Wonderful World of Academia: They're ruining our military!
So, since Panetta announced the lift of the ban on combat for female soldiers (only not really, so those tough boys in the infantry won't get too afraid of being emasculated), there have been loads of reactions. My least favorite ones are by military historian Martin van Creveld who thinks introducing women into combat MOS will "wreck" the US military (because it has done that to so many other armed forces around the world, no?) and Bing West who actually has the gall to compare humans to "hunting packs" of animals (and apparently has never heard of anything called an alpha female).
I also asked mackenziesmomma if she came across any articles stating that what the US is doing now has been done years ago by a number of other militaries, the German Armed Forces among them (since 2001 every MOS the German Armed Forces have to offer is open to women. That includes submarines, infantry and special forces) and she told me no, she didn't (anyone else did? Anyone?). That convinced me to make this the topic of my essay for Introduction to Military Sociology.
And I started to wonder. What's the reason for the (at least partially) almost misogynist backlash coming often from soldiers or veterans, saying women have no place at the frontline and blatantly ignoring that they have been there for years now? Usually, they state that making the accomodations fit for women in the barracks would cost too much money or women wouldn't be able to endure the hardship that comes with frontline fighting (very graphically detailed in this Wall Street Journal piece, not for the faint of heart) or that there would be an increased amount of cases of sexual harrassment if women and men were to work together so closely (utter bullshit for so many reasons I don't even know where to begin, that one, IMHO). And so on and so forth.
The first thing comes to mind is the rather patriarchic culture in the US (but not only there, I know that) and the warrior cult that seems to have developed especially around frontline soldiers. It seems to me that there still a lot of people around (who seem to be at least influential enough to land a spot in the Wall Street Journal online edition) who still have deeply ingrained archaic concepts of both masculinity and femininity. To me, it looks like those two factors are the main ones determining reactions from seemingly mostly male soldiers or veterans.
It also seems that the concentration on the US without looking beyond one's nose and pretending the US is the only country that ever attempted anything like this is another contributing factor. As mentioned above, I have yet to stumble over an article with a comparative approach that puts all those (frankly irrational, if you ask me) fears in a perspective by showing how other militaries have faired after opening all MOS to women.
ETA: Fuck yeah Vernice Armour! Saying it loud and clear, she is :D
Now, I'd like to hear from you how you think about this. What do you think, where are those reactions coming from? Am I missing something, concentrating on the wrong factors, overlooking reactions? Any blind spots, seeing as I'm coming from a European perspective? Anything else to add? I'd love to read your reactions :)
I also asked mackenziesmomma if she came across any articles stating that what the US is doing now has been done years ago by a number of other militaries, the German Armed Forces among them (since 2001 every MOS the German Armed Forces have to offer is open to women. That includes submarines, infantry and special forces) and she told me no, she didn't (anyone else did? Anyone?). That convinced me to make this the topic of my essay for Introduction to Military Sociology.
And I started to wonder. What's the reason for the (at least partially) almost misogynist backlash coming often from soldiers or veterans, saying women have no place at the frontline and blatantly ignoring that they have been there for years now? Usually, they state that making the accomodations fit for women in the barracks would cost too much money or women wouldn't be able to endure the hardship that comes with frontline fighting (very graphically detailed in this Wall Street Journal piece, not for the faint of heart) or that there would be an increased amount of cases of sexual harrassment if women and men were to work together so closely (utter bullshit for so many reasons I don't even know where to begin, that one, IMHO). And so on and so forth.
The first thing comes to mind is the rather patriarchic culture in the US (but not only there, I know that) and the warrior cult that seems to have developed especially around frontline soldiers. It seems to me that there still a lot of people around (who seem to be at least influential enough to land a spot in the Wall Street Journal online edition) who still have deeply ingrained archaic concepts of both masculinity and femininity. To me, it looks like those two factors are the main ones determining reactions from seemingly mostly male soldiers or veterans.
It also seems that the concentration on the US without looking beyond one's nose and pretending the US is the only country that ever attempted anything like this is another contributing factor. As mentioned above, I have yet to stumble over an article with a comparative approach that puts all those (frankly irrational, if you ask me) fears in a perspective by showing how other militaries have faired after opening all MOS to women.
ETA: Fuck yeah Vernice Armour! Saying it loud and clear, she is :D
Now, I'd like to hear from you how you think about this. What do you think, where are those reactions coming from? Am I missing something, concentrating on the wrong factors, overlooking reactions? Any blind spots, seeing as I'm coming from a European perspective? Anything else to add? I'd love to read your reactions :)