CONNECT
Waging Nonviolence / Op-Ed
Published: Sunday 3 February 2013
It is a tragedy that combat for women is being heralded as a step towards equality.
Combat for Women - Is This What Equality Looks Like?
I saw GI Jane in a San Francisco theater the week it opened in 1997. The place was packed. When Demi Moore shaved her head, the place erupted in a chaos of cheers and I was not sitting on my hands. Later on in the film, when Viggo Mortensen’s character beats her up, I found myself clapping and yelling along with everyone else as Demi Moore started landing some hits of her own.
As the lights came up at the end, I was so taken by Lieutenant Jordan O’Neil that if the Navy Seals had been taking names out front, I might have just put my pacifist Jane Addams (as opposed to John Hancock) on the list.
I was reminded how easily I succumbed to pro-war agitprop when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that women would now be able to serve in combat roles in all of the military services. By 2016, 230,000 positions within the military (in infantry, artillery and other hardcore, hot seat, heavy duty spots) will be open to women.
Panetta, who is stepping down from the Pentagon’s top post any day now and handing the reins over to Chuck Hagel (assuming the Nebraska Senator can get through committee), told reporters that one of his priorities as Secretary of Defense “has been to remove as many barriers as possible for dedicated and qualified people to be able to serve their country in uniform.”
This move will make it easier for women to climb the chain of command, get recognition and benefits for hazard positions and makes policy of what is already happening in practice. I was shocked by the number of women who have served and been wounded and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years. More than 280,000 women have served in the military in war zones since 2003, 152 have been killed and nearly 1,000 injured. Women have won Purple Hearts, Bronze Stars and Silver Stars for acts under direct combat conditions.
The New York Timesprofiled Air Force Staff Sergeant Stacy Pearsall, who was attached to an Army unit in Iraq. Her official job description? Photographer. But she was on patrol just about every day, suited up in heavy body armor, carrying heavy gear, being fired on and firing back. And she carried camera equipment and took photos. She was wounded and saved someone’s life. Reflecting on that experience, she told the Times,“I didn’t sit around thinking: ‘I’m a woman, I don’t think I can carry this gun,’… And I can’t speak for the men, but I feel that when the bullets were flying, they didn’t care that I was a woman, as long as I was pulling the trigger.”
Didn’t care if she was a woman? That may be so. A lot of the discussion around Panetta’s announcement focuses on questions like: Can women do as many push-ups and pull-ups as men? Won’t women be grossed out by men’s dirty socks and underpants and general lack of hygiene out on the battlefield? Won’t men be distracted by their natural chivalrous impulses during firefights? But, these questions are only a small part of the reality for women in the military.
More than half the women serving in the military currently are mothers. Not just that, many are primary care-givers and more than a third are single moms — meaning that when mommy is off to war the kids stay with extended families, go to estranged or divorced fathers, or end up in foster care. Women who serve, fight, kill, injure, and risk death and injury while in the military are vulnerable to psychological damage. They are being diagnosed with PTSD and are attempting and committing suicide too. Just like military men, they have trouble reintegrating into civilian society — finding and keeping jobs, reconnecting with children and families, staying healthy and sober.
And even if they never face a harrowing combat experience like Staff Sergeant Pearsall, women in the military are in danger — not from insurgents in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan, but from their fellow soldiers and airmen and Marines. As former California Rep. Jane Harman wrote a few years ago, “Women serving in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq.” That is a terrible fact, especially given the drastic under-reporting of rapes and sexual violence within the military — the Department of Defense estimates that 80 percent of assaults are not reported. That is scary… and not all that surprising at the same time. If Leon Panetta wanted to leave a lasting legacy of equality within the military, he would declare zero tolerance for sexual violence within the military. He would prosecute perpetrators and protect women who speak out. That is real change that challenges a culture of militarism and machismo.
Women join the military for the same reasons men do — a steady paycheck, a position of respect, a sense of belonging, a chance to gain real skills, a quest for adventure. But once there, they must see others as the enemy; they must kill and injure and risk the same; they must contend with a culture of misogyny and risk serious trauma. I am all for women being equal — in the home, in the bedroom, in the workplace, on the street (my husband and I are equally unable to do a pull-up at this point). But on the battlefield? No. It is a tragedy that combat for women is being heralded as a step towards equality.
Top Stories
By Ronnie Cummins
17 comments on "Combat for Women - Is This What Equality Looks Like?"
February 04, 2013 8:43pm
Whether women are in ground combat units or not, the military will still be sent on missions determined by civilians who operate within the framework of the interests of the corporate ruling class. It's an equality issue that those who believe in democratic reforms giving more power to the enlisted ranks should support. The military task of those opposed to the U.S. perpetual war policy should be to help organize a GI movement within the ranks to oppose--i.e., refuse to fight--in imperial wars, just as was successfully done during the Vietnam war. That is the only military option, given that women have already been in ground--and air--combat. The new provision just makes what already exists official. If pacifists want to join conservatives and reactionaries (e.g., George Will) in opposing women in combat it's a useless gesture. Start from the real existing situation and organize from there.
February 04, 2013 8:43pm
Whether women are in ground combat units or not, the military will still be sent on missions determined by civilians who operate within the framework of the interests of the corporate ruling class. It's an equality issue that those who believe in democratic reforms giving more power to the enlisted ranks should support. The military task of those opposed to the U.S. perpetual war policy should be to help organize a GI movement within the ranks to oppose--i.e., refuse to fight--in imperial wars, just as was successfully done during the Vietnam war. That is the only military option, given that women have already been in ground--and air--combat. The new provision just makes what already exists official. If pacifists want to join conservatives and reactionaries (e.g., George Will) in opposing women in combat it's a useless gesture. Start from the real existing situation and organize from there.
February 04, 2013 10:00am
I wish everyone who considers enlisting in the military would do some exhaustive research into the history of u.s. intervention.
There may have been a time when a willingness to go to battle for your community, clan or country was necessary for survival.
Those times have long since passed.
READ: "WAR IS A RACKET" by Smedley Butler
WATCH: "WHY WE FIGHT" by Eugene Jarecki
Unless you are a warmonger, you'll hopefully swear off the u.s. military and it's owners [bankers, weapons dealers, oil corporations] forever.
February 03, 2013 7:00pm
There is motive to this move towards equality by the presently volunteer armed forces. In short the draft. Since the days of equality have been here the military draft was a mute point politically. A political suicide policy as the nation would never have supported the drafting of the country's young women for the grist mill of war, the electorate's daughters if you will. There was to be no images of returning coffins containing America's young women... then . Now , should the armed forces lack enough volunteers and have a good enough excuse ( a hot war with Iran ) they will bring back the draft as a necessity and it will include our young women as well as our young men for fodder under the equal right to be maimed or killed. In the service of the elites I might add..and just what we want bringing up the next generation, households where both parents are dealing with recovery. At least after previous wars there was generally at least one parent who was not dealing with the after effects of the brutalities of war. I know.
February 03, 2013 2:57pm
I am a 65 year old female who spent 20 years in the Army Reserve as an officer and was married to a Vietnam veteran about 10 years, including the time he was in country.
GI Jane was a stupid and ridiculous movie.
I certainly would not have chosen combat, maybe some women are in to that, and I suppose they should be able to if they want.
Most men seem to have decided women in the military are ok at all ranks. But they are very conservative men on the whole and few of them consider women equal in any measure. I encountered a great deal of crap, this was a long time ago. I stuck at it and retired anyway. I never encountered any forced sexual advances. I was ostracized from certain social groups of men because I was pickier than they thought I ought to be, and definitely missed a couple of "career building" opportunities, but NEVER felt in danger of rape or physical abuse. Times seemed to have changed there...or maybe Reserves are different.
Providing for dependents while an individual serves is a very serious matter and should be arranged for in actuality not just on paper. A responsible civilian must be designated for the care of your dependents. If you are going into combat, or will be in or near a combat zone, there is a definite possibillity of your death, there is no avoiding that. Nearly all WILL be away for family for extended periods, no avoiding that. Why anyone would want to serve in the military and be THE member responsible for dependents is beyond my understanding. You are best off to be without encumbrances. The services expect to be your first priority above your own interests at all times. If they can or wish to accomodate a family there are provisions, but "needs of the service" are the prime directive. If there is no established procedure or budget for your family's needs, you must see that they are met without help from your government.
In my opinion, few politicians are particularly concerned about service members, not even their training and support needs in combat. If you recall, we went to war in Iraq with limited resources....limitations that compromised our troops unnecesarily and resulted in the deaths of our soldiers and many more civilians. Tactical planning and expectations were unrealistic bordering on fantasy. We entered that war to further corporate interests. Far too much of the federal budget goes to items "needed" by lobbyists, not national security.
February 03, 2013 2:33pm
I think that giving women combat training should help women defend themselves against sexual assaults. But Berrigan is right about one thing: we should do more to prevent sexual assault and have a 0 tolerance policy for it.
To those who say, "Well there are differences between men and women and therefore women shouldn't be in combat," I think you all are forgetting 1 thing: WE ARE NOT THE FIRST COUNTRY TO ALLOW FEMALE COMBAT TROOPS!
*edit: And they're doing just fine.
Please remember, our military is 100% volunteer, as are the positions in the military. Female combat troops will be those women who choose to not only join the military but also CHOOSE to be in positions where they kill the enemy. This means that they will dedicate themselves to their training and being physically fit for the job.
February 03, 2013 2:25pm
Giving praise to Obama for opening up combat roles to women for 'equality sake' makes me realize how narrow and limited his scope is at looking at our future of the human race. To think that we are now going to desensitize women to violence for the sake of equality is absolute madness. We have bred the instinct of nurturing out of certain animals so we know it is possible. Who will protect, nurture, show love of one another to our children when both men and women are now killing on command.
But then I hear we are sending in troops to numerous places in Africa now , shh they are keeping it quiet. There are a lot of natural resources we must take. We have messed up so much of the male population I guess we just need some new healthy stock. Don't care where or how we get it. Maybe Bush, Cheney, and Obama's daughters should set the example and lead the way?
And joebanana you are right on!
February 06, 2013 12:13am
While I don't think it is good for military training of troops should involve conditioning to desensitize troops to committing violence and to do it on command while suspending one's own judgement, I do know that the capacity for violence is already in all of us, and is not mutually exclusive with the capacity for nurturing, which is also innate in all of us. In fact, among mammals, most males will back off in fear of a female defending her young, for she'll go after an intruder with an almost berserk rage. I also agree with you that congress and administration members who are voting for war or for more funding for existing wars, ought to be promoting themselves and their family members to the top of the recruiting list for the front lines. Its a very bad idea for our "leaders" to be able to throw our money and our children at wars, without having any skin in the game themselves.
February 03, 2013 2:18pm
This has absolutely nothing to do with "equality". And everything to do with American males waking up to the bogus war of terror the USA has waged on the world. Not in defense of liberty, or freedom, but for war profiteering. The true enemy of liberty and freedom are right here in the USA. In one concentrated cesspool of corruption in the Eastern part of the country. Washington D.C. is far more detrimental to this nation than Iraq, Afghanistan, the Taliban, or Al-qaeda. I don't ever remember asking for "protection" from this government, and I resent having it shoved up my ass. What we now have is an illegitimate government, every unconstitutional bill they force on us is non-enforceable, void, as if it never existed. Yet they continue their criminality unabated, as a rouge cartel.
February 03, 2013 1:02pm
In reality, isn't about a woman's right to choose? We have a volunteer military. I believe the age limitations should be removed so that older people can join as well. Think of an Army of Grandfathers. Less than 10% of the forces are actually in combat roles, most of the roles are either in support or training. And even in combat, there is so much automation that even older people can deal with it. It makes more sense than sacrificing the young people.
Further, I believe we should have a national service requirement. A minimum of two years in a uniformed service. It could include a National Health Service. If reserve units are created and the reservists have the same benefits as active members (including health care) we would all be better off. More people trained in areas of need and benefits that are earned through service, and therefore cannot be called an entitlement.
February 03, 2013 8:52pm
We don't need more retirees taking jobs needed by younger people but we do need a national service requirement where advantaged young people enter the world of the disadvantaged, whether those are war zones in Afghanistan or an American inner-city, to learn as much as to serve.
If women can vote for war-mongering Republicans and their annual 500 billion dollar military budget, they should also be encouraged to understand what war means up close and personal including killing "collateral" woman and children and possibly loosing their own life. Maybe fathers loosing their daughters will create a loss beyond loosing a son and we will not rush into preemptive wars because a couple crazy Texans tell us to.
February 03, 2013 1:00pm
to learn tragedy from the greeks if women made love to tak ethe wat r out of geeks instead of joinng as kiling games as they were threatened N.O.M. (National Orgization of Men) perhaps giving flowers over suicide by homocide NOW threats then of death to loved women fo r men having any such support group in the '80's. Will this result in males becoming backstabbingly misscheivious gameplayers? "in relations with each other... as women seem to trust gay man implicity as a woman whose writing with a pen-is as preferred communication, why gay women's menwooed hate men except, if I show them both how to dance with my hips driving wild point of unbending.
February 03, 2013 12:00pm
The pentagon (war department) offer one of the best financial options for employment with percs.. for both young women and men. When the veteran is discharged, there is to often no medical or financial help. Education being an exception. The statement is obvious to the observer! Do we know that war is the instrument of wealth accumulation by the "one percent". Providing "good jobs" in "the military complex". "The number one export from the usa."
Are we in the condition where cutting the Pentagon budget could cause a national financial crisis. Do We not see that violence leads to more! We are led to fear for or of security
If the Draft was operating!?.
February 03, 2013 10:30am
So this is what advanced civilization mean: everyone must die for profit/greed of the few. The world spends $trillions on war and war readiness but nothing on peace, cooperation and finding an alternative paradigm for creating a peaceful, sane, sustainable, humane word in which all live to their fullest potential. I read about the Venus Project online and am surprised that no one in the mainstream or off mainstream media even mention it or the Zeitgeist Movement. The academia could dedicate resources to discovering alternative paradigm but they are beholden to moneybags as much as the military industrial complexes of the world. There is and there must be a better way than the prison planet of force, greed, ignorance, profit and conspicuous consumption....
February 03, 2013 10:34am
Brava, Frieda, for telling it like it is.
African Americans were allowed into combat roles in WWII by Franklin Roosevelt because the US military was running out of bodies to put on the line, and running out of pilots to face the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht anti-aircraft fire. And now the Pentagon is opening the front lines (such as they are in these days of imperialist war) to women for much the same reason. That's not good news for women. It's just an indication of how destructive US imperialism is, even for us here at home, where we are spending upwards of $1.5 trillion a year on militarism.
The truth is, in many instances where careers once reserved for men have been opened for women, opening the door to them has been not an indication that women were moving up into a more equal society, but rather that the status of that career had fallen. Take medicine. Women were effectively barred from med schools for generations, and then when the doors were opened, they were encouraged to go into GP, Internist, Family Practice, Pediatrics, OB-Gyn and such fields, but not surgery, oncology, etc., where the money was. Meanwhile, the pay for GP, Family Practitioner, pediatrician, etc. started to level off and even fall.
I suspect that allowing women to be front-line grunts similarly reflects the declining status of the grunt in the military.
In any event, being allowed to join in the killing of peasants and poor people in Third World countries on behalf of oil interests and the capitalist system -- to become, as decorated Marine General Smedley Butler once said, "a racketeer, a ganster for capitalism" -- is nothing to cheer about.
Dave Lindorff
founding editor
ThisCantBeHappening!
www.thiscantbehappening.net
February 03, 2013 10:04am
I agree with Frida Berrigan that women should not be allowed in combat. Like it or not, major differences exist between men and women and those differences need to be respected. I am not saying men are better/smarter/etc than women. I am saying that women are different from men. In addition, they have different roles to play in society and those roles should be respected.
Yes, I know, some women aren't in to playing those roles and want equal opportunity to compete in a military environment or they want to be a wife and mother as well as a front-line soldier in war.
There's no easy way to deal with the question of women in combat. If women would agree not to marry or have children or both while serving in combat, that would be fine. However, we cannot stop people from marrying or having children. These are only a few issues that having women in combat present, issues that our politically correct politicians don't want to deal with.
However, if it were't so politically correct to open combat roles to women, we'd have some people in Congress standing up against this policy.
February 06, 2013 12:34am
Its funny that Berrigan spends her whole article empathizing with GI Jane, both imagined and real, then in the last sentence says she thinks its a tragedy. I wish she'd have spelled her thoughts on that last sentence out a bit more - she seems to be saying that war is too ugly and makes soldiers into monsters, and thus it is a tragedy for women to take that path. Perhaps so, but if so, then it is probably too ugly and monstrous to ask of men, too. Maybe having women in combat roles will bring a different viewpoint home to us, and cause us to question both the waging of endless war, and make us look closely at how we choose to fight. Is there not any better way of repressing the rise of terrorism? How about making sure that everyone can be involved in the governance of their own homeland, and making sure women can meet their family's needs, by getting education and entrepreneurial training, without fear of violence. We've done record amounts of killing, but there are now more "terrorists" than there were before 9/11 when we started our campaign of "shock and awe". Its time to try some real nation-building, beginning with the poorest of the refugees; lets ask the mothers what it is they need to keep their sons from growing up committed to the path of violence, then see that those basic human rights are met. It would be lots cheaper than trying to blow up entire nations.