Should Women Be Allowed In Combat Essay

In Molly M. Ginty’s article “Military Women: All Guts, No Glory” she explores the issue of women who serve in the army and them being included in combat with males, and the inequality they have been through serving in the U.S Armed Forces over numerous years. With new legislating, and there being new roles for females there is always going to be the debate if women should be in combat with men or not. For years’ women who would join the army were just nurses and secretaries, because of people thinking that they are not fit to be in battle. Even though they all go through the same training, the women were put in position to practically serve those who were in battle which were the men. So personally I do agree with women being able to serve

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.

There are many different arguments from various feminist groups, politicians and even average Americans. Many of these individuals have never experienced day to day life in a war zone and generate their opinions based on social concepts developed in the safety of a free country. The primary argument I have against the integration of women in direct combat roles, are the physical characteristics of women verses men.

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.

Women in combat in the military is described as qualified women who serve on the war front in battle like rangers, navy seal, air force, and marine corps infantry. The Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the military to open all combat positions for women on December 3, 2015 (Kamarck). The physical incapabilities, mental stress, and inadequate performance in unit cohesion supports my claim that women should not be allowed in combat.

Women have always served in the United States Military, since the beginning of the existence of the United States. I will make the argument, that women can and should be allowed to serve in combat roles, that are traditionally open for men only. Combat does not distinguish between the sexes. This is an important issue for everyone. The main reason, why women have never been allowed to be in combat roles, is because the sight of a wounded woman on the battle field makes for heart breaking image. It should not matter what the gender is, as long as they get the job done on the battlefield. The conventional ways of fighting a war, does not exist anymore. We all have a part, women and men. There is only one

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.

Women are very skilled at these jobs, and help the country in many ways that we can’t imagine. But the one thing that is stirring up arguments across the country, is should women in the U.S. military engage in combat? Women across the country argue that women should be given the equal rights and opportunities in the military and in combat situations. Although many

Is America ready to see their women in combat units? For years this idea has been pondered and discussed. It was not until recent combat troops such as the Army Special Forces units: Rangers and Green Berets were open to the idea. However, after many injuries and fail outs parents of Derby High School girls are now asking if women are up to the task. America needs to make a stand; women due to physical ability, military readiness, and abuse should not be allowed in combat

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, explosive covered 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 of todays world. The soldier 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

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.

Considering the fact that many people would die due to the skills needed, it’s understandable that many people would be joyful to pursue these ladies a new option for their career. People who are against women in combat point out that women aren’t capable of doing such a “manly” job. Their argument is that women don’t have the upper-body strength to be able to carry a wounded soldier to safety (Neven, 2015, p.) Women in combat would then won’t be able to do such a job, so they would be denied the position. Women not being able to have a position in combat would give less support to the men who suffer an accident. This topic can then close as women being denied the position saving them from death, but the finale for this argument will leave women, and others unsatisfied, and it wouldn’t be quite fair for them.

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

I am in favor of equality for women, just not when it comes to women in combat. There have been women in society doing heroic things since the Revolutionary war. There have been brave women in war posing as men so they could fight. There are a select few women who could handle war and combat. The negative aspects of women in combat outweigh the positive. Women should not participate in military combat. However they may join the military and served in traditional roles such as nurses and office staff. The difference between men and women is women are physically weaker, they have vital personal needs, and they attract male troops.