are put into place to support the troops. The truth of the idea of women in combat has been negated by a dwindling volunteer army which has had to insert women in collocate situations when manpower required women to fill positions in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq (International Debate Education Association, 2009). However, according to the Center for Military Readiness (2004), the average soldier must carry between 50 and 100 pounds of equipment in addition to wearing 25 pounds of armor. While some women rise to the challenge, very few qualify. Where women are being used on combat missions, equal effort does not mean the same as equal results (CMR, 2004). Using women who have not met these qualifications means that the effort is being made below the standard that is desired. This is not an advantage, but a disadvantage to the combat efforts. The social issues are also a matter of public perception. The idea that women are more vulnerable to the effects of war than are men is a socialized response to the expectations between the genders. It might be more accurate to assess that no one can take the brutality of war on both the body and the mind, but the idea that women are more vulnerable adds a pressure to those men whose units they are in, creating an added burden through a sense of chivalry. The myth of the male responsibility over the care of women creates a reality in the way in which action is approached when women are present. Proof of the vulnerability of both men and women during capture can be seen in the events at Abu Grahib at the US prison (Huisman, 2008). Men were sexually humiliated and tortured just as easily as women, but the perception of men is that they should be invulnerable to this kind of abuse. The truth was discovered that men were just as traumatized by this kind of treatment than women. The truth about how women function in the military is very different than the policy and the discussion suggest. According to McSally (2011), 14.6% of the military is made up of women. Since 2001 there have been 255, 000 women deployed into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and this has concluded with 150 killed and more than 700 wounded. Two silver stars have been awarded to women for valor in combat. An additional advantage has been having women on the ground to inspect women who might be enemy combatants through searches that do not violate their religious beliefs in regard to being engaged by men touching them inappropriately, which included touching them in any manner. Women are proving themselves valuable in the war effort, both as background support and on the ground in combat scenarios. Those who support the complete equality of opportunity for women in the military do so under the assumption that men and women should have equal opportunities for promotion, respect and duty. Women should be given the same opportunities in the military as men, their volunteerism as important as those of their male partners in the effort to protect the nation. Fenner and DeYoung (2001) bring up the idea that to be prevented from serving in combat is to be prevented from being a full citizen. They state that “this debate really is a struggle over our democratic political philosophy – what it means to be a full, first class citizen of this nation, with all the rights, privileges and obligations that pertain to that status” (p. 3). This includes having the privilege to put one’s life on the line for their country. All of these arguments, however, ignore the basic problem of trying to treat women and men as equal. Men and women are very different. They have different physiological needs, different psychological needs, and very different emotional needs. Declaring equality is not the same as achieving it. According to the Center for Military Readiness (2004) and the International Debate Education Association (2009), increases in military opportunity for women as well as increases in the population has disproportionately resulted in increases in sexual assaults. The backlash from the added pressure of women in military situations is the sexual violence of the men they serve with in the military. Public policy changes will not easily be reflected in military culture where fraternal order is still the nature of social interaction. Even if women could routinely meet the physical requirements of combat, the social pressures that having women in combat are too much a risk when life and death is at stake. It is easy to say that men need to just get over it, but with military missions resulting in life and death, that statement cannot be forced into the social consciousness. What should be changed is the point of view that women need to be allowed to be men. Men are not capable of giving birth, nor do they routinely have the emotional maturity that resides within the heart of women. That balance should be respected, rather than a patriarchal submission to the idea that to be equally respected, women should be the same as men. That is the battle that should be fought rather than trying to be men. Men cannot do what women do no matter how hard they try. They can never be the vessels of life. Therefore, they compensate through patriarchal beliefs that men are superior. Rather than fight a battle that would allow women to act as men, the battle should be about gaining respect for the high contributions to society made by women that men will never be able to accomplish. That is the battle of the sexes to be fought. In this argument, the underlying question is not well phrased. The base question is whether or not women should be allowed in combat. The question should be how society can be changed to respect the natural contributions of women in the same way that the natural contributions of men are respected. To be the vessels of life is a far greater contribution to society than to be the agents of destructions. In regard to the argument in question, women should not be put into combat unless they create no burden in respect to their gender and if they can pass the requirements that are placed on men. Because the bureaucracy of gender creates a burden on the administration of the military, this society is not prepared for that issue, thus they cannot be allowed in combat. In addition the socialized chivalry creates too much of a burden on soldiers who are fighting for their lives when they have to make special consideration for women as well as to protect each other. The military has objectives that result at the cost of lives. The idea that adjustments must be made so that women can be included seems small in comparison to the importance of these missions. References Center for Military Readiness (CMR) (11 November 2004). Women in combat. Center for Military Readiness. Accessed on 1 November 2011 from http://www.cmrlink.org/Wom enInCombat.asp?DocID=237 Fenner, L. M., & DeYoung, M. (2001). Women in combat: Civic duty or military liability?. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. Huisman, J. (June 2008). Abu Ghraib. Stanford University. Accessed on 2 November 2011 from http://www.stanford.edu/group/commwiki/cgi-bin/mediawiki/ index.ph p?titl e=Ab u_Gh raib International Debate Education Association. (2009). The debatabase book: A must-have guide for successful debate. New York: International Debate Education Association.v McSally, M. (28 January 2011). US Military’s last barrier to equality: Ban on women in combat. The Christian Science Monitor. Accessed on 1 November 2011 from http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0128/US-military-s-last-barrier- to-equality-ban-on-women-in-combat Read More