The roles of women have been expanding militarily throughout
the world, but specifically within the United States and Israel. Each country
has seen great strides in their inclusion of women within the military
community and integrating them into more and more traditionally “masculine”
positions than ever before. Many feminists would be elated at the inclusion of
women and the military’s working towards gender equality; however, not
everything is working as smoothly as it may seem. Many feel as if women should
not be in the military. There is a great divide in opinion over the usefulness
of “femininity” in the military. Some see it as a sign of weakness, while
others view it as a new and evolving viewpoint that the military could use in
order to better utilize all of its capable and willing citizens. I hope to look
at women’s involvement in the United States and Israeli military through the
feminist perspective in order to shed some light on a growing problem within
the progression of women’s rights.
Women have been a part of the United States Military since
the early 20th Century and got real recognition in 1941 with the
WAACS and WAVES. Women currently make up over 20% of the United States Military
in positions ranging from nurses, to technicians, to pilots, etc. They;
however, are not allowed to fight in the front lines. Women are currently
banned from participating in direct combat; however, there is no longer a
clearly defined line that is considered the “front lines.” In Iraq and
Afghanistan, there are countless positions in which women face direct combat
because of the nature of warfare. They have been attacked on numerous occasions
in the positions that they currently are allowed to occupy. Many feminists
would argue that since women are still facing all of the dangers as men in
their positions, then qualified women should be able to fight alongside the men
in equal positions. Women have already
fought alongside men many times throughout US military history. Senior generals
have often been found to disregard “congressionally mandated prohibitions on
women in combat by ‘attaching’ female troops to combat groups rather than
formally ‘assigning’ them”(Dreazen). In modern times, more than 150 female
troops have died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as well (Dreazen).
Regardless, the military is still very focused on keeping women in “safe” roles
that allow for little military rank progression. This makes US feminists angry that the military is
simply basing decisions on sex rather than an individual’s capabilities at the
task whether male or female.
While many view America as an extremely progressive country
when it comes to women’s rights and equality, Israel’s army has been more
progressive than the US for decades. According to the Israel Defense Force’s
website, “Women comprise 34% of all IDF soldiers and fulfill various senior and
combat roles within the Ground, Navy and Air Forces. Currently, 88% of all
roles in the IDF are open to female candidates” (“Statistics: Women’s Service…”).These
large numbers are due to Israel being the only nation that requires the
conscription of both men and women, putting both into the possibility of enemy
fire. The conscription of women in
Israel is between the ages of 18-26 but they may be exempted if they are
married, pregnant, mothers, or religiously opposed. In Israel, though, the
desire to serve is as strong among women as it is for men. Many women had been
in active combat from before Israel’s 1948 war for independence and were even
seen afterward, but throughout its past, it has seen a large fluctuation in its
allowance of power for women. They rose through the ranks, proved themselves,
and in 1950, their combat roles were revoked due to sentiments that women
should not be dying, rather, they should be marrying and producing children. This
softened view of women in Israel has arguably given women a much easier time of
their military conscription than men. They have shorter serving periods and
rarely have to serve in the reserves. It is not the model for feminists looking
to prove the progression of women. They seldom gain prominent roles and are
often segregated into their own corps. According to the
Israel Defense Force’s website, “Women constitute 25% of Officers, and 20% of
Career Soldiers. Almost half (45%) are 1st Lieutenants, a quarter are
Lieutenants, and slightly less than a quarter (23% and 22%) of Captains and
Majors…” While these numbers seem great, they are often only in charge of other
women. Feminists want to see women becoming prominent among both genders and
able to effectively lead as any man can. Many do not believe that this is
possible. That is why women are often seen as the downfall of the power within
the military. Between 1967 and 1982, the IDF was one of the finest militaries
in the world. Many attribute its downfall to women coming into power and the
reluctance of Israeli men to work with them (van Creveld).
In support of women in the military, they’re actually
essential to a multi-faceted attack and defense. Women in the military allow
for a wider range of frisking, spy missions, expanded multicultural relations,
and they add different perspectives to a predominantly male and “masculine”
ideological military.They add extra manpower and thus security for their
country. They are also proving that every citizen, male or female has a stake
in the country’s security and are willing to fight for it.
While there are measurable pro’s to women in the military,
there are con’s as well. Physical prowess is not the key issue, the real issue
is in the minds of the soldiers and citizens. Women are often viewed as more of
a burden than an asset because men traditionally feel an obligation to protect
women. With this in mind, many countries are not yet as ready to see women
coming home in coffins as men. There are also fears that morale will be broken
more when a woman is taken as a prisoner of war than a man. Many men believe
that they would give up intelligence if a woman was being tortured rather than
a man. Also a key deterrent towards
allowing women in the military is for their own safety sexually. According to
the Military Rape Crisis Center, “Every four hours a sexual assault or rape is
reported in the United States Armed Forces.” During the Vietnam and Gulf Wars,
it was reported that 1 in 3 women were raped. It has historically been a
problem and will continue to be one until more rules are put in place to protect
women and their human rights. It is difficult to effectively fight in a war
when your main security hazard is the soldier next to you.
For simplicity, there are essentially two approaches to
looking at this from the feminist perspective. The first is a positive outlook. Allowing
women in the military is slowly changing the views of sex and it becomes,
instead, a battle of gender roles. Women in the military who are deemed
“qualified” and go through combat training become increasingly more
“masculine.” Masculinity and femininity are no longer words used solely for one
sex or another. It is a meshing of the sexes to create equality. The only
prerequisite for this is the masculine abilities of physical fitness that are
able to be acquired by both genders. While the two genders are obviously still
very different within the military, the integration of women will allow the traditional
roles of sexes to slowly dissipate as both men and women find themselves
filling “untraditional” roles at equal prowess.
Another outlook is
more pessimistic for feminism. Feminists would see women in the military as
revoking their sexual identities as women. They are throwing away their
feminine values in order to better assimilate with the men. The
masculinity-dominated institution is merely making women conform to masculine
ideals in order to be integrated and, in the extreme, this is against the
progression of women. Also, women are consistently getting raped by their male
counterparts because they are seen as unequal and easy to take advantage of.
This de-womanizes women and degrades them. Personally, I see this from a sort
of integration of these two extremes. I think the military is currently
utilizing men and women to their sex’s strength’s, but slowly adding a few
outliers in either direction to bring new perspectives and ways of executing
tasks that had never been tried before. I think that in the military, there are
certain positions that are BETTER filled by a male or a female; however, there
are certainly individuals who can traverse this sex gap, but currently this
cannot be done by everyone.
I would like to hear everyone’s solutions to the problems
continually affecting these two militaries. It seems as if it is a sticky
problem creating little progressive movement. On one hand, pushing women into
positions could force them to prove themselves and to the world that women can
do anything that a man can. Or, on the flip side, it could slowly rot the
military from the inside out if they are unable to complete tasks, or their
presence causes tensions between the sexes. Another proposal that I have read
suggests taking women out of the military altogether. The author saw the
degrading of the Israeli military as the fault of the women soldiers, and
thinks that most countries’ armies would be better off with only men. This would only lead to back-pedaling for feminists everywhere. Personally I think that the slow integration of women is the best, but I
believe that there will always be at least a few positions that certain genders
will find difficult to acquire.
Works Cited
Dreazen, Yochi J.
"Women Fighting The Nation's Wars." National Journal (2011): 13.
Academic Search
Premier.
Web. 7 Oct. 2012.
Hynes, H Patricia. "Truthout." Truthout. Truthout, 26 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2012.
<http://truth-
out.org/news/item/6299:military-sexual-abuse-a-greater-menace-than-combat>.
Sasson-Levy, Orna.
"Feminism And Military Gender Practices: Israeli Women Soldiers In
“Masculine”
Roles."
Sociological Inquiry 73.3 (2003): 440-465. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Oct.
2012.
"Statistics:
Women's Service in the IDF for 2010." Israel Defense Forces. Israel
Defense Forces, 25 Aug.
2010. Web. 07 Oct. 2012. <http://www.idfblog.com/2010/08/25/statistics-womens-service-in-the-idf-for-2010-25-aug-2010/>.
van Creveld, M.
"Armed But Not Dangerous: Women In The Israeli Military." War In
History 7.1 (2000):
82-98.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Oct. 2012.
"Women in Combat
Pros and Cons." Sisters In Arms. Sisters In Arms, n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2012.
<http://sistersinarms.ca/history/women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/>.
"Women in
IDF." Israeli Krav International. Your-krav-maga-expert.com, n.d. Web. 07
Oct. 2012.
<http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/women-in-idf.html>.
I believe that certain combat roles truly are able to be done predominantly by males. I really do believe that front-line combat foot soldiers should be mostly men. There are a few females that can fit the criteria, but when it comes to being able to carry the equipment and help fellow soldiers, males are better suited to those positions and will be for a while.
ReplyDeleteThis second part is tricky and I got a little caught up in my own wording within the post, I admit. Since there never have been any exclusively female roles, it is hard to say for sure that women are better suited towards some in particular. I believe that most of the roles that women currently hold are better suited for females in some aspects such as nurses, negotiators, spies, and military strategists. Not that all of these positions should be filled with women, but women being in a good proportion of these roles is crucial. They have the necessary physical and mental abilities to fill these roles. They have the tenderness and technique that it takes to be a nurse. They have the ability to be good negotiators because females tend towards finding peace rather than fighting. They have measurably out-performed males in multitasking, so a military strategist position could use this input. Also, as a spy, many foreign countries would be better caught-off guard with a woman spy. They also are crucial if trying to pose as a family with another male spy in a country.
Also, many studies have shown that female pilots may even be better than male pilots. They are better able to deal with the G forces and they have been proven to be safer fliers.
While it is against feminism to say this, I would like to correct my thinking in my article. There are definitely positions that will most likely stay predominantly male.In the past,there were definitely "female" jobs like nurses and cooks, but these have since become more integrated. Women bring key perspectives and skills to a vast array of positions; however, very few (if any) positions remain female-dominated in modern times because males have found that they also can fill these positions and have done so.
These contrasting militaries were very interesting to read about. Thanks for this post!
ReplyDeleteYou give a lot of good examples of current military practices -- the statistical percentages of female soldiers, the "safe" jobs women are given, the dangers women face not only from the enemy but internally -- so I would be interested in your view of their origins, from the perspective of a feminist theorist. Why are these practices the accepted norm? How were these constructs formed?
Kate,
DeleteI think that these views date back to ancient times. Women have always been seen as inferior to men and in need of protection. History has shown that men always take the combat positions and that their physical strength is one of the keys to one's identity and "manliness." Basic chivalry (as much as I love it) has perpetuated this fact that women need help. Paying for her food, walking her home safely, escorting her, saving the "damsel in distress." All of these lead society (whether they realize it or not) to view women in a subordinate role when it comes to mental prowess and physical ability, and we are still surrounded by it.
Basically all of these, in my opinion, outdated views of women and their places in society have led men to scoff at the idea of a woman keeping up with him physically. Additionally, women have for centuries been the main keepers of the children and home. Only in modern times have roles reversed and allowed men to take on these roles and/or this role to be shared between parents. Women were only used in the military as sewers, food providers, and nurses. It is difficult to escape this stereotype and allow society to see a woman's capabilities of say, holding a gun and fighting.
These are the ways that the constructs formed and they are the reasons why women are only placed in "safe jobs." It will take more than a few decades of progression to wipe out centuries of viewing women as subordinates.
Valerie, this is a very interesting blog post! What a perfect example of a masculine institution, and the challenges which arise from "genderizing" government institutions. You posed some tricky questions about how to overcome these challenges in regard to women's safety, as well as how to utilize the strengths of women in the military. I'm conflicted in what I think the approach should be to overcome these challenges, because while I believe like most people that women have the ability to be just as useful in our military, I have to concede that gender roles and risk that women face as far as sexual assaults are significant challenges to gender equality in that context.
ReplyDeleteMy question is, what do you think that feminists would say in regards to the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy? Do you think that avoid defining and articulating sexuality is helpful or a barrier in combatting heterosexism?
Thanks for the blog post!
I actually think that feminists would be unhappy about "don't ask don't tell's" repeal in one respect, and overjoyed in another.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that feminists would ever be angry about more equality for homosexuals, however they are unhappy about the amount of media coverage they have been receiving lately. It is unfortunate that women in the military are not seen as a great issue and means for social change within the country. Many feminists were outraged at the large support and media coverage for “don’t ask don’t tell’s” repeal. Homosexual troops account for less than 10% of the overall military personnel while women are more than 15%, expecting to grow to 25% within the next ten years. (Dreazen).To feminists, this is just another loss of respect for females as a sex. Their progression takes a backseat to so many social movements such as African American rights in the past, and in modern day, it is being bulldozed by LGBT rights as well.
On the other hand, as a policy they are most likely in agreement with it. Feminists most likely believe that homosexual soldiers deserve to fight in the military as equally as men or women and be open about it. Feminists believe that sex is merely a biological categorization of body parts and that social norms and tradition dictate views of gender. I think that repealing "don't ask don't tell" is a great precedent for feminists because it is disregarding homosexuals' "opposite"(in terms of males being more feminine and females being more masculine)and seeing them simply as individuals willing to fight and serve for their country.
As for defining sexuality, that is a difficult and complex question. Simply put, I think that the definition of one's own sexuality needs to come from the individual. The sexuality that they articulate to others is the one that they identify with and they should not be told what to believe otherwise. It often causes problems within the military when others have assumed a soldier's sexuality and have punished them for it. Overall the military needs better protections for both its women and homosexuals. I think, though, that if an individual is homosexual and open about it, that they should state so to those he/she works with. Open admission and working towards equality from there is the only way that America can get closer to actually achieving equality of the sexes and sexual preferences.
Thank you for such a detailed response!
DeleteI agree with you on many levels as far as the need to protect the rights and improve the treatments of both homosexuals and women, especially in such a distinct situation such as the military. I wonder if the feminists would argue that the attention brought to the differences between heterosexual males and the minority groups of women and homosexual members of the military is actually amplifying the problem by validating a division between the groups. It is such a complex issue, and I am very impressed with the depth that you have explored the topic!
Thanks again.
This was a very interesting blog post! It was helpful to see the side by side comparisons of the Israeli and United States' militaries, along with the inclusion of the statistics.
ReplyDeleteAll I can add to the post itself is this comment: I agree with your solution of making the integration of women into the military more gradual. However, this is not to better acclimate women to the role of the soldier, or to find what roles best suit them. Rather, it is to better educate the citizens of the country, and the male soldiers to the professional status of all soldiers. Currently, the status of the woman in society continues to be that of a sex object, though many decades have been spent trying to extinguish this stigma. Instead of teaching women to not be soldiers, to not be raped, it should be a society's priority to teach the lesson "do not rape." The blame of rape and other "de-womanizing" acts should not be placed upon the fact that women are integrated in the armed forces.
I apologize; this comment has already gotten away from me.
My second comment is in response to how you describe the feminists' reaction to the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." You said that the most negative response of feminists would be their disapproval of the media coverage "don't ask, don't tell" is receiving in comparison to the lack of media coverage of women's plights. Are you saying that the major priority of feminists is the equality of women? Perhaps this was just me reading into things, but it seemed as though you phrased your response to suggest that women's rights and equality should be placed above equality for other minorities, such as African Americans and homosexuals.
Again, very interesting blog post! It gave me a lot to think about!
Personally I would never think that one social group or aspect is of more importance than another. I'm sorry if I worded that in a way that made it seem that way. My comment on the feminists' reaction was that from a media perspective. I was essentially saying that women have been fighting for gender equality for decades. (And I acknowledge that homosexuals and other minorities have been as well). I was meaning to convey that feminists might be frustrated not so much with homosexuals getting attention, but more with their own lack of media attention. The major priority of feminists is equality of sexes, not merely women alone. It has been such a long-running fight that many people are "bored" with it and the media has stopped focusing on it as much.
DeleteMany semi to uninformed people could probably tell you about "don't ask don't tell" and homosexuals' plights in the military. This is wonderful; however, I would challenge that many fewer could talk about women in the military and their plight. This is what I meant to get at. Feminists are happy about the repeal of "don't ask don't tell" because it also works to further their own cause...but it isn't conveying the roots of their cause and they are frustrated that people do not care about this.
I would simply argue that the core goal of feminism is not the advocation of women's rights (although that is also part of it), but the decrease of the use of gender norms and biological sex to discriminate people, acts, jobs, etc. Also, a main goal is changing the way that the world population views certain occupations as masculine or feminine. With your example of the military, regardless of how many women ARE in the military, it is still viewed as a masculine construct because even woman soldiers are seen as more masculine than their non-military counterparts. I would argue that when it comes to the military, or any other issue for that matter, feminists would simply argue against the use of gender norms or stereotypes as a basis for decision making or filling of military positions. This may include homosexuality, women, transsexuality, etc.
DeleteThank you for the great post Val! I agree with Victor's comment regarding the objective of feminists and their likely opinion of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." As Laura Sjoberg stated in her blog post, "the point [of feminism] is to question and reform the naturalness of masculinities and femininities as categories and descriptors, and the naturalness of choosing masculinities when we choose among traits, characteristics, ideas, people, states, or nations.” Therefore, the issue at hand here is the use of the words "masculine" and "feminine" in the military, and the preference for masculinity.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a feminist would object to your description of the military industry and of certain positions as “masculine.” While individuals who enter the front line must have certain characteristics, a feminist would object to the categorizing of this role as being “masculine.” In reference to the protective instincts of men, can’t one argue that a soldier should feel protective of his teammate regardless of the teammate’s sex? I’d like to add, without digressing from the subject of the argument too much, that man has a natural inclination to preserve his fellow man, in regards to humanity and not with specific attention to sex. Of course, this point is skewed in reference to wartime, but as we regard members of the same task force and “team,” I think it applies.
I agree with you that the gradual progression of females entering the military is the best way to improve the situation of gender-based discrimination. However, I also believe that there should be equal opportunity for any individual to access a job in the military, and that the job should be filled based on the qualifications of the applicants and not of the apparent sex or “masculinity” of the individual. You mentioned that there are certain individuals who may perform well in jobs that are not historically associated with their apparent sexes. The only way to allow all individuals to gain access to the roles that they are best suited for and that they prefer is to allow for equal opportunities to those jobs. In that statement, I also refer to men having access to jobs that are historically filled by women, and I don’t believe that sexual preference should be a factor.
Lastly, in reference to the laws behind Israeli conscription, you stated that being a mother is a factor that would allow for an exception from the draft, but would being a father, or a single parent or guardian, be considered as a factor?
Thank you for the great post and for the intriguing questions that it posed! I apologize for the length of this comment, I'm very interested in the subject matter!