Academic Essays and Debateson Women in the Military

This section is reserved for academic essays and debates; it is for researched and validated information (please be sure to cite all appropriate sources).

Attached is a link where you can view an article I recently wrote called, "The Female Infantryman: A possibility?" This article appeared in print in the Nov-Dec 2002 edition of Military Review. This article proposes a methodology to "test the potential integration of females in to the Infantry." While many partisans have staunch views on this subject, there has never actually been a methodology presented that tests the ability of females to successfully integrate into the Infantry from a morale, physical and performance perspective. This article proposes such a methodology and can be successfully implemented given appropriate support. As a researcher, former enlisted engineer, and commissioned Infantry officer, I posses the unique skills, experience and knowledge to write such a proposal.

M. Nicholas Coppola, PhD (candidate), FACHE, FUSMI
Lieutenant Colonel, Medical Service US Army

Back in the Dark Ages, before feminism and egalitarianism enlightened us, conservatives used to claim that women just aren't suited for life in the military. Today, after a decade or so of applying enlightenment to the

profession of arms, the Clinton administration is telling us that the military just isn't suited for women. However you phrase it, it comes out to the same thing.

So perplexing have been the problems of sexually integrating the armed forces that the Department of the Army has sought out the counsel of various eggheads and womanologists to help repair the damage that dogmas of sexual equality have already inflicted. One such expert is a lady named Madeline Morris, a law professor at Duke University and a consultant to the department, who relieves herself of her advice to the army in an article in the current Duke University Law Journal.

The article, titled "By Force of Arms: Rape, War and Military Culture," says the army has to change. The army, you see, is "masculinist," a term not found in any dictionary yet but apparently meaning too male-oriented. Being too male-oriented has to go, according to Professor Morris, because it only contributes to discrimination against women and sexual harassment in the military.

"There is much to be gained," Professor Morris instructs us, "and little to be lost by changing this aspect of military culture from a masculinist vision of unalloyed aggressivity to an ungendered vision combining aggressivity with compassion." It might be useful if Professor Morris would use some real words instead of simply making them up as she goes. "Aggressivity," presumably, means "aggressiveness."

Whatever her words mean, however, you get the distinct impression that Professor Morris doesn't much care for the army as it presently operates. "There is substantial evidence ... of themes of hypermasculinity, adversarial

sexual beliefs, promiscuity, hostility toward women and possibly acceptance of violence against women within current military structures." "Hypermasculinity," by the way, presumably means being really, really too

But after you penetrate Professor Morris' meanings, what's apparent is that she has discovered something resembling the real world, namely, that the military is a society in which men predominate and that it therefore reflects masculinity. There happens to be a reason for that.

The reason is that men are more aggressive than women. This is why most violent crimes are committed by men rather than by women, and it's also why men rather than women fight wars. And because men are more naturally aggressive than women, male-dominated institutions like armies are permeated by all sorts of male-bonding rituals and customs that reinforce masculinity, the solidarity of the group and the virtue of fighting. The word "virtue," incidentally, derives from the Latin word meaning "being like a man." Unlike Professor Morris, I didn't make this up.

The conclusion that ought to be drawn from these reflections is that women don't belong in the military. If you put women in the military, what you're likely to get is -- well -- sexual harassment. As the differences between men and women become ever more obvious in close and often uncontrolled circumstances over long periods of time, it's reasonable to expect that some men will start taking advantage of some women.

The result will be not only harassment and occasional rape but also pregnancies in the ranks, sexual extortion, jealousy and conflicts -- between men over women and between women over men. It is not surprising that this is exactly what has happened in the American military as sexual egalitarians have insisted on imposing their dogmas.

The logical thing to do, then, is to start rethinking the whole business of sexual integration of the military. But this is not how egalitarians think nor how the Clinton administration and its consultants advise.

Instead of making our policy conform to reality, they insist on making reality conform to our policy. Therefore, we have to build a kinder, gentler military full of ungendered compassion and not so full of nasty, dirty,

hypermasculinist aggressivity. That might be swell, except that institutions like that are unlikely to win many wars.

The purpose of an army -- any army -- is not to cultivate idealism or to score points for feminism or other political ideologies. The purpose of an army is to win wars, and to do that you have to take large numbers of men who would really prefer to be doing something else and turn them into soldiers who will fight, kill and sometimes die on command.

Neither the Clinton administration nor the U.S. Army nor Professor Morris nor any other army in history has ever figured out how to do that without a good deal of "masculinism." Maybe the Dark Ages knew something that all of the above have forgotten and refuse to learn again.

Testosterone flows too freely when the job is left to male soldiers, says a historian of women in the military

DAG HAMMARSKJOLD, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and second secretary-general of the United Nations, once said ``peacekeeping is too important to be undertaken by soldiers.''

Because peacekeeping can be violent, combat training is essential. But the peacekeeper must also be conciliatory and patient.

Few male military personnel combine the qualities of soldier and social worker essential to the job. As a result, U.N. operations have been marred by aggressive behaviour that exacerbates tensions.

Soldiers win wars, but they also occasionally commit atrocities when aggression rages out of control, as the behaviour of the Canadian airborne regiment in Somalia demonstrates.

Last month, experts from around the world were brought to Uppsala University in Sweden for a workshop titled ``Mainstreaming Gender in Multilateral Peacekeeping Operations.''

The U.N. wants to explore whether a greater proportion of women in peacekeeping operations might improve their chances of success, and whether member states can be persuaded to deploy more women. A further intensive study will take place over the next six months. By spring, concrete recommendations are expected.

The contradictions between peacekeeping and conventional soldiering are profound.

In most militaries, training accentuates essentially male characteristics. The recruit is encouraged to develop strength and aggression, while ridding himself of stereotypical female attributes like sensitivity and compassion. The well- trained soldier is hungry for battle because it is in battle that he asserts his dominance.

Yet, the peacekeeper is supposed to keep aggression in check and to pursue the path of conciliation. In peacekeeping, violence signifies failure.

Central to this issue is whether men are inherently more violent than women. Circumstantial evidence suggests they are. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men. Barroom brawls and soccer riots seldom include women.

In the past, military training has attempted to develop and channel this male capacity for violence. But controlling it has proved enormously difficult. Soldiers win wars, but they also occasionally commit atrocities when aggression rages out of control, as the behaviour of the Canadian airborne regiment in Somalia demonstrates.

The exclusion of women from combat has in the past been based on a belief that they are not capable of the aggression needed to win wars. Yet, in times of dire need many nations have been forced to call upon women to fight. Thus, in World War II, the Soviet Union deployed women in almost every combat capacity, from infantry to fighter pilots. These women performed as well as men, yet their contribution was quickly forgotten after the war, in part because no nation likes to admit it has had to rely on women for its defence.

The idea of women in combat also conflicts with deeply held beliefs that the female role is to give life, not to take it. The Russian experience nevertheless demonstrates that women can be trained to be aggressive. But the operative word is ``trained.''

Women, it seems, are not naturally inclined toward violence. When they are violent, they tend to use it in a purposeful fashion, for instance to protect themselves or their children.

Their aggression seldom rages out of control. Whether this behaviour is the result of social conditioning or biological determinism remains a matter for intense dispute. But this pragmatic, highly controlled violence has obvious applications in the military context. If women can be trained to exercise aggression, they can presumably also be trained to control their aggression - perhaps more effectively than men.

The U.N. is, in truth, not very interested in nature vs. nurture arguments pertaining to gender and violence. It assumes a more pragmatic approach, which starts from the assumption that, in a crisis, men and women, for whatever reason, seem to act differently. Men sometimes jeopardize operations because they act like stereotypical men.

If women tend to act more peaceful and are prone to seek conciliation, then they might be of value to the U.N. Essential to this issue is the question of perception. The presence of a man in a tense situation can be provocative, even if that man has no intention to provoke. On the other hand, the woman tends to calm stressful situations because she is expected to be peaceful.

Various studies have, for instance, shown men react differently to confrontations with male and female police officers. The female officer tends to calm an aggressive male, while the male officer challenges him. The situation often escalates into a contest of male dominance.

Anecdotal evidence presented at the Uppsala conference told a similar story with regard to peacekeeping operations. Male violence might not be instinctive. Instead of men being controlled by the testosterone coursing through their veins, perhaps they are the slaves of cultural conditioning. If military training can teach women to be aggressive, it might also be able to teach men to be more peaceful and controlled. The problem with male peacekeepers on U.N. operations is that they often lack the training for the function they are called upon to perform. In other words, disasters are understandable if the U.N. persists in throwing combat soldiers into unfamiliar peacekeeping situations. To date, Canada is one of the few countries in which soldiers are given intensive training in peace support.

But the U.N.'s dilemma goes beyond the problem of appropriate training. Male soldiers are also prone to sexual violence against civilians. No army is immune to this problem, as recent Canadian experience in Bosnia and Somalia has shown.

Rape is a weapon of war. Some 20,000 women were raped in Nanking in 1937, 110,000 in Berlin in 1945, and perhaps as many as 50,000 in Bosnia. Rape allows the soldier to deface the culture of his opponent by, in effect, colonizing the bodies of its female citizens.

But rape by soldiers remains high even in times of peace. Thus, within the American military community in Japan, its incidence is three times higher than in a similarly sized group at home.

This sort of behaviour has marred U.N. peacekeeping operations. During the Somalia operation, U.N. soldiers frequently raped local women who ventured outside the refugee camps to collect firewood. Unable to control the soldiers' behaviour, the U.N. instead provided the women with stoves that did not burn wood.

The U.N. has, until recently, been a male-dominated organization, rather like the military. As late as 1994, women occupied only 13 per cent of decision-making positions within the U.N. Secretariat. In the Department of Peacekeeping Operations they constituted just 4 per cent. It is no wonder, then, that at the point where the functions of the U.N. and of the military intersect, namely on the ground in the world's crisis spots, women have largely been absent.

Between 1989 and 1993, just 1.7 per cent of military peacekeepers deployed by the U.N. were female. Yet, in almost any conflict, 80 per cent of the refugees are women and children.

In Somalia, a marked difference in behaviour was apparent between combat and support units of the U.S. army. According to a 1995 article in Armed Forces And Society, support groups exhibited a strong inclination to understand the problems facing the host society, while combat groups quickly developed a hostile attitude, particularly when the political situation deteriorated.

A desire to apply force, even for mild offences, and to assert dominance was evident. It is perhaps no surprise that the combat groups contained no women. The support groups were still predominantly male. This raises an interesting point, namely that female participation does not have to be large to have a positive effect. In other words, male soldiers are less inclined to assert their dominance if female soldiers are present.

Women seem to calm stressful situations. The most notable U.N. successes of late - in Guatemala and South Africa, for instance - had a greater-than-normal female presence. In both operations, the proportion of females was just under 50 per cent.

There is no evidence that women make better peacekeepers, but a great deal of evidence to suggest that the presence of women improves an operation's chances of success.

A better gender balance means the operation more closely resembles civilian society. Its members are therefore more likely to observe social conventions that define civilized behaviour.

The U.N. operation in South Africa revealed an added benefit of female participation. Local women seem to have been inspired by the presence of female peacekeepers as role models and, as a result, were empowered to play a larger part in the politics of their community.

This had a profound effect, with more ``feminine'' qualities like conciliation and non-violence characterizing the political process.

Though U.N. officials are clearly serious about this investigation, it remains to be seen whether good intentions are smothered by bureaucratic inertia or by the refusal of member states to supply a sufficient number of women. As one official recently admitted ``Though the U.N. should be pushing for more women, we're begging, borrowing and stealing to get any troops at all.''

Only a few states are able to provide appropriately trained women, among them Canada, the U.S. and the Nordic countries.

The U.N. cannot, however, afford to have its operations dominated by Western militaries. But even in Canada, where the number of women in the forces is around 12 per cent, their level of participation in peacekeeping units has consistently been lower than that figure because combat units (in which gender integration is least profound) are usually sent.

A recent British army recruitment ad shows a woman cowering in the corner of a bombed building. As the film runs, a caption reads ``She's just been raped by soldiers. The same soldiers murdered her husband. The last thing she wants to see is another soldier. Unless that soldier is a woman.''

The ad plays upon gender stereotypes that have many British feminists tearing their hair. Indeed, the recent integration of women into combat in many Western militaries has been based on the assumption that stereotypes have no validity, that women can be turned into ruthless killers. But the U.N. feels peacekeeping is a practical problem in which gender theory has no place. If women are, for whatever reason, calmer and more conciliatory than men, then they have an important role to play.

Dr. Gerard J. DeGroot is chairman of the modern history department at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland. He was a delegate at the recent U.N. conference in Uppsala and is editor of a two-volume study of women in the military to be published later this year.

Submitted to this site by T. Prudori, Radio Thunder Bay News, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, work e-mail: Tprudori@radiotb.com

Posted: 23 Jul 98: "'Women in the Military and Combat,' by Bradley Gerber"

Women in the Military and Combat, by Bradley Gerber, © April 24, 1998. Originally submitted for Family Problems and Social Change, SYO3100, Florida State University, spring 1998.

Women in the United States have long fought for the right to be included in many facets of society, from the right to vote to breaking into professions like the medical field and other traditionally all-male fields to getting females elected to major government offices. But one of the most intriguing questions of integration has yet to be fully answered. Apart from all others is the battle to allow women the right, the honor, and the privilege of serving and defending their country as part of the United States Armed Forces. Being in the military means prestige, honor, pride, and the sheer satisfaction that comes along with engaging what is considered one of the most valiant and traditionally revered professions on the face of the Earth. But there has always been and continues to be considerable debate in this country as to exactly what extent women should be allowed to serve their country, and what the effects and trade-offs of such integration might be. Sex scandals such as what happened at the Tailhook convention in 1991 or the misconduct of former Lt. Kelly Flinn have served to raise questions about military integration. Can female and male military personnel be combined without the military losing some of its effectiveness? Can women be as good at being soldiers, sailors, naval aviators and fighter pilots as men? Should women be allowed in the line of fire and in direct combat? What role should sexual harassment and fraternization play in the combination of women into the military? The real question, essentially, is not whether or not women can serve in any military capacity at all. The issue the United States faces at present is to decide for itself is whether or not women should be allowed in combat. To understand this debate it is important, as it is with any such discussion, to put the issue into historical context to better understand where things stand today. The following are some notable events to date in the evolution of the effort to get women more involved in the military thus far.

In every major war until World War II thousands of women served in the military in traditional roles such as nurses, office staff, and the like. But as WWII broke out, sheer need, often the best equal opportunity employer, led to the creation of the Women's Army Corps (WAC), the Navy's Women Accepted for Voluntary Emergency Service (WAVES), the Coast Guard's Semper Paratus: Always Ready (SPARs), which is their motto. The Marines and what was to later become the Air Force also began to accept women applicants. (Moskos 2).

In 1976, the three service academies; the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, and the United States Military Academy all accepted their first class of women. While it was long debated whether women could compete and excel in the kind of environment that service academies are known for, at least the scholastic questions were answered when one of the female cadets at West Point was recently named the valedictorian of her graduating class.

On Tuesday, October 21, 1997, the United States government dedicated a new memorial at the Arlington War Memorial in Arlington, VA. Named the Women in Military Service for America Memorial, it was the first national monument of its kind that, like Arlington itself, recognized those who fought and died in the protection of their country. Women have faced two fights when it came to the Armed Services, the first being the right and honor of serving their country and secondly on the battlefield itself. While women are now capable of being both enlisted personnel and officers in the military, a new question arises- should the role of women in the military finally be expanded to allow them to fight for their country in direct combat?

Many experts argue that when it comes to women in the military, there are over-riding reasons why the proverbial line must be drawn when it comes to making women part of America's combat force. Among the most strenuous objections to the proposed integration comes from male officers and enlisted men themselves, whose primary fear is that this proposed change would have the potentially cataclysmic effect of significantly weakening the effectiveness of the U.S. military. They say that this change could cause a decline in the cohesion and the effectiveness of the troops, elements that could quite literally mean the difference between life and death. Among the reasons commonly cited for their belief that the nation's defenses would suffer are: a belief that women are simply physically incapable of the tasks and strains that come along with combat, the risk of sexual misconduct that accompanies the combination in close proximity of young men and young women for long periods of time, the incalculable expense of accommodating women onboard combat vessels, and the risks and consequences of pregnancy. In a report to Congress entitled "Summary of Presidential Commission Findings and Record in Support of Alternative Views", it was pointed out that the need for a superior military, which are the needs of the nation, must outweigh any civil rights claim no matter how noble or seemingly justified. "Civil society protects individual rights, but the military, which protects civil society, must be governed by different rules, civilian society forbids employment discrimination, but lives and combat missions might be put at risk by service members who cannot meet the demands of the battlefield, the military must be able to choose those most able to survive, fight and win." (Congress 1, 75)

Most studies show that women are biologically weaker than men. They are smaller in stature and have weaker skeletons and upper bodies and cannot do as much as men. Combat not only pushes people to their emotional and mental limits, it can also be inordinately physically demanding as well. A test of Army officer candidates showed that "only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men." (Congress 2,59). Likewise there is the question of whether or not women would be able to handle the physical strain of fighter planes. "Aviators on combat missions must maintain situational awareness on all sides while coping with repeated exposure to high G force; i.e., up to 9Gs in the Air Force, 7.5Gs in Navy aircraft." (Congress 1, 77). It has not yet been proven whether or not the female body can sustain exposure to this severe stress for long periods of time, but it is believed that very few women are strong enough to survive this magnitude of force.

It is also believed that women generally are less able to lift large weights than men because of their smaller upper bodies. Heavy lifting jobs onboard ship such as the transportation of bombs and missiles which previously were done by four men are now assigned to teams of five or six people of mixed gender to do the same task. (Congress 1, 176). On board ship, they say, this kind of redistribution of manpower is not only expensive, it is nearly tactically impossible. At sea, every man counts, and having two people do one man's job is not an option. Likewise in the Army, cadets and soldiers often need to carry almost 100 pounds of weight over rough terrain for several miles, both in training and in battle. People argue that the physical inferiority of women would make them costs rather than assets in the ranks of combat.

It is said that when he was asked what he thought of the Battle of the Sexes, Gerald Ford said that there could never truly be a Battle of the Sexes as long as there is so much "sleeping with the enemy". This points out what people say is a real fact of life, if you put men and women together for long periods of time, even if there is no actual sexual misconduct, the risk and implication of impropriety will always exist. A recently released science-fiction movie, Starship Troopers, portrayed a futuristic view of the Armed Forces, including a scene where men and women who were about to go into combat together even shared communal showers with no stigmatism whatsoever. While this was hardly the most unrealistic scene in the movie, it certainly implied a considerable amount of societal change between now and this time in the future when men and women can work and live together without any sexual tension. In addition to the intimate relationships that might distract from their work, mixed crews on combat ships could again cause manpower problems in an increasingly downsized military. "Several men volunteered that objections from their wives to the introduction of women aboard ship could cause them to leave the Navy. One man said that although his marriage is secure, he would feel the same way if his wife's job required her to be living in a closely confined workplace with all male workers for months at a time." (Congress 1, 179). Even in a book which examines the issue from a feminist point of view, Gender Differences at Work, outlines some of the problems integration can cause. She gives the example of how Titan missile silos require two people to work in very close spaces and as a result the Navy has adopted the policy of having only same-sex crews working at any given time. (Williams 53) Unfortunately, unlike in society where a huge labor market is at your disposal, in the military it's not always feasible to have a crew of all women working in the more specialized fields at any given time. If integrating combat vessels were to cause mass resignations and retirements in the Navy, problems with manpower and repairs, or even just serve to lower morale, the wisdom of the decision would be at best in doubt.

Also there is the risk of sexual molestation from the enemy if captured. One woman, Rhonda Cornum, was reportedly fondled and "violated manually, vaginally and rectally" (Maginnis 1) when her helicopter was shot down by Iraqis in the Gulf War. Conversely, there are no recorded incidents of male POW's being subjected to sexual violation since the Vietnam conflict (Congress 1, 79)

Another set of limitations to putting women on combat vessels are the considerable changes that would have to be made to accommodate them. They say that whether in barracks or aboard submarines, creating separate sleeping areas, bathing and restroom facilities is simply not a realistic option. Especially in the case of attack submarines, their capacity is already near dangerous limits and there is simply no place to put new facilities. Also, giving separate facilities to the few female passengers onboard and forcing all the men to divide up the remaining ones could cause serious resentment among crewmembers if the impression of unfairness is given.

The biggest perceived risk of integration, however, could be the chance that a woman in a combat role run the risk of getting pregnant. The problem here is actually twofold: the first being that men think that women on the front lines are getting pregnant to avoid having to go into combat and the second being that once a woman becomes pregnant the kind of work she can be exposed to is severely limited.

As it stands, men can volunteer for combat, but they can also be assigned to combat. If women are allowed to volunteer for combat in the interests of fairness they also would have to be subject to mandatory deployment on the front lines. For this reason, many women may be tempted to get pregnant as a way to get out of combat. "According to a Newsweek report, about once every three days a woman has to be evacuated from Bosnia to Germany because she's pregnant. That rate is less than half of the 'Love Boat', the repair ship Arcadia that lost 36 of its 360 women sailors to pregnancy during the Gulf War." (Miller 1). If a woman does not want to go into combat, all she has to do is get pregnant and she will be re-assigned. A man has no such means of getting out of the line of fire. Again the issue of loss of manpower comes up. Ships cannot always afford to lose 10% of their crew in one mission.

There is also limitations to where a woman can work if pregnant. Obviously she cannot be around any amount of nuclear radiation, toxic gases, or perform any heavy labor because of the risk of severely damaging the fetus. Onboard ship or a submarine this eliminates a number of tasks from what women can do. And though the law says that pregnant women in the military can serve up to twenty weeks into their term as long as at all times they are with in six hours of medical facilities, on a submarine this is not always an option since they may be submerged for weeks at a time. (Congress 1, 163)

There are a number of compelling reasons that people cite for women to be allowed in combat roles too, however. Among the reasons they cite are: the fact that exclusion from combat impedes their chance of advancement in the ranks, studies that show women can train to be as fit as men, the success of combined units here and in other nations, and the insistence that readiness actually increases when a new pool of applicants exists. The fact that women are not allowed in combat roles, say supporters of integration, is one of the reasons why they do not advance to the highest ranks in the military. "Another consequence of these policies is that women tend to be concentrated in the lower ranks." says Williams. "There are approximately 20% more women than men in the four lowest pay grades, and men outnumber women in the four highest pay grades eight to one." (Williams 51-52). While there is no official government policy on the matter, combat experience is certainly beneficial when it comes to being considered for promotion. A recent study actually showed that contrary to popular belief, women can train to be as strong as men. The Department of Defense commissioned a $140,000 study to see just what effects a rigorous training program would have on the average woman. "The results were impressive, " said an article in Working Woman magazine, "following the conditioning, 78% of women qualified for 'very heavy' Army jobs, versus 24% before. 'I knew they'd improve', said Everett Harman, the research psychologist who conducted the study at the Research Institute for Environmental Medicine in Natick, Mass., 'but I didn't know they could improve that much'." (Pisik 20).

This evidence supports a logical argumentà if even one woman can match the physical capacity of men, then outlawing them from combat solely on the basis of biological inferiority becomes unfair. Mixed gender military units have existed both in the United States and around the world throughout history. The most famous example of the ability of a woman to not only be involved in combat but to lead forces is that of Joan of Arc's legendary battles leading the French army when she was just a teenager. These exploits are just one of any number of stories about how women in the past have successfully served in combined forces in the past. "Russian women served in combat in World War II where they flew anti-aircraft planes made of plywood and fabric with no parachutes. They volunteered as bombers and fighter pilots, navigator-bombardiers, gunners, and support crews." (Casey 1). Similar stories of bravery come from the Israeli army where women have bravely fought shoulder to shoulder with men in that country's ongoing battles in the Middle East. Women in Israel are subject to compulsory service just as the men are and are considered a valuable asset in their army.

Similar success stories can be told of the non-combat battalions in our military. Studies were done by the U.S. Army to see if the varying "woman content" actually affected field units. Some controls in the study were units ranging from 0%-15% female, where others went from 15%-35%. Contrary to the results they expected to get, the test proved that the camaraderie, the effectiveness, the performance of combined units in America are not affected by the presence of women. Another study of combat exercises in Europe yielded virtually the same results. (Williams 49-50). It seems that for all the talk, in practical application men and women can get over their tension and work together and get their job done when they have to after all.

Probably the most convincing argument in favor of allowing women to compete for combat positions is the inherent nature of competition. This nation, our entire capitalist system, and the laws of human nature rest on one basic and fundamental truth: competition makes for better products. It is true in the marketplace, where if one company has to compete with another to get a consumer's dollar they have to put out a more appealing product ("build a better mousetrap and the world will beat down your door"). In the same vein, when the applicant pool for any given position is bigger, competition theoretically yields the best person for the job. Because of this people argue, the military is like any other field. Readiness is not decreased when more people are allowed to apply for combat, it actually benefits, say those who support desegregation.

"Readiness is enhanced when we remove unnecessary impediments to the recruitment, training, and use of people. During the past year-and-a-half, the Department has made major progress in removing such impediments. As a result, some 260,000 more jobs in the military can be filled by either men or women. This represents an increase in the flexibility that the Services need to maintain readiness. Altogether, about 80% of all jobs in the armed services and more than 90% of military career fields can now be filled by the best qualified and available person, man or woman." (Congress 2, 9). A study by RAND's National Defense Research Institute prove that readiness doesn't suffer when the genders are mixed in the military. They say that "other influences, such as leadership and training, are perceived as being far more influential." (RAND 2). It seems that in practical application, readiness and cohesion at worst does not suffer much with these changes, and indeed can actually be benefited greatly.

Other reasons for integration exist as well. The NOW issued a resolution pointing out several good reasons for allowing women into combat, saying "WHEREAS, the combat exclusion does not protect women" and that "the definition of combat is ambiguous and varies from branch to branch; armed conflicts since World War II rarely involve readily definable front-lines , rear echelon units may be a 30 second missile flight from the so-called front-line, and in modern military theory rear support troops are destroyed first before assaulting those up front" (NOW 1).

If women are to be allowed in combat, they should be made fully aware of the risks that go along with it. They can be harassed by their fellow soldier, raped by the enemy, or forced to serve on the front lines even when they don't want to. But it certainly makes more sense to use things like physical aptitude tests and field experience to tell who would make the best soldier, sailor, or fighter pilot than to automatically assume someone cannot do it. The truth is that all the debate in the world won't settle the issue of whether or not letting women and men fight together will strengthen or weaken our Armed Forces. All the models defer to one thing in the end, as the expression goes, "run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it"- basically it has to be TRIED.

America's present position on the issue is good, but it could be better. The Department of Defense recently removed its "substantial risk" clause from its definition of what exactly combat was-- that is that just because a woman will be at risk of capture does not mean she can not fill a position, and as a result today in the Air Force 99.7% of positions are open to women as are 91% of positions in the Navy are open. (RAND 2, 1). But things are nowhere near equal. Secretary of Defense William Cohen recently decided that training had to be segregated in light of the continuing sexual allegations against high ranking army commanders. The service academies have had to lower their physical standards for women, which are much lower than those for men, a fact they say is necessary in order to get any decent percentage of women cadets or midshipmen. One of the places where the most stark contrast between what is expected of men and of women upon entrance can be found on the Air Force Academy's website. Their Candidate Fitness Test Preparation Guidelines (http://www.usafa.af.mil/rr/cft.htm) has a list of what men and women should do in training to prepare for the physical exam to be admitted into the Academy. Suggestions for men and women are different for each exercise, and rightfully so since women have a much lower threshold to pass in order to gain admittance.

It would seem that the best man for the job could always, theoretically, be a woman. But don't make it any easier for women, this will just make things worse when it comes to adjustment for men and women. More than that, though, women should neither be given an unfair advantage nor disadvantage when it comes to the military because gunfire doesn't discriminate. Neither should the Armed Forces.

Casey, L. "Women in Combat", Academic Essays and Debates on Women in the Military: Military Woman Magazine. December 19, 1997.
http://www.militarywoman.org/academic.htm

Maginnis, Lt. Col. Robert L. (USA, ret.) "Leadership Can't Make Soldiers
Ignore Sex". http://www.nationalsecurity.org/frc/insight/is97k1wc.html.

Moskos, Charles. "Army Women", The Atlantic Monthly. August 1990.
http://www.theatlantic.com/election/connection/defense/dpmoswom.htm.

Pisik, Betsy. "Military Women Exercise Power Potential". Working Woman
Magazine July/August 1996: 20.

Starship Troopers. Produced by TriStar Pictures, Big Bug Pictures, and
Touchstone Pictures. 1997. Written by Ed Neumeier.

United States. House of Representatives. Committee on Armed Services.
The Military Forces and Personnel Subcommittee. Assignment of Army and
Marine Corps Women Under the New Definition of Ground Combat. 103rd Cong.,
2nd sess. Hearing, October 6, 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1995 (herein referred to as "Congress 2")

United States. House of Representatives. Committee on Armed Services.
The Military Forces and Personnel Subcommittee. Women in Combat. 103rd
Cong., 1st sess. Hearing, May 12, 1993. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1994 (herein referred to as "Congress 1")

United States Air Force, "Candidate Fitness Test Preparation Guidelines".
http://www.usafa.af.mil/rr/cft.htm

Williams, Christine L. Gender Differences at Work: Women and Men in
Nontraditional Occupations. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991.

"Women in the Military", National Organization for Women. September 1990.
http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/wim.html.

Check out my website, http://members.tripod.com/~johnspartan/

On the top of this page you state that the section is reserved for researched and validated information. I'm sorry to report that the essay posted19 Dec 97 "Women in Combat" has erroneous information. It states that "Iraqi women occupied positions in the military and police when the country was under the rule of the Shah Pahlavi. Women lost those and all other rights when Ayatollah Khomeini gained power and again implemented old domination laws". The actual location is Iran, not Iraq.

"Combat isn’t a job description but a place—a place where a lot of killing and dying is going on." (Norden 14) A place where highly trained individuals use a variety of methods and means to obtain control over the other side. Not allowing women to serve in combat is at best a stereotype regarding preconceived ideas about women. It’s very much the same as telling someone they cannot serve combat because of their race, creed, or color. It is discrimination in it’s basic form, especially when women are volunteering to serve in combat. It is also disrespectful to both sexes, especially to men. It is saying that one gender’s life (female) is more important than the other (male).

Women are claiming the right to serve their countries in every facet of the military including combat. In Israel, "a young Israeli named Alice Miller is suing for the right to enter the Israeli Air Force to be trained as a combat pilot." (Lief 47) The laws in Israel do not permit women to hold combat positions, they have not fought in combat since 1949 when women fought shoulder to shoulder with the men. They are however, allowed to serve in the military and some women are training their male counterparts in tank mechanics, weaponry and how to drive the tanks.

Germany has about 3,100 women in their armed forces serving as medics and musicians.

The British have over 13,000 females in the military, "(17 pilots and 20 navigators), at sea (700 women on 41 ships, though none in submarines) and in many parts of the army, including posts of great danger, though not, in theory, in the front line." (Gimson 17)

Russian women served in combat in World War II where they flew antiaircraft planes made of plywood and fabric with no parachutes. They volunteered as bomber and fighter pilots, navigator-bombardiers, gunners, and support crews. They also served in the only regular female combat forces in World War II, and gained the reputation of being brave and fierce fighters.

Iraqi women occupied positions in the military and police when the country was under the rule of the Shah Pahlavi. Women lost those and all other rights when Ayatollah Khomeini gained power and again implemented old domination laws.

In Afghanistan, women are fighting shoulder to shoulder in hand-to-hand combat with the men against the Taliban, a group who has recently seized power in that country.

In the United States, nearly 1.8 million women have served in the military since American Military History began with the American Revolution. Women disguised themselves as men, "…400 women did so" (Hightower 2) during the Civil War; 49,500 women were involved in World War I; 350,000 women wore military uniforms in World War II, "57,000 Army, 11,000 Navy nurses, 100,000 WACs, 18,000 Women Marines, 86,000 Waves, and 11,000 SPARS." (Breuer 61) This doesn’t include the women that served overseas in espionage. These women grew up in a time when women were taught not to brag about what they did. They had to fight the undeserved reputations of having "loose morals" (Breuer, 7). In 1942 the War Department formed the Army Air Corps organization which was composed of women who piloted war planes, transporting them all over the world. On one occasion 5 of these women had to land at Americus, Georgia, because of bad weather. They were arrested while looking for a hotel to sleep in because "Ladies’ in slacks are not allowed on the streets at night… They protested that they were Army Pilots in uniform…that would merely be another charge against them: impersonating military officers." (Breuer 23)

Most of the women who served in the military before the Viet Nam war didn’t tell anyone about it. Not their friends, neighbors, and sometimes the families didn’t even know about their military service. When they came home from the war, the United States did not want to acknowledge the part they played in it. That part wasn’t acknowledged until this year. On Tuesday, October 21, 1997, the U. S. Government dedicated the Women in Military Service for America Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, in Washington, DC. These women were breaking new ground in the military then just as women are trying to break the old stereotypes of what women can do and are allowed to do in countries all around the world by volunteering to serve in military combat today.

Laws have changed in the United States allowing women to hold more positions throughout the various branches of the military. In 1994 women were allowed to start serving on combat ships. Women are however, still barred by law from "engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force’s personnel." (GOA NSIAD-96-169, 2) In actuality any person serving in a war zone is serving in combat.

In the first place, it is almost impossible when in a war situation to distinguish what the battle lines are. They shift and blur when the shooting starts, and bullets don’t know the difference. "Once you no longer have a definable front, it’s impossible to separate combat from noncombat." (Time, Editorial, 29) In World War II, nearly 200 women of the U. S. Army Nurse Corps stationed in Anzio, "faced danger as great as anyone else in the bridgehead." (Breuer 37) The tents that were set up as hospitals were clearly marked with red crosses on fields of white and yet wounded soldiers and medical personnel were often hit a second or third time with shell or bomb fragments. Those women who have been serving in war zones in "noncombat" positions, have always been at high risk.

Can women operate in the same physically demanding positions in the military that men operate in? Women have not had the opportunities to advance themselves physically that men have. Before 1968 women were lucky if they were allowed to play volleyball in gym classes. There was no such thing as "women’s sports." The women’s marathon wasn’t even added to the Olympics until 1984. Women are having to make up for lost time in the physical fitness area.

The Department of Defense commissioned a $140,000 study to find out what would happen if the average civilian woman were put through a very rigorous physical training program which shows that "with a little training, most women can become just as strong as the average man. (Pisik 20) When the program started, 24% of the civilians qualified for "very heavy" Army jobs. "It put 41 civilians through 24 weeks of intense training exercises like running a wooded course with a 75-pound backpack and hoisting heavy boxes." (20) These women were put through 90 minutes, five-days-a-week and given workouts that surpassed the military basic training courses. At the end of the training, 78% of the women qualified for very heavy Army jobs. The research physiologist commented "I knew they would improve,….but I didn’t know they could improve that much." (20) This suggests that preconceived notions of what women can and can’t do is also affecting the type of physical training they are receiving, even in the military.

There is also a false assumption here that only one test or one physical fitness standard exists for men in the military, and that all men have the same amount of strength. The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) has age variations for men and the same is true for the other branches of the military and their physical fitness tests. These age groups at present are: 52-56, 57-61 and 62 plus. The thought behind this is that a man 62 years of age cannot run a mile in the same time a man of 19 can, etc. "Army leaders have stated that separate standards would be necessary even if the Army had no women." (Army Times, Editorial, 27) These tests also have differences based on gender. The object here isn’t whether a man is working as hard as another, or that women aren’t working as hard as men. The military is trying to assure that each individual is working to his or her greatest capacity. Interestingly, the Air Force is the only branch of the military that "requires all recruits to take a strength aptitude test—which consists of lifting weights on a single weight machine—and uses the results to qualify individuals for their military occupations." (GOA/NSIAD-96-169, 1) It has been in use since 1976 and occupations are classified in eight strength or physical demand categories. The Army tested a program designed to separate recruits by strength starting in 1976 and discontinued the test in 1990. The Navy considered using a strength test to screen applicants but did not implement it or categorize occupations by physical demand. The Marine Corps has not adopted any program based on this criteria.

The Department of Defense is in the process of trying new PT standards. They are trying to make the test(s) more challenging for everyone concerned, but there is concern that the tests will be compromised to accommodate everyone if only one standard is used.

Another issue most people don’t think about in physical ability is clothing. It is hard to do any kind of workout if the clothing doesn’t fit properly or protect the person wearing them against the elements. In 1976 the Army tested a program of common basic training instruction for men and women. "The study showed that women met all the standards except the physical fitness standards…" (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-174, 5) However, the study also showed that they were issued shoes that did not fit their feet, and field jackets that were made for women but as women find in regular society, the jackets "were not as warm and did not fit as well as those issued to and made for men." (GOA/T-NSIAD-97-174, 5) Also, the test found that male instructors had not been properly instructed to train women. "They tended to be overprotective and assumed women would not meet the standards."

If men and women are trained together will it adversely affect them? "Two studies done for the Navy and the Army suggest that gender-integrated basic training programs do not negatively affect trainees’ performance." (GOA/T-NSIAD-97-174, 2) Trainees for the Army and Navy follow the same instruction program regardless of gender, "and in gender-integrated units, trainees are mixed at the operating level." (GOA/T-NSIAD-97-174, 2) They sleep separately and have different medical exams and hygiene classes. Basic training in the Air Force is basically conducted the same as for the Army and the Navy in regards to gender integration. The Marine Corps does not have gender-integrated basic training. The Army sponsored a 3 year study in 1996 that indicated women’s performance improved and men’s performance was not degraded with gender-integration. When the data of the 3 year study was compared with performance of an all male location it indicated "the pass rates for male trainees in the gender-integrated companies exceeded the pass rates for trainees at the all-male location…" (GOA T-NSIAD-97-174, 4) Studies are ongoing at this time.

What about Sexual harassment? Unfortunately it is a fact of everyday life and will be as long as we see each other only sexually. Power and authority over another is not always wisely wielded. When human beings learn to see each other as individuals, each having strengths and weaknesses, each having areas of expertise and nonexpertise, then maybe sexual harassment will be something of the past. The U. S. Military has strict rules of conduct and those rules need to be implemented fairly, impartially and equally. Most reports of sexual harassment in the military seem to be widely publicized isolated incidents. A career women in the military will not automatically be subjected to more harassment than what she might receive as a civilian, and women are continuing to join despite the publicity given to sexual harassment in the military.

Conduct between the enlisted is another issue. Because of an incident at a field hospital on the Croatian coast between a German man and woman stationed there who were lovers, Germany passed into law that it is not illegal for male and female soldiers to "have sex with each other when serving abroad, but no special accommodation will be provided for the purpose….sexual relationships between members of the Bundeswehr are a private matter and cannot in principle be subject to judgment by the government or by military supervisors." (Gimson 17). The couple was charged with "breach of duty for offending against ‘respect and trust’ demanded of them as soldiers, and also against the ‘duty of comradeship" and sentenced to 7 days in jail as the normal disciplinary action. But they received disciplinary action because they were within earshot of two women who were also stationed there and complained. "The British Army is "going through a period when it’s trying to establish bonking rules. That’s what the generals call them." (Gimson 18) In Jakarta, "Virginity has been declared compulsory for women cadets entering the Indonesian police and military forces…" (Reuter online)

What happens when a female soldier becomes pregnant? In August of 1996, about 70 American women had been sent back to their home base in Germany from Bosnia because they became pregnant. That was approximately 4.6 % of the women stationed there. Great Britain and Germany acknowledged it was an issue for them also, but I found no statistics on it. Women are no longer dismissed from the U. S. armed forces for becoming pregnant and there have been "wellness programs" (McHugh 14) established for their pre and postpartum care. The British Ministry of Defense had to pay large sums of compensation "when soldiers were sacked for becoming pregnant." (Gimson 18) Technology today for men and women is such that few women should get pregnant if the couple doesn’t want it. However, technology does have a fail factor to deal with.

There has also been much controversy regarding married couples with children, when both parents are sent to a war zone and/or single parents with children are sent to war zones. Saying that women should suffer the sole responsibility of child care, or that they are best at it is an issue many men are trying to change. Many divorced men totally disagree with this stereotype. These men are trying to turn that injustice around because of women who are either not interested or incapable of properly caring for their own children and yet these men cannot get custody of their children because of the stereotype that women are always better caregivers. "…women sign a contract when they join the Volunteer Military Force,…the Army requires that parents have a "plan" for child care" (Elshtain 15) which should take care of most of the problem, but it hasn’t. It is a very complicated issue and should not be presented as a gender issue. It should be presented as what’s best for the children.

Next, and a very gripping issue is the possibility that women will become prisoners of war. They could be raped, tortured and killed or any number of maladies could befall them.. In fact, there were two women taken prisoner in the Desert Storm war. Army Major Rhonda Cornum, who was taken as a prisoner of war when her Blackhawk helicopter was shot down over Kuwait, stated that she "had been treated no differently from any of the men." (Hoffman 43) Men are also in jeopardy of becoming prisoners of war and being raped, tortured and killed. It does happen to males who are taken prisoner, even if men don’t like to admit it. Men are also raped in the private sector of society and it is becoming much more prevalent, although it is not as widely publicized as when a female is raped.

It seems that part of society has the idea all women need to be protected. The problem is that all women don’t want that protection. I think the key here is that the United States Military is VOLUNTARY. The women that are joining the military are not being forced. However, the possibility of being in a war zone, of being captured and all that might happen to a person in a war zone, is something a man or a woman would have to seriously consider before signing the contract or joining the military. Some women and men have joined the military with the idea that they will never have to go to a combat area even though it has been fully explained to them before they signed their contract. International affairs change daily. Joining the military with the idea of never having to go to a war zone is idiotic.

Prior to 1973 the military could rely on the draft to fill positions in the services. Since the draft was abolished and the military became fully volunteer, meeting the personnel needs became a challenge for the United States Department of Defense. At the same time the women’s rights movement was in full force and society has called for more opportunities for women. The United States Department of Defense has therefore integrated more women into the various divisions of the armed forces, women who voluntarily joined the military, to fulfill it’s personnel needs. At the end of 1995 there were over 191,000 women in active duty and over 330,000 in the military when the reserve forces were added in. Integrating women into the military has been a challenge and is not likely to be discontinued no matter what personal opinions are. Dwight Eisenhower even made the comment in 1942 "I have seen [British service] women perform so magnificently in various positions, that I had become a booster of military women," (Eisenhower 25) as he tried to promote U. S. women in the military. The next step for women is combat.

I highly recommend the book War And American Women: Heroism, Deeds, and Controversy by William B. Breuer for anyone who wants to further their reading regarding this subject. The only problem I had with the book is that many times the reader is left hanging, not knowing whether the woman or women being written about lived or died. There is also a very good list of sources in the back of the book for further reading on the subject.

The U.S. sources from the General Accounting Office can be read on the internet with adobe acrobat reader 3.0 or above at http://www.gao.gov.

Posted: 22 Sep 97 - "The Perils Of Pauline (Or Why Women In The Infantry Is A Bad Idea)" By "Proshi"

"Proshi" is a captain in the Israeli Army reserves and a combat veteran of Israel's war in Lebanon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last summer, a film entitled "Courage Under Fire" regaled American moviegoers with the fictional combat exploits of a female Army helicopter pilot in Operation Desert Storm. This year, movie theaters are showing Demi Moore in the title role of "GI Jane," a similarly fictitious film that portrays a woman candidate for the elite Navy SEALs whose career is sabotaged by chauvinist males. Yet, despite the best efforts of Hollywood screenwriters to convince us that women should serve in military combat units, it is clear that the widespread integration of female personnel into the American armed forces remains a highly troubled enterprise, at best.

In recent years, left-wing members of Congress have exerted incessant pressure on the Pentagon to expand the number of military specialties that are open to women. The genesis of this effort stems from the feminist insistence that the military must be held to the same standards of gender equity that apply to any civilian workplace.

Yet, despite the considerable progress that they have made towards the achievement of these objectives, feminist critics charge that the military remains in the thrall of a conservative male-dominated establishment that is inveterately hostile to women. In a recently published book entitled "Ground Zero: The Gender Wars in the Military," Linda Bird Franke decries a military ethos of machismo-laden aggression that she contends makes sexual harassment and rape inevitable.

In their haste to attack the culture of pugnacity that pervades the military, however, feminist ideologues overlook the fact that the key to an army's battlefield success lies in the deliberate cultivation of controlled violence within its ranks. Since time immemorial, these qualities of combativeness and belligerence are what have transformed battalions into efficient killing machines, and brought victory to that quintessentially violent human activity called war.

Perhaps the greatest irony to emerge from this debate stems from the feminist insistence that women should be allowed to serve in the infantry, armor and artillery. We have observed Ms. Franke's assertion that vulnerable servicewomen need protection from the culture of unbridled male aggression and violence that dominates the military. Yet in the same breath, she demands that women be allowed to serve in front-line battlefield roles, where they will routinely encounter a close-quarters brutality of the worst sort imaginable.

If women are unable to cope with the crude sexual harassment that is part of peacetime barracks life, how will they endure the unbridled savagery of infantry combat? There will be no EEOC on the battlefield, and appeals to "gender equity" will do nothing to help a woman soldier against an enemy rifleman who is trying to impale her on his bayonet.

Moreover, the feminist military lobby is completely indifferent to any impact that the introduction of women into rifle platoons might have on the combat abilities of those units. Those who assert the rights of women to serve in armored cavalry squadrons invariably couch their arguments in the traditional civil rights terminology of equal treatment and fairness. It is noteworthy that feminist advocates have never even attempted to claim that the inclusion of women in the military combat formations would enhance the fighting effectiveness of our armed forces.

Since 300 Spartans faced a Persian horde at Thermopylae 3,500 years ago, soldiers have been motivated to face death on the battlefield by a powerful emotional bond that is unique to men who share adverse and dangerous circumstances. This spirit of fraternal love between warriors was brilliantly captured by Shakespeare in Henry V's paen to his outnumbered English army at Agincourt: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he today who sheds his blood with me, shall be my brother."

The lifestyle of a ground combat unit in the field is extremely rudimentary and elemental. If men and women in their early 20s are placed in such conditions for lengthy periods of time, the development of romantic liaisons within the ranks is inevitable. During the first 7 months of the US. Army's deployment to Bosnia, scores of female soldiers were sent home because they had become pregnant. An American captain remarked on the widespread sexual activity within U.S. Army's Bosnian encampments, saying :"they've locked us down [in our bases]. What else is there to do?"

The passionate nature of romantic love, with its instinctive tendencies towards jealousy, protectiveness and favouritism, corrodes the unit bonding and cohesion that make rifle companies into effective weapons of war. The unavoidable sexual tensions that would result from the inclusion of women in combat units would merely serve to undermine the ability of the military to do its one and only job - to defeat the enemy.

The ability of our military to defeat America's enemies, however, is considered by feminist advocates to be a matter of only secondary importance. Rather, the feminist movement sees the armed forces as an objective to be conquered in another, entirely different battle.

Mrs. Franke and her compatriots consider the military to be nothing more than the most egregious bastion of male privilege in the United States today. If they manage to subdue and remake the armed forces in their own image, then feminist ideologues feel that they will have vanquished the primary obstacle to their true goal - a radical reshaping of American society at large.