“Foreign Affairs” magazine says not letting women fight is gender stereotyping. That's not how decorated Vietnam vet Jim Webb saw it in “The Washingtonian.”
“We would go months without bathing, except when we could stand naked among each other . . .”
Those words are how Jim Webb, before he became Secretary of the Navy and then a United States Senator, started his 1979 Washingtonian magazine article “Women Can’t Fight.” The story caused Webb endless headaches as the Naval Academy graduate and former Marine Corps officer in Vietnam became more political and had to first face congressional hearings and then take part in them as the Democratic senator from Virginia.
Contrast what Webb wrote 33 years ago with this new look at the subject of women in combat, described below in an e-mail from Foreign Affairs magazine.
Dear Colleague:
“Today, 214,098 women serve in the U.S. military, representing 14.6 percent of total service members. Around 280,000 women have worn American uniforms in Afghanistan and Iraq, where 144 have died and over 600 have been injured.”
“Yet the U.S. military, at least officially, still bans women from serving in direct combat positions.”
So writes international relations expert Megan H. MacKenzie in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. According to MacKenzie, arguments against female soldiers are simply outdated.
“Proponents of the policy, who include Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), rely on three central arguments: thatwomen cannot meet the physical requirements necessary to fight, that they simply don’t belong in combat, and that their inclusion in fighting units would disrupt those units’ cohesion and battle readiness. Yet these arguments do not stand up to current data on women’s performance in combat or their impact on troop dynamics.”
“Banning women from combat does not ensure military effectiveness. It only perpetuates counterproductive gender stereotypes and biases. It is time for the U.S. military to get over its hang-ups and acknowledge women’s rightful place on the battlefield.”
Should Women Be Fighting and Dying in Combat?
“Foreign Affairs” magazine says not letting women fight is gender stereotyping. That's not how decorated Vietnam vet Jim Webb saw it in “The Washingtonian.”
“We would go months without bathing, except when we could stand naked among each other . . .”
Those words are how Jim Webb, before he became Secretary of the Navy and then a United States Senator, started his 1979 Washingtonian magazine article “Women Can’t Fight.” The story caused Webb endless headaches as the Naval Academy graduate and former Marine Corps officer in Vietnam became more political and had to first face congressional hearings and then take part in them as the Democratic senator from Virginia.
Contrast what Webb wrote 33 years ago with this new look at the subject of women in combat, described below in an e-mail from Foreign Affairs magazine.
Dear Colleague:
“Today, 214,098 women serve in the U.S. military, representing 14.6 percent of total service members. Around 280,000 women have worn American uniforms in Afghanistan and Iraq, where 144 have died and over 600 have been injured.”
“Yet the U.S. military, at least officially, still bans women from serving in direct combat positions.”
So writes international relations expert Megan H. MacKenzie in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. According to MacKenzie, arguments against female soldiers are simply outdated.
“Proponents of the policy, who include Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), rely on three central arguments: thatwomen cannot meet the physical requirements necessary to fight, that they simply don’t belong in combat, and that their inclusion in fighting units would disrupt those units’ cohesion and battle readiness. Yet these arguments do not stand up to current data on women’s performance in combat or their impact on troop dynamics.”
“Banning women from combat does not ensure military effectiveness. It only perpetuates counterproductive gender stereotypes and biases. It is time for the U.S. military to get over its hang-ups and acknowledge women’s rightful place on the battlefield.”
Read “Let Women Fight.”
Jack Limpert, former editor of Washingtonian now a writer at large for the magazine, can be found at his blog, jacklimpert.com.
Most Popular in News & Politics
See a Spotted Lanternfly? Here’s What to Do.
Meet DC’s 2025 Tech Titans
What Happens After We Die? These UVA Researchers Are Investigating It.
GOP Candidate Quits Virginia Race After Losing Federal Contracting Job, Trump Plans Crackdown on Left Following Kirk’s Death, and Theatre Week Starts Thursday
USDA Spent $16,400 on Banners to Honor Trump and Lincoln
Washingtonian Magazine
September Issue: Style Setters
View IssueSubscribe
Follow Us on Social
Follow Us on Social
Related
Why Can You Swim in the Seine but Not the Potomac River?
This DC Woman Might Owe You Money
Why a Lost DC Novel Is Getting New Attention
These Confusing Bands Aren’t Actually From DC
More from News & Politics
How to Pick a Good Title-and-Settlement Company in the DC Area
Weird Press Conference Ends Trump’s Vacation From Offering Medical Advice, Kimmel Goes Back to Work Tonight, and DC Man Arrested for Shining Laser Pointer at Marine One
Why Can You Swim in the Seine but Not the Potomac River?
Nominations Are Now Open for 500 Most Influential People List
Trump and Musk Reunite, Administration Will Claim Link Between Tylenol and Autism, and Foo Fighters Play Surprise Show in DC
This DC Woman Might Owe You Money
A New Exhibition Near the White House Takes a High-Tech Approach to a Fundamental Question: What Is the American Dream?
Want to See What Could Be Ovechkin’s Last Game in DC? It’s Going to Cost You.