It's odd to think that as recently as 1979 (only a few years before my birth and well within my parents' lifetime), the language used to speak of women in the military was overwhelmingly protectionist and, at times, downright condescending. The most clear instances of this attitude were provided by Congressman G.V. "Sonny" Montgomery, a Democrat from Mississippi. One of his first contentions was the likelihood of men to neglect their duty because they would be "overly protective" of women. Later in the hearings, he pokes fun at a M. Kathleen Carpenter, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Employment Opportunity. While Ms. Carpenter testified about the problem of harassment in the military, the congressman interjected, "I was just going to tease the gentlelady. I was going to ask who was harassing who in the military? It has been my experience with women, I usually get harassed" (24).
Jim Webb, a journalist and former Marine, authored a controversial article in the Washingtonian entitled, "Women Can't Fight." He asserts that the entrance of women into military academies had weakened the morale of the army and that introducing women into combat zones would all but destroy the ability of the American military to win a war. His most memorable statement is:
"The Hall, which houses 4,000 males and 300 females, is a horny woman's dream... While this is a natural human phenomenon, it gets in the way of military indoctrination, and creates a very real resentment among males due to the evolution of a double standard of discipline."
This article was referenced heavily in the subcommittee hearings on women in the military. Retired Colonel Phelps Jones calls the article "memorable" and "honest," stating that, "[Webb's] judgment of the deterioration of the plebe system and the whole sense of élan and internal morale at Annapolis is painful" (272-274). Colonel Jones continues to advise the committee to make the following statement to women entering into the Academy:
"Look, for most of you, you cannot aspire to be a general of the Army, or an admiral of the fleet, or something like this; there is a point beyond which, in total candor, we must tell you most of you can't go." (274).
The extent of the influence of Webb's article has been publicly debated since he published it. Webb (now an incumbent senator from Virginia) has been, time and time again, called to task for his condescending view of women and his controversial article may have cost him the opportunity to be Obama's vice presidential candidate in the 2008 election. Here is a clip from 2006, in which Jim Webb is asked about how his opinions have changed since he published his now infamous article:
The and general attitude and comments from 1979 could, perhaps, be attributed to our slightly less evolved social structure. It is easy to read these transcripts and feel superior to our collective former selves. In fact, I'd like to take a moment and and raise a glass to the opportunity of being a 21st century woman, living in a society which respects my dignity and abilities as both a woman and a human; a society when people like Senator Jim Webb are compelled to take back their out-dated comments in order to continue on a path of public service. It's true that we still live in an imperfect world, but the sure signs of progress can't help but leave me feeling optimistic.
What do you think? Do the unique issues that surround women in the military impact our national security or the ability of our military to function in the most effective or efficient way? How has your experience (personal or otherwise) with the military shaped your view of women's contributions? How far have we really come since 1979?
[The parenthetical citations come from: "Women in the Military Hearings before the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Ninety-Sixth Congress First and Second Sessions," November 13, 14, 15, 16, 1979 and February 11, 1980. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington: 1981.]
Whoever taught your first year US History survey should have spent more time on the pay disparity that still exists between men and women, the burdens of the "second shift," and the extent to which anti-choice forces respect your "dignity" as a woman. But, her transgressions aside, you are an amazing writer and raise really thoughtful questions here. They are the kind you can ask to your own first year survey in a few years!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all Hi Lynette! Miss you here in Ohio and hope you're enjoying Philly :)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, to your post...Jim Webb has never impressed much since I first heard of him in 2006. Once when he was addressing the Naval Academy he referred to female students as "thunder thighs". The fact that he feels that introducing women into certain positions in the military creates a "horny woman's" fantasy I think speaks more to his own personal issues. I do find it curious that a man who is so vehemently pro-choice would have such a backwards view of women.
If you think about it, we do have women in the police force, which is a dangerous job.
As far as a warzone situation, this is how I see it. I think if a woman can handle all the physical barriers then they should be allowed to be up there fighting. I also think that as a society the majority of men and women are capable of working with each other as equals. Where my question would be is this. I think all men at their core are protectors of the people around them that they care about especially women and children who traditionally are viewed as physically weaker. So with that in mind what would keep a man in a combat situation from reacting to the natural instinct to protect the women in his battalion even though he knows that they have experienced the same training he has?
I have no doubt that a woman can lead just as competently as a man (a certain former governor comes to mind *cough*cough*) and in our time we have seen women make great advances in all three branches of government the obvious exception of course being the presidency. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic in the future.
Thanks again for posting as I always appreciate something that stretches my brain!
Your writing is thoughtful and thought provoking. I do think that women are more respected in the military, however I have heard from a few male graduates of military colleges (West Point, the Air Force Academy) that they wouldn't want their sister to go through what the women in those colleges had to endure. I also believe that there is a sense that women can't (won't?) do the tough things that are required of a soldier, and therefore put the collective "army" at risk.
ReplyDeleteWhat do I think? Well, soldiering is not for me, but if a woman chooses that path and puts up with everything that is required to get there, then I'm certain that she can and will get the job done. My experience shows me that women will persevere, they will rise to the occasion, and that their passion for their chosen vocation will lend itself to a job well done.
Does this mean all women in the military are the best at their jobs? Does it mean that every woman will succeed...well, no, but not every man does either...
Let's just judge all of us by what we are willing to do, and whether or not we measure up to the single applied standard. Once we do that, the gender issue is less important, and the performance issue becomes the focus.
Keep writing, I'll keep reading, nicely done!
Hey Lynette,
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a male who has never seriously considered entering the service, I don't see any reason why anyone who can perform the duties required by any position in the military should be denied the opportunity to fulfill their desire to join the military. I think the "women aren't able to fight" thing is one of the biggest falsehoods left from pre-modern civilization. I say pre-modern because I firmly believe that it's a hold over from the days when going to war meant carrying 30-60 pounds of armor, and a 5-20 pound weapon depending on the era. The advent of firearms drastically changed the way war is fought, allowing anyone with two working hands and one working eye to be a soldier; just look at any magazine feature on war-torn parts of Africa featuring an 8-year-old carrying a RPG. The odds of a soldier in 21st Century combat ending up in a hand-to-hand situation is very slim, so the argument of "women aren't strong enough" doesn't hold water anymore. That's not to say that a woman cannot hold her own in a fistfight, but that is often the perception. It's interesting to note that the most decorated soldier of World War II, Audie Murphy, stood less than 5' 4".
That said, the military is *very* picky about who it accepts enlistments from. My fiancee's father was rejected from the Navy during Vietnam because of a skin condition and her brother was discharged from the Marines because he caught pneumonia at Parris Island partially due to a collapsed lung he'd suffered in high school (he was discharged for the lung, which apparently the recruiter didn't think was a big deal). A hall mate of mine at Wooster was one of the most physically fit people I know and he was rejected from the Marines because he gets more than two migraines a year on average. They complain about low enlistment, but they won't let in women, gays or straight men who get a headache now and then. It seems a little counter intuitive.
Also, being one of those history nerds who *likes* reading about war on occasion, I've yet to come across an account that said "and as the enemy charged, weapons drawn, so-and-so was revealed to be a woman when she screamed, threw down her weapon, and ran for her life." What I have come across are accounts of women taking up arms for a cause (notably both sides of the U.S. Civil War, and the 1916 Easter Uprising in Ireland) and fighting alongside men or defending their property from invading armies. So men will trust women to use the family shotgun to hold off a couple of invading soldiers, but they won't let them come up to the front and stop them before they start ravaging the countryside? Doesn't quite make sense to me.
As an older woman, I don't think men and women are physically equal. While some may not like it, it is true. Professional women baskeball players are not professional men's equals. the same is true in most sports.
ReplyDeleteWhile a woman is capable of learning to use weapons, etc., is it really necessary to rely on women for the defense of the country? I'm pretty sure if you gave me and my husband the same equipment, he would do a lot more damage than I would. I would also assume I would be a distraction to him because I am a wimp and he would worry about me.
I have worked in the construction industry as a draftsman, and have put my hands to use to build, and I cannot handle the physical labor and equipment like a man.
Call me old fashioned, etc., I do think women are important in many areas of supporting the services and admire those that have served. I would much rather be protected in my home by my husband or son, than rely on myself or my daughter.