This BCC news article debates about women’s military roles in Australia. Recently, Australia abolished all restrictions on women’s roles in its military forces. If they are able to meet the entry standards, women are now not only able to serve in special forces units, but also front-line combat units. The proposal of this abolishment was based on the idea of equality among all sexes. According to Defense Minister Stephen Smith, this proposal “is a logical extension to the very strongly held view in Australian society that all of us are equal irrespective to our backgrounds and irrespective of our sex”, he also adds that “from this day forward…no combat roles, no front-line role will be excluded from an Australian on the basis of his or her sex…” However, there were objections and debates about this abolishment. Some argued that Mr. Smith was only using gender equality as a “political gimmick”. So the debate question brought up in this news article is whether women should have the right to play equal roles as men in the military. Currently in Australia, women are eligible for around 93% of military roles, including artillery duties.
The Wok that is involved here is ethics. The Australian government’s decision on abolishing restrictions is returning women their freedom of action in the military field. Before the law was abolished, some may argue that by restricting the roles of women in military forces, the government is limiting the freedom of action for women, and so limiting women’s human rights. Thus, the question on whether it is ethical for the government to restrict human rights comes into play. To what extent can the government limit people’s freedom of action and is it right to do so?
Also, another ethical issue involved here is gender discrimination and equality. By eliminating restrictions on women’s roles in the military, it is enforcing gender equality; therefore I believe that it is right for the government to abolish this rule. In my opinion, not allowing women to play as important roles as men in the army is similar to discrimination. By doing so, the army is basically sending out the message that they believe women are incapable in certain aspects compared to men. Of course, when the physical aspect is discussed, it is hard to use gender equality as an argument, because men and women are biologically built differently. Some may argue that women are generally more limited in strength and size compared to men. However, the same military standards and rules are applied to both men and women, therefore if a woman is able to play the same role as a man in the military, that means she meets the standard requirements, and so she is qualified. Thus, there should be no reason why a woman cannot fight in a certain unit, such as the special forces unit, if she is as capable as a man.
Gender equality is similar to racism, and both issues bring up the larger topic on human equality. Racism happens when a certain group of people from a certain culture discriminates or mistreats another cultural group, and so in racism, people are treated unequally as well. This brings up the question on whether humans should be treated equally or not. And in my opinion, everyone is the same in the sense that we are all humans, and therefore we all deserve to be treated in the same proper way.
Men and women will never be the same, so when we say that we are striving for gender equality, we refer to the equality in the treatment that is given to men and woman. Gender issues arise because of the issues of fairness in treatment. Fair treatment does not always mean the same treatment. Should woman toilets have male urinals? Should males be required to wear dresses to formal events? The situation should always be considered before judgment of the treatment is critiqued.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the situation is military service, a primarily physical activity. The issue is whether woman should be allowed to play the same roles as men in the military. Let us examine several other physical activities and how gender is dealt with in them. In sports, male and female sports are often separate; is this discrimination? In track and field, this is the Men's 100m sprint, and the Woman's 100m sprint. Does this mean women are not being given the same opportunities as men? No, equal treatment in this case would be allowing people to compete with their own gender, because men and woman are different. However, the accusation of whether sports are gender discriminatory as well can also be made. Should sports organize leagues and events based on age, or similar performance, instead of on gender? But this is the other extreme; if the anatomy of a women's body makes it naturally harder for her to compete at the same level as men, should men be made to use handicaps then, to maintain equality? An essay captures what the future might look like with this extreme a reality (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7287116-harrison-bergeron).
The thing about female rights and feminism is that women often challenge differences in treatment that can benefit them more, such as in educational and career issues. In Singapore, all males have to attend military service for two years before being able to go to college to remain a Singapore citizen. I do not think the author of this post will argue for a compulsory military service for girls, although the Singapore government is considering it. There is the same issue here, if women are the "same" as men then they should be doing military service too. But are they really?
There is a red herring in the statement " And in my opinion, everyone is the same in the sense that we are all humans, and therefore we all deserve to be treated in the same proper way." The issue is about equality and not human rights. Yes, we are all humans and we all deserve to be treated in the same proper way, but the question still goes unanswered; is equality and fairness and sameness all one thing? To use a more relatable situation, lets look at college admissions. Firstly, should all-men or all-women schools be abolished because they are not treating the other gender "in the same proper way" by not giving them the chance of admission? Do colleges who maintain a 50-50 Male-Female ratio remove it? Where's the equality in the situation if the males in the 51st percentile have higher grades than the 30th percentile females, but are rejected because there are already too many boys? In fact, should the terms boy-girl, male-female, woman-men, etc. all be reduced to gender neutral terms? If everyone is the same, while are some people called males and some called females? I don't think the implications of the statement on sameness has been explored. You mentioned racism too. Should people's eyesight be altered to only see in monotone so we won't be biased by skin colour differences a la The Giver (Lois Lowry)(http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3636.The_Giver)?
I don't think the main WoK here is ethics. The issue is about equality and uniqueness. We are all human, and we deserve to be treated in a proper way, but it will not be the same for anyone.
Although I agree with Jerald that the main WoK is not necessarily Ethics(which is an AoK?) and that there is one instance of a 'red herring' occurring, there are some false analogies within the counter-argument as well (if it can be defined as such). College admissions is a very different matter from military service, as it concerns the basic human right to an education, and the example pertaining to the Singaporean army actually contradicts the argument itself: it is precisely because females are considered ‘incapable’ of military service that it has not yet been compulsory. As for single-gender institutions, those institutions do not necessarily discriminate against the other gender. In many of these, all that signifies is a choice to live in a single-gender community, and there may be personal reasons for that. In any case, Deborah has pointed out specifically that “the same military standards and rules are applied to both men and women, therefore if a woman is able to play the same role as a man in the military, that means she meets the standard requirements, and so she is qualified.” This means that these candidates for military positions are to be judged solely on their physical abilities. Again, military service is cannot be compared directly with sporting events, as excellence in a sport can only be judged if the contestants start off on equal ground. To illustrate this point, I would just like to point out that even within same-sex competitions, athletes are often divided further into category for this express purpose. Take boxing for example. Boxers are placed in weight groups, because that is a critical part of what determines their performance, just as gender is a critical part of how athletes might perform due to different builds, percentage of fat, percentage of testosterone… etc.
ReplyDeleteIn the case where a woman is just as qualified as her male counterpart to perform a military service, then there is no reason to stop her. This abolishment does not seek to debase either gender, and merely opens this opportunity to both. As a reminder, from the information provided by this article, the abolishment does not only pertain to physical duties, but also to non-physical ones, in areas such as but not limited to data analysis or logistical planning. To return to the topic of WoKs, I feel that this is mostly a question of Language, because there are key terms that lack definition, as Jerald mentioned, such as “equality”, “unique”, as well as “liberty”. What exactly do each of these terms constitute in this context? Logically speaking, there is no problem with the abolishment of women’s restrictions if they fully qualify on the same exact standards as the men they will be ‘competing’ against for the job. Similarly, if a female cellist can play just as well or even better than a male cellist who also auditioned, then surely her candidacy should also be considered. In this study http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml, it is shown that traditional biases that have passed down through History do, in fact, affect employers’ decisions when it comes to gender-sensitive professions, and the military should not be exempt from the effort to let each and every individual compete on the same grounds.
Great discussion gang! From Deborah's original post to Jerald and Christine's comments, it's exactly what I'd like to see. Better late than never, too!
ReplyDelete