Katie Mason
English 102
Research Paper Outline
15 April 2016
G.I. Jane
Thesis: Even though some feminists, men, and government officials believe women are not cut out for the military, others rightfully believe that women enhance team efficiency, are made for action, belong on the field, maintain academies’ reputations, and decrease sexual harassment due to enrollment in the military.
Katie Mason
Dr. Watkins
English 102
15 April 2016
G.I. Jane
G.D. Anderson is famous for a controversial quote that strikes the attention of many feminists, men, and government officials: “Feminism isn’t about making women stronger. Women are already strong. It’s about changing the way the world perceives that strength.” Unfortunately, some people disagree with the liberal feminist point of view when the subject covers women’s roles in the military. Others, including both women and men, believe that females can make substantial contributions and should be recognized for their labor in the military. Michael Levin, philosophy professor, Brian Mitchell, former military officer, and James A. Webb, American government official, conclude, “Many of the arguments against women in the military stress issues such as male bonding, physiological differences, traditional gender roles and the belief that the preparation for and execution of war is simply not a woman's role” (Herbert par. 3). Even though some feminists, men, and government officials believe women are not cut out for the military, others rightfully believe that women enhance team efficiency, are made for action, belong on the field, maintain academies’ reputations, and decrease sexual harassment due to enrollment in the military.
First of all, some say women cannot bond with the men, but women are a perfect addition to all areas of the military, which includes the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy. Inside these branches, women are often portrayed negatively. One example is shown when Levin writes, "A handful of women might be physically and psychologically suited for combat, but if their introduction into male units disrupts the intangible bonds that keep a unit effective, egalitarians will have to decide whether being defended by male boors is too high a price to pay for survival" (qtd. in Herbert par. 3) Of course, this quote shows that some women are just as capable at defending their country as men, but it also portrays a problem with women’s acceptance into a men’s alliance; women are suited for combat, but if they destroy the friendship between the men, then adding women into the program is not worth the risk. People who discourage females within the military address women joining a team of all men as an issue. Herbert claims that those opponents believe that females destroy the links that hold the soldiers together, or in other words, they decimate men’s friendship (par. 3). Also, opponents are implying that women and men cannot bond and that men can only get along with other men. In addition, there are people who view women as the cause of separating America. For example, Anna Quindlen, an American author, journalist, and opinion columnist for New York Times column, adds, “It's all women's fault. Equal opportunity, the wearing of slacks, women in the military and on the bench, feminism, even bobbed hair -- all have contributed to the disintegration of American society” (par. 1). Quindlen blatantly states her strong opinion of women in the military by claiming that they are the cause of America’s dissociation. However, this cannot be true because there are men and women who have inseparable bonds. The problem is not that men and women are not able to create bonds but that women are not given the chance. Women do not separate groups of men; nonetheless, men in the military are often unwelcoming to women. Therefore, women are a great addition to the military, even though some are not given the opportunity.
Ultimately, men and women’s relationships in the military raise concerns about the mission’s success and goal. An unsettling dispute is being held over the idea of men spending more time saving women than focusing on the purpose of the mission. David Horowitz, an American conservative writer, explains, “Another problem raised by William Lind is what happens when women troops are actually deployed. In combat situations, men will act instinctively to protect women, abandoning their tactical objectives in, the process” (par. 26). Men are described as protectors, but just because they cannot control their instincts does not mean female soldiers should have to suffer from inequality. Ultimately, these relationships and instincts raise concerns about the purpose of the mission, but that should not be a deciding factor of women’s inclusion in the military.
In this case, women deserve to be involved in an institution with the same standards as men, which is what Virginia Military Institute (VMI) has begun to explore. Rosen states that the government has decided to follow the VMI’s wishes and keep gender separate; this fete also caused the state to build a new institution for women, otherwise known as Virginia Women’s Institute of Leadership (VWIL) (par. 11). The problem with the Virginia Women’s Institute of Leadership is the fact that women are still not being treated equally. If there were grounds to separate men and women for same-sex interaction, then they should uphold an equal discipline system. Jeffrey Rosen, a legal commentator, explains that academies such as The Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership are nowhere close to resembling the VMI. For example, students live in the college dorms, join classes with other Mary Baldwin College students, are not forced to have uniforms unless participating in Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, a training program, and are encouraged opposed to hard-pressed (par. 11). Rosen adds:
And Mary Baldwin suffers in comparison to VMI in other, more intractable ways: 100 points lower average SAT scores, lower faculty salaries, no engineering program for the B.S. degree, and so forth. All in all, the argument goes, Mary Baldwin is to VMI as Pine Manor (rather than Wellesley) is to Harvard. (par. 11)
The quote explains that Mary Baldwin is not on the same level as VMI and that men and women are in completely unequal institutions. If the government is going to propose an academy for women, then they need to keep both institutions equal and not give sympathy towards women.Why are women being treated differently? Many people assume that women’s introduction into the military will diminish men’s focus; the government created an institution just for women in order to solve the problem, but the academy turned to be unfair.
Of course, when the topic turns to inequality, most of those who oppose females in the military will claim that women are only treated differently because they diminish the reputations of academies due to their lack of physical labor. Someone who opposes women’s involvement in the military might say that females do not amount to the work that men put in and that they actually lower original standards. For example, most of all academies accept gender norming, which is the act of basing females’ ability on lower standards than that of male counterparts. Suzanne Fields, a columnist for The Washington Times, expresses, “A larger question is the significant one: Will women at VMI change the nature of the training? Unlike the other military academies, VMI officials say they won't allow ‘gender norming’ - diluting the physical and psychological exercises for women so that women can meet them” (par. 6). Fortunately, Fields states that the VMI claims they will not allow gender norming, but clearly VWIL has not carried out that idea (par. 6). This would mean that some academies lower standards for women. Overall, women are treated differently because opposers hold close to the idea that females destroy institutions’ reputations.
In contrast to what some might think, women can amount to the work required for men. Although, the thought of making women equivalent to men concern some feminists. Fields argues that feminists do believe women should be seen as equal, but they do not feel that VMI should try to make females be like males without utilizing women’s talents that they might have in combat (par. 8). Rightfully, feminists see men and women uniquely. In their eyes, men are skilled, and while women have different skills, they are also talented. Women do not diminish reputation; they enhance it in different ways such as bringing in challenges and new ideas. Others who oppose do not see the work women bring.
Women are also treated differently because joining the military is not seen as a traditional gender role for females. Women are seen to be inferior to males and are to assist men. Hilde Lindemann, an American philosophy professor and bioethicist, deliniates, “The term gender refers to this power relation, which operates through society's institutions and practices by conferring the control of resources and the right to social goods on men while relegating women to subordinate positions in service of men's interests and concerns” (par. 2). This claims that men are seen to bear resources and take care of what is needed. On the other hand, women are seen to take care of men and any other job that men do not cover. Throughout history, most of society has placed women under men. For example, what are supposed to be degrading phrases such as “you hit like a girl” and “you’re being such a girl” are frequently used. When the situation turns to women in the military, beliefs such as “a woman was not made to fight” and “this is not women’s work” are common. A traditional job for a woman would be to clean the house and bear children. Quindlen states:
And the solution is clear: Women were never made to be in the work force outside the home, but to marry, bear children, and guide the house. The young women are not exhorted to become professional business women, to be some man's boss or submit themselves to another head, but are under the father's authority until marriage, when the husband becomes her only head and authority and her provider. (par. 2)
This quote delegates women to the chores around the house. Even though joining the military is not the traditional role for women, female soldiers contribute more than they are given credit for.
Although women are stereotyped for household jobs, women can amount to more than cleaning dishes and sweeping. They are capable of standing next to fellow soldiers and defending their country. Of course, there are physiological differences between men and women, but that does not mean that either gender is any less significant than the other. For example, Anne Maloney, philosophy professor, explains that since women are able to bear and give birth to their kids unlike men, they are seen to not be aggressively active. Instead, many Americans assume that they are nurturing like a mother, caring, and gentle (par. 8). Of course, not all women are the same in the caring aspect, and even if so, women can be just as aggressive as men. Herbert explains that these differences should not condone the outcast of women (par. 7). Overall, women should not be singled out due to physiological differences or treated unfairly due to stereotypical gender roles.
To form equality between men and women, equal pay between both sexes would have to be established. Many believe that women should be paid less than men because they do not work as hard. Of course, that would be generalizing all women as lazy. This cannot be true because there are females who work harder than some men. How can a woman who is constantly overworking herself be paid less than a man who hardly works? Vincent Tompkins, a deputy provost of Brown University, states that females are paid on average 57 percent of what males are earning (Tompkins 7-8). Women can work just as hard as men, but they continue to get paid less due to gender discrimination in previous years. All in all, women should have equal pay.
Another point constructed from those who oppose women’s introduction into the military is that coexistence will increase sexual harassment. Horowitz asserts that at West Point, a military academy, over 50 percent of females had stated that they were sexaully assaulted and harassed (par. 24). This shows that women are being raped and harassed within the military, but the question is why are these women being degraded? Some would like to say that men are attacking women in order to keep the females inferior and for men to maintain dominance. Horowitz delineates, “The problem of sexual harassment is unrelated to the different biologies and sexual drives of men and women. The real problem is an institutional framework that causes women to be perceived as inferior” (par. 14). In other words, giving women dominance or equality will decrease immoral sexual behavior. He also proceeds to add, “In the eyes of the gender feminists, if women were included in combat (and thus treated as the equals they are), if gender roles were abolished, then sexual harassment would cease to be a ‘major problem’” (Horowitz par. 14). Of course, feminists are on the right path by putting women in higher positions to show men how tough they are, which could lower the count of sexual harassment victims. Fields expresses that there is a bigger picture when combining men and women together in the military. She does not believe the harassment will and that makes her question as to why women would want to be a part of that (par. 1). Ultimately, she does not see that females will gain confidence or fight back. As soon as that happens, men will draw back and stop attacking women. The growth and decay of sexual harassment due to female’s involvement in the military will decrease if society would abolish the laws that keep women out of combat.
Women are trapped behind laws that allow them to fight equally. Commander Rosemary Mariner, a 19-year career naval officer who completely agrees with equality, presents a descriptive affidavit that explains the problem is not combining men and women together. She expresses the real problem is bigotry and how it is the cause of assault. She finally adds, “From common verbal abuse to the criminal acts of a Tailhook debacle, sexual harassment will continue to be a major problem in the armed forces because the combat exclusion law and policies make women institutionally inferior” (qtd. in Horowitz par. 13). She correctly claims that because of these laws harassment will continue. Horowitz then adds that whenever the policies and laws are altered, females’ pride will increase, men’s admiration for women will rise, and sexual harassment will to cease to exist (par. 15). This would mean that if these laws and policies are changed in favor of women, then men would not view women as inferior but as equals. In this case, females will not be targeted nor thought of as an object but as a human. If this were to continue, the destruction of sexual harassment would attract more men into these academies and more bonds would be created. According to Fields, institutions with women are afflicted with conflicting principles and sexual abuse, which is causing men to stay away from the academies (Fields par. 8). If sexual harassment were to vanish, there would likely be a male presence and more bonding. Ultimately, the only way to stop this inequality that keeps sexual harassment and women inferiority thriving is the laws and policies that should be revamped.
All in all, although some believe women are not suitable for the military, others believe that women better team efficiency, are suited for action, belong on the field, maintain academies’ reputations, and decrease sexual harassment due to enrollment in the military. Females are capable of any obstacle given to them. In fact, they are just as capable as men. Society does not need to focus on making females stronger. Women are already strong, but no one recognizes their strength. It has become common today to dismiss the idea of women obtaining courage. Overall, society needs to realize the skills they have and work on how to use their abilities. In conclusion, for every G.I. Joe on the field, there should be a G.I. Jane fighting by his side.
Works Cited
Fields, Suzanne. "Rat-ifying Feminism." The Washington Times [Washington, DC] 25 Aug. 1997: 15. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Herbert, Melissa S. "Feminism, Militarism, and Attitudes Toward the Role of Women in the Military." Feminist Issues 14.2 (1994): 25. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
Horowitz, David. "The Feminist Assault on the Military." National Review 44.19 (1992): 46. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Lindemann, Hilde. "Feminism." Bioethics. Ed. Bruce Jennings. 4th ed. Vol. 3. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2014. 1185-192. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.
Maloney, Anne M. "Feminist Ethics." New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013: Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. Robert L. Fastiggi. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2013. 561-63. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.
Quindlen, Anna. "Public & Private; The Wrong Wing." The New York Times 24 Mar. 1993: n. pag. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Rosen, Jeffrey. "Like Race, Like Gender?" New Republic 214.8 (1996): 21. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Tompkins, Vincent. "An Overview of the Women's Liberation Movement." The Women's Liberation Movement. Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2012. 13-27. Perspectives on Modern World History. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.
English 102
Research Paper Outline
15 April 2016
G.I. Jane
Thesis: Even though some feminists, men, and government officials believe women are not cut out for the military, others rightfully believe that women enhance team efficiency, are made for action, belong on the field, maintain academies’ reputations, and decrease sexual harassment due to enrollment in the military.
- Perfect addition
- Women destroy teams
- Women enhance teams
- Institutions
- Fair together
- Unfair separate
- Successful labor
- Diminish reputation
- Efficient productivity
- Traditional roles
- Home work
- Field labor
- Sexual harassment
- Endure harassment
- End harassment
Katie Mason
Dr. Watkins
English 102
15 April 2016
G.I. Jane
G.D. Anderson is famous for a controversial quote that strikes the attention of many feminists, men, and government officials: “Feminism isn’t about making women stronger. Women are already strong. It’s about changing the way the world perceives that strength.” Unfortunately, some people disagree with the liberal feminist point of view when the subject covers women’s roles in the military. Others, including both women and men, believe that females can make substantial contributions and should be recognized for their labor in the military. Michael Levin, philosophy professor, Brian Mitchell, former military officer, and James A. Webb, American government official, conclude, “Many of the arguments against women in the military stress issues such as male bonding, physiological differences, traditional gender roles and the belief that the preparation for and execution of war is simply not a woman's role” (Herbert par. 3). Even though some feminists, men, and government officials believe women are not cut out for the military, others rightfully believe that women enhance team efficiency, are made for action, belong on the field, maintain academies’ reputations, and decrease sexual harassment due to enrollment in the military.
First of all, some say women cannot bond with the men, but women are a perfect addition to all areas of the military, which includes the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy. Inside these branches, women are often portrayed negatively. One example is shown when Levin writes, "A handful of women might be physically and psychologically suited for combat, but if their introduction into male units disrupts the intangible bonds that keep a unit effective, egalitarians will have to decide whether being defended by male boors is too high a price to pay for survival" (qtd. in Herbert par. 3) Of course, this quote shows that some women are just as capable at defending their country as men, but it also portrays a problem with women’s acceptance into a men’s alliance; women are suited for combat, but if they destroy the friendship between the men, then adding women into the program is not worth the risk. People who discourage females within the military address women joining a team of all men as an issue. Herbert claims that those opponents believe that females destroy the links that hold the soldiers together, or in other words, they decimate men’s friendship (par. 3). Also, opponents are implying that women and men cannot bond and that men can only get along with other men. In addition, there are people who view women as the cause of separating America. For example, Anna Quindlen, an American author, journalist, and opinion columnist for New York Times column, adds, “It's all women's fault. Equal opportunity, the wearing of slacks, women in the military and on the bench, feminism, even bobbed hair -- all have contributed to the disintegration of American society” (par. 1). Quindlen blatantly states her strong opinion of women in the military by claiming that they are the cause of America’s dissociation. However, this cannot be true because there are men and women who have inseparable bonds. The problem is not that men and women are not able to create bonds but that women are not given the chance. Women do not separate groups of men; nonetheless, men in the military are often unwelcoming to women. Therefore, women are a great addition to the military, even though some are not given the opportunity.
Ultimately, men and women’s relationships in the military raise concerns about the mission’s success and goal. An unsettling dispute is being held over the idea of men spending more time saving women than focusing on the purpose of the mission. David Horowitz, an American conservative writer, explains, “Another problem raised by William Lind is what happens when women troops are actually deployed. In combat situations, men will act instinctively to protect women, abandoning their tactical objectives in, the process” (par. 26). Men are described as protectors, but just because they cannot control their instincts does not mean female soldiers should have to suffer from inequality. Ultimately, these relationships and instincts raise concerns about the purpose of the mission, but that should not be a deciding factor of women’s inclusion in the military.
In this case, women deserve to be involved in an institution with the same standards as men, which is what Virginia Military Institute (VMI) has begun to explore. Rosen states that the government has decided to follow the VMI’s wishes and keep gender separate; this fete also caused the state to build a new institution for women, otherwise known as Virginia Women’s Institute of Leadership (VWIL) (par. 11). The problem with the Virginia Women’s Institute of Leadership is the fact that women are still not being treated equally. If there were grounds to separate men and women for same-sex interaction, then they should uphold an equal discipline system. Jeffrey Rosen, a legal commentator, explains that academies such as The Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership are nowhere close to resembling the VMI. For example, students live in the college dorms, join classes with other Mary Baldwin College students, are not forced to have uniforms unless participating in Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, a training program, and are encouraged opposed to hard-pressed (par. 11). Rosen adds:
And Mary Baldwin suffers in comparison to VMI in other, more intractable ways: 100 points lower average SAT scores, lower faculty salaries, no engineering program for the B.S. degree, and so forth. All in all, the argument goes, Mary Baldwin is to VMI as Pine Manor (rather than Wellesley) is to Harvard. (par. 11)
The quote explains that Mary Baldwin is not on the same level as VMI and that men and women are in completely unequal institutions. If the government is going to propose an academy for women, then they need to keep both institutions equal and not give sympathy towards women.Why are women being treated differently? Many people assume that women’s introduction into the military will diminish men’s focus; the government created an institution just for women in order to solve the problem, but the academy turned to be unfair.
Of course, when the topic turns to inequality, most of those who oppose females in the military will claim that women are only treated differently because they diminish the reputations of academies due to their lack of physical labor. Someone who opposes women’s involvement in the military might say that females do not amount to the work that men put in and that they actually lower original standards. For example, most of all academies accept gender norming, which is the act of basing females’ ability on lower standards than that of male counterparts. Suzanne Fields, a columnist for The Washington Times, expresses, “A larger question is the significant one: Will women at VMI change the nature of the training? Unlike the other military academies, VMI officials say they won't allow ‘gender norming’ - diluting the physical and psychological exercises for women so that women can meet them” (par. 6). Fortunately, Fields states that the VMI claims they will not allow gender norming, but clearly VWIL has not carried out that idea (par. 6). This would mean that some academies lower standards for women. Overall, women are treated differently because opposers hold close to the idea that females destroy institutions’ reputations.
In contrast to what some might think, women can amount to the work required for men. Although, the thought of making women equivalent to men concern some feminists. Fields argues that feminists do believe women should be seen as equal, but they do not feel that VMI should try to make females be like males without utilizing women’s talents that they might have in combat (par. 8). Rightfully, feminists see men and women uniquely. In their eyes, men are skilled, and while women have different skills, they are also talented. Women do not diminish reputation; they enhance it in different ways such as bringing in challenges and new ideas. Others who oppose do not see the work women bring.
Women are also treated differently because joining the military is not seen as a traditional gender role for females. Women are seen to be inferior to males and are to assist men. Hilde Lindemann, an American philosophy professor and bioethicist, deliniates, “The term gender refers to this power relation, which operates through society's institutions and practices by conferring the control of resources and the right to social goods on men while relegating women to subordinate positions in service of men's interests and concerns” (par. 2). This claims that men are seen to bear resources and take care of what is needed. On the other hand, women are seen to take care of men and any other job that men do not cover. Throughout history, most of society has placed women under men. For example, what are supposed to be degrading phrases such as “you hit like a girl” and “you’re being such a girl” are frequently used. When the situation turns to women in the military, beliefs such as “a woman was not made to fight” and “this is not women’s work” are common. A traditional job for a woman would be to clean the house and bear children. Quindlen states:
And the solution is clear: Women were never made to be in the work force outside the home, but to marry, bear children, and guide the house. The young women are not exhorted to become professional business women, to be some man's boss or submit themselves to another head, but are under the father's authority until marriage, when the husband becomes her only head and authority and her provider. (par. 2)
This quote delegates women to the chores around the house. Even though joining the military is not the traditional role for women, female soldiers contribute more than they are given credit for.
Although women are stereotyped for household jobs, women can amount to more than cleaning dishes and sweeping. They are capable of standing next to fellow soldiers and defending their country. Of course, there are physiological differences between men and women, but that does not mean that either gender is any less significant than the other. For example, Anne Maloney, philosophy professor, explains that since women are able to bear and give birth to their kids unlike men, they are seen to not be aggressively active. Instead, many Americans assume that they are nurturing like a mother, caring, and gentle (par. 8). Of course, not all women are the same in the caring aspect, and even if so, women can be just as aggressive as men. Herbert explains that these differences should not condone the outcast of women (par. 7). Overall, women should not be singled out due to physiological differences or treated unfairly due to stereotypical gender roles.
To form equality between men and women, equal pay between both sexes would have to be established. Many believe that women should be paid less than men because they do not work as hard. Of course, that would be generalizing all women as lazy. This cannot be true because there are females who work harder than some men. How can a woman who is constantly overworking herself be paid less than a man who hardly works? Vincent Tompkins, a deputy provost of Brown University, states that females are paid on average 57 percent of what males are earning (Tompkins 7-8). Women can work just as hard as men, but they continue to get paid less due to gender discrimination in previous years. All in all, women should have equal pay.
Another point constructed from those who oppose women’s introduction into the military is that coexistence will increase sexual harassment. Horowitz asserts that at West Point, a military academy, over 50 percent of females had stated that they were sexaully assaulted and harassed (par. 24). This shows that women are being raped and harassed within the military, but the question is why are these women being degraded? Some would like to say that men are attacking women in order to keep the females inferior and for men to maintain dominance. Horowitz delineates, “The problem of sexual harassment is unrelated to the different biologies and sexual drives of men and women. The real problem is an institutional framework that causes women to be perceived as inferior” (par. 14). In other words, giving women dominance or equality will decrease immoral sexual behavior. He also proceeds to add, “In the eyes of the gender feminists, if women were included in combat (and thus treated as the equals they are), if gender roles were abolished, then sexual harassment would cease to be a ‘major problem’” (Horowitz par. 14). Of course, feminists are on the right path by putting women in higher positions to show men how tough they are, which could lower the count of sexual harassment victims. Fields expresses that there is a bigger picture when combining men and women together in the military. She does not believe the harassment will and that makes her question as to why women would want to be a part of that (par. 1). Ultimately, she does not see that females will gain confidence or fight back. As soon as that happens, men will draw back and stop attacking women. The growth and decay of sexual harassment due to female’s involvement in the military will decrease if society would abolish the laws that keep women out of combat.
Women are trapped behind laws that allow them to fight equally. Commander Rosemary Mariner, a 19-year career naval officer who completely agrees with equality, presents a descriptive affidavit that explains the problem is not combining men and women together. She expresses the real problem is bigotry and how it is the cause of assault. She finally adds, “From common verbal abuse to the criminal acts of a Tailhook debacle, sexual harassment will continue to be a major problem in the armed forces because the combat exclusion law and policies make women institutionally inferior” (qtd. in Horowitz par. 13). She correctly claims that because of these laws harassment will continue. Horowitz then adds that whenever the policies and laws are altered, females’ pride will increase, men’s admiration for women will rise, and sexual harassment will to cease to exist (par. 15). This would mean that if these laws and policies are changed in favor of women, then men would not view women as inferior but as equals. In this case, females will not be targeted nor thought of as an object but as a human. If this were to continue, the destruction of sexual harassment would attract more men into these academies and more bonds would be created. According to Fields, institutions with women are afflicted with conflicting principles and sexual abuse, which is causing men to stay away from the academies (Fields par. 8). If sexual harassment were to vanish, there would likely be a male presence and more bonding. Ultimately, the only way to stop this inequality that keeps sexual harassment and women inferiority thriving is the laws and policies that should be revamped.
All in all, although some believe women are not suitable for the military, others believe that women better team efficiency, are suited for action, belong on the field, maintain academies’ reputations, and decrease sexual harassment due to enrollment in the military. Females are capable of any obstacle given to them. In fact, they are just as capable as men. Society does not need to focus on making females stronger. Women are already strong, but no one recognizes their strength. It has become common today to dismiss the idea of women obtaining courage. Overall, society needs to realize the skills they have and work on how to use their abilities. In conclusion, for every G.I. Joe on the field, there should be a G.I. Jane fighting by his side.
Works Cited
Fields, Suzanne. "Rat-ifying Feminism." The Washington Times [Washington, DC] 25 Aug. 1997: 15. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Herbert, Melissa S. "Feminism, Militarism, and Attitudes Toward the Role of Women in the Military." Feminist Issues 14.2 (1994): 25. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
Horowitz, David. "The Feminist Assault on the Military." National Review 44.19 (1992): 46. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Lindemann, Hilde. "Feminism." Bioethics. Ed. Bruce Jennings. 4th ed. Vol. 3. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2014. 1185-192. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.
Maloney, Anne M. "Feminist Ethics." New Catholic Encyclopedia Supplement 2012-2013: Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. Robert L. Fastiggi. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2013. 561-63. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.
Quindlen, Anna. "Public & Private; The Wrong Wing." The New York Times 24 Mar. 1993: n. pag. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Rosen, Jeffrey. "Like Race, Like Gender?" New Republic 214.8 (1996): 21. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 1 Mar. 2016.
Tompkins, Vincent. "An Overview of the Women's Liberation Movement." The Women's Liberation Movement. Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2012. 13-27. Perspectives on Modern World History. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Mar. 2016.