Gender Equality And Stereotypes In The Military

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.

The book, Women in Combat: A Reference Handbook, display how women have been serving and involved in combat dating back to ancient times. The Author, Rosemarie Skaine, provides references that highlight women achievements and link their participation to the respective conflicts. She articulates the challenges women face from balancing family life to sexual issues. She also compares the role of women in the United States Military to foreign militaries. The book paints an overall sketch of women on the battlefield without a front line and their willingness to confront all odds.

Secretary Mr. Panetta’s decision to repeal the DOD policy preventing women from serving in direct ground combat units opened Pandora’s Box on the debate of whether or not women should be allowed to serve in specialties previously opened to males only. The narrative regarding the women serving in direct ground combat arms specialties was immediately high jacked by those sympathetic to women who have served in combat on a “nonlinear” battlefield, where there were no distinguishable front and rear lines. Additionally, 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 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.

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.

Throughout our nation’s history, women have played an important role in the military. It has not been until recently however, that women have been able to fully

Those with such mindsets believed the addition of women disrupted the purity and masculinity of our military, especially since females were given different physical requirements than men. “Women want equality so they should do everything the men do exactly. […] Equality does not mean everyone must be able to perform at the same capacity, but only that any differences are recognized and not exploited.” (Contemporary Issues Facing Women in the Military). More so today, you can see the military adapting to these changes and pushing further towards equality and equal

Women have been part of the military since the Revolutionary War such as nurses and clerical workers, (Street, Vogt and Dutra, 2009, p. 686). While these women did have typical female jobs for that time period, women were of great help because without them, the men who were wounded may not have been taken care of as well and the paperwork may have been backlogged and unorganized. Since then, women have slowly made more entrances in the military in other areas than just medical and desk work. Currently, women occupy 80% of the military occupational specialties and 90% of the careers offered in the military, which is a huge jump from where women were back in World War II or even just a decade ago, (Weiss and DeBraber, 2013, p. 37). With this

According to the article, women do not have the physiological conditions required to perform certain types of activities. Those who defend this idea say, for example, that in close combat women have a clear disadvantage and that certain weapons are too heavy for them. But this argument runs out of focus if we look at cases such as Israel, where the presence of female staff has gone from 60% to 92% of the specialties in the military career as a result of a conscious effort to adapt equipment and uniforms to the female physiognomy (BBC, The Female Soldiers Serving in Israel’s Army). Similarly, the stereotype of men's physical superiority falls into the face of the gradual female colonization in professions such as mining and cargo transportation;

For years, women’s rights advocates have been calling for an expansion and inclusion of women in all military positions. The argument is that women have already been in combat and these feminist groups asserts that the current exclusion of women is a form of sex discrimination. While it is true that women have in been in a firefight, these women on the ground are mostly auxiliary forces serving as medics or liaisons for female civilians.

The United States Army was founded on June 14, 1775, and since this day women have helped nurture this great branch into what is known today as the largest and oldest United States Military service. (“Women”) The US Army is consisted of about 452,064 enlisted soldiers and 87,610 officers. This total of 539,675 makes up 37.8% of all of the military branches. ("Demographics”) As time has carried on more and more women are looking to serve the country in the Army. While women have many skills and abilities to offer, there is still a major issue that needs to be addressed. Double standards for women in the Army has created a disservice to not only the females but the entire Army. In order to have a more efficient armed force, standards for men and women should be equivalent.

Women have fought alongside men in the United States Military in every major battle since the American Revolution. The roles of women in the military have evolved over time to allow the incorporation of women in expanding military career fields. Women have proven themselves to be an asset to the military despite some of society believing women would weaken America’s military effectiveness. Today more than 200,000 women are active-duty military, this is about 14.5% of all military. Currently, women are involved in all branches of the Armed Forces; there are around 74,000 women in the Army, 62,000 in the Air Force, 53,000 in the Navy, and 14,000 in the Marine Corps (By the numbers: Women in the U.S. Military). Military women continue to

The idea of women in the military has caused much controversy over the years. Some people believe that women don’t have what it takes because they are too frail and weak, and therefore, should not be allowed to enlist. While others, believe that women can definitely handle themselves and can actually be a benefit to the military. I happen to be in the latter, but only to an extent. I firmly believe that certain women have what it takes, but not nearly all, same goes for men too. You may have the passion and determination, but it still goes to stand that the military is indeed a vicious place, and not everybody has the required mental and physical ability to make it, no matter how much they try. Given this unfortunate, but crucial fact, I can understand how some people believe that no woman should be allowed to enlist, however, even though the military is extremely trying and never to be taken lightly, I believe that there are women in the world who can deal and hold their own

Introduction/Objective: Women serving in combat positions has been a highly controversial topic and is openly criticized by many. The push for equality by allowing women to serve in combat positions is not just isolated to a few military branches of service. Secretary Carter stated, “For the first time in U.S. military history, as long as they qualify and meet specific standards, women will be able to contribute to the Defense Department mission with no barriers at all in their way.” (Pellerin, 2016). Based on the Secretary’s recommendation, women will be eligible for all positions to include roles in combat. Senior leaders noted that this will provide a better selection of candidates, therefore increasing the quality of the selection process, (Commander Call Topics, 2015). The leading idea behind gender neutrality is to improve the military’s position regarding well-qualified personnel in key positions, (Commander Call Topics, 2015). This integration is supported through equal opportunity for everyone who inspires to serve their country. The standards will remain the same, therefore women will need to pass the same requirements as their male counterparts, (Commander Call Topics, 2015).

In striving to be as physically fit as male colleagues, many women hurt themselves and thus limiting their military roles all together. “But it’s flatly rooted in the fact women biologically are not able to perform physically to the same level as men.” (Davis) “The standards of physical fitness have been best suit to men, and women attempting to reach them [men’s physical fitness] will over-stretch themselves.” (IDEA) These two sources both convey that women do not have the physical standards as men and in trying to reach the biologically impossible standards, women often out do themselves. Although women might not be as strong physically, they do offer strong mental capabilities and are more effective in some circumstances. One source claims: “If women can meet the standards as men. They should be allowed to serve in the infantry.” (Michaels, Brook and Welch) Meaning that if women can withstand the biological factors, then they should be capable of serving in the front-lines. Another source states: “There is no issue with a women’s intellectual quality or value as a human being.” (Davis) This author is claiming that there is no reason why women should not be able to serve in the military and that women, as a whole unit, should be valued as human beings that have the opportunity to serve in combat roles if they

A few years ago, over 800 women in two wars had been wounded and more than 130 had died. This caused people to think that women are very vulnerable and get hurt easier. With the dedication and motivation that our women these days have, our military would would have not only the strength but they would also have the brains. Although women generally aren’t as physically strong as men, if they put the work into it anything is possible. On the mental aspect, yes women are more sensitive but if you are passionate enough you will do what you have to. Considering being sensitive, it gives you a bigger outlook and you are more open-minded. The differences between men and women would actually help when deciding on the strategies and it would better help you to see things from a different