why serving in combat does not serve women (or anyone else) well

[niyad]

Why Serving In Combat Does Not Serve Women (Or Anyone Else) Well
by Lucinda Marshall

Crucial as it is for women to have the same opportunities and benefits as men who do comparable work, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s announcement that women can now serve in combat positions in the military should not be misconstrued as a step forward for women.

As the women’s rights advocacy group AF3IRM GABNET said in a statement on their Facebook page,

The Pentagon lifted a ban on women in combat, stating that women can now serve on the frontlines. We in AF3IRM know that this is already common practice and that women of color and transnational women are already disproportionately over-represented in the US military. They are pushed into military duty due to poverty and lack of other options. We do not
celebrate this new “elimination of a gender-based barrier.” We do not celebrate sending us women overseas to kill other women and children in someone else’s name. (emphasis mine)

According to a study by the PEW Research Center, women now make up 14% of the enlisted ranks and 16% of the officer ranks. A look at the racial breakdown of those numbers is instructive,

While 71% of active-duty men are white (including white Hispanics), only about half of active-duty women (53%) are white. The share of white women in the military is also significantly smaller than their proportion in the civilian female population ages 18-44 (78%).

More than three-in-ten (31%) military women are black (including black Hispanics). This is almost twice the share of active-duty men who are black (16%), as well as more than twice the proportion of civilian women ages 18-44 who are black (15%). In addition, more women in the active-duty force than men in the active-duty force and civilian women ages 18-44 are of mixed racial background or some other race.3

. . .

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/25

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Some kinds of inequality are okay, huh? n/t

[niyad]

2. did you read the whole article?

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Did I need to? The readers digest version is "equality isn't in women's interest".

Which is honest enough.

The odd argument I hear from some women is "I'm not going to support (women draft registration/women in combat) until we have equal rights!!!"

Which begs the question about what they mean by "equal rights". Every single law that would be changed by passage of the equal rights amendment is a law which was created to protect/enrich/improve the lives of women. If combat roles for women is a bad idea, then why would draft registration, repeal of VAWA, repeal of WIC, eliminating preference for women owned businesses or elimination of the education gender equity program be desired?

[niyad]

6. it certainly would have helped if you had. that way you would have known what the

article said, not just your assumptions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Okay, I did.

The relevant bit is, as I suspected, right at the top "Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s announcement that women can now serve in combat positions in the military should not be misconstrued as a step forward for women."

Which may be true. But it is a step forward for equality.

Whether military force is used appropriately is an entirely different question, and now that the author perceives that she has some skin in the game perhaps she might have more motivation to help assure that it is.

[liberal_at_heart]

8. I agree. Two seperate issues.

whether our leaders use military force appropriately or not is not the issue. The issue is equality. If you don't believe in fighting in a war, don't sign up. If the fact that poor women are signing up is the issue, then address the poverty issue. Address the education and fair wages issue. Don't prevent equality just to keep poor women from serving in the military.

[malthaussen]

3. Well, ya know, it doesn't serve anybody to be "allowed" in combat...

... this is a perk?

-- Mal

[niyad]

4. and the article agrees with you