Women in Combat

There's been a lot of talk in the news lately about female soldiers for a variety of reasons:

1) Women being allowed to fight on the front lines

2) Sexual assault claims

3) Special forces opening to women

I'm only talking about 1 and 3, although 2 plays its part.

Women in America have been pushing for a long time to be allowed to fight on the front lines and to try out for the Special Forces.

Think about that for a second.

To be allowed.

I don't know how to explain how wrong this issue is any better than that. Who is anyone to tell a grown woman that she can't fight for her country in the capacity she's capable of? We're told that "Americans do not want their women hunting and killing the enemy". Well sorry, nameless and faceless Americans, but I don't care what you want.

The main argument against fully integrating (yeah, these arguments always look so good later on in history, huh?) women into the armed forces comes from plaintive cries of WHY DON'T YOU REALIZE WOMEN'S PHYSIOLOGY IS DIFFERENT, THEY ARE WEEEEAAAAAKKKK. And it is absolutely true that a majority of women have different capabilities than men.

Were you listening? I said *different*.

See, what usually happens during the passionate spiels by men about how it simply does not make biological sense for women to be allowed (allowed) in combat, is at some point they will slip and say something like, "War is brutal and bloody. It's no place for women." and, "This isn't Women's Rights 101 for the feminazis". At which point I stop having any respect for their point of view, because it is clearly coming from a place of agenda. And the agenda is to deny the basic right of autonomy to 51% of the population in order to keep the status quo in place.

If these hand-wringers were actually worried about the optimal utilization of female soldiers instead of WE CAN'T LET THE WIMMENS JUST DO WHATEVER THEY WANT GAWD DO YOU KNOW HOW HARRRRD IT WILL BE FOR US TO DEAL WITH, they would be begging The Powers That Be not for restrictions on female soldiers, but to apply brainpower to finding the best use for female soldiers.

Because while most women are not physically capable in the same way as men, not all men are huge hulking brutes easily capable of tossing a 250 pound fallen comrade over their shoulder on the way out of a firefight. There are variations in build amongst men, and the military has shockingly seemed capable of adapting to use all these different men in the best possible way.

Fully integrating female soldiers into the military does require more serious thought - but not about whether we should do it. Women are not nails, and dear old Judeo-Christian patriarchy is not a hammer. Good leadership utilizes its assets by understanding the strengths of its individuals. If the military is unable to use female soldiers effectively, it's not the fault of female soldiers - it's the fault of shoddy leadership.

Only a hundred years ahead of her time

Recently the US military opened frontline combat positions to women.

In April 1898, sharpshooter Annie Oakley sent a letter to President McKinley asking for permission to create a team of 50 women sharpshooters (outfitted and trained at their - aka her - own expense) for use in the Spanish-American War.

When her offer was declined, she raised money for the Red Cross by holding sharpshooting demonstrations. And she offered again before World War I, but the answer was the same.

In her time, Annie was known for her conservative outfits compared to her more risque female entertainers - she wanted people to pay attention to her skill, not her body. She married a man that she met when she beat him in a shooting match. She donated huge amounts of money to charity, up to and including melting down her shooting medals and donating those.

That's a woman worth making proud, and I think Annie Oakley would be proud to see every step we take closer to true equality.

A picture of the letter, from this source