A few nights ago I asked my ex-Marine husband how women dealt with menstruation in a makeshift camp in the middle of the desert. He didn’t really know, but he thought they must travel stocked with tampons. He went on to inform me that some argue menstruation is reason enough to not allow women into combat units. I rolled my eyes. Then he said, “I think the opposite could be true. What they should do is get all the military women synched up [yes, I taught him that] and unleash them all at once on an enemy. Never underestimate the power of PMS.”


Initially, I wasn’t sure how to take this. I was still reeling from the Dodge Charger ad and its blistering YouTube response, which suggests that men believe the main reason women get angry is because they have PMS. As if there was nothing tangible for a woman to be screaming about; it’s all just female hormones. Had my husband been a woman and made the PMS comment, I probably wouldn’t have prickled. But of course, I was on my period, and I took offense. “You have to admit though,” he said, “some women use PMS as an excuse to be bitchy.” I do in fact hate when women do that, so I agreed, and that matter was dropped.

It is true that American women, while officially banned from combat units, experience most of the same dangers of war that men do. Every time you leave the compound, an IED or rocket propelled grenades are imminent. And the weapons don’t really care if you’re male or female. I asked my husband to outline the reasons against women serving on the front lines (both of us were unsure of our positions, and we wanted to examine the issue critically. Yes, this is what we do at night). What came out was:

  • Women aren’t as strong as men. If she had to carry a soldier on her back in a combat zone, could she do it?

Why it’s wrong: Women soldiers should have to pass the same physical fitness tests as men, like firefighters and police officers. A man doing 30 pull-ups and a woman hanging on the pull-up bar for 30 seconds are not the same. If she can pass the tests, she can do the job.

  • Women have PMS. Stuck in a foxhole for days, she might go postal, possibly on her own unit.

Why it’s wrong: I suppose a woman might go insane in a combat zone. I suppose a man might go insane in a combat zone. Soldiers with verifiable psychological conditions are not sent to the frontlines. If we keep women back too, I guess that means all women are psychotic. Good thing we don’t have them working as doctors and teachers. Oh wait…

  • Women are mothers who would leave shattered children’s lives in the wake of their deaths. Related: our society is not ready to see women coming home in body bags or with their legs blown off.

Why it’s wrong: Fathers die in war. So do sons and brothers. I’m pretty sure the death of either parent is equally traumatic.  And the fact is, we’ve already seen women come home in body bags, or with missing limbs, from Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s already happening. America’s going to have to deal with it.

  • Unit cohesion. Having a woman in a combat unit can cause infighting. For example, if the other soldiers think she’s not pulling her weight, or that she’s incredibly hostile since she’s outnumbered, it will fracture the whole unit.

Why it’s wrong: Sure, a woman could fracture a group. But that was the same excuse used to keep African-Americans out of the military, unless it was convenient. It’s still used as an excuse against sending homosexual men to combat zones. Even if a unit is composed entirely of WASPs, there’s probably going to be at least one annoying guy that could damage unit cohesion.

  • A woman might sexually tempt the men too much, or get pregnant.

Why it’s wrong: The kind of woman who wants to join the infantry and go to the frontlines of a war with an Uzi strapped to her back… I suppose I’m stereotyping a little, but I don’t exactly think she’s going to be a flirty little thing. She’s come so far – she’s as committed to the mission as the men are, and if they can’t control themselves around her, maybe the weak-in-the-loins man should be sent back – not the woman. If a woman does choose to have sex while engaged in a combat zone, I guess she better make sure to use a condom, which she should do anyway, at home or at war.

 

The day after my husband and I had this conversation (both of us came to the conclusion that if women can pass the necessary physical fitness tests, they should be allowed to deploy in a combat unit), I read this New York Times blog that exactly mirrored our sentiments. Embedded in the post is a CNN video of women serving in combat units in the Israeli army, where citizens are required to perform a minimum two-year stint in the military. Were the American Armed Forces to adopt full equality policies (for women and homosexuals), it wouldn’t be unprecedented.

One issue I’m still grappling to understand is that of combat pay, or imminent danger pay, as it’s called. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D – D.C.) stated in a post on her website that women deployed in combat zones don’t receive combat pay (a whopping extra $225/month) or appropriate bonuses. However, this lengthy report by the National Women’s Law Center says that women received combat pay during Desert Storm. I’d love to hear from any women in uniform who can shed some light on the relationship between combat pay and gender – let alone the role of American women in combat.

 

Tickle is proud to support women and men in the military.

Our readers searched for:

Related articles:

  1. Unequal Rights: when women hit
  2. Cock Rings – What are They Good for? Absolutely Something.
  3. The New Feminist: Friend or Foe?
  4. An Open Letter from the Itty Bitty Titty Committee in Defense of Australia’s Small-Breasted Sisters
  5. Woman’s Last Stand
  6. Forthegirls.com, erotica for every woman