So I was reading the New York Times, and I stumbled upon this, an article by Catherine Ross comparing women’s service in the IDF to women’s service in the US army. Sound familiar? (If not, see Shira and my post on the issue at The Fbomb)
I guess I’d call this somewhat of a follow-up post to our previous post, then. And I’d like to start off by pointing out that the article neglects to mention that although women can serve in almost any position they wish in the IDF, most Israeli women still choose not to serve in combat. But I digress.
Some basic facts that the author mentions: women make up only 14% of soldiers in the US army, are not allowed to hold a combat arms M.O.S. (Military Occupation Specialty) and, according to official policy, are not allowed to serve in ground combat units at the battalion level and below.
I found the author’s perspective very interesting, mainly because she herself served in the military and unofficially served as a combat soldier. Not only was she treated by her male peers as an equal, but she managed to share a living quarters with them and still maintain a relationship of mutual respect. And while she acknowledges the physical constraints that her body has in comparison to some males and the limits they impose on her capability as a soldier, she brings up the fact that because women are not expected to uphold the same standard of fitness as men (they have different scales on the Army Fitness Test), women are not allowed to prove themselves equally capable.
According to a New York Times article, many women, like Catherine, have circumvented the law and proven themselves to be capable soldiers, especially with the new opportunities and needs for fighters that have developed because of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars:
[T]he Iraq insurgency obliterated conventional battle lines. The fight was on every base and street corner, and as the conflict grew longer and more complicated, the all-volunteer military required more soldiers and a different approach to fighting. Commanders were forced to stretch gender boundaries, or in a few cases, erase them altogether.
When push comes to shove, women have been able to be vital in combat units. And on that note, I’m still not sure why women in Israel choose not to serve in combat units, but the fact that they are allowed to is a big step—one that I believe the US should emulate. Although, as we mentioned in our earlier post, there is still sexual assault in the IDF, it is much more abundant in the US army: one in seven versus one in three women. And perhaps a part of this is the fact that women serving in the US army is still seen as somewhat of a novelty. If women are not allowed to serve in combat units, then even though they can still serve in many different and important positions, they will still be treated as a different type of soldier than men. Women need opportunities to prove that they should be treated with respect in the army, and the only way to give them those opportunities is by allowing them the same opportunities as men and holding them to an equal standard.
I think you and Shira in part were correct in your post on Fbomb regarding female soldiers as anomalies in explaining that it’s a mentality of gender-specific interests and desires. Despite the work of feminists to promulgate the New Woman, one who is not confined to the kitchen or the household, some women remain in that traditional if not old-fashioned mindset. That is their choice.
However, to say that they should be held to the same standard is unfair. I hope that one day women will have the same opportunities as men as well as the same capacities in society, but in a way that can only go so far.
To take this example in a different way: Should women be allowed to play professional football in a league with men? If they are, they would be held to the same standards and supposedly would only be drafted if a team desired their talents. With a few exceptions, the minuscule pool of women who would actually be interested would have a very difficult time receiving contracts if teams could just as easily pay a man to do a better job.
It is certain that the concept of a patriarchal society dates back to men having the advantage of physical strength, in an archaic age before intelligence was of any value. But in terms of pure physicality, not much has changed since the stone ages. Holding women to an equal standard with men in purely physical activity would actually be against feminist interests, because with a few exceptions, a physical activity would always choose the average man over the average woman.
I think that there is a difference between a recreational activity, like football, and a life-and death situation like the military. Football is, in the end, only a game—war is not. In order to serve in a combat position, all people should have to meet a certain standard, regardless of gender (because what good will saying “Oh, I’m a woman” do them in the battlefield?) In order for women to really be accepted as combat soldiers by their peers, they will need to be held to the same standards as men.
And I’m not sure that men need to be chosen over women. If there were to be one set standard, then it would not amtter if a man were bigger than a woman, as long as they both met that standard. As Catherine Ross mentions in her article, she felt that her size held her back, not her gender—many women were able to perform the grueling, physical tasks that were deemed necessary by the army that she was unable to do. While there are many small women, there are also many large, strong women, who are capable of meeting a high standard of fitness.