WhyWomen Should Be Drafted
WhyWomen Should Be Drafted
Theidea of whether women should be drafted into the Armed Forces hassparked controversial debates not only in the United States ofAmerica but also across the globe. It is neither a new nor unpopularconcept in the contemporary combat. However, the term drafting alonehas evoked emotions and remembrances of a less stellar militaryexperiences in many individuals making it a rich topic for argumentsthan even the value of recruiting itself. The concept is traced backto the World War II when there was a shortage of nurses in the thenmilitary of the USA which prompted the Department of Defense toconsider drafting. Before the new plan was put into action, a largegroup of young females voluntarily availed themselves which deemedconscription needless. However, an ideological boundary was broken.It had taken years before anyone tried to reform the law, though agradual change could be felt. It was only after several protests thatraised awareness on the rights of women in the 1970’s that theparties saw it right to challenge the men-only draft. The tussle wenton all the way up to 1981 when the Supreme Court declared that theSelective registration of servicemen based on gender was not illegalin any way because only men can serve as combats. The wave alsocompelled President Carter to request the Congress to amend thelegislation on selective service to contain the authority of thepresident that allowed the draft that took care of women.Unfortunately, the Congress did not approve it. In the modern laws,the Selective Service does not have a provision for females even ifthey voluntarily present themselves without being forced. Thiscontroversy gives a rich platform to critically look at the reasonstabled by those against and those for the idea of drafting women inthe military.
ReasonsWhy Women Should Not Be Included In the Draft
Opponentshave asserted that the idea is bad considering uncountable frontsranging from ruined readiness in the combat to the ever increasinginjuries, vulnerability, expenses, the danger they pose to thelong-term health bill and the rising causalities. They conclude thatthere is the need for men to fight which makes the drafting offemales entirely unessential.
Justificationof a policy that has a wide-range of negative implications based onthe potentiality of few women like those who have just graduated fromthe Ranger School is ridiculous. The fact that men and females enjoyequal natural rights in the Constitution does not mean that they arethe same. The combat does not provide an equal opportunity for girlssince their survival chance in the same position is limited.
Thechallengers regret on how the integration program has been madedriven in the minds of the public basing on false claims. Proponentshave falsely demonstrated that women have equal physical abilitiesjust like their male counterparts in the military while studiescarried out in the armed forces and in sports science have depictedopposite results. They have disregarded the huge negative impactsthat result from sexual dynamics on coed units particularly thedeploying ones (Simons et al, 2014). They only argue that females canbecome male equals physically through leadership and be trained.
Exampleshave been drawn from states with established military structures likeIsrael and the Great Britain. In Israel, women have not been put indirect warfare ever since 1948. Though they carried outexperimentation with females in armored vehicles, they quicklyreversed the plan. Britain, depending on who is office, has in manytimes amended the concept. Even though none of them can be equated tothe United States, they both faced similar predicaments likeincreased injuries and little performance from the women whichincreased the costs and tampered with the readiness.
Kingdeclares that there is the need for women to come up and challengethe prevailing principles just as the minority groups and the gaycommunity have done (Simmons et al, 2014). He further credits theidea that the armed forces is a naturally male institution that hasbeen corrupted and made weak, and it will continue to be so by theinclusion of females. Martin van Creveld an expert in the field ofwomen in combat, stamped his view on women when he pointed out in 200that warfare was an affirmation, in fact, a supreme confirmation ofmasculinity and that the presence of women in the context naturallydiminishes the major qualities of an efficient military. However,such arguments have been viewed as sexist from scholars especially onthe premise of women being inferior to men. They have reduced thelikes of Creveld’s work to mere editorializing when it comes tofemales in combat since a lot of his works trend in the sexistdirection.
Malechauvinists have also seen the decision of conscripting women in thebattlefield as a deceitful and a cowardice move. Drawing from thebook Robert Maginnis, ‘DeadlyConsequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into combat,`they dismiss the fact that women are beneficial in the combat as amere myth (Simons et al, 2014)). Though there are assumptions thatthe new battlefield is friendly to women and that women can perfectlyhandle the rigorous activities just like the males, the consequencesare entirely opposite. There are a lot of risks when women areinvolved in the combat. They associate females to compromisedstandards, inability to match with the requirements in the battle andmostly a rise in sexual assault.
WhyWomen should be Included in the Draft
Fierceprotests from scholars and feminist wings have taken the waves todismiss the calls to phase out the inclusion of women in the army.They draw their support from the book written by Megan McKenzie,‘Beyond the band of brothers,` to stress on the fact that theexclusion of females in the military is not related in any way totheir actual capability to fight (Ellen, 2015). Megan confirms thatmen excluded women from the armed forces as a technique to confirmtheir position as unique, best, and necessary. The men-only idea isfounded on the cultural ideologies of the 1970’s where men were thesole breadwinners of the house and ladies were only expected to lookafter children and take good care of the affairs within thehomestead. The spheres of life in which men and women operated wereentirely different. Men were elevated in all areas. In that context,it was sensible to draft only men as women literary took theirtraditional position of staying at home with children.
Itwas also unchallenged that several posts in the military were beyondthe reach of women. In the history of America, women could beenlisted but have been prohibited in the recent years from directcombat responsibilities. The cultural concerns of romantic affairsarising within the units, pregnancies and the likelihood of mentrying to protect women in case of attack also worsened thesituation. However, today the cultural set up has radicallytransformed particularly in inner functioning of the family as a unitand the position of men. Males and females have equal opportunitiesto work outside the house and to some extreme situations they havetaken the roles within the homestead and taking care of the childrenas women go out to work. This idea should not be surprising when itcomes scrapping of the men-only draft which initially was concernedwith the caregiving role of women. To those worried that children maybe left without parents in case both sexes are conscripted, there areprovisions to make sure that such conditions never arise. Forinstance, during the Vietnam War, there was a provision forfatherhood which made men give care within the homes.
Ellenin his journal (Ellen, 2013), dismisses the fact that inclusion ofwomen in the armed forces is a misguided move. Mainly, he points outthat women can keep pace on long-range patrols the same way as theirmale colleagues. For that reason, the position and the roles withinthe military should not be taken on gender basis but rather theability of the person. Each job within the forces has its exceptionalrequirements. For example, there are women who by experience havebeen subjected to strength tests in the early procedures ofenlistment and proven efficient in the maintenance of aircraft. Afterthe elementary training, they were taken through some exercises toprepare them aerobically and other stress tests.
Thereis the need for the military authorities to embrace the varyingpotentialities of individuals rather than judging them on the genderbasis. This attitude will enable the military to attract a large poolof able volunteers. Capability should be the only test which places aperson in a given role after an ability examination. Surprisingly,women have gone ahead to prove their capacity to pass most of therigorous tests. For example, Captain Kristen Griest boasts of beingthe first women ever to receive a Ranger tab to become the firstfemale to serve as an infantry officer. She passed some of thetoughest physical tests offered by the US military. Currently, she isa valuable asset in the US Army a position she could not haverealized if she could have been barred basing on gender.
Thisevidence contradicts the notion that women are likely to degrade theperformance of men. Besides, the WestPoint incident, fifty twopercent of the female cadets passed the APFT (Army Physical FitnessTest) after going through the male standardized tests (Ellen, 2013).Military scientists have also observed that women are capable ofimproving the combat capabilities of the army from the field to themanagement without interfering with the cohesion of the crew. Theyjustify that there is a good number of women who just as fit as menphysically.
Draftingshould also be considerate to the career choices of an individualwhat motivates the person. Different reasons have evoked controversyabout gender and military career opportunities. Artemis in hisarticle (Artemis, 2012), focuses on the army of a small countrycalled Greece to bring out the concept of sex and military. In thecountry, there is an increasing need for military academies anddecisions made across all genders to prepare both male and femalescadets to emulate the already existing Hellenic Military Academy. Inthe article, he observes that the Hellenic Military Academies recruitwomen with unusual abilities who are intrinsically motivated tochoose the forces. They are aware that most of the females who decideto join the army are not aware of the Army context. They subjectwomen to different training from their male colleagues. Though it isevident that they are faced with myriad types of gender stereotyping,their success in the military largely depends on their ability toresist the biases and stereotypes.
Proponentsof integration of women in the combat have also mostly borrowed fromthe concept of collective intelligence. Carnegie Mellon incooperation with an institute in Massachusetts examined ways in whichgroup brainpower could optimize performance within a team (Ellen,2015). The study showed that the intellect of a group increases whenwomen are incorporated into the team.
Thediscussion confirms the prevailing controversial arguments concerningthe idea of women conscription in the armed forces. Individuals whooppose the integration defend their decision using the risks and theconsequences that may arise if women are enlisted in the army. Theyalso use the traditional position of men and the masculine nature ofthe combat to dismiss the move. On the other hand, the feminists fromequality, varying abilities, consideration of career choices andcollective intelligence perspective defend the inclusion of femalesin the draft.
Artemis,M. (2012).Career choices and gender: Female cadets at the HellenicMilitary Academy. Journal of Research in Gender Studies,2(1).Retrieved fromhttps://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-2878269191/career-choices-and-gender-female-cadets-at-the-hellenic.
Ellen,H. (2013). What women bring to the fight. Politics and GovernmentJournals, 43(2), 1-7. Retrieved fromhttps://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-343463015/what-women-bring-to-the-fight.
Ellen,H. (2015). Beyond the band of brothers: The US military and the myththat women can`t fight. Politics and Government Journals, 45(4).Retrieved fromhttps://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-452374583/beyond-the-band-of-brothers-the-us-military-and-the.
Meghan,M. (2013).On women in battle. Politics and Government Journals,43(3) Retrieved fromhttps://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-353316472/on-women-in-battle.
Simons,S., King, A. & McKay J. (2014). Deadly consequences: How cowardsare pushing women into combat. Politics and Government Journals,44(2). Retrieved fromhttp://wiisglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Program.pdf.