Post Magazine: Women in Combat

Male soldiers have always had to accept the role of destroying another human being in combat. But what if the one facing the enemy is a woman? Kristin Henderson asks this question in her story that appears in this week's Washington Post Magazine.

Kristin Henderson is the author of "While They're at War: The True Storyof American Families on the Homefront."

____________________

Kristin Henderson: Hello everyone. People have shared some interesting thoughts about this article, so let's get started.

_______________________

Bristow, Va.:"Male soldiers have always had to accept the role of

destroying another human being in combat. But what if

the one facing the enemy is a woman?"

That's not a very compelling question, unless you are

simply out to assert the tired refrain of "women can do it

to."

Why don't you pose the question, "Throughout history,

men overwhelmingy do the dying in wars, do we as a

society now want this burden equally shared across the

sexes?"

Or, "If the expectation is that men do the majority of the

fighting and dying (they register for the draft), shouldn't

the attributes that are required of those acts be

associated with men?"

These are more interesting and fundamental questions.

Kristin Henderson: You're referring to one of the subtitles. I'm sure the editor who wrote it intended it as a general opening to the subject. I agree that your questions dig much deeper. What's interesting about them, too, is that the answers to your questions are going to be very subjective. When I started researching this story I expected to gather data and wind up arriving at some sort of objective conclusion. But my sense now is that Dr. Segal got it right when she said that how you answer such questions comes down to your beliefs about gender roles. While facts play a part in those beliefs, ultimately that's a values-based decision.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: It was Barry Goldwater who stated in a foxhole, one only asks if the person in the same foxhole can shoot straight. During combat, it should not matter if the person is a man, woman, straight, gay, old, young, but if the person can do the literally life and death job. Is it me, or does it seem that people who have served in combat seem to understand this far better than the general public? If so, maybe the general public should let those who understand combat decide such things.

Kristin Henderson: In a democracy, the military is a reflection of the will of the people. To decided where we as a society want to go on this issue, what's needed is a more active dialogue between the military and civilians who increasingly don't have any direct military experience. It goes back to the military-civilian gap I wrote about last summer.

_______________________

Raleigh, NC: Women in combat--NO! They don't belong there. They are a distraction to men, men don't want the humiliation of having women as unit leaders, they create too many emotional situations, they are too moody for the stresses involved, they can be too easily victimized if captured in battle, and they often cannot physically carry all the heavy gear and supplies required for mobile operations (except that they can carry babies, which is yet another problem). Others have noted these factors also.

Let's talk about something more positive, such as Hillary Clinton's upcoming DEFEAT in the Democratic nomination race.

Kristin Henderson: Another opinion.

_______________________

Washington, DC: As a feminist for most of my adult life, I support the right of women to equal access to all occupations open to men. My conflict is that I'm also a religious pacifist who believes that all war is a violation of the divine image in which ALL human beings are created. Wouldn't it make more sense for women and men to work together for the abolition of war rather than equal access to the violence, maiming, destruction and death of war???

Kristin Henderson: And another opinion.

_______________________

Canton, Minn: It seems to me the question should not be "should women

be in a combat role" - but "should THIS woman be in

combat" And we should be asking that same question about

men; soldier by soldier. To state that "all women" can't - or

can - do anything; seems to me to show a tremendous lack

of direct experience with- women.

Kristin Henderson: Such a lack of experience may be what motivates some, but many of those opposed to women in combat situations are, in fact, women. So obviously other considerations are also in play. The military has certainly taken the individual approach that you describe in all military occupational specialties except those in the direct ground combat units. Whether or not that changes is up to Congress.

_______________________

Doylestown, Pa: I've never understood the attitude of Professor Segal and

General Barrow that motherhood and killing are mutually

exclusive. Back when I was a Boy Scout, it was drummed into

us that we should never -EVER- go near a bear cub --

because that was the surest way to meet a rather angry

momma bear.

Kristin Henderson: I received an email from a reader who made the same point. She wrote that she thought it was nuts to think women couldn't kill, since being willing to do violence to protect her offspring is hardwired into the base of the most primitive part of a woman's brain. To clarify Prof. Segal's point, she wasn't saying that she believed that killing and motherhood were mutually exclusive, just that she had unconsciously absorbed the societal stereotype of the nurturing mother image and in that moment it was jarring when superimposed over the warrior image. And the fact is, the nurturing mother is just as true as the protective mama-bear.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va: I think one of the best arguments against the use of women in ground combat roles is the fact that there is no documented case of women being used as professional soldiers anywhere in the world or anytime in history prior to the 20th century.

Since mankind has tried out virtually every type of societal arrangement imaginable in the last few thousand years, the fact that the use of women soldiers has never been recorded in history (except in unsubstantiated legends of "Amazons") suggests to me that either it has never been tried or more likely, it might well have been tried, since the advantage is obvious (it would automatically double the number of forces a society could place in the line of battle) but when it was tried, it immediately failed disastrously.

I believe that early in its history, Israel (which was largely founded by socialist thinkers who were firm believers in women's equality) did create units of women infantry, but has now abandoned the practice and has basically the same policy as the US, women serve in their military in all but combat roles. I understand this was because of two reasons, one, the fact that the use of the women troops was a distraction to the male Israeli soldiers, who were placing trying to ensure the safety of their women comrades over the overall demands of the battlefield and two, oddly, because they discovered that Arab troops would not surrender to women units, but would fight to the death rather than suffer the humiliation of being defeated by weaker sex!

Kristin Henderson: While there are many documented instances through history of women serving in guerrilla forces, you're right about the historical lack of any significant number of women in professional armies. The increase in women in the professional military in the latter half of the 20th c. goes back to Capt. Manning's point: birth control.

I can't speak to the Israeli experience, but I do know that female Canadian officers are serving in the infantry and commanding men with no apparent morale problems. Here's a link to a story about one female officer who was killed in Afghanistan:

_______________________

San Antonio, Tex.: Women warriors seems like the kind of issue that would

enrage religious fundamentalists. Did you hear any

sentiments of that sort while writing the article?

Kristin Henderson: I'm not sure I'd call it rage, but I did hear some very strongly felt concerns -- strong enough that it was hard to keep the conversation focused on the question of killing. The whole idea of women being placed anywhere near the enemy, much killing the enemy, was anathema. Again, it came down to what each person believes the optimum role for women should be.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: For me, the most striking observation of this article was Mr. Grossman's - that women AND men are now trained specifically to kill.

THAT was depressing.

Kristin Henderson: Another opinion.

_______________________

Virginia: Hello, good article. I overheard at a block party some women

talking about your article they read online. One, a female

Army colonel, complained that NOW and many feminists have

done nothing for women in the military because NOW's

membership are highly educated and they don't care about

the women in the military which tend to be more low-class.

Kristin Henderson: This is a common complaint, tho the version I've heard is that many military women feel unsupported or even rejected by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other civilian feminists because they're perceived to have anti-military attitudes. It's certainly true that much feminist rhetoric does equate pacifism with feminism and rejects the military (and by extension all those who serve in it) as an oppressive, destructive, masculine institution. Hard for a woman who's embraced military service to feel much of a bond with a woman who denigrates that service. Among radical feminists, Erin Solaro is an exception, in that she sees military service as a duty of citizenship for men and women alike.

_______________________

Arlington, VA: Perhaps just as interesting a question is how would male soldiers react to a frontal assault by an all-woman brigade ? I suspect it wouldn't be much different but the feelings afterwards might be.

Kristin Henderson: The psychological and sociological aspects surrounding this issue are among the most interesting, I think. And maybe the most prone to "common knowledge" assumptions. I found my own assumptions constantly challenged while researching this piece. As to your question about the reaction of male opponents to women combatants, I've heard reasonable arguments on all sides: that it would make no difference, that it might provide the side with the woman with an advantage (if nothing else, an advantage of surprise), or the opposite, that having women in the ranks would make that side seem less intimidating. I'm with you in that I suspect it would make no psychological difference during the fight, at least in part because the enemy probably wouldn't be able to tell, modern uniforms and body armor being what they are. There's probably no one answer to the "afterward" part of the question. It all comes down to the societal, religious, and personal beliefs of the opposing male combatant.

_______________________

23112: I used to have a negative view of women in combat roles, or at least ground-based ones where physical strength and endurance come into play, but I don't think there are any real cases backing that view, are there? And as far as mentality, I've never bought into the "women are nurturers so they can't kill" notion (which, interestingly, was last so publicly trumpeted by Sally Fields; I wonder if she realized she was feeding into that stereotype?).

Kristin Henderson: It doesn't seem to be an issue for most in the military community. While are strength differences between men and women as a group, there are some women who are just as strong as men, including one female veteran I spoke to who described bench pressing a male buddy, a skinny little guy who'd hold himself stiff as a board while she hoisted him. He wasn't much of a bench presser himself. And there are some men, like that buddy of hers, who aren't as strong as most of their male peers. Opponents of women in combat, however, argue that making exceptions for individuals isn't worth other potential problems that could come with co-ed direct ground combat units, although studies generally haven't back up those concerns. That could be result of the way the studies were conducted, or could be evidence that there really would be no larger problems.

_______________________

Herndon, Va: This is a great article! I remember telling Dana Priest on an on-line chat several years back that the US public would not accept female soldiers being sent back in body bags. Wrong! As a Viet Nam era member of the US Army, I am still amazed at the change from "no women" in harms' way (except nurses) to the current "accepting" climate.

Kristin Henderson: There clearly has been a generational shift. Over and over again I heard from those interviewed that it was equally tragic whenever any service member was killed, male or female. Critics like Donnelly do raise the concern that when we says it's okay to place military women in violent situations in war zones we are losing the moral high ground to say violence against civilian women back home is not okay. How you answer that questions depends on whether you think people are able to make that distinction.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va: Unless I have misread what you said, you seem to be saying that the Canadians have officers in combat units, but no non-commissioned soldiers. It is one thing to give orders to kill and another to carry them out. I think Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher made excellent war leaders in their countries, but I wouldn't have wanted to see them toting rifles in a line company.

The AVERAGE woman (there are always exceptions) unfortunately does not have the physical body strength or stamina to serve in an infantry role (unless of course you lower physical standards, which is now unfortunately being done in many cases.)

I understand that Great Britain did allow women to apply to serve in their elite SAS special forces units. However, only one woman managed to make it through the grueling training course and resigned from the service immediately afterwards.

I'm sorry, but I don't want female "grunts" defending my nation, anymore than I want a female firefighter to try to carry my unconscious body from a burning building.

Kristin Henderson: My understanding is that there are also enlisted female soldiers in the Canadian infantry. I mentioned female officers because one objection is that men would not respond well to being led by women. That's not the case in Canada. However, it's probably true that men raised in a less egalitarian society would not react well to female authority. Militaries are products of their societies.

_______________________

Wye River, MD: A society that sends its women into battle is not worth saving. Does the modern military reflect the new cultural zeitgeist and why should social conservatives support such an anti-conservative institution?

Kristin Henderson: That's an interesting point, especially since a majority of military officers identify as politically conservative and in the last few decades conservatives have been more firmly associated with supporting the military than those from the liberal side. And yet the military has gone from being strongly opposed to incorporating women to actively recruiting them. One expert I spoke with said she believes it's a result of the all-volunteer military and the fact that most civilians no longer see military service as an obligation of citizenship. They're happy, she said, to see women serve if it means their son doesn't have to.

_______________________

Annapolis, MD:"Critics like Donnelly do raise the concern that when we says it's okay to place military women in violent situations in war zones we are losing the moral high ground to say violence against civilian women back home is not okay. How you answer that questions depends on whether you think people are able to make that distinction. "

Seriously, it is insulting to thinking adults to say that the distinction may not be easy to make. Soldiers get shot at. This is an unfortunate part of their jobs and does not become more or less frightening/traumatic/fatal because of the individual soldier. Civilian women who are attacked are similarly no different from other civilian people, in that violence against them is not acceptable.

The strangest thing to me about the people arguing against women in the military is that they tend to come from the conservative social and religious backgrounds that one generation ago encouraged abused women to stay with their husbands, for the sake of the marriage and children. Why was it ok for women to be beaten by their husbands, but anathema for women to become aggressors equal to men?

Kristin Henderson: Another opinion.

_______________________

Annapolis, MD: I am confused that you posted the comment that women shouldn't be in combat because they never have been in history. The absence of logic in the comment is so glaring that it distracts from the debate, rather than adds to it. If we shouldn't do things because they have never been done before, then we would never have established the US constitution, would not be trying to encourage Muslim democracies, wouldn't embrace modern medicine, and wouldn't be chatting with you, over our computers.

Chemical control of menstruation is a very new technology. Its advent has made all sorts of occupations possible for women that just were not practical before.

Kristin Henderson: And yet another opinion.

_______________________

San Antonio, Tex:

With regard to the comment about lack of historical precedent for women warriors, doesn't the vastly changed technology of warfare make the point somewhat moot? Much as the six-shooter was the "great equalizer", attack helicopters, bombers, submarines and such require different abilities than fighting with swords.

Kristin Henderson: And another...

_______________________

Auberry, Calif: Hi.I've read your article, and I'm surprised the issue of female POWs didn't come up. I have read on what happened to the two female POWs in 1991, as well as Jessica Lynch, and I'm surprised that this didn't come up in the piece. I know three female naval aviators (one a cousin and two are her friends), and when I brought up the issue of female POWs, they said "What's the difference? Bad things happen to men who are captured, and to women, too." While I agree that women should be allowed to fly combat, and we'll probably have women in ground combat based on their Iraq performances, did the POW issue come up in your interviews?

Kristin Henderson: It did, as did the many other issues surrounding the subject of women in combat. Even in an article this long, tho, space is always a challenge, so I had to stick pretty closely to tangents that were directly related to killing. About the POW issue, I did hear the same things that you did from military women. Promos on the Armed Forces Network television stations that air in base housing make the point that anyone can become a POW -- the service members featured in the promo include several men and a woman, all advising viewers about the military code of conduct for POWs. So it's a subject that the military, at least, is well aware of.

_______________________

Washington, DC: In terms of the differences of rates of PTSD between civilian women and men, isn't that just because women suffer much higher rates of rape, abuse and violence in civilian life than men do? In war, it's probably a more similar experience.

Kristin Henderson: I invite any mental health experts lurking out there to weigh in on this. But as I recall, you're correct. On the other hand, civilian men experience higher rates of other types of violence. But sexual assault does do damage to a person's sense of self that a barfight, for instance, does not. Women are also more likely to admit they're suffering emotionally and more likely to seed help and therefore more likely to be diagnosed. So while the findings of higher rates for women are consistent study after study, the reasons they're higher are complex enough that we can't say why, for sure.

_______________________

Annapolis, MD:"Wye River, MD: A society that sends its women into battle is not worth saving."

That is one perspective, but from my point of view, a society that forbids its women from contributing to the defense of that society, to the best of their individual abilities, has dubious merit.

Kristin Henderson: Many opinions on this one.

_______________________

Charlotte NC: I'm disappointed that you quoted the now thoroughly

discredited study by SLA Marshall about how many men in

a unit fired their weapons. Marshall's study was in no way

scientific and in fact critics discovered that it was

impossible for Marshall to interview as many solders as he

said he did.

Also one of the primary reasons that marksmanship

training was changed from the KD (Known Distance or

Bulls-eye shooting) to the current pop-up target method

was to more closely mimic actual combat. It was found

that infantry trained under the KD system kept waiting to

see the enemy and held their fire. The change was not to

overcome any resistance to killing.

Did the Civil War study factor in the degradation of motor

skills and vision that occurs when the soldier is faced with

someone trying to kill him?

Kristin Henderson: There is some disagreement about Marshall's study, but most accept his findings, which are consistent with those of others, including Grossman's examination of the historical record of earlier conflicts. I believe Grossman did take the factors you mentioned into account. It's described at length in "On Killing".

_______________________

Munich, Germany: I once read that the rate of PTSD strongly increased after the first Gulf War for both men and women.

After Army Brig. Gen. Marshall 's study discovered that many soldiers shot over the heads of the enemy in WWII, the U.S. military stopped teaching soldiers to shoot and began training soldiers to respond automatically, without thinking, to shoot to kill. Has there been a dramatic change in the way soldiers were trained or conditioned between the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, that would account for the increase in PTSD cases?

Also, I've heard the term "male bonding" to describe strong friendships between soldiers. How do female recruits usually fare in bonding with fellow soldiers?

Kristin Henderson: From what I've seen, women form buddy bonds like the men do, sometimes with other women, sometimes with men. While romantic relationships do sometimes develop, the majority of male-female buddy bonds remain that, buddies. By the way, during WWII, among men deployed for years with other men, it was not unheard of for self-identified heterosexual men to form romantic sexual or quasi-sexual relationships with other men, relationships that ended when the deployment did. The presence or absence of women in the ranks doesn't change the fundamental human need to connect in that way. About the training, I don't believe it changed much between Vietnam and the first Gulf War. Afraid I don't know enough that particular conflict to speak to any difference in PTSD rates. A good resource, though, is the National Gulf War Resource Center: www.ngwrc.org

_______________________

Reston, VA: I suggest that it would be informative to read about the all female, Russian, WWI "Battalion of Death". You can find out more at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Battalion_of_Death

Kristin Henderson: Although Wikipedia isn't always the most reliable source, I have heard about this unit from other sources.

_______________________

Madison, Wis: Thank you for this amazing article and for taking questions. Our troops are fortunate that their current enemy forbids allowing women to serve in combat roles (except as suicide bombers). Have any studies been done on the psychological effects of killing an enemy soldier who happens to be female. This is a very disconcerting notion, but appears to be inevitable. Thanks again for your fine article.

Kristin Henderson: To my knowledge there is no such study, tho there are anecdotal stories about American soldiers in Vietnam who were troubled after killing female Vietcong. The lack of hard data regarding many of the issues surrounding women in combat does make it easy for the discussion to devolve into a unwinnable arguments over values.

_______________________

Kristin Henderson: We've reached the end of the hour. Thanks for the thoughtful comments and an interesting discussion.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: And many thanks to Kristin Henderson, who answered your questions from Japan, where it's 3 a.m.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.