CNN reports that the change will be a gradual one, similar to the one made when the Navy began to integrate women into its units. The military will use a timetable in which it will began to integrate women into different departments, instead of opening all positions up all at once. A major factor for each position will be the physical demands and gender accommodations.
This integration is different from the way things were handled when DADT was repealed. However a senior Defense official defends the methods stating: “You’re talking about personal choice of behavior vs. physical capability. And they were already in the units. If you take a unit that’s never had women before, that’s quite a culture change.” (CNN).
A non profit organization, American Civil Liberties Union, had sued the Pentagon in November under the claim that women were already serving combat roles without receiving recognition. A senior defense official concurs with this statement, saying this was just an implementation of policies already in place.
Even in a world where we think equality has been achieved, there are still gender divides. Will this move help achieve full gender equality within the military? Or will physical demands of each position always create an imbalance? Either way, this is another step forward towards a more balanced military.
4 comments:
Obviously, this move is not going to simply solve the gender divide within the military, as one-fifth of all military positions are still off limits and those positions probably all require their own integration processes. Nevertheless, I think that regardless of how gradual the integration process will be, of how many positions still remain off-limits, and of whether or not this is an "implementation of policies already in place," the lifting of the ban is a huge step in the right direction for full gender equality within the military, as there are now 14,000 more officially recognized positions for women to serve in the military. Assuming that the formal announcement will in fact confirm this reported lifting of the ban, I think that Panetta has made a very significant step toward a more balanced military in terms of gender.
This is absolutely a step in the right direction. Perhaps the origins of the ban were not as insolent as they seem. In fact, the people who created said ban probably believed that they were doing women a favor. However, when there are women who are capable and brave enough to want to take part in direct combat, it is absolutely unfair to hinder them. I will admit that I personally have no desire to fight on the front lines and am certainly not a fan of warfare. However, basing this argument solely on the issue of granting women a freedom that men have always held, well, it's about time. Of course, the plans have yet to be finalized. According to this article, officials have not decided whether women will serve as infantry troops or only in special-operations units. As usual, even when progress starts to take place, it does so through baby steps.
This is wonderful. I agree with Paniz--the ban was probably instituted with the best intentions since the consensus among the general population was (and more often than it should be, still is) that women are simply not as capable as men in many regards. Women should be allowed the same opportunities as men--just because an individual may not be qualified for a certain job doesn't mean that their entire sex is unqualified. Let's hope that the integration process (in addition to the officially recognizing women as equal thing) continues, even if it has to continue slowly.
After the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it was only a matter of time I thought until women were integrated into combat. I think that it's crucial for the military to end its trend of discrimination. While I agree with Rory in that allowing women into combat won't end military discrimination in full, I believe that, in time, integrated combat will become the norm.
Post a Comment