Did anyone have the chance to read Kathleen Parker's most recent article entitled "Women in Combat, Foolish?" Parker, a conservative pundit syndicated through The Washington Post Writers Group, wrote that having women assigned to combat is "a terrible idea." Her logic for believing women should never be allowed to fight in combat for their nation? Ready for this? Parker claims women "through quirks of biology and human nature are not equal to men." But how so? She goes on to claim that women lack the "aggression" hormone of testosterone than 18 year old boys have and that "Females have only half the upper body strength as males - no small point in the field." Sound familiar? It does to me. It reminds me of the tired rhetoric of the past that women could never be firefighters because they could never handle the tasks a fireman could handle. But haven't some women proven they can handle those tasks? Isn't it true that even some men fail the physical tests required to become a fireman?
Which gets to my main point. Generalizations lead to stereotypes, and Parker's column is laced with them about women. She even goes on to claim "most women tend to be superior to men in other areas, like our educational graduation rates at every level..." Would that not have something to do with the fact that we have more females in our population than males? What would women say if men perpetuated the myth that males were superior to women because they are simply stronger in muscle and in mind, as proven by the emotional "swings" women have due to their "delicate" nature? If Parker's statements don't insult women, I can't think of anything that would.
But Parker did not end with just these demeaning excuses for her gender. She writes further that "Combat means AGGRESSIVELY ENGAGING AND ATTACKING the enemy with deliberate offensive actions, with a high probability of face to face contact." As a father of a daughter, a former coach and an educator, I can affirmatively tell you girls have NO PROBLEM competing face to face in competitive sports. In fact, it could be argued that females use their emotion to be overly aggressive when dealing with others. Parker also claims that women would be more vulnerable to terrible things that men would not be exposed to - like rape. Now I have no statistics on male on male rape in the military, but there are substantial records of sexual battery and rape already existing in our military. But more importantly, the stress of possibly having limbs blown off or vital organs shot apart might possibly rank right up there with a potential sexual assault in the event a female soldier is captured. But according to Parker, there is no reason to put "American girls and women in the hands of enemy men."
If women enter the military as a career with the objective of rising to top command positions that require combat experience, then why should they be denied those opportunities? Can you remember the notion that Blacks could not fight or fly fighter planes because they lacked the intelligence needed or were "too emotional?" Sound familiar? If females can meet the same physical demands males are required to meet, then why should they not be granted the same opportunity to serve their country and climb the command and control ladder in the military? Sorry Ms. Parker, but in this day and age, you are the one being "foolish." The men and women of the US Military serve proudly and deserve equal opportunity and our respect!
Which gets to my main point. Generalizations lead to stereotypes, and Parker's column is laced with them about women. She even goes on to claim "most women tend to be superior to men in other areas, like our educational graduation rates at every level..." Would that not have something to do with the fact that we have more females in our population than males? What would women say if men perpetuated the myth that males were superior to women because they are simply stronger in muscle and in mind, as proven by the emotional "swings" women have due to their "delicate" nature? If Parker's statements don't insult women, I can't think of anything that would.
But Parker did not end with just these demeaning excuses for her gender. She writes further that "Combat means AGGRESSIVELY ENGAGING AND ATTACKING the enemy with deliberate offensive actions, with a high probability of face to face contact." As a father of a daughter, a former coach and an educator, I can affirmatively tell you girls have NO PROBLEM competing face to face in competitive sports. In fact, it could be argued that females use their emotion to be overly aggressive when dealing with others. Parker also claims that women would be more vulnerable to terrible things that men would not be exposed to - like rape. Now I have no statistics on male on male rape in the military, but there are substantial records of sexual battery and rape already existing in our military. But more importantly, the stress of possibly having limbs blown off or vital organs shot apart might possibly rank right up there with a potential sexual assault in the event a female soldier is captured. But according to Parker, there is no reason to put "American girls and women in the hands of enemy men."
If women enter the military as a career with the objective of rising to top command positions that require combat experience, then why should they be denied those opportunities? Can you remember the notion that Blacks could not fight or fly fighter planes because they lacked the intelligence needed or were "too emotional?" Sound familiar? If females can meet the same physical demands males are required to meet, then why should they not be granted the same opportunity to serve their country and climb the command and control ladder in the military? Sorry Ms. Parker, but in this day and age, you are the one being "foolish." The men and women of the US Military serve proudly and deserve equal opportunity and our respect!
RSS Feed
