While women have served in the United States Army since 1775, the government has previously limited their roles to those of nurses, tailors, and cooks. Not until the twentieth century did females qualify for true soldier status, and even then, their roles remained restricted. As of last Thursday, those restrictions have weakened.
The Department of Defense announced last Thursday that they would open more than 14,000 new MOSs to their female soldiers. Good news, right? Well, not according to certain politicians and pundits, the majority of which are Republican.
Presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum expressed concerns that the presence of female soldiers closer to the battle lines would trigger “emotional reactions” from their male counterparts, impairing those counterparts’ abilities to carry out their missions. Fox News commentator, Liz Trotta told her viewers that female soldiers should “expect to be raped” by their male colleagues.
Such opinions are nothing new. For years, Rush Limbaugh told listeners of his radio program that women are “too emotional” to serve on the front lines. Such thinking isn’t limited to Republicans, either. Democratic commentator, Bill Maher once said that he preferred that men serve as firefighters and police officers. Maher stated that if he found himself in a burning building, he would prefer a male firefighter drag him to safety, because a man would more likely possess the physical strength to do so.
Let’s tackle these opinions one at a time. First: Santorum’s concerns that women will distract men on the battlefield. Setting aside the fact that there isn’t a female hot enough to distract anyone from incoming mortars, Santorum’s statement suggests that all men suffer from an ADD so severe that perhaps we should replace them all with women. Worst, this line of logic punishes women for faults Santorum foresees in men.
Following this line of thinking, any employer could argue against hiring a woman because she might distract her male coworkers, thus blaming her for her coworkers’ lacking attention spans.
According to Liz Trotta, a female soldier left alone in a foxhole with a man ought to expect him to rape her. I can’t decide if that statement is more sexist against men or women. Again, we’re blaming women for the actions of men. Does Trotta believe that our male soldiers are that undisciplined? Yes, rapes have occurred in the military, but the blame rests with the rapists, not their victims. The idea of disallowing good women to serve their country for fear of bad men makes little sense.
An employer of any business could follow Trotta’s logic as an excuse to prevent women from working anywhere. We can’t allow women to work in hospitals; there’re men there, and they’ll rape the women. We can’t allow women to work in schools; there’re men there, and they’ll rape the women. So on and so forth.
Oh! And as someone who’s dug and slept in a foxhole, I can assure you that no one possess the stamina for post-foxhole-digging sex, consensual or otherwise.
Next, let’s appraise Rush Limbaugh’s remarks. “Women are too emotional” for the front lines? Which gender do you suppose commits more crimes of passion? Which gender more often commits suicide? How often do you read a news article about a woman who loses her job, shows up for work with a shotgun, and starts offing her former coworkers? How many women can you name who, after being threatened with divorce, murder their spouse and children? While these actions are committed on both side of the gender fence, there’s little questioning which side the ratio weighs heavier.
Men are arguably more emotional than women are, but society has taught men to hide their emotions. Failing to vent one’s frustrations, as society allows women to, is a likely candidate for why men are so disposed to violent, emotional outbursts.
By the way, our military mandates training programs called Basic Training and AIT. If a soldier hasn’t the emotional fortitude for the battlefield, that deficiency will likely surface during these training programs, long before that soldier ever sees combat. This is why Bill Maher’s concerns fall short of logical. If a candidate for the fire or police department cannot complete his or her training, than he or she will not join its ranks.
We cannot claim that we fight for the same equality that terrorists despise when we, ourselves, practice inequality. Such policies forge glaring hypocrisies that syphon away our credibility. How can anyone trust us to treat him or her fairly when we fail to treat each other with the same impartiality?
No comments:
Post a Comment