Yesterday, while most of the national media’s attention was focused on Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Congressional testimony on the fatal attacks against the United State’s diplomatic posts in Benghazi Libya, the Department of Defense quietly announced that it will begin the process of allowing female service members to serve in combat positions within the military. This is a significant change in DoD policy – and one that is rapidly eclipsing the Benghazi hearings as the major story of the week.
Historically, females serving in the armed services have been limited to support roles, or roles where they are theoretically outside of dangerous combat zones. They have been medics, truck drivers, sailors, mechanics, engineers, office administrators, construction foremen, pilots of non-combat aircraft, cooks, supply specialists, trainers, gunnery officers…and the list goes on and on. In reality, the ladies of the U.S. military have borne the same levels of exposure and risk as their male counterparts, and have shown grace and bravery under fire in nearly every major military conflict in U.S. history. Female veterans generally go on to be highly successful private citizens, starting careers and families, and in many cases staying actively engaged in civic life. Several sitting members of Congress are female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.
You can read more on the announcement, and how various Washington D.C. figures and leaders are reacting to it here.
With all of this in mind, it makes sense to me that the military would begin to eliminate what has in many ways become an arbitrary distinction between “combat” and “non-combat” roles for women. Any veteran of America’s most recent wars can tell you that truck drivers and medics are very much on the front lines when the enemy’s primary weapon is an IED. In the first week of the Iraq war U.S. service woman PFC Jessica Lynch, a supply unit specialist, was famously taken prisoner when her unit was overrun during a fire fight during the battle of Nasiriyah, she was later successfully rescued from captivity. Her fellow unit member (and native Arizonan) SPC Lori Ann Piestewa was the first Native American service woman killed in combat. We have since learned that it is as likely that a secure military base or Embassy compound can become the combat zone as a forward infantry outpost. The wars of the last 60 years are very different from earlier conflicts, and our notions of “front” and “combat zone” are changing. The military is right to consider this reality and realistically acknowledge that every U.S. service member is putting their life on the line in service of country. If females are trusted on bases, in supply convoys, submarines, and on medical missions – which they are! – then an impartial consideration of how they may serve in active combat roles deserves our consideration.
I understand the sensibility of commentators like Joe Carter at First Things when he raises expected conservative arguments against this change. I too would be very troubled if, in fact, this change were politically motivated by theories of equality that deny the existence of differences, gender or otherwise, and demand total egalitarianism without consideration to other factors. If that were the case, then valid accusations could be made that ideology has so influenced us that we are willing to undermine the readiness and capacity of our military in pursuit of a theory. Rather, I’d hope that any gender integration is rooted in empirical data showing that female combat soldiers bolster our capacity and readiness and improve the quality of our military forces. I trust that the military has done due diligence in studying how this change will alter the nature of our combat forces, and will continue to do so as the process gets underway.
I also hope that they are preparing to deal with several practical issues that will arise from this change. Recent DoD studies suggest that female military personnel are at greater risks for stress, depression, and substance abuse issues linked to combat and traumatic war experiences. The resources and medical care provided to combat veterans will have to be studied to ensure that it is meeting the needs of male and female soldiers equally, instead of being designed to serve a mostly male patient group.
Another study cited in the above link also suggests that female veterans are considerably less likely than their civilian peers to be actively using contraceptives. The uncomfortable reality is that greater integration of female service members into the male dominated units will increase the likelihood of serves members engaging in sexual activities that may result in pregnancies. At some level this seems fairly obvious – as the military creates a tight knit community where members are emotionally bonded by shared experiences and live close together for long periods of time. Considering that the vast majority of service members are heterosexual, it seems likely that further integration will lead to increased potential for romantic and sexual relationships to develop between opposite gendered troops, and this carries risks of pregnancy. The lose of a unit member due to pregnancy could be a real blow to readiness, the military needs to deal with the implications. Regulations already exist to discourage sexual relationships between service members, but many members of the military community are young adults under the age of 25. While they are undeniably brave professionals, they are also still teenagers and young adults who make immature decisions from time to time. The military knows this, the question is, are they educating service members on how to be sexually responsible, and providing them with resources they need to stay safe and battle ready?
And there are darker issues to address as well. Reports of sexual harassment and abuse at U.S. military academies are alarmingly common. Has any thought been given to how the risks of sexual assault and harassment change as female personnel transition from ‘support’ to ‘combat’ roles? What protections will be put in place to ensure female combat troops do not face the threat of attack from their fellow soldiers?
These are some practical worries I have moving forward. I have faith that our military will take its time (if past major changes are any indication) to ensure that it irons out this transition. I imagine that the Israeli Defense Force, long integrated, will serve as a model. I am excited for female service members and veterans that this announcement calls attention to and highlights the valuable roles they play in all of our military missions.
A Couple Questions:
What do family scholars readers think about the announcement – is it a good thing or a bad thing?
This change opens up many opportunities for young women to advance in careers in the military, do you think more young women will sign up for military service as a result?
I’m sure that I left out some practical considerations needing to be addressed, what did I miss?
I didn’t really go into how military families might be affected by Mom potentially serving on the front lines, but that is something we could also discuss.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Tags: Equality, Military, Women
Categories: Civil Society
One wonders if those who advocated the change will also now advocate 18 year old women being required to sign up for selective service, as 18 year old men are.
And, if men and women are now fully integrated in the armed services, will the military now make any provision for when a mother and father are both put on active duty at once? Do we Americans think its right for married parents or a single parent of minor children to be sent into combat?
I’m hoping I don’t get to beat up here; but, I’ve always been opposed to women in the military, except in very restricted ancillary roles that draw on the feminine.
The issue of women in the military, in my opinion, blurs every line of the complementarity of the sexes: who is equipped physically, mentally and emotionally to what role demanded of us.
Remember this is my view only, but men seem by nature to have a role of providing and protecting … women to nurture and nourish. The military in its best sense develops the providing and protecting male. It is not an injustice to say women should not be in combat roles. It’s placing ourselves, each of us, men and women, in our best place.
With the rise of women in every last job that men can do, I tend to feel compassion for men. Where’s their place in society, right now. Women can children without physical contact with men, through technology we can do pretty much any job out there. The job we seem unable to do is knowing what is best for us, best for society.
For some of us, meaning me, “we’re too soon old, to late smart”.
If I’m considered a Family Scholar by participating in these discussions (which is really cool, if true) I’m not on board with women in the military, at all … except for medical assignments away from the front, or in administrative jobs.
According to this article interviewing a UVA Law professor, it looks like the answer is most likely “yes.”
Teresa,
Thanks for your comment. I tend to be skeptical about gender constructionist claims that view gender differences as entirely socially constructed (and in some cases reduce them to instances of benevolent sexism), but I also find that I struggle with the concept of a natural gender complementarity theory if it is too limiting in how it defines gender roles. I fall somewhere in the middle, I see undeniable differences between men and women (the most obvious being biological and physiological differences), but I also see that many people have characteristics, talents, and strengths that are not always in line with perceived gender norms, but the individuals who display them are no less man or woman because they don’t fit the norms…so how do we account for that? Lastly, as I think about gender complementarity, I worry that it places too much stress on the joint work of the sexes (read reproduction, kinship creation for child rearing) without recognizing that there are many other valuable ways members of both genders can serve their communities that are less tied to gender roles. I’d love to know your thoughts on all that.
In the case of the military, while I worry that a fit female G.I. might struggle with some of the physical demands of combat that her fit male peers may not, I do think she is equal to any of them in her ability to be both afraid and brave, and her ability to adapt to her surroundings and leverage them to her advantage in the heat of battle. The military will seek to use all units in the most efficient way – so integrated units will play to each member’s particular strengths.
For me, as long as the data suggests overall capability is not diminished, and that female combat members are not experiencing undue risks as a result of their combat service that their male peers do not…then I think capable females should be welcome to serve in the capacity that best utilizes their strengths.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think some women are already in combat situations and this will allow them to get the credit they deserve.
However, I share Elizabeth Marquardt’s concern over a possible slippery slope. The military is not about choice. If women can go into combat situations, presumably that also means that they will have to go into combat situations. It won’t just be a right, it will be an obligation.
Do all women who have joined the military really want this right? Could some women who volunteered have expected not to be sent into combat?
And what about the rest of us? If there ever is a draft again, will all women be expected to be ready to go into combat situations?
I think this is good news, and long overdue since women veterans have already been performing these roles. What I am hearing from women veterans is “YESSSS!”
I second La Lubu’s comment that this policy change 1) recognizes the roles women are already performing in the armed services — with, hopefully, material benefits for these women in the form of pay raises and formal honors, rank promotion, etc. — and 2) opens new avenues for promotion and leadership within the services which have until now been closed to women who would otherwise qualify only because of their sex.
If we are going to have a military engaged in combat at all (as a proponent of nonviolence, I’m generally interested in minimizing the use of force by both women AND men), women should have access to the same roles as men within those situations.
I think that this is an excellent idea that should have been done years ago. It seems that the same people who oppose gays serving openly in the military are opposed to gender equality in the military.
I cannot think of a single reason that a woman meeting the same qualifications as a man cannot be equally competent under fire.
David,
Many of the discussions I’ve been reading and listening to among folks hesitant on this policy change haven’t focused on things like unit cohesion (although I’m sure those arguments are being made somewhere on the internet…because its the internet…), instead they are focused on how the “qualifications” for physical fitness and strength are determined – and if the existing rigorous standards for male service members disadvantage female candidates who tend to be physically smaller and weaker (even if stronger than most civilians of either gender), and if so, should the qualification standards be altered, and if so, is that prudent? I think those are valid concerns that the military will have to wrestle with.
Matt,
This article indicates that women wanting to enter combat positions must meet the same physical standards as men. This strikes me as prudent, and I hope it remains the case.
Matthew said:
“but I also see that many people have characteristics, talents, and strengths that are not always in line with perceived gender norms, but the individuals who display them are no less man or woman because they don’t fit the norms…so how do we account for that?
Yes, Matthew, I’ve spent some time reflecting on this very point since I last commented. I have no idea how we, as a society, hold the tension between disparate and competing values; both or all of which have points of view that somehow should be reconciled … I think.
This is where leadership plays such an important part. Leaders that listen to all the constituent parties (which includes faith beliefs) and seeks the art of the possible, and not the path of the perfect. Leaders who are neither idealogues nor dictators; persons who build consensus within community, founded on just principles. Yes, Matthew, how do we manage that? I don’t know.
Schroeder said:
“Matt,
This article indicates that women wanting to enter combat positions must meet the same physical standards as men. This strikes me as prudent, and I hope it remains the case.”
Schroeder since women have been in the military, and not solely as nurses, the requirements have been lowered to allow women to pass the physical standards. Although, this is not readily admitted.
Anyhow, here’s a link to someone who has a current stake in the issue. Well, worth the read.
Get Over It! We Are Not All Equal
Maybe, in light of the title of that article, the question we ought to be asking is “What is equality in a world where difference exists?”
Last paragraph from the above linked article:
Matthew, does this help with our questions.
Teresa asks, “With the rise of women in every last job that men can do, I tend to feel compassion for men. Where’s their place in society, right now.”
I don’t believe men, as a group, should have a place in society. Neither should women. Rather, I believe individual men and women should define their own societal roles, based on what best fits them as individuals, not as designated members of a category. As a man who has never felt traditionally masculine, I hate the idea that my place in society should be determined by my gender.
I think this is a positive step. I also think the selective service should be eliminated, since the concept of a draft is totally antithetical to freedom in my opinion. Neither gender should be forced to sign up for a potential draft.
Here’s my problem.
Capt Katie Petronio – 2013
As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.
Major General Commandant Thomas Holcomb – 1942
“there would be a definite loss of efficiency in the Marine Corps if we have to take Negroes. . . .”
Capt Katie Petronio – 2013
Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS).
Gen Ray A. Robinson – about 1942
I told him, “Eleanor [Mrs. Roosevelt] says we gotta take in Negroes, and we are just scared to death; we’ve never had any in; we don’t know how to handle them; we are afraid of them.” He said, “I’ll do my best to help you get good ones. I’ll get the word around that if
you want to die young, join the Marines. So anybody that joins [has] got to be pretty good!” And it was the truth. We got some awfully good Negroes.
How many times can people be wrong about something & still expect to be taken seriously? How long can they user the same arguments to resist change & expect to be listened to?
Mont D.,
Holcomb and Robinson were white. Katie Petronio is not a man. Parallel fails.
How many times can people be wrong about something & still expect to be taken seriously? How long can they user the same arguments to resist change & expect to be listened to?
Like arguing that the differences between men and women are just the same as the difference between blacks and whites? Unless that’s what you’re arguing, you can not say the they are the same arguments. If that’s not what you’re arguing, then what you’re essentially saying is that any argument against expanding the qualifications for the military or any job in it is equally meaningless regardless of the differences, in which case you might as well also expand the age of draftees to 60, and dismiss any argument against that as equally invalid.
I think we misread Captain Katie Petronio’s article, if we assume she’s opposed to women in combat, just because of being a woman. Here’s exactly what she’s questioning:
Captain Petronio details exactly what happens with sustained combat operations.
I think much of what Family Scholars is about is contained in this Petronio quote. It’s pointed out here at FS what the trauma of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, blended families, single parenting, fatherless homes, donor conception and all the rest does to individuals. We see everyday the results to individuals as a result of family trauma.
As Diane M. has rightly pointed out, some studies can, at least, help with right policy, before we make the same mistakes, again and again. Petronio is not against women in the military, she’s not against women in command in combat/infantry roles. She’s put forth a proposal. She’s living in the solution, not the problem.
My opinion on this topic is worthless. Captain Katie Petronio’s is not.
Chris S,
I think the selective service registration should be maintained for men, but not for women. I do believe that men and women are essentially different, and I don’t think they are called to serve society in exactly the same way.
i dont think draft of women is necessarily tied to some women being accepted into combat. israel drafts women but excludes them from certain combat roles.
the draft of women is still foreign to the majority of our culture which makes it inappropriate for society as a whole, bmut this is no contradiction to individual select womwn serzving. another thing is that while i am not a gender complementarian, there is one thing that only womqn do, gestate and lactate. not every womwn may choose to do so nor must she, bt to draft womwn wholescale removes the entire reproductive corps from society
On Facebook, John Leo posted this column of his from 1997. It’s worth reading and thinking about.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19970805&id=wfwcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Yn0EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6740%2C6595871
Yes, Elizabeth, this is exactly what I meant by a prior comment of mine:
Western Civilization enhanced the ‘provide and protect’ nature of men. In a mixed gender military that innate drive is compromised and affect a msn’s ability to perform. The concern and focus on the enemy is skewed by “she’s falling behind, need to help her”. Where before, he’s got my back … now, is I’ve got to watch my back, to see if she’s keeping up.
I found the following book by Brian Mitchell really took an honest look at women in the military, and what’s been going on.
The Weak Link: The Feminization of the Military
This is all pretty new for me to think about, because I was raised in a feminist there’s-no-difference-between-men-and-women household. But as I get older, raise a daughter and a son, have more life experience, etc., it does seem to me that women’s bodies are made for incredible endurance but generally not made for short term bursts of brute strength.
When we are largely spared from violence we tend to forget just how strong boys’ and men’s bodies are.
I have found, though, that physically removing my daughter from a scene at age 8 was no problem; doing the same with my son at age 8 is pretty much beyond me. And he knows it.
I think a generation of peopple who sit behind a desk have forgotten just how strong women’s bodies can be when those bodies are physically active. Women do not need to have the maximum potential bench press as the average man’s maximum potential bench press in order to do physically demanding jobs on a regular basis.
I forget which women’s magazine it was, but I remember reading an article about an army study on whether the average woman could be trained to perform the heaviest-duty jobs (IIRC, this included the ability to lift 120 pounds over one’s head). The end result was “yes”, but that the training needed to be different from the men’s. Specifically, women needed more weight training and less cardio, more lean protein (no need for the carbo-loading necessary for the men), and ditch the stretching exercises (men need them, women don’t).
I’ve been hearing for the past 25 years that women shouldn’t do what I do, because (insert job challenge here). Then I’ll do it, and I hear “but you’re not a real woman” or “but you’re not the average woman”. And I’m not the average woman—I’m smaller than average, so if I can do it, most women have the potential to do it.
@Elizabeth, in response to your earlier question, I’ve been seeing this ‘what about Selective Service?!’ a lot as some kind of gotcha, and I don’t understand why anyone would think that someone enthusiastically in favor of opening combat positions to women would be terrified about a draft. NOW, for example, has for decades officially held the position that Selective Service should be abolished, but if it is not, then it should be gender-neutral.
@Teresa, I’m sorry to say that no, you’re not alone in your view that all men and women should be stuffed into the Procrustean bed of gender-complementary wishful thinking, by law if necessary.
@mythago – I don’t think it’s a gotcha question. It doesn’t really matter if NOW opposes the draft and supports women in combat positions.
What matters is that if you have a military where women are assigned to combat, then if you have a draft in the future, women will be assigned to combat positions.
My point is that this change doesn’t just affect women who joined the military and want to be allowed to fight or to get credit for the danger they are in. This can affect all women, including the ones who would never sign up for the military.
I don’t think there’s a real danger of a draft right now, but I also don’t think it’s realistic to think that there will never be one again.
@Diane M: it is a “gotcha” because it suggests that those supporting full recognition of women in the military a) haven’t thought about the Selective Service aspect and/or b) are fine with the gendered unfairness of male-only Selective Service, so are thus hypocrites for the gendered unfairness of male-only combat roles. NOW’s position matters because it shows that, yes, feminists thought about the possibility of women being drafted and agreed it should be the same for men and women.
Mythago, if there’s a “gotcha” involved, it’s not that feminists who support lifting the combat rule don’t also want a gender-neutral draft. The “gotcha” is whether or not they want to openly and publicly present that to the American public, and especially to young women.
If they want to publicly sell the idea as only being about women who want to be in combat being allowed into it, but don’t want to at the same time make it publicly clear that this also means that all young women should register for the draft, so that in the event Congress decides a draft is necessary any woman could thus be placed into combat, whether she wanted it or not, then there’s a “gotcha”. It’s not about what they (the advocates of this) think, it’s about what they want the rest of us to think.
I well remember the highly dishonest “Congress already has the power to draft women” argument. Congress also has the power already to draft anyone up to old age, or even lower the age—-if it wanted to. So I would hope that, when presenting the case for drafting women to the full public, they do not engage in that misleading argument again.
@R.K.: NOW, for example, has been openly and publicly presenting that to the public since, what, 1981? Lots and lots of ‘ifs’ in your comment and yet no suggestion that anyone in favor of this change has even suggested that maybe we should keep Selective Service just the way it is.
NOW, for example, has been openly and publicly presenting that to the public since, what, 1981?
Oh, of course, that has been their official position. But this is not how the issue is sold, or spun, to the public. When talking about combat, volunteers who want to be in combat are stressed. When talking about the draft, it’s all about how unfair it is for men to register and not women, and the implications for combat are usually not mentioned.
There is no explanation for the use of the “Congress already has the power….” argument except as an attempt to throw up a smokescreen. And this line was ubiquitous in the years around 1981 when advocates of a gender-neutral draft were addressing general audiences. If I go back to the library and dig I can find plenty of quotes to that effect from Gloria Steinem and many others (the false implication being that because Congress already could, therefore it didn’t make any difference if it had to).
To really show they are being honest with the public, they should call on Congress to require women to register at the very same time they call on it to eliminate the combat restrictions, and make it plain that the reason is so that drafted women can be placed into combat roles just like drafted men. The link between combat and the draft was made clear by the Court in Rostker v. Goldberg. Sure, NOW and other organizations support both gender-neutral registration and gender-neutral assignment to combat positions, but they should not pretend one has nothing to do with the other when advocating for either one before the general public.
Two questions relating to the new policy:
1. Will physical standards for entry into combat positions have to be lowered? I know many will say “no”, but will they still feel that way if the percentage of women who pass the physical requirements is too small? If way too small, will they then call for standards to be lowered? If not enough women volunteer for the positions, will they call for assigning women to them involuntarily?
2. Then, once the military has reached the point where the percentage of women in combat roles is regarded as satisfactory from an egalitarian standpoint, will it be deemed necessary to prepare young people (and the rest of society) by working to eradicate any tendency on the part of males to feel protective of women of draft age? As well as any tendency of women to think of men as protectors? Will young women and men, and girls and boys, have to be prepared for the possibility of combat by eradicating this beforehand? And if it still doesn’t work well enough, will we have to work on equalizing nature’s cues (face, voice, etc.) that facilitate this outdated inegalitarian attitude?
@RK, you did realize that the restrictions are being removed because of an order from this administration, and now because NOW is “calling on” anyone to act?
As to your questions, there does not appear to be any suggestion that actual job requirements (as opposed to physical fitness standards) are being gender-normed, and in particular the services are being asked to explain if there are any roles that the directive should not apply to, e.g. SEALs.
Regarding protecting women, I imagine the servicewomen who have been sexually assaulted would be very interested to hear that men naturally protect females – but that aside, the military is all about teaching people to set aside their “natural” and learned instincts in order to be good soldiers. I find it difficult to believe that the military is capable of teaching human beings to set aside their primal instinct for self-preservation, but is at a loss to stop battlefield chivalry.
I think women who choose combat choose so because they are not averse to the idea of putting themselves in danger and depending on someone else to shield them.
It’s baffling to me that Mythago actually thinks that getting rid of chivalry and the natural male instinct to protect and take care of women would actually be good things. It seems to me that the cult of chivalry is one of the better developments of our nature, and one of the great achievements of Christian and European civilization. but then, I suppose it’s of a piece with the nihilistic urges that animate at least some parts of cultural liberalism.
Mythago: @RK, you did realize that the restrictions are being removed because of an order from this administration, and now because NOW is “calling on” anyone to act?
Are you saying the former has nothing to do with the latter? You’ve said yourself that NOW (and others) have been advocating this for over thirty years…you think that hasn’t influenced the administration’s move at all?
And you do realize that it’s Congress that has to lift the exemption of young women from registering for the draft, right? Which is why I phrased it the way I did.
Regardless, I’m not just talking about NOW, but about all advocates of the change in the combat rules, including those in the administration.
As to your questions, there does not appear to be any suggestion that actual job requirements (as opposed to physical fitness standards) are being gender-normed, and in particular the services are being asked to explain if there are any roles that the directive should not apply to, e.g. SEALs.
So, is it your expectation that there will thus be no pressure to lower standards if the number of women actually physically qualifying is too low, say, under 5 percent, or less? Would you be satisfied with such a low percentage? And if the military concludes that there are roles that the directive should not apply to, that this will be simply accepted?
I’m not expecting that a low percentage, or an exclusion from any area, will be deemed acceptable by activists. But we’ll see.
Regarding protecting women, I imagine the servicewomen who have been sexually assaulted would be very interested to hear that men naturally protect females…
Tell that to the boys that died shielding their girlfriends at the Aurora theater shooting, for instance. Yes, men have a natural instinct for sexual contact as well as an instinct for protectiveness (there are biological differences which just don’t have any other good explanation), and sometimes the instinct for protectiveness fails to modify the desire for sex….
but that aside, the military is all about teaching people to set aside their “natural” and learned instincts in order to be good soldiers.
…but as your example above shows, the military has done a GREAT job in setting that desire aside, hasn’t it?
I find it difficult to believe that the military is capable of teaching human beings to set aside their primal instinct for self-preservation, but is at a loss to stop battlefield chivalry.
Well, obviously sometimes things DO override our instinct for self-preservation. All our instincts enter into play, the military does not eradicate any of them. The question is how they may override, not self-preservation, but the unit cohesion (teamwork) necessary in the military. Among other things.
But all these are questions the military, and those in the government advocating the change, have to deal with.
Really, this is about the conflict between those who believe in the “utopian vision”, as Steven Pinker calls it, and the “tragic vision”. To put it simply, the former believes that humankind can overcome all of its natural inclinations if it just puts its mind to it; the latter does not. What’s interesting is that the “utopian vision”, when you think of it, requires some kind of belief in a transcendantal force which has specially exalted humans. And yet so many who hold to the utopian vision say they have no religious beliefs. Sorry for the digression, just something to think about.
Mythago said:
“Regarding protecting women, I imagine the servicewomen who have been sexually assaulted would be very interested to hear that men naturally protect females…”
To which, RK responded:
“Tell that to the boys that died shielding their girlfriends at the Aurora theater shooting, for instance.”
Your statement doesn’t follow.
The fact that some men are protective does not mean that all men are or that there’s some sort of Universal Male Instinct Toward Protection. It’s my reading that Mythago is highlighting rates of sexual assault among the so-called protector class to demonstrate that it’s inaccurate to stereotype men as being protective.
I mean, we can go back and forth all day with examples of Men Behaving Heroically and Men Behaving Poorly. What that demonstrates is that men aren’t a monolithic group where they all think, act, and behave the same way.
I mean, is that really even a contentious thing to say?
I’ll also add that many women have protective instincts as well, as evidenced by the female teachers throwing themselves in front of their students at Newton.
If this conversation is going to shed any light, I think it would be useful to stop speaking about men and women as monolithic groups. Or about men (and women) as though they (all of them? some of them? most of them?) have certain instincts.
If this conversation is going to shed any light, I think it would be useful to stop speaking about men and women as monolithic groups.
It’s all about percentages, ultimately, and how those percentages affect the unit. We are talking about young adult men and young adult women, not children or students. Like it or not, these are the questions the military has to deal with, not whether or not some are different or whether there are exceptions. Exceptions don’t negate general tendencies. You can’t always filter out those who are exceptions from those who are not, especially where something like instincts is concerned.
I think one thing we could agree upon is that the Marines should make public the results of the tests it was conducting into this issue last year, which it has curiously not done.
Re: Regarding protecting women, I imagine the servicewomen who have been sexually assaulted would be very interested to hear that men naturally protect females…
I’m honestly not sure how this is in any way relevant.
The fact that there are deviations from the norm doesn’t change that the norm exists. In particular, the fact that there are men who choose to violate their duty to respect women, doesn’t change that the duty exist, or that we have both innate biological drives to be protective and chivalrous, as well as moral norms to do so.
This is the same sort of fallacy that people fall into when debating things like whether various physical, behavioural, or mental traits differ between groups. If I’m making a claim that, for example, there are more men with very high (or very low) IQ than women (i.e., intelligence as with most other traits has less variance for women for men), it’s a waste of time to point to examples of very smart women. As R.K. says, exceptions don’t negate the norm.
Re: I mean, is that really even a contentious thing to say?
It’s not, and it’s true that exceptions and outliers are important, but the general trends are important too.
I think we’ll continue to talk past each other on all the Family Scholar issues, if the divide we’re talking about is, and should be, gender differentiation: physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc.
Who is better equipped to do certain jobs, roles, positions; often comes down to gender. We’ve spent 60+ years kicking this can down the road; and, we’re still at it. We seem unable to to wrap our heads around seemingly simple facts. Simple facts, that generally, most often, pretty much, involve the greatest number of men or women for certain positions.
If we can’t handle the simple, if we won’t believe the physical, if we refuse to submit to common sense; then, we’re stuck in neutral, going nowhere. Because there are those of us who simply will not relinquish the natural for some type of androgynous society. And, there are those, who will.
Family Scholars (fathers and mothers), if you have daughter(s), are you training them to be in combat? Is this a goal for your daughter(s)? Do you want them to even be in the military? Do you want your daughter(s) to live cheek-by-jowl with men, as they will by serving in the military … the highest testosterone environment in the world?
So, yes, I’m asking. You needn’t answer, btw. But, just think about it.
“The fact that there are deviations from the norm doesn’t change that the norm exists.”
There is no norm and never was, for men to protect all women.
There is a norm for men to protect women who are from the right class and category, and conform to whatever the prescribed norms are for those women, and even then that protection is always from other men, never from oneself.
ESPECIALLY in the military. Rape has been almost an inevitable act of war since time immemorial. We have yet to make it war crime.
Sigh. There’s more fail than I want to address in these comments, but this one’s a softball: that “transcendental force” is called “evolution”. We evolve or we die; it’s that simple. Humans aren’t specially exalted—we have no more and no less propensity to evolve than any other species. BTW, not all religious beliefs require any belief in a deity.
(what about that guy who dropped the kid and left his girlfriend and two children to fend for themselves in Aurora? Some “natural protective instinct” there!)
Kisarita,
I don’t know if that is absolutely true. I think the norms of chivalry and gentlemanly behavior (while shifting and evolving) in the recent past (post enlightenment to Victorian eras) were fairly broadly construed to cover all interactions between the genders (from the man’s perspective).
I think of literary examples, like Mr. Knightley in Jane Austen’s Emma, who proves himself to be a consummate gentleman in the climactic scene of the book by defending a woman well below his social station from mockery.
The novels of Dickens, Hugo, Cervantes, and even the plays of Shakespeare are filled with male characters who act decently towards female characters who are inconsequential to their lives, but who, by virtue of their womanhood still are viewed with esteem and respect. Characters who fail to attain to these norms are often shown as discredited, unpleasant men. Voltaire’s novel Candide acknowledges these social norms by mocking them and pointing out the hypocrisy of his characters when it comes to sex and marriage.
And you are wrong about chivalry being about other men and not about one’s self. Generally chivalry, from the middle ages forward, was idealized as a chaste form of love (chastity being a form of self control and discipline). That suggests that in the ideal, it is also concerned with protecting a Lady’s honor from one’s self by never putting her in a position where others might suggest one has acted in an unchaste manner with her. This concern for a Lady’s honor didn’t disappear until relatively recently, even if the customs used to defend it have varied. Even something as simple as introducing yourself to a date’s parents when you go to pick her up is a custom of showing that you are a respectable person, worthy of their daughter’s interest.
In times of war, rape is a constant, horrific form of violence used against civilian populations. I’m not aware of any respectable military theorist endorsing such tactics expressly (to do so would be barbarous), and my knowledge of military history suggests that this form of violence is most prevalent in armies where there is little order and discipline (a lack of gentlemanly restraint generally), or where the military leaders are engaging in other horrific acts of violence. In either case – I am all for punishing soldiers who behave this way, and their superiors for allowing such a toxic environment to occur in the first place. And I think any gentleman soldier would have no tolerance for such actions.
I trust that the US military, which is respected for its discipline, will do everything in its power to weed out rapists and sexual predators, and to seek justice when crimes happen. And, if females are truly integrated and accepted as comrades at arms, then my hope is that before the authorities get there, that the rest of the unit deals with this sort of behavior as I would expect they might if a brother in arms was attacked.
Sojourner can respond to this better than I:
“That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman? ”
In short, male protection of women may exist but to suggest that it is universal or natural is denial to the point of being insulting.
I have no beef with Ms. Truth, she is a powerful voice for the oppressed and highlights the sad truth that our ideals are rarely lived out perfectly.
I wonder though if we are beginning to conflate behavioral norms surrounding gender (which, while they may be wide spread rarely rise to the level of universal) and gender difference (which reflects how natural differences between the sexes allow them to specialize their roles)?
Re: (what about that guy who dropped the kid and left his girlfriend and two children to fend for themselves in Aurora? Some “natural protective instinct” there!)
Again, I’m not sure what you think individual cases prove about the norm.
Sojourner Truth’s quote from kisarita:
“Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman?”
Matthew:
“I wonder though if we are beginning to conflate behavioral norms surrounding gender (which, while they may be wide spread rarely rise to the level of universal) and gender difference (which reflects how natural differences between the sexes allow them to specialize their roles)?”
Perhaps, we should realize the Age of Chivalry and the Victorian Age were as incongruous with appropriate behavioral norms surrounding gender, as our own. Using those as examples, in my opinion, is not helpful.
Could we move to having good definitions of masculine and feminine; and, what behavior fosters those definitions … and, how much elasticity can we afford within those definitions?
La Lubu; that “transcendental force” is called “evolution”. We evolve or we die; it’s that simple.
Totally wrong, La Lubu. We survive or we die. Evolution may help us to survive, or more specifically, genetic changes may occur which prove beneficial and help us to survive. Genetic changes occur all the time, but only a minority of them are beneficial, when they are the species evolves and survives, when they are not the genetic change fails to take hold in the population and is weeded out by natural selection. (There are also changes which are neutral, or which may facilitate speciation into separate species). Sometimes, species survive for millions and millions of years with very little change; sometimes, change is very rapid; sometimes, the line dies out.
“We evolve or we die”. Tell that to the Lingula brachiopod, or the ginkgo tree, or the opossum, or the coelecanth, just to name a few. Evolution is not a “transcendental force” guaranteeing that a species will evolve and survive. It is not a transcendental force guaranteeing that a species must continually change or die. Whether a species must evolve or die depends on changes to its environment and whether the species is adapted to the environmental changes. As a result, frequently less specialized organisms, like the ones I mentioned, are able to survive longer geologically speaking than more specialized complex ones, which have often suffered due to overspecialization.
As for cultural evolution, well, the process is the same, but on a much more rapid scale than genetic evolution. A culture does not have to keep changing in order to survive, as long as it is adapted to the environment, and as long as it is not maladapted to man’s genetic nature. At the current rate of cultural evolution (and even more so now that medicine has reduced the effect of natural selection), genetic evolution cannot keep pace with it. Which is why with any proposed cultural change, the question of whether or not it is maladapted to man’s genetic nature is an important question. You won’t be able to change our genetic nature anywhere near fast enough to get it to adapt to a cultural change you want if that cultural change is not beneficial.
But, just as with genetic mutations, proposed cultural changes (that is, changes produced by man’s ideas, not genes) can be beneficial or harmful to the survival of the culture. Indeed, they are probably much more likely to be harmful than beneficial, because success is always a matter of finding just the right balance. The only reason so many think that they are more likely to be beneficial is that they think human intelligence is sufficient to determine the difference between a beneficial change and a harmful change.
And this is the “transcendental force” I was referring to, La Lubu. This FAITH that human intelligence, and more specifically the intelligence coming from oneself or from one’s political/ideological supporters, is somehow destined to produce beneficial changes to our culture.
Or that changes based on a particular principle that one believes to be right or just will necessarily be beneficial to our culture.
But as much as our intelligence has evolved, can it really be argued that it is so great that we are capable of knowing what will be beneficial in the future?
Is there anything in our understanding of natural and cultural evolution which guarantees that what we believe to be right or just will also be beneficial to our survival?
Now, maybe it can be argued that it was not beneficial biologically or culturally for men to protect women (at least the women closest to them), even though males are biologically more expendable (sorry, shouldn’t be necessary to explain this) and women more vulnerable during pregnancy at least (and yes, of course it was also beneficial for women to protect the young). Maybe it can be argued that this is not at all reflected in the secondary biological differences between men and women or that these differences also have nothing to do with our formations of ideas about masculinity and femininity.
But if it was beneficial, and if that was reflected in our genetic makeup, it’s not going to go away just because we want it to to adapt with our ideas of what cultural change should be.
Sorry, but this misconception about evolution is so prevalent it had to be addressed. Last post from me in this thread, obviously.
“I trust that the US military, which is respected for its discipline, will do everything in its power to weed out rapists and sexual predators, and to seek justice when crimes happen.”
Well that’s an idealistic, but incredibly naive sense of trust you have, Matthew, given the reality.
I think perhaps the US military is taking some steps in the right direction, but it would not be accurate to say that it’s doing “everything in its power” to address the issue of sexual assault in the military. Several lawsuits are currently pending alleging that those who report sexual assault in the military are often retaliated against and that the military has a pattern of failing to prosecute and properly investigate sexual assault claims.
At least one of these lawsuits calls for a neutral third party to conduct investigations precisely because the military does not, actually, seem to be doing much let along “everything” in its power to take this issue seriously.
Maybe you can detail on what you are basing your sense of trust, Matthew.