The Pros And Cons Of Women Serving During Combat Roles

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

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.

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.

Historically, military service and fighting in combat have only been available to men, but recently there has been debate about women serving in military combat. In times of war in the United States, men have generally fought as soldiers while women in the

The majority of my pro sources are in agreement with me that women should not go into combat and the con sources are not in disagreement they are just expressing another viewpoint, like should the government mandate the decision on women entering the infantry. Most of the authorities on this issue and authors believe that America will take a second look at this issue of women going into combat when our mothers and daughters are sent home in body bags and in pieces. It is worst enough to see your sons come home like that but your daughters are a whole different ball game.

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.

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.

in 2016 compared to 6,082 last year, an annual military report showed. This was a sharp jump from 2012 when 3,604 cases were reported. Few bills have been presented in Congress against the institution for fear of disrespecting those who are fighting for our country. By attacking one section of the military for injustice and abuse, there is fear that this could possibly only be scratching the surface of the issue. Protections for women in the military seem to have a bleak outcome due to the fact that more recently similar ideas surrounding sexual abuse of females within militaries have become more prevalent.

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.

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.

“We are all equal; it is not birth but virtue alone that makes the difference.” This insightful quote from the famous French philosopher and historian “Voltaire” seems to accurately represent the beliefs of the factions of American citizens pushing to allow women to fight in combat positions within the US Armed Forces. Though the topic has just recently been boosted into the media and congressional politics, it has been long debated. A rather current editorial from USA Today titled: “Open Combat Positions to Women” outlines the recent developments in the status of a much disputed and controversial issue facing the nation today. Though somewhat less in-depth than some opposing opinions, the

Women being included in the military make for a stronger and better knit unit because of the vast diversity and opportunities that are now opened up. Widening the applicant pool calls for more talent and people with