Interesting article from the AP today – “Women take on major battlefield roles”. Here are a couple quotes which caught my eye:
“The American public is beginning to realize that women are playing an equal part in this war and that they are facing the same risks,” says Duckworth, who lost both legs in the 2004 insurgent attack. “This is the first time in our nation’s history … when it’s normal to see female names as part of the war wounded or those killed in action.”
[...]
“We now know women can hold their own, they’re brave, they do have the physical and mental stamina to face combat-like situations,” says retired Navy Capt. Lory Manning, director of the Women in the Military Project at the Women’s Research and Education Institute in Washington, D.C. “We now know that men don’t go to pieces and the American public doesn’t go to pieces if women are killed. And we know that women, in fact, can defend men.”
Manning says that represents a change in perceptions.
“I used to get a lot of guff that women can’t do this, that women are weakening the military, women are feminizing the military – that’s gone with the wind,” she says. “The debate about whether they belong there seems to be over.”
Lots to think about here, but I’m particularly struck by theportion of the Manning quote I highlighted. What does it say when a culture is no longer sees women as worth protecting? This has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with cultural values. Moreover, I’d be curious to hear from people who would applaud this who also are against this war or armed conflict in general. Explain to me how this is a good thing, please.
That is so sad–particuarly the quote you highlighted. The fact that Manning can see this as a step towards equality breaks my heart, not only because she claims that the public doesn’t go to pieces when women are killed, but because that implies that no one goes to pieces either when men are killed in war. I think we should feel grief for the soldiers lost, regardless of gender, and the fact that we don’t, and that Manning cites this as a good thing, point to the fact that something is very very wrong with the way we view war as a country.
Sexual equality in the military is an ideal going all the way back to The Republic. In antiquity and late antiquity, women were viewed as physically and mentally inferior to men. Additionally, procreation was a matter of immense concern in the ancient world, where population replacement rates were barely sufficient in many cases to keep a society going, so women were protected out of a sense of self-preservation. If, as the article points out (the parts you didn’t highlight), women are capable of holding their own on the battlefield, and reproduction is no longer a serious concern, then why would there be any greater concern over the death of a women than over a man? Historically, women have participated in all sorts of military conflicts, many of them as full combatants, and many nations put women on the front lines. Look at the Israelis, for example.
The problem isn’t that we’re okay with women dying so much as it is that we’re okay with anyone dying. We should be up in arms over the fact that our armed forces are being used as an imperial army engaging in wars of expansion.
Finally, I would point out that thousands upon thousands of women have already died in this one war alone, and nobody here has really cared much. They’re called civilians, and they’re being slaughtered in their homes, streets, marketplaces and schools.
Appreciate your comments, JMM. I wonder if you would be willing to clarify what you meant by your references to The Republic (my guess was you meant America) and also “antiquity and late antiquity” (in other words could you provide a tangible time frame that you have in mind?)
If I understand your argument correctly, are you saying that the value of a person (male or female) is to be understood mainly in connection with their usefulness to that society? Is that all we can say? Doesn’t the imago Dei give us a more culturally-transcendent basis of valuation?
I agree entirely with your second paragraph, which is what made this particular celebration of women’s equality seem so odd-fitting.