It is completely absurd to tell women that they may be allowed into the military, but only to be carrier pigeons and secretaries. However it’s downright shameful to tell a woman that if she wants to defend her country, she’ll have to do so by maintaining a low position with low pay. Some would use the term “unfair”, which would then be countered with the old “life isn’t fair” cliché. Maybe life isn’t fair, but hasn’t America tried its best to make life for everyone more equal pertaining to race, religion, and gender, more “fair”? We have freedom of speech, of religion, the freedom to say whatever we want about the government. We have the right to a fair trial, the right to a lawyer, the right to justice. How hypocritical to say that women must be restricted in the military.
It is most often men who make the argument that women are not at all fit for military service. Why? There are dozens of excuses, only a few of which I will mention, including, “women are too weak”, “too emotional”, “women are too irresponsible and will only end up getting pregnant”, and even, “women aren’t meant for war, they don’t have that killer instinct”. If a woman is fully qualified and able to do the job, then she could do just as well or even better than many men if given the chance. Of my family of six, I am the only one to hold a pro-women opinion on this subject. One of my brothers made the excuse, “Women just can’t be in the military.” I aim to use this paper to defend my position and speak out about a disgraceful injustice
Firstly, strength is no longer the concern. There are now an abundance of jobs that don’t require super-human strength. Just as piloting a jet for the Air Force doesn’t require one to be able to climb hand-over-hand up a 25-foot rope, taking over control of an airport so that military planes can land doesn’t involve the navigation of an obstacle course. Women, under the Constitution ought to be allowed to perform the same duties as men. It is true that the average woman doesn’t have as much upper body strength as a man, but that doesn’t mean that her job will be affected because she can’t bench 150 pounds as easily as a Navy SEAL. Complaints that women are incapable of throwing a grenade, or that their bones are weaker, are both feeble excuses. Anyone can be taught to throw a baseball or a grenade; there isn’t any distinction, gender-wise. As to women’s bones being weaker, Johns Hopkins University bone specialist, Thomas Beck commented in an article in Journal of Women’s Health that, "Relative to the demands put on them, they [women’s bones] may be stronger than men." According to a paper by reporter, Randy Dotinga, these are findings from 1994 when Congress ordered $40 million spent on biomedical research on women in the military. Colonel Karl Friedl, who is in charge of the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine “examined the results of more than 130 studies” Dotinga says that “the findings, reported in the Journal of Women’s Health don’t change the fact that women, on the whole, are smaller and less powerful than men. Still, they suggest that ‘human physiology is more consisten than would be suggested by the social ebellishments.” The key phrase there is “social embellishments”; the debate that women are weaker than men has been blown way out of proportion by the sexist society we live in. America needs to come to terms with the truth-women are just as intelligent, just as able as men are, and it should be our choice, the women’s, not the men’s, as to whether or not we should be allowed complete military freedom.
The claim that female training differs from men’s is true, but still is an invalid point. The GAO (General Accounting Office) reported that, "There is a widespread perception that the existence of lower physical fitness standards for women amounts to a "double standard." However, the physical fitness program is actually intended only to maintain the general fitness and health of military members and fitness testing is not aimed at assessing the ability to perform specific missions or military jobs. Consequently, Department of Defense officials and experts agree that it is appropriate to adjust the standards for physiological differences among service members by age and gender." In short, physical fitness courses are designed to be age and gender specific only to keep soldiers in relatively good shape, not to evaluate their value to the military.If a woman is able to pass the required physical and psychological courses and completes the necessary training, I see no reason why she should not be allowed to fight with respect equal to the men.
Secondly, although it is generally agreed that women are more emotionally charged than men, that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be able to fight in ground combat. If a woman were allowed military freedom, and entered the military knowing full well that she was likely to be killing people, I’d theorize that such a woman would be more emotionally composed than others. Women have been proving themselves to be able soldiers throughout history, but the U.S. has chosen not to acknowledge this. In other countries around the world, women take part in combat roles and are a great asset to their militaries. North Vietnam and Israel are both great examples of this principle, the Vietnam War was the only war that America lost, and take a look at Israel’s record; they’ve never lost a war, ever. Apparently, these two remarkably different countries have no problem allowing women into their militaries and permitting them to hold combat positions.
However I’ve forgotten a certain “time of the month”. What about women’s monthly menstrual period, don’t women’s hormone levels skyrocket during this time, causing moodiness and emotional outbursts? Of course this is a monthly occurrence, but it is also true that women athletes have a tendency to eventually stop having these menstrual periods. The termination of a woman’s period does not hurt her physically or sexually at all whatsoever. Women military combatants are athletes and if they were allowed in combat roles, the constant activity would result in the cessation of this inconvenience.
Thirdly, the claim that “women just aren’t responsible enough for the military, and will only end up getting themselves pregnant” is one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve ever heard. First of all, it’s needless to say that there aren’t too many virgin births these days; it takes two to make a baby. So that places irresponsibility on the male as well as female. A popular debate is to claim that pregnancies cause the military lose money and time. This is a lie. According to Linda Bird Franck, author of Ground Zero, almost twice as much time is lost because of drug and alcohol rehabilitation, than pregnancies. Continue reading her report and you will find that “the average cost of the early returns for men was $7,174, while the average cost for women due to pregnancy was $2,045. Among medical evacuations, AIDS and substance abuse accounted for up to 8 percent, pregnancy for barely one percent.” This tells me that women are not any more irresponsible than men, and again, this argument must be discarded.
Why not create gender-segregated camps, aircraft carriers, and submarines? The men and women would be separated; there would be no sexual harassment, no pregnancies, and better unification of the battalions. The close quarters on aircraft carriers and submarines are one of the major concerns of integrating women into the system, but on a ship of all women or all men, the tight living space would not be a problem.
Lastly, there remains the preposterous idea that women simply aren’t made for war. It is a “guy thing”, a macho thing, this killing business, and men take naturally to shooting people. However, women don’t. Think about it, that’s a good thing. The woman holding a gun would be more likely to keep a cool head, more likely to be cautious, and therefore certainly less likely to endanger her fellow soldiers. Perhaps in some branches of the military, being aggressive is encouraged and even sought after, but just because females aren’t violent does not mean that they can’t get the job done better than men. The natural response for a male, if offended or angered, is to strike out and use force to get his way. Women are more likely to respond with non-violent action. Killer instinct is not necessary in the Armed Forces. It is foolish to let reckless, irresponsible men into the military simply because they have an “instinct” that tells them to squish bugs and shoot people. Personally, if I were in the military, the person I would want watching my back would be a calm and collected woman rather than a trigger-happy male.
The military needs more soldiers right now because of the Iraq War, and neither cost nor strength nor women’s supposed irresponsibility is the issue. I am hearing more and more about our military being stretched thin across the globe. Look at the WASPs, Women Air Force Service Pilots, of World War II. Women were needed in that time of war to transport planes. Now women are needed to take their place in the front ranks. It is unreasonable to tell us that we can’t protect our country, or that it is men, not women, who are meant for war.
The same “they aren’t meant for war” claim was used to keep Blacks out of the military. In the Civil War, Blacks were allowed to fight, during which, they proved themselves to be proficient soldiers. It is now an undeniable fact that African Americans are just as intelligent and able to be military combatants as white Americans. Race isn’t an issue, why is gender? Female frontline combatants are inevitable, so accept it now or accept it later, but eventually women will be allowed full military freedom. Why put this off any longer? Make the necessary changes, and let’s get on with our lives.
Prejudice based on gender, whether domestically or militarily, is outrageous. Women should not be restricted in the military simply because they are females. This is wrong and inexcusable, the situation in which women now find themselves isn’t just unfair, but it is a form of injustice that must be righted. Besides, the issue is no longer about gender or brawn or anything remotely close, it is about the competency of the women who have chosen to enter the military and have proven themselves; it’s about brains and intellectual capability. When I hear men talking about how weak women are, how incapable of warfare, it makes my blood boil. One of my brothers told me, “Women should be thankful that they don’t have to go into combat.” He has never seen combat, he is not enlisted, and he doesn’t plan to be, and yet he speaks as though he had been there. I’ve never been to war, I’m not hoping to be in the military, but I want to fight for what every woman deserves, an equal chance. Every woman has the right to a combat position with the same amount of freedom and respect as men. A woman is capable of being a qualified Special Operative, a valuable infantryman, an intelligent commander, and an able seaman aboard an aircraft carrier or submarine, if only given the chance.
