This page was last updated on January 29, 2013.
Death to Prince Charming; Kirstin Kennedy – BCT editorial board; Beaver County Times; January 25, 2013. This editorial appeared only in the print edition of the BCT. I apologize for any transcription errors.
Like Messrs. Patrick O’Shea and J.D. Prose, Ms. Kennedy is a part-time BCT reporter in addition to being a pundit.
Below is a detailed critique of portions of this column.
“One of the last great gender inequalities died Thursday when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on female soldiers serving in frontline combat. That was not just a generous salute to women. Nor was it simply a hat’s-off recognition to the female 14 percent of the U.S. military. Panetta’s action signaled a progressive step, forward march, if you will. By recognizing gender equality in the military, this country recognizes that the requirements for professional soldiering are not just male characteristics.”
[RWC] The silly editorial title pretty much tells you all you need to know about this piece. As you’ll see, it appears little research went into this editorial.
Women in “serving in frontline combat” is nothing new. Female fighter-jet pilots have flown combat patrols since at least 1995 and have participated in combat since at least 2004. The lifted ban was on females serving as members of ground combat units like the infantry.
Ms. Kennedy failed to note Sec. Panetta lifted the ban on his way out the door.
Did you notice the “progressive step, forward march” comment? I have little doubt Ms. Kennedy and the rest of the BCT editorial board are so-called “progressives” (one of the leftist variants) and the Obama 2012 campaign slogan was “Forward.” Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
“The issue of sheer physical strength, the only real differentiating attribute between men and women, is no longer a factor on the modern battle field. Today’s frontline combat requires mental strength, physical know-how and specific training; things that all the right ladies are just as qualified to do as all the right guys.”
[RWC] If Ms. Kennedy really believes “sheer physical strength … is no longer a factor on the modern battle field,” perhaps she watched too many episodes of “Nikita” and “Xena: Warrior Princess.” Ms. Kennedy should interview Marine Corps Captain Katie Petronio, author of “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal” in Marine Corps Gazette. Capt. Petronio “is a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, [Capt. Petronio] was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations.”
I don’t know about the Marine Corps, but the Army has different physical performance requirements for men and women. Will female recruits now be required to meet the same physical requirements as male recruits? If not, wouldn’t that put both female and male infantrymen in greater peril? What will happen to requirements when women are “underrepresented” in combat units? Further, there is any number of studies that show women sustain higher injury rates than men during basic training. At one point during the late-1990s, male and female recruits were not allowed to engage each other in physical training activities because the women sustained more injuries engaging male recruits than they did other female recruits. I don’t know if that remains the case. Beyond the obvious, female and male bodies are built differently and no amount of proclaiming otherwise will change it.
“Physical strength [is] the only real differentiating attribute between men and women?” Sure.
As for “today’s frontline combat requires mental strength, physical know-how and specific training,” that’s always been the case.
“Now women throughout the armed forces can seek the training and combat experience that will grant them the opportunity to advance in all military echelons. With so many leadership positions throughout the armed forces dependent on combat experience, the end of the gender ban means genuine opportunity for women.”
[RWC] Ms. Kennedy thinks “genuine opportunity” for promotion is a good reason to put someone in combat? If more promotions to “leadership positions” are a major goal as Ms. Kennedy appears to believe, what will happen to requirements when women are “underrepresented” in combat units? After all, if women are underrepresented in combat experience, they will be underrepresented in “leadership positions.” How will Ms. Kennedy correct that disparity?
“The decision to allow women in combat deepens our culture’s trust in the American woman. In the past decades, we have realized that women can build bridges, run businesses and, now, protect our homeland just as well as Prince Charming on his white horse. By recognizing this trust in women, we also deepen our trust in men. We trust that men in the military will work with women, not as protectors but as members of a community working for a common goal.”
[RWC] What a crock! Who doesn’t “trust in the American woman?” I think this comment says far more about Ms. Kennedy and the rest of the BCT editorial board than “our culture.”
Building bridges and running businesses don’t require carrying a 75-pound knapsack on your back plus your weaponry. It’s also important to remember increased female participation in some traditionally-male occupations was made possible by technology that reduced the physical strength required to do the job. That is not the case for an infantryman. While technology has made and will continue to make a soldier’s equipment lighter, the overall weight won’t change because the soldier will take the opportunity to carry more ammunition, equipment, etc.
“So, for the romantics out there, does this mean that the idea of chivalry has completely been put to rest? Yes. And if you don’t take a sigh of relief in that, you obviously don’t realize the damage that such a medieval notion has caused. It is demeaning and hollow to look at women as a group that needs to be protected. Mothers, daughters and sisters have the will and the sense to provide security. Women always have been protectors, and now they can do it without restraint in the military.”
[RWC] “It is demeaning and hollow to look at women as a group that needs to be protected?” I agree, but when will the left quit telling us otherwise?
Let me state I have neither military nor behavioral science experience or expertise. What I write below just seems to make sense. At the risk of being labeled ignorant and a sexist, here goes.
Just about every rule has exceptions, so I have no doubt some relatively small number of women can meet the same physical requirements as men. Fine, but what about behavioral issues? One of the reasons I oppose women serving in combat roles alongside men has to do with the sexual tension present in mixed groups and the potential effects on the mission even if full-blown romance doesn’t break out. The fact non-pregnant sailors leave on an aircraft carrier but a number return pregnant makes it obvious sex isn’t checked at the dock. While we were discussing another topic about a year ago, a local woman (generally NOT a fan of mine) who served in the Army wrote, “I share your views on women in combat. Not because of ‘sexual tension,’ but because a woman who is captured will certainly undergo different treatment (i.e., torture and rape) than a male, and her ‘battle buddies’ know it - thus they will be more likely to risk their own lives and/or mission to protect her beyond reason.”
I don’t believe our armed forces should serve as a behavioral science lab for politically-correct social policies.
What about fiscal consideration? Does it make sense to reallocate scarce tax dollars to accommodate what I expect to be a handful of female infantrymen and a tiny fraction of infantrymen overall?
Finally, I didn’t see Ms. Kennedy mention starting registration of women for potential drafts. Consider what the U. S. Supreme Court said (Rostker v. Goldberg) when it ruled excluding women from registration was constitutional: “Women as a group, however, unlike men as a group, are not eligible for combat. … The existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress’ decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.” Translation: Removing the combat restrictions for women means excluding women from registration is unconstitutional.
© 2004-2013 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.