I am writing in response to the article about women in combat which ran Feb. 8 in an attempt to address several misconceptions and a historical bias that has been used to oppress women.
The first thing I would like to point out is that the standards used to determine fitness are gendered in two ways. For one, failure to meet the standards for males has often resulted in females being assigned non-combatant roles to start with. "Aha!" you think, "Proof that women fail to meet the male standards and present a danger!"
This is not quite true, as there is sometimes greater variance amongst women or men than there is between women and men. This means that the difference within groups is sometimes greater than the difference between groups. There are certainly women who are stronger and more physically capable than some men, meaning that there are women who can meet and exceed the minimum male standards.
Excluding a whole half of society based on their gender when they can meet the requirements is called discrimination.
Secondly, the standards are gendered in that they were created at a time where male biology was the norm for combat positions — the yardstick, as it were. Just as men and women have differences, they have different kinds of strengths and abilities. For example, women are generally more flexible than men, while men have greater upper body strength then women. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages.
Women and men can be equally fit, but if measured the same, they will score differently. It would be entirely possible to rewrite the standards in a way that women easily pass and men struggle — not that I am advocating for this, but just putting it forth as something to chew on.
Finally, the idea that women are so sexually seductive and arousing that men can’t control themselves around them is both insulting to women and to men, and has historically been used to justify the oppression and subordination of women. It is not only ridiculous, but patently untrue.
Men and women work together all the time, and the world still seems to be adequately functioning. Women have been actively involved in 95 percent of military positions. And in a situation where life and limb is on the line, both men and women have more on their minds than men’s “nature” and “sex-driven” proclivities.
As for a brotherhood, men and women have been in basic training together for over 20 years forming camaraderie and bonds of their own.
While not explicitly involved in the combat arm, women have been in dangerous fields and worked alongside men without any major issues. Women have provided dedication and support to many successful missions. You are right, social experimentation should not have a prominent place in the military of the U.S., but social justice should.