Obama vouched for equal opportunities for women in his recent State of the Union address, discussing both the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Violence Against Women Act; now, this new wave of change is coming to life. In the effort to erase discrimination against women in the workforce today, Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta announced the lifting of the ban on women in combat on January 23. Now that the 1994 combat exclusion policy has been made null and void, thousands of women already in the military will have the opportunity to serve on the front line now . Under this ban, women were only allowed to serve combat support roles such as medics, military police, or intelligence officers; now women can be infantrymenwomen and tankers.
Physical strain and psychological and tactical concerns by the Pentagon influenced the decision made in 1994 against women in combat. The overarching arguments rested on the physical inabilities of women rather than their mental toughness. It is constantly said that women have a weaker upper body which prevents them from carrying heavy weights or even fellow soldiers off the battlefield. Another widely held belief is that women are more psychologically damaged by the images of war than males, not to mention that they are more likely to be taken, abused, and tortured by the enemy than their male counterparts. Concerns about the performance of the unit exist when women are seen as distractions to the men, sexually or because of the supposed natural instinct to protect female comrades more fiercely than male comrades. All of the arguments against women in the military act merely as excuses. The arguments that women are more susceptible to psychological damage by war and are tortured by the enemy also apply to men, but men have not been restricted or denied positions in combat. Arguments against the physical build of women are also inapplicable; it is true that women do possesses a lower body mass, but with sufficient training, anyone’s muscle mass can increase.
These so-called “disadvantages” of women serving on the front line are cancelled out by the benefits, namely an increase in skilled fighters. With women just being granted the option to fight on the front line, there will be more applicants to boost the recruitment rate, which makes it easier to replace the sick, missing, or dead soldiers.
Also, the wide variety of technological skills necessary in today’s modern, mechanized battlefield will inevitably be better met by a larger force. One could even turn the arguments against women on the frontline on their back by countering that women’s natural maternal instinct gives them the sensitivity and interpersonal skills to deal with enemies and even head-butting comrades on their own side. Loretta Sanchez, a California representative and activist, said that she was pleased that Panetta is removing the “archaic” combat exclusion policy.
Regardless of whether a man or a woman puts in the training time, either will be equally ready to serve; therefore, gender should not matter. Such sexism in the 21st century is abominable. It’s the type of exclusion which drove women like Deborah Sampson and Joan of Arc to disguise themselves in the Revolutionary War and the Hundred Years’ War, respectively, centuries ago! Women have already made the sacrifice to join a branch of the military, leaving behind friends and family in order to serve our country. Panetta said, “The fact is that American women are already serving in harm’s way today all over the world and in every branch of our armed forces. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, and our nation owes them a deep debt of gratitude.” It was unfair to deny women the right to advance when they had already committed their lives to service; the lifting of the 1994 ban should have come much sooner.
FINALLY – took them long enough!! Nice article.