In January 2013 the Petagon officially lifted the ban on women in combat roles. In the Army units are designated as either combat or non-combat arms. Women were barred from serving in combat arms. Combat arms are units such as infantry and artillery. They are traditionally placed on the front lines. But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have blurred these lines and thus women and men fought along side each other.
I've found two blogs that address this topic and both promote lifting the ban. They are "Women in Combat(Roles)" by David Silbey and "Women in Combat" by Mike LaBossiere. Both bloggers use logic to defy stereotypes about the capabilities of women in combat.
It's funny to note that Silbey's blog relies on testimony from another article written by himself. He actually uses block qoutes to reference himself. But that does not detract from his argument. He makes an appeal to ethos when he addresses typical arguments that are made against women in combat. That women threaten unit cohesion, are physically weaker than men, and the possibility of sexual assault.
He doesnt try to counter the first argument but as regards to women being physically weaker he provides an interesting fact about the physical requirements for British men serving in WWI. He points out that these requirments are typically met today by the average woman, that back then working class men who failed to meet the requirements served anyway, and boys as young as 12 were able to slip through. He concludes this point by saying that "there are no definitive standards on what makes a soldier." While I don't necessarily agree with the last sentiment, I do agree that when there is a drastic need to be filled physical standards do become lax.
The second blog by LaBossiere makes a stronger case for lifting the ban because he both addresses and refutes each of the counter arguments made. As regards to the threat of unit cohesion, LaBossiere points out that the military provides enough training to make professionals out of the men and women. That even in the stress of combat most are capable of acting as professionals.
As regards to men being physically superior to women, he logically points out that this is a mere generality. That there are clearly individual women who are stronger than the average man. He actually proposes a solution to this problem. As of right now there are two seperate standards as regard to physical fitness for men and women. The author suggest tieing physical standards not to gender but to the job specified in the military.
This is a clever solution that I didn't even consider while serving in the army. This will essentially remove the perception of double standards regarding men and women in the military. Double standards that I can attest too caused real resentment amongst the men in the units.
Thus both articles provided support of lifting the ban of women in combat. Instead of making impassioned pleas they realied on logic to support their arguments.
I think that LaBossiere poses a better argument as well because the role of women in combat roles doesn't have to ignite a war between feminist and anti-feminist groups. If men and women have the same physical requirements, the sexes of those who do not meet the minimum requirements will have no reason to complain because they would be cut based on their abilities (or lack thereof), as opposed to inequality. If a different physical standard is required for each specific job, those who lose out on one job may qualify for another.
ReplyDeleteI found it really interesting that both articles, which were both in support of women in combat, were actually written by men. I think this is a strong appeal to ethos because it gives the issue more credibility to be written from a male's viewpoint. On such a hot issue, it was wise of the others to appeal more to the reader's logic rather then their emotion by taking arguments against their view and countering those arguments with concrete facts.
ReplyDelete