Dear Editor …
Ken Rupert
Last semester the "Blue and Grey Today" ran an editorial written by Lindsey Cogdill that I found offensive and demeaning towards male soldiers. For the record I served in both the active Army and in the Maryland Army National Guard. As I read through the article I found myself asking some questions about the integrity of the writer.
I could go through the entire article and take issue with almost every statement that was made to support Ms. Cogdill's obvious bias towards males in general and male soldiers more specifically.
I will agree with Ms. Cogdill's statement that, from the beginning, the U.S. Military has been a patriarchal institution. However, I do not think, nor has it been my experience, that women soldiers are not taken seriously and respected. Generally speaking though, throughout my life I have experienced two types of people in this world. Those who take me seriously and respect me and those who think that I am a joke and would not respect me regardless of what I do. I have also met both kinds in the military. So this point could be debated on its merit.
However, where I believe that Ms. Cogdill begins to grind her axe, as opposed to actually putting forth a logical argument, is when she begins to speak in generalities that support her biased opinion.
For example; "Many people hold the opinion that women should not be in the military." Really? First of all define many! This is casting a broad net that ensnares many of us who do not hold that opinion. She continues, "Many women do not want to be wives or mothers." Again, define "many." How many women did Ms. Cogdill actually speak to and what percentage held this opinion? How would this statement be explained in light of the 2.162 million marriages documented in 2008, or the 4.247 million live births in the U.S. including the District of Columbia? (National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 57, Number 19).
I would suggest that there are many women who do want to get married and who do want to have children. There is nothing wrong with either position.
Ms. Cogdill goes on to argue, "The idea that women are not strong enough to be soldiers is a commonly held belief that is also false." Again she casts a broad net ensnaring those who see reality more so than idealism. There are people in today's world who are not strong enough to serve in the military, be it male or female.
Here is another classic by Ms. Cogdill, "Women are just as capable of training their bodies to peak performance…" and that is true. However, if you find the best male hockey player and the best female hockey player the anatomical differences will be evident, but that does not mean that women should not be soldiers. It's just reality.
All of this is to say that up to this point in the article I kept asking myself… What's her point? The first third of the article reads like a feminist with an axe to grind. To me she still has not made an effective argument for women soldiers, which is what I believe that she is trying to do, although I could be wrong.
However, at this point in the article I started taking offence to what Ms. Cogdill was writing. The next three statements blew me out of the water and I quote…
"Life as a soldier is very difficult for women, because the military still treats women as inferior to men in many ways. …women in the military are often treated with disrespect by their fellow soldiers. Many male soldiers believe the women should not be in the military, and treat them poorly because of it, by insulting them."
I was a male soldier and I can say that in my experience of six years I could not point to a single incident where what I just read was fact. I have saluted female officers… and meant it! Not just because I had to. They held their own. The best first sergeant I ever worked for was a woman. I did not see the disrespect Ms. Cogdill speaks of, and the audacity of Ms. Cogdill to say that "Many male soldiers believe…" How does she know what "many male soldiers" believe?
The military is not an easy life regardless of who you are and what your social status and gender are. For that fact, life is no respecter of persons.
But the statement that compelled me to respond was the stupidest statement I have ever read in this publication. "Many," there is that word again, "women in the military become victims of sexual assault and rape at the hands of male soldiers."
That is over the top. How many soldiers did Ms. Cogdill talk to? How many military prisons did she visit and how many conviction records did she review? How many years has she actually experienced the real military? Not some ROTC program.
She goes on to say that "their stories go unheard"… unless these women soldiers know Ms. Cogdill. Apparently Ms. Cogdill has unprecedented knowledge about ever facet of the military.
As a veteran I take offense at the accusations leveled against the male soldier. If Ms. Cogdill wanted to make a case for women soldiers she failed miserably. Should women be soldiers and fight? If that is what they want to do, absolutely! If they want to be wives and mothers then let them be wives and mothers, because without wives and mothers there might not be anymore women to be soldiers.
And the next time Ms.Cogdill has an axe to grind against men, leave the military man out of it. He deserves just as much respect and support as the women do. I am grateful for each soldier who protects me, just as I once protected others.
Ken Rupert
Hood Student & Veteran U.S. Army
Be the first to comment on this story