Two-thirds of Americans support the recent decision to allow women in combat, according to a Pew Research survey, with nearly identical percentages of men (65 percent) and women (66 percent) in favor of the change. Most say the new policy won't harm military effectiveness and see it as a move that will make opportunities better for women.
I fall on the other side of those statistics, uneasy about the prospect of sending women into the front lines of the battlefield.
I'm not the only one. Writing in the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker argued that when it comes to combat situations, women are not actually equal to men primarily because the art of war is much different than the corner office on Wall Street. Men and women can work many jobs at the same capacity with no real differences between them. Combat is a whole other ballgame.
"Arguments against women in direct combat have nothing to do with courage, skill, patriotism, or dedication," she wrote. "Most women are equal to most men in all these categories and are superior to men in many other areas, as our educational graduation rates at every level indicate. Women also tend to excel as sharpshooters and pilots."
"But ground combat is one area in which women, through quirks of biology and human nature, are not equal to men — a difference that should be celebrated rather than rationalized as incorrect."
A female active duty Marine wrote in The Weekly Standard that biology alone proves that women are not physically capable of the rigors of war at the same level as men. Something will have to give. Either men will die protecting their female comrades or the standards will be lowered, and no one will win in those situations. While many are praising the Defense Department's decision, others are not as convinced that this is the best thing for women and our military.
The issue of women in combat really has nothing to do with equality, despite the government's claims. To deny women the front lines is actually a declaration of something much more than that — women are valued enough to be protected from violence and war. It is precisely because we are equal in value and dignity that we should be protected from the horrors of war.
As Christians, this has profound implications. While it would be easy to simply focus on the pragmatic rationale for or against women in combat, Christians have a higher calling to consider. There are a host of opinions circulating the Internet these days, but those won't create a sustainable argument when it's all said and done. We recognize that there is something much deeper going on in our disapproval of women in combat. Men are called to protect and lead like Christ does for his bride (Eph. 5:25-32). Inviting women onto the battlefield only makes a mockery of the image this protection is designed to display.
I grew up in a home of all boys. In a crisis situation, I always knew my brothers and my dad would protect me. Could I have protected myself in the moment? Maybe. But my determination and skill was not the point. Deep within my brothers was a desire to protect me as their sister. It had nothing to do with our equality as human beings or even our physical capacity (though they quickly outgrew me), rather it was their belief women are valuable and thus deserving of protection.
Few people would have recoiled at the thought of men protecting women and children on the Titanic. When a number of men gave their life protecting their girlfriends on that fateful night in Aurora last summer, the country applauded their bravery. If these men had treated women as "equal" partners in the battle to save themselves from a shipwreck or a crazed gunman, we would have been appalled. Why? The protection of women is part of our psyches as human beings. Deep down we expect men to give their lives to protect women in a moment of crisis.
"We can train our men to ignore the screams of their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create?" Parker asked in the Washington Post. "And though some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy men."
We protect what is most precious to us and when a society gives up protecting women (as it already has children) it is making a much more profound statement about what it values than we realize. Christ always protects his Bride. He gives his life for her.
The Seminary Gender Gap
The Real Value of Sex
Angelina Jolie's Breasts and the Bravery of Letting Go
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
Comments
Displaying 1–10 of 46 comments
See all comments
Brennan Doherty
Teresa, I would say what you lose is the recognition that the different genders are God ordained and thus men are to be protectors of women and not treat them as if they are just men with bumps, or that as long as a woman can meet the physical requirements it is fine to go ahead and put them in any dangerous situation whatsoever. I think men are already callous and unprotective enough towards women in this day and age without furthering it along. As far as combat goes, I posted this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk because in it a general who fought in 3 wars made an excellent point. Combat is not just getting shot at or being in a "danger zone." It is seeking, closing with, and killing the enemy. That's combat.
Teresa Benson
I think we need clarity about what is meant by "combat." Do we mean: 1) Being put in positions where the enemy would try to kill them? 2) Being assigned to kill others? or 3) Humping 110-lb packs through the Afghan countrysides, a la Restrepo? I understand that physical standards will not be lowered, so that if women can't do the job of infantry or SEALs, there won't be any women in those units-- not because they have two X chromosomes, but because they can't meet the physical standards. But what about #1, which is already happening routinely? Or #2, which also happens quite often? If there are positions in the military which are closed to women but don't require a high level of physical ability (or experience in a physically-demanding specialty), what do we lose by allowing women to serve there?
Ken Smith
Putting aside the theological and philosophical issues about equality for a moment, I recently watched the documentary "Restrepo", and it put this debate into a whole new light for me. After watching that, I simply don't understand how anybody could come to the conclusion that introducing women into combat wouldn't have a detrimental impact on our troops' safety.
Brennan Doherty
Well, I was a Protestant and part of the evangelical culture for 17 years so I understand what you are saying. I don't look at keeping women out of combat as treating her as a "child" but as recognizing the essential differences between men and women. Women should recognize this just as well as men (and I think many do). I really don't think many of the people who advocate women in combat understand its horrors (at least not experientially) and those who do, like the General I have mentioned, strenuously oppose women in combat. But, as I said, the Saints I mentioned were strong women and fully adult.
JANET W
The problem with being a christian woman (I'm talking mainly about evangelical culture) is that you are treated like a child who will never grow up. We teach children from a young age that choices have consequences and that they are responsible for their decisions & actions. We try to correlate the choice with the results - so that our children grow into competent, responsible members of society. Except for girls, who get taught the same message as children and then are told as adults that they must be governed by their husband for their entire adult lives. We call this "protection"- but what it is, is treating an adult as if they are a child. If a woman (like a man) enters a profession where she puts her life in danger to protect others , do we really think that she is unable to fully comprehend the risks vs rewards? If she is physically & mentally capable of performing the task, why is there even a question of "allowing" her to do it? - Because we think of her as a child...
Brennan Doherty
Janet, my avocation that women should be prohibited from combat roles does not entail that therefore they shouldn't be allowed to think or act for themselves or should have to marry their rapist. Some of my favorite Saints like Therese of Liseux, Teresa of Avila, Hildegard of Bingen, and Catherine of Siena have been very strong and intelligent women who have done much for the Church. God bless.
JANET W
Brennan, I suspect that I would be content to allow myself to be helped by whomever showed up to assist me, regardless of gender. I'm not sure if others' opinions are somehow supposed to convince me that I should stay at home and let the boys do all the thinking and acting for me. Forunately for me, I don't live in a world where I'm forced into that role. History teaches us many things: it teaches us, sometimes, how not to treat others. Biblical culture was specific to a time period in which all women were viewed as property and treated as such. I wasn't sold into bondage/marriage by my father nor do we keep slaves. My husband doesn't have many wives or any concubines. There's just me. Thankfully, I wasn't forced to marry my rapist, as previous cultures would have forced me to do. Stonings aren't all that common in American culture, either, thankfully. The Bible is full of beautiful truths. Fortunately for me, God's truth transcends culture. We are all one in Christ.
Brennan Doherty
Here is the link in my previous comment as it didn't get inserted correctly. The article is called "Women in Combat: “Equality” and Ambition Over Privilege and Duty" and here is a lengthier quote: "One can go round and round about upper-body strength, about statistics, sexual harassment, equality, and so on and so on... The thing is, these arguments rarely get anywhere. That’s because hardly anybody really cares about any of these things. The liberals don’t care because they have an agenda that calls for obliterating all recognition of the differences between men and women. The conservatives shouldn't care because the traditional resistance to the idea of women in combat doesn't actually rest on any of these arguments. It rests on a certain ancient idea of the fundamental differences between men and women, which naturally the liberals do not grant." http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/women-in-combat-equality-and-ambition- over-privilege-and-duty
Brennan Doherty
I'd suggest having a brawny man rescue you from a burning building. I posted the testimony of a General who has experienced combat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy--whDNNKk) since I seriously doubt anyone commenting has. The argument goes beyond the physical and mental. It goes to why is it scandalous for a man to hit a woman (but not necessarily other men?) It goes to the feminine nature of women as life-givers and not life-takers and men as protectors. But as one female wrote: "One can go round and round about upper-body strength, about statistics, sexual harassment, equality, and so on and so on, et cetera... The thing is, these arguments rarely get anywhere. That’s because hardly anybody really cares about any of these things. The liberals don’t care because they have an agenda that calls for obliterating all recognition of the differences between men and women." http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/women-in-combat-equality-and-ambition-ov er-privilege-and-duty
JANET W
Some folks' idea of "chivalry" is best left in the dark ages. Yes. I'm for allowing human beings to work in whatever capacity fits the gifts that God blessed them with. We should have the same criteria for both genders. We won't find equal numbers of women in combat infantry due to physical factors. Just as we won't suddenly start having a whole bunch of men who are 5'2" & weigh 110 pounds in our infantry, either. Would I feel better about a scrawny man coming to "rescue" me from a burning building or a brawny woman? I'll let you figure that one out on your own. I am wondering about the supposed "mental" differences that make women unfit for combat? -- You mean the ability to multi-task, see both the big & small picture, to prioritize & direct others? -- While I suppose men aren't as good at those things as women, I don't think it should disqualify the male gender as long as they can do the job as well as a woman. Gender really only matters if your having sex with the person.
*