Char Gooding
John Nelson
Composition
April 30, 1999
Are Women Justifiably Unequal?
Women have been involved in the armed forces for many years, but the argument of whether or not they should be participants on the front lines during combat is a debate that has not grown stale. In an online discussion opposing viewpoints were raised about woman’s roles on the battlefield. Similarly the following articles also give contrasting opinions on the topic: "Most Oppose Women in Combat" by Suzanne Fields, "An Officer and a Feminist" by James M. Dubik, and "Arms and the Woman" by Lou Marano. Although most would agree that the equality of women in the United States is of the utmost importance, there are some who oppose extending women’s roles in the military to participating in combat.
There are a wide variety of opinions where women’s equality is concerned. Some say that if women want to be equal, they should be equal to all degrees, as one student stated, "If women are crying for equality…all women over eighteen should have to sign up for the draft"(11-24)[Note--these numbers refer to discussion group (11) and the number assigned by the program we used to the comment (24)]. Another thinks we should give women a choice by saying, "If women want to go out and fight for [their] country, let [them]"(11-62). In addition to these opinions, others implied that the level of danger women would be exposed to would be a factor, as in this example, "It depends on where [women] are stationed at, they could be sitting in a chair all day programming where the next missile will go and be in no danger"(1-49). Another student took this thought further by saying, "Women are more likely to do things better in the conference rooms…[Rather than to] die in combat"(11-38). And the President’s Commission agrees. Fields states, "The President’s Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces recommended against women entering combat on land and in the air"(58).
The majority of women obviously feel that they should be allowed the same rights as men, such as voting, participating in sports, and wearing slacks rather than skirts. And some women say that they should be considered equal on the battlefield. A female student offers this comment, "we can fight just as hard and as tough [as men]"(11-17). In the same way another student says, "women are just as capable of killing as men are"(11-1). Similarly, a third states, "a woman can fire a gun"(1-55). And Dubik shows his support of women’s physical equality by giving an example of his daughter’s determination with sports by saying, "she can’t imagine not playing a sport, especially one that didn’t have a little rough play at risk"(61). However, opposition to women in combat states that physically, women are not equal to men. Fields points out the fact that "women lack the upper body strength" and in some places men and women are placed in separate running groups so the women would not "be outpaced or embarrassed by faster men"(59). However, some feel that physical strength is not as important as mental strength during combat situations.
Some feel that women have better mental capabilities where strategy, patience, and stamina are concerned, all of which are important during combat. Dubik feels that women have excellent mental skills for combat situations. He gives examples of a women’s mental strength based on his personal experience by saying that female cadets at Fort Leavenworth were "punctual and organized," "thrived under real pressure," and "remained calm and unemotional even when they were dirty, cold, wet, tired, and hungry"(61). A student agrees that mental strength is a factor by stating, "women can do about anything if they put their mind to it"(1-42).
Although some women may be physically and mentally able to participate in combat, contrasting viewpoints conjure up the argument that men and women cannot fight as an effective, unified team on the battlefield. The opposition uses factors such as sexual tension and the Boy Scout image of men being the brave ones who should never leave a damsel in distress. Fields suggests that if a woman is held as a prisoner of war, for example, the enemy may torture her in ways that a man would not be and "such torture would be used to break men who were forced to witness it." She includes the fact that the "military now tries to desensitize men to female suffering"(58). Fields underlines this argument by saying, "Women in combat would interfere with male bonding, undercut military readiness and cause sexual confusion"(58). Marano gives further insight by stating, "Men generally fight better than women, and men generally fight better when women aren’t around"(65). He justifies this thought by implying that a man’s "brotherly affection for their female buddies" isn’t a logical scenario if we follow our "experience and common sense"(66). At the same time, the general consensus of the men involved in the online discussion was that they would not want a woman to come to their rescue. As one male student stated, "I just don’t think I would want a woman to be [watching] my back"(11-33).
Another reason the opposition would like to exclude women from combat is because men hold the majority of high ranks in the military. One student suggests that this may cause conflicts by saying, "[When a woman is] mistreated by a fellow officer they go and say they were harassed or they are getting treated unfairly"(11-20). Another student blames men for this problem by saying, "Guys can’t keep [their] hands off girls"(11-22). And yet another student justifies these opinions by saying, "It’s on the news all the time. Higher [ranks] getting in trouble for doing something to a person of lower rank"(1-54).
Through much discussion of men and women’s relationships with each other, the idea of a husband and wife ending up on the battlefield together was brought to the surface. Furthermore, they discussed what would happen to children if both of their parents were at war. One student stated, "It should be the parents choice…they can leave the kids with the grandparents"(1-10). Another declares, "[The parents] could sign papers saying who they want the kids to go to if they both die [in combat]"(1-14). Although the general opinion of the discussion groups was not opposed to fathers and mothers being in combat together, Fields raises the contrasting question, "Do we want to teach the mothers of our children to kill?"(59). Although Fields implies that the June Cleavers of America shouldn’t be at war learning how to kill, the majority of our discussion group was using the working mother scenario as basis for argument.
The discussion groups and the articles cumulatively give a well-rounded perspective of the issues at hand. Thankfully, whether women should be allowed to participate on the front lines during combat is not a simple decision. Women have fought for equality for decades and as we come toward the turn of the century, we should consider it a step forward that it is difficult for the opposition to justify a woman’s inequality.
Works Cited
Fields, Suzanne. "Most Oppose Women in Combat." Reading and Writing Short Arguments. Ed. William Vesterman. 2nd ed. Mayfield: Mountain View, CA, 1997. 58-59.
Dubik, James M. "An Officer and a Feminist." Reading and Writing Short Arguments. Ed. William Vesterman. 2nd ed. Mayfield: Mountain View, CA, 1997. 64-67.
Interchange Conference Transcript—Women in Combat 1:00. Online Discussion. 3 February 1999. 6 February 1999 http://homepages.dsu.edu/nelsonj/comp/combat1.htm.
Interchange Conference Transcript—Combat 11:00. Online Discussion. 3 February 1999. 6 February 1999 http://homepages.dsu.edu/nelsonj/comp/combat11.htm.