Should Woman Be Allowed in Military Combat?

Should Woman Be Allowed In Military Combat?

To What Extent?

At the very mention of the topic of whether women should be allowed in every position of the military, almost everyone has an immediate opinion or reaction. What is the real issue at hand though? Why are people so divided on the subject? Who should decide and by what measures? For many years the government, media, and people of the United States have discussed whether women should be allowed in military combat, and, if so, to what extent? Common topics generally associated with whether women should be allowed in combat often pertain to the physiological and psychological traits of women. An even larger concern of woman in combat positions is the high probability of sexual harassment that will be endured. Discussions become heated when people say that it is unethical for women to participate in full combat, and activists argue that women's rights are being denied when women soldiers are not given the same equal opportunities as their male counterparts. Numerous studies and opinions suggest that the United States Armed Forces could certainly benefit from women in combat; however, there are also high risks of irreversible damage.

According to an article in USA Today, "Women make up 15% of the active duty military" (Ostendorf, Bompey). That is a substantial number of participants in the active duty military who are restricted from certain positions due to their gender. Through this restricted job allowance, how does this affect promotions and daily treatment of our female military forces? This policy created by the Department of Defense is called the Combat Exclusion Policy, and it largely affects women's duties within the United States Armed Forces (Iskara 2).

A review of some history and facts about the United States Armed Forces confirms the active duty segregation between female and male soldiers. However, in the past, some women have chosen to defy these rules and have found a way to fight for and defend their country. The book, "Women in the Military: Is It Time to Un-Gender Combat Roles?" mentions women who disguised themselves as men in order to participate in war. "The most well-known case is that of Deborah Sampson, who took the name of Robert Surtlief. Sampson, it is said, herself cut out, a musket ball from her thigh rather than go to a doctor and thus reveal her gender" (Paludi 115). Hannah Snell, a Marine during the 1700's, also disguised herself as a man so she could participate in combat (Monahann, Neidel-Greenlee Intro xvi). "Currently women are allowed to serve in the military, but are restricted from 30% of active duty roles including submarines, infantry, armor, artillery and special forces" (Henningeld 15). Although unable to participate in combat, it is interesting to know that "11% of the United States Armed Forces deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq consist of women" ("Report Details Extra Problems Women Face in Military Careers"). Women have wanted the same rights as men for hundreds or even thousands of years, but can they do the job as good? This is a primary concern and a valid one. Other major concerns regarding women serving in military combat, and possibly the most obvious, are the physical and emotional aspects.

There are many things to consider when discussing the physical and emotional limitations of women verses men. On average, women have 60% of the physical strength of most men (Henningfeld 21). The book "Should Women Be Allowed to Serve in Combat in the U.S. Armed Forces?" states that, "On average, women have half the upper body strength of men, lower aerobic capacity and 37% less muscle mass" (Henningfeld 41). The Department of Defense was interested in whether or not putting women through a rigorous training program would make a difference in their performance, so they conducted a $140,000 study to see the effects. Based on the average female, the results were that 78% performed at a level that qualified them for positions within the army described as "very heavy" jobs. After completion of the training program, compared to women who were not put through the training program, only 24% of these women qualified for those same positions (Gerber). It has also been reported that, "women experience stress fractures and other injuries at rates far higher than men" (Henningfeld 56). Male Marines have reported to the Marine Corps Times that they feel women would not be able to meet the same physical requirements as men (Lamothe). However, a recent study shows that the emotional effects war may have on women verses men is not what was always previously assumed. According to an article in the Army Times from June of 2011, "A new study of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans shows women do not experience higher rates of post-combat psychiatric problems than men, undermining the long-held belief that women are less resilient" (Tilghman). Along with considering the emotional impact war may have on women, one must also consider the emotional impact women will have on men.

A concern for many is the possibility that the awareness of women serving on the front line could prove to be a psychological distraction to male counterparts during combat. For as long as people can remember, the United States' culture has instilled a value among men of the importance to protect a woman's life over a man's, as well as the necessity to protect the female gender. Women, who serve actively in the Marines, reported to the Marine Corps Times that because of these ethics, women would be a distraction during combat (Lamoth). These are all legitimate concerns and must be considered before dismissing the Combat Exclusion