Women in Combat; Time to Reconsider?
The military and its use in defending the country are one of the powers expressly enumerated in our Constitution. Unlike other responsibilities that some would like to give to it (e.g. health care, as I’ve discussed here before), this particular duty is spelled out quite clearly. Our founding fathers, in attempting to limit the federal government’s powers while leaving the rest to the states or the people, made sure that this power was indeed a federal issue. Defense of its citizens and interests is a proper role of government.
Over time, aspects of the military have changed, but none more controversial than its makeup. When a racially-integrated military was suggested, initial reactions against it were mostly due to racial prejudice than anything else, either on the part of the person reacting or on the assumption that such prejudice existed in the ranks. As racial views changed, that integration became far easier.
Over time, another type of integration took place; that of including women in combat. The concept was not entirely new (it goes back to ancient times), but in the US, while the controversy was heated in earlier decades, as women were included more and more the issue isn’t considered that big a deal anymore, on par with racial integration. However, I think that recent events should give us pause to consider the question again.
There have always been the straw arguments that proponents of women in combat have attributed to the other side that either were never actually presented or were extreme minority opinions. One of those was that women weren’t as patriotic as men or willing to die for freedom. This was typically presented as the claim that women were just as patriotic, with the implication that the other side didn’t think so.
However, there are a number of arguments against women in combat that represent real physical and psychological concerns, and not always on the part of the women themselves. Wikipedia presents some of these arguments, including physical differences and the reaction of men to wounded women. The tradition and seeming instinct of protecting women plays into this. The cry, "Women and children first", was never taken to be a call to arms. The Wikipedia article notes, regarding experiments with women in integrated units in the Israeli Defense Force:
The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.
Say what you will about the male and the protection instinct, it’s real and it’s there (and it’s not a bad thing).
Another issue has been that of romantic relationship within the unit, causing a couple to perhaps become more concerned about each other than the remainder of the unit, or a love triangle which would create less concern between some. Unit cohesion is paramount in combat, and adding this dimension can easily cancel out any other gains. (Incidentally, this is, at least to me, the main reason to be against gays in the military.)
It’s this sexual angle to the inclusion of women that can be the most destructive. And to some, it can be far worse than an issue with a jilted lover.
A congresswoman said Thursday that her "jaw dropped" when military doctors told her that four in 10 women at a veterans hospital reported being sexually assaulted while in the military.
A government report indicates that the numbers could be even higher.
Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, spoke before a House panel investigating the way the military handles reports of sexual assault.
She said she recently visited a Veterans Affairs hospital in the Los Angeles area, where women told her horror stories of being raped in the military.
"My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41 percent of the female veterans seen there say they were victims of sexual assault while serving in the military," said Harman, who has long sought better protection of women in the military.
"Twenty-nine percent say they were raped during their military service. They spoke of their continued terror, feelings of helplessness and downward spirals many of their lives have taken since.
"We have an epidemic here," she said. "Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."
As with other issues, this is not a problem with the women themselves, but of our culture of sexualization of women being taken into the military by soldiers who are products of the culture, and putting them in close quarters for months at a time.
Women have served admirably in combat, no question about it. (Joan of Arc, anyone? And there are plenty of examples in our own military.) And while I’m a firm supported of the traditional argument that no woman should ever be put into a combat situation, I’m aware I’m not going to change too many minds based solely on that. So then, will this statistic cause some folks to reconsider? I certainly hope so, but I don’t think it’ll work with the National Association [that is allegedly] For Women. They have been trying to get women into combat for a long time, in spite of being against violence against women (rather oxymoronic; combat is violence).
And there are those that believe that treating the symptom alone is as good as a cure. By all means, men that sexually assault women should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, even in the military, but that’s a symptom. The problem is a culture that has abandoned its religious roots for a "sexual revolution" and a "freedom" that has brought nothing but bondage, and with results amplified in the close confines of the military.
What irony. The very thing that NOW has always promoted — the sexual revolution — is a major cause of a 41% sexual assault rate in the military, of which 29% is rape, but they continue to fight for putting women into that situation. The rate of rape in the US general population is 5/100th of 1 percent. If it was 29%, NOW would be fighting to get women out of that situation. The lack of intelligence in their position is astounding, especially for the media’s go-to group for women’s issues.
I think it’s time to reconsider this. The experiment is failing, and its cost is too high.
[tags]women in combat,military,sexual assault,rape,National Organization for Women,Israeli Defense Force[/tags]
Filed under: Culture • Doug • Military
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
The problem with the “get women OUT of the military” approach is that it is punishing the victim. This report suggests to me that is a SERIOUS culture of abuse WITHIN the military (I’m not saying definitively there IS, but how else would one explain such a hugely disproportionate percentage of sexual assaults within the military as opposed to the population at large?).
What makes sense is to deal with the culture of abuse or whatever root causes are in the military, rather than punishing the victim.
To remove women from the military because there is a SERIOUS and horrifying problem of abuse is akin to taking ALL school away from children because there have been teachers who abuse. The solution is not in denying access to the victims, but in dealing with the abusers and, where it is a widespread problem, dealing with the culture of abuse.
Long term, I agree that this sort of issue within the military needs to be addressed. But right now, what do we do? The increase from .05% to 29% is 580 times, or 58,000 percent! Dan, if there was an increase on that scale in public schools vs. private of any sort of abuse, would you be willing to keep kids in there and just let the investigation continue?
That’s not punishment; that’s protection. That’s responsible.
Here’s a terrific article by John Piper on this subject that is well worth reading.
[rolls eyes]
Terrific, how?
Inasmuch as it endorses laying down our lives for one another, that is a good thing.
Inasmuch as it suggests that MEN should lay down their lives for women but poor little girls shouldn’t be expected to lay down their lives for men, it is just a bit pathetic bit of anachronistic sexism.
YES, if I were walking along with a female friend and we were attacked, I would step between the attacker and my friend. I would do the same if my friend happened to be male (or so I would hope, in both cases).
Piper says, “That is what manhood does.”
No. That is what boys do – assume that women are poor and defenseless. Men grow up.
Which is not to say that we ought not step up when needed to defend the accosted (male or female). It is just that to assume that WE must save the poor women is sexism. Period. And his attitude seems to be more about his own poorly developed sense of manhood than it is about women.
Piper at least purports to base his arguments on the Bible. You appeal to anachronism. In these days, there’s more sex outside of marriage on TV and the movies, so I wonder if you think faithfulness in marriage or pre-marital sex is no longer a big issue because it’s anachronistic today. If all you’ll appeal to is it being anachronistic, that’s a less-than-firm foundation.
No where in the Bible does it justify treating women as second class citizens.
Well, let me clarify: Nowhere in the Bible does JESUS advocate treating women as second class citizens or as the “fairer sex.” Quite the opposite: In a very patriarchal and sexist society where women were chattel, Jesus treated women with respect and dignity, as FULLY human and equals, laborers side by side with him.
Do you disagree?
Treating women with dignity does not preclude protecting them. Protecting them, contrary to your assertion, is not treating them like second-class citizens.
I could work with some Scripture outside of the 4 Gospels, but it appears your consideration of the matter is limited to those 4 books. Jesus, as I’ve noted before, didn’t address every single subject, especially those where the current Jewish thought was not problematic.
Ah, but I would think that you and I would agree that “current Jewish thought” WAS problematic. It is wrong to treat women as chattel, as second class citizens. I think we know that now, where they did not know that then.
We know that women are entirely capable of working alongside and leading men. That thought would have been abhorrent in that culture, but Jesus did just that with the women in his circles.
I am not against “protecting” women. I am against suggesting that they somehow need more protection than men. That is not a biblical teaching. It is simply not there anywhere in the bible (even though the Bible is a product of its time and it does have passages that treat women disparagingly). And it’s certainly not within Jesus’ teachings.
Doug, I broadly agree with you. I do not think that women should be allowed into infantry and armoured combat roles. I do believe that as pilots, combot or logistical, women are compatible provided they met the physical standards.
Where I disagree is the idea that the sexual revolution is responsible for the degree of sexual assault on women in the military. I have to say first that I do not trust the figure of 41%, that seems far too high to my understanding and there would surely be problems in recruiting women if this were the case.
The problem is that sexual assault is as old as time and the best guarantee against it (short of male only service)is the strength of military law and the preservation and enhancement of a sense of honour, where rape and sexual advances within the barracks are considered out of bounds.
The evidence from the IDF is backed up by the study from the MOD rejecting incorporating women into infantry and tank units because the male “protection” instinct as well as sexual competativeness between men over women can break up unit cohesion, which places lives at risk.
I would argue that women should be allowed to serve as their presence can encourage a humanistic touch outside of combat operations but also where the military are involved amongst a civilian population, women soldiers can make connections with the female population which may yield unexpected bonuses.
I’m sorry to be rude, but Dan you are being a prat, placing ideology over practical limitations. Men and women are equal labourers but with different aspects. However, war always has been a primarily male occupation and there is good sound evidence for that being so. If you read books by soldiers about combat operations, I would recommend Sniper One, by Sgt Dan Mills of the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, the bonds between the men, where there is a highly testosterone charged environment, especially in high tempo combat, would make the presence of women both disruptive and potentially dangerous towards those women.
There is an excellent passage in the book when the author describes ending up in the field hospital and the nurse (female) acts in a manner that makes him calm down and accept the problem (viral and combat fatigue). There is a role within the military for women, but combat roles are not suited to a mixed gender environment beyong exingency based situations (such as a convoy ambush).
Richard, that 41% number is coming from doctors working with these soldier. Perhaps this needs to be studied in more detail, although the GAO seems to think the number may actually be higher. If this is true, then either the military law needs to be reformed and/or enforced very soon, or the women-in-combat policy needs to be adjusted now. Right now.
And thank you for pointing out that “equal laborers” doesn’t mean “identical laborers”. Good point.