Yes, that Dr. Ruth. She served as a sniper in the Israeli Defense Force, as you can read about here:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/drruth.asp
Women in the IDF are permitted to serve in artillery, although not in infantry. They are also subject to the draft.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Elastic Definition of Combat
Many are surprised to learn that although women have always been banned from combat, the definition of combat itself has never been solildly established. For example, during World War II the Women's Airforce Service pilots flew every type of aircraft, including combat aircraft (although not on combat missions.) Thirty-eight of them died in duty, yet they were considered civilians and noncombatants by the military, and denied all veterans' benefits. Women served on hospital ships within torpedoing range of the enemy since they were first admitted to the Navy, yet there was considerable resistance to placing them on other types of ships that ran the same risk, as that might be considered combat. Today women are still officially banned from combat, yet serve on combat ships and fly combat planes. Is it at all meaningful to call Captain Kathleen McGrath, commander of a combat ship, a noncombatant? Can we really say that women are unequipped for the horrors of combat while they daily face the risk of death by IEDs and suicide bombers, when many have been held as POWs or suffered loss of limbs or eyesight? Not that I would glorify such suffering. But when women have demonstrated a willingness and ability to risk their lives and use deadly force as fighter and bomber pilots, why should we object to them doing so as infantry?
As it stands, there are no laws against women in combat. The Department of Defense sets policy and must give 30 legislative days notice before assignment rules regarding women are changed. A brief timeline of women in the American military can be found here: http://www.womensmemorial.org/Education/timeline.html
As it stands, there are no laws against women in combat. The Department of Defense sets policy and must give 30 legislative days notice before assignment rules regarding women are changed. A brief timeline of women in the American military can be found here: http://www.womensmemorial.org/Education/timeline.html
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy
A rare first-person perspective; Colonel Martha McSally, a fighter pilot in the Air Force, argues for women in combat:
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?14+Duke+J.+Gender+L.+&+Pol%27y+1011
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?14+Duke+J.+Gender+L.+&+Pol%27y+1011
Monday, March 3, 2008
Previous Race Restrictions in Combat
"For 162 years, from the end of the Revolution in 1783, until the last three months of World War II, blacks served principally in service units and the few who fought were relegated to segregated combat units, " (Blood For Dignity, pg. 1, David P. Colley.) In the beginning of 1945, then, no white man had ever fought in combat alongside a black man. Yet in March of that year over 2,000 black soldiers suddenly joined the infantry, fighting in previously all-white infantry and armored units, (ibid.) Despite the racism of the times, when they proved themselves they were accepted as fellow soldiers, "After the war the army conducted a study of the performance of the black volunteers entitled “The Utilization of Black Platoons in White Companies.” In interviews with 1,700 white soldiers, including eighty-four percent of the platoons’ officers, those queried said the blacks had performed “very well.” There was not one instance in which the performance of black troops was rated as poor," (ibid, pg. 3.)
Although the military, especially the combat arms, is steeped in macho culture, we can surely agree that soldiers are not as sexist now as they were racist in 1945. Yet that racism did not prevent previous soldiers from accepting black combat troops. I recognize that few women would qualify as combat soldiers, just as few have qualified in other physically difficult and life-threatening jobs. But that does not prevent bonding for those who do qualify. It is facing death together, working as a team to drive it back, that makes each person in the team a valued member. As Fortney writes, "Women do the same jobs as male firefighters, and they meet the same criteria for getting hired. But whether or not a fire crew has women, firefighters work as a team. No matter who does the work, fighting fires and making sure no one gets injured is what counts," (Fire Station Number 4, M.T. Fortney, pg. 29.)
Excluding women from combat is sometimes seen as a kindness; sparing them the horrors of war. Yet if a civilian woman wants to be a firefighter (or an FBI agent, or a security guard, or a coal miner, etc) the employer asks only if she is mentally and physically qualified. The government does not step in and declare "Women cannot risk their lives on the job." Likewise, qualified military women may change their occupation to something more risky; from nurse to pilot, for example. The government only draws the line at land combat and submarine warfare, though those are less risky than civilian jobs such as firefighting or ice fishing in Alaska, from which women are not banned. Black men also were accepted in dangerous civilian work for many years before they were allowed to work as combat soldiers. The Tuskegee Airmen, the first black fighter pilots, were commissioned before black men began as infantry troops, just as women serve as fighter pilots but not infantry troops today. This brings up the question of how the definition of combat has changed over the years, which I will address tomorrow.
Although the military, especially the combat arms, is steeped in macho culture, we can surely agree that soldiers are not as sexist now as they were racist in 1945. Yet that racism did not prevent previous soldiers from accepting black combat troops. I recognize that few women would qualify as combat soldiers, just as few have qualified in other physically difficult and life-threatening jobs. But that does not prevent bonding for those who do qualify. It is facing death together, working as a team to drive it back, that makes each person in the team a valued member. As Fortney writes, "Women do the same jobs as male firefighters, and they meet the same criteria for getting hired. But whether or not a fire crew has women, firefighters work as a team. No matter who does the work, fighting fires and making sure no one gets injured is what counts," (Fire Station Number 4, M.T. Fortney, pg. 29.)
Excluding women from combat is sometimes seen as a kindness; sparing them the horrors of war. Yet if a civilian woman wants to be a firefighter (or an FBI agent, or a security guard, or a coal miner, etc) the employer asks only if she is mentally and physically qualified. The government does not step in and declare "Women cannot risk their lives on the job." Likewise, qualified military women may change their occupation to something more risky; from nurse to pilot, for example. The government only draws the line at land combat and submarine warfare, though those are less risky than civilian jobs such as firefighting or ice fishing in Alaska, from which women are not banned. Black men also were accepted in dangerous civilian work for many years before they were allowed to work as combat soldiers. The Tuskegee Airmen, the first black fighter pilots, were commissioned before black men began as infantry troops, just as women serve as fighter pilots but not infantry troops today. This brings up the question of how the definition of combat has changed over the years, which I will address tomorrow.
Women in Combat - A Beginning
I want to begin by saying that combat is in many ways a terrible thing, and so is war, as General Sherman himself famously acknowledged. But it is also sometimes necessary. Whatever you think of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, surely you can think of wars that needed to be fought, and whatever you think of the resources and money America now spends on the military, surely you can see that a combat-ready military is a necessity for the country. The question then becomes, how is this best achieved?
Let us first consider physical strength, typically the first concern mentioned when the topic of women in combat is brought up. I do not deny that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. To be specific (Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, pg. 313, 1976) the average woman has 79% of the strength of the average man, assuming they are both of the same age and have performed the same physical activities. However, this is partly due to their difference in height and weight, as opposed to bodily structure. A woman of the same height and weight as the average man, performing the same physical activities, will on average have 90% of his strength, (JPER, pg. 310, 1976.) Therefore strictly speaking being female (as opposed to being short, skinny, etc) leads to an average 10% reduction in strength.
At this time the American military has lower height and weight requirements for women than for men performing the same jobs; furthermore, the maximum allowable weight for a female soldier is less than that of a male soldier of the same height, (Assessing Readiness in Military Women, pg. 89.) This is despite the fact that some of her weight must be carried in the breasts and hips, and not the muscles, contributing to the reduction in strength mentioned previously. Undoubtedly this policy leads to poorer performance from women than might be if height and weight requirements and restrictions were standardized. Therefore, until they are standardized we will not have a true picture of female soldiers' capabilities.
Female soldiers are also held to lower physical fitness requirements than males. This virtually ensures that they will be less physically fit, whatever their real potential. Whether or not we expand the role of women in the military, we must not artificially contract it through holding women to lower standards in training, inflating their job opportunities at the cost of proper performance, and then seeing those opportunities shrink as the performance is criticized.
Some say that no women would serve if they were held to the same standards as men. Those with such views would do well to consider the noted American military academy VMI (Virginia Military Institute), which became coeducational in 1997, yet holds both men and women cadets to the same physical as well as mental standard, considering that it is better to have less women when all are properly prepared than to inflate the number but decrease the ability. An average of 100 female cadets graduate from VMI every year, (http://www.vmi.edu/)
When women are held to the same standards as men in all military training, then they can be judged on their individual merits, and we may see if any qualify as combat soldiers. As it stands, women are judged lacking as a group; yet women are not the only group which, on average, displays a low level of physical strength. The American army allows citizens up to 42 years of age to enlist for the first time; naturally, the average 42-year-old man has less than 79% of the physical strength of the average 18-year-old man. The average Asian-American man, as well, is considerably weaker than the average white man. Yet neither age nor race denies any soldier the opportunity to serve in combat, as being female does. However, race did once play a part in combat restrictions, as my next post will discuss.
Let us first consider physical strength, typically the first concern mentioned when the topic of women in combat is brought up. I do not deny that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. To be specific (Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, pg. 313, 1976) the average woman has 79% of the strength of the average man, assuming they are both of the same age and have performed the same physical activities. However, this is partly due to their difference in height and weight, as opposed to bodily structure. A woman of the same height and weight as the average man, performing the same physical activities, will on average have 90% of his strength, (JPER, pg. 310, 1976.) Therefore strictly speaking being female (as opposed to being short, skinny, etc) leads to an average 10% reduction in strength.
At this time the American military has lower height and weight requirements for women than for men performing the same jobs; furthermore, the maximum allowable weight for a female soldier is less than that of a male soldier of the same height, (Assessing Readiness in Military Women, pg. 89.) This is despite the fact that some of her weight must be carried in the breasts and hips, and not the muscles, contributing to the reduction in strength mentioned previously. Undoubtedly this policy leads to poorer performance from women than might be if height and weight requirements and restrictions were standardized. Therefore, until they are standardized we will not have a true picture of female soldiers' capabilities.
Female soldiers are also held to lower physical fitness requirements than males. This virtually ensures that they will be less physically fit, whatever their real potential. Whether or not we expand the role of women in the military, we must not artificially contract it through holding women to lower standards in training, inflating their job opportunities at the cost of proper performance, and then seeing those opportunities shrink as the performance is criticized.
Some say that no women would serve if they were held to the same standards as men. Those with such views would do well to consider the noted American military academy VMI (Virginia Military Institute), which became coeducational in 1997, yet holds both men and women cadets to the same physical as well as mental standard, considering that it is better to have less women when all are properly prepared than to inflate the number but decrease the ability. An average of 100 female cadets graduate from VMI every year, (http://www.vmi.edu/)
When women are held to the same standards as men in all military training, then they can be judged on their individual merits, and we may see if any qualify as combat soldiers. As it stands, women are judged lacking as a group; yet women are not the only group which, on average, displays a low level of physical strength. The American army allows citizens up to 42 years of age to enlist for the first time; naturally, the average 42-year-old man has less than 79% of the physical strength of the average 18-year-old man. The average Asian-American man, as well, is considerably weaker than the average white man. Yet neither age nor race denies any soldier the opportunity to serve in combat, as being female does. However, race did once play a part in combat restrictions, as my next post will discuss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)