Women in the war zone has become a hot topic as the media discusses the recent sexual assault on news journalist Lara Logan, and as we see more women than ever before fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I recently read two articles that have to do with women being at the front line of combat. The big question everyone seems to be concerned with is should they be there?
In Kim Barker’s article in the New York Times, “Why We Need Women in War Zones” she talks about how it is not uncommon for journalists to be assaulted while on the job. Since Lara Logan’s recent assault, the code of silence on sexual assault against female journalists has been broken. Barker argues that she and many fellow journalists would not report what had happened to them because they did not want to seem different or more vulnerable than their male colleagues. The reaction by some to the assault on Lara Logan was disturbing (read Nikki’s blog post about victim blaming). Barkers fear is not about getting attacked, but instead “that there will be suggestions that female correspondents should not be sent into dangerous situations”. The first reaction many people have is to put the responsibility onto the women doing their job when it should be on the perpetrators to not commit such heinous acts. Why are we punishing women for men’s actions? All journalists are taking a risk, but don’t punish women because of other people’s actions. Women in the war zone are critical, with out them the only opinion we would get was that of men, and in reality we need both. As Barker puts it, “Without female correspondents in war zones, the experience of women there may only be a rumor.”
If it is important to have women reporting from the war zone, than isn’t it important to have women fighting in them too? NPR is doing a week long series on what it means to be a woman in uniform today, covering the stories of five women in different stages of their military career. Currently the pentagon has a policy that prohibits women from being allocated to direct ground combat units. Contrary to this is that there are no clear “front lines” anymore, and women are indeed fighting in direct combat. Because of the policy in place women are able to get big promotion with out any combat experience, which only puts everyone at a disadvantage. Some of the issues arising on why we should not eliminate this policy are pregnancy, privacy, unit cohesion, and perhaps the trickiest is sexual harassment/assault.
Kayla Williams told her story of living with her all male unit on the side of a mountain in Iraq for six months. She reports that she had to keep a crisp line that the men could not cross, but kept a balance to let them know she was one of them. Williams believes that the policy in place now actually makes it harder for men and women to be in combat together, “I believe that the combat exclusion actually exacerbates gender tensions and problems within the military, because the fact that women can’t be in combat arm jobs allows us to be portray s less then fully soldiers.”
Like Williams said, by basing exclusion off of sex it only further ingrains the idea that women are less than men. If we don’t let women engage in war zone journalism, we are portraying the idea that they are somehow not as fit to do the job as a man. As a woman I am aware of the risks around me when I go out at night, does that mean I am not suppose to go out? It’s time to stop making decisions based off of the wrongful actions of men (or women). As an American citizen it doesn’t seem right to not let a woman fight, in direct combat, for her country because of her reproductive organs, or because of the crimes that might be committed against her. Like I said as women we are very aware of the risks that are out there. Women being in the front line of combat is a topic that will definitely be getting some attention in the upcoming months as the Military Leadership Diversity Commission plans to tell congress next month to eliminate the combat exclusion policy.
