That the military is a patriarchal society is a topic we've all visited, and especially the debate of whether women ought to be included in the infantry is a topic that's been tired out. Yet, nothing really has been resolved. To this date, the Department of Defense has yet to provide satisfactory answers as to why women are not doctrinally allowed in the infantry.
For me, it's not so much a matter of feminism theory that drives that discussion, but rather, equality in career progression. After all, if women are excluded from the infantry branch, it also means that there are more of them in other branches, thus the competition for career advancement is much easier for men, than it is for women.
To be sure, the military has done extremely well in its goals of equality - and often times, is the first to drive the equality ship, and in the process, translating equality to its civilian sectors. But in excluded women from the infantry, it is especially wrong.
I am not interested in whether, from a feminist perspective, military service is inconsistent with feminism - or whether feminism requires us to take pacifistic stands. I am interested in equality.
Below is part of a discussion I've been involved with someone from the infantry branch - perhaps it'll give you all some perspectives on the arguments Soldiers in the infantry do not wish to include women. My response is below each claim. What are your thoughts, especially those who have been in the military?
Claim 1: EO complaints, if you look at the majority of unit with male and female ther EO complaints. We are Infantry and alot of us that have multuple tours are not the kind and gentle think what we are saying fisrt sort of guys. We talk about what we want to do sexually, we cuss, fart, masterbate openly in some cases and really dont need to worry about who we are offending when we should be thinking about how we are going to accomplish our missions and bring evryone home alive. And the leads right in to #2
Response 1: Perhaps you should understand that it isn't the farting or openly talking about your sexual desires that offend women - but rather, talking about women as though they're pieces of meat. Women, being human beings, have the same bodily functions and needs and desires as you do, so that's not offensive. What is offensive is referring to women as "whores," "bitches," and the likes, and framing sex as though it's merely just for you, and not them. In short, the offensive is talking and treating women like objects, not understanding that no means no, and giving women unwanted attention when they've made it clear that they are not interested.
Claim 2: POW's I know that it is hard enough for a man tho see another man hurting, being tortured and interigated. As men we get attached to each other and its hard, now imagine a female that you live with every day getting raped and sodimised in fromt of you, what man would not want to help in any way possible, unfortunally the first way the to stop the actions from happening just might get a whole company of people killed, what just because you can do the job....not
Response 2: The problem here, then, is your desire to serve as "protector," and seeing women as women, rather than human beings, It's YOUR problem. You're not a knight in shining armor, and women are most certainly not damsels in distress, they don't need your help based on their gender. All they require is that you treat them as fellow Soldiers and human beings. I hardly see how your own pre-conceived notions and problems of acting as "protector" should prevent women from equal access in the military.
Claim 3: There are female health issues that have to be addressed, blatter infections because you were not allowed to go pee because you were in a fighting hole with a squad of guys pinned down and the only way is to drop trow and pee. Menstration, Yeast infrections and many more.........
Response 3: Let MEDDAC take care of that, and I am sure women can take care of their own personal hygeine without you having to worry about it. Stop using biological differences as an argument for denying women equal access. Just as you wouldn't peek when a guy is taking a knee and taking a piss, you shouldn't be taking a peek when a woman pops a squad in a foxhole and taking a piss. Besides, given fourth-generation warfare, how much of war is being fought in foxholes anyway?
Claim 4: You are female's and males and females have been know to have sex....its this little thing called nature and I dont care if they made a contract that you signed saying that if you were caught having sexual relations while you were in an Infantry company bla bla bla would happen! We are Infantry and we like vagina's and in a field enviroment if there is a chance to get laid, chances are someone is going to do it.
Response 4: Again, that's your own problem. If you don't have enough discipline to abide by your general orders, don't blame it on women. Your lack of control is not reason for women not to have access. There seems to be a lot of assumptions here, firstly, that women would actually want to have sex with you, and secondly, that it somehow will cause problems. In case you've mot realized, Soldiers have sex back in Garrison, too. If that causes jealosy problems, then it's your fault for being jealous, not women's fault for desiring sex. Lastly, I get it that you like "vaginas," but newsbreak: there's more to a woman than her vagina. Perhaps the next time you talk about women, actually call them WOMEN. That goes back to my first point of objectification.
Claim 5: There is this little thing called Phyisical Ability, you do less on an APFT for a reason. Your bodies are not made the way they need to be to pull your weight in an Infantry Company, granted the is some big corn bread country girl out there that can pull the same if not more than one or two men, but that does not mean that we should just change everything so that you rare amazons can come play.
Response 5: No one is asking that any standards be changed. All advocates of intergrating women into the infantry are asking for is to give women an equal chance, thus career advancement. Physical ability and gender do not go hand-in-hand, there are also men who can't cut it in the infantry. If certain women can do it, why let the fact that they're women prevent them from being in the infantry. If a woman can't cut it, then fine, send her to another MOS, as you would men, but again, having ovaries shouldn't be the sole determination as to whether a woman should be in the infantry.
A lot of the problems you mentioned aren't problems at all, except in your own mind - which, in this case, does not really matter. In the end, start viewing women as people, rather than through their gender, and perhaps you'll understand that they belong in and can thrive for the success just as well as men can. It is, after all, 2009.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Women and the military's infantry branch.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13376
So you'd be in favor of removing the more favorable requirements for women in terms of physical fitness, even though this would result in fewer women in the service?
The current situation of lower requirements for women would be completely untenable, especially since the soldiers are already overburdened, adding another mortar round, MG box, would be the metaphorical straw that broke the camels back. By contrast a situation without any benefits for gender would mean a significantly larger portion of women would be disqualified.
This would likely result in massive push back from certain feminist groups and the military is not without justification in thinking that. If they look to their own allies experiences. I've heard many stories from Canadian soldiers of disastrously unqualified officers* being promoted in order to help the military avoid controversy.
Now I agree with an MOS based fitness level, and allowing everyone to apply for every MOS, especially since this allows one to increase the overall standards of all branches.
(Actual numbers aren't even necessary to establish this, if we assume women are x SD away from men in some arbitrary physical test, for any value of x the normal curve would still suggest that there would still be women who meet and exceed the standard, allowing the military to recruit the same number at a higher standard, or more at the same standard)
But the military's fear that this could turn into a political nightmare which ultimately prevents the initial goal isn't an unreasonable belief. In part the groups pressuring the military to address this need to be able to give some assurance that equal treatment and equal standards are sufficient, not equal results. Because if equal results are expected you get all the disasters of the Canadian system.
*As in, accidentally shot a squadmate with a training round, of course in Canada this isn't just on the basis of gender either.
I've heard this one before, too. I agree with you that it's an important issue to address.
The (civilian) legal requirement in the US is that the job requirements accurately reflect the job duties. Job requirements have been deliberately tweaked to exclude certain groups or to support tools that were designed only to suit men. For example, pilots used to have (quite tall) minimum height requirements even though shorter people can pull more G's that taller people (shorter brain to heart/lungs distance).
Job requirements, especially physical requirements, have been changed when they could not be demonstrably linked to job performance.
There is no question that it will be politically difficult and expensive to fully integrate the military, but it will be worth it.
Anecdote: I wanted to serve in the military when I was 18, but gave it up when I was told that I would not be allowed to fly a plane or serve on a Navy ship or submarine. The message was clear to me: I wasn't good enough and I wasn't wanted. I saw all those "Be all you can be" ads when I was little. I was used to "people" being represented by "men" so I didn't realize that they weren't talking to me, a lowly female.
I also wonder if telling men that women are categorically inferior to them affects the rates of sexual assault and harassment in the military. If the top leaders of the military tell men that women are less than they are, is it any surprise that they behave accordingly?
...and thank you, Marc, for a terrific post!
There has been that experience in the civilian of minimum strength requirements for jobs which didn't need it, however, the ability to move faster with a combat load is certainly a significant asset.
The standards should be applied evenly and the types of physical testing should directly relate to key strengths required in combat.
But that formula would likely exclude more women then men, in the workforce this has been argued to be discriminatory, and some work places have based it upon it requiring similar efforts to attain. i.e. requiring physical fitness two standard deviations above the median for men and women, even if the median for women is lower then it is for men. I would not view that as an acceptable situation. It may appear more fair on the service to the female service members because they are expected to put in similar effort, not necessarily receive similar results.
However, I think that at its face fails, because a certain amount of equipment will have to be moved by a squad, if a person arriving in the squad regardless of position in the squad simply carries less weight, that will have to be picked up by the other members. This would create resentment in the squad, put the other squad members at increased risk, and ultimately be counterproductive.
Great post! I've heard all of those claims too, and find them equally ridiculous. These are my responses (and the use of "you" in each of them refers to the person making the claims, not you, Marc!):
Claim 1: If you've all been through the same training and are in the same proverbial boat, would you really be THAT concerned about farting in front of a woman? I guarantee she'd be farting and cursing right along with you. Your delicate ears will have to get used to it.
Claim 2: This seems to be implying that a woman being tortured is much worse than a man being tortured, which is an insult to the men fighting alongside you. Also, the women who want to fight would certainly know the risks and are willing to take them; it's not your job to keep them safe any more than it's your job to keep your fellow male soldiers safe.
Claim 3: I doubt a woman in the trenches would hold her piss to try to appear dainty. In a dangerous situation, she'd be dropping trou as thoughtlessly as a man would. And you know what? It's not sexy for anyone involved.
Claim 4: Men and other men have been known to have sex too. Well, I guess there shouldn't be any men in the military!
Claim 5: If a woman can do the same work as a man, not allowing her to fight is depriving the armed forces of another capable soldier. How practical is that?
Claim 1:...and really dont need to worry about who we are offending when we should be thinking about how we are going to accomplish our missions and bring evryone home alive.
I agree with this portion of the statement above however most of the females I have met in the military can cuss and offend with the best of them. While I also agree with most the reply to it in the above article the portion "...What is offensive is referring to women as "whores," "bitches," and the likes, and framing sex as though it's merely just for you, and not them." really doesn't work. The same could be said for terms like asshole, pig, dog, jerk etc...I completely agree that it shouldn't be directed at anyone in the unit however females are just as guilty of this as males in a flipped situation.
Military personnel often call each other all sorts of derogatory names/titles. Sometimes in fun and sometimes in anger yet they still function as a cohesive unit. In stressful situations (which we have many of) most of this type of talk is simply blowing off steam, used endearingly, can greatly relax individuals and even creates camaraderie. Its just one of those things I really don't think anyone who is not military can really understand.
Usually if someone is "actually" offended then most others will not use the term/s again in their presence if the offended individual has the respect to let the others know. If someone, anyone, is too self centered to resolve the issue with the offending party,or shake it off and press on then they really shouldn't be there regardless of sex.
Claim 2: This seems to be implying that a woman being tortured is much worse than a man being tortured, which is an insult to the men fighting alongside you. Also, the women who want to fight would certainly know the risks and are willing to take them; it's not your job to keep them safe any more than it's your job to keep your fellow male soldiers safe.
Not according to the press. Please look up Jessica Lynch for example. What about the other soldiers that were taken hostage? I understand that in a perfect world soldiers of any sex would be treated equally but the fact is it takes society a while to catch up. Right now if a person had to choose between saving one out of two wounded soldiers and they chose the male instead of the female, while on live television, the press would fry them. Also the inequality in the physical testing furthers this institutionalized female protection disorder.
Response 5: SPOT ON! I agree that the physical requirements should be decided by MOS or by Job title across the board. No separate physical requirements based on sex. I have met females who are quite capable of carrying a full rucksack while dragging a fellow soldier to safety.