The Banning 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

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.

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

Women are vital to the stability and efficiency of all branches of the United States armed forces. Although women’s presence may be necessary to the operation of the military, their placement in combat positions would prove to be a devastating mistake. The body of a woman is not made to brave combat positions, and placing women into positions dominated by men could create a hostile working environment. The atmosphere of battle is already heated, and placing more problems into the equation could lead to the unraveling of military effectiveness as the country knows it. Consequently, women should continued to be excluded from combat oriented positions in order to preserve the superb work of the United States armed forces.

June 12, 1948, the United States of America Government enacted the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act, which in effect women allowed to hold a permanent position in the USA’s armed forces, because the significant and vital role they played in the previous wars. However, a part of this law limited the amount of women who can serve and the rank they can achieve, and prohibited them from serving in direct combat units because that Congress believed women did not possess the physical quality needed in these units. This law is known as the Ground Combat Exclusion Policy. Although over time a few of these restriction have been removed, such as the amount of women who serve and the rank they can achieve, in the present day women still cannot serve in the direct combat units. In this essay I will show you why this ban on women should be lifted.

Combat roles are grueling and nerve breaking, with a lot of commitment and endurance required. Masculinity is the most suited trait for anyone to fit adequately and perform effectively. Mostly, men fit well in these roles due to their masculinity. However, women too, can perform as equally as effective as men. The effectiveness and suitability of inclusion of women in major combat roles in the American Armed forces has faced heated debates, between people who believe that the combat roles are most suited for men, and those that term these people as sexists and argue that women aren’t as qualified and capable of fighting in war. In essence, women can be as effective as their male colleagues in these combat roles.

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

Women fighting on the frontlines is a topic that has stirred a lot of controversy in the last few years. This comes about from the uplifting of the ban that prohibited women to fight in combat. Though the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act in 1948, created a corps for women in every

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

Secretary, Leon Panetta, lifted the ban on women serving in combat roles over seas, which overturned a 1994 law that prohibited women women from being engaged in infantry and other direct warfare duties (Hoyle, 2014). This alteration created an uproar to a already highly debated topic; whether women are fit to serve in the military. Many individuals on the anti-women campaign note that the sex differences and anomalies among genders are enough to discard women as being capable to serve in the military and are defiantly not fit for war. Many male soldiers claim that attempts to include women in unit camaraderie will lead to accusations of sexual harassment and prevent women from being integrated from the team which will lead to trust issues

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.

I myself am uncertain of what these changes will bring, but just as my counterparts in the military I am woefully uninformed on this topic. There does not seem to be much movement in the military to assess anything but the positives of this outcome while ignoring the questions I will be researching throughout this paper. How does a combat landscape affect women 's biological requirements and reproductive rights? What are some of the Psychological impacts of women 's integration into Combat Units? What changes might need to be made to allow women to join these special combat groups in regards to established standards? Many people inside of the military and a great majority outside want women integrated into combat roles as a gender equality issue, though the details are lost in social activism, whether or not the integration is worthwhile for the military is open to discussion.

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.