Ovarium Bellicosa

May 29, 2005 7:15 AM

Largely overlooked this past week, the House debated the role of women in frontline combat situations. The watered down version of the Hunter-McHugh amendment will now go to conference. The Christian Science Monitor takes a look at the roles of women in the past and currently, while Human Events comes down firmly in support of the original amendment.
posted by Captaintripps (22 comments total)

from human events -
When the Hunter-McHugh amendment passed the subcommittee on a 9-to-7 partisan vote, congressional feminists and their media allies became stereotypically hysterical.

oy
posted by es_de_bah at 7:29 AM on May 29, 2005

You beat me to it.

It's kind of hard to talk about "frontline combat situations" in a scenario where there are no front lines and the threat axis is all 360 degrees around.
posted by alumshubby at 7:33 AM on May 29, 2005

Remember the Equal Rights Amendment? This ain't it.

A step by step disempowerment of over 50% of the population. No choice over your own body, no choice but to "submit" and be dependent upon men. Just one more example of the regression of women's rights. And for the military this could not come at a worse time.

Wonder why the misogynist old white men are not characterized as "hysterical?"
posted by nofundy at 7:38 AM on May 29, 2005

Phil Carter has a nice round-up of articles on this (scroll down for his links).

Also:

Women distinguish themselves as officers in Iraq.

Lionesses of Iraq.

Report leans toward women in combat.
posted by mlis at 8:26 AM on May 29, 2005

Because misogynist old white men are better characterized as stupid, oppressive, reactionary, out of touch, unethical, irresponsible, bigoted cavemen who wouldn't know right from wrong if it came up and bit there wee-wees off?
posted by oddman at 8:28 AM on May 29, 2005

Disempowerment because it's been decided to let the Armed forces decide how and where their troops will be used, and in what capacity? Note also that Congress is given 60 days notice of such troop reassessments. It's strikes me as a fair check and balance. Feminists have sought this very type of situation for as long as there have been feminists; the right to be treated equally regardless the circumstance or situation. It's clearly not a disempowerment - at least on this front. And since when were military servicemen and women given choice over anything?

Wonder why the misogynist old white men are not characterized as "hysterical?"

...because they're not.
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:29 AM on May 29, 2005

Philiip Carter's War Dames, in the December 2002 Washington Monthly, is a good background and overview.

Ann Scott Tyson's, For Female GIs, Combat Is a Fact in the May 13, 2005 Washington Post, is a good look at the current reality.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:54 AM on May 29, 2005

If the anti-women contingent is actually afraid that women lack "the upper-body strength necessary to operate some heavy weapons effectively or to pull a fallen comrade out of harm's way," isn't it simple enough to test all soldiers in boot camp to see whether this is a concern for any of them? Have all soldiers run ten miles and then try to pick up a simulated screaming, thrashing, blood-slicked 200-pound man and run a couple hundred more yards with it fast and low enough to avoid being shot. Maybe there are many male soldiers who, by such standards, should not be allowed on the front line.

But upper-body strength is not, of course, the real reason conservatives want to limit women's opportunities. Regardless of the strength and abilities of individual soldiers, conservatives want all women to be supportive mommies and to leave the killing to the big, bad daddies.
posted by pracowity at 8:55 AM on May 29, 2005

Wonder why the misogynist old white men are not characterized as "hysterical?"

...because they're not.
posted by j.p. Hung at 11:29 AM EST

Have you looked at these rug-wearing clowns? Yes, they're hysterical. Read the articles jphung, the military commanders are NOT happy that some politiicans are messing with their troop assignment abilities.
posted by nofundy at 9:40 AM on May 29, 2005

I believe those in the military that are opposed to women in combat roles fall into one of two camps:

1) Thinly veiled misogynists, who cite anecdotal evidence of women drivers and accidental shootings by police officers, and ignore the argument for standardized physical requirements (sometimes because their lardasses would get busted almost immediately).

2) Cultural conservatives who tend to be respectful of some equal-rights provisions but believe that "our values as a nation" preclude women in combat. They're just fundamentally horrified by the idea of a woman being killed by the enemy, for chivalrous reasons.

The former can and should be marginalized quite easily. The latter is a thornier problem, in that the fundamental values involved aren't seen by most Americans as a bad thing. It's the implications about which we disagree.
posted by xthlc at 9:42 AM on May 29, 2005

the fundamental values involved [in chivalry] aren't seen by most Americans as a bad thing.

Is that true? Are most Americans medieval in their attitudes towards women?
posted by pracowity at 9:50 AM on May 29, 2005

And since when were military servicemen and women given choice over anything?

Never.

I was wondering when this topic would make it onto MeFi. I'd love to keep up with what is sure to be a lively debate, but I'm just about to drive 20 hours for more Army training. The role of women in the military has greatly evolved over the last 50 years. When my mother was in the Army, she was actually a WAC: Women's Army Corps. At that time, women could not serve if they were pregnant. That regulation changed in 1975. It wasn't a "recent" change as the CSM article would have you believe.

When I first joined the Air Force in 1981 my career field, Security Forces (then called Security Police) was divided in two: security (male only) and law enforcement (female & male). The reasoning was that military police were responsible for physical security of nukes and aircraft, as well as base defense. Those were considered "combat." General law enforcement duties: gates, patrols, investigations were considered non-combate, thus the division. It was such a joke because the law enforcement troops augmented the security troops, so really they were combat positions. The Air Force combined the field in 1997, realizing that the duties overlapped and the separation was fictional.

I've witnessed a huge change in the attitudes toward women in the military over the last 25 years. I remember distinctly being told by a secuity troop that I was training with at the SP school in Lackland AFB in 1981 that women could not be in combat. I asked, why not? The response "if women were in wars, who would make the parachutes?" Stupid? Yes. But it was a sentiment shared by many. As time passed, so did the sexist attitudes.

"Americans will never accept women coming home in body bags" was a common sentiment for decades whenever the women in combat topic was raised. It seems that Americans have gotten passed that as the deaths of most of the women below have hardly made national news:

Desert Storm

Major Marie T. Rossi
PFC Pamela V. Gay
PFC Cindy D.J. Bridges
Private Dorothy Fails
Private Candace Daniel
Sergeant Tracey Brogdon
2Lt Kathleen M. Sherry
Specialist Cindy Beaudoin
Specialist Christine Mayes
Specialist Beverly Clark
Specialist Adrienne L. Mitchell
Staff Sergeant Tatiana Khaghani Dees
Sergeant Cheryl LaBeau O'Brien
Lt. Lorraine Lawton
AG1 Shirley Marie Cross


Operation Enduring Freedom:

SGT Jeannette L. Winters
Lt Terri Sue Fessner
SSGT Anissa A. Shero
1LT Tamara Archuleta
PFC Lori Piestewa
SGT Melissa Valles
SSGT Kimberly A. Voe
PFC Alyssa R. Peterson
PFC Analaura Esparza Gutierrez
PFC Rachel Bosveld
PFC Karina S. Lau
SPC Frances M. Vega
CWO Sharon T. Swartworth
CPT Kimberly N. Hampton
SGT Keicia M. Hines
PFC Holly J. McGeogh
PFC Tyanna S. Felder
PVT Michelle Witmer
SPC Isela Rubalcava
PFC Leslie D. Jackson
PFC Melissa J. Hobart
SGT 1st Class Linda Ann Tarango-Griess
SGT Tatjana Reed
SGT Shawna M. Morrison
SGT Pamela G. Osbourne
Spc. Jessica L. Cawvey
SGT Cari A. Gasiewicz
SGT Tina S. Time
SGT Jessica M. Housby
SPC Katrina L. Bell-Johnson
SPC Lizbeth Robles
SPC Adriana N. Salem
SPC Chrystal G. Stout
SGT Maj. Barbaralien Banks
PFC Sam W. Huff
SPC Aleina Ramirez-Gonzalez

The recent push to keep women out of combat is really just social conservatives fighting to maintain what they believe is the status quo of men as the protectors of women. It has absolutely nothing to do with upper body strength or unit cohesiveness. The bottom line is that if a soldier/airman/marine/sailor is not up to their duties physically, then they should not be assigned to that position. Period. But to keep women in the military out of jobs and conflict areas based on gender is discrimination and poor strategic planning.

Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, Civil War Medal of Honor recipient - "You men are not our protectors... If you were, who would there be to protect us from?"
posted by Juicylicious at 10:01 AM on May 29, 2005

Good luck with your training juicylicious. I absolutely love the quote!
posted by nofundy at 10:13 AM on May 29, 2005

I know numerous women in the military, and they all hate this ammendment.

They don't see it as being forced into military combat... rather, they see it as being treated unfairly. They *WANT* to take on the same risks as the rest of their fellow soldiers, and feel that their careers are suffering as a result of not being out there.
posted by insomnia_lj at 12:25 PM on May 29, 2005

"Americans will never accept women coming home in body bags" was a common sentiment for decades

I think this is still common sentiment, and partly true -- if there wasn't the current strange brew of unquestioning "patriotism" regarding soldiers in the new war on terror and efforts of the administration to keep the dead under wraps, we would see more of a public reaction. In any case, if this is still a "women and children first into the lifeboats" society, it's time it stopped being so. Kids, ok, but a woman's life is worth the same as a man's. They can both go forth to defend the country, and if that makes war less palatable, so much the better.
posted by dreamsign at 3:07 PM on May 29, 2005

nofundy, the whole thrust of the article is that this was shot down, so you're point is moot. And since when has the military been some autonomous unit devoid of government intervention? Their budget is controlled by the legislature as well as many of their policies. Of course the brass don't love it, they never have but that's how it works. I don't find this as anything shocking or new. No hysteria here, simply typical (and, in this case, reasonable mind you) goverment oversight.
posted by j.p. Hung at 5:52 PM on May 29, 2005

Will this be extended to women having to register, just like guys do now (is it at 18 or 19)?
If a draft ever comes, will women be drafted?
If so, will this make a draft less likely?
If women don't have to register and be subjected to a future draft, what will happen when/if a draft comes about?
Will men say that if women have just as much a right to serve, why don't they also have to share in the random Russian-roulette of the draft?

Sorry, no answers here, just the questions that this whole issue bring to mind for me.
posted by marsha56 at 5:55 PM on May 29, 2005

I happen to support the right of women to serve in any area of the military for which they demonstrate competence, just like men. The vast majority of the arguments against combat service for women are spurious.

I do wonder if there might not be an issue beyond that of cultural conservatism (though obviously that is a big part of what is driving this currently). I had heard that the Israeli army does not allow women to serve largely because they would face greater danger than men if they were captured, in the form of sexual reprisals. It's not about the women's competence, but about the attitude of those they were fighting. Similarly, reactions to American female soldiers being captured has been much different from those of male (e.g. Private Lynch).

Again, neither of these have to do with the women and their ability, but might either attitude (from the enemy or from the military and the home country) prevent female soldiers from being able to serve effectively? Either the possibility that they would not be respected as POWs, or that their own people will risk too much to get them back in the event of a capture.

But then again, if women never serve, these attitudes will never change.

I most definitely think that if men must register for a draft, women of the same age should have to register. And "women off the boat first" is an attitude best left to the age of the Titanic. (Did you know that second class women had a better survival rate than first class men? It was gender, not status, that was the greatest inequality in survival of that tragedy.)
posted by jb at 6:08 PM on May 29, 2005

It's not only the US that has a problem with women in combat roles. In Bloom's "Global Brain," he theorized that the reason women are discouraged from combat roles is that evolutionaryly one woman is worth many men in that one man can impregnate many women whereas 1 woman= one baby at a time. Therefore, to keep the population up, women are more important than men.

Not necessarily a good reason to keep them out of combat though.
posted by drezdn at 7:51 PM on May 29, 2005

drezdn - you know, that might make some sense, except for the fact that we really don't have any population problems.

Neither has most of humanity during the history of civilisation. Generally, too many people, not too few, has been the problem of developed societies.
posted by jb at 10:35 AM on May 30, 2005

Last month's USA Today cover story, Female amputees make clear that all troops are on front lines, has personal accounts by some of the women who were wounded in Iraq. Maj. Ladda "Tammy" Duckworth, a helicopter pilot who lost both of her legs, said, "I wanted to take the same risks as the guys."

According to a May 26 USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll:

By 72%-27%, respondents said women should be able to serve anywhere in Iraq. By 67%-32%, respondents said they favored women serving as support troops for all-male ground combat units, the current policy. By 54%-44%, Americans oppose women being assigned to jobs where they would do "most of the fighting" such as in infantry units. That's a drop from a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in 2001 that showed 52% favored women "serving as ground combat troops."

posted by kirkaracha at 4:52 PM on May 30, 2005

I find women in combat distateful. That is not however a good enough reason to prevent them from serving where they can.

The statements:
"conservatives want all women to be supportive mommies and to leave the killing to the big, bad daddies."
and
"They're just fundamentally horrified by the idea of a woman being killed by the enemy, for chivalrous reasons."
are somewhat related and relevent to my distate. I'm with Jesse Ventura on this. Do you want men coming home who are inured to killing and watching women being killed as they are to men? We do have a violence to women problem in some areas of the military now.
(Not so fair a point, causes are arguable).

There are areas where women may be superior in combat. (Not in the SEALs of course, but perhaps even some special forces units). It's nice to have a big guy humping the SAW but smaller men for example have greater operational efficiency. They (smaller guys) can carry more and eat less proportionately. Women have better spatial reasoning and are generally smaller, they'd be better on average on point perhaps (?)

I would say though my sole practical opposition would be that some victorian military boarding aspects have to be changed to accomodate women in combat. Same logistics problems I have with gay men.
Of course, I am in favor of changing how we board troops.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:19 PM on May 31, 2005