First Class

David Babcock

October 19, 1997

Paper #2

Today's military includes women who train at boot camps, serve on warships and fly combat planes. Women currently represent fifteen percent of military personnel, and their presence is increasing among new recruits, up twenty-five percent in the A ir Force. Among officers and enlisted personnel, fifty five percent, or 107, 733 women report some form of sexual harassment. Recent accusations of sexual misconduct against drill sergeants at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, and a separate case against Ser geant Major Gene McKinney of the US Army, have some people questioning whether integration of women in the military has been successful. In addition to sexual harassment, gender integration issues include ingrained cultural patterns, women in combat, rec uritng quotas, physical characteristics and biology, and pregnancy. The debate of these issues lead to the controversy of whether the sexes should be segregated (Barry and Thomas 48).

To begin, the US military recognizes that sexual harassment is a problem however, the military has its own opinion why it occurs. The military contends the major problem is a lack of leadership. This contention is based on evidence uncovered in A rmy investigations that found wide spread discrimination of women by male commanders, dangerously high trainee to drill sergeant rations, and a selection process that allowed "wife beaters" to fill drill sergeant positions (qtd. Schmitt A19). T he investigation found that commanders generally ignored instances of sexual harassment, and when it was acknowledged, rules of enforcement were inconsistently applied between military bases. In addition, the investigation found the trainee to drill serg eant ration to be thirty-five to one, instead of the Army standard of twenty to one. Investigators feel this elevated ration combined with high stress, could lead to misconduct by drill sergeants. The Army examination of the drill sergeant selection sys tem found it did not consider a candidate's maturity or complete a thorough background check. There was no close investigation of instances where drill sergeants had beaten their wives, which was a particular problem with some of the accused at the Aberd een Proving Ground. The military's position is that the problems of sexual harassment int eh military can be attributed to a lack of leadership, detailed in two army investigations (Barry and Thomas 49; Schitt A1, A19).

Opponents of the military's lack fo leadership reasoning believe the problems lie in how the military environment facilitates sexual harassment, in addition to making it difficult for women to resist or report instances of sexual advanes. They fee l the creed of drill sergeants, the power of the military structure, and the fat that military women can not just walk away from their jobs contributes to drill sergeants having powers over women that result in sexual harassment. These issues are explain ed by civilian psychiatrist Major Elsbeth Ritchie in testimony at the court martial of a drill sergeant from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Ritchie explains that fear of sexual harassment in the military is elevated due to a drill sergeant creed of " I am Mother, I am Father, and God to recruits" (qtd. Sciolino, pg. A14). Furthermore, the military structure is so powerful that a woman may believe reporting sexual harassment will lead to recrimination. Opponents feel that the combined power of t he military structure, the drill sergeants creed, and the fact that soldiers can not just leave their jobs are the maor causes of sexual harassment, as well as the reasons why women are hesitant to resist or report it (Barry and Thomas 49; Schmitt A1, A19 ;Sciolino A14).

In addition to debating why sexual harassment exists in the military, both sides have specific opinions regarding ingrained culture patterns in the military. Opponents say that culture patterns divide the sexes by promoting harassment of women and demeaning their achievements, while defendants say they are building a warrior culture that requires brutish training. Opponent Linda Bird Franke accuses the military of reinforcing the "institutional promotion of male dominance, the aura of hyperm asculinity, the collective to disparage women in general, and women in the military specifically" (qtd. Bernstein, see C, pg 13, col 1). Franke feels that even if women could prove they could do tasks better than men, the military culture would ensu re discrimination. The military counters this position by explaining that building of a soldier is a rough and invasive process directed at breaking down the pureness of the physical person, and the sharpening of his or her awareness. Soldiers abuse eac h other in their daily routine to find the weakest link, and then shame or bully them to come up to par. This is how units ensure their survival, because once they are in combat, their lives depend on their buddies' performance. While the opponents of i ngrained cultural patterns believe they promote the harassment of women, defenders feel they are a necessity of building a warrior culture (Barry 47; Gutman 18-22).

The mention of the warrior culture leads some to another major issue of the integration debate, women in combat (meaning front line infantry, armor, or artillery units). One side fees that the publice is ready for women in combat and that objectio ns to women performing combat roles are based in prejudice. The other side claims combat has nothing to do with fairness, it is about killing and being killed, and the public is not ready for women to be killed in combat. Opponents argue that mixed sex units will not achieve the right kind of cohesion in battle, and that there is something offensive about a male officer ordering a female into a danger zone. National Organization of Women (N. O. W.) President Patricia Ireland maintains that "exclus ion promotes the view that women are weak, inferior, and in need of protection" (qtd Gutman, 20). Proponents of women in combat cite the Gulf War as an example of how the public is willing to accept female casualties of war. They provide figures sa ying fifteen of the three hundred seventy five dead were women. Opponents counter that while the casualties of the Gulf War were light--one hundred forty two men and six women dead, the ground campaingn only lasted one hundred hours. The opponents, in d efending their position, feel that if the soldiers "killed, mutilated, and dragged" through the streets of Somalia had been women (qtd. Bernstein C13), perhaps pregnant, the public would not support women in combat (Barry and Thomas 49; Berstein C13; Gutman 119).

A further issue in the debate of women in combat is that other countries in the world have integrated women into combat roles in the past, with mixed results. The Soviet Union and Israel both sent women into combat in the 1940's. Proponents point out that "the most feared sniper in the siege of Stalingrad was a woman, and a top squadron of aviators was all-female" (qtd Barry & Thomas, 49). Opponents respond that both countries pulled women from combat ranks because of public reacti on to the idea of female casualties and prisoners of war. Israelis banned women from combat because their male comrades were to protective of them (Barry and Thomas 49; Bernstein C13).

While each side takes a position on women in combat roles, military recruiting quotas for women have some people upset. Women currently represent fifteen percent of military personnel, and their presence is increasing among new recruits, up twenty -five percent in the Air Force. The recruitment of women, proponents say, is out of national need, since there are not enough men enlisting. Without women, the military would not meet its recruiting quotas. Recruiters' claim that their male quotas are filled almost immediately. However with women, there are not as many joining so they have to hire all that meet the minimum requirements. Recruiters maintain that they have to use an "informal double standard" on strength differences (qtd. Gut man 19), recruiting men that are in near perfect physical condition, while women barely clear the minimum of the "gender-normed" test (qtd. Gutman 19; Barry and Thomas 49; Bernstein C13; Gutman 19).

Unlike the debate of recruiting quotas, a one-sided argument is presented when discussing the differences in male and female physical characteristics and biology. Opponents to integration note that on average women are five inches shorter and poss es half the upper body strength of men. They also note that women are injured at twice the rate of male recruits because of their lighter skeletons that make them more susceptible to stress fractures. Further to the physical limitations, biology opponen ts say, make certain problems like sex between men and women unavoidable. Opponents feel that sexuality is a basic instinct and whether the military bans sex between superiors and subordinates, or allows it between soldiers of the same rank, without prov iding the facilities for it, men and women will find a way to get together (Barry and Thomas 49; Gutman 18-22; Barry 47; Bernstein C13).

The idea of soldiers having sex raises another issue that people debate, pregnancy, and how it affects integration. When the US military was in Bosnia, (December 20, 1995 until July 19, 1996), every three days a woman was evacuated to Germany due to pregnancy. During the Gulf War, thirty six pregnant women of the three hundred sixty women sailors on the Arcadia had to be evacuated. The military position is that pregnancy is a non-issue, and it does not normally adversely affect the career of a s oldier. Opponents to integration say that pregnant soldiers are, or are soon to be non-deployable soldiers. If a platoon is performing a lot of heavy labor, such as moving equipment, digging, or setting up tents, pregnant soldiers will be answering phon es instead of helping the members of their platoon, which causes some resentment. Opponents also suspect that some women are getting pregnant on purpose to avoid combat duty. Proponents of integration respond to statements concerning pregnancy adversely affecting combat readiness by noting that absenteeism from various tasks is at least as high among young men (Barry and Thomas 49; Gutman 18-22; Barry 47; Bernstein C13).

Because of all these issues and others, recent newspaper headlines and debates on women's effectiveness in the military have people taking sides on whether the military should return to segregating the sexes. Conservative groups take the position that, "armies exist to fight and win wars, not to be laboratories for social engineering" (Barry & Thomas, 48). Proponents of the idea note that Israel, the pioneer of women in the military, segregates women for training. General Dennis Re imer, the Army Chief of Staff thinks the military can not go back for two reasons. Firstly, the experience thus far suggests combining genders actually raises performance, through competition. During the Gulf War, integrated units seemed to perform as w ell as all male units. Teamwork overcame physical differences and as units got closer to combat, male-female differences disappeared. Secondly, Reimer feels that it would send the wrong message, that women can not compete and that the army is not seriou s about integration. Reimer thinks the remedy is to tighten up problem areas across the board (Barry 47; Barry and Thomas 49; Svhnitt A19).

Integration of women in the military touches on a number of issues that have proponents and opponents stating their opinions. They debate sexual harassment and whether the problem is leadership, or is it a problem of the military environment. The y also discuss ingrained culture patterns and whether they are justified if the purpose of the military is to kill. The idea of women in combat for some is an issue of looking at women as weak and needing protection, while others see it in terms that inc lude a public unwilling to accept female casualties of war. A variety of opinions are expressed on additional issues of recruiting quotas, physical characteristics and biology, and pregnancy. As the debate turns to questioning whether integration has be en successful and whether the sexes should be segregated, the debate continues between both sides, each with opinions they believe to be correct.

Works Cited

Barry, John. "At War in the Barracks." Newsweek, 17 Feb. 1997: 47.

Barry, John and Thomas, Evan. "At War Over Women." Newsweek, 12 May 1997: 48-49.

Bernstein, Richard. "On a Cultural Battlefield: Women in the Military." New York Times, 23

Jun. 1997: C13.

Gutman, Stephanie. "Sex and The Soldier." The New Republic, 24 Feb 1997: 18-22.

Schmitt, Eric. "Army Inquiries Find a Wide Bias Against Women." New York Times, 31 Jul.

1997: A1,A19.

Sciolino, Elaine. "Military Women are Vulnerable to Abuse, Psychiatrist Says."

New York Times, 16 Apr. 1997: A14.

David Babcock

November 14, 1997

Paper #3

Private Taibtha Allen "took careful aim with her MK-19 grenade launcher, then fired off four rounds. Down range, the carcass of an old tank exploded in flash and fury: four direct hits" (Janofsky A10). A first for enlisted women, t he shooting of live ammunition from heavy weapons during combat training represents overcoming another obstacle limiting women's roles in the military. While women are integrated into boot camps, they are not allowed to serve front line combat roles. Op ponents argue that women should not be allowed in combat roles because they are not subject to the same physical training standard as men, and women do not possess the physical strength to be effective in combat roles. Based on these assumptions, opponen ts's claim that women are unable to enhance their units and this ineffectiveness endangers national security. Furthermore, opponents argue that the public is not ready to accept women in combat and if women were allowed, it would promote the idea that vi olence against women is acceptable. However the overall issue of allowing women into combat roles should be based on equality. If women in the Military meet the same standards as men, they should be treated equally and provided the same opportunities as men to serve in combat roles (Janofsky A10).

Opponents of women in combat roles claim that physical training standards are unequal; therefore women are unable to compete with men in training and are unequipped for combat roles. While physical training standards may have been unequal in the p ast, it is not a fact any longer. The Military has toughened its standards, making them more equal for both sexes. As of October 1997, every soldier, male and female is required to do 50 sit-ups in two minutes, representing an increase of three for men and five for women from the old standard which critics claimed was unequal. Also, both sexes must now run two miles, men in 16 minutes 36 seconds and women in 19 minutes 36 seconds. This requirement makes the distance requirement equal, while providing women 3 additional minutes to compensate for their smaller cardio-pulmonary systems. In addition, all soldiers must pass a fitness test every six months and if they fail and do not pass it again within 90 days, they are discharged. Physical training sta ndards that focus on equality of the sexes prove that women can compete in training and perform combat roles as effectively as men (Komarow A8).

While physical training standards have been adopted to make them more equal between the sexes, opponents claim that women do not opssess the physical strength to serve with men in combat roles. While it is true that men's greater upper body mass a nd larger cardio-pulmonary systems help them in push-ups and running, women have a lower center of gravity that helps them perform sit-ups. Furthermore, looking at the Gulf War proves women's possession of the required physical strength. Women used MK-1 9 grenade launchers, machine guns, lobbed grenades, received and returned fire. According to Captain George Botoulas, "they dug the same holes as the combat troops and fought the same war" (Janofsky A10). The proven ability of women to perform combat roles equally along side their male comrades in the Gulf War, and the fact that women's body structure allows them to performs certain tasks more easily than men reinforces the truth that women do have the physical strength required for combat rol es (Janofsky A10; Komarow pg. A8).

In addition to women's physical strength, is the importance of their role in enhancing their units by increasing performance of both sexes and creating a more cohesive envrionment. A 1996 Government Accounting Office study found that the performan ce of both men and women improved in gender integrated units, because men did not want to be "bested" by women (Janofsky A10), nor women by men. The study also found that when women are integrated in non-traditional jobs, such as combat, there is a transition period, which usually starts with sexual harassment. As the number of women increases (the critical mass being about twenty five percent), men and women start making distinctions among each other on issues other than gender. As these wom en and men work together as equals they become cohesive, and enhance their units. The effectiveness of this process is evident of the new attitude of military personal like Marine Corp. Private Nicholas, who shrugs off any suggestions that a female partn er might perform differently from a male one by saying that "men or women, that doesn't matter. We are trained as Marines, to rise above any situation of male-female. All we see is another Marine" (Janofsky A10). By overcoming prejudices, and owrking together as equals, men and women in combat roles become a cohesive group, enhanced by women (Janofsky A10).

Women's ability to enhance their units through equal co-operation between the sexes strengthens national security by expanding the number of combat soldiers available when required. The Military is counting on women to fill recruiting gaps because not enough men are enlisting in the military. By allowing these new female recruits the option of pursuing combat roles, the military will expand the number of combat ready troops it has to work with when they are required. Integrating large numbers of high quality female recruits into non-traditional fields made the All-Volunteer Force of the Gulf War possible. However, by not allowing women into front line combat roles the military limited the flexibility of commanders to use all their soldiers, how ever needed, especially under fire. Retired Air Force Brigadier General Wilma Vaught feels that women should have the opportunity of serving wherever they are capable of serving, but she is not in favor of anyone, male or female, being assigned to combat duty if they are not capable of it. Not every man can do what's required for infantry, either. Women like Pam Wright, a senior cadet at West Point Military Academy wants the "same opportunity to serve the country as her male colleagues" (Mark s 4). This desire shows a deep patriotism, and if the young cadet is the best person for the job, Nancy Campbell, President of the National Women's Law Center thinks, the cadet is not just advancing her own career, but national security as well (Marks 4 ). The integration of women strengthens national security by ensuring recruiting quotas are met and the military has the most equally qualified combat personnel that it requires to operate effectively (Mariner C7).

While allowing women into combat roles will aid in strengthening national security, critics say that the public is not ready to accept women in combat, because they are uncomfortable with women being killed, or becoming POW's. However, according t o the Wirthling Report, the majority of Americans favor women in military combat jobs. Among those polled, 57% favored women in combat, while 41% disagreed. The poll also measured how Americans perceived the opinion of others, 66% believed other America ns disapproved of the policy (Boeck and Visgaitis 1). The result of this poll indicates that contrary to what opponents say, the public is behind the concept of women in combat. The fact that women were killed in the Gulf War did not spark outrage, or m isgivings, however the numbers of casualties were low. It is impossible to guess the reaction of the public if a major war with numerous casualties of both sexes was to occur now. While the majority of Americans agree that woman should be allowed into c ombat roles, it is impossible to gauge their reaction to female casualties of a war that has not, and may not happen (Boeck and Visgaitis 1).

While the public is ready to accept women in combat roles, this is not an endorsement of further violence against women. On the contrary, the progress women make in the military enhancing their units will also "enhance the societal view of wo men as leaders and fighters, instead of victims, in a culture where violence is prevalent" (Marks 4). Women do not want to be seen as weak, inferior, or in need of the protection of men. Allowing women into combat roles sends out a positive messag e that women are capable of defending themselves, equally as capably as men. It is not possible to prove the opposition argument that society will become more accepting of violence against women because of the death or rape of female POW's because there has not been a major war involving America to base these statements on. By treating women as equals, allwing them to prove their physical and mental strength as equals of men is a more positive approach to fight violence against women (Marks 4).

The integration of women into combat roles based on equality is a positive move for the military, soldiers (male and female), and the society they serve. Both men and women should be provided the same equal treatment and opportunities as long as t hey are able to meet the same standards. Whether male or female, if they can not meet the minimum standard, they should not be allowed into the military. Women are capable of meeting they physical strength and training standards, and they are able to en hance both their units and national security. Together with the support of the majority of Americans, women should be treated as the equals of male soldiers and given the same opportunity to pursue combat roles.

Works Cited

Boeck, Scott and Visgaitis, Gary. "USA Snapshots: Women in combat favored." USA Today 10 Mar. 1997 A1.

Janofsky, Michael. "Women in the Marines Join the Firing Line." The New York Times 1 Apr.

1997: A10.

Komarow, Steven. "Army toughens fitness rules for women, men." USA Today 24-26 Oct.

1997: A8.

Mariner, Rosemary. "The Military Needs Women. . ." The Washington Post 11 May 1997: C7.

Marks, Alexandra. "US Women in Combat Draw Unfriendly Fire." The Christian Science

Monitor 18 Apr. 1997: 1, 4.

David Babcock

December 9, 1997

Paper #4

Headlines from major news publications, all within the last year read, "At War in the Barracks," "Army Inquiries Find a Wide Bias Against Women," "The Military Needs Women. . .," and "Women in combat favored.& quot; These, along with numerous other media headlines, stress two controversial issues of equality regarding women in the US Military. First, during the integration of women into military boot camps there have been numerous accusations from women cadet s accusing male superior officers of sexual harassment. While both sides agree sexual harassment is a porlbme, they differ in their justification of why it occurs, the significance of ingrained cultural patterns, and what should be done about harassment. The second issue is whether women should be allowed to serve in front line combat roles traditionally occupied by men. Issues of recruiting quotas, equality of physical training standards, physical strength, ability to enhance units, pregnancy, and nat ional security are debated. There are also issues regarding military career advancement opportunities for women compared to men, the public readiness to accept women in combat, and whether violence against women in combat will generate an acceptance of v iolence against women in general. Sexual harassment of women in the Military should not be tolerated; nor should the existence of sexual harassment be used as a justification to revert to segregating men and women in boot camps. Furthermore, if women me et the same standards as their male counterparts, the Military should not discriminate against them, but rather, provide them with the same opporutnities as men to serve in all military roles, including front line combat positions.

Before examining the sexual harassment of women in the military by their male superiors, it is important to understand sexual harassment and illegal sexism. The book Academic and Workplace Sexual Harassment defines sexual harassment as:

unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or

physical conduct of a sexual nature when such conduct has the purpose or

effect of substantially interfering with an individual's work performance or

creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. (qtd. in

Paludi and Barickman 3)

Sexism is exhibited when people in the workplace assume, or have expectations of what another person can or cannot do based solely on gender. While sexism directed at women is meant to "irritate and belittle" them (qtd. in Commomwealth 2), i t becomes "illegal sexism" when it affects the workplace (qtd. in Commonwealth 3). A Pennsylvania Commission for Women Report: Sexual Harassment ont eh Job examines how sexism is used to undermine the importance of women in the workplac e through "sex role stereotyping" (qtd. in Commonwealth 3). This form of sexism infers that men are suited for one type of work and women another. "Illegal sexism" (qtd. in Commomwealth 3) in the workplace is prohibited in the US bec ause it discriminates by sex (Casey and McElroy, 2-3). For someone's physical or verbal actions to be considered sexual harassment, they must substantially affect the workplace, while illegal sexism refers to expectations of someone's abilities based sol ely on gender (Paludi and Barickman 3; Commonwealth 2-3; Casey and McElroy 2-3).

In recent months, women in the military have been speaking out regarding the sexual harassment they are experiencing in the military. In two highly publicized cases, one involving drill sergeants at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, and a separate case against the Army's most senior enlisted men, Sergeant Major Gene McKinney, accusations ranging from sexual harassment to rape have been made. In the case at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, four drill sergeants are charged with sexual harassment and rape of female recruits, while others have been suspended pending similar investigations. At the court-martial of a former drill sergeant facing rape and other sexual charges involving twenty one female recruits, a former female trainee testified how the accuse d, Staff Sergeant Delmar Simpson asked her to have sex with him, and at a later date told her that he wanted to "perform oral sex on her" (qtd. in Sciolino A14). In a separate case involving accusations of sexual harassment in the military, Ser geant Major Gene McKinney, a long regarded role model for the 410,000 soldiers in his command, was accused by his former aide Sergeant Major Brenda Hoster of attempting to sexually assault her. Hoster alleges that while she and McKinney were on an offici al trip to Hawaii, McKinnery indicated to her than he had become "sexually excited" and that he said "I could take you right here, right now" (qtd. in Vistica and Thomas 47). Hoster decided to come forward with her accusations upon le arning that McKinney was appointed to a "commission charged with reviewing the Army's sexual-harassment policies" (qtd. in Vistca and Thomas 46). In a statement released by the Army, McKinney denies any impropriety on his part in regards to Hos ters accusations. Considering that fifty-five percent or 107,733 of the 195,906 female enlisted officers report encountering some type of sexual harassment or sexism, the cases involving drill sergeants at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds and Sergeant Major Gene McKinney are only two visible examples of a very large problem facing the military (Barry and Thomas 49; Sciolino A14; Vistica and Thomas 47).

The US Military recognizes that sexual harassment is a problem; however, the military has its own opinions why it occurs. The military contends the major problem is a lack of leadership. This contention is based on evidence uncovered in Army inve stigations that found wide spread discrimination against women by male commanders, dangerously high trainee to drill sergeant ratios, and a selection process that allowed "wife beaters" to fill drill sergeant positions (qtd. in Schmitt A19). Th e investigation found that commanders generally ignored instances of sexual harassment, and when it was acknowledged, rules of enforcement were inconsistently applied between military bases. In addition, the investigation found the trainee to drill serge ant ratio to be thirty-five to one, instead of the Army standard of twenty to one. Investigators feel this elevated ratio combined with high stress, could lead to misconduct by drill sergeants. The Army examinationof the drill sergeant selection system found it did not consider a candidate's maturity or complete a thorough background check. There was no close investigation of instances where rill sergeants had beaten their wives, which was a particular problem with some of the accused at the Aberdeen P roving Ground. The military's position is that the problems of sexual harassment in the military can be attributed to a lack of leadership, detailed in two army investigations (Barry and Thomas 49; Schmitt A1,A19).

Opponents of the military's lack of leadership reasoning believe the problems lie in how the military environment facilitates sexual harassment, in addition to making it difficult for women to resist or report instances of sexual advances. They fe el the creed of drill sergeants, the power of the military structure, and the fact that military women can not just walk away from their jobs contributes to drill sergeants having powers over women that result in sexual harassment. These issues are expla ined by civilian psychiatrist Major Elsbeth Ritchie in testimony at the court martial of a drill sergeant from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Ritchie explains that fear of sexual harassment in the military is elevated due to a drill sergeant creed of &quo t;I am Mother, I am Father, and God to recruits" (qtd. Sciolino, pg. A14). Furthermore, the military structure is so powerful that a woman may believe reporting sexual harassment will lead to recrimination. Opponents feel that the combined power of the military structure, the drill sergeants creed, and the fact that soldiers cannot just leave their jobs are the major causes of sexual harassment, as well as the reasons why women are so hesitant to resist or report it (Barry and Thomas 49; Schmitt A1 ,A19; Sciolino A14).

In furthering the debate of why sexual harassment exists in the military, both sides have specific opinions regarding the role ingrained culture patterns play in sexual harassment. Opponents say that culture patterns divide the sexes by promoting harassment of women and demeaning their achievements, while defendants say they are building a warrior culture that requires brutish training. Opponent Linda Bird Franke accuses the military of reinforcing the "institutional promotion of male domina nce, the aura of hypermasculinity, the collective to disparage women in general, and women in the military specifically" (qtd. in Bernstein, pg. C13). Franke feels that even if women could prove they could do tasks better than men, the military cult ure would ensure discrimination. The military counters this position by explaining that building of a soldier is a rough and invasive process directed at breaking down the pureness of the physical person, and the sharpenting of his or her awareness. Sol diers abuse each other in their daily routine to find the weakest link, and then shame or bully them to come up to par. This is how units ensure their survival, because once they are in combat, their lives depend on their buddies' performance. While the opponents of ingrained cultural patterns believe they promote the harassment of women, defenders feel they are a necessity of building a warrior culture (Barry 47; Bernstein C13; Gutman 18-22).

Just as each side agrees that sexual harassment is a problem, while disagreeing on why it occurs; each side agrees something must be done to stop it, while putting forward their own propositions. The military has taken a three-step approach to dea ling with sexual harassment. First, the military has assigned more chaplains to training bases to give trainees another avenue to report problems and concerns. Secondly, the military has assigned one hundred new lieutenants to advanced-training units so that company commanders, who are captains, can spend more time with their troops, lessening the drill sergeant to trainee ratio. Thirdly, the procedure for selecting drill sergeants has been tightened by means of a psychological evaluation of all candid ates, and a thorough criminal background check to uncover any instances in a candidates past relating to the abuse of women. While critics agree with the steps taken by the military to solve the sexual harassment of women within its ranks, however, they feel the military needs to go further by recruiting more women from non-traditional jobs. These critics cite a 1996 Government Accounting Office study that dound that when women are integrated into non-traditional jobs, such as combat, there is a transit ion period, which usually starts with sexual harassment. As the number of women increases (critical mass being about twenty five percent), men and women start making distinctions among each other on issues other than gender. This position is supported b y military figures that show in the Marine Corps, where the percentage of enlisted women in the ranks is the lowest, instances of sexual harassment are the highest, at sixty four percent; while in the Air Force where hte percentage of enlisted women in th e ranks is the highest, instances of sexual harassment are the lowerst, at forty nine percent. While each side has its own individual solutions to the problem of sexual harassment of women in the military, the best solution is to implement all of their i deas (Barry 47; Barry and Thomas 49; Janofsky A10).

At the same time both sides debate the causes and solutions to sexual harassment of women in the military, they are divided on whether women should be allowed to serve in front line combat roles traditionally occupied by men. While issues of recru iting quotas, equality of physical training standards, physical strength ability to enhance units, pregnancy, and national security are debated. There are also issues regarding military career advancement opportunities for women compared to men, the publ ic readiness to accept women in combat, and whether violence against women in combat will generate an acceptance of violence against women in general.

While each side takes a position on women in combat roles, military recruitng quotas for women are another divisive issue. Women currently represent fifteen percent of military personnel, and their presence is increasing among new recruits; in the Air Force the recruitment of women has increased twenty-five percent. Proponents of women in combat roles say this is do to national need, since there are not enough men enlisting. Without women, the military would not meet its recruitng quotas. Recru iters' claim that their male quotas are filled almost immediately. However with women, there are not as many joining so they have to hire all that meet the minimum requirements. Recruiters maintain that they have to use an "informal double standard " on strength differences (qtd. in Gutman 19), recruiting men that are in near perfect physical condition, while women barely clear the minimum of the "gender-normed" test (qtd. in Gutman 19; Barry and Thomas 49; Bernstein C13).

At the same time recruiters claim women do not meet the same physical standards as men, opponents of women in combat roles claim that physical training standards are unequal; that women are unable to compete with men in training and are unequipped for combat roles. While physical training standards may have been unequal in the past, they are not any longer. The Military has toughened its standards, making them more equal for both sexes. As of October 1997, every soldier, male and female, is requ ired to do fifty sit-ups in two minutes representing an increase of three for men and five for women from the old standard which critics claimed was unequal. In addition, both sexes must now run two miles, men in sixteen minutes thirty six seconds and wo men in nineteen minutes thirty six seconds. This requirement makes the distance requirement equal, while providing women three additional minutes to compensate for their smaller cardio-plumonary systems. In addition, all soldiers must pass a fitness tes t every six months and if they fail and do not pass it within ninety days, they are discharged. These gender equivalent physical training standards prove that women can compete in training and perform combat roles as effectively as men (Komarow A8).

While more equal physical traning standards have been adopted, opponents claim that women do not possess the physical strength to serve with men in combat roles. While it is true that men's greater upper body mass and larger cardio-pulmonary syste ms help them in push-ups and running, women have a lower center of gravity that helps them perform sit-ups. Furhermore, looking at the Gulf War proves women's possession of the required physical strength. Women used MK-19 grenade launchers and machine g uns, lobbed grenades, and received and returned fire. According to Captain George Botoulas women "dug the same holes as combat troops and fought the same war" (qtd. in Janofsky A10). The proven ability of women to perform combat roles along si de their male comrades in the Gulf War, and the fact that women's body structure allows them to performs certain tasks more easily than men shows that women do have the physical strength required for combat roles (Janofsky A10; Komarow A8).

In addition to the issue of women's physical strength, is the issue of their role in enhancing units by increasing the performance of both sexes and the creation of a more cohesive environment. A 1996 Government Accounting Office study found that the performance of both men and women improved in gender integrated units, because men did not want to be "bested" by women (qtd. in Janofsky A10), nor women by men. The study also found that when women are integrated into non-traditional jobs, such as combat, there is a transition period, which usually starts with sexual harassment. As the number of women increases (the critical mass being about twenty five percent), men and women start making distinctions among each other on issues other tha n gender. As these women and men work together as equals they become cohesive, and enhance their units. The effectiveness of this process is evidence of the new attitude of military personal like Marine Corp. Private Nicholas, who shrugs off any suggest ion that a female partner might perform differently from a male one by saying that "men or women, that doesn't matter. We are trained as Marines, to rise above any situation of male-female. All we see is another Marine" (qtd. in Janofsky A10). By overcoming prejudices, and working together as equals, men and women in combat roles become a cohesive group, enhanced by women (Janofsky A10).

While women are able to enhance their units and create a cohesive environment, opponents promote the idea that because female soldiers become pregnant, they adversely affect combat readiness. When the US military was in Bosnia, (December 20, 1995 until July 19, 1996), every three days a woman was evacuated to Germany due to pregnancy. During the Gulf War, thirty-six of the three hundred sixty women sailors on the Arcadia became pregnant and had to be evacuated. The military position is that preg nancy is a non-issue, and it does not normally adversely affect the career of a soldier. Opponents to integration say that pregnant soldiers are, or are soon to be, non-deployable solders. If a platoon is performing a lot of heavy labor, such as moving equipment, digging, or setting up tents, pregnant soldiers will be answering phones instead of helping the members of their platoon, which causes some resentment. Opponents also suspect that some women are getting pregnant on purpose to avoid combat duty . Proponents of integration respond to statements concerning pregnancy adversely affecting combat readiness by noting that absenteeism from various tasks is at least as high among young men. Pregnancy is a non-issue because both a pregnant female soldie r and an absentee male soldier are unable to perform tasks and are both essentially non-deployable (Barry and Thomas 49; Gutman 18-22; Barry 47; Bernstein C13).

The fact that pregnancy is a non-issue to the military and that women are able to enhance their units, the inclusion of women in combat roles strengthens national security by expanding the number of combat soldiers available when required. The mil itary counts on women to fill recruiting gaps because not enough man are enlisting in the military. By allowing these new female recruits the option of pursuing combat roles, the military will expand the number of combat ready troops it has to work with when they are required. Integrating large numbers of high quality female recruits into non-traditional fields made the all-volunteer force of the Gulf War possible. However, by not allowing women into front line combat roles the military limited the fle xibility of commanders to use all their soldiers, however, needed, especially under fire. Retired Air Force Brigadier General Wilma Vaught feels that women should have the opportunity of serving wherever they are capable of serving, but she is not in fav or of anyone, male or female, being assigned to combat duty if they are not capable of it. Just as not every woman may be up to the killing required of the infantry during a war, not every man may be either. Women like Pam Wright, a senior cadet at West Point Military Academy wants the "same opportunity to serve the countyr as her male colleagues" (qtd. in Marks 4). This desire shows a deep patriotism, and if the young cadet is the best person for the job, Nancy Campbell, President of the Nat ional Women's Law Center, thinks the cadet is not just advancing her own career, but national security as well. The integration of women strengthens national security by ensuring recruiting quotas are met and the military has the most equally qualified c ombat personnel that it requires to operate effectively (Marks 4; Mariner C7).

While integrating women into combat roles strengthens national security by providing equally qualified combat personnel, it also enables women to advance into leadership roles previously unavailable to women. Traditionally, upon entering the milit ary, women receive less training and fewer promotions. They are excluded from ground combat service in the infantry, armor, and artillery branches; the typical path top military leaders take as they move up the ranks. While women represent fifteen perc ent of the military, they only fill 0.9 percent of the military's top1000 officers jobs and only 0.8 percent of the top 15,000 senior enlisted positions. Because of combat exclusion, women are effectively eliminated from most high-ranking leadership posi tions in the military. This exclusion from combat roles denies them the combat training and command positions considred career enhancing for furher advancement in leadership roles. By allowing women into combat roles, they are given equal opportunity to advance along the same path to senior military leadership positions as men; and the competition between women and men result in the promotion of the person with the best qualifications (Bennett-Haigney 3, Marks 4).

While women should be allowed to rise along the same path to leadership that combat positions offer men, critics say that the public is not ready to accept women in combat roles, because they are uncomfortable with women being killed, or becoming p risoners of war. Oppomemts claim combat is about killing and being killed, and the public is not ready for women to be killed in combat. In defending their position, they feel that if the soldiers "killed, mutilated, and dragged" through the s treets of Somalia had been women (qtd. in Bernstein C13), that the public would not support women in combat. However, according to the Wirthling Report, the majority of Americans favor women in military combat jobs. Among those polled, 57% faovred women in combat, while 41% disagreed. The poll also measured how Americans perceived the opinion of others; 66% believed other Americans disapproved of the policy (Boeck and Visgaitis 1). The result of this poll indicates that contrary to what opponents say, the public is in fact behind the concept of women in combat. The fact that women were killed in the Gulf War did not spark outrage, or misgivings; however, the numbers of casualties were low. It is impossible to guess the reaction of the public if a ma jor war with numerous casualties of both sexes were to occur now. While the majority of Americans agree that woman should be allowed into combat roles, it is impossible to gauge their reaction to female casualties of a war that has not, and may not happe n, and thus excluding women from combat roles because the public might be outraged is unreasonable (Barry and Thomas 49; Berstei C13; Boeck and Visgaitis 1; Gutman 19).

While the public is ready to accept women in combat roles, this is not an endoresment of further violence against women. On the contrary, the progress women make in the military enhancing their units and their careers will also "enhance the s ocietal view of women as leaders and fighters, instead of victims, in a culture where violence is prevalent" (qtd. in Marks 4). Women do not want to be seen as weak, inferior, or in need of the protection of men. Allowing women into combat roles se nds out a positive message that women are capable of defending themselves, equally as capably as men. It is not possible to prove the opposition argument that society will become more accepting of violence against women because of the death or rape of fe male prisioners of war because there has not been a major war involving America to base these statements on. By treating women as equals, allowing them to prove their physical and mental strength as equals of men in a more positive approach to fight viol ence against women (Marks 4).

The sexual harassment of women in the military is unacceptable, as is the idea of reverting to the segregation of men and women. Whether it is due to a lack of leadership, a result of the military environment, or due to ingrained cultural patterns , the sexual harassment of women by male superiors cannot go unchallenged. This is particularly true in the military environment where soldiers cannot just walk away from their jobs. It is also important that sexual harassment is not tolerated so male a nd female soldiers can work together as a unit based on performance, not gender. The idea of reverting to segregation by gender is not an acceptable solution to deal with sexual harassment. It is preferable to find and implement real solutions to deal w ith the problems of sexual harassment in the military, rather than segregating the genders and pretending the problem does not exist.

The integration of women into combat roles that are free of sexual harassment and based on equality is a positive move for the military, the soldiers (male and female), and the society they serve. Both men and women should be provided the same equ al treatment and opportunities as long as they are able to meet the same standards. Whether male or female, if they can not meet the minimum standard, they should not be allowed into the military. Women are capable of meeting the physical strength and t raining standards, and they are able to enhance both their units and national security. Together with the support of the majority of Americans, women should be treated as the equals of male soldiers and given the same opportunity to pursue front line com bat positions.

Works Cited

Barry, John. "At War in the Barracks." Newsweek 17 Feb. 1997: 47.

Barry, John and Evan Thomas. "At War Over Women." Newsweek 12 May 1997: 48-49.

Bennett-Haigney, Lisa. E-mail to David Babcock. 11 Nov. 1997. "National NOW Resolutions."

Bernstein, Richard. "On a Cultural Battlefield: Women in the Military." New York Times 23

Jun. 1997: C13.

Boeck, Scott and Gary Visgaitis. "USA Snapshots: Women in combat favored." USA Today 10

Mar. 1997: A1.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Penn. Commission for Women. Sexual Harassment on the Job.

1981., 1993.

Gutman, Stephanie. "Sex and the Soldier." The New Republic 24 Feb. 1997: 18-22.

Janofsky, Michael. "Women in the Marines Join the Firing Line." The New York Times 1 Apr.

1997: A10.

Komarow, Steven. "Army toughens fitness rules for women, men." USA Today 24-26 Oct.

1997:A8.

Mariner, Rosemary. "The Military Needs Women. . ." The Washington Post 11 May 1997: C7.

Marks, Alexandra. "US Women in Combat Draw Unfriendly Fire." The Christian Science

Monitor 18 Apr. 1997: 1,4.

Paludi, Michele A., and Richard B. Barickman. Academic and Workplace Sexual Harassment.

Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991.

Schmitt, Eric. "Army Inquiries Find a Wide Bias Against Women." New York Times 31 Jul.

1997: A1, A19.

Sciolino, Elaine. "Military Women Are Vulnerable to Abuse, Psychiatrist Saya." New York

Times 16 Apr. 1997: A14.

Vistica, Gregory L., and Evan Thomas. "Trouble in the Ranks." Newsweek 17 Feb. 1997: 46.