How the United States can Solve the Debate on Female Soldiers in Combat

Over the past few years, there has been huge discussions when the topic of equality for women who have joined the military is being brought up. Being that gender equality is a big thing in the military now, I decided to chose this topic and discuss how I feel about it. According to the United States constitution, all men are created equal and this does not exclude women. One of the main things I learned is that equality for women in the military is a major issue. There should be no gender inequality in the United States military period. Most jobs are now open to women that were once allowed for only a man to do but when it comes to something such as the military, it should have always been that way No one should be told they can’t do something when it requires fighting for your country. Even back when men were drafted in the military, women should have been able to get drafted as well. You would think the military would take any and everybody that is willing to fight for his or her country simply because it would make our job easier as a whole. Frequently, women are stereotyped as feeble and incapable of doing certain things. Nevertheless, this should not be applied in any kind of career, particularly in the military.

It is my opinion that the ability and training of women in the military should be the base of the decision of where and how women serve in the military; rather than gender aspects. In the recent years, the subject of human rights has been the elimination of many media and public discussions. The key topic in the discussions is equality treatment and handling between the two genders. Several policies within the constitution define the expectations of law on each gender (Field & John 7). The societal setting and upbringing also has its impacts on the behavior of each gender and the perception that the genders have for each other. The American culture takes pride in the practices of democracy and justice for every person; however, this may not apply to all people.

Women now make up 14 percent of the active-duty military in the United States, which is up from 1.6 percent, 25 years prior. (Christian Science Monitor, 1). In 1948, President Truman signed the Women 's Armed Services Integration Act which created the role of women in the military. This law meant that each branch of the service was allowed to have one female Colonel (Byfield, 12). As of 2015, there are many women who serve as Generals and Admirals. All of these roles are non-combative. Even though some women can do anything a man can do, the vast majority can not, therefore making it an unsafe idea to place these women into combat positions.

Through the deaths and the injuries, through the explosions and gunfire, through the heartache and brokenness, women have been serving in the military one way or another. Since the beginning of time, women have been fighting for their rights. They fought for their right to work, they fought for their right to vote, and they fought for their right to be in the military. Beginning in the Revolutionary War, women were allowed to join the military as nurses and support staff. Since then, they have gradually been able to do more tasks and jobs that the men do. Today, the conflict is whether or not women should be allowed to fight in military combat. The argument is controversial, and will more than likely be a never-ending debate.

January 24, 2013 Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women serving in combat. For years women have served with honor and distinction. When faced with combat and in an insurgency type of modern warfare, any soldier can potentially see combat. Realistically, there is a difference between experiencing combat on a convoy and going out day after day on combat patrols to perform search and destroy missions. Having served as a Marine Infantryman in Afghanistan twice, I am against the decision to open all combat military occupation specialties (MOSs) to women. My purpose is not to degrade the valuable contributions of women in the military, but to specifically address their role and effect on direct combat Infantry and Special Forces units. I celebrate the decision to lift the previous ban on a social basis for women’s equality, but my personal experiences and knowledge of the way war is experienced makes me ultimately opposed to allowing women to serve in direct ground combat positions.

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.

ecretary Panetta 's decision to repeal the Department of Defense policy preventing women from serving in direct ground combat units opened Pandora 's box. We have since witnessed a fierce debate over whether women should be allowed to serve in specialties previously opened to males only. The media promptly rushed to side with those contending that all direct ground combat jobs should be open to women, suggesting that women proven had themselves on a "nonlinear" battlefield, where there were no distinguishable front and rear lines. Furthermore, 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 in line with the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces 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.

Over the years the United States has grown to love each other as the way people are, especially women. Women have proven to be even stronger than what people expected them to be. You can see the strength, the courage, and the confidence they have gained. It has been discussed many years that women shouldn’t be allowed in combat for not being “strong enough”. Men have shown that they can be “manly” enough to do women or girl things, so why can’t women do “manly” things? If women feel like they can handle being on the frontline then we should respect their decision and allow them to go.

Now that women have been participating in direct combat it is possible to look at the challenges they encounter in direct combat and whether their presence benefits the United States military. On the battlefield women tend to face higher rates of injury and evacuation as compared to men. A study in 2010 by US army physicians found that women had more than three times the evacuation rate than that of men. The physicians studied 4,122 soldiers and of the female soldiers that had to be evacuated for non combat injury seventy four percent of them were issues related to pregnancy. Adding women to combat groups can also disrupt group cohesion which is especially dangerous when groups are in combat. Studies were taken regarding cohesion between men and women within the military and these proved cohesion will not be disrupted within a group unless dating is present. Although this might seem like a counter argument it is very difficult to find out whether two members of a group are in a relationship and probably even harder to prevent it. Women are also prone to more types of injuries such as pelvic stress fractures. One women out of every 367 had pelvic stress fractures compared to one in every 40,000 men. Women are discharged for muscle or skeletal conditions nearly twice as often as men. Since women have much higher rates of injury and evacuation it is necessary to ask what are the benefits of having women on the front lines of battlefield.

Since 1901, women have served in some form of the military, however, dating back to the American Revolution women have had an unofficial role. Women have had and will continue to have an important role in the military, the question is whether women should be allowed to occupy specific combat positions. Traditionally women have not been allowed in combat occupations, but recently these restrictions have been somewhat lifted, making certain occupations available to women. Despite the lift complications arise from women being in combat vocations and it’s not just because of the physical differences, there is also the increased risk of sexual assault. Due to the detrimental impact on the military, soldiers, and society, women should not

Gender equality in the military is a problem we just cannot seem to solve. As the wise Mary Angelou once said, “How important it is for us to recognize and celebrate our heroes and she-roes!” In this quote she is saying that we should not only praise our male heroes, but we should also praise our female heroes because they are just as important in society. Banning women from combat is many things, but among those many things, it is definitely not moral. The combat ban on women in the military also limits career options because of the high number of military jobs involving combat. Along with limiting careers, it is unconstitutional. The combat limitation should be demolished because it is immoral, it goes

The topic of women in combat is an ongoing debate that is currently being argued in many places, commonly in the United States. Women in combat next to men and a free women combat are two different perspectives in which women in combat are defined by their gender. Women in combat will provide help to those men who are to attend a combat. A free-women combat, on the other hand, prevents women from dying during combat due to not being allowed in combat. Since Women aren’t able to be included in any job in the military and have a right to be equally treated like men in combat, it’ll be unfair to more people. Women should be given the same right as men out in battlefields because “women serving in the armed forces has not wavered as warfare has changed, a clear sign that the necessity of women serving in combat is recognized.” In addition, “several other countries outside the U.S. already have women serving on the front lines.” Lastly, “Combat is nothing new to our women in the military. Several women have already given their lives serving in combat.” Women have, over the years, worked hard to get awarded the choice towards their career. Although it prevents more deaths, it’s also a sexist matter. Any job in the military should be a choice for women, it’s their career after all and they can make their own decisions.

Women have been participating in the United States military since the Revolutionary War, where they were nurses, maids, cooks and even spies. They played vital roles in order to keep those fighting on the front lines healthier, and even a more important role in keeping commanding officers informed with private information stolen from the other side. Although the Revolutionary War took play in 1776, the first law to be passed that permanently stated that women have an official place in the military was in 1948, almost one hundred and seventy-two years later. Since that time there has been a lack of true growth when it comes to integration of females in the military. In 1994, a law was passed that tried to prohibit women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. Women are excluded from more then 25% of active combat roles within the military and only in 2013 was the ban lifted which was the final barrier to allowing women into all active roles. This has been a huge step in the direction for women being considered as being equal but there are still challenges that women face within the military. Ranging from sexual assault, discrimination, bullying, and other tactics, it is clear that for many, the military is still a “boys club.”

After years of discussion and debate it appears that soon women will be sent into combat operations in the United States military. This is the way it should be because women are ready and competent to be put into combat roles in the U.S. military. Indeed, slowly but surely, the Defense Department and Congress have been inching towards a decision that will formalize the policy; in fact the National Defense Authorization Act, put before Congress in May, 2012 by U.S. Senators John McCain and Carl Levin will in effect order the military "…to come up with a plan to send women into battle" (McAuliff, 2012). Hopes are high that this will be approved by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Ninety percent of all military occupations in the military include all genders, but the top ten percent of roles are excluded to women. Women have already felt the misogyny with unequal pay and unfair treatment by men, now women have to face the discrimination for fighting for our country. Women should be able to serve in the front lines because it makes the military stronger as a whole with more diversity, women in other countries fight on the front lines and women have made significant contributions in the military so far.