Share
United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has announced he plans to lift the 1994 official Pentagon ban on women in combat, including roles in artillery, armor, infantry and other similar combat roles.
In fact, the decision was based on the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The reality is that women have already served in combat situations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so overturning the Pentagon restriction is not only logical, but is also a good decision.
Arguments against this action have surfaced already, ranging from the strength and mental capability of women to even sexist arguments regarding women’s ability to adapt to the conditions with which soldiers must contend on a daily basis. These are baseless accusations.
The Family Research Council immediately weighed in by releasing a statement by General Jerry Boykin, a retired three-star general, who criticized the idea of assigning women to Special Forces units, saying, “living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions.”
Unfortunately, many people still cling to the idea that women are dainty and fragile, and cannot stand up to the standards of a man. This is not the case. The fact of the matter is: If a woman earns a spot on a Special Forces unit or any other unit over a man, then she should get that position hands down, because that is how the process works for men. Only the best of the best should be admitted to such units, regardless of gender.
As far as the strength argument goes, it is true the male body possesses more muscle mass and is designed to be stronger, but it is certainly not always the case. And physical strength is not the only deciding factor in who makes a good soldier.
Similarly, women have proven they can handle the conditions of combat situations, and it is absolutely ridiculous to assert that women could not deal with the mental fatigue and stress. In addition, there are a multitude of health hazards for both genders in the military, and if both genders are willing to accept the risks, then there should be no question.
Women currently have fewer opportunities for career advancements in the military simply because combat positions are a crucial component to those advancements. Many women have served in infantry roles already, but have simply been cycled out regularly in order to abide by the combat restriction.
Others have been thrown into combat situations, such as “Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, an Air National Guard helicopter pilot, who was shot down, returned fire, and was wounded on the ground in Afghanistan,” according to the New York Times. The Department of Defense did not officially recognize her actions as combat experience, and thus did not grant her opportunities to seek combat leadership.
Women have served all over the world, not only in our military, but in our allies’ as well. According to a map created by Max Fisher of the Washington Post, allies such as France, Germany, Canada, Australia and Israel allow women to serve in combat positions.
Women have just as much potential to become great soldiers as men, and it is high time they receive the same opportunities and recognition for their actions in the military.
As Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in a letter to Panetta, “the time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service.”
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 5 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 9 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
It’s great for equality but people always seem not to look down the line. There is Selective Service that males between 18 and 25 years of age must register for. The draft isn’t around now and of course those part of military conscription aren't trained or combat ready.
So no combat exemption for women that since the 1990's by the Supreme Court that is no longer in place for your daughters 17-18 years of age?
A woman “choice” of what she does with her body or rather her reproductive system has never been anyone's business but especially a man.
Selective service is mandatory for males or they wouldn't get financial aid such as the Pell Grant.
Yes there are biological & physiological/emotional differences between male and female. Not stating the obvious.
Women are afforded certain opportunities such as maternal leave from work. A mother is more likely to win custody of the kids. Equality is double edge sword.
You can be all for equality and everything but when the young teenage girls is told that hey you have to sign up for Selective Service when you turn 18 then where will be the outcry from feminists and liberals about "choice" ?
Internal steps in the U.S. military for women i.e pregnancy prevention, separate living quarters etc. things still will be fundamentally different.
I'm not a sexist, I'm not a misogynist, I am a realist.
usnews . nbcnews .com/_news/2013/01/29/16745990-push-for-all-younger-women-to-register-with-selective-service-gaining-steam
www . time . com/time/covers/0,16641,19920120,00.html
nation .time . com/2013/01/25/women-in-combat-vive-a-difference/
Reply to this Top
It’s great for equality but people always seem not to look down the line. There is Selective Service that males between 18 and 25 years of age must register for. The draft isn’t around now and of course those part of military conscription aren't trained or combat ready.
So no combat exemption for women that since the 1990's by the Supreme Court that is no longer in place for your daughters 17-18 years of age?
A woman “choice” of what she does with her body or rather her reproductive system has never been anyone's business but especially a man.
Selective service is mandatory for males or they wouldn't get financial aid such as the Pell Grant.
Yes there are biological & physiological/emotional differences between male and female. Not stating the obvious.
Women are afforded certain opportunities such as maternal leave from work. A mother is more likely to win custody of the kids. Equality is double edge sword.
You can be all for equality and everything but when the young teenage girls is told that hey you have to sign up for Selective Service when you turn 18 then where will be the outcry from feminists and liberals about "choice" ?
Internal steps in the U.S. military for women i.e pregnancy prevention, separate living quarters etc. things still will be fundamentally different.
I'm not a sexist, I'm not a misogynist, I am a realist.
usnews . nbcnews .com/_news/2013/01/29/16745990-push-for-all-younger-women-to-register-with-selective-service-gaining-steam
www . time . com/time/covers/0,16641,19920120,00.html
nation .time . com/2013/01/25/women-in-combat-vive-a-difference/
Reply to this Top
So the powers that be in Washington D.C. has once again made changes to the miltary. Oh I'm sure POTUS wouldn't heisiate to send his children to combat or rather has no problem sending yours.
A certain commander-in-chief is in the process of cutting defense spnding and whinding down two wars. This individual of the executve branch may say on the surface this is about equality like DADT. It's simply a ploy for the farther reduction of the U.S. military.
Reply to this Top
Do not use the example of the Israeli militiary.
Reply to this Top
I agree with the first comment. When will women be forced to sign up for the selective service (and potentially face mandatory drafting) like we have to? If you want equality, then fine...but make it truly equal. On that note-the physical requirement for special forces et al better be exactly the same (whether that's pull ups, mile time, or benchpress). You can't have cafeteria style equality. Just like 'separate but equal' didn't work/wasn't equal at all, separate requirements for combat roles won't work
Reply to this Top
Wasting a country's women of breeding age on the front lines is a very strange way to try to improve the lives of women in general.
You don't seriously think that only women who can't have children are going to sign up do you? What ratio of female deaths vs. male deaths is acceptable? Remember, one male can impregnate thousands of women. One woman usually has one child at a time and carries it for 9 months. That means from a reproduction standpoint, female lives are worth much more than males. Therefore, preserving their lives is a high priority to anyone who cares about population replacement.
I know, I know. Short sighted "equality" preachers don't care about such things.
Reply to this Top
That you seem to view women solely as breeders speaks volumes here.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
rzbhpmramuc <a href="http://www.timberlandschuhede.eu/26-womens-timberland-sandalen-stiefel/" title="Frauen Timberland Sandalen Stiefel">Frauen Timberland Sandalen Stiefel</a>
Reply to this Top