31
JENA MCGREGOR
Jena McGregor, a graduate of the University of Georgia, is a freelance writer and a daily columnist for the Washington Post. This article was published on May 25, 2012.
Military Women in Combat: Why Making It Official Matters
It’s been a big couple of weeks for women in the military.
Last week, female soldiers began formally moving into jobs in previously all-male battalions, a program that will later go Army-wide. The move is a result of rule changes following a February report that opened some 14,000 new positions to women in critical jobs much closer to the front lines. However, some 250,000 combat jobs still remain officially closed to them.
The same week, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D, Calif.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D, N.Y.) introduced legislation in both houses of Congress that would encourage the “repeal of the Ground Combat Exclusion policy” for women in the armed forces. Then this Wednesday, two female U.S. Army reservists filed a lawsuit that seeks to overturn the remaining restrictions on women in combat, saying they limit “their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits.” (A Pentagon spokesperson told Bloomberg News that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “is strongly committed to examining the expansion of roles for women in the U.S. military, as evidenced by the recent step of opening up thousands of more assignments to women.”)
One of the arguments behind both the lawsuit and the new legislation is that the remaining restrictions hurt women’s opportunities for advancement. Advocates for women in the military say that even if women like Gen. Ann Dunwoody have reached four-star general status, she and women like her without official frontline combat experience apparently haven’t been considered for the military’s very highest posts. “If women remain restricted to combat service and combat service support specialties, we will not see a woman as Commandant of the Marine Corps, or CENTCOM commander, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” writes Greg Jacob, policy director for the Service Women’s Action Network. “Thus women in the military are being held back simply because they are women. Such an idea is not only completely at odds with military ethics, but is distinctly un-American.”
5 Women have been temporarily “attached” to battalions for the last decade; still, allowing women to formally serve in combat operations could help to break down the so-called brass ceiling.
Another way to break down the ceiling would be to consider talented women for top military leadership positions, whether or not they’ve officially held certain combat posts. Presidents have chosen less-senior officers for Joint Chiefs roles, which are technically staff jobs, wrote Laura Conley and Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, in the Armed Forces Journal last year. They argue that putting a woman on the Joint Chiefs would help the military grapple with rising sexual harassment issues, bring nontraditional expertise (which women have developed because of some of their role exclusions) at a time when that’s increasingly critical, and send the signal that the military is not only open to women, but puts no barriers in their way.
32
Yes, putting women in combat roles beyond those that have been recently formalized would require many adjustments, both logistical and psychological, for the military and for its male troops. There are plenty of women who may not be interested in these jobs, or who do not meet the physical demands required of them. And gradual change may be prudent. The recent openings are a start; Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno’s acknowledgment last week that if women are allowed into infantry, they will at some point probably go through Ranger School, is encouraging.
But at a time when experience like the infantry is reportedly crucial for getting top posts, it’s easy to see how official and sizable policy changes are needed in order to create a system that lets talented women advance to the military’s highest echelons. In any field where there are real or perceived limitations for women’s advancement, it’s that much harder to attract the best and brightest. Indeed, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended last March that the services end combat exclusion policies for women, along with other “barriers and inconsistencies, to create a level playing field for all qualified service members.” As the commission chairman, Retired Air Force Gen. Lester L. Lyles, told the American Forces Press Service at the time, “we know that [the exclusion] hinders women from promotion.”
For the military to achieve the diverse workforce it seeks, interested and capable women should either not face exclusions, or the culture of the armed forces needs to change so that women without that particular experience can still reach the very top. Both changes may be difficult, but the latter is extraordinarily so. Ending the restrictions is the shortest route to giving the military the best pool of talent possible and the most diverse viewpoints for leading it.
How would you characterize Jena McGregor’s tone (her manner)? Is it thoughtful? Pushy? Identify passages that support your view.
Explain the term brass ceiling (para. 5).
One argument against sending women onto an actual battlefield, as infantry or as members of a tank crew, is that if they’re captured they might be gang-raped. In your view, how significant is this argument? Explain your response.
Here is a second argument against sending women into direct combat: Speaking generally, women do not have the upper-body strength that men have, and a female soldier (again, speaking generally, not about a particular individual) would thus be less able to pull a wounded companion out of a burning tank or off a battlefield. To put the matter differently: Male soldiers might feel that they couldn’t count on their female comrades in a time of need. What is your reply?
In her final paragraph, McGregor suggests that if the armed forces were to change their policy and not require battlefield experience for the very highest jobs, the military would achieve diversity at the top and women would have an opportunity for top pay. What are your thoughts? For instance, is the idea that the top officers should have experienced hand-to-hand combat out of date, romantic, hopelessly macho, or irrelevant to modern warfare? Explain.
33
What do you make of the following question? Since women are now permitted to serve in all military combat positions, should all women, like all men, have to register for Selective Service and be subject to the military draft, if one were needed? Construct an argument to defend your position on this question.
As you draft essays for one or more of the assignments, consider typing your notes in a Google document or in Microsoft OneNote, or using another collaborative application or service (perhaps offered free by your school), so that you can easily share your thoughts and writing on the topic. As always, submit and complete assignments in the way that your instructor directs. However, remember that services such as Google and OneNote can be good places to maintain copies of your notes and essays for later consultation.
Think further about the issues of privacy and surveillance raised by Lynn Parramore’s essay. Consider several different kinds of work, types of employers, and the various types of employee monitoring that do or may occur. Jot down pros and cons, and then write a balanced dialogue between two imagined speakers who hold opposing views on the issue. You’ll doubtless have to revise your dialogue several times, and in revising your drafts you’ll likely come up with further ideas. Present both sides as strongly as possible. (You may want to give the two speakers distinct characters; for instance, one may be an employer seeking to introduce a new technology, and the other may be an employee intent on protecting his privacy and freedom. Alternatively, one could be an employee looking forward to a new “healthy workplace” initiative using biometrics, and the other could be a colleague suspicious of the new program.)
Choose one of the following topics, and write down all the pro and con arguments you can think of in, say, ten minutes. Then, at least an hour or two later, return to your notes and see whether you can add to them. Finally, as in Exercise 1, write a balanced dialogue, presenting each idea as strongly as possible. (If none of these topics interests you, ask your instructor about the possibility of choosing a topic of your own.) Suggested topics:
Colleges with large athletic programs should pay student athletes a salary or stipend.
Bicyclists and motorcyclists should be required by law to wear helmets.
High school teachers should have the right to carry concealed firearms in schools.
Smoking should be prohibited on all college campuses, including in all buildings and outdoors.
College students should have the right to request alternative assignments from their professors if class material is offensive or traumatic.
34
Students should have the right to drop out of school at any age.
Sororities and fraternities should be coeducational (allowing both males and females).
The government should tax sugary foods and drinks in order to reduce obesity.
In April 2012, Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, hosted a lecture and film screening of work by Jiz Lee, described in campus advertisements as a “genderqueer porn star.” After inviting the adult entertainer to campus, the college came under fire by some students and members of the public (especially after the story was reported by national media). Opponents questioned the appropriateness and academic value of the event, which was brought to campus by the Mike Dively Committee, an endowment established to help “develop understanding of human sexuality and sexual orientation and their impact on culture.” Proponents argued that (1) pornography is a subject that deserves critical analysis and commentary; (2) the Dively series is intended to create conversations about sexuality and sexual orientation in society and culture; and (3) treating any potential subject in an academic setting under the circumstances of the program is appropriate. What are your views? Should adult film stars ever be invited to college campuses? Should pornography constitute a subject of analysis on campus? Why, or why not?
Imagine you’re a student member of the campus programming board, and the Gender and Sexuality Program comes to your committee seeking funds to invite a female former adult film star to campus to lecture on “The Reality of Pornography.” Faculty and student sponsors have assured your committee that the visit by the actress in question is part of an effort to educate students and the public about the adult film industry and its impact on popular culture. Images and short film clips may be shown. Pose as many questions as you can about the potential benefits and risks of approving this invitation. How would you vote, and why? (If you can find a peer who has an opposing view, construct a debate on the issue.)
In 1985, the U.S. Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, mandating that all states implement and enforce raising the minimum drinking age from eighteen to twenty-one years. Through this legislation, the United States became one of a handful of developed countries to have such a high drinking age. In 2009, John McCardell, president of Middlebury College in Vermont, wrote a declaration signed by 135 college presidents supporting returning the drinking age to eighteen. McCardell’s organization, Choose Responsibly, says that people age eighteen to twenty should be treated as the adults they are — for example, in terms of voting, serving on juries and in the military, or buying legal weapons. The organization encourages educational programs and awareness efforts that would introduce alcohol-related issues to young college students and demystify and discourage problem drinking. Such a move is opposed by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), whose members argue that raising the drinking age to twenty-one has curbed traffic accidents and fatalities caused by drunk driving. Opponents to lowering the drinking age also claim that it would introduce alcohol to even younger people, as many eighteen-year-olds would inevitably interact in social situations with underage peers. Argue for the age you think might be the best legal minimum — 18, or 21, or something in between? — trying to anticipate and address the counterarguments that will be made against your position.