Women in Combat?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002.html

I read this article this morning, and frankly, it really got me thinking. As a female soldier, what is MY stance on where women belong in combat? Before I get to that, let's talk about how the outside world sees female soldiers.

The following story is extremely common among the Army girls I know. This particular incident happened in January, while I was preparing to deploy to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Version 3.0). I was at the mall, looking for a pair of sunglasses that would shield my baby blues from the harsh desert sun. (You might be asking yourself, but doesn't the army give its soldiers sunglasses? Well, it does, the army gives us lots of things when we're getting ready to deploy. The things it gives us, however, are ugly. We'll discuss this phenomenon more in-depth later on.) Anyway, I walked into the sunglasses store and said to the sales girl, "I'm going overseas and I need a pair of sturdy sunglasses." We started discussing the merits of various brands, and I finally settled on a pair of Oakley's. As she was ringing up my purchase, my mother mentioned that I was going to Iraq. At that, the sales girl looked at me suspiciously. "Are you in the army?" She asked. I answered that I was, and she looked shocked. "Really? You do NOT look like you're in the army. When you said you were going overseas, I just assumed you were a model going on a photo shoot! You don't look like you belong in the army…don't you have to shave your head?"

I don't share this story because I have a big ego and I want you all to think I'm pretty. Well, okay, that's part of it. The BIGGEST motivation I have for sharing that story, however, is because it illustrates how far off the mark most people's idea of a female soldier is. Notice, in fact, that the Female Medic's hair length is the first thing the Washington Post article mentions about her. We don't have to shave our heads. In fact, according to AR 670-1, females have a minimum hair length they have to maintain. Buzz cuts are prohibited and boyish haircuts are strongly discouraged. It's bad for the Army's image if its women are running around all Amazonian. Interesting side note: did you know ancient Amazonians used to burn off their right breasts to make themselves better archers? Even back in ancient times, female warriors had to walk a fine line.

Nowadays we don't have to indulge in any mutilation (which is good, can you imagine the publicity?) but we still have to walk a very fine line as females in the military. If we're too girly, the guys dismiss us as prissy and weak. If we act too masculine (ie, eager to get outside the wire or interested in lifting weights), the guys start to make jokes about our suspect genitalia and what team we play for. If we try to be hard charging and authoritative in our leadership roles, it's all too easy to get branded a bitch. If we're too friendly with the guys, we're whores, if we aren't friendly enough we're man-hating dykes. It can be tough to get respect from the guys, and near impossible if they spent any time in a combat arms unit to get them to take you seriously. You have to know your stuff 100% of the time, you have to be a physical fitness stud (but not scarily muscular), you have to be a politician, a therapist, and it helps a LOT if you can give a good manicure. Even the combat arms guys love manicures, as SGT Konvalinka, my only female NCO, told me. "They like to feel babied sometimes. That's how I made friends when I worked with the cavalry units. I must've given 30 manicures in two weeks."

The culture of the Army is tough on women. It won't let us do any of the trigger-puller jobs like infantry, armor or cavalry scout, and it tries to keep us sheltered from actual combat...tries, but succeeds only in an administrative sense. Females can't wear the combat infantry badge or the close combat badge – not because females haven't seen combat but because they can't serve in the units that are authorized to wear them. Infantry, armor and the other combat arms branches are the coolest branches in the Army – watch any recruiting video if you don't believe me – and these are the branches which command the most respect. Females are only allowed to serve in support jobs, and since support jobs are seen as something to do if you can't hack it in combat arms, most males in the army automatically assume we're worthless. This is an attitude that's deeply ingrained – many males don't even think women belong in the Army at all – and it can be very tough to change, if you manage to change it at all.

But that still doesn't answer the question -- where do I think female soldiers belong? It's not that I don't think female soldiers can hack it in dangerous situations, because we can. We get shot at, we shoot back, we kick doors in, we guard towers...we do a lot of what the male soldiers do, but usually with shittier equipment and no air support. The problem comes in when you look at the dynamics of males and females together...out here...alone...for months on end. A lot of the females in my unit are sluts, not to put too fine a point on it. People are at it like rabbits out here, and I think that some women would be a real distraction if combat arms units were mixed. I know a lot of females who could do it, but I know a lot of females I wouldn't trust to fire a gun properly unless the dangerous end was labeled. Of course, none of that matters -- what the article illustrates well is that like it or not, we're IN combat already. Iraq is not a conventional war zone...there's no front line. All of the convoys out of the gate are vulnerable to IEDs or insurgant attacks, every area gets mortored, we're all in danger. We're doing the job, so unless you want to pull all women out of Iraq, shut up and let us keep doing it.