Militarization Of Women In The Military

For years women have been trying to gain gender equality throughout the working world, along with in the military. Since the beginning of a uniformed military, women could not serve in military occupational specialty (MOS) positions that put them in direct combat roles. Although many women have contributed in significant ways, they have not been authorized to serve in MOS such as infantry, artillery, or armor. As the war on terrorism has developed since 9/11, women have slowly worked their way farther into the military and its many roles. This resulted in women being placed into direct combat roles. Though women have been allowed into many different roles, there is still one battle that they have yet to win and this time the majority is not backing them. Women are trying to gain access to United States Special Operations units in every branch of the military and the majority of these operators are not happy about it. While some people believe women deserve equality and the chance to do what men can do in the military, that is why women should not be

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.

The inequality of the military has men doing the double of what women do because they are seen as being mentally and physically stronger. This relates to the requirements of the military that they have in place which indeed need to be changed for it to be deemed as an equal service. This identifies

Those with such mindsets believed the addition of women disrupted the purity and masculinity of our military, especially since females were given different physical requirements than men. “Women want equality so they should do everything the men do exactly. […] Equality does not mean everyone must be able to perform at the same capacity, but only that any differences are recognized and not exploited.” (Contemporary Issues Facing Women in the Military). More so today, you can see the military adapting to these changes and pushing further towards equality and equal

In U.S. Military print media, Stars and Stripes, article Women in combat hampered by band-of-brothers myth, author says, reporter Wyatt Olson provides book author, Megan MacKenzie’s quote by quote reasoning of how the ‘Band of Brothers’ ideology is the primary reason woman are being excluded from serving in ground combat roles while highlighting her attempt to marginalize the enduring arguments about not integrating women. In MacKenzie’s book, Beyond the Band of Brothers: The U.S. Military and the Myth that Women Can’t Fight, she argues physical standards are a diversion to a more basic injustice: gender inequality. Fundamentally, it is a cultural belief in the band of brothers’ myth and its androcentric attribute. She claims men are responsible

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.

This article is about the Army that is stationed in Iraq and the issues about gender inequality. Women are often protrayed as sex objects and gender is socially constructed. There is gender straitifcation and men are seen as more important than men. Men typically are in higher positions of power and have difficulty taking orders from a women, In this article it talks about women and men in the Army. Male sargents tend to not believe that the woman of the group is the leader.

Moreover, a soldier is often seen or imagined as a strong male. Although these are generalizations these claims are not unsubstantiated. Our societal norms and values assigned to both men and women their roles and expectations from the day they were born through a process called gender socialization. Men and women are raised to conform to the specific gender role whether it be the male or female. These roles create and foster a preconceived notion of one's expected behaviors, attitudes, and personality characteristics. Therefore, women in the military as to not seem “weak” may have this overwhelming sense of needing to change and become more “manly” and not fight like a girl, in essence creating an identity crisis for these women. Ashley et al. (2017) state, women feel the need to conform to the hyper-masculine standards of the military culture for interpersonal interactions and values. This paper also examines of factors of female veteran suicide such as stigma and lack of education. The purpose of this paper is to distinguish if gender socialization of has led to an identity crisis among female service members and veterans, creating a jump in suicide rates among female service members and veterans. Furthermore, the paper identifies the stakeholders, policy changes, recommended evidence-based interventions, technological resources, and recommendations for the future in preventing veteran suicide among female

Thesis statement: I’d like to show that women are essential in the military. However, women should not partake in ground combat due to the physical nature of conflict, the emotional and psychological

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

My conclusion on this debate is that women deserve the right to join ground-combat units. Women think differently from men. Women could add a unique perspective in the field. Women are also better negotiators and diplomats in some situations. As far as sexual assault and harassment goes there is no way to stop it, only deter it by increasing punishments for the crime. Pregnancy stopping unit deployment should be much of an issue either. Women that want to enter these units are going to have to work harder than the men to be eligible for these combat roles, making it unlikely for them to throw away all their hard work by getting pregnant. Men’s instinct to protect women shouldn't even be an issue in this debate if men are so protective of women why are people using sexual harassment and assault as an argument? Doesn't the military train its soldiers to protect each other regardless of gender? The only real

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.”

In the book Gender, Sex, and the Postnational Defense Annica Kronsell is “interested in exploring the potential defense and its gender implications” (3). Looking at cases in the European Union and Sweden through a constructivist approach to gender she challenges the mainstream perspectives of masculinity and militarism. In questioning “whether the broader recognition of human security, and in particular gender and security, has influenced the way defense and military is organized” and “ to what extent gender relations have been transformed in the postnational security and defense context” (4-5) Kronsell challenged the assumptions of the status quo of male and female depicted roles in military organizations and the assumption that gender parity is not realistically achievable.

I realized that although in theory women in the armed forces seemed like a good idea, there are many obstacles that make that reality very difficult to achieve. In writing this paper I am not proposing that either position is more valid or right than the other. I only hope to present each side in an equal light to help others to understand the issues involved.

Despite the existence of post-conflict programs aimed at reintegrating soldiers back into regular society, notably SSR and DDR processes, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin asserts that these programs are overly physical in nature and thus do not address the negative masculine mindset built into soldiers. Specifically criticizing DDR, she contends that militant attitudes, behavior and beliefs “are not in any sense undermined or addressed by a formal disarmament process”. She continues to affirm that “the disarmament of weapons is not the disarmament of minds” and I verge that even an approach concerned with the mindset of combatants after the fact would not be enough to disembed the militarization that takes place and forms a militant mindset during conflict (Ní Aoláin, 2008:1067). Therefore violence towards women in the post-conflict space is a result of the continued presence of militant attitudes and beliefs after a conflict and women who seek to augment their status “meet with a backlash against their attempt to redefine their rights”, as they are challenging the masculine social order reinforced through militarization (Meintjes et al, 2001:12). In conclusion, given the prevalence of militarization, particularly militarized masculinities, in the post-conflict space, it is an inopportune time for women to achieve an advancement in their rights