The subject of women in combat has long been a taboo discussion. Generally females are viewed on as the weaker sex, and handled as if they are fragile. The thought of women on the battlefield brings up a staunch opposition. It is argued that women do not have what it takes emotionally and physically to withstand the demanding aspects of war. However, I firmly believe women should have the right to be able to serve equally alongside their military counterparts if they so chose. In addition to extensive research, I have my own personal experience in the military on the frontlines. I have lived with infantry soldiers and been attached to the elite group of Special Forces. While it was an ever-enduring hardship, I still came out alive, and was …show more content…
However, I disagree because those isolated reasons do not provide a solid basis as to why women should not be allowed in combat. There has been indisputable evidence that shows women who have served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that they are not only fully capable; but they have excelled as capable soldiers. Modern day technology has provided the ability to document war at a more intimate level. We are able to see through the eyes of the military and are able to see just how women have adapted in combat situations.
To begin with women have already been in supporting services that put them on frontline and enemy territory. Women in the U.S. military have been putting themselves on the same standard of risk for decades. “They currently make up about 20 percent of the national armed forces. Of the approximately 280,000 females who have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past 12 years, 152 have died and at least 800 have been wounded”. (Fortin, 2013) In my experience as combat photographer, my gender had no impact on the missions I was assigned. My male counterparts did not view me as a liability, but as fellow soldier. My ability to keep up and successfully complete my tasks was not hindered by chromosomes. There are numerous MOS’s (military occupational specialties) that while not specifically being considered a combat centric job requires females to be stationed in considerably hazardous areas. These jobs range from military police to combat photographers, and even linguists. Women have already been on the frontlines for years, it was just never officially stated by military higher ups. By officially stating that women can be allowed in combat positions, it would just reinforce a progressive change already implemented in modern
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
Thousands of men enlisted and were sent to fight during World War II. However, many people are unaware of the role that women played in the war, not only in taking over the jobs that would have previously belonged to men at home, but also in combat. D’Ann Campbell’s article “Women in Combat: The World War II Experience in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union” explores this topic. Campbell argues that the role of women in combat has been overlooked in the study of the Second World War. She states that, in fact, “the history everyone has learned about the greatest and best-known war of all times has airbrushed out the combat roles of women” (323). In the article, Campbell compares the methods of the four major powers involved in the war, the Unites States, Great Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union, of involving women in combat, and what those methods used say about gender roles in that particular country.
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.
Since the resolution of World War II, the United States has been involved in over fifteen extensive military wars. Recent wars between Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought over several issues which affect women in both the United States and the other nations. While the military is often thought of a male dominated institution, women are present and affected all throughout the system as soldiers, caretakers, partners, and victims. Transnational feminists often fight against war due to the vulnerability that is placed on women during times of war. Despite often being overlooked, there is no doubt that women are heavily included in the devastating consequences of war.
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.
During WWII, the initial acceptance of woman in the military was controversial because they were deciding whether just needed more people, whether they should be an official part of the services, and whether they could perform the jobs. Most people were concerned that women would obstruct the view of American culture because they would be considered “masculine”. By 1944, women proved to be effective in helping during the war. Some were even trained to shoot guns next to the men. In 1994 the DOD (Department of Defense) created a policy that prevented women from combat with their male colleagues. They also could not be assigned to units below the brigade level, whose number one objective is combat on ground. Over the years women have showed that they are physically, mentally, and emotionally able to keep up with men in the military.
Ruby, J. (2005, November 1). Women in Combat Roles: Is That the Question?. Off Our Backs,35, 36.
Both men and women fought on the battlefield. Hundreds of women served as nurses, laundresses, cooks and companions to the male soldiers in the Continental Army.6 In addition, there were some that actually engaged in battle. Seeing "no reason to believe that any consideration foreign to the purest patriotism,"7 Deborah Sampson put on men's clothing and called herself Robert Shirtliffe in order to enlist in the Army. "Robert Shirtliffe" fought courageously; "his" company defeated marauding Indians north of Ticonderoga.8 There is also the valiancy of the water carrier Mary Hays, otherwise known as Molly Pitcher, who took up arms after her husband fell.9 As a six-foot tall woman, Nancy Hart was considered an Amazon Warrior. Living in the Georgia frontier, this "War Woman" aimed and, with deadly accuracy, shot British soldiers who invaded the area.10 Mentioned in the beginning of this essay was Margaret Corbin, another woman on the battlefield.
Gender integration in the military has always faced the question of social acceptance, whether 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 in how to integrate without upsetting the general public if our females were captured as prisoners of war, raped, discriminated or even blown up in combat. My paper will discuss three situations pertaining to the first female submariner, fighter pilot and infantry graduate. I will also discuss some of the arguments that male military leaders and lawmakers opposed the integration of women: lack of strength, endurance, and the disruption of unit cohesion. I will end this paper with my personnel experience as a female NCO responsible for other female subordinates within my command and share some of their experiences while deployed in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
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.
Should women be allowed in the military? My answer was at first a resounding “no.” However, once I started my research, my opinion changed. In 1948, Congress passed the combat exclusion law that prohibited women in the Air Force, Marines, and Navy to hold combat positions; however, the Army can assign these duties as they see fit (Schroeder). Some people assume that Americans are not ready to see a woman wounded or killed in war; however, there are female police officers that are wounded or killed daily (Schroeder). How can we rationalize that a woman has the right to die protecting our local communities but not our country? If a person chooses to be in a combat field, and can pass the physical demands required, gender should not be an issue. The arguments of physical differences and cohesion among the troops are valid arguments but not substantial enough to prevent women from serving in frontline combat roles within the military.