Have you ever had an experience where you weren’t allowed to do something because of something beyond your control? That is what has happened to many women in the United States Military for years, and has only recently changed. Women should be allowed to hold any combat position in the US Military as long as they can meet the necessary physical requirements. Women have been long excluded from the more dangerous military roles with the justification that they are not physically or mentally strong enough. There have also been fears that integrating women further into the armed forces would cause issues with team cohesion and women becoming pregnant to escape duty. First of all, women have been fighting for as long as there has been warfare. There are countless stories throughout human history of women stepping up and …show more content…
This does not need to be a problem. The reason for the different testing requirements to make it into the army or any other branch is because men and women have different strength levels. Many of those jobs do not require extreme physical fitness so requiring people to be in decent shape for their sex is reasonable. The women that apply for active combat positions are, statistically, in better shape than average, and should have tests measuring skills that will actually be required for the job instead of an arbitrary number of pushups and other exercises. In fact, that is what the military is shifting to, now that women are allowed into more combat roles than before. This would mean that the standards for women would not change in areas that would be directly important in the field and the physical integrity of the unit would not be compromised. Allowing women into the combat roles doesn’t mean putting unqualified people into dangerous positions, it means allowing women, if qualified, to try for those
Within Megan H. Mackenzie’s essay, “Let Women Fight” she points out many facts about women serving in the U.S. military. She emphasizes the three central arguments that people have brought up about women fighting in the military. The arguments she states are that women cannot meet the physical requirements necessary to fight, they simply don’t belong in combat, and that their inclusion in fighting units would disrupt those units’ cohesion and battle readiness. The 1948 Women’s Armed Services Integration Act built a permanent corps of women in all the military departments, which was a big step forward at that time. Although there were many restrictions that were put on women, an increase of women in the U.S. armed forces happened during
Women should be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces because they are just as capable as men. To begin, women such as Shaye Haver and Kristen Griest, graduates of the Fort Benning Ranger School, have shown that they can meet the same physical requirements as men. Nevertheless, these women still weren’t allowed to serve in combat positions despite the rigorous training they completed that involved grueling obstacles they had to complete all while carrying 100-pound gear. Does that make any sense to you? It didn’t to me and it certainly didn’t to women like Sgt. Patricia A. Bradford who said “If you have to be able to lift a certain amount of weight in order to do a certain job, then the weight is not going to know whether you’re male or female.” (Women at Arms: On the Ground.). In fact, in some instances women have proved to be even more
With society’s past and present it is apparent that women are still not equal even if they have the title. Men are observably stronger and have a different mentality in situations than women. This is not to say that women should not be in the military but they should have the choice that way they can accept the responsibility and train themselves mentally and physically to achieve the responsibility and respect needed to fight for our country.
excluded from a number of jobs for no other reason than stereotyping, ideas of the inferiority of women in combat, and the chauvinistic thought of if their not there it wont happen. Remember none of the reason that I listed above would be sufficient for a government employer to legally close jobs to women so why is it different in our Armed Service?
Should women serve in combat positions? The Combat Exclusion Law has dealt with this question since the 1940’s. As time continues, the question remains. The military has increased the percentage of females allowed to be enlisted and commissioned in the services as well as increasing the positions allotted to them (Matthews, Ender, Laurence, & Rohall, 2009). Keenan posits “women have served with distinction in … the Revolutionary War…as volunteer nurses and were only occasionally in the direct line of fire…four nurses evacuating 42 patients while the Germans bombed their field hospital…” (the DoD Combat Exclusion Policy) pg. 21.
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.
Many women around the world have big responsibilities in the military, and although some people may disagree, I believe they can handle anything a man can handle when it comes to being on the battlefield. Some people think that women should not be able to fight in the military, where as other people think they should be able to fight in the military. Each supporter and non-supporter has their own reasons. Some of the reasons for the non-supporters are because of their gender. They think that because they are women, they cannot handle the challenges that being on the battlefield brings. Women are willing to fight, and they know what can happen, they know exactly what can happen. They are willing to fight for their country, and I believe they should be able to. The men that fight for our country are against women fighting in combat. They believe that women are not capable of doing what they do to defend and fight for our country. The men feel that they cannot trust women to help back them up at war simply because of the fact that they are women.
Historically, women have been excluded from combat roles. On the surface, it is because men, who have always thought of themselves better and stronger than women, believed that females could not handle the responsibility of holding a combat position and women are rupturing the socially constructed gender norms that were set in place. According to Nicole Dombrowski, “no other topic concerning women’s role in war creates as great a debate as the question of women’s active participation in combat units.” The benefits for the expansion of women’s roles in the military advantage not only the women but the military as well. In comparison, the drawbacks of expansion of women’s roles are usually disadvantages to the men within the military.
Historically, women’s participation in combat roles was limited or hidden, with the exception of a few individuals. Although women had fought unofficially in the U.S army as far back as the Revolutionary War, which they usually disguised themselves as men in order to avoid the rules that excluded them. The gender war and integration in the military has always faced the question of social acceptance, were as society can accept how women will be treated and respected in the military. Throughout the history of the military, our leadership has always sought ways of how to integrate without upsetting the general public to believing that women are capable and created equal as any man.
Understanding the diversity in the U.S. Military is easiest if the numbers are looked at according to this nation’s population. American women account for fifty-one percent of the U.S. population and yet they only make up about sixteen percent of our uniformed officers throughout each branch of the military. The numbers are even fewer when looking at the number of women who have made a general officer rank. In the Army, only four percent of the generals are female, Navy admirals are seven percent, Air Force numbers are only nine percent, and the lowest number is the Marine Corps with three percent. (Sagalyn, 2011). The graph below shows the disparity in the numbers from each branch of the military and covers both active and reserve officers.
Like with any modern point of contention, it is important to understand the history. Since as early as the revolutionary war, women have been active participants in the U.S. military. From nursing soldiers to cross-dressing and actually fighting, women have played a crucial
Robinson, Amy L. TRADOC Leads Review of MOS Standards, gender Integration. Army Times. Web. July 2, 1013.
Across the history, women Suffer from luck of their right. Culture and civilization was not respect women and put them in the lower layer in their social pyramid. Kill them were they alive, while other give them a life with a lot of misery and obstacle, which is the same thing or killing them better than these life . At the few previous centuries, the world growth and become more opening. people understanding that they are needing women in a lot of job outside their home as men. Sadly, when we came to combat sector, we stop thinking logically. It is men major one hundred percent . If we look to the book (1001 things everyone should know about women's history) which written by Constance Jones (2000) we can find that only 88013 women among history had the ability to take part in military by give a variety of services. Some country actually these day try to make it happen. For instance the first country was allowed women in military was Norway around 1985. Then, it followed by thirteen other countries. It still small percentage compared with the world. It is the right of women to join army and take part in combat, because they are capable as men in adapting with situation. Also, they have equally amount in cerebration and they have the right to decide their own destiny.
Many agree, that in certain military occupations, women can function at the same level as men. The controversy about having women fighting with men in wars is the fact that they have a different physical structure, deal with stress and emotions differently , are more susceptible to injury and just don't have the killer instinct necessary to get the job done. Although the last statement might appear to be a stereotype, most women would not be capable of supporting the demanding rigors of war-like situations. It would be a great mistake to allow women in these stressful and dangerous situations.
Some people will argue that the physical differences between men and women are substantial enough to dismiss women from infantry. In the Army, women do not have to score as high as the men on the physical fitness test, further backing the argument about physical strength. Women, on average, have less upper-body strength, less muscle mass, and a lighter skeleton, which could lead to an increased risk of structural injury (Owens). If women were assigned to the front lines, they may not be capable of doing the physically demanding jobs such as handling Howitzer munitions (Owens). There is a feeling of a double standard because men are held to higher physical fitness requirements than women.