Women Should Be Legal For Combat

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.

Women have served the military in one fashion or another since the Revolutionary War, in recent years the status of women serving in the military has changed dramatically. Traditionally women have always served in administrative or medical roles. With the advancement of views and the sheer determination of many women, we are seeing women serving in combat and fighting alongside their male counterparts. Training schools such as the Army Ranger school, Marine Infantry training, and pilot training within the Navy and Air Force have opened and began training women to fight. The history of some accomplishments women have made while serving in the military has paved the way for the future of women soldiers to follow.

Although these claims may be true in some cases; men have more of an advantage than women. Women can deal with some jobs better but there is no reason why women should have to go out and risk their lives in combat. We should keep the military the same because girls can just have inside jobs. The men will go out and fight in

Feminists and women’s activist groups would have us believe that women are equal in strength, skill level, and in every form as men. Some women are attempting to get into the front lines of combat using lines such as: “it would increase the number of available soldiers”, “women can be as strong as men”, “there won 't be any

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.

Over the years the United States has grown to love each other as the way people are, especially women. Women have proven to be even stronger than what people expected them to be. You can see the strength, the courage, and the confidence they have gained. It has been discussed many years that women shouldn’t be allowed in combat for not being “strong enough”. Men have shown that they can be “manly” enough to do women or girl things, so why can’t women do “manly” things? If women feel like they can handle being on the frontline then we should respect their decision and allow them to go.

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

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.

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 in Combat Becca Rhoades Mifflin County High School   Women in Combat Even though many people stereotype women being in combat, it isn’t fair that you are stopping someone from doing what they love to do. Women can do things the same way as men and it will open more job opportunities for women. Women should have the same rights as anyone else. Would a man want to stand there and be victimized because he is a male?

In recent years, the United States military has been expanding and adjusting its policies to remove as much discrimination as possible. Although women have been allowed to enlist in the military since World War II, many positions and MOS’s in each branch do not permit women to perform them. Such positions are primarily combative, and require a large amount of physical and mental strength and endurance. While many feel that this is sexist and discriminates against women, it is simply a matter of whether it would be beneficial to have women placed into combat for national safety as well as the safety for the other soldiers. Since the majority of females cannot meet the requirements necessary to fill these combative positions, there is no need to revise the military regulations on the matter and in turn risk the lives of other soldiers and the protection of citizens. Despite its positive impact on removing discrimination and misogyny in the armed forces, it would negatively impact military operations and efficiency.

Yet, many argue that the distinction between combat and non-combat becomes blurred in the context of women warfare (Ladin; Holm, Hoar). In actuality, many women are assigned to jobs that will expose them to enemy attack, and this has been openly acknowledged by the top Pentagon officials. The United States Army has also recognized that women would be deployed in combat zones as an inevitable consequence of their assignments. This was

In January 1994, the “Secretary of Defense Les Aspin overturned the "risk rule" excluding women from any positions that could expose them to direct combat, hostile fire, or capture; the rule was replaced by the "direct ground combat assignment rule," which more narrowly tailored the restriction to front line combat positions.” (Mackenzie) According to the 1994 Department of Defense policy, women were limited from some occupational specialties if those specialties were physically located with direct ground combat units. According to a press release the Army will begin implementing the DoD policy. “Removing the restrictions opened 13,139 Army positions to women, occupations like; Multiple Launch Rocket System crewmember, MLRS operations fire detection specialist, Field artillery fire finder radar operator specialist, M1 Abrams tank system maintainer, Bradley Fighting Vehicle system maintainer, and Artillery mechanic.” (Wong)

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.

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.