Introduction and validation of issue.
Field artillery. The combination of the two words simulate the same emotions one
experiences right before a roller-coaster dives down the steep side of the track. The anticipation from the climb is exactly how I have felt the past two years about commissioning as an officer into the artillery, as a female especially, as everyone likes to point out. Speaking of being a female soldier, the ban for women to serve in combat roles has been lifted. Due to the relevance and political popularity of the pressing matter, deciding what to focus my capstone on wasn’t all that difficult. The content surrounding this particular subject is littering the Internet. I've been reading articles and watching videos on the integration long before researching it became the crown jewel of my degree. At the beginning of my research I hypothesized most men would be openly anti-integration. I came to this uneducated conclusion based solely off the comments from keyboard warriors responding to feminist media focused on the military. I’ve always done things people thought weren’t possible on purpose, and it wasn’t until last year I realized I have been dedicating my being to Expectancy Violations Theory.
A review of literature that addresses the issue.
Abstract
The integration of women into combat arms positions within the military is a hot button issue since 2015. The United States has lifted the ban on women occupying ground combat roles, and there is much confusion circulating within infantry and other similar units on how to properly integrate, never mind the hesitancy. This study will outline apprehensions, address doubts about women successfully filling these roles and serve as a document for future female service members looking to properly insert herself with success among other warriors using peer reviewed articles. This study was conducted utilizing a combination of polling 89 individuals and interviewing combat veterans both male and female. It gathered an array of viewpoints but overall the message is the same: in order for integration to satisfy the masses, the standards cannot be changed for women.
People are feeling all sorts of ways about females finally being afforded the opportunity to occupy ground combat roles in the United States military. Battle-hardened infantrymen are outraged and disgusted that women now have the same opportunities to fight in wars. Feminists are jumping for joy and their skin becomes prickled each time a decision furthering this movement is made. Numerous negative and positive opinions surround this decision. Some backed with valid studies, others stated out of frustration and ignorance.
The bottom line is this: stances no longer matter. The law is passed. The integration has begun and the best action to take now is mapping and executing the best strategies to create the strongest co-ed fighting force possible.
The most common argument pertains to a woman’s build. Smaller physical stature is not meant for carrying combat loads, more susceptible to injury and most importantly is incapable of dragging a large male plus all of his equipment out of a fire fight, a vehicle or any other dangerous circumstance.
According to an article published in TIMES, “‘Women don’t have the brute strength that’s needed in combat,’ says Jude Eden, a woman who served as a Marine sergeant in Iraq for seven months.” Another study mentioned in the article conducted by the Marines reported “13% of female marines were injured in infantry training, compared with 2% for men.”
The problem with statistics is the majority. The women who are truy born for these roles add to national security rather than detract from it. Females capable of filling ground combat jobs are physical spectacles. The statistics from the test conducted by the Marines were taken from average individuals. Women who want combat roles can meet the standard and far exceed the norm.
“Brenda ‘Sue’ Fulton, a former Army captain says the tests were designed to produce lopsided result. The women in the mixed units weren’t trained to the standard of their male counterparts,” (Thompson, 2015).
Substantial scientific evidence makes it impossible to deny the physical differences between men and women’s overall capabilities. Women in the military are more likely to be hospitalized. More likely does not, however, mean every woman filling these physically demanding roles will become a liability. While overall, women are at a higher risk for stress fractures among other injuries, the ones meant for the job will outperform in the long run.
“Indeed, women have been found to outperform men in ultra endurance competitions both when controlled for race pace and in open environments...It has also been shown that women have more fatty acid transport proteins, which translates to an increase in availability of fat as fuel, thus prolonging the onset of hypoglycemia and extending time to fatigue,” (Nindl, Jones, Arsdale, Kelly, Kraemer, 2016). Not only have women outperformed men in survival modes, but they can do it with less calories.
Perhaps the most terrifying argument for keeping women out of ground combat positions is the notion that they are a threat to national security by being a sexual distraction on the battlefield, among other reasons. Plenty of infantrymen agree integrating women will reduce the morale of the force, therefore compromising standards.
“It was [also] widely feared that sexual distractions would be corrosive of
soldierly camaraderie. Emotions which might otherwise foster close ties between men would instead inspire romantic relationships between men and women,” (DeGroot, 1997). A deeper look from males with experience working with females in an infantry training environment concludes just the opposite.
“Second Lieutenant Michael Janowski insists that the women were far from a distraction at Ranger School. In fact, he credits Haver with helping him succeed,” (Abrahams, 2015). As early as 1941, the British Royal Anti-Aircraft battery deployed women and men together. Rather than a deteriorating brotherhood, the mixed units had a stronger bond compared to the all-male alternatives.
“The Americans eventually found that their mixed batteries had high unit cohesion and bonding, performing better than all-male units,” (DeGroot, 1997).
In order to begin and maintain a successful integration, many things need to change for the better. A necessary starting point is eliminating the use of sexist and gendered language. Since females are the minority in the military, the default mindset that they are the distraction, the problem, or the flaw in the unit because the minority is easier to control.
“Certain behaviors clearly interfere with the accomplishment of military goals and the well-being of personnel. These include some obvious extreme hostile behaviors, such as physical and sexual assault, as well as sexual harassment...However, dysfunctional behavior also includes sexist behavior and gender harassment, which have not received the attention they deserve,” (Segal, Segal, Smith, Canuso, 2016).
Extreme masculine displays of behavior is a key factor in winning wars. However, as an evolving species it is entirely possible to omit the degradation of women while maintaining these extreme behaviors.
“Both the combat taboo and strictly defined gender roles survived the war. Civilization, as the British knew it, did not crumble,” (DeGroot, 1997).
In order to successfully integrate women into all-male units, it is paramount that all concerns and questions, no matter the comfort level, are addressed. If they are not, fear of the unknown will create a toxic work environment and halt any growth pertaining to the integration.
“Since the fear of negative outcomes tends to be more activating than the desire or drive for
positive outcomes, it behooves the leader to address these challenges and fears directly,” (Moosey,
2016). Changes take time to become normalized and therefore socially accepted. There was a time when the United States military only permitted whites. Today, citizens are appalled at the once exercised regulation. A generation or two from now, people will think the same about females being banned from ground combat at one point in history.
“It [is] believed that men who had known no other army life would not find the atmosphere of a mixed battery so hysterically Unorthodox,” (DeGroot, 1997). The next generation to enlist will know nothing except integration, and that is where this case will become irrelevant.
Works Cited
Abrahams, M. (2015). Should Woman Do This? Scholastic Scope, 64(3), 14-15
DeGroot, G. (1997). Whose finger on the Trigger? Mixed Anti-Aircraft Batteries and the Female
Combat Taboo. War in History, 4(4), 434-453.
Moosey, M.(2016). Communicating Difficult and Taboo Information: A How-To Guide for
Commanders. Military Medicine, 18140-43.
Segal, M. W., Smith, D. G., Segal, D. R., & Canuso, A. A. (2016). The Role of Leadership
and Peer Behaviors in the Performance and Well-Being of Women in Combat: Historical
Perspectives, Unit Integration, and Family Issues. Military Medicine, 18128-39.
Thompson, M. (2015) Sending Women to War. Time, 186(24), 52-55.
Nindl, B. C., Jones, B. H., Van Arsdale, S. J., Kelly, K., & Kraemer, W. J. (2016).
Operational Physical Performance and Fitness in Military Women: Physiological, Musculoskeletal Injury, and Optimized Physical Training Considerations for Successfully Integrating Women Into Combat-Centric Military Occupations. Military Medicine, 18150-62.
My Proposal was to dig into the military and discover their true opinion of the female integration. From a limited and under researched point, it appeared men as a whole were completely against integration. After extensive research the conclusion is much different. People just want the standards kept the same so national security is not compromised.
It required me to ask questions in a very specific manner, utilizing my interpersonal skills.
The best way someone with no prior experience working with females to handle the integration is to simply have no expectations. Interpersonal communication teaches that expectations will ultimately cause a downfall in a relationship.
It works the other way around as well. Women being integrated should enter with an open mind and realize they will most likely be a living example of Expectancy Violations Theory.
Demonstrate effective cross-cultural communication knowledge and skills in achieving a global perspective.
Around 2011, the Army began organizing and incorporating CST’s, or combat support teams. Such a vague acronym for such an amazing mission. The best of the best females applied, from that batch, the most competent and able applicants were accepted to tryout, and finally the cream of the crop CST members was the result.
I had the opportunity to interview Kat Kaelin, a young woman who was on a CST. I have quite an extensive interview with her about her deployment experience, and how overall effective women were in combat, and she had quite a boatload to say on the issue.
The conflict in which we are currently engaging deals with marriage and women all together completely different than Western culture. I hope this is not a surprise for anyone reading.
CST’s operate where no elite military personnel can. They see the women, talk to them, take care of them. In return, the CST’s get a few answers that would otherwise remain unknown. Women run the household in this society. They know who comes in, who leaves, and who enters when they are not welcome. However, men in the military have zero access to Middle eastern women. If that doesn’t scream cultural application on a global level then I quit.
Project plan with measurable objectives.
The most difficult concept convey at first was “measurable objectives,” since I produced a podcast. Podcasts are so intriguing, but the flavor I tend to appreciate or gravitate toward are the ones centered around humanistic, or case by case approaches. Appreciating that everyone comes from somewhere different and has different outlooks on life or others. That’s nearly impossible to measure, unless you can formulate a survey, which I did using a Lykert scale.
I also had predictions, which in this sense is the next closest term to objectives. The layout of my podcast would consist of a few episodes, noted earlier in my blog. Each episode would consist of different opinions or angles concerning female integration, giving a full spectrum at the podcast’s end.
Execution of the plan.
Networking was they key player in my execution of this project, and luckily the military community is extremely close-knit community. At the conclusion of every interview was a lead on another valuable source. My original plan was to divide interviews into episodes I had assigned. After the first four interviews I realized the project was not going as planned. I realized I couldn’t just lump people’s opinions I had no prior knowledge of into categories I came up with. Attempting it would be stereotyping at its finest.
Analysis of the plan's effectiveness - observational research, data analysis, application to identified PLOs.
As previously mentioned, my original plan was not as effective as a better planned alternative. However, this was a living, breathing and maneuverable project I was able to shift modes in order to properly meet my standards, and produce the best educational outcome. I briefly noted I had made assumptions about peoples reactions toward this interview process. I had hypothesized the majority of my male interviews would consist of a hesitation toward female integration. Almost the opposite proved to be reality. All my interviewees, minus one said they were of the opinion that a female should fill the role if she can meet the standard. Black and white, simple as that.
Discussion - self evaluation of performance, good, bad, ugly.
Everyone is their own worst critic. I think I grew professionally, and learned more about why I decided to enter a combat arms role as a female, which was an unexpected outcome. This project was poorly organized, though fueled with an overdose of enthusiasm and passion toward the issue. I am quite disappointed in the outcome, only because I know how much more groundbreaking it could have been if I had worked a timeline better. Aside from the project, I am not too disappointed in my written evaluation and research. I sought out legitimate and diverse sources.
8. Attachments, supporting documents, screen shots of Insights and/or Google analytics data.
No comments:
Post a Comment