Stone 6

Brittany Stone

AP EnglishIII-7

Mr.Brown

18 May 2007

Women on the Front Lines

A hot Iraqi sun beamed down upon the soldiers of the 617th Military Police Company, a National Guard unit out of Richmond, KY. The squad was shadowing a supply convoy March 20, 2005 when anti-Iraqi fighters ambushed them. The squad moved to the side of the road, flanking the insurgents and cutting off their escape route. Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester led her team through the ‘kill zone’ and into a flanking position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenade-launcher rounds. She and Staff Sgt. Timothy Nein, her squad leader, then cleared two trenches, at which time she killed three insurgents with her rifle. When the fight was over, 27 insurgents were dead, six were wounded, and one was captured. Resulting from her courageous leadership, Hester was the first woman soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for award of the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction. (Wood)

Since the beginning, valiant soldiers like Joan of Arc have tried to redefine the role of women in combat. The brave young woman took it upon herself to lead France to victory in a war against England. In the United States, the bravery of; Rachel and Grace Martin, Anne Warner Bailey, Anne Trotter Bailey, Deborah Samson, Margaret Corbin, Angelica Vrooman, Mary Hagidorn, Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley (Molly Pitcher), Sarah Emma Edmonds, Jennie Hodgers, Mary Walker, Madame Loreta Velazquez, a young girl known only as Emily, Pauline Cushman, Ginnie and Lottie Moon, Emmiline Piggott, Elizabeth C. Howland, Susie Baker, Cathay Williams, Annie Etheridge, Lucy Brewer, Sarah Borginis, Ellen May Tower, Clara Maass, Annie Oakley, Mary Livermore, and Dr. Anita Newcomb McGee spanned the series of history to fight in secret for their country from the American Revolution until the War of 1812. Endearing proof that in a time of war, all ready and willing hands need the opportunity to fight, and if they are not allowed, they will find new means to accomplish their goal. (Wilson) If women have been fighting to defend the country that they love, then why does such a controversy of their competency exist? The point is that women should have the same opportunity to die for their country the exact same ways as men.

Opponents declare numerous reasons why they feel that the female race is unfit for the front battle lines. To begin, women, since the beginning of time, are and have been viewed as the weaker sex. The predominant assumption that women possess weaker upper bodies, and that fighting in the infantry requires higher than normal upper body strength, reigns as one of the many key factors to ‘define’ the role of women in the front lines. However, ladies are not hindered merely by upper body strength, or lack thereof, but by their anatomy as well. Every month, of course, women experience a ‘visit from George’, or their menstrual cycles and women on the front lines would not have the same access to sanitary items and would be limited in the amount of showers that they could take that normal female foot soldiers would have more availability to. Women are also seen as nurtures and procreators. Critics feel that if young women in their reproductive prime were subjected to combat as the active part of a draft, which the very survival of humanity would be at risk. Another key reason is another natural state of womanhood, pregnancy, whereas women are unemployable. Although women have very special needs that require attention, a great many reasons exist to prove they’re fit for combat.

The first problem of women being viewed as the weaker sex has been nearly defeated by the recent rising standards for all cadets in the military, and the shrinking gap between women and men athletically. “The Army developed physical standards in 1984 by testing a large group of soldiers without familiarizing or training them on the new events and then recording the scores. The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) minimum standard became the number of pushups and sit-ups and a 2-mile run time recorded by soldiers at the bottom 90 that passed. In sum, the Army’s landmark 1984 APFT makeover, intended to bring soldiers to higher level of health and physical readiness, was based on the achievements of the 11th percentile. Men’s standards were actually high enough to be challenging and realistic. The youngest men, 18 to 21 years old, had to perform a minimum of 42 pushups and 52 sit-ups, and run 2 miles in 15:54 to pass the APFT. However, women’s standards were much lower. The youngest women had to do 18 pushups and 50 sit-ups and run 2 miles in 18:54. Comparatively, women did 43 percent of the upper body-work that men did, performed roughly the same amount of abdominal work, and ran 84 percent of the man’s minimum. These scores do not correspond with a woman’s physiological potential. Assuming that most soldiers train to meet rather than exceed APFT standards, Army women since 1984 have done only about 64 of the upper body work of which they are capable and about 90 of their ability of the 2-mile run. By the mid 1990’s, the Army, realizing its standards were too low i9n some place s and too high in others, rewrote the APFT’s minimum standards. As of 1999, women and men are required to do the same number of sit-ups across all age groups. The Army also increased the minimum number of pushups for the youngest women, by one. The 2-mile run time minimums remained the same. In determining the standards, the Army used the 1984 testing strategy, eliminating the bottom 10 as failures and adopting the next lowest score as the new minimum standard. Participants were not put through a special physical training program to raise standards. Soldiers had performed against the 1984 standards throughout their periods of service and performed predictably.” (Wojack) ”Privacy and hygiene needs are the next issue. The Army discovered that by using common sense and having a respect for each other’s needs, men and women could share limited latrines and showers without incident. And women now have access to birth control such as the Depro Privera birth control patch to limit menstruation to just four times a year, so the ‘visit from George’ will not be something to worry about.” (Lett) To address the role of women as valuable producers, “the actual number of women in direct combat would probably be quite low and no one can imagine the number exceeding even close to 25 of troops even in the distant future even after extensive integration. With 10 divisions in the Active Army totaling 500,000, 25 equals to 20,000 women in direct combat roles. Twenty thousand represents about .03 percent of the approx. 60 million American Women in reproductive prime. Canada, a nation with armed forces of about 65,000 currently has six women infantry soldiers.” (Campbell) “And pregnancy, during the Gulf War, the amount of pregnancies during the war were the same as those during peacetime. And it has even been suggested that, as a temporary disability, men missed more work time during sports injuries than women missed while pregnant.” (Wilson)

Another key point to look at is that when African American’s were integrated into the armed forces in 1948. “Based on unit cohesion alone this was a risky move that most whites and many blacks opposed. Whites argued that black soldiers were unreliable and careless and black soldiers maintained that they would not get fair treatment in racially integrated units. After integration, blacks and whites agreed that black soldiers performed better in racially mixed units because the competition with white soldiers improved not only their soldier skills but also their self-confidence as well. Researchers at this time also found that desegregation did not hurt combat effectiveness. Residual racism still existed, but it was offset by the realization that blacks could be as competent at soldiering as whites and that formal integration was improving black-soldiers skills. Interestingly, black soldiers’ complaints of racism or unfair treatment actually decreased in integrated units.” (Mershon and Schlossman) In conclusion, the evidence speaks for itself. Women are more than qualified to uphold the same military status positions as men and are more than capable of holding their own in the lines of battle. Gender should not be the factor in determining the strength of a country’s armed forces. Since September 11, many women have joined to fight for their beloved country but were denied the privilege, or curse, to look the enemy in the eye and do their duty; to themselves, to their loved ones, and America.