Discrimination And Its Effects On The Military World War II

The Secretary of Defense and The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced in January of 2013 the rescission of the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule (DGCDAR). The DGCDAR restricted assignments of women to communities or jobs within the military in or collocated with direct ground combat units below the brigade level, in long-range reconnaissance and special operations forces, and in positions involving physically demanding tasks. This now correlates to the opening of previously closed occupations, to include the USMC infantry, to women who can meet occupation-specific, gender-neutral standards of performance. 230,000 positions that were previously unavailable in the U.S. armed forces to women are now available. From active-duty, to veterans, to civilians alike, one thing we’ve heard is the reluctance of many to publicly oppose the idea. This reluctance stems from a fear of being tarred-and-feathered “politically incorrect," a term apparently as morally reprehensible as crime nowadays.

Secretary Mr. Panetta’s decision to repeal the DOD policy preventing women from serving in direct ground combat units opened Pandora’s Box on the debate of whether or not women should be allowed to serve in specialties previously opened to males only. The narrative regarding the women serving in direct ground combat arms specialties was immediately high jacked by those sympathetic to women who have served in combat on a “nonlinear” battlefield, where there were no distinguishable front and rear lines. Additionally, many have rallied behind those women who have been able to demonstrate superior physical abilities, such as the two women soldiers that recently completed Ranger School. I would submit that neither accomplishment demonstrates that these women or women in general are the “best-qualified and most capable” to serve in direct ground combat arms specialties. This issue is not about what women should be allowed to do, it’s really about what are they capable of doing. The bias is not institutional, the bias is physiological.

Germans, Italians and Japanese faced the discrimination in U.S as those countries were fighting against the America. Along Japanese, Italians and Germans were discriminated and seen as threat. Amongst all minorities Japanese were discriminated the most, and were right after evacuated to the camps after the Attack of Pearl Harbor by Japan on Hawaii. However they served to be patriotic as in future they will be recruited into the Army and fight in WWII. African Americans, Hispanics and Immigrants from Axis countries all faced discrimination. Where Hispanics were refused to be hired by the factories and African Americans faced the segregation, all saw WWII as an opportunity of a racial uplift. Besides that was a skilled and unskilled worker

Women in combat, a hindrance or the advance we need in our military combat units. Should women be allowed to be in combat units with their male counterparts? This is a topic of interest because discrimination is something that is vanishing as this country is learning to adjust to change. The fact that discrimination is making its way out of society is all the reason why women should be looked at as equal to their male counter parts.

One of the largest posed arguments against women in combat is the fact women are not able to endure as much physically or mentally as men. The posed alternative position to this problem is to allow solely men to fight in combat, and leave other less-dueling tasks for women. Some methods to achieve this include the ban on transgenders, drafts, and stereotypical roles. Some also alternative methods include a mandatory draft and female-only combat units, which could, in fact, benefit women’s role in the military and combat in general. Similarly, the government has recently banned transgender individuals from the military and combat.

A woman in combat was a trending topic for the armed forces for years. The year 2016 is when officially women have been granted the right to join the armed forces in a combat field of the job. Others, particularly in the military, are against this act because of various reasons concerning the safety of military troops in an anarchy form of living. A battlefield is known to be the most stressful and dangerous environment, and it is vital for the armed forces to conduct safety and simpleness to remove any complicated areas that might make the job more difficult. Efficiency, communication, and most importantly trust and loyalty are essential to perform in such a violent atmosphere.

Many people disagree with women joining combat forces because they think that women are the weaker sex. As stated by Captain Katie, US Marine corps, in the article, “WOMEN IN COMBAT PROS AND CONS”, “The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves...Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this” (1). Meaning that men in combat deeply believe that women are not suited to meet combat standards. In spite of the beliefs of many, women have proved that it is possible to accommodate with training. Women can avoid female injury rates by extra pre-training for muscle building. According to the article, “Army Ranger School’s Assessment of women”, Commander Lamothe states, “Eight of the initial 19 women made it through the initial Ranger Assessment Phase...the women were joined by 156 male soldiers who training in the mountains…” (2). This example shows that women are capable to meet standards, they just need official military support to get there. Allowing a mixed gender force may keep the military strong. It will only join the capability of taking down the opponent. In addition, it will double the talent pool for sensitive jobs that require interpersonal skills that not just anyone can have. Women are no stronger than men, they both have strengths and that is what allows them to be in the military positions they are in. The changing nature of modern warfare and the critical role that women have played, led to a historic policy changer. SWAN is a service network that supports the women in combat policy. “SWAN believes that the most effective military is one that integrates women into all sectors”

Women have long been aggravated about the combat restrictions and have increasingly pressured the Pentagon to catch up with the reality on the battlefield. When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in combat roles, it opened up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them and cleared the path for military women to serve in direct combat. His groundbreaking decision overturned a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricted women from artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles. By removing the ban, it acknowledges the changing realities for women at war. They are often found in the line of fire, regardless of the fact that they are not officially designated as combat troops. Now women can be formally

In the 1992 Presidential Commission, it was stated that evidence “clearly shows the distinct physiological differences between men and women” and that women are at a “disadvantage when performing tasks requiring a high level of muscular strength and aerobic capacity.” This argument is both under and over-inclusive because many women have the physical strength to engage in combat while many men do not possess though attributes. In all actuality, men are assigned to ground combat positions before undertaking physical strength examinations. They base it off medical evaluations, aptitude test scores and personal preferences. Thus, males are not removed from combat positions for a lack of physical strength, but women are banned from entering such positions regardless of physical strength. The jobs supplied should not be filled based on gender. Military effectiveness requires that the best qualified person is chosen, whether or not they are a woman. Therefore developing a gender-neutral policy and allowing women to take combat positions would surely increase effectiveness and capability of the United States armed forces (McSally). Some of the most courageous soldiers have been women and physical strength only added as a bonus for their

Guns firing, cannons booming, swords ringing, fists flying, and shouts rising all the while as Union soldiers dressed in bloodstained blue uniforms and Confederate forces clad with mud-caked grey attire colliding on a battlefield masked with gun smoke and dust. Images like this and others related often tend to appear in a person’s mind when someone mentions the words, “Civil War.” While this image has accuracy, soldiers had a large amount of time away from battle because fighting did not occur too often during the war. So then, what events and circumstances did the forces have to encounter when they remained off the combat lines? Questions like this one have a surplus of answers that contain various responses in several aspects. Throughout

In 2013 the current secretary of defense Leon Panetta disabled the gender based combat exclusion rule. Since then numerous steps have been taken to ensure women get the same opportunities as men in combat. Women will now be candidates for more than 230,00 jobs in both the army and marines, but that is not the only step being taken. President Obama has shown his support for women to fight in combat. In an article created by usa today he was quoted for saying things like by us moving to open more military positions to women our armed forces has taken another step toward using the talents and skills of all our citizens and that This is a milestone that reflects the courageous and patriotic service of women through more than two centuries of American history. He also

Before reading this please understand two things, first of all I will support our military and have the upmost respect for everyone that has served our country, second, I'm not against women serving in the military. I do not doubt that some women can handle the physical and emotional hardships of front line combat, but I do think there is a problem that goes beyond equality when we allow women to enter into combat on the front lines, especially in our special forces. Regardless of what we want to think about male and females in the military being equal and having the same standards, ALL of the branches still have different standards for males and females. Do you know why? It is because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military

Racial prejudice of the masses toward a minority was the main factor that drove the government’s actions. The Japanese fought through much discrimination before the war began, especially those who were farmers. Euro-American farmers were threatened by the large increase of farmers migrating from Japan. Legal obstacles were created to suppress the threat, such as Japanese immigrants could not purchase land or lease it for more than three years. People were told by others not to sell land to Japanese Americans that tried to buy land through their children, which was legal for a short period of time. Some businesses would refuse to do business with them. Other individuals took out their racial hate in more physical ways such as raiding into

The decades during the second World War presented multiple forms of racial discrimination, affecting the functions and moods of domestic communities, including outside influences, social prejudice, and economic discrimination in both America and Europe. In To Kill a Mockingbird, the young narrator named Scout witnesses racial tensions in the glacial-paced town of Maycomb shake up the community, and create grand-scale cracks in the ground contrasting opinions and revealing hypocrisies hidden underneath as a certain court date inches closer. This legal case takes an alleged rape incident, applying racial undertones and showing the dominance of the white race in society, as well as the desperation and disadvantage of the black community in the face of this dominance. Scout’s impressionable, youthful mind is shaped by dipping her feet in both pools of social equality in her home and the sphere of public discrimination, leading her to challenge the status quo. The era of World War Two is immediately associated with racism as the rise of fascist dictators such as Adolf Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy implemented eugenic policies, resulting in communities of apartheid and even acts to the extent of mass murder as seen in the Holocaust. In both of these settings, day-to-day domestic life was influenced by convincing influences creating the racial situations to be socially accepted, as well as justified. The exploited victims of both backgrounds were slaves to the public

A topic that is becoming more and more prevalent in today 's society is the allowance of women into direct combat roles in our armed forces. Forests densely covered with fog, barren deserts, bomb cratered fields. Those are just a few of the many different types of scenarios encountered by troops in direct combat roles on the modern day battlefield. The warrior in today 's direct combat roles need to be decisive, mentally and emotionally stable, very physically fit, and the ability to be able to take an enemy combatant’s life at any moment. Do any of these descriptions accurately match women in today 's military? To allow or disallow women into combat scenarios? Some argue that women 's allowance to fight in direct combat roles is the same as a man 's allowance. Women can try to prove that they are fit to meet the standards to be allowed into direct combat roles, but if they fail it could the unit or group of other soldiers they are with into danger.