What your objections about women in combat say about you

Regardless of your political leaning, it’s hard not to find a deep irony in the way many people have responded to the announcement that women would now be allowed to serve in military combat roles.

Given the outcry about the recently proposed changes to gun control policy, it seems there is a vocal percentage of the population that believes civilians should be entrusted with assault rifles — just not women.

I believe the objections to women serving in combat are no more valid than the ones offered against gay marriage or the desegregation of schools.

I don’t think these objections are raised out of secret misogynistic tendencies, but rather from ignorance of underlying thought processes.

It’s my sincere hope that I may cause disgruntled readers to rethink their position about this.

However, if I have assumed incorrectly and you are the sort of person upset by things like the Equal Pay Act and women who work, it is actually my sincere hope that you’re violated by a rabid badger.

A woman won’t have the physical strength of her male counterparts  

Like cocaine or anal sex, fighting is something we men have mythologized, precisely because society so rarely provides us the opportunity to do it.

After all, two men can always resolve their differences through hand-to-hand combat.

Therefore, a lot of male self-image is tied up in how closely we resemble Rambo, even though it’s all largely hypothetical, since most of us don’t go through our adult lives punching people in the face.

The military has already announced that any women in combat will have to meet the same standards as their male counterparts.

It’s not like we don’t already have female bodybuilders, wrestlers or roller derby players.

This sentiment assumes that all women are inherently physically inferior to men.

It stems from the insecurity that the percentage of people who could beat you in a bar fight is ever-growing.

Women should feel privileged not to fight on the front lines

This objection runs counter to the last one, acknowledging that women could fight, but why would they want to? Why would they want to have to work full-time jobs, vote or go to school?

The short answer is they do for all the same reasons men do.

The central premise of equality is judging people by their capabilities, not what their reproductive organs are.

The presence of women will create lethal sexual tension

Certainly, this is a valid concern for people who are basing their research off Military MILFs VII.

I mean, it’s hard to imagine men working side by side with women without orgies spontaneously erupting, and not even the good old gay male orgies that terrified us a few years ago.

Frankly, this one is just as offensive to the men, implying there’s no way you could control yourself around your co-workers.

If military discipline and live ammunition can’t convince soldiers to focus on their jobs, I shudder to think what could happen if civilian men and women ever start working together.

Why do we need more combat troops anyway?

I mean, Christ, we’re not starting another war, are we?

I have the deepest respect and appreciation for anyone willing to enlist in the United States military, regardless of gender.

Yet, with certain factions shaking their fists at Iran while looking meaningfully across the table at North Korea, it’s my sincere hope that we begin needing fewer combat troops, not more.

­— stefsoko@indiana.edu