Godwin Abigale Godwin Dr.

Griffen English 1103 31 October 2013 This is a Man World Throughout histor there has alwa s been a gender war between !ales and fe!ales. "lai!s about the other gender ha#e been thrown in each other$s faces for the sa%e of &re#enting change or for tr ing to &ro!ote change. Wo!en ha#e alwa s co!e u& short when being

co!&ared to !en and this has &re#ented the! fro! ad#ancing in their careers. This war between !ales and fe!ales has also been a &art of the !ilitar since the 'nited (tates )e#olutionar War* and fro! that &oint forward* wo!en ha#e not onl been fighting wars against '( ene!ies but a war against their own congress!en to allow the! to be a&art of the !ilitar . +o !atter what branch wo!en decide to ,oin the are guaranteed to be ,udged off the sole fact that the are a wo!an. Wo!en ha#e &la ed a role in the !ilitar since the 'nited (tates )e#olution in &ositions of nurses* sea!stresses and coo%s for the troo&s -Mitchell 1.. /n addition to these roles* so!e wo!en ,oined their husbands in co!bat. Mar 0udwig 1a s Mc"aule 2Moll 3itcher4 is ,ust one of the !ore fa!ous wo!en who too% u& ar!s during the re#olution. After the )e#olution* wo!en still &la ed roles in the u&co!ing wars. /n World War /* !ore than 235*000 A!erican Wo!en ser#ed in the !ilitar .4 Man of these wo!en were the traditional nurses* and so!e were also a&art of the (ignal "or&s. 0ater in Ma 16* 1762 the Wo!en$s Ar! Au8iliar "or&s was created 2for the &ur&ose of !a%ing a#ailable to the national defense the %nowledge* s%ill* and s&ecial training of wo!en of the nation.4 A huge ad#ance!ent for wo!en in the !ilitar

Godwin was !ade when 3resident )oose#elt changed the na!e to Wo!en$s Ar! "or&s and !ade it a&art of the Ar! of the 'nited (tates. 1owe#er* there was still segregation a!ong the ran%s* e#en after the war. 9ast:forwarding into the 21st centur * b 2003* 15.2; of the ar! was !ade u& of wo!en* which are u& fro! 7.<; in 17<3. 0oo%ing at the histor * / still wonder wh there is so!e contro#ers of including wo!en in the !ilitar . Wh ha#e the &eo&le of the 'nited (tates ado&ted this i!age of wo!en as being

soft= 2Wo!en should be gi#en the o&&ortunit to !eet the sa!e standards as !en>4-?eigler 6.. (ince the to&ic of wo!en recei#ing stereot &es is so generic* this &a&er will focus !ore on the stereot &es of wo!en in the !ilitar and wh we as wo!en recei#e the!. Wh are wo!en in the !ilitar !ore sub,ect to stereot &es then wo!en in other careers= /n addition to stereot &es* how is it that wo!en are sub,ect to stereot &es fro! not ,ust !ilitar !e!bers but ci#ilians as well= /n the !ilitar ou can see that wo!en ha#e alwa s caused so!e tensions within the

ran%s. There ha#e been and still are !an debates concerning the &resence of wo!en in the !ilitar and !ore s&ecificall co!bat roles* roles that could &otentiall get the! %illed. 1owe#er* in !a,orit of the debates there are alwa s certain argu!ents that co!e u& concerning wo!en in the !ilitar . The first argu!ent is the wo!en should not be allowed in co!bat role because that detracts fro! the !ale$s reason to fight. Men ha#e the notion that the 2need to &rotect the wo!en and their roles as child bearers and !others>4 -3reach 1@2.. Men feel that the need to &rotect the wo!en because wo!en create a sense of ho!e* a sense of esca&e fro! the co!bat Aone and when wo!en are &laced right beside the! in the fight* this disru&ts the flow of things. (ociet has created this i!age of wo!en to be nurturing* lo#ing and a caregi#er and that is what

Godwin !en are tr ing to &reser#eB the image of what wo!en are. 'nited (tates (enate and for!er Marine "o!!andant General )obert Carrows states* 2>Wo!en cannot do it Dfight in co!batE. +or should the be e#en thought of as doing it>. The #er nature of wo!en disFualifies the! fro! doing it. Wo!en gi#e life* sustain life* nurture lifeB the do not ta%e it4 -?eigler 6G.. With this Fuote being said* the argu!ent being &ut forth is that wo!en are not !eant for co!bat

because that is not their role in life. Wo!en are not !eant to be the &rotectorsB the are !eant to be &rotected. The second and !ost co!!on argu!ent against ha#ing wo!en in the !ilitar is that the are &h sicall wea%. "o!!on to e#er branch in the !ilitar is a 3h sical 9itness test that tests the soldier$s endurance le#el* and u&&er bod strength. Along with this 3h sical 9itness test* there are certain reFuire!ents that !ust be !et in order to %ee& the status of a soldier. /t is no secret that !ale and fe!ales are not born to be at the sa!e &h sical le#el and !an &eo&le use that fact against fe!ales* barring the! fro! certain roles in the !ilitar . 1owe#er &eo&le -!ostl !ales. ha#e ta%en the a&&roach that if fe!ales cannot !eet the standards of !en* then the should not be allowed. O#er the ears though the 3T test has now ado&ted a se&arate set of standards to acco!!odate the fact that wo!en are not built the sa!e as !en. This has hel&ed to alle#iate so!e of the &h sical tensions* howe#er this will ne#er eradicate the i!age that wo!en are seen as the wea%er gender. Wo!en are %nown to be at a disad#antage in acti#ities that include !arching at great lengths with hea# loads* wor%ing in the heat* and ha#e been hos&italiAed !ore often then !ales. To shed light on the hos&ital #isits* 25; of the #isits were attributed to fe!ale:s&ecific ail!ents* such as &regnanc -Mitchell 160:150.. /n so!e studies* howe#er* wo!en are seen to ha#e so!e ad#antages &h sicall * such as less susce&tibilit to altitude sic%ness and studies ha#e shown to ha#e !ore u&&er:bod strength

Godwin

when co!&ared to !ales -(tieh! 1@<.. The Fuestion of* 2Do ou reall need to be &h sicall fit to fire a gun=4 has been brought to the table and this has been used to counter the argu!ent that &h sical li!its should bar wo!en fro! co!bat roles. /n the &s chological gender differences* co!bat has been concei#ed to be a !acho* or !ore !asculine ,ob. 3eo&le clai! that war de!ands an aggressi#e trait* which is !ore &ro!inent in !ales than in fe!ales. Also wo!en are gi#en the i!age of being 2!ore hel&ful* %ind* gentle and e!otionall e8&ressi#e then !en -Coldr @70.4 and this again is another hint at that wo!an cannot ta%e on the e!otional &art of war. "ontinuing on with the e!otional &art of war* there is the &roble! of se8ual harass!ent. The definition of se8ual harass!ent according to Merria!:Webster is* 2unin#ited and unwelco!e #erbal or &h sical beha#ior of a se8ual nature es&eciall b a &erson in authorit toward a subordinate.4 1owe#er in the &ast there see!s to be so!e differences when as%ed what se8ual harass!ent was between the enlisted fe!ales and the officer fe!ales. The enlisted fe!ales onl saw se8ual harass!ent as unwanted se8ual ad#ances* howe#er the officer fe!ales saw se8ual harass!ent as an thing that offended the fe!ale sensibilit * which included se8ual language. Another difference between the enlisted and officer fe!ales is that enlisted belie#ed that the needed to sol#e this &roble! indi#iduall * while officers belie#ed the &roble! should be handled at the co!!and le#el -Mitchell 1G7:1<0.. O#er the ears the !ilitar * and es&eciall the Ar! ha#e started i!&le!enting &olicies against se8ual harass!ent. The ar! reFuires its (oldiers to co!&lete (1A)3 training* which stands for (e8ual 1arass!entHAssault )es&onse and 3re#ention. The &rogra! reFuires soldiers to watch a series of #ideos on the to&ic of se8ual harass!ent* assault and how to res&ond if it ta%es &lace. /t also reFuires soldiers to &ass a test &ro#ing their understanding of the !aterial. +ot

Godwin

onl is this &rogra! i!&le!ented in the Ar! but it is also a &art of )OT" in colleges across he 'nited (tates. Also in &lace are different Articles in the 'nifor! "ode of Militar Iustice -'"MI.. These articles are in &lace for different offenses concerning se8ual harass!ent. The De&art!ent of Defense -DOD. enforces these Articles -?eigler 11G:11<.. +ow the Fuestion still re!ains* wh is that when fe!ales are added into the !i8* that se8ual harass!ent beco!es a &roble!= One &erson that res&onded to a si!ilar Fuestion in 1772 res&onded with* 2(o the '( +a# is ha#ing a &roble! with se8ual harass!ent. Well what does an one e8&ect= When wo!en go where the do not belong* se8ual harass!ent is the logical result. -1erbert 30. 4 3ersonall * / do not understand how so!eone can res&ond to the situation with that. Are the suggesting that it is the wo!an$s fault that the e8&eriencing se8ual harass!ent all because of the fact the are 2going where the do not belong4= This see!s li%e the are &lacing the bla!e on wo!en for &utting the!sel#es in that situation and not onl that but also it underlies that !en cannot control the!sel#es when a wo!an is around. 1ow does all this infor!ation relate to the initial inFuir of wh do wo!en in the !ilitar recei#e stereot &es= "learl wo!en ha#e a disad#antage when being co!&ared to a !an that is ,ust based off of genetics. 1owe#er* this should be acce&ted as so!ething that cannot change. /nstead of stereot &ing all fe!ales as wea%* the !ilitar should be gi#e wo!en 2the o&&ortunit to !eet the sa!e standards as !en and &ro#e their Fualifications* without being sub,ected to su!!ar re,ection or additional scrutin because of se84 -?eigler 6.. Of course if ou are alwa s standing o#er the shoulder of so!eone* chances are the will buc%le under &ressure and this is what the !ilitar is doing to fe!ales. The are continuousl standing o#er wo!en. The are continuousl not allowing wo!en to !o#e forward. /n 177<* out of the 1.6 !illion ,obs a#ailable in the

Godwin !ilitar * 221*000 of those &ositions were closed to wo!en. /n the sa!e ear* the ar! lead the wa in these nu!bers with ha#ing al!ost a third of its a#ailable &ositions closed to wo!en

-?eigler 63.. +ow o#er the ears these nu!bers ha#e declined and e#en so!e of the barriers fell. /t is &ro#en that wo!en consistentl get &ro!oted faster then their !ale counter&arts and that also so!e wo!en are stronger than so!e !en and &erfor!ed well in se#eral co!bat:t &e situations. With this being said* all wo!en are not the sa!e. Wo!en in the !ilitar are soldiers first* and wo!en second. The %now their !ission* which is to* 2To fight* to defend and to &reser#e the &eace4 -(tieh!175.. Wo!en should not ha#e to wor% twice as hard when co!&ared to their !ale counter&arts to &ro#e the!sel#es. Wo!en should not ha#e to co!e into the !ilitar alread being ,udged. Most i!&ortantl * wo!en should not ha#e to be held to an one$s stereot &e whether it co!es fro! a fellow soldier* or a ci#ilian. As to the fact that wo!en are !eant to be &rotected instead of being the &rotectorsB wo!en should !a%e that choice for the!sel#es. We as wo!en %now our own ca&abilitiesB we %now what we can do and what we can handle. /f we loo% at it li%e thisJ if so!eone is har!ing a !other$s child* does the !other not ha#e the right to beco!e a 2&rotector=4 Or are the su&&osed to wait for a !ale to ste& in to do the &rotecting= A &rotector is defined as so!eone who %ee&s so!ebod or so!ething safe. Wo!en !a not be on a !an$s le#el of &h sicalit but that does not necessaril &re#ent the! fro! &rotecting. /f societ %ee&s insisting on &reser#ing the i!age that wo!en are wea% and therefore need to be &rotected* then the are onl underesti!ating their ca&abilities. /n this da and age* wo!en are ste&&ing into roles that weren$t offered to the! in the 1770$s and the gender stereot &es are slowl co!ing down. Wo!en are ste&&ing into roles generall held b !en. The are not acting li%e the t &ical fe!ale should. Wo!en are &utting on Ar! 9atigues and

Godwin !arching out to battle right alongside their !ale counter&arts. The are carr ing wea&ons* the are being taught to fight* the are being taught how to &rotect. (o does this state!ent hold an truth an !ore* 2>a Kreal wo!an$ doesn$t want to carr a wea&on* slee& in fo8hole* or go for wee%s without a shower. A Kreal wo!an$ doesnLt want to do K!en things$4 -1erbert 2.=

/n the end if the !ission is co!&leted successfull then does it !atter if ou are a !ale or fe!ale=

Godwin Wor%s "ited

<

Coldr * Iennifer* Wend Wood* and Deborah A. Mash . NGender (tereot &es and the E#aluation of Men and Wo!en in Militar Training.N Journal of Social Issues 5G.6 -2001.J @<7:G05. 3rint. 1erbert* Melissa ( *. Camouflage Isn't Only for Combat: Gender, Sexuality and Women in the Military. +ew Oor%J +ew Oor% '3* 177<. 3rint. NMa%ing the Cest Militar Officers in the World.N !S "rmy Cadet Command. +.&.* n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. Phtt&JHHwww.cadetco!!and.ar! .!ilHhistor .as&8Q. Mitchell* Crian. Women in the Military: #lirting $ith %isaster. Washington* D.".B 0anha!* MDJ )egner 3ub. B Distributed to the Trade b +ational Coo% +etwor%* 177<. 3rint. (tieh!* Iudith. It's Our Military, &oo' : Women and the !S! Military. 3hiladel&hiaJ Te!&le '3* 177@. 3rint. ?eigler* (ara 0.* and Gregor G. Gunderson. Mo(ing beyond G!I! Jane: Women and the !S! Military. 0anha!* Md.J 'ni#ersit of A!erica* 2005. 3rint.

Godwin