"It is not appropriate for women to engage in combat ... to be captured or to be shot, as opposed to pushing a button someplace in a missile silo."The issue of expanding the list of military jobs available to women has been with us for quite some time. With the Bill Clinton presidency, however, the demands by women's activists and others have reached a fever pitch. It's been my observation, though, that the discussion has virtually always been framed in terms of the right of women to choose (sound familiar?) participation in those job categories that were (1) most exciting or glamorous, and/or (2) that have the best potential for contributing to military career progression.-- Sandra Day O'Connor, Supreme Court Justice
For men, the words rights and military simply don't go together; never have, and (maybe) never will. A male in the United States of America has a legally imposed military obligation. Though he may never have that debt called in, it exists from age 18 until his 26th birthday. Under current law, only men are required to register for the draft. For those who defy that law, its teeth include being convicted of a felony, never being eligible for federally-backed education loans, a fine of up to $250,000 and up to five years imprisonment.
In the military, prospective parenthood only generates more responsibility for the male service member. It does not offer reassignment to light duty or an early, honorable discharge as it does for a woman.
Many men's activists, this writer included, believe we should put women on an absolute par with men regarding military service. In fact, an affirmative action program is clearly in order.
Women should face the same draft registration requirements. Next, women should be drafted into active duty in numbers large enough so that their representation in the military corresponds to their percentage in our population. Third, we should allow no gender discrimination whatsoever regarding duty assignments or job placement. This last policy would also cover parenthood status considerations. (What's good for mothers should be good for fathers.)
If the above proposal isn't palatable to a majority of our citizens and/or legislators, then a second-best alternative would be to effect the opposite, i.e. completely eliminate women from the armed forces. Because at least when women aren't present in the military system, men have the maximum chance possible of being ordered to less dangerous support positions, many of which have job counterparts in the civilian workforce. There's no dishonor involved in this passive method of avoiding combat or no-brain grunt duty. It's just the luck of the draw. In fact, if you're ordered to a job as a stateside typist, you have no more choice in the matter than the man assigned to war-zone, infantry duty. You are simply following orders.
But when the combat jobs can't be filled by women, and women decide that they want to exercise their right to wear the uniform, they most often win their veteran status at (for example) computer terminals, in Army hospitals, and at peaceful duty stations; and the men who take the oath the same day are left with the dirty work. Note that during the Vietnam war, women comprised 3.1 percent of the armed forces, but only a minuscule 0.0001 of the dead (of over 58,100 casualties, only 8 were women). Among those who consider the lives and bodies of men and women to be of equal value, I can't imagine how this disparity can be justified!
Though if it can be justified (or at least easily ignored) we can choose to do nothing -- leaving the system just the way it is. Or, we could just make a few minor adjustments -- like allowing women the thrills and prestige of being fighter pilots, but not in combat where they can get shot down in enemy territory. Then the task will be to explain to this nation's young men why it is that their lives and bodies are worth less than those of their sisters. The barn yard will prove to be a valuable metaphor in this situation. Tell the men as they register that "the farmer" (our country) values cows most highly of all, while more than one bull is superfluous.
Email to the Editor: If you don't want your email to be considered for publication in the "Email to the Editor" column, say so.