The prospect of women in ground combat or on the front-line in the military has proven to be a controversial issue throughout decades of war. This controversy stems from criticisms such as women’s physicality versus men’s, the association of sexual-related situations within the military, and a history of failed gender-integration training. The bottom line, however, is that women should not be allowed in front-line or ground combat unless they are willing and capable of meeting the same standards of testing as men. Basic differences in the physicality of men and women are one of the key aspects of why a woman’s combatitive role in the military is questioned. Many of the differences between men and women’s training in military roles are …show more content…
If this is the case, then, with regards to lower physical standards in combat training, how is it safe to allow female soldiers into the same dangerous environment as men? The argument of lower standards in testing is only brought into question because women are being used in ground combat and on the front-line, despite the fact that it is the law that only men be put in these roles. Only a select few countries allow women in ground-combat situations, seen in the statement that “Australia is the latest nation to lift all restrictions on the positions in which women can serve in the armed forces, joining Canada, New Zealand, and Israel” (Gajewski, 2011). Many military officials have found ways to circumvent this law, and have placed women in these roles with the thoughts that it could be beneficial. The loopholes in this law should be patched for safety purposes and fought in a different manner if need be. If this is an issue that many are willing to overlook, then it should be also be possible for the law to change. Women who wish to be a part of ground combat and the front-line should have the right if they choose to do so, but only once they have reached equal physical standards as the men who share their same position. Intuition of Equality and Women’s Rights are reasons that are used to argue for the side of women in combat, which basically states that women should be able to do what they please and are created equal to men.
Women have been fighting alongside men on battlefields for centuries upon centuries, giving their greatest fight to lead their team to victory. Although women are given this opportunity, direct ground combat amongst women remains against the law till this very day, allowing a gender to define what a female can, or cannot do. The human race continues to evolve every day, yet a simple discriminatory law that decides what a woman’s capabilities are without being aware of just how empowering that specific woman is is the same as it first was. Despite the idea that women do not meet certain requirements in order to take place in combat units, women continue to provide an endless amount of support to men on battlefields, bringing a completely
The question originally posed in the Combat Exclusion Law, regarding placement of females in combat, continues to be debated as women are placed in combat roles without adequate training (Sanchez, 2011). What distinguishes some positions as being acceptable while others are not? Who has the authority to approve exceptions, and what exceptions have been made? On May 13, 2011, a bill placed before the House of Representatives addressed the issue to “repeal the ground combat exclusion policy for female members” (Sanchez, 2011, p. 1).
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 big worry stems from an idea about the degeneration of the combat community structure. So, with that in mind, let 's suppose that women are granted full entry and that the requirements for men and women are exactly the same. Let’s also suppose nobody tampers with the vetting process, meaning no overseeing, “Yes Men generals,” pushing women through, as well as no misogynistic gate-keeper putting an extra sandbag in a girls’ rucksack prior to some training
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.
Throughout the history of mankind there has always been a debate regarding the equality between men and women. A more specific detail in this argument is the conflict of women should be on the front line of battlefield. This topic is significant congress is currently passing legislation on whether women can serve on the front lines of combat. It is also significant because the army rangers has opened its camp to women for the first time in early 2015. This essay will argue the point that women should not be allowed on the front line of combat but allowed in the military. In order to argue this point this essay will demonstrate how the role of women changed in combat over the past 100 years. It will also show what the differences are between
The article addresses the immediate concerns and resolutions concerning military women in combat. David Lerman provided overwhelming evidence that allows the reader to imagine a world with women in a combat role. He also states the pros and cons for women in combat roles. Although it is clear from Mr. Lerman’s tone that he supports women in combat, this article did not overwhelm the reader with positive regards. It fairly suggests important processes that will need to be in place before this implementation can be successful.
The United States Army has even conducted its own tests to examine the performance of individual units with women in the field, under simulated combat conditions (Hoar). The first test, labeled MAX-WAC (Women Content in Units Force Development Test) studied women in three-day field exercise, and assessed their effect on unit performance. The second test, REF-WAC, studied women in thirty-day sustained combat related exercises during the NATO annual REFORGER
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
When it comes to combat assignments and the needs of the military, men take precedence over all other considerations, including career prospects of female service members. Female military members have been encouraged to pursue opportunities and career enhancement within the armed forces, which limit them only to the needs and good of the service due to women being not as “similarly situated” as their male counterparts when it comes to strength or aggressiveness, and are not able to handle combat situations.
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.
Throughout our nation’s history, women have played an important role in the military. It has not been until recently however, that women have been able to fully
Women have fought alongside men in the United States Military in every major battle since the American Revolution. The roles of women in the military have evolved over time to allow the incorporation of women in expanding military career fields. Women have proven themselves to be an asset to the military despite some of society believing women would weaken America’s military effectiveness. Today more than 200,000 women are active-duty military, this is about 14.5% of all military. Currently, women are involved in all branches of the Armed Forces; there are around 74,000 women in the Army, 62,000 in the Air Force, 53,000 in the Navy, and 14,000 in the Marine Corps (By the numbers: Women in the U.S. Military). Military women continue to
In striving to be as physically fit as male colleagues, many women hurt themselves and thus limiting their military roles all together. “But it’s flatly rooted in the fact women biologically are not able to perform physically to the same level as men.” (Davis) “The standards of physical fitness have been best suit to men, and women attempting to reach them [men’s physical fitness] will over-stretch themselves.” (IDEA) These two sources both convey that women do not have the physical standards as men and in trying to reach the biologically impossible standards, women often out do themselves. Although women might not be as strong physically, they do offer strong mental capabilities and are more effective in some circumstances. One source claims: “If women can meet the standards as men. They should be allowed to serve in the infantry.” (Michaels, Brook and Welch) Meaning that if women can withstand the biological factors, then they should be capable of serving in the front-lines. Another source states: “There is no issue with a women’s intellectual quality or value as a human being.” (Davis) This author is claiming that there is no reason why women should not be able to serve in the military and that women, as a whole unit, should be valued as human beings that have the opportunity to serve in combat roles if they