“When You Give Pussies Guns!” was the “working title” of this third and final essay for my Critical Writing class. It became the sub-title, and I did in fact turn it in like that, to my college professor, who did not seem bothered. It is the final work I will upload from that class.
TRIGGER WARNING
Let me make a suggestion here: “Women in combat” really translates to “vaginas in combat,” and “mothers/daughters/sisters/wives/little women in combat.” In the minds of male policy-makers and voters, “women in combat” dredges up images of tiny little girls hefting big guns and getting shot. And this is a tragic image. Only someone very disturbed would argue that being killed while fighting for your country is a good thing — people may see it as a necessary consequence, but not a desired consequence. And yet there is imbalance here, between thinking about our male soldiers dying for their country, and our female ones, especially in the case of actual enemy engagement. “Women in combat” strikes a chord in Americans and the policy-makers in Washington, a chord that disconnects them from the reality of the situation. That situation is one in which women are already in combat, and have been in the past. There is a sexist policy in our Military that only serves to disrespect those female soldiers who have already served in those combat situations that they are officially excluded from. This policy, sanctioned by the Military and the Government, is thus: women can carry a gun and shoot people, but they are not allowed on any missions that entail enemy engagement. But many of the arguments made against women in combat, in support of this policy, are so totally outdated as to be considered ridiculous by modern feminist standards — or even older feminist standards. The question of women in combat boils down to, “Do you want a bigger army when that other big army comes a-knocking?”
