Editorial Analysis Essay

Over the past few years, there has been huge discussions when the topic of equality for women who have joined the military is being brought up. Being that gender equality is a big thing in the military now, I decided to chose this topic and discuss how I feel about it. According to the United States constitution, all men are created equal and this does not exclude women. One of the main things I learned is that equality for women in the military is a major issue. There should be no gender inequality in the United States military period. Most jobs are now open to women that were once allowed for only a man to do but when it comes to something such as the military, it should have always been that way No one should be told they can’t do something when it requires fighting for your country. Even back when men were drafted in the military, women should have been able to get drafted as well. You would think the military would take any and everybody that is willing to fight for his or her country simply because it would make our job easier as a whole. Frequently, women are stereotyped as feeble and incapable of doing certain things. Nevertheless, this should not be applied in any kind of career, particularly in the military.

It is my opinion that the ability and training of women in the military should be the base of the decision of where and how women serve in the military; rather than gender aspects. In the recent years, the subject of human rights has been the elimination of many media and public discussions. The key topic in the discussions is equality treatment and handling between the two genders. Several policies within the constitution define the expectations of law on each gender (Field & John 7). The societal setting and upbringing also has its impacts on the behavior of each gender and the perception that the genders have for each other. The American culture takes pride in the practices of democracy and justice for every person; however, this may not apply to all people.

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.

For decades, men have been the ones that were drafted into the army while the women had to fulfill their roles as housewives at home. Countless wars have passed before women were able to fight and serve for their country, such as but not limited to: the American Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI, and WWII. It wasn’t until 1948 that congress passed the Women’s Armed Services Integration act which permitted women to officially serve in the military and receive veteran’s benefits. Still today, there are stereotypes about women and the fact that they should not have as much involvement in military roles, even after an act has been passed for that specific reason. In a New York Times online and print article, “Arms and the Women,” Gail Collins argues that “the system is complicated”

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.

The Secretary of Defense and The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced in January of 2013 the rescission of the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule (DGCDAR). The DGCDAR restricted assignments of women to communities or jobs within the military in or collocated with direct ground combat units below the brigade level, in long-range reconnaissance and special operations forces, and in positions involving physically demanding tasks. This now correlates to the opening of previously closed occupations, to include the USMC infantry, to women who can meet occupation-specific, gender-neutral standards of performance. 230,000 positions that were previously unavailable in the U.S. armed forces to women are now available. From active-duty, to veterans, to civilians alike, one thing we’ve heard is the reluctance of many to publicly oppose the idea. This reluctance stems from a fear of being tarred-and-feathered “politically incorrect," a term apparently as morally reprehensible as crime nowadays.

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.

Many countries such as Israel and Russia have allowed women to serve in combat roles in the military; however, this has not always been true in the United States. Throughout history, women have had an active role in war time. The United States has documented cases of women disguising themselves as men in order to participate in combat as far back as the Civil War. It would seem that women have as much desire to serve as men, but in what capacity? This is a question that not only the United States has struggled with, but is a continuing debate around the world. Today, we see many more opportunities for women to fully serve with their male counterparts in countries like Israel and Russia. The United States has conducted research into the effectiveness of expanding the role of women into combat. Women have proven that they are able to withstand the demands of military life and the United States Army recently had two female Army Rangers graduate. But to understand where we are now, we must look back on how this increased confidence in females in the Service began. Possibly, the greatest and most visible contributions were during World War II.

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

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.

Women have been participating in the United States military since the Revolutionary War, where they were nurses, maids, cooks and even spies. They played vital roles in order to keep those fighting on the front lines healthier, and even a more important role in keeping commanding officers informed with private information stolen from the other side. Although the Revolutionary War took play in 1776, the first law to be passed that permanently stated that women have an official place in the military was in 1948, almost one hundred and seventy-two years later. Since that time there has been a lack of true growth when it comes to integration of females in the military. In 1994, a law was passed that tried to prohibit women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. Women are excluded from more then 25% of active combat roles within the military and only in 2013 was the ban lifted which was the final barrier to allowing women into all active roles. This has been a huge step in the direction for women being considered as being equal but there are still challenges that women face within the military. Ranging from sexual assault, discrimination, bullying, and other tactics, it is clear that for many, the military is still a “boys club.”

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.