Women in Combat

"We can no longer go to war without women," says General Colin Powell (Eckman 17). Although women were limited to support roles in the past, women have been serving in the military since the Civil War. These "half-soldier heroines" were typically nurses or water carriers, but sometimes they would pick up the weapons of the fallen male soldiers and shoot back (Skaine 51). A woman's ability and desire to fight is something that does not need to be proved, however, Department of Defense regulations currently prevent women from serving in certain areas of the military, such as ground-combat formations or infantry units, for the following reasons: detriment to unit cohesion, physiological differences, and the distraction of love on the battlefield (Owens 27). This legislature preventing women from attaining their full potential is inherently biased, and women and their achievements in the military seem to resound on deaf ears.

"Men simply cannot treat women like other men," says Brig. General Ed Scholes (Beck 56). This type of mentality degrades the abilities of a woman, and the logic of a man. Women should not be held responsible for a man's inability to bond with the opposite sex. The Citadel, a military college in South Carolina, believes that hazing, a common practice used to bring people together through the act of humiliation, is a necessary evil required in order to boost morale and strengthen relationships in all-male units, and that the presence of a woman lowers the positive effects that hazing has on a unit's morale (Roush 61). This perspective on hazing assumes that men do not have the ability to bond with women or are even willing to. Linda McClenahan, a non-nurse Vietnam veteran whose specialty was fixed station communications, said the following about her relations to the field grunts she came in contact with: "The grunts just wanted to dance and talk about anything...their cars, their sports teams, home. Most of the guys were very glad we were willing to just spend the time...we were willing to share the hell-hole with them. They wouldn't do anything to mess that up" (Patten 41). Clearly, these men were able to bond with women when out of combat situations, and they consider a woman's role in the military as admirable and helpful, rather than detrimental. Wilma L. Vaught, the president of the Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation says, "Bonding is grossly overstated. Bonding occurs when people have a job to do and a stake in the outcome. Bonding has less to do with ethnicity or gender" (Skaine 169). In the Vietnam War, bonding problems were evident between blacks and whites when the troops were not engaged in battles. However, when the guns started firing and combat ensued, they seemed to show no trouble in being able to bond with each other. Although women may have adverse effects on male bonding out of combat situations at first, which is similar to the issue of race during the Vietnam War, it is safe to assume that men will abandon their qualms about women during combat and begin to accept them outside of combat (Roush 62).

"One of the oldest myths surrounding the question of women in the military has been that females simply lack, in general, the physical stamina to sustain the most demanding tasks, including combat," says J. Michael Brower, an analyst for the Office of the Secretary of the Army. A study was conducted in May 1995, which debunked the myth and showed how women were able to perform the traditional male tasks. The test required the women to run a two-mile, wooded course with backpacks that weighed 75 pounds. They were also required to do squats with 100 pounds on their shoulders. Out of the 41 women tested, over 75 percent of them were found to be fit for combat situations. As long as these facts are disregarded and women are excluded from combat assignments, women will never be able to obtain the highest positions offered in the military (Skaine 176).

In addition to the belief that women cannot perform physically intense activities as well as a man can, is the argument that a woman's body, is a liability for something as dangerous as war. According to this claim, if women were placed in the front lines of combat they would be vulnerable as targets of rape and torture, and as a result, more likely to give the enemy the information they want as prisoners of war (Neumayr 51). Rape, however, is not a gender specific crime, and the argument that women suffer more than men as prisoners of war is just an inaccurate assumption. Brig. General Mike Hall said the following to the Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: "I have read reports of male prisoners being repeatedly raped, as part of the process to break their self-esteem and to render them in a situation of absolute powerlessness. The crime of rape is a human crime, not a gender crime. It's a crime of power, and certainly can be as devastating to either gender" (Skaine 164).

"Women have always come back in body bags. The question is, are we going to train them for defense" says D'Ann Campbell, a historian that teaches at West Point (Beck 56). If the distraction of love on the battlefield stems from the supposed vulnerabilities of a woman in combat, wouldn't it make sense to train them for ground-combat formations and infantry units so men wouldn't have to worry about them? Women should not be held responsible for male protectiveness. Even if the presence of women in an infantry unit creates sexual competition and favoritism, the problem is the lack of discipline on the man's behalf (Owens 27). Furthermore, if the government uses the complications that a mixed-gender troop has as a reason to keep women out of the front lines of combat, then their line of judgment is hypocritical. For example, homosexual attraction between soldiers exists in the military, yet these men are not banned from combat (Skaine 191). Is the government saying that the love between a man and a woman on the battlefield is more distracting than the love between two men? Currently, there are military programs that seek to desensitize male soldiers to the violence committed towards women who have been captured. It is predicted that chivalrous behavior towards women in combat will decline and it will be expected that chivalry will eventually die on the battlefield (Neumayr 51).

"The Catch-22 for women in the military is that they must conform to a norm in which what is feminine is inferior" (Hunt 98). Until women are allowed in combat situations, this society will continue to view femininity as weak or inferior to masculinity. The Combat Exclusion Law is just another brick in the wall that prevents women from reaching their full potential. The government and it's overprotective, fatherly attitude only perpetuates sexism in the military as well as society, and as long as the government sees women as their little daughters being sent into combat, they will never be seen as equals that are just as important to the military as men are.

Beck, Melinda. Women in the Military. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1991. 56.

Eckman, Fern Marja. Women in the Military. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1991. 17.

Hunt, Mary E. Women in the Military. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1991. 98.

Neumayr, George. "Equality Equals Death." The American Spectator. 37.6 (2004): 50-51. OmniFileFullTextMega. WilsonWeb. RVCC Library, North Branch, NJ. 6 April 2005.

Owens, Mackubin Thomas. "GI Janes, By Stealth." National Review 56.24 (2004): 26- 27. OmniFileFullTextMega. WilsonWeb. RVCC Library, North Branch, NJ. 6 April 2005.

Patten, Thom. "Attitudes." NamNews. San Jose Vet Center, San Jose, California 11 Nov. 1987, 1-01: 39-42.

Roush, Paul. Women in the Military. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1991. 61-62.

Skaine, Rosemarie. Women at War. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1999.