In discussing Simone de Beauvoir, I have been reminded of a debate we recently had in my French class about whether or not women should be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military. As a political liberal and general supporter of gender equality, I was in favor of this idea and was thus a bit annoyed when our professor told me that I was a part of the “contre” group and had to argue against it. But when forced to think of arguments in opposition to women in combat, I immediately conceded that men are inherently more qualified for these positions. Not simply because of their facticity, but because of the naturally superior strength and endurance that their facticity affords them, males are, in general, physically more equipped to serve in combat than females. While there are certainly some exceptional women whose strength is above that of the average male, this is generally not the case. (If this claim seems somewhat stereotypical or even absurd, think about it in a different context. In professional football, for instance, no one really questions why there are no women in the NFL.) So, the question that arises is, Is the government’s policy of letting women serve in positions of combat in the military for the sake of equality and progressiveness an irresponsible one? If a women is placed in such a position in lieu of a man who is presumably more physically qualified, is the military not unnecessarily jeopardizing both the safety of the woman and the overall strength of the United States military? When so much is at stake, would it not be more conscientious to push the cause of equality aside for a moment and constrain women to non-combat positions in the military? Despite my best wishes as a woman, I am forced to admit that the answer to all of these questions is, in a word, yes. While I am certainly not trying to oppress or discriminate against my own sex in saying this, it seems clear to me that, despite what de Beauvoir might say, there is not a whole lot that women can do about such a situation. I am hoping that someone can prove me wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Quick note regarding this post: de Beauvoir does discuss the idea of "strength" in her writings as a good example of phenomenological investigation which may elevate women not as men or over against them, but as their own consideration with its own phenomenological possibilities. As Libby writes above, men have traditionally been regarded by biology as "stronger" than women. However, this only holds on the basis of a narrow definition of the word. It has been repeatedly proven that women are much "stronger" than men in a plethora of ways--many of which could easily be regarded as more significant than brute force. For example, apparently women vastly exceed men in their "strength" for pain tolerance (considered both physically and mentally), and this has been connected to a number of psychological and physiological reasons (the most obvious being childbirth). To go back to Libby's example, you might have little reason to be impressed by someone who can bench-press a large amount of weight yet cannot endure great physical and emotional stress, as opposed to one who simply refuses to give up in the face of physical and emotional adversity.
ReplyDeletePersonally, if I were a company commander or a boss or a friend, I would prefer to have the latter individual at my side rather than the former. However, this does not get at the other side of Libby's question, which regards the social stigmas and treatment of women in combat as opposed to men. The concerns which fuel the BFOQ behind precluding women from combat have much more to do with their treatment by the enemy rather than their comparable prowess to their male peers.
-W.
If you want to consider brute strength in a hand-to-hand form of combat, then yeah, you could probably definitely say that men may be "better suited" for combat than women (as far as fighting against a man is concerned). However, one thing I feel I should point out is that even though women do not have the same brute strength as men, women ARE fairly adept when it comes to agility, pain tolerance (as Harwood pointed out), and problem solving skills. With this taken into account, yeah, okay, so maybe a woman couldn't pack the same amount of force into a blow as a man could, however their physical form (potentially smaller, more lean) could work to their advantage in this situation. So that's something to consider.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing to point out with this argument is that it seems like it only is thinking of "combat" as a hand-to-hand brawl. When "combat" as far as the U.S. military is concerned is a much broader definition. Combat can include a myriad of things in our military, gun(wo)men, tanks, helicopters, drops, ground combat, etc. But even ground combat in our times is much more focused not on the individual's brute strength, but more so in their ability to aim and fire a weapon. When considered from this perspective, men and women should not differ, despite all stereotypes about women and their inability to aim. (I'd like to also propose that part or a lot of the reason that women are poorer shots than men is that it is not considered to be a normal task of women in our culture, and as such, many women never learn to aim/fire a gun. I can even put myself into this example, as I was taught to fire a weapon at a young age, grew up with weaponry, and I am a pretty decent shot. I wouldn't compare my ability to a man's specifically, just because I find the comparison irrelevant - instead I compare it to all other people's ability. So gender shouldn't be an issue when it comes to a soldier's ability to fire a gun, to work in problem solving situations often present in combat, or to operate equipment/machinery within combat.
So basically, in this fairly long-winded rambling reply, what I'm saying is that strength is most certainly NOT the only factor to be considered when determining whether or not women are "suitable" for combat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI actually had a discussion with one of the customer's where I work at who was/is in the combat part of the military about some different aspects of the army and this did come up.. he gave me a good reason as to why they don't allow women on the field that has nothing to do with whether a woman is strong enough or can fire a gun, but it wasn't anything I had ever heard before. He told me that at one point he went 60 days without showering, and of course anyone would be repulsed at the thought of that and then he pointed out to me that every 30 days women go through their.. cycles and then said that in an environment like that without access to bathing/clean clothing/etc. women could become physically sick because of certain bodily functions.. I'd never thought of that before, and I don't know this for sure, but that could be another reason (along with how the enemy would treat women soldiers compared to men) as to why women aren't allowed in field combat.
ReplyDeleteI do think at first glance a law like this might seem like it's discriminating against women, but I think that they have taken into account the physical/mental/emotional well being of military women and decided that the cons outweight the pros in the debate as to whether women should be allowed into combat.. Despite this I think that women should be able to make the choice for themselves I think they should be aware of these things, but those things don't really matter if the women are committed.
I would have to agree with Lindsey's point that modern combat rarely involves physical "man" on "man" contact. Thus, women are equally capable of serving in the army. However, I do not think that the army should require a certain number of women to be admitted into the army. Any sort of quota of this nature would cause positive discrimination. Acceptance into the army should be based on their ability to serve. If a woman is a better candidate she should be accepted first if a man is than he should be accepted first. Sex should not play not be a factor. A woman's facticity is no hindrance in a modern army. So, here we have a deBeauvoirian point, sex does not really exist, so it should and cannot be a determinant of one's capability to serve.
ReplyDeleteBut like Professor Harwood said we must consider many facts that are completely outside a women control. For example, studies show that some militants will be less likely to surrender to a woman. So even if a woman can match or exceed the simulated effectiveness of a man at a certain position, one must consider the effect her mere presence has as well.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that males are built stronger than women, this does not mean it is right to say that one person is not fit to perform a duty. If we followed this example, and this is a hypothetical, only dark skinned people would be working outside in the sun because they are less likely to get sun burned. To make this point short, men are not machines of war, and women are not baby making assembly lines, we are human beings. FAR more than just brute strength goes into being a soldier meaning that it doesn't take a Y chromosome to dictate that. Furthermore, why should the US Army (or any US armed forces) discriminate and forbid gays from fighting. Soldiers are going out there with guns, killing people, and if the thing that makes them most uncomfortable is whether the dude next to him is watching him in the shower, then he OR she should be ashamed.
ReplyDeleteOn a second point, Lindsey pointed out the design of modern combat, and it is not hand-to-hand anymore like it was in Ancient Greece; it is now tactical and long-range, meaning the only muscles you need to kill somebody are the three in your index finger. I don't know the statistics, but I'm sure then men in combat still vastly outnumber women, so if they really need a door busted open or whatever, somebody will be there.
A final point I would like to make is one that regards what the US image is to the rest of the world, particularly those in our current areas of conflict, where women still have to cover their whole bodies. Allowing women in the military is seen as a symbol of equality and freedom, so regulating this would go against our ideals.
May shame be upon those who look at war through the eyes of economics!
I think both Rachel and Spencer's argument prove good points for why women are not put on the front lines, but I think things could be done to change both issues. I'm sure some sort of cleaning... device? could be used for the women and their monthly cycles. And as for opposing forces being less likely to surrender to women, this is only the case in certain cultures. Just because one culture believes this does not mean we should keep women off the front lines in all duty. Furthermore, I think Professor Harwood's comment about the mental strength of women was very interesting. It would seem that women then, are more likely to keep from submitting to pain of torture, if psychologically they can stand more of it than men. It this not something the army would want? I think the issue as a general whole still has a long way to go on deciding for equality.
ReplyDelete