Women should have right to serve, too

Zere is a graduate student in African area studies.

By R.A. Zere

I am writing in reaction to Maisha Elonai’s column on
women in the military and equality (“USS Cole bombing
highlights outmoded ideas of service,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Nov. 2).

But first I want to bring up the gender issue in Eritrea. The
African country has witnessed two different periods when women
played almost an equal part as fighters: in the 30 years of
struggle for independence, and now as members in its defense force.
As a result, Eritrea is often mentioned as an example where the
issue of equality is in fact put into practice. And indeed the
participation of women is well recognized by all members of its
society.

Women fought with zeal, died with determination and many were
tortured by the enemy and lost parts of their bodies. Now, young
women are repeating the feat shown by their sisters, all for their
country.

For an army force having a clear vision set before it, the
presence of women should not distract it from reaching its goals.
On the contrary, it should encourage and tighten the bond between
men and women securing a better society where they fight side by
side.

This has been the experience of Eritrea. Now I would like to
direct your attention to the issue of equality for women in
America.

The whole problem of equality began when men and women started
to compare each other. In reality, they are complements. One cannot
live without the other. A man and a woman make a whole human
being.

After all, why should I have to think of the opposite sex as my
rival and work to prove my ability to him? Why should he try to
prove his superiority over me?

Why can’t we just think of each other as parts that make a
whole and work in that line? Wouldn’t that create a better
world for both of us?

For me equality is a way by which I am given the opportunity to
decide for myself and choose what I would like to do with my life.
It is not a matter of whether I am strong enough to participate in
combat for instance, but rather whether I would like to participate
in combat.

This does not say that women should not be drafted in the army.
It is more like saying they should be given the chance to decide
for themselves. I have no doubt about women’s ability in this
area, which to me is proven in my own country. Women are fit enough
to go into combat and sacrifice just as their fellow men do.

The arguments presented by men are in fact arising from
misconceptions that have existed for a long time about women: women
are sex objects, women are soft and delicate and need extra care
and attention, men are the opposite, and therefore their social
equality differs.

There are several ways by which women can attain their equality.
Choosing to participate in combat is one good example that would
give women a chance to have confidence to stand for their
rights.

My apprehensions come when I think of the other way around. What
happens if women are made (without their choice) to go out there
and are forced to “serve” and made part of the draft?
What happens if a woman is taken out there and is made to give a
different kind of service? Would she end up serving the country? Or
would she end up simply serving the men who do the actual
fighting?

I am trying to give a sort of a reaction to one of the arguments
presented against women serving in combat: “women are
sexually distracting to men and can disrupt troops.” This
sounds as if men would not like to have women near them because
women are temptresses by nature and would be obstacles to the whole
operation, as if they do not care about their country and simply
want to have sex.

But is that the real case? Couldn’t it be the opposite as
well? How would we know what goes on the minds of those leaders
““ male leaders ““ who decide everything?

How would we know that they do not raise this issue during tea
time and casually say, “Our troops there need
entertainment” and decide to send women? In such cases women
are trapped. They cannot raise their voices and stand up for their
rights simply because they are not in positions of power. What kind
of role is “equality” playing in this case?

But women these days are not passive, people would say. They
have come a long way from their history of inequality and are
determined not to go back. A woman may enter the military with the
idea that she can serve her country with the full trust and
confidence of the other troops.

But once she goes there her whole attitude is changed completely
and the reality becomes totally different from the one she
expected. Her experiences there may cause her to raise questions,
but her belief that she has achieved equality may not allow her to
realize that she is being abused.

She may push that fact aside simply because she could not bring
herself to believe that her own brothers are mistreating her. She
may deny everything that happens to her simply because she finds
the reality to be too much to bear.

In addition, after she does realize for the first time what is
happening to her she may go to her sisters and ask for help. A
reasonable move. But what happens if her sisters tell her to keep
quiet?

The other women may feel that complaining would create
unnecessary chaos and be detrimental to the good of the
country.

So a lot can happen in the name of equality. The point of
drafting is taken as one example. Clearly, there should be more to
it than saying women should be given the opportunity to serve to
prove their equality.

As women, we should be aware of the doors that open up to us in
the name of equality, as they may be dangerous and
disadvantageous.