is it okay: for women to fight on the front line?

If you had asked me this question at 15, there would have been no delay; just a clear, unequivocal yes. However, at the same age, if you had asked me the meaning of life and who I would have married the answers would have been just as immediate. Education. Work. Happiness. Orlando Bloom.

When I was younger, I assumed that with maturity would come knowledge, clarity, and the ability to drive. Instead, seven years later, while yes, I know more things, they are also fuzzy around the edges, there are no clear tracks between them, and most of the important ones are bathed in grey. It’s frustrating. It’s confusing. If I were to try to express this through Draw Something, it would look like an endless sea of rainy islands. Or, in reality, a heap of grey dots on a blue background. Oh well.

To me the issue of women fighting on the front line is divided into two main categories: practicality and motivation.

Women should have the option to fight on the front line. I don’t think that your gender should preclude you from having the right to do this any more than should your race, your sexuality or your eye colour. However, the reality of the military is that there are limitations, there are high physical and psychological standards, and there are a lot of precluding factors.

One of the main concerns raised in the argument against women fighting on the front line is that they may be unable to achieve the high athletic standards currently expected of men already in this position, and so standards would have to drop. Crap.

The idea of standards theoretically dropping in order to let more women fight on the front line is horrifying; the standards are there for both individual and group safety, and to use gender as a concession for this would be appalling. While it is true that generally, men are genetically geared towards being physically stronger, at the moment we are not living in a brave new world of genetic engineering and cookie cutter DNA, so as it is, not all men are stronger than all women.

People are precluded from joining the military for a host of reasons – eyesight, psychological conditions, height and fitness. If a woman is able to pass the same stringent tests as a man on the path to the front line, at least from this perspective it shouldn’t even be a factor.

There are also arguments about the social implications of women being around male front line soldiers. In these discussions, females are shown in the light of both villain and victim; they are either a distraction and a safety risk, or they will be subject to bullying or harassment. I can’t comment on the likelihood of this, but if this has any foot in reality, then it speaks of a much larger social issue in the military than just women on the front line.

The main grey area for me lies around the motivation behind wanting women to fight on the front line. The initial gut response is ‘equality’. However, taking a step back, to view war, violence and front line fighting as a symbol of equality is actually rather strange. Traditionally the military is viewed as very masculine – are we saying that the path to equality is to allow women to be masculine? Does this go the other way too?

It seems counter intuitive to say that equality should roughly be wanting to be the same as a man – if we were supposed to do this, then on a very simple level, genetically, why would there be a difference? While I don’t have a fully-formed solution, I think striving towards masculinity is against the principles of feminism. Instead, I think there should be more discussion as to what femininity entails, how this differs from masculinity and then looking for a middle ground, with a focus on access to opportunities and free will.

Women shouldn’t fight on the front line because “that’s what men do”. Women should have the right to fight on the front line if that is what they want to do.

(Image credit: 1.)