While a presidential commission is assessing the role of women in the military, some advocates insist that only full integration of women in the armed forces will end their sexual harassment by male colleagues.
The Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, appointed by President Bush, began hearings in June on what jobs military women can and should do.
The most heated testimony before the commission has surrounded the question of whether bans against women in combat should be lifted. Army women are barred from combat by law, and although a 1991 law permits the Pentagon to assign Air Force and Navy women to combat, the Department of Defense has said it will not act before reading the commission`s report, due Nov. 15.
Some advocates for the assignment of women to combat say this unequal treatment of women in the workplace makes them targets for harassment.
The issue of sexual harassment in the military recently surfaced in the wake of allegations of improper behavior at a 1991 convention of the Tailhook Association, a private organization of current and former Navy pilots. At least 26 Navy women have charged that they were assaulted by drunken aviators at the party in Las Vegas.
If women were treated equally in the Navy, that might not have happened, Naval Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Donna Fournier recently told the commission, which held three days of hearings at Northwestern University to get a Midwestern perspective on its investigation.
”Grant women the equal opportunity and respect that we have earned,”
said Fournier, chairman of the Illinois Council of Women Veterans. ”If . . . women aviators had received the special recognition that they deserve, it is my belief that this embarrassing and revolting Tailhook incident might never have occurred.”
Marian H. Neudel, a lawyer who counsels military women, agreed.
”The combat bar makes it virtually inevitable that women in the services be treated as second-class citizens by the men with whom they serve,” she said.
Some witnesses compared the unequal treatment of women to racial segregation of the armed forces through World War II, and asserted that the military should act as an example to the rest of American society.
”It`s possible that one of the consequences of women in combat is that it might increase positive images of women as capable, strong, brave,” said Maria Lepowsky, a sociology and anthropology professor at the University of Wisconsin.
”The U.S. military comprise a great deal of positive role models for young people,” she said, ”so there would be a significant impact on young men and women to know that women and men were serving together in combat forces.”
But others questioned whether the military is the proper forum for changing society`s attitudes toward women.
Mary Lawlor served in the Women`s Auxilliary Army Corps during World War II. ”Obviously, the purpose of the Army is to fight, not to force changes in our society,” Lawlor said, adding that including women in combat would not increase the military`s efficiency.
Lt. Sally Fountain, a Navy flight officer who said she attended the hearings because she believes women should be allowed to fly in battle, pointed out that equal employment opportunities are only part of the solution to sexual harassment.
”It`s not a question of how many women they have, but what the leadership does,” she said during a break in the hearings. ”They can mold attitudes.”
Witnesses invited by the commission also talked about camaraderie among troops, differences in physical strength and endurance between men and women and whether pregnancy and child care can limit women`s effectiveness in the service.
Five male members of a B-1 bomber crew told the commission why they want to keep their cockpits closed to women, even if women meet physical and intellectual standards.
Capt. Ronald P. Gaulton, an aircraft commander who fought in the Persian Gulf, explained that male bonding helps make a successful attack squadron.
”You need confidence and you need to be able to depend on other crew members,” he said. ”The slightest bit of uncertainty could cost lives in a combat situation.”
Men were not the only ones who said that women could limit the effectiveness of a fighting unit.
”Women mixed in with men in combat will impair U.S. lives because such a situation is so volatile,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Mary Elizabeth Clarke. ”There is no way to remove the boy-girl aspect, which lowers the amount of trust between the soldiers.”
The dangers of men treating women with too much chivalry-the reverse of sexual harassment-were also cited as reasons to segregate the sexes.
Jill Wine-Banks, a Chicago lawyer who worked at the Pentagon for 3 1/2 years, told the commission that the military`s ”paternalism” must end. ”If men are overprotective of women, that`s men`s problem,” she said, adding that ”protection of men by men leads to awards for valor.”
The commission will hold hearings in Dallas Aug. 27-29.
