![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
electriclandPlenty to catch up on, but for now I will just say that this column by Margaret Wente pissed me off more than a little.
Women at war: should we think again?
By MARGARET WENTE
Saturday, March 29, 2003 - Page A21
They are giggly, apple-cheeked girls from small-town America. Their names are Lyndi, Heather, Jessica, Waynetta. They still look like high-school cheerleaders.
Some sleep with stuffed animals they brought from home.
Some are single mothers.
Now some are casualties of war -- captured, missing, maybe dead.
In just one week, one woman has been captured and two others are missing in action. All belonged to the 507th Maintenance Company. One was a supply clerk and one was a cook. But they wound up on the frontlines just the same.
Giving women equal opportunity in the military seems like a fine idea to most of us. But this kind of equality may not quite be what we had in mind.
Airman Laura Sargent watched the TV pictures of Shoshana Johnson, the African-American PoW from Texas, with horrified fascination. "It bothered me a lot worse than if it would have been a man," she confessed to a New York Times reporter. Airman Sargent is being shipped out to the war next week. Now she realizes that could be her.
When the relatives of male soldiers talk about their loved ones, they usually say things like "He wanted to be a soldier since he was two." The relatives of females never say that. Private Jessica Lynch, who hails from Palestine, West Virginia, just wanted to see the world. "Just since this year, 2003, I've been to Mexico, Germany and now Kuwait," she wrote her former kindergarten teacher. Her biggest trip before she joined the army was to Charleston.
Does this make you a bit squeamish? Get used to it. After the last war in the Persian Gulf, the United States ended most of the restrictions on women in military roles. Today they're flying F-18s and Black Hawks, launching Tomahawk missiles, and working as combat engineers.
There are more than 200,000 women in the U.S. military now. They now make up 15 per cent of the armed forces and 25 per cent of the reserves -- by far the biggest percentage of any army in the world. The only jobs from which they're barred are frontline combat roles.
But where's the frontline? In modern warfare, with its long-range weaponry, the frontline can be anywhere. This has been one of the chief arguments for letting women take on a wider range of jobs. You can't insulate them from danger, the reasoning goes, so why bother trying? Even people working back in the supply lines can be killed by Scuds. The other argument for recruiting women is the transformation of the military into a high-tech fighting force, where brains count for more than muscle mass.
Today, women's ability to perform as well as men is practically a dead issue. You can't find an active military man (at least for attribution) who isn't full of praise for their grit, drive, smarts, courage, etc. "I see a soldier, not a woman," they all say. In the field, the women are treated the same as men, which in Iraq means they share sleeping quarters, dirty work, sand and latrines.
All this fills me with pride. Until a girl like Jessica goes missing.
This war is shaping up to be much different from the last one. It may be dirtier and longer, with higher casualties and more close combat. These girls are in for a rougher time than they imagined.
Call me sexist. But I confess I'm troubled by the thought of girls like Jessica and single mothers like Shoshana being rounded up at gunpoint by fedayeen and other men who've never heard of the Geneva Conventions.
"We need to have an honest discussion about this," says Lory Manning, a retired navy captain who runs the Women in the Military project in Washington. For years, she has fought to open up the military to women. She tells me that military women have always died in combat, and that male PoWs are scared and vulnerable, too. Men just show it less, she says.
She reminds me that 200 U.S. military nurses were killed in combat during the Second World War. There were nurses on the Bataan death march, and nurses who died on the beach at Anzio. We just didn't see pictures of them. The powerful images of captives beamed instantly into our living rooms give their plight an emotional impact we've never felt before. "This isn't new," she says. "What's new is the pictures." As for the delicate issue of the sexual abuse of female prisoners, we're reminded that men can be sexually abused, too.
Capt. Manning is the voice of the military majority these days. Only two groups disagree with her -- the conservatives and the feminists. Most feminists are hopelessly conflicted about women and war. They've complained for years about sexism in the army and pushed for women's equal treatment. But they're invariably against combat. In other words, the armed forces should be open to women, but nobody should ever actually fight.
The conservatives aren't all grumpy old army men. They include Kate O'Beirne, editor of the National Review. "I do not believe American men in the military are capable of pretending that a young woman in their company is exactly the same as a young 18-year-old man," she told The New York Times. "I think we can expect he will act differently in the interest of trying to protect that young woman. I'm fairly certain she wouldn't mind."
In an argumentative new book called Men, Women, and War, military historian Martin Van Creveld argues that women's progress in the military is directly related not to feminism but to the absence of war. No developed country has had to fight a war that threatens its existence for a generation or more. During this prolonged peace, he contends, we have turned our national forces from fighting machines into "social-research laboratories for some feminist brave new world." He believes the influx of women into the armed forces has contributed significantly to their overall decline.
Mr. Van Creveld is right about one thing. This ambitious social experiment hasn't had a workout in the real world yet (including Israel, where women in national service aren't allowed near the frontlines).
Maybe I'm being too sentimental about girls in battle who paint their toenails red underneath their combat boots and still sleep with teddy bears. It's their choice, isn't it? My head says I should toughen up. My head says there's no difference between Private Jim, MIA, and Private Jessica, MIA.
It's only my heart and gut that say there is.
mwente@globeandmail.ca
I've been venting about this to Jen and Kath. The gist of my vent is this:
I especially liked the notion that "the conservatives and the feminists" are against putting women on the front lines. Which feminists would those be exactly? To take a random example, I'm a feminist, and I'm for it. Why? Because unless we're given the same opportunities as men -- including the right to die in the service of our country -- we will still be second-class citizens. That's what this is all about: women are supposedly too precious and fragile and sweet to face the same risks as men. This is condescending bullshit. In an ideal world, NOBODY should have to die or be maimed or taken prisoner in war. Not women, not men. But we don't live in an ideal world.
And to turn the argument around, does Ms. Wente mean to say that men who die in combat are mourned less? That the families of male POWs are less afraid for their safety? That men sign up for the army so they can get blown to bits in combat, but women just want to see the world? When the four Canadian soldiers were blown to bits by friendly fire in Afghanistan, I don't remember anyone saying "phew, at least they weren't women". We mourned their loss because they were young and brave and doing a job that a lot of people don't want to do. Several of them had young children. How is it so much more acceptable for men to get killed, other than tradition?
The reason women in national service in Israel aren't allowed near the front lines is that when they were, their male colleagues got all afraid for them. While I sympathize, this is their problem and their society's problem, not the women's problem.
And another thing... This war, like most of the wars of the 20th century and, I'm sure, most wars of the foreseeable future, has brought the front lines to plenty of civilian women and children who never asked for the honour. How is this more acceptable than putting women in an army? At least women in the army can shoot back when they're in danger.
Women at war: should we think again?
By MARGARET WENTE
Saturday, March 29, 2003 - Page A21
They are giggly, apple-cheeked girls from small-town America. Their names are Lyndi, Heather, Jessica, Waynetta. They still look like high-school cheerleaders.
Some sleep with stuffed animals they brought from home.
Some are single mothers.
Now some are casualties of war -- captured, missing, maybe dead.
In just one week, one woman has been captured and two others are missing in action. All belonged to the 507th Maintenance Company. One was a supply clerk and one was a cook. But they wound up on the frontlines just the same.
Giving women equal opportunity in the military seems like a fine idea to most of us. But this kind of equality may not quite be what we had in mind.
Airman Laura Sargent watched the TV pictures of Shoshana Johnson, the African-American PoW from Texas, with horrified fascination. "It bothered me a lot worse than if it would have been a man," she confessed to a New York Times reporter. Airman Sargent is being shipped out to the war next week. Now she realizes that could be her.
When the relatives of male soldiers talk about their loved ones, they usually say things like "He wanted to be a soldier since he was two." The relatives of females never say that. Private Jessica Lynch, who hails from Palestine, West Virginia, just wanted to see the world. "Just since this year, 2003, I've been to Mexico, Germany and now Kuwait," she wrote her former kindergarten teacher. Her biggest trip before she joined the army was to Charleston.
Does this make you a bit squeamish? Get used to it. After the last war in the Persian Gulf, the United States ended most of the restrictions on women in military roles. Today they're flying F-18s and Black Hawks, launching Tomahawk missiles, and working as combat engineers.
There are more than 200,000 women in the U.S. military now. They now make up 15 per cent of the armed forces and 25 per cent of the reserves -- by far the biggest percentage of any army in the world. The only jobs from which they're barred are frontline combat roles.
But where's the frontline? In modern warfare, with its long-range weaponry, the frontline can be anywhere. This has been one of the chief arguments for letting women take on a wider range of jobs. You can't insulate them from danger, the reasoning goes, so why bother trying? Even people working back in the supply lines can be killed by Scuds. The other argument for recruiting women is the transformation of the military into a high-tech fighting force, where brains count for more than muscle mass.
Today, women's ability to perform as well as men is practically a dead issue. You can't find an active military man (at least for attribution) who isn't full of praise for their grit, drive, smarts, courage, etc. "I see a soldier, not a woman," they all say. In the field, the women are treated the same as men, which in Iraq means they share sleeping quarters, dirty work, sand and latrines.
All this fills me with pride. Until a girl like Jessica goes missing.
This war is shaping up to be much different from the last one. It may be dirtier and longer, with higher casualties and more close combat. These girls are in for a rougher time than they imagined.
Call me sexist. But I confess I'm troubled by the thought of girls like Jessica and single mothers like Shoshana being rounded up at gunpoint by fedayeen and other men who've never heard of the Geneva Conventions.
"We need to have an honest discussion about this," says Lory Manning, a retired navy captain who runs the Women in the Military project in Washington. For years, she has fought to open up the military to women. She tells me that military women have always died in combat, and that male PoWs are scared and vulnerable, too. Men just show it less, she says.
She reminds me that 200 U.S. military nurses were killed in combat during the Second World War. There were nurses on the Bataan death march, and nurses who died on the beach at Anzio. We just didn't see pictures of them. The powerful images of captives beamed instantly into our living rooms give their plight an emotional impact we've never felt before. "This isn't new," she says. "What's new is the pictures." As for the delicate issue of the sexual abuse of female prisoners, we're reminded that men can be sexually abused, too.
Capt. Manning is the voice of the military majority these days. Only two groups disagree with her -- the conservatives and the feminists. Most feminists are hopelessly conflicted about women and war. They've complained for years about sexism in the army and pushed for women's equal treatment. But they're invariably against combat. In other words, the armed forces should be open to women, but nobody should ever actually fight.
The conservatives aren't all grumpy old army men. They include Kate O'Beirne, editor of the National Review. "I do not believe American men in the military are capable of pretending that a young woman in their company is exactly the same as a young 18-year-old man," she told The New York Times. "I think we can expect he will act differently in the interest of trying to protect that young woman. I'm fairly certain she wouldn't mind."
In an argumentative new book called Men, Women, and War, military historian Martin Van Creveld argues that women's progress in the military is directly related not to feminism but to the absence of war. No developed country has had to fight a war that threatens its existence for a generation or more. During this prolonged peace, he contends, we have turned our national forces from fighting machines into "social-research laboratories for some feminist brave new world." He believes the influx of women into the armed forces has contributed significantly to their overall decline.
Mr. Van Creveld is right about one thing. This ambitious social experiment hasn't had a workout in the real world yet (including Israel, where women in national service aren't allowed near the frontlines).
Maybe I'm being too sentimental about girls in battle who paint their toenails red underneath their combat boots and still sleep with teddy bears. It's their choice, isn't it? My head says I should toughen up. My head says there's no difference between Private Jim, MIA, and Private Jessica, MIA.
It's only my heart and gut that say there is.
mwente@globeandmail.ca
I've been venting about this to Jen and Kath. The gist of my vent is this:
I especially liked the notion that "the conservatives and the feminists" are against putting women on the front lines. Which feminists would those be exactly? To take a random example, I'm a feminist, and I'm for it. Why? Because unless we're given the same opportunities as men -- including the right to die in the service of our country -- we will still be second-class citizens. That's what this is all about: women are supposedly too precious and fragile and sweet to face the same risks as men. This is condescending bullshit. In an ideal world, NOBODY should have to die or be maimed or taken prisoner in war. Not women, not men. But we don't live in an ideal world.
And to turn the argument around, does Ms. Wente mean to say that men who die in combat are mourned less? That the families of male POWs are less afraid for their safety? That men sign up for the army so they can get blown to bits in combat, but women just want to see the world? When the four Canadian soldiers were blown to bits by friendly fire in Afghanistan, I don't remember anyone saying "phew, at least they weren't women". We mourned their loss because they were young and brave and doing a job that a lot of people don't want to do. Several of them had young children. How is it so much more acceptable for men to get killed, other than tradition?
The reason women in national service in Israel aren't allowed near the front lines is that when they were, their male colleagues got all afraid for them. While I sympathize, this is their problem and their society's problem, not the women's problem.
And another thing... This war, like most of the wars of the 20th century and, I'm sure, most wars of the foreseeable future, has brought the front lines to plenty of civilian women and children who never asked for the honour. How is this more acceptable than putting women in an army? At least women in the army can shoot back when they're in danger.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
...
Date: 2003-03-31 10:56 am (UTC)I know that some arguments against women in the front lines of the military--and this extends to homosexuals in a non-sexually integrated military--threaten discipline, because of the fear that romantic relationships among troops might increase the likelihood that a given soldier might go out of his way to protect his sig. oth., rather to follow whatever orders he might have.
I don't think I buy it, but it's an argument from a military point of view. I tend to believe that, in general, military issues are different from civilian issues, and notions of a "right to fight and die", and some ideas about what is "fair" should come second to preventing death and precipitating victory.
"That's what this is all about: women are supposedly too precious and fragile and sweet to face the same risks as men."
The point about that perception issue (from a military point of view) is that the only place where it really matters is in the mind of an individual soldier, and if the majority of individual soldiers are male, and they think that way (re:fragile and sweet--which has nothing to do with capability) then until that perception is changed women on the front line could detrimentally affect combat effectiveness.
If those are real problems, they could both be solved with all (hetero) woman battalions.
The sexual-assault scene in GI Jane was all about these issues, I think. It was as much a test for her fellow SEaLs as for her.
Re: ...
Date: 2003-03-31 11:13 am (UTC)Re: ...
Date: 2003-03-31 11:51 am (UTC)While it would be an overstatement to say that we should be looking for a 'kinder, gentler' military, studies of sexual intergration in schools has demonstrated that male students benefited from sharing classes with female studies, while females actually didn't. I think, if anyone cared to study the phenomenon, that the same might be found of sexually integrated units. While soldiers should first and foremost be trained as soldiers, people who become first rate soldiers at the expense of being first rate human beings create a much larger problem for society.
Re: ...
Date: 2003-04-02 03:01 pm (UTC)Re the school thing, I actually came across an article lately that was looking at a segregated (boys & girls in separate classrooms) school. The boys also benefited from same-sex education, partly because of fewer distractions/less need to look cool by pretending to be stupid and partly because the learning styles of boys and girls are so different.
I think, however, (from my position of nearly complete ignorance on the subject, of course) that both sexes might benefit in the military. 'Cause, you know, Margaret W notwithstanding, they're grown-ups now.
I like your fine rhetorical flourish in the last sentence there. Good point too.
Re: ...
Date: 2003-04-02 02:36 pm (UTC)Re: ...
Date: 2003-04-02 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-31 01:08 pm (UTC)I tend to agree that if we all want to be considered equal, we all need to be able to be any profession. I would however pose the question, is this what we want? Personally I would consider myself a humanist... not a femminist because the very term infers a goal, although the etomological connotation of humanist might also get me in trouble.:P Which is getting away from the issue and just me being a silly bastard...
Personally I think it would be interesting for their to be written down rules about everything. What is permissable for me to do... guidelines that I could follow it might be reassuring knowing that I was doing the right thing. Right up until I ran into one that told me I couldn't do something I wanted to do then I would be hugely unhappy or maybe I would be upset that people were trying to tell me what to do... I don't know. So we do have a few rules and we are seeking to change them... slowly. Less than 5 generations ago, women were legal property after a fashion. And I think I'm totally talking outta my bum now and I've lost the train of thought so I'll stop :P
no subject
Date: 2003-04-02 02:53 pm (UTC)For written down rules, I suggest you start with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/)... or the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution.html) if you're in the US of course. :P
no subject
Date: 2003-04-02 03:56 pm (UTC)P.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-02 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-03 02:24 pm (UTC)P.
I've argued with many a femminist :P
Date: 2003-04-02 06:49 pm (UTC)I honestly don't understand some of the points that femmists argue at times and other times I intentionally misinterpret them so that I can make broad sweeping statements like, All women are evil :)
(Side note: I firmly believe that women are superior in many ways to men... and men are slightly less inferrior when compared to women in some other ways)
Sorry about the rules thing... reading it now I have no idea what the hell I was talking about.
Re: I've argued with many a femminist :P
Date: 2003-04-02 11:28 pm (UTC)Yay for broad sweeping statements!
no subject
Date: 2003-03-31 01:15 pm (UTC)This is patently bullshit. I see she's never served in the armed forces, nor really talked to many, if any, enlisted men and women while they are actually on duty.
In peacetime, when not expressly on duty, yes it is possible for romantic relationships to develop. However, I see this as no different than the regard that a soldier would have for a friend. How many war stories do we hear about someone receiving a medal for going back to save the lives of a friend/fellow soldier? There's also a proven history regarding "shieldmates" in the Roman legions, and we all know how effective a fighting force they were.
Time and again, we -- civilians and soldiers alike in the United States -- are told that the military protects the lives and freedoms of all Americans. How can we not then apply the idea of protecting and defending a fellow soldier -- and not to the detriment of his or her duty -- in battle?
If faced with that situation, most rational folk I know would be scared shitless at the prospect of being taken prisoner by "the enemy." As a soldier, however, that is something you face regardless, and in the place of someone else not trained to fight. (And yes, unfortunately this also goes for those who work in support services in the military. Everyone is given a modicum of training in a weapon when they join, even if your only job is to wash everyone else's laundry.)
I consider myself an egalitarian versus a feminist. I don't believe in giving people special privileges just because they were born with a different set of chromozomes. (Before anyone says anything, I believe those who are or become handicapped are not given privileges but the same potential for access to buildings, for example, as everyone else. What someone does with that access afterward is another matter.) Men and women should have equal opportunity in the military as in everything else. It is up to individual women if they feel that they can serve in a military capacity or not.
no subject
Date: 2003-04-02 03:12 pm (UTC)And of course it's not only front-line soldiers that are in danger of death, being taken prisoner, etc. — if you're in a war zone at all, even if you're a cook or a launderer (?) or a mechanic, Bad Things can happen to you.
(Re the special privileges thing, I'm with you. I refer to myself as a feminist but that's what I'm generally thinking of. I guess the only acceptable labels are those we stick on ourselves. I think it's very possible that there will never be completely equal representation of the sexes in the military; but the women that do want to serve should be given the same chances as the men. (Side note: I took a tour of the US Naval Academy when I went to Maryland last weekend — our guide's son and daughter BOTH went and he was very proud — he said that while some of the physical requirements for the women, e.g. number of pull-ups, are less stringent than for the men, just about all the women enrolled there exceed the minimum requirements set for the men.))
I think what maddened me most in the article was the shameless violin-playing. (They're so young and innocent! They're from small towns! They didn't know what they were getting into!) Second most was the logical inconsistency. (They're just babies, they still sleep with teddy bears! Some of them are single mothers!) Feh.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-31 02:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-02 03:14 pm (UTC)If only it were just the established military. This nitwit (see above) can't even come up with a logical argument that hangs together in the end, beyond "My gut tells me this is a bad thing".
Of course as P pointed out to me, it's given me hours of mental exercise, so that's good.