3. The presence of women causes sexual tension in training and battle.
Five Myths
A feature from The Post’s Outlook section that dismantles myths, clarifies common misconceptions and makes you think again about what you thought you already knew.
This notion insults men as much as women. For nearly 10 years, the U.S. military has been fighting two wars with a majority of units that include both men and women. Why hasn’t supposed “sexual tension” undermined the stellar performance of gender-integrated units?
Women work in close proximity to men in all sorts of occupations — whether dancers or astronauts or war correspondents — without cause for alarm. Personally, I have found more sexual harassment and gender bias in the corporate world than in the military. In the military, I was treated as a Marine first and a woman second.
If anything, the presence of women might improve rather than detract from the service of men. My unit sergeant major, an infantryman, told me once that the presence of women made the men complain less — they didn’t want to appear weaker in front of female counterparts who weren’t complaining.
4. Male troops will become distracted from their missions in order to protect female comrades.
This myth conjures an image of a heroic soldier, attacking the enemy and about to win, until catastrophe strikes: He spots a wounded woman on the battlefield and abandons his assault to save her life, costing his side the battle. It’s the “women and children first” argument translated to the battlefield.
This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a warrior. In battle, saving a comrade is one of the highest and noblest things one can do. Since Vietnam, 10 Americans have won the Medal of Honor, our highest decoration for valor. Nine of them received it for saving the lives of comrades on the battlefield.
If men — or women — have the gallantry to save a fellow soldier’s life in battle, it’s because that is what we are trained to do. It’s no drawback; it is part of our greatest strength as a fighting force. And if a woman, or a man for that matter, can’t carry the wounded, the corpsman or another soldier will be close behind to help.
5. Women can’t lead men in combat effectively.
Why not? Across the planet, women have proven their worth as leaders as diplomats, heads of state and corporate titans. This is no less true in the military and in combat. In history as well as ancient mythology, women have often emerged as heroic leaders of men and women in battle, with Joan of Arc and the Assyrian queen Semiramis just two of the most notable examples. In the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been countless women who, often unrecognized, have served as leaders of military men and women.
Army Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody proved a few years ago, when she received her fourth star, that women can achieve high leadership roles in the military — yet she is not the norm. Leaders such as Dunwoody prove that women have what it takes. They just need the opportunity.
“If women are expected to do the same work as men,” Plato wrote, “we must teach them the same things.” If we trained women to be leaders in combat as we train men to be leaders in combat, why wouldn’t they perform just as well? But women do not receive intensive infantry training because they are excluded not just from combat roles, but from serving in combat units at all. This is the same discrimination that kept women from voting — the idea that they were not qualified to do so.
Maj. Jane Blair, a Marine Corps reservist, is the author of “Hesitation Kills: A Female Marine Officer’s Combat Experience in Iraq.” The views expressed here are her own.
Want to challenge everything you think you know? Visit the “Five myths” archive.
Read more from Outlook, friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.
Loading...
Comments