Looks like women will officially be allowed to participate in combat. This narrows down the range of life options where men can be men among men, but it's hard to oppose it on principle. Whether this passes the US House immediately (I am unclear as to the necessity of such legislation), or the GOP must be embarrassed by misogynistic speeches for a few weeks first, I'm calling exiting defense secretary Leon Panetta's order qualifying women for combat positions a win:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mccain-i-respect-support-allowing-women-in-combat
tl;dr: the military treats women different than men, which makes it impossible for units to develop the kind of trust necessary if your job is to assault the objective (as opposed to "just" fighting your way back to base)
ReplyDeleteon principle, i think this is a good thing. in practice, i am much less sure. the steps the military has taken in order to make itself more palatable to women (or at least what it sees as making itself so) undermine a service member's ability to see them as equals. different exercise, uniform, and sexual harassment standards institutionalize their status as "other." until same-sex ass-slapping is considered the same as opposite-sex ass-slapping, i am concerned that this move will reduce unit cohesion and morale.
it is highly unlikely that women will be told to "suck it up and take that ass-slap like a man," the other alternatives are that the military continues to treat women differently and there is always a subtle barrier between them and the rest of their units, or prosecute all ass-slaps as sexual harassment, regardless of genders involved.
combat arms are one of the few places where male posturing is more than a throwback to primitive times; they are actually testing each other's mettle because their job is to actually kill other people. because of the huge selective pressures associated with warfare (losing teams often don't have the opportunity for a second go at it) i think it is unwise to tinker with the mechanics of how fighters bond.
i think this is especially true if these changes are being made in defense of individual rights. our society holds individual's worth above all else, and i don't think that's a bad thing. the military has to value it's community and mission above the individual's concerns, or else no one is going to go charging up the hill to take the bunker. the military is virtually defined as "you don't get to do what you want or be who you are, unless you are one of us and want do to what we tell you to." if a person finds this disagreeable, then he or she would be a liability in the military and an asset in the civilian world.
one of the arguments in favor for women serving "in combat" is that women have already been "in combat" for years. if i am wrong i hope someone comes by and corrects me, but my understanding is that what people mean by this is that women get shot at and shoot other people, which by any reasonable definition is combat. however these engagements are always in a defensive role, either defending a base or escaping an ambush. it is my opinion that a unit requires a different mentality and trust if it's job is to close with the enemy, not just get the f out in one piece.
i fully admit that when taken on a case by case basis it is probably silly not to have women in combat arms. the problem is that an organization as large as the military will involve individuals doing something backwards and stupid in order to get the whole organization moving forward efficiently.