In an article in the Marine Corps Times on April 18th, the Corps and the world is informed that as part of the extensive review of jobs women can do in the USMC a test run will be held of placing female officers in the USMC Infantry Officers Course and allowing some enlisted women to also attend infantry training. I was asked by an officer in the USMC what my two cents is on this particular issue. Well, I thought in typical two cents fashion I would respond generally with consideration about women in combat arms roles.
First, why shouldn't women get the opportunity to engage in combat arms professions? Conventions of modern western society have placed women on the pedestal, not capabilities. Should we forget Amazons, Boudica, Joan of Arc? The Soviets regularly placed women in combat roles (they fought effectively in WWII, not so much indicated about their performances elsewhere). The Israelis have women in combat arms today in the IDF.
Ok, so historically and in terms of capability women do prove themselves capable of handling combat situations. Don't give me arguments about a weaker sex, I know just as many men as women who can't handle carrying the ruck for long distances. My biggest concern is how men react to women in combat--biologically, psychologically? For instance, the Israelis found that men's combat effectiveness drops because they are too worried about protecting the females in the unit. The answer in most armed forces using women has been to have gender separate units that are trained to do the same job. The biggest problem is society--we do not react very well when our husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, nephews, cousins, friends either don't come home or come home permanently scarred and/or disabled. How will society react when we are talking about their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, cousins, friends come home scarred and/or disabled or simply don't come home?
So, my two cents, I am not sure I have one. I am torn on the issue: gender neutrality does not bother me, gender neutrality does bother me. I would not, however, want my own daughter to take up the honorable profession of combat arms and my son better be absolutely certain that taking up the profession is his calling in life.
First, why shouldn't women get the opportunity to engage in combat arms professions? Conventions of modern western society have placed women on the pedestal, not capabilities. Should we forget Amazons, Boudica, Joan of Arc? The Soviets regularly placed women in combat roles (they fought effectively in WWII, not so much indicated about their performances elsewhere). The Israelis have women in combat arms today in the IDF.
Ok, so historically and in terms of capability women do prove themselves capable of handling combat situations. Don't give me arguments about a weaker sex, I know just as many men as women who can't handle carrying the ruck for long distances. My biggest concern is how men react to women in combat--biologically, psychologically? For instance, the Israelis found that men's combat effectiveness drops because they are too worried about protecting the females in the unit. The answer in most armed forces using women has been to have gender separate units that are trained to do the same job. The biggest problem is society--we do not react very well when our husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, nephews, cousins, friends either don't come home or come home permanently scarred and/or disabled. How will society react when we are talking about their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, cousins, friends come home scarred and/or disabled or simply don't come home?
So, my two cents, I am not sure I have one. I am torn on the issue: gender neutrality does not bother me, gender neutrality does bother me. I would not, however, want my own daughter to take up the honorable profession of combat arms and my son better be absolutely certain that taking up the profession is his calling in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment