Equal Value Different Roles

I wrote this essay in response to the Governments act of opening all combat roles to women. 

 “We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us”(Churchill). Winston S. Churchill, referring to the military, spoke of how the bravery of men is imperative for the survival of the country. They keep it safe and free. Because safety is a priority, nothing should impede the efficiency and strength of the military. Recently, the U.S. government has opened all positions in the military to women. Such a drastic change should be evaluated carefully before putting it into action. Research and casual observations prove this an unwise decision. Women’s presence on the front lines in the military weakens fighting forces, makes them less efficient, and opposes God’s intentions for women.

With less than ideal physiology for combat, women weaken combat forces. No one can deny that women, as a majority, are physically weaker than men. Army Physical Fitness Tests even recognize this fact by allowing women to pass with lower standards than men. On Military.com, the chart for Army Basic Training PFT requires men to be able to do at least thirty-five pushups and women to be able to do only thirteen. It also allows women to have slower running times. Yes, there probably are women strong enough to pass the men’s test, but those numbers are few and scarce.  As a result, a woman may not be able to carry her wounded male comrade out of a combat zone. The strongest man will always be stronger than the strongest woman. Also, physical strength is not the only hindering variable; women’s bone structure differs from men’s making them more prone to injury. “In females, the pelvic bones are shorter and more rounded, and the surrounding bones (tailbone, remaining hip bones, etc.) are designed to be more flexible to accommodate gestation and child delivery” (Main). In addition, females, on average, tend to have less bone mass due to smaller growing period; men’s bones grow until they are twenty-one, while women’s only grow for eighteen years. As a result of these physical contrasts, women succumb to significantly more injuries than men.  In a congressional record, Prof. Charles Moskos, a respected military sociologist and member of congressional port, said, “I am particularly perturbed by the higher injury rate of women trainees compared to men.” He was “put off” by the “double talk in training standards” that “obscured the physical strength differences between men and women.”(“Congressional Record”) Women’s bodies were wonderfully designed to carry babies, not hoist 80-100 lbs. of weight through a battle zone. Though politically correct, when the weakened United States forces war with other countries, especially those that care nothing about “gender equality,” it will result in much more casualties and fatalities than necessary. Integrating women harms combat units, making them weaker, increasing the risks of casualties and failure.

Aside from women’s physical differences taking its toll on a combat units’ strength, integrated forces prove less efficient. It is common knowledge to know that putting men and women in close quarters in a high-stress environment is bound to incite all sorts of temptations. Some argue that the same logic can be applied to homosexual men as well, but this argument, though valid is less of a danger due to the small percentage of homosexuals in the military. Nonetheless, such assaults on men do occur, which is why the removal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law was harmful; however, the military still suffers less from men-on-men assaults because they are not reproductive acts. It only takes one person to make a mistake for a whole mission to be forfeited. Even if the man is at fault, he can still return to fighting, but under military regulations the pregnant woman must be sent back, in consideration of the life of the child. This type of situation comes nowhere near to a “rare occurrence.” Nearly 11% of more than 7,000 active duty women surveyed by the department of defense in 2008 reported an unplanned pregnancy during the previous year”(Wilson). That amounts to 50% more than the average rate in the whole United States. Such high rates cost the military time, money, and efficiency. Once a pregnant woman is sent home, missions stall when waiting for a replacement. Besides loss of time, it also costs the military $10,000 to send a single woman home. Though, the incidence of pregnancy comes not only from deported Servicewomen but also Servicewomen serving in garrison.  According to a study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, this problem negatively impacts not only the “health of military personnel” but also “troop readiness”(Wilson). In addition, men and women tend to develop relationships and along with relationships tends to come strife, jealousy, and discord. A soldier’s attention should be solely focused on his mission, not distracted by relationship complications. “Combat units are intensely cooperative and placing a scarce resource (women) within them creates a disruptive competition”(Browne). The trust foundation of unit cohesion fractures when men, who “are disinclined to trust women in dangerous situations”(Browne), worry whether they won’t be able to accomplish a task because they pale in strength. Moreover, “the rough camaraderie in which men engage to build cohesion will lead to sexual harassment charges by women, so women will be excluded from these important activities”(Browne). Men are inclined to distrust women, doubting whether their female counter-parts have the ability or the will to back them up. Men naturally feel defensive of women and tend to make unwise decisions and go out of their way to protect them. The difference and relationship between men and women bar general efficiency of an integrated military unit.

Women’s place on the front lines not only hampers combat troops’ unity, but it also opposes God’s purpose for men and women. In the Bible the man is revealed as a protector. The example of ultimate manhood in Christ echoes through out the Bible as men take the initiative to protect women. Jesus, as the ultimate paradigm of how a husband relates to his wife, came into the world to “destroy the enemies of his bride (1 John 3:8)”(Piper). In fact, only cowardly men would arm women to fight for them. That is not saying women lack the courage or ability to accomplish acts of valor.  But, many factors other than valor go into fitting a person for combat. God purposed men to lead, protect, and provide. When God went into the Garden of Eden he calls, “Adam, where are you?” not “Eve, where are you?” God addresses the man: the leader, the provider, the protector. Consider, would it not be spineless for a man to tell his wife to check the house for danger while he stayed behind in the bedroom? Absolutely! Is it not even more faint-hearted for men to send women off to fight a battle for them? Even most secularists respect chivalry. The night of the shooting at the theater in Aurora, Colorado, in 2012, three men died saving the lives of their girlfriends. When the assault began each man responded by shoving his girlfriends under her seat out of the line of fire, “shielding their girlfriends from bullets”(Grenoble) with their own bodies. All died saving their partners; the only wounds the girls received were from bullets passing through their boyfriend’s bodies. When the stories emerged, these men were honored as “the heroes who took action”(Grenoble) by almost everyone, including President Obama. Who would not honor these men? They selflessly shielded their women from harm. In summary, through the picture of His son and His beautiful design, God intended man to be the leader, provider, and protector of the human race, not women.

Though not politically correct to say, women and men differ in role and ability. The possibility exists that a minority percentage of women can be found who can carry 100-pound loads and even pass [Army] Ranger School; however, the Army would have to supply extra training for women to help them reach the same strength as a man. Is equality worth the loss of life that may occur as a result of a less effective combat unit? It is not equality to allow inefficiency that will cost lives.  Some argue that we must maintain gender equality. All jobs that are open to men should be open to women.  People’s overuse of “equality” led it to becoming a buzzword.  Equality is “the state or quality of being the same as; equal; correspondence in quality, degree, value, rank, or ability”(Dictionary.com). Treating women the same as men does not correctly define gender equality.  Men and women vary physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Both sexes have equal worth and value, but they clearly were meant for different roles. Men and women are equal in importance. In the history of mankind, men have always been the warrior class.  A second reason why political correctness weakens military forces arises when battling countries that care nothing about gender equality. A co-ed combat unit facing a men-only force will result in more casualties from being significantly weaker. Furthermore, when it comes to prisoners and hostages, women can be decidedly more vulnerable. Although for all prisoners possibilities of being harassed exist, women prisoners are more inclined to be subjects to such violence by their brutal captors. Certainly women may desire to fight for their country, and can in some ways; however, the price our country must pay to allow them in combat roles is far too great.

In short, the cost of allowing women to fight in combat situations is not worth paying simply for the sake of gender equality. In Professional sports they separate men and women because an integrated football team would not play well against an all-male team. In the case of the military, where strength is paramount to winning and defending, integration weakens and encumbers those abilities. It comes down where our hearts lie, do we care more about our country’s strength or political correctness? 

Work Cited

Grenoble, Ryan. "'Dark Knight' Shooting: 3 Boyfriends Die Shielding Girlfriends During Aurora

                         Massacre (VIDEO, PHOTO)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 July 2012. Web.

           13 Jan. 2016.

Piper, John. "More on Women in Combat." Desiring God. 4 Nov. 2007. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.

Wilson, Jacque. "Unplanned Pregnancies May Be on Rise in Military - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 24 Jan. 
                           2013. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.

"Congressional Record, V. 149, Pt. 11, June 20, 2003 to June 19, 2003." Google Books. 11 June 2003.Web. 13 Jan. 2016.

Smith, Stew. "Army Basic Training PFT." Military.com. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.

Rippetoe, Mark. "Women in Ground Combat." Women in Ground Combat. TNation, 27 Nov. 2015. Web.13 Jan. 2016.

Piper, John. "The Folly of Men Arming Women for Combat." Desiring God. 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.

Piper, John. "Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice." Desiring God. 2 Nov. 2007. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.

Jordan, Bryant. "Data Predict Spike in Female Troop Injuries." Military.com. 13 Jan. 2014. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.

Simons, Anna. "Here's Why Women in Combat Units Is a Bad Idea - War on the Rocks." War on the                             Rocks. Charlie Mike, 18 Nov. 2014. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.

"Marine Study: Women in Combat Injured More Often Than Men." Military.com. UPI, 11 Sept. 2015. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.