I know as a feminist I’m supposed to be happy about this, but I’m not. I’m not really for killing people overall – not capital punishment or military killing either. I make an exception for very extreme cases, like if someone is about to kill you or someone else. I wish men and women would be pulled out of combat. Of course I don’t believe women should have a glass ceiling that prevents them from parity with men, but how can anyone be happy about going to war???
And in my experience/observation, women aren’t as strong as men physically. Of course there are exceptions, but by and large. I wonder if men will be more lenient on women in combat. Will rape increase or decrease? Army Times says the inequity has aggravated rape.
I’ve also heard there is no real combat anymore, but how can that be true? The forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are all guerrilla forces, so it’s not the same as a standing army, but soldiers are still in violent situations in which they must kill or be killed. Sounds like the connotation of “combat” if not the exact denotation.
But if combat is rarer, then it makes sense the military finally gave up on the no women clause – it may be a non-issue. Apparently, women have been going into combat for centuries anyway, often disguised as men, specifically during the Civil War. While I’m not exactly eager to see the results of the lift on the ban, I wonder if much will change. Congress passed the thirteenth amendment ending slavery, but the blacks were still not exactly free, and much work is ahead before true parity is reached.
One feminist wrote that women are supposed to be the moral ones, and if they’re out there killing people, they give that role up. Why does it seem like certain efforts at equality seem to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator instead of lifting up to the highest ideal?