“Foreign Affairs” magazine says not letting women fight is gender stereotyping. That's not how decorated Vietnam vet Jim Webb saw it in “The Washingtonian.”
“We would go months without bathing, except when we could stand naked among each other . . .”
Those words are how Jim Webb, before he became Secretary of the Navy and then a United States Senator, started his 1979 Washingtonian magazine article “Women Can’t Fight.” The story caused Webb endless headaches as the Naval Academy graduate and former Marine Corps officer in Vietnam became more political and had to first face congressional hearings and then take part in them as the Democratic senator from Virginia.
Contrast what Webb wrote 33 years ago with this new look at the subject of women in combat, described below in an e-mail from Foreign Affairs magazine.
Dear Colleague:
“Today, 214,098 women serve in the U.S. military, representing 14.6 percent of total service members. Around 280,000 women have worn American uniforms in Afghanistan and Iraq, where 144 have died and over 600 have been injured.”
“Yet the U.S. military, at least officially, still bans women from serving in direct combat positions.”
So writes international relations expert Megan H. MacKenzie in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. According to MacKenzie, arguments against female soldiers are simply outdated.
“Proponents of the policy, who include Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), rely on three central arguments: thatwomen cannot meet the physical requirements necessary to fight, that they simply don’t belong in combat, and that their inclusion in fighting units would disrupt those units’ cohesion and battle readiness. Yet these arguments do not stand up to current data on women’s performance in combat or their impact on troop dynamics.”
“Banning women from combat does not ensure military effectiveness. It only perpetuates counterproductive gender stereotypes and biases. It is time for the U.S. military to get over its hang-ups and acknowledge women’s rightful place on the battlefield.”
Should Women Be Fighting and Dying in Combat?
“Foreign Affairs” magazine says not letting women fight is gender stereotyping. That's not how decorated Vietnam vet Jim Webb saw it in “The Washingtonian.”
“We would go months without bathing, except when we could stand naked among each other . . .”
Those words are how Jim Webb, before he became Secretary of the Navy and then a United States Senator, started his 1979 Washingtonian magazine article “Women Can’t Fight.” The story caused Webb endless headaches as the Naval Academy graduate and former Marine Corps officer in Vietnam became more political and had to first face congressional hearings and then take part in them as the Democratic senator from Virginia.
Contrast what Webb wrote 33 years ago with this new look at the subject of women in combat, described below in an e-mail from Foreign Affairs magazine.
Dear Colleague:
“Today, 214,098 women serve in the U.S. military, representing 14.6 percent of total service members. Around 280,000 women have worn American uniforms in Afghanistan and Iraq, where 144 have died and over 600 have been injured.”
“Yet the U.S. military, at least officially, still bans women from serving in direct combat positions.”
So writes international relations expert Megan H. MacKenzie in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. According to MacKenzie, arguments against female soldiers are simply outdated.
“Proponents of the policy, who include Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), rely on three central arguments: thatwomen cannot meet the physical requirements necessary to fight, that they simply don’t belong in combat, and that their inclusion in fighting units would disrupt those units’ cohesion and battle readiness. Yet these arguments do not stand up to current data on women’s performance in combat or their impact on troop dynamics.”
“Banning women from combat does not ensure military effectiveness. It only perpetuates counterproductive gender stereotypes and biases. It is time for the U.S. military to get over its hang-ups and acknowledge women’s rightful place on the battlefield.”
Read “Let Women Fight.”
Jack Limpert, former editor of Washingtonian now a writer at large for the magazine, can be found at his blog, jacklimpert.com.
Most Popular in News & Politics
Slugging Makes a Comeback for DC Area Commuters
Please Stop Joking That JD Vance Killed the Pope
DC and Commanders Will Announce Stadium Deal Today, Virginia GOP Candidate Accuses Virginia Governor’s Team of Extortion, and Trump Says He Runs the Entire World
Elon Musk Got in a Shouting Match at the White House, a Teen Was Stabbed in Fairfax, and Pete Hegseth Decided the Pentagon Needed a Makeup Studio
“I’m Angry at Elon Musk”: Former US Digital Service Workers on DOGE, the “Fork in the Road,” and Trump’s First 100 Days
Washingtonian Magazine
May Issue: 52 Perfect Saturdays
View IssueSubscribe
Follow Us on Social
Follow Us on Social
Related
Viral DC-Area Food Truck Flavor Hive Has It in the Bag
Slugging Makes a Comeback for DC Area Commuters
The Smithsonian’s Surprisingly Dangerous Early Days
An Unusual DC Novel Turns Out to Have an Interesting Explanation
More from News & Politics
“Absolute Despair”: An NIH Worker on Job and Budget Cuts, RFK Jr., and Trump’s First 100 Days
Tesla’s Also Sick of DOGE, Alexandria Wants to Censor a Student Newspaper, and We Highlight Some Excellent Soul Food
Amazon Avoids President’s Wrath Over Tariff Price Hikes, DC Budget Fix May Be Doomed, and Trump Would Like to Be Pope
“Pointed Cruelty”: A Former USAID Worker on Cuts, Life After Layoffs, and Trump’s First 100 Days
Is Ed Martin’s Denunciation of a J6 Rioter Sincere? A Reporter Who Covers Him Is Skeptical.
DC Takes Maryland and Virginia Drivers to Court
Both of Washington’s Cardinals Will Vote at the Conclave
“I’m Angry at Elon Musk”: Former US Digital Service Workers on DOGE, the “Fork in the Road,” and Trump’s First 100 Days