McCain and Women's Combat Roles
May. 27th, 2008 11:15 pmFrom the LA Times: John McCain, after his release as a POW, said only men belong in battle. He stands by his record.
A little history from the article: McCain opposes women in combat roles because he claims equality in the forces is second to role of the military in protecting America's 'vital security interests throughout the globe'. His colleagues didn't see it that way, and in the 90s women were inducted into positions of direct impact. However, to this day women are still not included in ground combat units.
So why the exception for women? According to the author of the article, it has to do with society's attitude towards women and warfare. It would be unthinkable for women to be drafted alongside men, for instance. Women are still seen as having no business fighting -- that's a man's job, despite the advancement of opportunities in the military. When's the last time someone said 'the army will make a woman out of you?'
Another related reason? The perception that a woman being abused in the line of duty being worse than a man going through the same abuse, harking back to the 'women need protection' mindset. I see what this camp means though, a woman is open to rape if captured, something that might not necessarily happen to her male counterpart.
This might just be the final frontier for women. I used to be very relieved I wasn't a guy and could be called up to the draft. But how is it fair that a person who shares the same moral ambivalence towards war be forced to fight on the basis of his gender while I am lucky enough not to? The draft is one of those things that's a tough issue to reach a satisfying conclusion over, particularly in the interests of equality. In a world where the draft IS needed, I would say, bring on the conscription of both sexes. Or better yet, remove the draft altogether.
If a person enlists, surely they should be sent based on where they're needed regardless of their gender. Think of the women in WWII who, because they couldn't join the effort more directly, became spies. I'm plenty sure they suffered horribly when captured, but the knowledge didn't stop them from volunteering.
And for the life of me, I don't see a difference between a woman doing her duty for the country in a non-combat position versus the combat position. If she's thought to be good enough to be out there putting her life in danger, why shouldn't she be considered good enough to fight alongside her brothers?
Interestingly, the article mentions Air Force's most senior female fighter pilot, Col. Martha McSally, recently writing that uniforms and hairstyles for all recruits should be standardised. Yep, that means everyone has the buzzcut, and no skirts or heels for the women. Would this help reduce the physical differences and make female soldiers more acceptable? Unlikely. There'll still be someone like Elaine Donnelly, the president of a group studying social issues in the military, who says 'We as a civilized nation do not have to subject our women to these kinds of risks.' Patronising, or is she right in saying this is one field women do not need to be equal in?
ETA: Thanks to![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ldragoon 's comment, I'm starting to see this more clearly. According to the LA Times article, neither Clinton or Obama have commented on whether they share McCain's stance. This would be a good chance for a Democrat to seize the chance and argue for fairer treatment of female soldiers. Something that would defuse the culture of misogyny and make it less common for women to be abused by their own.
This is the Marie Claire magazine article that made me wonder, why isn't anyone raising hell? In it Specialist Ashley Pullen says, after her male teammates left, '...I slept with my back to the wall so if somebody reentered the trailer, I could protect myself. The chance of rape during wartime is high.'
Before the question of women in combat roles can be answered, there is a far greater need to see that the women serving in the armed forces are not made victims themselves.
A little history from the article: McCain opposes women in combat roles because he claims equality in the forces is second to role of the military in protecting America's 'vital security interests throughout the globe'. His colleagues didn't see it that way, and in the 90s women were inducted into positions of direct impact. However, to this day women are still not included in ground combat units.
So why the exception for women? According to the author of the article, it has to do with society's attitude towards women and warfare. It would be unthinkable for women to be drafted alongside men, for instance. Women are still seen as having no business fighting -- that's a man's job, despite the advancement of opportunities in the military. When's the last time someone said 'the army will make a woman out of you?'
Another related reason? The perception that a woman being abused in the line of duty being worse than a man going through the same abuse, harking back to the 'women need protection' mindset. I see what this camp means though, a woman is open to rape if captured, something that might not necessarily happen to her male counterpart.
This might just be the final frontier for women. I used to be very relieved I wasn't a guy and could be called up to the draft. But how is it fair that a person who shares the same moral ambivalence towards war be forced to fight on the basis of his gender while I am lucky enough not to? The draft is one of those things that's a tough issue to reach a satisfying conclusion over, particularly in the interests of equality. In a world where the draft IS needed, I would say, bring on the conscription of both sexes. Or better yet, remove the draft altogether.
If a person enlists, surely they should be sent based on where they're needed regardless of their gender. Think of the women in WWII who, because they couldn't join the effort more directly, became spies. I'm plenty sure they suffered horribly when captured, but the knowledge didn't stop them from volunteering.
And for the life of me, I don't see a difference between a woman doing her duty for the country in a non-combat position versus the combat position. If she's thought to be good enough to be out there putting her life in danger, why shouldn't she be considered good enough to fight alongside her brothers?
Interestingly, the article mentions Air Force's most senior female fighter pilot, Col. Martha McSally, recently writing that uniforms and hairstyles for all recruits should be standardised. Yep, that means everyone has the buzzcut, and no skirts or heels for the women. Would this help reduce the physical differences and make female soldiers more acceptable? Unlikely. There'll still be someone like Elaine Donnelly, the president of a group studying social issues in the military, who says 'We as a civilized nation do not have to subject our women to these kinds of risks.' Patronising, or is she right in saying this is one field women do not need to be equal in?
ETA: Thanks to
ldragoon 's comment, I'm starting to see this more clearly. According to the LA Times article, neither Clinton or Obama have commented on whether they share McCain's stance. This would be a good chance for a Democrat to seize the chance and argue for fairer treatment of female soldiers. Something that would defuse the culture of misogyny and make it less common for women to be abused by their own. This is the Marie Claire magazine article that made me wonder, why isn't anyone raising hell? In it Specialist Ashley Pullen says, after her male teammates left, '...I slept with my back to the wall so if somebody reentered the trailer, I could protect myself. The chance of rape during wartime is high.'
Before the question of women in combat roles can be answered, there is a far greater need to see that the women serving in the armed forces are not made victims themselves.
