RIDLEY SCOTT'S GI JANE:AN ARGUMENT FOR WOMEN IN COMBATIt is my contention that Ridley Scott's film, GI Jane, starring Demi Moore, can beanalyzed as a kind of argumentative essay in that it presents a thesis that itdefends through the use of supporting arguments and supporting examples. Inaddition, I also believe it follows many of the basic critical thinking rules in thepresentation of its message. In class, we read three very different argumentativeessays written on the subject of women in combat. They are: "Most Oppose Womenin Combat" by Suzanne Fields, "An Officer and a Feminist" by James M. Dubik, and"Arms and the Woman" by Lou Marano. Each of these essays illustrates acontrasting attitude towards the idea of women serving in combat in the USmilitary. I believe Scott created GI Jane so that it would covers many of the issuesraised by authors such as these in order to support his thesis: women should beallowed to serve in combat. What I would like to show is that Ridley Scott offersarguments and evidence through his film that directly support his thesis in waysthat follow our course models. In order to do this, I will show how GI Jane takes intoaccount both the pro and con arguments put forth in each of the three essays.GI Jane deals with the idea of female integration into one of the most elite units inthe US military, the Navy SEALs. Lt. Jordan O'Neil, played by Demi Moore, is giventhe opportunity to enter SEAL training as a test case. If O'Neil is able to successfullycomplete this rigorous program, then other women would be given the chance offull integration within the military. This would enable women to enter combat, a keyelement for those who hope to rise in the ranks of the military. As O'Neil states:"operational experience is the key to advancement." So if women are not allowed incombat, this is the same as saying they can't be promoted to the highest ranks ofthe military. The reason the SEALs was chosen as grounds or a test case due to itsstrenuous nature. Scott makes it clear that everyone expected O'Neil to fail. Thefilm shows how she meets this challenge. With her teammates, the Master ChiefArgyle, and those high in power all against her, O'Neil had to prove her valorthrough her own determination. Assuming that the three essays by Fields, Dubik, and Marano offer the mostcommon views on the subject of women in combat, if Scott is offering a strongargument to support his message, he should deal with the points brought up byeach of these. I will try to show that he does this. Suzanne Fields writes in "MostOppose Women in Combat" that women in combat would interfere with the bondingof males that is necessary for combat and they would cause "sexual confusion" onthe battlefield. She also claims that female prisoners of war would be tortured inways that would cause the male prisoners to lose their cool and thus give forthintelligence information. Lastly, Fields contends that women are not able to meetthe physical standards of men and that is one more reason women should not beallowed to fight.Dubik offers a different point of view in his essay "An Officer and a Feminist." Henoted that his experience with female cadets at West Point and his experiences withhis own daughters growing up did not fit his "stereotype of female behavior." Thefemale cadets under his command were serious and accomplished what they setout to do. They took charge and gave orders and stayed calm under extremeconditions. Dubik concluded that women of the present generation and thegenerations to come do not match the beliefs that were taught to him while he wasgrowing up. So he accepted the fact that society must change its assessment ofwomen. Marano, on the other hand, disagrees. In his essay, "Arms and the Woman:Would a Sexually Mixed US. Army Lose Its Wars?", he argues an army that is evenpartially made up of women will be defeated. He claims that this belief is as"unsexist" a statement as saying that an army of younger men will defeat an armyof older men. He further states that the need for the physical advantage of malesstill holds true today and that, contrary to the beliefs of others, "sexual distraction"is prevalent when women are in the military.After comparing the film GI Jane to these three essays, I believe that Scottconsidered almost all of the points they raise in creating his film just as if he werewriting a logical essay. I will discuss them in order. To begin with, the essay by Fieldsnoted that women are physically weaker and, as a result, are not held to the samephysical standards as men. In the film, I found that there are many examples thatexplore the idea that women are too weak for combat. This notion was firstsuggested by the male reporter who was covering the story of the newlyestablished program to integrate women into all aspects of the military. Hisstatement was challenged by a woman, Senator DeHaven, who asked him howstrong one has to be to be to pull the trigger of a gun. After this, the military topbrass agrees to let one woman try to quality for the US Navy SEALs. Of course, theydo not expect her to succeed. Senator DeHaven personally selects a US Navyintelligence officer, Lt. O'Neil, to be the test case. And as we find out later, even shedoes not believe that a woman can meet the rigorous standards of the SEALs.However, when Lt. O'Neil was admitted into the SEAL program, the brass decidedthat she would be judged by lower physical standards than the male trainees. Inother words, they established a double standard as an insult to her. These doublestandards included the possibility of doing knee-pushups as opposed to regularpushups. On the obstacle course, O'Neil was given white steps to enable her to dealwith each obstacle. She was also given a thirty-second "gender norming" deductionon her obstacle course time limit. During field training, she was unable to pull herown body weight out of the water and onto a speeding boat. Master Chief JohnArgyle later asked O'Neil how could she possibly pull a man out of a burning tank ifshe could not pull her own body weight out of the
View Full Document
Unlocking...